| Should we have gone to war in Iraq?
No. At least not the way we did. It was a war of choice. We should not have gone without UN sanction. We should not have gone under the false pretenses that were drummed up. Even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, they were only likely to have been the chemical weapons that we sold to Hussein in the first place. They were absolutely no threat to us. I think that we could have had moral sanction to remove a dictator of Saddam's reputation. But Pentagon planners steadfastly refused to listen to Arabists in the State Department about possible consequences, to generals about what security would take in terms of troops, or even to the common sense measure of having a team and a plan. Read General Franks accounts of his 15 iterations of the war plan and his fights with Rumsfeld (at the very time when he should have been free to corner bin Laden) or Woodward's 3rd volume of Bush at War.
Should we start to bring our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible, or immediately?
We should bring some home immediately, set timetables for withdrawal of others, and we should keep some brigades to protect the Kurds and the marsh Arabs from genocidal attacks. But we should insist of the Kurds in exchange that they not allow their territory to be a staging area for attacks into Turkey or Iran. As someone who thinks that we were morally craven to not protect the Hutus in Rwanda, and that we are equally failing the Darfuris, we should not pull every last brigade out of Iraq. Rather we should drop demands for a privatized, regional oil industry and for permanent bases, negotiate with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and begin to seriously engage the political process. Dropping demands and seriously negotiating, along with a timetable for withdrawal 'might' change the political calculus on the ground.
I think Democrats are mis-framing this issue. I recognize that the only practical power Congress has is the power of the purse, and as a tactic I support not approving these supplementals.
Should we in the near term preemptively attack Iran?
Not now. Not ever. How can we even be thinking of doing this?
Should all Americans have health care insurance?
Yes. I favor a single-payer system, with the supply-side kept private and competitive. I could also favor keeping the expertise of the insurance companies in the game, by, for example, having a nationwide pool, on which insurance companies could bid for a random 10 million insurees. The government could then negotiate terms with the insurance groups. It could even potentially be securitized and the risk pooled with the total asset pool of the securities market - hopefully with more integrity than has been shown to be the case in the sub-prime mortgage market.
This should be paid for out of general revenues, and the cost should come from trimming the defense budget, closing loop-holes in corporate taxation (that will be a tough fight), and if needed raising the corporate tax rate. Corporations currently (2006) only pay 7% of the total tax. That doesn't seem fair when business accounts for one-third of GNP. I would want to assure that corporations had a lower rate of tax than our industrial trading partners however, to assure that the US is the best place in the developed world to set up a new enterprise.
Should any American be without sufficient food to eat every day?
No. Of course not. I would favor a resurrection of an idea that came close to passage in the late 60s - the negative income tax. Everyone under a certain income level would get cash from the government. It could be made available weekly on a Visa/MC branded debit card to preserve dignity and cash flow, while also assuring choice.
Should the activities of all Washington lobbyists be further restricted by congress?
Probably. I'm not enough of an expert to say how - while preserving freedom of speech, right to petition the sitting government, and also making use of the expertise they provide. Public funding of elections (which I support) would certainly help though.
Should all young Americans have a college education if they wish paid for if necessary by the government?
I favor a plan where everyone who gets a 3.0 in high school gets a government-funded scholarship to a state school in their state. If they don't have those grades, they should be eligible for low-interest loans to the college or trade school of their choice. This latter could be means tested but at a suitably generous level.
Should Americans condone torture or inhumane treatment of anyone for any reason?
No.
Should we reaffirm that the Geneva Convention will apply to all of our "detainees?"
Yes.
Should any prisoner "captured" in "the purported war on terror" be held indefinitely in prison without being charged with a crime?
No.
Should we sanction gay and lesbian marriages?
We should have complete equality for gay and lesbian couples with straight couples. That said, I have sympathy for religious people who think that marriage is a religious sacrament and who have objections on grounds of violation of the separation of church and state. If people don't want to have gay 'marriages', here's a solution that I think has merit.
The government could sanction civil unions of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That would then represent the maximum state-sponsored commitment. Then if couples also wished to get married under church/synagogue/mosque/temple auspices and could find a minister/priest/rabbi/imam to perform the ceremony - well and good. It wouldn't have any civil implications.
I realize of course, that this has little chance of passing any legislature bigger than the Berkeley city council, but it makes sense to me.
Should we have a policy and intention to deport all of the people who are in this country illegally?
No. That seems harsh and extreme. After all, these people have been working to make this country a better place, and often been doing the work that Americans don't want to do - at least at the wages offered.
