Should the Government Regulate Sin?

When the civil rights acts passed in the 1960s, critics argued that government shouldn’t legislate morality. In that particular instance, I’d argue that they were only stepping in to allow people to enjoy their constitutional rights. But how much government should legislate morality is nonetheless a question worth asking.

It seems that most of the time, legislating purely for moral reasons is almost necessarily hypocritical. Let’s consider the example of prostitution. Prostitutes and “Johns” can both receive criminal penalties for transactions. But I’m not sure it’s right to throw people in jail for having sex for money. In many cases, the woman is poor and desperate and simply trying to make a living. By contrast, plenty of rich women from elite colleges end up marrying a man solely for his money. In essence, they are agreeing to be the man’s sexual partner in return for a life of material comfort. That sounds an awful lot like prostitution to me. In fact I would even go so far as to say the rich woman is worse morally. The poor woman sells her body because she needs the money and has few other options. The rich one just doesn’t want to work at anything, and thinks that vacations to Europe, and dinners at fancy restaurants are her birthright. It’s galling to me that we would punish the poor woman, but not the rich one.

Even when we consider the man, legislating against prostitution on moral grounds is wrong. The man who takes the sorority girl for a wife so he can have a consistent sexual partner and some social respectability sounds like a John. The difference is that he can afford to “pay” the woman more. By that, I mean that a lot of the men who visit brothels can’t afford to take the woman to expensive dinners, or vacations to exotic locales. A lot of the men would probably prefer a consistent sexual partner, but can only afford a one-night stand. I’m not sure the men who visit brothels are morally worse than the ones who marry sorority girls for a consistent sex partner.

Even if we grant that people engaging in prostitution are immoral, does that give us a right to put them in jail? Do people who drink alcohol to excess, commit adultery, lie, and gossip about their neighbors, like so many people do, have any right to put people in jail because they think their activities are immoral? No. So when we endorse the notion of government regulating sin, we’re really saying that’s only ok as long as the government doesn’t lock us up for ours.

Now, you’re probably thinking, but what about murder? Isn’t it ok to prevent murder because it’s immoral? The most important reason we prohibit murder is that it causes a compelling direct harm to another person, i.e., they can’t exercise their right to life anymore. And that seems like a fine reason for government to prohibit certain behaviors. Even in the example of prostitution, you can argue that the woman is harmed in a compelling direct way as a prostitute.

Nor is saying the government shouldn’t prohibit certain behaviors saying that society has to condone every behavior. I’m fine with certain things, from drunken hookups, to adultery being cultural taboos. A good example is racism. There is no law against joining the KKK, or being a racist. People who join the KKK need not fear mandatory minimums. But the reason so few people do join, or behave as open racists is because such behavior is culturally unacceptable.

Communion Witheld From Patrick Kennedy

It’s come out this weekend that Patrick Kennedy’s bishop has asked him to stop taking communion because his public stances on moral issues contradict those of the Catholic Church.

I wonder how consistently these teachings are applied though. For example, the church teaches that all life is intrinsically sacred. Presumably, that also includes convicted murderers on death row. But has the church ever cut off communion to a politician who supports capital punishment? I haven’t found an example, although maybe some of you regular readers have some.

More to the point, I wonder if the church is making it impossible for Catholics to be Democrats and run for high office. In order to be nominated for President, or attain a party leadership post, being pro-choice is practically a requirement. But the church teaches that abortion violates its teachings about the sanctity of human life. So Catholic Democrats are between a rock and a hard place.

For the church, this wouldn’t necessarily be advantageous. It seems like the church would prefer to have Catholics influencing dialogue in both parties, and not just one. Kicking out Catholic Democrats who must be pro-choice because of political realities probably does deter some Catholics from running for office as Democrats. But that is one less Catholic to shape policy in the party.

How Much Does it Cost to be an Ambassador?

Now is a critical time for American diplomacy. We’re engaged in two wars, fighting a broader war on terrorism, trying to secure international cooperation on Iran, and coming up with a coherent international response to the economic crisis. At such a time, you’d think the government would want the most qualified people possible serving as diplomats, right? Well no, that doesn’t appear to be what the government wants unfortunately.

This article on the politico details all of the political appointments Obama has made to serve as ambassadors. These include some significant countries like France and Britain. Moreover, with how quickly things change in international relations, almost every country is now important. Those appointed for political reasons have often raised a great deal of money for Obama or the Democratic Party. To be fair, the Obama administration isn’t the first do to this. In fact, the split over the last couple of decades has been 70% career diplomats and 30% political appointments.

Apparently one response trotted out in defense of these political nominees is that they do have some understanding of international relations. For example, the ambassador to France’s father was also an ambassador. But I’m just not sure that’s good enough. If I’m going in for surgery, I don’t care if the person operating on me’s father was a skilled surgeon. I want to know if he is a good surgeon. In the same way, when I’m putting someone in charge of the military, I don’t care if his father was a soldier. I want to know his military record.

