Cory 2004-10-11 2

From Summa Bergania

From : David Bergan

Sent : Monday, October 11, 2004 12:40 PM

To : Cory Heidelberger

Subject : Sniffing fallacies

---

Hi Cory,

Always a pleasure to hear from you. Interesting article about Catholic theology vs. politics, and I see where it supports your point. But if you ask me, what this article supports more than anything, is my idea of a (more) direct democracy. Read it again and note how Catholics are supposed to vote inline with certain beliefs on the Republican side and then certain other beliefs on the Democratic side. The more I have considered it, the more convinced I become that it is foolish to continue voting for people, when we should be voting for each independent issue. Why should a Catholic have to compromise her position on abortion with her position on just war doctrine? Her position on stem-cell research with her position on the death penalty?

Moreover, if we want to start a real discussion of the issues, we need to chuck these hokey commercials showing Daschle in an orange jacket telling hunting stories, and start running ads about the facts of gun control and assault weapons. Below I have included an article I submitted to slate.com for publication. It's not terribly well written. It was rejected. But there's some more fodder there for my case.

Ok, now that I have sufficiently beaten the drum for my revolution, let me analyze the NYTimes ditty.

1) Regarding abortion and Clinton, I smell a false cause fallacy. Clinton happened to be in office when abortions went down nationwide, but that no more proves a cause than saying that Reagan's administration caused the Challenger shuttle to explode. I am inclined to give more credit to the Catholic Church for the decrease in abortions throughout the 90s than the Clinton administration. The Pope and Mother Theresa had made it their mission to decrease abortions as much as possible. John Paul wrote encyclicals on the sacred value of life, while Theresa practiced what he preached. I'd say 7 out of every 10 Catholic Churches I drive past have a pro-life message on their sign. They have organized silent protests, started abortion-alternative clinics, and prayed fervently for this change. (I believe that the last probably has had the most efficacy.) I'm not willing to give credit to a man who spent his 8 years in office covering up scandals, whipping out his unmentionables, losing the security codes for the nukes, ending White House drug tests, and (above all) staunchly advocating that abortion is a woman's right. In my book, you don't get credit for a change unless you were actively pursuing it. John Paul was. William Jefferson wasn't.

2) This part of the article was beautiful: "None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned." Amen brother.

3) This part of the article sucked: "The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place."

Ok, so I suppose (using his own analogy) that the best thing to do about slavery was not to abolish it, but rather give the slaves more food. I follow the ancient philosophical premise that laws are a society's way of determining morality and handing it down to their descendants. To say that casual abortion is legal, is to say that it is morally acceptable. And I cannot agree.

4) Alternative solution. Talking about circumstances and abortion, there may be a small correlation between the amount of the welfare check and the likeliness for a mother to have an abortion... but not nearly as strong a correlation between the likeliness for a mother to have an abortion and whether or not the child was conceived out of wedlock. Married people hardly ever have casual abortions - so if we wanted a round-a-bout way of adjusting abortion statistics without actually making casual abortions illegal, then it could be suggested to make a law against premarital and extramarital sex.

I don't think I would vote for such a law, but it would really solve a lot of problems (abortion, depression, STDs, etc.).

5) If I believe that casual abortion is wrong, I really really really cannot justify voting for Kerry/Daschle/Herseth when they clearly believe that it is ok. Even if their welfare policies do bring about fewer abortions, it is accidental. I have to vote for someone who is intentionally trying to lower the abortion rate. (Perhaps best of all would be someone in favor of both higher welfare and anti-casual-abortion legislation.)

Well, that's plenty for now. Here's the article I wrote on direct democracy:

--begin article--

Bringing down the White House

I am a young person. Since Bill Clinton was elected when I was in the 6th grade, I have only been old enough to know two presidents. And after seeing the firestorm ignited by Moore's latest movie, I can tell you that 100% of those presidents have been demonized during their term. You won't have any difficulty finding websites with partisan opinions about Bush or Clinton. And you won't have any difficulty finding ones that say that all the demonizing should be stopped, nor ones that say that the demonizing is a healthy part of free speech and America's right to be critical of its government. But I'm going to offer something different, an idea to remove the possibility of demonizing right from the source. Let's get rid of politicians.

I'm not advocating anarchy, but direct democracy. Instead of going to the polls and electing people to decide our laws, let's go to the polls and decide the laws ourselves. The most disturbing thing about any election is that most people cannot find a candidate that represents all of their political views, and on Election Day there is little, or no way of knowing which issues are going to come up in the next term. For example, in my state, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle is up against John Thune for re-election this fall. Let's say that I favor Daschle's stance on education, while I prefer Thune's position on tax issues. It's a hard call, but being in business and not having any children yet, let's say then that I vote for Thune and he gets elected. But having Thune in office, in this case, is only beneficial IF tax legislation comes up during the next term. My eyes will be wet with remorse if instead education reform comes up and my representative, who I myself voted for, goes the wrong way.

