There are a few political questions which trouble me. I have mentioned some before, but it was a long time ago, so please forgive me for mentioning them again.

First, as large, paternalistic government is based upon the premise that people are unable to recognize their own best interests and need the government to take care of them, how can they justify popular government? After all, if people are not competent to make decisions about their own lives, how can they be trusted to make good decisions about who should run the government?

Second, along the same lines, how can paternalistic government even work? If the assumption is that individuals are not able to make good decisions, then how can those same individuals decide not only for themselves, but for the whole nation once elected to office? Does election grant them some sort of special knowledge they lacked while private citizens?

Third, changing topics, why would you want to elect someone claiming to be a "pragmatist"? Since most mean by that designation that they have no firm beliefs, but will simply deal with each situation as the whim strikes them, why would you want to elect them? The reason we ask what politicians believe is to find out how they will respond to various situations. If a politician claims to have no firm beliefs, how is electing him better than simply electing any random individual?

Fourth, if two pragmatists are running against one another, how could you decide? Since neither has any fixed rules by which he decides things, does it matter which one you elect?

Fifth, I understand that compromise is necessary in politics, and it is not shameful, but should we make a virtue of compromise? To claim one's greatest virtue is being a "uniter", doesn't that really say "my beliefs are so unimportant that my greatest accomplishment is frequently selling them out"? Isn't claiming to be a "uniter" really saying you have never won without compromise? (Or else boasting that you have deceived everyone you ever met into doing what you want, which is not exactly a desirable trait in a politician.)

Sixth, do we really want a politician who "listens to his constituents"? Even assuming there is a single opinion among his constituents, isn't representative government intended to somewhat moderate the passions of the populace? To keep them from making bad decisions while caught up in a sudden, exciting cause? So wouldn't we be better served by a politician who sometimes ignored the will of his constituents? At least one who did so and then showed why to the satisfaction of the voters.

I am sure there are many more questions I could post, but the list is growing long already, so I will cut it off there.

Of course many of these are somewhat rhetorical questions. For example, those believing in paternal government don't really believe all people are incompetent, just most of them. They believe there is some elect, an elite group which can decide for everyone else, but I still don't understand how they think election by an incompetent public will put this elect into office. It seems that the only position consistent with paternalism is a dictatorship of the elect, those who know better than everyone else.

But that is material for another essay. For the moment, I will simply leave my readers with those six questions.

UPDATE

There was one more question I wanted to mention, one raised by an earlier post.

By incorrectly calling anyone who fails to live up to their standards a "hypocrite", aren't we just giving an unfair advantage to the openly amoral?  If anything short of perfect adherence to one's own moral code is viewed as hypocrisy, doesn't that mean that only someone without a moral code is safe from such charges? Do we really want to promote the idea that politicians should be amoral?

It is interesting to look at the way their respective beliefs are influencing the potential crossover votes for both candidates. I was recently reading comments from my readers when one argued that by being more polarizing Obama tended to cause more voters to cross over. That may be the case, but I think an even more simple explanation is to be found in their relative political positions.

Obama is, despite his claims, a far left Democrat. He has recently tried to moderate his statements, but event hen he has had to run back to the left to avoid insurrections from his base. So, it is no secret, except apparently to the media, that Obama leans quite left in his beliefs. Which means that if you are a Demcorat who opposes Obama on his beliefs, you ar emos tlikely a centrist, on the conservative end of your party. (We can safely ignore the handful who ar emore liberal than Obama, as they are certainly few in number.) If you are a conservative Demcorat, the prospect of voting for McCain is hardly frightening, as he is a moderate Republican, so his views are probably pretty close to your own.

On the other hand, McCain is a relatively moderate Republican. Except on the war, any opposition to him is likely to come from the right. However, this leaves the protest voters in a bad situation. There are certainly candidates to the right of McCain,  but they are third party candidates unlikely to win, which means you are throwing away your vote. Worse still, if you vote third party, Obama has mroe chance of winning, and if you are right of McCain, the prospect of Obama is even more frightening than McCain. All fo which means that msot protest voters will likely return to the McCain camp over time, as they come to realize how unappealing an Obama victory would be.

The only area where this dynamic does not apply is concerning the war. In that case, the two are clearly delineated, and it is easy for single-issue crossovers to decide between the two. However, I doubt there are really that many who are deciding base dont hat issue alone, and in that case, the issue is confused for both. Liberals supporting the war, and conservative sopposing it, both have to decide whetehr their position on the war, or their remaining beliefs, are mroe important.

But both of those are small groups, the bulk of potential defectors are to be found among the conservative Demcorats and conservative Republicans. And, while conservative Demcorats may easily go to McCain, I can't see the conservative Republicans either voting for Obama, or, what amounts tot he same thing, allowing Obama to win by voting third party.

Come November, I think we will see a fair number of defecting Demcorats, but the bulk of Republicans will remain loyal to their party.

I was recently replying to comments when one of my regular readers said something that reminded me that many, on both ends of the spectrum, seem to misunderstand the crossover voter phenomenon. On the right, this usually takes the form of arguing that really Hillary supporters are too far left to vote for McCain, while on the left, it is often seen as an argument that PUMAs must be Republican plants, as not only would real Hillary supporters not go for McCain, but now that Hillary endorsed Obama, there is no reason for her supporters to be upset. However, sensible as these arguments seem at first glance, they are wrong. Obama's own polling numbers, which were supposed to remain private and thus, presumably, as accurate as possible, showed 15% crossover voters. Likewise, any number of polling companies, many which have shown a slight Demcorat bias in the past, show similar numbers. There is no reason to assume the crossover votes are either overestimated or a Republican fiction.

So, why are a considerable number of Democrats promising to cross over?

