Introduction
In August of 2015, after watching the first Republican primary debate while making snide comments on Facebook, I promised to write something substantive about politics. Since I have a habit of turning small tasks into big projects that I then don’t finish, it was both not surprising and very surprising that the result of that promise was this document, an in-depth review of all my political beliefs at the time, to be added to and amended as my beliefs evolved. Those additions/amendments can be found in other posts in this category. The following is presented without significant editing or commentary.
August 21, 2015
The Issues (from isidewith.com, because otherwise I’d just be rambling. There’s a fair amount of rambling anyway.)
Abortion: In general, I’m against absolutist laws that inevitably lead to someone making a decision that is either legal, but unjust, or just, but illegal. Given the many circumstances under which someone might feel the need to terminate a pregnancy, making abortion illegal is illogical. That being said, it’s important that supporting the right to get an abortion also means supporting standardized sex ed, increased availability of birth control, and services to help advise those considering an abortion, as well as help them handle the difficulties, both psychological and practical, associated with either decision. Also, “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” are stupid terms that no one should ever use ever. How can we have a reasoned discourse when even stating your position amounts to propaganda-levels of linguistic manipulation?
Same-sex marriage: Well, the court’s ruled, so this isn’t really an issue anymore. Technically. But for the record, yes I support same-sex marriage. Because obviously. If marriage were just a religious rite then atheists couldn’t get married. It’s a legal contract that carries many legal, social, and economic benefits, and should therefore be available to all citizens. Because, again, obviously.
Should a business, based on religious beliefs, be able to deny service to a customer? DID YOU KNOW THAT? Back in the old days (like, Middle Ages, I think?) Catholics, whose religion prohibited them from handling financial transactions, were like, “Hey, let’s make the Jews do it, they’re going to hell anyway!” And that’s why there’s a stereotype about Jews and money. NOW YOU KNOW! If your religion prohibits making pizzas, don’t make pizzas. There are plenty of other people willing to make pizzas. If it doesn’t, and you’re making pizzas, and someone asks for the pizza, and is prepared to provide the appropriate monetary compensation, YOU SELL THEM THE PIZZA BECAUSE THAT’S YOUR JOB. You’re not supporting anything by selling someone a pizza except your own livelihood. This isn’t a political issue, this is just common sense.
Should the government require health insurance companies to provide free birth control? Any question that’s “Should the government require [private business] to [do something they aren’t already required to do]?” is pretty loaded, and I’m woefully uneducated on how health insurance works. But, to paraphrase Dan Harmon, privatizing something that everybody needs generally seems like a bad idea. So I guess I’m in favor of government health care, in which case yeah providing free birth control would be fine. But as it is this gets into complexities I don’t know enough about, not to mention would probably never happen in the current system and political climate.
Should the U.S. remove references to God from currency, federal buildings, national monuments and other aspects of government? Yes. It’s misleading, unnecessary, exclusionary, irrational — it’s just plain silly. Obviously, there are practical considerations, both logistic and economic, but I’m in favor of some form of this idea. (See also: my rant on currency design.)
Should the federal government allow the death penalty? I won a debate in my sophomore English class arguing against the death penalty. If I remember correctly, it costs more than a regular prison sentence, there’s evidence that lethal injection is not actually “humane,” an alarming percentage of those given the death penalty were either innocent or received a much harsher sentence than others convicted of the same crime, and finally, there’s a fine line between justice and retribution, and the death penalty pole-vaults over that line.
Should terminally ill patients be able to end their lives via assisted suicide? If a disease is so debilitating as to prevent someone from engaging in the activities, mental and physical, that they would otherwise be engaging in, and the disease is incurable, then it makes sense for this to be an option, but should obviously be undertaken after exhaustive consideration. On the other hand, there is the “Death with Dignity” argument that advocates assisted suicide even before the disease has a debilitating effect, in order to avoid the associated suffering, or the associated mental deterioration, which might affect a person’s ability to consent to assisted suicide, even if they had expressed a wish for it previously. This is another one where I’m undecided on the specifics, but generally, yes.
Should the federal government allow states to fly the confederate flag? My initial response to this question was yes. The Confederate battle flag is unquestionably a symbol of racial hatred and the states flying it should listen to the criticism of the nation, including and especially people within those states, and take the flags down immediately. But for the federal government to get involved would be, I thought, an unjustifiable violation of states’ rights. However, the flag isn’t just a symbol of racial hatred — it’s a symbol of treason. The very existence of the flag advocates for an armed uprising against the federal government. So yeah, maybe they do have the right to make the states take it down. They still shouldn’t though. That will just turn the state governments into martyrs and give them an excuse to fight for the flag. They need to made to make the decision themselves, or it won’t stick.
Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent global warming? I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the question. Are there actually reasonable regulations that could prevent global warming? Like, short of banning all gas-fueled cars? The best we can hope for is probably to slow it down enough to give us time to invent terraforming technology. And I doubt that’ll work either. That being said, I think the government should increase environmental regulations in order to prevent immediate negative effects on health and the economy (an economy geared toward sustainability is ultimately more sustainable).
Should National Parks continue to be preserved and protected by the federal government? Yes. I like parks.
Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources? No. Stop spending time and money coming up with more ways of sucking all the oil out of every square inch of earth and invest in sustainable energy.
Should the United States require labelling of genetically engineered foods? No. Such labelling encourages irrational stigmatization, just as organic labelling encourages irrational preference.
Should the U.S. expand offshore drilling? No. See fracking.
Should the federal government continue to give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry? Sure, why not.
Should employers be required to pay men and women, who perform the same work, the same salary? Yes, because fairness and also screw capitalism. That being said, I think they’d have to be very careful about how the go about regulating this. Even if it’s done perfectly there are gonna people crying foul, and if even one of them has a valid complaint, it could ruin it for everyone.
Should able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare be required to work? WHAT THE FUDGECICLES? No, for french fries sake, no. Who decides they’re “able-bodied” and “mentally capable?” How do you keep track? What counts as work? Even if you just say they need to be looking for work, what qualifies as looking for work? This would be such a misguided waste of resources. Focus on creating jobs and making life actually affordable.
Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? NO.
Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? Yes. Because obviously.
Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? I’m sure there are efficiency improvements that could be made in all areas, but there are definitely resources being spent in, say, military/intelligence operations that could be much more easily cut. Also taxes. Raise ‘em on the rich, fix loopholes.
Should the U.S. reduce corporate income tax rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAno. Unless they can prove that it’s the difference between net loss and breaking even / profit.
Should Wall Street executives be criminally charged for their roles in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis? They should’ve been, but the statute of limitations has run out, so at this point it would be illegal. There was actually a Supreme Court case in which the SEC argued that the time limit should start at the moment of discovery, not of perpetration, as has been granted in some cases. However, the Court decided that that rule is intended to protect parties who have no reason to expect fraud, whereas the role of the SEC is to root out fraud. An interesting read. (I’ll admit I just skimmed the syllabus, but hey, it’s there if you want it.)
Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? I really have no idea, but in general the right to collective bargaining seems essential to protect workers from exploitation.
Should the federal government subsidize U.S. farmers? In some form, probably. But there are a lot of problems with this too. Like when you have a gigantic surplus of corn. And obviously there are farms that probably don’t need the subsidies. Ugh, I just hate the economy. It’s so stupid.
Should pension plans for federal, state and local government workers be transitioned into private plans? I…I don’t even know. This doesn’t seem like the most important issue at the moment.
Would you favor an increased sales tax in order to reduce property taxes? Man, these are getting really specific. If it actually doesn’t represent the owner’s ability to pay, then I guess yes?
Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? No. I’m not necessarily against it. But I don’t support it. Trade is better than war, but trade deals conducted in secret are bad. Apparently there a provisions for setting standards for labor and environmental laws, but according to Sanders it would be “dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws” (which, given the secrecy of the deal, I’m not sure how he can prove). It’s also exporting the U.S.’s ridiculous copyright restrictions. Also Doctors Without Borders is against it? And a Nobel laureate economist? And bipartisan dissent in Congress? Yeah, this thing actually sounds pretty bad.
Guns: [The following is basically just a series of statements in no particular order. Also there’s a bit about nuclear proliferation.] No guns. Just stop it with the guns. They’re not defensive, they’re not a heritage you should be proud of, they’re not collectors’ items, they’re weapons designed to take a life. That’s it. And there’s no reason for EVERYBODY TO HAVE ONE. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is NOT LETTING HIM GET A GUN. Nobody wins an arms race. It’s just more and more killing until eventually someone has a button that ends the world and if you think no one’s going to press that button then what’s the point having it and if someone will, someday, press that button, HOW ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? A sword is a defensive weapon. If someone attacks with a sword, the average swordsman can block it with their sword and disarm them without either of them suffering serious injury. With guns, the only option for an average marksman is to seriously injure or kill the other person. That’s it. There are members of the United States Congress who say that we need to protect gun rights in order to preserve our ability to have AN ARMED UPRISING against THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT THE EVERLOVING FRENCH VANILLA? You can’t just reset the government and start from the most recent backup. Not to mention DRONES AND MISSILES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. At some point don’t we have to decide to commit to this whole democratic republic thing? Just stop it. Stop it.
