Will Distrust of Colleges Increase Our Economic and Political Divide?

(photo courtesy of Nathaniel Givens…I think)

Since the 2016 Election, a lot of effort has been devoted to understanding why different groups voted the way they did and what it says about our society. That analysis is interesting, but incredibly complex, since so many factors play a part in why someone votes a particular way. For example, the key Midwest states that helped swing the election could have been decided based on a desire to bring back coal jobs, a general distrust of Clinton, or resentment that Obama didn’t do enough to address their concerns. Who knows?

What we can see is growing social divide in how people view themselves and the respective parties. This effect, known as polarization, can lead to extreme positions, which aren’t always good for making sound decisions. Polarization is created when a group of like-minded people find themselves isolated from external positions and drive the members of the group into a more extreme version of the mindset that caused them to enter the group in the first place. For example, if you took a room full of new mothers, some of whom believe that breast feeding is the best way to nurture a baby and others of whom believe using formula is fine, and separated them into groups based on their viewpoints, you would find the members of each group will push the group as a whole to more vehement versions of the initial viewpoints.

 

I want to focus on a particular version of this polarization that is manifesting in the U.S. right now, based on political affiliation. According to a recent survey, people who self-identify as Republicans are becoming more and more convinced that colleges and universities are having a negative effect on the country. Here is the chart of this shift:

Note the years. Up until late 2015, Republicans saw colleges as mostly a positive in American life. They were more suspicious (as a group) than Democrats, but seemed to acknowledge that higher education was a good thing, overall. A vocal minority, of course, has accused colleges of liberal indoctrination for at least as long as talk radio has been a thing, but only in the last couple of years has this mistrust surged.

What has changed? I’m not sure, and I’m guessing there are lots of theories. While there is some evidence that conservatives in the U.S. (again, not all, but a certain strain…this is the last time I’ll qualify this, but assume it in other cases) have intentionally undermined the very notion of science for largely political reasons. There is also a tendency to associate higher education with elitism, an idea that was certainly in play during President George W. Bush’s terms. Again, though, the chart above shows a dramatic shift in recent years; so we need to look at something more recent.

Perhaps it’s the Climate Change Denialist movement, which has presented science as a monolithic, agenda-based movement that is somehow involved in a vast conspiracy to kill coal jobs (for reasons unknown….big money from somewhere is the usual claim). Scientists are associated with universities, and so universities are bad? Or maybe it’s the fact that professors lean to the left, despite the fact that there is little evidence that this results in indoctrinating students. Still, even the perception could be the problem here.

Ultimately, the reasons don’t matter, because the view is what is important. The U.S. has a growing inequality problem. Wages have been in stagnation since the 1980s, though this story is a bit complicated. What is less in doubt is that there is an economic divide between rich and poor that is not improving. What we also know is that while college is no longer a guarantee of a well-paying, fulfilling job, it is still most often a necessary step to receiving such a job. Put in logic terms, it is necessary, but not sufficient for getting a job for the average person.

If Republican parents discourage their children from going to college in fear of some sort of liberal indoctrination, this will be a huge detriment to those children. I do not mean to suggest that college is a panacea for society’s ills. I could write a series of articles on problems with Higher Education and the ways in which it needs reform. However, it is still the best way to get ahead in life, especially if you come from a lower class background. That degree opens doors for you.

Many of the states that tend to vote Republican are among the lowest in the country in terms of education levels, quality of education, and percentage of higher education. A sharp rise in skepticism toward education will only exacerbate this issue, creating a deeper divide in the political tribalism that exists in the U.S.

So, how do we avoid this? I’m not sure. The best way, ironically, would be through education! Unfortunately, the current President does not seem to value universal education policies. The appointment of Betsy Devos doesn’t help. Her policies in Michigan were disastrous for the lower classes, and really the state in general. She is a proponent of privatizing colleges and universities, and even K-12 schooling, which tends to favor the wealthy who can afford the fees associated with privatization.

I would usually say that parents should encourage their children to get a college degree. Mine certainly did, and I was raised in a family where a secondary education was pretty much assumed. But if the only parents doing this are liberal parents, we will end up with a country in which conservatives are less educated and perhaps continue to resent those who are more educated. That’s not a good recipe for working together in the future.

Unfortunately, this article is based mostly on pointing out the potential for future problems in this area. If I had better solutions, I would offer them. If you have some, I’d like to hear them!

Healthcare Revisited- a new bill emerges

(image from readthebill.gop)

After the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the early days of the Trump Presidency, the Senate is now considering a bill that will roll back many of the protections and regulations of the ACA. The LA Times has a nice comparison article that shows the differences being proposed. Here is a key quote from the article:

“The Congressional Budget Office score on the Senate version is expected in the next several days. The CBO’s score on the House version estimated 23 million fewer people would have insurance over the next decade. The report stated the hardest hit in the long run would be lower-income, older and sicker Americans.”

One thing to note is that the Republican proposal (which has no bipartisan support and as of today lacks unanimous support among Conservatives as well) does not literally keep these millions of Americans from having healthcare. It stops providing the means for them to have such care. For the “lower-income, older and sicker Americans” this will effectively mean the same thing. They will be unable to afford the healthcare they need, and they will not receive help in receiving such care. However, many of the people who will “lose” healthcare will do so because they have opted out of purchasing it, mostly by gambling that their current health status will remain the same. In other words, these will be younger, healthier Americans who decide that the cost of such care is not worth it for them.

While some of these people will lose this gamble, most will not. From their own perspective, it will be a rational choice to make. However, from the perspective of those who need health insurance in order to cover their bills, it will create higher premiums, and likely higher deductibles. The reasons are simple. When you remove the low risk members of an insurance pool, the insurance companies do not have income to offset their expenses from payments made to less healthy customers. In order to stay in business, they must raise premiums, deductibles, or both. This is pretty simple financing.

Republicans know this, of course, but they believe that the negative liberty  of allowing Americans to choose whether to insure themselves outweighs the need to keep rates lower for sicker Americans.

