A Moderate Revolution

~Published in the Daily Illini on January 30th, 2006

Great op-ed in the Washington Post.

Intelligent blogger who aptly describes the "militant moderate"

Few politicians today would be among the Revolutionaries, most would have been Loyalists.

About a year ago, I had the great fortune of having lunch with conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. He proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party. He sees this party as potentially the dominant force in American politics. It is a coalition of centrists that would create compromise on divisive issues. Brooks also believes that this party will never come to fruition, never rise up against the daunting political parties.

I disagree.

Primaries filter out centrists, since mostly devoted party members and extremists vote in them. Candidates emerge in the general elections that are satisfying to loyal party bases. This cripples the attempts of centrists to gain power within one of the two major parties.

The average American is moderate, their views lay somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. But, because of the primary structure, they are rarely able to express their views by electing an equally moderate candidate. They are simultaneously forced to build a coalition with those more extreme than themselves.

Americans believe in free markets and the efficient outcomes they produce. Yet, our election system produces inefficient outcomes; primaries nominate candidates the middle majority does not prefer. Washington D.C. needs someone bold enough to take advantage of the inefficient primary system, a system that consistently uplifts candidates that would not win if no primaries existed.

The prospects of a McCain-Lieberman Party are not impractical or doomed to non-existence. In fact, tapping the centrist reservoir can be highly practical and a strategically powerful play. Most third parties do not understand how to get votes; this party would have the potential to dominate the political game by capturing the middle 50 percent of voters.

Moderates can build a party across the aisle with people who are more like themselves than the extremists they are currently forced to align with ("That is one rule up with which I will not put." - Winston Churchill).

The marketplace of ideas fuses the best parts of every argument in a furious collision. If either side, left or right, were absolutely correct, then the logic of one side would be so logical and persuasive as to overwhelm all opponents. Even in the philosophical realm, compromise is the logical conclusion to debate.

Because the views of the McCain-Lieberman Party are moderate, it does not mean that their ends must be pursued with moderation. Rather, moderate views need to be promoted with the same aggression and fury as extremist views. No one finds compromise more passionately than John McCain.

A McCain-Lieberman Party would force every party to compete more intensely for votes, thereby becoming more responsive and innovative. Politicians are mechanical. Most have distinguished educations and backgrounds, but indistinguishable courage and character. Vibrant competition would tear down the corruption, complacency and aristocratic stagnancy of both parties.

The times are eager for the powerful center to arise. Fueled by the perfect playground for the First Amendment, the Internet, a political cataclysm can be realized.

The middle majority has not yet been tapped because no leader with sufficient audacity and pragmatism has arisen to revolutionize the traditional American political structure.

If McCain, Giuliani and Lieberman all fail to win a nomination from their parties in 2008, two of them will form a ticket to run as a new third party. Amongst the three there is sufficient skill, guts and ego to break from their parties. All three would have been Revolutionaries in 1776.

The late Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, who was one of the first to reject McCarthyism, said, "It is time that the great center of our people, who reject the violence and unreasonableness of both the extreme right and the extreme left, searched their consciences, mustered their moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated silence, and declare their consciences."

Sorry extremists, the future is in the middle.

The Conservative Manifesto

~Published in the Daily Illini on January 23rd, 2006

Conservatives are a diverse crowd, housing many shades. The ones most often in the news are the loud radicals who fanatically defend their political faiths without concept of compromise. I hope to offer a less newsworthy view on what a conservative is and is not.

The Orange and Blue Observer and its editor, Leo Buchignani, do not represent mainstream conservatism. It is questionable whether they are conservative at all. It is radical, not conservative, to believe that society should make women subservient to husbands and fathers, verbally assault homosexuality, advocate the bombing of abortion clinics and casually distribute automatic weapons on the Quad.

Pat Robertson and the religious right also fail to understand the roots of conservative philosophy. Reading the entire Bible literally and imposing the moral standards derived from that interpretation on the general public is theocratic, not conservative.

The roots of conservatism are much more sophisticated and nuanced. Conservative policy stems from three pillars: responsibility of the individual, humans being fundamentally competitive and the theory of limited government.

Governments are nothing more than an assembly of humans who are no more intelligent or further along the evolutionary tract than the people they serve. Elected representatives sit upon a high stool, removed from their constituents. Therefore, they have a less precise understanding of common needs than the common man himself. Just as a doctor cannot diagnose a patient from afar, neither can the government properly assess the needs of the people from afar.