Should there be term limits set for members of Congress? Yes. You know second-term Obama? Imagine what a whole bunch of second-term Senators and Representatives could get done.
Should internet service providers be allowed to prioritize traffic for websites that pay higher rates than their competitors? No. Just no. (I seem to be running out of words.)
Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use? I just had this idea, so I haven’t thought it through, but what about decriminalizing drug use while still criminalizing selling narcotics? As well as getting rid of mandatory minimums and reducing sentences for those already convicted. ‘Cause the fact is some drugs are very bad and there should some way of addressing that without taking it out on the people already victimized by drug use.
Should the NSA be allowed to collect basic metadata of citizen’s phone calls such as numbers, timestamps, and call durations? Basically the only provision protecting privacy in the Constitution is the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) which was mainly intended to keep the government from confiscating property as political retribution (in case you didn’t know, the Constitution is all about property rights. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness is the right to own property and profit from it. Yay, capitalism.) That being said, the Supreme Court has twisted itself in knots to justify privacy rights, and so as it stands there are circumstances in which we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and phone calls, as well as records of those calls, would seem to qualify for that. Therefore, the NSA should not be allowed to surveil calls without a warrant. (Also, just to be clear, I’m glad the SCOTUS says we have a right to privacy. That’s really really good. It’s just that the reasoning behind it, in terms of legal analysis, is tenuous at best.)
Should corporations and unions be permitted to fund advertisements backing political candidates through political action committees (Super PACS)? Money + politics = bad. Campaign fundraising does nothing for the actual running of the government, so let’s maybe not worry too much about protecting it. Also political advertisements are almost (or) always lies and/or equivocations.
Do you support the Patriot act? I don’t support anything that tries to manipulate people by calling itself the “Patriot,” “Freedom,” “Red, White, and Blue Hot Dogs and Apple Pie”, etc. Act. I demand reasoned, honest rhetoric, not overzealous, reactionary, un-Constitutional policies disguised with smarmy appeals to emotions. So that would be a no. Furthermore: Security should never strive to be absolute. The only way to be absolutely safe on the internet is to not use it; the only way to be absolutely safe in the world is to not interact with it. Rather, security should strive for reasonable safety. Internet analogy: warning about known phishing sites, pop-up blockers, spam filters, not downloading files from LimeWire (I feel like there’s an analogy here between the outdated media economy and the U.S.’s role in destabilizing the Middle East, but I’m not sure what it is, and that’s not really the point); world analogy: I admit I don’t really know much about national security, but any standard security measure (i.e. on the books, does not need to be clumsily denied by White House Press Secretary) that has, on a regular basis, prevented a security failure probably counts. So basically nothing under the Patriot Act. What I’m saying is post-911 we’ve entered into a perpetual State of Emergency when the reasonable response would’ve been “Man, we’ve had some pretty harmless plane hijackings in the past, but that one was really bad. Guess we should tighten up our plane security, [which we have, and while some of these measures are demonstrably pointless, hey, no more plane hijackings.] Sorry folks, plane travel will be slightly less free-range, but at least we’re not collecting all your data and imprisoning/torturing/assassinating you without due process or any sort of accountability or oversight.”
Do you support affirmative action programs? Yes. My suspicion is that affirmative action has not had nearly as drastic an effect as opponents would claim, and that, should it be stopped, there would be significant negative effects. Some quick Googling turned up this study from 2012 which looked at states that had banned affirmative action and found that there was a decrease in the representation of students of color in both undergraduate and graduate programs. It also highlights the fact that minority enrollment was already unrepresentative of the general population. Seems pretty legit. I would also say that any school that does not have scholarships for first-generation students (i.e. those who are the first in their family to go to college) should institute such a scholarship immediately. Also tuition is too damn high and screw you and your new football stadium. The future of our species should not be a capitalist enterprise.
Should the redrawing of Congressional districts be controlled by an independent, non-partisan commission? That’s an improvement, but not necessarily the ideal solution. Here’s a video to explain. Personally, I’m in favor of either the random solution or representationally accurate gerrymandering. Anything in between seems faulty.
Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? No. See question about cuts to public spending.
Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Yes. The chart in this article shows that in 2010 the U.S. was ranked 11th overall in healthcare, and 11th in cost-related problems with access, but spent more than twice as much as the U.K., which was ranked 1st overall and 1st in cost. So clearly we need to change something, and the ACA seems to be an improvement, especially in trying to control prices. However, I would propose adopting the Swiss system, which, while ranked slightly (or, in a few categories, significantly) lower than the U.K., is closer to the U.S. system, and would therefore be less of a drastic shift in policy. (Interestingly, the U.S. was also 11th in the “Healthy Lives” category, while the U.K. was 10th.)
Do you support the legalization of Marijuana? Yes. You can’t justify criminalizing marijuana while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
Should the federal government increase funding of health care for low income individuals (Medicaid)? Yes. See above for more on healthcare.
(Side Note: Why are there only two education questions? This is ridiculous.) Would you support increasing taxes on the rich in order to reduce interest rates for student loans? Yes. Education = the future, although The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act doesn’t seem like the best way to do it. Seems like you could just take, like, 2% of the income of those who earn over 1 million a year, instead of this weird 30% for between 1 and 2 million thing.
Do you support the adoption of Common Core national educational standards? In theory, yes. In practice, there is too much emphasis on test scores and not enough emphasis on kids actually learning. But without a national standard, certain places *coughtexascough* won’t be teaching evolution in science classes. And that would be a problem.
Should the government decrease military spending? Yes, but not in a way that endangers soldiers.
Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights? I mean, the constitution applies to U.S. citizens. So technically, no. But, assuming we finally got rid of the Patriot Act, anyone we haven’t officially declared war on should have to be proven to have committed an act of terror in order to count as an enemy combatant. Anyone proven to be involved in terrorism without actually committing a violent act should be tried in a real court by a real judge, assuming the country they’re in has an extradition agreement with us. Relatedly, drone warfare kills innocent civilians and makes everyone hate us, and enhanced interrogation doesn’t work. So we should probably stop doing that.
Should the U.S. formally declare war on ISIS? I don’t understand why it’s even necessary to do that, the Patriot Act gives the President essentially unlimited power in “the war on terror,” so I’m pretty sure he can already do whatever he wants. But yeah, probably a bad idea.
Should the U.S. maintain a presence at the United Nations? Yes. Why wouldn’t we?
Should the U.S. continue to support Israel? The U.S. should respect long-standing alliances, but the current Israeli government clearly does not have the world’s, the U.S.’s, or even its own people’s best interests at heart.
Should the U.S. conduct targeted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities? This question is a bit outdated now, but even before the Iran deal my answer would be no.
Should the military fly drones over foreign countries to gain intelligence and kill suspected terrorists? Intelligence, maybe, as long we are either at war with or have the cooperation of their government. Killing, again, only if they are officially enemy combatants and there is no chance of error or collateral damage. And just to be clear, I am generally opposed to war. But these questions take war as a premise, so that’s how I’m answering them.
Do you support President Obama’s recent move to lift the trade and travel embargo on Cuba? Yes. ‘Cause why not?
Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies? No, but perhaps we should pick our allies better.
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized health care? So apparently a lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes. Anyone who’s paying taxes should have access to the services the taxes help pay for. For those that don’t, I mean, technically no, but I don’t that should really be a priority enforcement-wise.
Do you support stronger measures to increase our border security? Anything short of the Great of Wall of Trump will just make the border more dangerous, not impervious. The only deterrent effect it’ll have is to kill more people on the way over. So that’s clearly not where we need to be investing our time. See also: the question about the Patriot Act.
Should immigrants to the U.S. be required to learn English? No, and fuck you, if you’ll pardon my French.
Should children of illegal immigrants be given citizenship? Yes, and maybe have like a temporary Dependents Visa or something for the parents. (Side note: Why is this the question in which they decide to bury the “Yes, and abolish all national borders” answer? Wouldn’t that make more sense in the border security question? Also, if you abolish all national borders, isn’t that essentially the same as abolishing nations? So then what’s the meaning of citizenship? Or do they just mean abolish border security, and just have a Welcome to the U.S. of A. sign? And why is my “side note” longer than my actual answer?)
Should illegal immigrants be offered in-state tuition rates at public colleges within their residing state? Yes ‘cause education.
Should illegal immigrants working in the U.S. be granted temporary amnesty? Yes, taxes = rights. (The proposed plan, according the site, would only extend amnesty to workers willing to pay taxes.)
Should law enforcement be allowed to detain illegal immigrants for minor crimes so that federal immigration authorities can take custody of them? Only if they’re convicted or suspected of a violent crime.
The System, etc.