Politics is always a matter of trade-offs. The ACA traded liberty for security by forcing Americans to purchase healthcare or pay fines for not doing so. The new plan would trade security for liberty. In a vacuum, the values of liberty and security are roughly equal. You need a bit of both in order to have a good life. However, in a political system, these trades are made between groups, rather than being distributed equally. What does that mean, exactly?

In this case, it means that the wealthiest Americans will see a huge tax cut, just as they would have under the House’s proposed plan. The Atlantic covered this pretty well back in March. Basically, the ACA was funded in large part by higher taxes on the wealthy, especially capital gains taxes. Republicans believe that this is an unfair redistribution of wealth, where wealthier citizens are forced to finance those who are poor. That’s basically correct, too. I personally don’t see this as a problem. I think it’s part of living in a society with a social contract. However, many people disagree and do not see supporting the poor as their responsibility at all. Others do think they should help the poor, but not via government interference.

Wherever you fall on this debate over how to provide healthcare for the poor, the fact is that the proposed bill would deny healthcare to millions of Americans who have been given such care through the ACA. This removal will cause a great deal of suffering. I’ve noted before that I think there are many flaws in the ACA, especially with regard to how the marketplace works, who gets funding, how it gets distributed, etc. However, I do not think this is a good way to fix the problem.

The bill as it currently stands would freeze funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. PP is a kind of bogeyman for the GOP. They like to pain it as basically an abortion mill, even though abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does, and by law, those cannot be funded by federal funding anyway. Instead, a lot of people (especially poor women) will not be able to get needed services. These include birth control, which would help prevent the birth of more children who need healthcare and welfare services. But the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner on this issue due to strong rhetoric against the organization.

More critically, in the long run, the bill would reduce funding for Medicaid over time. This is the part that will save tax dollars. It’s also the part that will remove medical care for millions of Americans who saw Medicaid coverage expanded from the ACA. I personally know people who will lose coverage if this happens, and they are terrified. Some of them need that coverage for life saving medications. Others just want the security of knowing it is available. In both cases, the loss will produce more than just physical health issues. The added stress and anxiety will cause a ripple throughout society.

As the President noted, healthcare is very complicated. Assessing all the things this bill would or would not do can be difficult. That’s what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that the ACA had to be passed before we would be able to determine all of its effects. Many of the effects of such legislation cannot be foreseen, and no doubt some of the more alarmist predictions will prove false as well. Still, the parts we can foresee, which include loss of coverage, looser regulations on what insurance companies must cover, and lessened protection against rising healthcare costs all seem scary enough to me!

At this point, though, Congress doesn’t have a lot of options. For years they’ve talked about how terrible the ACA is; how it is un—American and must be overturned. Now that the Republicans have all the power, they almost have to do something with it, even if they aren’t entirely sure whether their new plan will be good for healthcare in America. I just hope they slow down a bit and get it right.

Is Trump Rambling? Or just trying to say too much at once?

Apologies for the long period between blog updates. I’m in the middle of moving houses. I thought that taking a month off would not be a big deal. What could happen in a month?? Well, a lot has happened since Trump was inaugurated—far too much to deal with in a single blog post. So, I want to focus on just one thing: Why does Trump ramble so much when he talks to the press?

Let’s start with some examples of what I mean. I’m not going to focus on specific things that Trump has said that are questionable, such as asking a black reporter if she could put him in touch with Congress’s Black Caucus (a group of African American Congressional representatives). Yes, the belief that all black people know each other is a sign of casual racism, and yes there are many examples of similar slips (or even intentional ones, such as leaving out the word ‘Jew’ when talking about the Holocaust). These are easy to evaluate for anyone who notices them.

I want to focus on phrases like this, which are definitely made up of words, but not words that fit together into coherent thoughts. This is from his recent press conference:

“Now, again, maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried. And if I don’t, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump? Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK?

But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away. She did other things. You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.”

Ok, let’s try to figure this out. Trump is saying that he’d like to make a deal with Russia, because we are better as allies. Sounds good. Maybe he has a point. Russia is a powerful country, and certainly tensions with them haven’t been a great deal for either side, right? Then he adds that if he can’t make a deal, then he would be tougher on Russia than Clinton would have. Ummm….OK. Why is that good? You just said it’s better not to antagonize them. He continues that Clinton wanted to make a deal; she’s close to Russia. But he just said that getting closer with Russia is a good thing; so why is he attacking Clinton on this? Ah, I think I see.

I’m a college professor. That means that I deal with a lot of students who don’t know the answer to a particular question. This is especially problematic for in-class essays, where the student then has the option of leaving it blank (thus leaving half of their test points on the table and guaranteeing a failing grade for the exam), or trying to put down enough bullshit that I might be fooled into thinking they do know something.

One common technique when you don’t know what answer your audience might want is to try to play both sides. Suppose I ask a student whether we should be closer to Russia, but he’s not sure what he should think about this. So he says, “Well, I think we should be closer to Russia, as long as being closer to Russia is a good thing. And it probably is. But then, if it isn’t a good thing, then I definitely wouldn’t want us to be closer to Russia, and the people who would want us to be closer to Russia are very wrong about that!”

You would fail that answer, right? It’s incoherent gibberish. But let’s try to be super generous with Trump here. Maybe he’s saying he would try to make a deal with Russia, but if they would not agree to the deal, he would be super harsh with them. Ok, but then why attack Clinton for trying to make a deal? Perhaps it’s because she gave away uranium, which is basically just nukes, right?? Not really. Uranium can be used for lots of things, including power plants. But whatever. I think he’s trying to deflect here by saying that Clinton was both NOT tough enough on Russia, but also unable to broker a deal with Russia. I think. Maybe I’m being too hard on Trump, though.

So let’s look at a further set of claims in the same press conference (transcript linked again)

“Mike Flynn is a fine person, and I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is a man who there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence, who is with us today. And I was not happy with the way that information was given.

He didn’t have to do that, because what he did wasn’t wrong — what he did in terms of the information he saw. What was wrong was the way that other people, including yourselves in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally. That’s the real problem.

And, you know, you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.

It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news. The nice thing is, I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal — I think it’s very important — the illegal, giving out classified information. It was — and let me just tell you, it was given out like so much.

