Nudge-ocracy at work: Obamacare on abortion

Last year, The New Republic labeled President Obama as neither a pragmatist nor liberal; instead, it identified him as a “Nudge-ocrat.” Here is what that means: “Rather than force markets to conform to his wishes, he shapes their calculus so they conclude (on their own) that their interests coincide with his wishes.” Obama sees “…the appeal of manipulating incentives and altering the context in which we make decisions.”

The TNR piece focuses on economics, but I found him speaking this way on abortion too. During his campaign, he said he wanted to see the number of abortions go DOWN, but he wanted to do that by creating conditions in which women would CHOOSE life; he did not want to directly restrict abortions.

One week into office, Obama put his philosophy into practice, but not in the way he promised. The President reversed the Mexico City Policy so federal tax dollars could pay for abortion overseas i.e. he created the conditions in which it would be EASIER to choose an abortion.

The latest debate is what Obamacare will mean in regards to abortion and here again I think you can see Nudge-ocracy at work. This is what will happen to Private Insurance Companies:

In a section entitled "Prohibition of Use of Public Funds for Abortion Coverage," she [Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California] proposed that insurance companies set up two separate accounts -- one filled with money from the federal government, and one with money from consumer premiums. When a consumer sent in her premium check, it would go into the premium account; when the federal government kicked in its share, the money would land in a different pile. Insurance companies would then have to guarantee that abortions would be paid for only by money in the account made up of premium dollars, not from the account filled with taxpayer dollars.

The following analogy illustrates what is going on above: Imagine a man who wants to purchase a firearm, but doesn’t because he has to pay his monthly mortgage payment. He asks you to lend him the money so he can make the purchase, but you refuse on the grounds of pacificism; nevertheless, you do lend him the money to pay his mortgage payment. He subsequently buys the gun. What just happened? Technically, he bought the gun, not you, but you INDIRECTLY made it possible.

In the abortion case, the insurance company will have money freed up to pay for abortions due to government subsidies. Conditions are created to make the choice for abortion EASIER. Ross Douthat explains this point well:

“And yes, the health care bill, as passed, effectively tilts public policy in a more pro-choice direction: The fact that women are required to write a separate check for abortion coverage means that public money isn’t literally paying for abortion, but it doesn’t change the fact that federal dollars are being spent in ways that make it much easier to obtain abortion-covering insurance.”

The Nudge-ocrat strikes, albeit indirectly and subtly, again.

The Noble, the Dignified, and the just plain Autonomous

Tocqueville presents America as replacing Aristocratic Nobility with Democratic Dignity. James Poulos, Founding Editor of Postmodern Conservative, thinks its time for Nobility to make a comeback.

In this Bloggingheads episode, Poulos discusses how Conservatives make their case against many forms of biotechnology on the grounds of Human Dignity. He says the argument works well when it comes to designer babies, but loses steam when it comes to sexual morality. Nobility, he thinks, would be a better substitute. Poulos explains Miley Cyrus’ behavior last fall as being base and thus simply beneath her. This argument, he asserts, should be able to avoid the usual “Who are you to say…” yada-yada. It isn’t clear this is so as his interlocutor is unable to see a difference between Nobility and Dignity arguments. I’ll return to this point.

Poulos makes the argument for a switch again when it comes to the family. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been making arguments based on natural law (Dignity’s backdrop) when they should base it on “aristocratic nobility: pride in the unity of bloodline and virtu.” “Family identity and family accomplishment” should provide the standard for individual behavior.

Thus, Poulos, and Tocqueville for that matter, present Nobility and Dignity as butting heads. Yet is interesting to see Peter Lawler, who also blogs at Postmodern Conservative, portraying them as kin:

“It was with such Greek reflections in mind that the Roman word dignitas took on a basically aristocratic connotation. Dignity is a worthiness or virtue that must be earned, and the dignified man is someone exceptional who attains distinction by his inner strength of character. Dignitas is a self-contained serenity, a kind of solid immobility that cannot be affected by worldly fortunes. For the Stoics, and especially for Cicero, dignity is democratic in the sense that it does not depend on social status; it is within reach of everyone from the slave (Epictetus) to the emperor (Marcus Aurelius). Dignity refers to the rational life possible for us all, but it is really characteristic only of the rare human being who is genuinely devoted to living according to reason.”

