Tag-arkiv: USA

Konservativ skuffelse over nominering

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 3. oktober 2005. 7 svar

Præsident Bushs nominering af Harriet Miers som Sandra Day O'Connors afløser som associate justice ved den Amerikanske Højesteret har udløst gigantisk skuffelse blandt amerikanske konservative. Målsætningen om at skabe et solidt konservativt flertal i Højesteret var en af de konservative græsrødders allervigtigste prioriteter for Bush's embedsperiode og en opgave, disse græsrødder havde stor tillid til, at Bush ville kunne opfylde. Men med den stort set ukendt Harriet Miers er risikoen for, at denne målæstning er forspildt overhængende. Skuffelsen over følelsen af ikke at få hævnet sig på demokraterne over Ronald Reagans mislykkede udnævnelse af Robert Bork (der deler retsfilosofi med Scalia) i 1987 er udtalt.

Bush's tidligere taleskriver David Frum skriver i National Review bl.a., at

"The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades–two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession."

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or–and more importantly–that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists … and what has been done with the opportunity?"

Under overskriften "Miers' qualifications are non-existent" hudfletter Patrick Buchanan ligeledes udnævnelsen:

"What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her.  For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas.  In picking her, Bush ran from a fight.  The conservative movement has been had — and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush."

Weekly Standards redaktør William Kristol er "disappointed, depressed and demoralized":

"I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record–someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown–to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness."

Det er ikke overraskende, at Pat Buchanan kritiserer Bush, men Kristol og især Frums kritik er signifikant. National Review og (i lidt mindre udtalt grad) Weekly Standard er normalt ultra loyale Bush støtter. Men på det seneste er en del af det republikanske partis græsrødder blevet desillusionerede over republikanernes manglende fokus på traditionelle konservative kerneværdier såsom lavere offentlige udgifter og en mere begrænset rolle for den føderale stat, hvilket nu også slår igennem hos konservative medier og kommentatorer (som dækket tidligere her hos Punditokraterne).

Det er i øvrigt interessant, at alle tre ovennævnte kommentatorer nævner Janice Rogers Brown som en kandidat, hvis nominering ville have tilfredsstillet dem. Jeg er dog ikke så sikker på, at JRB ville have skabt ro hos republikanerne, idet hun tilskynder til en langt mere aktiv rolle for den dømmende magt end f.eks. Scalia og førnævnte Bork. Det ville næppe have passet den gren af det republikanske parti, der ikke bekymrer sig så meget om statens størrelse så længe den fører (værdi)konservativ politik ( folk som Rick Santorum f.eks). Såfremt JRB var blevet nomineret kunne det således nemt have endt med endnu en "high-tech lynching of uppity blacks" som Clarence Thomas kaldte sin senatshøring.

Om ansvar, autoritet og staten

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 1. oktober 2005. 2 svar

Som jeg nævnte forleden, er en af mine absolutte favorit-skribenter den amerikanske kommentator og taleskriver Peggy Noonan.  Hun er vittig, sentimental “på den fede måde” og ganske ideologisk hårdnæset.  Og alle med en interesse for amerikansk politik kan med fornøjelse læse hendes erindringer om at være taleskriver i Reagans administration, What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (1990).

Vi har her på stedet tidligere kommenteret spændingerne på den amerikanske højrefløj.  I sin klumme i denne uge i Wall Street Journal er Noonans tema–—i hvert fald underliggende–—den spirende konflikt blandt amerikanske konservative.  Den amerikanske højrefløj har altid bestået af et antal ret indbyrdes forskellige fraktioner, men det er givetvis blevet endnu mere markant de seneste 30 år: moderate “Rockefeller Republikanere”, der nærmest minder om danske konservative (som George H.W. Bush); egentlige libertarianere (som det liberalistiske, Republikanske kongresmedlem Ron “Dr. No” Paul, Republican Liberty Caucus, sympatisører med Libertarian Party og klassisk-liberale udenfor partierne); kristne-religiøst “moral majority” konservative (som TV-prædikanter a la Pat Robertson); neokonservative, der er fokuserede på “national greatness”, forsvar og udenrigspolitik og godt kan lide en stor, men effektiv offentlig sektor (som f.eks. Weekly Standard og kommentatorerne William Kristol og David Brooks); paleokonservative, som taler om “states rights”, religion, yankee-nordstaternes aggression overfor Syden (og som associeres med f.eks. Chronicles Magazine), o.s.v., o.s.v.

For Noonan og nogle få andre er der særligt én konfliktlinie, der er ved at blive meget synlig.  På den ene side de amerikanske konservative, der synes, at autoritet og stærk politisk styring er et godt mål i sig selv (og især når det er de rette, der udøver den: Eller som som et kongresmedlem hånenede karrikerede det i en tale forleden: “Big government is good government if it is our government”). På den anden side de andre, der synes, at dette er selve problemet.  Man kan sige, at Noonan ser konflikten som værende specifikt mellem neokonservative a la Brooks og Kristol/”compassionate conservatives” a la Bush, og hvad man så kunne kalde Reagan/Goldwater konservative.  Her er et uddrag fra Noonans klumme, som meget godt skitserer konflikten, og som samtidigt meget velformuleret og koncist udtrykker “hendes” USA (og nærværende Punditokrats)—og er en god kritik af de politiske overfortolkninger af Katrina-katastrofen:

“David Brooks on “Meet the Press” Sunday said he thought Katrina had given rise to a greater public desire for “authority” and “order.” I found what he was saying typically thoughtful, but I differ with him. …

I don’t think Americans are or have been, by nature, lovers of authority. When we think of the old America we think of house-raisings on the prairie and teeming cities full of immigrants, but a big part of the American nature can also be found in the story of Jeremiah Johnson, the mountain man who just wanted to live off by himself, unbothered and unmolested by people and their churches and clubs and rules. He didn’t like authority. He wanted to be left alone.

We live in the age of emergency, however, and in that age we hunger for someone to take responsibility. Not authority, but a sense of “I’ll lead you out of this.” On 9/11 the firemen took responsibility: I will go into the fire. So did the mayor: This is how we’ll get through, this is how we’ll triumph.

In New Orleans, by contrast, the mayor seemed panicked, the governor seemed medicated, and the airborne wasn’t there until it was there and peace was restored. Until then no one took responsibility. There was a vacuum. But nature abhors a vacuum, so rumors and chaos came in to fill it. Which made things worse.
No one took charge. …

No one took responsibility, but there was plenty of authority. People in authority sent the lost to the Superdome and the Convention Center. People in authority blocked the bridges out of town. People in authority tried to confiscate guns after the looting was over.
And they did things like this: The day before hurricane Rita hit Texas, last Friday, I saw on TV something that disturbed me. It was not the usual scene of crashing waves and hardy reporters being blown sideways by wind gusts. It was a fat Texas guy swimming in the waves off Galveston. He’d apparently decided the high surf was a good thing to jump into, so he went for a prehurricane swim. Two cops saw him, waded into the surf and arrested him. When I saw it the guy was standing there in orange trunks being astonished as the cops put handcuffs on him and hauled him away.

I thought: Oh no, this is isn’t good. This is authority, not responsibility.

