The Totalitarian Impulse of the Left

The dating service E-harmony has recently settled with a man that was suing them for not matching him in a same sex relationship.  E-harmony is a Christian dating service that does not provide this service.  The judge ordered that E-harmony pay the man five thousand dollars, as well as pay twenty thousand to the New Jersey Civil Liberty Union, add a section to their web site that matches same sex couples, replace some of the pictures of couples on the site with same sex couples, and hire a special consultant to handle same sex issues.  This is a blatant case of an activist judge over stepping his authority and imposing his will on others.  This is not about same sex marriage.  It is about the Left and its totalitarian impulses.

This case has nothing to do with discrimination.  E-harmony did not refuse to match the man because he was gay.  It’s just that the only service they provide is matching men and women, a service that this man had no use for.  He insisted that they provide a new service.  It’s as if I went into a vegetarian restaurant and ordered a steak, and after being told that they don’t serve them, claimed discrimination and sued.  What if a judge ordered that they serve steaks, and expand their kitchen to accommodate it, and hire a special new chief, and change the décor of the restaurant to be appropriate to meat entrees?  That’s how ridiculous it is.  And it’s pretty clear that the man was less interested in finding a mate (there are plenty of web sites that will match same sex couples) and more interested in attacking a pro Christian, pro opposite sex marriage operation.  And there are plenty on the Left that would be oh so willing to help, including this activist judge.

How can a judge force a company to offer different services then it chooses to?  E-harmony has broken no laws.  Would this judge have made the same ruling if a man seeking a woman had sued a web site that only matched men with men?  Of course not, because he is not enforcing any law (which is the one and only job of a judge.)  He is attempting to force people to follow his vision of how the world should be.

This is similar to another case were a wedding photographer turned down a request to photograph a same sex wedding.  He was sued, and the judge ordered him to photograph the wedding.  This is totalitarian.  Again, there is no law that makes any one photograph any thing they don’t want to.  But the judge was not enforcing any law, he was just forcing people to follow his vision of how the world should be.

The Left is so sure that its vision of what the world should be is best that it feels justified in using what ever means it can to force it on people.  Of course, they say, the masses of ignorant people might vote the wrong way (such as prop 8 in California) but who are they to question our vision of progress and tolerance?  The Right uses no such tactics.  Although the Right is equally sure that its vision of what the world should be is best, they must convince people of it to make it so.  The Left has no need to convince people since they can force it on people with judges, despite what people think.  This is the totalitarian impulse of the Left.

These cases are multiplying, and more often then not the verdict is that judges can make any one do anything they want, with no law or precedent, just their personal vision.  But the judges that do this seem to only be judges who want to impose liberal policies, not conservative ones.  The impulse to control people (not convince them) is almost solely on the Left.

Who makes the Laws?

On election day, Californians approved prop 8, which defines marriage as between a man and woman in the California constitution.  A lot of activists are very upset about this, and say they will fight it in the courts.  Fortunately, I don't think they have a case.  It isn't just about same sex marriage.  It's about who makes the laws in a Democracy.
 
About a year ago, Californians approved a similar statute, but the California Supreme Court over ruled it because they said it violated the state constitution.  Most people thought this was a stretch, since the state constitution does not guarantee the right to same sex marriage, but none the less, the court had spoken.  So the next step for the voters was to add to the constitution the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman so that the court could not over rule it (if it's in the Constitution, it can't be unconstitutional, by definition.)  So that's what was accomplished last week.
 
So what is the activist’s case now?  They say that it's not an addition to the constitution, but a revision, and revisions require a 60% vote (prop 8 got 52%)  This would be true if there were currently a statement in the constitution that protected same sex marriage, (and thus prop 8 would contradict it, and it would be a change, a revision.) But there is no such current statement, and thus the proposition is just an addition, and only requires a simple majority vote of 50%.
 
So do the activists have a case at all?  I think not.

The underlying issue is not same sex marriage, but who makes laws.  If judges can always over rule the people, then there is no point to having a legislature or ballot initiatives at all.  We could just elect judges to life time terms to make all the decisions.  But that wouldn’t be very democratic.  Judges apply laws, but directly appointed legislators and ballot initiatives must make those laws.  But, you may ask, what if the people vote wrongly?  Well, it’s possible, but judges can rule wrongly to.  And don’t tell me that judges are wiser and can make better decisions then the people.  The argument that people can’t govern themselves is an argument that has been made by dictators and aristocrats for centuries.  The best way to make sure people do make good decisions, is to let them make decisions and live with the consequences if they make bad ones.

