Heap Big Prevaricator

Elizabeth Warren self-identifies as an Cherokee Indian at one of the most prestigious law schools on the planet and yet she denies knowing about Harvard reporting her as a quota-filling minority. It strains credulity to imagine that you might rise to that level without knowing what others, especially your employer, is saying and writing about you. True, Google hasn't been around forever, but this seems at least slightly implausible. Doesn't she represent the best and brightest? If so, how could she have missed this? At the very least it demonstrates a lack of professionalism and manners for Harvard to be touting her minority bona fides without seeking her permission first.

The Boston Globe reports:

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

How would this idea have sneaked into the heads of those bean counters at Harvard unless she had checked a box somewhere indicating her status. Have you ever had this happen or have you ever heard of this happening - that somebody's ethnicity or race had been misidentified - and that for six years? And that person was unaware? That she denies self-identifying as a Cherokee to gain favor at Harvard? After submitting recipes that were purportedly handed down  from her Cherokee ancestors to a cookbook of Native American cuisine called Pow Wow Chow? And who had justifying her self-identity because her ancestors had "high cheek bones"? Who was sufficiently unaware as to not have known that Harvard Law School identified her as their "first woman of color"?

Do the people of Massachusetts really want a person in a position of power who was that unaware?

And secondarily, why is a liberal Democrat running from this affirmative action discussion? Warren's spokesman said:

There is nothing new in this report.  Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage.

Why have affirmative action policies in place if not to create openings for people such as Elizabeth Warren to walk through? Isn't the intent of affirmative action to overcome the systemic and cultural bigotries that would preclude a thoughtful, intelligent person from entering an area that would normally be closed? Isn't this a finger in the eye of all who oppose quotas? Why isn't this held up as a success of affirmative action or used as a campaign gem to laud the benefits of policies Warren undoubtedly supports? Shouldn't this self-identified minority be hailing her successful bigotry defenistration? Why the embarrassment and disassociation by Warren? Was she cheating and that is why she would like some distance here?

Doesn't her claim that she was only evaluated on merit and not on her racial identity debunk the entire premise of affirmative action policies?

Given that the left is busy banning the use of Indian imagery as mascots, maybe there is some secret cabal afoot to scrub American Indian lore from the conciousness of America - or at least that is how it would be reported if the right was doing something similar.

Victor Davis Hanson, The Power of Cool

Identity is key here. In general, to win exemption from the left-wing critique of America, the affluent must construct cool identities as far distant as possible from the white Christian heterosexual male, who is most culpable for creating our present affluence from ill-gotten gains. The multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren and her husband make nearly $1 million a year. They live in a home beyond the reach of 99 percent of America. And she may well have plagiarized and been dishonest about her own heritage. No matter -- Warren washed away both her privilege and her sins by reinventing herself as a “Cherokee” who fights Wall Street oppressors.

Mark Steyn, Breaking! The House of Windsor is One of the Five Tribes

Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.

Maggie Haberman, Fordham piece called Warren Harvard Law's 'first woman of color'

The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was "Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue."

Asked to comment, Warren spokesman Alethea  Harney said, "There is nothing new in this report.  Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage.

Julia - Cradle to Grave

Ross Douthat takes a look at the Obama campaign's Julia ad.

What’s more, she seems to have no meaningful relationships apart from her bond with the Obama White House: no friends or siblings or extended family, no husband (“Julia decides to have a child,” is all the slide show says), a son who disappears once school starts and parents who only matter because Obamacare grants her the privilege of staying on their health care plan until she’s 26.

Its all about her. Kinda self-centered, right?

He goes on:

In addition to ignoring the taxes that will be required of its businesswoman heroine across her working life, “The Life of Julia” hails a program (Head Start) that may not work at all, touts education spending that hasn’t done much for high school test scores or cut college costs, and never mentions that on the Obama administration’s own budget trajectory, neither Medicare nor Social Security will be able to make good on its promises once today’s 20-something Julias retire.

