Putting the Brakes on the Singularity

By Andrew Collins

The Singularity is coming. But not if I can help it.

Barring a miracle, the seminal event of the next few centuries--and all of human history--will be the Singularity, when human life as we know it ends due to rapid and deep technological development.

In a popular new book, The Singularity is Near, inventor/futurist Ray Kurzweil paints an extremely optimistic picture of a world in which individuals design their own mental habitats and all major world problems are solved. We will be able to select from alternate personalities. Life will be eternal, if desired.

Kurzweil is probably right about the possibilities of technology for human use within the next few centuries, if not decades. Scientists at Yale and elsewhere are already predicting that life expectancies will someday approach infinity. And it is easy to see how humans could use superhuman technologies, including their own dramatically retooled brains, to quickly solve problems like food shortage, pollution and poverty.

But in opposition to Kurzweil’s rosy scenario are legions of others in the scientific and technological communities, including the chief scientist at Sun Microsystems, Bill Joy, and person who first predicted the Singularity, Vernor Vinge. They project that if a Kurzweilian world is ever created, it will quickly disappear as humans lose control of their technology and face extermination, enslavement or worse.

Two things to bear in mind about the Singularity: one, it would happen very quickly. Technology advances exponentially, and if we created entities that exceeded our intelligence, their ability to create increasingly intelligent entities would immediately surpass even our highest rate. Two, there is no reason why higher-order beings would be at our service, any more than we are at the service of rabbits or horses. History has shown that beings work for their self-interest, and a more sophisticated being than humans would have no reason to treat us as equals, or, even more preposterously, as superiors.

Bearing in mind how quickly things might go horribly wrong, it is incumbent on this generation to stop humankind from signing away its fate to the spawn of its intelligence. We must act swiftly. It is not enough to continually muse that “the generations of tomorrow will have to face some tough quandaries at the intersection of genomics, law and ethics.” By the time those generations come of age, perhaps it will be too late to reverse our march toward the Singularity.

Without restricting research or thought in any way, the United Nations should make a concerted effort to identify all scientists, institutions and corporations working on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence. This would be a gigantic task because of its broad scope, the nebulous nature of intellectual property and some expected hostility from researchers, but not as difficult as, say, tracking down nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union. This is for three reasons: the UN would be looking for large, well funded laboratories, not shadowy Central Asian criminal syndicates; the UN would be monitoring, not reclaiming stolen property and imprisoning; and, most importantly, the goal of UN monitoring would be to prevent an eventuality--a calamitous Singularity that would end the human race as we know it--that would augment neither business nor power.

The monitoring effort would be a safeguard. Perhaps the countless prognosticators and technology experts are wrong and the Singularity will forever elude the human grasp. But if we are someday able to assess whether our level of advancement is dangerously close to irrevocably producing the Singularity, it will be crucial to have a well established directory of researchers and their activities.

Freedom to research based on academic interest and monetary gain is at the heart of the Western world’s economic and political success over the past two centuries. That freedom should not be abrogated except for in the most desperate circumstances. We are possibly approaching exactly such a circumstance, however, and we must be prepared. If the UN is not up to the challenge, calls will have to filter up from the private sector, national governments and media watchdogs.

Those who oppose change are usually losers. The opponents of cooking, medicine, electricity and air travel are worse than forgotten--they are the enemies of history. But few historians would deny the exceptionalism of the 20th century and that technological advancement will someday elude the control of even our brightest scientists. Moreover, there is a philosophical resonance to the greatest driver of humankind’s earthly reign being its eventual undoing. To stop the exponential curve of technology from reaching its unimaginably disasterous asymptote, we must reject a fundamentally human instinct and prepare to restrain progress.

Perhaps humankind is destined to collapse under the weight of its greatest appetites. But I, for one, am not going down without a fight.

The 20-Year Project: Grooming Potential Presidents

By Anthony Vitarelli

Governor, governor, vice president, governor, governor, vice president, vice president.

These are the previous job titles of our seven most recently elected Presidents.* Simply put, state executives and vice presidents become Commander-in-Chief. Voters want a candidate who has managed an executive branch, balanced a publicly financed budget, and projected a powerful authoritative image. Unlike governors, senators and wealthy businessmen are most commonly referred to as “former Presidential candidates” when their bids for the White House fall short.

If the Democratic Party wanted to create a farm team of potential Presidential candidates, it would focus its resources on winning competitive gubernatorial races where possible. The most promising potential governors would be funneled campaign donations and volunteers to increase the likelihood of winning their respective races. After victory, they would be assisted in acquiring at least some foreign policy credentials, as well as exposure in other states. Reelection campaigns would be well staffed, including support from beyond their constituencies.

But let’s back up a step. Once people become governor, they can typically take care of themselves for the most part. They have access to (and normally control) the state party apparatus and can employ the statewide bully pulpit on most local issues. If they have any desires for the White House, they can proactively begin fundraising out of state and do not need much encouragement to seize the national stage when possible.

The deeper question is how to construct a farm team of potential governors: a deep base of qualified lieutenant governors, attorneys general, state comptrollers, mayors of big cities, and state superintendents of education. How does the Democratic Party become populated with candidates that voters perceive as qualified to serve as governor?

Enter the Campaign for a National Majority. This 527 organization, founded five years ago by a group of law students and undergraduates, seeks to identify capable potential governors early in their career through an exhaustive research model. Once its staff members identify candidates (they have selected six candidates in 2005), they funnel these candidates financial support and volunteer hours from across the country. As the organization notes frequently, these races are typically “small money” races where an infusion of external cash can have a decisive impact.

Moreover, their research model incorporates more than polling data and media reports. They interview high school teachers and neighbors; they employ statistical models; they assemble a massive portfolio of data on each individual that seeks identify behavior traits that might make one more electable. They do not subscribe to a rigid political philosophy – these guys play to win.

