- Building a Wall on the U.S.-Mexican Border. This was one of President Trump's infamous campaign promises. After taking a look at the proposal, there was no public policy basis for constructing it.
- Women Clergy in Orthodox Judaism. Politics are always intriguing to watch, but all the more so when adding religion into the mix. For those who are Jewish or who are even into Jewish religious politics, this topic has been one that has been transforming the Orthodox Jewish world. The long and short of my opinion? Orthodox Jewish women should be allowed to be members of the clergy.
- Mandated Menstrual Leave in Italy. This one was more obscure than some of the others I have written, but it was interesting to take both the social and economic arguments in account before concluding that mandating menstrual leave would do Italy more harm than good.
- The Opioid Crisis and Government Involvement. The interesting part of being a consequentialist libertarian who shows his side of pragmatism is to acknowledge when there actually a role for government to play in mitigating a crisis. Looking at what is going on with opioids in the United States, this is one of those times.
- Politeness versus Political Correctness. As much as proponents of political correctness would like to keep conflating politeness with political correctness, I can tell you that there is a world of difference between the two, which is why I prefer politeness over political correctness.
- 15 Reasons to Dislike Obamacare. If there is any blog entry this year I would consider a magnum opus, this would be it. Critics of Obamacare, including myself, were able to point out the problems that Obamacare was going to face even before it was enacted, and it looks like the critics were right.
- Charlottesville Protest and White Supremacy. This blog entry took a look at hate crimes in the United States, the prevalence of the Far Right in the United States, the fighting words doctrine with regards to the First Amendment, and how to respond to hate.
- Celebrating Rosh Hashanah When Life Is Anything But Ideal. On a personal level, this year was tough for me. I wrote this piece to help those who are going through a rough time navigate the Jewish High Holidays.
- #MeToo and Sexual Assault. This one I found thought-provoking because I worked my way through the nuances of the sexual assault debate that go beyond tawdry stereotypes or simply ignoring the prevalence of sexual assault.
- Wedding Cake Supreme Court Case. Tricky cases make for bad law. The Supreme Court case about whether a same-sex couple can be refused the service of having a wedding cake baked for them or if the baker should be coerced into baking it. As I pointed out, there are no upsides to a broad ruling from the Supreme Court. If the baker wins, it could lead to discrimination against an entire class of people. If the Colorado Rights Commission wins, it could mean forcing people to provide goods and services against their conscience. My take on it was that the Supreme Court should side with the baker, but keep the scope of the ruling as narrow as possible.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
My Top Ten Blog Entries from 2017
2017 was a crazy year. The United States witnessed a first insane and unforgettable year with Donald Trump as the President of the United States and leader of the free world. It has been crazy enough where I even had some liberal friends saying how they missed President George Bush (43) because it has been that crazy. That does not even consider such international events as North Korea escalating its nuclear arms program, Catalonia seceding from Spain, or Emmanuel Macron being elected as President of France. As politics both in the United States and abroad become more polarized, I would like to take a brief moment to not only thank you, the viewer, for not only continuing to read the work that I publish, but also to take a look at some of the highlights that I published in 2017. In chronological order, here they are:
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Congress Lowering Alcohol Taxes: Should We Drink to That?
It looks like the Republicans finally passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and made it into law. It has been a topic of much controversy over the past few weeks I did cover the House's initial draft of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last month, and I hope to cover the implications of the final version of the TCJA in a future blog entry. However, there is a provision in the TCJA that I would like to discuss right now: lowering the federal excise tax on alcohol. The current excise tax varies by type of alcoholic drink, but the taxes are going to be lowered across the board, which makes the alcohol production industry very happy with the news. The estimated annual savings for brewers is $130 million. There are those who are against the provision because of the public health ramifications behind lowering the alcohol tax. Should we celebrate this tax reduction with a drink or not?
A bit of background on the tax. An excise tax is an indirect tax charged on the sale of a particular good, in this case, alcohol. The argument against lowering the tax is that by lowering the overall price vis-à-vis the excise tax would encourage more alcohol consumption. This increased consumption would endanger the health and wellbeing of the consumer and potentially through related fatalities. The Brookings Institution estimated that the Senate's tax could result in up to an additional 1,500 alcohol-related deaths per annum (Looney, 2017), although their is skepticism for these figures. One study estimates the social cost of excessive alcohol consumption at $250 billion per annum (Naimi et al., 2017), or $2.10 per drink. This sounds like a slam-dunk case for increasing the alcohol excise tax, but here are a few reasons to remain skeptical:
Closing Thoughts: Even though I have some skepticism about the advantages of an alcohol tax, they do not necessarily withstand scrutiny. For one, the health benefits for moderate drinkers are not as conclusive as other health findings (e.g., smoking is bad for your health). One could argue that the elasticity is not so low that a higher tax could have some positive effects. Plus, it might be less of an issue since the regressivity of the alcohol tax is going to primarily affect the heaviest of drinkers. (Vandenberg and Sharma, 2016; Naimi et al., 2016; Daley et al., 2012). Another way of framing it is that if the alcohol tax increases, the heavy drinkers would feel the brunt of the tax increase, not moderate drinkers.
