Rand Paul: Political Amateur

One of the benefits of staying at a hotel while vacationing at the beach is that there are free copies of USA Today available to anyone who cares enough to pick them up. Since I'm not a regular subscriber, I figured that this would be a valuable opportunity to expose myself to a wider variety of news coverage and opinion writing than what is found on the pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times. And lo and behold, I was proven correct this morning when I opened the paper to discover an op-ed by Kentucky senatorial candidate and arch-conservative Rand Paul detailing his personal political philosophy. Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that Paul's piece featured a noticeably lower quality of argument than those that are found in the WaPo and the Times, I found it to be a perfect example of a point that I made on this blog a few weeks ago: In modern day America, there are a striking number of individuals who have achieved or are actively seeking incredibly powerful leadership positions in fields about which they understand very little of practical importance.

You see, Rand Paul is a man whose background is in medicine. Specifically, he's a career ophthalmologist. Now, he has decided to run for a seat in the United State Senate, which is arguably the most important legislative body in the history of the world. Yet as today's op-ed makes painfully obvious, Paul is pitifully ignorant about subjects such as political science and history that are intimately connected with the job of governing.

For example, Paul describes himself as being a member of "the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and "Tea Party" activists — [that] share many libertarian points of view." As any political scientist can tell you, though, that list hardly encompasses a "vast coalition" of anything but rightward-leaning American voters. Members of the Tea Party have been shown to be overwhelmingly Republican, and members of the Republican Party are almost uniformly conservative. Furthermore, the terms "independent" and "moderate" mean hardly anything when discussing politics- people may describe themselves with these labels, but they still vote in just as partisan a manner as those who are self-identified Democrats or Republicans. In essence, Paul's "coalition" is merely a singular segment of the American electorate that he has chosen to describe both in terms of its ideological dispositions and its party loyalty.

Paul also demonstrates a woeful understanding of history by asserting, "Our Founding Fathers were clearly libertarians, and constructed a Republic with strict limits on government power designed to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens above all else." In reality, there were quite a few Founding Fathers who clearly were not libertarians, notably Alexander Hamilton who is perhaps best known for successfully lobbying to create the First National Bank, an institution whose modern-day heir, the Federal Reserve, is pure anathema to libertarians.

One could forgive an ophthalmologist for not knowing these finer points since they wouldn't be of much use when performing surgery on people's eyes, but it seems likely that they would come in handy for a legislator who is trying to enact sensible public policy measures that take into account the nation's history and its contemporary political landscape.

Executive Overreach Is Not the Real Problem With American Politics

I understand that Charles Krauthammer must be under intense pressure to come up with new grounds for criticizing the Obama administration every week, but yesterday's effort was truly ridiculous. Let's go through point by point:

First, Krauthammer blasts the administration for a memo discussing ways that the Department of Homeland Security could go about normalizing the status of certain illegal immigrants without Congressional action. "Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue," he fumes, "this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don't change it. That's the legislators' job."

Except, as Ryan McNeely points out, when we're talking about matters of national security. Then, it's apparently kosher for memos to be issued by the Justice Department stating that the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant in the War on Terror and that waterboarding and prolonged sleep deprivation are legitimate interrogation techniques that do not constitute torture.

Next, Krauthammer complains about the regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency seems prepared to place upon carbon emissions. Although Krauthammer means for this to serve as another example of extra-Congressional legislating by the Obama administration, he undermines his own argument by pointing out that a 2007 Supreme Court decision explicitly directed the EPA to take such a step in the absence of Congressional action on climate change. The authority for the agency to do so ultimately derives from the Clean Air Act, a piece of legislation that would seem to qualify as an acceptable product of the democratic process having been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

