Congress shall make no law...

I've spent what spare time I have researching a little bit about the philosophy behind the freedom of speech and listening intently to Dr Brandenburg’s lectures in order to write this piece. It is a break from the usual strongly worded politics that I am fond of and instead forms a response to a comment on a previous piece by a reader. Now that I do finally write this, I am more convinced of my position than before. The right to the freedom of speech is an absolute right in all senses, and it should be put before any other considerations.

So what is a “right”? Is it my right to speak out? Is it my right to express myself? Is it my right to insult you, be racist or bully you for your political or religious beliefs? It most certainly isn’t. What a right is should be more accurately described as what a right is not. However much people claim that they have a right to say something or do something, it was not the intention of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

A right is not in favour of any action by the people. On the contrary, it is against the notion of the interference of government in the life or actions of an individual. One has the right not to have one’s ability to speak freely abridged by government, and is thus free to criticise it. Thomas Jefferson said that “no just government should refuse” a Bill of Rights “against every government”. He describes rights well as a fundamentally negative concept. They restrict the role of the state and ensure that the people can continue to live in freedom and with dignity.

What, then, is “freedom” of speech beyond criticism of government? Should it come with responsibilities, or is a catch all term that results in an “anything goes” society? The freedom to express one’s self, as it should be described, is an absolute right that belongs to individuals and it those individuals who are responsible for its proper administration. Thus, freedoms come as a protection from government overstretch and are subject to the individual perceptions of members of society who utilise them, and it rests on their shoulders to ensure that society remains harmonious and free.

Unfortunately, this acknowledgement of responsibility isn’t always the case. John Stuart Mill said:

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

He also thought that to prevent the expression of an opinion may equate to the perversion of the truth. In order to maintain a good society with justice, order and well-being, it is necessary to allow the truth to prevail. These two thoughts seem to contradict each other, in that the former imposes restrictions on the latter which the latter refuses to advocate – what if the truth causes harm?

Here, responsibility comes into play. Truth, as Mill rightly says, must be ever present in society. If it does harm to an individual, is a violation of the harm principle? Mill described the individual as sovereign, and only restricts his right to sovereignty under that principle. I believe that the right to express one’s self is a personal matter, one which cannot be prevented by any other individual and is the sovereign right of that individual. If the individual feels that it is necessary to express the truth, it must be a right which is granted in order to maintain civil society, at the expense of harm caused. To suppress the truth is often to the detriment of society and infringes the individual’s right to liberty by deceiving them – truth and enlightenment are what grant liberties.

An example put to me by a reader to contradict this thought of absolute individual sovereignty and support Mill’s point of responsibility was that of violent pornography and hate speech. I shall address these in order. The former is a form of expression that most civilised societies must accept, and is a personal choice that must be protected from the interference of an overbearing state. If society does not advocate the actions in the violent pornographic material, this is of no real concern. What matters is that the individuals concerned are freely able to choose which actions they take. In this case, the participants would have to be consenting and thus the violence is counterbalanced by permission and the matter becomes purely individual.

If, however, the participants are not consenting, this is a direct violation of Mill’s harm principle, as the reader suggested. In such a scenario, the right of one individual to express themselves has violated the right of another. The two conflicting rights must then be adjudicated. Although I have not read Mill extensively, from my understanding, as a utilitarian he would most likely argue that the correct moral position would be that of benefit to the greatest number of people. Such is his concept of justice.

My own conscience tells me that in a situation where a right to expression is utilised in a fashion which infringes the rights of another, this negates the rights of the former due to an activity not acceptable on any moral basis. Rights are absolute and are individual, but they are absolute for all individuals. To restrict the rights of another individual thus results in the forfeiture of your individual rights. Order is kept by the application of morals in the execution of rights.

To use the reader’s example of “hate speech” is slightly more tenuous. That speech which infringes the right of another is most certainly an unacceptable deed. However, that which does not is an exercise in the proper and free administration of rights. Does it really cause harm to anybody if someone says something racist, or sticks their arm in the air in a Nazi salute? Bullying is another issue entirely, in my opinion, because this is expression with the intent to harm and is therefore an abuse of rights in favour of the diminishing of the rights of another. In the case of expression without the intent to harm, can anyone really dispute this use of freedom?

I believe in the individual as the supreme source of sovereignty and legitimacy. Group rights are of no major concern to me, but the rights of individuals to join a group or the rights of individuals within that group most certainly are. For example, if I take the position of one of the editorials in Vox Pop, Burke, and choose to express my dislike of nationalism by bashing a nationalist over the head with a large blunt object, am I infringing the rights of an individual or a group?

In this case, it is the group which gives me the motivation to utilise the large blunt object, but it is the individual whose rights are infringed. Likewise, if I collectively bash all nationalists over the head with said large blunt object, it is not the rights of the group that are infringed, but the rights of every individual within that group – in this case, the right to life (should I bash hard enough and blunt enough) or safety. The simultaneous use of the individuals’ right to assemble is irrelevant in the consideration of which rights are being infringed by the use of the large blunt object; either way it is to the detriment of the rights of another individual, whether that is a single nationalist or many.

With reference to a previous piece I wrote, despite the lack of express rights for a group, the First Amendment grants the freedom of assembly in addition to the freedom of expression. In order to avoid contradicting myself, it may be necessary to clarify my views. Is it not fitting that a collective of individuals can unanimously express themselves when assembled? I am firm in my stance that the right of an individual is the most important right of all and that a group does not possess rights, but the rights of many individuals is yet more important still. I believe that Justice Ginsburg was wrong to state that the freedom of expression by corporations was of no concern because they are not “endowed by [their] creator[s] with inalienable rights”. A corporation, although not its self endowed with rights, is an assembly of individuals, all of whom do possess and may execute their inalienable rights. With this thought, a corporation is acting through individuals, not vice versa, and thus is protected by the First Amendment.

