Foreign Policy in the Age of ISIS

David:
I thought we might branch out into an area where neither of us has expertise, and talk a little about America's goals, or role, in the world today. With ISIS, the rules of war have changed. They aren't a country (more like a cancer),  so what is the end goal in our battle with them? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton seems to be more of a hawk than the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

What do you see as our role in the world today, what should be our foreign policy goals, and how do we reach them?

Doug:
Like any good citizen of the world, we need to listen to our allies and work together. We should never again be reactionary; we should spend our lives, money, and energy in productive ways. We should not always look to the "hawks" to solve our problems, but embrace diplomacy where we can. We should stand-up for injustice, even if it doesn't make us money. We should use available resources, including the United Nations, and other international organizations.

David:
And the whole world should get along together and sing Kumbaya at least once a day. Unfortunately, as history shows us, there are more countries in the world bent on acquiring territory and resources from others than there are countries like us.

Doug:
What? That sounds scary! There are more countries that want to attack other countries than don't? No, that just isn't true. Perhaps catching your breath and singing a little might indeed give everyone a bit of calmness. I know the last 8 years have been different: we haven't invaded a single country!

David:
Perhaps you need to watch the news more. And pay attention to the "world news" section. In the past ten years there have been wars all over the world, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Darfur, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Niger, and Mali are only a few of the conflicts and wars that have occurred and are still ongoing. Did you not hear that Russia invaded Ukraine? Have you not heard that China is taking over the South China Sea, despite the protests of multiple other countries in the region? The Palestinians continue to shower Israel with rockets on a daily basis. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the UN and the rest of the world as they continue testing ballistic missiles in clear violation of UN resolutions. The world is a scary place. That's reality. And, it's history.

But what about ISIS? They are religious zealots following an extreme brand of Islam. Their own words lay out a plan to dominate the world. Their resources appear to be limited, but they certainly have enough supporters to continue to wreak havoc in the Middle-East, Paris, San Bernadino, and the rest of the world. Should we follow the Trump plan, and let those in the Middle-East deal with ISIS, or do we contribute to the fight, as Hillary Clinton suggests?

Doug:
What to do about ISIS? I have no idea. We should elect responsible people who will surround themselves with knowledgeable people, and do responsible things in light of specific circumstances. We have our own share of Religious Zealots right here in the good ole US of A. We just need to minimize the damage they can do all over the world.

David:
I think your first sentence is almost exactly what Donald Trump said he'd do. You're still talking in great, fluffy, happy-sounding words, that have little to no basis in reality. You're back to singing Kumbaya.

You sound as though you'd be happy just trusting the military to take whatever actions in the world they deem "necessary". That's an unusual position for one who leans as far left as you do, and feels all of our other wars were illegitimate.

Apparently you think Christians in this country voicing their beliefs is more dangerous, or on the same level as Radical Muslims beheading Christians because they aren't Muslims? Your theory of relativity falls well short of reality. Arguing that you don't want someone with a penis changing in the women's locker room with your  daughter is not the same as killing transgender and gay people because they violate Sharia law..

What about Russian aggression? Putin walked through half of Ukraine, and continues to work to destabilize the rest of Ukraine. He's invaded a sovereign country. Should we take a harder line against him? Should we lead the UN in taking a stronger stance against Russian aggression? Or should we "reset" our relationship with Putin? President Obama has made many idle threats, without any substance. This has encouraged Russia, Iran, and China to do whatever they want in the world, to benefit themselves at the expense of other free nations. Putin has indicated numerous times he'd like to re-assemble the former USSR. To do this, he'll have to take over several other countries. If we don't stop him, who will? Greece? Spain? Any of the other socialist countries of Europe who now can't even pay their own debts?

Trump may be able to negotiate with Putin, but he intends to follow the Teddy Roosevelt gameplay: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Clinton is also inclined to use our military to force Putin to back down.

Doug:
We need to be consistent across the planet. That will help give the world stability.

David:
But all conflicts are not the same. In fact, almost all of them are very unique in their causes, and the motivations of the players. Each individual conflict takes a unique approach to solve. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stabilizing the world. But it does take a fair and militarily strong authority to step in to stabilize these areas. That authority has traditionally been the US. Along with our NATO allies, we've largely kept the world peace since the 1940's.

