Not One of Us! September 1, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, Political Philosophy.2 comments
It is obvious that as a nation we confront enormous problems—economic threats, global security threats, and environmental threats seem to pile up like bodies in a John Woo flick. It is equally obvious that John McCain has no idea how to deal with these threats (that is not some version of a bad idea that has already failed.) In today’s polls, Obama is showing signs of pulling away, and McCain’s choice for VP may be self-destructing before our eyes. But McCain is still in the game with approximately 40% of the electorate supporting him. What is the source of his appeal?
Some commentators claim that Obama hasn’t made his case effectively or that voters don’t know him yet. But he has been a public figure for 12 years, a national political figure for 4 years, and center stage for 19 months in one of the most scrutinized campaigns in history. He has published two books detailing his autobiography, has been the subject of countless newspaper and magazine articles, and recently presided over a national convention in which 38 million viewers watched his acceptance speech. His website and speeches are chock full of innovative policy proposals to address the full scope of issues we confront as a nation. What more do we need to know?
The reason why this is, and might remain, a close election is that this election (and recent American politics in general) is really not about policies or problem solving—it is about competing identities. Identity politics is the new normal.
Obviously, the Democratic primary race involved lots of identity politics, since both Hillary and Obama represent new identities competing seriously for the presidency. But the unity displayed at the Democratic Convention revealed how successfully both campaigns have risen above racial or gender identities as a basis for political choice. And truth be told, their campaigns were never just about identity politics—lots of men supported Hillary, lots of whites and women supported Obama, and, contrary to much speculation, Obama is doing fine among Jews, women, working class voters, Hispanics, etc.
Ironically, it is the Republicans that have deployed identity politics with a vengeance. John McCain’s first general election ad concluded: “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” This awkward yet telling phrase was obviously designed to draw a contrast with Obama who is alleged to be “foreign” and “anti-American.” McCain’s signature slogan “country first” is designed to resonate with McCain’s charge that Obama would “rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign”; and the ridiculous “Celebrity” ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton screams “he’s not one of us!”
Now we have the newly minted Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, manifestly unqualified for the position, who was apparently chosen because evangelicals and soccer moms are supposed to see her as “just like us”.
The labels “liberal” and “conservative” no longer refer to competing views on how to manage the economy or foreign policy so much as they refer to competing ways of defining who one is that are expressed in our political choices. There are lots of interesting philosophical questions about the nature of these political identities and the moral identities that operate behind them, which I will be commenting on occasionally.
But the political consequences could be perilous for Democrats, unless the gift that is Sarah Palin keeps on giving. Democrats would prefer not to play in this sandbox. They would prefer debates about policy, problem-solving, and governance. Republicans since at least 1988 (remember the Willie Horton ad) have long recognized the power of identity politics. Democrats need to look up from their position papers long enough to join in the slicing and dicing.
Obama’s acceptance speech at the DNC was brilliant on many levels. But there was one promise that he may live to regret. In parrying McCain’s attacks on his character, Obama said “What I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes.” Why not? McCain has always been a shameless political opportunist. Since most of us don’t think of ourselves as unprincipled poseurs, McCain is clearly not one of us.
If McCain gets a bounce in the polls from his convention, Obama will have to make that clear, although McCain may need no help from anyone in exposing himself as a fraud.
Update: Should there be any doubt about Republican commitment to identity politics, here is McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis on the subject:
This election is not about issues,” said Davis. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.
Duncan gets Death August 27, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.10 comments
I have been out of town and have not been able to post updates, but for the past few weeks the Duncan trial has been moving through excruciating testimony and video of the torture of young Dylan to its predictable end: The jurors’ verdict is death on three counts: kidnapping resulting in death, sexual exploitation of a child resulting in death, and using a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence. No mitigating factors. In his closing statement Duncan said,
“You people really don’t have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I’ve done. … My intention was to kidnap and rape and kill until I was killed, preferring death, easily, over capture.”
There is speculation now that he may be on his way to Southern California for a trial, confronting him with the murder of a young boy in Beaumont, Riverside, Tony Martinez. Shasta’s and Dylan’s father, Steve Groene, said he considered it a waste of money, considering the circumstances. But would justice require that Duncan face all charges? Would that bring “closure” to the families?
