Posts
In my latest reading of M. Stanton Evans' Clear and Present Dangers: A Conservative View of America's Government
(copyright 1975), I finished the chapter on civil liberties, read the
chapter "How to Silence Dissent", and started the chapter on foreign
policy. In this post, I'll focus on civil liberties and Evans'
discussion of government suppression of dissent.
Evans' point in
his chapter on civil liberties is that the Left interprets so much of
the U.S. Constitution loosely, while being strict on freedom of speech.
According to Evans, this is because the Left regards freedom of speech
as a good idea because it allows for a marketplace of ideas, but it does
not support free speech specifically because it is mandated by the Bill
of Rights. Otherwise, it wouldn't play so fast-and-loose with the
Second and the Tenth Amendments! Evans is also critical of
conservatives who interpret the First Amendment loosely by claiming that
times are different now, but Evans believes that conservatives in that
case are following liberal methodology when it comes to interpreting the
Constitution.
Recently, I read and blogged through Sheila Suess Kennedy's What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?
Kennedy was a conservative Republican (though some would disagree with
characterizing her as such) who headed the Indiana branch of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). How are her beliefs similar to
and different from those of M. Stanton Evans in Clear and Present Dangers?
One area in which they are similar is that they both believe in the rule of law rather than rule by the whims of human beings.
Kennedy believes that free speech should be protected because it's in
the Bill of Rights, and, if we don't obey the Bill of Rights, we are
subject to the whims of whomever may be in power, which is potentially
dangerous. Evans has a similar concern about the powers of government
being limited by law. But I think that there are differences between
him and Kennedy. First of all, Kennedy does not address the Tenth
Amendment in her book. Whereas Evans would probably dismiss Medicare as
unconstitutional (or at least he'd probably do so in 1975, and I'm not
sure what he'd say about Medicare today), Kennedy is a critic of Paul
Ryan's plan for Medicare and appears to be open to aspects of Obamacare
(see here and here).
My impression is that Kennedy supports a limited government in the
economic sphere because she thinks it's a good idea (due to her support
for fiscal responsibility, encouraging people to work, and freedom), but
she's not an absolutist who believes that the federal government can
only do what is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Evans, however,
appears to think that the federal government should be limited because
it's a good idea and also because it is constitutionally-mandated.
Second,
Kennedy interprets the Establishment Clause strictly, and she believes
that states under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot support a religion,
and that's why states cannot sponsor prayer in public schools. And,
although she critiques a strict originalist approach to reading the
Constitution, she argues that her interpretation of the Establishment
Clause is consistent with what certain founding fathers believed.
Evans, by contrast, appeals to a statement by Justice Felix Frankfurter
in speaking against the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment
"incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies it to the states under the
stewardship of Federal judges" (page 273), and he does not believe that
prayer in public schools is constitutionally problematic. Moreover, in this speech,
Evans manifests an interesting view on originalism. In seeking to
understand the intent behind the Establishment Clause, Evans argues, we
should not look so much at James Madison's strict views on church-state
separation, but rather at the states that accepted the Bill of Rights,
some of which explicitly established a religion in their own
constitutions. For Evans, the Establishment Clause was not intended to
prevent the states from sanctioning religion.
For this third point
about Kennedy and Evans, I won't be contrasting them, but rather I'll
talk about an issue that Kennedy brought up that I thought about after
reading Evans one day: the issue of the relevance of previous drafts of
constitutional amendments. Kennedy argues that the Establishment Clause
was not merely intended to ban the government from supporting a
specific church, but rather that its aim was to prevent the government
from supporting a religion, period. Her reason is that a previous draft
of the First Amendment that banned the federal government from
supporting specific churches was rejected. This stood out to me because
I recalled reading a religious right publication that make the opposite
sort of argument: that we can tell what the original intent of the
Establishment Clause was by looking at previous drafts, and since a
preceding draft referred to churches rather than religion, we can
conclude that the Framers meant churches when they prohibited the
establishment of a religion. My impression is that Kennedy was arguing that the Framers repudiated the concept
of the previous draft, whereas the religious right publication held
that they were simply rejecting the phrasing and were looking for
another way to phrase the same concept.
Regarding Evans,
Evans' discussion of the Tenth Amendment made me wonder how liberals
interpret it, and why the Supreme Court in 1941 called it a "truism". I
haven't found a satisfying answer to my quest, but wikipedia's article on the Tenth Amendment
(which refers to a University of Chicago article) states the following:
"After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar
amendment limiting the federal government to powers 'expressly'
delegated, which would have denied implied powers.
However, the word 'expressly' ultimately did not appear in the Tenth
Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject
the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause." Some
argue on the basis of the absence of the word 'expressly' in the Tenth
Amendment that the Amendment was not intended to limit the federal
government's responsibilities to what is explicitly enumerated in the
U.S. Constitution (see here).
Like Kennedy's argument regarding the previous version of the
Establishment Clause that was rejected, the idea here seems to be that,
because the word "expressly" was rejected in the writing of the Tenth
Amendment, the Amendment was not intended to be a rigid limitation of
the federal government to the tasks expressly defined in the
Constitution.
Where do I stand on these issues? Regarding
the application of the Bill of Rights to the states under the
Fourteenth Amendment, I fail to see how we can have rights if only the federal government is forbidden to infringe upon them, whereas the state and local governments can.
On the Tenth Amendment, I have much to learn about that. I think that
the intent was to limit the federal government's powers to what the
Constitution enumerated, otherwise why would the Constitution take the
trouble to enumerate the powers in the first place? At the same time, I
believe that there were framers who desired some degree of flexibility,
which is why there is a Necessary and Proper Clause that allows the
federal government to use whatever powers it deems necessary to do what
the Constitution stipulates. It comes back to what the Constitution
permits the federal government to do, but there is some
flexibility----and my guess is that this flexibility is somewhere
in-between the interpretation of the Amendment by strict conservatives
and liberals.
I'd like to turn now to another issue that
Evans raises: how government power to control property can open the door
to government suppression of free speech. Evans critiques the
Fairness Doctrine, which required stations to provide free air-time to
an opposing point-of-view if a program made a controversial political
statement. The result, Evans argues, is that many stations chose to
avoid controversial programming altogether rather than to assume the
cost and hassle of giving free air time to another side! This often
affected right-wing programs, and Evans notes an example in which oil
companies were not able to respond to the media's attack on them because
stations were afraid of showing controversial programming. Evans also
goes into how people influencing the Kennedy Administration desired for
the means of government (i.e., the IRS) to be used to suppress
right-wing spokespersons, a practice that Richard Nixon was criticized
for doing when it came to his own political enemies. Evans' point is that, when the government has more power over property, the government can use that power to suppress dissent.
Evans may have a valid point. And yet, I recall how Michael Moore's Sicko
made the point that, in parts of Europe, which many conservatives would
characterize as socialist, the government is afraid of the people and
is sensitive to their demands. In my opinion, social democracy is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of speech.
