Reason Magazine - All Reason Articles from the Past Year: Page 1

What the Hell Is Human Dignity Anyway?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:32:00 EDT

Friend of reason Steven Pinker plows into the mushy category of "human dignity"—routinely invoked to argue against advances in science and medicine that will enliven and lengthen our lives—like nobody's business here:

Many people are vaguely disquieted by developments (real or imagined) that could alter minds and bodies in novel ways. Romantics and Greens tend to idealize the natural and demonize technology. Traditionalists and conservatives by temperament distrust radical change. Egalitarians worry about an arms race in enhancement techniques. And anyone is likely to have a "yuck" response when contemplating unprecedented manipulations of our biology. The President's Council has become a forum for the airing of this disquiet, and the concept of "dignity" a rubric for expounding on it. This collection of essays is the culmination of a long effort by the Council to place dignity at the center of bioethics. The general feeling is that, even if a new technology would improve life and health and decrease suffering and waste, it might have to be rejected, or even outlawed, if it affronted human dignity.
Whatever that is. The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it.

Whole thing in The New Republic, via Arts & Letters Daily, here.

Read Pinker's reason interview here.

New at Reason

Mon, 12 May 2008 07:00:00 EDT

Steve Chapman tries to quantify just how awful John McCain's foreign policy will be, if he's entrusted with the presidency.

Sailing into a Storm?

schapman@tribune.com (Steve Chapman) — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:00:00 EDT

The last couple of months have been springtime in paradise for Republicans: the loveliest of all possible seasons. They have been watching two Democratic presidential candidates in an endless battle to destroy each other—a process that does not appear to enhance the chance that the eventual nominee will win in November.

A recent Gallup poll shows John McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup. All this before Republicans even begin publicizing the worst that can be said about either of two candidates whose alleged defects provide a supremely target-rich environment.

But it's easy to let the individuals involved obscure larger factors that may prove more important. In a hurricane, even handsome, well-built boats can end up underwater. And right now, the GOP looks as though it may be sailing into a perfect storm.

Currently, 69 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is doing his job. That is the highest disapproval rating since Gallup began polling 70 years ago—higher than Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon during Watergate, or Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis.

Today, notes polling expert Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute, more Americans think the country is on the wrong track than at any time since the late 1970s—which set the stage for the Republican resurgence of 1980, led by Ronald Reagan. The sentiment is even more negative now than it was in 1992, when the GOP lost the White House. Some 63 percent see the Iraq war as a mistake.

Bush's troubles have sent voters fleeing from his party. In 2004, 47 percent of Americans leaned toward the Democratic Party, with 44 percent leaning Republican—a 3-point difference. Today, it's 51 to 38 in favor of the Democrats -- a gap of 13 percentage points.

To win, McCain will have to pry away a lot of voters who currently find the GOP unappealing. Obama (or Clinton), by contrast, will have only to avoid alienating those who are already favorably inclined to a change.
Issue after issue also promises to hurt Republicans. Among the topics creating the most anxiety are the economy, domestic matters like health care and immigration, and Iraq. Of those, immigration is the only one that might not favor the Democrats.

Richard Norton Smith, a historian who has run the presidential libraries of Republicans Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, is pessimistic about the party's prospects. He thinks the correct analogy is not 1988 but 1920 or 1952—when an unpopular war and an equally unpopular president spelled doom for the party in the White House. He thinks 2008 is shaping up not only as a narrow defeat for the GOP but a decisive "repudiation."

Many Republicans see Barack Obama as the natural heir of George McGovern—an antiwar liberal with an avid but narrow base who is perfectly positioned to lose. They are also reminded of Michael Dukakis and his difficulty connecting with white males and working-class voters.

But Smith sees a big difference: In 1988, when Dukakis lost, the outgoing Republican president was popular, with an approval rating above 50 percent. Not so today.

Against trends like this, he strongly doubts that voters will put much weight on factors like Obama's associations with radical preachers or his flag-free lapel. Thanks to the Democratic contest, those matters have been fully aired, without fatal effect, and they are likely to sound stale and irrelevant by November.
In his view, the portents are all ominous for the Republican Party and its nominee. "Why do you think the race started so early? Why do you think turnout has been so high?" he asks. "A desire to put this chapter behind us."

