Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Politics category.
My Tucker Carlson Encounter
American Enterprise Institute held its 2009 Annual Dinner tonight, honoring Charles Murray with the Irving Kristol Award. But the really important news is that I saw, nay, was in close proximity to Tucker Carlson!
That’s right, him——-> 
Now, I am not a card-carrying Republican, but in substance I definitely lean right politically. I think free markets basically promote prosperity across the board, that individual choice (including the choice of how to spend our hard-earned money) should be infringed upon as little as possible, that our government ought to try to do much less and do it much better, and that we ought to exercise a great deal of caution and restraint when evaluating our policies and values. In my personal style, however, I’m pretty free-spirited, emotionally sensitive, idealistic, and relatively disinterested in maintaining order – I tend to value freedom more. In other words, my style is somewhat more liberal than the substance of my political views (but actually, my style is probably more libertarian than it is liberal). Anyway, what I’m getting at is that I don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with avowed conservatives, even if I basically agree with them, but Tucker Carlson is a conservative-ish guy whose style I really appreciate. A lot of it has to do with his sense of humor, I think. He just seems like a cool guy, someone I’d want to sit around a dinner table and joke with. Well, tonight I almost had my chance!
So, at the beginning of tonight’s dinner we were each given a seating booklet to know where to sit. As the booklet basically doubled as a guest list, I curiously perused it to see if there were any famous people in attendance that I’d recognize (admittedly, I’m not very in-the-know politically, so it was a little bit of a long shot). Well, as predicted, there were very few names I recognized – but Tucker Carlson I knew! Interns like myself, of course, had previously been discouraged from making fools of ourselves by seeking photo-ops and autographs from famous people, and even without that admonition I was not eager to just barge in on a stranger and try to strike up a rapport . So I didn’t give a meeting with Tucker too much thought, and just enjoyed my time with the other interns and their guests. Later on in the evening when it was acceptable for people to be up and walking around the dining hall, I made my rounds in search of DC celebrities to gawk at, and came up empty-handed. No Tucker. Still, when it came time to call it a night, I bid farewell to my friends, and headed for the door to the stairway without any further thought about meeting Tucker Carlson.
As I passed through the door, however, I turned back to see if I had missed saying goodbye to anyone I knew (and, frankly, to take one more look at all the well-dressed and, in many cases, attractive ladies). Two men passed by me through the doorway, and I smiled politely at them as I scanned the room. Having had my last look at the festivities, I turned to the stairs, ascending just a few feet behind the two men who had passed just seconds before. Well, it took me about a second to recognize the voice of the taller man as they were talking – that’s right, Tucker Carlson! “This could be my chance, don’t blow it!”, I thought to myself. Unfortunately, I really didn’t have an “in” with them, so I just smiled to myself and tried to act like I wasn’t secretly pleased to be in the presence of a famous guy I think is cool. I swear that he turned to look at me once or twice (perhaps wondering “Who is this strange, smiling kid behind us?”), but his attention was soon enough diverted by his encountering other friends. Not wanting to be creepy, I just walked past, as he made some joke about libertarian gatherings with his friends. Soon enough, our crossed paths diverged, and I was left to contemplate on my brush with a famous cool guy.
It’s too bad that he and I didn’t at least get to have some sort of verbal exchange. But even if I had gotten a chance to say something, it probably wouldn’t have been too witty or impressive; most of my conversational energy had already been used up that evening and, being both weary and an introvert, I needed some time to rest before I could again engage in banter. Also, he looked like he had had a few drinks, and in my experience (with others who are drinking, that is), alcohol tends to dilute the quality of conversation anyway. Then again, I wasn’t looking for a heart-to-heart, I just wanted to meet him! Oh well, another time, I guess. I hear he’s working at the Cato Institute these days…
A personal loss, and other assorted happenings
A piece of me died yesterday. Yes, I am talking about my lower left molar. After a year of neglecting my damaged tooth (out of lack of funds and insurance), it finally started to really hurt this past Monday, thus necessitating an urgent trip to the dentist. Now, I count it a matter of divine providence that one of my home teachers* just happens to be a dental student who was able to connect me with a fellow student who was available to help me out on short notice for a reasonable price**. Well, as it turns out, I need a root canal, which they started yesterday by removing most of the soft tissue in my tooth (the technical term used was “scoop out”), and temporarily capping the gaping hole until we can schedule another appointment. I left feeling relieved, groggy and ugly (anesthesia and lying at an unusual angle for hours leave you feeling and looking like Quasimodo), and very grateful. I do have regrets, however:
1) I wish I had somehow addressed this sooner so that I could keep my tooth alive (a root canal basically kills all living tissue in the tooth and turns it into a dried out husk which retains its chewing ability). I prefer my body parts to be living, thank you very much.
