Today, Radley Balko--author of TheAgitator.com--wrote up a long list of questions he would like to see asked of the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party.
With his permission, I am reposting these questions here--and responding to them as the official candidate of the Mongrel Party.
A recent study found that over half the country now derives part or all of its income from the federal government. Three of the richest counties in the country are in the D.C. suburbs, a telling indicator of just how bloated with taxpayer dollars Washington has become. The federal government is today pervasive in our day-to-day lives, yfrom cradle to grave, from the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep. Do you think these trends are healthy? Looking at the premise of this question, would you agree or agree federal government is getting too large, too influential, and too pervasive?
The key phrase in that question is "part or all of its income". I haven't read the original report, so I'm not sure how they define "deriving part of its income". That definition is extremely important. If it means that the federal government is a significant and direct source of income for over half the country, then I say that this is a bad situation and it needs to be addressed. However, if it means that any part of the person's income--no matter how small--is the result of government spending, then it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Several years ago I worked for a foundry that manufactured valves. Maybe one day every 2 or 3 months, the crew I was on would be assembling valves for naval vessels. This means that about 1/75 of my income "was derived from the federal government". The government needs things done, and it contracts these duties out to the private sector. I don't consider this to be a bad thing. And, if the government is spreading these contracts out across a broader base of suppliers, I consider this to be a good thing. It is better, both economically and politically, to spread a project across 10 or 20 corporations than to vest it entirely into one. This allows more competitive bidding, and greater security.
This dispersion of contracts doesn't mean that the government is "more pervasive", though. As a factory worker, I was assembling ball valves. The only difference between the ones I made for the government and the ones I made for general use was the level of quality control--government valves allowed for exceedingly smaller tolerances.
Governments--from the federal all the way down to the local--have limited resources and limited funding. The more that they spread those out, the better it is for our nation.
The government is made up of people. Flawed people, just as the private sector is. But when private people make mistakes, the consequences are limited to them, and perhaps a few people around them. When a government official makes a mistake, it can affect millions. Isn't it better to let the American people make as many as their own decisions as possible? What makes a government bureaucrat more qualified to make decisions about the average Americans life than the average American?
This is a loaded question. Let me turn it back on itself and ask this: "What makes a doctor more qualified to make decisions about the average American's life than the average American?" Or a lawyer? Or an engineer? Or a plumber? As politically incorrect as it may be to say, the "average American" really has no clue about the bigger picture. They don't know anything about ground water contamination or forestry management or road construction or industrial safety. The "average American" has a scope of perception that is extremely limited. They don't care about other cities. They don't care about other states. They don't care about other countries.
A qualified bureaucrat is trained to look at the larger picture. While a policy may be bad for Bob Smith in Central City, it may be very good for the rest of the country. It may even be good for Bob in Central City--he just doesn't have the perspective to understand it.
Both I and my party firmly believe that the greatest power should be vested in the smallest governments--that communities and states know far more about what is best for their people--but there are times when the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few. These are the situations in which trained, qualified, and knowledgeable bureaucrats should and must assert their authority. Without this, we aren't a country; we're simply a bunch of states sharing a bunch of land.
In the same vein, can you name five government agencies that are either superfluous, anachronistic, ineffective, or otherwise no longer necessary, and that you would eliminate? To make things interesting, let's take everything under the Department of Defense off the table, with the acknowledgment that there's plenty of cutting to be done there, too.
Off-hand, I can not name five agencies that I would eliminate completely. However, I can name agencies I would restrict or reduce: The DEA, the BATF, the FCC, the FDA, the TSA, the DOJ, and all departments falling under the Dept of Homeland Security. Each and every one of them has far overstepped their mandate and become tools to enforce morality and political agendas.
Do you think it's appropriate for drug cops to be making medical policy?
No. I also don't think it's appropriate for there to be drug cops in the first place, so the question is rather academic.