The fallout is already apparent. In recent months, Republicans have lost two special elections to fill seats that had been GOP strongholds. Those shocks prompted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to warn that come November, his party faces the prospect of "a real disaster."

The bad news for Republicans is that objective factors are conspiring to produce a Democratic victory. The good news? If the Democrats can't win this year, they may never.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Sports and Election 2008

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:58:00 EDT

USA Today asked the three remaining major-party candidates how they feel about Title IX and about performance enhancing drugs.

Refreshingly, all three said neither steroids nor gender participation are any of the government's business, and that, being private entities, sports organizations should be free to set their own rules free of meddling from the federal government or grandstanding congressmen.

Just kidding. All three favor using the federal government to bend pro and amateur sports to their liking.

The Weekend Political Thread: Long Goodbye Edition

dweigel@reason.com (David Weigel) — Sat, 10 May 2008 10:36:00 EDT

Unconvincing Quote of the Week
"Some call you swing voters. I call you Americans." Hillary Clinton, speaking to white people.

The Week in Brief
- The Democratic primaries effectively ground to a half as Barack Obama won a landslide in North Carolina and narrowly lost Indiana.
- Hillary Clinton refused to quit the race, praying for expected (Kentucky, West Virginia) and surprise (Oregon) wins in the remaining primaries to rattle the superdelegates.
- Bob Barr geared up for an official entry into the presidential race.
- Ron Paul's book rocketed to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
- Rep. Walter Jones, the last anti-war Republican on the ballot in 2008, handily won re-nomination.

Below the Fold
- Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan crafts a nomination strategy for the top 6 LP candidates. (One striking thing about this race is that the anti-Barr, anti-Root forces don't deny that Barr could get more votes than a candidate in the Badnarik mold. It brings to mind the war against McCain in the GOP primary: Conservatives were willing to trade the more electable McCain for the more doctrinaire, for the moment, Romney.)
- Brian Friel talks to Democrats about their coming, 1932 or 1964-sized landslide.
- John Judis wrings his hands about Obama's electability.
- Most of the Libertarian presidential candidates (except for Barr, Root and Phillies*) demand a new 9/11 inquiry.
- Matt Labash goes to the prom.

Did someone request mid-decade Marillion live? No? Too bad.

*This has been corrected -- I forgot about Phillies when I originally posted.

Attn: SoCal Reasonoids -- Three Events About John McCain

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:41:00 EDT

I'll be talking about McCain: The Myth of a Maverick at three upcoming appearances, each open to the public:

* Saturday, May 10, 3 p.m. − At the Palos Verdes Library, at a meeting of Rancho Palos Verdes Democrats; 701 Silver Spur Rd., Rolling Hills Estates.

* Wednesday, May 14, 7 p.m. − At the Pasadena Public Library; 285 E Walnut St., Pasadena.

* Thursday, May 15, 7 p.m. − At L.A.'s beautiful downtown Central Library, in the Mark Taper auditorium, as part of Zocalo L.A.'s "Deconstructing McCain"; 630 W. 5th St.

Please come by and say hello!

Insert Cock Joke Here

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:09:00 EDT

In the same week that the city of Los Angeles criminalized home remodeling over a certain size, dreary Councilwoman Janice Hahn is trying to see to it that homeowners only get one cock per walk:

Under her proposal, residents would need a permit to keep one rooster, and people who wanted to keep up to three would need to seek special permission from the city.

Speaking of "affordable housing" illiteracy, this L.A. Times story on Washington's latest subprime bailout bill contains a gem of a quote from Republican Congressperson Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:

No one wins when a house in the neighborhood is foreclosed. Absolutely no one, because it brings down the value of those properties.

