A Look at the Economic, Social, and Political (ESP) Spectrums Part 1: An Introduction

When examining current events and such, we should look through three lenses, namely the economic, social, and political (ESP). This allows us to gain a greater understanding. Failing to look through all three can lead to an incomplete comprehension of an issue. In this article, I’d like to look at all three and how America fits in. This is an overview article and I intend to explore each in greater detail at a later date.

Let’s start with the social in Figure 1.

Note the barbell approach I’ve taken. In this context, pure freedom is the equilibrium. In theory, I suppose we could say pure freedom is anarchy, but for this column, we’re going to assume a government is in place. As we move to the left of the center, we see a secular government begin to encroach on the pure freedom, leading ultimately to a totalitarian secular government. Likewise, as we move right of center, we see a theocratic, religious-based government encroach on pure freedom.

The point is, as we move further left or right, freedom falls under attack. I deliberately structured the color scheme to show that the attacker of freedom is irrelevant. In this spectrum, I would put the USA in the semi-freedom realm. Whether we are secular or theocratic is outside the scope of this column. Also outside the scope of this column is my belief that the USA is the global champion of freedom, given that we have entities far to the left of us (China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) and far to the right of us (like Iran).

We now move onto the global political spectrum shown in Figure 2.

Again, we assume a government exists, thus no anarchy. The overlap between Figures 1 and 2 is not a coincidence. Our political structures are directly correlated to freedom and the social spectrum.

To narrow it down to what we see in the United States, we have Figure 3, which is the republic portion of Figure 2. Technically, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. The difference is mainly in the voting structure. In a democracy, all eligible voters vote on all matters, but in a republic, eligible voters elect representatives to vote on their behalf on most matters (save the occasional referendum). Both structures allow for a single executive branch to be elected. One can easily see how a true democracy is impractical. In Figure 3, we see darker red/blue as we get further away from the purple center (because red and blue make purple).

I’m not going to go into excruciating detail here. On the left, we would typically expect to see various classes of liberals like democrats, socialists, progressives, and communists. On the right, we would typically expect to see various classes of conservatives like republicans, libertarians, and social conservatives.

We don’t typically see a global economic spectrum, but I’d contend it looks like Figure 4.


Note the lack of partition and higher concentration of more solid colors in Figure 4 versus Figure 3. Also, note the absence of anything to the right of socialism shown in Figure 2. The reason is that these (republic, democracy, monarchy, theocracy, and fundamentalist) are generally considered more to be social and political structures than economic structures, and as such, these structures can, in theory, appear throughout the economic spectrum. So, we have free-market capitalist, socialist, and communist economic structures.

But Figure 4 is flawed. It creates a perception that if one is not a full-on free-market capitalist, one is a socialist or even a communist. This is why I’d like to change the economic spectrum in Figure 4 to look more like Figure 5.


As you can see, there is much less solid color and two new categories have emerged, namely capitalist and neutral. This distinction is necessary because it creates a new category, the capitalist, for people who believe the economy should mostly be left to its own devices, yet sometimes requires the government to act as a referee or a guide. Such people are often and unfairly demonized by free-market capitalists, socialists, and communists alike.

This was meant as an introductory look at the three spectrums. I plan to explore each in greater detail in future columns.

Rethinking Air Security and Law Enforcement – A Starting Point

Our current hodgepodge of airport security is a mess, and I’m being nice. First, let’s look at the big current story, namely the random body scans and searches. Then, let’s ponder alternatives.

We need strong security in our air system. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks (or attempted attacks that have been thwarted) demonstrate this. The current choice of random body scans or searches is laughable. Provided a person has done nothing to arouse suspicion, it’s blatantly unconstitutional on many levels, most notably the 4th amendment, stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated […]”

If a person has done nothing to arouse any suspicion, why should that person be subjected to such draconian measures and how are that person’s 4th amendment rights not being violated? It’s entirely different if that person has somehow aroused a reasonable level of suspicion. Simply being a traveler or calling out constitutional rights does not pass this test. The current measures and methodology are unconstitutional for the unsuspicious. I think it’s also excessively costly and inconvenient, but I don’t really want to go into those here. Instead, I want to look at what could be done differently.

The problem with our current approach is if we’re waiting to stop attackers at the airport or relying on passengers to stop attackers on the plane, it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, we still need vigilant security personnel and travelers at the airport and on planes. All travelers, even the unsuspicious, should still have to go through metal detectors, explosive detectors, bag x-rays (checked and carry-on), and security personnel should still be observing the crowd for suspicious behavior.