First, let us dismiss the myth that they are die hard Hillary partisans who are disgruntled, or feminists who want to vote for a woman. Now that Palin is on the ticket, that second group is getting even more attention, but I have to agree with the skeptics that anyone so dedicated to feminism they would vote only for a woman is probably too far left to vote for McCain. (Though those who just think "it would be nice to have a woman in the White House" are still possible crossover voters.) Likewise, those who truly agree with Hillary 100% are unlikely to be ardent McCain supporters.

No, there are three substantial Democrat crossover groups, and only one has any real direct association with Hillary. That group is made up of the rather casual Hillary supporters, those who "liked" Hillary in a vague sense and thought it was unfair that she was forced out of the race. The other two are the blue collar Democrats, similar to the Reagan Democrats of the 80's, whoa re uncomfortable with Obama's history or some of his vague proposals. And finally, there are the idealist Democrats who, regardless of initial affiliation with any specific candidate, see the way Hillary was driven out of the primaries as an assault on the primary process and intend to vote for McCain as a protest vote, the same way some small number of Republicans still promise to vote against McCain due to his beliefs.

Of course, except for possibly the blue collar Democrats, many will argue that these people are still too far left to vote for McCain, but that ignores two facts. First, most of the casual Hillary supporters are not political junkies, so their impression of McCain comes not form his actual positions, but form his media image, and that has been very positive until recently. While he is now being sold as another George Bush, that is a recent phenomenon. For most of the past 8 years, whenever he opposed Bush, the media portrayed him as a champion of the common man, a maverick, a do gooder of the first order. In the popular mind, he is not a doctrinaire hard line conservative but a maverick who challenged Bush, pushed through campaign finance reform and stood up to his party. That makes him much more acceptable. (Ironically, those opposed to McCain may help create this image, as angry conservatives also insist on painting him a s aleftist, making him acceptable to leftists as well.)

The other factor to remember is that the protest voters aren't always voting for a candidate, but against one. Like the conservatives who promised to vote for Obama, the protest voters upset over the subversion of the primary process aren't voting for McCain  but against the party. In that case, his beliefs aren't important, the only fact that matters is that he isn't a Democrat.

Now, it is possible, as on the Republican side, this enthusiasm for crossover voting may flag. Voters may find McCain too conservative and move back to Obama, the same way many conservative returned to McCain once they became frightened of Obama. But, in at least some cases, especially for the blue collar Democrats, I think it likely their enthusiasm will last through November. The numbers may dwindle somewhat, but I see no reason to believe there will not be a substantial number of crossover cotes come November.

People really need to get a better understanding of what hypocrisy means. Hypocrisy is saying that people should do one thing while doing the opposite oneself. Actually, I should probably say, while believing one should be allowed to do the opposite. Simply doing the opposite is not always hypocritical. For example, saying people should not drink while one struggles with a drinking problem is not so much hypocrisy as being morally fallible. So, to be precise, hypocrisy is arguing for a standard of behavior from which you exempt yourself.

However, we often hear charges of hypocrisy where there really is none. For instance, whenever a Republican cheats on his wife,w e hear how "the party of family values" is hypocritical. However, that doe snot truly apply, as just because one is fallible does not make one a hypocrite. Were the cheating spouse to argue that he should be allowed to cheat, then he would be hypocritical, but simply failing is not in itself hypocritical. (That is also why so many on the left are immune from such charges. Having argued for few moral standards, they can't really be accused of violating them. Open amorality is also a perfect defense against hypocrisy.)

But now I have heard some of the most inappropriate charges of hypocrisy yet. The new argument is that Governor Palin fought against aid for teenage mothers while her daughter is going to be a teenage mother.

That doesn't even make sense. That is like saying "You say you oppose rape, but you have had intercourse!" Yes, the governor opposes aid to teen mothers and, yes, her daughter is going to be a teen mother, beyond that, I can see no connection. Had she said she opposed aid for teen mothers then asked for government aid for her daughter, that would be hypocrisy, but anything else simply is not.

But it makes good "gotcha" news. "You were heartless toward poor teen girls who somehow got pregnant, and now you have one in your family!' It is the favorite liberal argument. Akin to the joy they have in finding gay relatives of those who oppose special rights for gays, or the utter delight they had during the whole Larry Craig fiasco. Sorry, but it doesn't prove anything. Larry Craig engaging in homosexual activities still doesn't mean he is a hypocrite. One could even be openly gay yet oppose special rights for gays, the two are not contradictory beliefs, and it certainly is not hypocritical, any more than Thomas Sowell's opposition to affirmative action makes him a hypocrite. Nor is the mother of a pregnant teen opposing government aid for teen mothers hypocrisy. It is simply a belief, no more, no less.

Why can no one seem to grasp that?

Since the left seems to be fascinated with calling Governor Palin "Mayor Palin", is it OK for us to call the other candidates by their previous job titles?

Can we call Senator Biden "Councilman Biden"? (As that and lawyer were the only jobs he had outside the senate, as far as I can tell.)

Can we call Obama... uh... what is the correct title for a "community organizer"? "Comrade Obama"? "Gauleiter Obama"?*

About the only one who has no reason to complain is Captain McCain.

Maybe this is a good trend. Comrade Obama and Councilman Biden versus Captain McCain and Mayor Palin. Notice which side has the more relevant experience? And which side STILL has the only executive experience, even when we go back to previous jobs?

--------------------------------------------------

* Before anyone gets upset, I am sorry, but "community organizer" just has a totalitarian ring to it. My community is happily disorganized and needs no one to organize it. I can only think of totalitarian states when I hear such bizarre titles, as who else but a dictator insists that communities must be "organized"? And thus I can't think of any title but Gauleiter when I hear the term "organizer".

------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

By the way, are the Democrats REALLY going to attack Palin's lack of experience? Do they want to open that door? She is number two on the ticket, while equally inexperienced Obama, with even less executive experience, is on the TOP of his ticket. Is that a fact they want to point out for their opponents?

