The Pro-Life Movement

Recently (May 31, 2009) a man shot and killed George Tiller in the midst of a church service. Tiller was one of the few doctors in America that performed partial birth abortions and he was also consistently in the center of the abortion debate. Because Tiller was such a high-profile person in the abortion services community, and he was shot dead in a church, there has been a lot of media attention paid to the event. This attention has revealed something very telling about the current pro-life movement – we are failing miserably.

Before justifying such a claim I want to state some of my background assumptions via a quick argument seeking to establish that both Tiller’s killing and abortions are immoral. I will then explain why I think the pro-life movement is failing. Finally, I will conclude by presenting the strategy that I think the pro-life movement should endorse and demonstrate what that strategy looks like in action by arguing for the truth of some of the premises in the following argument.

1. Personhood begins at conception. That means from the earliest stage of pregnancy we are dealing with a human person and should treat him or her accordingly.
2. The unjustified killing of a human person is morally wrong.
3. Almost all abortions are instances of unjustifiably killing a human person.
4. Therefore, almost all abortions are morally wrong.

Though this is slightly off topic, I should point out that according to the above argument the killing of George Tiller was morally wrong. I am perfectly content with such a view since I take all instances of vigilantism as being morally inappropriate. On my view, killing Tiller is not just morally wrong but also pragmatically wrong. If one wants to see abortion more highly restricted (or eliminated altogether), killing abortionists won’t help that matter. If anything, it makes it more unlikely.

With the above argument in mind, I want to describe why I think the pro-life movement is failing and what should be done to correct it. First, why it is failing. I take as a representative sample of media coverage a recent column on the BBC News website (Anti-abortion and violence in the US). In this column, author Nick Triggle notes what he takes to be the general tenor of the abortion debate in the US. First he notes that quite-popular President Obama “was heckled by anti-abortion activists over his decision earlier this year to lift restrictions on funding for abortion.” He then notes that such heckling and protests are quite common in the US and its commonplace is, at least, partly attributable to the “hundreds of religious stations across the country.” He continues, “the level of involvement of religious groups” is vastly different in the US than in the UK. Finally, and most tellingly, he says “With half the US population regular church-goers, everything from sexual abstinence and euthanasia campaigns to the abortion debate has been dominated by religious groups.”

Now I don’t have a problem with Triggle’s article. In fact, I think his analysis is spot on. What I do have a problem with is that the pro-life movement has allowed itself to be branded as a religious movement. If you go to any number of websites that have reported on Tiller’s killing and look at just a few of the comments you’ll see a frequent theme. You’ll see many pro-choice supporters accusing “pro-lifers” as being close-minded and trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of America. Sadly, the responses by those same pro-lifers support such an idea.

But don’t get me wrong; I am proud that most people in the pro-life movement are Christians. That religious groups are the primary reason this is still an issue in America today is a good thing. That means we are still fighting for the oppressed and willing to defend the defenseless. However, we do not live in a world that accepts our authority as their authority. Religious groups cannot make a religious argument to convince the world that abortion is morally wrong. We must give them arguments with premises that they can accept on their own terms. We can’t allow the fact that the pro-life movement is dominated by “religious groups” to become a fact that the pro-life argument is a religious argument.

There is simply no need to give a religious argument for the immorality of abortion. Of course, these types of arguments are available, but they will only convince those that already accept that religion as true and authoritative. Most in America today do not (even many of those that refer to themselves as Christians) accept Christianity as true and authoritative. Here one might ask what type of argument should we give, if not a religious argument. What would a non-religious argument look like? Here is an example of one, very simple, argument that all religious and non-religious people can use to make the case for the life of the unborn.

1. Either the unborn are human persons or not.
2. If the unborn are not human persons, then no justification for an abortion is needed (just like we don’t need justifying reasons for removing tonsils).
3. If the unborn are human persons, then the justification typically given for an abortion will never be morally adequate (just because an individual is too busy or too poor to take care of another human person does not mean that individual is justified in killing that human person).

This focuses the debate on the thing that matters most. Are the unborn human persons? I believe they are, but not even that belief depends upon a religious assumption. Why think the unborn are human persons? This can be boiled down to one general idea.

• The location of a thing is never a morally salient feature of that thing.

