Month: January 2019

A Thought about Executive Arrogation of Authority

Posted on | by hr | Leave a Comment on A Thought about Executive Arrogation of Authority

President Trump has recently, and repeatedly, claimed that he “absolutely” has the authority to declare a state of emergency and build a border wall which Congress has, thus far, refused to fund. The merits of that claim are debatable.

It’s questionable that the statutory intent of his emergency powers could reasonably be stretched to include such a slow-moving crisis as our long-inadequate border security.

On the other hand, Presidential emergency powers are broad, and have only occasionally encountered judicial challenge. While it’s inevitable, given the political climate, that any such use of executive authority by President Trump would face immediate obstruction by hostile courts, it is by no means obvious that such use would be less justifiable than past exercises of executive emergency authority.

But here is something to consider, when contemplating the Constitution and the administration’s respect or disregard for same.

There is little reason to think that President Trump does not believe that he has that authority. He is not deeply knowledgeable about the Constitution; he has not thus far demonstrated a willingness to violate Constitutional boundaries as laid down by the courts, even when provoked; and he has relied extensively on the counsel of strong Constitutional originalists. Those facts would suggest that he is either bluffing — a possibility that can’t be ruled out — or that he does sincerely believe that he has this authority. (And, again, it’s possible that he does.)

What I find particularly interesting is the way in which the Trump administration differs from the Obama administration on this matter of executive authority and the Constitution. President Obama was, at least to some extent, a Constitutional scholar; he certainly did believe — he repeatedly admitted it himself — that he lacked the authority to, for example, change the status of illegal immigrants through executive action.

Yet President Obama was willing to achieve essentially the same thing, albeit on a supposedly temporary basis, through executive action and without the participation of Congress. This was a charade, an artificial “re-prioritizing” that was a de facto granting of special status to certain classes of illegal aliens. The courts tolerated much of it, though they did block his most egregious examples of overreach.

It seems fair to say that the current administration has been more respectful of the Constitution than was the previous one, despite the fact that the popular perception is the opposite — thanks, I would argue, to relentless and inaccurate press coverage.

That’s something.

Gillette: Round Up the Usual Suspects

Posted on | by hr | 1 Comment on Gillette: Round Up the Usual Suspects

My principle objection to this bit of moralizing from Gillette is its lazy “round up the usual suspects” quality. The great social problems in America, those relating to the [two] sexes, do not stem from boys letting other boys fight, or from some boys calling other boys “sissies,” or even from men making humorous grabs at women’s posteriors. The problem — the real, serious problem — is that we pretend that men and women are or should be the same.

The very people most responsible for establishing and maintaining our broken status quo will applaud Gillette’s message. But the better message from Gillette would have been something like this:

Men, ladies aren’t men, and you can’t go treating them like men. Treat them like ladies, with the respect and protection due weaker, more vulnerable creatures. Admire them, be gentle with them, watch your language when you’re around them, and do the heavy lifting so they don’t have to. They’ll appreciate you for it. Oh, and they’ll appreciate good grooming, too, so choose Gillette.

That would have been a bit of preaching I could have gotten behind.

The Unfortunate Paucity of Villains

Posted on | by hr | 5 Comments on The Unfortunate Paucity of Villains

You wouldn’t guess it from reading the news, but the sad reality is that there aren’t enough bad guys to explain all that’s wrong in the world.

Oh, we try to find culprits for everything: there’s a natural human urge to seek a malevolent intelligence behind misfortune — to ascribe blame to someone. It is comforting to imagine that bad things happen because bad people cause them to happen. We have some faint hope, after all, of ridding ourselves of bad people — and, until we do, we enjoy the knowledge of our moral superiority.

But much of what goes wrong in the world isn’t the result of bad intentions, but rather of good intentions gone wrong in unpredictable ways. That’s a disconcerting thought to consider, which may be why so many possessed of beneficent motives do their best to avoid doing so.

Examples abound. Those favoring legal enforcement of our borders are racists; their opponents hate America and want to bring about the ruin of our country. Those opposed to Roe v. Wade are medieval misogynistic oppressors; abortion supporters are murderers. Those who opposed same-sex marriage are theocratic tyrants; proponents are nihilists bent on destroying the fabric of society.

Global warming skeptics are Gaia-hating monsters in thrall to Big Oil; those sounding the AGW alarm are human-hating monsters in thrall to Paul Ehrlich. The rich get richer because they’re evil; the poor get poorer because they’re lazy. Minorities suffer because of white people; women suffer because of men; everyone suffers because of white men. (White men are the moral O-negative, the universal donors of oppression; and when you have a villain that versatile, why look any further?)

