Elias Brockman & Guns

I think it’s time that I outed myself. I told a mentor of mine that I was blogging under a pseudonym and he gave me the following advice: “The only people who should blog pseudonymously are people whose lives are endangered. Seriously, dude, if you want to write and opine, do it under your name.” I think that there’s something right about his position, although I haven’t thought it through enough to be able to recommend it to others with clear conscience. Putting one’s name, one’s real name on one’s writings demonstrates a kind of responsibility. There appears to be a certain kind of virtue to owning one’s thoughts, acknowledging one’s own failings, and saying what one truly thinks. People who read what you write will associate your writings with your person and either respect you or forget about you.

But there’s a troubling double-edge to this sword. One loses a certain kind of privacy when one posts ones thoughts in a public forum. One can cultivate a reputation that one does not desire, that is hard to drop. One can find oneself chasing after a reputation and begin to find oneself writing less for the sake of having an honest conversation than to be admired for less admirable reasons. Why did I follow this man’s advice and decide to reveal my actual name? Partly, I’m curious to see how this changes the way I approach blogging. Partly, I think that there’s something laudably gutsy about writing things publicly that are potentially controversial and then putting one’s name on it. The internet allows us to spout the most horrible vulgarities without fear of any consequence. There’s nothing commendable about that. If one is going to say a terrible thing, it’s better if a person takes responsibility for it, and later (after recognizing their mistakes) pays penance of their own free will.

Which leads me to the tragic topic of today. Following the shooting in Connecticut (and last week’s shooting in Portland), many people have already been talking about the need for more gun control in the United States. These shootings have been happening with such frequency that many citizens believe that more drastic restrictions on guns are required. The debates all pretty much go the same way:

Person 1: If we just banned guns, these shootings wouldn’t happen as much.

Person 2: Banning guns would only make it harder for citizens to defend themselves.

Person 1: In other countries with stricter gun control there’s not as much gun violence.

Person 2: Other countries don’t have guns as an established part of the culture, and besides crazy people would find others ways to kill people, or just buy guns illegally.

Person 1: Gun culture promotes violence, fewer crazies would kill if they didn’t have guns, even if it didn’t stop gun violence completely, banning guns would make it harder for people to buy guns and that would still reduce the numbers of gun deaths. Furthermore, there would be fewer additional fatalities caused by well-meaning civilians killing the wrong people by accident in a failed attempt at vigilante justice.

Person 2: All of your assertions rest on weak empirical foundations, the number of deaths by guns is radically less than deaths by other things that we don’t require bans for, banning guns would only restrict people’s liberty to choose how they want to live. Banning guns would just be another instance of the government foolishly claiming that it knows best.

Cards on the table: before this recent spat of shootings, I was planning on trying to start a gun club here at Lewis and Clark with a friend. The club’s function would essentially be to let interested students get trained how to safely use guns and then go on monthly/bimonthly trips to a gun range to shoot at targets. Why were we planning on doing this? Because as a sport, there’s something gratifying about holding a gun and shooting at a target, there’s a satisfaction that comes with improving one’s aim and coordination, and there’s a culture connected with guns that probably few Lewis and Clark students have much with experience with.

And yet, in the light of the recent tragedies, it seems that there’s something potentially offensive about trying to start a gun club at a liberal school–even though there’s nothing intrinsically illiberal about guns. It would maybe be like converting to Islam and opening up a new mosque in your neighborhood directly after 9/11. But there’s something also potentially offensive about the analogy that I just made, isn’t there?

One might claim that it is bigoted to be suspicious or blameful of Muslims as a group, when only a very small handful of Muslims were involved in the terrorist attack. You can’t condemn a whole religion/culture just because of the actions of a few individuals, one might say. Most Muslims do not become terrorists. Therefore, Muslims should be tolerated.

However, if one believes this line of reasoning, it seems that one ought to also be tolerant of people who want to have guns. Most gun-owners do not end up shooting people, so as tolerant liberals, shouldn’t we tolerate this interest? While the point is taken that gun ownership makes homicides more likely, the counter-analogy must also be accepted that most terrorists in recent history have been Muslim. How can we consistently hold a position of tolerance if we accept Islam as a religion, while condemning guns as a culture? Wouldn’t we want to say in both cases that the people who commit the crimes are freak outliers? Could it be the case that our fears of gun violence are mainly being driven by the same kind of sensationalism that makes people suspicious of Arabs on airplanes?