Would the ad be as effective if Julia's name were José or Shaniqua? Doesn't the Obama campaign care about minorities?

Is the Tax System Fair?

In 2009 the top 1% of earners (those earning more than $343,927) paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% of earners (those earning more than $112,124) paid 70.5% of all federal income taxes. That leaves only 29.5% of the tax burden for 90% of the tax payers to pay.¹ Is that unfair?

If this was a ten member bowling club that had to pay a $1,000 lane rental fee, it would be as if one guy paid $700, the next four guys in line paid $275 and the other five split the $25. This might be desirable based on their income or ability to pay – that is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need – or some other concept of spreading the wealth around, but is it fair?

Let’s look at it a different way. Let’s say you and a coworker are paid the same. But what if your boss decided that he was going to take $300 out of your paycheck and give it to your coworker because he had children and therefore had greater needs. Would you be satisfied with your boss telling you that you just need to pay your fair share? And that if you don’t, you are selfish or mean spirited? Giving this charity may be a moral thing to do, but should it be coerced? By a government?

It might be a nice thing to do. It might be charity. It might be giving to one person based on his need while taking from another based on what he has. But it is hard to argue that it is fair.

The different visions of the role of government are at the root of this contention over the “pay your fair share” stuff. The left hates inequity in results more than it loves liberty. It views the role of government as the gatekeeper that should make sure outcomes are the same. And when the left uses the word fair, they often mean equalized.

Obama has said many times that he is not interested in whether things like the Buffet Rule actually increase revenues or help to reduce deficits. As he told Joe the Plumber, he – and by extension government since Obama was running for the top government position in the nation – needs to “spread the wealth around.”

Where this becomes demagogic is when Obama says things like the Buffet the rule "could raise enough money" so that we "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade." As has been demonstrated, and as is confirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department’s own numbers, it does little to nothing to stabilize anything. Obama is trying to have it both ways. He wants to make it seem like this is some sort of fiscally responsible thing to do when he knows that it won’t do anything to stabilize deficits. It seems more likely that it is intended to be part of the fundamental change to the American fabric that was promised during the ’08 election.

This was confirmed by White House aide Jason Furman when he clarified the President’s comments by saying that that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control." It is “a basic issue of tax fairness.” Well, if having the upper 10% of income earners pay almost 3/4 of the taxes collected isn’t “fair”, what is? Could this be a euphemism for egalitarianism? For political, economic and social equality?

This notion of “fairness” proffered by the left makes no sense in any other venue. But if we understand it to be what Obama himself has said he desires, a fundamental change, then it makes sense. Americanism, in large part, places liberty higher on the list of values than other things such as equality of outcomes. Those that established America valued liberty above other things and they said as much in the Declaration of Independence by identifying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They also identified individualism and small government as important values.

Unless one thinks that the authors of the American founding documents were a bunch of uninformed, ignorant dunderheads, surely they understood the tradeoffs inherent in valuing individualism, small government and liberty above other things with respect to the role of government. And we know they did by their writings. They leaned heavily on a religious people who were elevated by decent moral codes to handle the areas of life not handled by a lean government.

Much of the fundamental change being discussed and implemented today, however, seems to seek to have the government take on the role of churches and charity. Why this isn’t seen as the ultimate breaking down of the wall of separation between church and state might be a mystery until one understands the different visions that motivate the left and right.

The left appears to see its role as that of church and state: the work of the Good Samaritan is the work of the state; charity is to be fulfilled by the state; ensuring that nobody does too well or too badly is the work of the state. It is not that these endeavors are to be shunned or left undone, but one must ask whether charity should be the role of a secular government?