You’d have to be crazy, in my judgment, to decide you were going to go swim in the ocean as a hurricane comes. But in the America where I grew up, you were allowed to be crazy. You had the right. Sometimes you were crazy and survived whatever you did. Sometimes you didn’t, and afterwards everyone said, “He was crazy.”

Last week I quoted Gerald Ford: “The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” I was talking about money. But it applies also to personal freedom, to the rights of the individual, including his right to do something stupid as long as it’s legal, like swimming.

Government has real duties in disaster. Maintaining the peace is a primary one. But if we demand that our government protect us from all the weather all the time, if we demand that it protect us from rain and hail, if we make government and politicians pay a terrible price for not getting us out of every flood zone and rescuing us from every wave, we’re going to lose a lot more than we gain. If we give government all authority then we are giving them all power.

And we will not only lose the right to be crazy, we’ll lose the right to be sane. A few weeks ago when, for a few days, some level of government, it isn’t completely clear, decided no one should be allowed to live in New Orleans after the flood, law-enforcement officers went to the home of a man who had a dry
house, a month’s supp
ly of food and water, and a gun to protect himself. The police demanded that he leave. Why? He was fine. He had everything he needed. The man was enraged: It was his decision, he said, and he was staying.

It is the government’s job to warn and inform. That’s what we have the National Weather Service for. It is not government’s job to command and control and make microdecisions about the lives of people who want to do it their own way. …

Governments always start out saying they’re going to help, and always wind up pushing you around. They cannot help it. They say they want to help us live healthily and they mean it, but it ends with a guy in Queens getting arrested for trying to have a Marlboro Light with his Bud at the neighborhood bar. We’re hauling the parents of obese children into court. The government has increasing authority over our health, and these children are not healthy. Smokers, the fat, drinkers of more than two drinks per night, insane swimmers in high seas …

We are losing the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs and demands of the state. Again, this is not new. It’s a long slide that’s been going on for a long time. But Katrina and Rita seemed to make the slide deeper.

It is hard for governments to be responsible, and take responsibility. It takes real talent, and guts. But authority? That’s easier. Pass the law and get the cuffs.”

You go girl! Hvorfor har vi ikke den slags kommentatorer i Danmark?

PS. I øvrigt er førnævnte kongresmedlem Mike Pences tale, citeret ovenfor, værd at læse i sin helhed.

Punditokraterne i Berlingske

Af Redaktionen, den 1. oktober 2005. 1 svar

Denne blog og hele to af dens skribenter er omtalt i Bent Blüdnikows artikel “Groft Sagt i USA” i dagens Berlingske Tidende.

Noonan om Bush, barbecue-sovs & "the Bridge to Nowhere"

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 22. september 2005. 2 svar

En af mine absolut mest yndede skribenter er den fænomenale amerikanske taleskriver, Peggy Noonan, som over de sidste +20 år har skrevet nogle af de mest velformulerede taler i amerikansk politik nogensinde.  Og det siger ikke så lidt.  Blandt talerne er Reagans farveltale, hans VE-Day tale og Bush Srs. “Read My Lips, No New Taxes”, og til Republikanernes konvent sidste år havde hun skrevet en tale til guvernør George Pataki, der næsten fik ham til at lyde interessant.

Damen skriver også som kommentator ved Wall Street Journal, og her er lidt af hendes kommentar til George W. Bush; hun opfatter ham, modsat Berlingske Tidendes Poul Høi, ikke som repræsentant for “nulstats-konservatisme”, men kalder ham det, han er, “big spender”, og nu er mor sur på og træt af ham.  Hun skal nok ikke regne med at blive inviteret tilbage til Det Hvide Hus som skribent lige med det samme, efter den svada hun her leverer:

“In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, “You can’t possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.”

That’s what’s behind Mr. Bush’s huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever–“whatever it takes”–on Katrina’s aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow’s hurricane aftermath.

George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

This, I believe, is the administration’s shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don’t like partisan bickering, there’s nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there’s nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.”

Mere effektive til at administrere en større offentlig sektor–lyder det ikke bekendt?

“As for vanity, the president’s aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.

Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn’t feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. …

Poor Reagan. If only he’d been strong he could have been a good president. … At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration “the pre-Bush era.” See where it got them.

Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It’s good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need–metaphor switch–seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?”

Og så rejser hun et tema, som danske borgerligt-liberale også kender til: Selvretfærdiggørelsen med henvisning til, at “de andre” er langt værre:

“The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. …  But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it’s a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.”

Bushs mest grundlæggende fejl er, siger Noonan, én, som danske borgerligt-liberale også vil kunne genkende:

“First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn’t argue against it, and he doesn’t make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn’t like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn’t try to cut. He doesn’t warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal–including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won’t believe her when she decries waste.”

Og denne strategi er kortsigtet, siger Noonan–og igen kan vi nikke fra vore hjemlige erfaringer:

“… Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever. …

Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is–“Here’s a check”? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to “Who’s your daddy? He’s not your daddy, I’m your daddy.” Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue? …

I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don’t know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn’t too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote
. He said, “A government b
ig enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” “

Og igen er der en parallel til hjemlige forhold:

“The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: “We’re having some trouble with part of the base but”–smile–“we can weather that.”  Well, they probably can, short term. Long term, they’ve had bad history with weather. It can change.”

Noonan opfordrer den amerikanske højrefløj til ikke stiltiende at acceptere en så dramatisk omlægning af de idealer, man tidligere har haft:

“Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.
If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society; If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism; If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year; If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is “Whatever it takes”; If all these things, shouldn’t we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn’t we be talking about it? Shouldn’t our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?

And shouldn’t the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?

It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn’t become extinct without a roar.”

Hvad gør dinosaurerne i de danske politiske partier?  Brøler de som løver, eller mæh’er de som lam?

Post-Rehnquist I

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 21. september 2005. Skriv et svar

Processen i forbindelse med John Roberts’ udnævnelse til et af verdens mægtigste embeder—–ny præsident for USA’s forbundshøjesteret–—er nu ved at nærme sig sin afslutning; afstemningerne kommer i løbet af de næste par dage, og der er vist ikke megen tvivl om udfaldet.  At nomineringen går igennem både senatets retsudvalg, formodentlig med alle Republikanske stemmer for og de fleste af de Demokratiske imod; at nomineringen ikke bliver “filibustered”, d.v.s., at den faktisk kommer til afstemning i det 100 medlemmer store senat, og at man også her vil stemme nogenlunde langs partiskel—–nok noget i retning af ca. 55-58 mod ca. 42-45.  Det markerer i så fald et drastisk skift i forhold til tidligere tiders næsten enstemmige accept af præsidenternes kandidater: Den i dag så kontroversielle Antonin Scalia og begge Clintons udnævnelser af erstatninger for mere konservative dommere kom dengang i gennem med stemmetal, der grænsede til enstemmighed.  Det spændende bliver også at se, hvorledes en række mulige Demokratiske 2008-præsidentkandidater vil stemme (senatorerne Bayh, Biden og Clinton).

Spørgsmålene er så, hvad der efterfølgende sker.  Hvem nominerer Bush som den anden af sine kandidater til at udfylde de to pladser efter Rehnquist og O’Connor?  Og hvad bliver den langsigtede konsekvens—om nogen—af disse udnævnelser?

Ifølge New York Times har Det Hvide Hus nu en revideret liste med kandidater.  Man er særligt interesserede i kvinder og minoriteter … Det samme skønner en fhv. Demokratisk insider hos FoxNews.