Despite their existence stemming from conclusion of the Gore campaign, this electoral cycle represents their first major foray onto the national scene. They have recently been written up in Roll Call and have expanded their national volunteer database to over 10,000 professionals. While they began in typically Democratic enclaves like New York, Boston, and San Francisco, they have recently opened chapters in San Antonio, Richmond, and New Orleans – what could be called the “purple state strategy.”

Assume for a moment that their efforts succeed continually, and voters elect more Democrats than normal to non-gubernatorial statewide positions. The presence of more qualified gubernatorial candidates naturally translates into more successful Democratic gubernatorial campaigns, although this certainly will not translate with 100 percent effectiveness.

Remember, though, Democrats only need to nominate one candidate every four years for President. If their model elects four of six statewide candidates each year, that creates 16 additional candidates per gubernatorial election cycle (assuming an average term of four years). If only a paltry 15 percent of those candidates become governor, that still yield two additional potential Presidents every four years… and we only need one.

Their model is not perfect, of course. Their and my assumption that incumbent governors will independently seek to hone their pre-presidential credentials remains true, but the DNC (or other organizations) could provide access to many more avenues through which governors could become more national figures. Working with organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council, Governors Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, and Tom Vilsack received national exposure and Presidential policymaking resumes. Their model may function as a natural extension of the CNM’s farm system (although the DLC subscribes to a stricter political philosophy). Moreover, the Democratic National Committee could be far more intentional about including governors on foreign policy trips – especially those involving trade relations that could particularly impact their state (see Governor Jeb Bush’s recent trip to Central America).

With the continually growing power of the executive branch, aggressive and early candidate recruitment must reside at the core of the Democratic Party’s strategy for retaking the White House in the future. While candidate recruitment for congressional races remains important, the marginal benefit of having an excellent presidential candidate far outweighs the marginal benefit of a score of excellent congressional candidates. The Party must views these efforts as a strategic investment in its ability to retake the White House in the coming generations.

* George W. Bush (Texas), Bill Clinton (Arkansas), George H.W. Bush (Ronald Reagan’s VP), Reagan (California), Jimmy Carter (Georgia), Richard Nixon (Dwight D. Eisenhower’s VP), and Lyndon B. Johnson (John F. Kennedy’s VP)

Karl Rove: Irreplaceable?

By Robert Samuel

There have been few Presidential advisers with the influence and power of Karl Rove. One might have to turn back the pages of history to William McKinley’s right-hand man Mark Hanna to find a similar circumstance. (Hanna, perhaps uncoincidently, is Rove’s hero.) Rove’s brilliance lies in his unique combination of expertise in both policy and politics. While there is overlap in the two tenants of politics, Rove has mastered the art of campaigning and the details of policy implementation like few before him.

Despite this, I believe it is time for Karl Rove to step aside.

Karl Rove should not leave the administration because of his involvement in the CIA leak case, even if he is indicted. He should leave because his political strategy is hurting the president.

Despite his right-wing image, President Bush is not a purebred conservative. His highly hawkish instincts, his uncompromising views on taxes, and his pro-life and anti-stem cell positions surely inflame the hard left. But ask any traditional conservative about Bush, and he or she will go through the litany of Bush’s actions or policies that conflict with the ideology of the right. These include, but are not limited to, Bush’s increase in entitlement spending, Bush’s federalization of the education system, his comfort with deficits, and his increase in farm subsidies.

Given the evidence of his policies, one might expect Bush to have considerable sway with moderate members of the Democratic Party. But we all know that Bush has joined Richard Nixon as the most reviled Republican President in modern history. Nixon, too, did not toe the conservative line on all issues. He instituted price and wage controls, and right-wing Cold War theorists surely did not inspire his détente policies.

Why is it that the two Republican Presidents that have given perhaps the largest concessions to center-left policies are the least popular with the opposing party? The reason, especially in Bush’s case, is that while policy has been moderate on some matters, the politics has not. Rove and Bush campaigned their way to two Presidential victories by arousing the Republican base. Instead of discussing his moderate policies, in the campaigns Bush highlighted his conservative ideals.

Bush and Rove also seemed to want to pummel all Democrats. Instead of attempting to work with Senators with which they disagree, they work to get anti-Bush legislators voted out of office. The Democratic Party feels that Bush is out to destroy it. Regardless of how they feel about his policies, Democrats will never trust Bush.

It is this contradiction in Bush’s policy and political philosophies that has led to Bush’s terrible poll numbers. Few hardcore conservatives still support Bush, and our President has persuaded a wretchedly low number of Democrats and independents that he is doing a good job.

It is for this reason that Rove needs to leave the White House. Republicans and Bush supporters have many things for which to thank Rove, but his use is over. Rove is the reason why Bush is the 60 million-vote man. He’s also the biggest reason that now about 60 percent of the public do not approve of Bush’s performance.

Bush’s need for electoral victory is gone. Before the CIA leak case Rove might have been helpful in picking up Congressional seats in ’06, but he he is just as likely to be in jail by that point now.

Bush, however, still has three years of policy-making ahead of him. Without Rove creating the strategy, Bush can match his unorthodox governing style with an unorthodox political style. Instead of pandering to the the hard right, Bush can rally a more moderate base. I believe there are a large amount of Americans who believe cutting taxes stimulates the economy and think the best anti-terrorism strategy is to take Islamic extremism head-on, but also believe the government can responsibly provide entitlements and improve education. These people do not believe in small government, but efficient government.

While Rove is in the White House, Bush will never create political capital with this center-right coalition.

If Rove left Washington, Bush could accomplish what Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is pondering. With the insurgency in his Likud Party over the Gaza pullout, Sharon is considering creating his own center-right party to deal with the threats and opportunities of the 21st century.

Karl Rove is responsible for George W. Bush’s remarkable rise to the top of American politics. If Bush is to avoid a remarkable fall, he must let Rove jump ship.

