Universal vs Tribal Morality, In The United States

In our previous post we delineated the differences between cultures centered on tribal based value systems and those oriented towards universal values. The value system that predominates within a nation has a tremendous role in shaping government and politics. Paradoxically, cultures oriented towards universal values promote political systems and civic involvement that at once affirm the "common good", while strongly valuing the rights and richness of the individual. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that Americans cherished individualism, while still possessing the uncanny ability to freely form civic organizations in the pursuit of the common interests. Connected only by the bonds of free association and shared values, individuals work together to form churches, charities, communities organizations and relief efforts. We find this on a local, political level, when individuals work together on mundane, but essential tasks like improving local schools and also on larger, more ideological movements, of the left and right that promote: human rights, rule of law, economic freedom, economic equality, environmentalism, etc. Needless to say, far too many individuals and organizations participate in politics in order to further their narrow self interests and that of their group. But, never the less, the core value system is universal in nature and politicians who too openly depart from this paradigm will face public reprimand. And to garnish even a modicum of public support, even the most narrow, self serving special interests use the language of common interest in order to justify their pursuit of self serving subsidies. A close look at political developments in the United States will demonstrate that we are experiencing a slow retreat from universal values and individual liberty, in favor of narrow, ethnic interests and group rights. While reading this essay, keep in mind that we are in no way downplaying the tremendous contributions that individuals of all ethnic backgrounds have made to the social, political and economic life of the United States; rather, we are exploring the nature and consequences of ethnocentric, clientelist politics.

Movements based on universal principles usually encourage individuals to be fair, objective and self critical of their behavior, as well as that of their group. For example, white participants in the civil rights movements encouraged their fellow citizens to address their unjust treatment of African-Americans. Males are asked to reflect on their unfair treatment of women. And those driven by universal values will even promote policies that are directly against their own immediate interests: wealthy liberals generally support a system of progressive taxation, in which they will pay more, white liberals promote affirmative action, even though it may limit their educational and employment opportunities. Conversely, the great African-American economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell opposes affirmative action, because he holds greater loyalty to the principles of individual liberty, economic reason and fairness than to his "tribal interests". And many moderate income libertarians and conservatives seek to limit government programs that would directly benefit them.

In the United States, we take this universal spirit for granted, but nowhere outside of the western world is this widely encountered. In North Africa and the Middle East, the idea of Muslims marching to promote the equality of Non-Muslims was beyond the pale of reason. One's duty was never to "justice for all", but rather to the support of the ummah. Legal equality to Christians and Jews were forced on Muslim territories by British and French colonial regimes, the only notable exception being Reza Shah's lifting of legal restrictions against Iranian Jews. And in countries like Malaysia, affirmative action was used by the Malay majority to expand their economic power, by limiting that of the better educated and more entrepreneurial Chinese Minority. To put it simply, in societies were universal values are not well entrenched, politics is centered on the aggressive promotion of one's tribe or ethnic group, rather than fairness and the perceived greater good. And even in cases in which middle eastern governments project an imagine of broad, modern nationalism, the dominion of narrow tribal interests is the rule, rather than the exception. For example, in Ba'athist Iraq, the majority of important government functionaries were members of Saddam Hussein's extended family. Underlying all tribal cultures is a negation of individuality and meritocracy.

In Latin-America, universal rhetoric permeates political discourse, but never the less, political cultural is  tribal in nature. Owing to blurred racial and cultural boundaries, affiliation is based not so much on ethnicity, but by what  Edward C. Banfield described such as a spirit of "amoral familism," in which the public good is sacrificed for the sake of nepotism and immediate family and friends. Harvard Sociologist Robert Putnan stated that in such a society, "political participation is triggered by personal dependency or private greed, not by collective purpose." The end result is a system of clientelism, a "form of politics in which the patron grants favors in return for political support, materials goods, and / or other services."' But, what of the populist, social-democratic wave that is sweeping much of Latin America? Does the universal rhetoric and expanded social programs for the poor, seen in the regimes of Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa not indicate the growth of liberal democracy?

A closer look at these regimes demonstrates that they simply represent a dramatic expansion of the clientelist paradigm, made possible by rising petroleum revenues. In this system, leaders offer promises of welfare and subsidies, the masses support a charismatic "national patron", overlooking their corrupt, undemocratic practices. What is most troubling is that increased dependency on the patron is accompanied by a diminished concern for the common good. For example, in exchange for free homes and appliances and environmentally damaging fuel subsidies, Chavez's followers overlook his attacks on freedom of the press and economic mismanagement. Argentine writer, Marcos Aguinis best summed up the nature of Latin American Populist leaders; they "only care about the short term; take advantage of poverty to ensure votes; try to appropriate the most public funds possible; have an extraordinary ability to transfer their responsibility in poor performance to other and do not accept dissent or plurality of opinions." 

