Democracy and America In and Out of Caves

The allegory of the cave is one of the most famous and influential constructs in philosophy, and has survived over two thousand years to remain a widely studied and interpreted theoretical creation. In forming it, Plato simultaneously demonstrates two distinct ideas. First, he examines the state of individual human thought, and the ability it has to transition from the state of opinion into that of knowing. Second, he examines the state of society and the goals of the city and political life as they relate to the good. In doing this, he demonstrates the means one has to emerge from the cave, and argues for the importance of philosophy as the means of liberation. He also shows the importance of the “poets,” those who form opinions in the city, in helping or hindering one’s quest of liberation. Alexis De Tocqueville examines America, and displays how its lack of cultural traditions can threaten the value of knowledge, and how the opinions of the poets can become meaningless under the tyranny of the majority.

On a basic level, the cave is a representation of life in the city. The citizens of a city are those souls tied up able to look only at the shadows on the wall. They see reflections of life, partial representations of the good, of justice, and think these are the whole, the “form” in Platonic language. In this way they live out their lives, unaware they are merely viewing a shadow puppet show controlled by others. Indeed, they believe this to be the whole, and are fiercely defensive of their ignorance, without a desire to turn their heads.

The city itself has certain values and ideals which it takes to be most important, to represent the good of the city, and these are the ones it seeks to impart onto its citizens. The city is not concerned with finding the good, but rather with justifying itself and helping itself to perpetually exist. It considers those opinions which it has to be the good, and so values them. Its opinions may overlap with the good, and indeed it is likely that in stable societies there is an overlap, but this is simply a way for the city to justify itself to its citizens, and not for the sake of the good itself.

Within an individual, this condition is represented by the state of opinion. Thus, everyone is born into a cave, into a city where there are preexisting opinions and cultural values which help shape their childhood, and form their initial opinions. This causes them to grow up with a set of values, which were determined for them. At some point, this individual may be turned around, and made to face the fire. Here he will see that all he has learned previous is nothing but the shadow of truth, and he will view the puppets which cast them.

These puppets are not the truth, but they are a step in the direction of it. This is the stage of informed opinion, where an individual grasps enough to know some of the truth, and to see the depths from which he has come. He must still be dragged further though, in order to escape the cave completely, and see the world as it truly is. If he finally escapes the cave, he will realize all that has been before has been simply opinion and he will gaze upon the true forms of things. This is perhaps the most critical part of Plato’s philosophy. Plato argues that there are transcendental truths, and that escape from the cave is possible.

The antithesis of this is what Plato calls nihilism. In this belief, there is nothing but relativism, and each cave has its own truths, which are only superior to others societies beliefs’ if they enable the city to function better. This belief sets up society as nothing more than a Hobbesian system where life is nothing more than a set of compromises, and justice exists only in living within the system set up. There is no escape from the historical relativism one is born into, and no higher ideals of the good. Plato rejects this view unequivocally. Although he is not clear about what justice and truth actually are, he is clear that these are absolutes and exist. He argues this based on the ability of humanity to form separate caves, and to exist in a bifurcated manner, with the ability to separate rational thought from the desires of the senses. He argues the humanity is capable of grasping the principles which make up how things are, and in so doing transcend the historical relativism of the cave.

An important concept in how society is set up, and also how a person achieves movement through cave and finally liberation from it, is the role of the puppeteers in the cave. These are the people who manipulate the puppets, and so cause the shadows to interact in different ways for the viewing and discussion of those living in bondage. In practical terms, this refers to those living in the state of opinion in the city. The puppeteers determine their opinions and shape their views on the good and the city itself. Plato views the poets as the puppeteers, and in contemporary society, they can be thought of as mass media and the consumer cultural that Western society embodies today. From an early age, one is barraged with images and cultural values from the television, movies, music, and these greatly influence how one learns to shape thoughts and opinions. On another level, cultural values themselves infuse people, giving them preset values. The view of the puppet –handlers so far expressed has been very negative, and it is an incomplete one. The puppet-handlers also fulfill needed and essential duties, vital both to the health of a cave, and to the ascent from it. As the cultural filters, they are responsible for imparting important values on the population. In a healthy city, these values will contain bits of the truth, perhaps even large amounts of the truth. A city must have some aspects of the universal in it if the city is to function well. Also, this filtering of the truth can help those looking at the shadows to begin their journey. In The Republic, Plato himself can be seen as one the puppet-handlers and The Republic as his attempt to send down a light to help people be liberated.