Showing posts with label Republican in ACLU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican in ACLU. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 6
I finished Sheila Suess Kennedy's What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? I have two items.
1. A significant theme in Kennedy's book is the need for civility in political discussions. On page 164, Kennedy states: "Direct mail campaigns by the ACLU aren't much different than those conducted by the Christian Coalition or the Republican National Committee. Only the enemy has been changed. Such appeals may fill organizational treasuries, but they do a serious disservice to public dialogue. Worse, as the public becomes more sophisticated, they contribute to a dangerous and growing cynicism about American institutions."
I appreciate this passage because Kennedy acknowledges that the ACLU itself needs to work on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem in the area of public dialogue. When she referred a few pages earlier to a "Campaign for Civility" that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union initiated in 1994, I was rather skeptical about the effectiveness of such an enterprise, for I thought that the right-wing could simply come back and say that the ACLU and people on the Left (not that Kennedy regards the ACLU as left-wing) were themselves uncivil and thus had no authority to lecture people on civility. But Kennedy acknowledges that there is enough guilt to go around.
The thing is, what do you do when you believe that somebody else is a genuine threat to the well-being of society? Well, the ACLU and the religious right choose to warn people about what they think is a threat. This is understandable. But how productive is it? Wouldn't it be better if people sat down and talked and listened to one another, rather than just fighting?
Although Kennedy talks about fruitful interactions that she has had with people who disagree with her, overall, she appears to be skeptical that the religious right is even open for dialogue. She is probably right about that, in an overall sense. But I do believe that a fruitful discussion between elements of the religious right and the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, etc., is conceivable. Back in the 1990's, Ralph Reed came across as someone with whom you could have a conversation. He was tactful. He was open to addressing questions. He approached discussions as a place where he could listen and clarify his own position. Whatever his tactics in the political arena, he modeled respectful engagement of others in dialogue whenever he appeared on TV news programs. And this is not surprising, for he has a Ph.D. in American History from Emory! Nowadays, my impression is that Reed does not have the same level of star power that he once did, on account of questions about his relationship with Jack Abramoff, and other factors. It would be nice if the religious right could have somebody like Ralph Reed, at least in terms of modeling respectful dialogue. Or perhaps elements of the religious right are already moving in the direction of being open to constructive dialogue. Tim Daly of Focus on the Family has talked in the past about making Focus more open to conversation (see here). I hope that this happens.
I will say, though, that there are times when I am glad that personal attacks are a part of political discourse. Case in point: the 2012 Presidential race. I suppose that Barack Obama could have sat down with Mitt Romney to have a dialogue about the issues of the day, and, on some level, they did. But, in my opinion, Obama needed to bring up Bain Capital and Romney's continual flip-flops in order to win. Positions are important, but it's also important for people to know what kind of person would be representing them were he or she to win!
2. One question that has been swimming around in my mind is the school of constitutional interpretation to which the ACLU belongs. Is it strict constructionist? Originalist, in terms of wanting us to go with the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Textualist and literalist? Or does it regard the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document? I seriously wondered this. A number of people on the right-wing probably assume that people who disagree with them are in the "living, breathing" school of constitutional interpretation, but I was not certain that this could be said about the ACLU. The ACLU, after all, strikes me as strict and almost absolutist when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and that, to me, lacks the flexibility of the "living, breathing" approach. At the same time, it seems to me that a narrow, over-literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights has been used by judges to restrict people's constitutional rights, and so I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU shied away from textualism.
In terms of Kennedy's book, she does treat the intentions of the Founders as significant in trying to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. At the same time, she highlights her problems with originalism on pages 183-184. She notes that it's difficult to uncover the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, for there was more than one Founding Father, each of whom may have had a different original intent. She also says that the Founding Fathers did not foresee some of the issues that exist today, such as pornography on the Internet. But she does believe that we should look at the principles of the U.S. Constitution and seek to apply them to the concerns of today. Speaking for myself, I think that looking at original intent is important in this task, for we should see what the Founding Fathers intended each amendment in the Bill of Rights to accomplish. Is there an alternative to this approach that is not arbitrary?
1. A significant theme in Kennedy's book is the need for civility in political discussions. On page 164, Kennedy states: "Direct mail campaigns by the ACLU aren't much different than those conducted by the Christian Coalition or the Republican National Committee. Only the enemy has been changed. Such appeals may fill organizational treasuries, but they do a serious disservice to public dialogue. Worse, as the public becomes more sophisticated, they contribute to a dangerous and growing cynicism about American institutions."
I appreciate this passage because Kennedy acknowledges that the ACLU itself needs to work on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem in the area of public dialogue. When she referred a few pages earlier to a "Campaign for Civility" that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union initiated in 1994, I was rather skeptical about the effectiveness of such an enterprise, for I thought that the right-wing could simply come back and say that the ACLU and people on the Left (not that Kennedy regards the ACLU as left-wing) were themselves uncivil and thus had no authority to lecture people on civility. But Kennedy acknowledges that there is enough guilt to go around.
The thing is, what do you do when you believe that somebody else is a genuine threat to the well-being of society? Well, the ACLU and the religious right choose to warn people about what they think is a threat. This is understandable. But how productive is it? Wouldn't it be better if people sat down and talked and listened to one another, rather than just fighting?
Although Kennedy talks about fruitful interactions that she has had with people who disagree with her, overall, she appears to be skeptical that the religious right is even open for dialogue. She is probably right about that, in an overall sense. But I do believe that a fruitful discussion between elements of the religious right and the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, etc., is conceivable. Back in the 1990's, Ralph Reed came across as someone with whom you could have a conversation. He was tactful. He was open to addressing questions. He approached discussions as a place where he could listen and clarify his own position. Whatever his tactics in the political arena, he modeled respectful engagement of others in dialogue whenever he appeared on TV news programs. And this is not surprising, for he has a Ph.D. in American History from Emory! Nowadays, my impression is that Reed does not have the same level of star power that he once did, on account of questions about his relationship with Jack Abramoff, and other factors. It would be nice if the religious right could have somebody like Ralph Reed, at least in terms of modeling respectful dialogue. Or perhaps elements of the religious right are already moving in the direction of being open to constructive dialogue. Tim Daly of Focus on the Family has talked in the past about making Focus more open to conversation (see here). I hope that this happens.
I will say, though, that there are times when I am glad that personal attacks are a part of political discourse. Case in point: the 2012 Presidential race. I suppose that Barack Obama could have sat down with Mitt Romney to have a dialogue about the issues of the day, and, on some level, they did. But, in my opinion, Obama needed to bring up Bain Capital and Romney's continual flip-flops in order to win. Positions are important, but it's also important for people to know what kind of person would be representing them were he or she to win!