Within African-American politics, we find a well defined clientelist streak. This vision is clearly demonstrated when Jesse Jackson Sr stated that since African-American voters helped Barack Obama gain and retain political power, "we want, we want, we want, we deserve, we deserve...a return on our (electoral) investments." He went on to specify the "return" as increased federal spending in housing, healthcare, education, employment and public transportation. Absent from his discourse was the idea that all Americans should equally enjoy the benefits of increased government largess, but rather it should be directed primarily towards African-Americans, because of the political support that they offered the president. Furthermore, his demands for ever greater federal spending are not tempered by a concern for the rising federal debt and unfunded liabilities that the nation faces. As long as his tribe enjoys a greater share of the Spoils System; fiscal consequences be damned. Another parallel between African-American and Latin-American politics  is the apparent willingness of large swaths of the electorate to overlook the corruption of their political patrons. For example, State Representative Derrick Smith was re-elected with 63% of the vote, even though he had been expelled from the General Assembly of Illinois on corruption charges. And Jesse Jackson Jr won by the same margin, even though he has been indited for using campaign funds to purchase a $40,000 watch for a female friend. It appears that the personal loyalty of many African-Americans to political representatives and the Democratic Party trump concerns of basic ethics and good governance. It goes without saying that there are thoroughly rotten European-American politicians, the only difference is that when the extent of their corruption comes to light, they are quickly excoriated by the public.

Over the past few years, a wide variety of commentators have discussed the growing political influence of Latinos and other minorities in the United States. Time Magazine went as far as saying that Latinos Will Decide The Next Election. But, interestingly, few if any of these commentators explored exactly how this growing influence is shaping political life, yet alone dared to ask what possible risks and rewards. Against we must affirm that the question is not one of race and ethnic origin, but rather of political culture. America's unparalleled freedom and prosperity do not stem from race or color of the founders, but rather the synergistic values, visions, norms, culture and comportment of the founding fathers. And the deeply ingrained political vices found in Latin-America do not find their origin in DNA, but in culture. Even as successive waves of immigrants altered the demography of the nation, their successful assimilation to to the values and political traditions, has allowed the nation to maintain its cultural core and Republican System. Hence, some of the most distinguished proponents of the American Way and critics of ethnocentric politics are Hispanic-Americans, such as Adolfo Rivero Caro and African-Americans, such as Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell. So, we should welcome all Americans to actively participate in the civic and political life of the nation, as individuals, bound by beliefs and not by birth or blood. But, we should be concerned about the growth of ethno-identity politics that, at its core, represents a retreat from the universal value that underlie American Republicanism. This has been made possible by the promotion of a multicultural ideology, that eschews assimilation and promotes political ethnocentrism.

We see an ethno-corporate vision in well organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, La Raza, Mecha  groups, which openly seek to promote the power and interests of their respective tribes. What is most interesting is that the greatest impetus for the growth of ethno-identity politics has not come from minorities, but from well established (and largely white) political, educational and economic elites. For example, La Raza was launched by a grant from the Ford Foundation and enjoyed major contributions from the Gates Foundation. And President Obama's campaign website has a separate sections for Jewish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans. As the Chairman of the California Democratic Party (from 1995 - 2009), Art Torres is supposed to
have equally represented the interest of all his constituents, yet he gleefully spoke about the political decline of "White America".

The tribal orientation of these movements are made clear by the general nature of its discourse, which is largely bereft of principles, beyond the proclamation that their growing ranks entitles them to greater political power and even preferential treatment. And the quest for self interest is rarely tempered by the concern for fairness and the common good that other political movements must at least provide lip service to, if they are to gain legitimacy. Although there is no perfect, absolute means to determine the universality of a principle or proposal,  Kant's Categorical imperative is perhaps the most compelling I have encountered.. The first formulation is: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." The third formulation is "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maximum always a legislating member of the universal kingdom of ends." In other words, would the world be better if a particular behavior became universally adopted or was put into law? Take Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a major figure in ethnocentric politics; by what universal principles can he justify the selective non-enforcement of immigration laws? Could one put forth a reasonable argument that the desires of non-citizens to cross a border, trumps the rights of  citizens to determine who enters their sovereign territory? Under what system of ethics and good governance could one justify extending preferential treatment (amnesty) to those who violated immigration laws, over the many individuals who waited in lines for many years to lawfully enter the country? Ethnocentric activists often imply that the economic desperation of Latin-Americans justifies their documented and undocumented entry into the nation, but if universal-humanitarian concerns were truly their motivation, would they not lobby to grant greater preference to the (let's say) Sub-Saharan Africans that faced far more dire circumstances? With each example, it becomes clearer that the focus of most ethnocentric political activists is not the common good. Rather it is to expand their own power by increasing the number of their clientel present in the United States.

