I hadn't really noticed until now, but I was just thinking about Ron Paul today, and I realized that we have heard almost nothing, not only about Paul, but also about the horde of third party candidates the media was theorizing could play spoiler to one party or the other. After being mentioned so prominently in the media, how did the third party candidates become so suddenly invisible?

I think there are three reasons. 

First, the media coverage of Obama, the orgy of Obama stories, has simply sucked all the air out of the room. Once you allow for the pittance of time they allow McCain, there is simply no time left for McKinney, Nader, Barr, or any of the others. Without even a hint of media time, they have simply dropped off the radar. It may not please those who support he idea of a third party, but when the press doesn't spend time covering third party contenders, even if they cover them just as a curiosity, the public forgets about the third parties entirely.

Second, Obama  has managed to make this race much more personal than most. Granted, the Republicans and Democrats, as well as the press, always turn the election into a two horse race (with a few exceptions, such as the first Perot run), but this race is an extreme example. As Obama is running on personality more than anything else, he has to turn the race into a contest between his personality and McCain's. As he effectively controls the press, that means press coverage has been cast entirely in terms of a battle between two individuals. Nor is it likely to change. With the Democrats trying to win by defining McCain as a clone of Bush, the focus on a struggle between two personalities will only intensify, so there will be little incentive for the press or the candidates to muddy the water by bringing in third party candidates.

Finally, Obama himself has covered so many positions, has vacillated so much, that he has left little ground for a third party to stake out as uniquely their own. He has been both pro and anti war, pro and anti NAFTA, pro and anti almost anything you can name. When one of the major party candidates has already taken all your positions it is hard for a third party candidacy to get any traction.

And on the right, where the third parties had a bit more hope thanks to the conservative distaste for McCain, the third parties have not fared much better, though for different reasons. Partly, the anti-McCain movement has flagged. While in the abstract many were willing to see an Obama presidency to uphold their principles, once they came to know Obama they realized that it was not worth enduring four years of the man to "send a message". However, even more than the fear of Obama, the third party candidates did themselves in. They not only opposed McCain but adopted a very specific view of what a conservative was, including a very strong opposition to war in Iraq and to military intervention in general. And, while a handful of disgruntled Paul supporters may have concurred, most conservatives upset with McCain were not isolationists, which made them unwilling to side with what they perceived as candidates weak on defense. A pro-war conservative third party may not have done much better, as the fear of Obama would have still robbed it of support, but it surely would have more appeal than the Libertarian and Constitutional parties.

And so we have heard almost nothing about the few Quixotic characters running for president alongside the big two. I am sure some will find this troublesome, maybe even a threat to "real democracy". The people who complain about the two parties having a "monopoly on political offices" will certainly be unhappy, but I can't get too upset. America has given three parties a try several times, and every time we have returned to our two party system. And, having seen how the coalition building of multi-party systems works, I can't say I find it too displeasing. Yes, the two parties often don't cover the whole range of political views, but that can be a good thing, introducing a bit of moderation and compromise is not always to be disdained. Often that very centrist tendency, disappointing as it may be, also keeps us from following excessive passions and enacting very bad ideas into law. As a brake on our excesses, the two party system seems to have served us well.

Not that I oppose the third party candidates. More power tot hem, let them run as often a t hey want. I just don't shed many tears over the fact that everyone, except the candidates themselves, is well aware that they are never going to get close to winning.

I suppose I should start by admitting I did not watch the speech itself, so I am working off transcripts. Then again, as I am criticizing one specific promise, rather than the theme, the tone, the delivery, or anything else which requires first hand observation, I suppose that doesn't matter.

What troubled me in Obama's speech was his promise to, essentially, soak the corporations while cutting taxes for that nebulous favorite of Democrats, the "working families".

Now, I would normally mention that after Clinton, does anyone really believe that the designation "working families" describes them? When Clinton decreed anyone making over $50,000 per year was "rich" I thought it ruined that Democrat ploy for all future elections, but judging by the way Democrats continue to eat this up, I suppose they haven't caught on that phrases such as "the middle class", "working families", "the rich" and "the poor" are infinitely malleable, and their use should make any promise immediately suspect. Kind of like any promise that ends "as much as I am able" should warn you that the other party intends to weasel out, anyone limiting their cuts to "the middle class" or "working families" should tell everyone that the cut will help maybe two or three dozen families meeting very narrow criteria.

However, I have covered that ground before, so I will drop it for now, instead I will ask just two questions raised by Obama's promises.
 
First, who does he think employs these "working families"? And who does he expect will employ them after he finishes taxing the corporations out of business? But maybe I answered my own question. He can promise extensive tax cuts as, after eh destroys the corporations, no "working families" will have any income to tax, making tax cuts irrelevant.

Second, and more importantly, how can Obama continue to claim, with a straight face, that he is a "different politician", and a "uniter"? He is promising exactly the same things promised by the left wing of the Democrat party since time immemorial. More taxes on companies, more government involvement, government "investment" in things they think good, taxes on things they think bad, basically the over expansive, massively intrusive government the Democrats have been promising for decades. What is new about it?