A FARC Document Trove

mmoynihan@reason.com (Michael C. Moynihan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:43:00 EDT

It is now pretty clear that those laptops seized by the Colombian military in its cross-border raid on FARC commander Raul Reyes are genuine (I wrote previously about the killing of Reyes here). There was little doubt as to the authenticity of the captured files, as evidenced by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa's frantic attempts at explaining away evidence of his collaboration with FARC. But now the CIA and Interpol have also confirmed that the material is genuine, and the Wall Street Journal, in a detailed cover story, assesses the level of cooperation between the terror group and the government of Hugo Chavez and what this means for relations with Colombia and the United States:

The files that have been made public so far have largely confirmed Mr. Chávez's well-known sympathy for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. But a review by The Wall Street Journal of more than 100 new files from the computers suggests that Venezuela has broader and deeper ties to the FARC than previously known.
These documents indicate Venezuela appears to be making concrete offers to help arm the rebels, possibly with rocket-propelled grenades and ground-to-air missiles. The files suggest that Venezuela offered the FARC the use of one of its ports to receive arms shipments, and that Venezuela raised the prospect of drawing up a joint security plan with the FARC and sought basic training in guerrilla-warfare techniques.

Full story here.

DWI for Walking a Bicycle

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:23:00 EDT

Jeff Brown of Columbus, Ohio was arrested for DWI, spent four days in jail, and had his license suspended for six months when he refused to take a breath test after an officer confronted him on suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Brown was walking his bicycle across his own front yard. Brown has since made a YouTube video detailing his ordeal.

Via Lawrence Taylor, who notes that in 2005, a woman in Florida was arrested for DWI for operating her own wheelchair while intoxicated. That case, fortunately, was thrown out.

MORE: The appellate court decision describes the facts of the case this way:

The record contains scant details of the underlying facts of this case, but it appears appellant was riding a bicycle on a sidewalk on December 18, 2004, when he was detained by a police officer.

Make of that what you will.

"I'm not saying I'm depending on Maxim to keep me alive over there, but it helps"

info@reason.com (Damon W. Root) — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:58:00 EDT

Does Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) hate our troops? If not, then why is he trying to ban morale-boosting men's magazines from U.S. military bases? From Stars & Stripes:

A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic. But Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could make those magazines eligible for the ban.

[...]

"They're making it a point of undermining soldiers to almost make them feel like we're back in elementary school," Pfc. Nickolas Sears said Friday at Camp Red Cloud, South Korea. "We're all adults here, and if it's something we want to do, we should feel free to choose as we please."

(Link via The Weekly Standard)

UPDATE: Senior Editor Radley Balko already targeted his sights on Broun's bill.

This Day in History: Vast Wasteland

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:35:00 EDT

On this day in 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow proclaimed American television a "vast wasteland" in a speech to the American Association of Broadcasters.

In 1961 there were 3 channels, nearly all Americans still watched TV in black and white, and while vast might not be especially accurate, it was the wasteland part that caught the American public's attention.

Here's Minow:

When television is good, nothing -- not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers -- nothing is better.
But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

The whole speech is pretty fascinating. It's a snapshot of attitudes from a different era.

But things were already looking up in 1961: ABC's Wide World of Sports debuted, as did The Avengers. NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies got rolling with Marilyn Monroe's How to Marry a Millionaire.

47 years later, the vast part is no longer debatable, but we keep going at it on the wasteland question.

Part of Minow's fear was due to the shared view that broadcast spectrum was horrifically restricted:

I did not come to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public's airwaves. The squandering of our airwaves is no less important than the lavish waste of any precious natural resource.

Needless to say, we seem to have found a work around on this question.

There'a also an interesting early statement on corporate social responsibility, which could easily be mistaken for something playing on CNBC as we speak:

You [broadcasters] can tell your advertisers, "This is the high quality we are going to serve -- take it or other people will. If you think you can find a better place to move automobiles, cigarettes, and soap, then go ahead and try." Tell your sponsors to be less concerned with costs per thousand and more concerned with understanding per millions. And remind your stockholders that an investment in broadcasting is buying a share in public responsibility.

Read or listen to the whole thing here.

New at Reason

Fri, 09 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

Associate Editor Michael Moynihan reveals what Britain's Tories can teach America's floundering Republicans.