People are self-conscious individuals, Plato argues, and always have the capacity to realize they are in the cave. This realization is not synonymous to an escape, however. They first must pass through the puppet-handlers, and realize that these are not true values either. In short, one is born into a world with preconceived notions, based on the historical culture one lives in. At first, one accepts these as the reality, and thinks they are the truth and the whole. Eventually, one can gain a realization that these are merely opinions being fed to society by those setting the cultural values. One may then think this is the truth and the whole, and that one’s aim should be merely to be a value setter, a Sophist. Through the study of philosophy, one can educate oneself and realize that those setting cultures are merely forming opinions writ large, and also do not have access to the truth. Finally, one can emerge from the state of opinion and grasp the true meanings of things as a whole.

Socrates has argued throughout the book that education is the best way to move an individual up and out of the cave. This does not mean that everyone will escape the cave. Socrates construction of the city in the earlier books shows that not everyone is fit to advance completely out into the realm of the philosopher. Many become the producing class, and few advance to the realm of philosopher-kings. Although this escape from the cave is a great accomplishment, Plato argues that a person’s duties are not done at this stage. Just as Socrates does in The Republic, a person who has escaped the cave must return into it, and help to guide others out, even if at first it may be against their will. In today’s society, a liberal arts education perhaps offers the best path one has to extricate themselves from the cave. The cave will always rely on dogmatic belief to some extent, argues Alexis De Tocqueville, for the simple reason that humanity cannot prove everything which he must base his life upon in an intellectually satisfying way. As De Tocqueville says, “…from the shortness of life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity… he is reduced to take on trust a host of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify for himself...” (Chapter II, paragraph 3) This reliance on dogmatic beliefs, given by the puppet-masters in Plato’s cave, is what he fears are lacking in America.

De Tocqueville looks at early America, and sees in it a land where the old structures of society have broken down. Instead of authority being placed on the traditionally viewed cultural and political elite, as it was previously in other societies, authority is loosely held by any individual. People trust only their own intellectual capacity. In a society where everyone believes themselves to be as authoritative as anyone else, they cannot rely on dogmatic belief, and the cultural traditions. Although this is a positive from some perspectives and can open up the freedom to study what one desires, and lead to the advancement of philosophy, it has important drawbacks, which are often overlooked in contemporary society. In the place of dogmatic belief, De Tocqueville views the majority as the new authority. This tyranny of the majority comes about because of the lack of inherent authority in the educated elite. As De Tocqueville says, “…his readiness to believe the multitude increases, and opinion is more than ever mistress of the world.” (Chapter II, Paragraph 9) The opinion of the multitude is the only external source of authority one has to base an opinion on in such a society, and so those opinions of the majority are imposed upon the wills of the entire society. While there is certainly scope to think this is in many ways a positive event, it has drawbacks. The views of the educated are not as accepted as those of the master of rhetoric, and so the cave may be ruled by those without proper knowledge.

As we go through life in a culture which exults democracy, the freedom of thought, and the triumph of the majority, it is vital we recognize that Plato’s ancient cautions still hold true today. Regardless of which poets are setting the agenda in a society, we can recognize the difference between opinion and truth. A proper education, including the study of philosophy, is essential in achieving liberation from the cave.

Foreign Policy and American Concerns

As President Obama begins his presidency, most Americans are understandably focused on the economic crisis. This has been the case for months now; during the latter parts of the presidential campaign the domestic economy became the main talking point for both candidates. A large majority of President Obama's policy speeches and public statements have been devoted to the subject, and since the inauguration he has spent much of his time crafting a stimulus bill with Congress. This is not to say he is ignoring everything else, (he has issued several executive orders) but merely to point out that the dominant narratives of the country over the last few months, including the early days of his presidency, have been the problems facing the U.S. economy.

While this is not surprising in itself, it strikes a sharp contrast to America since 9/11. After the terrorist attacks, the media coverage and public dialogue became mainly concentrated on foreign policy issues. The quest to discover the perpetrators of the attacks led to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. In 2002 there was the run up to the Iraq War followed by the invasion itself, and in the years immediately following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime America was occupied by the occupation and subsequent civil war. Pundits watching the massacre of Republicans at the polls in 2006 interpreted it (correctly) as anger at the failures in Iraq. Looking back, 2007 was the last year when foreign policy concerns were still a dominant concern for the administration and many Americans in general. Nuclear proliferation became a hot topic, with North Korea and Iran keeping American’s focus, at least to some extent, on foreign policy issues. Iran in particular was concerning to some, with a flurry of rumors of invasion, air strikes, or a collaborative U.S.-Israeli assault of some form. The last year has seen all of this fade as an issue, as the economic crisis, oil and food spikes, house prices downward spirals, and a myriad of other domestic concerns took center stage.