If one should think of a newborn as a human person, then there is no good reason to not think of a pre-born as a human person. Frankly, it is absurd to think that a few inches determine the moral status of a person. To believe that the fetus is magically transformed from non-person to person by traveling down the birth canal is rationally unacceptable. The fetus just prior to birth is just as much a human as the infant just after birth. Its location is irrelevant.

Further, there are no good reasons to cut off personhood at some earlier point in the pregnancy either. Distinctions based upon trimester are purely arbitrary ways for people to refer to general stages of development. Almost everything that a person needs to develop into a grown human being is present from conception. The only additional things needed are external. They are 1) an appropriate environment and 2) to not be killed. But this is just as true for you and me as it is for the unborn. If you kill me, then I will obviously not continue grow as a human being. But even if you just remove me from an environment conducive to my continued growth (e.g. by stripping off my clothes and placing me outside during an Alaskan winter), then I too will die. That the unborn depends upon the appropriate environment to live does not mean it is not a human person. If you don’t kill me, then I will continue to grow as a human person grows. If you don’t kill the unborn, they will do the same.

Now of course much more can be said in favor of the pro-life position. This is intended to be a very rough and ready type of argument that, for our purposes, simply demonstrates how the pro-life movement should advance its cause. You should notice that nothing I have said against the morality of abortion has depended upon a religious argument. Not once did I appeal to the Bible or to church teaching. If the pro-life movement begins to advance these types of arguments, then we will have a much greater shot at convincing the general public that abortion is morally wrong. Even if that does not result in Roe being overturned (though I in fact think it could), it will prevent a great number of women from choosing to have an abortion. But as long as the pro-life movement relies upon religious arguments we will continue to be marginalized in the public sphere. Our arguments are compelling and their arguments are not. In order to progress the pro-life agenda we must use the compelling arguments and not ones that rely upon a religious text that a vast number of Americans don’t accept as authoritative.

If you’d like more resources for developing this type of argument I’ll make two recommendations. The first is Stand to Reason’s Bio Ethics page. At STR’s page you’ll find a wealth of good reasoning about the abortion issue (as well as many of today’s other pressing ethical issues). The second is Life Training Institute, which is run by Scott Klusendorf, a former member of Stand to Reason. (I’m indebted to Greg Koukl of STR and Klusendorf for the formulation of the above argument.) Klusendorf just published a book dealing with the abortion issue called, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (this links to the book’s website). You can get his book from that site or from Amazon at The Case for Life.

Three Thoughts on the AIG Bonuses

I don’t have a degree in economics or law, but there are three things about the nationwide AIG bonuses outrage that have to be recognized.

1. Whoever authored the bill allowing the bonuses to be paid is to blame the most – not the people accepting the bonuses. If there is a legally binding contract that says they get the money, then they should get. That’s how contracts work. If you’ve got a huge carrot (several million dollars of ‘bail out’ money), then you use that carrot to get what you want (removal of huge bonuses). But this has to happen before all terms are settled upon. In fact, removing the bonuses just becomes one of those terms. You don’t, after you realize you screwed up the negotiations, make a moral issue out of people following through on a contract all parties agreed to and then ‘legislate’ that moral issue because you look like a fool.
2. What you especially can’t do is void such a legally binding contract. If you do, what reason would companies have to begin investing in our economy? They’d be quite aware that even legally binding contracts aren’t actually binding if the government is involved. The last thing you want to do is provide disincentives for future investment.
3. Since just voiding the contracts (or that part of them) isn’t a good option there’s now a push to tax 90% of those bonuses. This option is just as bad as the previous one because the same disincentive for future investment remains. If the government is able to retroactively enact taxes on whatever the current ruling party wants, then why should anyone think their projected bottom dollar for their business will be the actual bottom dollar? If it’s determined that your company was too successful, then the government can just increase your taxes going backwards. If the proposal was to raise taxes on all 2010 bonuses, then this is much less problematic. Enacting retro-active taxes on people that are not politically popular is a very bad precedent to set. (And I know the AIG issue is related to personal bonuses, but there’s no in-principle way of keeping the two apart.)

In sum, voiding the contracts or levying huge taxes are both bad options and send a very bad signal to the business world. What the economy needs now are businesses willing to invest their capital, but both of these actions will make execs that much more hesitant to do so.

