clown_phobia

More and more, all we hear of Al Gore is his stance on the environment. Since 2000 he has made a number of speeches on many issues but since An Inconvenient Truth all we have heard is climate change.

Climate Change is a very important issue - don't get me wrong. But if he ever wants to be President (which he may well not want to) he must be careful not to become a 'one issue candidate', out of touch with the other issues affecting the electorate, just as an actor does not want to become typecast.

But perhaps after 8 years of Obama he will not want to. It may be too late for him. Perhaps his best contribution can come through environmental advocacy.

Perhaps Democrats will look back and think of Gore as the President who could have been...

Many conservatives argue there is a liberal bias in Academia, in particular in the United States. I argue this is not specifically a bias favoring Liberalism but instead a bias against Conservatism, and this is natural and desirable.

There is a bias against Conservatism because Conservatism is in essence anti-intellectual. An ideology that believes the best systems of governing, the best forms of energy et cetera have already been discovered and implemented is an ideology that opposes new ideas, rational thought.

No where is this clearer that in the links between conservatism and creationism. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that the world is billions of years old but conservatives refuse to even listen to evidence. Yet they expect to be hired in universities?

Many conservatives are skeptical about climate change yet there has rarely been more consensus in the scientific community than that which currently affirms humanity's role in climate change.

It is this attitude that stops conservatives being able to be hired in Academia. Noam Chomsky may have far-left political views but his arguments are grounded in reason and evidence. Imagine Ann Coulter working for a university?

Contrast two media sources considered to be biased in their direction: FOX News and the New York Times and tell me which has higher intellectual vigour!

In conclusion, the reason there is a liberal bias is because Conservatism runs against everything universities stand for: reason, logic and evidence.

There is no way the votes from disputed states Florida and Michigan should count in the Democratic nomination. Both those states knew that moving their primaries forward would result in their delegates not counting, but they still held them early.

In the case of Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot because he knew it didn't count. In Florida, neither campaigned. This gives an instant advantage to Clinton because of her much larger name recognition at the time.

The current blog on the front page outlines the Clinton Campaign's "hipocrisy" on this issue. Once they realised they were struggling, they'll do anything to make those votes count. But counting those two states would simply be unfair.

George Will has presented some questions for Barack Obama is his latest Newsweek article. Here I will analyse and seek to answer those.

• Will's first question was about the appointment of Supreme Court Judges, and the qualities they should posess. Should they, as Obama suggests, have the empathy to understand ordinary Americans, or should they be solely chosen on their ability to interpret the law?
  
  This is a difficult question, and the nomination of judges is highly important. First and foremost Supreme Court judges must be able to interpret the constitution consistently and fairly, and in the context of precendent. Will is right when he says asks should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law? Supreme Court Judges are not policy makers or politicians, they interpret the must fundamental law of the land: the constitution. It seems, in this case, Obama has just served us up a piece of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
  Winner: Will
• The second question is why should the Health Care industry give up profits for social gain. Obama's view is that there needs to be legislative reform to make health care less market-driven and more focused on outcomes - health care to those who need it most. Profits will never be given up voluntarily but they may become a sacrifice of reforms in the sector.
  Winner: Obama
• The third section was about Obama's reaction to Exxonmobil's $40.6 Billion profit in 2007. Such a profit must be taken in its correct context. While such a large figure seems impressive, perhaps excessive, it must be realised that relative to revenue it is much less impressive. Obama argues that excessive oil company profits hurt every day americans but there must be a profit motive in order for the industry to remain competitive. This is just Obama being sensationalist and populist.
  Winner: Will
• Will then continues that declining house prises are not as big an issue as Obama makes them out to be. Will presents a wholly unbalanced argument. He argues there is nothing the government can do, and for first home buyers lower prices are actually a good thing. Yes, market corrections are inevitable, but what about everyone who bought a house and now finds the value of the home less than their mortguage? What about everyone who invested and is now losing big on their investment? What about the flow on effects for the economy? Here will seems as out of touch as McCain.
  Winner: Obama
• When Will criticises Obama's statement that young people shouldn't 'go into corporate America' he reveals Obama sharing personal values that probably aren't appropriate for the public sphere.
  Winner: Will
  
• Will rebuts Michelle Obama's argument that Americans are worst off than they were in the 1960's. He focuses mainly on economic and health issues. Michelle probably menat mainly social and liberty issues when she made her comment. But will really does make her seem ridiculous.
  Winner: Will
• Will's next two questions argue against raising the capital gains tax. The first just presents an ad-hominem attack on Obama, and the second describes economic reality - and he is right. Taxation on discretionary spending will have big impacts on investment.
  Winner: Will
• His next question is essentially stating Obama's proposed tax increases are too high. He does not justify has case well enough to seem convincing.
  Winner: Obama
• The next question essentially focuses on a peripheral piece of legislation Obama once voted on. Will tries to call him illogical for this vote but does not expand.
  Winner: Obama
  