Doug:
Your world view is filled with false dichotomies. Can we realistically work towards world peace? Yes. Does being consistent mean that we treat all conflicts the same? No. Perhaps you see attempting to live in a better, peaceful world as just fluffy sounding words that should be ridiculed. Perhaps it is easier to just do what humans have always done throughout history: fight. Or, perhaps we can actually work towards peaceful coexistence. How do we work towards peace? By electing rational, thinking people who understand history, but also can lead the world to a place we have never been: a peaceful place worthy of our children's future.

David:
You have never spoken truer words. Well, at least partly. Human nature is to fight. There will never be a time where everyone will get along peacefully. We can hope for that end, but to pretend it already exists denies history and human nature. Even in Socialist countries, those in charge ultimately become corrupt. Communism has led to more deaths in the world than any other ideology. Just like Orwell's book "Animal Farm", some animals see themselves as more equal than others, and when in power, we have seen "rational, thinking" people become just as corrupt and power hungry as every other dictator through history. There will always be "haves" and "have-nots".

Without a strong influence from the US in the world, bad actors and evil people will continue to advance against those who are weaker. To make the world a safer and peaceful place for our children, we have to exert our influence across the globe, as a city of light on a hill, to cower the darkness. Otherwise, history shows us the darkness will always try to conquer where it can.

I'm surprised that you don't have a better analysis of US foreign policy. Of course, President Obama has done just about everything he can to utterly destroy our ability to maintain a superior and able military (and I assume he's your model of a "rational, thinking" man).  By doubling our national debt, and expanding entitlement programs, while at the same time pushing manufacturing jobs to other countries, we have little cash to maintain the military, and fewer factories to build equipment if we should need those resources. While he says he believes in American exceptionalism, he doesn't believe  in any of the things that created American  exceptionalism. He's big on rhetoric (like drawing red lines, and saying things like "Assad must go"), but lacks any actions to back those words. You said you wanted rational, thinking people who understand history to be in charge. Well, Obama got the sitting-around-and-doing-a-lot-of-thinking part down.

Well, either of the candidates likely to be our next president appears ready to take a much stronger and assertive stance on the world stage. The Donald says he will make NATO members contribute more, and will invest more resources in the military, and Hillary looks poised to flex American muscle around the globe.  They both understand that the best way to avoid war in this complex world is to  follow examples of great civilizations and minds through history: You achieve peace through strength. 

To quote George Washington:  "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790

Do Universities Lack Ideological Diversity?

David:
There has been many news stories this year about increasing diversity on campuses across the country. But very little of the clamoring has been for a diversity of ideas or ideology. It seems their is an absolute lack of political diversity at universities, to the point that Donald Trump's name in chalk causes some students to run screaming in fear to their administrators.

Doug:
If you get your view of reality from particular evening news organizations, then you might think that. Diversity is a idea that many institutions of higher learning have committed to. But a commitment to diversity doesn't mean that an institution wants to equalize categories along every dimension. For example, most colleges don't ask about (or attempt to balance across) the political spectrum. They don't have to, because political ideology cuts across those dimensions that we are interested in diversifying, such as race and cultural representation.

David:
Then why are the numbers so skewed?

It's not the evening news that notes a complete lack of ideological diversity at universities. Reality is actually reality. The 2006 Politics of the American Professoriate Survey, conducted by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons,  found that only 3.6% of professors considered themselves as conservatives. A full 17.6% consider themselves to be outright Marxists. The others just settled for "liberal". Other studies have consistently found conservative educators to be a minority living in hiding, lest their political viewpoint lead to dismissal or failure to achieve tenure.

Doug:
No doubt that higher-educated people lean liberal. That isn't true in just colleges and universities---that is true across all higher-educated people. Why, indeed, is that so skewed? The more that one knows (across all disciplines), the more likely one is to be "liberal". But I don't think that merely uttering Trump's name causes fear in students. That is complete particular TV news drama. With a little fact-checking in the survey analysis that you mention (but didn't link to), I see the authors note that "self-identified Marxists are rare in academe today." In fact, they claim that "the number of moderates in academe appears to be growing." Universities hardly sound like scary places for reasonable people.

David:
Of course the numbers of moderates are growing. The study is asking professors to self-identify. If everyone around you is a liberal, and no one is conservative, you would believe that you are "middle-of-the-road" too. And if everyone thinks just like you do, you'd also believe everyone around you is "reasonable".

Doug:
So, we shouldn't trust these numbers? You can't pick and chose which data you want to believe. Either the study is flawed, or it isn't. You can't say that you believe the self-reporting conservatives, but not the self-reporting moderates, or the self-reporting liberals.