More than that, as he is not just promising the same Democrat agenda, but the agenda of the left wing of the Democrats, what conceivably could be called "uniting" about his policy? If he were a more centrist Democrat, perhaps I could buy it. But he is not only not promising anything that would appeal to the other side of the aisle, he is proposing things which would not appeal tot he right wing of his own party either. If he can't even claim to be appealing to the whole of his party, how is he possibly going to unite Washington? With his winning smile?

I'm sorry, but except for being black, Obama is just another Al Gore, another John Kerry, another Jimmy Carter, another Walter Mondale. He is your standard far left Demcorat, and he has never been anything but a far elft Demcorat. He is not a uniter, he is a doctrinaire politician who is not above using legal procedure and abusive legal and mob tactics to silence his critics.He not only isn't a uniter, he is a Chicago machine politician in the worst senses of that term.

Far form being a uniter who is bringing something new to politics, he is more of the same. And worse yet, he is more of the same from the most extreme wing of his party. Nor does he have any other reason to be called a uniter. Perhaps, somehow, a political extremist could become a unifying figure, but Obama shows no hint of this. In his history there is no record of bipartisan actions, of his compromising with the other side, of his moderating his views. He has been a down the line extreme liberal, and shows every sign he will be one if elected president.

So, why do we continue to hear that he is a uniter? That he is not like other politicians? What sign is there that there is even a tiny hint of truth in either assertion?

In listening to the news coverage of McCain's pick of running mate, all I hear is how her lack of a Y chromosome will change the race. For me, that really isn't an issue. I could not care less if he picked a man , woman, hermaphrodite or someone who reproduces asexually. I know this is the age of identity politics, but could we please focus on something other than her reproductive organs for a moment?

What is interesting about McCain's pick, which would have been true as well had he picked Jindall, is that the McCain ticket is the only ticket that has any executive experience. Obama's ticket is a pair of legislators, who have been nothing but legislators, while McCain's ticket now contains someone with real experience in filling an executive position.

Admittedly, Palin does not have that much experience, but I doubt Obama wants to bring that up, as her executive experience may be small, but it is the same length of experience he has had in national politics, so calling her inexperienced would be a bad tactic.

Of course, it will probably be weeks before anyone else notices this fact, as everyone seems fascinated with the fact that she is not a man.

I saw the most idiotic criticism to date to come out of Obama's mouth, and that is quite a claim.

Obama was reported as saying that McCain picked the mayor of a town of 9000, which shows how little foreign policy experience matters to McCain. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but McCain himself has been a senator almost as long as Obama has been alive, so I think he brings quite a bit of experience, including foreign policy experience. Which means maybe he isn't as dependent as Obama on finding a running mate who knows what the protocol for meeting an ambassador is.

Then again, Obama is trying to sell himself as having extensive foreign policy experience because he lived in Indonesia as a kid.

Sorry, but that is like the girl in high school who spent a summer in Europe and came back wearing berets, speaking with a fake accent and trying to smoke thin black cigarettes, but stifling coughs whenever she accidentally inhaled. (Or maybe, more to the point, Madonna speaking with a fake accent because she married Guy Richie.) Living in Indonesia doesn't give you experience in diplomatic negotiations, or else Indonesia would be a foreign policy powerhouse, as they have millions of candidates who lived in Indonesia.

Yes, Obama did pick Biden. Biden who told us the surge wasn't working, who proposed sending money to (non-Arab) Iran to show the Arab world we loved them. Whose foreign policy experience amounts to plagiarizing the words and Welsh accent of UK politicians.

So, what is Obama saying? That the cut and run VP and the presidential candidate who lived abroad are so much superior to a senator with decades of experience and the governor of Alaska? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

POSTSCRIPT

Obama may not realize it, but Inuit tribes are treated as foreign nations, so Palin actually had extensive experiences dealing with sovereign nations, more so than any executive except the president himself and possibly the governor of Oklahoma. It isn't the same as dealing with Russia, but I think negotiating with sovereign Inuit tribes is a lot more foreign policy experience than trying to get a date to the Indonesian equivalent of the junior prom is.

The Democrats have long been the party of identity politics, the theory that one's sex, race, sexual orientation, nation of origin, and so on are more important than individual political beliefs. It is a philosophy which effectively eliminates the individual in politics and replaces him with the group. We can see this in many Democrat policies, such a quotas for hiring and school admissions. It may not help any individual black or Hispanic that some other black is admitted to college, but since that black or Hispanic "represents" the group, he is to take it as a victory. Likewise, individual white men, regardless of their personal merits, are to be excluded from college as their group has been "over represented". It is not their individual guilt that keeps them out, but the collective guilt of their group.

Such a political philosophy is nothing but a recipe for perpetual strife. While the politicians and academics may be satisfied with seeing things in terms of groups, the truth is individuals still want to see success come to them, rather than their group. However, by tying all success or failure to the group, an individual can only win if his group wins. So he will fight tooth and nail to get as many advantages for his group so that some may eventually come to him.