History Loves Company

By Andrew Collins

At the turn of the century, a two-term Republican governor from one of the largest American states was elected President. He was affable but dim, with a steady stare that concealed a sluggish, wandering mind. A top contemporary in his party said “he is not a strong man… and unless he is well backed I should feel rather uneasy about him in a serious crisis.”

He was, in fact, well backed to the point of fault. Cartoonists depicted him as a puppet President, dangling limply in the pocket of his rotund, pig-like chief advisor. His friendship with business interests was also cause for concern, yielding as it did a “deep and damnable alliance between business and politics.”

The flip side, however, was that Americans saw him as a representing a pro-growth economic philosophy and hailed him as “the advance agent of prosperity.” He opened the door to trade with China, despite that country’s political instability. His party controlled both houses of Congress, and the disjointed and dispirited Democrats posed no serious threat to his gilded vision.

However, his professed policy positions did not always guide his actions. While intermittently opposed to protectionism, he enacted the largest tariff in the country’s history. And despite relentless assertions that he supported small business and entrepeneurship, his close relations with corporate America enabled an unprecedented era of big-business dominance.

The President’s efforts at improving race relations were feeble and mostly cosmetic. Despite his staunch Methodist moralism, he had little genuine empathy with common people. He appointed a high number of blacks to political positions but was unwilling to alienate the white South by pushing for meaningful reform. As a result, his Presidency did little to stem the deteriorating position of blacks in American society.

An ominous and decentralized international network was cause for great concern in the United States at this time. This foe sought to destroy the United States and other Western countries through terrorism and replace these governments with its own archaic, anarchic philosophy.

Separately, the President launched a preemptive war to conquer a developing country whose people were suffering from repression. This conflict immediately became the main focus of attention in the United States. Amid swirling questions of legality, the U.S. military swept to a dramatic victory. The President was hailed at home for his decisive action and gained great, if short-lived, popularity. He pursued a long-term occupation to establish democracy in the country, although the natives quickly became skeptical of the project and other countries smelled imperialism. As of this writing, the country has not achieved stability.

Halfway around the world, an insurgency was launched against American occupying forces. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of natives died, souring the American people’s desire for foreign adventurism.

And then William McKinley died. Who will be our Theodore Roosevelt?

Sources: Lewis Gould, William McKinley, Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia; Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt; The White House, Biography of William McKinley. Contact the author for specific citations.

Trash Talk

By Anthony Vitarelli

Political guru James Carville and pollmaster Stan Greenberg have penned a thought-provoking memo to Democrats as part of their new Democracy Corps project. Their analysis ultimately concludes that the country is ready for “political upheaval” but that the Democrats have not adequately positioned themselves as a feasible alternative to the Republican status quo.

Needless to say, in times of political discontent, more incumbents than normal tend to lose to challengers. However, when the discontent lies with the government itself, rather than the sociopolitical environment impacted by the government--such as the economy or the healthcare system--the strength of incumbency wanes even more dramatically. Carville and Greenberg write that “almost 60 percent of the nation [say] they want to go in a ‘significantly different direction’ than the President;” Gallup finds that only 29 percent of Americans approve of Congress’s current job performance; and SurveyUSA reveals that President Bush only maintains a positive net approval rating in seven states.

Last week, I wrote in this space that Democrats should avoid engaging Republicans negatively, remain above the fray, and focus on a positive agenda for 2006 and 2008. Carville and Greenberg take a different tack, suggesting that Democrats should position themselves aggressively as a clear alternative to Republicans, demonstrating sharp points of divergent philosophy.

They suggest establishing contrasting arguments such as, "The Republicans are working to enrich the few. The Democrats say, our country should work for everyone" or "The Republicans work their hearts out for the wealthiest and big corporations. The Democrats say, let's put people first." Their analysis shows that when voters are read these statements they are, respectively, 59 percent and 57 percent more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate.

Similarly when read the statements, “The Republicans have lost control on so many problems. The Democrats say, we need a new direction” and “The Republicans have lost control on the deficits, Iraq, gas and health care costs. The Democrats say we need a new direction,” voters are, respectively, 54 percent and 60 percent more likely to vote Democratic.

These are fine comparisons with more than a grain of truth to them, but what’s the next step? Won’t a voter wonder just how Democrats plan to put people first? What does “our country should work for everyone mean? In which “new direction” do Democrats plan to take us?

Rather than recite banal distinctions, convince voters with concrete ideas. Explain to them how your proposals make them safer, put more money in their pockets, and make sure that their kids are adequately prepared for the future.

Unfortunately, Carville and Greenberg depart further from this strategy and suggest a series of direct attacks on Republicans intended to “create doubts” in their capacity to govern.

The most successful attack was, “The number of corporate lobbyists has doubled in the last five years, and they are acting like pigs at the trough. Republicans in Washington have voted for a new 15 billion dollar tax break for the oil companies and given drug companies the right to raise drug prices for seniors.”

After hearing this criticism, a remarkable 71 percent of voters said that they had “serious doubts” about Republicans and 41 percent said they had “very serious doubts.” What is unfortunately lacking from this analysis, however, is a correlation between “having doubts” and changed voting behavior. Although 71 percent of the country may doubt the ethics or competence of the administration after hearing such strong criticism, they may still like Democrats less or not even know what Democrats would do differently.

Going after Republicans will not yield an electoral windfall for Democrats. The Pew Center for the People and Press reports that although President Bush’s approval rating has cascaded to below 40 percent nationwide, it remains steady at 80 percent among Republicans and is not trending downward. While the prospect to recruit a “Reagan Democrats" demographic for defecting Republicans appears superficially attractive, Democrats need to focus on a making positive case to open-minded, independent voters. Moreover, with the public’s perception of Congress and other government institutions at near-historic lows, negative campaigning only serves to push those disapprovals lower and does not increase the likelihood of Democratic victory.