David:
The numbers are enormously skewed even with the self-reporting. That makes it all the more disturbing.

"Higher-educated" people may lean liberal, but that should be the case if everyone who goes to college is inundated by liberal-only ideology. What multiple studies actually show is that more people who go to college lean left, but also more people who don't finish high school lean left. Liberals have a slightly larger share at both ends of the spectrum. The bulk of the middle (high school diplomates and those with some college) are Republicans.

Doug:
Then, I can only conclude that high school makes people conservative. Where is the outrage that high schools don't have ideological diversity! That doesn't fit your particular narrative, I guess.

David:
Show me any data at all to support your conclusion, and I'll look at it. As it is, you're just diverting from the real discussion, which actually does have data.

In the book, Passing on the Right, authors Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, political science professors at Claremont McKenna College, interviewed as many conservative professors as they could find. They describe professors insisting they conduct their interviews at locations miles away from the college to avoid anyone hearing the discussions, and describe some professors stating they had been hiding their views for decades because they feared being attacked, losing their jobs, or becoming pariahs on their campuses. Tenure doesn't protect you from ideological attacks.

Doug:
Tenure does indeed protect you from ideological attacks. Attempting to get tenure is not protected. But if they claimed that they had been "hiding their views for decades" then something is fishy (it usually only takes about 7 years to get tenure). With more fact-checking on this book, I see that it just came out in the last few weeks. I haven't read it yet, but the official description states: "Most conservative professors told them that the university is a far more tolerant place than its right-wing critics imagine. Many, in fact, first turned right in the university itself, while others say they feel more at home in academia than in the Republican Party." But maybe you heard about the book on a particular nightly news, and they accidently left out some details to make a good story, which also happens to be fake.

David:
I doubt you'd find the book interesting, because you've already determined the data doesn't exist, because you don't want it to exist.

The authors were only able to identify 153 conservative professors. They freely admit that their numbers are low, but also confess that they just couldn't find more conservatives in academia. It is not surprising to me that the professors who volunteered  they were conservative would be more outspoken than those who fear for their career. A full 30% of those brave enough to appear in the book hide their views for fear of retribution.  Pointing out that some professors did not feel threatened does not make the story "fake".  It makes it accurate. They go on to conclude that conservative academics are a "stigmatized minority" on college campuses.

And I'm not talking faculty attacks. I'm talking about the students themselves. We've discussed before how professors that don't tow the ideological line face protests from students that have been raised through the system to believe there is only one "right way" to think. This is a direct result of homogeneous ideology in their professors, and argues for a need for more exposure of these students to conservative thinkers.

You've said before that college is where students learn to think for themselves, and yet you are now defending the decision to totally dismiss ideological variation.

Doug:
Even at an all women's college, like Bryn Mawr College where I work, we can both be interested in representing certain kinds of diversity (income, race, culture, trans) while not interested in others (male-female, for example).

David:
Right. We want a really diverse-looking group of folks....who all think alike. It seems that differing viewpoints, that challenge students to actually think, would be something to strive for. In addition, it would diminish stereotypical bias towards conservatives and liberals alike.

Doug:
If there is one thing that colleges promote, it is creativity and free thinking. As I just mentioned, many of the conservatives interviewed in the book apparently became conservative at college. That is what thinking for oneself looks like.

David:
That comment made no sense.  Those conservatives became conservative because they refused to be brainwashed.

Doug:
I'm just quoting the book that you mentioned: "Many, in fact, first turned right in the university itself, while others say they feel more at home in academia than in the Republican Party."

David:
They saw how lopsided the faculty was, and became conservative despite the lack of ideological diversity. You're claiming that 153 professors balances the rest of all faculty in America? How do you promote creativity and free thinking when you eliminate any dissenting or challenging debate? Did you ever read the book "1984"?

John Hasnas, a professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business, noted that Yale is spending $50 million, and Brown is spending $100 million to hire a "more diverse" faculty. He has served on the faculty search committee at Georgetown for more than 20 years.  He notes that the committee has never been instructed to look for political or ideological diversity. Instead, the chairman of the committee once stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered. Sometimes the administration would change the description of the position if the best resumes were coming from applicants with right-of-center viewpoints. If applicants were associated with any conservative groups, their applications would be tossed.