As you know, I’ve followed this case since its beginning, and have attempted to share with you some of the reasons why I think it deserves our attention—not only because it confronts us with the concept of evil, in its narrowest sense, but also because it has brought up issues of sanity, of victims’ rights, of media ethics (I didn’t even get into that part!), and perhaps even of what it might take for a community to start a healing process after having gone through this kind of ordeal. Will Duncan’s death (after all the appeals, of course) give the community, and Shasta, some form of peace? The verdict gives us an opportunity to talk about the whole purpose of the trial: the concept of punishment. When someone like Duncan—who is indisputably guilty; no risk of executing an innocent person here—is sentenced to death, what is your reaction? Do you deplore the primitive reaction of a young society, feeling the need to put a person to death for what he or she has done? Do you consider it a shame that the community has given up on the possibility of rehabilitating Duncan? Or do you consider it a measure of justice, the only one truly appropriate for (1) the severity of the crime, and/or (2) deterring similar crimes, and/or (3) protecting other children from other acts by that same man? Here we have some of the key arguments in the death penalty debate, the abolitionist vs. the retentionist arguments, and the retributivist vs. the consequentialist arguments. I’d like to hear what you think.
Is The Population Bomb a Dud? August 22, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Culture, Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.add a comment
It has been conventional wisdom among environmentalists that the earth’s population will continue to grow, eventually oustripping the avialable resources to support prosperity.
But this article shows that the trend lines are no longer so clear. Birth rates are beginning to fall throughout much of the world, precipitously in some places. And declining birth rates generate problems for societies.
“Low-birth Europe is faced with an ageing population, a pensions crisis, later retirement, changes in work patterns, shrinking cities and a massive looming healthcare cost. Nations of children with no siblings, cousins, aunts or uncles – only parents, grandparents, and perhaps great-grandparents – will face the burden of paying for the care of a massive older generation. The same prospect of an older, more conservative, less vigorous or inventive culture looms in China, Japan and much of the Far East”.
The article suggests that keeping population right around the replacement level 2.1 kids per women is the best policy. But it is not clear how to accomplish this. Another part of conventional wisdom is that giving women access to education and job opportunities outside the home reduces family size. But in many countries that has reduced birth rates too far below replacement level.
And it doesn’t always work. In Italy, Spain, Greece, and parts of Asia such as Japan, women have access to education and the workplace but social attitudes encourage women to adopt traditional roles:
“Women without their own income have very little bargaining power inside the home, but they can go on baby strike. The outcome is that, perhaps counter-intuitively, working mothers are now having more babies than those who stay at home full time. “The tradition that once boosted fertility,” says Falkingham, “now undermines it.”
The result is what the Japanese demographer Shigemi Kono calls “the revenge of women on men”… “Until social attitudes catch up with economic change,” says David Coleman, “many women in the developed world will become overloaded and respond by cutting down the number of children they have.”
The take away point: It is very hard to prescribe a general policy. Too much depends on local conditions
Empty Skies August 17, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.1 comment so far
We face a considerable challenge in eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels for our vehicles. But there is a technological solution–hybrid, electrical, and perhaps eventually hydrogen fueled engines–that is very close to implementation, given the political will.
But there may be no such solution with regard to air travel.
This discouraging article details the problems and imagines a future in which air transportation is sharply limited. It is not a pretty sight.
Double Standard Redux August 17, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.1 comment so far
I wrote recently (here) that Obama’s main challenge is the double standard to which he is held by the press and public.
More evidence of the double standard appeared this week.
When Obama was traveling in Europe a couple weeks ago, he was criticized by many in the press (and of course by Republicans) for being presumptous–acting presidential before he was President.
This week during the (overblown) crisis in Georgia, John McCain claimed to be on the phone daily with Georgia’s President, while continually making policy pronouncements and potentially inflammatory remarks about our relationship with Russia. He was acknowledged in some circles to be pushing Bush toward an increasing belligerant tone. McCain is not yet President, but did we hear criticisms of his presumptuousness?