Manuel Miranda—tidligere juridisk rådgiver for den Republikanske partiledelse i Senatet—listede i sin klumme i Wall Street Journals OpinionJournal.com, hvem han mente, der er “The Contenders”—og hvem han foretrækker.  Blandt de sidstnævnte er ikke justitsminister og fhv. Texas Supreme Court dommer Alberto Gonzales, som mange mener, er Bushs egen foretrukne kandidat.

“Journalists are particularly eager over Gonzales talk, mostly because they sense that conservatives do not share their enthusiasm. They’ve got that right. The fact is that not one conservative leader I know supports a Gonzales nomination. Those who publicly say they do are not telling the truth. They either are Texas friends or are fearful of losing White House access and fund-raising support.”

Miranda mener, at den nye dommer skal være én, der er klart forskellig fra Gonzales men også fra John Roberts:

“The president’s next pick must be someone very different from Roberts. The object is not to have someone who is more conservative. That would be hard to accomplish. The next nominee must be differently credentialed. The overriding challenge for the president is to rid us of the stigma of the Bork nomination, which produced a Republican stealth nominee like David Souter, by naming someone with a precise record, the kind of record William Rehnquist had in 1986.

This high goal is not imperiled by the political desire the president may have to name either a woman or a Hispanic. These are the categories to which the president is likely to limit his new short list. The White House may also look at senators; an option that previous presidents have taken when they wanted a smooth Senate confirmation of a solid nominee.”

Her er Mirandas liste over kandidater, der er mulige men som samtidigt er mere ideologiske:

  • Edith Jones, dommer, Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Priscilla Owen, dommer, Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Janice Rogers Brown, dommer, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—en kandidat som nærværende punditokrat flere gange har omtalt.
  • Maura Corrigan, dommer, Michigan Supreme Court.
  • Emilio Garza, dommer, Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Danny Boggs, retspræsident og dommer, Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Raoul Cantero, dommer Florida Supreme Court.
  • Jeff Sessions, senator (R-Alabama), medl. af retsudvalget, fhv. U.S. attorney.
  • John Cornyn, senator (R-Texas), fhv. dommer, Texas Supreme Court.
  • Mel Martinez, senator (R-Florida).
  • Larry Thompson, fhv. vicejustitsminister.
  • Theodore Olson, fhv. Solicitor general.

Og—som rosinen i pølsenden og til nærværende punditokrats store glæde:

  • Douglas H. Ginsburg, retspræsident, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals og professor ved Universoity of Chicago og George Mason University.  Siger Miranda: “The president would also win admiration if he considered the popular and highly respected Douglas Ginsburg, only 59, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, whose 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court was scuttled. When Reagan nominated Judge Ginsburg to replace Justice Lewis Powell, the president described the young judge as “unpretentious.” That has not changed, but 20 years of appellate experience later, Judge Ginsburg has the finest record on the federal appellate bench.”

Men hvordan kommer den post-Rehnquistske æra til at se ud?  Det vender vi tilbage til i en Post-Rehnquist: Parte Deux.

PS. Den fortrinlige John Tierney havde i øvrigt i New York Times en ret morsom liste med post-moderne spørgsmål, Senatsmedlemmerne kunne stille John Roberts.  Jeg tror ikke, at mange af dem blev stillet …

PPS. Flere fra den amerikanske venstrefløj har knap så subtilt antydet, at John Roberts muligvis … er homoseksuel.  Det skulle vel egentlig ret beset være ret ligegyldigt, men det har i hvert fald affødt denne relativt sjove, tongue-in-cheek spoof blog: Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts.

Big government is back

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 15. september 2005. Skriv et svar

“The era of big government is over” sagde Bill Clinton i sin State of the Union tale i 1995.  “Not!” kunne man (hvis man ellers var hoppet på dén) så forledes til at tilføje her ti år efter.  Og det er ihvertfald, hvad Associated Press–ikke kendt som en skødehund for “the vast right-wing conspiracy”–kunne konkludere i denne artikel fredag.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) har, siger Robert Novak, spillet “his familiar role of skunk at the Sunday school picnic” og foreslået, at forbundsstatens udgifter i.f.m. Katrina bliver dækket af besparelser på andre områder.  Konfronteret med opfordring til, at skatteyderne burde ofre sig, sagde Coburn “it is no sacrifice on the part of Congress to steal $51.2 billion from our grandchildren.'” (hattip: Club for Growth).  Han er straks blevet kaldt til orden af den Republikanske partiledelse, der bestemt mener, at det ville være umenneskeligt at holde igen …  her kun et år før, et par hundrede Republikanske kongresmedlemmer igen er på valg.

Det skulle man ikke have troet om sådan nogle væmmelige “nulstats-konservative”.

Junk-journalistik: Poul Høi om ”nulstats-konservatisme”

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 13. september 2005. 5 svar

De små frække fætre ovre hos Liberator dyrkede i en periode at kåre diverse journalister for deres junk-journalistik.  Det var helt berettiget og meget samfundsgavnligt, men på det seneste synes det at være gået i sig selv.  Måske man er segnet under mængden af junk, man i givet fald skulle forholde sig til, så lad os prøve at løfte byrden … (om end den er tung).  Here we go …

Berlingske Tidendes ene USA-korrespondent, Poul Høi, som trods sin adresse i det solrige Sydcalifornien aldrig har svært ved at leve sig ind i dansk tankegang og anti-amerikanisme, havde i Berlingske Søndag en artikel, hvori det blandt andet hed, at George W. Bush …

“repræsenterer nulstats-konservatismen, der – som en af Bushs fæller udtrykker det – »vil tage forbundsregeringen [sic!] og drukne den i et badekar«.”

For det første: For lige at korrigere en fejlcitering, så var dét, som den farverige Grover Norquist fra Americans for Tax Reform sagde (og jævnligt gentager med glæde) ikke noget med forbundsregeringen med noget med forbundsstaten. OK, der skal vel være plads til, at ens sprog bliver angliceret, men så meget at man ikke kan kende forskel på government og government?  For det andet, sagde Norquist ikke, at han ville drukne forbundsstaten i et badekar; han sagde, at han ønsker, at forbundsstaten skal være så lille, at man kunne drukne den i et badekar.  Det første ville være en anarkistisk målsætning, og anarkist er Norquist trods alt ikke.  Det andet er, til Høis oplysning, en såkaldt … me-ta-for.

Men dertil: “Nulstat”? Ah, hva’?  Selv “minimalstat” eller “natvægterstat” ville vel have været nogle voldsomme tilsnigelser.  Lad os tage et hurtigt fact-check, som enhver kan gøre på google.com på et par minutter:

  • Under Bush er de samlede offentlige udgifter steget hurtigere end under nogen anden præsident siden Lyndon B. Johnson for 40 år siden (d.v.s. hurtigere end under Demokraterne Carter og Clinton og under Reagans forøgelse af forsvarsudgifterne)—i alt med 33 pct. i Bushs første embedsperiode.  Forbundsstatens udgifter i.f.t. BNP er steget fra 18,5 pct. under Clinton til 20,3 pct. under Bush.
  • Under Bush har omfanget af forbundsstatslig regulering (målt som antal siders lovgivning m.v. i Federal Register) nået et all-time high; Heritage Foundation har konkluderet, at reguleringen er blevet mindre på nogle områder, men større på andre, og at den i det store hele er i bedste fald uændret.  Cato Institute anslog i 2003, at reguleringen under Bush svarede til et samfundsmæssigt velfærdstab på 860 mia. USD … om året (svarende til ca. 8 pct. af BNP).
  • Under Bush er USA faldet i Economic Freedom Networks rating af økonomisk frihed i verdens lande, Economic Freedom of the World Index: fra 8,53 i Clintons sidste år som præsident (2000) til 8,19 i 2003.