I know Obama is making a lot of noise about how he is taking the high road, how Gov. Palin's grandchild is "off limits", how he is not attacking the personal lives of candidates, and so on. And it all is just as honest as his claims to keep race out of the election. Even ignoring the snarky email someone IN HIS CAMPAIGN sent out about "MAYOR PALIN'S" lack of foreign policy experience the instance her selection was announced, Obama can easily say he is taking the high road, after all, he has legions of unofficial press agents ready and willing to take cheap shots for him.

Even before it came out about Palin's daughter, the DailyKos crowd was creating strange rumors about the governor faking a pregnancy to adopt her daughter's child. Not to mention the bloggers, even here on Townhall, who post bizarre conspiracy theories about McCain's "mob ties" and other loopy charges.

So, of course, Obama can take the high road. He knows doing so won't prevent a single one of his followers from publishing the most scurrillous lies. Which makes it all a lot less emaningful than the adoring press amkes it seem. Just as he relied on proxies to bring race intot he election, he is also engaging in slander by proxy.

Then again, I can just picture the lawyer in him smiling at the thought that he can say "I didn't say anything" with total honesty, no matter how badly his followers abuse his opponents. It almost rivals "the meaning of 'is'" for political dishonesty.

I saw on another blog a post about a Pew survey which found the "satisfied" middle class was poorer, uneducated and older. Judging from his condescending tone toward conservative and pro-union, pro-left, pro-Obama bent, I think his point was that only poor, dumb people (the sort who get "stuck in Iraq", perhaps?) would be satisfied with the Cheney reign of terror.

Now, my question is this: Isn't this "horrible economy" supposed to be crushing the poor and elderly? Aren't the uneducated forced into burger flipping jobs or forced to fight "Bush's war" in Iraq? Weren't the tax cuts only supposed to benefit the rich?

If that is the case, why are the poorer, less educated and older happy? Doesn't that contradict the victimology the left has been pushing for eight years? Weren't old people eating cat food to afford medicine and our less educated sneaking into Mexico for high paying NAFTA jobs and all those other tales of woe?

If so, why are they content? Doesn't this poll suggest just the opposite of the left's party line? That the middle class, especially the lower middle class is content would suggest Bush had done relatively well by them.

Actually, my take on this, admittedly an impressionistic one, not based on hard data, is that less educated, poorer and older individuals are less likely to give credence to the mainstream media, especially the more extreme wings of it, such as the Stewart/Colbert/Olbermann doom sayers. As we all know, polls often show the interesting phenomenon of people saying their own finances are fine, but the country as a whole is collapsing. That is the result of buying into the media hype. As these people are less likely to believe the hype, they are more content than those who believe media stories of an imminent collapse despite a lack of first hand evidence.

But, even if you doubt my explanation, it does seem hard to explain how the groups supposedly hardest hit by Bush's "mismanagement" are the most content.

I caught a moment of MSNBC coverage of Gustav, Olbermann was the anchor, and the only thing I could think, the one thought that ran over and over through my head was "This is a muppet news flash".

Am I the only one who thinks Olbermann looks like a really bad parody of a newscaster? Not a Jim Dial parody, not a Ted Baxter parody, not even a Kent Brockman parody, but way down in the "I played a newscaster in a Cinemax soft-porn" level of newscaster parody? How can anyone take him seriously?

After I wrote about the vanishing third parties, I see that Ron Paul fanciers are gathering for a rally to show the Republicans that they "aren't going away". Of course, the fact that they could gather all of 9800 people seems to argue that the Republicans aren't losing any sleep over the Ron Paul defection. Sometimes it may be better not to stand up and be counted. Especially when the count is rather low.

I realized last night that, while I have been criticizing Obama, evaluating Palin and arguing that McCain is not as bad as some seem to think, I never once described what, ideally, I would want in a president. Of course, I never expect to meet my ideal president. But, unlike those who are willing to abandon the party because McCain fails to live up to their idea of conservative orthodoxy, I don't expect a candidate to meet all of my requirements. I know that perfection is not something we will find in this world, so I don't expect it, especially not form politicians. Instead my list is something of a yardstick, a list of perfect attributes against which politicians are then measured.

Of course, I must admit that, given my standards, no politician measures up very well. Even Reagan, who has recently been elevated to secular sainthood, fails to live up to most of my ideals. Then again, if more conservatives looked at him honestly, they would see he hardly lives up to their conservative ideals either. That is the truth of politics, that even the best politicians meet maybe only 30% of our desires.

That being the case, the fact that McCain meets maybe 20% of my requirements isn't reason to oppose him. I don't expect to find even a 50% correct candidate. But that isn't how we should measure candidates anyway.

The truth is, third parties are not viable at the present time, so no matter what I do, one of the two major party candidates will win. So I compare the two to my standards and pick the one closest to them. And by that standard, McCain wins easily.

But, rather than just tell you that, as I have been doing for some time, let me explain my ideal president, broken down into several categories, and you can see whether or not you agree with my ideal, and, if so, you can see which of the two contenders better fits those requirements.

Energy

Normally energy would not be a category unto itself, but as it has been one of the big topics of recent days, I figure I should deal with it independently. However, to be honest, my approach to energy is the same as my approach to all areas of business. I want to see the governemnt get out of the way. I want to see the end of both restrictions and incentives. In terms of energy this would mean an end to drilling restrictions and any federal prohibitions on building new refineries, nuclear plants, anything. I would also like to see the end of tax breaks for various energy producers. The government should simply allow energy to be produced and sold as any other commodity. That's it. As far as environmental protections are concerned, I would rely on the civil courts, but see below for more on that.