I’ve talked to my friend, and we’ve agreed to continue trying to start gun club, if we can do so in a way that doesn’t offend the sensibilities of our school too much. The recent events have clearly disturbed the nation, and I believe that this is an important conversation to continue having for several reasons. It will help us to clarify what kind of conceptions of liberalism we’re willing to defend. And it will cause us to continue to search for the reasons why these killings have been occurring to begin with.

-Elias Brockman

Supreme Court Takes DOMA

In his great travelogue, Democracy in America, Tocqueville famously wrote that “Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” If you haven’t heard, last week the Supreme Court accepted two cases regarding gay marriage. How they will rule is anyone’s guess, but here’s one interesting question that we can try to address: for supporters of gay marriage, would it have been better if the courts had just left the issue alone a little longer?

One of my professors made a sports analogy, “If you’re making good progress, and it looks like you’re probably going to score a touch-down, at that point in the game why on earth would you decide to throw a hail-mary pass?” The gay rights movement has been pretty much succeeding. Society is now more accepting of sexual minorities than it ever has been, and there’s no reason to think that this rapid social change will reverse itself in the near future. However, a win in the Supreme Court could potentially do just that.

The argument is that just as Brown v. Board of Education slowed down the efforts of desegregation in the South and Roe v. Wade made it more difficult for women in many states to get an abortion, so a win for gay rights in the courts could be a loss in the states. Why these paradoxical results? Essentially, the Court decisions polarized critics of the outcomes and caused supporters to naively believe that they had won. As a consequence, people who opposed desegregation suddenly had a stronger voice than they would have had the Court decided not to take the cases to begin with. The worry in this case is that a favorable decision for gay marriage could produce a negative backlash, and that upholding DOMA could ultimately hurt the gay rights movement. So why did the Court even take the cases to begin with? Perhaps Rosenberg’s theory does not hold as much sway today as it used to, and the Court believes in the power of its decisions to affect change? Or maybe the Court pretty much agrees with the “constrained court” thesis and took the cases to try to strike a blow against gay marriage. I would be interested to learn more about the politics behind the decision, and will be curious to see how they rule in June.

My opinion? They should rule to strike down DOMA regardless of the outcome for the gay rights movement. Because the act seems to be unconstitutional on 14th amendment grounds, and the first and last job of the court should be to defend the constitution.

Morsi

I’ve been meaning to type this post up since Thanksgiving when Mohamed Morsi made his power grab. I’m ashamed to confess, I’ve been procrastinating on writing it–just like Morsi’s been procrastinating on his promise to return democracy to the Egyptian people. But maybe we should cut him slack, just like I should cut myself slack for not writing? After all, it’s only been two weeks. This blog isn’t going to die just because I take a break for a while. And Egyptian democracy isn’t going to die just because it’s been temporarily suspended? Or will it?

They say that politics is about compromising. We live in a world where our commitments sometimes have to give way to reality. And yet, if we’re not diligent in maintaining the things we care most about, those things decay and disappear. One day of not going to the gym won’t instantly shrivel up all of the gains one’s made over a year of consistent exercise, but a day can turn into another day–a couple breaks and soon you’re looking at a week. A week turns into month. Soon, the goal is so far gone that you’ve given up completely, blobulizing in your cubicles. So how much compromise is too much compromise? When autocratic rule is involved, probably not much.

But here’s part of the problem: Mohamed Morsi is not a compromiser. His unwillingness to compromise his principles led the elected president and leader of the Muslim brotherhood to underhaul Egyptian democracy and re-draft the Constitution to make it more Islamist. And he’s unlikely to back down. Some oppose the ruler–people have been protesting outside his palace since he consolidated power turning himself into what people have been calling a “new pharaoh”, but Morsi claims that 90% of Egyptians are on his side. To the Muslim brotherhood, it seems that democracy was the compromise, and perhaps a compromise that gave too much away to the secularists–for democracy requires pluralism, and religion demands unity. Could an Islamist Constitution bring both?

