This is when I think my dear reader has the benefit of reading a post from someone with a background in philosophy, my first love. Western philosophy has its roots in ancient Greece, especially in the writings of Plato and his renown student Aristotle. (Aristotle's writings have been highly influential both in the Christian (St. Thomas Aquinas) and Muslim (e.g., Averroes) traditions.) Of particular note is Socrates, the teacher of Plato.
The Trial of Socrates
Socrates is best known for his distinctive pedagogic style and for the trial resulting in his death; Plato emulates Socrates' distinctive dialectical style (elenchus) in his own writings (turning a question around on itself). The Socratic method is traced to an incident where Chaerephon, a friend of Socrates, was told by the Oracle of Delphi, whom confirmed Socrates was the wisest in all Greece. Socrates was skeptical of the claim and went about questioning other highly reputable men in search of greater wisdom. He discovered that in detailed probing and fleshing out their knowledge and assumptions that their reputation was surface-level and undeserved. The point was not so much that Socrates himself claimed to be more knowledgeable than other people, but that he himself was aware of his own limitations while others claimed to possess a certain knowledge competence which in fact they did not have. Nor is he simply arguing for the sake of arguing (i.e., sophistry) but modeling that the acquisition of knowledge is a painstaking process and there are no easy answers. (No doubt Socrates made his fair share of enemies in the process, causing others to lose face.) I'll leave it to the reader to guess whether I've been applying a version of the Socratic method in examining Obamaian politics.
Socrates was brought to trial by his enemies on charges of corrupting youth and being an atheist (i.e., not believing in the gods of the city-state). The corrupting youth charge seems to be based on Socrates' likely view that majoritarian rule does not yield the best law, which can only be devised by the most knowledgeable and competent in society, and his apparent praise of laws in other, undemocratic states (Sparta and Crete), and the fact that two of Socrates' students (Alcibiades and Critias) were involved in brief coups of the Athenian democratic government. Thus, Socrates is being scapegoated for the actions of others (e.g., executions or property seizures after the coups)
I want to draw attention to a couple of salient points during the trial. He is asked to defend living a private life versus participating in public service. He responds that sooner or later he would be forced into a situation of having to compromise his moral principles, pointing out a prior instance where he was forced to participate in an execution, which he regarded as an attempt by an unjust majority to co-opt the moral integrity of others by implicating them in the punishment. The second point is that Socrates was asked why he had pursued such a dangerous occupation; that is, conviction on the charges could (and did) result in the death penalty. Socrates basically responded that he can't go through life walking on eggshells, worried about what other people may do or say; he only has control over, and accepts moral responsibility for, his own decisions and actions.
The 70-year-old Socrates was found guilty and asked to suggest his own punishment. Socrates responded with mock suggestions, believing that the Athenian democracy had just undermined its own moral legitimacy with an unjust decision. He also pointed out that ultimately their death sentence was futile because his soul is immortal. (The death was carried out by having Socrates drink poison.)
Reflections on Socrates
There are a couple of points here. First, there is a related argument in the early years of our country's history in reaction to bloody mob attacks during the French Revolution. John Adams was very concerned over majoritarian abuses of power, hence his focus on the individual rights and the rule of law and was similarly convinced of a government staffed by knowledgeable, competent representatives, principally drawn from the propertied, educated class. Second, Thomas Jefferson was more sympathetic to French revolutionaries and regarded Adams' position as fundamentally elitist. He was more concerned with the federal government being unduly influenced by the moneyed interests and hence preferred to focus on state rights.
I do wonder about the wisdom of a system that hands the keys of the White House to a man with a thin resume with few legislative accomplishments and administrative experience. In particular, the system seems to favor the selection of more ideological versus moderate or pragmatic candidates. Witness, for instance, how John McCain's candidacy last year took huge hits in the Republican primaries because of bipartisan leadership on issues like immigration and campaign reform. Obama did not have to face votes on Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11, which was a competitive advantage given anti-war activists in the Democratic primaries.
It does seem ironic that my vote, which is based on extensive analyses of issues and candidates, is worth no more or less than those of others whom vote for frivolous reasons. And I do not necessarily believe in a meritocracy; I think there's a lot to be said for practical intelligence, being seen as an honest broker in dealing with difficult issues under conditions where optimal solutions cannot be validated. But in many ways, I empathize with Socrates, whom viewed himself as a gadfly, and see myself competing more in the marketplace of ideas and solutions.
