Where we are is not based on Geography

Our two kids are not alike in many ways including their approach to political questions,  Our daughter is in the mold of "progressive" LA politics. And to her credit she has not been a passive bystander.  She worked tirelessly in trying to make the public school where her daughters attended better.  Our son is on the other side.  But he too has been involved in trying to change his community.  He took an active role in the "let them play" movement which urged lifting the restrictions on kids playing sports outdoors.   He also participated in rallies urging the re-opening of the schools.

Our daughter and I have had a continuing set of discussions (mostly civil) about how to fix the big problems of our society.  Often I have been reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's quip about the the vibrations between liberals and conservatives - "In a democracy it's always vibrating back and forth. People want the government to do everything for them, then when they see that it sucks, they want the government to let them take charge, and when that doesn't work, they want the government to come back and fix all the problems that they themselves caused when they took charge."  O'Rourke died this week of lung cancer.  He wrote a series of books that were of the quality of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain.   He even did a superb book on Adam Smith's two books.  His last book was called a "A Cry from the Far Middle" which mostly echoed my concerns about our current state of political discourse.    

Many of the discussions Emily and I have come down to issues where she thinks things should be "affordable" - most of those are what political philosophers call "positive rights" - the Constitution was built on "negative" rights - preventing government from intervening in our lives. There are two problems with positive rights - first many of the things people ask for are unattainable. Since the goal is not attainable (for example an absolute definition of "affordable" housing")  we spend a ton of money find out it is not going to happen and ultimately get into rationing.  In the first election after WWII in Britain  Churchill ran a campaign against  suggested Clement Attlee's promises of positive rights he had a great speech where he warned that if Attlee were elected the UK would become a nation of "queues."   He was right, of course, but he still lost the election.

As I have said most of our dialogues are civil.  That does not mean that Emily's naturally combative father does not occasionally throw a hand grenade.  In recent months the news about the progressive side of the ledger has not been positive.   When the NYT has an editorial titled "Can the Democrats Dodge Doomsday" and we find every state poll showing the president's approval at less than 50%, it suggests that the country is trying to re-center away from the left.  There were several indicators that something is up.   For example, this week I wrote Emily about the recall of three looney members of the SF school board - who had such great ideas as transforming Lowell High School (where admittance is based on merit) into a lottery and changing the names of a number of schools including ones honoring our first and sixteenth presidents.  All three were not just defeated - they were (as I believe they should have been) humiliated - 70% of the voters rejected them.  She wrote back that she did not need to read the article I sent.  We've had good talks about the terrors of LAUSD and how bureaucracy trumps sound educational policy.  She and I have spent a lot of time exchanging articles about COVID politics including a recent article from the NYT's David Leonhardt about what differentiates liberal and conservative approaches to the pandemic. Since the start I have seen the policies of COVID based more on perceived political advantage (and an over-weighting of perceived security over individual choice).  I don't think I have expressed an opinion about PM Trudeau's rather clumsy handling of the trucker convoy disrupting traffic into Canada.

But then the New Yorker published a fawning interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.   One wonders why the Congresswoman has not changed her political designation from Democrat to Demagogue.   Her unwillingness to engage in the fundamental process of governing by working to understand the substance of ideas of people who disagree with her is profound.  If she cannot get something through Congress her alternative seems to be use presidential power or any other means to achieve her objective.   Never mind that people like Senator Manchin may have some substance behind their opinions.   Admittedly I did not start out admiring AOC but her comments in this article give me even greater pause.

Finally there was one more story about the limits of political correctness.   The President, announced in the 2020 election that he would nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.  Don't get me wrong, I think it is just dandy to identify and promote people with different backgrounds to the Supreme Court - but I do object to reducing the qualifications to gender and race.  Nominations to the court have come from an exceptionally small number of law schools and that standard should be broadened. But from my perspective his artificial limit is absurd.

Over the last 50 years - some presidents, who were guided by narrow characteristics were (or should have been chagrined) at their choices for the court.   Does anyone remember G. Harold Carswell the Florida judge nominated by Nixon who was defended by a Nebraska senator (Roman Hruska) with the following logic - "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."   Just as Biden was not interested in supporting a well qualified Black Woman (He led the fight to stop Janice Rogers Brown from being on the court but based on ideology not gender or race) I think the most important characteristic for a Supreme Court Judge is talent and philosophy.  Clearly, I am not going to agree with a nominee from this president based on judicial philosophy.   But his lens is far too narrow.

This week I read a speech by a Federal Judge that I knew before he became a judge.   Ilya Shapiro, headed the Cato Institute's Constitutional Studies, and  was chosen to head a similar project at Georgetown, but he was suspended from his position for raising a question about whether the  sole qualifying characteristic for Justice Breyer's replacement should be a combination of gender and race.  Shapiro was simply arguing that Biden's vision was too narrow.  Immediately the Black Students Association at Georgetown demanded Shapiro be removed.   

James Ho, who I met when he worked in the California Legislature became a staffer for Texas Senator John Croyn.  He was later appointed to the Fifth Circuit.   Jim had been slated to speak to the Federalist Society at the Georgetown Law Center on some other topic.  But he chose the occasion to defend Shapiro's right to express his opinion.  Jim is a naturalized citizen from Taiwan.   He understands the evils of racism because he has experienced them.  He commented "Racism is a scourge that America has not yet fully extinguished—and the first step in fighting racial discrimination is to stop practicing it. That's all Ilya is trying to say.  That's all he has ever tried to say. And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too."   He went on to comment "Cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture.  It's completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join. . . .If you disagree with Ilya Shapiro—if you think his understanding of the law is absurd—if you think his vision for our country is awful—here's what I say:  Bring him onto campus—and beat him!"

Those stories and many more give me pause about the future of the country's political system.  Even though I continue to disagree with Emily on a wide range of policies I am heartened by our ability to communicate and even try to convince the other of our point of view - I am not sure either of us has moved the other closer but that is not the point - we keep trying.   It is a shame that many simply don't believe in the key arguments that Madison offered in Federalist #10 (on the inherent power of having factions and the need to get those factions to work on common purpose) and #37 (where Madison argued that governmental systems need to pursue the seemingly contradictory goals of energy and stability).   OAC openly mentioned that we might be moving toward an irreparable breach in our Constitutional system. One wonders whether she has ever considered that her dogmatism is contributing to that risk in huge ways. There are many on the right who make the same point as OAC, and yet they won't even listen to the other side.  Neither of the extremes has any interest in doing what the founders thought was critical for our system - listening to our fellow citizens.  That was the point of O'Rourke's final book.  It is a shame it was not wider read.

(IS THERE) Progress on Of Course It's True Except for a Couple of Lies - One thing the last few months have taught me is that getting the last details done on getting a book into print is not simple and not often logical.  So far I have had both a developmental editor and a copy editor.  They were superb in getting better focus and prose.  The first two parts (STAVES) of the book are now with a proof reader.  When he is done the book will go to a design guy who will take the well worked prose and make it look better visually - he will also help me place the 75 photos in the book. (NOTE - The paperback version photos will be in Black and White; the electronic edition will use color.). If everything continues to progress I am shooting for getting this into print in late June.