Krauthammer also attacks Obama for allegedly refusing to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border unless Congressional Republicans show a willingness to compromise on a way to offer illegal immigrants who are already in America with a pathway to citizenship. No matter that Obama has already sent over a thousand National Guard troops to the border and yet appears no closer to a deal on comprehensive immigration reform; according to Krauthammer, he is subverting the public good in favor of scoring a political victory. "[B]order enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors," he opines. "It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive's constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty." It's amusing to witness Krauthammer making an argument like this since I presume he is a member of the camp that would like to see Republicans defund the Affordable Care Act should they retake Congress in 2010 or 2012. Wouldn't that also be a failure to execute the law? Yet even if Obama were guilty of politicizing his administration's enforcement of the law, it would hardly be the first time that a president had committed such a sin: note the Bush administration's gutting of the Justice Department's civil rights division and of the epic incompetence and malfeasance of its environmental regulatory agencies. Do those cases not represent a broad failure to execute the law in an appropriate manner, or does Krauthammer simply care more about enforcing laws related to halting illegal immigration rather than those meant to guard against racial discrimination or pollution?

Finally, Krauthammer sums up his argument by noting that the traditional check on federal expansion has been the fact that legislation must first be approved by both houses of Congress in order to take effect. This allows the elected representatives of the people to decide what constitutes an appropriate amount of power to cede to the federal government. As Krauthammer's examples of immigration reform and environmental protection illustrate, the federal government is now assuming authority through other means. But this doesn't signify an authoritarian power-grab so much as it signifies a legislative system that is hopelessly antiquated and ineffective. As it stands today, President Obama would not have very much trouble passing comprehensive immigration reform, cap-and-trade legislation, or any other major liberal legislative initiative if only both houses of Congress operated, as they traditionally have, under majoritarian rules. After all, the American people granted Obama's party overwhelming majorities in both chambers during the 2008 election. Yet, because Republicans have twisted arcane Senate rules so that the upper chamber is now governed by super-majoritarian rules, the president has had to go outside the traditional channels of power in order to enact his agenda. Krauthammer is right to suggest that our political system is not presently functioning in a way that ensures the optimal implementation of policy, but he is wrong to lay the blame for that upon the executive branch. Rather, the blame rests with the legislature, specifically the Senate.

The Blind Side of The Blind Side

The Blind Side seems to be generally recognized as one of the best sports movies of the past several years. And why shouldn't it be? It features a knock-out performance from Sandra Bullock, a parade of cameos from famous college football coaches, and an uplifting story that everyone can walk away feeling good about. But to the sociologist in me, there are some troubling aspects of the film that I feel it's necessary to comment upon:

Most generally, The Blind Side suffers from the same problem as many movies in the "feel-good" genre: By presenting a true yet highly atypical story of an impoverished youth attaining success with the help of some kindly benefactors, it leaves viewers with the impression that America truly is a place where anything is possible and where the rags-to-riches miracle is still alive and well. Unfortunately, there's plenty of data showing that to be false. It may be that I'm overly pessimistic about this, but I fear that many people finish watching The Blind Side and think to themselves, "Gee, it's great to live in a country where there are generous people like the Tuohys to take care of disadvantaged youth like Michael Oher! We are such a compassionate and equitable society, aren't we?" The more appropriate response, I believe, would be to think, "What about all of the other poor kids out there who aren't fortunate enough to be six-and-a-half feet tall and 300 pounds and who, therefore, don't catch the eyes of wealthy aristocrats or football coaches at elite private schools? Isn't it a shame that the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world has chosen not to provide for them?"

Essentially, The Blind Side hypes a micro-level triumph while obscuring a macro-level failure on the part of American society to appropriately address poverty and inequality. If one thinks for just a moment about the implications of this overall failure, then the feel-good message that the film attempts to portray quickly crumbles. For example, as generous as the Tuohys are toward Michael, the fact remains that their comfortable and privileged lifestyle has been built upon Mr. Tuohy's ownership of dozens of fast food establishments that thrive by preying upon economically disadvantaged individuals who seek to purchase the cheapest food that is available to them regardless of its nutritional value. If the family hadn't stumbled upon the rather visceral image of Michael meandering around aimlessly in the rain one night, then to them he would have merely remained "Big Mike," a kid notable only for his expansive waistline, a feature that would have been due in no small part to the diet pushed upon him by Mr. Tuohy's fast food empire.

