"Purposeful distortion of alternative viewpoints is evidence of a feeble mind."

An old Jewish debate tradition holds that before a debate begins, the two sides should fairly and accurately state the positions of the other side, to the satisfaction of all. Each party is not allowed straw men, embellishment, or assigning of ill intent, just an honest explanation of the other side’s view. Here’s to wishing that was a modern American tradition.

Today the political observer is treated to the opposite; before one side makes their argument, they first must misrepresent the position of the other. Rather than acknowledging that a political adversary has a different way of approaching a problem, that adversary is said to have any number of dubious intentions, none of which are usually true.

If this sounds like it should be limited to the internet chat forums or callers on talk radio, it is all the more disappointing to see it become the staple method the President of the United States has taken in his political discourse. The “straw man” (an inaccurate representation set up which can easily be knocked down) is Barack Obama’s favorite method of illustrating the divine brilliance of his policies. Whether it is health care, entitlement reform, or simply commenting on the passing news controversy of the day, the President routinely distorts the argument of his opponents, so that he can avoid making tough decisions on difficult problems. He casts all debate in a series of false choices between his solution and some horrible plan by the evil Republicans. In reality, the choice does not exist as he lays it out, and he knows it. He would rather attempt to misinform the listener, in the hopes that ignorance will win him the debate, rather than let his own side stand on its merits.

The result of such tactics by both political parties and the lazy commentators and reporters that make hay of such debate is that the real issues are rarely talked about, since they are obscured by slander and defensiveness. Before any single person can actually discuss a matter in the realm of reality, they first must waste time debunking various falsehoods and mistruths designed to derail any real discussion.

It would be one thing if this sort of deviousness were limited to the lower representatives of the House, and could be written off as hack rabble-rousing. The office of the President of the United States is supposed to be of higher standing, it’s supposed to be above low-level sniping. Cheap parlor twisting of words and bad faith is supposed to be beneath the office. Unfortunately, that isn’t the feeling of the office’s current holder.

"You're unique, just like everyone else."

With the Supreme Court finally hearing oral arguments in the case of HHS vs. Florida, we have reached the moment where the current court, more conservative-leaning than it has been in generations, is taking up the constitutionality of the individual mandate as law in what has come to be known as Obamacare. The issue at hand is the limit of the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States, that is; can the federal government use a clause that originally referred to trade that crossed state borders to compel a private citizen to purchase something from a private company.

Most likely, several framers are rolling in their graves after seeing this power being interpreted in a way that makes a document of enumerated federal powers into one that grants unlimited federal intervention. Once the ball got rolling in the New Deal era, once a farmer could be told by the federal government that he had to burn wheat he had grown for his own private consumption so that the national price of wheat would not be affected in a way not pleasing to the federal government, the limits of federal powers began to disappear. They eroded more and more with each case brought before high courts who were more and more eager to interpret “interstate commerce” as any market, anywhere, no matter how infinitesimal.

However, government had previously never forced someone who was doing nothing, not buying, selling, or manufacturing anything, into a market in order to be regulated by the federal government. They undoubtedly had the power to tax income, but due to the political impossibility of raising taxes to reach the new goals of health care reform, they did not have the will to do so with Obamacare.

So, the novel idea of requiring people to buy health insurance under penalty of a fine for noncompliance was used. While states had always had this right to do so, and at times have, the federal government had never compelled private citizens into private contracts with private companies. The federal government was now taking another large step forward from limited national bureaucracy to all-powerful statism.

As the current court is aligned ideologically, 4 justices sit left of center, 4 mostly to the right, and one, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often serves as the swing vote in close 5-4 decisions. It appears that this may well be the situation in this case. While we cannot presume to know the reasons behind and implications of the questions asked by each Justice during oral arguments, the fact that at least 5 Justices, including Kennedy, over and over again asked skeptical questions of the federal lawyer, while being more receptive to the representation of the states, points to the very real possibility that the court will finally put a limit on the use of the commerce clause in the expansion of the federal government. 90% of Kennedy’s questions would be considered hostile or negative towards the government’s position, but at the very end of the session he asked one question, mainly directed towards himself, that has become the primary hope of the individual mandate’s supporters. In discussing the fact that the government is requiring certain people to enter a market in order to benefit the group as a whole in a way previously not done he had this response:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case.