The al Qaeda-Iraq Connection: Ward Churchill Explains

By Robert Samuel

There are few things over which the left gloats more than the lack of connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda. One, however, can find eloquent argumentation for the alliance. One of the best presentations of the affiliation arrives from perhaps the most unlikely of sources: University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Ward Churchill.

With the publication of his essay “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” Churchill created a firestorm of criticism rarely seen against leftist academics. In his writings, Churchill compared the victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks with Adolph Eichmann, the German responsible for maintaining the efficiency of the Nazi holocaust trains. He argued that just as Eichmann held responsibility for maintaining the technology for genocide, Americans in the World Trade Center were “technocrats for” an evil, genocidal “empire.”

Churchill justly received intense scrutiny for his prose, and Hamilton College’s cancellation of his early-2005 speaking engagement was the right decision. But the American right has not fully used Churchill’s essay to its advantage. The same arguments that Churchill used to indict the United States with war crimes actually prove that America’s decision to invade Iraq was the obvious next step in the War on Terrorism, not an aversion for oil profits as much of the rest of the left claims.

Churchill argued that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a direct result of America’s sanctions and partial occupation of Iraq in the 1990s. Claiming that 500,000 Iraqi infants were killed as a result of U.S. policy, Churchill writes, “On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens--along with some half-million dead Iraqi children--came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center.” Though the Bush Administration would certainly not call the pre-9/11 Iraq policy one of genocide, it did reason that the Clinton Administration’s Iraqi containment policy indirectly created the conditions for the realization of 9/11.

While most speeches of top Bush Administration officials cited Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and refusals to destroy weapons of mass destruction as casi belli, lower-level employees would publicly reveal a third reason for the war. “The containment of Saddam, while not as costly in the short term as war, was still a very costly endeavor,” Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby told Esquire’s Walter Russell Mead. “It cost money, obviously. But that was a small part of it.

“It resulted in large American forces being stationed in Saudi Arabia. It resulted in a very bad message to the world, including to Islamic terrorists, that America and the world could be defied successfully. It advanced the radicalization of certain Saudis and the glorification of Saddam. Every day he succeeded in flouting us was another day in which the message to the Islamic world would be that America could be defied.”

Libby went on to explain to Mead that bin Laden’s various fatwas justified his jihad as revenge for the effects of sanctions on Iraqi children and the presence of U.S. troops in the “Holy Land.” Libby, like Churchill, was explaining how Iraq’s containment policy sowed the seeds of bin Laden’s terrorist network.

As can be seen, there is little disagreement between the Bush administration and Churchill in regard to how American policy towards Iraq led to 9/11. Sure, Churchill calls many of the effects of containing Saddam war crimes, while the Bush Administration would describe the suffering in Iraq the unfortunate consequences of a misguided policy and the results of Saddam’s tyranny. But the only true difference between Churchill and Bush is that Churchill feels the containment policy should have been corrected with a complete American withdrawal from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. While the rest of the left denies any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, Churchill justifies 9/11 for the terrorists based on what occurred in Iraq.

Bush, on the other hand, felt that al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 instead justified America’s removal of Saddam Hussein and the creation of a democratic Iraq. Bush reasoned that liberating Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny and sanctions could fix the pre-9/11 containment problems. Churchill, on the other hand, was satisfied with living with Saddam, a man he fails to point out is responsible for the deaths of over one million Muslims.

The American right should thank Churchill for finally pointing out to the left the indirect, albeit important, connections between Iraq and 9/11.

The Magic Bullet?

By Andrew Collins

If there were a program that would reduce the trade deficit, help stabilize the dollar, support American business interests, help displaced American workers, improve the environment, lower energy costs, fight terrorism and hurt no one but a few stubbornly regressive corporations, would you be interested?

A major initiative to train American workers in alternative fuel development could achieve all that. Here's how:

By taking aggressive action to surpass the rest of the world in alternative fuel technologies and products, the U.S. could become the major exporter in this nascent industry and reduce its record trade deficit. This, in turn, would help stabilize the dollar as well as U.S. credit, both of which have been the subject of nervous speculation in recent months. Spurring U.S. leadership on alternative fuel development would help producer corporations, of course, and focusing on training displaced workers would alleviate the pain felt by victims of outsourcing and others working in industries that cannot compete with foreign producers. Finally, choosing alternative fuel development would boost the environment by marginalizing fossil fuel use quickly; lower energy costs borne from fossil fuel scarcity; and allow the U.S. to better fight terrorism by reducing dependence and enabling stricter policies on terrorist-breeding, oil-rich Arabian regimes.

Whew!

The value of alternative fuel development has been highlighted elsewhere. Thomas L. Friedman identifies himself as a "geo-green," honing in on alternative fuels primarily as a tool in the wars against environmental degradation and radical Islamism. Likewise, job training programs are viewed in some Democratic circles as critical complements to free trade. Farmers, textile workers and others must move to industries where the U.S. has a comparative advantage, but these workers, their families and the economy will suffer unless they are trained for their next careers. Given the value of both alternative fuel development and job training, it makes sense to combine them into one, possibly immensely useful program.

A program like this, with such obvious and wide-ranging benefits, should have happened already. The technologies are within the reach of America's brilliant scientists. We have not seen a decent effort on alternative fuel job training because of some usual suspects: the oil industry and the automobile industry. They are immensely powerful, particularly with the Bush administration, and don't let BP's leaf-strewn commercials fool you--a change to an alternative fuel model would come at enormous cost to both these industries.

Job training can also be expensive. Although the program would pay for itself many times over, one way to even out revenue would be to implement a time-delayed gas tax. This tax would not go into effect immediately, but would commence after alternative-fuel transportation vehicles were readily available. This would encourage demand for these technologies once they entered the market, ensuring and hastening the commensurate supply increase. And, to make sure the transition from internal combustion to fuel cell would not unduly stress the disadvantaged, the gas tax could be placed on the trucking companies, shipping companies and other mass commercial users of fuel that could more easily switch to a comparable alternative technology. This is, of course, assuming the gas tax is even necessary. I believe the alternative fuel job training would be very profitable, however, so the gas tax is probably redundant.