With that being said, I am convinced that given what I have seen, a federal alcohol excise tax should exist. Sometimes, we have to look at public policy through the lens of "the least worst option." As the libertarian Cato Institute points out in a 2009 article on alcohol taxes, alcohol taxes are more economically efficient than directly regulating or fining drunk drivers or those who abuse alcohol. In addition to the efficiency, I would argue that an alcohol tax is preferable because an excise tax is an indirect tax, as opposed to a direct tax or a more intrusive regulation. The benefit of a federal alcohol tax (as opposed to a state-level excise tax) is that it would be more difficult for consumers to buy across national borders than state borders.
What will the health effects of the latest tax cut be? I don't think that it will be as large as opponents think. When looking at the TCJA itself and viewing the cost of alcohol taxes on a retail level, alcohol taxes would only decrease 1¢ per beer and less than $2 per fifth of liquor. I don't need a PhD in Economics to remain skeptical of the magnitude of additional health costs of an alcohol tax cut. Even so, that does not negate my assertion that an excise tax on alcohol should exist. The trickier part is determining what that amount should be in order to balance the health concerns with the economic ones. This should not be the end of the alcohol tax debate, but I don't think the tax cut is going to be cause of a major uptick in alcohol-related deaths.
A bit of background on the tax. An excise tax is an indirect tax charged on the sale of a particular good, in this case, alcohol. The argument against lowering the tax is that by lowering the overall price vis-à-vis the excise tax would encourage more alcohol consumption. This increased consumption would endanger the health and wellbeing of the consumer and potentially through related fatalities. The Brookings Institution estimated that the Senate's tax could result in up to an additional 1,500 alcohol-related deaths per annum (Looney, 2017), although their is skepticism for these figures. One study estimates the social cost of excessive alcohol consumption at $250 billion per annum (Naimi et al., 2017), or $2.10 per drink. This sounds like a slam-dunk case for increasing the alcohol excise tax, but here are a few reasons to remain skeptical:
- Price elasticity. This is the fancy economic term to describe how people respond to the change of a price of a good or service. If the price changes and there is not a huge change in consumption, that is called an inelastic good. If the reverse is the case, then it is elastic. In the case of the demand for alcohol, it is considered a relatively inelastic good. Looking at a meta-analysis from Health Economics Review, the average price elasticity is -0.5 (Nelson, 2013). Another meta-analysis confirms these findings (Gallet, 2007). The elasticity in the United States is slightly more inelastic than in other developed countries, but the point is that in comparison to other goods, peoples' consumption patterns are not as responsive to an alcohol tax than it would be on other goods.
- Seemingly a poorly targeted tax. Another issue is that if an alcohol tax is supposed to function like a sin tax, it is a poorly targeted tax. How so? The purpose of using the alcohol tax as a public health measure is that it is supposed to deter those with a drinking problem from purchasing more alcohol. The issue comes into play because it is impossible to differentiate between abusers of alcohol and moderate drinkers at the point of sale. Yes, making it more difficult for heavy drinkers to purchase alcohol comes with a benefit. However, making it more difficult for moderate drinkers to purchase alcohol comes at a cost. I say this because there is some evidence showing that moderate drinkers derive benefit from drinking. Moderate drinkers have an edge in emotional health, according to Gallup. Moderate drinking also has the potential to reduce the risk of stroke, diabetes, and heart attacks (e.g., Xi et al., 2017). As I will point out below, I have reason to be skeptical about this point of skepticism.
- Questionable effects on drunk driving rates. The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution recently released a study through their left-of-center Tax Policy Center, and found that alcohol excise taxes do not have a long-term effect on drunk-driving accidents (McClelland and Iselin, 2017). On the other hand, one study shows that since the federal government increased the alcohol tax in 1991, it lowered injury deaths by 4.7 percent, or 7,000 people (Cook and Durrance, 2012).
Closing Thoughts: Even though I have some skepticism about the advantages of an alcohol tax, they do not necessarily withstand scrutiny. For one, the health benefits for moderate drinkers are not as conclusive as other health findings (e.g., smoking is bad for your health). One could argue that the elasticity is not so low that a higher tax could have some positive effects. Plus, it might be less of an issue since the regressivity of the alcohol tax is going to primarily affect the heaviest of drinkers. (Vandenberg and Sharma, 2016; Naimi et al., 2016; Daley et al., 2012). Another way of framing it is that if the alcohol tax increases, the heavy drinkers would feel the brunt of the tax increase, not moderate drinkers.