So there it is. The limits of federal power may well rest on one man’s decision on the uniqueness of the problem before him, and whether that uniqueness justifies the check of the judicial branch to allow something never previously allowed.

A unique situation indeed.

"Nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." - George Mason

Attempting to figure out why our representatives do what they do can be a confounding when even seemingly simple solutions to problems are at hand, but can't pass through our political system.  Elected politicians' actions are much easier to understand if you make a simple mental switch in your mind; politicians are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to expand and solidify political power.  Through this lens, the reasons for complexity rather than simplicity, obscurity rather than transparency, and activism rather than patience become clear.  Problems are only solved if both sides believe they can spin the media relations battle to their benefit.

Politics has always been partisan to some degree, but recently, the need for each party to "win" rather than actually solve problems has gotten much, much worse.  A current example is the push for 114 Democrats to vote 'no' on a bill raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending, when this was exactly what they have been arguing for all along.  They simply don't want to be put down on the issue as a 'yes' vote and "subject themselves to a political 30-second ad attack" according to Rep. Steny Hoyer.  Of course, this happens all the time, and the Republicans wouldn't be bringing the vote up if they didn't think it would eventually benefit them politically. 

What should be done?  The only way to limit the extreme partisanship that has worsened recently may be to extend the term limit that we place on our president to our senators and representatives.  With the opportunity to make a lifelong career out of politics taken away, and the number of times that you would be running for office reduced, much of the incentive to simply go after cheap political points would disappear.  Some inefficiency would be inherent in the more frequent number of freshmen congressmen each term, but this dowside seems small compared to the situation we have now.  Some might argue that politicians would still just play partisan politics for the good of their party as a whole, but this could be much more easily attacked in an election year when the incumbent could not be re-elected, and the opposition party could attack the blatant partisanship without having to overcome an incumbent that may be personally likeable. 

This idea has existed at least since Athens and Sparta, and has been a part of various state governments for years, but the effort to bring two six year term limits for senators and six two year terms for Representatives fell just short of becoming a federal reality in 1994.  Republicans were able to get a majority for the vote in the house, but a two-thirds majority that was needed for the constitutional amendment fell short due to Democratic opposition.  It is noteworthy that Republicans (who are usually accused as being "just as bad" when it comes to spending and power-seeking) took up an issue that would have cut their own careers short, and that Democrats sought to hold on to as much power as possible.  This fits with the perhaps overly simplistic view that conservatives seek less federal power, and liberals want more.  It does seem true that the party that seeks to expand spending and regulations would have the most to lose with a loss of entrenched political power among it's members.

What should be done then, if the only chance at securing term limits seems the unlikely scenario of conservatives simultaneously holding the presidency and two thirds of both houses of Congress?  At the very least, every time someone whines about "partisan politics," complains of a lack of compromise, or states that "Washington is broken," the discussion should immediately shift to the best idea out there for fixing these issues; term limits.  Ironically, the one thing that would probably be required to bring about that kind of problem-solving, power denying, politically sacrificial agreement would be term limits themselves.

Only if spending cuts are intuitively fair and modest, will politicians have the political cover to carry them out.

Much of the 2010 election was about government spending, and thus most contentious issues currently on hand center on how or how much spending to cut.  The GOP is divided between the establishment types,  in favor of going slow and getting relatively modest wins on the issue, while the freshmen Tea Partiers want more substantial changes more quickly.  On the other side, the Dems say they see the need to cut spending, but only actually propose laughably small amounts, and vilify any attempts at real changes. 