The prospects for accelerating alternative fuel development are actually quite good, particularly with oil prices scraping the stratosphere. It will help to have President Bush out of the White House, replaced by a Democrat or geo-green-minded Republican. By 2008 or at the latest 2012, alternative fuel development will be a top-five issue in Presidential politics. Preparing for the future now, and doing so in a way that could be so helpful to displaced American workers, should be both politically feasible and economically tremendous. Now all we need is a leader with the foresight to make it happen.

The War Within the Republican Party

By Anthony Vitarelli

An old military adage recommends to generals that the best strategy to employ while your opponent is killing themselves is to do nothing at all.

The Harriet Miers nomination is emblematic of the burgeoning divisions within the Republican Party, which will likely lead to more open internal strife before her eventual vote. You may have noticed the unusual silence emerging from Democratic Senators and Democratic-leaning interest groups regarding her nomination.

Why should they purchase airtime campaigning against Miers when the Federalist Society is leaking information that their staffers have begun to oppose her? Why should Democratic Senators sacrifice political capital to criticize her thin resume when Republican Senators Sam Brownback and Trent Lott are already out on that limb?

The divisions within the GOP do not end with a mistaken Supreme Court nominee though. These deep fissures within the Republican Party’s ideology were temporarily obscured in the early 90s with the unilateralization of the party under Newt Gingrich.

Since then, a tenuous Republican alliance has existed between fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarians. As with any alliance, each sacrificed a piece of their ideals to be part of the winning team. Shared control of Congress and, eventually, the White House would surely bring enough rewards to each to justify any sacrifice.

The repeals of the marriage penalty and the estate tax, the prohibition of new stem-cell lines, and the relaxing of various government regulations all represented dividends paid to the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarians, respectively, for their uneasy alliance. However, with the passage and expansion of the Patriot Act, the new prescription drug benefit, and our extended presence in Iraq, Republicans of each sects began expressing their discontent.

Now, in an era of $500 billion annual deficits, a $200 billion potential Hurricane relief package, and no end to the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq, the divisions within the GOP cannot be more apparent.

Fiscal conservatives have transformed their muffled gripes over the President’s Social Security proposal to outright criticisms of our continued lack of fiscal discipline. Social conservatives are decrying the Miers nomination as a cowardly tactic of political expediency, rather than a bold affirmation of conservative values. Libertarians, although a small minority within the GOP, continue to bemoan the Patriot Act’s invasion of privacy, as well as increased terrorism-related searches, such as on the New York City subway.

Democrats apparently have taken the hint and for the moment are keeping their mouths shut. While they could easily add to the chorus of administration criticism, they should spend their time coming up with new, creative ideas of their own. They must develop an alternative exit strategy for Iraq, a credible proposal for budget management, and a financing scheme for Katrina relief. Let the Republican infighting demonstrate the flaws in their policies and their practices. Democrats need to show that there is another way.

For instance, Democrats do not need to criticize Tom DeLay while Republican Congressman Chris Shays is issuing a press release reiterating his call for DeLay’s permanent resignation from the leadership. Democrats should focus their comments on positive proposals for ethics reform and increased transparency in fundraising. Moreover, they should proactively disclose their financial dealings to draw an even clearer contrast between the parties.

In this regard, Democrats must go beyond marketing and talking points to actually being the party of ideas and innovation in governance. This transition will not be easy. Naturally, any prominent Democrat can get a quote in the paper or a blurb on the news by saying that Tom DeLay’s malfeasance has disgraced Congress, but those remarks only increase the negative perception of DeLay. Promoting a positive image of the Democratic Party helps every candidate at the ballot box. Continued criticism of the Republicans simply makes people more disillusioned about politics.

Leaders within the party must make the case to the rank-and-file that eliminating negativity and employing a unified, substantive message will pay dividends for all Democrats. Only with such a strategy can the Democrats once again serve as the majority party in Washington.

Why Conservatives Are Against Economic Redistribution: The Real Explanation

By Robert Samuel

Throughout history, conservatives have been vilified for their lack of compassion for the poor. There are several reasons for this pattern. The first, and most obvious, is that conservatives rarely support large government handouts to the downtrodden and unemployed. This gives opponents of conservatism the red meat needed to perpetuate the right's grim image.

Another is simply the "take-no-prisoners" demeanor that finds itself attached to conservatives far more often than liberals. It is difficult to think of liberals that carry themselves the way a Grover Norquist or a Tom DeLay does.

A third is that conservatives are far more concerned with the opinions of their supporters than their political adversaries. Conservatives do not effectively explain their positions on social policies in ways a bleeding heart would understand. They explain it in a way that persuades conservatives.

The fourth reason is, in my humble opinion, the largest factor contributing to the conservatives' image problem. Conservative arguments and conservative political philosophy are simply not presented at even the most prestigious universities. Only the conservative elite realizes the existence of this significant canon of conservative thought.

This occurrence, in fact, is the most unfortunate product of the liberal bias at American universities. Unlike many conservatives, I do not believe liberal professors unfairly grade conservative arguments in students' research papers. Where bias does occur, however, is in the books assigned for courses. Rarely, if ever, does one find names like Bertrand de Jouvenel or F.A. Hayek on syllabi. On the other hand, Karl Marx is omnipresent in university philosophic discussion.

Duke University recently added Edmund Burke to its Introduction to Political Philosophy course's reading list. This is an encouraging sign, but the fact that the great Irish statesman was not read for so many years proves the point of this column.