Perhaps it is too simplistic to link this shift in focus only to the state of the economy. The success of the surge and the alliances the U.S. military forged with Iraqi Sunnis has dropped the monthly death tolls to fractions of their level in the year prior to the 2006 election, and as Iraq appears to stabilize somewhat the anger and confusion that Americans felt is fading. The Bush administration’s ability to control the narrative and to frame two successive elections and countless policy decisions as black and white issues concerning the immediate safety of Americans eventually appeared self-serving or inadequate to many people. As 9/11 faded into memory, Americans slowly became less concerned with the lurking specter of more attacks, and since the recession this concern has faded even quicker.

In many way, this is a return to post Cold War norms. Throughout the 1990's, large majorities of Americans stated that the domestic policy should be the primary focus of the president, reaching as high as 86% in January 1997, in a poll done by Pew Research. This same poll saw that number drop to around 50% after 9/11, (and even lower among Republicans, with a large majority saying the foreign policy was a bigger concern) where it remained through the January, 2008 poll. In this January's results the number has risen dramatically, to 71%, more in line with their pre-9/11 numbers.

While it makes sense that dominant narratives in America shift back and forth from domestic to foreign concerns depending on events, it is noteworthy how quickly foreign policy has dropped down the list of concerns for many Americans, considering the number of challenges facing the U.S. abroad. The hundreds of thousands of U.S. military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan get barely a mention on the news these days, and their deaths receive a mere paragraph in the newspapers. In the coming days and months, as President Obama deploys around another 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, slowly withdraws from Iraq, diplomatically engages with Iran, and attempts to intervene successfully in a variety of other crises across the globe, it is worth considering how little most Americans are paying attention to any problems outside their borders. George Bush’s legacy will forever be intertwined with Iraq, but it appears that the early years of the Obama administration will be largely judged on his domestic policies.

Thoughts On The Inauguration Speech of Barack Obama

From the beginning President Obama has set an ambitious agenda, and his inaugural address continued in that same vein. In the months since his election, as the economy continued to worsen and the world stumbled from one crisis to the next, I and many others wondered how many of his campaign promises he would backtrack on, how many of his grand ideas he would put off. He addressed me and other doubters quite clearly, saying that "...there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans." He then answered our doubts, and laid out anew his plans for moving the country forward, "The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its costs. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." This is an ambitious domestic agenda for anyone, never mind a young, just-elected president in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

On foreign policy too he laid out an impressive plan, promising to undo many of George Bush's clearest missteps. He unequivocally stated his opposition to the policies of torture and secret detainment that have cost the United States so much in public standing throughout the world, saying that "...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," and hearkening back to the Constitution drafted by the founders, as one which would "...assure the rule of law and the rights of man." He signaled his intention to shift the military focus of the war on terror, stating that "...we'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan." He mentioned his intention to oppose nuclear proliferation, and rebuked those countries that "...seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West." While he gave notice that he will lead America in a more multilateral direction, and seek to build alliances with countries across the globe, he also addressed those who questioned America's place in the global hierarchy after the failures of the last eight years, forcefully stating that "...we are ready to lead once more."

While he told the world that America will not apologize for its way of life, he told Americans that this way of life may need to change in the years ahead. He warned those who would turn to isolationist or protectionist policies that , "...we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect."

In the economic sphere, he again implicitly rebuked his predecessor, saying that recession was the partly the "...consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some." To those who only blame greedy bankers while reneging on responsibility themselves he warned that it is also the result of "...our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

He cut through the stale debate over the market system, explaining that "...the question before us (is not) whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched." He warned however, that "...without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control," something evident to everyone over the preceding months. Similarly, he stated that it is not "...whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." He has promised to improve efficiency, cut useless programs, reform the military procurement process, and improve the transparency of how taxpayer money is spent, themes which shined through clearly in his speech.

Barack Obama swore his oath on President Lincoln's Bible, and invoked George Washington as an inspiration during his speech. He told Americans that time were tough and would continue to be so for a while, but that the turning point was now, and he would not falter in making the hard decisions necessary to improve the United States at home and abroad. It was an ambitious speech, and it set out an ambitious agenda. Only time will tell if his policies match his rhetoric, but if he keeps the promises made in his address, America and the world will have much to be thankful for in the coming years.

Race Construction and Colonial Lingerings

Race has long been used as an important tool of identification to differentiate between classes of people. Many societies in human history, particularly since the onset of science as an explanatory tool, have used racial differences to divide resources and power. Specifically, “the West” used this tool when they colonized various countries. Although the specific organizational methods which were used varied, all relied upon a contrast of the white man as superior, and the native as inferior. This essay will examine that relationship, and look at the various ways the West used racial constructions of difference as a tool to maintain dominance over the native populations, both during and after colonization. It will examine the way this construction has impacted current issues of race in society.