2) I wish I had had some way of watching what they were doing in there! It’s not every day you get to see the inside of a tooth – I wonder what the nerves look like?
In other news, I took the GRE on Monday, and it went so much better than the first time (also, it was thankfully after the GRE and not before that my tooth started hurting). It leaves me much more competitive for getting into the grad schools I’m looking at, George Washington being my top pick. Unfortunately, I dropped the ball on applying to Georgetown, whose deadline is very soon - it occurred to me this week that they require 3 letters of recommendation, and I only have 2. Boooo! Even now, I’m debating whether to try and find an emergency recommender to make my application complete. On the other side of the debate, however, I’m trying to console myself with thoughts like “you didn’t want to go there anyway”, or “it’s really expensive there”, or my personal favorite, “the location is really inconvenient”. Still, I am no quitter, and I have a hard time just rolling over and accepting defeat (admittedly largely self-inflicted defeat).
Anyway, one more topic, and then I’ve got to get going on those grad school apps. Last night, I was quite fortunate to go to a Rock Band 2 party, and it was awesome! Family, you’d better believe I played “Carry On Wayward Son”, although with the throng of people there, I didn’t get a chance to try some old favorites (“That means no Rush,” Bob nods knowingly). The emergence of Rock Band and Guitar Hero have been a big boon in my life; they channel my nerdy love of music and video games into an outlet which is not only more socially acceptable but also tons of fun! But you know, it also gets me thinking about whether party games like these are merely “childish things” which I will have to give up when I eventually get married and start a family. My money is on “yes”, and if so, I’m certainly willing to do it. Nevertheless, I often wonder how marriage will affect my lifestyle, specifically my approach to fun (which I think is more important to me than most – as discussed previously, it is an important recreative outlet for me). But who knows? Until I have to cross that bridge, I guess I’ll continue to enjoy Rock Band parties.
One more thing: I’m unable to attend the Sunstone Symposium this weekend (Sunstone is an organization which does scholarly work on Mormon thought and culture – not officially affiliated with the Church, but at least intriguing to guys like me). If anyone reading this attended the symposium or has thoughts about Sunstone, I’d like to hear what you have to say. I mean, Sunstone ain’t General Conference, but I’m interested to know what thoughtful people in the Church are discussing (I’m guessing I would have a lot to disagree with, but also surely many points of agreement). Also, I really wanted to see the documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons; perhaps I’ll have to wait until it’s on DVD 
Like an ugly Senate bill***, I’m attaching one more thing to this post – a video of “Limelight” by Rush. They rock!
*for those unfamiliar with the LDS Church, home teachers are the first line of support and assistance provided for each family, even families of one like mine.
**as an aside, have you ever noticed how a larger than normal proportion of dentists are really, really nice and pleasant people? A profession that requires digging around in people’s mouths must favor a certain easygoing, pleasant temperament. It gratefully makes dental work relatively less unpleasant.
***According to a friend of mine who works for a Congressman, the recent stimulus bill for which none/almost none of the Republicans voted contained lots of pet projects attached, such as spending $60 million to re-sod the National Mall. I suppose it needs to be done some time, but $60 million, in a stimulus bill? It will stimulate the sodding industry, I suppose.
Mormons are scary
(I’ve got to put this to words before my memory fades. And then I’ve got to cram for the GRE)
I like the organization I am currently working for, and especially enjoy working with the great people there. Sometimes, though, I get a kick out of the funny things that happen when people realize that my opinions and beliefs are not as mainstream as they had assumed. By “mainstream” I mean, in general, (and this is not to disparage anyone in particular – I really do love my co-workers and the organization! – but just to make an observation) politically liberal-leaning and vaguely irreligious; I, myself, am relatively more conservative, (moderate, really), and passionately religious. I usually, but not always, keep a pretty low profile about politics and religion at work (although it is only very rarely that I feel my beliefs are actually somewhat under fire. Again, I work with some really great, caring people), although I deeply value those deep and sincere relationships I have been able to form so far with certain co-workers which are amenable to discussions on such subjects (even if we happen to disagree, fundamentally, even). Truly, I think politics and, more importantly, religion could be so much less taboo in public if people approached them with more open-mindedness, understanding, and restraint, and fewer preconceptions and prejudices. This is not something I have perfected yet by any means (my dear agnostic brother once characterized me as the most aggressive theist he knew, which I don’t think he meant as a compliment 
) , but it is a true treat when two comparably respectful, open-minded people are able to connect and find common ground on matters of spirit, truth, and love. Really, I think that is what life is all about. Lest I equivocate, however, I must make it known that those same principles of spirit, truth, and love are found with greatest clarity and abundance in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ; they are not found there exclusively, but are found there with greatest clarity and abundance.
