In Defense of Interest Groups

With the upcoming election, fundraising is in full swing. Naturally, as candidates scramble for cash, they take care to say things they know that their supporters want to here. The more important or wealthy the industry or group, the more effort that is taken to keep it happy. This is traditionally known as politics. To some, it is known as pandering. Groups that are seen as pursuing general goods such as clean air and water are good interests.  Everybody likes clean air and clean water. Those groups and interests perceived to be acting in pursuit of their own good to the exclusion of others are called "special interests". Those who work to see that those interests are tended to are called lobbyists.

Before you condemn lobbyists and special interests keep in mind they come in all varieties. There are lobbies for children. There are lobbies for rape survivors. There are lobbies for those with leukemia, There are lobbies for business. There are lobbies for labor. There are lobbies for the environment,. There are lobbies for industry. There are lobbies for growth. There are lobbies for preservation. You name it, chances are there is a lobby for it. In the byzantine halls of Washington, if you do not have a lobby, odds are no one knows you exist. If they do not know you exist they don't care about your interests.

A law passed or regulation approved in Washington can cost and industry tens, even hundred millions of dollars. The government can encourage your industry through tax breaks and regulatory concessions. It can also constrict it and regulate it out of business. It can facilitate of your activity or it can stifle it. It can advance your cause or it can place a road block in front of it. Whatever you do or make the government can affect it. It should surprise no one that many groups seek to actively protect their interests as well as themselves and their activities from government meddling.

No one complains when a group sympathetic to their interests spends hundred of millions of dollars to advance their agenda. If a group hostile to your interests spends hundreds of millions of dollars they are condemned for seeking to bribe Washington to achieve their agenda. To call an advocacy group a "special interest" is an attempt to tarnish it by implying they are pursuing selfish ends at odds with the greater good of the nation, whatever that good might be. Is the AARP a special interest group or a lobby? That all depends on your point of view.

A special interest group is commonly construed as a group that pursues interests peculiar to itself rather than the good of all. For that reason "special interests" have come to connote selfishness and greed. Thus a group that lobbies on behalf of an industry to fend off environmental regulation is characterized as a "special interest" because it is pursuing its own good rather the good of everyone who uses the environment. Similarly, a group that pursues the interests of a particular profession are usually characterized as a "special interest" because they seek to advance the interests of that group. If you are going to call the Association of Manufacturers a "special interest" you have to be prepared call organized labor a "special interest".

Some interest groups are proud to wear the label of a special interest. That is largely because the group does not consider its ends to be at odds with the public's. Such groups exist to ensure that their objectives are being tended to They also believe that their goals are congruous with public's, or at least not in conflict. Breast cancer lobby groups rightly believe that the pursuit of their objectives in no way conflicts with any other groups objectives (except perhaps in the struggle over funding, But that is an entirely different matter.) Women free of breast cancer is good for everyone. Their interest is "special" in the proper sense of the word.

But when there are diverging interests, conflict usually arises. Environmentalists want to preserve forests. Logging companies want to exploit forests. Environmentalists want as many obstacles as possible placed in front of logging companies. If  logging companies wind up going out of business because if it, all the better. Naturally, logging companies see things differently. Because Washington can tip the scales in favor of one group or another, both are compelled to make sure their interests are represented in Washington. To do that they hire lobbyists and donate money to political campaigns. If you are an environmentalist, the logging lobby is a "special interest". If you are in the logging industry or benefit from it, it is the environmentalists that are the "special interest".

It is easy to point to an industry and or a profession and accuse it, and by extension its interests and the people hired to protect those interests, of being short sighted and selfish. Certainly there are times when that is precisely the case. But is not always the case, not by far. What is good for General Motors might not always be good for America. But what is good for General Motor can be good for the people who rely on it to make ends meet. Like much else in politics, what makes one interest special and another one not is often a matter of opinion. Before you throw the book at lobbyists stop and consider how many of the things that are important to you are represented by a special interest group.

