The Moderate Manifesto

Originally published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2004-11-18.  You can find many articles on “Moderate Manifesto” published since then by many authors since.

A spectre is haunting America – the spectre of divisiveness.  All the powers of old grudges have entered into an unholy alignment to excite this spectre: freethinker and evangelical, Moore and Limbaugh, urban radicals and exurban commuters.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as divisive by its opponents in power? 

Where is the Opposition that has not hurled the branding reproach of divisiveness against more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:

1. Moderation is sadly needed by all American powers to become itself a power.

2. It is high time that Moderates should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of divisiveness with a manifesto of moderation itself.

To this end, a Party of One assembled in Duluth and sketched the following manifesto, to be published, sadly, in only one newspaper and in only the English language.

A moderate party would be based on four principles:

1. Strive for a balance between individual liberty and public good.

2. Discuss issues openly and respectfully.

3. Provide and pay for government services at the appropriate level.

4. Use party policies as guidelines.  Individual officeholders are free to make independent decisions based on the first three principles.

We need a balance between individual liberty and public good because too much liberty for some leads to harm to others and too much public good leads to loss of liberty for all.  On the other hand, too little liberty leads to a lack of creativity and too little public good leads to a lack of infrastructure to support creativity and the movement of people, goods, and ideas.

We need open and respectful discussion of issues to allow voice for a wide range of ideas.  Hardened opinions lead only to more hardened opinions.  “Our side is right and your side is wrong.”  Ideas lead to more ideas.  Rather than debates to win voters to one candidate or another, we need conversations to define what the real problems are and what possible solutions are available.

We need to provide for government services at the appropriate levels as well as levy the taxes at those levels that provide the services.  We avoid taxes at lower levels of government and demand more services from higher levels of government.  This has several pernicious effects.  As we avoid taxes at lower levels, local governments have few resources to provide the services local communities want. 

The demand for the local services does not go away but is pushed up to higher government levels. 

Higher government levels need to raise taxes to pay for those services.  Provision of services from outside the local community leads to services out of proportion to local needs resulting in poor delivery, excessive requirements, or unused services and equipment.  As taxes at higher levels go up, the ability to tax at lower levels goes down.  Inevitably, taxes at higher levels reach a point where voters rebel, the services provided at the higher level are cut, and the lower levels are unable to make up for those cuts.

We need politicians who follow a broad set of guidelines rather than a detailed list of party policies. 

When parties have detailed policies we move toward groupthink rather than individual liberty, and groupthink is not good for the common good.  The United States Senate is often called “the greatest deliberative body in the world.”  This may be true in some committee hearings, but hardened opinions has led to more posturing and less deliberating in the general sessions.  Hardened opinions are being demonstrated in state legislatures and city councils as well.

What are some policy examples that might follow from these principles?

One of the most divisive issues is abortion.  One side wants no abortions anytime anywhere; the opposite side wants no government interference in abortions anytime anywhere.  The only way to have no abortions is to keep all fertile females away from all fertile males.  That would move far away from the first principle of individual liberty.  Even if mixing of the sexes were permitted for married couples what happens when a pregnancy goes seriously awry?  Do we sacrifice both the mother and the fetus to a principle of no abortions?  The basic problem is unwanted pregnancies.  To reduce abortions we need to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The proven ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies are to reduce abusive family situations, poverty, and ignorance.  The real discussion should be how to implement policies to reduce these problems.

The right charges that the left is weak on defense and the left charges that the right is militaristic.  But what is defense?  Is it military might that is suitable against mass armies?  Or is it international co-operation to resolve disputes?  Is it high-tech weaponry that can take out selected targets?  Or is it international police co-operation to root out terrorist cells before they can strike?

Freedom and democracy are words brandished like swords by those who claim them as their own goals.  Is freedom only granted to those who agree with a government?  Or is it the freedom to express unpopular opinions?  Is democracy only granted to those who vote for a dominant party and begrudgingly given to a large-scale opposition?  Or is democracy an open society in which people feel free to exercise their right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”?

In summary, the Moderate Party should be the party that asks the hard questions.  And by asking the right questions, might lead a consensus that will lead to a better country and to a better world.

Intergenerational payments are not a zero sum game

Many complain that Social Security is taking from the young to pay for the old.  That is, this transfer is a zero sum game where the winnings of one are equal to the losses of others.

But consider that we play another zero sum game.  Think about those who complain about paying for schools because they don't have children or grandchildren in school.

Now if the older people are paying taxes to support public schools and the younger people are paying taxes for seniors' Social Security payments, isn't the combined system a win-win situation?

And there is more to support this win-win situation.

If older people don't pay for children's education where are the doctors going to come from?  Police and fire?  Government?  Inventors of devices and medicines to prolong life?  Sports figures to entertain?

If younger people don't pay for older peoples' retirement and health, might the older people stay working longer, leaving fewer jobs for younger people?

And the list goes on.  Older people paid for the infra-structure that younger people use today.  Would we have highways, communication systems, buildings, and much else that was paid for in full by people now dead?

Terrorists win the skirmishes but not the war

Terrorists never win in the long run where there is a strong functioning government and a sense of community.  Dennis Lehane wrote a beautiful op-ed on the resiliency of Boston.  See "Messing with the Wrong City", New York Times, 2013-04-16.