[some talk about Mexico and Australia phone calls.] The same thing happened with respect to General Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I’m saying — the first thing I thought of when I heard about it is: How does the press get this information that’s classified? How do they do it?

You know why? Because it’s an illegal process and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves, really ashamed.”

Those are Trump’s words. So let’s look at them. He starts by saying Flynn did nothing wrong. It’s fake news. There was no contact with Russia. Then, he repeats the claim that the news is fake. Then he complains that what the media reported came from classified calls. In other words, he’s upset that the media got access to the information about Flynn’s calls. Why is he upset about them receiving information he just said doesn’t really exist?

This is a classic case of someone being caught in a lie because he can’t stop talking. If you are a parent, you have probably seen this a few times. If you can get a child to talk enough, they’ll say something so inconsistent that the lie becomes obvious. Trump is saying that the media is making up all these terrible things about him, like Flynn’s call to Russia, or Trump’s own embarrassing dressing down of one of our own allies in Australia. But then he says those calls were classified, again implying that they happened in just the way the media is reporting.

The truth here is simple. Trump is doing these things. He’s upset that America is watching. The media’s entire job is to do this sort of thing. Many people today are too young to remember that it was the media that exposed the Watergate scandal. It was the media who gave us reports on the horrors of Vietnam. And yes, I’m too young to remember these things too. The media, with people like Walter Kronkite and Dan Rather, used to do real, investigative journalism. Go look it up. It’s great stuff!

Today, if the media isn’t on your side, you just accuse it of being fake news, or too biased to take seriously. This is a version of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy (also sometimes known as the genitive fallacy), which basically says that you can’t trust any argument that a particular person makes if that person is in a certain circumstance. If you say that all conservatives are automatically wrong, because they are conservatives, then you are committing this fallacy. Similarly, if you say that anyone who works for a particular news channel is biased, you have the same problem. Now, you might be able to prove that a particular website, or even news channel, has a particular political agenda. But even if you could do that, it would not in itself invalidate every argument made by that source. At best, it would lead you to be extra cautious when evaluating the merits of the argument.

In any case, Trump has literally said that any poll that shows him in an unfavorable light is automatically fake. That’s a self-sealing fallacy. It can’t be wrong, because you’ve built the conditions in such a way that he wins either way. It’s like saying heads I win, tails you lose. It’s rigged.

This is not normal Presidential behavior, and that has nothing to do with my own views on Trump or his party. W Bush, who wasn’t overly Presidential at times, at least maintained the basic dignity of the position in most cases. Trump doesn’t care. He thinks he’s the CEO of America, and that he can simply fire anyone who disagrees with him. That’s the most dangerous kind of authoritarian thinking. It’s OK for a CEO, who is running a business. It’s unacceptable from a leading government official.

My Favorite MLK, jr. Quote

In today’s blog article, which I am writing on Martin Luther King, jr. Day of 2017, I’d like to take a moment to discuss my favorite MLK quote, which comes from the letter he wrote while serving time in a Birmingham jail for civil disobedience. Here’s the quote:

“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.””

Full disclosure: I am one of the white moderates that Dr. King is targeting here. At various points in my life, I have considered myself to be post-racial (“I don’t see race!”), fully supportive of efforts to fight racism (while doing nothing active to help the cause), and even judgmental towards those that I saw as fighting racism the “wrong way”.

The quote speaks to me because I recognize myself in it, and I am ashamed by it. When Dr. King wrote this letter, he addressed it to the white ministers in the southern churches that saw themselves as allies in the fight for civil rights, but disagreed with the way that MLK was conducting the fight. They would scold him when he used civil disobedience, pointing out that it made African Americans appear to be lawless or disrespectful toward the social order. They promised that a time would come (eventually), when all races were treated as equals, but that it could not be rushed.

It’s a message we see again and again when people are fighting for civil rights. Just wait until the bigots are gone, and things will get better. We can create change by appealing to the youth, and once they are in charge, things will improve. Such messages are well intentioned but dangerously out of touch. First, there is evidence that racism does not go away, so much as it changes in various ways.  Certainly, today’s generations are less likely to be openly racist than people were in the 1960s, but that’s because people like Dr. King made it unacceptable to be blatantly bigoted. That’s a good thing, but it is far from the end goal of an equitable society.

But even if time could eventually solve such social injustices, the people who are living right now do not have the time to wait. At the time when Dr. King wrote his letter, many of the laws preventing interracial marriages were still on the books. That’s right—fifty years ago, when your parents or grandparents were of an age to be married, they would not have been allowed to do so if their partner had been born with different color skin. How long would you have people wait for the basic right to marry someone they love? How long should they wait to be able to attend good schools, or receive services at restaurants.

Waiting is a terrible response to injustice. We cannot sit out the fight for equality. We cannot pretend to support a cause by passive approval of its goals.

Dr. King was right, and he is still right. Those who openly hate people for how they were born are relatively easy to spot. The KKK still marches through the streets, often without their hoods, openly calling for racial purity. In some cases, they have come up with new names, like the “Alt-Right”, but the message is the same, and it disgusts the moral people in our society who see it as an anachronism from darker times. But what are we going to do  about it?

Why Repeal and Delay Approach to ACA is a Bad Idea

(image owned by Vox.com, used via Fair Use)

Republicans have a very tricky problem right now. A big part of their election platform revolved around the idea of repealing the PPACA (also known as ‘Obamacare’), a legislative act that has granted insurance to millions of Americans since it was enacted. The Affordable Care Act (ACA from here on) was and is a flawed piece of legislation. Its goal was to slow the tide of rising healthcare costs on America while largely maintaining the existing system of private insurers. In other words, it was trying to combine the best of parts of private and public healthcare, and as a result ended up creating a kind of Frankenstein’s Monster of ad hoc policies put together by various contingents in an attempt to get both Democrats and Republicans to pass the bill while also trying to accomplish its main objections. Put more simply—it’s a bit of a mess.

On the plus side, the ACA has ameliorated one of the biggest problems with private insurance—the fact that pre-existing conditions are often outright denied because there is no profit in covering them. Insurance companies are businesses, which means they need to make profits in order to continue to exist. If you know someone has an existing chronic health problem, then you know that this customer will only drain your company and not add anything of value. So, you can either raise your prices for that customer until this drain is balanced, or you can deny that customer coverage altogether. The ACA disallows companies to deny the customer altogether. The price increase approach is too complex to deal with in this blog, but suffice it to say that the ACA did not altogether eliminate this practice.