What is your philosophical approach to federalism? What issues do you feel are best decided at the national level? What issues should be left to the states? Is there any underlying principle you use in separating one from the other, or would you make such decisions ad hoc?
I believe that the framers of the Constitution laid out the rules quite well. The federal government should only become involved in those issues which affect the nation as a whole, or in those situations which deal directly with the interaction of two or more states. It is not--nor should it be--the place of the federal government to interfere with matters internal to any state.
The only exception I would grant is to some social situations. Racism and other discrimination affect us all. There comes a point when the federal government must step in and enforce the concepts of equality and justice laid out in the Constitution--regardless of the popularity or locality.
Do you believe the U.S. military should be deployed for humanitarian missions?
Yes. As Uncle Ben said: "With great power comes great responsibility." The United States has been blessed with great power. It would be immoral and irresponsible for us to jealously guard that power when we have the ability and resources to help those in need.
It is not our place to interfere in cases of rebellion or civil war. But when we see starvation, blatant persecution, or genocide, we must step forward and stop it. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with personal gain. It has to do with what is right. I don't care what anyone says; to sit by and watch an entire culture be systematically slaughtered while we have the power to stop it, is wrong. It is evil by abdication.
Do you think an atheist could be president? Do you think an atheist should be? Assuming you generally agreed with an atheist on more issues than the alternatives in a given election, would you vote for one?
Assuming that the religion--or lack thereof--did does not control the actions of the President, I really couldn't care less what his religious association is. The Office of President is a civil office. So long as the person holding the office acts in a manner which is legal, ethical, and in the best interest of the nation as a whole, that person's religion--or lack thereof--is irrelevant.
To be honest, I believe that there is far more to fear from a President who is overly religious than there is from one who is atheist. Religion has been the justification for far more brutality and injustice in our history than atheism has. And that, my friends, is a very sad testimony to the state of religion in our country. It was the counsel of Jesus to separate matters of religion from those of politics ("Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar"). It's a shame that the self-proclaimed "spokesmen for Christianity" haven't gained a greater understanding of the words of their prophet.
Name five things you think are none of the federal government's business.
Who I have sex with. Who I choose to devote my life to. What I knowingly do to or put into my body. How I choose to die. The amount of melanin in my epidermis.
Am I restricted to only 5 things? Because I could expand this list if you'd like.
Do you think the criminal justice system is adequate in its present form? Do our criminal courts achieve the just outcome in an acceptable percentage of cases?
I am ashamed to admit it, but I think that our criminal justice system is fatally flawed. It is corrupt, racist, bigoted, greedy, and enslaved to politics and personal vendettas. The government-sanctioned prosecutors engage in contemporary witch-hunts in order to secure position, power, and adulation. Truth has been banished from our system of "justice" (yes, those quotes are intentional).
Justice can not be reduced to a win/loss ratio. Putting someone behind bars does not mean that justice has been served. In far too many cases, it means that justice has been perverted. When an innocent man stands in prison and a guilty man walks free, justice has been wounded. When a prosecutor elevates himself based on the number of notches in his belt rather than the degree of evil he has stopped, the concept of justice no longer holds meaning--and any moral superiority our nation may claim is lost.
Tyrants and despots bask in the numbers they have killed and imprisoned. Patriots defiantly proclaim that they have only punished the wicked.
When the two are in conflict, do you believe a politician is obligated to vote for his own principles and values, or for the will of the people?
This is a difficult question to answer. In a perfect world, the solution would be simple: the politician should follow the will of the people, until that will goes against the greater good of the nation.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has spent time in Washington has been exposed to a far wider and more complex vision of the world than the average person "back home" could ever understand.
Our nation is a republic, not a democracy. I believe that our Founding Fathers understood that difference quite well, and chose our path quite specifically. If "the will of the people" were the only standard by which to measure, Oliver Brown would never have been able to state his case before the United States Supreme Court.
There are times when "the will of the people" is wrong. Our country should never be governed by a mob mentality.