Obama has been continually attacked for being unpatriotic for the slimmest of reasons (for only occasionally wearing an American flag lapel pin, for having a pastor who criticized American policy, for having a wife who chided the U.S. for its rather evident racist past).
Yet, this week it was discovered that McCain’s chief foreign policy advisor was on the payroll of the Georgian government, lobbyied McCain on behalf of Georgia on numerous occasions, and owns a company that is still paid to promote the interests of Georgia.This was a minor news story ignored by most of the press.
Why is there no outcry about McCain’s judgment in choosing campaign advisors with a financially induced loyalty to foreign nations? When McCain proclaims “we are all Georgians” whose interests is he promoting?
Joseph Duncan Update #3: Kant vs Taylor August 15, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.3 comments
Should we allow Duncan a moment to express himself? Ordinarily I wouldn’t, but since we have previously talked about evil, it is interesting to see Duncan use the term about himself. In a letter to his mother he speculates about the concept of evil, and evil in him. So while others may have qualms about using the e-word about Duncan, he doesn’t hesitate using it about himself—albeit with qualifications:
There is a huge resevior [sic] of hatred – evil – that drives me to hurt people, even those I love.… I am driven by my hatred for our society (”the system”) but at the same time tortured by my own compassion. … God has shown me the face of evil, he has also allowed me to see that evil is an illusion that is given life via our ignorance and fear, evil is real only because we make it real, if I could somehow teach people this we could develop many new and effective ways to fight evil which is hatred that manifests itself in any intelligent system… Our society is permiated [sic] with these evil “entities” (if you will)…Evil can live in a person and in a society as well. … I have been inflicted by an evil ‘demon’ that is nurtured by our so-called criminal justice system… I am still fighting my demons and asking God to guide me as he can.
Is there true recognition of moral failure here? No, of course not. He blames “the system,” he blames people’s ignorance, he seems to blame God for not stopping him, and he denounces “evil” as a social construct at the same time as he recognizes his “demons.” This is a narcissistic mind, and at every step of the way he twists his analysis into one of finger pointing. What it does show is that according to Kant’s definition of evil—persisting in doing self-serving acts with the full knowledge of them being morally unacceptable—fits Duncan perfectly.
What is it that is so morally revolting about Joseph Duncan? Of course the man has violated every rule of ethics and decency in every book, so from the knee-jerk visceral reaction to the cool, rational side of judgment, Duncan is a wrongdoer. But I am reminded of a famous analysis by American philosopher Richard Taylor who presents three stories of moral callousness: a young boy puts a pin through a bug and watches it squirm; kids pour gasoline over a cat and set fire to it; and Nazi soldiers bash the head of an infant in, and kill an old defenseless man. Taylor’s point is that if we line up all the familiar philosophical arguments against such behavior, what truly hits home isn’t that such actions have bad consequences, or they go against a universal moral rule, or fail to meet the standard of the Golden Mean, etc., but that they are done without a shred of compassion. Taylor argued, almost all by himself in the philosophical climate of the late 20th century (now more people are beginning to see things his way) that the true moral quality is compassion, not a rationality-based response. In the case of Duncan we can watch Taylor’s theory come to life: What is so immensely troubling about the story of Duncan’s killings (as is the case with most serial killers and rapists) is the lack of just ordinary human compassion (so much for his notion that he is tortured by his own compassion). His victims were bugs to him, and he liked to watch them squirm. In court it came out that he showed Shasta videotape of torturing her brother Dylan before shooting the boy in front of her, and he had the two kids write letters home to their dad, assuring him they’d be home soon, in-between the torture sessions, and prior to killing Dylan. But as much as I have taken a shine to Taylor’s emotionalism, I still like to find a satisfying philosophical reason-based foundation for my revulsion, and I think I have to turn to Kant, again. What is so dreadful about Duncan? There are a lot of criminals who don’t have compassion for their victims, but Duncan adds an element to this callousness: He uses others merely as a means to an end, in a highly manipulative and organized manner. This is what he has done throughout all his life of crime—reduced others to simple tools for his own pleasure and needs, thinking and planning his next moves. And now that he apparently wants to die, his manipulative behavior continues: As Shasta had been nothing but an instrument for Duncan’s needs (maybe less for sex than for the feeling of power), I suspect he had plans of making her the tool of his dramatic exit, himself cross-examining the star witness against him, staging his own death sentence as a result of the confrontation. Who did he hope would play him in the movie, I wonder? This, fortunately, was prevented—her testimony was heard on tape, not live, in court yesterday.