Now, if you are going to force companies to cover people that are known drains on the system, then you need to balance that in some way. This is where the Individual Mandate comes into play. The Mandate was an idea that was first proposed by a Conservative think tank (yes, Conservative) known as the Heritage Foundation, as far back as 1989. By forcing all people to buy insurance, you spread the risk across a more varied group of people, many of whom are perfectly healthy. These healthy customers help offset the loss that insurance companies face when forced to cover risky customers. It’s a very practical solution to the problem, and if we consider the issue purely economically, it makes a lot of sense.

But this is where things get really tricky. Many people believe the Individual Mandate is a violation of basic rights. The government, they argue, should not be able to force people to buy a product. In other words, these people do not object to the economics argument, but to the government interference that it represents. While some people have countered this concern by noting that car insurance is required in many states, objectors can counter that you don’t have to own a car, if you want to avoid paying for car insurance. But there is no way around the healthcare mandate (other than to pay the fine, which is its own issue).

This is not the only problem people see with the ACA. I saw someone post on Facebook once that he resented the part of the ACA that requires companies to cover certain women’s issues, since that means he is paying for things he’ll never use (yeah, well women have to cover your prostate cancer, jerk!). Others believe the ACA is actually raising prices (despite evidence that in most years since the ACA was enacted, price increases in healthcare have slowed compared to previous years). Interestingly, many people actually agree with most of the provisions of the ACA, when asked about them individually, and yet still object to “Obamacare”, if it is phrased that way.

Ok, that’s enough background. Whatever you think about the ACA, the fact is that the GOP promised to repeal it if they were put in power, and now they are tasked with carrying out that promise, despite the fact that many Americans are now entrenched in the new system.

Right now, the plan being floated about among Republican circles is known as ‘repeal and delay’. It rests on a very simple premise: we promised to repeal the ACA, but we don’t yet have a plan to replace it; so we need to delay its actual removal. What this would mean in practice is that Congress could repeal the ACA (or most of it, since there is talk of keeping certain provisions, which I’ll get to in a moment), but delay its removal for two years, while they come up with a new and better plan.

Vox has an excellent article up right now on why this is a problematic strategy. That’s where I got the image above this blog post, and it contains a longer, more detailed argument than I will give here. It’s well worth reading.

But here is the short version. The ACA relies largely on insurance companies offering plan through the ACA marketplace, so that Americans are able to take advantage of the subsidies that the ACA provides and receive “affordable” healthcare. Without those marketplaces and the subsidies that drive them, the ACA effectively disappears, at least for the millions of Americans who have gained insurance from it.

Now, suppose you are an insurance company who offers plans through the marketplace. You know you will get some risky customers among the people who sign up this way, because many are people who could not get insurance before. However, others are people who simply could not afford it, or who elected to go without coverage and take their chances. The ACA’s subsidies now allow these people to sign up for your insurance, and you are pretty sure about getting the money, because the government is providing some or most of it. There could be good reasons, then, to keep a plan or two on the marketplace.

But now, Congress repeals the ACA. It won’t really be gone for two years, but you know it is going away. You don’t know what will replace it, because that plan doesn’t yet exist. You’ve heard about some of the proposals, but they are all different, and none are certain to pass. All you know is that the current system is going away, and there will be no more subsidies, perhaps no more marketplace of this sort at all. Why would you keep putting plans on the marketplace? You wouldn’t. It doesn’t make good business sense at all. You would just pull out of the system altogether and wait to see what happens, while focusing on your more traditional business (employment-based insurance).

This is almost certainly what will happen in the case of repeal and delay, and many people already see it. Senator Rand Paul (more of an independent libertarian than a true Republican) warned about the disaster that repeal and delay would represent. He is convinced that the only responsible approach is to replace the current plan with a new plan that promises something better. He’s right! The problem is that such a plan does not yet exist.

And Republicans have a promise to keep…..

Is This Really about the Economy?

deficit

(Image above belongs to the Wall Street Journal)

Based on my previous posts, I’m sure you can surmise that I’m disappointed with the election results. Thanks to the anachronism that is the Electoral College, a lower turnout among Democrats who previously voted for Obama, and the voting pattern of White Americans, Donald Trump is now President Elect. I have plenty to say about why this is scaring some people, and I hope that the people who voted for Trump realize that the protests, outrage, and overall atmosphere of fear is not because a Republican won, but because Trump himself basically made a list of people he didn’t like during the campaign, and now people in those groups are worried that he will actually do the things he said they would do. I may write about that later, when I’m feeling more capable of processing it without risking making inflammatory accusations that won’t really do anyone any good.

For this week, I want to focus on the economic implications of a Trump Presidency, mostly because the Trump supporters that I have directly talked to have told me that this was their main motivation. They fear the growing deficit; they don’t like the current state of the U.S. economy. They think American jobs are going away, or being sent to other countries. They are right about these things, to some extent. Where they are wrong, I think, is in believing that Trump can fix any of it. Based on his own plans, he will make all these things worse. And that’s why I sit here, baffled, writing a blog about people, who (in my opinion, which could easily be wrong!) have voted against their own interests.

I’m going to focus mostly on the deficit here, since that’s a big issue among some voters. The image at the top shows the deficit by year. Obama inherited a big deficit jump and then added to it with additional bailouts. You can see where Obamacare kicked in around 2010. It did not increase the deficit spending, which has been shrinking during his Presidency. Also, individual income tax revenues account for about half of the federal revenues (there are corporate taxes, estate tax (which is a VERY small part), etc.). So, there could be other ways to raise revenue, such as increasing taxes on corporations. I don’t think that will happen under the incoming administration. But I’m going to focus on just the income tax plan that Trump has proposed and assume other factors as equal for the purposes of the number crunching that follows.