A more specific flaw with The Blind Side is that even though it presents a few scenes offering a critical view of the condescending attitudes displayed by many white elites toward Michael and other disadvantaged black youths, the film itself utilizes a grossly stereotypical and classist framework in the construction of one of its most important moments. Without giving away too many details, this scene centers around the first high school football game in which Michael plays. At this point, he is playing for the elite private Christian school into which the Tuohys have placed him and is up against what appears to be a decidedly less exclusive public school made up primarily of what is crassly termed "rednecks." The driving force behind the scene is the apparent crudeness and racism of the opposing team and its fans, and the point of it is to show Michael's acclimation to the rough-and-tumble world of football where he has to protect his new "family," i.e. his team, from a menacing enemy. Yet by employing a stereotypical and offensive portrayal of economically disadvantaged, rural white people, the film undermines its own message of respect and compassion toward the less fortunate. While the Tuohys grow to realize over the course of the film that they have been very insulated from the tragedies facing inner-city youth like Michael, this apparently isn't enough to make them--or the filmakers-- think twice about insulting the "redneck" country folk who likely face a number of the same challenges.

Overall, the movie is entertaining and I appreciated the acting by Bullock, Quinton Aaron (as Michael Oher), and Jae Head (as the family's young son, S.J.). But I wish that films like The Blind Side would make more of an effort to examine the complex social and psychological hypocrisies behind the lives of their main protagonists. Also, it should be conveyed more explicitly to viewers that random acts of charity from upper-crust families aren't a particularly effective social safety net. I understand that it wouldn't have the same cinematic appeal as The Blind Side, but a film about an America with marginally higher levels of taxation being used to fund programs like expanded early education, universal health care, and improved public housing would be one that would realistically be much more uplifting.

Religious Tolerance

Lately, my hometown newspaper has been running a series of front-page stories about the Boy Scouts of America in recognition of their ongoing jamboree event at Fort A.P. Hill. Much of the coverage has focused on dispelling the notion that the group remains a homogenous group of American traditionalists, and today's installment challenged that characterization by attempting to highlight the Boy Scouts' religious diversity. The story leads off with an account of the benign curiosity that many scouts have displayed upon encountering a large inflatable mosque that has been set up at the campsite for the group's Muslim members. From there, we discover that the Boy Scouts love to learn about one another's religious beliefs:

"There are two big things at jamboree," Naqvi said. "The first is trading patches. The second is asking about religion. And then, then they like the activities."

Down the road from the mosque, more than 30 faith groups manned exhibit booths, but Scouts weren't lining up for those exhibits the way they waited for rappelling, snorkeling or archery.

Still, they were asking questions. It may help that one of the scouting awards requires the boys to learn about religion. Many said they are genuinely interested in finding out more....

While Scouts visited worship sites and booths set up by various religions--Quaker, Jewish, Buddhist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist and more--they were often learning for the first time what their tentmates believe.

This sounds really encouraging, especially given the recent spasms of bigotry directed toward the Muslims in New York City who wish to build a mosque and cultural center a few blocks from the site of Ground Zero (not to mention the Muslims in Temecula, California who wish to build one there as well). Yet it also begs the question: How far are the Boy Scouts willing to go in their religious tolerance? Will there, perhaps, be a Zoroastrian Temple at the next Jamboree? What about a Wiccan exhibit? And how accepting are the Boy Scouts of atheists who don't share any of these beliefs?

Well, it turns out that buried at the very end of the article is the answer to these questions:

"If we, as Scouts, don't show what is possible, no one else is going to do it," Hyman said. "What I like most about the Boy Scouts is, from the Boy Scouts' position, they don't care what you believe: Jewish, Christian, Muslim."

"As long as you believe in the God," Naqvi added.

"They say the best way to raise a child is in faith; what that faith is, is up to you," Hyman finished.

So after all that, the Boy Scouts turn out to be just another group that totally misunderstands what religious tolerance really means. It's not simply about respecting those faiths which share a lineage with your own. It's about recognizing and appreciating the right of every individual to hold supernatural beliefs that may be completely at odds with your own. Moreover, it's about understanding that adherence to any faith is a deeply personal decision to which some people never come. If the Boy Scouts truly value religion then they should focus on constructive engagement with those whose perspectives are most removed from their own in order to broaden and strengthen their own beliefs.