It is not, however, the place of an elected official to set policy based on his own, personal beliefs. Rather, it is the responsibility of an elected official to work in the best interest of his constituency and his nation--even if that path conflicts with the personal desires of himself and those who elected him.
Yes, I know. I'm describing a mythical "perfect world". But you asked what I believe, not what I see actually happening.
Is there any type of speech you believe should be criminalized?
Libel, slander, fraud, invasion of privacy, active incitement to violence, and such speech as demonstrably and unequivocally causes direct harm to the country or its citizens. That last one is tricky, but must be included. Someone who publicly reveals the names and addresses of our spies should not be protected under the First Amendment. Someone who publicly lists the names and addresses of abortion doctors and actively encourages their murder should not be protected.
No rights are limitless, for they must respect the rights of others. There will always be conflict between the rights--and responsibilities--of individuals. It is up to us, as citizens, to select a representative body that understands these conflicts and wisely judges the merits of all sides.
Do you promise not to claim for yourself any of the executive powers you've criticized the Bush administration for claiming?
Well, I haven't publicly criticized any of these powers.... Does that mean I'm allowed a "get out of jail free" card on this one? 
Seriously, though, if I were to claim any power or privilege which I have criticized in the past, then I deserve every and all derision I get. Hypocrisy is the greatest crime of the politician. And it's the responsibility of the people--and especially the fourth estate--to call us on it.
Do you think it's appropriate that the minority party in the senate can filibuster the majority? Would your position change if your party was in the minority?
I do think it's appropriate. The majority is not always right; might does not make right. The minority must be allowed tools to ensure that justice is carried out.
A filibuster requires effort and resolve. If the minority is willing to go to these lengths to support their position, than perhaps it has merit. If the majority can quickly and finally quash the minority's voice, then vision our Founding Fathers had for this nation has been abandoned. It is my belief that the minority should always have a voice--and a powerful voice. If the position of the majority is just, let them prove it.
What is your position on Kelo vs. New London? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a government to seize land from one private party and give it to another?
Leaving open the possibility of extreme situations; under no circumstances is it appropriate for the government to seize land from one private party and give it to another. Eminent Domain should only be invoked in situations where the benefits will be spread equally across the constituency. Building roads; installing dams for electricity or reservoirs; constructing munitions plants in times of active, declared, warfare. A person's home--no matter how humble--is worth more than a shopping mall.
Kelo vs. New London was a travesty. The precedent it set is terrifying.
If elected, will you fire all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush?
No. U.S. attorneys should be selected based on their skills and their adherence to the Constitution. While I would certainly replace any outgoing attorneys with ones more in line with my party's beliefs, it would be utterly inappropriate to fire a sitting judge for no other reason than who appointed them.
What federal crimes will you instruct the Justice Department to make a priority during your administration?
Actual incidents of terrorism--such as those perpetrated by Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh; kidnapping; murders under federal jurisdiction; trafficking in humans, actual and severe crimes against children, organized crime--such as extortion and smuggling.
I would specifically not pursue cases dealing with "moral" infractions--including adult pornography, drugs, and gambling. It is not the place of the federal government to play the role of mother or pastor to its citizens.
Do you think a journalist should ever be tried for treason for making public classified information?
Yes. If the information they release is a blatant and significant threat to national security. If a journalist published the plans to the Normandy Invasion, or the Tet Offensive, or released the root passwords to the servers for the DoD, DoJ, or the Whitehouse, then they should be prosecuted. Those are blatant and significant threats.
However, I fully support the press in its role of public guardian. The press was fully justified in releasing information about the illegal wiretapping in which the current administration engaged. They were fully justified in publishing the stories relating to Valerie Plame. They would be fully justified in revealing almost any information which showed the government to be acting against the interests of the citizenry.