Let me start by saying that I am personally likely to benefit from Trump’s tax proposals, and the things he says he will repeal in the Affordable Care Act will not directly affect me. In the short run, at least, Trump’s tax policy is supposed to give me somewhere between a 1-2% reduction in my federal taxes. That’s because my individual income (and household) is higher than the national medians. For those below those medians, they are unlikely to see any tax benefits from Trump’s plan, while those in the top 1% are likely to see a 10% or more decrease in their taxes. For more on Trump’s tax plan, see this post.

I am not personally opposed to making more money, of course! Greed is good, or whatever. But I do want to point out that this will result in a loss of federal income of between 2.5 and 4 trillion dollars over a ten year period. Clinton’s proposal would have increased federal revenues by about half a trillion dollars. Again, these numbers are explained in a previous post, but you should research it for yourself.

I really want to emphasize that last part. You have Google. Go research these figures for yourself. Check multiple analyses, and do not trust me or any other person who is not an economist or tax expert to tell you what will happen. I’m stressing this because of a very important observation. NONE OF THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP AS A MEANS TO DECREASE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS TAX PLAN. They simply didn’t look it up. I don’t mean that they got bad data from somewhere. I mean that they just assumed that Trump’s plan, since he’s a businessman, would lower the deficit.

Of course, there are other ways to lower the deficit. Instead of raising revenue, you can lower costs. In fact, if Trump is going to lower the deficit, he will have to cut costs, given the loss of revenues noted above. He plans to do this in a few ways. First, he plans to freeze federal hiring, allowing attrition to lower the federal work force. That means fewer federal employees. If you are a current employee, this doesn’t mean you will be fired. It means that if you retire, your position will not be replaced. It will go away.

This is an odd plan. Imagine if your job did this as a way to cut its work force. Is your job important to the company in some way? I bet you like to think that it is, at least! Now imagine they said that they aren’t firing you, but that if you ever leave, they won’t hire someone else for your position. Very odd way to do business.

Another cost cutting move, I’m guessing, is that he plans to deregulate lots of things. For every new regulation, two others must be removed, according to the 100 day plan (same link as above). Fewer regulations mean less government interference, and enforcing regulations costs money in some cases. So this could cut spending. Similarly, he plans to fast track FDA approvals, which I guess means less work for the FDA, who can now stop testing things so much for safety. That will reduce costs, at least to the federal government. Risky drugs on the market could have other social costs, of course.

He could cut budget items, of course, too. More accurately, he can’t do that, but he could push Congress to do it, and since they are Republican run, they might listen. So what should they cut? A lot of Trump supporters want to cut so-called entitlement spending. This would mean things like TARP (food stamps), various welfare programs, perhaps Medicaid (though not Medicare!!! Never touch that!).

Here’s a link to the federal budget (which has 3.8 trillion to spend in a year, roughly). In order to offset the 2.5 trillion dollar shortfall Trump’s tax plan creates (going with the lower number here, for fairness), we need to cut this pie chart by 250 billion a year. Perhaps we could cut healthcare spending to accomplish this….by cutting ¼ of it. That’s a lot of people who suddenly don’t have healthcare, but OK. That gets us even again.

But the goal is to shrink the deficit. At 250 billion, all we’ve done is offset the tax losses. We need to cut MORE in order to balance the budget and then make up the deficit.

Here is a cool online game that allows you to try to fix the problem: Fix the Federal Budget . Keep in mind that you actually need to increase the funding shortfall, due to the tax losses. Right now, our budget is half a trillion dollars more than revenue. You’ll need to keep in mind that the shortfall will ¾ of a trillion dollars instead. That’s the optimistic version. If the losses are closer to 4 trillion, as estimates say they could be, then you need to find 9/10 of a trillion dollars instead. Almost forgot: the game is using 2014’s budget, which was 3.5 trillion, instead of the 3.8 trillion that I showed in my link to the 2015 budget. That extra 3/10 of a trillion is a big deal and adds to your goal. So, you’re probably looking at a need to cut a full trillion dollars out of the budget, or nearly ¼ of the current federal budget.

If you voted for Trump in order to fix the Federal Deficit, there’s your chance to find the solution. Once you find the correct way to cut spending, send it to Trump’s transition team. That might sound cynical, but I’m actually serious about this. If we are going to fix the federal deficit, these are the facts that have to be faced. If that is one of Trump’s goals, I hope he achieves it without hurting to many U.S. citizens in the process. So, if you have a way to do that, please help!

I just voted for a woman for President of the United States

Politics aside, and I get that people will disagree with my choice for political reasons, I don’t think I’ve ever felt the gravity of voting for U.S. President like I did in this election. I just voted for a woman to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and it’s been my first opportunity to do so. It’s 2016, and only now have we even had the option of voting for a woman for POTUS. That’s insane to me.

As I drove back from voting, I was talking to my partner about how historic this event really is. I said to her “You know, first I was able to vote for a black President, and now a woman. That’s two historic firsts, so close together!” Then I thought about other historic firsts, and there were none. Before Obama, every single POTUS was a white man, often older, but certainly mainstream. Every single one. No major candidate was black. None were women. Now, we get both, back to back! It’s an amazing time to alive.

Approaches to Liberty in the 2016 Presidential Election

trumpandclintonwithkids

(image from scholastic.com, used from Fair Use, and to give you a pleasant side of both candidates!)

In the first part of this three part series on the types of liberty, I discussed the two broad categories of negative and positive liberty. In the second part, I showed how the two major U.S. political parties tend to fall with respect to these two versions of liberty. In this final installment, I will apply all of this to the current 2016 Presidential Election, as a way of helping people understand the options.

Before I break down Clinton and Trump, I want to address the two main alternative candidates this year: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. I’ll be honest. I’m not a fan of either candidate for reasons that go beyond their parties’ platforms. In my opinion, neither is remotely qualified for the job of President. They have no political experience at all, and running companies or being a medical doctor is in no way related to what happens in politics. I understand why some people might want an outsider to come in and shake up the system, but doing this from the top down, by electing an unqualified POTUS, is a big mistake. Neither party has any foothold in Congress, or even state level political entities. That means none of their proposals can actually happen. If either party is serious about changing U.S. politics, they should get involved in local elections first, then state, and then show that they are elements for real, substantive changes. I personally think that both candidates are benefiting from a general cynicism about the two major political parties, and I understand that cynicism. But I don’t think people should let it get in the way of the practical realities that neither Johnson nor Stein can do any of the things they have promised. Nor are their plans well considered.