I find that Kant and Taylor are not mutually exclusive; one theory is rationality-based, and evaluates the moral failings of a self-centered deliberation process; the other is based on emotions, and spotlights the lack of fellow-feeling in criminal acts. We need both aspects—the expectation of a rational “Golden Rule” understanding, as well as of a fundamental human empathy—to understand the abyss of wrongness/evil that Duncan presents to us. And later, when the jurors reach a decision about the penalty, we may be able to talk about this dual approach as two sides of a judgment: reason-based punishment combined with whatever measure of human empathy that may seem appropriate.
Joseph Duncan Update #2 August 13, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.add a comment
Good news: a deal has been worked out so that Shasta Groene will not be cross-examined by Joseph Duncan after all. Instead her previous taped interviews will be admissible. It is also becoming clear that Duncan’s motive for “defending” himself is suicide-by-court: He has not planned to introduce any mitigating evidence. The hearing is now underway, and you can follow along here: a link to ongoing online courtroom reports.
The Collapse of Moral Authority August 13, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.1 comment so far
Russia’s invasion of Georgia brings to the surface one of the great costs of the Iraq War—the United States no longer has the moral authority to effectively argue against Russia’s actions.
There is a great deal of uncertainty about what caused the conflagration. Is Russia trying to rebuild the Soviet empire or sending a message that it intends to at least exert its influence over territory formerly under its control? Was Russia baited into invading by Georgia’s attack on separatist movements sympathetic toward Russia? Did the Bush administration wittingly or unwittingly encourage Georgia to bait Russia? We don’t know the answer to these questions at this point. (This essay by Harold Meyerson makes some sense of the situation.)
But one thing is clear. Russia has not done anything that the United States hasn’t done in Iraq and elsewhere. It is therefore no surprise that when blowhards like Bush and McCain express their outrage at Russia’s actions, no one pays much attention. Even the Georgian President is not much impressed. France, on the other hand, is apparently more highly regarded as an honest broker. French President Sarkozy was able to negotiate a cease-fire shortly after disembarking from his plane (although it apparently has not yet been implemented).
In trying to build a framework for cooperation between nations, nothing is more important that maintaining moral authority. If you lack it, no one trusts you, no one empathizes with your situation, and no one is willing to put issues such as justice on the table because they fear these considerations will be cynically manipulated toward self-serving ends. Of course, the threat of force is necessary when moral authority fails. But without trust and the moral authority it engenders, all you have is the threat of force and a state of permanent war.
We used to have that moral authority, at least up to a point, but it has been thoroughly squandered by the Bush administration. Now we are regarded as no more than a bully—like Russia. And an ineffectual bully as well. Since we are tied down by two wars and a military decimated by ill-advised military adventures, there is nothing we can do about the Georgian situation even if some sort of military intervention were justified.
But that hasn’t stopped the neo-conservatives from ginning up war fever once again. They can’t help it. It’s just what they do. Without war fever to occupy headlines and the cable news gasbags, their lack of ideas about how to solve the considerable problems we face would be exposed for everyone to see. This is their big chance to reinvigorate the cold war to provide an excuse for their perpetual war against evil, which is the only justification they can find for their sorry existence.
So McCain is running around like Attila the Hun on a drug cocktail of meth and Viagra trying to impress everyone with his crisis management skills.
And what skills indeed!
Today, McCain made an utter fool of himself by declaring “In the 21st Century, Nations Don’t Invade Other Nations”! Excuse me Senator, didn’t we just….?
Do we want someone as disgustingly disingenuous as this as President, and someone so stupid he can’t deploy rhetoric that at least attempts to avoid contradiction and meaninglessness?
The Thing That Won’t Die In The Nightmare That Won’t End August 7, 2008
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.1 comment so far
The Terminator, once again, tries to live up to his name.
In order to put pressure on negotiators trying to resolve California’s budget impasse, Governor Schwarzenegger has ordered that thousands of state workers be laid off and many of the remaining employed be paid minimum wage.