Why Character Matters

Morals, or "values" as they have come to be known, has become a touchy subject when it comes to elections. When morality comes up, many, politicians especially, take umbrage.Sometimes it is in the open such as when one candidate accuses another of lying or ducking his obligations. Other times it is hinted at when one politician challenges another to come clean or an innuendo is made. Frequently, when the issue is brought up the person or group bringing it up is criticized for seeking to divert the race from substantive issues either through desperation or lack of substance.  This is frequently true, but not always. Whatever else they are, "values", and the willingness to adhere to them, are the measure of a man. Betrayal, defects in honesty and unwillingness to live up to one's obligations are moral defects. A man who cheats on his wife is disloyal. A woman who makes a claim she knows to be spurious or untrue is a liar. A person who fails to live up to his promises is unreliable. A person who puts personal gain over public obligation is untrustworthy. Such traits might not matter very much in your neighbor but they do matter in your president. 

Yes character matters. It matters very much. Character is about more than isolated acts, whether they be praiseworthy or contemptible. It is the measure of the entire man. It is not about particular decisions. It is about how decisions are arrived at. Being president is about making decisions. It is important what factors are considered and how they are weighed in a person's decision making. Politicians who arrive at decisions based on ambition or personal calculations should not be relied upon. They are not acting in the best interests of their constituents but out of expediency and hope of gain.

Character is not tangential to decision making. It is essential. Politics is about making decisions. Making decisions is a personal act. What a man thinks and does in private reflects his true character. When a politician seeks to hide his real character behind a public mask he is a dangerous man because he will go to great lengths to hide that character. He will lie, he will betray, he will coerce, he will bribe to keep his true nature from the public eye. The more ambitious the politician, the greater the lengths he will go to to keep his moral failures hidden and consequently the more distorted his decision making will become.

You can say that politics is less about morality than it is about virtue and you would be correct. Virtue is not about a man's inclinations and tendencies but how he meets his obligations and conducts himself regarding others. But virtue is a difficult thing to achieve in the absence of morality. It will rarely be achieved and hard to maintain for it requires great diligence, greater than most men are capable of. Moreover, it will be constantly under siege. It will always be one temptation, one opportunity, one weak moment away from buckling.

A gap between a politician's private behavior and his public persona make that politician vulnerable. Should that gap be discovered, many politicians (and nearly all public figures for that matter), will expend a great deal of energy to ensure it is not made public. What politician wants to be brought down by a dalliance with an employee or an illegitimate deal? A distinction can, and should be made between a lapse in judgement and a pattern of behavior. A one time tryst is a different thing than a series of trysts or an affair. A single special deal to help an important constituent is different than a pattern of granting favor for gain. A single lapse can be excused because all men are imperfect. All men at one time or another make a bad decision or act out of weakness or self interest. It is the pattern of a man's behavior that reveals his nature, not an isolated act. It is the pattern of a man's decisions that reveal his character. Patterns are only revealed over time. To single out one bad act or one moral lapse and use it to tar a man's career is unfair. To ignore a pattern of questionable judgment and morale lapses is reckless.

You cannot know how a person will conduct himself the future. The best you can do is know how he has conducted himself in the past . To know that you have to know a person's history. You can trust an honest man to continue to act honestly. You can trust a brave man to continue to act courageously. You can trust a faithful man to continue to act faithfully. You can rely on a man who has lived his life selfishly to continue being selfish. You can never be sure how a man lacking character will act. For him, everything relies on circumstance and calculation.

Ultimately, what a person says or does in public matters less than what he says and does in private because in private he reveals his true self. Yes it matters if a politician had an affair. If a man will betray his wife chances are he will betray the public, if only to keep it secret. Yes it matters what maneuvers and special deals a politician made to achieve office for it can reveal an overpowering ambition that will continue to entice dishonesty in order to keep that office or achieve greater office. No one knows the future. No one knows what challenges will emerge. No one knows what decisions a politician will make in the face of those challenges. You can know what sort of person will make those decisions. If you want to know what sort of person a politician is you have to look at how he lives up to his obligations and observes his word. In order to know that you have to know what he has said and what he has done over time.

You can, indeed you should, overlook the small things. There is a difference between getting a friend who is down on his luck a job and rewarding favored constituents with lucrative contracts. If a candidate says he is happy to be in Cleveland chances are he is just being polite. That is politics. By the same token, a single poor decision or dishonest action in a politician's past should be considered in context of time and place. But the large things: was he faithful to his wife? Did he take advantage of his position for personal gain? Did he step on others in his ambition? Those things matter, even more so if there is a pattern. Men do not shed their character once they achieve office. They might become prudent. They might exercise restraint. But they will not change. Because of that you have to pay attention to their character. A man with suspect character should be scrutinized, especially if that man would be president. You cannot know the future. The best you can do is know the man.