But back to my original topic. We had a pizza party today to celebrate the birthday of one of our co-workers. I have to admit, my opinion of lawyers has improved immensely from working where I do. I think public interest law tends to attract the kinds of lawyers that I would consider “cool” and pleasant to work with. Anyway, one of the things I enjoy about these lawyers (I’m sure this is true of most lawyers) is that they are very knowledgeable about the cogs of the great machine we call society, and I enjoy sitting back and listening to them talk about things which I have very little understanding of but recognize as being important, if not for society as a whole then at the very least for some individual somewhere.
So today, as they were talking about this and that while eating pizza, one of them mentioned John McCain, or conservatives, or something like that, which led to a “Hey, wasn’t so-and-so who worked here a conservative?”, and a “Yeah, don’t get many of those here”. Pretty soon, the topic of Mormons came up, as Mormonism and conservatism tend to be linked in people’s minds (for the record, NOT because membership in the Church requires any specific political affiliation, and certainly not because there are no liberal Mormons), someone said “Wasn’t such-and such person who worked here a Mormon?’ and finally, from a co-worker who knows me fairly well, “Yeah, and so is Bryce!”. Seeing the reaction was priceless. It was so awesome! The girl next to me, a 3L working as a part-time law clerk, was somewhat dumbfounded and, judging by her countenance, mildly appalled (an observation which I lightheartedly shared with her), and there was a brief, maybe 2-second-long pause as people mentally switched gears and adjusted their social filters. Again, I mean no disrespect in sharing this, and I don’t mean to make a bigger deal of this than it was, but it was just so interesting to see people’s reactions and to picture what they were thinking (“Shoot, Bryce is a Mormon, and therefore conservative. I must’ve offended him!”). Also, it made me think about how I must come across to people on matters of religion. Obviously, I am not shy about talking about my faith, and in fact it is one of my all-time favorite topics of conversation. However, I also recognize that faith can be a very uncomfortable topic for people, or at least a tender subject to open up about. Sometimes, I wonder if people feel self-conscious around me, knowing that I have strong convictions, almost as if I am silently judging them if they drink coffee or say a bad word here or there (as for coarse language, I do have my limits of toleration, but would always try to be pleasant, courteous, and diplomatic, or at least humorous, about addressing speech which I personally find offensive). While I cannot help it if the fact that I have convictions makes people uncomfortable, I believe I can do very much indeed to let people know that I don’t look down on them because of my beliefs – if anything, my beliefs ought to lead me to love and respect them more as beloved children of God trying to find their way in this crazy and confusing world. So, rather than feel smug and self-satisfied about this occurrence, I am using it as a way to evaluate how I am doing about developing and communicating love and esteem for the people I interact with daily (although I do want to reserve the right to chuckle about it good-naturedly – is that bad?).
Life sure is interesting, but it’s also so awesome!
Tradeoffs
This world is full of tradeoffs – diametric values, ideals, or positions whose increase seems to inevitably come at the expense of its opposite. What follows are a few of my favorites (which is to say, they are interesting and fairly relevant); what are some of yours?
Economics
Equity vs. Efficiency: Putting resources (human or material) to use in a way that optimizes productive output (high efficiency) generally leads to the unequal distribution of said output (low equity). Conversely, allocating resources in a more egalitarian manner, e.g. redistributing income across classes, or assigning people to a task indiscriminate of skill level (high equity) tends to lead to decreased productivity, e.g. the incentive of the most productive economic actors is hampered by their lessened enjoyment of the fruits of their labors, or lower total skill level applied towards a task (low efficiency), respectively.
Political Science
Freedom vs. Order: This one is pretty self-evident. The fewer restrictions placed on behavior, the more chaotic and disorderly things tends to be. Just look at any household with a disparate ratio of children to parenting presence.
