Reshaping the GOP

Texas Tea Party activists have been actively engaged in recruiting and training candidates to run for precinct chairs. While they have reached out to members of both major political parties, the focus has been on the Republican Party. The goal of these recruitment efforts is to reshape the GOP, much as social conservatives did in the early 1990s.

According to the Chronicle, the state Tea Party wants to shift the Republican's emphasis from social issues to "fiscal restraint by the federal government and individual freedom." On the surface, this sounds good. But what does it really mean?

The web site for the Houston Tea Party Society (HTPS) has a discussion on proposed resolutions for the state GOP. Some of the suggestions are good--such as abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy. Others--such as term limits--are superficial, and a few--such as closing the borders--are simply bad. But what is particularly noteworthy is what is not suggested--a call for the recognition and protection of individual rights. (That is, until I left a comment.)

As I have written previously, it is the principle of individual rights that underlies every good idea emanating from the Tea Party movement. No matter the issue--federal spending, taxation, the Federal Reserve, health care, immigration, etc.--it is the principle of individual rights that provides us with the proper solution. Without such a principle, and a proper understanding of it, the Tea Party movement finds itself advocating contradictory positions.

In the introduction to this discussion on resolutions, HTPS leader Felicia Cravens writes:

[P]lease remember to keep the resolution topics within our core principles of fiscal responsibility, personal and governmental accountability, limited government, free markets, and sovereignty.

Again, these are certainly sound principles worthy of our support, but what do they mean? What unites them? Let us briefly dissect just one of these principles--sovereignty.

Sovereignty means independence from the control of another, the freedom to act according to one's own judgment (so long as one respects the mutual rights of others). Sovereignty is the recognition of the fact that each individual must take action to sustain and enjoy his life, and morally, others may not interfere with this right.

This has profound implications for every political issue. For example, closing the borders interferes with an individual's right to immigrate--to move to the country he chooses. Taxation--in any form--forces individuals to dispose of their property contrary to their own choices. Similarly, the use of tax incentives to encourage certain activities (as was suggested on HTPS) compels tax payers to subsidize the activities of others. Each of these proposals interferes with an individual's right to act according to his own judgment. Each is an attack on individual sovereignty.

The HTPS is advocating sovereignty in theory and proposing its violation in practice.

If the HTPS (or anyone for that matter) wishes to resolve this contradiction, then it must understand and embrace the principle of individual rights. Until it does so, its efforts to reshape the GOP will have no long-term impact.

What About the Rabbits?

In their infinite "wisdom" to protect the citizens of Houston, city council has enacted thousands of ordinances over the years. I suspect that current council members are unaware of some of these ordinances, or the fact that many actually contradict other ordinances.

For example, despite numerous ordinances designed to prohibit discrimination, the city engages in blatant discrimination against rabbits and guinea pigs:

Sec. 6-32. Location restrictions for rabbits and guinea pigs.
It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 6-33, for any person to keep, possess or maintain in the city any rabbits or guinea pigs, or any pens, enclosures, hutches, cages or other structures in which any such rabbits or guinea pigs are kept, possessed or maintained, within 100 feet of any actual residence or habitation of human beings, or within 100 feet of any church, school or hospital, other than the residence of the keeper, possessor, or owner of such rabbits or guinea pigs, such distance of 100 feet to be measured in a straight line from the nearest point of any pen, enclosure, hutch, cage or other such structure in which such rabbits or guinea pigs are kept to the nearest point of such actual residence or place of human habitation, or church, school or hospital.

I am curious what constitutes an "actual residence or habitation". I can only surmise that rabbits can be kept close to imaginary residences, which I am sure comes as a great relief to the Platonists in the city.

Regardless, I find it disturbing that the city would be so discriminatory against rabbits and guinea pigs. How are they to attend church and cleanse their souls? What if they get a boo-boo and need to get medical care? And how are they to become productive members of society if they can't attend school? But more importantly, these animals need a place to live and the city prohibits other forms of housing discrimination:

Sec. 17-12. Discriminatory housing practices.
(a) A person commits an offense if he, because of race, color, sex, religion, familial status, disability or national origin:
(1) Refuses to negotiate with a person for the sale or rental of a housing accommodation or otherwise denies or makes unavailable a housing accommodation to a person;
(2) Refuses to sell or rent, or otherwise makes unavailable, a housing accommodation to another person after the other person makes an offer to buy or rent the accommodation; or
(3) Discriminates against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of, or in providing a service or facility in connection with, the sale or rental of a housing accommodation.

While it is almost illegal to refuse to sell someone a house merely because they can't pay for it, it is fine to discriminate on the basis of species. This shouldn't be surprising, given the fact that rabbits--and Barney Frank--don't have much political power in the city.