Read the whole thing here.

The Center of Britain

mmoynihan@reason.com (Michael C. Moynihan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

To get a broad sense of what Britain once was, just what necessitated the rise of Margaret Thatcher, ignore the frequently referenced punk lyrics of the late 1970s, so full of manufactured rage at the ruling class (White riot! England’s dreaming! Guns before butter!). Instead, drop Yes, Minister, the classic early 1980’s television comedy of Whitehall perfidy and ministerial incompetence, into the Netflix queue. Or just find the episode “The Compassionate Society”—season two, episode one—in which the show’s protagonist, Minister Jim Hacker, attempts to halt a massive National Health Service (NHS) hospital project which bequeathed to London 500 full-time nurses and doctors but housed not a single patient. Arrayed in defense of the plan are the usual interests: the tub-thumping left-wing union leader (a send up of the militant socialist head of the mineworkers union, Arthur Scargill), Downing Street spinmeisters, and various members of Parliament shilling for self-interested constituents. An advisor defends the project, telling Hacker that one must “sort out the smooth running of the hospital. Having patients around would be no help at all.” It was, unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Thatcher’s favorite episode.

It isn’t hyperbolic to say that this was more or less the government the Iron Lady inherited—a bloated, free-spending state, full of make-work jobs jealously guarded by union toughs. It was a system that Thatcher would help delegitimize and then effectively destroy. The heavy lifting was done (thank you very much) by those heartless Tories, though by 1997 voters decided it was time to return government to the more compassionate hands of Labour.

And Tony Blair’s “New Labour” didn’t win the 1997 election so much as they pushed the Conservative Party to the edge of oblivion. The Tories retreated having lost a massive 178 seats, its biggest defeat in almost a century. For the Conservative Party leadership, it was an existential crisis.

Pop stars that, 10 years previous, excelled in writing songs about the forgotten British miner were now popping champagne corks at Number 10 Downing Street. These would be the years of “Cool Britannia”; Red Wedge was dead. But the honeymoon of pop and politics was mercifully—and predictably—short. Noel Gallagher, guitarist of the seminal 1990s Britpop band Oasis and early adherent of New Labour, soon grumbled that the prime minister was forgetting the working class and acting like an American president. This Tony talked god, was chummy with President Bush, and fancied himself a liberal internationalist. Indeed, the rebranding of Labour, according to Blair biographer Anthony Seldon, resulted in far more criticism from the traditional left than the Tory right. Blair would govern from the center.

Fast-forward to early 2008: Prime Minister Gordon Brown is wildly unpopular and local council elections resulted in Labour’s worst showing in 40 years. Barely a week after the catastrophic defeat, a YouGov poll put Conservative Party support at 49 percent and Labour at 23 percent, its lowest rating since polling records began in the 1930s. (Though it is tempting to blame an easy culprit like Iraq, Labour was 11 points ahead of the Tories just eight months ago, and this week’s Economist leader, which asks if “Gordon Brown is doomed,” doesn’t even reference the war.)

A certain amount of this Labour collapse is attributable to a palatable alternative: Conservative leader David Cameron, the Eton-and-Oxford party boss who professes a love of The Smiths and began a recent Times editorial with the cringe-inducing line “Radiohead are one of my favourite bands.”

But it’s not the pathetic hipster pose that has attracted so much positive attention from both voters and Fleet Street journos, but Cameron's bold (some say facile and opportunistic) attempt to rebrand conservatism in the style of New Labour: "I made changes to and with the Conservative Party over the last 18 months for a very clear purpose, to get us back into the centre ground, to get us into a position where people listen to what we were saying, where we are more in touch with Britain as it is today."

It’s getting crowded in the center of British politics.

Even after his stunning local election victory, Cameron continued to burnish his centrist credentials, writing this week in the lefty paper The Independent that "If you care about poverty, if you care about inequality, if you care about the environment—forget about the Labour Party…If you count yourself a progressive, a true progressive, only we can achieve real change."