When race is used as a tool to differentiate between certain groups of people, it is based on the premise that there is a biological difference between the different races. Within this construction is an inherent justification of racism. Howard Winant argues that this construction arose with modernity and the beginnings of the nation-state. As the Enlightenment understandings of the world grew in importance throughout Europe, there was a preoccupation with understanding everything scientifically. The obvious differences in appearance between white Europeans and black Africans, Asians, or Latin Americans was explained by various scientists who measured and theorized about the various ways in which the Europeans were biologically unique and differentiated from these other races. However, Winant explains that attempted differentiation of human beings by phenotype as a way to show inherent difference does not stand up to close scrutiny. He writes, “There is no biological basis for distinguishing human groups along the lines of race, and the sociohistorical categories employed to differentiate among these groups reveal themselves, upon serious examination, to be imprecise if not completely arbitrary.”[1]

The underlying rationale behind differentiating by race was never a purely scientific pursuit, however. It was linked with the beginning of colonization, and a scientific justification was found for the brutal practices which the colonists engaged in. Thus the white man was not just superior because he benefited from a more advanced cultural background, but because he was physically superior. As Nancy Stepan explains, “… science provided the ontological grounding for political argument about the differential treatment of human groups.[2] This “scientific racism” was used by the white colonizers as a rationale to explain why slavery and domination was not just alright, but even beneficial to those subjugated. It provided a way for them to be taken care of and to escape the savagery of their cultural practices lifestyle, which was caused by their racial inferiority. Stepan goes on to explain that science in general is historically understood through the lens of normalcy being the white man, and the “other” being those who differentiate from this (whether it is gender or racial difference). The “other” is always alien and inferior, furthering the inherent justification of dominance by the white man.

In colonial Rwanda, Belgium overseers used a racial hierarchy to differentiate Rwandans. They were divided between two different ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi. The Tutsi were identified as distant descendants of the Biblical Ham (Noah’s son). This explained their taller height and more European facial features, and thus their natural right, as being closer to white, to be higher on the racial hierarchy than the Hutu. As this scientifically based system did not accept that very few Hutu and Tutsi actually resembled their appropriate racial phenotype, and the authorities could often not differentiate between the two, the Belgiums instituted a system in the 1930’s whereby every Rwandan would declare their ethnic group and be given a card with their “racial’ identification on it. This new and inflexible system gradually radicalized the two groups; the Tutsi increasingly emphasized their superiority, while the Hutu became increasingly solidaristic. This racialization of Rwandan society marked the first time that each ethnic group became static, and altered what had been a system of social mobility to one of racial subjugation. Thus this scientific construction, which was based on the white man as inherently superior, would eventually lead to decades of societal unrest and eventual the genocide of 1994, in which 800,000 Rwandans were killed.[3]

There are many other examples where racial construction and its legacies can be seen in practice. Anthony Marx writes of three of them; Brazil, the U.S., and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are marked by European colonization (the U.S. is to, but the racial issue being examined here is not between the colonized group and the colonizer), and the interaction between the native and colonized population. The U.S. and Brazil are marked by slavery, and the force migration of a subjugated population. All three of these countries have legacies of racial inequality, and all of them have been wrestling with these issues continuously since they appeared. Even today, all three have significant social and economic inequalities between white and black populations. In each, “the West” has used racial construction to differentiate between groups of people and to maintain dominance.[4]

Both the United States and South Africa relied on racial differentiation in order to create a nation and recover from conflict between elites. For South Africa, the conflict between British and Afrikaner threatened the stability of the state. By transforming this anger against each other into anger against the black population, and by defining each as a white citizen in opposition with the black “other,” it created a nation of South Africa built upon the exclusion of blacks. Similarly in America, where the end of the Civil War was marked by a willingness of Northern elites to abandon their black compatriots who had fought beside them, in order to appease the Southern whites and bring them into the process of rebuilding a sense of nation, there is once again an opposition to the black “other.” Thus in both of these states a legal segregation was imposed as a means of nation building.

Conversely, in Brazil, this use of race to unify by exclusion did not happen. It has attempted to form a national identity based on assimilation, and a sense of continuity with the past, irrespective of race. Historically, racism in Brazil is informal as opposed to the strict segregation of apartheid and Jim Crow. Brazil did not experience the intra-white conflict of the other two states, what conflicts it did experience were based on fears of slave revolts. The imperative of nation-building in Brazil was thus focused on appeasing the Afro-Brazilian population, not on moderating intra-white conflicts, and so the nation which emerged was based on the myth of an inclusive democracy which did not base policy on skin color, and in which belonging to the Brazilian nation was the most important identity structure.