Havde Bush være en “nulstats-konservativ” (hvordan det så end lige praktiseres), ville han have haft utallige muligheder for at anvende sin veto-ret—hvilket han, som den eneste præsident nogensinde, aldrig har gjort.  Og selv hvis hans veto skulle blive trumfet af kvalificerede flertal i kongressen, ville han via præsidentielle “executive orders” reelt kunne stoppe implementeringen af megen lovgivning—hvilket han heller ikke har benyttet sig af.

Nuvel, der kan være (halv-)gode eller (hel-)dårlige årsager til, at det er gået som det er.  11/9, Krigen mod Terror, en arrogant og ustyrlig kongres, stadigt mere effektive særinteressegrupper, o.s.v., o.s.v. , og det er meget tænkeligt, at tingene ville have været meget anderledes (men ikke nødvendigvis bedre) med f.eks. en Demokratisk kontrolleret kongres.  Men det er sådan alt sammen ligegyldigt, for en ting er sikker: “nulstats-konservatisme”, det er’d ikke.

Hvorfor er det så Høi—uden forklaring, uden dokumentation, og forbehold—karikerer Bush på den måde?  Lad os vende tilbage til det ved lejlighed, for man kunne sige meget andet om Poul Høi og hans journalistik—og det skal vi nok gøre.

Er 11/9 og Katrina virkeligt ”det samme”?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. september 2005. 1 svar

Det var i går fire år siden, at min hustru og jeg–—som bosiddende på Perry Street i West Village, NYC—–oplevede 11/9 på om end ikke 1. parket så dog tilnærmelsesvis.  Og mens vi nok var i sikkerhed, og kun var indenfor den afspærrede zone i en uges tid, så boede vi dog så tæt på WTC, at vi de næste 2-2 ½ måned dagligt kunne lugte røgen fra stedet—–hvis vi i øvrigt lige skulle have glemt, at udsigten også var blevet lavet radikalt om, og at vi havde nære venner, der næsten blev dræbt.

Måske er det derfor, at jeg tager det lidt personligt—–og bliver noget olm–—når folk, som mange har gjort de seneste dage, lidt kækt påstår, at 11/9 og efterdønningerne af Katrina nærmest er fænomener på lige fod.  Altså noget i retning af, “jo, jo, terroristerne var skyld i angrebet, men det er jo Bush [eller amerikanerne selv], som er skyld i Katrina-tragedien”.  Pudsigt nok har jeg på fornemmelsen, at det ofte er samme type mennesker, der har travlt med at frikende 11/9-terroristerne for nogen form for ansvar.  “Vi/Vesten/USA/Bush var jo selv ude om det!” “Hvad andet kunne de gøre?” o.s.v.  (Jf. f.eks., hvad den dansk-amerikanske musiker Billy Cross sagde til organet for det stalinistiske DKP/ML for to år siden.)

Men som jeg nævnte i en anden post for nylig, så må der efter min mening, først og sidst, være ét væsentligt spørgsmål at holde sig for øje: Er en tragedie resultatet af bevidst valgte mål og rationelt valgte midler i forhold til samme?  Eller er det noget, som nok er resultatet af “human action, but not of human design”?

I det første tilfælde burde det være let for alle at placere skylden.  I det andet bliver det lidt mere mudret.

Nuvel, x antal døde er x antal døde, uanset årsagen.  Men der er et stykke fra dén faktuelle erkendelse og så til at sige—som Naja Munthe gjorde for fire år siden–—at det ikke var værd at græde snot over nogle tusinde amerikanere, når nu der dør mange af sult hver eneste dag.  I det ene tilfælde er der tale om overlagt mord—–i det andet om en tragisk blanding af naturkatastrofer, perverse incitamenter, forsømmelighed og ligegyldighed.

Siger man, at “det er ét fedt”, og kan man ikke kende forskel på f.eks. Katrinas ofre og 11/9-terroristernes ofre, så kan man heller ikke kende forskel på et overlagt mord, et uagtsomt drab, et uheld og et naturligt dødsfald.  Og så er vi for alvor fanget i den totale relativismes frakendelse af enhver forbindelse mellem skyld og ansvar.  Så er alt bare “det samme”, alle er medskyldige og ingen er ansvarlige.

Government failure galore II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 10. september 2005. 3 svar

Punditokraterne må gøre noget rigtigt.  Vi er nu blevet hecklet af en venstreorienteret amerikansk familie, der er bosiddende i Danmark.  De læser os åbenbart—, synes at vi er “kooks” og efterlyser, at vi nærmere undersøger årsagerne til tragedien i New Orleans.  Det gør de formodentlig mere retorisk end ud fra et reelt ønske, men lad nu det være— og lad dem få, hvad de ønsker sig.

Verdens formodentligt mest overvurderede kommentator, “økonomen” Paul Krugman, mener i hele to af hans ugentlige klummer i New York Times (her og her), at katastrofen i New Orleans skyldes … [dyb indånding, dyb tænkning] … [trommehvirvel] … Republikanerne?  Bush?  Reagan? Laissez-faire ideologer?  All of the above?

Naturligvis.

Fordi alle var klar over, at en orkan-oversvømmelse af New Orleans var en af de tre mest sandsynlige, slemme katastrofer, der ville kunne ramme USA.

Fordi hvis nu Bush ikke var løbet fra USA’s deltagelse i Kyoto Traktaten (hvilket han ganske vist aldrig gjorde, fordi begge partier i Senatet havde afvist at ratificere traktaten, og Clinton derfor aldrig sendte traktaten til kongressen …), så ville alle verdens “klimaproblemer” på fire-fem år være blevet forhindret, og så var der aldrig døde nogle mennesker, som ville være døde i New Orleans.

Fordi,

“the federal government’s lethal ineptitude wasn’t just a consequence of Mr. Bush’s personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn’t forthcoming?”

Eller hva’ …?

Her er så lidt fakta at tage med i betragtning, når skylden skal uddeles, for det er faktisk sandt nok, når Krugman siger, at alle vidste, at New Orleans var i fare.  For byens vedkommende er det på baggrund af nyere tids statistikker beregnet, at den

  • gennemsnitligt strejfes eller rammes af en orkan: hvert 3,94 år
  • rammes direkte af en større orkan: hvert 13,4 år
  • næste gang ville blive ramt af en større tordenstorm eller orkan: 2005.