For example, if college admissions are based on percentages in the population, only a set number number of blacks will be admitted to college. If any individual black wishes to get into college, it is best for him if his group is over represented, so he has to argue that his group, for whatever reason, deserves extra representation. In that way he has a better chance of admissions.

But it should be obvious why this leads to nothing but strife. If the black block manages to get extra representation it comes at the expense of some other group. And the members of those other groups will fight just as forcefully to keep their own representation and get more as well. So, as a result, this group identity ends up resulting in nothing but endless, bitter pressure group warfare.

And we can see this in a current event. When the Democrat party demanded super delegates declare their votes in advance of the convention, effectively forcing Hillary Clinton from the race, it was quite a blow to feminists. Seeing the race in group identity terms, the feminists were hurt by this choice. It was as if the party said to them "women, you can be president one day, but right now the blacks deserve it more than you, so please wait." It is that act, the party effectively placing the interest of blacks over that of women, that drove so many into the McCain block, or at least convinced them not to vote. It is also that reason which explains why Hillary's endorsement has not served to quiet the anti-Obama movement among Democrats.

Of course, the party, for the most part, was not really saying anything of the kind. They were not telling women to wait and let the blacks have their turn. The party was thinking only in terms of winning elections. Unlike the doctrine they have publicly promoted, seeing everything in terms of race, sex, class, and so on, seeing everyone as an exemplar of a group, the Democrats were acting as if they believed in individuals and thought Obama the individual a better candidate than the individual Hillary.

But you can't espouse a policy for decades and then suddenly abandon it without paying a price. And the price may be the presidency. Having taught their members to see everything as an expression of group identity, the party cannot now exempt themselves. If every employment action has to be reviewed for discrimination, every college admission ahs to meet elaborate criteria of race, sex, and nationality, then so does the party's choice of nominee.

Having so long bullied the private sector, the government, and everyone else they could, using charges of racism and sexism to push their agenda, it is just so very fitting that the Democrats may now lose their surefire presidential victory because they failed to take these same questions into account when forcing a decision in the primaries.

I don't normally bother to catch such announcements, but I happened to be watching TV when it was interrupted, so I caught McCain's speech announcing Palin as his VP pick.

I have to say I am happy about this. I was pushing Jindall, but Palin isn't a bad pick. I am happy that he avoided the pundits' advice to pick Romney, and I am equally glad he didn't pander tot eh social conservatives with Huckabee. Huckabee is pretty much a big government type who is only conservative because of his religion, while Romney is a nice right-center type, but is only considered conservative because of the very liberal lot of Republicans against which he was running. So Palin isn't a bad pick.

I think the fact that she is a woman won;'t really be much of an issue either way. Admittedly some won't want a female VP, but those same people probably don't want a black president either, so I think that will be a wash. On the other hand, any die hard feminists who would vote for him just because he nominated a woman were probably already so upset by Hilary's ouster that they were on McCain's side anyway. So her sex really won't be much of an issue either pro or con.

Other than that, I really don't have much of a reaction. She is certainly a better choice than Biden. But beyond that, time will tell. I am sure there are already Democrats digging for any dirt they can find, so I will have to wait and see what emerges over the next few days.

My only other comment is that McCain did have one nice turn of phrase in his speech. Despite some boilerplate pro-union stuff I could have done without, he had one nice Reaganesque sound bite saying he wants "government on your side not in your way" (I may have slightly misphrased it), which is obviously a trial balloon for a new motto*.

I do hope that motto takes off, as not only does it have a nice Reagan ring to it, it is a nice description of policy. Admittedly, like any slogan it can be interpreted different ways. It could apply to everything form laissez-faire to the nanny state, but I hope those supporting McCain will realize the "on your side" half is secondary to the half of "not in your way".

Well, we will have to see on that as well. It is a nice slogan, and, rightly understood, could be a quite effective summary of his principles. I only hope that he sticks to those principles, and that he understands that slogan the same way I do.

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

* I admit I don't follow the campaign PR, so maybe it has already been established as a slogan and I simply missed it. If so, my mistake.

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

UPDATE

Obviously there are some problems with Palin, but there are problems with almost everyone. She has supported state owned enterprises in Alaska, which is a tiny bit troubling, and has a strong belief  in anthropogenic global warming. Then again, a lot of otherwise decent conservatives seem to have bought into that bizarre belief, so if I dismiss every potential candidate who has done anything other than openly deny AGW I would be left with few choices.

I still think Jindall would be a better pick, a more consistent conservative, but on the other hand it may be to his advantage to get more executive experience before running. Also, as some conservatives still harbor so much anger toward McCain, he may benefit from being a bit distant from him.

And in the worst case, Jindall will have to wait 16 years to run, which at his age is not that long. He could serve as governor for several years then either go back to private life or try for a senate seat, or a cabinet post. It wouldn't hurt him at all to get more government experience before making a presidential run.

In any case, Palin does have some negatives, but fewer than Romney who many thought the best choice, so I don't think she will do any harm to the campaign. And considering the marginal role the VP plays in reality, I don't really care that much who either candidate nominates. Unless the president dies, or the senate is evenly split between the two parties, the VP's role could be filled quite effectively by a well trained golden retriever.