Marx argues that all of these states remain racially unequal, and he worries that South Africa and the U.S. are beginning to follow Brazil’s pattern where an official myth of equality obscures the issues of inequality which remain. The inequality which does exist in today’s society is often dismissed as being the fault of the oppressed for not actively joining in this new racially inclusive society. Even if the oppressed race does attempt to join in the new society, they often find it is at the expense of their own cultural identity, and that they may remain second-class citizens; the case of North Africans in France is a salient example.

Cultural identity is often seen as different from racial identity, and thus discrimination on the basis of culture is not seen as racism. Tariq Modood challenges that interpretation, and argues that racism can be culturally constructed as well as simply a product of “color.” He explains that color racism has no scientific basis anymore, as the earlier construction of human beings as having innate differences in intelligence and ability based merely on their race have been disproved. Specifically, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, there has been a focus on disproving that differences between people are racially based, and that there is any such thing as a master race. However, as racism remains, and is still a tool used by the dominant members of society to express their disdain and disapproval of the “other,” an attempt must be made to look at culture as a reason. Thus definition relies on racism as being people expressing their contempt at anything other than the civilized norm, which is always defined as a white male (which typically has aspects of Christianity intertwined with it). He explains that Muslim Pakistanis in contemporary Britain are viewed as racially inferior not because (or not just because) they are a different color, but because they are viewed as culturally inferior. Pakistanis are seen as representing a different and alien culture, with values that clash with the dominant culture. This form of racism is strongest against groups which offer a positive alternative cultural viewpoint to the dominant culture.[5]

Modood asserts that in the future, as science continues to disprove that race constitutes any biological difference between people, cultural racism could become the dominant form of racism, as people seek to maintain power against rival ideologies or ideas, and maintain their superior position vis-à-vis the “other.” Another option exists too, one which none of the theorists read so far have mentioned. As memories of the Holocaust slowly fade from societal conscious, at least as a dominant trend shaping scientific choices of study, people will begin to once again seek differences between groups based on biology. What if they find them? The idea that evolution may have impacted different geographical groups differently based on their specific regional pressures is not a new or revolutionary one. But biology is certainly more advanced today than it was the last time racial difference was a popular topic of study, and scientists have certainly become more objective in their methodology (although one can doubt where true impartiality can ever be reached.)

Indeed, a study suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may be more intelligent than the general population, and that this is a result of their long history of being persecuted. Those who were extremely intelligent were more likely to rise to the top of their fields and to escape various forms of persecution, and thus were more likely to have children; Ashkenazi also commonly intra-marry within their own group. The study suggests that Ashkenazi who were successful were disproportionately likely to have a certain mutated gene, and theorizes that this mutation increases their innate intelligence.[6] Regardless of the truth behind this, as science advances it is reasonable to assume that more and more correlations between genetic mutations and physical abilities and traits will be discovered, and that these will likely be explained by pointing out racial differences. This raises important questions about humanity, and whether we share a commonality which grants us the right to equal recognition as human within our diverse differences, differences which people will continue to attempt to exploit. Whether cultural racism becomes the dominant form of discriminatory expression or color racism enjoys a biological renaissance, racism will remain, and attempts to understand its specific manifestations are as important as ever.

[1] Howard Winant, “Race and Race Theory,” Annual Review of Sociology. 26:169–85. 2000. Pg.172.
[2] Nancy Leys Stepan, “Race, Gender, Science, and Citizenship.” Gender and History. 10: 26-52. April 1998. Pg. 32.
[3] Mahmood Mamdani. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide
in Rwanda. Kampala: Fountain, 2002.
[4] Anthony Marx. Making Race and Nation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[5] Tariq Modood. Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity, and Muslims in Britain. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
[6] “Natural genius?,” The Economist, June 2nd, 2005.

The Problem With Calling Heathcare a Human Right

Human rights are certainly good things, and certainly humanity has an ethical duty to urge their adoption in every corner of the world. However, economic necessities are not human rights, and the most effective way to see them adopted throughout the world is not through their designation as such. Similarly, governments do not have an absolute duty to provide for the unlimited welfare of every citizen, but rather to provide a basic level of health and security which every society should be allowed to approach as they see best fit, through the will of their own residents.

Many who support the argument that everyone deserves the right to be taken care of, and that therefore governments have an ethical responsibility to provide for citizens (and, for many who argue this, for all people) if they became ill and need medical attention. This view is based on different justifications; commonly a form of social contract theory for those who argue that government’s first responsibility is to those within a state, or natural law or humanist arguments for those who argued that it is humanity’s duty as a whole to provide for everyone.