  
• Next question is about foreign policy. Obama has called Bush arrogant yet Obama believes in intervention in certain sectors. Will is himself arrogant in this paragraph. Obama is much more balanced in his foreign policy attitudes than Bush, and one must not be only fully in favour of intervention or non-intervention. A balanced attitude is needed.
  Winner: Obama
• Obama is seemingly hipocritical when he calls for a reduction of the role of money in politics yet takes in and spends more money than any other candidiate.
  Winner: Will

Overall Score: Will 6, Obama 5

So Will makes some good points and more often than not rebuts Obama effectively (although it was close). This is no fair debate, of course, as Will set the terms of discussion and Obama had no right of reply. But contrasting Will's attitude with Obama's public statement shows some flaws in Obama's rhetoric.

The changing role of China is one of the most fascinating aspects of the current period of world history. China's economy is growing at an impressive rate and China's role in global affairs becomes more substantial every year. Mandarin is the world's most spoken language and will also become the most prevalent language online. Chinese people are traveling the world, spreading their culture.

Meanwhile, at home, the Chinese people are dominated by their Authoritarian government. Images of Tienneman Square 1988 remain in many westerners' minds. The State murders its own citizens. There is no individual freedom. A one child policy restricts citizens' reproductive rights. Economic restrictions crush any entrepreneurial spirit.

Meanwhile American jobs move to china because of the cheap wages, stemming from the lack of labor laws and environmental standards. Also, the chinese government is buying US Currency reserves in bulk, giving it potentially unprecedented power in the currency market.

Or so we hear in the west... It is inevitable that the version of events we hear, the slightly deliberately biased rhetoric presented in the previous paragraph is not the whole story, and is only the version of events that fits with the US Government's line. It is important to take matters of foreign policy, which affect people across different cultures and backgrounds, with an informed balance.

The question I seek to answer (although I no doubt will not be able to) regards the attitude the West should take towards China. Is China a threat to the west, in particular the United States?

The Soviet Union was treated as an ideological enemy by the United States. Why is China any different? Although China has made notable moves towards individual enterprise - capitalism - its economical and governmental systems are rooted in that old ideological enemy - socialism. Why is socialism even considered an 'enemy'? Conservatives and liberals alike say because its very values are disparate to those upon which this country is built - democracy, freedom (choice, speech, association, enterprise etc.).

Surely we must criticize China's human rights abuses in an international context. To say nothing is to condone them. But what if this jeopardizes our trade relations? Is that a sacrifice too great to make? Such a direction would lead us to another cold war. Or, instead, we could embrace China whilst promoting democracy.

This is all easier said than done. The policies implemented in the next decade will shape America's role in international affairs for half a century.

Groupthink

Ronald Reagan once said that 'the best minds are not in government'. And he's right. Political parties have a tendency towards groupthink and group polarisation. In order to be elected, parties must firstly oppose their opposition.

Group polarization is the tendency for individuals in a group to take a more extreme version of their own views. For example, after watching a debate, those initially for the motion are more likely to feel even more strongly in favor afterwards, and the opposite for those initially opposed. This occurs overwhelmingly in political parties. Personal anecdotal evidence has shown the environment in parties is not one for open discussion and debate. Instead we see blind endorsement of current party policy. More publicly, John McCain, for example, markets himself as a conservative (because that's what the party wants to hear), instead of presenting himself of the moderate free-thinker he once was.

How can we address this issue? One more radical solution I once read was that we simply take party names off ballots. This would mean voters investigate individual candidates and what they stand for. To me this seems an impractical model as all candidates would form coalitions anyway and campaign on common platforms. And it would inevitably lower voter turnout. Also the ability to advertise on a large scale is increased through party afilliation. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how groupthink can be reduced in political parties? It can only be good for democracy.

Inevitable Wealth-Conservatism link

The problem with politics and economics is that there is no ability to test ideas. Every decision leaders make affects real people's lives. Many ideas such as the more progressive environmental policies and anarcho-libertarian fiscal ideology have never been tried so their implications are, at least so far, purely academic. It is for this reason, that there is no ability to test policy, that prosperous societies tend for favor gradual change (conservatism). This was exemplified in western europe after world war two when those responsible for the Marshall Plan in Europe believed economic security was crucial in fighting communism. All revolutionary societies have emerged from hard times. Prosperous, free societies tend to protect the status quo. Just as all individuals do.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd once said 'politics is an imperfect institution'. He couldn't be more right.