2. One question that has been swimming around in my mind is the school of constitutional interpretation to which the ACLU belongs. Is it strict constructionist? Originalist, in terms of wanting us to go with the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Textualist and literalist? Or does it regard the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document? I seriously wondered this. A number of people on the right-wing probably assume that people who disagree with them are in the "living, breathing" school of constitutional interpretation, but I was not certain that this could be said about the ACLU. The ACLU, after all, strikes me as strict and almost absolutist when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and that, to me, lacks the flexibility of the "living, breathing" approach. At the same time, it seems to me that a narrow, over-literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights has been used by judges to restrict people's constitutional rights, and so I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU shied away from textualism.
In terms of Kennedy's book, she does treat the intentions of the Founders as significant in trying to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. At the same time, she highlights her problems with originalism on pages 183-184. She notes that it's difficult to uncover the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, for there was more than one Founding Father, each of whom may have had a different original intent. She also says that the Founding Fathers did not foresee some of the issues that exist today, such as pornography on the Internet. But she does believe that we should look at the principles of the U.S. Constitution and seek to apply them to the concerns of today. Speaking for myself, I think that looking at original intent is important in this task, for we should see what the Founding Fathers intended each amendment in the Bill of Rights to accomplish. Is there an alternative to this approach that is not arbitrary?
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 5
In my latest reading of What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?
(copyright 1997), Sheila Suess Kennedy explains why she differs from
the national American Civil Liberties Union in her opposition to
discriminatory government-sponsored affirmative action programs, and she
also defends public schools and criticizes government-sponsored
vouchers for children to attend private schools.
What I want to use as my starting-point in this post, however, is something that Kennedy says on page 159, as she discusses a mutually-respectful correspondence that she had with a pro-life woman: "Subsequent correspondence has revealed a common concern for the free speech rights of abortion protesters. We both worry that government is using RICO laws to stifle dissent."
Earlier in the book, on page 15, she mentions other common-ground that the ACLU has found with groups that many would characterize as right-wing. She refers to common-ground between the ACLU and the libertarian Cato Institute on the drug war, and between the ACLU and the National Rifle Association "on issues stemming from the 1993 tragedy in Waco."
I admire the integrity of the ACLU: it has principles, and it does not care if those principles put it on what people would label as the left-side of the political spectrum, or the right-wing side. It just stands up for people's rights! Some right-wingers have told me that the ACLU is pretty selective about what rights it defends, however, for the ACLU does not exactly take on gun control laws, which a number of right-wingers believe are in violation of the Second Amendment. You can see here that the ACLU regards the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, not an individual right. I can see some of the ACLU's point, for the Amendment does mention a militia. But I wonder why a collective right would be placed inside of a document (namely, the Bill of Rights) that primarily concerns protecting the rights of the individual from government infringement. In any case, whatever the merit of its stance on the Second Amendment, I appreciate the ACLU's integrity on the other rights in the Bill of Rights, as it defends left-wingers and right-wingers, the mainstream and the extreme.
(UPDATE: Regarding Kennedy's views on gun control, on pages 188-189, she appears to be critical of the government confiscating guns to reduce crime and violence. Yet, in her post here, she disapproves of a measure allowing people to carry guns into the workplace.)
I'd also like to mention that Kennedy on page 128 criticizes Congress for exempting itself from the laws that it passes. This was an issue in the 1990's, for, in 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied to the U.S. Congress a number of federal laws from which it had exempted itself. This law was passed soon after Republicans gained majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, for the first time in over three decades. It was a time in which many anticipated reform, as Republicans in the 1994 elections had ousted long-time career politicians, and fresh blood was coming into the chambers of Congress. Of course, the outcome of the Republican triumph was not entirely positive, for the Republican Congress had its share of scandals. But I remember with nostalgia the fresh, innocent Republican optimism that I had right after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.
What I want to use as my starting-point in this post, however, is something that Kennedy says on page 159, as she discusses a mutually-respectful correspondence that she had with a pro-life woman: "Subsequent correspondence has revealed a common concern for the free speech rights of abortion protesters. We both worry that government is using RICO laws to stifle dissent."
Earlier in the book, on page 15, she mentions other common-ground that the ACLU has found with groups that many would characterize as right-wing. She refers to common-ground between the ACLU and the libertarian Cato Institute on the drug war, and between the ACLU and the National Rifle Association "on issues stemming from the 1993 tragedy in Waco."
I admire the integrity of the ACLU: it has principles, and it does not care if those principles put it on what people would label as the left-side of the political spectrum, or the right-wing side. It just stands up for people's rights! Some right-wingers have told me that the ACLU is pretty selective about what rights it defends, however, for the ACLU does not exactly take on gun control laws, which a number of right-wingers believe are in violation of the Second Amendment. You can see here that the ACLU regards the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, not an individual right. I can see some of the ACLU's point, for the Amendment does mention a militia. But I wonder why a collective right would be placed inside of a document (namely, the Bill of Rights) that primarily concerns protecting the rights of the individual from government infringement. In any case, whatever the merit of its stance on the Second Amendment, I appreciate the ACLU's integrity on the other rights in the Bill of Rights, as it defends left-wingers and right-wingers, the mainstream and the extreme.
(UPDATE: Regarding Kennedy's views on gun control, on pages 188-189, she appears to be critical of the government confiscating guns to reduce crime and violence. Yet, in her post here, she disapproves of a measure allowing people to carry guns into the workplace.)
I'd also like to mention that Kennedy on page 128 criticizes Congress for exempting itself from the laws that it passes. This was an issue in the 1990's, for, in 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied to the U.S. Congress a number of federal laws from which it had exempted itself. This law was passed soon after Republicans gained majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, for the first time in over three decades. It was a time in which many anticipated reform, as Republicans in the 1994 elections had ousted long-time career politicians, and fresh blood was coming into the chambers of Congress. Of course, the outcome of the Republican triumph was not entirely positive, for the Republican Congress had its share of scandals. But I remember with nostalgia the fresh, innocent Republican optimism that I had right after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 4
In my latest reading of What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?,
Sheila Suess Kennedy talks about the issues of gay rights and the
criminal justice system. What I'd like to do in this post, however, is
to interact with something that Kennedy says on pages 105-106. Kennedy
is distinguishing between civil liberties and civil rights, and she
defines civil liberties as "the rights secured to citizens against
government infringement."
"Civil rights, on the other hand, entitle us to freedom from discrimination by nongovernmental employers, landlords, and proprietors of public accommodations. Civil liberties don't do a whole lot of good if the only factory in town can decide not to hire women, the only apartment complex won't rent to African-Americans, and the diner won't serve Jews. Civil rights statutes prohibit such private sector discrimination. While the ACLU is a civil liberties organization, we favor civil rights laws. So, historically, has the Republican party. Both would agree that there must be limits to government's authority to require equal treatment by private parties. Unlike restraints on government action, civil rights laws restrict the freedom of those who are discriminating and thus must be carefully crafted and narrowly targeted. Religious enterprises must be allowed to insist on conformity with doctrine, for example, even if that doctrine operates in a discriminatory manner. The behavior of private parties not engaged in commerce cannot be compelled. But within the limits imposed, we agree with most Americans that businesses ought not be able to reject people for characteristics having nothing to do with their performance as employees or their behavior as tenants or customers. Currently, in 1997, gays are protected against such discrimination in exactly nine states (and some assorted cities)."
