27 May 2010
Health Care Reform and Small Business
Is the primary purpose of government to enable the success of small business? Although achieving that goal may go far to assure the happiness of many of the nation’s citizens, it must pale in significance when compared to caring for their health. President of the National Federation of Independent Business, Dan Danner, wrote in his OpEd piece in the May 27, 2010 Wall Street Journal that the U.S. Constitution cannot mandate buying health care simply because one is alive. But if that is what will be necessary to pay the cost of maintaining a healthy labor force, small business would benefit at least as much as anyone else in sharing the burden.
Is the primary purpose of government to enable the success of small business? Although achieving that goal may go far to assure the happiness of many of the nation’s citizens, it must pale in significance when compared to caring for their health. President of the National Federation of Independent Business, Dan Danner, wrote in his OpEd piece in the May 27, 2010 Wall Street Journal that the U.S. Constitution cannot mandate buying health care simply because one is alive. But if that is what will be necessary to pay the cost of maintaining a healthy labor force, small business would benefit at least as much as anyone else in sharing the burden.
18 May 2010
Specter’s Party Switch
Political parties have become ideologically more rigid than the public. Perhaps this always has been true. A functioning democracy depends on the competition between clearly articulated points of view that two, three, or multiple political parties provide.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his national party affiliation last year in recognition of the fact that he would have to turn rightward his professed views on matters of importance to his constituents in order to be selected as the Republican Party’s candidate for reelection. Apparently, he believed that representing the interests and majority views of the public who elected him was more important than spouting the ideology of a group of purists who wield the financial power and media influence that have become essential to “successful” careers in public service.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the backing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful in Pennsylvania than that of Specter’s former party. Nevertheless, the real question is whether an effective congressman is not one who can convince enough voters of his or his backers’ slant on the issues of the day to elect him, but one who can most efficiently manipulate the governmental keyboard to achieve the changing objectives of a majority of his community’s members. His job is also to help his constituents formulate their views into practical policy. Combining those job descriptions makes the demands on a congressman difficult to fulfill, and acquitting them well should be the primary criterion for election.
Political parties have become ideologically more rigid than the public. Perhaps this always has been true. A functioning democracy depends on the competition between clearly articulated points of view that two, three, or multiple political parties provide.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his national party affiliation last year in recognition of the fact that he would have to turn rightward his professed views on matters of importance to his constituents in order to be selected as the Republican Party’s candidate for reelection. Apparently, he believed that representing the interests and majority views of the public who elected him was more important than spouting the ideology of a group of purists who wield the financial power and media influence that have become essential to “successful” careers in public service.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the backing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful in Pennsylvania than that of Specter’s former party. Nevertheless, the real question is whether an effective congressman is not one who can convince enough voters of his or his backers’ slant on the issues of the day to elect him, but one who can most efficiently manipulate the governmental keyboard to achieve the changing objectives of a majority of his community’s members. His job is also to help his constituents formulate their views into practical policy. Combining those job descriptions makes the demands on a congressman difficult to fulfill, and acquitting them well should be the primary criterion for election.
14 May 2010
Eliminating Al-Awlaki
There are right ways and wrong ways to do anything. Targeted assassination of the provocative Islamic cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, wherever he is in hiding, is not justified within our culture’s rule of law, even if his internationally followed rantings endanger American security. There have been many domestic demagogues who egged on violent allegiants while still protected by due process. As a citizen of the U.S., Al-Awlaki deserves similar treatment, despite his overseas location. But that is not the relevant issue.
In the present age of unfettered communications across borders worldwide, it is the responsibility of every national government to impose a measure of civility on its residents. How else, in the absence of world government, can we maintain the order needed to protect human life from arbitrary or misguided violence? Yemen, Al-Awlaki’s current host, is abdicating its duty to prevent its sovereignty from being used to shield an outlaw from the sanction of states that rightfully seek to guard the safety of their citizens.
Yemen, indeed, is a weak state. Moreover, it is part of a bloc of Islamic states that resent the economic, political and cultural predominance of the U.S., if not of the West in general. Even further, Al-Awlaki is a leader of the militant wing of the fundamentalist Islamic movement that threatens peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths or secular lifestyles. Forcing Yemen to fulfill its intergovernmental obligations and rein Al-Awlaki in can have painful economic and political consequences, even for the U.S. However, taking action to excise the canker sore of an Al-Awlaki through targeted assassination will at least run the same risk of retaliation. More importantly, it will cheapen our commitment to human rights and to civility in both our international and our domestic values.
There are right ways and wrong ways to do anything. Targeted assassination of the provocative Islamic cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, wherever he is in hiding, is not justified within our culture’s rule of law, even if his internationally followed rantings endanger American security. There have been many domestic demagogues who egged on violent allegiants while still protected by due process. As a citizen of the U.S., Al-Awlaki deserves similar treatment, despite his overseas location. But that is not the relevant issue.
In the present age of unfettered communications across borders worldwide, it is the responsibility of every national government to impose a measure of civility on its residents. How else, in the absence of world government, can we maintain the order needed to protect human life from arbitrary or misguided violence? Yemen, Al-Awlaki’s current host, is abdicating its duty to prevent its sovereignty from being used to shield an outlaw from the sanction of states that rightfully seek to guard the safety of their citizens.
Yemen, indeed, is a weak state. Moreover, it is part of a bloc of Islamic states that resent the economic, political and cultural predominance of the U.S., if not of the West in general. Even further, Al-Awlaki is a leader of the militant wing of the fundamentalist Islamic movement that threatens peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths or secular lifestyles. Forcing Yemen to fulfill its intergovernmental obligations and rein Al-Awlaki in can have painful economic and political consequences, even for the U.S. However, taking action to excise the canker sore of an Al-Awlaki through targeted assassination will at least run the same risk of retaliation. More importantly, it will cheapen our commitment to human rights and to civility in both our international and our domestic values.