Perhaps it was naive to think that Egypt was committed as a nation to democracy. For people who are truly committed try (as much as possible) to avoid having to compromise…

What’s Going On In Gaza?

The past few days, I’ve been hearing talk about some kind of conflict between Israel and Palestine. And I ask myself: what’s this all about? Is the situation worsening or the same as it has been? The only thing that I really know is that the recent conflict is just the latest chapter in a long dispute.

So, let’s start there. Last week, Israel started a defensive forces operation in the Gaza Strip called “Operation Pillar of Defense”. The operation was a response to a sustained attack that occurred on October 24th in which Gazan militants fired 80 rockets and mortars into Israel in the course of a single day. From what I can understand about the conflict, the attacks were a response to other attacks, which were a response to other attacks. Maybe this is a gross over-simplification of the conflict, but it does seem to me that in some ways the Israel-Palestine situation resembles a familial blood vendetta. And I’m guessing that it’s unlikely to stop anytime soon.

The United States’s role in this is to defend and support Israel. So any violence that breaks out will inevitably obligate the US to respond in some way. What makes the situation dicey is it sounds like Israel may be preparing for some sort of ground invasion. Truces would likely be temporary at best. Unless something new and different happens, peace seems a long way off…

 

Post-Election Changes

Hey, the school project ended this week and I am back to blogging. I have this to say: if any of you ever start thinking about taking “Constitutional Law: Due Process” with Profesor Lochner, just do it. Moot Court week is not as bad as people say (unless you’re bad at managing your time), and you feel great after having completed it. Also, you learn so much! Great class.

Something else that ended: the election! And since then, people seem to have pretty much stopped talking about politics. I feel glad that I hitched my support to the winning horse, and look forward to seeing what kinds of policies Obama will try to push in the next four years. I imagine that the most pressing concerns for many Americans will continue to be economic, and hope that the situation improves both in this country and internationally.

I would like to use this post as a transition for the blog as a whole. Up until this point, the blog has primarily focused on the 2012 presidential election. However, now that the election has ended, it seems appropriate to expand our sphere of concern to examine politics not just in the US, but also abroad. I am no geopolitical expert, so following international politics will be a new venture for me. As a consequence, I imagine that the quality of this blog will improve overtime as me (and the other participants) become more familiar with the larger scope.

I will still be blogging about domestic concerns, and may still try to spend some time discussing issues rather than just events. My goal is to post something at least once a week, and I encourage others to do so as well.

I’ll start with an issue that has been interesting me for a while: India’s new biometric ID system. In India, they’ve been developing a system where every Indian citizen can get their fingerprints taken and their irises scanned, so that their identity can be stored digitally and verified within seconds from nearly any place at any time. While this definitely does have a big-brother kind of feel to it, it’s a pretty ingenious solution to many of the welfare distribution problems they’ve been having. In India, until now nearly half of the food rations designed to go to India’s poor have been usurped by store-owners, distributors, and bureaucrats, never actually reaching their destination.

Now, Indians can make claims to their share and it will be easier to ensure that the goods get to the right places. Because Indians can now prove their identities, distribution ought to start becoming more effective and efficient. Politicians have even begun discussing using the system to wire cash transfers directly to people’s bank accounts, cutting out the middle-man completely. This may be the beginning of a new age of welfare policies that promise to be both controversial and potentially groundbreaking.

A Hiatus

Hey, I won’t be posting for the next fat week or so on account of a school project that will be taking priority. Hopefully other people will be able to keep up the blog in the meantime. I’ll resume blogging again after the election. Exciting race though, huh? From what I’ve been hearing, it sounds like Obama currently has an edge over Romney. But time will tell… and soon.

-Spark Jameson

Who I’m Voting For

The debates are over, the campaign season is coming to a close. The only remaining drama involves the swing states. Which way are they going to swing? That is a guessing game that I am content not to play this time around. However, for each of us who are still undecided, there remains one other last question of interest: who am I going to vote for? Obama, Romney, a third-party candidate, or nobody? I’m going to rule out the last two options because they both seem like cop-outs to me. There are really only two realistic alternatives for the election outcome, and I feel obligated to choose: Obama or Romney. Which is better?