Doug:
One professor on a committee can't dictate such practices. So that doesn't sound like reliable information. Particular evening news again? But I appreciate that institutions of higher learning sometimes have tough choices to make. For example, do you let a person give a talk at your university that is filled with talk demeaning others? It could very well depend who the vitriol is aimed at. For example, if someone gave a talk about how evil hedge-fund managers are, I doubt anyone would be opposed to that. Why not? I think hedge-fund managers can take care of themselves. On the other hand, attack a group that has historically been oppressed, and you'll have a different outcome: the institution probably won't want to be involved in that.

David:
If the committee chairman is the one who selects candidates to be evaluated, then he certainly can dictate the ideology of the candidates.

Doug:
No "he" can't. I've been on many academic hiring committees, and that is not true.

David:
I see. John Hasnas is a liar because your experience has not been the same as his. And when did you serve on the Georgetown search committee? Why did you put "he" in quotes? The chairman of the committee at Georgetown, which is what "we" are talking about was a man.

You're claiming that minority groups can't take care of themselves. You've just stated that minorities and women need someone to protect them from hearing dissenting viewpoints from the liberal mantra. Don't you see how wrong that thinking is? Minorities and women can certainly think for themselves, and defend their views.  Perhaps you should allow some conservatives to actually visit and speak to the students. If you actually meet them, you might just realize they aren't vicious monsters and stereotypical racists cartoons. You're regurgitating MSNBC language that says conservative views are demeaning towards others. That isn't true at all. Conservatives may have different solutions to the problems we face, but to claim they're demeaning is biased and wrong.

Doug:
Hedge-fund managers already have a platform to speak from. Their money ensures that. Colleges and universities make sure that those that have been historically oppressed do have a place to express their viewpoints. Do you see how right that thinking is? Colleges and universities work hard to make sure that voices that don't otherwise have a place can be heard. But no one typically gets to speak (regardless of any criteria) if they demean another group. But your hand-wringing sounds like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, except on fabricated television news dramas.

David:
In stereotypical fashion, you're equating all conservatives with hedge-fund managers. You need to get out and meet more conservatives.  In fact, the best known hedge-fund manager, Bernie Madoff, was a Democrat. It may surprise you, but conservatives don't bite.

Doug:
But that is my point: Bernie Madoff (or any hedge fund manager) would probably not be given a space to talk. He can buy his own station, or buy any advertising he wants. Colleges and universities are much more interested in making a space for those that can't buy their way into a conversation.

David:
You mean someone like Bill Gates? Oh, wait! Bill regularly gets invited to speak at numerous colleges and universities. What could be the difference? Ah, yes, it's his approved ideology.

You appear to endorse the idea universities should be a "safe-space" for only liberal thought, paid for with taxpayer dollars or student loans, and conservatives should have to find a different off-campus forum to share their views. That concurs with my entire argument. Conservatives are not welcomed, and are actually discriminated against in academia.

It appears your viewpoint is shared across the higher-educational profession. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Rosa Dierks, PhD, describes how, after she completed her doctorate in political science, she applied for a position at her Alma Mater. She was denied a tenure-track position because she was a Republican.

Doug:
I'm sure that is what she said, and I'm sure that that is what she thinks. She didn't get hired, so it must be that they didn't like her politics! Sorry, but your third-hand story about somebody not getting hired is not a very strong case for an argument.

David:
She stated the chairman of the search committee told her that liberal academics "hire their own, because this is the only place where they can thrive and advance". You appear to be making that same argument. Successful conservatives must fend for themselves, and their ideas are not wanted at a university. You are claiming that they have a voice somewhere else (where that is, you don't say), so they don't deserve a place at the university table. You are also claiming once again, that you can decide if someone's speech "demeans", and therefore can silence someone before they even speak. In the context of this discussion, you are arguing that there should not be conservative ideology represented on campus, which concurs with my initial contention.

Dr. Dierks did get hired. She accepted a non-tenured position, because she really wanted to teach.

Doug:
This is only true if the conservative speech you imagine is actually demeaning. If so then it (like all other demeaning speech) probably won't find many pulpits at colleges and universities to spew it. If creating a tolerant environment with which to discuss ideas is seen as "liberal" then, well, ok then.

David:
Now you're talking like a politician. "I welcome conservative speech, but I won't tolerate demeaning speech, which is also known as conservative speech."

Doug:
I never said that "conservative speech" was demeaning. That is you projecting. I don't even know what "conservative speech" or "liberal speech" would be.

David:
Here's a nice article about a study of  this issue within the social-psychology sciences:

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/

The comment section to this article is particularly enlightening, with quite a few thoughtful responses from both the left and the right.