In the current system, there are only three ways to be sure you won't have this kind of voter's remorse... either a) buy a working crystal ball, b) elect yourself, or c) find a politician that has 100% total agreement with your set of beliefs. I haven't had luck with any of these, so I'm asking the question, "Why not a direct democracy?"

Let me list a few advantages of a direct democracy:

1) The end of lobbyists and political favors. If a corporation or special interest group wants to get a law passed, they have to bring it in front of the whole population. They can't get their dubious prescription drug bill passed by simply buying a few yachts for a few senators. Nor will have to suffer the situations where senators makes deals with each other... exchanging a yay on this issue for a nay on the next. Anything that resembles legislative bribery will have no place in a direct democracy, unless someone is willing to pay off more than half of the voters. I can live with that. Pull a brand new yacht into the driveways of every house on my block and we might consider what you have to say about this new drug bill.

2) The end of ridiculous political ads. No one is getting elected, so we don't have to suffer through those hokey down-home ads that make you feel like Tom Daschle was your best friend from elementary school approving himself for nice guy of the year. Political ads will instead focus on what they should focus on: issues. On the ballot will be education, gun control, and war with Iraq; therefore on the television will be ads that discuss the advantages and disadvantages of education reform, uzi regulation, and Saddam Hussein. No more wasting time and money on a popularity contest.

3) The end of the demonizing leaders. Next time, if Michael Moore wants to point the finger at the guys who started the war with Iraq (or the guys who didn't prevent the terrorists... whatever the case will be), he will have to do an investigative documentary on more than 50% of the voters... or make a documentary on the issue itself and not the President (like Bowling for Columbine). Either is more tasteful and more intellectual than gossip of the rich and famous. And Bill Clinton's next affair with a secretary wouldn't make headlines in more than the local newspaper.

4) The end of political parties. Sure the labels of conservative and liberal won't go away, but the machine of political donations that supports one candidate and seeks to undermine the other will be abolished. People will have to think about what their opinion is on the specific issues that come before them, instead of defaulting to a party's platform. I know one person that voted for a senator in the last election because she thought he was more sexy than the other. (It's a good thing my vote based on hard thinking about the issues went to cancel out hers.) And here a direct democracy will remove the temptation of lust from clouding voters' mind... unless she gets turned on by gun control and tax regulation.

5) Consistency. We let the people directly decide the guilt and innocence of suspected criminals, why don't we let the people directly decide the laws, too? Moreover, what distinguishes modern governments from ancient ones is that we use laws to govern people rather than people to govern people. The next logical step is to let the people govern themselves, directly. Laws can be trusted because they are impartial and unchanging. The peaceful law you elect in November isn't going to surprise you and go to war next spring. The marriage act you vote for this year isn't going to be fooling around with interns in the White House next year.

6) The beginning of political discussion and responsibility. The next time something like No Child Left Behind or HIPPA comes up, everyone will be asking about how it works and why we should implement it. Then, when people start complaining about the good teacher in town that was fired, or the dozens of forms they have to sign regarding privacy, they have only themselves to blame. It's not George Bush's fault anymore, it's their own. When the issue comes up, it is discussed to everyone's benefit - there isn't a divide between Democratic educators and Republican taxpayers. Issues still won't be decided unanimously, but when your son fails to learn the multiplication tables because you voted away the teachers, at least you can find who's responsible in your bathroom mirror.

The way I see it, a representative democracy was essential for America in its time. It is hard for us to imagine running a government where news in Washington doesn't get to Chicago for a week, if it even gets there at all. But since technology in communication and transportation has connected us in nearly instantaneous speeds, we now have a different, and better, society that can be governed in a different, and better, way.

There is still a discussion ahead as to how much can be done directly, and how much cannot. When going to war, we can't have the general population deciding what each military target is going to be and where every bomb is going to be dropped. And we can't expect them to take the time to inform themselves about every civil case that enters the courts. A mayor may or may not be necessary. But I think it is safe to start by emptying all those offices in Congress and the White House. Every position that gets filled by television ads that look as though their candidate was running for homecoming queen should be cut. Homecoming queens don't govern any better than the rest of us.

So why do we need the middle-man called the Senator? If politics is about issues, then why are we electing people? Let's think instead about electing issues.

--end article--

Looking forward to your critical analysis...

David

PS Can you even vote for Bush/Kerry/Nader? Are you a bona fide Canuck?

--David Bergan

"I wish I had never been born," she said. "What are we born for?"

"For infinite happiness," said the Spirit. "You can step out into it at any moment..."

-CS Lewis (The Great Divorce)