The failure to live up to one's "values" is human. Who among us has not failed at times to live up to his own standards? But there is a difference between falling short of one's "values" and abandoning them (or never holding them in the first place). To profess or champion "values" not sincerely held is dishonest. The willingness to abandon one's "values" when they become inconvenient indicates a weakness of character or an ambition that knows no limits. How can we know what sort of president a man would make if we don't know the man? How can we know the man if we don't know his character? How can we know a man's character if we don't know what is important to him? How can we know what is important to him if we don't look at what he has done?

Does it matter if a man who would be president is selfish? Does it matter if he is lazy? Does it matter if he is prone to yield to desire? Of course it does. No one can say otherwise. But how can you know such things unless you examine the man? Character is the sum of a man's actions over time. A man can claim any value he pleases (he cannot, however, claim to be loyal to his values since loyalty is itself a "value" and one value cannot support another), but his nature will be revealed by his actions over time. If a man has succumb to desire ten times you can be confident he will succumb again. If he has shirked his responsibility to his family, why wouldn't he shirk his responsibility to the public?

Olympic Porn

There is a growing backlash against NBC's recent video collage titled "Bodies in Motion". In the video, female Olympians are shown in slow motion as they jump, dive, run, and leap in tight and revealing "uniforms". Care is taken to ensure that none of the more delicate and personal aspects of the female anatomy are neglected. The video has been described as tasteless and offensive, even soft core porn. Female athletes, critics assert, should not be treated, or viewed, as sexual objects. (Well, not exclusively as sexual objects. Let's be realistic here). It is contended that is precisely what the video sets out to do.

The condemnation of the video is undeserved. Athletes are not required to wear the smallest and tightest uniforms available. They choose to. Many female tennis players wear the shortest of dresses knowing full well that those dresses hide nothing. Women's field hockey, another favorite in the video, is another a sport that has attracted the male eye with its short dresses and frequent tumbles in which those dresses fly upwards. Men have also displayed an interest in watching women's soccer no doubt due in part to the willingness displayed by some players to remove their tops to celebrate. In tennis, though it is becoming more fashionable for female players to wear shorts under their dresses, it is by no means universal. Dresses have all but disappeared in female skating. Only the cold of the ice keeps them in stockings. It is difficult to believe that swimsuits cut to 3 or 4 inches below the belly button make swimmers any faster in the water. For their own reasons, many athletes, male and female, choose to wear apparel better designed to titillate than serve any competitive purpose. If athletes want to compete in uniforms that look as if they might have been painted on, viewers should not be blamed if they take up the invitation to look.

Whatever the video's producers claim concerning its intent, the video has served to save many male viewers hours of time. Why sit through boring footage of swimmers warming up in their sweats if you can go straight to wet swimsuit shots? Why put up with large, overweight shot putters and hairy weight lifters if you can zip straight to pubescent girls in waist high tights prancing and bouncing about? Why waste time watching a whole gymnastic routine if you can cut to the crotch shots?

Whatever pretext or defense NBC might offer on their behalf, they knew exactly what they were doing when they created the video. NBC was not trying to create a new porn niche. The movement to sexualize athletes has been going on for some time (think of Michael Jordon's Hanes underwear ads). I am sure there is nothing on the video that has not already found its proper place in the world of porn. NBC was hoping to cash in by meeting a demand. In doing so they simply called attention to something that was already in plain sight. No, don't blame NBC for sexualizing the Olympics. It is the Olympics that sets the rules on uniforms, not NBC. NBC is just trying to make some money. If the NBA can get by with shorts extending to the knees and below, the Olympics ought to be able to get by without athletes competing in mini skirts, bikinis, bras, glorified jock straps, and hot pants. Needless to say, it won't even try.

Does it Really Matter What the U.S. Thinks?

On the issue of Iran, Israel is adamant. Under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to progress towards the capability of making a nuclear weapon. Israel has already made plans to take military action in order to ensure a nuclear armed Iran does not come into existence. Wheels in Israel have been set in motion. They have served notice. The U.S., however, is still calling for patience. It too will not tolerate a nuclear Iran but it believes more time, not much but more than Israel is comfortable with, is needed for sanctions to work. Harsh sanctions already applied to Iran are being felt in that country. More severe sanctions are in the wings. Nevertheless, Israel is not persuaded that time is on its side. It is prepared to act.