But, we need to be much more proactive at preventing attackers from even reaching the plane. How? We do that by screening passenger lists for red flags, doing background checks on travelers, and profiling. I know, it’s not politically correct to say that, but I’ll save my views on political correctness for another post. These three are interconnected. We need to make sure people who should be on no-fly lists are on them, and then we need to make sure that people who are on no-fly lists are actually being prevented from flying. This is accomplished through list screenings, background checks, and profiling.

I’ll probably be most critiqued for mentioning profiling, so I’ll defend that a bit. Profiling, if done properly, is legal and constitutional. One could even make an argument that the act of not profiling is unconstitutional, but I’m not willing to go that far. If we have credible data that suggests that certain demographics and/or individuals are a higher risk than others, why should we ignore that data? I’ll use two unrelated examples to support this.

First, hypothetically speaking, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, there is a major law on the books with significant negative consequences that has never been violated by a certain demographic and is most often violated by another demographic (99% of the time). Let’s also assume the data is properly and completely collected. In other words, there is no inherent bias of any kind. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for law enforcement, from the perspectives of resource allocation and efficiency, to focus their prevention and enforcement efforts of said law on those who are shown to be more likely to violate (or attempt to violate) said law? To clarify, that doesn’t mean they stop watching the former demographic (or all other demographics) for that law because there’s a first time for pretty much everything and the underlying factors contributing to the violation of that law could change. It also doesn’t mean they unfairly target or violate the rights of individuals in the latter demographic because it’s still a case-by-case thing and everyone is still innocent until proven guilty.

Second, let’s think about insurance companies for a minute. They collect and analyze data constantly attempting to assess their risk and subsequently charge premiums accordingly. Most people think it’s reasonable to charge a higher premium to assume higher risk. These assessments are based on general demographic data as well as the history of the applicant. Assuming no rights are violated, why should law enforcement be any different?

We need to rethink air security and law enforcement in general. This article was meant as a starting point based on a current issue.

Reframing the Gay Marriage Discussion

I had an enlightening discussion recently on gay marriage involving people running the spectrum on the issue. This revealed much about the current discussion and made me realize we have a failure to communicate. It’s also made me realize that if gay rights advocates want to make progress, they must reframe the discussion. The word ‘marriage’ is the big hang-up. It means different things to supporters and opponents. I see many supporters view it from a legal perspective while many opponents view it from a religious/lifestyle perspective.

First, let’s see the legal perspective. I’d argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage should be considered a privilege and has significant legal ramifications. Whether a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to marry a man, a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, we’ve got legally-consenting adult humans. Denying gay marriage is akin to denying two people from creating and signing a legally-binding contract.

Constitutionality aside, there are monumental legal differences between civil unions and marriages. Obviously, these vary from state to state, but there are two key general differences. First, civil unions often entail far fewer legal benefits than marriages. Second, the federal government makes states recognize each other’s marriage licenses even if laws conflict, but not necessarily civil unions. 16-year olds married legally in a state with a minimum age of 16 can go to a state where the minimum age is 18 and still have their marriage license recognized, but a civil union in one state may or may not be recognize by another state.

These differences are critical to the debate and few opponents of gay marriage appear to be aware of it. This is important because I often here no objection to equal legal rights from opponents of gay marriage. “I don’t have any problem with equal rights for gays, but I do have a problem with gay marriage,” or something like that, suggesting a communication disconnect.

When opponents hear the word ‘marriage’, they’re worried about an attack on the religious and lifestyle aspects of marriage. Some worry that if they support gay marriage, the government will intervene and force religious organizations against their will to marry gay people. This should not be viewed as a credible threat because it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and of the rights of religious organizations. It is also not what supporters want.

Another common worry is that gay marriage is an assault on straight marriage. One presumption here is that marriage as an institution is put in place to ensure the orderly upbringing of children. I challenge this because it misses two key points. First, though gay couples cannot procreate without help, they are still capable of adopting and being good parents. There are many kids in the adoption system who would take gay foster parents over no foster parents. Second, if children are marriage’s primary purpose, why are marriage licenses granted to those who cannot have kids and those who can have kids, but choose not to?

I believe opponents of gay marriage feel threatened. They feel as though their way of life is under attack. Many feel as though they would be somehow forced to accept homosexuality as normal or something to this effect. Gays are a minority in the USA, no doubt about it. But, remember that one of the founding principles of our great nation is that even though we respect the will of the majority, we cannot violate the rights of the minority in the process.

I recommend supporters refocus the discussion from one of gay marriage versus civil unions versus nothing to one of equal legal rights for gays. Simply stripping the word ‘marriage’ from the discussion and instead seeking ‘equal legal rights’, supporters will make much more progress. It will get them what they want and would help drain emotion from the discussion by helping those who support equal legal rights for gays, but oppose gay marriage, recognize that they truly are on the same page as the gay marriage advocates. This will lead to a consensus that should lead to equal legal rights for gays, which is the end goal.