The constitutional protections on the freedom of expression are described in terms of negative liberties. They are freedoms from the state. Many of the rights described in the Constitution also suggest negative liberties, but all of them express the right of an individual in some way or another. The individual is what matters, and the absolute protection of their liberties is essential to a functioning civil society. In the case of infringement of the rights of another, it is right and proper to protect the liberty of the victim – only in a state of perpetual liberty can society remain civil, although this may be a little unrealistic.

The argument could thus continue: who would ensure that liberties are protected? To what extent should those liberties be protected? Who has the right to be a judge of morality – is it absolute or perceived? These are not questions I would like to get into now, but are worth deep consideration. What I think is most worthy of your thoughts at this juncture is whether society is a valid institution, and if the individual has the capacity for morality. Does a group of individuals expressing themselves together increase the morality of each? Is it necessary to have a state to protect these rights altogether? Why not a contract for a society of individuals? I’m going back to the library...

Thomas Jefferson photo courtesy of Wallyg at Flickr.com

The Joy of Sex: Teenage Pregnancies

Underage pregnancies have always been a worry in the United States. The traditional family values that a large number of Americans still believe in are contradicted by pregnancy rates in young girls, and irresponsible teaching of sexual education and safe practice of sex have done nothing to combat this. In the 1960s the teenage pregnancy rate was over double what it is today, and a decline of 34% occurred between 1991 and 2005. This trend has been bucked by recent statistics showing a 5% increase between 2005 and 2007. Something is clearly going wrong.

America’s attitude towards sex has never been overtly liberal. The Bush administration implemented a policy known as the “global gag rule”, which prevented Family Planning Advice Centres from advertising and publicising themselves. This was lifted by President Obama in January, but the rule had already stopped the necessary teaching of safe sexual practices and use of contraception to those who needed it most.

A large number of States also preach abstinence-only education. Interestingly, Texas only requires districts to emphasis abstinence in class, rather than restrict teaching to that method alone. However, a recent survey has shown that in 94% of Texan school districts, abstinence is the only form of sexual education given to young people. Leaflets informing them about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases are often misleading or contain erroneous information. Girls in Texas under the age of 18 need parental consent to get the Pill, even if they have had a child – the repeat underage birth rate in Dallas is now sitting at 28%.

Frankly, these statistics are appalling. I am ashamed to think that such a situation could occur, where teenagers aren’t receiving the necessary information about their bodies and the curiosities which puberty entails. As a result, they suffer from underage pregnancies. It is natural for young people to want to explore their sexuality, but at such a fertile age it is also essential they are aware of the dangers involved, and the methods used to prevent them.

Earlier on this year, the BBC filmed a documentary about a school in New England where a “pregnancy pact” took place. The school was part of a strict Catholic community which refused to give contraception or good advice to teenagers on safe sex. This caused 18 young schoolgirls to deliberately try to get pregnant in order raise the children together. Not only could they not get access to contraception, but they couldn’t reach abortion clinics and weren’t taught that having children at such a young age isn’t the best idea. The headmaster was forced to resign because of the incident, and after strong campaigning the school now gives out free contraception on request, provided there is parental consent (which defeats the point).

To live in a free society, a basic education is required for everyone. Education in itself is freedom: it gives the ability to reason, to choose and to be informed about the decisions you are making. The lack of effective sexual education in the United States is appalling and causes a variety of myths and misinformation to be spread, restricting teenagers’ ability to live in a truly free society.

I myself am not a fan of the age of consent and believes that although children have a right to be free from abuse by adults and there is an age of maturity to consider such restrictions are nearly always at the wrong age or take the wrong factors into consideration. For example, the age of consent in California is 17, yet in Holland it is 12. Holland’s attitude to sex is significantly more liberated and children have a good sexual education. It is proven that those countries with a lower age of consent have a higher average age of loss of virginity. In California, the average is 14 – this in comparison to its legality is an unwanted phenomenon by many.

America needs to reform its attitude to sexual education. The constitution explicitly states the separation of Church and State, something which should always be remembered. The paternalist Christian moralising that occurs in many State governments is unnecessary and detrimental to the health of young people, as well as to their education. To reduce the rate of teenage pregnancies, more must be done to teach about the risks of STDs sensibly and critically, as well as increasing access to contraception and remembering that a woman, however much the religious right disagree, still has the right to choose.

The 14^th Amendment gives a right to privacy. But the liberal foundations of the nation also give a right to an education, and choose how to use that privacy, children must be educated. For all the pleasures that come with sex (and there are many), and the emotions that attach a couple in a strong and healthy sexual relationship, there are always risks to be considered and that young people need to be informed about correctly. I abhor the irresponsible attitude towards sexual education in many parts of the United States and can only hope that this upward trend of pregnancies soon settles.

Photo courtesy of Polina Sergeeva at Flickr.com

Frau Merkel must lose her fuzz

This week Germans went to the polls to vote in the federal election largely described as a plebiscite on the future of incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government. The Bundestag, Germany’s lower chamber, is elected on a proportionally representative system in which coalitions are almost guaranteed. After four years of the ruling grand coalition between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) the electorate has ushered in a new liberal leaning government in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis.

Ms Merkel has struggled in the past term with negotiations with the rival Social Democrats in a partnership which can only be described as awkward. Throughout the election campaign, Ms Merkel has remained fuzzy to avoid causing contention should there be the necessity for another coalition with the left-wingers. However, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), led by Guido Westerwelle, have triumphed and become the minor coalition partners with the CDU after 11 years out of office.

It seems the German public are finally fed up of the Social Democrats, who were led into the election by Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Their policies have become increasingly radical with suggestions of a federal minimum wage being introduced and taxes being imposed on stock market trades. The German economy has suffered less from the recession than most of Europe thanks to their tradition of Soziale Marktwirtschaft, an economic model focusing both on social and ethical responsibility but maintaining a market based system. The SPD’s policies, however, would challenge this latter concept.

