Election Choice(s)

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has been running 'The Election Choice' series about major policy differences between the two candidates. Here is what they have so far:

Health Care (Joseph Rago)

Taxes (Brian M. Carney)

Unions (Jason L. Riley)

Energy (Joseph Rago)

Trade (Mary Anastasia O'Grady)

Education (Joseph Rago)

More issues to be posted daily.

A reason to worry?

Steven Calabresi gives his thoughts on the impact Barack Obama, if elected, could have on our federal courts. This excerpt sums up a large issue at stake in the upcoming election:

If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Fred Smith on taxes

I just came across this wonderful article in today's Wall Street Journal. FedEx CEO Fred Smith points out some essentials to improving our economy, including lowering the corporate tax rate, opening our borders, and providing incentives to our nation's workers. Here's some of the highlights, part of which directly relates to Zach's post three days ago.

"The politicians deplore the fact that we have a disparity of income," he says, but "the only way to make a blue-collar person earn more is to invest in capital, training and infrastructure. So the more you tax capital, the more you hurt workers." He estimates that about 70% of the return from FedEx capital expenditures is captured by workers in the form of higher wages as their productivity rises.

He sees a big problem in that so few Americans now pay any income tax. "We're now at a point where a very large part of the population pays no federal income tax at all. When you have a majority of the population that realizes that you can transfer money from the productive to themselves, that's one of the great questions for the future of civilization, as far as I'm concerned."

Heller and Roe

Jason pointed us to this gem from The New York Times Washington section, written by Adam Liptak. And it pains me to say that our criticism is less directed at any Times writer than the eminently respectable Judges J. Harvey Wilkinson III and Richard A. Posner. The article details the (probably exaggerated) criticisms of the recent D.C. v. Heller decision by conservative legal theorists, comparing the reasoning to, of all cases, the majority in Roe.

The judges [Wilkinson and Posner] used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

Not quite. There are certainly practical reasons why judges might defer to legislatures (as the pragmatist Posner will tell you). Originalist jurisprudence, however, holds that issues like abortion should be left to state legislatures because that is what the Constitution intended. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there an explicit right to privacy that the Roe majority so egregiously relied upon. The framers of the Bill of Rights quite explicitly, whether people wish they had or not, dealt with firearms.

This is what Antonin Scalia means, in his Heller majority opinion, when he says that certain policy options are off the table. If the Second Amendment did not exist, or if an abortion amendment did, the 'conservative' legal reasoning on both issues would be far more similar. Scalia et al. would have been happy to leave absolute gun control to the political process if it was something the Constitution allowed the political process to consider.

“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”

Wilkinson is correct in one regard. This is exactly what the court did in Roe. But any other reading of the Second Amendment besides one that guarantees an individual right is sorely mistaken. The text is as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights does the phrase "right of the people" refer to a government's right instead of an individual's. The Bill of Rights was adopted, after much petitioning on the part of anti-federalists, to protect rights of individuals against the state. Just because we tend to think of rights these days as entitlements doesn't mean this has any basis in historical, Constitutional reality.

Scalia and District Court Judge Laurence Silberman provide further historical evidence regarding the term 'militia.' Needless to say, the framers were not thinking of any arm of government, like the National Guard, that would be tasked with saving itself from itself. They were referring to bands of neighbors and citizens who may find it necessary to form a militia to defend their rights against a particular regime. If this seems outdated and absurd today, the amendment process is quite explicit too.

“There is now a real risk that the Second Amendment will damage conservative judicial philosophy” [says Wilkinson] as much as Roe “damaged its liberal counterpart.”

The difference is that liberal judicial philosophy is whatever liberal judges want it to be. Heller does not change the fact that originalists place the utmost respect in what the Constitution allows and forbids.

Cartoon of the Day

This cartoon has been making its way through the conservative blogosphere. Hat tip: JJG.

Lerrick and the "Tax Tipping Point"

Adam Lerrick, economics professor at Carnegie Mellon, wrote a nice article for The Wall Street Journal's editorial page today which asks, "How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?" He discusses the implications of Barack Obama's proposed tax code, based around the always-nebulous liberal concept of 'fairness,' on our nation's most productive workers.

It's certainly worth a read, as is the entire page, but his succinct summation of the process already underway was my favorite part:

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

Whither Burke?

Edmund Burke's Wikipedia page is not particularly impressive. It consists of a biography, a summary of his positions on the American and French Revolutions, and a "legacy" section that contains mostly quotes from his admirers and critics. There is little about his thought that is not tied up in specifics. Ludwig Wittgenstein's page appears to be at least five times as long.

It would be a lot to ask college students, who seem to detest anything that could possibly be labeled 'conservative', to read Burke. It is not a lot to ask the philosophic and academic communities to give him the time of day. And it could only help the state of conservative discourse in this country to heed Burke as a starting point before we get into whatever it is we've been getting ourselves into.

Italian Unification was achieved by a brain, a heart and a sword. There is not a lack of the latter in American conservatism, for it would be hasty to say that much air has been let out of our status as a center-right nation of, largely, patriots. There is plenty of the former. Those of us initially attracted to conservatism because of its empirical aims have more data than we can parse to use against opponents of a flat tax, or sound money or the surge. The American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, last I checked, are still productive.

But Giuseppe Mazzini's arrival continuously eludes us. We have endorsed and supported McCain-Palin for more than a few reasons, many of which we may discuss in the next two weeks (full disclosure: the author has been associated with the campaign). There is little doubt in our mind that McCain-Palin is the less expensive, more responsible and generally preferable option. Still, no one has prioritized reestablishing a foothold in an intellectual tradition that, ultimately, provides the soil for conservative policy ideals. Some of us saw the plants flourish and looked for the seeds, but for most conservatives the process is more linear. It makes more sense.

