A Free Market... really?

With the midterm election right around the corner, there has never been a better time to take stock of our personal political beliefs in an effort to ensure we make better choices at the ballot box.

The economy has always enjoyed an important position in the minds of US voters and often polls among the top considerations that voters base their decisions on. Economic policy defines party positions and is perhaps, for better or for worse, the foundation of America's future. It's vital that we, as a nation, understand what role, if any, the government should play in our economy.

It seems to me that there is a particular narrative concerning the economy that has the power to distort voters minds by the masses. This idea is the mythical beast known as the "free market." I call this idea mythical because it does not and cannot exist in any civilized society. The United States, like all other civilized democracies is a mixed economy.

Republicans and Libertarians seem to have this sort of religious faith in the idea of the free market; in their minds it can fix every social ill and every policy problem we can fathom. However, the reality is that market freedom is not a one-stop-cure that can be sprinkled on political legislation. In a healthy civilized society, market freedom is more like an essential nutrient that needs to exist in a careful balance alongside government control and socialist principles.

Money is a powerful motivator. When there is a degree of freedom for people to pursue their own career paths, they will invest countless hours in education, dream up novel ideas for ingenious inventions, and create an army of small businesses. Economic freedom also creates a consumer driven environment that provides an dazzling array of market niches and potential careers. More quality jobs directly correlates to a healthier society, less crime, and less poverty. It's easy to see why it is so enticing to view economic freedom as a political panacea.

The problem though is that money is, in many ways, a motivating force that is too powerful. People don't seek out money or power in moderation; they always want more. So much so that they are willing to greatly compromise their values and their nations well being to squeeze out greater profit margins. This is the ugly side of capitalism: slavery, child labor, pollution on a catastrophic scale, denying life saving operations because of trivial pre-existing conditions, ect. Without a government to regulate the economy, society would quickly go down hill.

However, by finding a careful balance between government control and economic freedom, we can enjoy the benefits of capitalism without the dangers of unchecked greed. There is a spectrum of political platforms that fall in between socialism and total economic freedom. Advocating an economic or political system that falls at either extreme of the spectrum will result in disaster.

This might seem obvious to many people, yet it seems to be an idea that is not well understood by our nation as a whole. Recently, when the Democratic party advocated adjusting the balance of economic power to give the government more control in healthcare regulation, many detractors tried to frame the democratic party as advocating a shift toward complete government control over the economy. It seems to me that many Americans are not very good at perceiving shades of grey and instead prefer an unrealistically simplified black and white picture of politics.

But trying to view politics through a black and white filter will give a grossly distorted image. Republicans don't want a truly free market and Democrats don't want complete government control. Each party agrees (if only implicitly) that there needs to be a balance between government control and personal liberty. By striving to not define each other in terms of hyperbolic extremes, Americans can gain a much greater appreciation of political disagreement and engage in meaningful discussion about important issues rather than throwing distorted rhetoric back and forth.

Ann Coulter on Obama

In our present political climate, it seems like some of the biggest mouthpeices belong to the most outrageous mouths. Americans are all too eager to swallow the craziest talking points and rhetoric in search of a feeling of validation for their political ideas. In this climate, shock jocks like Ann Coulter thrive.

Just last month, in an article titled "OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM," Coulter gave a passionate case against the "absurd accusation" that Obama is a Muslim and stated that he is "obviously an atheist."

Readers that are unfamiliar with Coulter might read this accusation in the first line of her blog with the expectation that she is putting on some sort of satirical front ala Steven Colbert. She's not. She's dead serious.

In fact, It turns out that Obama is in good company, according to Coulter: "All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God. "

Her argument for Obama's disbelief in God is simple: he went to Christian church for 20 years.

Not just any church, but Crazy Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church. Ann Coulter's only argument to support her incredible claim is that Obama's pastor has made some racy remarks-- and Ann Coulter knows a thing or two about racy remarks. I'll give her this much: Rev. Wright has said some pretty whacky things in the wake of all of the media attention he has received these past couple of years. But Obama has taken a very aggressive stance towards Wright's comments, expressing outrage, anger, and sadness toward his former pastor. That last part somehow didn't make it into Coulter's blog.

But even if Obama agreed with the statements that Rev. Wright has made (which range from the US being involved in AIDS to the government knowing about the pearl harbor attacks before they happened), it's hard to follow Ann's logic, which is almost non sequitur. None of Wright's statements undermine a belief in God. Crazy? Sure. Hypocritical? You might argue that. But if Rev. Wright was an atheist (he is a liberal, after all) or promoting atheism, it's not in anyway apparent in his sermons.

Coulter's blog reflects a sad state of affairs for political debate in America. It seems that more an more, outrageous claims resting on paper thin logic will continue to circumvent rational discussion.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: A Pragmatic View

There are many issue's in the contemporary political landscape that are riddled with complexities.

What's the best way to fix an economy that has crashed from the top down without ignoring the middle class? How can we make meaningful and much needed healthcare reform without sacrificing some of the benefits of privatization and without aggravating record high deficits? How can we best reform our educational system to better empower students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed?

These are tough questions. When you try to start thinking about some of these issues, you may find yourself in a mental dialogue that runs in circles and ends up at a dead end. That's not to say these questions don't have great solutions, it's just that the solutions to these questions aren't obvious.

But not all questions are like these questions. Some are quite simple.

Should openly gay citizens be permitted to serve in the military?

A New York Times editorial titled "Don’t Enforce ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" gives an emphatic yes and argues that repealing this legislation no difficult leap in logic on the sheer basis of observable evidence.

The article draws wisdom from the judicial opinion issued by Viginia Phillips, which provides a pragmatic case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by examining the effects this legislation has had on the armed forces. The author pleads to everyday Americans to take an objective view of the damage that this legislation has caused, citing that "13,000 men and women have been discharged in the 16 years since the law was enacted," many of which posess "critical skills" like "fluency in Arabic, medicine and counterterrorism." The fiscal cost of replacing these troops is also stated to be high. In addition, the article mentions that the judge's opinion found "no convincing evidence" that openly gay men and women have had a negative effect on unit cohesion.

In a time where America is juggling multiple wars, the practical reality of a troop shortage may be a more persuasive argument to the average American than the ideological civil rights arguments (although those are just as valid in my opinion). This legislation is very clearly weakening our nations defense by refusing to tap the valuable resource of gay citizens who are willing and able to serve.

The article's call for action is right in the title: "Don’t Enforce ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." The article ends by suggesting that Judge Phillips should not wait for Congress to get its act together and "should issue a strong injunction to enforce her decision."

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she will hear this message.