BASHING THE MODERATES

Gaurav points us towards Bill Maher's latest segment, where he interviewed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Maher is one of my favourite 'comedian-intellectuals', and I was disappointed to hear him take such a one-sided stand against Ron Paul. Most of what Paul said was right on mark. As Gaurav pointed out, he also shows a sound understanding of American history, including the many dark deeds that the CIA has orchestrated. It was also disappointing that Maher did not agree with this absolutely accurate assesment about the role of the CIA; that makes it clear that he was there mainly for bashing Paul.

Paul was also quite correct about the Civil War.
The Quakers in England had been campaigning to end slavery for many years, purely based on personal conviction, without any political agenda. Their pacifism was not the political pacifism of Gandhi. Yet, they were very effective in ending the slave trade that England had. The Quakers accomplished their objectives because they had limited goals. They realised that ending slavery itself was a goal better left to their future generations. But ending the slave trade was a goal they could realistically achieve. They also did not see the end of slavery as punishment for slave owners. In fact, they crucially persuaded the government to actually pay compensation to the slave owners for giving up the acquisition of new slaves. The result was that the English made a smooth transition to a society free from slave trade. The American contrast was much more striking. One can only speculate that a similar strategy would have been possible in America too, and the Americans could have been spared the horrors of the Civil War. England's example bears testament to this possibility. But as Paul points out, the American leaders and especially Lincoln were not as interested in ending slavery as in unifying the nation. He and his associates traded blood for unification, when it could have been achieved more smoothly, if slowly.

The one place where Paul does not get it quite right is global warming. He deflects the issue by asking whether the government should invade China or try to stop volcanoes to suppress global warming. Both of these questions are extremes, and there is much that that government can do in other areas; as an aside though, Paul still recognised the key oil-induced situation in the Middle East that the US has brought upon itself. As of now, it is extremely difficult, if impossible, to practically envisage how the free market can regulate global warming. As I mentioned in a past post, there are so many sources of CO2 emissions that the cap-and-trade programs that worked so well for sulfur emissions cannot be seen to work for CO2 emissions especially in the short term. In such a case, a government tax may be the only optimum solution to curb such emissions.

I have something to say to Maher; stop calling yourself a libertarian. And I have something to say to Paul; stop calling yourself a Republican (although he is a moderate Republican by any standards). Assigning political labels consigns us to following textbook definitions in their entirety. Social science issues need us to know much better than deal with absolutes. If one dons a political label for too long, then he faces the danger of becoming a slave of that label. Long after he has taken such a position, changing that position even for a justifiable reason could make people call him a hypocrite. To avoid such pitfalls, better not take any absolutist position. Not the free market, not government, and not any single entity or system can be the solution to all problems. One needs to find a balance. Just like a well-made recipe, the correct political solutions need to showcase at least an effort of mixing all the ingredients in the right proportion. No matter how much I like a particular dessert, an excess of sweetness-that quality which is after all the sine quo non of the dessert- nevertheless spoils the whole act. As in other aspects of life, moderation is the key here too.