What is confusing about this is that I found nothing in the code that prohibits rabbits from driving a taxi cab. I would think that the powerful taxi cab lobby would have secured some such prohibition on these potential competitors. Further, it would appear that rabbits are exempt from an ordinance that prohibits cab drivers of the human persuasion from transporting persons who have immoral intents:

Sec. 28-16. Transporting persons for unlawful or immoral purposes.
It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, offer to transport, or aid, or assist in transport; directly or indirectly, any person in, upon, over or through the streets of the city, by means of an automobile or other vehicle, for purposes of lewdness, assignation or prostitution, or for any other unlawful or immoral purpose.

Since the ordinance specifies "person" and not "rabbit", I can only conclude that rabbits are excluded. This would seem to be good news for rabbits. I certainly don't want to imply that rabbits are any more prone to immorality than other species, but there may be some employment opportunities here.

Unfortunately, rabbits are unlikely to find work in dance halls. Because they are cute and fuzzy, patrons might be inclined to pet any bunny rabbits working there, subjecting the long-eared varmints to potential fines:

Sec. 5-55. Employees not to mingle with patrons.
Waiters, waitresses or entertainers shall not be permitted to eat, drink, dance or mingle with patrons in any dance hall.

I will profess ignorance as to what would constitute "mingling". Nor am I certain what great evil this prohibition is intended to prevent. Perhaps there is grave danger in sharing some carrot juice with a rabbit. Regardless, I certainly sleep much better at night knowing that while I lay in my bed, employees of dance halls are not dancing with rabbits. (I wonder if having sex with patrons is considered "mingling".)

As you can see, the Code of Ordinances for Houston is rather confusing. In one ordinance rabbits are singled out for discrimination, but they are not prohibited from driving cabs. Personally, I would much rather have a rabbit for a neighbor than ride in a cab driven by one. But I guess that is why I don't have a seat on city council--I'm not wise enough to recognize the danger posed by having a rabbit hutch in my back yard. Fortunately, I have the good folks at City Hall to make that decision for me.

No Philosophical Detection Required

When examining the statements of another individual, it is often necessary to engage in "philosophical detection"--the process of identifying the unspoken premises underlying those statements. In some rare situations, those premises are stated openly and unequivocally. Via HBL comes one such example.

The blog Fresh Loaf reports:

Atlanta Progressive News [APN] has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s [APN's editor] vision.

And, no, that’s not sarcasm.

If you think that perhaps Fresh Loaf is exaggerating, consider the statement issued by Cardinale:

At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit....

We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.

APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources.

"Objective" identifies a particular kind of relationship between consciousness and reality--specifically, the volitional adherence to reality. But APN explicitly rejects objectivity, claiming that it is impossible to be objective and that it makes no pretense otherwise. What then is the alternative?

If there is no objective reality--that is, a reality independent of consciousness--then the world we observe is an illusion. Historically, philosophers such as Plato and Hegel have held that this world is an imperfect reflection of "true reality", which exists in another dimension inaccessible to us mere mortals. While these philosophers have differed in the details, each has claimed that this world is a creation of consciousness--that God, or society, or each individual "creates" reality. And this is the position taken by APN.

If APN isn't reporting the facts of reality, then what is it reporting? If APN is not referencing an objective reality, then to what does it refer in its stories? How is its news coverage "fair", and by what standard?

Having rejected the premise that there is an immutable world "out there", APN's only alternative is to report on the world "in here", that is, their own consciousness. APN's news coverage is guided by the emotions and whims of its reporters, rather than the actual facts (because, according to APN there are no such things).

In this context, to be "fair" means to be objective. It means to report the essential facts of the story, regardless of one's particular beliefs on the subject or one's political agenda. It means to state "what is" rather than "what I want". However, to APN being "fair" means "giving voice" to differing views "when possible". Which means, when APN feels like it.

In the comments section to Fresh Loaf's post, the APN editor writes:

My point regarding the non-existence of objectivity in news has to do with which facts get included and which don’t– which “sides” get included and which don’t. Every publication has to make choices about this, which are unique to each publication and to each situation being written about.

There is an element of truth in this. Certainly, a writer must be selective in the facts that he presents. He cannot present every fact pertaining to the story, no matter how remotely connected. But his selectivity should not be a matter of whim or caprice--it should be objective and based on what is essential to the story.

To APN objectivity is impossible. One's selectivity is not grounded in reality, but one's wishes and desires. APN has a particular political agenda that it wants to promote--progressivism. It is this agenda that animates its news coverage and guides its selectivity. As the editor writes:

Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust.

To APN, this is what determines what is news and what isn't. That which promotes more government control over our lives is "news". Facts that undermine this cause need not apply. And that dear reader, is not my opinion. That is the objective truth.