So I don't find that much of interest in the VP pick. Other than sending a message about what is important to each candidate, it isn't something I  consider a make-or-break moment for a candidate.

It appears that the Democrats have put all their eggs in one basket. Having found over the last month or two that Obamania only works on the left, that triangulation to win over the center alienates the core Obama supporters, they have tried one last time to find a winning formula and struck upon the idea of equating George Bush and John McCain. It may not seem like  a bad tactic, as the Democrats' greatest strength is Bush's low approval rating, but there is one problem.

No one believes it.

Let us divide the public into two groups, those who follow politics and those who don't. It is a bit of an arbitrary division, but it helps to understand why this strategy must fail.

First, let's look at the politically astute. They have seen McCain pop up for years, always in the role of "maverick", often bedeviling the Bush administration with his tendency to side with moderate Democrats. Whether McCain-Feingold or the Gang of 14, he has been a thorn in the side of the Bush administration. More than that, he has been in the words of many Democrats "the one Republican [they] can stand". That hardly sounds like the reincarnation of George Bush. Even with his attempts to woo back conservatives he is still a far different man from George Bush and those who follow politics simply cannot honestly believe his administration would in any way resemble that of Bush.

And what of those who don't follow politics? Who may catch some headline on the news but can't identify Dick Cheney from a photo and have never heard of Karl Rove? To these people, McCain is the McCain of the media, the maverick who crosses party lines to do good deeds. At least that was the story of the media until Obama came along. For years, the public at large has been fed media stories of Saint John who broke with the Bush administration to support "common sense" Democrat proposals. He was a media darling.

And suddenly, the same press is telling the public he is exactly the same as George Bush, the man with whom he broke so often? They are expected to suddenly see this saint as a sinner?

Stalin might have been able to recast Trotsky as a villain, and Napoleon may have done it to Snowball, but I don't think Dan Rather can do it to John McCain. Unlike Trotsky and Snowball, McCain still has a voice, and can easily remind the people of what the media said not so long ago. He can even point out the hypocrisy of those who endorsed him in January calling for his head in August. It is a powerful argument that those who are criticizing you now said the opposite less than a year ago, especially when the only thing that changed was their nominee.

The media is about to learn that it is hard to rewrite history when the victim is still alive and available to dispute your claims.  And if the media cannot sell this line, it is unlikely the Democrats can. Yes, the faithful will repeat it, some might even believe it, but the public at large doesn't buy into contradictory messages that readily.

I really have no idea why reporters pay so much attention to the convention of either party. Has anything unexpected happened at any convention in recent memory? With the parties both dedicated to eliminating any sort of brokered convention, and committed to never repeating the spectacle of 1968, the conventions have become stage managed affairs devoid of any surprises. The Catholic mass is more spontaneous than modern conventions.

Nor does the convention really reveal anything new. We all know well in advance what the party platform will be, who will speak, even what they will say. There is simply nothing unexpected at any convention. The only point of any interest at any convention is to find out who is speaking, to learn who is the new up and comer in the party, as well as discover who is in and who is out with the party elite, but we know that well in advance. By the time of the convention there is simply nothing left to learn.

Then again, perhaps I am not the target audience. I am a political junkie, but I am not one for spectacle and formality. So perhaps there is an appeal here I am missing, but if there is no one has let me in on the secret yet. To me it all appears to be one very long, and particularly anemic campaign commercial, and that just doesn't hold much appeal for me.

I wrote before that the problem with solar energy is that it is a diffuse energy source. When that is combined with our relatively poor efficiency in harnessing even the diffuse flow of solar energy, this requires we cover massive areas with solar collectors just to accomplish simple tasks. (The example in my earlier essay was that it would take an area equal to the State of California to provide for our energy consumption in 2005.)

Now National Geographic provides me with a perfect example. Bertrand Piccard hopes to fly a solar powered plane. This one man flier will be powered entirely by solar energy, storing excess in batteries for times when he cannot get full solar exposure. But, even with battery storage, the flight requires, in the words of the reporter "precise flying and top-notch meteorologists." In other words, this solar plane will only be able to fly during optimal conditions.

Still, it is solar, right? So the prototype may not be able to fly at night, or during inclement weather, but during good weather, at least, we can fly without pollution. So what is the problem?

Well, here is the problem, one I could have easily predicted. This single man plane, one which still can only fly during optimal conditions, guess how large the wingspan is. Go on... 200 Feet. As large as the wingspan of a Boeing 747-400.

Now, I grant the body and batteries are a big part of that mass. But it takes 200 feet of wings to lift a single passenger. Even if we assume that adding another passenger won't double the size, it still adds to the load, requiring more energy, and adding more cells adds more weight too, requiring still more energy, which requires more cells, and so on. So to lift what even a Piper Cub could lift we would require a plane bigger than anything flying today.