For those who are disillusioned with the two party system and desire either a British-style parliamentary system or some more radical alternative, this is Sophie’s choice. There is no correct decision, both candidates are equally bad. But I am not so cynical about our representative constitutional democracy. I think that probably both Romney and Obama are qualified for the job, and I can’t really imagine any super radical changes for the better or worse with either of them in office, despite claims to the contrary from both sides of the political spectrum.

Part of me wants Obama to win a second-term. I’m curious to see whether it’s possible to determine the positive/negative effects of his administration’s economic policies. If he wins re-election and things get worse, and this economic worsening can be persuasively linked to his policies, that will give us more reason to give the Republicans a chance in 2016. On the other hand, if the economy gets better and that betterment can be persuasively linked to his policies, that will further legitimize economic theories that claim government interference can strengthen the economy. This debate about the size and role of government will be clearer for all of us if the time horizons are greater, and at this point, I think it’s premature to argue that Democrat economics are flawed based on the past four years alone. As a college student in my senior year, I am beginning to realize just how short four years really are.

Having said that, conservative ideas fascinate me also, and I am equally curious to see what would happen and what we could learn if Romney took office. Now, I hear admonishments from my liberal friends telling me that mere curiosity is not a good reason to support a Republican candidate. Ideas have consequences and real people will be affected, perhaps for the worse, if Romney takes office. Obamacare will be undone, and poor people will suffer. Roe v. Wade will be repealed, and women will be prevented from getting abortions. Gay rights will be stymied, marriage for all will be pushed even farther into the future. While Romney has more recently been portraying himself as a moderate candidate, he cannot be trusted to remain one. The Republican party is filled to the brim with extremists and Romney will pander to them just like he seems to pander to everyone. What a Romney administration would look like is literally anyone’s guess, whereas Obama will likely persist as the Obama we’ve known all throughout—a moderate beacon of moderate progress. Because I am not persuaded that Obama’s policies have been bad, or that Romney has anything exceptional to offer, I have been given no compelling reason not to vote for the incumbent this election. Perhaps in the next election, the Republicans will win my vote. Time will tell.

-Spark Jameson

The Final Presidential Debate: Foreign Policy

Foreign policy magazine has a fun quiz about the third debate. They give 15 statements, and the challenge is to correctly match the statement to the man who said it. What makes the quiz challenging is what made the debate challenging–there seemed to be very little contrast between the two candidates.

On China, both candidates agreed that there’s potential for partnership but that China has to stop cheating on trade/economics. Both emphasized that the US relationship with China will depend in part on the US’s ability to resolve its domestic economic problems.

On Afghanistan and Pakistan, Romney pretty much defended Obama’s policies, praising the surge, advocating for the 2014 transition deadline in Afghanistan, and supporting the use of drones.

On Iran, both candidates talked about more sanctions and asserted that the nation needs to be stopped from getting a nuclear bomb.

Perhaps one of the more interesting turns of the debate was Romney’s peace-talk, a subject he seemed to emphasize throughout the debate:

“[We want] to make sure the world is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet…  I want to see peace… We don’t want another Iraq. We don’t want another Afghanistan.” [Military action is] “the last resort. It is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent.”

Points against Romney: raising defense spending seems like it’s not a great solution for a president who wants to cut spending. His argument essentially seemed to be that in order to avoid war, America needs to appear strong. In order to appear strong, it needs to continue spending on military. I suppose that while intangible qualities such as “appearance of strength” are important for good foreign policy, I’m not entirely convinced that the benefits of having more military outweigh the economic costs of more spending. Especially when those additional economic costs could weaken our foreign policy with China. Also, regarding China, I’m not sure I understand how calling them a ‘currency manipulator’ will help the partnership…

Points against Obama: I actually thought he did pretty good this debate and can’t really think of anything that I found lacking in his performance. He made some witty zings and did a good job of putting Romney on the defense. I have little else to say because the contrasts struck me as being pretty meager in this last debate. Romney asks independent voters to see him as a moderate whose foreign policy will mirror Obama’s in many ways. Given that he hasn’t had a chance behind the wheel, it’s hard to know what he would actually do. Since it sounds like Romney’s foreign policy ideal is something similar to Obama’s, it seems that if one is voting primarily based on FP issues then one should vote for Obama. Because if this last debate is any indication, there’s really no alternative.