It is commonplace in political rhetoric for statements and ideas to seemingly gain legitimacy due to an association with the 'founding fathers'. Conservative politicians in particular almost claim that if a founding father endorsed something, it must be right.

Yes, the USA was founded on a vision. Religious freedom springs to mind - initial settlement was by Puritans fleeing religious persecution. Washington envisioned freedom but still owned slaves.

Why should a 200 year old vision still be applicable in a modern context? Naturally so much has changed. We live in a different world to that of the late eighteenth century. Nations must learn from the past. Some may say those values of liberty and freedom are what once made America great, and the erosion of those has been negative.

Those who believed in the necessity of a well armed militia believed in the citizens' right to keep and bear arms. But why is this still necessary today?

The topic of gun control raises a philosophical issue about the constitution. Why is the constitution so important, and how adaptive should a constitution be to changing circumstances?

The answer to the first question is obvious. Ultimate power comes from the people. Government is accountable to the people, not the other way round. The constitution is an underlying set of laws - or guidelines - that restrict government and declare explicitly citizens' rights. Religions also have underlying guidelines, Christianity's ten commandments for example, but these are voluntary as we do not live in a theocracy. Why are laws not voluntary? Because as a society in this case we say the majority overrules the minority.

How adaptive should a constitution be to changing circumstances? It is an interesting question and in my opinion the answer is it should be only minimally adaptive.

Were the constitution completely adaptive then there would be no difference between the constitution and the normal set of laws. A constitution's purpose is to outline an underlying, fundamental set of principles in whose context governing bodies legislate and legislation is applied and challenged. I do not believe we should change the constitution as often as is proposed.

There are, however, worthy arguments in favor of significant constitutional reform. After the Second World War Americans played a large role in the drafting of West Germany's new constitution, and some say it was based on the US model, but addressing the parts that were no longer appropriate in a 20th century context. Proportional representation was introduced. Gun control was made tighter that in the US.

When conservatives propose a flag-burning amendment or a definition of marriage amendment, it seems to be to be undesirable to include social regulation in a constitution.

Social attitudes change. The same conservatives would have amended the constitution in the 50's to outlaw homosexuality. The constitution should last longer than ordinary legislation, that is why it is important not include values that will inevitably change over time. Freedom will always be a part of the american psyche. As will liberty and justice, amongst many other such values. Attitudes to abortion and homosexuality will, however, undeniably change. Including prohibition in the constitution was retrospectively nonsensical and there was later an amendment repealing it.

There needs to be more discussion on the role of the constitution and the nature of constitutional reform.

2008 is an extraordinary year in the life of the Democratic party. Two candidates are neck and neck who would both in any other year have been nominated months ago.

Clinton seemed the natural nominee, popular and with almost universal recognition. She is associated with the presidential administration of her husband, which finished with record high approval ratings. Obama is a once-in-a-generation orator and his charismatic public speaking and youth reminds of JFK.

Will the increasingly bitter and drawn-out contest between these two nominees harm the Democratic Party in 2008? Possibly. Some argue only McCain benefits from the 'mud-slinging' and personal attacks of late.

I see a possibility of this year's talent in the Democratic field being wasted. In the case a Democrat is elected to the White House in 2008, which seems increasingly likely based on the unpopularity of the Bush Administration, the downturn in the economy and the unpopularity of recent foreign policy, surely most of the first term at least will be spent cleaning up the current mess. Will the economy realistically structurally improve in one term? Will we get out of Iraq cleanly? It's unlikely. It is unlikely that major reform or ideological changes will be possible by the next president.

Obama's campaign Gaffes stem from his inexperience. Hillary has been tested under pressure - but her campaign is coming off the rails, expemplified by her misleading statements regarding her trip to Bosnia or something as simple as the origin of her name. She may not be as charismatic as Obama. She doesn't have the youth of the nation enthralled with promises of hope but she is a safer bet than Obama. Obama is a risk. If he can deliver his campaign promises he may become a succesful president but he is new to politics and even newer to Washington.

And what of McCain? Ann Coulter, one of the more sensationalist conservative pundits, says he is more liberal than Hillary. He has developed bipartisan policy, and was notably the most high profile opposition to Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. He has, however, marketed himself to the party's Right as a 'true conservative' - something necessary to be elected a GOP president.

This year's race will be defined by the current presidency. Bush is unpopular and the Democrats will exploit this leading up to November.