The reason I feel it's important to work to correct the deficiency of conservative thought in higher education, is the divide between liberal  academia and non-academic conservatism makes it more difficult to find accord for issues like immigration, foreign policy, and even climate change.  The absence of conservative thought means potentially important questions may not be asked and possible answers  to serious problems won't be tested or even proposed. If a goal of education is truly to challenge prejudice,  then a balancing conservative presence is essential.

Doug:
If the problem you are trying to solve is that not enough people in an academic meeting raise their hands when asked if they are conservative, and you want to solve that by hiring different academics, then there is your problem. People can switch political affiliations in an instant, if they are given a reasonable alternative. Academics (whatever their political leanings) are smart. That is why they got hired. But the current conservative brand does not appear to be very inclusive. Everything is a litmus test for being a conservative. Smart people tend to have a fine-grained set of beliefs and values. And smart people come from diverse populations. Conservatives need to show these smart people a better alternative. Academics aren't afraid to raise their hand.

Diversity is one of the most important aspects of any group, in my opinion. You achieve diversity from getting people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, geographical locations, classes, etc. Political affiliation can change from moment to moment. If a diverse, smart group of people come to agreement on some aspect, then that is great! There are plenty of other problems to solve. There is no lack of ideological diversity on campus. There does seem to be a lack of ideological diversity in the Republican party. Fix that, and you'll get more academics raising their hand.

David:
Goodness gracious, Doug, your last comment says volumes. But not in the way I think you intended.

You deny any lack of ideological diversity on campus, despite multiple studies that state there is almost none.  You make a faulty argument that since only "smart" people are in academia, and there are no conservatives  in academia (which disproves your own claim there isn't a lack of diversity) , that conservatives are therefore not smart. (The word "smart" itself, is a biased word.) I believe you when you claim you don't know what conservative thought is, because you have not been exposed to it for decades. Then, you demand that Republicans (an ideological political group) need to change their ideology, but your ideological group (the Democrat Party) is just fine, although it also lacks ideological diversity.  You are proving my point.

Doug:
If conservatives only represent one ideology, then there is your problem.

David:
Definition of Ideology (from the Cambridge Dictionary): a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a ​political system, party, or organization is based.  Perhaps the English language is your problem....

The lack of ideological diversity on campus reinforces  and bias to the point you don't even realize you are reinforcing stereotypes and bias. You're bias isn't "fine-grained", it's ingrained. You  excuse and even support the lack of ideological  diversity within academia, but at the same time, you claim diversity is the most important aspect of any group.  And that, my dear Big Brother, is the real problem.

The Role of the Government

Doug:
We, the people, can do some amazing things through our government when we work together. But it seems that the Tea Party would like to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps we can find some points of agreement on the role of the government.

David:
It seems the only tea party supporters you have ever seen are in liberal comics. The tea party has always been about making government fiscally accountable and responsible, not to eliminate the federal government. We want to see the federal government stay within the bounds outlined for it by the Constitution, the rule-book for government. It appears liberals, or socialists like Bernie Sanders, want to toss out all of the rules, and offer ever-increasing programs under the guise of "helping people", despite what the Constitution allows, or what the cost.

Doug:
The Constitution is indeed where we can start, but that isn't all that we have. We have some amendments, called the Bill of Rights, additional amendments, and a series of laws and court rulings at the federal, state, and local levels that make up the rules of the government. If you aren't including all of our rules, then you aren't really talking about our government. "It isn't in the Constitution" isn't a valid argument, because we are governed by so much more.

David:
The Bill of Rights, and all other amendments to the Constitution are parts of the Constitution. They are part of the rule book. Court rulings are interpretations of the rules, and can become rules we play by, but they are not part of the Constitution. The Dred Scott Decision found that slaves remained "property" even when they were in an abolitionist state. In other words, runaway slaves could not be considered free if they reached a free state.  They were still the property of the original owners. This interpretation of the law was wrong and was subsequently overturned. Laws can be found to be "unconstitutional".   The Constitution trumps these laws, and the federal government must abide by the Constitution.

Doug:
What some might call "government overreach" is common sense and saves lives and money. I'm thinking about the rules that government puts in place for many things, including wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

David:
What you consider common sense, and what is considered constitutional are not necessarily the same thing. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to save us from ourselves. If you are going to make an argument for motorcycle helmets to save lives, why not mandate that everyone can only have 3,000 calories of food each day? Why not ban alcohol? Oh wait, they did that, and it didn't work out so well.