There is one other matter I feel the need to address, the strategic oil reserve. These are intended for military necessities and for use during national emergencies. Lately, however, they have been used int he modern version of the Roman grain dole, with oil being released at election time to buy votes. That needs to end. The strategic reserve needs to be sued strictly for its intended purposes, and not for vote buying. I would favor any president who created an executive order limiting the uses to which the strategic reserve could be put.

Immigration

Immigration seems to have faded from the scene as gasoline becomes more costly, but it is still an issue of tremendous importance. The first reform, and an obvious one, is a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. There is nothing in the amendment itself which demands that anyone born int he US is a citizen, so the courts or congress (as it is allowed to limit the court's scope of review) could say that the amendment provides citizenship only for those born to citizens, or, perhaps, citizens and permanent resident aliens.

After that, I would want a president who was serious about discouraging illegal immigration. Ideally, I would do away with the federal funding of state activities (see below), but while such policies are in place, I would want the president to deny any federal monies to a state where even one locality was de facto or de jure a sanctuary city. Unless the states, cities, counties and incorporated towns were actively involved in checking citizenship status, there should be no federal money distributed to them. Beyond that, ideally the president would use the federal law enforcement apparatus to discourage illegal immigration. Those who employ illegal aliens should be fined a significant amount, enough to discourage hiring. In addition, we need to find a way to discourage career criminals from jumping across the border while committing crimes. I have previously argued for capital punishment for those who commit felonies, or at least violent felonies, and I still think that may be the only punishment severe enough to discourage the gangs which operate across the borders.

Once those problems are settled, I would also want to see a streamlining of the federal immigration process. Not so much the guest worker plans other propose, but an end to the absurd regional quotas we now have. Rather than limiting immigration by nation of origin, I would prefer to see admission based on simple criteria. First, we would obviously want to be able to prohibit immigration by those with infectious diseases, with criminal records, or from hostile nations. I would also want to see curbs on the abuse of asylum, at the very least we should require an immediate hearing to determine whether there is any substance tot he claim. Beyond that, I think we should base immigration on employment, skills and support. If one has sponsors willing to support them, has a job, or fits certain skill profiles, then one should be admitted regardless of national origin. Likewise, if one lacks those things, national quotas should not force one into the nation. It just seems more sensible to take immigrants who will either be supported by family, friends or their own efforts, or who have skills we need, rather than taking a fix number from each nation regardless of their ability to support themselves.

Money

As the mortgage and housing "crises" have been in the news, money is becoming an are of interest again. Of course, this usually takes the form of lending policy debates rather than a discussion of money itself. And I don't expect it to. We have become so used to managed currency that even most conservatives believe the lie that the gold standard failed. So I don't expect to see anything approaching my ideal any time soon, but I still feel the need to describe it.

In a perfect world, the government would say nothing ab out money. Except for defining what it will accept in payment of taxes (probably gold), the government should leave choice of currency to citizens. However, states have managed currency for ages, and the choice of what the state will accept in payment will clearly help determine what citizens use for money, so I would be content were the state to define the dollar as a set amount of gold. They do not have to immediately start minting gold coins, all it would take would be a promise to redeem dollars for gold. That alone would make the dollar the most stable currency on earth.

Of course, I would also want to see the federal government leave the banking business, as well as end the regulation of banking. After defining the dollar, the government should start dismantling the federal reserve system, restoring the function of printing bank notes to the banks themselves. This would end the political manipulation of interest rates, stop the political manipulation of credit, and over time would end the boom-bust cycle that central bank inflation always brings. It would not be a panacea, but it would end a lot of problems that are often blamed wrongly on the free market.

Foreign Policy

Many who promote a libertarian government wrongly think that such a policy requires "non-interventionism", the new PC term for isolationism. I disagree. Just as Jefferson saw the attacks of the Barbary pirates on US shipping as a threat to sovereignty, I argue that a state sanctioned attack on citizens of the US are effectively attacks by those states. And so we are fully justified in defending ourselves not only against explicit attacks, but also attacks by proxies, be they acknowledged by the sponsoring state or not. In addition, I have no problem with preemptive attacks. Were a man to enter your house with a gun, could you shoot him? Or would you have to wait until he aimed at you? Why should a state be held to a higher standard than a home owner? If we are clearly threatened, even if there has not yet been an overtly hostile act, we are justified in acting to remove that threat.

As should be obvious from the preceding, I believe that the ideal president would put the defense of the nation above all else. There are those who argue that a bad government is more of a threat than hostile foreign powers, I would argue the opposite. Tyrants have fallen far more often than occupation forces. Tyrants have armies which may rebel against them, while occupiers have no foes within their own ranks. It is far better to be free of external threats than internal ones. All due apologies to Cicero, but Cataline was less of threat than the Gauls. And despite the flowery rhetoric of late Republicans Marius didn't destroy Rome, Odovacer did.

Abortion

This has yet to become an issue in the present election, which is odd given Obama's rather extreme stand on the Illinois BAIPA, taking a position even NARAL considered a public relations nightmare. Perhaps it will become an issue later. Regardless, as it has been quite an issue ever since the decision was handed down in Roe v Wade, I think that it is an important issue for any presidential candidate.

Having said all that, I doubt my position will please either side, which is why I doubt any presidential candidate will adopt my beliefs. It is my contention that Roe v. Wade, and the preceding decision in Griswold v Connecticut should be reversed. The entire premise that there is some constitutional right to marital privacy should be dismissed.

So far, I am sure the pro-life side would agree with me entirely. However, here I believe I part company with most modern pro-life activists. Having eliminated the marital right to privacy, I would propose that the federal courts stay out of the question. As it was prior to 1973, the question of regulating abortion (as well as birth control, the subject of Griswold) should be handed back to the states.

We have become so used tot he idea that abortion is a federal question that neither side is willing to return the question to the states. Some pro-life proponents pay lip service to states' rights, but only because they know most states are more conservative than the Supreme Court, but they seem to do so only as a stop gap measure until they can establish a conservative majority on the court. Both sides seem to be convinced that the  proper place to decide the abortion question is on the federal level.