How should we proceed?  Where should the reductions in spending be made, and how much?  The only way to signifigantly reduce spending with the required amount of political cover to do so is to truely do it across the board.  Every sector of government, every department, foriegn and domestic, discretionary and entitlement, should be cut by the same amount.  Pick a percentage of reduction, say only 5% even, and require every department to reduce their spending by that amount.  This way, no politician can vilify another politician by saying that they are just against this or that program or needy person.  If every part of government is treated the same, political cover is provided for everyone.  The GOP must be forced to cut defense spending, which they are lothe to do.  The Democrats must be forced to cut entitlements, which they refuse to allow.  Nothing is special, everything is treated the same.

The general public would be able to intuitively understand the simplicity and fairness of the proposal, and politicians complaining would be seen as simply attempting to put thier donors or special interests above the needs of others, and could be put in thier place.  5% is a substantial amount, not as much as many Tea Partiers would want, but much more than Liberals would desire.  Most importantly, it is not an amount that the general public would think of as impossible.  Proposing 10% or 20% cuts could be attacked as too much, too fast, while a single-digit amount is intuitively small and palatable to the average citizen, regardless of economic background.  So much of this issue is based on public opinion, on what the average person views as doable and reasonable.  Get the average person to believe that the proposal is fair, and politicians will be able to act. 

Unions cannot be sustainable without consumer choice.

Somewhat surprisingly, the elections of 2010 have had a major impact on raising an important public policy debate, outside of the foreseen battles over health care and taxes.  Newly elected GOP govenors have taken over states with burgeoning budget deficits and decided to tackle the 600-lb gorillia of state budgets, public unions.  They do this in the face of loud and vocal opposition, nationally organized labor resources, a president who is beholden to unions to help him win elections, and a media who is biased towards the "workers."  All this makes it all the more extraordinary that governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere are holding thier ground and not backing down.  Perhaps this is made easier when logic is on your side.  This issue (like many others) highlights the differences between policy based on reason and policy based on emotion that so often permiates our political dialog.  One side is screaming and yelling, accusing the other of being uncaring, bent on trampling the little guy, and against children's education.  The other side speaks of sustainable budgets and the real world.

You just hate unions!

No, the discussion here is about public unions, not private ones.  If GM wants to make poor decisions about compensation with thier employees, which eventually cause the company to go bankrupt, I can take my money elsewhere.  Thousands of people are doing this now, vowing never to buy GM again (due to public funds being used to bail out GM's union workers) and are rather buying Fords or Toyotas.  I have a choice whether to pay a higher price due to a product of service of private union labor.  With government unions, there is no choice.  I either pay them out of every paycheck I make, or I go to jail.

Unions are needed to counteract the greed of employers!

Again, in the private sector, if you truely believe this, then go for it.  Barganing for inflated wages and benefits will catch up with you in the form of benefit restructuring, limited hiring of new employees or bankruptcy for the business eventually, but if you feel the need to combat "greed" of employers in this way, I have no problem with it, since I need not be involved, and can take my money to your competitor.  But in the case of public unions, the union is combating the "greed" of... of... the taxpayers?  The public is not attempting to take advantage of the situation to earn a larger profit - there is no profit - except on the side of the unionized workers.  Furthermore, public unions have a very large say in who their employers are!  Year after year, the largest political contributors are unions, and the vast majority of these dollars go to democratic politicians who promise to "get more" for the unions.  When government unions succeed in electing a politician sympathetic to thier cause, then both sides of the barganing table are on the same side!  Who acts in the best intrests of the employers (taxpayers) then?  The politician can agree to extravagant retirement benefits that won't come due until years after he or she is gone, but by then the contracts are set, and the bill must be paid.

But without unions, employees everywhere would be taken advantage of!  We brought you the weekend and workplace safety! 

There was a time, many decades ago, when private unions did serve an important purpose of protecting the employee from the demands of powerful industrialists.  However, these days worker safety has been ratified into law by legisation, and the dangerous work environments of the distant past are illegal.  The presence or absence of unions is not what is protecting employees from harm or discrimination in the 21st century, an informed and enfranchised population does that.

You don't care about quality education! 