But this article isn’t about Third Party candidates. If you want to know my thoughts about them, ask, and I will write such an article, or tell you directly.

So, let’s turn to Clinton and Trump. In a very general sense, these candidates will line up with the approaches to liberty that I showed in the previous article. As a Democrat, Clinton will tend to support negative liberty approaches to social/moral issues, allowing people to pursue their own beliefs, while pushing for positive liberty by increasing social safety nets for Americans. As a Republican (loosely), Trump will tend to support negative liberty on economic issues, while trying to increase the feeling of safety in America through stronger immigration laws and policing powers, which is loosely positive liberty. As usual, however, the devil is in the details.

Let’s start with Clinton and look at a few proposals she has made. Clinton’s plan to help solve the growing deficit is to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to increase government revenue. According to the Tax Foundation (which is not at all a liberal organization), Clinton’s plan would increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, including estate taxes (for estates worth over $1billion). All things being equal, this would lead to $1.4 trillion in government revenue over a ten-year period. Of course, things are not always equal, so the Tax Foundation accounted for the fact that increasing taxes on the wealthy could lower the GDP a bit. Once that is accounted for, the revenues are closer to $663 billion, which is still a sizable amount. There are many, unpredictable things that could increase or decrease that number in reality, but this is the closet prediction we are likely to get.

This increased revenue would presumably be used to increase social safety nets, or perhaps pay for the college plan I shall discuss next. Both would be increases in positive liberty for some Americans. However, even Clinton should admit that increasing these taxes will result in lower negative liberty for the people being taxed more. They are now forced to give up more of their money to the government, which means they are not free to spend that money. Any time government gets involved in trying to increase positive liberties, there are most likely going to be some costs in negative liberties. In this particular case, though, that cost only affects a very small number of Americans. Most Americans will see their taxes stay about the same, or lower slightly.

Clinton’s tax plan also increases various deductions (or adds credits) for people with children, including child care expenses. This should result in more negative liberties for those people to spend that money as they wish, rather than having it tied up in childcare. The estate tax exemption will be lowered a bit for individuals and couples, which will affect estates worth $3.5 million for individuals or $7 million for couples, resulting in a loss of negative liberty for such estates to distribute their wealth as they see fit. However, small businesses will see increased deductions and an expansion of ACA benefits, which will increase their negative liberty to spend funds and perhaps their positive liberty to provide healthcare for employees.

One thing that Clinton plans to do with the increased revenues is provide various support programs for people who need help going to college. Her plan does not go as far as Bernie Sanders’s plan to simply make college free, but that plan would have radically changed higher education in the U.S. in unforeseen ways. It also faced an almost impossible uphill battle in Congress. Clinton’s plan may face similar hurdles, but is more layered and nuance. You can view her plan on her website, but in general it is an attempt to use the tax plan above to provide positive liberty for more people to go to college.

Ok, let’s turn to Trump’s tax plan, again using the Tax Foundation website. Trump’s plan aims to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes, especially on the wealthy and corporations. The theory here, which is often called trickle-down economics, is that when wealthier individuals and the corporations they run pay less in taxes, they reinvest the money saved back into the economy. This, in turn grows the economy, which helps everyone, and can (in some cases) increase tax revenues through the greater GDP. Unfortunately, Trump’s plan will lead to a loss of revenue to the government of around $5 trillion, give or take a trillion. That’s if everything stayed equal, but as I noted above, things are not equal. His plan could increase GDP. Once that’s taken into account, the loss of revenues is between $2.6 and $3.9 trillion dollars. A reminder that the Tax Foundation is not favoring Clinton here. It’s just analyzing the plans as they are presented. The top 1% of Americans will see a 10% or more growth in their income.

As noted above, more income in pocket means more negative liberty spend your money as you wish. Arguably, it also means more positive freedoms, as those with more income can accomplish more. However, this is not the same as positive liberty, which is about government aiding people in achieving goals. In fact, Trump’s plan will lower tax revenues, which means government spending must be cut in order to avoid raising the deficit even more. Those cuts are likely to go to safety net spending, though he could reduce military spending to achieve the needed cuts. In any case, cutting government spending lowers positive liberty by definition, since the government can no longer provide the services that rely on that income. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your views on government.

Trump has argued that his plan will increase American jobs, which would be a big benefit, if true. You can read about this claim, and its skeptics in this PBS article. Trump has also said that he plans to eliminate some of the international trade deals that have been created in the last couple of decades, again in order to boost American businesses. Whether this will work depends on your view of the current global economy. Can the easy flow of international goods be constrained at this point in history? I’m personally skeptical that it could, or even that it should. However, I absolutely sympathize with Trump’s view that American companies are finding it hard to compete with the lower labor costs found in other countries. Whether a President can solve that problem through tariffs, embargoes, taxes, or whatever other methods Trump might intend to use (he’s often secretive about the specifics of his plans) is dubious, in my opinion. However, if he did pull this off, it would be an increase in job opportunities for Americans, which is an increase in positive liberties. Government policies would then be aiding Americans in finding meaningful work. I just don’t think it will work.

At this point, my own biases are probably pretty clear, but I want to note that I do not inherently disagree with the Republican view of economics through deregulation. Historically, we have good evidence that trickle-down economics doesn’t work, but I am sympathetic to the view, first posited by Adam Smith, that government interference in the economy often has unforeseen negative results. I’m skeptical because I don’t think Trump has ever read Smith, or any other economist, for that matter. I’m skeptical because I don’t think he is even listening to the GOP anymore, or his advisers, or anyone else. I’m skeptical because as far as I can tell, Trump has made a career off of false promises and cheating other people out of their money.

As a result, this particular entry in my three-part series is probably off the rails. I’ve tried to be balanced between the two candidates on these liberty issues, but I would find it a lot easier to be balanced if I were writing about Romney or McCain as the GOP candidate, because those candidates had viable plans that were grounded in reality. I might not have agreed with all of their plans (I don’t agree with all of Clinton’s, either), but I understood them. I don’t understand Trump’s plan (go to his website, and figure it out for yourself), and neither does the Tax Foundation, as far as I can tell. It’s baffling.