On the other hand, I think that abortion is, and should remain, a state question. First, and foremost, because I believe federalism is the proper form of government for the United States (see below). However, even if one does not agree with that belief, there are two practical reasons to leave the question in the hands of the state. First, adopting a single federal solution tends to leave more people unhappy than having 50 different state solutions, and that disappointment makes for a much more acrimonious debate than is necessary. Second, and much more important, whichever side wins the federal debate wins a very insecure victory. As it takes only 5 justices to change course for the entire nation, any victory at a federal level is ephemeral at best.

Now, I will grant that leaving the decision up to the states in unlikely to ever give either side a complete victory, even if there is nationwide movement toward one side or the other, it is likely a few states will remain stalwart champions of the other side. However, in many ways that is a good thing, as, for those who view this question as the preeminent political question have the opportunity to move to a state which matches their beliefs. So, rather than our current situation, where a single nationwide policy leaves huge numbers dissatisfied, having a number of state solutions, ranging across the spectrum of possible answers, is likely to leave most citizens content that their views are represented.

Tort Reform

The question of tort reform, even more than immigration, has been pushed to the back burner by the focus on oil, and, to a lesser degree, defense. However, as a huge drag on our economy, tort reform remains one of  the big political questions of the current age. Now, since I believe that states should control in most matters, I don't think the president should have any real say in tort reform on the state level. However, the federal courts do set the agenda in some areas (such  as class action), so the president does have the chance to set a good example through the policies he sets for the federal judiciary. And, in that limited regard, I think the president should wholeheartedly embrace tort reform.

The first step is the aforementioned class action suit. It was one of the worst ideas introduced in recent ages. By joining together a number of suits which would not have been worthwhile to pursue on their own. Supposedly this was intended to allow lawyers to pursue low level risks, and prevent actions which were harmful but with diffuse harms. However, as everyone has noticed by now, it has allowed nothing but lawyer shakedowns of corporations, with defendants receiving awards under $10, while lawyers collect tens or hundreds of millions. Class action has made us no safer, it has simply been a payday for a certain type of lawyer. My ideal president would eliminate entirely the concept of class action, as well as reforming joinder rules to prevent class action attorneys from reviving class action through the back door by joining cases. If a law suit is not worth pursuing individually, it is not worth pursuing with a million defendants.

The other reform, and the more difficult one, would be to redefine the terms in which we view torts, or, rather to return those terms to their original definitions. It seems simple enough, returning "proximate cause", "reasonable man", "standard of care" and other terms to their former definitions, but with five decades of case law, legal education and legal journal articles struggling to expand those terms, it is going to take a herculean effort to restore the law of torts to its original, much more narrow, limits.

One good first step would be to restore contracts to their old place of prominence. Much modern law is centered on nothing more than preventing the assignment of damages via contract. It is now literally impossible to be certain a contract can protect one from liability. The courts, so eager to use torts as social insurance, spent a lot of effort making sure that contract were no longer binding, especially in the area of liability. It would go a long way toward reforming liability law if we just agreed that contracts were binding once again. If assignments and waivers of liability were binding once again, that would go a long way toward taking the liability lawyers out of our lives and removing the "tort tax" we pay on everything we buy.

Taxes

Taxes have lost their prominence since Huckabee left the race, but tax policy is one area in which the president can have some influence, both through proposing legal reforms and through his executive power and control of the IRS. It is also one of the topic on which I have written extensively before. In this case I have an ideal, and a more realistic solution. I doubt I will ever see the ideal solution, but it is possible the real solution may eventually be enacted.

Ideally, I would like to see us return to the original funding scheme endorsed by the founders, with each state contributing directly to the federal government based on population. This would, first and foremost, make taxation a state question, allowing us 50 different solutions instead of a single, one size fits all, federal solution imposed on the whole nation. It would also end our policy of earmarks and the use of federal funds to bribe states into following federal policies. For example, if the states are directly funding the federal government, the Department of Education will be a dead issue. What state would want to send $100 million to Washington sot hey could get back $75 million from the Department of Education with strings attached? Direct state funding would definitely serve to both downsize the federal government and end earmarks.

However, it seems unlikely the federal government would ever cede their power to directly levy taxes. It would place them too much at the mercy of the states, and since 1865 the federal government has been extremely reluctant to recognize the federal nature of our government. So, if we cannot have direct state funding, then I would propose that a second best choice would be a flat tax, one every dollar earned, with no exemptions and no minimum income. If you earn one dollar, you pay taxes on it. In this way, every working American would be interested in the level of taxation, not just those who earn above a certain limit.

In addition, to make sure that every citizen knew precisely how much they were being taxed, I would want the president to end withholding, and force every citizen to write a check once a year, once a quarter, or even monthly, so they would know precisely how much of their income the government was taking. Nothing could create more impetus for tax reform and a reduction in government than letting the average American realize just how much income they were losing to the state.

For those who are interested, and because I mentioned Huckabee at the start of this essay, I have spent quite a bit of time explaining precisely why I do not endorse the so-called FairTax. Some of my earlier complaints have been addressed by supporters, and I have withdrawn a few complaints, but even without those objections, I still oppose the plan. The best place to start is my essay "Revisiting the Fair Tax", links from there lead to most of my other writing on the topic.

Environmental Law

I don't think anyone needs to ask what my position is on environmental questions, nor what I think the ideal president's view should be. In my mind, the old tort laws of nuisance and trespass were more than adequate to allow recovery for harms done. Beyond individual tort actions, I don't see the need for government involvement. There may be, at times, a requirement for government action to protect public lands or commonly held assets, such as rivers, but those should be either local matters, or handled by interstate compacts, with recourse to federal action only as an absolute last resort. In almost every case, a problem of local pollution is best handled locally.