In the social sciences and humanities, there are far more liberal professors than conservative, and therefore most academic publications have a liberal bent. This supply of liberal thought could explain why the majority of assigned material comes from the left wing. But the fact that almost no conservative works are assigned cannot be defended. And because young liberals (and some conservatives, too) never engage with serious conservative intellectual works, they are never presented with the ethical and moral reasons conservatives take the positions they do.

Periodically in this column, I hope to explain the philosophic roots taken by many conservatives. These arguments probably will not persuade many liberals, and in fact they may inflame them more. The point is to show that conservatives do not take their positions for reasons of self-interest, but because they believe they are ethically and morally what is best for society.

On few issues do conservatives appear more ruthless than on the issue of economic redistribution. On this subject, Republicans appear more concerned with preserving the wealth of the few, rather than providing opportunity for the many. Liberals love to point out how often conservatives cut taxes for the richest 1 percent.

As de Jouvenel observed in his classic work "The Ethics of Redistribution," the actual reason why conservative intellectuals oppose redistribution policies is that once enacted, "the greatest gainer from which is not the lower-income class as against the higher but the State as against the citizen."

Proponents of redistribution desire a far smaller interval between the highest and lowest incomes in society. To achieve this, one must commandeer from the rich income over a certain level and return this money to the less prosperous. Economists have attempted to simulate the scenario several times, and each time they conclude that the result is not what one might expect. Instead of a society filled with adequately funded individuals, everyone struggles to support his or herself, as everyone’s income becomes part of the lower-middle-class bracket.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume all these economists are wrong and the difference between the highest incomes is something like the difference between those who make $60,000 a year and those that produce $40,000.

Also for the sake of argument, let's assume the rich do not revolt and peacefully hand over their monies.

The situation we now have is a government with significantly less money, which in theory should be good for conservatives. Many of the taxes the rich would have given to the Treasury now go directly to the poor. Many government programs will have to be terminated. With no poor people, many of the social programs are unnecessary anyway. But the benefits of the social programs should have been previously factored into the income of the poor; thus, the real income of the poor did not increase as dramatically as the numbers show.

The core problem with economic redistribution is that it removes rich people from society. Before you hardcore leftists go crazy, listen to the argument. The rich provide many irreplaceable services to society: long-term financial investment, investment in the arts, payment for fine products, etc. All of this would be removed from society almost entirely.

There would be no more BMW dealers because no one could afford one. High-priced items, such as luxury cars, that only the rich demand boost free market economies far more than most realize. This significant part of the economy would be gone forever, making things worse for the formerly rich and formerly poor.

Investment would be an even bigger loss. No longer would there be individuals who could fund projects such as Broadway plays or Hollywood movies, nor would anyone be able to effectively invest in high-return financial markets. With little counterargument, one can claim this is to the detriment of society.

Those who favor redistribution have an answer to this problem: The State will take over the role of the rich and provide means for the arts and investment. On the face of it, this is a completely contradictory proposal for proponents of redistribution. If redistribution creates the best society, why does the State have to immediately intervene and fix things?

State intervention is what conservatives most fear from redistribution. Soon enough, as property ownership declines, the State controls almost everything. Theory and history have shown what a terrible situation this creates.

Socialism, the inevitable by-product of redistribution, aims to remove the antagonist of private property from society. Socialism does not approve of a powerful State, but State power is temporarily enhanced to remove most private property. The human race has never seen a short-term version of State power in the name of socialism. Instead, we have seen horrible human rights violations and the general suffering of its citizens for years and years wherever this system has been attempted. The Soviet Union is the most glaring example of this.

One may think conservatives are paranoid about the steps between redistribution and socialism, but history has yet to prove the conservative argument wrong. Redistribution, in effect, kills.

This column is basically a B-minus book report on the arguments intellectual conservatives have made about redistribution. Had this been the liberal argument about redistribution, the column would have been oversimplistic to those with college educations. Liberal writings and arguments about redistribution are freely discussed at universities.

But for most readers, books like "The Ethics of Redistribution," Norman Barry's "The Morality of Business Enterprise," Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty," H.B. Acton's "The Morals of Markets and Related Essays," and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," will be new.

If there were more discussion of these works, liberals would understand that conservatives arguing against redistribution were not making their points on purely selfish grounds.

Economic Affirmative Action Now

By Andrew Collins

Let’s get something straight about members of the 18-to-24 bracket: now and always, we are a bunch of screw-ups.

Youth is a time for mistakes, and almost all of us make them with alarming frequency. Chalk it up to immaturity, virile invincibility, a lack of dependents, a lack of experience or perhaps an abundance of creativity. Whatever the reasons, rare is the young person who has not partied instead of finishing a paper, broken the law, challenged the wrong authority figure or otherwise messed up in a significant way.

Some would say such youthful indiscretions are obstacles that kids rakishly survive en route to the rest of their lives. Others would say these accumulated mistakes are the inevitable downfall for all but the most determined and angelic young people. This division in perspectives is a bracing illustration of the wealth gap.

We are all prone to mistakes. But the same mistakes have much more serious consequences for the poor young person than for the rich young person. Little Miss Moneybags can have Mom "talk" to her teacher about a poor grade, have Dad cut a check to a university development office, have her friend’s dad erase that DUI from her record, et cetera. And in all likelihood, she will still graduate from a fine college and go on to a prosperous life. The "rich screw-up" is a well known and even celebrated type at elite universities.

Funny, but you don’t see too many poor screw-ups at these universities. The same bad grades, weak admissions profile and legal problems might send Little Miss Matchstick to jail, a life of crime or persistent poverty. Only with luck and amazing drive would she reach college at all.

If you accept that nearly all young people are prone to mistakes, and that wealth plays a primary role in one’s ability to withstand the consequences, you must conclude that a structural inequality exists in favor of the rich. The same boneheaded actions are producing entirely different results and life arcs because of what should be an irrelevant factor: wealth. And if you believe equality of opportunity is a fundamental right, you should agree that corrective action must be taken.

