I was happy to see that, for the most part, President Obama was received with open arms at Notre Dame’s Commencement over the weekend.  However, the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit has prompted a number of questions, not only about abortion rights but about the value of speech and the value of tolerance.

Speech

Speech is extremely essential to any society.  The right to free speech is one of the most celebrated and long-lasting rights in America.  The First Amendment explicitly prevents the government from abridging our right to free speech.  Additionally, society generally shuns private individuals (who are not obligated to observe the 1st Amendment) who try to censor speech.

The purpose behind this celebrated right is that we recognize that humans are fallible, and that the government is not all-knowing.  We recognize that no single person or group of persons can always be right about everything.  Rather, we recognize that new, unpopular ideas may turn out to be correct.  See Galileo.  Simply because an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is man-made does not mean that we should censor the dissenters.  A belief of a large crowd can often be wrong, and if we refuse to believe that we could ever be wrong, then we risk severe harm to human civilization.

Additionally, speech is often the vehicle by which people can come to optimal solutions.  Theoretically, when we debate important ideas, and we allow many people to speak, the best ideas will rise to the top as more and more individuals become convinced.  Furthermore, speech can help us strengthen our convictions in our own beliefs.  If we learn the best and most convincing arguments of people that believe differently from us, but we can rationally reject those ideas, then presumably we must reject them because we believe our views are even more convincing.  We could not realize our own views’ strength if we did not compare them to those of others.

Although Notre Dame is not the government, and does not need to obey the 1st Amendment, Notre Dame should have been shunned if it decided to keep Obama away purely because some students do not like his views on one issue.  Keeping him away would be asserting a kind of infallibility in both the school and in the students themselves.  It would encourage students to believe that they do not need to recognize that any beliefs other than their own, and it would encourage students to shelter themselves only with those that believe the same things they do.  It would prevent the students from learning other ideas that could either strengthen their own convictions or change their mind.

Obama was not at Notre Dame to convince Catholics that killing babies was a good idea.  Primarily, he was there to say congratulations for graduation.  As a secondary matter, he was there to respond to the protests at Notre Dame, and say that although perhaps pro-lifers and pro-choicers will never agree on the issue of abortion, they still have to live with one another and be able to speak with one another.  Moreover, if there is ever to be any serious abortion-related legislation, both sides are going to have to work with each other.  If you never speak to the other side, that will never happen, and neither side will ever be able to compromise.

Tolerance

Obama’s visit also raised questions about tolerance in society.  By tolerance I do not mean that Catholics should believe that Obama’s pro-choice view is just as correct as their pro-life view.  Rather, they need to accept him as a human being despite having conflicting views with their religion.  I am a recently-confirmed Catholic.  One of the most important lessons that I learned in the Bible is that Jesus did not only associate with saints, but sinners as well.  Jesus did not fight with other people; he turned the other cheek.  Jesus loved his neighbor, and he loved his enemies.

Catholics who responded to Obama’s visit by handing out hateful pictures of aborted fetuses and calling Obama a murderer did not act the way Jesus wanted people to act.  Instead, they shut their minds and showered Obama with hatred.  The Golden Rule that not only Christians but many persons claim to obey is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Would a Catholic who had an opportunity to speak at a school that was very pro-choice have wanted to be showered with this type of hatred?

Conclusion

Those that are pro-life and pro-choice need to put down their weapons.  First, abortion is not the most important policy issue going on right now in the world.  Both sides are going to have to work together to deal with a number of other important issues.  If they refuse to talk to one another because of abortion, that will be a shame, and more important things will not get done.  Secondly, humans are not infallible.  Assuming that one is all-knowing is extremely foolish and risks a “Galileo situation.”  Finally, Catholics who treat others with hate, even those who are their greatest enemies, are contradicting Jesus’s teachings.  It sounds tacky to say this, but: can’t we all just get along?

abortion, barack obama, catholic, christian, notre dame, president, Religion

Generally, candidates for any election in the United States do quite a bit of pandering.  And generally, the pandering they do is a wholly illegitimate take on a given issue.  One such issue that strikes me in particular is free trade.  Politicians regularly attack free trade by claiming that trade takes away jobs from Americans, and that it is bad for the country, etcetera.  They do so even though virtually 100% of economists agree that free trade helps a lot more than it hurts.  Yet, somehow, politicians get votes by bashing free trade.

My question is: how in the world is this strategy successful?  For instance, during the nasty Obama-Clinton primary debates, both candidates continually tried to one-up each other by bashing free trade.  Obama is now backpedaling on that issue for the general election, which indicates he was probably just trying to pander during the primary.  If that is the case, then why would he not respond to Clinton’s anti-free-trade rhetoric with: “Your assertions are wrong.  All economists disagree with you.  Economists are trained to know whether free trade is good or bad.  Would you want a professional bowler to act as your doctor when a doctor says the bowler is wrong?  No.  Would you want a doctor doing your taxes when a tax professional says the doctor is wrong?  No.  Would you want Joe Schmo down the street telling you how to set trade policy when all economists say he is wrong?  Hell no.”

Or, better yet, he could explain why economists think trade is so great.  He could explain that, yes, indeed, there are some downsides to trade, but the upsides are much greater.  He could explain the concept of comparative advantage once explained by David Ricardo and the basic idea of the source of wealth from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.  It would be a glorious moment for Mr. Obama and the entire country.  It would be a rare occasion when a politician actually explained the pros and cons of an issue in a debate, and then explained why his side prevailed.  It would not be the generic politician’s response to a question: say something incomprehensible and then throw as many buzz words and campaign slogans out to the crowd as possible.  And significantly, it would require the opposing candidate to respond in a substantive manner.