It might be that Poulos is not against Dignity per say, but the simply the Christian or Democratic understanding of it. Tocqueville believed Christianity set up Democracy and were linked an in opposition to Pagan Aristocracy:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Whether it is Classical Nobility or Christian Dignity, POMO Cons of all stripes do not want to see Cultural Libertarian’s ‘Autonomy’ crowned King. Stephen Pinker, who Lawler is responding to in the article cited above, says “informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice.” Bedrock? More like shifting sand. But moving on…

This common cause between Classical and Christian concerns can be found in the President’s Council for Bioethics which was disbanded by Obama last fall. Lawler points out the different nuances of the two approaches. The Classical concern is with “living well in the acceptance of necessity” or what I would call the ‘life within limits’ approach. A life well lived is one which operates within boundaries, which is why the Classical thinker also aligns with the Christian in the broader Culture Wars. The Christian is more interested with the “denial of equal treatment to the disabled or otherwise “unfit,” murderous eugenics, abortion, and the scientific destruction of human embryos.” Any of these actions are considered intrinsically evil, regardless of its frequency or circumstance.

Lawler says the two views are the “egalitarian and inegalitarian dimensions” of Human Dignity. I would add the Christian is concerned with individual acts while the Classical thinker is interested in life as a whole. The difference emerges because Divine Revelation brings into focus what appears blurry to unaided Reason. Revelation, like Death it seems, has a way of concentrating the mind.

Rambo and Custer rolled into one

While Avatar is likely to win Best Picture this Sunday, my pick is the dark horse candidate, The Hurt Locker. Leaving aside disputes over the film’s veracity about the Iraq War, the film is first and foremost a character study of its hero/anti-hero, William James, played superbly by Jeremy Renner.

The film opens with the following quote: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

In the first half of the film, we proceed to see William James save the day over and over again. Each situation is more difficult than the last and he doesn’t even seem to notice. Up to this point, he is the guy every other guy secretly wants to be which is why others resent him.

But in two crucial scenes the films takes all this back. James, who is usually cool under pressure, loses his composure as he discovers a ‘body bomb’ which he believes to be the corpse of a boy he knows. He subsequently engages in a wild goose chase to avenge the boy which ends with him being run out of a house by a domestic housewife (the only time a woman appears in the film.)

The second scene occurs when he sees the after effects of bomb that detonated in the city. Outraged, he wildly speculates where the perpetrators might be and persuades his team to go after them. It ends badly as one member of his team is shot in the pursuit. That man’s take on the escapade is important since he alludes to the film’s opening quote. He says in effect that he had to get shot so James could get his adrenaline rush. James, who feeds of his emotions, lacks judgment.

In the classical view, the virtuous man is the one whose passions submit to his reason, while the vicious man has things the other way around. James, who is a slave to his passions, is not heroic in this picture.

His addiction is so severe that he is unable to live at home when his tour ends (Aristotle’s harshest criticism of the Spartans was their inability to live in PEACE). He quickly signs up for another tour and film ends with him back to his old bomb-detonating ways.

Yet the ending does finish on an ambiguous note. Having spent the second half of the film depicting James in the most negative light, the final scene leaves us with an image of James as an Achilles like character. What person doesn’t want to walk into such dangerous situations without flinching? Right judgment seeks the golden mean between two extremes, but not all extremes are equal. Better to be recklessly bold than spinelessly afraid.

The War Films of the ‘70’s and ‘80’s (Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Stone’s Platoon, and Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket) favored black and white messages about War’s dehumanizing effects on people.

More recent films (Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker) prefer a more subtle approach, weighing matters more carefully. Avoiding Homeric War-Mongering and Modern Pacificism, their balanced look is nice media via.

Tocqueville on Tap

Patrick Deneen and Peter Lawler will be in Dallas on March 20th for ISI. Officially, they will not be renewing the Front Porch Republic v. Postmodern Conservative debate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes up in the Q&A. And even if it doesn’t, it should still be interesting to hear what these two have to say about the Founders, Tocqueville, and Orestes Brownson.

The Debate over the Detainees

While several developments have taken place since this debate aired, this video is still helpful in understanding the underlying debate in regards to viewing military detainees as enemy combatants or prisoners of war. If they fall under the latter category, then they should be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

The 3rd Geneva Convention has a four pronged test to determine whether a person deserves its protections. If he meets these criterion, then he is prisoner of war:

1) "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates" i.e. he must be an agent of a state.
2) "a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, if not a uniform than something to set them apart from the civilian population."
3) “The members of the militia must carry their arms openly”
4) "in accordance with the laws and customs of war" e.g. he does not directly target non-combatants

It looks like Al Qaeda detainees fail all 4 criterion, or at the very least, the last 3 and would not qualify for Geneva Convention rights; however, the Civil Libertarian’s counter is that the 3rd Geneva Convention states it is the responsibility of a competent authority to make this determination. There could be others in Guantanamo Bay who are entitled to such rights, and the way to determine this is to have a judicial proceeding of some kind.

That is a fair point. If there are innocents in Guantanamo Bay who have been mistakenly detained, then a proceeding could correct the mistake. The question then becomes what constitutes a proper judicial proceeding. It is interesting to hear that Erwin Chemerinsky, the Civil Libertarian in the video, thinks a Military Tribunal would be sufficient and in accord with a Geneva Conventions i.e. the proceeding could be as simple as “just two or three officers in the field who examine someone who's captured in the field.”