You have to marvel at a technology which can only work during optimal weather, which requires more space than existing technology, which tries to harness an energy source massively more diffuse than that currently used, which even when fully mature will still require huge machines to accomplish what small devices do today, while that technology's proponents whine about being ignored.
 
If we want to save energy, why not go back to zeppelins? They were smaller than these solar behemoths and required only a fraction of the fuel a jet requires. Using helium rather than hydrogen we could build a safe rigid body airships. So, why the press for solar?

Let's face it, solar vehicles, for all the press they get, are still little more than toys, and will remain so for some time, regardless of how much the government "invests" in them. The diffuse nature of solar energy ensures that. Unless you want a one passenger car the size of a tractor trailer (but without a trunk, as that whole space is just filled with collectors and batteries), you are not going to be happy with any solar solutions.

POSTSCRIPT

No, I am not pressing for airships, I am simply saying that, if the environmental movement wants to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, airships would require much less fuel and still accomplish air travel more efficiently than these absurd solar planes. As airships use their motors only for horizontal propulsion and downward momentum, they do not require all the fuel planes burn generating lift, so they are much more fuel efficient. It seem a natural for the environmental movement, but I have not yet heard even one of them propose it.

Disclosure: I have to admit, I find airships attractive. They are inefficient in terms fo what the public wants from air travel, but the idea of basically taking a cruise in the sky is appealing. So I have a selfish motive in pressing the environmentalists to rediscover the concept. I doubt it will work, and airships are too slow to really replace commercial air travel, but I can still dream. (And if I can finally get something good out of the environmental movement, that would possibly redeem them somewhat in my eyes.)

A comment on my blog mentioned that the presidential race will largely be decided by the turnout of those under 35. I don't know if I agree entirely, as I think it may be too simplistic to attribute the majority of the under 35 vote to Obama. He clearly has a large number of supporters in the college age group, but I think some at the high end of the under 35 group are the strongest Republican supporters, as they are just beginning to earn real money and are appreciative of the tax breaks they saw under Bush, while being old enough to recall the taxes under Clinton.  True this description better fits the 35 to 45 group, but there is still a strong Republican presense in the under 35 bracket.

However, let us for the moment grant that there is a block of young voters who clearly support Obama, and that we can create some age below which one is much more likely to vote for Obama than not. Whether it is 35 or 30 or 25 doesn't matter. We can simply call it the "youth vote" and leave it at that.

Wherever this youth vote may begin and end, I do agree with my commenter that it will be, if not decisive, at least quite important in November. I know I earlier made fun of Obama for making a major production of his plan to "go after the youth vote", laughing at the attempt to generate so much enthusiasm over a plan that has been the standard Democrat agenda since 18 year olds got the vote, but that does not mean the youth vote will not be important.

Now, in the past, the youth vote has been far from decisive. As I pointed out before, the Democrats thought giving 18 year olds the vote would nto only favor their party, but favor the liberal wing of their party. In reality, due to quite low turn out among the 18-21 year old block, not only have the Democrats not seen impressive gains, but they have lost more races than they won since 18 years olds have been eligible to vote, and even those they won were often won by moderate to conservative Demcorats (eg. Clinton) rather than the more liberal candidates.

However, Obama could make a difference here. He has definitely created excitement among young supporters. I don't want to over emphasize this, as Howard Dean could claim the same, yet it did him little good in his primary run, so excitement alone may not be enough. But if Obama can translate youth support into votes, he could give himself a boost in the election.

On the other hand, even if Obama manages to get out the youth vote, there are two toher factors working against him.

First, his attempts at triangulation to win the independents hurt him mroe among the young than any other group. While more jaded, older voters may take his triangulation, especially moderating his stand on Iraq, as necessary political compromise, the young tend to be both more idealistic and less willing to compromise. To them he is selling out. And we have seen this in the angry comments appearing all over the internet during Obama's first efforts at appealing to the center.

This leaves him with two options. He can return to his solidly left wing position in an attempt to hold on to confirmed support, which risks betting on a youth vote which may not materialize, or he can run to the center and risk alienating a youth vote he may need alter on. It is a tough decision, and one he does not appear to have completely decided yet. From recent remarks he appears to be favoring a slightly more left-leaning position, but, as Obama tends to favor rather vague statements on policy it is hard to tell yet.

His bigger problem may be his success at winning over the media. So far, despite some negative polls and other signs of eroding support, the media is still presenting Obama's victory as a near certainty, and that may harm him. The youth vote he needs for a victory is fickle, if they feel their votes are not needed, it is quite possible they will not show up. And it does not help that, rather than Demcorats, they are instead Obama supporters. Were they Democrats, even if Obama was a certain victor, they might come out to vote in races fartehr down the ticket. But as Obama supporters only, they have little interest in congressional or local races, so the thought that Obama has the race sewn up may be enough to keep them home, which could easily cost Obama his victory.

Of course, I have said many times that I believe Obama will not do well in November, that he is facing a bigger defeat than most suspect. However, as some have expressed skepticism, I figured I would explain just one of the reasons I believe as I do, and this is it. I think between the impossibility of holding on to both the center and his young supporters and the problem of media confidence dissuading youth votes, he is not going to see the number of young voters he anticipates.

