Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where the Right is Wrong — Salvatore Padula
Like Friedrich Hayek, I am a man of the Right. Though I do not adhere down the line to the contemporary orthodoxy of the Right, I firmly believe that personal liberty and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of both human fulfilment and a healthy society. I am utterly convinced that for our society to remain strong it is imperative that conservative and libertarian policy be implemented. In order for this to happen, it is necessary for those of us on the Right to win the argument and sway public opinion. Happily, this appears to be happening, both because of the inherent merits of our positions and because of the manifest failures of progressive statism.
While I am optimistic about the prospects of the American Right and I am heartened by the increasing effectiveness of our persuasive efforts, I believe that there are always areas for improvement. Specifically, I frequently encounter arguments put forward by some on the Right that are counterproductive in persuading the unconvinced — as well positions held by segments of the Right that are simply incorrect. To that end, I have compiled a list (not meant to be comprehensive) of arguments and opinions which those who desire the implementation of good policy may want to reconsider, or at least raise more sparingly.
Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
This is a common argument put forward by many on the Right and it is not without merit. Some tax cuts do, in fact, pay for themselves. It is not, however, always (or even usually) the case. While it is absolutely true that punitively high income and capital gains tax rates disincentivize economic activity and slow economic growth, it is not necessarily true that losses in revenue will be made up by the overall increase in the size of the economy.
Whether or not that is the case is primarily a function of the applicable multiplier. Macroeconomics is far from a science and predicting what a particular multiplier will be is largely a theoretical crap shoot (as evidenced by the failure of the 2009 Stimulus, which assumed a much higher Keynesian multiplier than that which actually occurred). It is common on the Right to invoke the Laffer Curve to support the notion that cutting taxes will increase revenue. Laffer was certainly on to something and the Laffer Curve does apply under certain circumstances, but these circumstances occur when marginal tax rates are exorbitantly high. There is strong evidence to support Laffer at marginal rates of 60% and higher. The evidence for lower rates (including our current top rates) is much more equivocal.
I am not saying that we should abandon calls for lower taxes. We should, however, be circumspect about this particular claim.
More Guns, Less Crime
I like guns. I own several. I believe the Second Amendment recognizes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. I find many claims advanced by those opposed to guns to be risible, particularly concerning assault rifles. That said, I think that gun advocates often make arguments which have the effect of shooting themselves in the foot.
While my title for this topic alludes to John Lott’s book of the same name, I’m less opposed to general claims about the effect of gun ownership and carrying on crime reduction (though the data cited to support such claims are far from compelling) than I am on individual instances where increased firearm distribution is suggested as a solution to a problem. For example, after the Sandy Hook massacre it was common to hear gun advocates call for arming elementary school teachers. This response is just as disproportionate and ineffective as were calls from the left to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines. What’s worse, they overshadowed the sensible calls to reform our mental health system and allowed an unsympathetic media to caricature supporters of gun rights as quacks in the mold of Alex Jones. Similarly, when we object to sensible policies, such as prohibitions on carrying weapons in bars, we do much to discredit ourselves with the mass of our fellow citizens who think that alcohol and firearms are a bad combination.
Supporters of gun rights would also do well to admit that guns make certain crimes more likely. Mass killings are certainly more likely due to firearms. It’s difficult to have a mass stabbing, for example. (Though there apparently was one in in China recently, there were a large number of perpetrators and the casualties were relatively few when compared to something like the massacre perpetrated by assault rifle-armed Anders Brevik in Norway a few years ago.), and physical altercations involving firearms more easily escalate into fatalities. Conceding these fairly obvious truths doesn’t weaken our case (since nobody takes the denials seriously) and it allows us to make the reasonable argument that, given the facts that guns exist and that criminals will possess them, prohibiting legal gun ownership deprives law abiding citizens of their right to self-defense.
State Nullification and Secession
Much to my dismay, both nullification and secession seem to be increasing in popularity among segments of the Right. I’m not going to dwell upon why this poses a problem for the Right in terms of public perception. I think the reasons are self-evident. What I would like to address is why both nullification and secession are unconstitutional.