Selv hvis man mener, at beskyttelse mod orkaner udgør et rent kollektivt gode, som kun det offentlige effektivt kan sikre borgerne imod, så må man i hvert fald spørge sig selv: Hvis opgave er det i en forbundsstat?  Er det selve forbundsstaten? Delstaten? Amtet og kommunen?  Princippet bag både føderalisme og kollektiv gode-problemer er, at opgaven skal løses/finansieres på det niveau, hvor det er optimalt i forhold til, hvem nyderne er.  Min gamle ven, den fine “østrigske” økonom, Larry White, har denne fine kommentar på den nye økonom-blog DivisionOfLabour.com, vedrørende argumentationen om, at det var selve USA’s forbundsstat, der skulle have båret omkostningerne ved at forbedre digerne omkring New Orleans:

“But why was it a federal job? The beneficiaries of the levees were entirely in one city, in one state. Why didn’t the city or the state pay for levee improvements? According to one source, the US Army Corps of Engineers became responsible for the levees during the War of 1812. Before that New Orleans levied its own taxes (on shippers who used the port) for levee maintenance. After that taxpayers all over the US would pay, and folks in DC rather than Louisiana would choose how much would be spent on levee maintenance.

Clearly most New Orleans or Louisiana taxpayers would have been willing to pay for levee maintenance if they knew they had to, but of course the city and state didn’t volunteer – even though they knew the need for strengthening – because they were counting on the federal taxpayers to pay for it. Live by the federal subsidy, die by the diversion of federal subsidies to other priorities. A tragedy of over-centralization.”

Ovre hos Becker-Posner Bloggen er man—ikke så overraskende—fortalere for en cost-benefit analyse af, hvad man skal gøre i fremtiden.  Det lyder næsten som om, at dommer Posner konkluderer, at New Orleans ikke er en genopbygning værd.

PS. Ovre hos Powerline kan de heller ikke lide Krugman.

Rehnquist, Hayek og ekstremisme

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 5. september 2005. 1 svar

New York Times havde mandag en længere artikel om den nysafdøde, amerikanske højesteretspræsident William H. Rehnquist.

Der var et par ting i den, som jeg ikke vidste men fandt interessante.  F.eks. at Rehnquist i 1964 havde ført kampagne for Barry “Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice” Goldwater, da denne som Republikanernes præsidentkandidat forgæves prøvede at slå Lyndon B. Johnson. Men også dette om Rehnquists ideologiske inspiration:

“Chief Justice Rehnquist often said that he was strongly influenced in his world view by a book he read as a young man, “The Road to Serfdom,” by Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian-born, Nobel Prize-winning economist. A best-seller after its publication in 1944, the book warned of the dangers of collectivism and big government and predicted that socialism, the “road to serfdom” of the title, would eventually collapse.”

Der var også denne lille anekdote fra da Rehnquist i 1986 blev udnævnt til højesteretspræsident, inklusive en fin lille parafrase:

“While the new chief justice found the confirmation process extremely disagreeable, he kept his composure and even his wry sense of humor. At one point, a Republican Senator, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, commended him for his recent dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, the case on silent prayer in the Alabama public schools. Senator Hatch observed that the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted for a constitutional amendment to allow such prayer. “What you have been labeled extreme for, is something a majority of this committee supports,” Senator Hatch said.
Justice Rehnquist smiled and shrugged. “We’re all extremists together,” he said.”

En ny Lochner æra?

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 4. september 2005. 3 svar

Som den redigerende Punditokrat Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard har skrevet tidligere, er det lidet sandsynligt, at Janice Roger Brown bliver udnævnt som ny associate justice ved den amerikanske Højesteret (USC), dertil er hun for kontroversiel. Browns synd består bl.a.i, at hun har udtalt sig positivt om USC's afgørelse i Lochner v. New York. I denne afgørelse fra 1905 erklærede USC en lov der fastsatte et maksimum på bagere i New Yorks arbejdstid for forfatningsstridig. Afgørelsen er blandt både liberale (i ordets amerikanske betydning) og konservative jurister anset som en rædselsfuld dom, hvor aktivistiske dommere tiltog sig magt, der rettelig tilhørte den lovgivende (og udøvende) magt. Dommen lagde navn til en periode, hvor et flertal i USC erklærede en række love a la den i Lochner for forfatningsstridige. Lochner æraen førte til åben konflikt med Præsident Roosevelt, hvis "New Deal" reformer også blev invalideret af USC. Lochner æraen varede indtil 1937, hvor USC, nu med nye dommere udpeget af Roosevelt, afveg fra Lochner i dommen West Coast Hotel v. Parish.

Men var Lochner nu så forfærdelig en dom? Her er nogle nøglepræmisser:

In every case that comes before this court, therefore, where legislation  of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty, or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family? Of course the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it. The one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor[…]

The question whether this act is valid as a labor law, pure and simple, may be dismissed in a few words. There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. There is no contention that bakers as a class are not equal in intelligence and capacity to men in other trades or manual occupations, or that they are not able to assert their rights and care for themselves without the protecting arm of the state, interfering with their independence of judgment and of action. They are in no sense wards of the state. Viewed in the light of a purely labor law, with no reference whatever to the question of health, we think that a law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals, nor the welfare, of the public, and that the interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act. The law must be upheld, if at all, as a law pertaining to the health of the individual engaged in the occupation of a baker. It does not affect any other portion of the public than those who are engaged in that occupation. Clean and wholesome bread does not depend upon whether the baker works but ten hours per day or only sixty hours a week. The limitation of the hours of labor does not come within the police power on that ground.

It is a question of which of two powers or rights shall prevail,-the power of the state to legislate or the right of the individual to liberty of person and freedom of contract. The mere assertion that the subject relates, though but in a remote degree, to the public health, does not necessarily render the enactment valid. The act must have a more direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes [198 U.S. 45, 58]   with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor[…]

It is also urged, pursuing the same line of argument, that it is to the interest of the state that its population should be strong and robust, and therefore any legislation which may be said to tend to make people healthy must be valid as health laws, enacted under the police power. If this be a valid argument and a justification for this kind of legislation, it follows that the protection of the Federal Constitution from undue interference with liberty of person and freedom of contract is visionary, wherever the law is sought to be justified as a valid exercise of the police power. Scarcely any law but might find shelter under such assumptions, and conduct, properly so called, as well as contract, would come under the restrictive sway of the legislature. Not only the hours of employees, but the hours of employers, could be regulated, and doctors, lawyers, scientists, all professional men, as well as athletes and artisans, could be forbidden to fatigue their brains and bodies by prolonged hours of exercise, lest the fighting strength [198 U.S. 45, 61]   of the state be impaired. We mention these extreme cases because the contention is extreme. We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold this law. On the contrary, we think that such a law as this, although passed in the assumed exercise of the police power, and as relating to the public health, or the health of the employees named, is not within that power, and is invalid. The act is not, within any fair meaning of the term, a health law, but is an illegal interference with the rights of individuals, both employers and employees, to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best, or which they may agree upon with the other parties to such contracts. Statutes of the nature of that under review, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual, and they are not asved from condemnation by the claim that they are passed in the exercise of the police power and upon the subject of the health of the individual whose rights are interfered with, unless there be some fair ground, reasonable in and of itself, to say that there is material danger to the public health, or to the health of the employees, if the hours of labor are not curtailed. If this be not clearly the case, the individuals whose rights are thus made the subject of legislative interference are under the protection of the Federal Constitution regarding their liberty of contract as well as of person; and the legislature of the state has no power to limit their right as proposed in this statute.