How would someone respond to a clear argument about the benefits of free trade, an argument supported by an entire profession, followed by the question: if you disagree, please explain why?

If two candidates were in a debate, with one candidate pro-trade and the other anti-trade, and the pro-trade candidate explained the benefits of trade and uttered the “explain why” question, it would be a glorious moment of awakening in this country for several reasons.  First, everyone watching the debate would learn about free trade – a topic most Americans are ignorant about.  Secondly, it would be a rare occasion when a politicians in a major election actually debated the pros and cons of an issue rather than uttering buzz words and catch phrases to pander to whom he or she hopes is the majority voter.  Finally, the candidate willing to actually debate the facts of an issue would likely be one of the smartest, most candid, and best candidates the country has seen for a long time.

The cynic in me says this would never work.  The cynic in me says that Americans are too stupid to listen to real pros and cons of issues and figure out their own opinions – that is why buzz words and catch phrases at debates work so well.  The cynic in me says that Americans would rather hear “I’ll get the government out of your pockets” than “A study by this prominent professor shows that tax structure X is better than tax structure Y.”

But I believe that this country is smart enough for real facts to come to surface in major political debates.  Back in the revolutionary era, our founding fathers had nowhere near the kind of education that Americans have today.  Even the worst educational systems in America today are miles ahead of anything our founding fathers had.  Yet our founding fathers debated serious issues in politics, and people were very interested in knowing the cold hard facts.  I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that politicians in those days treated the voters with respect.  They didn’t try to pander the way politicians do today – they debated the theories of Locke and Montesquieu and argued passionately and intelligently.  Regular citizens regularly read what the prominent politicians had to say and often wrote to the papers to voice their opinions.  There are plenty of people out there today that would do the same, if today’s politicians would treat them like adults and argue the issues, rather than trying to argue using empty dialect.

This article is not an endorsement of either Barack Obama or John McCain.

2008, barack obama, clinton, debate, economics, economist, election, election 08, free trade, hillary clinton, john mccain, pandering, Politics, president, presidential election, smart, substantive, trade

Apparently, one of Barack Obama’s largest political liabilities is that 15% of voters think he is a Muslim, and do not feel comfortable voting for a Muslim (AP-Yahoo Poll Conducted April 2-14) (some polls say 10%).  Notwithstanding that it is a bit crazy to think someone who just publicly dealt with his connections to a crazy Christian pastor is Muslim, it disturbs me that 15% of the country would not vote for a candidate because he is a Muslim.  Isn’t it racist to not vote for someone because he practices a particular religion?  I do not see any other way to describe these attitudes.  Isn’t the Jim Crow era over?  Haven’t we moved on?  Apparently not, for 15% of the country.

awful, barack obama, christian, christianity, election, islam, muslim, obama, president, racist, Religion

Sorry to harp on the gas tax holiday so much, lately, but this is hilarious:

clinton, fuel economy, gas, gasoline, mccain, miles per gallon, obama, president, tax, taxes

Please note: This is not an endorsement of Barack Obama.

I’m tired of hearing the argument from Clinton and now McCain that you should not vote for Barack Obama because he lacks “experience.”  The argument is simply not persuasive.

This argument assumes that the more time you spend being a politician, the more fit you are to act as President.  I don’t buy it.  In fact, because of the nature of politics in this country, often politicians become less fit to act as President the longer they are involved in politics.

To be successful in American politics, one must be willing to do what it takes to make and keep powerful friends.  These friends can be interest groups, individual businesses, fellow politicians, political parties, or many other entities.  These friends can provide a politician with a needed vote, verbal support, or, often most importantly, money.  But there is no such thing as a free lunch.  If a politician wants to make and keep these powerful friends, he or she needs to give something in return.  Often it is a vote or a series of votes in return.

The problem is, the longer one wants to stay in office, the more loyalties he or she has to build to others to have the money and support necessary to be re-elected.  The word loyalty in this context does not have a positive connotation.  The only loyalty politicians should have is to their constituents as a whole and the country, not a particular constituent or entity or fellow politician.

So when someone gets elected President who has all of this “loyalty baggage,” he or she can face a difficult choice between proceeding in a manner which helps out the country as a whole or hurts the country in favor of one of his powerful friends.   I would rather see someone in office with less loyalty baggage, so I know there is less of a chance that his or her decisions are motivated by a particular someone or something rather than the national interest.

The “experience” argument also assumes that one can appropriately prepare to be President by serving as a national politician.  I disagree – at best it is marginal preparation.  The job of President of the United States of America carries exponentially more responsibility than any other job anyone in this country could ever have.  Serving as a national politician has far less individual responsibility and is under far less national scrutiny.

The best one can hope for with a President is that they are extremely smart and willing to work hard.  Obama, at least, was president of Harvard Law Review.  I can speak from experience that law school is extremely hard work, and the fact that Obama was president of Harvard’s law review is extremely impressive.  Sure, perhaps he does not have the experience scratching backs that Hillary and McCain do, but I find that irrelevant, if not a positive for Obama.

Aside & Rant: I have no idea who I am going to vote for in the national election.  Policy-wise, these candidates are all over the place for me, and I can’t pick one whom I fully support.  I cast my vote in the Virginia primary recently, and although at the time I felt a bit emotional at the power of voting, right now I’m not extremely enthusiastic about anyone.  I think I’m going to write in Greg Mankiw for president.

2008, clinton, election, mccain, obama, president