The most critical step to correcting the wealth distortion in the 18-to-24 bracket is for all states to implement economically based affirmative action at their public universities and to strongly encourage private universities to do the same. Let’s not pull any punches: the programs should be aggressive and overt.

Economic affirmative action would keep with our Constitutional guarantee of the pursuit of happiness for all by eliminating a false barrier to success and would correct a distortion that hurts the integrity of our educational system. It would also bring a host of side benefits such as a wider array of truly diverse perspectives at schools, greater socioeconomic mobility, perhaps improved secondary school performance from both rich and poor children (the rich would feel the earth under them a little more; the poor would have something to work for) and a public dialogue about the misperception that poor people are stupider or more error-prone than rich people.

Three possible implementation problems for this policy:
1. Some rich people wouldn’t like it because it would hurt their screw-up kids.
2. Some administrators of colleges and universities wouldn’t like it because it would increase the cost of financial aid and hurt future fundraising.
3. Some supporters of race- or ethnicity-based affirmative action wouldn't like it because they fear it would replace the old model.

Number three need not necessarily be an issue; economic affirmative action could theoretically exist alongside racial/ethnic affirmative action. As for the first two objections, a major influx of funding is really the only way to assuage the schools’ grievances and render the rich people’s grievances less relevant. So, the policy may be expensive.

But states would not have to supplant the previous flows with a massive equal allocation, since money would not disappear from the college admissions process. Even with a strong economic affirmative action policy, there would be room for Mr. Moneybags to dispatch a well timed gift to a capital campaign and for his Little Miss to get a surprisingly thick envelope that April. Colleges would still get their new buildings.

Economic affirmative action would, however, correct the imbalance just a little bit. It’s not lifting up the downtrodden; it’s giving them an opportunity to receive what they have rightly earned. And in a country where many of the disadvantaged correctly believe they have no way out of poverty, fairness is the least we can offer.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Harriet Miers

By Anthony Vitarelli

Here's how Harriet Miers is wholly different than John Roberts....

As has been reported elsewhere, no matter who had been the current Republican President, the same group of exceptionally qualified conservative jurists would have appeared on any of their lists. John Roberts was certainly on that list (if not unequivocally at the top), along with Judges Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito, and Michael McConnell, and possibly Senator John Cornyn. These people would have been in the running no matter what red-state loving President inhabited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Surely, there would have been differing amounts of debate on all them, but each of these folks would have been on any Republican's list due simply to their overwhelming qualifications, stature in the legal field, and relative non-controversialness. These are jurists who have proven track records and are not remarkably out of the mainstream (like, say, Judges Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, or Roy Moore).

The thing about Harriet Miers is that she would have appeared on only one short list: George W. Bush's. That just reeks of cronyism. She has never been a judge. She has limited experience with affairs beyond the executive branch. Her jobs before serving as White House counsel included being the White House staff secretary (the person responsible for deciding which pieces of paper reach the President) and a lawyer in private practice. While a lawyer, she served as President of the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association.

These are all fine credentials, which certainly qualify her to serve as White House counsel. Unfortunately, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a entirely different ballgame.

Moreover, the folks who are describing her (and I mean her supporters) are using words like "workaholic," "dedicated," "champion of judicial restraint," and “possessed of a limited view of the Constitution.” Such a description would be fantastic if she were seeking a partnership in a prestigious law firm or a job at the Solicitor General’s Office. But contrast her depiction with that of John Roberts.

The words that were used to describe Roberts were along the lines of "disarmingly and stunningly brilliant," "an utterly unique legal mind" or "having a once in a generation understanding of appellate law." These are fundamentally different kinds of descriptions that are appropriate for a fundamentally different kind of appointment. That kind of consensus on qualifications can overcome a difference of judicial philosophy, as eventually played out in his final Senate vote.

Here's another really key consideration for the Miers nomination. John Roberts replaced William Rehnquist – arguably the most conservative member of the court. No matter how far to the right the eventual nominee might have been, there was no way that the court as a whole was getting more conservative through his replacement. However, Miers has been nominated to replace an entirely different kind of Justice. Sandra Day O'Connor was a reliable moderate-conservative, who served as a swing vote on numerous borderline cases (notable 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that serves as our nation's current guiding jurisprudence on abortion).

The Senate must weigh the collective magnitude of these factors when considering her nomination. One hopes that Democratic Senators have the courage to oppose her nomination on the grounds that she does not adequately meet the qualifications of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. While the Bush administration may label any opposition as partisan squabbling, I hope that Democrats put forward new names of suggested nominees whose qualifications can stack up to those of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Note: This article was written by Anthony Vitarelli.

Republicans in 2006?

By Robert Samuel

Are the Republicans in serious trouble in 2006?

No. Not at all.

Are the Republicans a sure thing again in 2006?

No. Not at all.

The Democrats and the media have been salivating over the combination of events that can easily lead one to perceive that the Republicans are in a state of meltdown. The horrible public relations of Katrina, the inflated gas prices, the CIA leak, the Tom Delay Investigation, and the continued violence in Iraq certainly give the Democrats something against which to campaign.

But if the Democrats somehow do regain a majority in either the House of the Senate, it will be for issues hitherto unimportant.

Katrina will not hurt the Republicans at the polls a year from now, and get this, it might actually help them. The immediate response to Katrina was purely awful by the Bush administration. While thousands were standing on a New Orleans bridge without food, water, transportation, or even direction as to what to do for days, Bush was talking about rebuilding Trent Lott’s porch. History will never forgive Bush for his lack of response, and the immediate post-Katrina days will always be a blemish on his record.

I believe that Bush was just not fully aware of the carnage occurring in New Orleans, and behaved the same way he did after the hurricanes in Florida a year ago. This is no excuse, either for Bush or his advisers. But it did provide a big enough wake up call that I believe a similar situation will not happen again.