USC fastslog med andre ord, at aftalefrihed var en personlig frihedsret på linje med andre fundamentale personlige frihedsrettigheder, samt at den amerikanske forfatning indeholdt en generel ret til frihed, som staten kun kan indskrænke, såfremt den løfter en tung bevisbyrde. Lochner er derfor, set med mine øjne, et højdepunkt i USCs historie, ikke en skamplet. Reaktionerne på Janice Roger Browns udtalelser viser dog desværre, at det er mere end usandsynligt, at en ny Lochner æra opstår indenfor den overskuelige fremtid.

The mother of all battles II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 4. september 2005. 1 svar

Nyhedsbureauerne har her til morgen meddelt, at USA’s højesteretspræsident William Rehnquist i nat oplevede dét, som John Maynard Keynes i sin tid associerede med “the long run”–som vi nævnte som en mulighed for flere måneder siden.  R.I.P.

Nu får Bush så muligheden for at udnævne hele to højesteretsdommere på kort tid, herunder at gøre en af dem (eller en af de siddende dommere) til ny højesteretspræsident.

Hvem bliver det så?

Jeg havde i forrige uge fornøjelsen at tilbringe en hel aften med at spise middag med US Appeals Court Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg (som Reagan i sin tid nominerede til US Supreme Court, men som måtte trække sit kandidatur efter afsløringer om ungdommelig interesse for “inhalering”), og jeg kan kun sige: Hvis jeg var præsident, ville han være det oplagte valg.  Hold da op.  Han er endnu–for den branche–relativt ung, utroligt stærk rent akademisk, har en superb karriere som professor, vicejustitsminister og nu den reelt højest rangerende amerikanske dommer udenfor US Supreme Court–og så er han, set fra min personlige synsvinkel, en appetitlig blanding af at være meget frimarkedsorienteret på økonomiske spørgsmål, en “original intent” jurist på konstitutionelle spørgsmål og ikke en del af den mere statskonservative, religiøse højrefløj.*

Så ham bliver det næppe.

Jeg har også tidligere fremhævet den ideologisk-juridiske flammekaster Janice Rogers Brown (her og her).  Det er efterhånden desværre nok lige så usandsynligt.

Mere realistiske bud er dog nok en af disse fire dommere, som Bush havde på sin liste i foråret: J. Michael Luttig; en af de to Edith’er (Edith Clement og Edith Jones), som begge blev brugt af Det Hvide Hus som røgslør for nomineringen af Roberts tidligere på sommeren; Emilio Garza.  Alle disse er konservative “original intent”-fortolkere af forfatningen (ihvertfald i et eller andet omfang), og mindst tre af dem går for at være “socialt konservative” i en eller anden grad.  De vil givetvis udløse ramaskrig og slagsmål fra den amerikanske venstrefløj, og muligvis en ny debat om brugen af den såkaldte “filibuster”-regel ved udnævnelser, der skal behandles i Senatet.  Bush vil i.f.t. sit eget bagland ikke kunne slippe afsted med at udnævne en moderat konservativ i stedet for Rehnquist, men han vil i.f.t. venstrefløjen ikke slippe let afsted med at udnævne en, der er synligt meget mere konservativ end Roberts.

Så det kan blive det “Mother of All Battles” i amerikansk politik, jeg forudså tidligere på sommeren.  Omvendt vil erstatningen af Rehnquist med en Rehnquist-agtig dommer ikke flytte balancen–og derfor bliver slagsmålet for ingenting at regne i forhold til, når en af de nuværende højesteretsdommere fra den modsatte fløj skal erstattes–det vil være dér, at balancen for alvor kan skifte, og hvor de ideologiske frontkæmpere vil drage ud med alle de ressourcer, som de har sparet op til netop det formål.

* Det hører med til historien, at Reagan så i stedet for Ginsburg nominerede Anthony Kennedy, der lidt banalt og populært omtales som en af “sving-dommerne”, som nogle gange stemmer “til højre” og andre gange “til venstre”.  Kennedy var i den kontroversielle Kelo-dom fonylig den udslagsgivende stemme.  M.a.o.: Var Ginsburg blevet udnævnt, havde man–ceteris paribus–ikke fået den mildt sagt groteske dom.

Update: Jeg har tidligere nævnt den, men det kan godt gøres igen: Der er en ny blog, SCOTUSblog, som særligt følger US Supreme Court, og den er værd at holde øje med, hvis man synes, at emnet er interessant.

Update II: Andre er åbenbart–desværre–enige med mig m.h.t. Janice Rogers Brown.  Og når de siger det på VolokhConspiracy-bloggen, så er det givetvis sandt, for de er kloge derovre …

Government failure galore

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 3. september 2005. 2 svar

Jeg orker ikke selv at skrive noget om tragedien i New Orleans; jeg har flere venner dér, var der selv så sent som i marts og skulle have været dertil igen i marts næste år, og det er ganske simpelt for smerteligt at tænke på den nærmest Hobbeske “state of nature”, der på rekordtid synes at være opstået dér.

Så her er i stedet (uden anbefaling eller det modsatte) et kort round-up af med links til, hvad forskellige frihedsorienterede stemmer på nettet har haft at sige om situationen og årsagerne til dens konsekvenser:

Min eneste kommentar iøvrigt er, at amerikanerne i en række nylige meningsmålinger afslører, hvad vi godt vidste i forvejen: At de har større tiltro til markedet end til det offentlige, og lægger mere vægt på individuelt ansvar end kollektiv free-riding …  Ikke så overraskende, men egentligt ret forbløffende.

Update: Her er et par mere:

Ugens citat: Zinmeister om tidens kunstneriske idealisme

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 31. august 2005. 2 svar

Ikke et ord om Evaristi, men dog noget nærliggende …

"There is no 'Guernica' painted for 9/11. Nothing like The Red Badge of Courage, or All Quiet on the Western Front, or Slaughterhouse-Five has been written…. The Manhattan creative class hasn't produced even a Forrest Gump to capture in popular form the circumstances and emotions of that searing day…. Lord knows, the creative class mobilized their artistry in response to the AIDS epidemic. Remember the endless AIDS Quilt projects? The interminable string of Broadway plays documenting the personal horrors of HIV? But recognizing that America has ruthless and evil Third World enemies who will kill us unless we kill them first? Umm, I think I'd rather work on my novel about the secret repression of gay pastors in Dallas."

Karl Zinmeister, i magasinet The American Enterprise.

Højrefløj mod skattelettelser

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 16. august 2005. Skriv et svar

Wall Street Journals Brendan Miniter spekulerer i sin klumme dagens WSJ i, at vindene i USA–desværre–synes at være ved at vende m.h.t. Republikanernes syn på skattelettelser og skattetrykket.

Efter i knap 30 år at have en ihvertfald i retorikken, men ofte også i praksis, radikal tilgang til skatterne, er de amerikanske konservative nu ved at blive konservative i ordets mere konserverende forstand. Det er naturligvis også sjovest at være mod skattetrykket, når det er modstanderne, der sidder på statsapparatet; når man selv sidder på flæsket, bliver man på forunderligvis lidt mere opmærksom på, hvor svært det kan være at gennemføre skattelettelser–og hvor attraktivt det er at dele andres penge ud til ting, man godt kan lide. Så får skatterne pudsigt nok omtrent den størrelse, som skatter nu engang gerne skal have.

