Globally Rational

Shan-ul-Hai

Decide Based On Credentials... Not Faces

Back in February 2007, USA Today/Gallup asked Americans the following question:

"Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be 72 years old, would you vote for that person?"

42% of people said "no" and 15% were undecided. That means that if their party nominated a 72 year-old, 3 out of 7 people would vote for somebody else. In the same poll, 48-50% of people supported Obama or Hillary in a November election against McCain. That would lead a person to believe that, since 42% of people should technically vote against McCain solely because of his age, only 6-8% of people actually supported Obama or Hillary. In fact, I think it's much easier to vote for McCain when you attach a name to his age... people were averse to voting for a 72 year-old, but plenty of people were willing to vote for McCain.

Are we serious? In a perfect world, I think we'd remove all of the faces from political elections. If we only knew a candidate's political stances and credentials (and we never saw their faces until after they get elected), I think more people would dismiss McCain just because they don't want to vote for a guy who'd be 80 years old by the time he finishes his second term. What do you think?

I like looking at data and studies... they cast a lot of light on reality. I've noticed plenty of people say things like "I don't care about the numbers, this is what my experience says"... but I don't think that any single person's experience is as valuable as the experience of the thousands of people involved in the study. If we weren't willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain?

I like McCain... I won't vote for him (not because of his age, but because of his stance on the issues), but I do like him. I think that he's better than Hillary and that he's not as good as Obama... but that's irrelevant. The question here is about numbers; if we weren't willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain?

The Supreme Court has “legacies?”

I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor, America's first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades).  The article mentions that the new Court has "undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities."  Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court's policies since O'Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:

• Shifted course on abortion rights: The court upheld a federal ban on the abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth" and backed away from a 2000 O'Connor opinion that required an exception in such laws to protect the health of the mother.

• Retreated on integration: The court made it harder for public school districts to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods to achieve racial diversity. In 2003, O'Connor had cast the swing vote to allow affirmative action in higher education and stressed the importance of racial diversity.

• Altered its approach to campaign-finance law: The court opened the door to corporate and union financing of broadcast ads right before an election. It moved away from a standard O'Connor had crafted to regulate campaign financing and made it harder for Congress to limit donations in elections. In doing so, the justices said campaign finance regulation could undermine free speech.

What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court's political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II.  While Rehnquist and O'Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court's "conservative wing".  Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a "conservative wing?"

It's about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings.  Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions.  Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court?  Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren't approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%).  The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn't do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do?

The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws.  As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality?

You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here).

Howard Dean: A Window into Obama's Future

It's common for a Presidential nominee to replace the chair of his party with one of his own people. Although Barack Obama's recent decision to keep Howard Dean as the DNC chair was minor news at best, I think it's much more important than the media has made it seem. I think the foreshadowing is undeniable; this will tell us a lot about what a potential Obama presidency would be like. Here are some things that jump out at me:

• Obama did not install one of his cronies, which would be a huge change over past Presidencies. In fact, some people at the University of Chicago (whose law and economics programs are among the best in the world) are worried that Obama will steal all of their best professors and put them into his cabinet.
• Howard Dean (a licensed physician) and Barack Obama (a Harvard-educated lawyer who was offered a tenure-track faculty position at one of America's best law schools) are both highly intelligent and highly educated. This gives me hope that we're approaching an America where politicians work together and make intelligent decisions for the benefit of the country instead of trying to benefit their own respective political campaigns.
• A lesser-known fact: Obama and Dean have both strayed substantially from their parents' life views, which suggests to me that they embrace change and positive development. Howard Dean grew up in a conservative family and Obama has written (among other similar things) that "my mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess... In a land [Indonesia] where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hardship... she was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism."

I'm hoping that this is a positive sign for Obama's campaign and, eventually, his Presidency. It's no secret to my regular readers that I'm a bit biased (I've supported Obama ever since Ron Paul fell into oblivion and McCain started to turn into another Bush), but am I wrong?

You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here).

Why do we care?

There are plenty of social issues that are important in politics these days. Everybody seems to be highly concerned with what everybody else is doing. With these issues, I like to ask myself "is it really worth the effort to oppose an issue that some people care so dearly about?" Some examples:

• Gay marriage - I agree that homosexuality defeats the original purpose of marriage, which exists (from an evolutionary perspective) for the purpose of procreation and to ensure that all children grow up with their two original parents. So, gay marriage doesn't make scientific sense... but why would I really care? Allowing it would make many same-sex couples very happy and it wouldn't really affect me in any practical way. Just because it defeats the purpose of marriage doesn't mean that I should prevent them from doing it... sure, I think it's a pointless idea (if you look at it scientifically), but if they want to do it, why would I stop them?
• Abortion - I can understand that the issue here is whether or not a human life is being destroyed. However, it seems like that should be a question that can be effectively answered only by an expert scientist in the field rather than by a politician. Why can't we just get a consensus from the scientists and then leave the issue alone?
• Immigration - Sure, we need to worry about securing our borders. But what about the people who come here legally and go through the full quota process? Why do we have to make life difficult for them?
• Religious polygamy - If polygamy were widespread, then it would be a problem for obvious reasons. But as long as a group of consenting adults is happy (assuming that no sexual abuse is going on), why do we feel the need to separate innocent children from their caring polygamist mothers? They're not really threatening our society; they just have a certain preferred way of life. Why do we let the government get involved in religious issues?

A lot of it (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, polygamy) comes down to religious issues. Although the term "separation of Church and State" is thrown around all over the place, it seems like people generally ignore it. Why was it such a big deal that some people thought Barack Obama might be Muslim? Why does the government think of marriage as a holy bond between a man and a woman? Sure, religion has a place in a person's life; honestly, I wouldn't even mind it if the US declared itself to be a Christian nation. But as long as we maintain the concept of "religious freedom," we cannot make policy decisions that involve religious values.

• Previous Posts:

• Decide Based On Credentials... Not Faces
• The Supreme Court has “legacies?”
• Howard Dean: A Window into Obama's Future
• Why do we care?
• Fixing Mistakes: The Failing War on Drugs
• Encouraging Isolationism: Americans and Geography
• English Around the World
• Another Insight into Hillary's Mind

• Related Posts:

• The Voting Season in the Rearview Mirror
• McCain: A Man of Class, Even in Defeat.
• The Anti-Incumbency Movement Is Dead
• A Monday Morning Quarterback's Postmortem of the Election Season
• The American Ideal: Out Of Many, One
• Road Map to the White House: Four Steps to How Obama Won
• THe First Lady of These United States of America
• The Searchwarp Post-Election Challenge