Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of TNT Radio Interview

Tags

abortion, China, conservatism, culture wars, election 2022, electric vehicles, energy, Europe, Following Up, gay marriage, inflation, left-wing authoritarianism, midterms 2022, migrants, national conservatism, National Conservatism Conference, national security, politics, Sanctuary Cities, The Hrjove Moric Show, TNT Radio, Trade, Ukraine War

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my appearance Tuesday night on “The Hrvoje Moric Show” on the internet network TNT Radio. Click here for a timely discussion on the future of American conservatism, on the culture wars that should and shouldn’t be fought, and a on a wide range of other domestic and international subjects, both strategic and economic.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Advertisement

Following Up: Sense and Nonsense in the Abortion Debate

Tags

abortion, abortion rights, birth control, Clarence Thomas, Constitution, contraception, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Following Up, gay marriage, Ninth Amendmen, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, privacy, Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court

Even by the standards of the shameful misinformation- and sheer ignorance-dominated era in which we live, the national abortion debate is noteworthy for the shameful misinformation and sheer ignorance it’s generated, So I thought it would be useful to provide some crucial correctives.

First, the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling just overturned by six of today’s Justices did not create an absolute Constitutional right to an abortion. That majority opinion specifically stated that

“appellant [Jane Roe, the pseudonym of the pregnant woman who brought the case] and some amici [individuals and organizations that provided supportive “friends of the court” briefs] argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.”

The Roe majority added its agreement with prior federal and state court decisions that, although the right of privacy “is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant.” .

Second, as a result, “codifying Roe” through Congressional legislation, as sought by many critics of the Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson [Mississippi] Women’s Health Organization ruling overturning Roe, would not create an absolute Constitutional right to an abortion, either. In fact, the specific legislation offered in the House and Senate would clash violently with both the Roe and the follow-on 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision by preventing the state or federal governments from imposing any limits on abortions “after fetal viability.” as long as “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

Third, whatever was contained in legislation establishing national abortion rights, an act of Congress could well wind up providing only the most short-lived of guarantees. For that law would be likely targeted for abolition as soon as anti-abortion politicians gained sufficient control of both Houses of Congress and/or the Presidency (depending of course on whether a majority achieving this goal was veto-proof). And if the Senate filibuster is ended – another goal of many abortion rights backers – scrapping an abortion rights law would be even easier.

Fourth, I wrote on Friday that a Constitutional right to privacy is essential for any political system like America’s that claims to value individual liberties, whether it’s explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or not. As with all legitimate rights, it can’t be absolute – because in principle and in real life, too many of these can come into conflict. But without an underlying right to privacy, no limits on government’s authority to control individual behavior would exist save those that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

These are numerous and important (like freedom of expression and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures). And although it’s often overlooked, the Ninth Amendment holds that “certain rights” not enumerated in the Constitution must be “retained by the people.”

But the text of the Ninth Amendment offers no examples or guidance of any kind. And without an underlying right to privacy, it’s not the slightest bit difficult to understand that despite the assurance offered by the Dobbs majority, many other current individual liberties could be endangered. Nor is the evidence limited to Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion concurring with the Dobbs ruling, which argued that with the right to privacy out of the way, Supreme Court rulings legalizing contraception, same sex marriages, and same sex relationships should be overturned with the same logic.

Even now, politicians in some states are moving to outlaw certain kinds of birth control devices. And it’s surely pertinent to note that Dobbs opinion author Justice Samuel Alito – who insisted that “It is hard to see where we could be clearer” in stating that the majority opposed equating the legalit of abortion and the legality the other forms of intimate behavior mentioned above – himself opposed the 2015 pro same-sex marriage decision using the exact same kinds of arguments he made in Dobbs. So I certainly think he could have been clearer.

But there’s another important reason to prize a right to privacy.  It has to do with the nature of constitutions themselves. Their whole point (unless they’re the phony kind concocted by dictatorships) is establishing limits on government. Why else bother with such exercises? And what set of limits on government is more crucial than those determining how it can and cannot treat private individuals’ behavior? 

These four aspects of the abortion rights debate certainly don’t exhaust the list of  falsehoods and plain old hare-brained ideas warping a controversy that’s otherwise entirely legitimate and necessary. But the sooner they’re recognized and cashiered, the likelier the nation will be to craft (or re-craft, as I’d put it, given my belief that Roe and Casey got the basics right) an abortion consensus behind which Americans can unify.  

Im-Politic: A Moral Quandary Surrounding American Morals?

Tags

abortion, Gallup, gay marriage, Im-Politic, marijuana, moderates, morals, polling, public opinion, social conservatives, social liberals, Trump, values

This’ll be one of those posts where I confess I just don’t know what the heck is going on. But the info seems so compelling – and possibly contradictory – that it can’t be ignored.