With that being said, I am convinced that given what I have seen, a federal alcohol excise tax should exist. Sometimes, we have to look at public policy through the lens of "the least worst option." As the libertarian Cato Institute points out in a 2009 article on alcohol taxes, alcohol taxes are more economically efficient than directly regulating or fining drunk drivers or those who abuse alcohol. In addition to the efficiency, I would argue that an alcohol tax is preferable because an excise tax is an indirect tax, as opposed to a direct tax or a more intrusive regulation. The benefit of a federal alcohol tax (as opposed to a state-level excise tax) is that it would be more difficult for consumers to buy across national borders than state borders.
What will the health effects of the latest tax cut be? I don't think that it will be as large as opponents think. When looking at the TCJA itself and viewing the cost of alcohol taxes on a retail level, alcohol taxes would only decrease 1¢ per beer and less than $2 per fifth of liquor. I don't need a PhD in Economics to remain skeptical of the magnitude of additional health costs of an alcohol tax cut. Even so, that does not negate my assertion that an excise tax on alcohol should exist. The trickier part is determining what that amount should be in order to balance the health concerns with the economic ones. This should not be the end of the alcohol tax debate, but I don't think the tax cut is going to be cause of a major uptick in alcohol-related deaths.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Chanukah Gelt: The Significance of Giving Money on Chanukah
To quote Adam Sandler, "Chanukah is the Festival of Lights. Instead of one day of presents, we have eight crazy nights." In American culture, there is this pervasive myth that during Chanukah, Jewish children receive an awesome present each night. Giving Chanukah presents was not a practice until the late nineteenth century when Christmas became a federal holiday in the 1870s. The trend of exchanging Chanukah gifts did not really take off until the 1950s. The idea of Chanukah gift exchange is both modern and in response to Christmas so that Jews could better assimilate and not feel left out during the holiday season.
Before this Chanukah gift-giving extravaganza, there was a precursor: Chanukah gelt (חנוכה געלט). Chanukah gelt refers to money given to children on Chanukah. Looking at the history of the practice, giving money for Chanukah dates back to the sixteenth century. The practice itself came in a couple of variants. One was the Italian and Sephardic practice of money to purchase clothes for poor students studying Torah. In eastern Europe, it was either done to do outreach for Jews in more remote areas or to fundraise to keep yeshivas afloat. Another variant is that is a time to give tzedakah (charity). This is particularly the case when reading the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (139:1), where it states that one is to give lots of tzedakah during Chanukah because the days of Chanukah are auspicious to correcting the flaws of the soul. What is it about Chanukah that allows for tzedakah to have such power? At least when looking at the time between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, giving tzedakah is supposed to avert the Divine decree (assuming you read Unataneh Tokef literally, which I don't). So what is the connection between money and Chanukah? Perhaps looking at explanations behind the practice could help:
When applied to the idea of money, that sort of thinking typically results in splurging on material items. The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Likutei Sichot) believed that when the Greeks came into the land of Israel, it was not an issue of taking the possessions so much as it was infusing their values with the possessions so the possessions could be used for egotistical and ungodly purposes.
Money is a medium of exchanging for goods and services. It is a vital part of an economy. With Judaism, it is not about amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth for its own sake. At the same time, a Jewish live does not mean living a monastic or aesthetic life. Money is a means to an end, and as these explanations show, we are to transcend ourselves by using that G-d-given free will to disperse that money.
When we interact with something such as pervasive as money, we have to ask ourselves what our potential is. We can use Chanukah money to help Torah scholars, children, or the poor. We can use the practice of giving Chanukah gelt as a means of making us more generous or more grateful people. Chanukah teaches a lot about potential and what it means to be the best version of ourselves. A ragtag team of soldiers took their potential and fought against a well-trained army against all odds. While G-d gave us potential by being "created in His Image," potential goes to waste if it is not acted upon. To paraphrase R. Jonathan Sacks, we will be remembered for how we give, not on how we spend or take. We have to be willing to put our money where our mouth is if we are to actualize our potential. The Maccabees lived their lives not just in dedication, but also in giving.
A few questions to ponder as you give Chanukah gelt this year: Do we want to live according to our values? Does being free simply mean doing whatever you feel like or does it mean taking that free will and transcending oneself? Do we want to make an impact on the world by what we give? Ultimately, can we put our money where our mouth is so we can not just "talk the talk" but also "walk the walk?"