But we will see in November.

Here is a simple question, or rather a few simple questions.

If you could get rich by harming others, would you? If you could make money by betraying your nation would you? If you worked for a company which told you to commit a crime, would you? If you owned a company and could make a fortune by doing something immoral or illegal, or by bringing harm to many others, would you do so?

And finally, do you think most of your fellow citizens are morally inferior to you?

The reason I ask is the same reason I wrote earlier about conspiracy theories about arms dealers. It seems we have recently been plagued by conspiracy theories in the political arena. As in the 1970's it seems oil shortages and rising prices have allowed the conspiratorial minded to leave the political fringes and peddle their wares in the open. We are now beset with tales of oil speculators, unused drilling leases, and a whole host of sinister plots to profit at the expense of the average citizen.

And that is why I asked those opening questions. The point being, if you would not commit crimes to make money, and you would not do so if asked by your employer, why do you assume many of your fellow citizens would? Every one of these conspiracy theories require hundreds even thousands of co-conspirators, all willing to harm others for money.

But if you said you wouldn't do it why do you think your fellows would? Do you really think you are that morally superior to them?

And if not, then how do you explain this belief in conspiracies? I know the way they are phrased hides it. They talk of "international arms dealers", "multinational corporations", "big oil", but the truth is their theory is that a lot of average citizens are willing to inflict untold horrors on others in order to get a few dollars. There is no such thing as a "corporation" independent of the mass of individuals who work for them. The CEO may want to nuke Cleveland to get a rebuilding contract, but he has to get people to go along with him, and that is where the conspiracy theory breaks down.

I just do not believe the average citizen is evil enough to believe the theories being peddled. And, when asked directly about individual people, rather than about big evil corporations, most people agree. It is only the hazy, vague terminology of the conspiratorial that allows the theories to have even a hint of credibility.

So, let us say it clearly: People allege that John who lives next door is planning to kill Iraqis so that his retirement package has a few hundred extra dollars in it, while Jim on the other side of the house is burying toxic waste under your kids' school so he doesn't have to pay for disposal, while hiring your son-in-law, the ex-marine, to kill news reporters who find out about it.

It sounds much less plausible when you put it in those terms, does it not?

I think a recent statement at the Democrat convention is telling. Mark Warner said:

If you can send a job to Bangalore, India, you sure as heck can send one to Danville, Va., and Flint, Mich., and Scranton, Pa., and Peoria, Ill. In a global economy, you shouldn't have to leave your home town to find a world-class job.

Think about this. Not the first part, about outsourcing, I have already written about the absurdity of protectionist efforts to keep all our jobs at home, so I will leave that alone. Though I would note that the difference in capital investment, and thus productivity and wages, makes it quite different to hire workers in Bangalore and Flint. I would also point out that unionization, OSHA, environmental laws, and a lot of other Democrat initiatives make labor in Bangalore a lot more appealing in terms of costs and legal liability.

But enough about a topic I said I would not mention.

What is absurd is the second part, the idea that everyone should be able to find a "world class job" in their home town. Exactly how could anyone guarantee this? And even if it existed, how could the Democrats promise you would keep it?

Unless they are actually campaigning against economic development, are promising that they will prevent companies from moving as the economy dictates, they can't. However, since they continue to whine about companies losing jobs and closing down plants,I have to assume that is exactly what they are promising, not just top notch dream jobs wherever you happen to live, but such jobs in perpetuity, in the same location, regardless of economic or demographic changes. Which leaves me with three possible explanations for their statement:

Fist, they are lying, and this is all campaign rhetoric to sucker in the gullible.

Second, they oppose any economic progress and will ensure every job remains where it is forever, economic consequences be damned.

Third, they really are the Marxists everyone alleges, and since they will be taking over the entire economy, they will be able to locate jobs wherever they like.

Sadly, there is no best choice among those, as far as I can tell. I think the first is most likely, but I am not ruling out the other two. But it really troubles me that, regardless of which is true, it really makes no difference, my opinion is as low regardless of which one they really meant.

I was reading a new blog today, when I ran across a very common mistake. The author, a dedicated liberal, raised the familiar objection that conservatism is founded on "19th century ideas". Not only is this a familiar complaint against conservatism, but it is raised against a number of other theories. For example, when the gold standard is mentioned one will often hear it maligned as a 19th century idea.

My question is this: What does age have to do with validity? Why should an old argument be considered less true than a new one?

The problem, I think, comes from an essential misunderstanding of how science works. It is true that science builds upon old ideas to establish new truths, and that sometimes the new truths prove old beliefs false, but that does not in any way show that new ideas are better than old. For example, the theory of the aether, the medium through which light travels was established some time later than the theory of the conservation of momentum, yet the aether has been proved false, while the conservation of momentum is still true.

Of course, we could argue the opposite just as easily. For example, Newton's mechanics was modified by Einstein's transformations, though Newton is still close enough to the truth at speeds not approaching that of light. Likewise older models of the atom have been disproved by newer models. But that does not hold in every case. Sometimes newer theories are true, sometimes older.