I will start with noting the social contractarian basis of our Constitution. The United States Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States.” It is not an agreement between the states; it is a compact between the people. While it is true that sovereignty under the Constitution is divided between the federal and state governments, federal sovereignty is not derived from the states, but from the people. Because our Constitution is a compact between the people of all the states, it is not within the power of individual states to unilaterally secede. While there is a natural right to revolt against an oppressive or tyrannical regime, that right is possessed by the people, not the states, and is, in any event, extraconstitutional.
Beyond that basic principle, nullification is squarely contradicted by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land and overrides state statutory and constitutional law) and Article III, Section 2, which grants the federal courts jurisdiction over, amongst other things, cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
The Federalist Papers also contradict the legitimacy of state nullification. Federalist No. 33 declares federal laws supreme to state laws. No. 39 explains that, under the Constitution, conflicts over jurisdiction between state and federal power are to be resolved by the federal courts. No. 44 discusses the role of the states in checking federal overreach, specifically stating that the election of new representatives is the recourse available to states. It does not mention nullification. No. 78 states that federal courts have the power to void legislative acts that are contrary to the Constitution. It does not grant a similar power to the states. No. 80 specifically denies that states have the power to invalidate federal law.
We Should Return to the Gold Standard
I deplore out-of-control spending and the profligate printing of money. Inflation is a terrible thing. I’m very critical of the policies of the Federal Reserve. That said, I think that a return to gold-backed currency is a terrible idea and is frequently advocated by people who don’t really understand what they are talking about. (Note: many advocates of the gold standard are highly informed. If you are one of them, much of what I have to say here is not directed toward you. I still think you’re mistaken though.)
There are undoubtedly good arguments in favor of having a gold-backed currency. They include long-term price stability, reduced risk of significant inflation, and the near impossibility of hyperinflation. Gold standards also make it more difficult for a government to engage in sustained deficit spending. More debatable is the assertion that a gold-backed currency has objective value in contrast to the ephemeral nature of fiat currency.
On to why the gold standard is a bad idea. First, despite claims to the contrary, gold has very little objective value. Gold certainly has industrial applications and people think it’s pretty, but there really is no such thing as objective worth. Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. In any case, if you are looking for a stable store of objective value linking your currency to any single commodity (gold included) is inferior to a basket of goods. Second, while excessive inflation can be a serious problem, deflation is often disastrous. Fixing the money supply to gold reduces the risk of inflation at the cost of increasing the risk of deflation. As a general matter, moderate inflation (around 2%) is widely considered by economists to be desirable. Third, while a gold standard usually leads to long-term price stability, it is prone to short-term extreme volatility as the value of money is dependent upon the supply of gold.
In any case, fiat currency is often unfairly maligned. A well-managed and politically independent central bank should have no problem responsibly managing the currency in a way that encourages growth and avoids inflation. While it is true that the Fed has pursued a dangerous policy of quantitative easing (though I’m slightly less concerned than are many about the prospects of mass inflation, I think it a real danger), this is not an inherent weakness of fiat currency. It is a consequence of the politically imposed dual mandate under which the Federal Reserve is tasked with limiting inflation and maximizing employment. These are often contradictory aims and the proper role of a central bank should be limited to curbing inflation.
Representative Peter King
The man is an ass.
Anyway, these are a few areas where I think the Right should reconsider. I’d love to know what you think and if you have anything you’d like to add to the list.
Anyway, these are a few areas where I think the Right should reconsider. I’d love to know… if you have anything you’d like to add to the list.
I’d like to add something:
I wish we placed more emphasis on how freedom maximizes opportunity for the least privileged among us. (Not because the “privileged” don’t deserve opportunities, too – often, they have worked quite hard for them. But because unfreedom hurts the underprivileged so very much.) I think we’ve made some progress in getting this message across, but I’d like to see even more.
To go along with that, I wish we put a bit more emphasis on prospective opportunity, and a bit less emphasis on retrospective “earned success”. This is a rather delicate subject to bring up, because, if put the wrong way, it can come off as, “You didn’t build that.”
But I think most ordinary people understand that success is a synergy between hard work and luck, and that exceptional success often involves exceptional luck as well as exceptional hard work. And so ordinary people can be put off by what they perceive as a worldview that doesn’t seem to allow enough room for luck as well as hard work.