One could easily counter my analysis with the following position: ethnocentric Hispanic organizations oppose most immigration enforcement measures as part of their question for the common good; just because a policy mostly benefits a single ethnic constituency, does not mean that it is contrary to the common good. In principle, this is a valid point, but in practice, the evidence does not support this proposition. The fact that La Raza has opposed, virtually every enforcement measure, leads me to the believe that they unconditionally support the perceived interests of their group, even when it is contrary to the common good. For example, the voluntary use of e-verify by employers, was previously banned in Illinois. And even after Cook County's systematic refusal to hand over repeat criminal offenders to ICE led to the death of innocent individuals, Toni Preckwinkle and other members of the Democratic Machine, continued to support this policy. In the worst spirit of Latin American Clientelism, they have placed the unconditional support of the perceived interests of their constituents above the rule of law and the general welfare of Cook County. It appears that the Democratic Machine is driven less by humanitarian principles and more by a desire to foster dependency in their clients, not through effective governance, but through fear: "only we can protect your family from the anti-immigrants..." Further evidence that lobbying for open border policies is driven more by raw self interest, rather than by universal principles can be deduced from the fact that the nations that have called for the United States to liberalize its immigration policies, most zealously guard their own borders and national sovereignty. This is especially true of the Mexican Government.

The ethnocentric, tribal world view is even more pronounced in the Spanish Speaking media. This could be seen in a recent discussion on Univision between News Anchorman Jorge Ramos and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) of Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate. What is most significant is that that Mr. Ramos did not ask if Mr. Ryan would be a good vice president for the nation, but he reduced the discussion, ad verbatim, to the single question of: "is he good or bad for Hispanics." Nor did he discuss Ryan's positions on debt, entitlements, employment, public health and national security; the only concern he expressed was how a Ryan vice-presidency would effect undocumented immigrants. While immigration is certainly an important national issue, Mr. Ramos has never seriously framed the debate in terms of the common good; his only expressed concern has been "what impact would it have on my tribe?" And on the rare occasion when he interviews a guest with more nuanced views, such as Marco Rubio, he responds with open ire that they are not "supporting their own". If a "white journalist" were to express such blatant ethnocentrism, they would justifiably be pilloried for their lack of objectivity, yet Mr. Ramos has won 8 Emmy Awards!

This brings us to one of the more troubling aspects of this issue: the demeaning double standards that many white liberals hold regarding expressions of political ethnocentrism. With few exceptions, they openly encourage African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc. to pursue their perceived ethno-political interests, while responding with absolute horror when European-Americans do the same. For example, protests erupted over the formation of a white student union at Townsen University, even though student organizations based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual identity abound on the campus. The underlying  notion is that whites, as individuals are expected to objectively pursue the common good, while non-whites are welcome to pursue their subjective group interests. This should be considered racist and demeaning, because it clearly holds Non-Europeans to a lower ethical and intellectual standard. Some liberals will respond that white political ethnocentrism is alive and well, but is simply hidden in the universal rhetoric of conservative movements. That may be true for some individuals, but never the less, the very fact that they must indirectly promote their group interests, by extolling the virtues of fairness and free markets, shows that they are held to higher standards than other purveyors of ethnic self interest.

These double standards have become so wide spread that very few people think twice when they are faced by them. For example, nowhere in NPR's discussion of the devastation that Korean-American owned businesses experienced during the LA Riots, does the commentator touch up the obvious presence of racism and xenophobia within the African-American community. We can be certain that if a mob of European-Americans looted and burned the stores of another ethnic group, NPR and much of the political elite would call upon whites to address these issues within their community. And during an NPR expose on gentrification in Chicago's Pilsen Neighborhood, the author and some of the readers were sympathetic to the residents concerns about the influx of "güeros," which in Mexican slang means "whites". Yet, we can be certain that NPR would justifiably rebuke a European-American if they expressed similar concerns about the influx of Latinos into "their neighborhood." In piece after piece NPR praises integration and the growth of diversity in historically white neighborhoods, yet clearly expresses unease that Pilsen in now only 80% Hispanic, i.e. it is more diverse. The underlying notion is that non-whites have the right to desire a homogeneous neighborhood and exclude newcomers, while whites do not. And on a deeper level, one community has the right to pursue their perceived group interests, while the other can only exercise individual rights. The hegemonic shell was cracked by a few readers. In response to a resident who declared that the opposition to whites residents was "not racist", but was simply "about Mexicans not wanting to lose the Mexican culture," one reader astutely stated "hmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah: The GOP when speaking of not wanting to lose "American Culture" due to immigration. When they say it, it's called Xenophobia. Ironic." No matter how well meaning their intentions are, when liberals present double standards, they convey an underlying belief that minorities are too emotionally fragile and intellectually inept to engage in honest dialogues and meaningful self criticism.