The number one thing standing in the way of our children's education being improved is the presence of public teacher unions, not their absence.  The best teachers should be paid more, and bad teachers should be fired.  This does not happen, because the unions will not allow it.  In Washington D.C. recently, a proposal was made that would pay most teachers more than they currently make, and the best teachers far, far more than they could hope to make now, if they would agree to a merit pay system, and replacing the worst teachers.  The teachers' union wouldn't even allow their members to vote on it, under the protest that it would be "devisive."  Parents should be able to use their tax money to easily pick and choose where to send their children, rewarding principals, staff and teachers that are truely doing well, and allowing failing schools to come under new direction to improve.  This does not happen, because the unions will not allow politicians to let it happen.   A parent can take a child to a private school, but then has to pay for their child's education twice.  Once for the private school in tuition, and once for the public schools they are not using. 

Teachers should be paid more!

Who should decide what any employee should be paid?  The employee?  A system where everyone who feels they should make more gets whatever they want is obviously unsustainable.  Someone should be paid what the general population decides they are worth.  This is done by the free market of people making purchasing decisions, and employers having to hire the best employees they can while balancing thier costs they are able to pass on the customer.  Private school teachers make much less in pay and benefits than their public school counterparts, with better results.  If the arguement is that the better results are due to better parenting and student behavior present in private schools, then you are argueing that factors outside of teacher compensation make up the difference in student achievement.  I agree.  Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution, but rather innovating the way schools teach and reward great teachers is.

What about police!  What about firefighters?

Positions where there is no private equivalent are different, but we do treat them differently.  Police and firemen obviously cannot be allowed to strike, which weakens their ability to take advantage of collective barganing.  Still, taxpayers should have the right to keep a close eye on the effect compensation has on local and state budgets, and should have the right to elect politicians that will bring spending into line when needed.

You have a vote!  You can try to elect politicians that agree with you!

And we see what that gets us when unions are involved.  Even when the masses elect representatives that seek to reign in public spending, the unions resist with angry protects, and democratic politicians run and hide in an attempt to deny the workings of representative democracy.  Furthermore, proponents of spending reform are always attacked with accusations of not caring for the "little guy," being against the middle class, being against education, and vilifying "public servants."  One side always acts out of emotion and anger, while one always tries to defend itself against being called heartless, while trying to make the system sustainable in the long run.

You can't take away our right to form a union!

Really?  You have the right to be a union member?  Where did this right come from?  God?  Is it one of the Ten Commandments?  No?  Well then, surely you must mean that it is in the Constitution of the United States?  If so, then why are federal employees not allowed to form unions?  Why do so many states deny citizens this "right?"  Because it does not exist.  Whether or not government employees are allowed to collectively bargain is something that is subject to legislation, not an inherent right.

You are against the ability of the middle class to make a decent living!

Please.  Less than 10% of private sector employees are unionized, and we have far more than 10% of working Americans living good, well-paid lives.  Forcing everyone, including the middle class, to pay higher taxes so that a minority of people doing similar work get paid more, get better benefits, get better retirement, and get more job security is immoral.  Either a union member must accept the same pay, benefits, and employee/employer relationship as the rest of us in the real world, or you must allow us the choice of taking our money elsewhere.  When it comes to government, we cannot choose not to pay our taxes, so you cannot choose to force us to pay you more than you are worth in the free market.

Politicians running away from responsibility just because they aren't getting their way negates the ability of a democracy to be representative of those it serves.

"Democrats on the run avoided Wisconsin state troopers today and threatened to stay in hiding for weeks, potentially paralyzing a state government they no longer control." - Chicago Tribune, Feb 18th, 2011

While Democrats "on the run" and "in hiding" would most likely be positive developments for our nation's fiscal health in an abstract sense, the actual practice of elected officials fleeing government chambers in order to obstruct the normal legislative process is a dangerous precedent to set.  If citizens are to have a say in how they are governed, then government must abide by the results of elections.  If one party pushes its agenda at all costs when it is in the majority, but then flees the state and does not allow votes on legislation when it is in the minority, then that party is effectively turning the government into a one party system, where elections have no meaning. 

Most of the discussion of the Wisconsin state senators hiding from state troopers simply because they are not in the majority anymore has focused on the legislation that has driven the debate.  However, at some point a discussion must be had about the legitimacy of government that pushes it's advantage when it has power, but takes its ball and goes home when it does not.

