Short Takes This Week
A few readers have sent me links to great articles that I haven’t had time to write about, but the least I can do is report them.
Uncivil Service
Probably the biggest issue on the Right is opposition to the idea of “big government,” which is seen as an intrusive force restricting the freedom of people to live and prosper. The irony is that America has one of the most efficient and professional government workforces in the world, especially at the Federal level. The reason for that has been a nearly 150-year commitment to maintaining the professionalism of the civil service and keeping a certain portion of the bureaucracy immune to the passing winds of political change. Unfortunately, one of the efforts that’s going under the radar amid the cloud of daily outrages emanating from Washington is an attack on the institutions and provisions that keep the civil service independent and professional – a move guaranteed to make the Right’s hatred of incompetent bureaucracy a self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, merit pay for public servants sounds like a good idea – until you look at how much leverage that gives politically-appointed managers. There seems to be a general hostility to the whole idea of expertise and disinterested administration these days, and creating incentives that further distort the process toward ideological control are certain to accelerate the decline of our standards of service.
Freedom of Association
Tuesday’s big news was the ruling from Massachusetts Supreme Court, saying that the government has no right to restrict access to the privileged legal status conferred to married couples on the basis of sexual orientation. Steven Waldman in Slate has as good a take on the concept of gay marriage and its enemies as anyone. As EA reader Ivan Weiss summarizes:
I can boil it all down to an admittedly simplistic argument: Either we have a free country or we don't. Free to speak your mind, free to own a gun, free to marry whoever you want to.
Or, what is a family, and who is to decide?
Indeed.
Miami and the Siege of Seattle
Finally, I’m troubled by the images coming out of Miami this morning, where discussions on the formation of a free trade zone of the Americas are being protested by the usual suspects and the protests being suppressed by what seems like a full armored division of riot cops. Seriously, from the pictures, it looks like there are 5-6 police officers for every protester. After what happened in Seattle in 1999, I understand that no one wants to risk mayhem and property damage, plus lasting damage to the city’s reputation, but it sure looks like overkill from here.
I just hate the whole issue of trade and globalization because it pulls my head and my heart in different directions. I know enough about economics to believe that free trade is a good thing for countries who engage in it, and that protectionism that seeks to help a particular domestic market can, if widely adopted, lead to economic catastrophe. There is a lot of simplistic thinking on the anti-globalist side that doesn’t take account of the broader negative consequences of a series of well-meaning individual actions.
At the same time, since 1999, we have seen increasing evidence that the reality of globalism falls short of its promises, especially when it is managed by groups like the WTO, which represent only one set of interests in the economic ecosystem. Clearly a broader consensus is required to realize the true benefits of world trade – perhaps new ways to measure economic output that better account for intangible issues like environmental degradation, depletion of natural resources, and quality of life. Unfortunately, that’s a fairly dry and nuanced position that won’t fit easily on a protest placard, and won’t readily emerge from the clash of absolutes that takes place on the streets of every city that dares to host global economic forums.
8:37:05 AM 
|