Freedom vs. Equality: This is one I had never considered until I read it in one of my brother’s old political science textbooks recently. The idea behind this is that a government/society which seeks to promote equality generally does so at the expense of individual freedom (e.g. affirmative action in the work place curbs the freedom of the employer to make its own hiring decisions). I’m still thinking this tradeoff through – it seems to be based on the premise that freedom invariably leads to inequal treatment of others, but this may or may not actually be true, depending on your definition of “equal”. The tendency in today’s debates is to frame “equality” as absolute sameness, which I think is absurd and impossible, not to mention not the only possible definition of “equality”.
Personality Psychology (it’s no secret that this topic is one of my favorites, but I offer this tradeoff by way of subjective observation, not judgment)
Depthiness vs. Upbeatfulness: Emotional and/or intellectual depth and sophistication tends to preclude being lighthearted and fun (when you’re focused on the weightier matters of the cosmos, jocularity can seem distant and disingenuous). On the flip side, what’s the use of sitting around ruminating in your ivory tower when there’s so much life to enjoy!
Christianity
Justice vs. Mercy: The quintessential Christian dilemma, this dichotmoy is, I believe, reflected throughout various facets of life, including the areas above. But it can be troublingly problematic. If we believe in a God who adheres strictly to divine standards and can neither overlook any bad behavior nor leave unrewarded the acts of the true and faithful (justice), can we believe that that same God can also forgive us when we inevitably fail to live those high standards, if not fall far, far short (mercy)? Stephen E. Robinson, author of “Believing Christ” said it best: the answer is a resounding “YES”! Jesus Christ, as the mediator of all mankind, provides a way for the demands of justice to be met while offering mercy to those who truly want Him to be their savior. Strangely and sadly enough, there are some who would gladly take mercy, but only if it came with no strings attached; such people, I think, fail to grasp the significance of either justice or mercy. But the most important thing here is that Jesus Christ makes both justice and mercy fully efficacious and coexistent without requiring any sort of compromise which would render either divine standard arbitrary and fatally unreliable. What an inestimable blessing!
(as an added temporal benefit, this divine reconciliation of opposing ideals gives me hope that the other above mentioned tradeoffs may also somehow be settled satisfactorily.)
Any thoughts or tradeoffs of your own to share? Please do!
An honest and thoughtful article about California’s Proposition 8
Below is a link to an Op-Ed in the LA Times about the institution of marriage and California’s Proposition 8. In it, the author makes some very good arguments, even though (not surprisingly) they were poorly received by the majority of online respondents.
Protecting marriage to protect children – by David Blankenhorn
Still alive – plus, some interesting books to consider reading
The past few weeks have been pretty tumultuous over here for a number of reasons, primarily moving to a new house, poverty (relatively speaking, of course), and having no internet (!!!!), but now I’m back with a very important message, namely: I want to let you all know what books I think are worthwhile. After all, the implication of being well-read (i.e. showing interest in books) is almost as good as actually being well-read. So here are a few good books I’d read, or at least sample if I had the time.
1)”Dave Barry’s Money Secrets – Like: Why is There A Giant Eyeball on the Dollar?”
I admit, I’m actually sort of reading this one, and it makes me laugh a lot. Hydralisk, this is one you should find on tape/CD if you can. It will help you shift some paradigms and revolutionize outside the box, or something like that.
2) “Obama Nation” by Jerome Corsi
When I first ran into this one at the book store, I got a little excited – “A well-researched, non-gushing book about Barack Obama?! How much is this? I’ll take 2.” I skimmed the preface, and thought it seemed pretty even-keeled and objective (and for the record, the author is not a Republican, but a Constitutionalist). However, when I checked out what wikipedia, the bastion of e-truth, had to say, my faith was shaken – apparently Corsi has taken some liberties with the facts, or else just drawn conclusions many didn’t want to hear (or, more likely, something in the middle). So anyway, I’m a little more skeptical of the book. However, it is on The New York Times bestsellers list, and, like so many people in this country, I take the New York Times more seriously than a lot of things. It can do no wrong. Ever. Seriously, though, I’m intrigued to hear what Corsi has to say about Chairman Barack’s supposed cult of personality.
3) “The Definitive Guide to Stuff White People Like” by Christian Lander
Another book I happily bumped into at the store the other day. Flipping through it, I was surprised at how many people the author and I both seem to know Lander has a great way of poking fun at white people (or, as one of my white co-workers candidly pointed out, a certain subset of white people: the college-educated, left-leaning ones), and I admire his ability to do so in a way that is simultaneously incisive and good-humored.