Mr Steinmeier’s proposals would result in the loss of jobs due to struggling businesses being pressured by government to increase pay and inevitably collapsing under the strain of the recession. The federal budget deficit would increase and Germany’s economic position would wane with problems becoming more long term than expected. Where unemployment, amongst other things, has risen, it has not matched the volumes seen in other European countries. Their economic model has allowed the nation to survive the blows of Wall Street and react carefully to situations.

During the election campaign, it was necessary for Ms Merkel to play down strong partisan positions, despite supporting many of the policies of her new coalition partners. The FDP have campaigned for tax cuts and a greater focus on economic responsibility, including a balanced budget. Their manifesto proposals would put greater onus on the individual rather than the state in the areas of healthcare and pensions. They would lift Germany’s economy out of recession by easing back on stimulus packages and government spending, thinking harder before reacting to dilemmas like Opel. The liberals believe that their tax cuts could pave the way to further reforms which would include greater privatisation and focus on the freedom of the individual.

The Chancellor has had to play down some of these policy positions and may yet struggle to pass liberal reforms in the Bundestag with sufficient SPD opposition, but this new government should be stronger and more decisive than the last. As a condition for their partnership, the FDP have insisted on pushing as great a liberal agenda as possible in this government, attempting to rein in on some CDU positions like greater powers to police.

Despite the election result, many Germans appear to be moving to the left, with an increase of 22 seats for the former communists Die Linke. Their position supports a return to socialism in the style of the former East German republic, although the relative minority of deputies in the Bundestag means that they would need to reconcile their position with the SPD to pose any threat. Whilst the SPD remain in opposition they will need to reinvent their image and build relationships with the two minor left wing parties, Die Linke and the Greens. Although a coalition with Die Linke has at present been ruled out, in a future election this tripartite solution may be the only way to remove the CDU from power.

This, for now at least, is not an issue Ms Merkel should need to worry about. Her current problem is the employment of Mr Westerwelle. He strongly backs reform of taxation and has a good knowledge of liberal positions in domestic areas, but the traditional office for the minority coalition partner’s leader is the Foreign Ministry. Mr Westerwelle has tried to build up knowledge of foreign issues, but he still lacks the gusto that previous liberal foreign ministers have had. If Ms Merkel wants to make her government strong, she will need to cleverly position the FDP, but may have to sacrifice powerful foreign relations in favour of domestic harmonies.

Where Germany heads next is open to great interpretation. The election results show a stride away from the SPD with a vote in favour of market-based solutions to the current economic crisis. Simultaneously, the drop in support for Ms Merkel’s ruling CDU may show discontent in the way the government is handling problems. Only time will tell how the Germans really feel, but for now a forward thinking solution to the economy and social responsibility must ensue.

Where this election came to an inevitable conclusion, the next one in 2013 could be more revolutionary, with the lurch away from the major volksparteien being decisive in the nature of future coalitions. This time, however, the government will be defined by the FDP’s liberal leaning positions and how the mysterious Ms Merkel plans to keep them under control.

Photo courtesy of Bertelsmann Stiftung at Flickr.com

El Paso’s reformers challenge drug policy

The American attitude to drugs is one of complete and utter disdain. Their view of the whole concept as immoral and harmful to both society and government is deep rooted. Yet, does it really do the damage most Americans expect?

In El Paso, Texas, this week, the city council passed a motion supporting the need for a free and open debate on the legalisation of narcotics in their neighbouring town, Ciudad Juárez, across the Mexican border. Mexico has suffered greatly from drug cartels and the utterly illegitimate murders of police officers and federal agents. Their economy has been subject to the same recession as the rest of the world, but the war on drugs has done only further harm to it.

The Mayor of El Paso vetoed this motion and said that it would bring shame to the town, whose congressional representative suggested that an override may result in a loss of federal funding. The American attitude here is entirely wrong. The University of Texas at El Paso subsequently held a much needed debate on the future of the drugs industry and the social and economic impact it had.

The costs to American taxpayers are huge. Hundreds of thousands of people are serving sentences for minor offences related to the possession of illicit substances, and the dealing of drugs in parts of southern California results in a high death rate. The average life expectancy of a Hispanic in downtown Los Angeles is no higher than mid-30s thanks to the drug and gang related violence prevalent in the city. Law enforcement costs money, and it is a waste of time to imprison someone for being addicted to a substance instead of rehabilitating them or providing an effective support network.

What governments in the US don’t seem to understand is that prison doesn’t stop the drug industry. Many incarcerated drug dealers have links with the outside world and are able to smuggle substances within the prison walls, creating a black market of drug trading inside the establishments. Hooked prisoners will often have greater access on the inside than out, and may be driven back to crime in order to obtain more.

In 2008, more than three-quarters of a million arrests were carried out for possession of Cannabis. A poll earlier this year found that a majority of Americans would actually be in favour of legalising the drug, which is now widely available, especially in states like California. The Californian marijuana industry is highly profitable, making more than £14bn every year. In a state as strapped for cash as this one, on the verge of bankruptcy, legalisation would bring huge benefits to the economy.

With the ability to regulate the purity of the product and invest in research for mental health problems, the healthcare industry would stimulate the economy as well as being able to routinely address issues that may arise from use of the drug, which is said to be safer than tobacco. Not only this, but law enforcement would be less costly. With no arrests for possession, police can focus on clearing up hardcore gang violence (for which there would be less need with legalisation) and consumers can be ensured that the quality of their marijuana will be high and prices will be fair thanks to regulations on licenses and consumer protections.