The federal government should have required that AIG not pay these huge bonuses as part of the terms of the bail out. But now is too late to demand the bonuses not be paid. Handling this before the bail out terms were settled would have been acceptable because both parties would have agreed that re-working the contract is in both of their interests (and this is precisely what happened concerning the auto-industry). Now that there is a valid contract one party can’t decide to renege to save face politically.

A Tale of Two Obama Endorsements

I recently read on an Economist blog that the Matthew 25 Network (www.matthew25.org) has decided to endorse Barack Obama. This group’s name is a nod to Matthew 25: 35-40. The portion of this passage on their website is “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink… ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these my brethren, you did for me.”

I was immediately interested in learning more about this organization because I thought it odd that a seemingly Christian group would be so proud to announce that they have decided to endorse someone with such a pro-abortion record. Their website states that their values are “promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad and promoting the common good.”

I guess it’s just not clear to me how Obama fits that profile, at least with his record on abortion. How exactly does supporting the legality of abortion promote life with dignity for the unborn? Wouldn’t an unborn child be “the least of these”? After searching around a bit more, the Matthew 25 Network was just launched as a Federal Political Action Committee (PAC). Contrary to appearance, this is not some Christian non-profit working on the behalf of some Christian cause. This is a political organization launched with the sole purpose of endorsing Obama.

Now there are plenty of other groups that have endorsed Obama (e.g. Hamas, Moveon.org). One of the groups I would like to draw attention to is NARAL Pro-Choice America (www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html). This organization, unlike Matthew 25 Network, has existed for some time and has an agenda besides just endorsing Obama. This group was founded in 1968 as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After those laws were indeed repealed, they changed their name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. And now they are NARAL Pro-Choice America.

What I find interesting is the reason why NARAL chose to endorse Obama. NARAL scores politicians on their pro-choice voting record and in 2005, 2006, and 2007 Obama scored a 100%. That means that in three years Obama has never voted against one of the leading abortion-rights group’s agenda. On their website they even have quotes from Obama that, to them, justify their decision to endorse him. (In one of his quotes he even brags that he’s scored a 100% with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.)

So what is the point of comparing these two groups. The point is this. One group was formed as a PAC with the sole purpose of having a Christian-sounding group endorse Obama. They have no other agenda. The other group clearly has an agenda and has had it for a long time. This agenda is counter to Christianity at a variety of levels, but this group believes that Obama is the best person to further that agenda.

Does a group’s decision to endorse Obama mean he agrees with that group? Of course not, but it should make someone stop and think about why such a group would want Obama to be president. The fact that he’s never voted against their agenda should at least make Christians and non-Christian anti-abortionists stop and think about the ramifications of him becoming president. This is especially true since the appointment of another Supreme Court Justice is highly likely in the next term and several of the more recent high profile cases have been decided 5-4.

Bush Lied, People Died

Bashing President Bush is all the rage these days. This is especially true if you 1) live in a college town, 2) insist on only buying Fair Trade, or 3) ride a bicycle to work. (I’m sure there are good explanations for the larger number of Bush-bashers in these groups, but I’ll leave it up to you to seek them.)

What is the justification for the wonderful slogan we see in the picture above? Well, according to the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence there isn’t much justification for this claim. What is surprising is that the committee chairman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va) is one of the individuals leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” crusade.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post recently wrote a column describing how this catchy phrase is a farce. What I find humorous is that he uses the report that Rockefellar oversaw to make his case. You can link to his article if you’d like to read in more detail, but I’m going to just present some of its highlights. Below you’ll find one of the things that people think Bush lied about, and then see what the committee actually found concerning that allegation.

1) Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

2) Bush lied about Iraq’s biological weapons, their production capabilities, and their mobile labarotories.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

3) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

4) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

5) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of ballistic missiles.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

6) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

7) Bush lied about Iraq’s involvement with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

There is a big difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. We now know that Bush was wrong about much (if not all) of the above, but so was the intelligence community. Bush relied on the gathered intelligence and made his decision based upon that. That is a far cry from lying about it. So, you may ask, what did the committee chairman think about this intelligence at the time it was gathered? I’m glad you asked.

Hiatt quotes committee chairman Rockefeller as saying in October 2002 “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated… To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

This is from the person now leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” campaign (although he does it less boldly). This is from the committee chairman whose own report just stated that Bush’s claims about Iraq and their intentions were accurate, given the intelligence gathered at the time. Rockefeller had access to the same intelligence that Bush had and came to the same conclusion as Bush. So why isn’t there “Rockefeller Lied, People Died” stickers too? I’d like to think because it’s not as catchy, but I’m pretty sure that’s not it.