We all inherently understand the rules that we live by. We help others when it is the right thing to do, not when it is forced.

At the root of the current health care debate is a key idea that must be reconciled with reality before any headway can be made on the issue.  You can hear it almost any time a liberal politician or commentator really gets on their high horse about reforming the health care system; “Health care is a right, not a privilege!”

As good as this sounds, it is simultaneously wrong and irrelevant to the problem at hand.  First, what we are primarily seeking to reform is health insurance, not really health care.  A few portions of Obamacare do introduce new or modified ways of handling care, but the primary goal of the law is to provide more people with health insurance and make it cheaper for everyone.  Therefore, arguments containing the “right not a privilege” rant first must discuss the fact that we are in fact not talking about immediate care provided by doctors in the event of a physical emergency.  If you are carried into an ER bleeding from the head, you are not asked for paperwork and turned away if it is not suitable to accountants.  If you call 911 while experiencing symptoms of a heart attack, you do not have to give the person on the line your insurance group number before an ambulance is dispatched.  You do have the right to be treated by an emergency care provider in such situations.

However, the provider to such services does have the right to be paid for providing said services.  This, and where the situation is not an immediate emergency, is where we reach the real argument at hand.  Who should pay for an individual’s health care?  Since health care is something everyone eventually needs, should the government provide it for all?  Is it a right?

Now we get to a point that is uncomfortable for some…  You do not have a have a right to be given that which would help you.  Disagree?  Consider the following situation…  You have an illness that requires various treatments, one of which is an expensive medicine.  The medicine costs money to create, and the company that created it spent millions of dollars researching and testing it.  The cost of the medicine would not fit into your monthly budget.  You have a neighbor who is wealthier than you, and who could afford the cost.  Do you walk over to your neighbor’s home and demand that they pay for your medicine?  After all, they would benefit from having a healthy neighbor who contribute to the economy and who is present and able to maintain their adjoining property.  Do you force them to pay for that which would help you, since they can afford it and you cannot?  Of course you do not.  We inherently recognize that this is unfair.

We know that we do not have a right to the labor of someone else.  Yet those who would claim otherwise would pay someone else to walk over to the neighbor’s house and do their dirty work for them.  Using the monopoly of force (that we give to government) to force individuals to do things for others actually happens all the time; we call it taxation.  We put up with it because in theory, everyone pays, and everyone has the right to affect how decisions are made about taxation and use.  In practice, we really do pay others (government) to use the point of a gun (threat of imprisonment) to force those who have more money than us to pay more for what we use.  This is progressive taxation.  Again, we put up with this as a nation and as individuals because we do care for those around us.  The wealthy neighbor does want to help, but under very specific rules.  Not rules that are written down at the county courthouse or in legislation, but rather rules each of us inherently understand; morality.

We know that it is morally right, that it is good and desirable to help those who cannot help themselves when we are able.  We also inherently know that it is morally wrong, that it is bad and undesirable to take from others when we do not need to.  This innate sense of right and wrong is fundamental to the health care debate.  We accept giving some of the fruits of our labor to those who cannot provide for themselves.  This is already the case.  It is already law.  For the young and poor, our taxes pay for Medicaid.  For the elderly, our taxes pay for Medicare.  For middle-aged, able-bodied adults, the morally correct course of action is to provide for yourself, rather than to take from others.  Making laws that state otherwise are destined to fail, because people will not toil under a burden they feel to be morally unfair.  When a majority of people began to feel that our country’s welfare laws were being abused, they were reformed.  When a majority of people began to see that many elderly could not afford medicine they needed, Medicare was expanded.  These laws are founded on moral principles that we all understand.

How then, best to pay for the health care that we all consume?  If medicines, treatments and specialists are seen as goods and services, which method of providing goods and services has proven to be the best; government control or the private market?