Also, you can check out the official website, stuffwhitepeoplelike.com.
Finally, some thoughtful analysis of Obama the President, not Obama the Phenomenon
I ran across this timely article from The Economist (Feb. 14th, 2008) discussing the possible ramifications of electing President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama. It’s not Obama-bashing, but instead offers some thoughts on the substance of Barack Obama’s candidacy. This is not to say that candidates’ presidential offerings are reducible to mere policy positions, for, as the article rightly notes:
“[Obama] has persuaded huge numbers of people around the world to reconsider politics in an optimistic way. To many Americans, a black man who eschews both racial politics and the conservative-liberal divide is a chance to heal the country’s two deepest divisions. To many foreigners, he represents an idealistic version of America—the hope of a more benevolent superpower.”
In regards to the effect of Obama’s character, the article continues:
“His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America’s image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.”
As far as his policies go, however, The Economist makes the case that:
“Obama’s voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.”
Regarding the limitations of character, the article continues:
“And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president’s second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so.” (emphasis added)
The article concludes:
“None of this is to take away from Mr Obama’s achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America’s sake (and the world’s), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow.”
Ron Paul’s softer, more persuasive side
The only times I’ve seen Ron Paul on TV have been in debates, where invariably he’s riled up about something and usually drawing the ridicule of his fellow debaters. These clips from an interview with John Stossel, however, reveal a calmer, more convincing side of Ron Paul. In them, I think he makes some good arguments for smaller, less restrictive government with which I agree (in other clips not featured here, however, he presents what I consider to be a foolish foreign policy).
Part 1
Part 2
Bryce’s Book Club, Part 1
In between my current work as a well-paid gofer, I’ve been starting a lot of good books lately (someday, I may even finish one). I’ve been giving the most attention to Rewriting History by Dick Morris, a long-time political advisor to the Clintons. It is a very interesting glimpse into Hillary Clinton behind the facade. Interestingly, even though Morris parted ways with the Clintons years ago and is no big fan of the Hillary movement, his book is not dripping with venom. Morris’ writing reflects measured fairness and keen observation, which speaks to his credibility in an industry where most pundits cannot bear to hide their vitriolic disdain for their favorite villains. This book actually reminds me of another famous exposé of a powerful public figure who was revered yet shrouded in mystery: Dr. Li Zhisui’s The Private Life of Chairman Mao. An unusual and imperfect comparison, I know, but there it is.
One thing that I was not expecting when I began reading this book was to actually feel some pity for Hillary, not pity for the role of victimized career-woman and devoted mother which she tries to project, but pity for the creature she has become in the course of her political career. Unfortunately, politics tends to be dirty, dirty business, and while I do think Hillary Clinton has rolled in the mud quite willingly, it nevertheless saddens me that the political arena is such that she and so many people like her feel that to do so is the only way to succeed.
You Don’t Kick a Dead Dog
Notwithstanding all the points of policy and history on which the Republican candidates differ, they all seem to be united in at least one area: their disdain for Mitt Romney. Naturally, a public figure will always have views and actions which someone dislikes, but Romney seems to attract an inordinate amount of criticism, some of it smug and mean-spirited (à la McCain or Huckabee in Saturday’s debate), from all the candidates. For the record, I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, but Romney is certainly a contender in my book. Romney continues to receive jabs and cheap shots – such as Huckabee’s use of the classic Mormon smear about Satan and Jesus, or the apparently irresistible urge by the candidates (or even the moderator, Charles Gibson, last night, who I’d call likable but, like so many people in the media, partial to the political left) – to scandalize Romney’s record on abortion when they need to score a few quick and easy points, and this after he’s clearly and repeatedly explained himself on the issue, I think satisfactorily. I’m not saying that Romney’s the absolute perfect candidate, and everyone else is garbage, but I do think that the attacks he seems to be receiving from all sides indicate that he is viewed as a strong and viable presidential nominee and a real political threat. On my LDS mission in northern Virginia, I became acquainted with the phrase “you don’t kick a dead dog”, which I learned in reference to the criticism the Church receives (but appropriately pays little heed to), and basically means that an adversary only attacks those parties deemed to be real threats. I think this phrase is applicable in Romney’s case too – not because he happens to be Mormon, but because he is viewed as a threat by certain people. As a side note, I think the same can be said for the vocally anti-religious, such as Hitchens and Dawkins – religion presents a worldview which opposes and threatens their own. But that’s a topic for another time 