Conservatives believe that human nature is self-serving and immutable. They wish to create institutions that check, complement and accept human nature, rather than try to change it. Liberals strive to use institutions to make human instincts better, believing that human nature is malleable and able to be taught.

Conservatism is often misunderstood both by those adhering to it and opposing it. Snappy media explanations draw conservatives as unwilling to help the disadvantaged. True conservative philosophy states that current and historical injustices do weigh on the socio-economic order. These injustices must be acknowledged. The best remedy is to provide opportunity to the disadvantaged without simply handing out the fruits of those opportunities.

Handouts and safety nets do not complement human nature. Conservatives believe carefully crafted policy must account for the expression of human nature in society. Dependency on government domesticates human nature; it disables individuals by controlling them. Big government programs like Social Security, welfare, affirmative action and national healthcare all create a sense of dependency, which in the long-run weakens the individual's competitive spirit. This does not mean that the government ought never to help its citizens. Rather, its help should be temporary and tailored as incentives that coincide with competitiveness.

The public policy implications of this conservative view might surprise you. Some well-wrought form of affirmative action is necessary to overcome the injustices of the past and to provide opportunity for success.

Gay marriage should be legalized, since the distant elected representative does not know what is best for any individual. Welfare should exist, but should not promise perpetual benefits and should create incentives to work.

Social Security should be privatized within a limited set of guidelines, since the common man's intelligence and sense can be trusted to cultivate his own savings.

Speech and the marketplace of ideas should be as free as possible, so long as everyone has the opportunity to fairly participate.

J.S. Mill, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Milton Friedman, Edmund Burke, Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Brooks and John McCain all sharply express some form of these ideas. Conservatism holds an eternal confidence in the individual, realizing that if individuals are incapable of making correct judgments, so too will conglomerations of individuals. It is within the nature of humans to do what is best for themselves and their families. The best forms of government and economics befriend human nature, rather than fear it.

The New Segregation

~Published in the Daily Illini on January 16th, 2006.

Today, we commemorate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On this occasion, it is our duty to measure ourselves against his teachings, since he is not here to do so himself.

I was recently in Las Vegas where an African-American bus driver joked how not only were my white friends and I sitting in the back of the bus, but that he was at the front. Today, we are legally integrated. But, the new segregation consumes us.

Our campus is an intellectually advanced microcosm of the outside world. We are invited here because we are purportedly more understanding, more curious and less ignorant than the general public. Through this fact we can assume that our campus is more tolerant and more willing to racially integrate than the average American community.

Yet, even the casual observer will note the quiet segregation that forces lunch tables at the Union to be color coded - there is frequently one table of black students, one of Asian, one of white, one of Latino, and one of international students.

Just a couple of years ago, the University separated students during orientation between whites and non-whites. The non-white students would tour the cultural houses, while white students were never exposed to them. From the onset, students were intentionally and visibly separated along racial lines. Affirmative action also forces a separation that over time weighs on our perceptions of race.

The dorms appear segregated along racial lines. ISR holds a disproportionate number of Asian residents, FAR-PAR hold a disproportionate number of African-American students, and the Six-Pack looks like my suburban high school. Since we make many of our friends during the initial years at the University, this segregation simply reinforces the social segregation present in our hometowns.

Although the various cultural houses do plenty of good for particular racial communities, I question whether their overall impact on campus is positive. The cultural houses are physical representations of social segregation. They appear to only invite a particular racial community. In fact, the cultural houses are welcoming to diversity. Unfortunately, they rarely receive it. Although their efforts are genuine, the product of their work appears to contribute to segregation on campus.

But, taken together, these excuses are pathetic. They are minor influences upon our social psyche. Our generation can sit and blame questionable policies, but ultimately the blame and the solution lies with us. Few of us, even liberal-minded students, have sufficient social courage to actively seek friendships with other races.

Past American generations have fought great wars. Our war is covert and difficult to discuss. Our great challenge is to overcome years of slavery, segregation, and disloyalty to our own constitutional ideals. We are commissioned with trying to throw out the sins of our ancestors. Further, we have the opportunity to become the first truly diverse, tolerant and integrated society in human history.

Most of us walk to class, live with, and eat with those who make us most comfortable. Dr. King once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Our generation lacks the courage necessary to enact the dreams of King.

It will not happen without revolution. The revolution must occur amongst individuals. It is a revolution of small moments, and none of them will make the news.

We at this University have been given a great gift; we need only the courage to accept it.
A lesser known line in Dr. King's famous speech reads, "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

If in our atmosphere, we lack the audacity to follow his lessons, how can we expect the nation to do so?