The activists that want judges to keep over ruling the people aren’t in favor of democracy.  They’re in favor of a certain kind of oligarchy, as long as the oligarchs agree with them.

What to expect from Obama

President Elect Obama has wasted no time transitioning to the White House, so I'll start right away blogging on what to expect from President Obama.

Obama is proving to be a very skilled politician.  I think he knows that with his party in firm control of both houses of congress, the temptation to govern from the far left will need to be resisted.  One party rule didn't serve the Republicans well from '02-'06, (and divided rule from '94 to 02' worked out very well) and Obama will be seeking a much longer term Democratic rule.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the other hand are much more foolish and short sighted.  They will try to govern from the far left, and they are much more experienced politicians then him. Obama was known in Chicago as the kind of politician that "goes along to get along", and in fact has voted with his party 97% of the time.  Whether or not he can stand up to Reid and Pelosi will be the single most important factor in the success of his presidency.  He's already appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of Staff, which is a good sign.  Emanuel is a tough strategist (he was the mastermind of the Democratic take over in '06) but he is a Clinton Democrat and not on the far left wing.  He will always take the path that will keep the Dems in power, not push the limits of socialism, which means a more moderate path.

Now for the issues. These aren't necessarily all big issues, but ones that I want to share my take on.

Iraq:  This is one area I'm actually a bit optimistic about.  Our successes over the last year have been so great that I think even Obama will not mess it up now.  If you'll notice Iraq really hasn't been in the news for some time, and no news is usually good news.  I think we may have actually won this thing, it's just not being reported (see my post on September 5th 2007).  Of course it's no thanks to Obama, who opposed the strategy that has brought us this far, but I have a feeling he will somehow claim credit for the victory, and the media and the world will give it to him.  But that's fine.  having success in Iraq is far more important then who gets credit for it.

Spending and Taxes: After declining steadily for the last 5 years, the budget deficit will probably reach an all time high this year, and should remain high for the next few.  And that's not including how Obama already promised about $850 billion in new spending some on such frivolous things as expanding the Peace Corps, and giving more the UN.  He also wants to expand universal kindergarten to age 3.  This is not education, it's day care.  Obama is trying to enshrine a civil right to baby sitting.  There is no way he can make up this much money from just taxing the upper 5% as he claims.  There is also no truth to claim that he will save it by bringing home troops from Iraq.  He's already conceded most of them will stay, and others will just get moved to Afghanistan.  He could save $20 billion at most.  Either he will have to raise taxes much more then he says, or the deficit will go up much more then he expects.

The fairness doctrine:  What Obama does on this will probably be decided by how much he lets Pelosi and Reid run the show.  I mentioned this issue on a blog post on June 27th 2007.  Many top Senate Democrats (John Kerry, Chuck Schummer, and Dianne Fienstien among them) want government to have a veto over what kind of political free speech is on the radio.  If the government doesn't like what some radio talk show hosts say, it can force him/her to be removed and replaced with another host of it's liking.  This is about the biggest violation of the right to free speech I can imagine.  I'm pretty sure it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, but that would take years, which is plenty of time for the Government to end free speech on the radio.  Oddly (but not unintentionally) this Orwellianly named "fairness doctrine" would only apply to radio. That's exactly what Democrats want, because it leans conservative.

Abortion:  Obama's position on this is clear.  He voted against requiring medical attention to babies that survive botched abortion.  (see my post on July 1st 2008) He is further to the left on this issue then the National Abortion Rights Action League.  The Democrats have as a part of there platform that they support a universal right for all women to abortions under any circumstance regardless of ability to pay (italics mine.)  In other words, the tax payer would now be the primary payer of the quarter billion dollar a year abortion industry.

All politicians triangulate a little as they move from primary to general election to office, And Obama has had a particularly interesting evolution of ideas and influences over his life, so a lot will hinge on the version of Obama that shows up. He can range from a far left socialist radical with a host of horrible friends, to a constructive moderate liberal with some useful ideas. A lot depends on who he surrounds himself with, and how he works with the opposition.