Doug:
Are you saying that you are against mandatory use of motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts? I don't mind those types of laws, but not because I think that they are designed to "save lives." I am for them because they help me save money.

David:
Yes, I am against the federal government granting itself authority over our lives that it doesn't have.

I see a great many people every day who have been involved in auto accidents. Very few are "idiots", (which is how you described people who get into car accidents, before you apparently edited it out) and many were able to afford their premiums before Obamacare put them out of their reach. but, that's a tale for another blog.

Doug:
If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are an idiot. And many more people have health care now than before. Millions more people have heath care. The uninsured rate is at an alltime low. More people have health care (as a raw number and as a percentage) than have ever had health care before. Ever. And that makes it so I don't have to pay for other people's health care.

David:
I agree that you should wear a seatbelt. But, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force Americans to wear a seatbelt, in my opinion. That's the difference. I believe you should have the freedom to be an idiot. Even a nobel idea, if it is not allowed by the Constitution, is not allowed for the federal government to enact. The states may enact that idea (if their state constitution allows for it), but not the federal government.

Regarding healthcare, you are mixing and matching your apples and oranges. People always had access to health care. Everyone. It's health insurance that the federal government decide it had the authority to mandate that you purchase. The Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 majority that the government could tax you if you don't buy a product (insurance) they want you to buy. If someone else brings up a legal case (and there are currently dozens of court cases against various parts of Obamacare), The SCOTUS may rule differently. Obamacare is not part of the Constitution, and therefore, parts, or all of it, can be ruled unconstitutional.

Doug:
Obamacare was already ruled Constitutional.

David:
So far, based on the cases that have been presented to it, the SCOTUS has found those aspects to be within the guidelines of the Constitution. That may not always be the case. Parts of laws can be constitutional, while other parts of massive, 15,000 page laws may not be.

Doug:
Of course. Anything can be found unconstitutional by a future court. Banning individual gun ownership may be found constitutional by a future court. This just shows that the interpretation of the constitution is part of the process.

David:
Based on the precedent of Obamacare, the federal government could tax you (penalize you) for not owning a gun, if a different Congress passed  a law that requires you to purchase one. That would be wrong, in the same way it's wrong for the federal government to force you to purchase anything  else from a private vendor.

Doug:
Perhaps those most basic rights, such as the right to be able to live, and not to have to pay for other people's health care are self-evident? Maybe they don't even need to be mentioned in the Constitution because they are so obvious? In fact, that is exactly what the founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." They are self-evident. Not needing to be explained. Obvious.

David:
Glad to see you acknowledged the Creator as providing our rights.

Doug:
I'm glad you finally believe in evolution, our Great Creator!

David: There is nothing that says you can't get sick. You have a right to not be killed, but you have no right not to die. We all die sometime. Perhaps we should include within this discussion the fact the government requires me, as an ER doctor, to evaluate and treat everyone who walks through the door without even being able to ask them if they have a way to pay. That sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me. "You must provide services without compensation". That seems to violate my right to liberty. Seems obvious. You might also want to share your "right to be able to live" argument with the pro-abortion crowd, Mr. Obvious.

Doug:
It is called "pro-choice" and it is the Constitutional law, stamped with approval from the Supreme Court. But once you are really alive, we must do everything we can to keep people that way, even if they have no health care. Are you claiming that it is your Constitutional right to let people die if they have no way to pay?

David:
Euphemisms don't change reality.

Doug:
That is correct. But why do you consider your term reality, and my term a "euphemism"? Abortion is legal, and is about a woman's choice. That is reality. And letting someone die because they don't have health insurance is not legal. We have to pay to keep them alive.

David:
And you can see now how issues of Constitutionality are not black and white. Can the government force an individual to work for free? Can the government force you to purchase a product from a private vendor, if the government determines it is for the "greater good"? Who determines what is the "greater good"? Can the government silence free speech if it feels that speech is offensive or inappropriate?

Doug:
Yes. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Yelling "Liar!" can be slander.

David:
No physician is going to let anyone die, if they can help it. But there is still the issue of payment after the fact. You're purposefully confusing that fact.

Doug:
What is confusing? If they don't pay, then we all have to pay. You can't use "we're going to let you die" as pressure to make them pay.

David:
So, this is how the government works around the Constitution. They come up with ideas to "help" people.  They mandate and regulate businesses, instead of letting the market forces work. And all of these interventions limit freedom. Often, the very "solutions" that big-government politicians enact make those problems worse.