I am skeptical of this. Certainly access to health care is a necessity for an individual to live a long and fulfilling life; equally certain, for a society to advance and develop as a whole its people should be healthy. My argument against it being designated a right, however, is twofold and based on the belief that there is a fundamental distinction between what are known as civil or political rights (such as the right to choose one’s government, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to live under the rule of law, with an institutionalized and impartial legal system, which grants all who are brought before it a fair trial and presumption of innocence) and those rights which are called social or economic rights (such as the right to work, the right to housing, to an education, or to receive health care).

This first group of rights is straightforward, with fairly clear definitions and with generally clear oppressors and oppressed. If someone is being denied their right to say what they wish, or to have a fair trial for a supposed crime, the solutions are generally clear, the oppressor easily identified. Economic rights are much more muddled, however. If someone has no access to health care, then who is to blame exactly? What is the solution? There has never been a government system where everyone has been guaranteed a real job. Indeed, those systems which have tried the hardest have generally proven unsustainable and ill-equipped for a world which is ever changing. By guaranteeing a society the right to vote and live with political and civil rights, we give the society the ability to determine for itself what system they wish to use, to take care of their people as they think is best.

The counter-argument with the most merit is that which argues that the fastest way to ensure that the many poor and impoverished people across the world who lack these basic necessities, to help those who are uneducated, jobless, or sick become educated, healthy, and productive, is to designate them as universal rights, thereby making it an ethical duty for governments to provide aid to make it happen. While there is some merit to this argument, (I would probably accept it as legitimate if I was convinced it was true, and would help these people the fastest) it opens up a new source of problems. First, I believe strongly in the social contract, and while I certainly support increasing global governance, and support the proliferation of international organizations, while states remain sovereign they have a duty to first provide for their own residents. On an international level, if one ensures that political and civil rights are kept, then the citizens of a state will have an active role in determining the government’s priorities, and if they are generally or vocally supportive of foreign aid, it will be forthcoming. For example, in the case of AIDS, successful activism movements throughout the world have resulted in massive transfers of cash and medicine, as can be seen in the case of PEPFAR, the Global AIDS Fund, and other examples. On a domestic level, the most effective way for a government to function properly, legitimately, and with long term success, is for the residents to enjoy those civil and political rights I have mentioned. It should be up to the citizens within a state to determine what kind of health care system they think will best provide for their society, what kind of economic system will provide the most or best jobs, and what kind of education system will best educate their children.

On a fundamental level, health care, jobs, education, and other economic necessities are services provided by the government or private companies, and the taxpayer should determine how they are best allotted. The most effective way for a society to efficiently allocate these goods is through an informed and empowered citizenry, determining what to do at the ballot box. There have been many cases of governments which ignore political and civil rights, and focus instead on giving their people a low level of economic necessities, following a particular ideology. Almost invariably this leads to an overstretched, corrupt, and unsustainable form of government, which becomes increasingly authoritarian until it falls or, if lucky, transitions away from such a system.

The condition of humanity is such that if a large group of people gather and make decisions, some people will always be better off than others. However, most free societies will also decide that governments should have a safety net in place, that the poor should have access to certain economic necessities, and where this isn’t the case, dedicated groups and individuals can work successfully to swing the opinion of society around, provided they have access to political and civil rights. I am not arguing that a system in which the bottom third of society has no health care, a poor education, and will likely lack many of the social benefits which lead to good jobs and living conditions is a good one, or is morally acceptable, I am simply saying the solution is not through a continual expansion of things designated as rights. I have only respect for an individual who feels as though he or she should spend their lives helping others, advocating for the material well-being of the poor, but I do not think they will accomplish their goal faster, or with any more lasting success, by designating economic necessities as rights.

The designation of economic necessities as human rights muddles what a right is without helping solve the many concrete problems faced by humanity. A government’s first responsibility is to the wishes of its people, and when these people are granted political and civil rights they are best able to determine what kinds of social programs will best help the poor in their area, and what gaps need to be filled in to raise the safety net to a higher level. Foreign aid can help raise this net to a level unreachable for many developing countries, and many citizens of the developed world have pushed for their governments to give aid; hopefully this trend will continue and increase in the future. The ability to engage in political debate and decision-making, whether through activism or the ballot box, is the best way to ensure better health and opportunities for the many people in the world whose voices aren’t heard; to focus instead on proclamations of unenforceable rights is more of a distraction than it is a solution.

Gettting to 270

In order to win the election, a candidate must get to 270 electoral votes, or one more than half of the 538 total votes out there. On the eve of the election, I wanted to look at the electoral map and examine how both candidates can win, and what states will be important to look at tomorrow night.