Another thought experiment…  Most people in America use a cell phone.  Over the years the quality, functionality, portability and style of cell phones has all drastically improved, while at the same time the price has gone down.  How is this possible?  How do we continue to get more for less?  Of course, competition for customers drives providers to make more for less.  Now imagine that the government had been in control of cell phone production and distribution for the last 20 years.  Would we have better products and services than we do now?  Of course not.  What government program or service costs less now than it did 20 years ago?  Has the education our children receive become better for less cost?  Of course it has not.

We provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.  This is already law.  If we are serious about lowering the cost of care, then expanded government involvement is exactly the wrong approach to take.  Unleashing more competition and choice among individuals to choose how to purchase health care and health insurance should be our goal.  The outcome would be better quality for all, and at lower prices, just like with every other good and service we allow to operate with reasonable regulation.  Regulation that becomes control crushes the market’s ability to provide for people, and people suffer.  That is morally wrong.

Obama done? Not so fast.

Much of the current political thinking on President Obama's prospects at being re-elected is focused on the negative aspects of his first two years. His approval numbers are still below 50%. Republicans believe that he is destroying the country. Democrats believe he isn't going far enough in his leftist policy. His one accomplishment during his first term, known as Obamacare, is under heavy challenge from courts and is already underperforming against estimates. His party just suffered the worst electoral defeat in several generations. The economy continues to falter, with talk of 9%-10% unemployment becoming "the new normal." Given this environment, it is easy to think that Obama will likely be a one-term President.

I wouldn't be so sure. A year and a half is an eternity in politics, and several of these factors could still change in Obama's favor. Already approval numbers are creeping upward from his lows, Obamacare may survive legislative and judicial attacks, and opponents of it may be vilified by the media for dismantling it. Any slight improvement in the economy and unemployment (made more likely by the new emphasis on holding the line on spending) will be trumpeted by all members of the mainstream media as evidence of Obama's success is rallying the country from the brink of disaster. A large unexpected event could put the President in a flattering light, or change the political playing field in ways currently unforeseen.

Even if there t is little improvement in any of these factors, I'd still give Obama the advantage due to the nature of Presidential politics. Presidential elections are glorified popularity contests. Obama was elected not due to his policy, but because the idea of him being elected made people feel good. He excited people, drawing millions to the polls that otherwise would have been apathetic. While some of the luster may have been removed in the last two years, the election will still come down to a popularity contest between the personally likable Obama and an as yet unknown opponent.

This brings us to the final reason I wouldn't bet against Obama in 2012. The odds of the Republican party nominating an equally likable, photogenic, personable candidate that energizes the whole of the right and middle of the political spectrum are not good. The potential GOP nominees are many and varied, but the best are woefully unknown and inexperienced, or less likable in the personality department. The GOP would have to choose just the right candidate for the job, and run a perfect campaign to overcome the core issue of the coming election: The election will be as much about the people being nominated as the policies they advance.

Reality is interpreted by our mind for our own reasons.

The recent assassination attempt in Tucson illustrates a characteristic that most people share, most without knowing it… People believe what they do because they want to.

This doesn’t mean that you want bad things to be true, just that you want the things you think to be true. If people can see the same event, hear the same details of the event, but reach astoundingly different conclusions about the event, something other than the objective facts of the event are in play. This “something else” is our interpretation of reality.

Why do people interpret things differently? Because we all find ourselves at different points in our lives, with different past experiences, needs and desires. We put what we see into a context that allows us to be comfortable with it. We want to be at peace in our own minds, and defend ourselves against unpleasant realities as best we can.

If we see a murder, for example, we want to be comforted by the fact that it was caused by something that we can correct, and that once those corrections are made, murder will be much less common. Some attribute particularly difficult situations to the unfathomable workings of God, whose wisdom we cannot comprehend. The thought that “everything happens for a reason” even if we cannot understand the reason at first, is a comforting one.

In our dealings with others, each of us would prefer to set up rules of interaction that are suitable to us. What exactly these are will differ for each of us, again because of the differences in each of our lives and minds. Public policy differences become very personal to us, and those who disagree with our preferred desires or beliefs are thought of as wrong. We want to be right, because we want things to be the way we would have them, for our own reasons. We then interpret real events to suit our side of the political argument, with the end result being the attempt to create a world that would be more comfortable for us.