Before this Chanukah gift-giving extravaganza, there was a precursor: Chanukah gelt (חנוכה געלט). Chanukah gelt refers to money given to children on Chanukah. Looking at the history of the practice, giving money for Chanukah dates back to the sixteenth century. The practice itself came in a couple of variants. One was the Italian and Sephardic practice of money to purchase clothes for poor students studying Torah. In eastern Europe, it was either done to do outreach for Jews in more remote areas or to fundraise to keep yeshivas afloat. Another variant is that is a time to give tzedakah (charity). This is particularly the case when reading the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (139:1), where it states that one is to give lots of tzedakah during Chanukah because the days of Chanukah are auspicious to correcting the flaws of the soul. What is it about Chanukah that allows for tzedakah to have such power? At least when looking at the time between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, giving tzedakah is supposed to avert the Divine decree (assuming you read Unataneh Tokef literally, which I don't). So what is the connection between money and Chanukah? Perhaps looking at explanations behind the practice could help:
- In Hebrew, the word Chanukah (חנכה) has the same three-letter root as "education" (חינוך). After the Greeks were defeated, the Jews had to reeducate their people, especially the children. Providing education takes funding. Giving money is to remind ourselves that children are an investment in the future of the Jewish people (Sifsei Chaim). This would explain why younger individuals were the typical recipients of the original variants of Chanukah gelt.
- One of the major motifs of Chanukah is the cultural clash between the Greek hedonism and Jewish spirituality. With this motif in mind, the Greeks treated wealth more as an ends than anything else. In Judaism, we treat it as a means. We remind ourselves that with so many other things, we have the power to do good or evil with money. We have the choice as to whether to elevate something as seemingly mundane as money to something holier. By giving money on Chanukah, we illustrate what sort of good we can do when we give [money].
- The Talmud (Shabbat 22a) discusses a case where a poor person does not have enough money to buy Chanukah candles and Kiddush wine for Shabbat. The candles took precedence over Shabbat, interestingly enough. To make sure this hypothetical did not turn into reality, one is to give enough money to make sure all Jews have enough money for both (Magen Avraham). This argument falls short with regards to connecting money to Chanukah. The reason for that is that giving money to make sure there is enough to celebrate holidays is not unique to Chanukah. Plus, the practice of giving money on Chanukah started centuries after this Talmudic debate.
- R. Josh Flug suggests that after the war, the winners would distribute the loot to the soldiers and the poor. Giving gelt can be seen both as a commemoration of winning the war and helping those affected by the war.
- After the war between the Maccabees and the Greeks, the Hasmonean dynasty minted coins in 142 BCE with an image of a menorah. This minting was meant to represent a high point of Jewish freedom in the Second Temple era.
When applied to the idea of money, that sort of thinking typically results in splurging on material items. The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Likutei Sichot) believed that when the Greeks came into the land of Israel, it was not an issue of taking the possessions so much as it was infusing their values with the possessions so the possessions could be used for egotistical and ungodly purposes.
Money is a medium of exchanging for goods and services. It is a vital part of an economy. With Judaism, it is not about amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth for its own sake. At the same time, a Jewish live does not mean living a monastic or aesthetic life. Money is a means to an end, and as these explanations show, we are to transcend ourselves by using that G-d-given free will to disperse that money.
When we interact with something such as pervasive as money, we have to ask ourselves what our potential is. We can use Chanukah money to help Torah scholars, children, or the poor. We can use the practice of giving Chanukah gelt as a means of making us more generous or more grateful people. Chanukah teaches a lot about potential and what it means to be the best version of ourselves. A ragtag team of soldiers took their potential and fought against a well-trained army against all odds. While G-d gave us potential by being "created in His Image," potential goes to waste if it is not acted upon. To paraphrase R. Jonathan Sacks, we will be remembered for how we give, not on how we spend or take. We have to be willing to put our money where our mouth is if we are to actualize our potential. The Maccabees lived their lives not just in dedication, but also in giving.
A few questions to ponder as you give Chanukah gelt this year: Do we want to live according to our values? Does being free simply mean doing whatever you feel like or does it mean taking that free will and transcending oneself? Do we want to make an impact on the world by what we give? Ultimately, can we put our money where our mouth is so we can not just "talk the talk" but also "walk the walk?"
Monday, December 11, 2017
Do We Really Need to Drill for Oil at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
The dichotomous argument between economy and environment has found itself in many places, but I was not exactly expecting to find it in the Senate's tax bill. The Senate's version of the tax bill has many provisions in it, including one to start drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). There are many reasons the Republicans could have snuck this provision, but one is presumedly to get Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to support the tax bill. The debate about ANWR is nothing new. It has been ongoing for 40 years. You can read a 1993 assessment from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) here to get a sense of how long ANWR has been a political controversy. What is new is that this is the best chance to date that drilling will take place in ANWR. So here is what I would like to ask: should Congress go ahead with approving drilling in ANWR?
The back and forth on the topic goes something like this. Proponents of drilling opine that we only need a small portion of the land in ANWR to drill. Since the environmental impact would be minimal and the economic benefits substantial, there isn't much reason to be concerned. Opponents opine that there would still be considerable environmental damage, and that it's not worth taking the risk to ruin a pristine place of nature. Let's ask ourselves a few questions to help frame the debate:
Source: NASDAQ
Bottom Line: If you would have asked me a decade ago if we should drill in ANWR, I would have said "yes." Now, I don't see the urgency since we have more than plenty of oil. As we run out of retrievable reserves, I would revisit the issue. But as it stands, I don't think our response should be "Drill, baby drill!"