Her er noget af, hvad Miniter skriver:

"Like Reagan, President Bush has been bold in pushing for tax cuts. He didn't flinch on cutting the top income tax rate in 2001. In 2003, when the economy still appeared to be shaky, he pushed through a second round of cuts, including on dividends and capital gains. But here too Republicans seem to have set an arbitrary floor on how low they'll allow taxes to fall. Mr. Bush's top income tax rate is still a few points higher than Reagan's top rate. And both rounds of the Bush tax cuts were given expiration dates, so Republicans will have to fight the same battles over again in the next couple of years just to keep the tax rates where they are now. There's also the small issue of tax reform this year. The president is promising to "simplify the code," but he's not pushing for a second-term tax cut to go along with an easier-to-fill-out tax return–a clear sign that even officials high up in the Bush administration are working off the assumption that there is little to be gained economically or politically from cutting taxes further.

Conservatives were once able to demand unwavering support for cutting taxes of almost every candidate who wanted a Republican nomination. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, even developed a pledge that Republican candidates had to sign if they want to be taken seriously. The first President Bush famously broke his pledge, and everyone on the right could read his lips as he conceded defeat to Bill Clinton in 1992. This era of big, dramatic tax cuts, however, may now be over."

Det lyder næsten bekendt–bortset fra at vi danskere ikke nåede at se meget til denne "era of big, dramatic tax cuts".

George Will om George Allen

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. august 2005. 2 svar

Jeg har et par gange (vistnok som den eneste øst for Hans Ø) peget på Senator George Allen (R-VA) som et godt bud på, hvem der kunne blive Republikanernes kandidat i 2008 (bl.a. i en kommentar og i en opfølgning). Dét (altså Allen, ikke mig) havde den konservative kommentator George Will en klumme om for nogle uger siden. Jeg fandt dette metafor særligt interessant:

"The ideal Republican candidate can meld two Republican tendencies that are in tension — social conservatism and libertarianism. Social conservatives have no complaints with Allen, and libertarians vibrate like tuning forks to his invocations of “Mister Jefferson,'' as Virginians refer to their saint of minimal government."

PS. I Washington Post søndag havde Michael Shear den forudsigelse, at 2008-valget meget let kunne blive mellem George Allen og hans efterfølger som Virginia-guvernør, Mark Warner. Hmmmmm. Jeg tror fortsat, at det bliver Hillary C., der får nomineringen–og derefter taber selve præsidentvalget, fordi hun som den 8. Demokratiske præsidentkandidat i træk får under 50 pct. af stemmerne.

PPS. Tirsdag i Wall Street Journal mente Brendan Miniter derimod i sin klumme, "Bush 44", at Jeb Bush–familiens konservative får–i realiteten ser stærkere og stærkere ud som storebroders efterfølger i 2008.

Ugens citat: Posner om indvandring, terror & velfærd

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 4. august 2005. 3 svar

I en tid, hvor spørgsmål om indvandring, terror og velfærdsstat synes at kunne slå skår i de fleste private samtaler og offentlige alliancer, kan man med fordel læse de to kloge hoveder på Becker-Posner Blog. Her er dommer Posners konkluderende perspektiv:

"Advocates of the European model point to the pockets of poverty in the United States, but may not realize that poverty cannot be abolished without recourse to measures that produce the social pathologies that we observe in Europe. Social mobility implies the opportunity to fail. If society protects jobs, the employment opportunities of ambitious newcomers are reduced and they may end up at the embittered margin of society. Thus, it is not poverty that breeds extremism; it is social policies intended in part to eradicate poverty that do so, by obstructing exit from minority subcultures. If Muslims in European societies do not feel a part of those societies because public policy does not enable them to compete for the jobs held by non-Muslims–if instead, excluded from identifying with the culture of the nation in which they reside they perforce identify with the worldwide Muslim culture–some of them are bound to adopt the extremist views that are common in that culture. The resulting danger to Europe and to the world is not offset by long vacations."

Og her er Nobelprisvinder Beckers perspektiv samme sted.

Pas på tyven!

Af Mikael Jalving, den 30. juli 2005. Skriv et svar

Forestillingen om, at Danmark er et land uden vold og kriminalitet er en gammel traver, som mindst går tilbage til plakaten med den rare politimand, der stopper trafikken for at lede en andefamilie over vejen. Ofte garneres forestillingen med socialdemokratisk visdom, f.eks. personificeret ved BT’s chefredaktør Erik Meier Carlsen, hvis alter ego må være omtalte politimand.

Forleden rykkede redaktøren atter ud til fordel for den egalitære velfærdsstat og roste danskerne for et enestående kammeratskab og masser af tillid. Men socialdemokraternes sufflør skulle måske kaste et blik på de kriminalitetsstatistikker, der modsiger skønmaleriet. Tager vi en statistik fra Interpol, så ser vi, at Danmark ligger i toppen, hvis vi tæller alle former for kriminalitet med, herunder indbrud i sommerhuset, biltyveri, hærværk mm. Her er vi ganske simpelt et foregangsland, præcis som vi elsker at være det … langt foran USA … for danskerne stjæler med arme og ben. En forklaring kunne være, at vores lighedskultur har så svært ved at acceptere, at nogle har mere end andre, og at den derfor nok skal få fingre i det … via skat eller tyveri, forskelen er ens. Hvis denne forklaring er plausibel, kunne det tyde på, at velfærdsstatens forbrug af andre folks penge er med til at undergrave folks moral, og at de derfor gør rapseriet og vandalismen til samfundsnorm. Når de ser, at staten alligevel smider om sig med andres værdier, så kan de lige så godt sørge for deres eget. Altså: At velfærdsstaten faktisk fremmer den egoisme, som den påstår at fjerne.

Se, dét ville være en nyhed i BT.

Spredt fægtning II – om Roberts og SCOTUS

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 27. juli 2005. Skriv et svar

Nå, så blev det dommer John G. Roberts, der blev Bushs første nominerede til USA’s forbundshøjesteret.

Jeg ved–som de fleste–ikke meget om manden, men tilsyneladende er Demokraterne nu virkeligt ved at få skovlen under Roberts: Han er veluddannet (hvilket ellers er forbeholdt Demokrater), har ikke skrevet nogle synderligt kontroversielle domme (hvilket må siges at være dybt mistænkeligt), han og hustruen er katolikker–som oven i købet går til messe! (og vi ved jo nok, hvad betyder!)–og … [trommehvirvel] … og så har han måske været medlem af Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies! Holy Batmobile!

Det er ikke kun i Danmark, at man skal passe på med, hvilke “ekstremistiske” fora, man associerer sig med. Det næstmest venstreorienterede af USA’s to førende dagblade, Washington Post, er i en artikel rødglødende over, at Roberts måske engang for 7-8-9 år siden har været medlem af det selvbetegnede “conservative and libertarian” Federalist Society. For, som avisen skriver,

“In conservative circles, membership in or association with the society has become a badge of ideological and political reliability.”

Det kunne næsten ikke være værre. (Bemærk i øvrigt, at WP her benytter samme lille fif, som DR for nylig gjorde i et nyligt P1-indslag om Libertas: hvis man som forening ikke udleverer sine medlemslister til journalister, så har man dermed en “hemmelig medlemskreds” …)

SFW? Flere andre har været eller er medlemmer af Federalist Society. Inklusiv en brintoveriltet babe, Ainsley Haynes, der arbejder som Associate White House Counsel for en Demokratisk præsident–om end denne altså er Jed Bartlett og kun i TV-serien West Wing …, samt en enkelt dansk lektor i statskundskab.