I agree with much of what Kennedy says in that passage. For one, I think that it is awful for people to be fired for something that has nothing to do with their job performance, whether that be race, gender, or sexual-orientation. Second, I believe that there are more sources of oppression out there than the government, such as private interests. That consideration is why I personally am not a full-fledged libertarian.
I guess that my quibble with the passage is that I wonder how Kennedy would reconcile it with her less-government political philosophy. While Kennedy is correct that there were many Republicans who supported civil rights laws, my impression is that the conservative Goldwater wing of the Republican Party that she champions in the book did not particularly care for them, at least not during the 1960's. Barry Goldwater was all for banning government discrimination against African-Americans, and he himself supported integration in Arizona. But he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it forbade private interests from discriminating, and he regarded that to be an infringement on individual liberty. You hear similar sentiments expressed by certain libertarians today, such as Ron Paul and Rand Paul.
As far as I could see, Kennedy does not seek to harmonize her support for anti-discrimination civil rights laws with her belief in less-government and individual liberty. How could one reconcile the two? Could one say that the government should stay out unless one person harms another, and one person is harming another when he fires someone for something that has nothing to do with his or her job performance? Could one say that conservatism or libertarianism values treating people as individuals rather than as part of a group, and firing people just for being gay or African-American does the exact opposite? I don't know. In my opinion, just saying that discrimination should be banned because it's wrong would be problematic in terms of Kennedy's positions throughout this book, for she often has a problem with people wanting to ban something just because they think that it's wrong. I wish that, in her chapter on gay rights, she had wrestled more with the question of how her support for anti-discrimination civil rights laws can be reconciled with her political philosophy on the role of government.
And yet, Kennedy's philosophy about the role of government still seems to influence the passage that I quoted, for Kennedy realizes that bringing government into a situation is a delicate matter. Consequently, she wants for civil rights laws to be "carefully crafted and narrowly targeted", unlike the vague anti-pornography laws (or proposed laws) that she criticizes in the book. She also wants for the government to respect the liberty of private interests to discriminate in certain areas, such as the right of religious groups to discriminate when doing so is consistent with their doctrines. My impression is that, for Kennedy, the government telling individuals what they can and cannot do is not a step that should be taken lightly, and so there should be measures to insure that the government does not unnecessarily curtail liberty.
But does allowing the government to ban private discrimination put us on a slippery-slope? There have been advocates for small government who have answered "yes" to that----particularly during the 1960's. If the government steps outside of its role of protecting the individual's right to life, liberty, and property, a la John Locke, are we on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism? Kennedy, although she is a supporter of civil rights laws that ban discrimination by private interests, herself fears that granting the government certain powers can lead to results that are deleterious to personal liberty.
I guess that, speaking for myself, I'm tempted to say that we should look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I think that firing people for being gay is wrong, and so it should be banned, and I don't believe that the government should limit itself to protecting the individual's life, liberty, and property, a la John Locke. Again, I'm not a libertarian. At the same time, though, I probably should have crisp principles for what the government should and should not do, otherwise what would prevent the government from getting out of control and becoming authoritarian? I think that Kennedy departs somewhat from her less-government, pro-individual liberty absolutism in her treatment of anti-discrimination laws, but perhaps she is a model for how to approach the role of government when she seeks to draw from the principles of her political philosophy in delineating what anti-discrimination laws should and should not do. In that case, she is not an absolutist, but she is still guided by principles (i.e., a commitment to individual liberty).
"Civil rights, on the other hand, entitle us to freedom from discrimination by nongovernmental employers, landlords, and proprietors of public accommodations. Civil liberties don't do a whole lot of good if the only factory in town can decide not to hire women, the only apartment complex won't rent to African-Americans, and the diner won't serve Jews. Civil rights statutes prohibit such private sector discrimination. While the ACLU is a civil liberties organization, we favor civil rights laws. So, historically, has the Republican party. Both would agree that there must be limits to government's authority to require equal treatment by private parties. Unlike restraints on government action, civil rights laws restrict the freedom of those who are discriminating and thus must be carefully crafted and narrowly targeted. Religious enterprises must be allowed to insist on conformity with doctrine, for example, even if that doctrine operates in a discriminatory manner. The behavior of private parties not engaged in commerce cannot be compelled. But within the limits imposed, we agree with most Americans that businesses ought not be able to reject people for characteristics having nothing to do with their performance as employees or their behavior as tenants or customers. Currently, in 1997, gays are protected against such discrimination in exactly nine states (and some assorted cities)."
I agree with much of what Kennedy says in that passage. For one, I think that it is awful for people to be fired for something that has nothing to do with their job performance, whether that be race, gender, or sexual-orientation. Second, I believe that there are more sources of oppression out there than the government, such as private interests. That consideration is why I personally am not a full-fledged libertarian.
I guess that my quibble with the passage is that I wonder how Kennedy would reconcile it with her less-government political philosophy. While Kennedy is correct that there were many Republicans who supported civil rights laws, my impression is that the conservative Goldwater wing of the Republican Party that she champions in the book did not particularly care for them, at least not during the 1960's. Barry Goldwater was all for banning government discrimination against African-Americans, and he himself supported integration in Arizona. But he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it forbade private interests from discriminating, and he regarded that to be an infringement on individual liberty. You hear similar sentiments expressed by certain libertarians today, such as Ron Paul and Rand Paul.
As far as I could see, Kennedy does not seek to harmonize her support for anti-discrimination civil rights laws with her belief in less-government and individual liberty. How could one reconcile the two? Could one say that the government should stay out unless one person harms another, and one person is harming another when he fires someone for something that has nothing to do with his or her job performance? Could one say that conservatism or libertarianism values treating people as individuals rather than as part of a group, and firing people just for being gay or African-American does the exact opposite? I don't know. In my opinion, just saying that discrimination should be banned because it's wrong would be problematic in terms of Kennedy's positions throughout this book, for she often has a problem with people wanting to ban something just because they think that it's wrong. I wish that, in her chapter on gay rights, she had wrestled more with the question of how her support for anti-discrimination civil rights laws can be reconciled with her political philosophy on the role of government.
And yet, Kennedy's philosophy about the role of government still seems to influence the passage that I quoted, for Kennedy realizes that bringing government into a situation is a delicate matter. Consequently, she wants for civil rights laws to be "carefully crafted and narrowly targeted", unlike the vague anti-pornography laws (or proposed laws) that she criticizes in the book. She also wants for the government to respect the liberty of private interests to discriminate in certain areas, such as the right of religious groups to discriminate when doing so is consistent with their doctrines. My impression is that, for Kennedy, the government telling individuals what they can and cannot do is not a step that should be taken lightly, and so there should be measures to insure that the government does not unnecessarily curtail liberty.