I say that is interesting because something very close to that occurred after this 2004 debate. Military Commissions were issued, but the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfield, ruled against them and said they, not the Tribunal, should hear the detainees’ cases.

President Bush responded by getting explicit Congressional authorization for the military tribunals in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Congress added more protections for the detainees by amending the Act in 2009.

As I said in a previous post, Civil Libertarians see civil liberties as ABSOLUTE i.e. no or few restrictions during wartime. Now we see they also think they are UNIVERSAL: non-citizens are just as entitled to these rights as citizens. This is why they usually take the position (leaving aside Cherminsky’s approval of Military tribunals) that enemy combatants should be tried in civil, not military, trials. My reply is natural rights might be ABSOLUTE and UNIVERSAL, but civil rights, which are MAN-MADE, are not. They only apply to citizens and can be curbed.

This doesn’t mean the detainees should be ‘indefinitely imprisoned’ either because even non-citizens have natural rights which cannot be abridged; but that does not mean we are morally obligated to give them anything more than a hearing in front of a Military Commission. The Rights of the Declaration are guaranteed to ALL; however, the Constitution's rights are only for US.

He knows when you are sleeping...

In my previous post, I made an argument for why civil liberties may be curbed during wartime. It might be easier to see the merit in this argument if we placed the problem in a fictional context, allowing us to look at the problem with fresh eyes. The film I have in mind is Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight. Like Andrew Klavan, I thought Nolan was commenting on the War on Terror e.g. terrorism, torture. The issue I want to focus on here, however, will be ‘privacy v. security’ debate and how it comes up in the film in at least three different scenes.

Scene 1: During dinner, Bruce Wayne, his date, Harvey Dent, and Rachel Dawes discuss whether it is legitimate to take extra legal means in order to secure a city’s safety. Dent, who is supposed to be THE good guy, offers the example of the Roman Empire which would give emergency powers to a Dictator for a period of six months. Dawes responds the last time they did that they ended up with Caesar. This conversation reveals the dilemma posed by the problem and that it does not have an easy solution.

Scene 2: Bruce Wayne is talking to Alfred about defeating the Joker, who is referred to as a terrorist several times in the film. He asks how Alfred captured a criminal who, like the Joker, did not seem to play by any of the rules which most enemies abide by. Alfred curtly replies, “We burned the forest down.” In other words, such a villain required taking measures that would be considered extreme under normal circumstances.

Scene 3: Batman is able to use cell phones to create images which would allow him to know what is going on throughout the city. Leaving aside how implausible this is, the point is he will know where Gotham residents are and what they are doing. This is, he believes, the only way he can defeat the Joker. Lucius Fox explicitly says this is immoral and that no one should have this much power. Notice Christopher Nolan pays his respect to the Civil Liberty position by having one of the film’s good guys make their case.

Batman acknowledges the problem and says this is why he does not want to be the only person using the program. Instead, Fox should manage it while he simply follows his directions. Moreover, he tells Fox to type in his name when he is finished, which will destroy the device. The program is supposed to be temporary; its existence is the result of the extraordinary situation they find themselves in.

To relate this to the previous post, Batman institutes the very safeguards which were mentioned before: oversight and expiration dates. Taken together this should alleviate the concerns raised by Civil Libertarians.

The Dark Knight was a critical and commercial success. Nolan’s ability to raise these types of questions in a subtle and thoughtful manner while not antagonizing either critics or the crowd is a testimony to his talent. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here.

Give me CIVIL liberty or give me Safety

Are Civil Liberties sacrosanct or do they contract or expand depending upon the circumstances (peacetime, wartime)? To say they are sacrosanct would mean they are inalienable, but the Declaration of Independence only uses that adjective to describe natural rights. Those rights come from a transcendent source which is why they are absolute. Civil Liberties, on the other hand, are given to us from the State and thus are man-made. Being man-made, they are susceptible to change.

It follows that during wartime, civil liberties could be restricted for some greater good, say National Security. But what if the restriction of our civil liberties would endanger our God given rights? Indeed, this is the argument the Founders made in the main body of the Declaration as they cited George III’s violations of their ‘chartered’ rights.

It is this latter argument that Civil Libertarians have been making since the Patriot Act has been passed and renewed. Watching the debate above, however, one wonders if their concerns have not been addressed, at least somewhat. Peter Robinson argues that each of the controversial provisions has a safeguard: 1) judicial oversight e.g. FISA Court 2) Legislative oversight e.g. regular reports to Congress 3) sunset provisions (automatic expiration dates).

For Civil Libertarians, that might not be enough. From both videos, it looks like the argument is that it is still too secretive and the Public needs to be in on this. At that point the debate turns on whether secrecy is a necessary quality in a government when dealing with an enemy.