Applying the Two Concepts of Liberty to U.S. Political Parties

libertybell

In the previous article, I discussed the two concepts of liberty in a political context: negative liberty, which is when there are no political obstacles in the way of our choices, and positive liberty, which is when the state aids us in achieving our goals. Like any quick definition, I’m oversimplifying both concepts a bit, for the sake of clarity and concision. But the basic concept holds and shows the difference between being allowed to do something versus being able to do something.

As a quick reminder, then, most of the Bill of Rights are negative liberties, which tell us things the government cannot do. It cannot arrest us for speaking our minds; it cannot prevent us from bearing arms; it cannot force us to incriminate ourselves in court. Positive liberties in the U.S. also takes many forms: public education gives us the tools we need for a successful life; public roads give us ways to get places; federal grants and student loans help us go to college.

Unfortunately, some of these liberties may conflict, both with each other, and with other values that we hold dear in society. For example, you might feel that you have a right to keep your children from hearing certain viewpoints, with which you disagree, but those children also have a right to public education, which might include some of those viewpoints. A fairly recent example that is still causing controversy is freedom of religion versus tolerance of alternate lifestyles. On the one hand, people with deeply held religious convictions believe that the First Amendment should allow them to deny services to others on religious grounds (the obvious example is denying services to homosexual couples because of a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin). On the other hand, the people being denied these services see themselves as being discriminated against for something that is a critical part of their identity, something they cannot simply change.

Resolving these conflicts can be very difficult, because any compromise will involve one or both sides feeling that their liberties have been violated. Isaiah Berlin, whom I discussed in the previous post, believed that some of these conflicts cannot be resolved without loss. In other words, he thought that we are constantly making hard choices among our values in cases of conflict. Such decisions result in a tragedy of sorts; we cannot maximize all of our values at the same time. We must make sacrifices.

But those sacrifices become especially problematic, politically speaking, in cases where the conflict is not within a single person or group but between individuals and groups. And this is where political divide emerges. One political party promises support for one group, while the other sides with the other group.

We can see this pretty clearly in the case of religious freedom versus tolerance for homosexuality mentioned above. For the most part, the Republican Party has found itself on the religious freedom side of the debate, which pleases the Evangelical segment of its base. The Democrat Party has tended to side with the LGBTQ community in opposing legislation that allows discrimination based on religious belief.

If we put this debate into liberty terms, we can see that both sides are fighting for liberty, while accusing the other side of trying to deny liberties. And both sides are right about that….to an extent. Whatever decision we, as a society, reach here, some people will have their liberties reduced and others will see their liberties protected (or expanded).

So let’s look at a few key social issues that are happening in the U.S. right now and try to categorize how the parties view these issues in terms of negative and positive liberties. A few of these will be obvious, but others might surprise you (check the abortion one, for example). As always, these are my views/observations. In each case, I have tried to present the position from the perspective of that party. I am not saying the party is right or wrong; I am only putting their view into negative or positive liberty terms. You are free to disagree with my categorizations in the comments. Just explain why, please! (note that I included ‘Libertarians’ in order to get a third party involved; I chose them over the Green Party because they tend to get more of the vote and because they’ve named themselves after liberty!)

 

Issue Republicans Democrats Libertarians
Abortion Positive- seek to protect right of the unborn to become born (to live) Negative- seek to protect the right of women to choose whether to give birth Negative- could vary, but in general want govt. to stay out of it, and allow choice
Racial Equality Negative- believe the market should take care of this, and equality is up to those who want it. Positive- believe some minorities need extra aid to make up for disadvantage starting points Negative- again, want govt. to stay out of this.
Gun Control Negative- support the right to buy weapons with minimal restrictions Positive- support restrictions in order to protect people from gun violence Negative- seeing a trend here? Govt. go away!!!
Healthcare Negative- favors existing marketplace method, with private insurance Positive- favors public options to ensure that everyone gets access, regardless of wealth Negative- favors full marketplace approach, completely privatized in every way (in theory, no Medicaid/Medicare)
Gender Equality Negative- generally leaves this up to corporations, opposing govt. mandates and quotas Positive- promotes gender equality through various aid programs and restrictions against discrimination Negative- surprise! No govt. involvement at all; total merit based capitalism
Gay Marriage Positive- varies, but more likely to promote legal restrictions on gay marriage in order to protect sanctity of marriage Negative- govt. should allow any consenting adults to marry, regardless of sexual orientation (some include gender identity in this as well) Negative- similar to Democrats, but more likely to include gender identity as well; again, govt. shouldn’t decide this.
Marijuana Positive- favors restrictions in order to protect people from drug use, thus ensuring a better life Negative- varies a lot! More likely to promote loosened restrictions on certain drugs Negative- goes even further; would likely allow any and all drugs to be legal, but would still keep restrictions on DUI (at least Johnson would…his party is all over the place on this one)

Of course, couching all of these issues in terms of liberty, whether negative or positive liberty, is overly reductive. These are complex issues, with many facets. The chart above is meant to illustrate that each major party focuses on a mixture of what could be viewed as enhancing negative or positive liberty, depending on the issue. Libertarianism presents a nice contrast, because it’s a view that is focused almost solely on negative liberty. Basically, libertarians want the government to protect the country from external threats and protect citizens from direct domestic violence. Other than that, they want little or no government involvement.

If you disagree with how I have characterized any of these viewpoints, let me know. I am not asserting that any of these approaches is the correct approach to take. My goal is to help people understand the ways in which our politicians talk past each other and confuse issues by using the term ‘liberty’ in a very sloppy way. As Americans, we all value liberty; we just value it in different ways.

In Part 3 of this series, I’ll look at the specific issues that are happening in this year’s (2016) election. I know I can’t wait……..

 

There are Two Types of Liberty

libertybell

(image by historicphiladelphia.org)

As we near the November election and tensions continue to rise between the supporters of the two major U.S. political parties, one thing is increasingly clear. Most people do not fully understand what the term ‘liberty’ means. More importantly, most do not realize that there are different senses of the term. Many of the arguments I see online involve this basic confusion, and it was present in the first Presidential debate as well.