The potential for taxation is huge. With the standard California sales tax at 8.25%, adding a premium for marijuana of 1-2% would mean revenue of £1.5bn for the state government based on the current estimated value of the industry. With the mounting budget deficit, this would be more than welcomed by the authorities. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently resorted to a state government “garage sale” to raise funds, has already supported the concept of a debate on the legalisation of marijuana in the state.

Getting the federal government to debate such an issue is not so easy a task. Several politicians across the country are in favour of reform, but President Obama has stated that “legalisation” is not on his agenda. A student group established at over 150 campuses in America, as well as several in the United Kingdom, has called for an end to the war on drugs and prohibition too. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) support the legalisation of marijuana for economic and social reasons, and call for academic debate on drug policies. In a recent campaign, they were able to stop a bill being passed in Congress that would allow the government to refuse financial aid to students with convictions related to drug use. This has forced the federal government to consider the debate more carefully, but won’t change their minds all too quickly.

The debate for better drug policies seems to be restricted to the academics and the minority of reformers in politics, but the El Paso incident and California argument show why it is important to discuss these issues. America needs to open up to new ideas and reconsider archaic positions that make the support of the tobacco and alcohol industries seem highly hypocritical. It’ll be a long and hard road ahead, but the war on drugs has to end, and America only stands to benefit from the situation.

Photo courtesy of Jack Splifr at Flickr.com

Citizens Peacefully Assembled

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they left off some basic rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was passed by the Congress four years after the first state ratified the Constitution but is recognised with similar, if not greater, importance to the original document. The First Amendment guaranteed the right to free speech, free press, free assembly and the ability to practice religion without persecution. These rights create the basis of modern American society and, alongside Jefferson’s timeless description of the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, create a fundamental understanding of what it is to be free.

Over the last two hundred years the American political system has become completely unrecognisable in comparison to the original design of the Founding Fathers. Yet, the citizens of this proud nation continue to stand up for their fundamental right to the freedom of expression above anything else. Nothing can infringe the American dedication to the First Amendment and their whole-hearted belief that they live in the “land of the free”.

A case has been brought to the Supreme Court docket, before the traditional re-opening, pleading that the First Amendment rights of corporations in the financing of federal election campaigns have been trampled on. US federal campaign finance law currently restricts the donations corporations can make directly to a campaign in an attempt to bring down the ever increasing price of elections. The formation of Political Action Committees (PACs) has allowed indirect donations of “soft money” to campaigns and resulted in policy based endorsements rather than candidate based.

The McCain-Feingold Act (2002) is responsible for these restrictions, but is now being contested in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission after an attack ad by conservative non-profit group Citizens United against then Senator Hillary Clinton was prevented from running before a Democratic Primary in 2008. The plaintiffs claim that it was a direct contradiction of their right to freedom of speech.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg said that restrictions on freedom of speech for corporations in election campaigns were acceptable because they were not “endowed by [their] creator[s] with inalienable rights”. The rest of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court bench have argued similar points, including newly appointed Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She expressed the view that the Court lacked adequate information to change campaign laws and overturn Supreme Court precedents.

The right to speak freely is an absolute necessity in a functioning democracy and Americans know this. Where the liberal justices describe a corporation as not having a constitutional right to freedom of expression, the constitution does create a freedom of assembly. Surely the constitution thus extends freedom of expression from an individual to a collective of individuals each choosing to use their right to speak freely in a unanimous voice.

The argument that these justices are attempting to put is a dangerous one and, although making federal elections at least marginally fairer in terms of funding, could set a precedent for further restrictions on the rights of groups to express themselves. Would the Supreme Court ever consider preventing a civil liberties group like the NAACP from speaking out? Perhaps New York’s vast Jewish population should be silenced? The problem found here is that members of the bench like Justice Ginsburg seem to misinterpret the freedom of expression as a solely individual right when faced with businesses. If confronted with the two groups given here, though, I find it highly unlikely the same justices would place a restriction on free speech for fear of being branded racists.

Although in general this writer finds a number of opinions from Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues to be harrowing, the right to free speech cannot be compromised. This is one area where absolutism is required and the Founding Fathers clearly stated that every American should have that right. The First Amendment explicitly gives the right to a free press (something this newspaper believes in fervently), which should surly imply that a group of individuals can also express their right to free speech.

There is a strange feeling around this case that partisan politics is being played. The Supreme Court has at times veered very close to becoming a creator of policy, rather than a fair judge of constitutionality. The Court is not, of course, there to make policy – something about the way some justices are expressing concerns on this case though suggests some party loyalties. It is well known, for example, that Democrats benefit from smaller individual donations (President Obama flourished on them in 2008), whereas the Republicans tend to rely on corporations for both soft and hard money.

If the judiciary is to maintain its independence and acknowledge their role as independents, surely the more liberal justices should instead be arguing that campaign donations to other candidates aren’t a form of free speech, rather than removing corporations’ rights to free speech altogether? Both arguments seem to make little sense, but the former should at least have some precedent in the liberal ideology of members of the Court.

It is strange to hear the conservative right of the Court defending free speech whilst the liberals try to strike it down. They should, however, reflect the views of all Americans and the best interests of their citizens. Thus, free speech must take the form of an absolute constitutional right for every American, whether in assembly or not. The question I now find myself asking is “are the liberals the new conservatives?” I certainly hope not.

The Lion’s Last Roar – Tribute to Senator Ted Kennedy

The Kennedy family has faced many trials and tribulations over the years, none more prolific than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Shortly after, Robert Kennedy was killed whilst making a bid for the 1968 Democratic nomination for President. These two outspoken liberals were joined by their brother on August 25^th, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Congress’s “liberal lion”, after a short battle with a brain tumour.

Mr Kennedy’s life was dedicated to the people of the United States, following in his brother John’s footsteps as the Senator from Massachusetts in 1962 and serving until the ripe old age of 77. He will be replaced shortly by the loyal and unwaveringly Democratic voters of the state in a special election to be held early next year. For only one term since 1926 has Mr Kennedy’s seat as senior Senator been held by a Republican, and since 1979, both seats have been reliably Democratic.