It seems to me that immigration is a huge muddle. Everyone agrees that the situation is problematic, and moral hazard considerations abound. We seem to need more (or different) workers than we have.
I would like to introduce two considerations into the debate that I haven't heard much discussed. First, in terms of self-interest, Canada's policy of welcoming (with their green-card equivalent) anyone with $2 million to invest in a business, with an intention to employ at least 5 Americans (Canadians in their case, obviously). That makes a ton of sense. I would add that we should welcome any graduate students to live here. We could specify only math and science, but I would support all of them being able to stay. What a boon that would be to higher education in this country.
Second, in terms of humanity, we could do much more for asylum seekers. 900 Iraqis in 2005, 7,000 in 2006 - come on. There are over 2 million in Syria, and they are bursting at the seams. And what about the lost boys of Sudan, or the democrats in Myanmar. If we took more in, (with suitable sponsorship by American families if needed), that might go some way to decreasing demand for less skilled labor filled by Mexicans, and relieve the fear that Spanish will somehow challenge English.
For the record, I welcome Mexicans and Central and South Americans. I think the whole language argument is fallacious and contradicted by the facts of second-generation kids of Latino extraction.
We need to get business and industry on side. I'm not sure that a guest worker program will work. We are too used to not caring that much who lives here, enforcement would seem cruel, as deportment seems now. Let the people here now have a path to legal settlement and citizenship, make sure that business has the work force it needs through more generous immigration from the rest of the world, and also enforce the borders.
Should all Americans share equally in repaying our nine trillion dollar national debt?
No. We should pay down the debt in an orderly way out of general revenues, with the progressivity that we currently have in the tax system. Some debt is good, as it creates a market floor for bond rates. If it is being gradually and systematically paid down, our fiscal health will be maintained.
Should we commit not to send American troops anywhere at anytime without an act of Congress or national plebiscite?
I'm not sure. Not with a national plebiscite, as we are a republic and not a direct democracy. As far as a vote of Congress, that seems to raise constitutional questions about the powers of the respective powers of the different branches of Government. And while only Congress can declare war, something short of war is more ambiguous. I'm particularly concerned about peacekeeping missions. Would we vote for sending troops to East Timor, or Kosovo? It seems to me that often it is in our interest, and that of the world, to participate in such missions. In general, I think that we are too reticent to participate. I believe that our response to the General Dallaire's pleas for a change in mission and for equipment and troops in Rwanda was criminal. And our failure in Sudan in regard to Darfur is equally craven. Absent the constitutional issues involved, would the people vote for such missions, would Congress?
Should we allow the death penalty?
I would be pleased to eliminate it. I think we can afford the imprisonment. What most offends me is the racial unfairness, and the number of people on death row that have later been found innocent by DNA testing. Surely that should give even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty pause.
Should all government actions that contravened the letter or intent of the Constitution be reversed?
How would we do that exactly? Isn't the whole point that the Constitution can be variously interpreted? Isn't that why the Supreme Court is as busy as it is? Do we want any ruling of the Supreme Court to automatically ripple back through every law, Presidential order, and regulation? I'm not sufficiently expert here, but it sounds like the unintended consequences of such a blanket edict would be manifold.
Should those responsible for the Constitutional violations be charged with a crime?
Maybe. Sounds a bit dicey though. There are other Constitutional tools for dealing with this. Maybe we should use impeachment more commonly and aggressively.
Should all candidates reaffirm that they will uphold the Constitution notwithstanding any "special circumstances?"
Yes.
Should America allow all first trimester abortions?
Yes.
Should the FCC allow still more media consolidation then we already have?
No. And we should find a way to roll back the consolidation we do have. We should also perhaps have a requirement or test of viewpoint diversity. We could judge the viewpoint of a new corporate owner on the basis of the editorial direction of the media outlets they currently own, and we could stipulate not-to-exceed percentages for conservative or liberal views in a given media.
Should we return to the broadcast media fairness doctrine?
Either that or ensure that the diversity of views are adequately represented. I'm skeptical of "objective journalism" and personally prefer the hurly-burly of the English print media, for example. But that would have to be institutionalized in the right way.
Should Americas Military "privatize" as many "duties" as it did with so much of our present wars?
Absolutely not. What's happening with Blackwater and other 'private security firms' is one of the most dangerous, and underreported mistakes of this administration. We have to fight it at every turn. Not only is it dangerous, it is fiscally irresponsible.