I’m sure this report won’t cause the eminent philosopher Peter Singer to retract any of his arguments against Bush in his The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush. Here is a sample quote from Singer, “There can hardly be a more grave charge against the president of the United States and his administration than that he misled the world, in order to start a war that killed thousands of people, including at least 3,000 civilians, and maimed and wounded, or made homeless, tens of thousands more” (my emphasis). You are correct, Mr. Singer, there is no graver charge against a president. But since we now know he did not intentionally mislead anyone, perhaps that is a charge you should drop.

I know that this report won’t stop any of our bike riding, free trade buying, college student friends from proclaiming from the mountaintops how evil of a person President Bush is. But it will be fun to watch those same people squirm when they realize how weak their case against Bush actually is.

Romney and Obama on Religion

When Mitt Romney’s presidential bid first began to pick up steam, there was a lot of worry about his ties to the Mormon church. Would Romney’s religious beliefs influence his policies as president? Would the things he learned from the Mormon church influence how he thinks about the world? How could such a smart man attend a church that has certain beliefs that, to many, seem outrageous? Does the Mormon Church’s somewhat questionable past regarding African-Americans indicate that Romney might be hiding his true thoughts about blacks?

These questions, along with many others, were continually raised by political pundits over and over. These were questions that Romney was forced to answer at just about every turn. He took them so seriously that he gave an entire speech on the relationship between his faith and his politics (click here to link to a video of that speech).

If it was acceptable to bring up all these issues concerning Mitt Romney, why is it not acceptable to do the same concerning Barack Obama? Below is a video clip of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for over 20 years, preaching a sermon that, at the least, demands that Obama answer the same questions, with the same forthrightness, as Romney.

As you watch this short 3 minute video keep in mind the following: this is the man that has been Obama’s pastor for over 20 years. This is the man that Obama prayed with before announcing his nomination just over a year ago. This is the man that baptized Obama’s two daughters. This is the man that Obama considers his spiritual advisor.

If Obama had attended this church 20 years ago and left after a short time, I think this would be a non-issue. But, Obama attended this church, pastored by this man, 20 years ago and has continued to attend it. And keep in mind, Obama is only 46 years old. Wright has had an influence on Obama for just about half of his life. I don’t think it is fair to expect any person to endorse everything his pastor says over 20 years. But can we reasonably believe that every Sunday afternoon, Obama would sit down with his family and disagree with what their pastor has said? For 20 years?

If I’m right, then every American should demand that Obama answer every question we have about this issue. Am I right about this? Is it fair to compare this to Romney? Will the Obama-loving media turn our questions about this into our being racist?  Can we still believe Obama’s rhetoric about moving beyond race? Does this at least give us reasons to question his judgment?

How would America in general, and the media in particular, respond if John McCain even had a friend that expressed these ideas directed toward black people? What if it was someone he voluntary associated himself with for over 20 years?

(In case you think this is an isolated incident, peruse some of the related videos on YouTube’s site. You’ll see that Wright thought 9/11 was a punishment for not America’s sins, but for “white-America’s sins” and that instead of singing ‘God bless America’, he thinks we should sing ‘God damn America’.)

Obama and Annoying Spouses

Anyone that has been with a “significant other” for some time will have experienced a moment when the drive to some destination is complicated because of a wrong turn or two. Growing up, we often joked that any time it was unclear if we should turn right or left, whatever my mother said we should, we should probably do the opposite. My mother had a knack for directing us the wrong way at crucial moments. Thankfully, we often would just laugh at ourselves for listening to her again when we knew we should do just the opposite.

Others, however, are not as fortunate. Instead of moving on and figuring out , given the wrong turn, what the best course of action is now, they focus on that mistake and never let it go. Instead of saying, “We made a wrong turn, what’s the best thing to do to right the course”, they say, “I told you then that we shouldn’t go this way, now we’re all screwed up; we might as well just go home.”