Of a family apparently cursed by death, the Senator’s survival and dedication to cause is all the more historic. He was one of the last remaining liberals who fought for their beliefs, steadfastly and unapologetically. His long history in the Congress made him a powerful and influential figure whose endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination helped propel the candidate into the DNC. The President issued a statement yesterday saying “an important chapter in our history has come to an end”.

The Senator has bore the despair of losing his eldest brother Joseph to war, John and Robert to assassins, as well as three nephews, an aide of Roberts, Mary Jo Kopechne, and most recently his sister. On Chappaquiddick Island in 1969, Mr Kennedy was responsible for a car accident causing Miss Kopechne to drown and Mr Kennedy’s potential bid for a place on the Presidential ticket collapsed as he failed to cope in the face of a crisis.

He grew up moving from school to school and in the shadow of his father’s political career and ambitions for his sons. The youngest of the four Kennedy brothers, he followed his family into Harvard, from which he was expelled for cheating before serving in the Korean War. He later returned to Harvard to gain a BA in Government and was offered a position with the Green Bay Packers. Mr Kennedy turned down the position to follow his family’s destined path and join “that other contact sport: politics”.

Winning the Senate seat that the Kennedy family felt belonged to them in 1962, using his brothers’ influences as President and Attorney General, Mr Kennedy entered Massachusetts politics at the age of 30. A sympathetic Democratic voting base saw him easily win the seat against a Republican who tore him apart in the debate. It was not until the death of Robert Kennedy that Edward had to take full responsibility for the Kennedy name and consider his role in the Senate seriously.

In 1965, Mr Kennedy had his first real Senate fight for an amendment to the Voting Rights Bill to end the poll tax. He failed by just four votes, but showed his capability as a politician. Civil rights and the equality of all Americans proved a major concern for Mr Kennedy, who was vital in pushing for changes to the Constitution for an Equal Rights Amendment, introducing it again in the 110^th Congress after winning it passage in 1972 but failing to have it ratified. He fought against the poll tax, which the Supreme Court affirmed in 1966, and against the discrimination of pregnant women in work and health care.

He was a strong advocate for universal health care coverage, calling for a national health insurance program for every American as early as 1969 and working hard despite his illness to ensure the passage of the Health Care Bill currently being read by the Senate. Over 11 million American children have benefitted from his Children’s Health Insurance Program providing a federal mandate for expansion of Medicare to children in low-income families.

Not only this, Mr Kennedy was able to muster bipartisan support for a number of important Senate bills, working directly with President Bush on the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, and was close friends with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) throughout his career. Kennedy was an institutional voice of expertise and his knowledge will be missed whilst the Senate passes some of the most important bills of this generation, but his spirit of advocacy for liberal causes will live on.

Without this statesman, the United States will be worse off for he is the last of his generation of steadfast liberals. There is hope for the future and there will be others as willing as he to take on the cause of the American people and stand up for civil rights, better health coverage and better education. The death of Senator Kennedy is a cause for mourning and a great loss to the upper house of the legislature.

For those that loved him and those that hated him, in support or opposition to his policies, Mr Kennedy’s legacy will be one of a kind of politician who puts the country before himself and his heart into his job. Senator Hatch said in a tribute that Kennedy “lived and breathed the United States Senate”. He took his brother’s immortal words to heart: “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”.

After serving nearly seven terms as a member of the United States Senate, Mr Kennedy will leave a lasting impression on America’s legislature. A family statement said Kennedy “always believed the best days were still ahead”. Of this, we have no doubt. Despite the loss of a great legislator and a political giant, we can rest assured that “the hope still lives, the dream shall never die”.

You can read a full biography of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s life in John Broder’s lengthy obituary in the New York Times. A special election to replace Sen. Kennedy will be held in January 2010.

Aberdeen Students Stand Up For Free Speech

On 19^th September students at the University of Aberdeen will launch a new independent online newspaper. This publication, called Vox Pop (short for the Latin phrase vox populi, meaning “voice of the people”), claims to be a free speech publication and promotes the right of the people to a free press. The newspaper has been created as part of a campaign by students for changes to Aberdeen University Students’ Association (AUSA).

The campaign intends to lobby AUSA for a referendum on the independence of their printed student media (“The Gaudie”) from editorial control within AUSA. At present, the Editor-in-Chief of Gaudie is the President of the Students’ Association; this is currently Robin Parker who was elected by students in March. The Vox Pop group aim to change AUSA’s position on Gaudie and call for university-wide elections for the editorial board of the newspaper, including the Editor-in-Chief.

This movement is not entirely new. In May 2003 the editor of Gaudie, Mark Highfield, resigned in protest against a Students’ Association decision to halve the 4,000 copy weekly run of Gaudie and influence the choice of editor, believing there was no financial basis for this. The editorial board which Mr Highfield led went on strike to support his protest and maintain the independence and regular publication of Gaudie.

Two local politicians, Alistair Carmichael MP (Liberal Democrat – Orkney & Shetland) and Angus Robertson MP (SNP – Moray), tabled a motion in the House of Commons shortly after Mr Highfield’s resignation supporting the independence of the newspaper and the free press. The motion expressed “concern” that AUSA was “attempting to influence the tradition of editorial independence of the Gaudie... by removing the power of appointment of the paper’s editor from the staff.” It went on to describe the move as “ill-advised” and support the freedom of the press in universities.

Halving the number of copies as was intended in 2003 would have forced the newspaper to print fortnightly. This will now be the case from September 2009, where Gaudie is printing fewer regular copies for students. Duncan Cockburn, the former Student President, called for a Sabbatical Officer to be put in charge of Gaudie’s editorial team to prevent slipping standards. It is not clear whether that would have meant a new officer would be created to edit Gaudie, or if a sitting member of the Student Executive would have taken the position. He said that the Students’ Association wanted to have “more control and management over the newspaper”.