Bush actually does have a plan to rebuild New Orleans. His ideas about tax-free zones and school vouchers for the displaced could very well show the merits of his compassionate conservative plan. And even if none of these proposals is realized, New Orleans is sure to be close to functioning again by next November, a clear sign of progress for all those responsible for the clean up. Also, in Gallup’s latest poll, Bush's approval rating is nearly identical to the days before Katrina, a sign that the storm will not have a lasting effect on Republican electoral prospects.

Gas and energy prices are the most troubling for Republicans. But they are a problem for Democrats, as well. This winter has the potential to be awful for all those in the lower income brackets. Heating prices simply could become unaffordable, and many will be forced to wear coats and gloves to survive inside their homes.

Bush has a temporary plan to deal with this crisis, as well. He has already agreed to release more of the strategic petroleum reserves if things get worse this winter, and there surely will be more proposals as the cold months arrive. For the first time, Bush has also shown real interest in investing in improving our refining capacity and alternative fuels. When the public learns that many supply problems have occurred because of regulations forced by zealous environmentalists, it will not hurt the Republican Party.

I really don’t think much is going to come of the CIA leak investigation. With all we know about the case now, it seems there is a prosecutor trying to prove quite a bit out of a small amount of evidence. If Scooter Libby is indicted, he will resign and not much will come of it after the 24-hour news cycle ends. A Karl Rove indictment is far more troubling, but only for the Bush administration, not Republicans as a whole.

The Tom Delay case should be over about six months before the election. Based on everything I have read about the case, Delay is likely to be acquitted. The fact that the prosecutor needed a “do-over” indictment only supplants my thinking on the case. If he is convicted, again, I don’t see a major effect on national elections in 2006. If one looks at opinion polls, Congress almost always has the least popularity. But most Congressmen and Senators are wildly popular amongst their own constituents. This “all politics is local” argument makes Delay’s effect negligible over individual races in places such as Pennsylvania or Nebraska.

Iraq is unlikely to effect American elections for two reasons: The Democratic establishment has largely supported the war and troop reductions are highly likely next summer. Over the next 3 months, Iraq will become a full democracy with complete control of its government. It will have a Constitution after October 15 and a fully elected legislature after December 15.

The United States will continue to provide troop support and Iraqi troop training, but its mission will be mostly fulfilled. Regime change will be complete, and the Bush administration will leave in just enough troops to maintain the stability of the government. The American military has recently become fond of T.E. Lawrence’s phrase, “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly.” Violence will continue in Iraq, but after the December elections, America’s role in the fight will diminish. It is unlikely the situation in Iraq will affect individual Congressional races.

If the Democrats pick up seats in 2006, it will be because of a renewed creativity in the Party or an issue that has yet to formalize, not because of the Republican’s temporary lack of popularity. The Republicans will have to work to overcome the mishaps of 2005 to add to their majority, but they are by no means facing an imminent election nightmare.

Strategic Thinking on Roberts

By Andrew Collins

Twenty-two Democratic Senators voted “nay” on John G. Roberts for Supreme Court Chief Justice. Some, like Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), did so because they are very liberal. But many of the “nay” votes came from ostensibly moderate Senators who mysteriously broke from their party’s pro-Roberts majority.

Take a look at the following unusual suspects, all of whom voted “nay”:

Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Joe Biden (D-R.I.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

What distinguishes this group of eight from Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and the other Democrats of diverse stripes who thought John G. Roberts was perfectly fine?

Presidential prospects.

The first five—Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Harkin and Bayh—are the leading candidates for the 2008 Democratic nomination. The others are commonly thought of as possibilities for down the road. Among the Democrats viewed as Presidential material, only the notorious maverick Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) voted “aye” on Roberts. That is more than coincidence.

The potential candidates’ resistance to Roberts can be explained in two ways. First, it can be seen as a tactic for the Democratic primary, when candidates must appeal to the liberal Democratic base. As always, the base will pose a series of piercing questions designed to assess liberal credentials: Did you vote for the authorization of force in Iraq (which is now more damning than it was in 2004)? Did you strongly support alternative fuel research? Did you vote for John Roberts? A candidate that veers too far rightward on a primary-season litmus test faces grim prospects for nomination.

Had one of the 2008 candidates voted “aye” on Roberts, his or her opponents could have cooked up a scare campaign: A vote for Candidate X is a vote for the conservative agenda… Weak in Washington… Vote for Candidate X, vote to deny your rights… Candidate X: Loves Roberts, hates a woman’s right to choose.

Roberts might not be a nightmarish specter for the American left. But because a Supreme Court Justice builds a record very slowly, liberals will be uneasy about his potential for years to come—certainly through the primary season. Attacks on candidates who voted for Roberts, therefore, would resonate with liberal primary voters.

The second explanation is that rejecting Roberts ingratiates the potential candidates to pro-choice groups, environmental activists, women’s rights organizations and other liberal interest groups. The eventual Democratic nominee will almost certainly have to move to the middle for the general election, so soothing the groups now will help soften the inevitable affronts to their interests. The Roberts “nay” could help the eventual nominee gain money, volunteers, advocacy and votes. Best of all, all this will have been gained through pure symbolism; Roberts was all but guaranteed the nomination after the Judiciary Committee’s vote of support.

A “nay” vote, however, carries some risks for the eventual nominee. It could be characterized by Republicans as an example of “extreme partisanship,” particularly if Roberts stays away from hot-button issues and remains popular through 2008. And if journalists reveal the potential candidates’ voting strategies, the public may reject the Senators’ tactics as crass. Such was the reaction of the few who properly understood John Kerry’s about-face on $87 billion for Iraq in 2003, which was a political power move gone awry.

But in the short term, the “nays” seem likely to help position these eight Senators for their respective runs at the Presidency. And even though Roberts may lead the nation’s highest court for 40 years, for most elected politicians, it’s the short term that counts.