Doug:
The mandate for having car insurance also seems to make sense. So, shouldn't a mandate for health insurance also make sense? Certainly we want to make sure that everyone receives appropriate care in the hospital, even if a person can't pay for it. So, who does pay when an injured person can't? A mandated health insurance seems like a responsible, even conservative, perspective.

David:
There is no national or federal mandate for car insurance. That is a state-by-state decision, and should be. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to require car insurance, and it certainly doesn't allow for mandated health insurance. The founders specifically limited the power of the federal government, and insisted all other powers reside with the states, or with the people themselves. We've seen a steady erosion of our own freedom and responsibility.

Doug:
Mandates force responsibility. Which used to be a Republican talking point, until they moved further Right.

David:
Not bailing people out when they make poor or irresponsible decisions also forces responsibility. The government should have very limited power to mandate that we do anything.

Who pays when an injured person can't? The individual must take responsibility for themselves.

Doug:
And there it is. "Not bailing people out" means letting them die. You are saying that if a person needs medical attention, but does not have any money, or health care, then they must die. Otherwise, someone must step in to save them.

David:
No. We save them, because that's what we do. But the question is who pays the bills afterwards. Who pays when your car runs out of gas? Who buys you a new tire when you get a flat? Individuals pay for all of these things, without crying for a government program to save them. Is healthcare expensive? Yes. Is it too expensive? Yes. Should you buy insurance? Yes. Should the federal government force you to buy it? No! Claiming that the government must pay for something because it is expensive is not a Constitutional ideal, and it's nowhere in the Constitution.

Doug:
Death is not just an inconvenience, like having to walk to a gas station. If they have no money, they can't pay. So everyone else has to pay. If we require everyone to pay, then it is better for us all. Again, I like car insurance for everyone to keep my costs down. This seems to be a fine idea in exchange for the government making sure that you have basic support in health.

David:
And there it is: You think it's a fine idea for the government, not the individual, to make sure they have basic health support. Not Constitutional, by any measure. Another key difference you continue to overlook: car insurance is not paid for by everyone, only by those who own and drive a car. Health insurance is now mandated for everyone, even if you choose not to use the healthcare system.

Doug:
I think it is. It is self-evident. The money put into public K-12 education is certainly not enough by everyone's estimate. Teachers often have to bring their own materials (paper, crayons, legos, etc.) for classroom activities. Shouldn't we do more to support education?

David:
Again, are you talking federal government, or state government? There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to insert itself into education. The Department of Education was initially created to manage the school-lunch program.  Since then, it's become a bloated, political machine that continues to expand and use up tax dollars. All of that money would serve better if just left to the states. For every dollar states like Pennsylvania or Indiana send to the Department of Education, they get about ten cents back. You're right, we should be making quality spending on education a priority. Involving the federal government does not accomplish that goal. And, I'd disagree that "everyone" equates more spending with better educational outcomes. Some of the worst-performing districts spend the most per student.

Doug:
Public schools are run by the government. I don't know any school that believes that it has enough money to teach the students. I don't know any research that shows a negative correlation between money spent and student outcome. We put too much money into prisons, and not enough into education.

David:
Public schools are run by state governments. States could do a better job if they had all of the money being squandered by the federal Department of Education.

There is also no study showing a positive correlation between money spent and educational outcome. That means there is no correlation.

Doug:
That is crazy. You are saying that a school that gets no money can do as well as a school that has infinite money.

David:
You are crazy if you believe that's what I said. I said school performance does not reflect the amount of money schools spend. Some excellent schools get by with a fraction of the money some other schools are spending, and some of the costliest schools perform poorest in the measures that matter most: the education of students.

Doug:
You said that they weren't correlated, so it shouldn't matter how much you spend. Teaching kids well takes money for teachers and materials. That, too, should be self-evident.

David:
What is "self-evident" to you is not to self-evident to others. Many home-schooled kids are educated better than public-school educated kids, with a fraction of the resources.

Doug:
If you count the teacher's time, the cost of the home, the food, then home schooling costs much, much, much more than public education. The fact that we don't actually pay teacher/parent doesn't mean that it doesn't cost a lot. It uses many more resources. If they are better educated, then that proves my point: there is a direct correlation between money spent and quality of education.

David:
So, do you claim all of that money you make teaching things to your kids on your taxes as income? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. Here in Indiana, the Republican legislature passed a law enabling parents who homeschool to apply for tax refunds to help cover expenses. The Democrats and the Teacher's Union were vehemently opposed, arguing it would take money from failing public schools. I'm glad to see that you place some value on homeschooling.  And since parents don't get paid for their time, your argument is amusing, but holds no water.