This latter, annoying, spouse seems strikingly similar to Barak Obama and the war in Iraq. We all know, because he can’t go five minutes without reminding us, that he voted against going to war with Iraq while McCain and Clinton voted for it. What Obama seems to not get is that, we are at war in Iraq right now! Focusing on what we should have done is not going to help us to decide what to do now. Even if we grant that going to war was a mistake, that doesn’t mean the best thing to do is just go home. If it is, give us an argument for it that doesn’t depend on the earlier decision to go.

What Obama needs to do is convince us that the best course of action now is to leave Iraq. That is a completely separate issue from whether we should’ve gone in the first place. If he wants to bring that up in addressing Clinton’s ability to make decisions, that is fine. But, again, that’s different from addressing what we should do in Iraq, given that we are there now.

Obama is fortunate to not have any tough questions from the main stream media because what he says about this just makes no sense. Obama says we should get out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He justifies this by saying that going to Iraq diverted our attention from Afghanistan and we need to get back to that original mission. That’s all fine and dandy, except there is one big problem. Al-Qaida is in Iraq right now.

I wish someone would ask Obama just this one question, “Why do you think fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a good thing, but fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq is a bad thing?” I would love to hear if he could respond to such a question without pointing out that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. What would make things really difficult, if someone in the media would push him on it, is that he’s said that staying in Iraq would be an option if there were Al-Qaida attempting to establish a base there. So, what exactly does he think Al-Qaida is doing in Iraq right now, shopping? (Earlier in the week McCain mocked him on this, and should continue to do so.)

So, am I misreading Obama’s remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan? Am I wrong to think his argument for leaving shouldn’t rely on whether we should’ve gone?

Cartoons & Socialized Health Care

I happened upon this cartoon the other day and I think it does a nice job of clearly showing the problem that we are in today. No, I don’t think not having universal health care is the problem. I do think that people are increasingly of the mind that it is the government’s job to take care of them. This never has, and never should be, the central role of our government. The proper role of the government is to set the framework in which we can live freely. It is to protect others from infringing our rights to do as we ought (not as we want) and that is it. (For an outstanding argument demonstrating this point, see F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.)
With that said, I would like to address a few of the depictions in this cartoon.

First, the roads. The majority of our roads are not federally funded. Most of them come from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. And this is how it should be. The local governments are able to best decide what roads need to be built, repaired, and ignored. It is not the federal government’s role to do that for us. No one is advocating a local government ran health care system so the comparison to roads is really bad. But, if that’s what someone was advocating, and succeeded in getting it implemented (think Massachusetts), then make that clear. It’s a lot easier to move a state over than to move a country over.

Second, the army. Many don’t know this, but Milton Friedman (an economist) was one of the most influential people in getting the U.S. away from a conscription-based army and to a volunteer army. His reasoning was simple. If the military has to get people to choose to go into the military, the military will have to compete for their service. They have to offer better training, pay, etc. than the other options out there. The result, we have a much better trained and equipped military now than we ever did then. So, what does that have to do with health care?

Well, no one is forced to serve in the army. After we transitioned to a volunteer military, it has gotten better and more sophisticated. The military can’t just say “You have to join us”, instead they have to say “Here’s why you should join us.” Notice that if we switch to an Obama or Clinton-esque national health care, we are doing just the opposite. No longer do you get, “Here’s why you should join us” but instead you get “You have to join us.” So, the army example is bad for two reasons. First, the army is volunteer and national health care would not be. And second, when military service was mandated, there was no reason for the military to work to make it better. People had to join. Why think the health care industry would be any different?

Third, the postal service. By almost all accounts, our federal government ran mail service is a complete disaster. How many times can you remember their raising the cost of postage stamps? Why are they doing this? Because the USPS is losing money hand over fist and they’re trying to stop the bleeding. People thought the idea of FedEx, UPS, and DHL was absurd because the government already offered a mail service. But, the privatized system works so much better, and is cheaper for those that use it, that they are all extremely successful businesses. If the federal government is unable to deliver a package from point A to point B and keep costs down, what makes us think they can figure out a way to transplant a heart from person A to person B any better?

Fourth, the fire department. Once again this is a bad example because fire departments are not ran by the federal government, but local municipalities. Again, if you want a local ran health care system, say so. As far as I know, no one is seriously advocating such a system, and Obama and Clinton are definitely not doing so.