What is the reason that conservatives seek high office? Do they want to talk about people, to people or with people? Where does our seriousness come from? And what are the implications of our thought?

I see John McCain and Sarah Palin every night. Where is Edmund Burke?

Election Time... Let's talk about trade

Seeing how this blog is not intended to be focused on sports, I find it necessary to address another topic. One of my favorites; free trade. The upcoming election provides us with two candidates whose voting records are entirely different. Senator McCain has been an unequivocal supporter of free trade whose voting record can be seen here. Despite his claims that he does, indeed, support free trade, Senator Obama's voting record and economic plan suggest otherwise. Hopefully, if elected, Senator Obama will revoke his populist comments, but his prior record gives us little reason to believe that that will be the case.

More Athletics

Congratulations to Scott Mosher and the Essex boys soccer team for solidifying the top seed in the upcoming playoffs. Unfortunately, the season ended with a heartbreaking 1-0 loss to North Country, but a 13-1 record is not too shabby. Hopes are high for the Tri-Sabers in their attempt to bring the trophy back to Essex in the year of the program's 50th anniversary. They play their quarterfinal match on Friday against the winner of Burlington vs. Brattleboro. Assuming the favored Burlington wins, they could provide a tough test after only losing to Essex 1-0 a couple weeks ago. Essex certainly has a big edge, but Burlington's goalie is very good and sometimes a hot goalie and a lucky break is all it takes to win a soccer game. Fortunately, Essex boasts David Ramada (who, according to my unbiased opinion, is the top netminder in the state) and some talented underclassmen scattered across the field. They shouldn't have too much trouble claiming a spot in the quarterfinals. If anyone wants to read more on the Tri-Sabres and their outlook on the postseason, I'm sure that "Sport Shorts" in the Essex Reporter will have some in-depth analysis on the upcoming matchups.

MVP thoughts

It's that time of year when we get to hear utterly ridiculous arguments as to why various undeserving players somehow deserve the MVP award. The two races this year are both intriguing, yet completely different. In the NL you have many very good players, but one, Albert Pujols, who is head and shoulders above the rest. In the AL the story is different, many solid players, but none of whom stand out. Here's my rankings:

3. Grady Sizemore- 3.48 WPA (5th) , 62.7 VORP (2nd), 8.1 WARP1, .374 OBP, .502 SLG, 38 SB/5 CS, "clutch" 0.64 (12th)
2. Dustin Pedroia- 3.29 WPA (6th), 62.3 VORP (3rd), 9.8 WARP1, .376 OBP, .493 SLG, 20 SB/1 CS, "clutch" 1.47 (1st)
1. Joe Mauer- 4.88 WPA (1st), 55.5 VORP (8th), 9.6 WARP1, .413 OBP, .451 SLG, "clutch" 1.42 (2nd)

These three would be followed by A-Rod, Kevin Youkilis, Carlos Quentin, Aubrey Huff, Josh Hamilton, Justin Morneau, and Ian Kinsler. Best of luck to all the candidates, may the most valuable player, and preferably the most noble, win.

Manifestly Even, If That Makes Sense

Tampa Bay: 97-65, 4.78 Runs Scored/Game, 4.14 Runs Allowed/Game
Boston: 95-67, 5.22 Runs Scored/Game, 4.26 Runs Allowed/Game

Tampa Bay: Pythagorean Over/Under 5.2 (wins over expected record)
Boston: Pythagorean Over/Under -1.0 (wins under expected record)

Tampa Bay: Hitter VORP 159.4, Pitcher VORP 291.0, Defensive Efficiency .710
Boston: Hitter VORP 238.4, Pitcher VORP 276.0, Defensive Efficiency .699

I would say, Jeremiah, that the only thing manifestly better about the Rays this season is their storyline.

ALCS Lost, Virtue Regained?

This post may also appear in an upcoming issue of The Cowl, Providence College's student newspaper. Enjoy this sneak peak.

Rooting for the Red Sox during their 86-year championship draught was difficult, but good for the soul. It taught humility, perseverance and hope. Providence College President Fr. Brian Shanley, O.P., Ph.D., whose impressive moral character was formed during a lifetime of Fenway futility, often used to cite his Sox in reference to the problem of evil.

In 2004, however, the Red Sox won the World Series and everything changed. The virtuously loyal were justly rewarded, but sycophants flocked to the proverbial bandwagon. The concurrent success of the Patriots and Celtics created a perfect storm: the green-eyed monster of envy had metamorphosed into a Green Monster of jealousy, and an institutional feeling of entitlement loomed like a massive Citgo sign.

I am not denigrating this Red Sox team. I did not boo David Ortiz minutes before his miraculous home run. I was not affronted when the Red Sox lost the division, lost three games, and finally lost the ALCS, all to a manifestly better team. Job never did curse God; many Sox fans, however, have not even waited for the second cow to perish.

Let us hope this loss will restore some of the lost virtue to Red Sox fans. For an immediate boost in character, however, I suggest becoming a follower of our beloved New York Mets.

Welcome to The Ennobler

The Ennobler is a blog designed to provide commentary on politics, law, philosophy, economics, religion, literature, ethics and even athletics.

We do not necessarily seek to create a forum for the support of free markets, individual autonomy, legal textualism, metaphysical truth or empirical verification. Our brand of conservatism will be dignified only if it deserves to be. Meanwhile, we seek to ennoble that which is worth ennobling.

Join us.