Nor do I think the government should involve itself in absurdities such as anthropogenic global warming. With the science being far from settled, we don't even know there is a threat, yet the government intends to remove individual property and other rights based on nothing but some unsubstantiated theories which are refuted by as much evidence as they are supported. It would be absurd were it not so frightening.

As I said before, the best path to clean water, clean air, unsullied lands, and long life is wealth. Rich countries don't need as much cultivated land, have better water and air, and generally are more clean and have more land set aside in their natural state. Since most environmental laws make us less wealthy, they actually stand int he way of the benefits wealth brings. Better to drop such laws and let us become rich, as that brings more benefits than environmental laws do.

Trade

The government should, for the most part, stay out of questions of trade, domestic or international, with a few exceptions. In terms of domestic trade, obviously the constitution gives the federal government the duty to remove trade barriers between states, and that is a proper function. Other than that, it can also provide civil courts for settling disputes between citizens of two or more states. But that is about it. All the other functions it has arrogated to itself are not properly the job of the federal government, and should be abandoned.

In terms of international trade, I would prefer the government do nothing, neither to help nor hinder trade. It should not enact tariffs to protect our industries, nor should it subsidize our industries abroad. There are two exceptions I can see. First, in the case of trade which could be detrimental to the nation, for example providing munitions to an enemy during wartime, the government clearly has a duty to stop such acts. Other than that, I believe the sole role of the federal government is the conclusion of treaties which remove trade barriers. I do not believe the government should erect trade barriers, but if it can create agreements with foreign government which would remove obstacles to trade, those are part of the proper function of the government.

Domestic Policy Generally

As I have suggested throughout this essay I would ideally like to see us return to a fully federal system, where the federal government deals only with national defense, foreign relations, and disputes crossing state lines, while the states themselves handled almost everything else. Ideally, I would like to see most questions handled not even at the state level, but at the smallest possible local level, as the fewer people represented, the more responsive government will be.

My personal belief is that each of these states should adopt a minimalist government providing police, criminal courts, civil courts, and nothing else, but I do not believe we should force these rules on the states. I would hope each state would eventually choose to adopt a minimalist government, but the principles of federalism are that the states should be left free to choose their own course, with the best ideas eventually being emulated by other states. So, while I am a believer in minimal government, my federalist beliefs come first.

Then again, on the federal level, I would expect the ideal presidential candidate to follow a minimalist approach, limiting the federal government to a few essential tasks. They would provide a military, diplomats, federal civil courts, and a few federal criminal courts for offenses committed on federal lands as well as immigration questions. That would be it for federal government.

Conclusion

As I said earlier, I never expect a presidential candidate to meet even half of these ideals. Instead they are simply the upper limit against which I measure all candidates. Given our current political climate and the public beliefs, especially their faith in the benevolent power of big government, I don't expect anyone to espouse such a minimalist policy any time soon.

So, I am not presenting these as anything I expect to see made into law, rather I simply wish to make clear the standards against which I am evaluating those running, to make it clear what I mean when I say that one candidate or the other is preferable.

I keep hearing that we just can't kill terrorists in the middle east as they are some sort of organizational hydra and every one we kill will be replaced by two. Worse still, not only is the anti-war left pushing this line, but many on the right are buying into it as well. Rather than emphasize the simple fact that a dead man has never killed anyone, the right is now arguing that democracy building is going to somehow make lions lie down with lambs and make al Qaida cuddle up with the American people. I, on the other hand, have decided to become the vocal proponent of killing as a foreign policy. After all, we never did anything nicer than the Marshall plan, and that did nothing to stop decades of anti-American policy in Europe. On the other hand, we were excessively brutal toward Japan, even in occupation, and they have been friendlier toward the US than any European nation.

Actually, I have some historical support for the "killing" position. If one looks at the Roman empire, especially at Gaul and Spain, you can see a pretty good analogy to modern circumstances. A dispossessed, occupied people with a tendency to form terrorist groups, to stage spontaneous uprisings, and yet, after decades of defeat, both became the heartland of the empire, more Roman than the Romans. Why? Not because Rome was kind to them. They changed because, after decades of brutal defeats, they saw there was simply no advantage in resisting. Every attempt to defeat Rome brought harsh retaliation, and that made it hard to sell anyone on the benefits of another uprising. Without popular support, the uprisings died down and the process of turning Gaul and Spain into Roman territories proceeded.

Nor is Rome the only example, throughout history, the most successful conquests have been nations which were brutally defeated. The Aztecs, for example, were crushed fully and never staged anything approaching a successful revolution. The brutality with which any resistance is met determines the likelihood of another revolt. And, while we do not wish to annex Iraq or Afghanistan, the principle is the same. If we deal with every terrorist or "insurgent" attack brutally, it discourages the next attack, while giving them the kid glove treatment in an attempt to "win hearts and minds" only gives them hope that they can rebel without serious consequences.

Look at this logically. You are a young man, upset that your nation is occupied, and, just to stack the deck in the terrorist's favor, devoutly Islamic. If you are approached by a terrorist recruiter, even with your religious fervor, you are still going to look at local conditions before making your decision. If every revolt is rapidly crushed, the perpetrators defeated and those who supported them rounded up and imprisoned, you are less likely to join than if past revolts have been met with only token resistance.

Even more important, the support network any revolt needs is even more seriously effected by the response of the occupation. If terrorist attacks are treated with leniency, there is no cost for locals to support the terrorists. On the other hand, if supporting terrorists is viewed as a serious crime and people are arrested, even executed, for providing aid and comfort to terrorists, the locals are less likely to provide support, and also less likely to encourage their sons and husbands to join the insurrection. And without the proper support structure, without popular support, it is very hard for terrorists to operate, as they rely on the locals to provide shelter and supplies. Without public support, terrorism is much more difficult.