Now I know that this artist was probably doing this tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it highlights to a great deal how many people think about health care. It sounds so easy to just say the government should provide it and then stop thinking. But, it’s not that easy. Yes, they can provide our health care, but you have to figure out how we’re going to pay for it (the doctors, nurses, and staff are still going to get paid either way), who gets to decide if you get to have that life-improving but non life-threatening surgery, and how we can keep the program from becoming bloated with waste (which we still have yet to figure out how to do with Medicare and Medicaid).

Barack Obama, President Bush, and the War in Iraq

Barak Obama, President Bush, and the Iraq War

Believe it or not, it turns out that Barack Obama’s Iraq war strategy isn’t as different from President Bush’s as you might have thought. This is especially surprising since Obama’s Iraq plan seems to be one of the only things we know about what he would do as president (we’ve yet to figure out what exactly “change” amounts to, even though he wants to do a lot of it).

Listen to Obama speak for a few minutes and sooner or later you’ll hear him mention his plan to begin bringing troops home now. It’s no coincidence that the ubiquitous “We Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” stickers are often placed right next to “Barack Obama ‘08″ stickers. As it turns out though, Obama actually thinks that Bush’s Iraq strategy isn’t such a bad idea. Of course he could never come out and say that because the liberal-left would kill him for it. Before I demonstrate that their plan for Iraq is essentially the same, I need to briefly summarize Bush’s strategy.

When you hear President Bush speak about Iraq he inevitably mentions refusing to fail. Why is not failing so important? There are two main reasons. First, if the U.S. fails in stabilizing Iraq, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the presence of al-Qaeda in that country. This isn’t too surprising since the people we’re fighting in Iraq right now are mostly members of al-Qaeda. They already have one place from which to base their operations and we can’t give them another one, especially one so close to Saudi Arabia. Second, the increased presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq will put the lives of those Iraqis that have fought alongside the United States in serious danger. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that al-Qaeda is going to seek retribution against the Iraqis that have ‘offended their cause’. Abandoning the Iraqis to al-Qaeda is not acceptable.

Now you might disagree with Bush about this, but you should take note that Barack Obama doesn’t.

Because you probably think I’m crazy, I’ll now quote from the Obama campaign website. The author of Obama’s position paper on Iraq writes, “Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq… In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven.”

Now to be fair, prior to that quote Obama says he’ll immediately begin bringing troops home and have everyone home in 16 months. The problem is that he goes on to say residual forces will remain. Well, one might ask, how many residual forces and for how long? What happens if those residual forces aren’t adequate to “protect American diplomatic and military personnel” or to intervene to “provide civilians with a safe-haven”? One might also wonder why he would be willing to leave troops at all, especially since he continually says he’s going to bring all of them home. Essentially, Obama gets that al-Qaeda is going to be a problem and that they’ll be such a problem that we won’t be able to ignore them. Why wouldn’t we be able to ignore them? Because they’ll have a new base to operate from and will retaliate against Iraqis that helped the United States. Sound familiar? He understands what Bush is saying, but he also knows that he’d never get elected by admitting Bush is right. However, Obama is a very smart man and that’s why he provided the “out” clause I quoted above. This clause allows him to preach now about how he’ll bring the troops home, but once elected, can keep things going until the Iraqis can adequately manage things themselves. He can get the political payoff now and keep letting the military do their thing then, all that without ever going back on his word. Smart man.

I should point out one big and important difference between Bush’s plan and Obama’s plan. Obama evidently thinks it is better to wait to act until an outbreak of genocide occurs, whereas Bush thinks it is better act now and ward off an outbreak that would otherwise be certain to occur. I’m not so sure about this strategy.

So, if you’re a big fan of the “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” idea, you might want to push Obama a bit harder on what he would be able to do as president, and stop being satisfied with what he would like to do.

Before you vote for McCain

Before you vote for McCain
Please do yourself, and America, a favor. Before you head off to vote on Tuesday, take a few minutes to find out about the following bills that McCain helped write:

1) McCain-Feingold
2) McCain-Kennedy
3) McCain-Lieberman

After you’ve learned what these are, ask yourself if a traditional, Reagan conservative would support those bills. Keep in mind that the large percentage of Republicans (who should be as close to traditional conservatives as we’ll get) voted against each of them. McCain not only voted against the large number of Republicans, he sponsored the bills!

Another thing to ask yourself is if a traditional, small government, low taxes Republican would have voted against making Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Here again McCain sided with the Democrats and not the majority of Republicans.

