Free Will and Democracy

In 1797, the Reverend Timothy Dwight, then president of Yale University, argued “...that if God had decided from all eternity that an individual's fate was to die of smallpox, it was a sin to interfere with the divine plan through a man-made trick like vaccination.”

Sound familiar?

Everyone has their own conception of what a god or God is, how he or she interacts with the world. We cannot possibly address all concepts in a morning essay. However, the line of thinking implicit in Reverend Dwight's argument, and present too in Candidate Mourdock's recent comments on pregnancy resulting from rape, is of a god that influences or guides our behavior.

Probably the most useful image of God in this instance is of the Platonic God: The God represents in his or her divine instance all that is good or perfect. To illuminate our behavior, we have only to ask, “Is my behavior emulating what would be the behavior of one who is perfect, and perfectly good?” If so, the behavior is likely acceptable, if not, one may wish to reconsider.

But that is not the god that Dwight and Mourdock envision. Their god has a plan, and interfering with the plan is the wrong, for the simple reason that we cannot know the plan aforehand, and it is then assumed that what ever occurs is the plan!

Notice, however, that the God of Dwight and Mourdock is indistinguishable from a non-god, indistinguishable from the absence of any god. It is impossible to discern, using their logic, that there is a god in the universe. Saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will is logically equivalent to saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is Nature's natural outcome – there is no test that could be administered to determine the difference.

Mourdock's conclusion rhetorically begs the question...

But the line of thinking is more insidious than even that. Implicit in reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't interfere is to deny the concept of Free Will, the concept that we can (and should!) make our decisions and choices upon the best available information currently at hand.

Present at our nation's founding were individuals steeped in Enlightenment ideals, individuals who were willing to place Free Will front and center of our public and political discourse. A Democracy cannot exist without Free Will, and the exercise thereof. Freely we can make arguments for or against our behaviors, for or against laws and policies that may constrain that behavior, and freely we can submit to the conclusions. However, democratic discourse has no place for vacuous appeals to invisible authority, no place for attempts to eliminate the exercise of Free Will from individuals and replace it with one person's concept of what should be.

People who exhibit thinking like Mourdock (we can add Todd Akins as another example) have no place in public office. Their underlying thought processes hew back to the days of predestination, back to unquestioned submission to authority. Their thinking denies Free Will, denies that others have the right to exercise it, denies a foundational cornerstone of Democracy.

In so doing, they reveal that they are unfit for public office in our Democracy.

2012 Election - Work Will Remain After The Voting

When a friend asked if I would like to provide an essay for her blog about the election, I quickly agreed. It didn't seem like it would be too difficult: I have strong opinions, I've written about them for some time: How hard could it be?

It turned out to be much harder than I anticipated. This election is presenting me with some challenges that I just don't recall any previous election presenting. I know who I am going to vote for, but it seems woefully inadequate, woefully irrelevant. Let me explain:

I find the big social issues to be a continued source of disbelief: You mean, after the Civil War, Woman's suffrage, the passage of the 14^th Amendment (with its Equal Protection Clause) and the 15^th amendment on voting, we STILL insist on attempting to segregate people from general equality based upon some aspect of their lives? We STILL insist on attempting to force conformity to one particular set of religious beliefs, even as those beliefs are undergoing internal revision themselves and don't speak for all of us? Bah.

So, it has been easy for me to vote against the party that continually comes down on the discriminatory side of things – that somehow eschews calls for equality and advocates against women frequently, against a gender-blind definition of marriage. Add to that their almost fanatical support for increasing the means to inflict violence, and its a no-brain-er.

2008 was exciting. Here we had an articulate black man who voiced concern for those who don't get a fair shake; concern for those who face injustice and inequality; and who, more than anything else for me, was willing to advocate for a restructuring of our out-moded and poor system of health care that costs all of us too much and denies coverage to many, specifically many who need it.

He did exactly that, too. Once President, Barack Obama continued pushing to reform the system of health delivery, striking bargains to make the result palatable to Republicans, Democrats, the Insurance and the Health Care Industries.