This cultural and philosophical shift should be viewed with alarm, because they are a retreat from the universal values that made the American Experiment in Republicanism possible. The philosophical notions that underlie state sponsored multiculturalism and ethnocentric politics are deeply contrary to the respect for the individual  that is central to free republics and free markets. In order to believe that an individual automatically enriches a classroom or workplace because they "add to its racial and ethnic diversity, we must automatically assume that they possess distinct beliefs, behaviors and abilities, simply because of their origin. And we must assume that these differences are entirely beneficial, while refraining from seriously discussing them. In other words, multiculturalism and other corporatist ideologies discourages us from viewing our fellow citizens as unique individuals, but rather as members of groups. This political outlook fails to see that the greatest diversity does not exist between groups, but rather within them. Thus, the very notion that there are clear "Hispanic Interests" or "Jewish Interests" that the state must further, negates the intellectual diversity and individuality that exists within all ethnic groups. This makes the honest, uncomfortable debates that are essential to democracies, all but impossible. In its place "Holderian Monologues" have become the norm, one way conversations, in which self appointed representatives of diverse groups, air their grievances, while European-Americans are expected to demonstrate contrition or remain silent. Offering rebuttals or presenting their own grievances is strictly verboten. The result is that the majority of the population has withdraws from real dialogue, leaving a fringe of toxic racists to respond. No wonder Harvard Sociologist Robert Putnam found that "people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle." 

Now, more than ever, as our nation becomes increasingly diverse, we must affirm our common values and shared responsibilities. A nation divided between universal and tribal values cannot remain peaceful for long; inevitably more individuals and groups will succumb to banal ethnocentrism. And when a growing number of our fellow citizens are held to lower standards, simply because of their origin, democracy cannot remain sound for long. True equality means that all individuals must not only enjoy full civil rights, but also must be held to equal standards of civil responsibilities. Hence our only real options are to either accept that European-Americans will openly pursue their narrow tribal interests, as all other groups are encouraged to do, or to affirm that All Americans must adhere to equally high, universal standards of ethical, political and civil conduct, in their pursuit of the common good. I for one wish for the latter.

A Hero's Welcome For Ramil Safarov: Universal vs Tribal Morality

Pictured Above: Ramil Safarov, Ax Murderer and Tribal Hero?

Systems of ethics and morals vary from culture to culture. To better understand the nature of conflicts between nations and groups, it's indispensable to understand this moral paradigm. Every culture lies somewhere on the spectrum of universal morality vs tribal morality. A key difference in both ends of the spectrum is the extent of the "ethical radius." The best example is seen in the Mafia, whose members are not defined so much by a lack of ethics, but rather by a very limited ethical radius. More specifically, "thou shalt not steal" and "though shall not kill" only applies to members of their own tribe who uphold their code of honor. Moral restrictions rarely extend to individuals who dwell outside of their tribal circle.

When a culture, or for that matter, an individual is oriented towards universal morality, their judgement of an action will be made largely independent of who the subject and who is the object of an action. For example, I and the vast majority of Jews would view it as immoral if a fellow Jew massacred Muslims Civilians, in spite of the hostility that exists between our groups. And it would be an ethical imperative to defended the civilians, even if it meant "going against one of our own." Granted, even the most committed follower of universal morality shows some tribal bias; Socrates could not support Euthyphro pursuit of charges against his own father. And within limits, we naturally display greater empathy towards those who we consider members of our in-group, but the bottom line is that we recognize individual rights, moral responsibility and principles of basic fairness that transcend group identity.

Conversely, when a culture is oriented towards tribal morality, its member will judge the action based on who is the author and who is the recipient. Or put simply, the guiding moral principle is: that which helps our group is always good and that which harms our enemy is always justified. This is seen when Ramil Safarov, an Azerbaijani hacked an Armenian, Gurgen Markarian, to death while he slept. Before we continue it's essential to note that this did not occur in a battlefield, but rather in a military academy in Hungary, in which both individuals were attended English Language classes, organized by NATO. What is most shocking is that upon return to Azerbaijan, Ramil was given a hero's welcome and rewarded with: a promotion to the rank of major, a new apartment and 8 years in pay for the time he was incarcerated! Clearly for Ramil's supporters, the sole determinant of the desirability of his action is that the perpetrator was "one of their own" and the victim was a reviled out-group. As we will see in the following post, the clash between universal and tribal morality is highly relevant in American politics.

The Great Republican Disappointment

Those who are familiar with this blog know that are our greatest concern, the issue that trumps all others, is the national debt. Much of our criticism against the Obama Administration has been directed at its policies that contributed to a twofold increase in the national debt. So, I was very pleased to learn about Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan's focus on fiscal matters, which lead me to even consider supporting Mitt Romney's candidacy. His ambitious plan makes the claim that between 2011 - 2023, the deficit and the national debt will be reduced from 8.75% and 68% of the GDP to 1.25% and 61%, then between 2023 - 2050, the deficit will be transformed into a surplus of 3% and the national debt will reach a historic low of 10%. This will be accomplished by significant budget cuts, starting with $5.3 trillion in spending reductions over the course of the decade, accompanied by entitlement and tax reform. But, in questions of policy, rhetoric and intentions are meaningless, for G-d is in the details. So, in order to determine the viability of his plan, we must explore the pertinent details, from the eyes of an accountant, not an ideologue.