And that is my point. There is no clear correlation between age and truth or falsehood. Old theories can be true, so can new, there is no relation between the two.

But there is another issue here which does not apply in most of the physical sciences. Social sciences, being interested in human nature are reflective. Yes, we now conduct experiments, but, for the most part, human nature can be divined through thought alone, and does not require complex experiments, elaborate tools, or even difficult mathematics. So, while in the physical science we have been limited in diving the nature of the universe by our tools, both physical and mathematical, in the social sciences, we have been able to examine human nature just as well as long as we have possessed the language to do so. Aristotle's insights into human nature are just as valid, maybe more so, than the best psychological researcher of today.

And that is true of politics, economics, philosophy, all the sciences which interest themselves with human nature and the interaction of man.

If Ovid or Dostoyevsky or Rumi or Saint Augustine can have insight into man equal to any thinker today, why does it matter when a theory was developed? Has human nature changed since the 19th century? Have we started to interact in ways we did not during the 19th century? (And, no technology does not really change the way we interact, just the medium.) So, if man is the same, and we do the same things, why do we dismiss theories based on no more than their age?

The reason is simple, it is the age old argument of liberals, not heard so often any more, that liberalism is "scientific" while conservatism is old fashioned and primitive. While they no longer explicitly say it, this still is behind a lot of liberal thought, and this absurd theory, which I have dealt with elsewhere (and here as well), is part of why they so readily dismiss conservatives as "stodgy" and "behind the times", and why they see "old" as a sufficient argument.

However, the truth does not care when it is discovered, and, once discovered, it does not get any younger. So, unless you are willing to give truth a shelf life, and say a truth, once discovered eventually spoils and needs to be discovered again, at some point all truths will be "old".  The only way to avoid "old" truths is never to discover any at all, otherwise, after they are found, all truths will eventually become old.

I keep hearing from commentators that if Obama is elected it will prove we have overcome our racist past. But have we?

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that we have made great strides in eliminating racism. Likewise, I believe, except for government racism, it is not the job of the government to cure racism. Instead, it is the role of the individual to overcome their own racism and to encourage those around them. The government should limit its actions to eliminating official, governmental racism only, and leave the rest, racism in business, in private organizations, and in individuals to those individuals and the marketplace to cure.

But my question is somewhat different. My thought is this, the very fact that we see Obama as a symbol of having overcome racism means that we still think too much about race.

Let me put it this way. If a man named Karl Hess ran for president no one would mention that he was German. They would have at one time, but we no longer think of German as an ethnicity unless it relates to someone actually born in Germany. Likewise, if Martin O'Malley (G-d forbid!) ran for president, neither his Irish heritage nor his (presumably) Catholic faith would be an issue. It once was, back when Kennedy ran for president, but now that sort of concern seems quaint to us. We no longer think it reasonable to ask if a Catholic candidate's first loyalty is to the pope*.

Not so with black candidates. We have not yet reached the point where Obama could truly run a non-racial campaign**. But, the funny part is, it is not because of those who oppose blacks holding public office. True there remain individuals who will oppose him because of his race, but they rarely say so in public. The public mention of anti-black racism is no longer an issue in American politics.

What makes America's racial issues interesting is that they are kept alive by the minorities and those who champion their cause. We don't hear that Obama is ineligible because he is black, instead we hear endless sermons about how wonderful it is that a black man is going to be president. We don't hear people talk about keeping blacks out of universities, instead we are bombarded with claims that we need more blacks in universities.

In other words, the interesting thing about American racial issues is that the issue of race is kept alive not by those who support racist views, but by those who claim to want to end racism.

Ironically, if they were serious about ending the fixation on race, the best thing they could do would be to shut up about it, as they are keeping race an issue more than any other group. But, as should be obvious, they are not serious. The minority groups themselves don't want to end the talk of racism, as it brings them very real benefits. Likewise, the champions of minorities don't want to end it, as race talk garners them valuable voting blocks.

 Now, I am not saying that if the left stopped obsessing on race all racism would vanish. I know there are individuals who see things in terms of race, and they would still exist. But if we stopped asking for race on forms, voting for the black candidate, or forming congressional black caucuses, if we did not lend credence to La Raza and the NAACP and JACL, if we ended all the efforts to end racism, most of America would be willing to ignore race completely. And, after a time, that would make black and Hispanic and Asian as irrelevant as German or Irish or Catholic are today. There might still be a few racist cranks, but they would be taken as seriously as we take people today who malign Germans for their ancestry.

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

* There are doubtless some who would ask this, but I think they would probably be seen as cranks by the vast majority of Americans.

** Of course, in terms of Obama's campaign, he is as guilty as anyone of making race an issue. While he said publicly he was not going to use race, his website contained several copies of mail form constituents and supporters promoting his role as a "racial healer". As his campaign chose what to display on the site, he was responsible for making race an issue, though he chose to do it rather deceptively, by using his supporters to make his point rather than making it himself.

