Posted by
Andrews on Monday, September 01, 2008 2:26:49 PM
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.