When an economist calculates the fiscal outcomes of a budget, they must always input economic assumptions into the equation, such as: the presumed rate of economic growth, the rate of revenue collected and federal spending, as a percentage of the GDP. As a general rule, when creating a viable, long term budget, its important to rely on conservative revenue projections and liberal cost projections, because families and nations alike inevitably will face unexpected costs and losses of revenue. To optimistically assume an increase in income and a decrease in costs leaves us open to larger than expected budget shortfalls. So, the first great disappointment of Ryan's budget plan is that his rosy fiscal outcomes are based on implausible economic assumptions. The first is that between 2011 - 2023, federal tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP will be raised from 15% to the historic norm of 18.75%, then reaching a plateau of 19.0% in 2030. Given his calls for aggressive tax cuts and the resistance of Democrats to tax increases for all but the wealthiest of Americans, such robust revenue increases are highly unlikely.

Ryan's spending projections are even more implausible. From 2011 - 2023, spending by the federal government will supposedly be reduced from 24% to 20.25% of the GDP and then between 2030 - 2050, it will drop to 16%. This is based on the extremely unlikely assumption that between 2013 - 2050, discretionary spending (defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, energy research, national parks, civil service, the FBI, etc.) will  be reduced from 12.5% to 3.75% of the GDP! Defenders of Ryan's plan respond that reductions in spending, coupled with long term economic growth will allow federal spending to continuously decrease as a percentage of the GDP. Although I am optimistic about the private sector's capacity for growth and innovation, when putting forth a crucial budget, we cannot take growth as a given. By definition, a fiscally conservative budget is one that is built around cautious, if not pessimistic assumptions. This should not be viewed as a philosophical exercise, but a question of policy that will impact the fiscal and economic health of present and future generations. 

Ryan's zeal for cutting waste and shrinking the size of government does not extend to the military. His 2013 budget actually increases defense spending by $8 billion, from $546 billion to $554 billion. In addition, the plan would shield the pentagon from the automatic cuts that other departments face. This is problematic on multiple levels. Individuals, such as myself, who believe in strong national defense, cannot deny that the waste and inefficiency that plagues other sectors of the federal government are also present in the pentagon. For example, a 2011 audit found that over the course of two years, management failures pushed the development of new weapons systems $70 billion over budget. The Commission On Wartime Contracting found that military wasted at least $30 billion on no-bid-contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan! And most shocking of all, in 2009, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions!" And  you do not have to be an isolationist to question if our military presence in over 130 nations should be evaluated on a case by case basis, to eliminate waste and redundancy. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Pentagon, the respect that most conservatives hold for the brave men and women of the armed forces, paralyzes their usual vigilance against big government waste.

The verdict on Ryan's tax plan is more complex. On one hand, I am naturally sympathetic to his general paradigm of cutting spending and decreasing taxes. Specifically, his plan seeks to lower and consolidate personal income tax rates at 25% and 10% and the corporate tax rates at 25%. On the other hand, in the context of our spiraling national debt, any policy that would reduce revenue, would greatly exacerbate the problem. According to the Tax Policy Center, over the course of a decade, Ryan's tax cuts would reduce revenues by $4.6 trillion. Ryan's response is that the loss of revenue would be more than offset by the elimination of loopholes and deductions. In principle, I support these policies, because over 10 years, eliminating the tax free treatment of employer sponsored health insurance would generate $2.0 trillion in revenue and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would bring in an additional $1.6 trillion. And these are just two of many deductions that are very costly to the public coffer. However I am deeply skeptical that Ryan would be able to gain enough support from the political establishment to phase out very popular deductions that are protected by vested financial interests, represented by powerful lobbyists. Given that most politicians take the path of least resistance, it is almost certain that any reduction in tax rates would not be accompanied by the painful, but necessary elimination of tax deductions. Hence, the unintended consequences of Ryan's plan would be even greater national debt.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Ryan's plan is not fiscal, but political. There is absolutely no way that Republicans will be able to sell painful cuts in social spending, while insisting on increasing military spending.
This is all the more true for tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Regardless of their actual impact, such policies would be a golden gift to the Democrats, because they would readily lend themselves to their narrative that "Republicans are the party of the rich" who "do not care about the poor." And they cast serious doubts on Republican claims of being the party of fiscal conservatism and debt reduction. The only way to inspire other Americans to accept difficult spending cuts would be for Ryan and the Republican Party to lead by example and accept sacrifices to their own pet programs and policies. Democrats will never be willing or able to sell the need for sacrifice to their own constituencies, unless Republicans are first willing to do so with their own. If we maintain the current paradigm of democrats resisting needed cuts in spending and Republicans fighting to maintain unsustainable tax cuts, the result will be a continued increase of debt and unfunded liabilities. But, in spite of its many flaws, Ryan's plan serves the invaluable purpose of increasing awareness of our debt crisis and sparking debate on taboo subjects such as the reform of social security and medicare. My hope is that Ryan will go back to the drawing board and use his energy and intellect to produce a plan that goes beyond ideology and promotes true fiscal conservatism.