The back and forth on the topic goes something like this. Proponents of drilling opine that we only need a small portion of the land in ANWR to drill. Since the environmental impact would be minimal and the economic benefits substantial, there isn't much reason to be concerned. Opponents opine that there would still be considerable environmental damage, and that it's not worth taking the risk to ruin a pristine place of nature. Let's ask ourselves a few questions to help frame the debate:
- How much retrievable oil is in ANWR? In 1998, the Department of Interior estimated that there is anywhere between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. In 2013, the U.S. Geological Society updated their estimates to 10.4 billion barrels. The Bureau of Ocean Management made an estimation in 2014 that it would be about 7 billion barrels. To put this figure into perspective, the U.S. imported 2.9 billion barrels of crude oil in 2016. This should give us serious reservations about the myth of how ANWR is going to solve energy dependency woes.
- How much economic benefit would be derived? According to an economic study from two Yale economists (Kotchen and Burger, 2007), the oil was estimated at a value of $354 billion at $53 a barrel, which is not too far from today's barrel prices (see below). A December 2015 study from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) puts the economic benefit at $39 billion a year (p. 9) while ultimately adding 77,300 jobs to the economy (p. 10).
- How much government revenue would leasing ANWR earn? According to a 2012 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, about $10 billion over a decade for the federal government. This does not count the government's gross receipts from royalties, which could vary from $2.5 billion to $25 billion. Alaska is also expected to gain up to $8 billion in annual state tax revenues (IER, p. 13).
- How many people visit ANWR every year? I ask this because I want to know how many people appreciate the pristine nature of ANWR. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are about 1,200 to 1,500 visitors each year. To put this number in perspective, over 4 million visited Yellowstone in 2016 and over 500,000 visited Redwood National Forest.
- What is the potential environmental impact? I'm not here to say that oil drilling is without risk. The BP oil spill acts as a reminder of that notion. There has definitely been environmental concern expressed over Congress' recent decision (also see here). Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the ecological diversity in ANWR is unparalleled, which presents additional challenges. That being said, we should always measure risk against reward. Technological developments in seismic computational capabilities make it easier to limit the impact and acreage used to drill in ANWR.
- How will this impact the caribou? One of the larger environmental concerns is the impact that drilling in ANWR would have on caribou. What can give us some insight is how the caribou population has been affected since drilling took place in Prudhoe Bay. In 1975, there were just 5,000 caribou. The population peaked to 70,000 in 2010, and then declined to 50,000 since 2013 primarily due to reasons unrelated to drilling. If the past is an indication of anything, it means that although the porcupine caribou are largely located in the proposed land for ANWR drilling, it should not have major effects on the caribou population.
- Should we still drill in ANWR? The short answer to this question is "no." This is not because I think the environmental costs outweigh the economic benefits. It is because we don't really need to drill. Ever since the United States used hydraulic fracturing (fracking), we have had such a fossil fuel supply glut that the United States went from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil (see DOE chart below). It is not just an issue of net exports, but also prices. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) brought up in its 2015 report on ANWR (CRS, p. 11), lower oil prices make oil exploration and drilling less economically feasible. Oil prices have not increased greatly since (see NASDAQ chart above), which means there is not much economic incentive for oil companies to drill in ANWR. This is something to consider given that the average cost of drilling in Alaska is 31 times higher than it is in the other 48 continental states (CRS, p. 15).
Bottom Line: If you would have asked me a decade ago if we should drill in ANWR, I would have said "yes." Now, I don't see the urgency since we have more than plenty of oil. As we run out of retrievable reserves, I would revisit the issue. But as it stands, I don't think our response should be "Drill, baby drill!"
Thursday, December 7, 2017
About Time that the U.S. Recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel
President Trump has finally done something that past presidents were incapable of doing: recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Under the United Nations' Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, Jerusalem was declared corpus separatum, and placed under this special status due to the symbolism across multiple religions. The Green Line of 1949 split Jerusalem into two parts: West Jerusalem for Israel and East Jerusalem for Jordan. In 1967 during the Six-Day War, Israel annexed Eastern Jerusalem, thereby unifying Jerusalem. It was in 1980 that Israel codified in its law that Jerusalem was the unified capital of Israel. Israel presently has embassies in Tel Aviv, but not Jerusalem because the issue is that contentious. If Trump actually moves the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, this would be the beginning of a paradigm shift within the international community, especially since many countries still view Jerusalem as disputed territory. The Palestinian Authority would consider a move as a "kiss of death" to the peace process....although, if we were going to be honest, the peace process has not gone anywhere for at least a few years. Did Trump make the right move or did he start something where we're going to look back and shake our heads in bewilderment?