All of which argues that the conventional wisdom is just wrong. Yes, in the very short term a harsh treatment of terrorists and their supporters may spur recruiting, but soon enough it will have quite the opposite effect, discouraging support and drying up sources of recruiting.

Now, I am not saying we should do nothing to appeal to the better nature of the non-terrorist civilians. I think a carrot can be used as well as a stick. My only argument is with those who say the stick won't work. Even without the carrot, history has shown that the stick alone can work. It may take time, which our instant gratification society won't allow, but it is quite possible to kill enough terrorists and their fellow travelers that terrorism will, for all intents, end. The idea that we can't stop terrorism by killing is just wrong.

POSTSCRIPT

One thing I want to clarify, when I say that we were excessively brutal toward Japan, I do not mean to imply we did anything wrong. I just mean that compared to the treatment we afforded Germany and Italy, we were quite harsh toward Japan. Germany was treated relatively leniently during the occupation, while Japan was much more closely controlled. There were reasons for this difference in treatment, and I do not want to argue those now. My only point was that our more kindly approach toward Europe, even our aid to allies, did not produce kind feelings toward the US, while our occupation of Japan did not engender harsh feelings. All of which goes against the conventional wisdom that a strong and assertive foreign policy only serves to create enemies while open handed treatment makes friends.

One thing the Democrats had going for them throughout the Clinton years was a thoroughly realistic approach to politics. They might not have had much else, but the combination of Clinton's victory through triangulation and the defeat of many overly liberal Democrats in 1994 taught them the value of pragmatism.

The Democrats have, since 1968, been running ever more doctrinaire liberal candidates, at least outside of the south, and it had slowly eroded their power, to the point where they started suffering humiliating defeats at the presidential level. Clinton and the DLC changed all that by demonstrating the need to adopt a more realistic approach to the electorate, a willingness to at least appear to compromise on ideas the liberals held dear. And it worked, at least for Clinton.

After Clinton, the party appears to have reverted to form. Yes, the 2006 race did feature the victory of a number of Democrats who ran right, but other than that, the party has largely reverted to the orthodoxy of the pre-Clinton years, even to the point of driving out successful candidate Joe Lieberman for his deviations from orthodoxy.

The Democrats now want to argue that Obama is a break with this past tradition, saying that he will win because, about campaigning at least, he is a realist, not a dogmatic liberal, but I would argue that he is every bit as out of touch as Kerry or Gore was. And the evidence is there if anyone wants to look.

First, look at the way Hillary was handled. At first, the Obama campaign just assumed they would defeat her, and did nothing. Even when the Wright scandal broke, they did nothing. Relying on the fact that his speech sold well to people who shared their beliefs, Obama assumed he would suffer no fallout. And so, when Hillary started to win primaries, the campaign went into panic mode. Then, far too late, once Hillary was showing some momentum, they pulled strings and the party forced an early decision by the super delegates, effectively driving Hillary out of the race.

But this came far too late. It came at a point when Hillary was already showing momentum, when it appeared that Obama was starting to slip. It looke dlike what it was, an effort to prevent a challenger from muddying the waters at the convention with a newfound momentum against a damaged candidate. And as such, it brought a completely foreseeable backlash.

And, once again, the Obama campaign reacted like the old-fashioned doctrinaire liberals. Rather than dealing with the reality that they had offended a considerable segment of voters, they blamed the other party. They pretended, and still do, that the PUMAs and others were just a product of Republican "dirty tricks" and that no real Democrat insurrection was taking place. That is, once again, rather than face a problem, they simply denied it exists.

Nor is that the only case of the campaign denying a problem rather than facing it. You can see it in all the statements from Democrat pundits. Rather than face Obama's slipping numbers, rather than try to understand the forces that might be making voters reconsider their choice, they ascribe it all to racism. Even completely valid concerns, such as his lack of experience, or his association with dubious characters and black separatist ministers are written off as cover for racism. Rather than asking why voters are concerned and trying to deal with it, the campaign appears to be trying to attack voters, to say "if you think I'm inexperienced, well YOU'RE racist!" It is a tactic which has very little chance of succeeding.

Even in areas where the campaign succeeds, they still show this lack of realism. For example, Obam was doing relatively well at dodging questions about Billy Ayers. Admittedly, a big part was the fact that the media ran interference for him, refusing to even mention Ayers, but it also was a topic which just never found traction. Unlike Wright or Pfleger, outside of the right wing, the Ayers issue never took off. Obama could have very successfully just ignored this issue.

However, when Obama opponents tried to buy air time to promote this issue, instead of simply letting them waste time and money pushing charges about which the public seemed unconcerned, Obama started attacking the promoters, blanketing the stations with protest calls and letters and generally using his political clout to bully the media into ignoring it. And in doing so, he created a situation which could be used to completely destroy his image as a positive, above the boards "different kind of politician."

And that is the way Obama resembles the more traditional and less successful Democrats of old. He refuses to face the fact that his own party may not be completely behind him, refuses to face the fact that the public at large doesn't agree with him, and yet will spare no expense in fighting any open criticism of himself, even when fighting it does more damage than simply letting it pass him by. It is a strange mix of pride and detachment from reality, but it is one we have seen often. A desire to destroy one's recognized opponents coupled with an inability to see that one's supporters may not be as numerous as imagined.

It is a recipe that has led to disaster many times, and likely will again.

During the run up to Obama's VP announcement, a huge number of pundits were pulling for Warner, arguing that Warner could "deliver Virginia". After Biden was announced, the focus switched, and Kaine made his famous statement that Biden could still help with Virginia as Delaware borders [sic] Virginia.