In the age of social media and an activist press, believing the worst about your opponent is wonderfully freeing: when your opponent is a hateful bigot — or, more importantly, when you believe him to be — you don’t have to engage his arguments. That saves a lot of time, and is particularly useful if your own arguments are, well, wanting.

But a lot of our problems are the natural results of our prosperity and good fortune and technological progress. Safer and less menial work, longer lives and greater freedom and equality, deeper safety nets, the emergence of a technology-driven monoculture — all of these things are good and bad, bringing both comfort and problematic transformation.

Most people aren’t politicians, nor outspoken, nor activists. Most people mean well. Most people who voted for Hillary Clinton thought she would make the country a better place; most people who voted for Donald Trump believed the same thing. I know a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans, but I don’t think I know any villains. I don’t personally know anyone who wants to destroy my country, though I know a few who honestly believe that we can walk like Venezuela and talk like Venezuela but not, ultimately, become Venezuela.

The opinion cloud is invested in, obsessed with, demonizing the opposition: for the press, for pundits, for activists, for the professional political set, it’s just good business to assume the worst about anyone who stands between you and your conception of a better world. Because right makes might, and there’s no more compelling argument than “but you’re evil,” for those willing to make it.

We amateurs, who fancy ourselves modest thinkers and reasonably well-informed, fall prey to this easy superiority just like everyone else. But it doesn’t earn us a paycheck, and is best kept in check if our hope is to persuade others that our views make sense.

Signal and Noise: The Border Wall

Posted on | by hr | 6 Comments on Signal and Noise: The Border Wall

The English language is a wonderfully powerful and expressive tool — if it’s used competently and honestly.

So let’s see if we can talk competently and honestly about the border wall.

As I write this, the government is partially shut down. The point of contention is the so-called border wall: specifically, the President and the Democrats are at loggerheads over funding for any portion of a wall. The President insists that he will not sign a spending bill that does not include at least some funding for a wall — the precise amount changes — while the Democrats (who control the House where funding bills must originate) are adamant that no funding will be forthcoming.

Do we need a border wall? No. We can manage border security through a variety of means; a physical barrier is merely one component, and arguably an optional one, of our border security infrastructure.

Can we afford a border wall? Of course. That is, to the extent that our profligate government can afford anything, it can afford the tiny fraction of a single percent of the government’s annual expenditures that the President has requested.

Would it be illegal, immoral, cruel, or otherwise monstrous to build a border wall? No. People use walls and fences all the time to secure areas from illegal and unwanted entry. In fact, the argument can easily be made that a border wall would be a particularly humane way of discouraging illegal immigration, in that it would reduce armed encounters between border enforcement and illegal immigrants, and discourage vulnerable people from setting off across inhospitable land in the company of vicious and exploitative “guides.”

Would it be ineffective at controlling illegal entry? Well, it wouldn’t be sufficient, in and of itself, but it would certainly make the process of entering the country illegally more difficult, make securing the border easier and safer, and communicate to would-be immigrants our resolve to police our border and discourage illegal entry. Whether it is the most cost-effective way of doing those things is debatable, but it seems clear that it would have those effects.

Is a border wall an expression of racism? That’s a challenging allegation to defend: I know it is false in my case — I want to stop all illegal immigration, regardless of race — but it’s probably true for some small number of proponents. But pretty much everything, we are told, is an expression of racism. We have to raise the standards, demand more evidence, if we’re going to entertain that idea. I see little evidence that America is a racist nation, and considerable evidence to the contrary.

So why not build a border wall? What is the thoughtful, serious, honest argument against it?

I think there are two reasons. First, there is a vocal, active minority on the left that is offended by the idea that America has a right, never mind an obligation, to regulate the influx of foreigners onto our soil. I think this minority is sufficiently outspoken and politically active as to command the loyalty of Democratic lawmakers. I think those lawmakers therefore believe that they can not be seen as having compromised, in any way, with those who oppose unfettered immigration.

Secondly, I think the matter of a border wall has become, understandably, identified with the current President, and there is substantial pressure on the left (and in some corners of the ersatz right) against allowing any administration victories in what is a signature issue.

In summary, I think the right wants a border wall for the reason the left does not: because it says something about America and America’s right and duty to defend what our country represents against the unchecked influx of alien ideas and customs. The right wants a symbol that we take that right and duty seriously. The left wants no such symbol, because it denies us that right and rejects that duty.