The first half of the puzzle comes from Gallup’s new finding that a large (81 percent) of Americans judge the country’s moral values to be “only fair” or “poor,” and that 77 percent believe that this problem is getting worse. Although I know there will be many who are tempted to respond with something to the effect of “Ah, Trump,” keep in mind that these numbers haven’t changed dramatically since the company began asking such questions in 2002. (Somewhat greater shifts – for the worse – are evident since the early 1990s, when Gallup’s questions were somewhat differently worded.)

Another intriguing result: More than a third of respondents rated the state of U.S. morality as “fair” – which isn’t necessarily negative. In fact, combining the 36 percent of Americans taking this view with the (dwindling) share who view it as “excellent/good” (17 percent) sums to a majority that’s arguably pleased with the nation’s ethics. And these sub-categories (called “internals” by polling insiders) have remained broadly stable over the last decade and a half as well.

Less intriguing: Over the last year, self-identified social liberals have become much more concerned about America’s morals, with the share perceiving a worsening spurting from 58 percent to 71 percent. Social moderates became markedly more pessimistic, too, and that definitely looks like a Trump effect. So does the less dramatic drop in the share of those considering themselves as social conservatives telling Gallup that moral decay intensified during that time.

But here’s where the real mystery comes in. Another Gallup survey, taken just a few weeks ago, reported “Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues”. Give the company credit: It’s recognized the apparent paradox: “Even liberals, who seemingly should be pleased with the growing number of Americans who agree with their point of view on the morality of prominent social issues, are more likely to say things are getting worse than getting better.”

Gallup offers two possible explanations, but I don’t find them especially convincing. The first, after all, assumes (at least logically) that social liberals believe that many Americans who have swung their way on gay marriage, marijuana legalization, abortion, and the like are still insensitive (at best) toward racism and poverty. Or even have become more so. The second assumes that liberals believe that these same, increasingly tolerant Americans keep displaying “lack of respect or tolerance for others,” or are getting even coarser.

Nor am I persuaded by another possible explanation that could well be proposed by social conservatives: that although they increasingly support more liberal moral positions and views, deep down inside, liberals and moderates recognize them as dangerous and therefore perceive American morals to be declining.

So I’m left in the dark, but certain something important is taking place within the national psyche. What do all of you think?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Despite Marriage Equality Ruling, it’s Still the Economy….

Tags

China, debt, euro, Eurozone, Financial Crisis, gay marriage, Great Recession, Greece, Lehman Brothers, LGBT, marriage equality, Obergefell vs Hodges, political correctness, Puerto Rico, punditocracy, recovery, stock market bubble, Supreme Court, {What's Left of) Our Economy

For the last two days I’ve been commenting on social issues – kind of a departure from my usual focus on economics and foreign policy, but worth doing as I saw it because the Supreme Court’s marriage equality raised so many issues that are both intrinsically interesting to me, and that bear importantly on the nature of our American society and political community. Over the last twenty-four hours, though, have come reminders – in the form of the (seemingly) climaxing Greece crisis and the deflation of China’s stock market bubble – that if the country doesn’t get its economics and finances right, none of that’s going to matter much.

Not that you would have gotten any sense of that from the major TV and cable talk shows yesterday. I saw every one of them except for CNN’s version, and I don’t believe the words “Greece” or “China” were even uttered. The Court’s Obamacare ruling got a fair amount of air time – but not because it will crucially impact a huge and growing share of our economy. Instead, the focus was on the decision as one sign of what a terrific week the president enjoyed, and what a pickle this (supposedly) creates for Republicans.

As the Beltway-centric punditocracy saw it, the mega-story was marriage equality – which should make clear that its worldview is grossly distorted by its cloistered collective life inside a media (and connected academic-arts-entertainment) bubble in which gays are robustly represented. After all, though the Obergefell vs Hodges ruling was a major social and cultural landmark for Americans, and will dramatically affect LGBT citizens, the latter comprise less than four percent of the U.S. population according to the best estimates. So it’s time to curb at least some of the euphoria touched off by Obergefell outside the LGBT community.

As for the alarm bells that have been ringing: First, many Americans who aren’t straight won’t choose marriage in the first place, much less child rearing. What of worries that the decision will set off an explosion of other kinds of nontraditional marriages, and foster the kind of child abuse strongly linked with polygamy? That very danger will naturally create a firewall against such units adopting or having test-tube kids that simply can’t be justified for LGBT couples and the loving, responsible parenting so many have been providing (and that we’re not seeing from too many traditionally married couples).