Look, I happen to think that denying that guns make mass killings easier is ridiculous. This does not mean that I support banning gun ownership. It means that, as with just about everything in life, there are trade-offs. Insisting that an armed populace is an unmitigated good is either deluded or dishonest. Conservatives are supposed to be the mature adults. Mature adults recognize that even when something is an overall good it is possible for it to have some bad effects.
I completely agree with this (though I have to admit that “unfreedom” has a bit of a newspeak ring to it).
Mike- On this point I agree. The signatories of the Declaration were secessionists. Secession is a natural right. Unilateral secession is, however, not a constitutional right.
I do sometimes make up new words by randomly affixing prefixes and suffixes to existing words. Could be German heritage. After all, Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften is a perfectly good German word (meaning “insurance companies providing legal protection”).
Depends on what you mean by “easier”.
The hard part is deciding you want to kill a bunch of other people.
Still, if you want to claim that guns make it easier to mass kill people, you have to admit if every single person was armed, then it would be easier to stop the mass killer.
You advocate for gun free zones. I say there is no such thing unless you search every single person at a checkpoint.
If guns make it easier to kill, they make it easier to stop killers.
The hard part is certainly not deciding to engage in a mass killing. Mass killings like Sandy Hook are usually committed by the severely mentally ill. It is actually doing the killing. Without firearms it is physically very difficult for a single person to kill scores of others in a short duration. Even if the victims don’t actively resist and all they do is run away it is exceedingly difficult for a lone killer to inflict the number of casualties which a firearm makes easy.
I admit that if every single person went around armed it would be easier to stop the occasional mass killer. I think the lives saved would be overwhelmed by the lives lost due to increased parking space-related shootings alone.
I actually think that the national discourse surrounding guns places too heavy an emphasis on mass shootings. Part of the reason I don’t think much of the argument that widespread firearm carrying is justified because it might be useful in limiting the casualties in a mass shooting is that mass shootings make up a trivial amount of gun homicides. Every year in the United States there are about 10,000 homicides by firearm (about 83% of all homicides, by the way). Mass shootings make up less than one percent of gun homicides. Most other gun homicides are over in a few seconds, providing little warning to the victim (even if armed in self defense) or opportunity for an armed third party to intervene. I do think that there is probably a deterrent effect related to gun carrying, but the data which exist suggest it is minor.
I have similar objections to the Left’s fixation on assault rifles. Setting aside the fact that in all but combat situations a handgun is just about as effective a way to kill someone as an AR-15, assault weapons of all varieties were used in less that two hundred murders last year.
Check out when the first 5 states seceded. There was no outcry in the north about it.
Good points Salvatore, but I would take issue with two items, in both cases because citizens of these here United States are genuinely afraid of the growth of the Leviathan state, so the push back against the Feds, while sometimes over-wrought and easy to criticize by talking heads on TV, has ample fuel behind it, and is probably a winner for the Republicans. I’m speaking here of both the adamant defense of gun rights, including any encroachment at all through Federal law, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the idea of state annulment of Federal laws. (Leave the idea of secession aside, it’s not serious, not really, but annulment is) You cited some examples from “We the people…” and the Federalist Papers. The first is a thin reed, and could support the notion of states’ rights as easily as Federal. The second, the Federalist Papers, aren’t legally binding in any case. What annulment lacks is legal precedent, because no state as ever really pushed the idea. This is about to change because the Federal government has been violating the Constitution to egregiously. It can’t very well cite the Constitution it violates in order to protect its right to continue violating said Constitution. I think annulment is coming, and none too soon, whether through independent actions of state governments, or a Constitutional convention. Probably both.
Interesting take, Sal. Now go talk to the guy who gives the CCW classes around Memphis. Over the last 4-5 years a total of 56 of his students were involved in assaults. 52 survived; 4 were unarmed at the time.
Your point on guns is basically irrelevant. Cars make “killing” easier. So do bombs. So do airplanes, as 2 of them killed >3k people. Under all this is the drive of why these people killed. And why teachers waited quietly for the SH killer to come to their room and kill them.
Jim Lion:Good points Salvatore, but I would take issue with two items…
I appreciate your response. I think nullification is clearly unconstitutional based not only on the Federalist Papers, but due to the fact that it conflicts with both the Supremacy Clause and Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. However, I have substantive objections too.