I was watching the Third (or sixth, if you count chronologically) Star Wars movie tonight, when I was struck by a line. Actually it was a line which struck me when I first saw it as well, but I had since forgotten about it. When the movie came out many mentioned the apparently anti-Bush themes running through it, and even mentioned some of the specific lines which struck me. However, tonight it was not the anti-Bush nature of the line which stood out to me, but the sheer illogic of it.

The line is this: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." To which the logical response would be "Absolutes such as 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes'?"

Obviously, there is a problem here. And it is not just a problem with the fictional Jedi morality, but with many modern movements as well. As the Jedi's belief system (at least in the three most recent movies) is basically George Lucas' muddled version of modern fuzzy-headed ethical relativism, it is no wonder that it would share problems with modern ethical beliefs, but it is surprising that he would inadvertently write a line which so clearly points out the problem of those beliefs.

And the problem is simply this: One cannot establish a system of ethics on the concept of being non-judgmental.

Now, many will argue with me. They will say that America itself is founded on the very premise of not passing judgment on others. They will say that tolerance and acceptance are clearly possible in an ethical system. They will say that failing to denigrate others is a high ethical value.

And they are right. (With the exception of that last one.) But none of those are non-judgmental positions. The problem is, they are confusing the tolerance of other beliefs with the modern theory of ethical relativism, and the two are not the same. In fact, not only are they not the same, but, taken literally, ethical relativism has no place for tolerance.

Allow me to explain.

Modern relativism is not the same as tolerance, nor has it much to do with the historical religious toleration upon which America was founded. Our historical tolerance was based on the simple premise that every individual is entitled to believe what he wishes, as he may be right and others wrong. However, this belief, that a man can believe what he wants, is a very limited one. The government is constrained from telling any man what he must believe. That's it. No one else has to accept his beliefs, no one is forced to treat his beliefs with respect, no one is constrained from mocking or ridiculing him. He is simply free of government coercion in the realm of personal beliefs.

That is miles away from the modern belief of ethical relativism and the attendant doctrine of multicultural understanding which follows from it. The modern belief is that not only should we tolerate others' beliefs, but we cannot truly say that any belief is better or worse than another. Where in the past alternate beliefs were tolerate because one may prove true and another false, the modern doctrine says there is no true or false, that all beliefs are of equal value.

From this belief that nothing is true or false when it comes to cultural, ethical, or religious beliefs, the liberals have developed another doctrine,t he so-called multicultural approach, which argues that being free of government compulsion is not enough, that private compulsion can also stop one from expressing his beliefs, so we should not only tolerate others' beliefs, but should be prohibited form criticizing or mocking them.

Of course, the problem should be obvious to anyone. Just as with that quote above "Only a Sith deals in absolutes", the problem is that many cultures include beliefs that denigrate other cultures. So, if I come from a culture which believes I should oppress women or belittle homosexuals, the question arises whether I should forgo my cultural beliefs in order to make homosexuals and women feel good, or should homosexuals' and women's beliefs be subjugated to my culture's beliefs? We can see this clearly with the whole Mohammed cartoon issue. The rights of those who drew the cartoons were considered less important than the rights of the Moslems not to be offended.

And that is the end result of multiculturalism, not a tolerant, pluralist society, but pressure group warfare. The truly tolerant, accepting groups get nothing out of it. Instead, the groups which make the most extreme demands, those which seek exceptions for their cultural beliefs, get to control the debate and impose their will. In the end, the groups with the most extreme, intolerant beliefs can effectively impose their culture upon the majority.

And that is how multiculturalism differs from traditional tolerance. Tolerance, as the founders understood it, demanded only freedom from government oppression. No culture could impose its beliefs on another. Modern multiculturalism demands we not "offend" anyone, and that, in essence, means that cultures can impose on others their idea of what is offensive. And, as we have seen, the more extreme the culture, the more things they find offensive, the more control they have over society at large, until, in the end, the most easily offended end up setting the terms of the debate, and eventually come to control what is an is not acceptable in society as a whole.

And so, a belief system that supposedly promoted tolerance comes, in the end, to do exactly the opposite, subjugating everyone to whichever belief system proves the least tolerant and most oppressive.

POSTSCRIPT

It amuses me to think that in college I used to mock ethical relativism by saying "Making value judgments is wrong". What makes this amusing is that Lucas' line "only Sith deal in absolutes" is essentially the same type of contradictory argument, but played straight. Why could I see the logical error in that sentence when I was only 18, while George Lucas, clearly a clever fellow, can't quite see the problem in an absolute stand against absolutes?

Then again, the cultural and ethical relativists don't see the problem with judging people for being judgmental, so perhaps it is harder to see than I realize.

POSTSCRIPT II

Even without the insistence we not offend anyone, ethical relativism is destined to fail. Without a common system of ethics there is nothing to stop those espousing an essentially amoral system from exploiting those who are held to higher standards. Applied consistently, absolute ethical relativism is nothing but a call universal amorality. So with or without multicultural pseudo-tolerance, there is nothing good that can come of ethical relativism.