The purpose of the Students’ Association as Editor-in-Chief is to ensure that all printed articles are legal, checking for libel or defamation. Whilst AUSA plays this role, it maintains a level of editorial control over the newspaper. An alternative suggestion to solve this problem has been to elect a new Sabbatical Officer to edit Gaudie, but unlike Mr Cockburn’s idea, keep this officer independent of the Students’ Association.

The Vox Pop group aim to hold elections for the editorial board of Gaudie to coincide with Students’ Association elections to combat voter apathy, but maintain that these elections would be for positions which are independent of AUSA. The editorial board would then be able to choose their own Editor-in-Chief, or the position would be filled by the candidate elected the board with the most first preference votes in the first ballot of the single transferrable voting system used for all university elections.

The new publication which has been launched does not intend to replace Gaudie, but show the Students’ Association that students at the university can organise and maintain an independent newspaper efficiently and responsibly without the need for their interference.

The Editor-in-Chief of Vox Pop, Alexander J. Ryland, said that “Vox Pop promotes the right of students to speak out against authority and express their own opinions and beliefs freely. It intends to represent the collective voice of the student populace by allowing them to publish articles regularly and without interference from the Students’ Association.” The editorial board of the publication is currently formed by a small syndicate who launched the paper, but they intend to fill all vacancies using an online poll and hold elections annually.

The first edition will be launched for Freshers’ Week 2009 and can be found at www.vox-pop.org.uk.

Edinburgh-upon-Elbe: Scotland in Europe

Below is the introductory page of a short, basic summary and evaluation of a placement I was on in July with the Scottish Government in Brussels. I was given £1000 from the Byron Criddle Scholarship Fund at the University of Aberdeen to do some personal reasearch. The trip was rather informal in the style of research (largely chats and observations rather than notes and interviews), but it changed my perspective on a number of things and has made me look again at the EU, giving me more focus to my research later on.

The rest of the document can be found at http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeWILHXE4JFWZGZwMmczcmhfNmdoOHd2MmN2&hl=en.

_________________

What follows is a brief evaluation of my experience on a two week placement with the Scottish Government’s EU Office and the questions which it has raised and viewpoints I have seen. It is divided into four sections – Edinburgh, European institutions, UK/Scottish interests and other – and describes how the EU appears to work from my view inside it.

With special thanks to:

Prof. Grant Jordan, Dr. Paul Cairney, Ian Campbell, Roddy MacLean and Fiona Duthie

The Scottish Government

Europe, External Affairs and Culture Directorate, Edinburgh Office

A short summary of the role of the International and European Divisions of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh follows. After spending a day interviewing a few key members of each department, this summary shows the role of Scotland in the international community and the position and identity which the current administration is attempting to create, with the purpose of preparing Scotland for a potentially independent future.

The International Division is responsible for Scotland’s trade links abroad, its representation and contributions, the promotion of the Scottish interest to friendly governments like China, India and the United States, and influencing UK representatives to international organisations.

The European Division looks at relations with the EU, the remit of the six Scottish MEPs, influencing members of the Commission and the UK representatives to the Council, as well as implementing EU directives and law in the Scottish legal system. It also deals with policy and strategy on primarily Scottish issues that are represented at a UK level. Both divisions are under the remit of Michael Russell MSP, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution and work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Whitehall.

Obamacare: He had a Dream

Despite the promises made by President Obama on the campaign trail last year, the White House has provided no effective healthcare bill to put to Congress. In fact, Mr Obama has relied entirely upon members of Congress to concoct the bill on his behalf, with the White House espousing nothing more than a broad mandate for healthcare reform. Considering the vast number of very talented policy-makers that work in the White House and the potential power of this particular presidency, it is surprising Mr Obama has failed to make good use of it. The will of the people was behind him, but his approval ratings have now dropped from messianic proportions to the same as those enjoyed by President Bush in his first year in 2001. In this year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Mr Obama joked “my next 100 days will be so successful I shall complete them in 72 days; and on the 73rd I shall rest”. Alas, perhaps it is now time for him to wake up and take power back.

The healthcare bill which is now being debated in the Senate is nothing like that which was originally passed by the House of Representatives. After Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) relied on her partisan majority to pass a bill which would inevitably fail in the Senate, the Finance Committee came up with an idea. Despite the Senate Health Committee passing the legislation, the Finance Committee has spotted two major flaws in the healthcare plan that nobody seems to have yet addressed: the budget deficit and bipartisanship.

The former of these is obviously a prime concern for the Finance Committee and costing the plans is essential to being able to take it out of the budget. What’s more, the extent of coverage Mr Obama’s utopian scenario provides (nearly-full coverage of Americans paid for largely by the rich) may only be a pipe dream. The size of the federal budget deficit is astounding and Mr Obama’s spending plans have increased it significantly, particularly with the economic stimulus packages, and directly contradicted his campaign pledge to half the deficit. The Senate must therefore find cost-cutting measures to ensure that the bill is passable, but to do that the second flaw must be addressed.

In fact, the Senate is rather good and getting bipartisan support. In this case, a group of six senators from the Finance Committee have been meeting daily to hack out the more intricate details of the healthcare bill. Led by the Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), three of them are Republican, including the ranking Republican on the committee, and three Democrats. They intend to garner support from both sides of the Senate and not take advantage of the 60 seats that the Democrats currently enjoy to pass a bill not fit for purpose. If healthcare is to be fixed, it needs to be done properly with due consideration, which has resulted in a rather long legislative process. Bipartisan support isn’t just a means of passing a bill through Congress – no, it is the means by which people are represented fully by their government, how bills are carefully written to create the best possible legislation and how politicians remain respected figures in American society. George Washington was the only president who did not hail from a political party. In both terms he stood for the presidency as an independent. The Founding Fathers envisaged a Congress which was also non-partisan with its members representing the best interests of their constituents and their states beyond anything else, forming alliances to pass legislation rather than relying on party loyalists.