Cynics have long claimed their government is for sale to the highest bidder. Stories like this do not help in refuting them.

What Do Women Want (in the workplace)?

I just ran across an interesting post from the New York Times about gender and level of satisfaction with one’s job. A study found that women need to make far less money than men do in order to find their jobs fulfilling.

Part of the explanation could be that women tend to work jobs more in fields like education or healthcare where they can see themselves making a tangible difference in another person’s life. So a woman making $50,000 as a teacher who gets to see her students develop might really feel satisfied. But a male investment banker getting that salary can’t credibly claim he’s doing anything useful to help others. In fact, he might feel bored by using excel spreadsheets hours on end each day, or reading through memos to make sure every comma is in the right place.

Plus society has traditionally judged women less on how much they make. A man who’s not making as much as he might like often has most of his self-worth wrapped up into his compensation because that’s how he’s been raised. Women on the other hand have not traditionally internalized that message. Given the strength of feminist ideology in the past couple of decades though, I wonder if girls growing up today will continue to follow that pattern.

Will Sarah Palin Go Rogue in 2012?

Sarah Palin is out with her new book, and touring to promote it. She even made a stop on the Oprah show—this would of course be the same Oprah who supported Obama for President last year. So now is as good a time as any to consider her chances for 2012.

I still think they don’t look good. True, Republicans tend to view her favorably. But the space she can carve out in the Republican primary field is in the religious right. I don’t see the fiscal conservative wing or national security hawks going to a less-than-one term governor of Alaska for their first choice. There will likely be too many other choices.

But with the religious right, she’ll have to contend with the charismatic Mike Huckabee, and possibly someone like Tom Coburn or John Thune who are both popular with social conservatives. It is difficult to see her winning a stunning victory in Iowa or South Carolina, where evangelical voters dominate. And I don’t see her playing too well in New Hampshire, so that leaves her without a victory in one of the crucial early states.

I think Palin would be a disaster in the general election, and can only win if the economy is in a depression. Otherwise, she’ll alienate too many moderates and well-off suburban swing voters with her very conservative views. Team Obama would probably be happy to face her.

Obama Needs to Do More About Jobs

Despite the hundreds of billions in stimulus and the massive bank bailouts, the employment numbers are getting steadily worse. Some have urged that the government should explore more direct methods of job creation, such as simply hiring more people to work in government agencies. I think there is merit to the idea.

At the rate things are going, it looks like many workers—especially the young—will be without jobs for a while to come. That means they will not develop the skills they need to be employable in the future, and that they will have large resume gaps which simply make them less attractive to employers. So having government directly create jobs may simply be an investment in the future. Employees with skills and work experience will be more productive in the future and pay more in taxes.

Besides, it’s better to create “make-work jobs” than give the money away as welfare. People on welfare don’t develop skills. They’re also looked down upon in society. It’s easier to help people with healthcare when people see potential beneficiaries work hard. The only other alternative is not to help those struggling in this economy out at all, which is unacceptable for both moral and political reasons.

Politically, Obama and Democrats understandably want to tread carefully. If they have the government go on a hiring binge, they risk being called socialists. But that sort of name-calling won’t be any worse than having unemployment numbers continue to climb.

Civilian Trial For Mohammed

Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in civilian court. Is it a good idea? I think so.

It upholds American ideals which hold that everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial. Now, many of you might argue with good reason that Mohammed isn’t entitled to constitutional rights because he isn’t a citizen. But that isn’t sufficient to deny him a public trial in my mind. It seems the ability to publicly confront one’s accuser and have an open trial derive not from a particular amendment in the constitution, but rather from our national ideals. Even Timothy McVeigh, who mercilessly killed 168 innocent people without cause got a trial, and millions of dollars spent on his legal defense.

Moreover, it is a tangible demonstration of American ideals. We don’t just espouse ideals and then forget about them the second they’re inconvenient. The right to speech becomes meaningful not because we protect it for people who sing “God Bless America,” but because we protect it for people who espouse the most repugnant views like the KKK. In the same way, the right to a trial is meaningful when we give it to people we hate like Mohammed.

Now, there are some tricky issues. How can we make sure the jury is fair? How can we ask them to weigh complicated evidence such as confessions that may have been induced under torture? It will indeed be hard to find a jury who’s never heard of 9/11. But that’s not sufficient reason not to have a trial. After all, everyone had heard of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombings. As for complicated evidence, we ask jurors to weigh testimony from experts, or DNA evidence all the time. There are definitely some issues with national security issues that I’ll write about in the future.

But for now, the Gadson Review gives a thumbs up to trying Mohammed in civilian courts.