Even if it were constitutional, state nullification would be a bad idea. There are two possible forms of nullification. If nullification is considered applicable only in the state doing the nullifying, we end up with federal law being inconsistent from state to state. This defeats the purpose of having federal law in the first place. If we solve the problem of inconsistent federal law by deciding that if a state nullifies a federal statute the statute is void in all states we effectively give a majority in each individual state veto power over federal legislation.
The reason we have the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation is because the federal government under the articles was so weak that governance of a unified nation was impossible. Allowing state nullification would result in a federal government which is considerably weaker than under the Articles.
What about the Nullification Crisis of 1832? The proponents of nullification didn’t go to court because they had no constitutional case. Instead, they threatened secession and war.
There is, in fact, a long history of legal precedent rejecting nullification. It starts with United States v Peters in 1809 and includes such cases as Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee (1816), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Ableman v. Booth (1856), and most recently Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
This has been a fascinating discussion Salvatore, thanks for initiating it.
I wonder about the point you made (that I’ve italicized above) as I’ve long thought the same thing until I read a recent article linked on Instapundit. (I’m afraid I don’t have the link) In it the author makes a compelling case that the act of carrying has a tendency to calm people and make them more reasonable and courteous, ergo the parking-space shooting is not very likely.
You’re absolutely right that cars and planes can be easily be used to kill people. That’s why we don’t let people drive or fly while intoxicated. As for bombs, with certain narrow exceptions, they are prohibited entirely.
I’m genuinely not sure what point your trying to make about the drive which makes people kill. I don’t think guns (or planes, cars, or bombs) drive people to kill. I think it’s indisputable that the make it easier for someone with that drive to kill large numbers.
I think it bears repeating at this point that the two policy positions I have taken are an opposition to arming teachers (I think armed security as schools is a very good idea) and not opposing bans on bringing guns into bars.
I believe I may have read that article, or at least something similar. I did a small bit of follow up research on the topic. It’s an interesting thought and I’m willing to consider it, but like much of the other pro-carry arguments popularly put forth, the supporting data are not nearly as robust as the proponent’s claims would lead you to believe. Now, as I’ve said repeatedly, the majority of the claims made by gun opponents don’t stand up to much scrutiny either, but that doesn’t give us license to make claims which lack support.
One of my goals with this post generally (not only in relation to guns) was to discourage our side from making unsupported or weakly supported assertions when we have genuinely strong arguments.
And I would inform the judge that if he thought he could “instruct” me to vote for a verdict I considered unjust, he was mistaken. He could excuse me from the jury, he could find me in Contempt of Court, he could kiss my arse. But he would not compel me to vote an unjust verdict.
All of those things have happened. I know you don’t like it and I’m conflicted on the issue myself, but the role of a jury in our legal system (dating back to the medieval English Common Law) is to be the finder of fact. Questions of law are within the purview of the judge.
It’s been said that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, if he wants to. I’ve personally known prosecutors who would indict a ham sandwich, if doing so would increase their personal political power. There have been cases where the defendant was technically guilty, but the circumstances of the case were so ridiculous that any prosecutor with so much as a microgram of common sense, or even common decency would have declined to prosecute. The defendant was convicted because no juror had the backbone to note the “fact” that the prosecutor had been a complete jackass who should have been disbarred.
I agree with you to a point on the constitutionality of secession and nullification. But isn’t the whole idea of secession that you no longer wish to be in union with the reigning authority and its constitution? Why Britain could have passed a law stating American secession was illegal in 1776, and this would have had no bearing on the morality of independence. As for guns, gun-free zones are simply ineffective. Ohio began allowing guns in bars two years ago and the usual predictions of doom were everywhere. I can’t recall hearing of a single alcohol-caused shooting in a bar by a legally carrying gun owner since. I used to frequent many restaurants there which the state classified as bars while carrying a pistol. I never drank, and never gave it much thought.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, no prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The power to secede is not even mentioned in the Constitution, so it cannot be prohibited by it to the States. Therefore secession is a power reserved to the states. The Federal government cannot unilaterally expel California from the United States. But California can say to the United States: “Buzz off you red state Jesus freaks. We want our independence.”
And I agree as well that secession isn’t a constitutional right. I maintain the right for a state to secede overrides whatever restrictions may exist within the Constitution.