Unfortunately, this dream was never realised and the authors of the Constitution themselves found points of contention that forced them into two opposing groups – the power of the federal government over the states created the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, who later developed in the parties we know today. Interestingly, it is this point that has defined the parties most in the two-party system over the last 200 years. Of all the policies that have come and gone, the view of states’ rights has created two opposing political parties. From this historical background it is evident that bipartisanship is not just a matter of winning votes. On the contrary, it is about representing the people as best as one possibly can. Alas, Ms Pelosi has not yet realised this, creating the shambles that has emerged from the House; the huge majority she commands must first diminish for her to realise the importance of this matter.

In the Senate, however, the need for bipartisan support looms over the healthcare bill and the Finance Committee is ensuring it happens. The senators appear to doing a rather good job on a bill crafted entirely by Congress and distorted by party politics in the House, rather than proposed by Mr Obama with the support already in place and the finer details thought through by policy specialists. The question is, will the bill be able to be reconciled properly with the House version should it be passed by the Senate?

Besides all of this playing politics and lack of cross-party support, there are problems with the proposals in the bill itself. For a start, the sheer scale of the cost is unimaginable to most, simply a figure on a piece of paper. The senators want to reduce its cost by some $100bn from the estimated $1 trillion total before they will pass it. Most of this money will go toward what is effectively an extension of Medicaid to all. The programme operates thus: an insurance company founded and run by the federal government will provide all Americans who do not currently own healthcare insurance with insurance. Every American will be entitled to this creating what is near universal coverage, and insurance will be made compulsory.

The problem that arises with such a plan is that the American healthcare system has been developing for many decades as a private industry. The private healthcare insurers are vital to the US economy and provide a large number of jobs as well as healthcare to those that can afford. Ordinarily, offering state-run insurance to poorer Americans would have the potential to work, although would create some contention with the private insurers. However, Mr Obama’s rather vague vision as interpreted by the House introduces two huge problems. The first is the “employer mandate”, which requires all employers to provide their staff with health insurance. Obama intended to reduce the tax burden on small business and proposed a sensible tax plan which would have allowed small businesses to flourish and bolstered the American economy. Alas, the recession has forced a lot of small businesses to file for Chapter 7, liquidating their assets, and meant that such tax policy could not save them. Forcing these businesses which are already suffering financially to pay for every employee to have health insurance is a bridge too far for most. Quite simply, many businesses do not have the money.

The second problem is compulsory insurance. There are 60 million Americans that are currently uninsured and at risk should their health deteriorate; these people certainly need help or should purchase health insurance. By introducing this state system as well, however, the federal government is effectively working toward creating a monopoly on health insurance and driving private insurers out of business. This will not only cost the federal government billions of taxpayers’ dollars in funding, but will also lose the tax revenue from insurance companies and their employees and put thousands of workers out of jobs. Compulsory health insurance may sound like a good thing, but it will drive private insurance companies out of the market when people realise they can get it from the state and businesses which can’t afford lucrative packages from private insurers direct their employees to the federal government.

People need to realise how much this initiative will cost the federal government, and the government needs to find a way to pay for it. One suggestion has been to cap or end tax-deductable employer healthcare, showing the true cost of healthcare to people by marking it clearly in their tax returns. This would save $250bn in funding and prevent those working for larger companies being given a tax advantage because their boss can afford to save them even more money by paying for their healthcare. One risk of a state-run insurance provider that some Republicans have highlighted is the potential to provide very low cost healthcare, undercutting private insurers on prices, and paying healthcare professionals less as a result (another cost-cutter). Many doctors and insurers oppose this scheme on those grounds – Mr Obama’s retort is of course that the state insurer would add competition to the market. This is a fair answer and is true, but with compulsory healthcare and an employer mandate, Mr Obama is not simply providing market competition, he is driving out private insurers.

Republican Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has suggested that an affordable alternative to a state-run provider of the sort described would be to drop the need for compulsory healthcare and create a co-operative state insurer, owned by the people, providing low-cost not-for-profit healthcare to those needing it most. This would indeed inject competition into the healthcare market, but it would run like a business and the lack of compulsory conditions means that it wouldn’t cripple the private market.

The “employer mandate” still causes contention though. There is a “pay or play” scheme existing in the House bill which would fine employers that don’t provide their employees with health insurance, another major problem with which could see a number of businesses going bankrupt. The Senate has suggested a “free-rider penalty” where employers will be fined if their employees end up on Medicaid or other subsidised healthcare. This is a more sensible provision that could result in an effective minimum wage to be able to afford health insurance in order to avoid providing employer health insurance or a hefty fine.

In order to prevent a state-run monopoly, compulsory insurance is definitely a no-go area, and thus the “employer mandate” should also be scrapped. Having such a provision puts unnecessary strain on businesses from the federal government – the Senate’s “free-rider” concept would create a best-of-both-worlds situation, where employers are responsible for ensuring their employees can afford healthcare and businesses that do meet those provisions aren’t burdened by compulsory provision of insurance. Not only would it improve the healthcare situation and ensure many uninsured Americans are able to get coverage, but it would also allow private insurers to continue to thrive from those that can afford their insurance plans whilst simultaneously improving working conditions through de facto minimum pay.

A final suggestion for the bill has been an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) which would review Medicare provisions and look for ways to cut costs and provide more coverage. The question which then arises is whether coverage can be provided at a cost, and if those costs will be implemented. There are concerns over IMAC regarding the power it would wield and the realistic potential for reform. In order to function effectively, it would need to provide targets for cost-cutting initiatives and criteria for success. Not only this, but it would need to be able to act upon the decisions it comes to. Such an organisation, if in existence alone, would not be able to provide the type of universal coverage provided by “Obamacare”, but would be necessary as a supplement to the scheme in order to make it more affordable.