But does allowing the government to ban private discrimination put us on a slippery-slope? There have been advocates for small government who have answered "yes" to that----particularly during the 1960's. If the government steps outside of its role of protecting the individual's right to life, liberty, and property, a la John Locke, are we on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism? Kennedy, although she is a supporter of civil rights laws that ban discrimination by private interests, herself fears that granting the government certain powers can lead to results that are deleterious to personal liberty.
I guess that, speaking for myself, I'm tempted to say that we should look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I think that firing people for being gay is wrong, and so it should be banned, and I don't believe that the government should limit itself to protecting the individual's life, liberty, and property, a la John Locke. Again, I'm not a libertarian. At the same time, though, I probably should have crisp principles for what the government should and should not do, otherwise what would prevent the government from getting out of control and becoming authoritarian? I think that Kennedy departs somewhat from her less-government, pro-individual liberty absolutism in her treatment of anti-discrimination laws, but perhaps she is a model for how to approach the role of government when she seeks to draw from the principles of her political philosophy in delineating what anti-discrimination laws should and should not do. In that case, she is not an absolutist, but she is still guided by principles (i.e., a commitment to individual liberty).
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 3
My topic for my write-up today on Sheila Suess Kennedy's What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? will be the mission of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU's mission is to defend people's constitutional rights, even if those people are unpopular with the majority. There have been notable times in U.S. history when that mission has led the ACLU to do some very heroic deeds. As Kennedy narrates on pages 40-41:
"In 1933, when the government tried to ban importation of James Joyce's Ulysses as obscene, the ACLU won a ruling that the First Amendment prohibited such censorship. When a 1925 law was passed in Tennessee making it a crime to teach evolution in the public schools, it was Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU national committee, who headed the team of volunteer lawyers. In the 1930s, when West Virginia adopted a resolution allowing the expulsion of public school students who refused to salute the flag, the ACLU represented the children of Jehovah's Witnesses whose religious beliefs forbade them to salute. In 1932, when the Scottsboro boys----nine black Alabama youths charged with raping two white women----were denied the assistance of counsel during a trial in which they were sentenced to death, the ACLU won a ruling that established the right of defendants to representation by a lawyer. In these and numerous other well-known cases, the ACLU has represented individuals against arbitrary and overreaching government action."
But there are a number of times when many wonder why the ACLU sticks it neck out for certain people. Why does the ACLU go to bat for a kid who is suspended from school for wearing an earring, or someone who owns a nudie bar, or someone who didn't care for the prayer at a public school's ceremony, or people who want to listen to music that has trashy lyrics?
In many cases, Kennedy uses what some would characterize as the slippery-slope argument: if you allow the government to infringe on people's rights in these cases, what is to prevent the government from infringing on your rights? Many would say that the slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and that people should focus on the issue at hand rather than on where the issue could lead. But personally, I don't have a great problem with certain uses of the slippery-slope argument. In the case of the ACLU, its position is that people have rights and the government should not infringe on those rights. If the government is allowed to infringe on anyone's rights, even if that person is unpopular, that sets a bad precedent. What would keep the government from infringing on your rights? The Bill of Rights? Well, the Bill of Rights is pretty meaningless if it is not consistently applied and enforced. As Kennedy says in her book, you cannot be selectively totalitarian. For the ACLU, the Bill of Rights should be the arbiter, not the will of the majority or whether a person or a cause is popular or unpopular, good or bad. Moreover, laying aside for a second the slippery-slope argument, I think that Kennedy makes a good case that there are issues at hand that are problematic in their own right: anti-pornography ordinances that are vague about what pornography is, a conservative group that regards the movie Toy Story as pornographic, etc.
But there are conservatives who have problems with the ACLU's mission, for they believe that there should be more to public policy discussions than people's rights. Granted, a number of the principles that Kennedy discusses in this book have been affirmed by conservatives. Kennedy is critical of allowing the majority to trample on the rights of the minority, and I have read conservatives who have expressed similar concerns about majority rule: William F. Buckley in Up from Liberalism (see my post here), the John Birch Society when it stresses that the United States is not a democracy but a republic (see my post here), etc. At the same time, there are many conservatives who believe that we should value more principles than individual rights: traditions, morality, family, the stability of the community, etc. One conservative told me that it was wrong for the ACLU to defend Nazis who were marching through a Jewish neighborhood, for what the Nazis did was grossly insensitive. For my friend, there should be more to the discussion than people's rights, such as consideration for others.
I don't want to make Kennedy's position into a straw-person by saying that she wants to make rights the only thing that matters. She does, after all, express concern about the moral decline of America, and she seems to believe that people should take action if something offends them. For example, if someone does not like a raunchy video that a video-store is selling (back when this book was written, videos were still popular), then he should call the video-store owner! What Kennedy deems problematic, however, is the government stepping in and infringing on people's freedom of expression.
On pages 92-93, Kennedy manifests an awareness that a libertarian focus on individual rights can get pretty sticky:
"Those of us who defend the libertarian principle sometimes explain it thusly: You may swing your fist until it comes into contact with my nose. In other words, individuals may enjoy the maximum liberty compatible with an absence of social harm. Simple. Except there are as many definitions of social harm as there are people on the planet. You have a right to smoke a cigarette, but do you have a right to fill my environment with passive smoke? You have a right to drive a motorcycle, but does that include a right to drive up the cost of automobile insurance for those who drive safe little sedans and never fail to buckle up? What if I am convinced that your 'art' is a pollution of the culture that undermines the quality of life for everyone? Suddenly, what was simple no longer is quite so straightforward."
I'm leery about saying that rights should be the most important factor in public policy discussions, for I believe that the health of the community is also important. But I also recognize that a number of abuses throughout history have occurred in the name of protecting the health of the community, and so I'm reluctant to compromise on individual rights.
The ACLU's mission is to defend people's constitutional rights, even if those people are unpopular with the majority. There have been notable times in U.S. history when that mission has led the ACLU to do some very heroic deeds. As Kennedy narrates on pages 40-41:
"In 1933, when the government tried to ban importation of James Joyce's Ulysses as obscene, the ACLU won a ruling that the First Amendment prohibited such censorship. When a 1925 law was passed in Tennessee making it a crime to teach evolution in the public schools, it was Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU national committee, who headed the team of volunteer lawyers. In the 1930s, when West Virginia adopted a resolution allowing the expulsion of public school students who refused to salute the flag, the ACLU represented the children of Jehovah's Witnesses whose religious beliefs forbade them to salute. In 1932, when the Scottsboro boys----nine black Alabama youths charged with raping two white women----were denied the assistance of counsel during a trial in which they were sentenced to death, the ACLU won a ruling that established the right of defendants to representation by a lawyer. In these and numerous other well-known cases, the ACLU has represented individuals against arbitrary and overreaching government action."
But there are a number of times when many wonder why the ACLU sticks it neck out for certain people. Why does the ACLU go to bat for a kid who is suspended from school for wearing an earring, or someone who owns a nudie bar, or someone who didn't care for the prayer at a public school's ceremony, or people who want to listen to music that has trashy lyrics?