The Sophists
Lawyers, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama, can also trace roots back to the Sophists, whom also practiced in the same litigious Athenian society as Socrates and Plato. In fact, some at the time alleged that Socrates was a sophist, perhaps in part because the sophists also questioned the existence of the city-state gods and used similar methods of persuasion. Plato and other apologists for Socrates angrily refuted the accusation. For one thing, the sophists demanded high fees for their services, while Socrates, a stone cutter by trade, accepted no fee. More importantly, Socrates and his students were pursuing broader philosophical questions relevant to the foundations of truth and justice.
I'm not concerned with the question of whether characterizations of the Sophists by Plato and others are fairly written. The Sophists were believed to be primarily motivated by power, by the outcome, versus the intrinsic merits of the case. In essence, the outcome (winning the case for their client) justify whatever means necessary. The Sophists were particularly adept at hair-splitting, exploiting ambiguity, playing word games (remember Clinton's infamous "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?), tricking witnesses, misleading juries, impugning the reputation of sources, etc., and equally willing and able to argue either side of a case.
The point I'm trying to make here is that lawyers like Obama, Kerry, and Clinton are knowledgeable and well-skilled in the tactics of persuasion (Obama and Clinton are particularly able to connect with their audiences). They would be quick to argue that they are not relativists, that they do believe in certain coherent political principles, such as social justice (a point I don't concede, because, for instance, I believe that the goals of social justice are served by a growing economy, and Obama is willing to pursue penny-wise, pound-foolish approaches).
That isn't really the point. I am more concerned with the intrinsic fundamental problems, and what I see are Democrats like Obama engaging in sophistry, treating symptoms rather than diseases. There's an attempt to sell the so-called stimulus bill, despite the fact that we are not really talking about a short-term stimulus because the bulk of spending is in the long term and in many cases (e.g., state disbursements) substitutes for existing operational spending; it was promoted largely on the basis of infrastructure (which is misleading) and high multiplier effects of infrastructure in general (which are not supported by empirical evidence). Obama insisted because of economic conditions he needed the bill on his desk within a few weeks his inauguration; there is no evidence that Obama's artificial deadline did anything more than short-shift due diligence in the bill by the GOP and by the press, in fact materially violating Obama's campaign promise of transparency. Obama promised to engage in bipartisan compromise, but what he has done is old-fashioned divide-and-conquer, peeling off 3 liberal Republican senators (one whom has since defected to the Democrats) to bypass a legitimate bipartisan mandate and ram a Democratic bill down the throats of the GOP. In terms of the omnibus budget deal, not only did Obama fail to hold down spending in the bill, he flatly contradicted promises during the Presidential debates not to sign earmarks and then tries to sell the American bill these earmarks don't count because Bush was President during the first 4 months of the fiscal year. When the Republicans argue that the sheer magnitude of overspending is untenable, Obama and the Democrats make the ad hominem argument that the Republicans' have no standing because of the $2T-plus deficit under Bush.
When the total number of GOP votes for the stimulus and omnibus budget bills amount to less than a handful, the Democrats (echoed by the liberal mass media) claim that the GOP is being "obstructive". This is manifestly absurd for multiple reasons: (1) the bills, in fact, carried and were signed into law; (2) there was no attempt to negotiate with the Republicans; they were told "elections have consequences"; the Republicans' input was reduced to voting "yes" or "no" for partisan Democratic bills; (3) there are few tactics that House Republicans can use of a nature comparable to the Senate filibuster; (4) the Democrats are just a vote or so away from being able to disable use of the filibuster, which allows Democrats to target individual Republicans (e.g., in vulnerable seats) versus negotiate; and (5) the Republicans do, in fact, have alternative proposals, but the Democrats have little incentive to consider them, and the media ignore them.