When it comes to Israel's decision to attack Iran, does it really matter what the U.S. thinks? What are we going to do if Israel acts against our wishes, brushes off international calls for dialogue, and bombs Iran? Will we chastise Israel? Will we call for a U.N resolution condemning the attack? Will we take the matter to the U.N. Security Council? Will we apply sanctions on Israel? Will we cut off or curtail aide? What if the U.N. does take action and proposes condemnation of Israel, or worse, calls for sanctions? Will the U.S. support that action? If your answer to all of these questions is no, you are correct. The U.S. will do nothing. It might seek to preserve a fig leaf of neutrality by wringing its hands and calling for calm. It might urge dialogue but it will not punish Israel. Despite relying heavily on the U.N. to support its geo-political strategy over the last decade, the U.S. is quite prepared to abandon it if it doesn't act in our interests. In the case of an Israeli attack, the U.S. likely would urge calm and call for a cessation of hostilities, (no doubt only after Israel's military objectives are achieved), but it will not rebuke Israel. Neither will it allow Israel to be rebuked if there is anything it can do abut it.

At risk is years of U.S. effort in the region. After decades of striving to achieve some small measure of objectivity in the Middle East, the U.S. will be placed in the spotlight. It will have to make a choice, Israel or the international community. The choice will be an easy one for the U.S. It will also be a costly one. In those countries where autocratic rulers have been overthrown and the new governments are seeking to establish themselves a choice will have to be made as well. How will they respond to an attack on another Muslim nation? Do they remain silent? Do they simply issue statements condemning it? Whatever the political and religious complexities in the region, the fact would remain that another Muslim nation was bombed in the dead of night.

It has been argued that a U.S. attack on Iran, despite public condemnations, would likely gain the secret approval of many Arab nations in the region fearful of a powerful and aggressive Iran. That may be so. But after years of undermining the authority and legitimacy of centralized governments in the region and working hard to give the "Arab street" a voice in public affairs, we cannot disregard how an attack on Iran will be viewed in that same "Arab street." It has to be considered that there is a distinct possibility that the rank and file in the Arab street will not have the same nuanced view of regional politics that their leaders do. An attack on yet another Muslim nation could easily unify a region in turmoil. It would be difficult for movements and governments, many of which are extraordinarily fragile and dependent on U.S. aid and support or their existence, to continue accepting that aid without appearing to be pawns in some larger U.S. plan. The nascent Arab Spring movement might have to push back against the West lest they be construed as part of some broader U.S. policy serving Israel's interests. Even worse would be if an Israeli hand is perceived to be involved. No Arab movement would likely succeed if it was suspected to be, even in the smallest and most indirect of ways, in cahoots with Israel or working to its advantage.

If the Middle East awakes one morning to the news that bombs are falling on Iran there will be turmoil. You can be sure there are many groups in the region that would move quickly to take advantage of that turmoil. The U.S. has many complex relationships and interests throughout the Middle East that must be weighed in any attack on Iran. The U.S. must consider the broader ramifications of an attack on Iran on its long term interests in the region. Israel does not. Israel has only its survival as a Jewish state on its mind. Moreover, it has time and again demonstrated that it is willing to go to any length to continue its existence as a Jewish state no matter what the U.S. might say or do. Whatever decision Israel comes to regarding its security, the U.S. will have to adapt in order to take that decision into account. It is unimaginable that the U.S. will abandon Israel if Israel comes to a different conclusion regarding Iran's capabilities and launches an attack. Because of that, it really doesn't matter what the U.S. thinks about what must be done regarding Iran. It only matters what Israel thinks.

If Israel attacks Iran it will be able retreat to its fortress afterward, confident in its ability to fend off the consequences of their attack and secure in continued U.S. support, political, military, and otherwise. The U.S. cannot retreat. It must remain engaged. Because of that it will have to pick up the pieces. Even if Iran is defeated, and it will be, life in the Middle East will be no easier for the U.S. If the government in Iran survives the attack we will find in them an even more determined and implacable foe. If the government does not survive the attack we will have another Middle Eastern nation in turmoil. But this time it will be a large, strategically and economically important nation. It will also be a nation more likely to turn east to rebuild than turn west into the arms of the nation that defeated it.