Let's be real here: Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel. Oxford defines a capital as "the city or town that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country or region." And you know what? Jerusalem fits that definition. The Knesset, Israel's legislature, resides in Jerusalem. The Cabinet of Israel and the Supreme Court are also located in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the only city in the world that functions like a capital and is not internationally recognized as such.
Yes, it is a remarkable double standard and unfair that Jerusalem cannot be recognized as the capital of Israel. At the same time, is moving the embassy to Jerusalem the right move from a political standpoint? The largest concern about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is that of violent backlash in the Arab world. The U.S. has not moved the embassy to Jerusalem because it has tried to maintain a status of "honest broker of peace." Such a move would come off as pre-judging the situation, which is all the more important since the status of Jerusalem has been viewed as something to be negotiated during the peace process.
Jonathan Schanzer, the Vice President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (and someone who I happen to know), has said that such a sudden switch would shake up the strategic partnership between Jordan and Israel, as well as cause a break in the quiet diplomacy between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Especially if these countries experience considerable rioting and protesting in their country as a result, it could diminish the "cold peace" Israel has developed with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Even with the Arab world and Europe generally being hostile towards Israel, Israel has improved its diplomatic status with multiple nations. Saudi Arabia's tacit alliance with Israel is especially important with the rise of Iran, which is why Israel can ill afford to lose that.
It is certainly a plausible outcome that Israel could lose diplomatic clout with key regional players. However, predictions of how the Arab world would react range from diplomatic complaints to a third Intifada to an escalation of war. Plus, you already have a region where there are civil wars in three countries: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, not to mention Hezbollah, Hamas, or other terrorist operatives, so it's not like the Middle East isn't violent already. This illustrates how tricky analyzing foreign policy can be. Even using past behavior as an indicator, foreign policy remains more elusive and speculative than other forms of public policy analysis. I am not going to pretend that I can pinpoint the magnitude of the Arab World's reaction because I can't. I hope that the problem stays confined to a few small protests and some diplomatic squabbling.
What I can say is that we no longer have to deny a basic geopolitical reality, and that delegitimizing Israel became more difficult now that Israel has a more symbolic backing of the most powerful democracy on the planet. Moving forward with such recognition could help Palestine recognize Israel's right to exist, which would, quite frankly, help with the peace process in the long-run. Such a move would not be without challenge (read Washington Institute policy brief here). If you want to minimize outrage, put the embassy in the western part of Jerusalem. Not only has West Jerusalem been part of Israel since 1949, but odds are that it would be part of Israel in final negotiating of any possible two-state solution. If it is made clear that such a move would not prejudice the final status of Jerusalem, if it does not jeopardize Palestine's claim to statehood, and if Muslim leaders' concerns are expressed and taken into consideration, I think the damage would be mitigated. Even with the concerns about diplomatic backlash that I still harbor, I nevertheless see this move as a welcomed step in the right direction.
Let's be real here: Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel. Oxford defines a capital as "the city or town that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country or region." And you know what? Jerusalem fits that definition. The Knesset, Israel's legislature, resides in Jerusalem. The Cabinet of Israel and the Supreme Court are also located in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the only city in the world that functions like a capital and is not internationally recognized as such.
Yes, it is a remarkable double standard and unfair that Jerusalem cannot be recognized as the capital of Israel. At the same time, is moving the embassy to Jerusalem the right move from a political standpoint? The largest concern about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is that of violent backlash in the Arab world. The U.S. has not moved the embassy to Jerusalem because it has tried to maintain a status of "honest broker of peace." Such a move would come off as pre-judging the situation, which is all the more important since the status of Jerusalem has been viewed as something to be negotiated during the peace process.
Jonathan Schanzer, the Vice President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (and someone who I happen to know), has said that such a sudden switch would shake up the strategic partnership between Jordan and Israel, as well as cause a break in the quiet diplomacy between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Especially if these countries experience considerable rioting and protesting in their country as a result, it could diminish the "cold peace" Israel has developed with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Even with the Arab world and Europe generally being hostile towards Israel, Israel has improved its diplomatic status with multiple nations. Saudi Arabia's tacit alliance with Israel is especially important with the rise of Iran, which is why Israel can ill afford to lose that.
It is certainly a plausible outcome that Israel could lose diplomatic clout with key regional players. However, predictions of how the Arab world would react range from diplomatic complaints to a third Intifada to an escalation of war. Plus, you already have a region where there are civil wars in three countries: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, not to mention Hezbollah, Hamas, or other terrorist operatives, so it's not like the Middle East isn't violent already. This illustrates how tricky analyzing foreign policy can be. Even using past behavior as an indicator, foreign policy remains more elusive and speculative than other forms of public policy analysis. I am not going to pretend that I can pinpoint the magnitude of the Arab World's reaction because I can't. I hope that the problem stays confined to a few small protests and some diplomatic squabbling.