Of course, what we got represents all sorts of compromises, and in a spectacular play against the nation and for the furthering of their own interests, members of the Republican Party unanimously voted against it – voted against a remodeling that looked surprisingly like plans put forth by their own party 30 years previously; a plan that strongly resembled a successful State Plan enacted in the previous decade.

In the intervening time since then, President Obama has come out in favor of Gay Marriage, and has allowed the Pentagon to repeal their nefarious 'Don't Ask; Don't Tell' policy.

So, here we are in 2012. There is a new gorilla in the room, but nobody is talking about it. Neither Republican candidate Mitt Romney, nor re-nominated Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Both, in fact, seem bent on side-stepping THE major issue of this election (and perhaps our lifetime and more), turning the whole processes into a frustrating side-show of irrelevancies.

Mr. Romney, following his party (actually, almost re-inventing himself to be crueler and more prejudiced against practically anyone who isn't wealthy and white and male than was evident during his tenure as Governor) has brought up the old, tired drudges about taxes and spending and jobs, as though we won't see through it again. His running mate, true to form, has sponsored a non-sense budget that panders exclusively to those who extract rent from the economy, and imposes austerity on those who work.

The gorilla, of course, is the outsized (over 40% of our economy!), enormously detrimental Financial Sector with its reckless debt creation, speculation, and extractive activities that drove us to the brink of ruin four years ago, and its continued existence in current form which will only repeat the cycle. The financial sector has driven debt creation, both private (which we, as a nation, are wallowing in), and public (as the falsely strong dollar elicits large trade deficits, piling on government debt as foreign traders recycle their American dollars in Bonds).

I want a champion who will go to Washington and take on the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) sector without concern for re-election, without concern for the opposition by the malefactors who daily steal the real productivity of the masses. I want a hero who will advocate a return to a true, classical economy, where debt is used to finance manufacturing expansion, where the unearned, 'free lunch' asset appreciation gains (Capital Gains) don't drive the economy nor contribute to outlandish awards to some.

I want a Neil Barofsky, or an Elizabeth Warren, or a Bill Black to go. Each has shown the fortitude to stand tall on this issue; each has worked in their way to raise awareness or to gain a foothold to battle it. Each has clearly demonstrated that they understand both what is happening, which of many possible solutions might give the best outcome, and the urgency with which this is needed.

Alas, outside of Warren who is running for the Senate, the others are not on the ballot. So, that leaves:

Mr. Romney, of course, who earned his fabulous wealth through this very means, borrowing and then saddling others to pay it off, while extracting a fortune from that very same debt. It is inconceivable that a Romney administration would promote the dismantling of the outsized banks and a return to a stable economy based upon real labor, real production, where real people perform real tasks to earn a real living.

President Obama, who has shown only a superficial awareness of this issue, and has so far backed away from any real attempts to address it or even communicate that he is considering it.

Hence, the lackluster feelings I have for this election. I will cast my vote for Obama, recognizing that my political participation will have only just begun at that point. That in order for us to gain any leverage, for us to stave off the austerity measures that the financial elite are cooking up for us, we will have to continue to participate, continue to advocate, continue to Occupy the public spaces.

Women Are Not Moral Agents And Must Be Subjugated For Their Protection (And Male Gratification)

That would be your conclusion if you listen to the current rhetoric or view the pending legislation emanating from the Republican members of Congress. Clearly, women are incapable of making moral decisions, and must remain subjugated in the best interests of society.

We have a long history of the difficulties women face when accusing a man of rape. They, rather than the accused, often go on trial: How were they dressed, how did they act – it's not enough that they didn't wish to have sex, or that they perhaps indicated as much; unless they took every precaution, denied him at every turn, perhaps they wished it? And now, we have bills presented that would change a rape victim's status to that of 'rape accuser'.

Notice how that changes our perception: A victim is somehow noble, pure, while an accuser can be dirty, have hidden motives, perhaps even speak falsely.