-Spark Jameson

Second Presidential Debate Recap (Binders Full of Women)

Unlike my last two debate recaps, I am not going to rehash the arguments made by the two candidates point for point for this third debate. The second presidential debate seemed to consist more of political posturing than real argument, of claims that the opponent had his facts wrong more than principled contrast. The platforms that were expounded in the first two debates were not expanded on much in this debate. Having said that, I do think that the debate had one important outcome: it seemed to mostly undo the damage that Romney did to Obama in the first debate.

In this debate, Obama held his own, and successfully defended himself from Romney’s punches, while pulling a fair number himself (“Governor Romney doesn’t have a five point plan, he has a one point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules” also, the now-infamous Romney fact-check from moderator Candy Crowley). While Obama certainly did much better rhetorically, the ideas of the debate were pretty much the same as those being discussed in the first two debates. For that reason, I found that neither candidate delivered much more ideas-wise to persuade a truly undecided voter.

One comment that I do think it’s worth spending a little bit more time on is Romney’s “binders full of women” remark, another now-infamous moment from the debate. The line was made as part of a response to an audience member’s question asking how women’s inequality would be rectified in the workplace. First, Obama responded by talking about how he signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act during the beginning of his term. Then it was Romney’s turn. The Republican candidate began by stating that when he was elected governor of Massachusetts, he initially had a hard time finding qualified women for his cabinet, but he knew they must be out there, so he sought them out and sure enough found “whole binders full of women”. The internet responded instantly to the line, binders of women jokes abounding. Many claimed that the line revealed just how out of touch Romney is with women. Others came to Romney’s defense, arguing that he did a good thing by seeking out qualified women for his cabinet rather than simply going with the men he already knew. But the most common qualm seemed to be with the phrase itself, “binders full of women”, even if one agreed with the intended sentiment behind by it: that there are lots of really qualified women.

Perhaps the offensive idea underlying Romney’s remark was that it may not be immediately obvious that qualified women exist, so the fact that he actively sought them out somehow made him a more enlightened man. Or maybe the internet outrage came as a result of his apparent surprise to have found so many of them. Or maybe the reaction rose to such an enormous level because in stating that the women were in binders (rather than say their resumes), he reduced them to mere pieces of paper, belittling them even as he was trying to build them up.

But one thing strikes me as odd here. Women are not minorities. Women make up 51% of the population. Why are we even talking about them as a ‘them’? Is it because they are being systematically oppressed by their male counterparts, such that the government owes them some kind of legal protection or remedy? If it’s true that women are not making equal pay for equal work, is this a result of real gender discrimination or some other factors? The debate reminds me of a short article from an issue of the economist that went to print last spring, which leads me to conclude: some form of discrimination will always take place in the workplace, no matter what regulations are put in place by the government. The only acceptable form of discrimination is based on merit. Given that businesses need qualified candidates in order to succeed, aren’t they disadvantaging themselves by passing over qualified females for less qualified males? Won’t this eventually lead to sexist organizations being overtaken by their non-sexist competitors? Won’t sexism eventually be overcome by natural market forces? And if this is the case, should the government still try to protect women from being discriminated against? If they should, should they also institute legislation to prevent people from being discriminated against based on attractiveness, height, or age? How would we enforce such policies? And where do we draw the line?

Democrats have been telling me that I should take their side in this election for the sake of social issues, if for nothing else. In this case however, the line seems to be blurred between the social and the economic. If the government can be trusted, and the market cannot be, then it seems that a vote for the Republicans is a vote against women. On the other hand, if the market can be trusted more than the government can, then it is unclear to me, at least on this particular issue that a vote for the Republicans actually is a vote against women (and I need not remind the reader that many Republicans are women). There may be reasons not to vote for the Republicans, but this seems to not be one of them. Maybe one of my Democrat friends can explain where I’ve gone wrong here.