Roberts’ måske-medlemskab har hurtigt fået Demokraterne til at fare i flint–og Republikanerne i defensiven. Wall Street Journal havde en god leder om det emne.

Sammesteds skrev Manuel Miranda i sin klumme et par kloge ord om dét–og om hvorfor (borgerlige) politikere ofte gøre deres (borgerlige) bagland en bjørnetjeneste, når de skynder sig at distancere sig fra organisationer, som er politisk ukorrekte. Det burde andre skrive sig bag øret.

Professor Richard Epstein (Chicago)–en af USA’s bedste juridiske begavelser, og uden tvivl en af de mest produktive og frihedsorienterede jurister–støtter i Wall Street Journal Roberts, og hans svar på Senator Charles Schumers (D-NY) spørgsmål til Roberts om, hvilke der er de dårligste højesteretsafgørelser, er meget passende: “Where shall I begin?” Sjældent har jeg set en amerikansk intellektuel give et så koncist–og fra mit perspektiv: tiltalende–svar på, hvad der er vedkommendes egen filosofi for, hvorledes domstolene skal dømme:

“What presumption should attach to the constitutionality of the use of state force? This vexed question of the “standard of review” is nowhere stated in the Constitution, and thus ultimately derives from a sense of its basic purposes, which I take to be the preservation of “ordered liberty”–with a state strong enough to rule, but not so strong as to snuff out the liberties of ordinary people to own property, enter contracts, worship, and speak as they please.

Given that view, the proper response to all forms of state regulation of private activities should be to subject them to serious judicial scrutiny, in order to see that they achieve their legitimate objectives. Judged by this twin standard, many decisions come out badly.”

You go, professor! Roberts synes umiddelbart for denne observatør ikke så dårlig, men for pokker … Hvis det dog bare havde været Epstein i stedet!

Men af dem, der var på tale (men som altså ikke fik nomineringen), bliver jeg dog mere og mere begejstret for Janice Rogers Brown (som jeg tidligere har omtalt)–og vi må håbe damen får chancen ved en senere lejlighed. Her er et par uddrag af, hvad kritikerne siger om den F.A. Hayek og Ayn Rand citerende dommer:

“She believes we would be better off if we returned to a time when protections like the minimum wage, food safety standards, and Social Security and Medicare were ruled unconstitutional–never mind what voters and elected officials think. She equates affordable housing regulations with theft. She argues that much corporate behavior can only be regulated if companies agree that it’s in their best interest. She calls court decisions upholding the New Deal “our own socialist revolution.” (People for the American Way)

“Justice Brown equates democratic government with “slavery,” claims that the New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of collectivist mentality,” calls Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal “the triumph of our own socialist revolution,” accuses social security recipients of “blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system permits them to extract,” and advocates returning to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like workplace protections. “Where government moves in,” Justice Brown declares, “community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.”” (Alliance for Justice)

“Justice Brown’s disdain for government runs so deep that she urges “conservative” judges to invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it “inevitably transform[s]… a democracy … into a kleptocracy.” Following her own “pro-activist” advice, Justice Brown – always in dissent – uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature’s intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn’t like, such as California’s anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only “narrow” personal interests), hotel development fees intended to preserve San Francisco’s affordable housing supply, rent control ordinances, statutory fees for manufacturers that put lead-based products into the stream of commerce, and a false advertising law applied to companies making false claims about their workplace practices to boost sales. Justice Brown’s colleagues on the court have repeatedly remarked on her
disrespect for such legis
lative policy judgments, criticizing her, in different cases, for “imposing … [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state”; asserting “such an activist role for the courts”; “quarrel[ing]… not with our holding in this case, but with this court’s previous decision … and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself”; and “permit[ting] a court … to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure.” Justice Brown’s record of injecting her virulently antigovernment views into her opinions is particularly troublesome given that she has been nominated to the D.C. Circuit, a court with special jurisdiction over the interpretation of numerous federal statutory and regulatory protections.” (Alliance for Justice)

“… when nominated to the California Supreme Court in 1996, Justice Brown received a not qualified rating from the California Judicial Commission. Among other things, the Commission cited a “tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions” and complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent, lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views, …” (Alliance for Justice)

Vent lige lidt–det var kritikken …?

Wall Street Journals politiske redaktør, John Fund, mener, at der skal være term limits for højesteretsdommere–på samme måde, som der er for præsidenter, samt i en del delstater for guvernører, borgmestre og andre lokale embeder. Han foreslår, i lighed med andre, en grænse på 18 år i stolen. Ja, hvorfor ikke? Havde den været sat således, ville John Paul Stevens, som blev nomineret af den Republikanske præsident Gerald Ford i 1975, og som har skrevet de værste af de seneste årtiers domme, for længst være blevet pensioneret. Og så var senest Kelo vs. New London næppe blevet, som den blev.

Og apropos dén monstrøse dom: Tre medlemmer af kongressen, som alle tre er forhenværende dommere, har skrevet en kort kronik, hvori de forklarer, hvorfor privat ejendomsret er privat og retfærdigt, og hvorfor det er skadeligt at lave om på det ved tage fra nogen og give til nogle andre.

Update:Wall Street Journals John Fund har denne passende observation vedr. Roberts’ kritikeres fascination af hans (måske-)medlemskab af Federalist Society:’

“[When] Judge Edith Clement, the runner-up to Judge Roberts for last week’s Supreme Court pick, was nominated in 2001 to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Vermont Senator Pat Leahy presented her with a long list of questions related to the group, such as: “With what (if any) Federalist Society positions do you disagree?” and “Did you consider resigning from the Federalist Society when you became a judge? If not, why not?” That line of questioning struck some as an echo of Joseph McCarthy’s infamous mantra: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Indeed, back in 1998 even Senator Leahy had expressed concern over judicial nominees being roasted over tangential ties with a group.When Clinton nominee Susan Graber was being interrogated about two briefs she had written in cases involving the ACLU more than 15 years previously, Senator Leahy rose to her defense. He told the Senate: “She was asked whether she is now or ever has been a member of the ACLU. She was asked whether she personally agreed with a number of positions taken recently by the ACLU. I objected to this line of questioning at the hearing and caution the Senate that we are headed down a road toward an ideological litmus test that does not well serve the Senate, the courts or the American people. “Let’s see if Senator Leahy will call for similar restraint when it comes to Judge Roberts’ alleged ties to the Federalist Society.”

Gone native II (or not going native …)

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 19. juli 2005. Skriv et svar

Apropos min med-Punditokrat Mr. Laws post om "Gone Native", så er her et link til noget helt andet … En interessant klumme af Wall Street Journals fremragende politiske redaktør, John Fund, der er stærkt kritisk overfor et forslag om at skabe en slags racemæssigt baseret hjemmestyre for "Native Hawaiians". Jeg har i mange år været fascineret af seriøse studier af polycentriske politiske institutioner og ditto retsinstitutioner (host, host …), samt mulighederne for løsrivelse og andre former for "exit", men J.F. fik mig her overbevist om det problematiske i Hawaii-forslaget.