The Rule of Law and the Obama Administration

Two key components of the Obama Administration's immigration policy are: prioritized enforcement and prosecutorial discretion; in other words ICE is now focused on apprehending "individuals who pose a threat to public safety such as criminal aliens and national security threats..." and will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as those who came to the United States before they were 16 years of age.

 At a quick glance, these policies make sense. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize the use of limited resources; greater attention must be directed towards apprehending violent criminals than catching those who violate traffic laws. They can determine that it would be an unwise use of resources to direct their officers to actively seek to apprehend individuals solely for the violation of immigration laws. However, the rule of law dictates that if in the course of their duty, a police officer happens to witnesses a "low priority crime", such as a driver passing a red light or a teenager stealing a candy bar, they must take the necessary steps to enforce the law. And if in the course of arresting an individual for (let's say) driving under the influence of alcohol, the police department discovered that they were not residing in the country legally, it is their duty to report them to immigration authorities. The same principles hold true for judges and prosecutors; while it is reasonable to exercise some discretion in passing judgement, such as factoring in if the individual has a spouse and children who are citizens, categorically refusing to prosecute violators of any law that exists on the books,
demonstrates a disregard for the rule of law.

Thus, the Obama Administration's new immigration policies can best be characterized as a piecemeal amnesty that circumvents the prerogative of the legislative branch. Even though  good arguments can be made for enacting the Dream Act, the manner in which the Obama Administration disregards the separation of powers and the rule of law that are central to our republic. Rather than erode enforcement, the president should seek to change laws through normal channels of the democratic process. Any significant change to policy should be openly debated and then subject to a vote in congress. More than anyone, supporters of comprehensive immigration reform should be extremely reserved about half measures pushed through by presidential fiat, because executive orders do not offer long term solutions for the dilemma that undocumented immigrants face, they can easily be overturned by future presidents, as well as the congress. An executive who pressures law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to exempt an entire category of individuals from a law, for cheap political gain, is befitting of a corrupt third world state, not the United States of America.

Sensationalism vs Statistics

High profile events, such as the shooting that occurred in Aurora Colorado always open up a flood gate of urgent proposals. While sensationalism offers the initial benefit of sparking debate, it very rarely leads to the implementation of effective policy. To start off, it distracts us from statistically significant patterns, causing us to instead focus on statistical outliers. While the death of 12 individuals in Colorado was a terrible tragedy, shootings involving crazed gunmen comprise only a very small percentage of overall violence. The majority of gun violence involves conflicts between gangs over drug territory, which in the case of Chicago has risen by 38% this year. In a six month period in 2012, 250 people were murdered in Chicago. In one week in August of 2012, 15 individuals were killed in a series of violent altercations, which in contrast to the single Colorado shooting, prompted very little public debate, precisely because it was accepted as a statistical norm.

Clearly, to base violence reduction strategies on statistical outliers (crazed gunmen), is inherently less effective than strategies focused on drug violence. For example, the shooting in Colorado prompted calls for stricter gun control measures, which may be a good idea, however, it will do little to deter violence in cities like Chicago and Washington DC in which the vast majority of gun violence involve illegally obtained firearms. Given this fact, concerted efforts by law enforcement agencies to crack down on the black market channels that supply weapons to criminals, would be vastly more effective. Another policy proposal was to focus more resources on keeping guns from people with mentally illnesses, which may be a good idea, but given that statistics do NOT support the commonly held nation that the mentally ill are more prone to violence, this will do little or nothing to lower the aggregate rate of violence.

One of the most positive aspects of American Culture, is our aversion to fatalism, our belief that we can and must control our circumstances. But, the downside of this impulse is that it prevents us from accepting that random tragedies and statistical outliers will occur, that are beyond our control. It drives us to seek to legislate away all possible danger, especially after a tragic event. The greatest hazard of this approach is that it further restricts social and economic life, while doing little to make us safer. The shoe bomber incident was certainly a frightening event, but the government's response, to mandate that all prospective passengers remove their shoes is a perfect example of this regulatory hubris. Given the adaptive nature of terrorists, this was the first and certainly the last instance in which they will pursue this means of attack, yet for the foreseeable future, all travelers will be needlessly inconvenienced. Why? Because to do nothing would force politicians and regulators to admit that so much is beyond their control and their usefulness is quite overstated. The wisest course of action is to reject the cult of fear and sensationalism and let dry statistics and cool reason help us determine what we can and should control.