A question: having conceded that guns facilitate mass killing, what argument are you prepared to offer to a liberal who says, “Look, I’m not in favor of banning gun ownership. I just want to ban semi-automatic rifles with large magazines that make mass killing easier. You’ve said yourself that they do, how can you oppose this?”
Your point about lame arguments is well-taken, but the problem is this: the NRA approach, while making arguments you find cringe-worthy, gives every indication of working. Few factions of the broadly-defined Right have made inroads into the public’s thinking the way gun activists have.
You can see it in the arguments of gun controllers – they’ve lately taken to acknowledging self-defense as a legitimate purpose of gun ownership and talking about the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. To anyone who’s followed the gun issue for any length of time, these are huge concessions.
Very true. There are a ton of horrible prosecutors out there. I’m currently involved in a campaign to replace a horrible prosecutor in South Bend, Indiana.
I know that this is an unpopular opinion around here, but the Tenth Amendment is more a truism than a substantive provision. It is a restatement of the fact that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers.
I think that it’s highly relevant that during the ratification debates, both proponents and opponents of ratification argued that the Constitution prohibited secession. On the pro-side, James Madison declared that “the Constitution requires adoption in toto, and forever.” Hamilton and Jay also publically argued that states had no right to secede. On the ant-ratification side, Patrick Henry strongly opposed the Constitution because it largely eliminated state sovereignty and prohibited secession.
Again, I’d stress that there is certainly a natural right of rebellion. There is not a constitutional right of secession.
On this we are happily in agreement, with the proviso that I think the natural right resides with the people and not with states. I suspect we are in violent disagreement on the merits of secession, but that is a different question.
I think that’s a very good question.
First, I would say that as a general matter liberty and security are often in conflict and that the actual security risk of mass shootings is miniscule (less than one percent of homicides.) I would continue by saying that while some mass shootings, like Sandy Hook, involved assault weapons with large capacity magazines which have limited utility in self-defense, others such as Fort Hood and the Navy Yard were perpetrated with handguns with regular capacity magazines and shotguns. As an aside, I would also point out that changing a magazine is not particularly arduous and provides little practical impediment to a mass-shooter.
I’d note that if your concern is preventing mass shootings, banning certain guns is an ineffective method of doing so, as just about any gun beyond a muzzle loading black powder muzzleloader makes high casualties possible. I’d end by saying that self-defense is a natural right and keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, so banning all guns is off the table and that the best way to prevent another Sandy Hook would be to reform our mental health laws.
(WARNING: First 2.0 comment I am posting and it is from my phone-format issues may arise)
Salvatore,
Great post! I do have a couple of quibbles.
On tax cuts, I would prefer any charge of loss of revenue be countered with explicit proposed spending cuts but politically that changes the discussion away from the tax cuts toward the spending cuts. We never seem to do well when arguing on that ground.
On guns, I would prefer a prohibition on drinking while carrying rather than a legal prohibition on carrying in bars. The distinction between a bar and a restaurant that serves alcohol is not clear and could lead to problems.
As for Peter King, he may be an ass but given his district I prefer him over any likely replacement.
I think that views have been attributed to me which I do not hold. I do not find the NRA cringe worthy.* I completely agree that it has been very successful in making inroads into public opinion to an extent that is all too rare in the conservative movement. I’d also note that the pro-life and limited government movements have made similar progress in shaping public opinion.
*To the extent that I am critical of the NRA, it is mainly due to the NRA’s propensity to promote studies of dubious credibility simply because it finds their conclusions agreeable. (I happen to support SSM, but if I were an opponent I would be highly critical of anti-SSM advocates who promoted studies by a Nigerian “scientist” who claims to have proved SSM is wrong by using magnets.)
Continued.
Continued from #87.
My point is not that the pro-gun, pro-life, and limited government advocates have failed to make progress. It is that they would make more progress if they focused on their strongest arguments and spent less time pushing their weaker ones.
I think that the general self-defense argument in favor of carrying is strong and fairly compelling (though perhaps not quite to the degree others on this site do), and that we are on strong footing making constitutional arguments against overly restrictive gun laws. Similarly, I think highlighting the horrors of late-term abortion and pushing for compulsory ultrasounds is very effective. In contrast, I think proposals to arm teachers, opposition to contraception, and calls for abstinence-only sex education are counterproductive distractions.