My question is, what is with all of this focus on Virginia? It isn't as if they were talking about Texas California or New York or Florida. It isn't even Pennsylvania or Ohio. Virginia is a little bigger than Indiana. So, why all this focus on Virginia? Do the Democrats really think they have all the big states locked up so tight that they can focus on picking up states with electoral counts in the teens? If that si the case, they may want to check their figures, because it looks to me like the Hillary defectors and blue collar Democrats might be putting a few formerly safe states back into play (NY? NJ? Maybe even CA if Obama loses the Hispanic vote.)

The only thing I can figure is that Virginia is lose to DC, so the pundits are familiar with the state, and it has bounced back and forth between Demcorat and Republican. So, thanks to proximity tot he pundits and its fluctuating alleigance, the pundits see it as a "battleground state", and think it has more importance than it really does.

I know that every state counts, but, in reality, Virginia is a smallish state, even among the states still up for grabs. Ohio is a much alrger prize in the undecided column, and even Michigan is bigger. It seems a strange pick for a candidate looking to a VP to deliver a specific state. Aiming to put Virginia in the win column seems like setting your sights pretty low.

Anyone else have any idea why there was so much focus on what is, at best, a lesse rlight among the second tier states, at least in terms of electors? I don't have a clue.

I wrote before that to truly replace all our energy needs with solar energy we would need to cover an area equal to California's surface area with collectors. Obviously this would have pretty serious environmental impact. But today I have a different questions.

If we set up massive solar farms, even if they aren't all in one massive block but instead in various smaller patches, I have to ask, what would be the effect on the climate? Most global warming, including the warming that makes the earth habitable, is due to heat being radiated back from the earth. However, if most or all of the sunlight is being used to generate electricity, it shouldn't warm the earth, thus there would be less heat to re-radiated. Also, as most solar collectors have reflective covers, I would think they would increase surface albedo significantly, again reducing the heat absorbed by the surface. So, shouldn't all of this have some rather significant cooling effects on the earth's atmosphere?

Admittedly, since most seem worried about "runaway global warming", this may not be a concern, but for those of us not convinced Al Gore is the third coming (Obama being the second coming, of course), increasing albedo significantly, as well as reducing the warming of the surface may have some negative consequences.

But even ignoring the question of global temperature, might there not be some pretty severe climate changes in terms of weather patterns from covering square mile after square mile with collectors? As tornadoes and other severe weather can be caused by significant differences in surface temperature, wouldn't the edges of these solar farms be prime candidates for spawning tornadoes?

I only ask because it seems that fear over one problem ("greenhouse gasses") has caused people to ignore the other  problems their solution might cause. Of course, since they tend to underestimate to an absurd degree the number of solar collectors they will need, they may not even realize that they will need to cover huge tracts of land with panels. But, when you look at the efficiency of collectors, the relatively low energy density of solar energy and the truly massive energy usage of the US (29,000 TWh in 2005), there is now ay to escape the realization that moving to an entirely "green" energy infrastructure will mean environmental impacts as great as any current strip mining or oil drilling as well as climate change.

Which brings me to my point. The green movement seems to believe if we just give up evil hydrocarbons and adopt "renewable" resources all will be sweetness and light and there will be no problems. The truth is, so long as man lives, as long as he acts, there will be an environmental impact. Unless they are willing to go back to stone age existence, scratching a living as hunter gatherers, man will have a "disparate environmental impact". Technology and large populations means environmental change. Some environmental thinkers seem to realize this, and have thus adopted a strong anti-human stand. I give them credit for consistency, if nothing else. But the run of the mill environmentalist is deluded if he thinks we can continue to live as we do by simply shifting from oil and coal to solar panels. The covering of the west coast with panels will cause environmental damage to put West Virginia strip mining to shame.

POSTSCRIPT

Just to be clear, I do not propose returning to the stone age. I do not believe that "environmental impact" is bad. Man survives by changing the environment, and as I am firmly on the side of humanity, I just cannot worry about nebulous fears over environmental "impacts". Yes, we can sometimes take actions that end up harming us, but much less often than most environmentalists suggest, and wealth and technology make that less likely, not more. So, rather than slow technology and stop human progress, I prefer to allow unfettered growth sot hat our wealth and knowledge will enable us to better deal with unforeseen consequences.

For those who doubt the benefits of technology and wealth, simply look at the water quality of the US versus the former Warsaw Pact nations. Our wealth and technology, along with property rights and legal protections, allowed us to not only surpass the USSR in wealth, but to do so with nowhere near the pollution they endured.

UPDATE

I realized this morning that my comment on increased albedo was not clear. The fact is that perfectly maintained collectors, absorbing solar energy would have low albedo. However, they are usually encased in glass, which, when dirty, works as a good reflector and increases albedo. In addition, dust, grit, and other matter outside the glass, while not reflective, would also increase albedo greatly.

Admittedly, such dirt would need to be cleaned to get the best performance out of collectors, but I am betting that at any given moment there would be quite a few collectors in need of cleaning, increasing albedo significantly. (If not, it would simply fail to reflect light, but that light, being converted to electricity, would not warm the earth to be re-radiated, so it still would not warm the atmosphere.)

There is another problem entirely if we assume that, for maximum efficiency, the collectors are designed to follow the sun. The problem arises from the number of collectors which greatly increases the likelihood some will be improperly aligned. In that case, the sun striking the non-collector surfaces, probably metallic, would increase albedo as well, in addition to greatly decreasing efficiency.

Just wanted to clarify that so that it wouldn't appear I was saying black collector panels had a high albedo.

Normally, on Saturdays I post some excuse about a trip keeping me from posting. Today I have no such stories. As Julian is suffering from a nasty ear infection, we stayed close to home today.

So, I am sure some are wondering, why no posts, then? The answer is simple.

A certain young someone hijacked my computer to watch trains and dump trucks on youtube.



He has kindly allowed me a few minutes to write a message explaining all this, but is even now demanding more movies, so I am afraid it will be some time before I can put up any more substantive posts.