Cameron didn’t always consider himself a “true progressive.” When running for Parliament in 2000, he repeatedly dealt the social conservative card, grumbling about legislation that was "anti-family" and warning that it would force the "teaching of homosexuality" into British schools. When he took over the party leadership, Cameron jettisoned the tradition talk and spoke of welcoming gays and lesbians into the party fold, admonishing the Tory old guard for not supporting domestic partnership arrangements. The perpetually peeved Thatcherite Norman Tebbit grumbled that he didn't think "Tory supporters have gone soft, but I think the Tory leadership believes the electors are too soft to take the hard decisions which the country is now facing."

Others argue that the dash to the center—the “modernization”—is vindicated by recent electoral success and recent polling data. "The modernisers were right,” Times columnist and former Tory policy wonk Daniel Finkelstein trumpeted after the election. “Their critics were wrong."

It’s hard to argue with success.

The days following the Conservative rout saw nearly every political columnist on the island considering the future of Gordon Brown. The Spectator wondered what Brown “could learn from Hillary Clinton.” In the 1990s, when Labour was emerging from its punishing wilderness period, it took on countless Clinton operatives as consultants to micromanage its Clintonian rightward drift. But perhaps it’s time for American politicos—i.e. Republicans—to tear a page from the British political playbook.

The political landscape in America is hardly analogous to that of England. Despite Blair’s public piousness, fealty unto God isn’t a prerequisite for a presumptive prime minister. Nor do issues like abortion, the death penalty, or stem-cell research dominate the political culture. British conservatism is in many important ways distinct from its American cousin. But as many American conservatives have noted—David Frum in his book Comeback and his National Review colleague Jonah Goldberg—America too is becoming more socially tolerant and, if the Republican Party is interested in a successful future, a Cameron-like shift to the center on issues such as gay marriage and the drug war is advisable.

As political scientist Morris Fiorina points out in his book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, both residents of red and blue states are “basically centrists”; American's aren't "red" or "blue" but various shades of purple. As conservative commenter David Brooks pointed out in 2001, "Although there are some real differences between Red and Blue America, there is no fundamental conflict."

Pat Buchanan's declaration at the 1992 Republican convention that there was a "religious war" raging in America, a "war for the soul" of the country, seems preposterous in retrospect. With a strong majority of Americans supporting Roe v. Wade, a clear majority supporting civil unions for gay couples, and the very real possibility of the country electing an African-American president, it's time for the Republican Party to borrow from the Tories if they want to recapture the center ground.

Michael C. Moynihan is an associate editor of reason.

Mike Gravel Crosses Over

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:39:00 EDT

No comment:

Will Ron Paul Support a Third Party Candidate? Ask Ron Paul.

dweigel@reason.com (David Weigel) — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:06:00 EDT

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has launched his web site, and as the boys at Third Party Watch point out, it's calculated to make him look like Ron Paul's heir. No surprise there. Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips pushed delegates to nominate Baldwin over Alan Keyes on the cryptic promise that Paul secretly supported Baldwin and that the vast riches of the Paul campaign were "resources we can look to."

I saw Ron Paul on Wednesday, at a signing event for The Revolution, and he told me he won't endorse Baldwin or Barr. He'll kinda-sorta endorse both. He won't stop them from using photos of him or talking about his campaign.

"Chuck was in my office today to say hello," Paul said. "but I haven't said anything about supporting either one of them. I support both of them in what they're doing, and I encourage them, but that's all."

"Maybe you'll endorse McCain and surprise everybody," asked one of the people walking out of the event with us. "That would surprise me, too!" said Paul. But this is actually a sticking point in the Paul campaign: Some people in his circle want him to swing his weight behind McCain once the primaries are over. At the moment, they're being overruled.

On a related note, back in Pennsylvania I asked Paul if he'd weigh in and help the "Ron Paul Republicans" who are running for office using all or part of his platform. He's started doing so in earnest, buoyed by the easy victories of candidates like BJ Lawson. Here's a quick-'n'-painful endorsement he shot for Amit Singh, fighting for Virginia's 8th district (a safe Democratic seat held by the deeply flawed Jim Moran).