Yes, this of course also applies to me as I write this. I believe what I believe to be true, because I want it to be. What drives my desired thought? I want to understand the reasons behind things. I want things to make sense, even if they are unpleasant. I want to understand, as much as is possible, the underlying motivations for people, and to grasp the workings of systems. I want to give my actions and choices (and the public policy that govern them) the best chance to be in alignment with human nature as evolved over time, so that the most comfort can be sustained for the most people for as long as possible. This leads me to believe certain things instead of alternatives, but when attempting to understand complex systems and social interactions it is possible to find the scientific basis of the biologically adapted underpinnings for human behavior, and for the social constructs we have developed. The scientific method offers a check against just wanting something to be true, and allows for objective reality to be sought out.

People can interpret scientific data and observations differently, of course, for the reasons above. Logic, however is not infinitely malleable. Just because you can draw two conclusions about an observed subject does not mean they are equally valid. When people start drawing conclusions that are logically less likely to be true than other alternatives, most likely those conclusions are being drawn for a reason other than truth.

At least, that’s what I want to think.

America can continue to light the way for the globe, if we let it.

The topic of "American Exceptionalism" periodically comes up in debates between our politicians, usually with the conservative championing the notion and liberals downplaying it.  This also coincides with the different amount of reverence shown towards the Constitution by the two sides.  Recently conservatives have been criticized by liberals as having almost a religious respect for the document.

It should come as no surprise that the two parties differ slightly in their view of America's perceived greatness.  How do we come to use "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" to label the sides?  Broadly speaking, conservatism supports the existing institutions and prefers gradual changes.  Liberalism and progressivism sees the world in a much more dynamic light, and favors quicker government action for social reform.

Which social reforms are pushed for by the left in this country?  A more and more progressive (rich pay a higher percentage) taxation system is desired, organized labor is favored in the public and private sectors, universal health care, and a broad and generous safety net of housing, food, education, and other social service programs.

In short, the left in the United States would prefer that we were organized and operated much more like western Europe of the twentieth century.  Some might deny that that is the goal, but if the social and taxation programs of say, France were offered to liberals in place of those we have in the US today, would they accept?  Without a doubt, the offer would be taken.

What would be the end result of America becoming a larger France?  Less productivity due to less compensation for work and more restrictive hiring and firing rules in the workplace.  Greatly reduced military power and influence abroad.  Extraordinarily expanded social welfare programs, with an aging population seeking to retire earlier and live longer.  More government control over health care leading to longer wait times and less choice in treatment options.

Many of these policies are coming to a head in western Europe today.  France and Germany are enacting unpopular reforms to much of the above, and facing violent civil unrest for doing so.  Without the vast natural resources or small homogeneous population that the Scandinavian countries have, socialism eventually reaches a point were government generosity must be reigned in.  Europe is being forced to move away from the extreme social welfare system of the 20th century, while many in America are still attempting to move towards it.

What other effects would a more socialist America have?  One of the profound results of a democratic, capitalist people with an emphasis on the individual is personal incentive.  Consider the following list of inventions / developments...

Electricity, assembly line, telephone, television, airplane, computer, internet, etc...  Why were all these important inventions originated in America?  Are we simply smarter than other people?  No, the unique culture of hard work and inventiveness fostered by our way of governing ourselves leads to higher production and inventiveness out of individuals.

As a result, the entire world has benefited from America constantly raising the standard of living of the free world.  Our allies benefit from the large (albeit a bit too large) military we are able to support.  Countries stricken by natural disasters benefit from the huge amount of aid we are able to deploy at a moment's notice anywhere around the world.  Even during non-crisis, the amount of foreign aid delivered annually is staggering.  Europe is unable to match the United States in these areas, and can no longer even reap the full benefits of their programs for their own people, let alone raise the standard of living and provide a blanket of freedom for the entire world.

The world needs at least one America.  We can stay different; American, or we can become like everyone else.  Progressives push for the world to have another France.  Conservatives push for the world to still have its one and only America.