Rallying to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Post-Rally

It's time for some follow-ups on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear that I attended over the weekend in Washington DC.

The place was totally packed. It took us nearly two hours to get back to our hotel room from the rally, and we were only a half-dozen DC Metro stops away. It was wall-to-wall people as far as the eye could see. My crude calculations based on population density and populated area suggest there were over 150,000 people there. Don't believe me? Check out the aerials courtesy of http://www.geoeye.com/ . They clearly support my conclusion.



On the whole, it was a really fun time with a great message. There were lots of great costumes and signs throughout the crowd. Even though there was a clear liberal bias in the crowd and the participating organizations (indeed, I felt at times like the most right-wing person in the crowd, but that's ok), the rally's main message transcended partisan politics and was a call to refocus America on unity and solutions. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert put on a magnificent show in which reason triumphed over the forces of fear.

I just want to get this post out there to offer up some truth to counteract the interpretations that this rally was a failure. The rally permit was for 60,000 people and the rally easily drew twice that, perhaps even thrice. It raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the supported charities, namely the Trust for the National Mall and DonorsChoose.org. It gave the attendees a fun, peaceful gathering while the politicians were home fighting for their jobs and their supporters were out with them. Based on all that, I'm not sure how one can classify the rally as a failure.

I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to watch it, or at least try to find some video or some transcripts.

Rallying to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Note: I wrote this before the rally this past weekend and posted it on my stock blog. I'm reposting it here.

As we approach Election Day 2010, there will be rallies all throughout the nation. Some will rally for Republicans, some for Democrats, some for Tea Party and other Independent candidates. But, there is one rally that should unite us all, one that transcends all the fear-mongering, partisan bickering, venomous rhetoric, and unbridled rage that we have seen American political discourse become. Naturally, I refer to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which will take place on Saturday, October 30th in Washington DC at the National Mall.

The Daily Show is a satirical news show on Comedy Central hosted by Jon Stewart. It’s meant to poke fun at news coverage and current events and is tailored after your evening national news. There’s also The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert, which is a satirical take on news talk shows, likely tailored after Bill O’Reilly as Colbert claims. Knowing the rally is being put on by a pair of comedians, it’s very tempting to dismiss it, but please don’t make that mistake. They have a message.

The rally’s website, www.rallytorestoresanity.com, provides a great overview of who the rally is for and what it’s about. Two quotes sum it up nicely.

First is, “We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.”

Next is, “Ours is a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority. If we had to sum up the political view of our participants in a single sentence… we couldn’t. That’s sort of the point.”

These two quotes pretty much say it all. These people make up the majority of the population. We run the political spectrum from right to center to left. We believe that the venomous political climate currently in the USA is highly counterproductive. We want to solve problems. The belief of the people attending this rally is that if the American people do not transcend partisanship, we cannot come together to solve the major problems our nation is facing. And, if there’s one thing we all probably agree on, it’s that the USA has problems that need fixing. I’ll spare you the long list. This is a rally for people who want to get away from partisanship and start actually solving our problems, who see something wrong with demonizing, insulting, and hating someone who disagrees with you, and who want to see sanity injected back into the American political dialogue.

I have two other points of note about the rally. First, you can also go to www.saneornot.com to see some of the signage that may or may not be present at the rally. There are some great signs there. Second, the rally is actively encouraging donations to the Trust for the National Mall. Further, all proceeds from merchandise sales will also be donated to that very same trust. As the name implies, the Trust is responsible for the upkeep of the National Mall. It’s where the monuments to some of our greatest leaders reside, and these need the funding for upkeep so future Americans can remember the greatness of these leaders.

This is a rally calling for the restoration of civility to American political discourse. It’s a call for a refocusing of our energies away from tearing each other down and back on rebuilding America. Every single American knows that we have the talent, work ethic, and determination to fix the ills that plague our nation. We just need to get ourselves recalibrated on combating our problems instead of each other.

If you attend, you also have the added benefit of being in Washington DC when all the politicians are away, many in desperate struggles to keep their jobs. There is no saner time to be in Washington DC than when the politicians are back home. I’ll be there. Will you?

Intro Post

I've decided to separate my opinion blogging from my stock blogging. I'm not sure how frequent the posts will be here, but I can tell you they'll be well-researched and reasoned. I'm an advocate for truth and civilized intellectual discourse. I believe these are largely absent in America today, mainly due to the media and the politicians themselves, and that it is possible to disagree with someone without demonizing and hating the person.

A quick overview of my political orientation. I peg myself as a moderate and an independent because I don't believe either party has all the answers. I'm also a pragmatist first, then an idealist. We have major problems in the USA that require unity and a focus on solutions, not ideology. Sometimes, I side with the left, sometimes the right, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.