While many writers have discussed the nuances of the term ‘liberty’, the historian of ideas, Isaiah Berlin, has probably done the best job of explaining why we must be very careful with this term. In a speech he gave upon receiving a professorship at Oxford, Berlin presented his “Two Concepts of Liberty”, which was later turned into an essay on the subject.

Berlin believes that the term is easily misused because people often use it to represent two different notions of liberty, neither one of which is more right than the other, but each of which would lead you to very different conclusions about the role of government. He labels these two approaches ‘negative liberty’ and ‘positive liberty’. Before I explain each approach, I should note that ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ in this context do not mean good or bad. As you will see, ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ more closely resemble something like passive versus active approaches to helping people enjoy freedom in their lives. Also, for this discussion, ‘liberty’ will refer to the ways in which government affects the freedom of citizens. In other words, ‘liberty’ is a political issue, while ‘freedom’ is what a person or group of persons experience.

Negative liberty is “the absence of obstacles to possible choices and activities” (Berlin Four Essays on Liberty pg. xxxix). In other words, we enjoy negative liberty in a civil society when nobody and nothing are standing in the way of our potential choices. The state (government) can enhance negative liberty by creating rights that prevent the government from interfering in certain aspects of our lives.

Many of the Constitutional amendments found in the Bill of Rights would fall under negative liberty. For example, the right to free speech means that the government will not impede (i.e. put obstacles in the way of) our ability to say what we wish to say. The right to bear arms means that the government will not prevent you from purchasing weapons. The Third Amendment means that the state cannot force you to let military personnel stay in your home (I guess this was a big problem once!). Each of these rights creates a space within which you are free from government interference.

Of course, there could be other issues that prevent you from fully enjoying these liberties. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but that doesn’t mean anyone will listen to what you say. It doesn’t guarantee that you will have an audience, or that you will speak well, or even that you, personally, will be able to speak at all. If you are rendered mute by birth or accident, the First Amendment does not mean that the government must pay for medical procedures to correct that issue. Similarly, the right to bear arms does not guarantee that you will have the money to purchase or gun, or the ability to shoot straight!

Negative liberties are labelled ‘negative’ because they are about the absence of interference. They tell us what the government may not do. In most cases, this requires no action on the part of the government. In fact, many of these liberties are guaranteeing you that the government will not act; think of it as a negation of action.

Positive liberty, on the other hand, is our ability actually to achieve our goals. Berlin associates it with the notion of self-mastery (very similar to Kant’s idea of ‘autonomy’, which is about self-control through following the rational will).

A civil state can increase positive liberty by providing citizens with various aids to help them achieve their goals in life. A great example of this in the U.S. is the public education system, which is meant to provide all citizens with the basic learning that is needed to function in our society and pursue a meaningful and productive life. Another example is roads, which allow us to get where we want to be more easily. More controversial examples would include things like welfare, social security, food stamps, etc. These safety nets and savings aids are meant to ensure that no American falls below a certain minimal state of living, since a complete lack of money, housing, or food makes achieving a decent life nearly impossible in our society.

If negative liberty can be thought of as non-interference by the state, then positive liberty can be thought of as those times when the state helps you achieve certain goals. In other words, providing positive liberty requires activity on the part of government. In most cases, this means it also requires tax dollars.

At this point, you are probably associating each approach to liberty with a particular political party. You might be thinking that Republicans tend to focus on negative liberty, while Democrats focus on positive liberty, especially since I presented welfare as an example of positive liberty. In many cases, that perception is not far off, but like any oversimplification, it is misleading.

Both negative and positive liberties are valued by pretty much all humans. We all want some degree of freedom to make our own decisions, but that freedom is pretty useless if we lack the means for carrying out those choices. The government isn’t stopping you from buying a home, but that doesn’t mean you have the money (or credit) to do so.

In practice, both Republicans and Democrats value both negative and positive liberty, just like their constituents do. However, they tend to focus on one or the other, depending on the particular issue. For example, Republicans tend to lean toward increasing negative liberties for businesses. They advocate for lower restrictions on businesses. Donald Trump, in the first Presidential debate, said that businesses are being stifled by government regulations, and he would remove many of those restrictions in order to facilitate a freer market.

On the flip side, Hillary Clinton emphasized the importance of economic equality, discussing ways in which government might help the less fortunate, such as inner city minorities, achieve their goals through education credits or other government aid. This is consistent with the view that Democrats lean toward positive liberty solutions to problems.

On the other hand, things get murky when we look at social issues. The issue of gay marriage is a great example for illustrating this. In general, Democrats have supported gay rights in recent years by arguing that members of the LGBTQ community should not be restricted in their rights to marry whomever they wish. That seems to be an increase in negative liberty. However, many conservative Republicans have argued that this violates freedom of religion, which is also a negative liberty. The question of marriage itself could be seen as a negative or positive liberty issue, depending on focus. Since the government gives certain tax breaks, and there are other social advantages to marriage, the ability to marry could be seen as a positive liberty, one that enables people to achieve certain goals, or as a negative liberty, where the government cannot tell citizens whom they may marry.

Whichever perspective you take on these matters, what remains true is that different people use the word ‘liberty’ to mean different things at different times. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in the value of liberty. It’s a concept that lies at the core of modern democratic thinking. But we need to understand how easily the term ‘liberty’ can fall into equivocation. Taxing one group of people to provide benefits for another group of people decreases the (negative) liberty of one group for the sake of the (positive) liberty of the other group. When the two senses of liberty come into conflict with each other, each side will accuse the other of devaluing liberty. However, in most such cases, each side is simply valuing a different type of liberty.

In the next installment of this three-part series on the two types of liberty and how it can help us understand this election, I’ll talk more about these conflicts, including how liberty can conflict with other values that we hold dear. I’ll also give more nuance to the different factions within the two major U.S. political parties and the ways that they view liberty. In the third installment, I plan to directly relate all of that to the policies being proposed by the major candidates, so that we can see which of elements of their platforms correspond to which approach to liberty and why. My goal is to help people understand the candidates in the election and what their approaches would mean for America, if implemented.