In many cases, Kennedy uses what some would characterize as the slippery-slope argument: if you allow the government to infringe on people's rights in these cases, what is to prevent the government from infringing on your rights? Many would say that the slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and that people should focus on the issue at hand rather than on where the issue could lead. But personally, I don't have a great problem with certain uses of the slippery-slope argument. In the case of the ACLU, its position is that people have rights and the government should not infringe on those rights. If the government is allowed to infringe on anyone's rights, even if that person is unpopular, that sets a bad precedent. What would keep the government from infringing on your rights? The Bill of Rights? Well, the Bill of Rights is pretty meaningless if it is not consistently applied and enforced. As Kennedy says in her book, you cannot be selectively totalitarian. For the ACLU, the Bill of Rights should be the arbiter, not the will of the majority or whether a person or a cause is popular or unpopular, good or bad. Moreover, laying aside for a second the slippery-slope argument, I think that Kennedy makes a good case that there are issues at hand that are problematic in their own right: anti-pornography ordinances that are vague about what pornography is, a conservative group that regards the movie Toy Story as pornographic, etc.
But there are conservatives who have problems with the ACLU's mission, for they believe that there should be more to public policy discussions than people's rights. Granted, a number of the principles that Kennedy discusses in this book have been affirmed by conservatives. Kennedy is critical of allowing the majority to trample on the rights of the minority, and I have read conservatives who have expressed similar concerns about majority rule: William F. Buckley in Up from Liberalism (see my post here), the John Birch Society when it stresses that the United States is not a democracy but a republic (see my post here), etc. At the same time, there are many conservatives who believe that we should value more principles than individual rights: traditions, morality, family, the stability of the community, etc. One conservative told me that it was wrong for the ACLU to defend Nazis who were marching through a Jewish neighborhood, for what the Nazis did was grossly insensitive. For my friend, there should be more to the discussion than people's rights, such as consideration for others.
I don't want to make Kennedy's position into a straw-person by saying that she wants to make rights the only thing that matters. She does, after all, express concern about the moral decline of America, and she seems to believe that people should take action if something offends them. For example, if someone does not like a raunchy video that a video-store is selling (back when this book was written, videos were still popular), then he should call the video-store owner! What Kennedy deems problematic, however, is the government stepping in and infringing on people's freedom of expression.
On pages 92-93, Kennedy manifests an awareness that a libertarian focus on individual rights can get pretty sticky:
"Those of us who defend the libertarian principle sometimes explain it thusly: You may swing your fist until it comes into contact with my nose. In other words, individuals may enjoy the maximum liberty compatible with an absence of social harm. Simple. Except there are as many definitions of social harm as there are people on the planet. You have a right to smoke a cigarette, but do you have a right to fill my environment with passive smoke? You have a right to drive a motorcycle, but does that include a right to drive up the cost of automobile insurance for those who drive safe little sedans and never fail to buckle up? What if I am convinced that your 'art' is a pollution of the culture that undermines the quality of life for everyone? Suddenly, what was simple no longer is quite so straightforward."
I'm leery about saying that rights should be the most important factor in public policy discussions, for I believe that the health of the community is also important. But I also recognize that a number of abuses throughout history have occurred in the name of protecting the health of the community, and so I'm reluctant to compromise on individual rights.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 2
My latest reading of Sheila Suess Kennedy's What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?
justified the mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as
well as discussed the Establishment Clause. I'll focus on the mission
of the ACLU in tomorrow's post. In my post today, however, I'll talk
some about what Kennedy says about church and state issues.
Why is Kennedy opposed to government-sponsored prayer in public schools? In my latest reading of Kennedy's book, I saw a variety of reasons: the First Amendment prescribes government neutrality on religion; public school children should not be a captive audience while public school authorities promote a religion; the role of instructing children in religion belongs to their families, not the state; etc.
In one case, I thought that Kennedy was not entirely clear about what is permitted in public schools and what is not. On page 52, for example, she quotes from an article that she wrote in which she states that "The [Supreme] Court did not say [in the 1992 decision Lee vs. Weisman] that graduation speakers cannot refer to God, or that seniors cannot sing a song that mentions God." But later in the article she says that "When a school has the right to select its graduation speakers and approve their speeches, that is considered an endorsement of what they say", and so "If the speaker offers a prayer, the school has legally endorsed that prayer", which the public school cannot legally do. So can graduation speakers refer to God or not? If the public school is approving of a speech that mentions God, is that the public school sanctioning a religion, making the speech unconstitutional at the graduation ceremony? Or would that simply be the public school championing free speech and the right of a graduation speaker to voice her own opinion, not an endorsement of a particular religion?
Overall, Kennedy made good arguments in her chapters that discussed the Establishment Clause. She defended her separationist view of the Establishment Clause through an appeal to U.S. history, and she ably attacked the notion that problems increased in public schools after the 1962 Supreme Court decision banning government-sponsored prayer in public schools through a variety of arguments: for example, she noted that most public schools prior to 1962 did not even have government-sponsored school prayer, since a number of state Supreme Courts prohibited it in interpreting their own states' constitutions. Kennedy also sought to debunk the idea that the ACLU is against students expressing their religious beliefs in public schools, for she said that the ACLU would actually defend a student who was punished for reading the Bible on the bus or for praying before lunch in the school cafeteria. (Kennedy said on page 56 that prayer before eating the cafeteria meatloaf is "a prudent precaution in most school cafeterias"!) She also denied that she opposes public schools teaching about religion as part of an academic subject. What she and the ACLU oppose is the government encouraging people to adopt a religious belief.
I have a question, though. In an interview here, Kennedy states: "Can Johnny get out of Biology because they’re teaching evolution? No, because they’re supposed to be teaching science, not religion. But, can Johnny get out of going to the Halloween party, yeah, because the Halloween party isn’t central to the school’s mission." I realize that Kennedy would most likely disagree with the people on the religious right who hold that evolution is part of the sinister religion of secular humanism (as if secular humanism is a religion), for she'd regard evolution as science, pure and simple (as do I). But, in my opinion, teaching evolution in public schools and compelling students to be in the classroom while it is taught pose some of the same problems as government-sanctioned prayer in public schools. Students with conservative Christian backgrounds are being told that the origins narrative that they learned at home and at church is wrong; even if that is not said explicitly, teaching evolution as fact challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 that many conservative Christians hold. How is that government neutrality regarding religion? And, if Kennedy agrees with parents who don't want prayer in public schools because they (the parents) want the authority to teach their kids religion, why would that same consideration not apply to parents who don't want their children hearing in public school classrooms that evolution is fact, or is a viable theory, because they themselves want to teach their children which origins narrative is best? I should note: Personally, I'm all for teaching about evolution in public schools. But I believe that it should be done with a degree of sensitivity towards people's religious beliefs. Teachers can go ahead and be insensitive all they want, regarding conservative Christians who don't believe in evolution as ignorant rubes, but that won't accomplish anything constructive----mostly it will invite backlash and resistance.