That's the role of the press in our country. They are the ultimate check against all branches of the government. Any government must have its secrets; that goes without saying. But when a government feels it has to hide things from its own people, that sends up some serious red flags. When that government prosecutes the press for revealing what it discovers, it has crossed the line and become tyranical.
Are there any currently private industries that you believe are "too important" to be left to the private sector? Oil and gas? Health care? Google?
What you're asking is "are there any industries which you would nationalize?". The answer to that is "no". Not because I believe in the honesty or integrity of any of those industries, but because I explicitly don't believe in the ability of the government to handle those industries any better.
I do believe that there are a number of industries which should be subject to stricter regulation and closer oversight. I would love to see a simple, comprehensive medical insurance for every citizen (and yes, I use the word "citizen" very specifically). I think it appropriate for internet and telecommunications companies to be constrained by certain laws requiring the unregulated and unrestricted exchange of data between persons.
America by far and away has the highest prison population in the world. Does this concern you? Are there any federal crimes you feel should be repealed from the books, or devolved to the states?
The prison population concerns me greatly. The reasons why many of them are there concerns me even more.
If I had the power and authority, I would instantly repeal all federal "vice" crimes. No government--at any level--has the moral right to regulate the consensual actions of its citizens.
As for the devolution of authority, I believe I answered this question at the beginning of this session: Any action which does not directly and significantly affect the interests of the country as a whole--as laid out in the Constitution--should devolve to the lowest-level authority that is appropriate.
Should violations of regulatory law be criminalized? That is, should people go to jail for violating EPA, OSHA, or other regulations? Or should they merely be fined?
No. Absolutely no. Unelected individuals have been given far too much authority and power by Congress over the years. While you mention the EPA and OSHA, the problem goes far deeper. The Department of Justice has been given legislative power. Under administrative regulations collectively known as "2257", they have assumed the authority to completely ignore the 4th Amendment, and enter private residences to search for evidence without warrant or restriction.
This "authority" comes from the wording of Congress which says that the DoJ shall have the power to "enact whatever rules are necessary". Blank checks written out to the government--any government--are always more costly than they appear.
It is certainly reasonable to grant agencies the authority to levy fines based on laws which are openly debated and passed by Congress. It is not reasonable for Congress to abdicate the authority of legislation to a body of appointed individuals.
Would capturing Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri be a priority for your administration? How would you go about doing it?
Yes it would. But I would like to separate the search for these individuals from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The two have nothing to do with one another. The war in Iraq is a disgrace, and the fact that the--supposed--combined forces of the this nation can't locate and capture a single man who has been releasing continued public broadcasts is an embarrassment.
As for the methods involved in their capture... I feel that--within the laws of the nation and the strictures of morality--the specific tactics would be best left up to those who have skills and experience in these matters. This isn't a situation where you send in the 82nd Airborne. This is a situation where you send in a handful of skilled and ruthless individuals. If they come back with a prisoner for trial, that's wonderful. If they come back with a corpse for burial, that's acceptable.
Do you believe we're winning the war on terror? Are we doing all we can be doing? Are we overreacting? What would you do differently?
There is no "War on Terror". That's a cheap publicity stunt. There is a continued vigilance against attack and a drive to find those who have perpetrated, or are actively seeking to perpetrate, violence against our nation, but to call it a "war" is both a misnomer, and a cheap ploy.
There will always be terrorism. It's a Pandora's box. It will never go away. But, on the same token, it has always been here. We lived in safety and liberty for hundreds of years before now, why should things suddenly change?
I find the current administration's use of this excuse to perpetrate unethical, immoral, and illegal activities to be a travesty. Everyone knows the quote by Benjamin Franklin; it's become a cliche. Bush, however, remains as uneducated as ever.
Every tyrant and despot throughout history has used this excuse for his evil. It's reasonable to remain vigilant against those who would seek to destroy the nation, but when you start treating every citizen as though he were a potential enemy, you have crossed the line into tryrany.