You should also consider whether a traditional Republican would have voted in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants (hint, this is the McCain-Kennedy bill). McCain said it doesn’t really matter if you broke the law to get here, pay $3,000 and you’re fine. Now I know that the bill didn’t pass, but we still don’t know what McCain’s actual position is on amnesty. When asked if he would vote in favor of it as President, he said “Well it’ll never come up for a vote.” What? That wasn’t the question. It was a hypothetical question that McCain didn’t seem to understand.

Finally, are you not at least a bit concerned with his support of Justice O’Connor. It seems odd to say “I’ll appoint justices like Alito and Roberts” and then turn around and say “O’Connor was a fine justice” when they are nothing alike. I wonder if the fact that she would have been the deciding vote in upholding McCain-Feingold had anything to do with that comment.

Of course if you’re not a Republican or are a more progressive one, these things might not matter to you. But, if they do, you should seriously consider the above points and ask yourself if McCain is really a Reagan conservative or is just trying to act like one.

(Bias alert: I’m voting for Romney because I think his policies are solid. If you agree with me about McCain then hopefully you also realize that Huckabee has no real shot at winning the nomination and so should vote for Romney too.)

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The Economic Stimulus Plan

First, there’s a good chance that my family will receive somewhere close to $1,200 as a result of the “Economic Stimulus Plan” being proposed by Congress. Am I happy to have the extra money? Of course I am! Do I think that the rebates are going to do any good for the economy? Of course I don’t! Here’s why:

1. The majority of (smart) people will not spend the money, but instead either save it or pay down debt.
2. Those that do spend it will likely spend it where it came from – China.
3. Even if 1 & 2 are false, and everyone does blow their rebate check, it still won’t help the economy.

Now, why do I think these are true?

Why (smart) people won’t spend the rebates

(Smart) People don’t plan their spending around a one time raise in income. If the economy is as bad as people keep telling us it is (a claim I doubt), then people realize they need to be smart with all their money. Even “free” money that the government hands out. If you’re struggling with your mortgage because of all your credit card debt, are you going to go and blow the money? Of course some will, but I think Americans are generally smarter than that. Instead of blowing the money, many will pay down debts to try to stay afloat once they get back to regularly scheduled income.

What about those that are not struggling financially? Are they going to go out and spend like crazy? Well, probably not. Those are the people that tend to be smart financially and will likely save that money. Many may invest that, which could help stimulate the economy some, but that’s not what the government really wants us to do with the money. They want us to run to Wal-Mart and buy a nice Vizio flatscreen tv.

Where the money comes from and gets spent

Here we need to think about one of the reasons why our economy is in the shape it’s in. The fact is that China has a growing economy and doesn’t have to compete fairly in the global market. Many times people buy products that have been imported from China (or other countries, and really, any type of foreign buying isn’t going to help our economy very much).

Mike Huckabee is by no means a financial guru, but this is something that even he seems to get. (His mentioning it during the debate last night did sound awfully similar to Cato’s Chris Edwards’s piece in the New York Post [link].)

Why, even if 1 & 2 are false, the rebates won’t help

Finally, let’s imagine that I’m wrong about both 1 &2 (a hard thing to believe I know!). The success of American corporations is directly related to the strength of our economy. If the corporations are doing well, they increase production and hire more people. Their success means that new wealth is being generated and getting passed down to the workers in that corporation.

Now, let’s imaging that every person runs straight to the store to blow their entire rebate check on American made goods. How exactly is that going to boost the economy? Yes there will be more sales made in the short term, but do we really think that is going to cause our corporations to go out increase production and hire new people? There’s no way that’s going to happen because those running the corporations know this is a short-term increase in demand. As soon as the checks are spent, the demand is going to go back to regular levels. That means their current production levels and employee levels are just fine.

What the stimulus plan should have done

The best way to help the economy is to make America a better place for corporations to succeed. What I find particularly humorous is that most Democrats reject his idea. But, as soon as the unemployment rate goes up, they go nuts. Do they not realize that when the corporations do poorly they have to let people go?

Okay, so how do we help the corporations? By permanently lowering corporate taxes and encouraging their long term growth.

Am I glad I can finish paying off the Mexican Riviera Cruise with my rebate check? Yes I am, but I think I’d be better off in the long run if I didn’t get the check and it was instead spent on encouraging true long term economic growth.