Happily the state comptroller, John Chiang, who unlike the killer bot seems to have a conscience, has refused to comply with the reductions in pay, although there is not much he can do about the layoffs.
But this current budget snafu is no accident befalling a state with a moribund economy. It was a deliberate policy manufactured by a political clown whose act is finally getting the goring it deserves.
One of Schwarzenegger’s first acts upon taking over the office of Governor in 2003, following his tax-cut demagoguery in the campaign to oust Grey Davis, was to roll back the vehicle license fee. That single act of political showmanship, that saved each of us a few hundred bucks, this year will cost the state nearly six billion dollars, almost half of the current state budget deficit, according to the California Budget Project. Next year when the schools shut down and state services collapse we can console ourselves by fondling those few, crisp Ben Franklins that fall like confetti from Sacramento.
Schwarzenegger’s administration has been one political stunt after another–most of them terminated on the big-top floor, splattered like discarded popcorn. But at least in this role, The Governorator performs his own stunts.
Of course, if we were to look behind the facade of this greatest show on earth, we would be reminded of another great performance artist from the silver screen–Oz, the “Great and Terrible”.
From cocksure muscle man, to clown show master, to pathetic humbug. Isn’t that the narrative arc of all Republican administrations?
Joseph Duncan Update August 3, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.8 comments
If you go back to April 30, 2008, you’ll find my post on the serial child-killer Joseph Duncan and his wish to represent himself in his federal sentence hearing. I have an update for you, but I’ll forego a repetition of who he is and what he has done—the April 30 post was fairly specific. Suffice it to say that he has, faced with overwhelming evidence and his own statements, confessed to the 2005 killings of 9-year old Dylan and his older brother, as well as their mother and her fiancé, and the kidnapping of Dylan and 8-year old Shasta. Shasta was the victim of weeks of sexual abuse by Duncan, and in addition she was forced to watch him murder Dylan. Shasta survived, and her taped testimony against Duncan is on file, but because of legal squabbles it is now inadmissible. Duncan petitioned earlier this year to be his own defense attorney in his federal death penalty hearing, where his sentence will be determined by a jury: Life without the possibility of parole, or death. The court, obviously reluctant to grant him this constitutional right, ordered a new psychiatric evaluation of him.
A short while ago the results were made public: Duncan is legally sane, and can thus proceed with the preparation of his own defense. Voir Dire (the jury selection) which had been underway, will be restarted this week so he can question the jurors himself. And, in addition, it is expected that he will indeed do what everyone feared might be his entire purpose for this charade: call Shasta as a witness. There is now nothing to prevent him from doing this—nothing that will protect Shasta from having to face this man who ruined her life, at his pleasure.
Legal commentators point to the fact that now his death sentence seems more likely than ever—because the jurors will turn on him in an instant, knowing that the question isn’t a matter of guilt, but of whether there are mitigating circumstances. And a man who chooses to continue the torture of his victim, in public, with the help of the Constitution, hardly seems to deserve leniency. Unless, of course, he intends to use the podium to fall on his sword, have the little girl stand up and point to him, Hollywood-style, and accuse him, upon which he will demand the death penalty for himself. Anything is possible. But either way, this will be Duncan playing the court according to his own fantasy, and the victim of all this will, again, be Shasta.
So I appreciate having this opportunity to vent—because this is nauseating to me, as a private person. But as a blogging philosopher (which I hope doesn’t make me less of a person) I’d also like to use this infuriating story to launch a further discussion. We’ve already talked about whether Duncan is evil. But there are at least two other subjects that are tied to this story: (1) the nature and definition of sanity, and (2) the question of victims’ rights vs. defendants’ rights. What to most people would qualify as insanity is outrageous and harmful behavior they wouldn’t engage in themselves and find repugnant, but since this is a very subjective issue, the court has a narrower definition. Legally, Duncan is sane because he has an understanding of the consequences of his actions, and of the moral rules of society, and he doesn’t have a severe mental illness. That’s all it takes, folks. It is known as the McNaughton Rule, with modern modifications. When the hearing gets underway this fall, I hope to give you another update, and perhaps we can get into the rights question at that time.