The Flip Flops
We have seen a significant number of reversals. Reversals, of and by themselves, are not inherently bad; for example, detecting failure early in project life can save far more expensive implementation costs. However, reversals can also reflect a tendency of rush to judgment, of failing to do due diligence before acting. This is only a selective list of relevant points:
- The Military Tribunals. The White House is trying to explain the decision to resume military tribunals (versus civil criminal proceedings or courts martial) by arguing they have substantively revised the comparable concept under the Bush Administration by allowing greater choice of legal representation and certain restriction on hearsay evidence, but the differences are, at best, nuanced, minor window-dressing, hardly commensurate with Obama's stark election campaign rhetoric of the "legal black hole" or "dangerously flawed legal approach". This is particularly notable given Obama's reputation as a former law school professor.
- The Iraq/Afghanistan Photos. The Obama Administration had made a major issue of releasing the photos in support of so-called transparency. The photo releases would have been problematic to the local governments and potentially put our own troops at risk for reprisals. The problem is that the Obama Administration was aware of these problems at the time they promised to release the photos.
- Prosecution of Legal Advisors to President Bush? Obama on multiple occasions ruled out the Angry Left's demands to prosecute legal advisors regarding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against a limited number of terror suspects. (The basic question is whether the specific modified techniques, which in fact are used in the training of our own special forces, met the general criteria under US law defining torture.) It is almost inconceivable to see how the Attorney General could meet the burden of proof that the lawyers in question knowingly gave the President misleading or false legal advice, and I don't expect Attorney General Holder will attempt to open Pandora's box of partisan-based prosecutions, which would be a sharp departure from tradition and more characteristic of a banana republic--and almost certainly kill any meaningful bipartisan initiative. I believe that Obama's move is mostly window-dressing to say that the Attorney General gave the matter his full consideration and didn't simply look the other way on alleged Bush Administration "crimes". What particularly makes this flip-flop notable is Obama specifically contradicted Rahm Emanuel, his own chief of staff, on the prior Sunday's talk shows. There is no way Emanuel, known for his partisan fervor, was speaking without the President's knowledge and consent.
- The AIG Bonuses. Several weeks back, as word leaked out that there were retention bonuses in AIG contracts with managers months before the federal government bailout. The Treasury Department and government lawyers had examined the contracts and concluded they were legally binding, which was confirmed on the Sunday talk shows by White House Economic Chair Larry Summers. Then Obama, aware of public outrage over the bonuses, basically contradicted Summers and asked for the lawyers to look again. The fact of the matter is that Obama, as a lawyer, understands the concept of a contract.
- FOCA First Priority. Obama vowed his first priority as President would be to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act (which rolls back minor restrictions on abortion, such as a partial-birth ban). As a pro-lifer, I appreciate the fact that Obama has found higher priorities.
- Postpartisan Politics/"Turn the Page". Obama's repeated criticisms of his predecessor (George W. Bush), including on his European "apology" tour, are reprehensible. Obama has also signaled a willingness for Senate Majority Leader Reid to use the budget reconciliation process (which requires a simple majority) if necessary to pass his health care initiative, which would be a material breach of precedent of requiring a bipartisan mandate for new initiatives (requiring a filibuster vote). The "divide-and-conquer" strategy mentioned above to force through a partisan Democratic stimulus bill by peeling away the votes of 3 Republican senators also violates the spirit of Obama's promise.
- Gitmo Closure Funding. The closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was a highly symbolic goal of the Obama Administration and subject of one of the Obama Administration's first executive orders. But Obama still has not made a decision on where to house the detainees, which could create a "not-in-my-backyard" firestorm. So the Congress has not provided budget funds to facilitate the closure. It's not even clear what the closure would accomplish on a substantive basis, given the fact that the Obama Administration now controls Gitmo operations.
- Obama Calling the Deficit Unsustainable. At a townhall meeting in New Mexico this week, Obama warned that federal deficits are unsustainable and potentially inflationary. This is a point I've been discussing for weeks. What new happened to convince him of this? The fact that the current and next fiscal years are now projected to result in a $3T deficit, far greater than Bush's entire deficit over two terms? When did he jawbone the Congress on the stimulus bill and the omnibus budget bill into slashing the costs? Why did he think a $17B cut (0.5%) a sufficient budget cut? Yet he assured us we could afford his redistributionist tax cuts, take up health care (a quantum leap forward in federal expenses), etc., with no pain... The rhetoric doesn't match up with his actions....
- Earmarks. The President signed an omnibus budget bill containing thousands of earmarks, counter to campaign promises (as discussed above).