Nor do I see any threat to freedom of religion or conscience. If you didn’t approve of non-traditional marriage before the Court ruled, you’re just as free to disapprove today, and to express this disapproval. Your place of worship is just as free to preach against it, as will religious and other private schools. Businesses that oppose it will continue to be free to refuse to provide goods or services that would require them to participate or be present at weddings or other ceremonies or events they abhor. But they will rightly be required to serve LGBT customers at their place of business – including public officials who issue marriage licenses. If your faith now prevents you from signing forms that authorize LGBT couples to wed, you’re in the wrong job.

I can sympathize with marriage equality critics who are uncomfortable with the idea that LGBT Americans will assume a higher profile in the nation’s daily life, and who resent being labeled (often wrongly) as homophobes and, more broadly, “haters.” But ironically, they’re also sounding like the lefty political correctness types who favor turning offended sensibilities into a major criterion for limiting speech and other forms of free expression – or actual behavior. That’s the road to pervasive censorship and social controls that are thoroughly and dangerously un-American. Like the PC crowd, marriage equality critics are simply going to have to toughen their skins. In particular, if you want to air your views in public, rough pushback is often the price you pay. P.S. If you have real faith in your convictions, it shouldn’t be such a big deal.

Meanwhile, the future of the world’s biggest currency area – the Eurozone – is completely up in the air over the Greece crisis, and most of the world’s major private sector financial institutions (including America’s) are exposed directly or indirectly. Moreover, in the world’s second largest national economy, one of the most mammoth stock market bubbles in recent history is deflating – and the emerging Chinese stock bust could burst other immense bubbles Beijing’s economic policies have helped inflate.

Not that I’m predicting imminent apocalypse, or even a new Lehman Brothers moment, from either development (or even combined with the distinct possibility of a debt default by Puerto Rico). But when I think of how further national and global financial instability could affect an already under-performing, heavily indebted U.S. economy, and compare that with the fallout from the marriage equality decision, it seems clear that everyone should start leaving Obergefell in the rear-view mirror.

Im-Politic: Marriage Equality and the Constitution

Tags

10th Amendment, Constitution, equal protection, gay marriage, Im-Politic, marriage equality, Reserve Clause, same-sex marriage, states' rights, Supreme Court

Yesterday, one of my Facebook friends wrote a detailed response to my post on the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision that focused on some of the main Constitutional issues raised. I just replied on Facebook and then realized that it’s a subject worthy of a follow-on piece.

My critic made the following arguments:

“Whether or not a judicial decree brings temporary delight to one group or another is not an adequate criterion for supporting the action. While many do not see what is behind the curtain, the real issue involves the relationship between government and the governed. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to bring an end to self-government, and the sovereignty of the states in one rogue action. The Constitution grants to no part of the Federal Government any power to redefine marriage as understood for thousands of years. Worse yet, many of the state laws were supported via referendums. 

“The Supreme Court has fashioned itself to be a politburo. Now we will see if any part of government or society has the gumption to tell them to go jump in a lake.”

Here’s my position:

“Without trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like you’re making the states’ rights argument. As I mentioned in my post, I’m not a lawyer, and its thrust was not Constitutional. But obviously, the issue is critical, so here’s why I find this objection weak.

“First, the states are manifestly not sovereign political entities. They are members of a political union whose supreme law is a federal Constitution. The sine qua non of sovereignty is the absence of any higher recognized authority. Second, what is legitimately left of the states right issue flows from the Constitution’s reserve clause, the popular name for the 10th Amendment. It holds ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’

“This amendment has been long and heatedly debated. But there can be no doubt that it does not say that everything not included among the federal government’s responsibilities is automatically and for all time the purview of the states. And it certainly doesn’t specify that the regulation of marriage is some special province of the states – or any level of government. What it does specify is that any powers assumed by the states need to conform to provisions of the Constitution.

“One of these, of course, is equal protection under the law. So whether marriage regulation is an eternal right of the states or not (and again, I see nothing in the Constitution indicating this), there is no legitimate basis for arguing that marriage can be regulated in ways that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

“And as for the referenda point, “the people” don’t have the right to put in place policies that violate Constitutional norms, either. Regarding your point about longstanding notions of marriage, my post did point out that for thousands of years before current traditional marriage emerged, the institution took many different forms. And since no one has a crystal ball revealing what it will look like in the far future, what’s the case for making policy or law or interpreting the Constitution based on traditional marriage’s continued durability?

“Finally, as I made clear at the start of the post, I believe current traditional marriage is the best from the crucial child-rearing standpoint (all else equal, which it rarely is). But as I also made clear, policy-making can’t be about my own individual preference, or anyone else’s. And that goes double for interpreting the Constitution.”

Since I’m hardly the last word on these matters, I’ll be eager to see what further discussion these posts generate.  But a national right to marriage equality has now been established, and to me it looks solidly grounded not only in good – and necessary – public policymaking principles, but in good – and necessary – Constitutional interpretation.

