*technicalities may apply
Remember when Newt Gingrich argued that “there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?” Should we have no Chick-Fil-As near the Freedom Trail until the chicken sandwich chain opens on the sabbath? Mayors Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel believe they can obstruct a private business from locating in their cities because of the anti-gay stance of Chick-Fil-A’s Southern Baptist president.
Predictably, many conservatives are rallying around Chick-Fil-A and many progressives are cheering for the mayors. As objectionable as Dan Cathy’s discriminatory political views are, blocking private enterprise for political speech is a disturbing and anti-constitutional use of state power. Some defenders argue that Emanuel and Menino are just voicing their opinions. Nope: Menino said, “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.” In Chicago, the mayor and a local alderman are working to block the chain’s expansion by denying them permits.
Somehow each political side doesn’t notice that punishing groups for political or religious views they disagree with goes against our 1st Amendment. When Gingrich, Palin, and others cheered every effort to block the ground-zero mosque, progressives were happy to object. As the conservative American Center for Law and Justice sought to block Park51 on legal technicalities many of the same people now supporting the mayors smugly embraced the 1st Amendment. Of course, now that marriage equality supporters are pushing to block a business with evangelical Christian views, conservatives are back to loving the constitution.
Park51 opponents don’t need to go to the mosque. Marriage equality supporters don’t need to eat mediocre chicken sandwiches. Our government basing business licenses on political and religious litmus tests should frighten everyone.
If not, campaigns may be forced to use original music like this:
(via The Daily Dish)
Many people view politicizing memorable and tragic experiences as somehow vulgar, but anyone that takes politics seriously shouldn’t partition society’s most significant events away from public policy. Of course, we need to guard against the mirror hazards of trivialization and demagoguery whenever highly emotional matters touch our politics.
In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Sohrab Ahmari uses the horrific tragedy in Colorado and the anniversary of the Norwegian mass murder to illuminate how America and Norway view justice. Writing mostly for an American audience, his opinion piece seeks to generate exasperation at how lenient Norway will treat its mass murderer.
Norwegian prisons are often described as the world’s nicest. And as the London Telegraph reported in May, prison officials may even hire outside “friends” to keep Breivik company. Norwegian law holds that no prisoner—not even Breivik—should ever find himself in total isolation. That would be too cruel.
All this sounds outrageous—and it is. Norwegian society has advanced so far down the path of “humaneness” that it cannot put someone like Breivik to death, let alone jail him for life.
Interestingly, Ahmari never actually makes an argument for why Norway’s system is bad. That it “sounds outrageous” is enough. He knows Americans are rightly shocked and appalled by the latest Colorado massacre and our innate impulse for vengeance is powerful. I wonder if it’s so potent that most readers don’t notice that Ahmari frames “humaneness” as a descending route.
What is the too-lenient and soft-on-crime critique supposed to criticize anyway? If Norwegian style leniency led to more violent crime it might be clear. But the correlation is closer to antithetical.
The US homicide rate is substantially higher than Norway’s rate.
Sohrab also apparently thinks that letting certain criminals back into civilization is self-evidently wrong. It’s hard to know why since he doesn’t attempt an argument. No one needs to feel overly compassionate for criminals to believe that serving a limited sentence and then becoming productive in society is better than merely draining taxpayers’ resources to suffer. After all, Norway’s “clinical” approach leads to a recidivism rater far lower than the US justice system’s.
If Sohrab doesn’t think reducing crime should be the objective of our justice system, what’s his alternative? He sneers at the reluctance of another reporter to celebrate judicial brutality. “Like many Europeans, [a German reporter] looked down at the U.S. justice system for its supposed violence, including the persistence of the death penalty here.” The “supposed violence” he’s referring to might be the frequency of prison rape – a subject that many Americans feel is a joke rather than a grotesque outrage. Historically, rape and other forms of torture were commonly used as judicial punishments – instruments such as the judas chair and the pear of anguish were specifically crafted to cause humiliation along with agony. That we allow barbarism to continue capriciously in our prisons rather than as a direct penalty is not a point of integrity.
On Ahmari’s Facebook wall post, he agrees with his friend that America has the best justice system in the world. Severe punishment for its own sake is the goal. It doesn’t seem to matter whether James Holmes or any other menace is psychologically sound or not – brain destroying isolation is encouraged. My last blog post argued that free will is a myth and we shouldn’t get any ultimate personal credit for our successes – the corollary is that we shouldn’t subject humans to unnecessary misery for their offenses. Even if you’re not a determinist, punishment for “just deserts” isn’t moral. There is no cosmic scale to balance – you’re just causing suffering for no benefit. As Steven Pinker in his essential book on the history of violence writes, “institutionalized violence was once seen as indispensable to the functioning of a society, yet once it was abolished, the society managed to get along perfectly well without it.” Mass murderers should be severely sentenced because they are a danger to society. Contrary to what Sohrab might think, I’m happy to call Holmes’ and Breivik’s crimes “evil,” but causing them pain for its own sake is neither just nor “good.”
(photo by Alex Masi – Rehabilitation in a super max Norwegian prison)
By now everyone that pays close attention to these ridiculous campaign squabbles should realize that when president Obama said, “if you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that,” he didn’t mean that the entrepreneur isn’t responsible for his work, but that everyone utilizes public infrastructure and gets help from others. If he thought the individual didn’t make it happen he wouldn’t have said, “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” So, Romney is purposefully and dishonestly taking the president out-of-context – you know, as his campaign said it would do.
With Republicans arguing that the president thinks you aren’t responsible for your business and everyone else pointing out that he never said that, it’s worth noting that no one is actually responsible for their own “individual initiative.” Yes, you did build your own business, but the reason why you could build that business is due to the groundwork of society along with the talents and drive that you didn’t give yourself. We should still reward ambition and success even if no one fully deserves personal credit because the outside influence of accolades and compensation motivate beneficial actions like entrepreneurship.
Exterior influences acting on the biological hardware you inherited form our every behavior; where’s the merit in that? As the Republican Party trumps up imagined slights to corporate America from this business friendly president, we see an extreme individualist philosophy coddling a new entitlement class of the prosperous. The moral language of responsibility isn’t a trivial amusement when one party is only interested in conserving privilege at the expense of the economic mobility and security of everyone else.