Yes, it matters what the U.S. thinks when it comes to Iran. But, at the bottom, it matters what Israel thinks even more.

Viva la Revolution

When it comes to the nation's children, parents are not pulling their weight. Numerous studies have shown how important it is for parents to be involved in raising their children. Whether it is the dietary habits of their children, the physical fitness of their children, or the academic achievement of their children, statistics show that parents are failing not just their children, they are failing the nation as well. As we have been told repeatedly, children are a national resource. The economy, and by extension the nation requires an abundance of educated and industrious citizens. We cannot have educated and industrious citizens if our schools do not produce them. Schools cannot produce them if parents do not provide the raw material, i.e. healthy, inquisitive, well motivated children. Too many parents are shirking their responsibility and failing to produce such children.

A break through study done by the Harvard Family Research Project determined that parents play an important role in their child's academic performance. Too many parents, however, are not performing well in that role. What can be done? How can we as a nation change the way parents raise their children? This is the problem vexing the modern progressive. We cannot yet intrude on a parent's right to raise their child as they see fit. Another way has to be found. The solution is to make children a communal resource. If children are a communal resource, the community has an interest in how they are raised and educated. Parents have a duty to the community to raise their children correctly. An uneducated, maladjusted child is every one's problem, or so we are told. Therefore the community is obliged to act when individuals fail in meeting their obligation to raise their children properly.

The advent of economic and social casuistry made possible by the modern obsession with statistics has made even the most personal behavior a matter of public concern. While lip service is paid to the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, in practice there is no such right. A parent who neglects to monitor their child's diet or make sure their child not only attends school, but does her schoolwork diligently is failing society. Society cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents neglect their children. Our nation and its economy is at stake.

In an editorial this morning in the Dallas Morning News, Florencia Velasco Fortner, CEO of The Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations (Concilio) argues that the solution is to "revolutionize what is happening at home." We need to change how parents are tending to their children. To avoid the morass of social issues and the argument over the reach of government, she resorts to the modern method of objectivity by framing the issue in terms of economics. We are urged to "invest" in children, and in so doing we are offered the promise of economic reward. But no matter how the subject is framed, we are dealing with perhaps the most personal of all issues, the raising of our children.

Many parents are not good parents. Some are downright bad parents. This has always been the case. What is new is that how you raise your children is no longer your business. It has become society's business. Because it has become society's business, it has become the government's business. Fortner and her colleagues cannot tell you how to raise your children. Society cannot tell you how to raise your children. But the government can. And that is what this is all about. To the progressive mind, all issues are social issues and all social issues are ultimately political issues. Fortner cannot tell you how to raise your child, so she would have the government do it.

The issue of children can be couched in terms of society but without the ability to compel, society is a poor tool to affect change. Sure, you can talk about educating parents and getting them involved. You can talk about changing the way society approaches the issue.  But what if that is not enough? What if parents don't respond  to your coaxing and encouragement? What if nothing changes? Do you walk away? Or do you try and push parents aside to clear the road for progress?

Fortner and those like her belabor the obvious when they assert that parents need to be involved in the education of their children. But how do we get parents to become involved? The answer Fortner gives it that we need to "revolutionize what is happening at home". We need to overthrow the parents and install a new regime that will actively work with children from the bedroom to the school room. Those parents sympathetic, or at least indifferent to the revolution will be "engaged" in the education process. Parents who do not pass muster will be relieved of duty.

Seventy percent of a school aged child's time is spent outside of the classroom. In too many cases, it is argued that that time is spent unproductively due to negligent or downright poor parenting. To the progressive mind, this must not be allowed to continue. If parents are unable or unwilling to see to their child's educational development, then society must step in.

As society moves ever forward there is less and less space left to the individual. Health, hygiene, diet, even thoughts have become matters of public concern. It was inevitable that some would conclude that the raising of the next generation of Americans cannot be left to the haphazard care of parents. There is too much at stake. The dominion of parents over their children's development must be replaced and a new order ushered in where society's needs, whatever they may happen to be at the moment, take precedent.The future cannot be left to chance.