-Spark Jameson

Vice Presidential Debate Recap

Before the veep debate, I heard essentially two predictions about how it would go: (1) the debate will turn out much like the presidential debate, Ryan knows more about policy and will smash Biden. (2) Biden will be very agressive to compensate for Obama’s apparent weakness in the first debate, potentially bringing the Democrats a win. The second prediction turned out to be more accurate. Biden interrupted Ryan, yelled a lot, accused Ryan of spouting a “bunch of malarky”, laughed and made faces at the camera while Ryan talked. In the wake of the debate, Democrats have been claiming that Biden won or that the match was a draw, depending on whether or not they found Biden’s behavior off-putting. Republicans have been claiming that Ryan won, or that it was a draw, also seeming to depend on whether they found the vice-president’s rhetorical tactics to be effective. I’m in the “draw” camp. Biden’s tactics were dirty, and so on a purely rhetorical level, Ryan came off as the more respectable candidate. Having said that, I do think that Biden’s behavior succeeded in undermining the words of Romney’s running mate, at least in the eyes of Democrats. So on that level, for Democrats, the debate was a success.

In terms of ideas, I found the debate less interesting than the presidential debate. But let’s look at the arguments point by point:

On Foreign Policy:

Biden began the debate by praising Obama’s foreign policy and contrasting it against Romney’s stated positions. Ryan countered by arguing that Obama failed to adequately protect the four American ambassadors from harm and then took too long to acknowledge that the Benghazi murders were a terrorist attack, an indication of a broader problem: that Obama’s foreign policy is starting to crumble, that Obama’s defense cuts are making the US appear weak to their enemies, thereby making said enemies more likely to test us. Biden counter-argued that Obama’s foreign policy has in fact been repairing alliances around the world, and preventing Iran from developing a nuke through the imposition of crippling sanctions. Defending Obama on the Libya affair, Biden claimed that the Obama administration was misinformed by the intelligence community, and criticized Romney’s campaign for holding a press conference on the matter before any real information was made available.

On Iran: 

Ryan claims that the Obama administration’s sanctions will not prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities because the military option is not being viewed as credible. In order to change the Ayatollah’s mind, the US needs credibility. Biden counter-argues that Obama has imposed sanctions, that the sanctions are tough, and that the US does have credibility. Ryan rebuts that the sanctions are not tough enough, they’ve been getting watered down, and that they’ve been imposed not because of Obama, but in spite of him. Preventing Iran from going nuclear should be top priority because if they do, it will start a nuclear arms race in a part of the world that sponsors terrorism more than anywhere else.

Who won on foreign policy? Draw. Romney’s running mate showed a surprising proficiency on matters of foreign policy, an area that is not his main focus. While Biden gave an adequate defense of Obama, Ryan leveled some real criticisms that did some real damage. However, in my opinion, the criticisms leveled were not great enough to warrant a turning away from the incumbent president on those grounds alone.

On the economy:

Biden argues that when the great recession hit, Obama acted for the middle class, and that Romney cares little for these people. Ryan counter-argues that Obama’s plan is not succeeding at bringing about an economic recovery. Romney’s following five point plan will: (1) Get America energy independent in North America by the end of the decade. (2) Help people who are hurting get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. (3) Get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crisis. (4) Make trade work for America so we can make more things in America and sell them overseas, and champion small businesses. (5) Don’t raise taxes on small businesses because they’re our job creators. He then gives a nice little anecdote to show that Mitt Romney cares about people. Biden responds with a personal story about how wife and daughter died in a car accident, and then argues that while Romney may care about individuals, he did not care about the auto-industry when he callously claimed “let them go bankrupt”, while Obama bailed them out. Republicans created the debt, Biden argues, they can’t be trusted to actually care about eliminating it.

Ryan responds by arguing that when Obama was elected, the Democrats had control over everything. They passed the stimulus, it put us into even greater debt, and it didn’t succeed at its goal of improving the economy. Since the stimulus, the economy has gotten worse. Romney’s plan will lead to real growth by strengthening the middle class. Biden counters that Ryan is a hypocrite. He asked for stimulus money for his state, and now he’s claiming moral high ground against it. Ryan justifies himself by explaining that he was advocating for constituents who were applying for grants, and then accuses the Democrats of wasting taxpayer money on electric cars in Finland and windmills in China. Biden almost offers a defense of green jobs as being important for growth. Doesn’t seem to finish the argument.