What's your philosophical approach to risk assessment and the precautionary principle? Do you think government should ban products, treatments, and procedures until they're proven safe, or permit them until they show signs of being unsafe?
You like the tricky questions, don't you?
I'm going to combine this question with the next, and answer them together.
Do you think it's a legitimate function of government to protect people from making bad decisions or prevent them from developing bad habits? Even if those habit or decisions don't directly affect anyone else? How far should the government in preventing bad habits and bad decisions? In other words, should the government's role be merely advisory, or should it criminalize things like gambling, pornography, drug use, or trans fats?
I would like to see the government take the middle road. The population should be informed--especially through the medical profession. With regards to quantifiable items--such as pharmaceuticals--I believe that there should be a set of minimum requirements which must be met before they can be released for general use. I feel that it's appropriate for scientists to determine the minimum limits and to determine if items exceed these limits.
It is not, however, the role of the government to dictate moral stances. In my mind, the phrases "vice crime" and "victimless crime" are oxymorons; nonsensical. How can it be a crime if there is no victim?
Educate the people about the dangers of heroin, horse racing, and the Big Mac. And then let them choose their fate. If a man wants to get high, bet his paycheck on Patton's Pride to win, and drown his sorrows at Taco Bell, that's his choice. It may be an incredibly stupid choice, but it's his to make.
At what point a child's rights supercede a parent's rights? Should a Christian Science parent be allowed to deny his child basic medical treatment? Should parents be allowed to teach their children to be racist? If parents believe some vaccinations are too risky, should they be permitted to decline them for their children?
This is another delicate balancing act. I can't think of a situation in which this would be the appropriate jurisdiction of the federal government. These decisions need to be made on a smaller level, where the people involved have a better understanding of the circumstances.
That being said, I do not believe that the parents automatically have control until their child reaches the age of 18. In any severe situation, the person most directly involved must be interviewed, and their wishes given significant--if not primary--weight. That person is, of course, the child. The almost impossible task is to conduct this interview impartially. It's a dream to expect that to ever happen.
I can lay out all sorts of "ideal" and "appropriate" behavior for authorities, but the fact of the matter is that I understand humanity far too well to every expect that to happen. There will always be tragedies in these situations. The best we can hope for is to reduce them to a minimum. That is, perhaps, the single heaviest burden any just and moral politician has to bear.
Should members of Congress be required to follow all of the laws that they pass?
Yes. Unequivocally, yes.
Should members be required to read each bill before voting on it?
Yes. Unequivocally, yes.
Would you support a requirement that each law be limited in scope and subject, so members wouldn't be required to cast a single yes-or-no vote on bills that have multiple amendments covering a variety of issues?
Yes. I have always supported the "one vote, one law" premise.
Would you support a sunset provision requiring Congress to revisit and re-pass each law after five years?
No. A lot of people present this as a way to limit laws. In reality it is, at best, a folly, and, at worst, an utterly destructive policy. Murder is wrong. We know this. We've known this for centuries. It's a waste of time for us to reconfirm this every 5 years. The same goes for hundreds--if not thousands--of laws. If every law had to be renewed every 5 years, nothing new would ever be accomplished. And things do need to be accomplished.
Do think presidents should be term limited? What about members of Congress? If you didn't give the same answer to each question, what's the difference?
I think this question was best answered by President Jed Bartlet in an episode of The West Wing: We have term limits on every elected position out there. They're called "Elections".
Would you tell a doctor that he can only practice medicine for 8 years? Would you tell a carpenter that he can only build houses for 8 years? Why should we tell politicians that they can only deal in politics for a limited time? Politics is like any other profession; you learn more skills the longer you practice. In the same way that customers will cause a bad carpenter to go out of business, citizens will cause a bad politician to go out of business. And unlike the carpenter, a politician is required by law to go in front of his customers every X number of years and beg for their support.
I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'd rather deal with a group of people who have skills and experience than a bunch of freshmen who can't even find their way to the executive bathroom without help.