As a recent example of this inclination, Justice Ginsburg, a SCOTUS Justice of the left, told an Egyptian interviewer that she likes South African Constitution (SAC) better than the US Constitution (USC). The SAC claims numerous “positive rights” such as housing, healthcare, food, water, and Social Security. In contrast, the USC has a concept of rights which takes the form that government and individuals will not prevent anyone from taking various actions. That is, the USC defines rights as things that are not an imposition upon others and do not limit the rights of others whereas the SAC defines rights that necessarily must be monitored and provided by the government, that infringe upon the rights of others and require taxation for the provision of certain goods and services. It is a clear example of the differing visions of the left and right; of collectivism and individualism; of dependence and liberty.

So just because the right sees limits to the role of government does not therefore mean that they are craven, hateful and mean-spirited. They just have a different vision about what the role of government is. That it should be limited. That it should honor individuals. That it should champion liberty. They share this vision with many of those who established America in the first place. And that is pretty good company to keep.


¹ http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Can Federalism Work?

Jonah Goldberg expresses a great sentiment in his article The Federalist Solution. Whether you call it home rule, federalism, or something else, it appears to be a solution to the problem of everyone wanting to force their values down the other's throat: let groups live and legislate how they see fit with a few exceptions.

Goldberg ponders a potential positive outcome of a federalist system:

And federalism would let them all live by their mistakes as well. In San Francisco, which Gerken touts as a haven for “dissenters,” they translate their values into law. I think much of what passes for wise policy in San Francisco is idiotic, but it bothers me less than it would if Nancy Pelosi succeeded in making all of America like San Francisco.

However, our society won't let them "live by their mistakes" because ultimately somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed policy and irresponsible behavior. Just as the junkie will get treated at the local emergency room - with or without insurance - so will the irresponsible legislative body be bailed out of a sticky financial mess by Congress. It has already happened in small doses with the stimulus and it would likely happen in large doses with federalism. If personal (or local) responsibility for one's actions were a reality instead of just wishful thinking, this might work.

This is a problem for the libertarian and conservative. Just as a Marxist must acknowledge that human nature would have to change dramatically to accommodate the musings of Marx, so the conservative must acknowledge how federalism fares alongside human nature. That is, unless societies are willing to refuse treatment to junkies or let communities collapse under the weight of their own financial irresponsibility, this will not work. As alluring as Galt's Gulch may be, it only works if everyone is playing by the same - or largely the same - set of rules.

As John Adams noted, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." He is speaking about a shared set of rules by which the game is to be played. A certain degree of values unanimity is required for the Constitution to work and he is acknowledging that much of what makes the Constitution work is shared values. In an age when there was widespread cultural unanimity¹, Adams could make that statement with little qualification because the assumed moral code was Judeo-Christian and the religion was Protestantism, its work ethic and personal responsibility included. And unless human nature is altered or overridden to mirror the resolve of those in Galt's Gulch, real societies will not turn their backs on the rest of the world no matter how reckless or irresponsible they are. The EU's handling of Greece is such an example.

Toleration of differing moralities also presents problems to federalism. Social norms that cross lines established by the current ethos are not easily overlooked or tolerated. Tolerance is probably only possible when the disparities are not too great. Communities may be able to tolerate certain proclivities (nude beaches and naked dining in San Francisco; liquor laws in Utah) and be satisfied with dismissing the differences as "that's just how they do things over there," but the greater the disparities the more likely that adjacent societies will feel the need to intervene.

Neither the right nor the left is willing to stand by while their values are offended. It is hard to imagine that if somebody really believes that abortion is the taking of innocent human life that they would disinterestedly live their lives in a neighboring community without trying to impose their will through legislation. Similarly, if somebody really believes that anthropogenic global warming will ruin the earth, is it reasonable to think that they would sit idly by while the folks down the road choke the planet with CO₂ by burning fossil fuels? Or would liberty aficionados live quietly next door to the state that embraces Sharia? As oxymoronic as it sounds, some degree of homogeneity is probably helpful for federalism to succeed - especially in how the role of government and political economies are viewed (i.e., statism v. capitalism). But given the irreconcilable differences between the visions of the left and the right, it does not seem that they can coexist without moving beyond moral suasion to compulsion. The Union and Confederate armies attest to this.