First, we can give each candidate the states where they are far ahead, and where their opponent has not campaigned or attempted to win. For Senator Obama, those states are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. This gives him a total of 224, leaving him only 46 EC votes away from the presidency. Senator McCain has a much smaller number of states which are certainly going to vote for him. They are: South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah,and Idaho. This gives him only 118 EC votes leaving him a whopping 152 more to go.

Clearly, the path for Senator Obama is the easier one. In fact, if we give him the states which are currently leaning his way, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, then he already has achieved his goal, and will have 278 EC votes and be our President-Elect.

For Senator McCain, the way is much more convoluted and unlikely. He must first hold onto the three states which are only leaning his way, Arkansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia, which will give him an additional 14 EC votes. Then he must take all of the toss-up states, which have a combined 128 EC votes. These states all voted for Bush in 2004, but many of them did so by narrow margins. They are: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Arizona, and Montana. If Mr. McCain can hang onto all of these states, which is anyone's guess, as the polls in them are all right around even, then he has a chance. This would bring his total to 260, meaning he would only need to snatch one or two states from Mr. Obama to win. There are three plausible (though unlikely scenarios where he could do this)

1) He could flip Pennsylvania, where Mr. Obama had trouble in the primaries. If he does manage to win Pennsylvania, he could afford to lose Virginia, which appears likely.
2) He could take two out of the three small western states leaning for Obama, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
3) He could miraculously pull out Minnesota, winning the presidency by one EC vote.

He could also manage to pull out a tie, by winning one of those small western states and New Hampshire, or by winning Colorado, but it is very likely that this would simply delay his eventual defeat.

It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where he comes out ahead, but one never knows, so certainly everyone should be watching Tuesday night. Personally, I will be looking at how close some of the important eastern swing states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia go. If two of those five go for Senator Obama, then McCain will be writing his concession speech, and if three do he will be getting ready to deliver it. If, on the other hand, McCain miraculously wins New Hampshire, we might be in for a long night.

What to watch it on....

FoxNews: If you want conservative talking heads.
MSNBC: FoxNews for liberals. All the thoughtless screaming one expects from FoxNews, just aimed at conservative instead of at liberals.
CNN: If you like lots of cool gadgets and results broken down into a thousand pieces. Reasonably balanced, fairly mindless.
PBS: Quiet and thoughtful commentary from reasonable people; hopefully David Brooks, who is one of my favorite people, will be on.
Comedy Central: John Stewart and Stephen Colbert will be on from 10 to 11, for a fun comedic change-of-pace.

I will be live-blogging on the Economist's Democracy in America blog, (probably arguing with commenter forbese, a strong McCain backer) likely watching PBS and CNN, with John Stewart making me laugh at 10.

Whoever wins, I promise you that they will lead America better during the next four years than we have been led the last 8, and I hope that everyone gives the winner a chance to prove themselves before casting judgment upon them. Happy voting and TV watching everyone!

The Origins of The Crisis: The Housing Bubble

First off, it’s essential to state that the underlying causes of the current state of the economy are complex and are not universally agreed on or even completely understood by economists and intellectuals; so I will not be able to supply a completely correct and objective answer. What I hope to do here is to provide a basic overview of some of the most important reasons that America and the world has reached the point where it is today, and the interesting and important information about these reasons.

The first and perhaps most important thing to understand is that house prices lie at the heart of the problem. American house prices rose by incredible amount throughout the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, with house values tripling in some places in less than 15 years, with the majority of this occurring after 2002. Understanding why this happened is essential to understanding everything that has followed.

Most things in the economy follow a pattern of boom and bust. As more people want to own a home, due to income rises and increases in population, prices will rise. This increases the incentive for builders to build more new homes, as they can now sell them for more. Over the long run this leads to an oversupply of houses on the market, which decreases the price. Buyers stop buying, waiting for prices to drop, further decreasing demand, which causes builders to stop building. (This is where we are now in America) Eventually this decreases the supply of houses on the market, first stopping the price-slide and then eventually increasing prices, and the cycle begins anew. In the real world things are immensely more complicated, but understanding that this cycle exists is a good starting point.

When this boom cycle began, U.S. economic growth was high and prosperity was widespread. Average U.S. household incomes grew throughout much of the 1990’s, increasing the percentage of families who could afford to buy homes. People were living longer and more of the elderly were remaining in their homes or moving to retirement communities where they owned property. An increasing number of people, having reached the middle class, were buying vacation homes. Immigration was high, as strong economic growth drew a wide variety of people to America. Highly skilled professionals flocked to Silicon Valley and other high-tech centers. The unskilled were employed in hotels, restaurants, and as itinerant farm workers, keeping prices low and freeing up the American labor force to move into middle class service industry positions. All of this led to a sustained and widespread increase in demand, particularly in places with large vacation and retirement communities (Florida, Nevada, and California).