The underlying issue is this: How are men to engage in pre- or extra-marital sex if they can be easily convicted of rape? Their reputations can be tarnished, their marriages split, if women are empowered to accuse them of their dirty actions. No, better to cast doubt on the woman's actions, make it difficult for her to prove, have society aid by labeling her a tramp, a floozy, a trollop. She's not a victim, but just an accuser (it wasn't rape, until she realized he wouldn't leave his wife for her, he'll argue.)

Strange how father-daughter chastity balls have become popular amongst the conservative crowd: But where are the mother-son chastity balls? Why isn't abstention of equal importance for men as it is for women? Why shouldn't the penalties for pre- and extra-marital sex be high for men, also?

Men have had it good for so long: In the dominant position, women were property, sex could be taken at will, and any women who dared to speak up would have to suffer humiliation, while the men could brag about their exploits, free from any pejoratives.

The attempts to keep women subjugated continue, by denying them moral agency. Movements abound to force a rehearing of Roe v. Wade, in the hopes that it will be overturned. More stringent anti-abortion laws have been proposed (including the condoning of vigilantism in South Dakota!). Strangely, even the availability of contraceptives (which can prevent the conditions that would lead to abortion!) have been under continued attack (I see that Planned Parenthood faces a major funding cut under the proposed Republican budget). All appears to be part of an effort to force women to bear more children – which continues the power asymmetry, forcing women into marriage for economic reasons, or forcing them to bear the economic difficulties of attempting to raise children alone while working (which aids in keeping them from rising as far in the workplace.)

The position taken is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong. Interestingly, though, allowances are made for medical reasons, and instances of rape (and the aforementioned changes appear to be an attack on closing this loophole.) Most religious organizations have accepted that abortion in cases of rape and incest is allowable.

But that reveals that abortion is not an absolute: That it is a decision, that a choice can be made between this life and that life. It sets up judges and doctors as moral arbiters, but denies moral agency to those most affected by the decision: The pregnant woman. It continues our history of female subjugation, suggesting that men are more capable moral agents, and that women are not suited to make difficult decisions for themselves.

Our views of personal liberty should suggest otherwise. Our views should always motivate us to give individual moral agency as freely as possible – that is the very meaning of liberty. We want those closest to the question, those who will live with the consequences, to have the freedom to make the decision. Equality is there, too: If we tier our giving of moral agency, then we are creating inequality, also.

Women are equal moral agents to men (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary!), fully capable of engaging in moral and civic life to the same degree as men. And in the case of abortion, the woman, who for whatever reasons is considering it, is the individual who will be most affected, who will most carry the consequences, who will remember. So, it only stands to reason in a free and equal society, that the pregnant woman, perhaps in consult with her friend, her clergy, her doctor, her husband, or perhaps alone, is given the right to exercise her moral agency and make the decision without interference.

There is nothing in these proposed laws that make society a better, freer place in which to exercise our individual liberty. They are decidedly skewed towards female subjugation, towards returning to a previous time. But when the previous time involved deep subjugation, an asymmetry of power, there is nothing noble about either the time or the conditions that made it so.

Sure, some men will argue that without these laws they are losing some of their liberty. But, any freedom that comes from inequality is a false freedom, for it can be quickly lost if power shifts. No, real, enduring liberty comes only when it is derived from the interactions of equal members of society, exercising their moral agency, and equally free to do so. Equal members who have to adhere to the same social mores, the same customs, where an interaction is not asymmetrical, but equally acceptable or equally unacceptable.

It also means the freedom to choose the life that we will live, defined by the choices we make. We have the liberty to choose as unacceptable some behavior, and refrain from that behavior ourselves (and perhaps influence others to copy our actions!). But in claiming that freedom, we must have the courage to grant the same freedom to all others, and the wisdom to comprehend that they won't all make the same choices we make, and will live different lives. Freedom is multifaceted, and attempts to constrain it to a single viewpoint, such as these Republican proposed laws, must be met and beaten back in the interests of all.