In lieu of homogeneity and a relatively narrow band of tolerance, a heretofore unknown kind of tolerance that allows for broad moral and economic latitude might suffice. But is this possible? Unless anomie overtakes all members of society and they willingly slide toward moral anarchy, it is not likely that great disparities in social norms can coexist in a federalist system.

Add to that the apparent flexibility of morality and the problem worsens. What seems obviously immoral now, may not have been so obvious ten, a hundred, or a thousand years ago. Who in medieval Europe could have imagined that killing a whale or smoking in public would have garnered the level of moral outrage as it does today.

So even though federalism is a great idea in theory, can it ever become reality? Probably less likely than implementing a flat tax or a consumption tax.

---
¹This is not to imply that there weren't significant disagreements during the founding of America. However, economic realities tempered much of what is obsessed about in modern times.

What Everybody Owns, Nobody Owns

Collective ownership didn't work at Plymouth Rock. John Aman shares the collectivist failure that occurred under a charter which imposed a seven-year period of joint ownership on the original settlers at Plymouth Rock.

Governor Bradford wrote that common ownership "was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort."

After much debate, Governor Bradford

allowed each man to plant corn for his own particular [for his own household] and to trust themselves for that ... so every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number ... this was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could devise.

When the incentive for personal gain is removed by collectivist economies, stewardship of the property does not occur as readily when one directly benefits from his/her own labor. It flies in the face of human nature to believe that a person will work as hard for the benefit of a stranger as he will for himself or his family.

The Pilgrims were much more successful when the political economy aligned with human nature and acknowledged that incentives do matter.

Mike Rosen often uses an analogy to demonstrate the differences in stewardship between collective ownership and individual ownership. He notes that public restrooms are often dirty and have graffiti on the walls. But have you ever seen graffiti on the walls of a private home?

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators inadvertently confirmed this idea with their stewardship of the public spaces they occupied. The destruction and fouling of many of the occupied areas is positive proof that when everybody owns it, nobody owns it. They are able to just walk away from the problem rather than deal with it.

Capitalism recognizes this tendency of human nature.

Occupy Wall Street

Finally the lid has blown off the pressure cooker. The left has needed a protest cause du jour for some time now.

The left just can't find it within themselves to protest the continuation of the (so called) incompetent Bush/Darth Vader Cheney policies under Obama. Their tongues have been tied over Guantanamo, rendition, drone attacks, collateral damage, increased troops, blood for oil, colonialism, imperialism, globalization, no-bid contracts, habeas corpus, civilian court/tribunals and the Patriot Act. There are no movies, personal interest stories or news stories on the horrors of war, families left behind, increased alcoholism and homicide rates, post-traumatic stress disorder or casket cavalcades.

Protesting is hobby for many on the left. And having their guy in office greatly curtails the amount of hobby horse riding they can engage in; they have to ride less, with less whooping and hollering and they can't kick up as much dust.

Since the left places the majority of the blame for the ills of the world on external circumstances, they are predisposed to marches and fist-shaking at those forces that muck up the world. Grievance politics is a natural outcome of this vision. Capitalism, greed, racism, sexism and any number of other external evils are the boot on the neck of the proletariat and if not for that impediment, the land of milk and honey would spring forth.

Those on the right more readily look inward which in part explains why they don't need to march nearly so much as those on the left. And personal responsibility marches against oneself lack the telegenic appeal of "taking the bridge", likely explaining why even if these personal accountability marches are occurring, we don't see much of them on the nightly news.

But "Wall Street" is an evergreen villain that they can circle the wagons around and around which they can kick up as much dust as they like. Since President Obama has gerrymandered the issue by championing nonsense like the Buffet brocard and increased tax rates for $200,000 millionaires, this is safe territory for dust raising and other "highest form of patriotism" activities. (I am sure Jefferson – or whoever actually said that since he didn't – would be proud. Unless, of course, Tea Partiers are kicking up a little dust, then it is unpatriotic rabble-rousing.)