Should we make a serious attempt to lower our national debt?
Yes.
Should we pass laws in order to increase exports, and cut imports?
No. Government micromanagement of commercial enterprise doesn't work. We should police the playing field, we should embrace sound fiscal policy, we should keep corporate taxes below that of our industrial rivals, we should encourage unionization to bolster the consuming power of the middle class (and improve people's lives), we should fund research and development, we should improve the lab to commercialization cycle, review our patent system, keep talented graduate students in this country, stop regional trade deals but work hard to foster global ones, keep interest rates low, and exports and imports will take care of themselves.
Also, a very little understood bit of economic theory, highly abused by the media - balance of trade exactly equals the balance of investment, by definition. So the fact that we have a balance of trade deficit means that we have a balance of investment surplus (at a given interest rate and exchange rate). If more people, companies, or countries want to buy American assets than we buy foreign ones, we have to have a balance of trade deficit. If people stop wanting our assets, and we buy the same amount of goods and services from the rest of the world, then either the interest rate has to rise, or the dollar has to fall. In other words, a balance of trade deficit is not as grave a situation as it sounds.
Should we as a national priority commit unlimited federal funds to stem-cell research?
Nothing should be unlimited. But yes, we should commit federal funds in rather large quantities to this effort, as we should to all sorts of bio-medical and basic molecular biology research. It is, and can become even more, a lever of American industrial growth.
Should we make the morning-after pill available over the counter to those under 18?
Probably not. If your teenager is living at home, do you want to relinquish even the chance to talk to them about their sexual behavior? If someone is in a conflictual relationship with their parents, they could talk to their doctor, or another adult who could retrieve the pill.
Should school prayer be allowed?
It depends what one means by school prayer. Public, in-class school prayer seems to obviously cross a line and discriminate against non-dominant religions or kids with none.
But I think differently about school clubs. If a Buddhist meditation group or a Christian bible study group wants to form along with the Chess club or the future biologists of America club, I think it should be allowed. I think the issue of faculty sponsorship here has been overblown. I could be wrong, but it seems that we should allow our students to form any kind of voluntary group they want, including religious ones. The Atheist club should be allowed to meet too.
Should the Constitution be amended to allow school prayer?
No.
Should we unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile of weapons?
Yes. And we should ban depleted uranium bombs, and land mines. Back to nukes - it seems we have the hardening technology to allow us to have no more than several hundred nuclear devices (instead of 10,000+). That would provide plenty of deterrence.
If I am rightly informed, the original NPT included the provision on the existing nuclear powers that they negotiate to eliminate their existing stockpiles. That was the carrot for the non-nuclear powers to pledge to remain so. The cold war changed the calculus, but the treaty was never changed, and it certainly wasn't re-approved by the non-nuclear powers. So we are hypocritical in our approach to Iran and N. Korea. One doesn't know, but it seems plausible to imagine that Iran at least, and perhaps N. Korea too, would be more amenable to negotiation on their nuclear programs if we unilaterally decommissioned 9,800 nuclear devices. And we could negotiate with the Russians to keep 10 each, say.
Should all of our troops stationed abroad be returned to the United States?
No. But it doesn't make sense to me that they don't rotate as divisions or armies to Iraq and Afghanistan, and that divisions or brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan don't rotate to Korea and Germany. Dependents could be on post, and training could take place. I don't understand why this is not in the discussion. Why are we completely stressing out our reserves and national guard units when we have perfectly good regular army divisions in Germany and Korea? They have training opportunities, they could orient their training more toward anti-insurgency operations, have their family with them, etc. It seems that we are being treated to one more attempt create a crisis so that we can push ever greater resources to the Pentagon.
Should our country consider introducing a military draft?
Yes. Under two conditions: as long as there was a flexible and liberally applied way for 18 year olds to opt for alternative service - like the PeaceCorps or Americorps. And as long as there were no exemptions, not for the rich or for the young women.
This would have two benefits. One, Americans would be more careful about vetting the wars we fight or the conflicts we adjudicate if the kids of the well-to-do and the middle class were more involved. Two, we live in a diverse society that is highly segregated by income. If all kids had a period of service with a cross-section of the country, they would come to appreciate the unique contribution that each of us can make.
-----
I enjoyed this process. It makes one think. I tried to both answer the questions directly, and use them as a platform for bringing out some of the related policy issues, as I see them. I would be very grateful for your comments and critique.
Tangentially related request: Can we have an IL-13 tag? |