This section is significantly less organized than the first, since there’s no convenient questionnaire about the fundamental design of our political system. I’ll try to organize it around subtopics as much as possible.
Political Discourse: Every time you make broad, sweeping, dramatic statements about the people ostensibly on the “other side” of the political spectrum, zombie Hitler tap-dances on the grave of Abraham Lincoln and the terrorists win. Seriously though, those are other human beings, many of whom have legitimate points of view and valuable contributions to make to the conversation. Yes, there are some individuals who clearly hold their set-in-stone ideology or lust for political power more dear than actually governing a country made up of millions of nuanced individuals and trying to improve the lot of American citizens and the human race (and some organizations that are more interested in propagandizing a warped, un-nuanced worldview, or placing themselves in opposition to what they see as a warped, un-nuanced worldview in others, than actually engaging in a conversation and exploring the many complexities of modern life). But I’d bet you that those people are actually not the majority. If you actually sat down and talked with someone you see as being the enemy, and told each your stories and your reasons for believing what you believe (rather than focusing on why they’re wrong, or worse, why they’re Hitler), I’d bet you’d both come away with a much different view of each other, and maybe even some changed beliefs. Basically, just stop calling everyone you disagree with Hitler. You’re making things worse.
Political Parties: The main reason why our political discourse is so hyperbolic is because almost everyone is essentially forced to choose one of two camps: Democrat or Republican, aka Liberal or Conservative, aka Left or Right. Here are some reasons why that’s the stinkiest, highest, most destructive pile of BS ever perpetrated on civilized society. First, the names. Democrat and Republican? We live in a democratic republic, so what the heck do those names mean? Or are they maybe just intended to create artificial division? Liberal or Conservative? While some people would like you to believe that these are mutually exclusive, the fact is it takes a bit of both to make a reasonable government. Which is why the Constitution grants the government powers (and, more importantly, responsibilities) in certain areas, and places limitations on it others. The problems we face today are both those of the government failing in its responsibilities, and those of the government exceeding its limitations. And Left or Right? That just doesn’t make sense, and since there’s a historic bias against left-handed people (not to mention right = correct), I’m kind of suspicious of this construction. Not to mention none of these (with the possible exception of Left and Right?) have meant the same thing throughout their usage. Remember that Lincoln was a Republican who opposed the free market utilization of slavery as well as the privatization of the banks. And at one point it was the Democratic party that stood in the way of Civil Rights. What is Conservative about banning abortion? What’s Liberal about political correctness (keeping in mind that free speech is a civil liberty, and the ACLU has defended the KKK. Yeah, this one’s a bit of a stretch, but I couldn’t think of a better example.)? So the names makes no sense, and are clearly just tools to maintain permanent opposition. Not only that, but we weren’t even supposed to have parties in the first place. In the Federalist Papers, one of the authors (for what it’s worth, one of my professors thinks it’s Madison) describes a system comprised not of two parties or even many parties, but rather coalitions formed around each specific issue. For example, Rand Paul and I would be in opposing coalitions on guns, but in the same coalition on national security. This would mean that what we now call bipartisanship and view as a rare and admirable thing would be inherent to the system. If you’re arguing with someone on one issue, but you know you’re going to have to work with them on another issue (because, without parties, there is no political advantage to be gained by not working with them), then you’re much less likely to vilify them, and more likely to engage with them in reasoned argument.
Anarchy vs. Government: Human history seems to reject anarchy, and human progress seems to have often been tied to government. So I’m going with government.
This XKCD Comic Deserves Its Own Section: Basically, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you’re trying to control how other people live, you’d best be prepared to defend your beliefs with well-reasoned arguments and evidence.
Some quotes from John Cage’s A Year From Monday:
“My idea was that if they wanted to fight (human nature and all that), they should do it in the Antarctic, rest of us gambling on daily outcome: proceeds for world welfare. Instead they’re cooperating down there, exchanging dates, being friendly.” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 1965”
“City planning’s obsolete. What’s needed is global planning so Earth may stop stepping like octopus on its own feet.” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 1965”
“War will not be group conflict: it’ll be murder, pure and simple, individually conceived.” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 1965”
“Principles? Then all’s intolerable. No principles (which doesn’t mean we fail to become furious). So? We swim, drowning now and then.” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 1965”
“Get rid of copyright (this text is copyright).” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 1965”
“We’ve the right, [Buckminster] Fuller explains, to object to slavery, segregation, etc… we’ve not yet the right to object to war: first we must design, then implement, means for making the world’s resources the possession of all men.” – “Diary: How To Improve The World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) Continued 1966”
Certain of Eventual Failure 