Who won on the economy? Ryan. He offered Romney’s plan and appealed to intuitively compelling evidence that Obama’s plan has not been working. Furthermore, Biden’s biggest criticism in this round seemed to be more of a character criticism than an ideological one. Rather than masterfully defending the stimulus, he accused Ryan of supporting it. While this makes Ryan look bad, it does not make the stimulus idea look better. So, if we’re judging based on the arguments for the competing ideas being offered, Ryan’s criticisms were more substantial.

On Medicare and entitlements:

Ryan argues that medicare and social security are going bankrupt. He tells a couple anecdotes about people who have benefited from the programs. He argues that the programs need to continue for older people who depend on them and reformed for the younger generation so that America doesn’t go bankrupt. He claims that Obamacare takes funding from medicare in a way that will hurt current seniors. Medicare will be cut every year by an unelected board of 15 people who aren’t even required to have medical training. Ryan defends a modified version of medicare for future seniors that relies on choice and competition in order to save money so that such programs can continue.

Biden argues that the cuts to medicare just reduce overpayments to insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors. They don’t actually effect seniors. Biden says that seniors actually have more benefits today, that Ryan’s plan would hurt future seniors, and that the audience “follow their instincts”. He argues that if social security had been privatized during the Bush years, there would have been no social safety to catch them now. Republican ideas are old and they are bad.

Ryan starts giving statistics to defend his claims: 1 out of 6 hospitals and nursing homes are going out of business as a result of the medicare cuts. 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose $3,200 of coverage. Biden denies the statistics. Ryan claims that they come from the Obama administration’s own actuaries. Biden calls Ryan’s plan a voucher plan. Ryan denies the accusation. They would keep the plan essentially the same and raise the retirement age over time. It wouldn’t get to 70 until 2103 according to the actuaries. Biden argues that they would not be keeping the program essentially the same. They would be changing it from “a guaranteed benefit to a premium support”. Ryan counters that that’s why it would cost more for higher income people and less for lower income people.

Who won on medicare and entitlements? Ryan. Biden claims that the plan proposed by Romney/Ryan will raise the cost of medicare, but he never denies Ryan’s fundamental premise that the programs are on the road to bankruptcy unless they’re reformed. He fails to substantially criticize the reforms, or defend the current programs from the charge of inevitable bankruptcy.

On taxes: 

Biden claims that the middle class will pay less and the rich will pay slightly more. The Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Romney/Ryan has a tax-cut that will make the middle class have to pay $2000 more per year. Ryan responds by claiming that Romney will cut taxes across the board for everyone. Martha Raddatz asks for the specifics about the tax plan. Ryan waffles. Biden claims that Ryan’s tax cuts are mathematically impossible and then interrupts him a lot when he tries to defend himself.

Who won on taxes? Biden. He scored some good criticisms of Ryan’s tax plan, and Ryan was not sufficiently able to explain himself.

On Defense:

Ryan claims that Obama’s proposed defense cuts are no good. In order to have “peace through strength”, it’s important to have a strong military. Biden claims that defense is too expensive and that Ryan also voted for the automatic cuts. Ryan counters that Biden is misrepresenting him. He voted for bipartisanship.

Who won on defense? Draw. Both made good points. Biden didn’t really argue against the notion that a strong military is necessary for peace. Neither did Ryan give reason to think that not cutting from the defense budget was fiscally defensible.

On Afghanistan and Syria:

I’m not going to summarize the points made in this section because there seemed to be very few points of real and substantial disagreement. Who won? Hard for me to tell.

On Abortion:

Biden defends the woman’s right to choose. Ryan defends Romney’s position of opposing abortion with exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Biden reminds the audience that the president will have supreme court appointment power. Ryan assures the audience that Romney and him don’t believe that unelected should make the decision.

Who won on abortion? Biden. Regardless of whether or not I find abortion right or wrong, I think we can all agree that, to many liberals, the idea of Romney appointing supreme court justices who could then help to overturn Roe v. Wade is probably scarier than almost any other issue. If any argument could have been made to get Democrats to show up on election day, that was probably the kicker.

So who won the debate? While it’s still difficult for me to separate the ideas from the rhetoric in trying to make a call, I think that Biden may have just edged it.

-Spark Jameson