First and foremost let me welcome Justin. A future blood-sucking lawyer, he is sure to add tons to the discussion. And don't let his affinity for the hapless Braves or 23 minute long guitar solos alter your opinion of him.
A couple things before I respond to Justin's post on this piece. One, I'm not a fan of modern jazz but more an avid follower of Cool Jazz and Jazz Standards (was that douchey enough sounding?). On a more serious note, Justin refers to my "blatant conservatism". I do not consider myself a conservative and actually disdain the term. I consider myself a classical liberal or libertarian and disagree with modern American conservatives on a plethora of issues.
I'm not sure I understand Justin's first point. Of course Obama is very smart. Of course he works hard. But so what? What has he ever accomplished that deserves serious recognition? What material substance has he contributed to the world that garners the unbelievable praise, dare I say worship, he constantly receives, which culminated in the granting of this award?
I absolutely disagree with Justin's second argument. Since when is it "arrogant" to hope that the government that rules you fails? Were the founders "arrogant"? Was Thoreau arrogant? King, Jr.? Of course not. They were extremely courageous men who fundamentally disagreed with their government's policies and consequently took action to try and stop their success. To do any less would be to sacrifice their core principles and beliefs.
Concerning your final points:
1. I'm not even sure the award itself really matters. I just find the motives for awarding it and people's reactions to the recipient very interesting.
2. From a practical standpoint, I have great difficulty awarding a "peace" award to someone who has shown little aversion to ending either war, ending the Wars on Drugs, Prostitution, etc..., empowering the federal government to detain virtually anyone they want for whatever they want for however long they want... You get my point. He ain't much different than Bush in any discernible sense (at least not yet).
3. His acceptance or rejection of the award really shouldn't determine peoples' views of him. History and one's own interpretation should do that. But there I'm definitely being too idealistic.
Great post Jbo. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
I would just like briefly respond to Will's criticism, and then I'll drop the topic. As to my first point, I was merely trying to show the inaccuracy of the author's claim that Obama's selection as editor of the Harvard Law Review was because of his race and not his proficiencies, because the criteria involved in the process necessarily require high skill in order to achieve. The point is a narrow one, and I was more seeking to illuminate one example of author's lack of attention to the facts than to criticize his whole argument.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the second point, I think the idea of hoping a government will fail is a philosophical one, and centers around an idea of means and ends. To hope that a government fails means that it will not achieve its ends. In a case where the ends of a government's policies differ from one's own desire for a nation's ends, then it is understandable to hope for its failure. If it is a government's goal to create a racist state(in the case of King Jr.) or to make a nation that forcibly subordinates a colony (the founders), then the end that an individual in the case would like to see is different, and it is acceptable to hope for failure. But in a case where the individual's ends and the government's ends are shared (improved economy, better healthcare, etc.), then it seems arrogant to me to hope those ends will not be achieved merely because one disagrees with the means to get there.
When it comes to the battle between state control and individual liberty means and ends are the exact same thing. Consequently, the government's goal of "better healthcare" will never be the same as my idea of "better healthcare" because our premises for achieving what appear to be the same goal are radically different. As a result one has every right to "hope the government fails".
ReplyDeleteI think where Justin and I disagree with you Will is that there are quantifiable goals in the health care and macro econ debate. A health care system that delivers better care for fewer dollars spent, and an economy that exhibits strong growth without the roller coaster ride of real business cycles. Dogmatic philosophical beliefs like absolute libertarianism simply become obstacles to a more desirable society.
ReplyDeleteI understand there is some trade off to be made, and if liberty is given an infinite value then you could argue health care of the kind seen in Sweden, for example, is "worse" than the U.S. but I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think it's worth the nearly 7% of GDP cost differential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons). Not to mention the moral arguments about universal health care.
Yes, it is quite obvious we disagree on a fundamental level. My only point is I don't know how to "make healthcare better" (what ever that means). I only know what is best for me. You and Justin assume you, or more appropriately the government, knows how to "make healthcare better". This is Hayek's wonderful insight "that knowledge in society is decentralized and that market prices enable us to make use of knowledge that we do not and cannot possess as individuals." (via Mario Rizzo of NYU and thinkmarkets.wordpress.com)
ReplyDelete