A Question of Failure

Last night, during a political discussion fueled by a combination of alcohol and vitriol, we came to the subject of hoping that a certain President should fail. Irrational partisanship aside, the question was whether or not hoping for the failure of an administration is wrong. My position was and is that the answer depends on what one means by failure.

Is it purely a matter of partisan politics? I want the other party to fail, just because I don’t like the other party. Or is it a matter of policy? I want the other party’s policy to fail, because I think it dangerous and want a better policy to prevail. In fact, I fall into the latter category.

During the G. W. Bush administration, I wanted some policies (costly and unnecessary war in Iraq) to fail and other policies (Social Security reform) to succeed. President Bush got his war and suffered only a little disengenuous opposition for it, but he gave up on fixing the great American pyramid scheme as soon as the Democrats raised the slightest complaint.

Now, during the B. H. Obama administration, I will continue to hope for the success of the good and the failure of the bad. If he can disentangle us with honor from Iraq, then I hope that he succeeds. If he can prevent the current recession from turning into a depression, then I wish him success for the most part. If he can bring the efficiency, compassion, and quality of the typical Department of Motor Vehicles to the American health-care system, then I hope he fails.

Beyond that, though, I have to wonder why failure has become such an anathema in American society. We used to learn from our mistakes and failures. Now, we protect and bail out failing industries. We continue to pursue failing social policies. We pour more and more money into failing institutions. We reward failure and demand that American taxpayers foot the bill.

We must have the moral courage to let some fail … or risk ruin for all.

President Obama’s Inaugural Address

President Barack H. Obama was already well regarded as a public speaker (at least when his teleprompter works properly), but his inaugural address was certainly as masterful a speech as we have seen in recent decades. One passage near the middle of his address caught my attention immediately. It cut right to the heart of the American experience and the struggle for human freedom.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man—a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.

As a confirmed cynic, I have to wonder if the President and his Congress will abide by these words. Given their collective political histories, that would be quite remarkable. For now, though, I’ll hope for change and accept the new President’s words on their face.

The Election of Barack Obama and the Defeat of Racism

The “most important election in our lifetime”™ is over, but it was indeed historic. The people of the United States have elected their first “black” President. While I didn’t vote for Barack H. Obama myself, I can still celebrate the moment for another reason.

That distant pounding you hear is less Republicans banging their heads against the wall for almost completely squandering the last eight years than it is the triumphant sound of Americans collectively hammering the last nails into the coffin of “racism.” Oh, “racism” is not dead by any means, but we have succeeded in burying it alive. It’s best to ignore the whining and scratching you will hear from its grave, lest undue attention should let “racism” slip free again.

That said, I feel terribly bad for President Obama. Expectations of him are so high that he almost can’t fail to disappoint. I have little doubt that the Democrats will squander their time and burn their political capital as recklessly as the Republicans so recently did.

Supreme Court Rules on the Right to Arms

At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, striking down the District of Columbia’s 30-year-old ban on private handguns. Unfortunately, the court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller was not the sweeping, revolutionary opinion that might have spared Americans from many more years of political theater and emotional litigation. Civil libertarians still face a long and torturous path to create a working freedom from the Constitutional right.

Indeed, the court was almost evenly split on the matter. In a disappointing display of intellectual dishonesty and contradictory reasoning, four justices dissented from the majority, favoring their personal opinions over nearly self-evident constitutional law. Tonight, however, the way is ever so much clearer, so I raise my glass in thanks to the five justices who finally ended 216 years of uncertainty.

Choosing a President

The election of 2008 will feature one of the most interesting Presidential contests in recent history. A white woman and a black man lead the Democratic field. Among the Republican candidates, there are an aristocrat, a fascist, an evangelical, a libertarian, and even one or two “conservatives.”

I will temporarily change my registration so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. Representative Paul is the only libertarian on the ballot from either of the two ruling parties, so I urge all freedom-loving citizens to do likewise. Even if he doesn’t win the nomination, we can show both parties that we value freedom and peace over militarism and “security.”

Fred Thomspon on the Right to Carry

In all the discussion of gun control and the right to bear arms that has been generated by the Virginia Tech massacre, probably none has been more eloquent or courageous than the commentary by F. D. Thompson. Though I may disagree with Mr. Thompson on a number of other political issues, he is right on the mark in this case. I’ve quoted a particularly insightful passage below.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody … as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon.…

Virginia Tech Massacre

I was both saddened and disgusted by yesterday’s terrible events at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg. I was saddened that so many innocent lives were taken and saddened too that political opportunists would lay part of the blame for this atrocity upon law-abiding gun owners. I was disgusted that one troubled young man saw mass murder as the solution to his personal problems and disgusted too that the very institutions charged with protecting his victims had unwittingly helped him to kill so many.

Yet it could have been so much worse. Had the murderer used a can of gasoline and a box of matches, hundreds might be dead rather than only dozens. Thankfully, he chose to express his rage and hatred with handguns, weapons normally ineffective for mass slaughter. The death toll was so high only because his victims were unarmed and even more unaware, but I imagine this fact provides precious little solace to the victims and their families.