What I can say is that we no longer have to deny a basic geopolitical reality, and that delegitimizing Israel became more difficult now that Israel has a more symbolic backing of the most powerful democracy on the planet. Moving forward with such recognition could help Palestine recognize Israel's right to exist, which would, quite frankly, help with the peace process in the long-run. Such a move would not be without challenge (read Washington Institute policy brief here). If you want to minimize outrage, put the embassy in the western part of Jerusalem. Not only has West Jerusalem been part of Israel since 1949, but odds are that it would be part of Israel in final negotiating of any possible two-state solution. If it is made clear that such a move would not prejudice the final status of Jerusalem, if it does not jeopardize Palestine's claim to statehood, and if Muslim leaders' concerns are expressed and taken into consideration, I think the damage would be mitigated. Even with the concerns about diplomatic backlash that I still harbor, I nevertheless see this move as a welcomed step in the right direction.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case: Protecting Both Gay Rights and Religious Freedom
In one form or another, cakes have been a sweet dessert that have been used to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and weddings. You can tell when times are contentious and polarized when cake becomes a theme fought over in a Supreme Court case. This brings us to the oral arguments that the Supreme Court are to hear today for the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The premise behind the case is that a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012 to buy a custom wedding cake. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to create wedding cake for same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs. Although another baker offered to bake Craig and Mullins a wedding cake, the couple decided to file an anti-discrimination complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint escalated to the point where the Supreme Court is answering the question of whether the baker had his freedom of speech or religion violated per the First Amendment. There is more information and analysis from the SCOTUS Blog, but what I would like to explore is which side has more merit and what implications this has going forward.
The concern of those in support of the defendant is that allowing for this sort of discrimination will open the floodgates to remove anti-discrimination laws and allow for a "constitutional right to discriminate." Let's look at the discrimination more specific to the case and then let's go more broadly. A wedding cake is not a key component of a wedding. Even if you argue that a cake were that vital to a wedding, Craig and Mullins could have found a different baker. With nearly two out of three Americans support same-sex marriage (see below), it is conceivable that they could have found another baker. As a matter of fact, another baker offered to provide the couple a wedding cake at no charge.
This brings up another question: should Phillips be coerced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, even though his religious view is that marriage is between a man and a woman? If the answer is "yes" and anti-discrimination laws end up being interpreted in such a fashion, then the government would also be able to compel a Jewish baker to bake a non-kosher cake with a swastika for a neo-Nazi wedding or a neo-Nazi event. An African-American woodcutter could be compelled to create a wooden cross for a KKK rally, or a staunch Democrat caterer cater for a Trump rally. It would mean that Facebook could not ban white supremacists from posting racist dribble. Whether or not the Supreme Court rules that baking a cake is an artistic expression protected under the First Amendment (see arguments for and against), what worries me is whether the government has the right to compel an individual to produce something that violates their conscience.
I made this point three years ago when discussing price discrimination: producers have a right to produce their good or service for whomever they like. If a proprietor refuses to serve a certain clientele, then that is their poor business decision to make. In 2017 America, there are plenty of bakers that will take the business of same-sex weddings because profit motive. If a Christian baker refuses to serve a same-sex couple, that is their right. The reverse is also true. Take a look at what happened earlier this year. A gay coffeehouse owner in Seattle kicked out Christian anti-abortion activists from his place of business. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or Christianity, it was the gay proprietor's choice to not serve the Christian activists.
The ultimate question is how we find the balance. This is a tricky Court case because the Supreme Court needs to balance two major components of a free society. On the one hand, we need to have freedom of religion, conscience, and association. After all, it was the pursuit of that freedom that was the basis of founding the United States. At the same time, civic equality is a necessity for a free, democratic society. Yes, it is true that more and more people are supporting LGBT rights. Situations like the one that precipitated this Supreme Court case will thusly become less prevalent. Conversely, individuals within the LGBT community have gone through more than plenty of discrimination. Although there has been general progress towards civic equality, there are legitimate concerns that we, as a society, take steps backwards. That is the quandary: I don't want a society where the government coerces people to act against their own conscience, and I don't want a society with discrimination against an entire group of people.
I pondered this very question of how to strike this balance between religious freedom and civil liberties five years ago. The summarized version is that "your religious rights end where another's rights begin." What this means in this case is that Phillips does not have to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Although I strongly disagree with Phillips' views on same-sex marriage, it is his right to hold those views. At the same time, Phillips does not have the right to force the government to stop same-sex marriages of two consenting adults simply because those are his religious beliefs. This is where we draw the line in a civilized, pluralistic society. Phillips has the right to bake cakes for whichever clientele or whichever occasions he so chooses. If he wants to lose out on making money, that's his own decision. Craig and Mullins, as two homosexual adults, have a right to enter a consensual contract of marriage. This is how we respect both the civil liberties of LGBT people and religious freedom: protecting individual rights. I also believe getting to know people who are different from you goes a long way in understanding where others are coming from, even if you don't agree with them.