Socialism and the Haredi Question

Over the last few years, we have witnessed signs of the growing radicalization of Israel's Ultra-Orthodox  Haredim.Last year, the police was called in to the city of Beit Shemesh to protect modern orthodox Jewish children from the ire of ultra orthrodox Haredim, who would spit and swear at them for their allege immodesty.  Women have been harassed for refusing to move to the back of gender segregated buses. And rather than be content with personal religious observations, certain religious parties have pushed to impose religious law on Israel's secular majority. Considering the unwillingness of so many Ultra-Orthodox individuals to serve in the military, this is all the more galling to Israel's secular ad Modern-Orthodox populations.On an economic level, the figures are even dire; according to a report from the Bank of Israel, nearly 60% of the Haredi population was unemployed. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of Haredi schools fail to prepare their students for participation in modern economy; a study found that only 40% of their schools teach English and mathematics.Considering the rapid population growth of the Ultra-Orthoxox, the cost of their welfare use and low level of participation in the labor market will threaten Israel's long term economic and social welfare.

In contrast, he vast majority of Orthodox Jewish individuals in the United States and England maintain a religiously observant lifestyle, while still being economically productive members of society. And rather than display intolerance and aggressive zealotry towards secular Jews, organizations like Chabbad use friendly persuasion to encourage greater religious observance. The source of this stark difference is no mystery: Israel's excessive welfare state has allowed the Haredim to avoid positively integrating themselves into the economic and social life of the nation. When food, housing, health care and other needs are provided by the state, incentives to become productive members of society are diminished. Israel's excessive welfare state indirectly allows the Ultra-Orthodox to segregate themselves and maintain unsustainable social and economic patterns. When individuals and groups do not bear the cost and consequences of their pathological behaviors, they will surely proliferate. This also holds true for religious schools; we can be certain that if they were funded by the families of the students and by voluntary contributions from civil society, these schools would place a greater emphasis on the secular studies that are vital to leading a productive life. After all, how many charities would willingly fund schools that produced so many unemployable, alienated individuals?

If Israel is to continue its role as a modern, innovative democracy, these issues must be addressed. Those who believe that the Haredi question can be answered without diminishing the welfare state are mistaken. In the context of Israel's system of coalition governments, its rapidly expanding Ultra-Orthodox population ensures that the state will increasingly cater its social and economic policies to their whim. More than anything this is vital for the spiritual welfare of the Haredim, for nowhere in Jewish History have observant Jews been so disconnected from the dignity of labor and self sufficiency. We even find warnings against welfare dependency in great Jewish texts; the Shulchan Aruch states "A respected and impoverished scholar should have a trade, even a lowly trade, rather than being in need of his fellow man." Wise words for religious and secular Israelis alike.

Making Higher Education Affordable?

Recently President Obama brought the discussion of the rising cost of a college education to the forefront of national debate. His concern is valid, because the cost of a college education has risen approximately four times faster than inflation and student loan debt now tops $1 trillion, surpassing total credit card debt. And default rates have also risen to record levels, leading some economists to believe that the student loan market constitute another unsustainable credit bubble. But, his solution of increasing government subsidies to "make college more affordable" ignores and even exacerbates the very causes of the the unprecedented surge in the cost of higher education.

First, we must acknowledge that student loans are primarily a subsidy to the university-industrial complex. The university enjoys all of the benefits, but bears none of the risk associated with student loans. If a student defaults, they along with tax payers bear the costs. This has provided incentives for universities to encourage under-qualified students to enroll, with little concern for the economic viability of their course of study and for their capacity to pay back their student loans. The parallels between the surge in mortgage debt that preceded the collapse of the housing market and the rise of student loan debt are many. Banks readily issued so many risky mortgages, only because they were able to bundle and sell them off to third parties, such as Fannie Mae. And universities thoughtlessly facilitated the increase in risky student debt, because third parties would bear the cost. In both cases, seemingly endless credit and government initiatives encouraged lenders and borrowers alike to loosen standards. This partially explains why only 59% of students enrolled in four year programs complete them within 6 years. For African-Americans the figures are even more concerning; only 40% graduate. We can assume that if college administrators had to share at least some of the costs associate with loan defaults they would be more conscientious about allowing students to undertake risky educational and financial decisions. This is especially true in the context of credential inflation and wage stagnation, which has led to diminishing returns for investments in bachelor's degrees with the exception of degrees in high demand fields, such as medicine, mathematics, engineering, etc. 

Second, divorcing the disbursement of student loans from sound economic logic has proven to be costly for students and tax payers alike. A French Literature major with terrible credit is just as able as a medical student with excellent credit to amass $100,000 in debt, even though the risk that the former will default is far greater. At a quick glance the egalitarian idea of offering uniform interest rates for all students is appealing, but upon further thought, its flaws become apparent. Interest rates convey vital signals to borrowers, lenders and the general public about the potential risks and rewards that an enterprise entails. They are relatively higher for riskier borrowers, not because of the "greed" or "malice" of a lender, but in order to provide incentives to the individual and across the market to focus resources on endeavors that possess a greater likelihood for success. Flatten interest rates and you eliminate valuable market signals and predictably the unsound use of capital will become more commonplace. 