It is surprising that it took so long for the left to find something to shout about. Apparently WTO hasn't been to town recently. But clearly, with their man at the tiller, they had to be careful to make sure that what they grouse about did not bring harm to their man or cause.

Enter the practiced complainant Barack Obama. He crafted a complaint against the wealthy Wall Street elites (from whom he derives a lot of financial support) while avoiding the disdain of those he attacked. It is as though he accused his spouse of infidelity, proposed to imprison her for the offense, and did it with such conviction and enough magician's patter that the spouse took up his cause and marched on behalf of her own incarceration. Skillful indeed.

But this slight of hand created the opening the protesters needed. It was now safe to rally against jack-bootery while wearing jack-boots. Even Michael Moore was probably tiring of the blame Bush mantra and was anxious for a more current event to wag his finger - and tongue - at, especially given the strange documentary topic drought that has devastated his industry as of late.

But finally, the gnawing angst that the left should be marching against the continuation of Bush-era policies overseas has been blown away by the patchouli scented breeze of protest and bridge taking. A villain has been found. Fingers can be pointed. Blame can be assigned. Everything is comfortable once again.

And they lived happily ever after.

Affirmative Action for the Ugly

Once again, The Onion is eclipsed by the New York Times. Daniel S. Hamermesh questions whether certain EEO actions might be reasonable based on ugliness.

...why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.

This is a powerful example of the conflict of visions that exists between conservatives and liberals. One side seeks to impose equivalence via government coercion and lawsuits and the other does not. One side says the government should be the arbiter of morality while the other does not. One thinks in terms of groups while the other does not.

An important issue was noted near the end of the article. Often, the left does not acknowledge that incentives matter. In the case of taxation, they often dismiss the chilling effect that higher tax rates can have on investment and economic growth. They often poo-poo the idea that the wealthy may decide to change their behaviors if tax rates are to high. But in his article about ugly people, Hamermesh notes that incentives certainly do matter:

There are other possible objections. “Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so.

Hamermesh feels that the ugly among us will embrace their ugliness if lured out with the prospect of financial remuneration. If true, those on the left should certainly concede that confiscatory tax rates, 90 weeks of guaranteed income in form of unemployment insurance and paying no taxes at all (as about 50% of Americans do) may in some way affect the decisions that people make.

For those who still possess some modicum of shame, they would likely not be able to expose themselves to the crushing humiliation of asking for a handout because of their uncomeliness. Their self-esteem is likely fragile as it is and having to be judged by some pulchritude panel may be more than they can bear. But those without shame would be lining up with their hands fully extended to exploit this program of good intent. I suppose those with face tattoos, meth mouth and other self-imposed disfigurements could benefit from this as well.

But Hamermesh places a low percentage on who would be eligible - one or two percent. So the competition would be steep for those racing to the bottom of the beauty pool. And given the track record of other public programs, we can all sleep well knowing this number would likely not grow and costs would be contained. For those of you enamored with large government programs, that was a joke.

As many ideas and programs of this nature, it stages - whether intentionally or not - a race to the bottom. It does not elevate people. It creates a culture where we are told to gather based on our shared grievances.

Getting Along

This is, I think, a 50/50 country and we don't quite know which side is going to come out on the 51/49 side when we run the numbers. And what's problematic, I think, is that we are a house divided – to resurrect Lincoln – we are a house divided.

But we are divided about the nature of the state itself, which is the most fundamental division of all. Its not really like a division between rich and poor, or between black and white. Americans are divided on the kind of republic the United States should be. Whether it is still a republic of limited government and a self-reliant citizenry that is free to live lives to their fullest potential. Or whether it is just a kind of larger version of Sweden.

...But the problem is there's not a lot of compromise between those two visions.

...Those are two incompatible visions of America.

Mark Steyn on the Mike Rosen Show, 12 Aug 2011, H2, 5:56