Mantra should be "Tax and Invest"

For at least thirty years Republicans have been accusing Democrats of "tax and spend" as if all the evils in the country were caused by taxation and government spending.  As too often is the case, the Democrats have been on the defensive rather than making strong arguments for taxation and spending as necessary to invest in a civil society.

E. J. Dionne, Jr. stated this counter-argument succinctly, "And it should be expanding public investments in the nation’s future, not cutting them."  - "Can America still lead?" Washington Post, 2011-08-07, republished in the Star Tribune, 2011-08-09

I scribbled a few notes on our copy of the Strib about how inconsistent "tax and spend" complainers can be:

Spend on nuclear power subsidies, but don't invest in medical care for its side effects.

Low taxes for mining companies but no investment in the health care and safety of their workers or in the repair of the destruction of the environment.

Spend on a mammoth war machine, but little investment in conflict resolution.

Why should foreign soldiers be needed against native insurgents?

I've long wondered why the U.S. or any other country needs to send its armed forces to another country to fight home-grown rebels. If the rebels can fight effectively, why can't the local government soldiers fight back effectively?

First, how strongly do the fighters on either side believe in their cause? Too often, the rebels are "true believers" who think their cause will bring about a "better" world, and the government soldiers are reluctant supporters of a weak or corrupt government. The latter may be in the military because it is one of the few jobs available, and even some erratic pay is better than no pay at all.

Second, a weak or corrupt government cannot organize itself to effectively solve any problem. It either spends too much time trying to get people involved co-operatively or spends too much time lining pockets.

A foreign army can't do much about either situation unless it completely takes over the country and rules with an iron fist. Armies from democratic countries find this very unpalatable.

For the most part, foreign armies are just that, foreigners. They don't speak the language and don't understand either the customs or the politics. This was especially true in Iraq, where the foreign army created more enemies than it eradicated.

The situation may be changing in Afghanistan. According to David Brooks, "The Winnable War", New York Times, 2009-03-27, "every Western agency is finally focused on" creating a civil society. We shall see.

Fair share of taxes, just what is it?

Many writers on the left call for the "rich" to pay their "fair share of taxes". A recent example was printed in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, "Obama is right to take on the very rich", written by Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati for Common Dreams. An aside, don't be thrown by the forms at the top of the page; the full article is below the form.

So what is this "fair share"? Many define it as people paying the same percentage of their income or even paying a higher percentage for higher income. This latter is called progressive taxation. Others define it as paying for what you use of government services. For example, if you don't have kids in school, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the schools.

This latter is a very narrow-minded approach to government services. It's like saying that you don't drive anywhere, and so you shouldn't pay for roads. However, how are groceries brought to the store; how are packages delivered to your door; how does the ambulance get to your house when you have a heart attack? You'll need roads for each of these, whether you drive or not. And when you have a heart attack, you will need a doctor who most likely began his or her schooling in public schools.

Depending on others being educated is what makes many people rich. Do you think somebody like Bill Gates programmed every piece of software, wrote every piece of advertising, and wrote every piece of documentation? No, he depended on thousands of programmers, marketing people, writers, delivery people, sales people, and floor sweepers. Even the last had to be educated to read directions, cleaning supply labels, and signs in the buildings.

I don't deny that he came up with a clever idea when he wrote Microsoft BASIC, and horrors, according to the ethos of the time, he sold copies of it. He also had many other clever ideas and built a very large team to come up with more clever ideas. He also invested a lot of money into Microsoft. You can argue that he overcharged and engaged in monopolistic practices, but few would argue that he shouldn't have become rich from the effort he started. But he couldn't have done it without a lot of government support in the form of roads, schools, sewers, regulations that ensure a reliable supply of electricity, building inspections for safe workplaces, oversight of securities markets for fair buying and selling of shares in Microsoft, and on and on.

In other words, Bill Gates depended on a predictable, civilized society to create, build, and maintain his enterprise. The more money you have, the more you need a civilized society. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Somehow, our politicians have bought into the myth that rich became so by their own individual efforts and that government taxation will take funds from further investment. That would be true if government confiscated all, or even nearly all income above a certain level. On the other hand, if government didn't tax at all, there would be no infra-structure to support investment, no educated people do all the work investors need to be done, and even no educated people to use many very sophisticated products that have been produced with investors' money.

This myth has led to more and more tax breaks for those who merely move money around, and less civilized society for those who really make the increase in money possible. Because our government withdrew from many of its responsibilities because of a disdain for government and taxes, even the wealthy have become less wealthy, and many of those who the wealthy depended upon are losing almost all of their own wealth.

For more of my thoughts on taxes, see "Straight talk on taxes" as well as the articles listed in the "Related Articles" sidebar.

High taxes or appropriate taxes?

Republicans make a big thing of charging Democrats with creating high taxes, and to many Republicans, this also means no taxes are preferred.

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to run a successful business in a society without taxes. A taxless society has too many uncertainties. Uncertainties can be reduced with a civil society that sets and enforces rules. The price of a civil society is taxes. How much tax are we prepared to pay for what kind of civil society.

The question really should be do we have appropriate taxes for the society we want. If businesses needs skilled workers they will pay for them either with their own training programs, which cost money or with taxes for publicly supported schools. Otherwise, they will hope enough potential workers will pay for their own education.