There will be plenty more to come on politics, but I'm also looking forward to using this blog more for non political big topics now that the election is over. Stay tunned for other macro topics on a variety of subjects.

Thoughts on Election Night

 
The over all voter turn out was about 121.6 million.  This is about the same as 2004 in absolute terms, and slightly lower as percent of the population.  This is surprising because voter turn out was suppose to be so high.  There was so much hype about all the new voters that would come out, but it just never happened.  I guess a lot of those ACORN registration really were just made up.  So the pollsters got this one all wrong, but I have to give them credit because state by state, they pretty much nailed the rest of the election.
 
There is some consolation for me.  The three big votes besides the presidency that I was watching, at the moment appear to have all gone the way I wanted.  Prop 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman passed in California, which is a victory against judicial activism.  Similar props passed in the two other states where they were on the ballot, Arizona and Florida.  Even one fourth of those that voted for Obama voted yes on 8, so the idea that marriage should be between a man and a woman is hardly a hateful right wing idea.  There is no other issue that people in every state always vote in favor of.
 
Norm Coleman is ahead of Al Franken by just a few hundred votes with all the votes counted, but since it falls within half of one percent, it triggers a mandatory recount.  I think it will hold up.
 
Including the Minnesota race, there are 3 others that are still not final, and two are leaning Republican, which would give them 43 Senate seats to the Dems 55 (with 2 Independents who will caucus with them.)  I am surprised that Ted Stevens looks like he'll hold on to his seat.  I despise him as much as almost any congressman.  But at least since he's now embroiled in a scandal that he will not get out of, he will be forced out, but his seat can be preserved for the GOP.

I'm skeptical about the claims that Obama's election will finally heal the racial wounds of America.  But once again I hope I'm wrong.  I hope this accomplishes all that Obama's supporters say it will.  Can Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson finally retire and never be heard from again?  Can people finally move past the 60s and knowledge that we've made huge strides since then, and we're not living in the racist nightmare of a nation they keep painting it as?  I hope so.

Similarly, I'm sure that the honeymoon period with the world will not last.  It's great to see the rest of the world so happy about what's happening in America, but it will be no time at all before they start calling us the greatest threat to world peace and the greatest perpetrators of terrorism on Earth.  A recent Economist poll showed that Obama is the clear favorite in all but two countries in the world, but the fact that 96% of Saudis support him means very little to me since that country would probably elect Osama bin Laden if he were on the ballot in a fair election in that country.  He may be choice of the great Democracies of Europe, but he is also the choice of Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.  Few people have a lower opinion of what the world thinks than me.  But a respite from the universal hatred of the world will be nice while it last.
 
Those are my thoughts on election night itself.  In a few days I will post on what to expect from an Obama Presidency.

Learning to Like Obama

Obviously this election did not go the way I wanted, but Barack Obama is the president elect, and that demands a certain respect, which I will give.  Over the last 8 years I’ve heard the most hateful and ridiculous things said about President Bush.  He’s been called a moron, and a racist, and a Nazi.  People accuse him of hating blacks and intentionally letting people suffer in New Orleans, of enjoying the suffering in Iraq, and intentionally killing people in order to enrich his corporate buddies.  I’ve even heard his family blamed for the Holocaust.  I despise people who say those things.  And I will never say anything like that about President Obama.  When I heard him speak tonight, I tried to start to like him, and it didn’t feel that bad.  I’ll have plenty of things to disagree with him on, and I’ll keep talking about those things, but I will give him more respect and more benefit of the doubt then most Democrats have given President Bush.

Republicans need to figure out how to fight for their ideas in the position they’re in.  hateful speech and ridiculous accusations won’t get anyone anywhere.  They need to learn where the line is between being the loyal opposition and being childish sore losers.  They are in the wilderness now, and will have to earn back the trust of the people.  They certainly haven’t done much to earn it in the last four years.

So I give Obama all the congratulations that he deserves, and I hope he turns out to be worthy of the trust given him, and up to the task of fulfilling the massive expectations that are on him.  I hope my fears about him are unfounded, and a hope to be pleasantly surprised.

My thoughts on the implications of this out come will be posted later, but for now, I’ll just let the moment be savored.