Doug:
What happened to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? These self-evident Rights get trumped by your narrow view of how to run a prosperous country. In your imagined world where no one paid any taxes for these services, what would our country look like? No safety regulations? No mandatory insurances? No licenses? No consumer protection? It seems like we do have a very adaptive government that tries to balance freedom with social responsibility.

David:
Again, you're missing a rather big point. There is a distinction between state governments and the federal government. States are free to require permits, licenses,  certifications, etc. for various needs. The federal government is not.

There are certainly some jobs that are allowed by the Constitution for the federal government to control and execute.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pay taxes. The federal government can't function without collecting taxes. Taxes are allowed within the Constitution. What the federal government does with the taxes is what I often find to be wrong. Whenever the federal government grants itself a new power or duty (usually in the name of "helping"), it is invariably individual freedom and liberty that suffers.

Doug:
I see: millions of people getting healthcare (and living) is actually liberty suffering. The Civil Rights Act, allowing millions of people to just live their lives without being discriminated against, is actual causing their liberty to suffer. Now I understand your view of the Role of Government.

David:
No, you obviously do not understand at all. Civil rights are certainly listed in the Constitution  in several places, most notably in the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment. It looks like you're just throwing all kinds of arguments at the wall, hoping something will stick. Or perhaps it's just your bias leaking into the discussion that all tea-party conservatives are racists.

And once again, health care and health insurance are different things.

Millions who are signing up for expanded Medicaid, which is a majority of the numbers used to promote Obamacare as a success, are getting "free" insurance. But you and I are paying for that. So, it seems that you are still paying for idiots (your words), if they have Medicaid.

Doug:
Idiots don't wear seatbelts, whether or not they have healthcare is another issue. They may be poor, but they can still wear seatbelts.

David:
You mean health insurance....

All of the rest of us are not getting anything. We are being forced to purchase insurance to cover the costs for everyone else. So, you're still paying for idiots (your term) who have accidents.

Doug:
Health insurance gets you health care. When most people have health insurance, then there are fewer people that need the taxpayer to cover their costs.

David:
Except for the millions who have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. We cover those costs. Whether that's right or wrong for the government to provide, it's still a huge driver of the costs you wrongly claim it is decreasing.

Real liberty allows each of us to make our own decisions. We should be able to purchase insurance that fits our needs. Young people should be able to purchase catastrophic care at a huge discount, because they don't need much healthcare. Instead, they are paying some of the highest rates, to cover the pool of elderly and sick, as mandated by the government.

Doug:
Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone dies. But we should not let people die because they can't afford insurance.

David:
You continue to spout nonsense. No one dies in America because they can't afford health insurance. They go to the ER, where doctors and nurses care for them the same as they would Bill Gates. Surgeons and other specialist will treat their emergency regardless of their ability to pay. I've personally treated thousands of people and children who didn't pay me a cent. One of the Catholic hospitals I worked at eventually closed, because it offered too much free care.

Doug:
Taking care of all people is the way that it should be. The point is, that costs money. The more money we can get out of each individual for healthcare, the better for all of us. Which is why the mandate is constitutional.

David:
The SCOTUS never ruled that a mandate was constitutional. They ruled the penalty was actually a tax, and the government has the power to tax citizens. Justice Roberts skirted the issue, so you can't actually claim that mandates are constitutional, although they remain a constitutional issue.

You can choose to refuse care. At least for now, until the government mandates you must use the system, even if you just want to be left alone. We agree that everyone eventually dies. And Obamacare is actually limiting treatments that it finds too expensive, that might help even more people live. And I find it amusing you still think there will be people out dying in the streets if the federal government doesn't step in to prevent it. I find it self-evident that this is not true.

Doug:
The government has stepped in to make sure that people get treated. If you want to make sure that Obamacare does not limit the treatment based on cost, I'm right there with you. Just remember, when they can't pay, everyone else must do so. And that makes it a constitutional issue.

David:
Show me where the Constitution says that everyone has to pay when someone cannot. The US Constitution doesn't. Maybe you have a defective copy...

At the end of the day (or blog, as it may be), big-government expansion not only infringes on liberty and freedom, it just makes me sick.

Doug:
It makes me proud that we have fewer people dying, more people covered with insurance, and less taxpayer money spent on it. Life, liberty, and happiness. But the greatest of these is life. This should be self-evident.