The version of the bill which has now passed through the hands of three Senate committees and currently resides with the Finance Committee is very different to the House version which contains all of the flaws mentioned earlier. The Senate has found that the “free-rider penalty”, use of IMAC and a potentially co-operative state insurer may be the best way of both securing greater healthcare coverage to Americans on low incomes and those who are uninsured whilst avoiding unnecessary increases in the budget deficit or taxation and garnering bipartisan support. America’s healthcare reforms need to consider the necessity of private insurers in the economy, and the extent to which they are entrenched. It must consider competition with private insurance, costs to employers and simultaneously be able to provide healthcare to those who need it most at as low a cost as possible, potentially creating a two-tier system of those who can and those who can’t afford to be in the private market. Without the necessary support of the Republicans, however, there are too many “blue dog” Democrats opposing the bill for it to pass easily in the Senate.

Mr Obama needs to keep a check on the “Gang of Six” that are crafting this new bill in the Senate and ensure that the right sort of programme is being created. Obamacare has by and large been a vision rather than a credible legislative proposal, resulting in two alternative visions from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Baucus’s Finance Committee. Mr Obama has stated that any healthcare bill passing his desk will need to include eight specific consumer protections, ensuring that no health insurer can take advantage of customers’ pre-conditions, becoming seriously ill, gender or preventing renewal. He has been clear and specific about these protections; unfortunately, Mr Obama has failed to propose an effective bill to Congress, causing the mess in the House and the lack of bipartisan support.

The real problems will come after August 7th, the Senate’s self-imposed deadline for finishing the bill, when a reconciliation committee of the two houses will have to battle out their versions of the bill to send a final draft to the White House. Without Mr Obama’s pre-organised bipartisan support and relying entirely on the creativity and expertise of Senators rather than utilising the policy specialists in the White House, there are now many points of contention to debate, and specifics that desperately need to be reworked. Due to Ms Pelosi’s inability to see beyond her partisan majority and sheer ignorance of the “blue dogs”, the Senate’s more considered and concise version of the bill may well, and rightly so, prevail, but only with enough pressure from Senator Baucus and the Gang of Six.

Image of President Obama, Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund on Flickr.com

Obama and Pelosi: Blue Dogs are Barking

The United States’ Constitution attempts to create a delicate balance of power between the three arms of the federal government. Its primary focus for legislative issues is the Congress and the vast majority of power is vested within the body which is largely constrained only by the Constitution itself and the will of the electorate. The 20th Century presidency has had a very different idea of this balance of power and has seen the gradual transfer of de facto power to the White House, whether it is constitutional or not (like the War Powers Act 1973), and the growth of presidential power. Since World War II, every President (bar Kennedy) has come from and executive background: five Governors (Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr.), four Vice Presidents (Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Bush Sr.), and General Eisenhower. As a result the power of the White House has grown well beyond anything the Founding Fathers envisaged.

However, the America in which such a presidency operates has also changed beyond all recognition of those constitutional scholars in the 1780s. The federal executive has extended to some fifteen departments from the three which were established in 1789 (State, Treasury and War). Congress has overpowered presidents and whimpered behind their might whilst the demographics and face of the United States has altered far beyond the chains of slavery and segregation and battled two world wars. America now has a lot more to deal with than ever before – healthcare provisions, educational standards, federally funded mandates, policing the globe, the drug war, the list goes on – and thus a larger and more efficient executive is surely in order.

Although I am personally in favour of redressing the balance of power, I can understand the necessity of a strong president when so much responsibility is given to the executive. Especially under a personality like Mr Obama’s, it is possible that the president’s influence (as Truman said, the president’s only real power is “the power to persuade”) would extend far beyond Pennsylvania Avenue and affect the decisions of his colleagues in Congress. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), whose majority in the House rides on the wake of Mr Obama’s electoral successes in November last year, seems to think along these influential lines. Her view of politics in the House is based on partisanship, loyalty from her fellow Democrats and the word of the President to back her up. Unfortunately, this isn’t how America was designed.

Mr Obama has been ensuring that he builds a strong relationship with his counterparts in Congress. As a former Senator, he understands the importance of the legislature in the federal government; Mr Obama has now met with Congressmen and Senators in the first six months of his presidency more times than George W. Bush did in eight years. However, Congress appears to be running away with resurgent powers it didn’t expect to have. In the House, Ms Pelosi is utilising her partisan majority to act like a Prime Minister and pass legislation that clearly hasn’t been thought through carefully enough without any bipartisan support. The stimulus bill passed worth $787bn earlier this year, in addition to the new botched healthcare bill, have both relied on the loyalty of Democrats in the House to their leadership. But now the Blue Dogs are barking.

Ms Pelosi must realise that she cannot continue to pass legislation because she commands such a large Democratic majority. On the contrary, there is a base of 56 conservative Democrats who are refusing to pass bills Ms Pelosi expects to leave the House in a hurry. The solution to this is for Mr Obama to play a stronger presidential legislative role. He must build bipartisan support in Congress for bills proposed on his initiative and provide a clear vision of what he expects Congress to be legislating on. Congress relies on the support of coalitions between conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans swinging either side of the party line. If pork-barrel politics is to be brought to an end and earmarks reduced significantly, Mr Obama needs to put a firm hand to the Capitol and shove them in the right direction, manipulating alliances and carving out a legislative agenda. He cannot let the partisan majority go to his head, nor to Ms Pelosi’s, and should utilise the White House policy specialists for such a purpose.

Mr Obama had the potential to be a great leader and a strong president – can he still live up to the promise? It is time change gears.