Im-Politic: Why the Court Got Marriage Equality Right

Tags

Christianity, gay marriage, Im-Politic, Judeo-Christian values, marriage, marriage equality, New Testament, Old Testament, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m enough of an oldish fogey to harbor lingering beliefs (prejudices?) that the best formula for child-rearing, all else equal (and that’s a really big qualifier in this instance), is a heterosexual “traditional” marriage. But the marriage equality issue is not about my own individual preferences and hunches – or anyone else’s. More important, the more I think about the issue, the clearer it becomes that what should trump all other aspects of the marriage equality issue that the Supreme Court largely settled yesterday is a consideration that seems largely overlooked.

As made stunningly clear by the reactions of marriage equality supporters, and particularly those in the LGBT population, the Court has just provided the nation with a terrific yardstick for judging public policy: Any government decision that makes this many people so thoroughly overjoyed for all the right reasons boasts a powerful claim to be the law of the land.

This isn’t an argument for authorizing government at any level to satisfy the desires of every individual or group, no matter how numerous or large, whenever political or social or cultural or economic forces line up in their favor. Much less is it an argument for any overriding human right to happiness. It is instead an argument to appreciate the form of happiness the Court has just made possible.

It’s not happiness at the expense of the material possessions or rights of any individuals or groups. It’s not happiness that directly or intrinsically denigrates or insults anyone or any collective or institution. It’s not happiness that rewards hatred or selfishness or shortsightedness or hatred or jealousy or lust or greed or any other sins, deadly or otherwise, that I can think of, on the individual or group level.

Yes, there’s a case that it validates selfishness and shortsightedness – in the sense that it threatens a vital underpinning of any successful (and ultimately, enduringly happy) society. It’s not a case that should be dismissed out of hand, either. But it’s imperative to recognize that it’s a case based on nothing more than speculation. And any intellectually honest invocation of this future possibility must also recognize that the evidence of an outbreak of moral and social decay tied to the legalization of marriage equality where it had hitherto been established is pretty meager, if it exists at all. Such evidence is similarly threadbare at best in those U.S. states where same sex couples have existed for many years even though lacking the new rights and protections created yesterday.

Moreover, on the other side of this ledger must be placed the virtues that the Supreme Court decision reinforces, that the favorable popular reactions celebrate, that exist in the here and now, and that are surely not passing fancies – like love, and strong, stable families, not to mention liberty, equality, and dignity.  In other words, the kind of happiness created by the marriage equality decision is the kind we could use a lot more of.

More specific, and more easily addressed, is the claim that Judeo-Christian values undergirded America’s founding and remain its essential moral lodestars. I actually agree, contrary to libertarian thought, that any successful and decent society, even one that (rightly) prioritizes individual liberty, needs a shared (though necessarily general, given this nation’s size and diversity) moral consensus. And though they aren’t perfect, the evidence abounds that Judeo-Christian values have been an excellent choice. Looking around the world, I don’t seem too many societies not based on these beliefs where I’d like to live.

But it should be abundantly clear by now that the ancient Old and New Testaments have been much better at identifying worthy, and indeed transcendent, guides for individual behavior than at identifying which political and social institutions should be created and maintained. Nor should anyone be surprised. Their teachings originated at a time when democracy or any form of popularly accountable government was barely known, where slavery was common, and where polygamy was often the norm. Indeed, many leading Old Testament figures were polygamists and slaveholders. That’s not the case with the New Testament. But no offense intended to my Christian friends, that isn’t the only Testament, it’s not mine, and it deserves no official status in this country.

Interestingly, I just came across an evangelical website that tries to explain and justify the above Old Testament feature by arguing that all of its bigamists and polygamist ran into some form of major trouble, or their descendants did. Therefore, the Lord clearly disapproved. But here’s what certainly much more important: None of these figures was consigned to damnation or any form of eternal punishment, or even vilification because of how their marriages were structured. Indeed, in my Sunday school classes, they were treated as honorable patriarchs who (of course) displayed some entirely human failings. Why don’t Americans today who also choose to form non-traditional marriages deserve the same tolerance and understanding?

Indeed, that point made by the website, and the Old Testament, about complications, is worth keeping in mind by all sides of the marriage equality debate. There will inevitably be complications, unforeseen consequences, and even counterproductive results. Broad social and economic change tends to work that way. The above interpretation of the Old Testament suggests that the Creator recognized that, and even so was more than willing to continue the story of humanity, and of these individuals.

This Divine decision in fact strongly reminds of a leading view of justice – as involving a weighing of the scales. This concept, which is surely on target, inherently holds that for the most part, an admirable system of justice doesn’t, and perhaps can’t, seek verdicts that achieve perfect results. Instead, it seeks results in which the good achieved exceeds the problems created. The jubilation touched off by the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, and the lack of visible, remotely comparable downsides, adds up to compelling evidence that the Justices in the majority got this balancing act right.