How should the Supreme Court strike this balance? The gay rights movement already won the intellectual argument and is winning the moral high ground. This country does not need anti-gay backlash from this case, which is another reason why coerced nondiscrimination [from the Supreme Court] is not the best course of action in the long-run. I think that both sides have valid arguments, but that the Court should rule in favor of Phillips. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Phillips, it should narrow the scope of the ruling and the exemption (e.g., wedding-related businesses, commercial institutions in competitive marketplaces) as much as possible so that it doesn't infringe on the rights of LGBT individuals. That way, we can protect everybody's rights instead of throwing people and their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness under the bus.
The concern of those in support of the defendant is that allowing for this sort of discrimination will open the floodgates to remove anti-discrimination laws and allow for a "constitutional right to discriminate." Let's look at the discrimination more specific to the case and then let's go more broadly. A wedding cake is not a key component of a wedding. Even if you argue that a cake were that vital to a wedding, Craig and Mullins could have found a different baker. With nearly two out of three Americans support same-sex marriage (see below), it is conceivable that they could have found another baker. As a matter of fact, another baker offered to provide the couple a wedding cake at no charge.
This brings up another question: should Phillips be coerced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, even though his religious view is that marriage is between a man and a woman? If the answer is "yes" and anti-discrimination laws end up being interpreted in such a fashion, then the government would also be able to compel a Jewish baker to bake a non-kosher cake with a swastika for a neo-Nazi wedding or a neo-Nazi event. An African-American woodcutter could be compelled to create a wooden cross for a KKK rally, or a staunch Democrat caterer cater for a Trump rally. It would mean that Facebook could not ban white supremacists from posting racist dribble. Whether or not the Supreme Court rules that baking a cake is an artistic expression protected under the First Amendment (see arguments for and against), what worries me is whether the government has the right to compel an individual to produce something that violates their conscience.
I made this point three years ago when discussing price discrimination: producers have a right to produce their good or service for whomever they like. If a proprietor refuses to serve a certain clientele, then that is their poor business decision to make. In 2017 America, there are plenty of bakers that will take the business of same-sex weddings because profit motive. If a Christian baker refuses to serve a same-sex couple, that is their right. The reverse is also true. Take a look at what happened earlier this year. A gay coffeehouse owner in Seattle kicked out Christian anti-abortion activists from his place of business. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or Christianity, it was the gay proprietor's choice to not serve the Christian activists.
The ultimate question is how we find the balance. This is a tricky Court case because the Supreme Court needs to balance two major components of a free society. On the one hand, we need to have freedom of religion, conscience, and association. After all, it was the pursuit of that freedom that was the basis of founding the United States. At the same time, civic equality is a necessity for a free, democratic society. Yes, it is true that more and more people are supporting LGBT rights. Situations like the one that precipitated this Supreme Court case will thusly become less prevalent. Conversely, individuals within the LGBT community have gone through more than plenty of discrimination. Although there has been general progress towards civic equality, there are legitimate concerns that we, as a society, take steps backwards. That is the quandary: I don't want a society where the government coerces people to act against their own conscience, and I don't want a society with discrimination against an entire group of people.
I pondered this very question of how to strike this balance between religious freedom and civil liberties five years ago. The summarized version is that "your religious rights end where another's rights begin." What this means in this case is that Phillips does not have to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Although I strongly disagree with Phillips' views on same-sex marriage, it is his right to hold those views. At the same time, Phillips does not have the right to force the government to stop same-sex marriages of two consenting adults simply because those are his religious beliefs. This is where we draw the line in a civilized, pluralistic society. Phillips has the right to bake cakes for whichever clientele or whichever occasions he so chooses. If he wants to lose out on making money, that's his own decision. Craig and Mullins, as two homosexual adults, have a right to enter a consensual contract of marriage. This is how we respect both the civil liberties of LGBT people and religious freedom: protecting individual rights. I also believe getting to know people who are different from you goes a long way in understanding where others are coming from, even if you don't agree with them.
How should the Supreme Court strike this balance? The gay rights movement already won the intellectual argument and is winning the moral high ground. This country does not need anti-gay backlash from this case, which is another reason why coerced nondiscrimination [from the Supreme Court] is not the best course of action in the long-run. I think that both sides have valid arguments, but that the Court should rule in favor of Phillips. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Phillips, it should narrow the scope of the ruling and the exemption (e.g., wedding-related businesses, commercial institutions in competitive marketplaces) as much as possible so that it doesn't infringe on the rights of LGBT individuals. That way, we can protect everybody's rights instead of throwing people and their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness under the bus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)