I'd like to close this post by talking about Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican who ran for President in 1964. After talking about Republican Congressman (at the time) David MacIntosh's support for community-sanctioned prayer in public schools, Kennedy asks on page 68, "What has happened to the Republican party between Goldwater and MacIntosh?" On the preceding page, Kennedy referred to a 1981 speech in which Goldwater defended the separation of church and state. Barry Goldwater looms large in Kennedy's book, for Kennedy often quotes Goldwater's classic, The Conscience of a Conservative. The implication that I get is that she regards herself as a Republican who is true to Goldwater conservatism, while she believes that Republicans adhering to or influenced by the religious right have strayed significantly from that. I do not entirely agree with her on this, however, for there was a sense in which cultural conservatism was a part of Goldwater's candidacy, which was during a time of cultural upheaval. Goldwater even expressed opposition to the Supreme Court decision banning government-led prayer from public schools. See here for more information, or google "Goldwater AND school prayer". Granted, Goldwater later in his career was an outspoken critic of the religious right, but he still championed a form of cultural conservatism in his 1964 campaign.
But, at the same time, I think that Goldwater's principles of less government and respect for rights that transcend the will of the majority can be adopted to support the position on the separation of church and state that Kennedy espouses, even if Goldwater did not take those principles in that direction in 1964.
Why is Kennedy opposed to government-sponsored prayer in public schools? In my latest reading of Kennedy's book, I saw a variety of reasons: the First Amendment prescribes government neutrality on religion; public school children should not be a captive audience while public school authorities promote a religion; the role of instructing children in religion belongs to their families, not the state; etc.
In one case, I thought that Kennedy was not entirely clear about what is permitted in public schools and what is not. On page 52, for example, she quotes from an article that she wrote in which she states that "The [Supreme] Court did not say [in the 1992 decision Lee vs. Weisman] that graduation speakers cannot refer to God, or that seniors cannot sing a song that mentions God." But later in the article she says that "When a school has the right to select its graduation speakers and approve their speeches, that is considered an endorsement of what they say", and so "If the speaker offers a prayer, the school has legally endorsed that prayer", which the public school cannot legally do. So can graduation speakers refer to God or not? If the public school is approving of a speech that mentions God, is that the public school sanctioning a religion, making the speech unconstitutional at the graduation ceremony? Or would that simply be the public school championing free speech and the right of a graduation speaker to voice her own opinion, not an endorsement of a particular religion?
Overall, Kennedy made good arguments in her chapters that discussed the Establishment Clause. She defended her separationist view of the Establishment Clause through an appeal to U.S. history, and she ably attacked the notion that problems increased in public schools after the 1962 Supreme Court decision banning government-sponsored prayer in public schools through a variety of arguments: for example, she noted that most public schools prior to 1962 did not even have government-sponsored school prayer, since a number of state Supreme Courts prohibited it in interpreting their own states' constitutions. Kennedy also sought to debunk the idea that the ACLU is against students expressing their religious beliefs in public schools, for she said that the ACLU would actually defend a student who was punished for reading the Bible on the bus or for praying before lunch in the school cafeteria. (Kennedy said on page 56 that prayer before eating the cafeteria meatloaf is "a prudent precaution in most school cafeterias"!) She also denied that she opposes public schools teaching about religion as part of an academic subject. What she and the ACLU oppose is the government encouraging people to adopt a religious belief.
I have a question, though. In an interview here, Kennedy states: "Can Johnny get out of Biology because they’re teaching evolution? No, because they’re supposed to be teaching science, not religion. But, can Johnny get out of going to the Halloween party, yeah, because the Halloween party isn’t central to the school’s mission." I realize that Kennedy would most likely disagree with the people on the religious right who hold that evolution is part of the sinister religion of secular humanism (as if secular humanism is a religion), for she'd regard evolution as science, pure and simple (as do I). But, in my opinion, teaching evolution in public schools and compelling students to be in the classroom while it is taught pose some of the same problems as government-sanctioned prayer in public schools. Students with conservative Christian backgrounds are being told that the origins narrative that they learned at home and at church is wrong; even if that is not said explicitly, teaching evolution as fact challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 that many conservative Christians hold. How is that government neutrality regarding religion? And, if Kennedy agrees with parents who don't want prayer in public schools because they (the parents) want the authority to teach their kids religion, why would that same consideration not apply to parents who don't want their children hearing in public school classrooms that evolution is fact, or is a viable theory, because they themselves want to teach their children which origins narrative is best? I should note: Personally, I'm all for teaching about evolution in public schools. But I believe that it should be done with a degree of sensitivity towards people's religious beliefs. Teachers can go ahead and be insensitive all they want, regarding conservative Christians who don't believe in evolution as ignorant rubes, but that won't accomplish anything constructive----mostly it will invite backlash and resistance.
I'd like to close this post by talking about Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican who ran for President in 1964. After talking about Republican Congressman (at the time) David MacIntosh's support for community-sanctioned prayer in public schools, Kennedy asks on page 68, "What has happened to the Republican party between Goldwater and MacIntosh?" On the preceding page, Kennedy referred to a 1981 speech in which Goldwater defended the separation of church and state. Barry Goldwater looms large in Kennedy's book, for Kennedy often quotes Goldwater's classic, The Conscience of a Conservative. The implication that I get is that she regards herself as a Republican who is true to Goldwater conservatism, while she believes that Republicans adhering to or influenced by the religious right have strayed significantly from that. I do not entirely agree with her on this, however, for there was a sense in which cultural conservatism was a part of Goldwater's candidacy, which was during a time of cultural upheaval. Goldwater even expressed opposition to the Supreme Court decision banning government-led prayer from public schools. See here for more information, or google "Goldwater AND school prayer". Granted, Goldwater later in his career was an outspoken critic of the religious right, but he still championed a form of cultural conservatism in his 1964 campaign.
But, at the same time, I think that Goldwater's principles of less government and respect for rights that transcend the will of the majority can be adopted to support the position on the separation of church and state that Kennedy espouses, even if Goldwater did not take those principles in that direction in 1964.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 1
I started Sheila Suess Kennedy's 1997 book, What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? Sheila Suess Kennedy was a Republican who led the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
I have three items.
1. Is Kennedy a libertarian who agrees with less government in the economic sphere and also the social and cultural spheres? In the book, she does present herself as an economic conservative. She talks about the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, her belief in individual rights rather than group rights, and the importance of Barry Goldwater's question of whether or not the government should even be involved in certain areas (rather than taking for granted that it should be). On pages 25-26, she quotes from the introduction to her position papers from her run for Congress as a Republican in 1980, in which she criticized the Democrats' desire to "throw public money at social problems", along with "More and bigger federal programs, federal regulations, and federal mandates". She still supported programs, however, but she wanted for them to "bring the disadvantaged into the mainstream, rather than encouraging continued dependency", and she was a critic of tax policies that weakened rather than strengthened families.
But Kennedy has also advocated positions that would probably not be characterized as economically conservative or as libertarian. On her web site, for example, she has criticized Grover Norquist and Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare. And I remember reading a column that she wrote for the Indianapolis Star in which she was critical of the Bush tax cuts.