Third, government subsidized loans are clearly a major factor in the unsustainable inflation of the cost of higher education. Businesses naturally seek to increase profits by raising the cost of the goods and services that they offer and will do unless they are held in check by market forces. When the rise in the costs of a particular item begins to surpass the capacity of consumers, demand for it will naturally decrease and consumers will respond with increased efficiency and substitution. For example, when the cost of gasoline rises beyond my financial capacity, I will limit my consumption of gasoline through a more judicious use of my car and by using more public transportation. And when demand for petroleum sufficiently contracts, prices begin to go down and firms seek more efficient means of production. Only with the proliferation of of subsidized loans have universities been able to increase costs without facing a natural decrease in demand. These principles also hold true  for affiliate monopolies, like the textbook cartel and student housing, which are notorious for fleecing students. According to the Bennett Hypothesis, "increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuition, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion their increase". So, President Obama's calls for even more favorable loan terms, will not lead to more "affordable" education, but will simply grant an unsustainable credit bubble a temporary reprieve from a much needed market correction. 

Evidence indicates that  these same forces have allowed the proliferation of inefficiency. While other sectors of the economy continuously strive for greater efficiency, i.e. to increase output, while minimizing cost of production and administration, the exact opposite has occurred in the university-industrial-complex. For example, in 1993 universities had a total of 31.4 employees per 100 students, by 2007 it has risen to 35.5. This increase is even more pronounced in administration; during the same period of time, the number of administrators per 100 students increased by 39.3%. While total increases in per student spending have increased by 34.5%, administrative costs per student have increased by a shocking 61.2%! Absent of massive government subsidies and market barriers, no sector of the economy can simultaneously decrease efficiency, increase costs and lower the utility of their product, without facing a decline in demand.

"That may be true," you say, "but never the less, education is a vital public good worthy of government subsidies."  I am in complete agreement, in fact I strongly believe in the intrinsic value of the pursuit of knowledge, culture and intellectual inquiry. But, the policies being pursued to achieve these aims are engendering increasingly negative, unintended consequences. Among the most notable consequences, is a malinvestment of capital, time and energy, whose principle consequence is greater debt and a growing mismatch  between academic pursuits and skills demanded by the labor market. For example 317,000 waiters and 80,000 bartenders possess a bachelors degree, presumably in a field of study in which supply greatly exceeds demand. The fact that nearly a third of college graduates are working in fields that do not require a degree is also indicative of credential inflation. Perhaps more telling is that a survey of 1,123 manufacturing executives found that "67% of companies had a moderate to severe shortage of available qualified workers" and "The report estimated 600,000 jobs (related to manufacturing) nationwide were going unfilled because of a lack of qualified candidates." For example, California Steel Industries has been struggling to fill a vacant positions for an industrial maintenance mechanic, even though the pay is $64,000 plus health benefits. Most interestingly, "these workers don't need college degrees, they need at least two years of specialized training plus strong math, reading and writing skills." 

The principle policy implications of widespread skills mismatch, credential inflation and rising student debt are: Not everyone should be corralled into a traditional four year degree. High schools should encourage individuals who are not academically inclined to explore skilled trades in which there is a real demand for labor, rather that let them drift towards low wage service positions. And perhaps more generous tax incentives should be granted to employers who offer onsite training to new employees. This approach is more cost effective for students and tax payers alike. And those who pursue a four year degree should only amass debt in the development of skills and certifications that the labor market demands. Those who seek intellectual and cultural enrichment through the pursuit of liberal arts should do so in cost effective community colleges. Regarding the granting of student loans: universities should bear at least some of the cost associated with loan defaults; this  will ensure that they are more conscientious in the admissions process and less inclined to allow students to amass unsustainable debt in the pursuit of studies that offer poor economic returns. And the government cannot continue to exclude sound market principles and risk management practices from the process of granting tax payer subsidized loans. To put it simply loans with a high risk of default should not granted as readily and at the same interest rate as those funding low risk educational endeavors. And lastly, the cost of education will o

Analyzing the numbers, I cannot help but see the strong parallels between student loan debt and the formation of a debt driven housing bubble, which was brought on by the federal government's drive to expand home ownership. In both cases state intervention was purportedly undertaken for the benefit of Americans of limited means, while in reality the greatest beneficiaries were powerful corporate interests. In the former example, banks were the beneficiaries of a government sponsored expansion of mortgage debt and in the present, the university-industrial-complex has profited handsomely from student loan debt. And in both cases, easy access to cheap credit allowed for a price spiral. As with the end of the era of loose housing credit, market driven rationalization of student loans will result in a relative decline in the demand for a four year college education. This may be painful in the short run, but over time it will force institutes of higher learning to offer more affordable and economically viable options. And more importantly, when credit binges come to an end, consumers begin to rationalize their investments and use of debt. The overarching policy lesson is: no matter how well meaning its authors are, policies that detach the financing of education from market forces are fraud with hazards.  If I am correct, the college bubble will burst or at least deflate, leaving many, but certainly not all graduates with a devalued asset and a heavy debt burden, with tax payers footing much of the bill. And even if you are not a debt ridden history major, it should be clear that history is repeating itself.