People who buy houses generally don’t do so by writing a check. They save up enough money to pay for 15 to 20% of it, and then ask a bank to pay for the rest. In return, they agree to pay the bank back over a set time period, generally 30 years. The bank makes money by charging the home owner interest on the debt. This interest rate is set at a certain level, based on the market, which is generally a few points higher than Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate. Banks do not just give out loans to anybody, however. They check to make sure that the prospective buyer will be able to pay back their loan, looking at their credit history, annual salary, etc. If a prospective buyer is risky the bank will seek a way to minimize that risk to them. They can do that by charging higher interest rates (in this way they trade increased risk for increased profit potential). In America, two very large institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been created to help people who are relatively poor or young. These people, who in general would be seen as too risky by banks due to their lack of credit history and assets, are able to buy houses because Fannie and Freddie buy their mortgages from banks and thus eliminate the risk to the bank. If for some reason a buyer does default on their loan down the road, the bank will generally repossess the house and then sell it to someone else in order to recoup the money they are owed. As always, this is a simplistic overview, but it gets at the most important points.

So why did this housing boom turn into a bubble? First, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time, Alan Greenspan, had lowered the interest rate coming out of the 1992 recession which swept Bill Clinton into office in 1993. However, he did not really raise it much in the economic boom which followed in the late 1990’s on the back of technology and the internet boom. The Federal Reserve is very concerned with inflation, which it wishes to remain in the low single digits, and Greenspan believed that if he raised interest rates then inflation would fall to zero. He looked at the increasingly globalized economy, and the flood of cheap labor from the former Soviet countries and China, as well as the cheap goods which were being imported for American consumers from factories throughout the developing world, and his concern for these deflationary pressures kept him from raising rates quickly. After dropping them to 3% in 1992, he had increased them to 6% in 1995. As the economy grew fairly regularly over the next few years, he held them more or less steady, lowering and raising them by small amounts.

The technology boom turned to bust suddenly, and many I.T. companies collapsed, causing the economy to slow and fears of recession to arise. This was exacerbated by the events of September 11th, 2001, and it appeared likely that the country would slip into a downturn. In response to these events, Greeenspan quickly began dropping interest rates, bringing them below 2% in July, 2002, and reaching a low of only 1% in 2003. Most people now think he made some mistakes; first by keeping interest rates too low during the 1990’s, exacerbating that boom, and then by lowering them too far in the early years of the decade, and keeping them extremely low for too long. The incredibly low interest rates during this second period, lasting from summer 2002 to summer 2004, overlapped with house prices rocketing up at an incredibly fast pace. As explained before, interest rates for house mortgages are based off the Fed rate, so by keeping this too low people had an increased incentive to buy new and more expensive homes, as they would be able to afford them due to the low interest rates.

It is necessary to look further into the increase in demand for homes. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, we must look at how much easier it became to purchase homes. In the 1990’s, Democratic government strongly supported Fannie and Freddie, and passed legislation making it easier for them to take on loans from risky borrowers, as this helped poorer families qualify for buying homes. Upon his election, George Bush encouraged the continuation of this trend, calling for what he termed the “…ownership society.” Thus both Democratic and Republican governments encouraged a continually increasing pool of lower-middle class families to buy homes at interest rates which underestimated the risk of their defaulting. Banks also played a part in increasing demand. Whereas historically most banks did not lend to risky borrows, as previously mentioned, they increasingly began to utilize different forms of loans to attract these poorer buyers. Subprime lending refers to lending to people who do not qualify for prime rate loans, because they are perceived as higher risk. Due to the aforementioned low interest rates, subprime lending became a popular way for banks to give loans to high risk people, by charging them a higher (subprime) rate. There has been much criticism over the way lenders gave these loans out, and there is no doubt that some practiced deceptive techniques, not fully informing their customers of the fees which came with these mortgages. For example, many of them reset at higher interest rates after two years, or a like period of time; others involved hidden fees which did not become clear until after the loan had been taken out. Not everyone who took out these loans were being taken advantage of, however, as many were simply real estate speculators who hoped to flip the house for a profit before the higher rates kicked in, or were simply families buying homes they could not afford. Regardless of the reasons why people used subprime loans to buy houses, however, there is no doubt that they vastly increased demand and pushed house prices ever higher through the early years of this decade.

The final piece of the puzzle is to understand why banks were suddenly so eager to engage in this high-risk lending, and why they were able to, but that is too much information to put in here...