Is this economically conservative? Well, perhaps one could make the case that the Bush tax cuts themselves were not economically conservative, for Bush's policies cut taxes while increasing government spending. But I think that many economic conservatives and libertarians would support Grover Norquist and at least view Paul Ryan's plan as a step in the right direction, for Grover Norquist is for cutting taxes and also shrinking the size of government, and the Ryan plan is a step towards replacing Medicare with private alternatives, at least for seniors who would choose that (since seniors under Ryan's plan would be able to choose between staying in Medicare and going with the private alternatives).
But perhaps Kennedy never was an economic libertarian, strictly-speaking. As you can tell from the introduction to her 1980 position paper, she was against programs that encouraged dependency, but she still favored programs. I doubt that a libertarian would even favor programs, at least not if they're administered by the government.
2. Pastor Greg Dixon of the Moral Majority sought to ban rock concerts at city parks in Indianapolis, and Kennedy (an attorney who worked for the city at the time) criticized that as "content-based" discrimination. Yet, she appeared to oppose the city setting up a creche (a nativity scene) on Monument Circle, which was "owned and maintained by the State of Indiana" (page 22), but she was apparently all right with the creche being "moved to the lawn of Christ Church Cathedral, still on the Circle but across the Monument" (pages 22-23).
At first, I thought that Kennedy was contradicting herself: Why is it content-based discrimination to ban rock concerts at a city park, but not to ban a nativity scene on Monument Circle? Now, I can see a distinction. In the case of Monument Circle, the city itself owned the nativity scene and the parks department set it up, and so tax dollars were going to promote a religion, which (according to the law) violates the Establishment Clause. I doubt that Kennedy would oppose, say, a church holding services at a city park, since the city park in that case would not be promoting a religion. But here's a question: Would she be open to a church setting up a nativity scene on publicly-owned property, or would that tread on the Establishment Clause?
A lot of times, when I hear debates about the separation of church and state, the discussion often revolves around offense. A non-Christian is offended by a prayer at a public school, and so he or she sues the school for violating the separation of church and state. Offense is probably relevant to the debate: for example, Kennedy talks about Jewish students when she was growing up who were rightfully offended by their public school's Easter play, which conveyed the message that the Jews killed Jesus. And yet, there is much more to the debate than offense. Kennedy, after all, was for allowing rock concerts at city parks, even though they offended Pastor Greg Dixon. And she was all right with moving the nativity scene to a church lawn, and so the issue was not that people had a right to be shielded from exposure to religion. Rather, the issue was that the government should be neutral on religious matters. As I read more of Kennedy's book, perhaps I'll learn more about what is at stake in this debate.
3. I'm from Indiana, and so I thought that it was cool for Kennedy to mention people I knew about----often because I read about them in the newspaper when I was a kid: Mayor William Hudnut III of Indianapolis (whom, I was surprised to learn, was a minister), Congressman Andy Jacobs, and Greg Dixon (though I'm more familiar with his son and his church, particularly its conflict with the government----see here).
I have three items.
1. Is Kennedy a libertarian who agrees with less government in the economic sphere and also the social and cultural spheres? In the book, she does present herself as an economic conservative. She talks about the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, her belief in individual rights rather than group rights, and the importance of Barry Goldwater's question of whether or not the government should even be involved in certain areas (rather than taking for granted that it should be). On pages 25-26, she quotes from the introduction to her position papers from her run for Congress as a Republican in 1980, in which she criticized the Democrats' desire to "throw public money at social problems", along with "More and bigger federal programs, federal regulations, and federal mandates". She still supported programs, however, but she wanted for them to "bring the disadvantaged into the mainstream, rather than encouraging continued dependency", and she was a critic of tax policies that weakened rather than strengthened families.
But Kennedy has also advocated positions that would probably not be characterized as economically conservative or as libertarian. On her web site, for example, she has criticized Grover Norquist and Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare. And I remember reading a column that she wrote for the Indianapolis Star in which she was critical of the Bush tax cuts.
Is this economically conservative? Well, perhaps one could make the case that the Bush tax cuts themselves were not economically conservative, for Bush's policies cut taxes while increasing government spending. But I think that many economic conservatives and libertarians would support Grover Norquist and at least view Paul Ryan's plan as a step in the right direction, for Grover Norquist is for cutting taxes and also shrinking the size of government, and the Ryan plan is a step towards replacing Medicare with private alternatives, at least for seniors who would choose that (since seniors under Ryan's plan would be able to choose between staying in Medicare and going with the private alternatives).
But perhaps Kennedy never was an economic libertarian, strictly-speaking. As you can tell from the introduction to her 1980 position paper, she was against programs that encouraged dependency, but she still favored programs. I doubt that a libertarian would even favor programs, at least not if they're administered by the government.
2. Pastor Greg Dixon of the Moral Majority sought to ban rock concerts at city parks in Indianapolis, and Kennedy (an attorney who worked for the city at the time) criticized that as "content-based" discrimination. Yet, she appeared to oppose the city setting up a creche (a nativity scene) on Monument Circle, which was "owned and maintained by the State of Indiana" (page 22), but she was apparently all right with the creche being "moved to the lawn of Christ Church Cathedral, still on the Circle but across the Monument" (pages 22-23).
At first, I thought that Kennedy was contradicting herself: Why is it content-based discrimination to ban rock concerts at a city park, but not to ban a nativity scene on Monument Circle? Now, I can see a distinction. In the case of Monument Circle, the city itself owned the nativity scene and the parks department set it up, and so tax dollars were going to promote a religion, which (according to the law) violates the Establishment Clause. I doubt that Kennedy would oppose, say, a church holding services at a city park, since the city park in that case would not be promoting a religion. But here's a question: Would she be open to a church setting up a nativity scene on publicly-owned property, or would that tread on the Establishment Clause?
A lot of times, when I hear debates about the separation of church and state, the discussion often revolves around offense. A non-Christian is offended by a prayer at a public school, and so he or she sues the school for violating the separation of church and state. Offense is probably relevant to the debate: for example, Kennedy talks about Jewish students when she was growing up who were rightfully offended by their public school's Easter play, which conveyed the message that the Jews killed Jesus. And yet, there is much more to the debate than offense. Kennedy, after all, was for allowing rock concerts at city parks, even though they offended Pastor Greg Dixon. And she was all right with moving the nativity scene to a church lawn, and so the issue was not that people had a right to be shielded from exposure to religion. Rather, the issue was that the government should be neutral on religious matters. As I read more of Kennedy's book, perhaps I'll learn more about what is at stake in this debate.
3. I'm from Indiana, and so I thought that it was cool for Kennedy to mention people I knew about----often because I read about them in the newspaper when I was a kid: Mayor William Hudnut III of Indianapolis (whom, I was surprised to learn, was a minister), Congressman Andy Jacobs, and Greg Dixon (though I'm more familiar with his son and his church, particularly its conflict with the government----see here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)