Is John Piper a Libertarian?

Is John Piper a Libertarian?

A critique of Thoughts on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment

(this post is also available with better formatting on my website)

I am a big John Piper fan. I first read Desiring God when I was around 20 years old and it revolutionized the way I think about love and my relationship with God. I appreciate Piper’s God-centered approach to everything and the way he applies his passion for God in his private and public life. In the culture war over ethical issues in the public square, I appreciate the stand Piper has made for the life of the unborn and the definition of marriage. His boldness, especially on the abortion issue, is commendable. Today, Piper posted an article on the Desiring God blog in support of the Minnesota marriage amendment. As a public policy major who spent much of my senior year doing research on the best public policy for ethical issues, I was keenly interested in reading his defense of marriage policy.

My appreciation for Piper also includes a love for his communication style and reasoning abilities. In just about every sermon I have heard him give, he has a list of carefully-selected, succinct, but profound statements that communicate the essence of his message. These statements are always well-reasoned, clear, and biblical. I look forward to hearing from his sermons and reading his works primarily because of their effect on my soul, but secondarily because of their positive effect on my mind. So when opening this article on the marriage amendment, I was expecting a bold, clear defense of the role civil law can play in supporting and upholding the natural law of God.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I was disappointed. My problem is not with the overall message of the article – I wholeheartedly agree that enshrining homosexual behavior into the law by redefining marriage must not happen.  But I was shocked to read a nuanced, almost timid defense of the status quo. It was probably about a year ago that I read his article on marijuana and was surprised to find him at least open to the use of this drug for medicinal use. I agree with him on that issue, but his views on that subject combined with this week's article make me wonder whether he has been somehow influenced by libertarian philosophy. My critique of this article will be mainly focused on his third statement: “Not all sins should be proscribed by human law, but some should be.” I agree with this sentence, but disagree with the example and reasons he uses to support it.

The issue of what behavior may and may not be regulated by the government is at the heart of many of my conversations with libertarian-leaning friends. They will often say things to me like “if you cannot easily enforce the law, it should not be a law,” “a victimless crime is no crime at all,” and “what consenting adults do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes should not be interfered with.” All of these sentiments express politically-correct ideas that I would argue have no basis in reason, Scripture, or natural law. Thus, I was disturbed to read Piper using very similar arguments in his explanation of the distinction between sins that should and should not be against the law.

In the second paragraph under the third statement, Piper describes the status quo in the American system of government whereby elected officials get to draw the line between bad behavior that is tolerated by law and crimes. He calls it a “pretty good system” which I generally agree with, but it concerns me that his defense of the status quo implies no disagreement with where our current legislators have drawn that line. I am confident that Piper does in fact disagree with some of the current decisions, on the issue of abortion for example, but he does not state that here.

He goes on to use the example of “looking at pornography” as an example of behavior that “should not be proscribed by human law.” I disagree with the reasons he gives for this example.  If Piper were simply making a policy argument for why he would not favor making pornography viewing illegal, I would not have as much of an issue. But he seems to be using this example to express general principles that he would use to distinguish between sins that should and should not be against the law.  In the rest of this post, I will critique the three reasons he gives for why this behavior should not be illegal.

The first reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

1)      without a common ground of biblical holiness, the precise definition of what’s acceptable to look at would entangle our lawmakers in hopeless disputes

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      Precise definition is not required for effective lawmaking.

Piper seems to be arguing that defining what constitutes “pornography” is hard to do, which I would not dispute. But defining and interpreting words is one of the most common functions of our legal system. Legislators use words and concepts that are tough to define all the time, and courts have to interpret those words when adjudicating cases. Though mistakes are made, this difficulty is not uncommon in law.

B.      The difficulty of passing legislation is not a reason not to pass laws.

Just because something is difficult does not make it wrong. The difficulty of defining a crime does not mean that the effort to do so is “hopeless” or would “entangle lawmakers.” This is the lawmaker’s job. Furthermore, a law may be difficult to pass in a particular time and place but that does not mean that it is categorically wrong to ever make it a law at any time in any place.

C.      Pornography and obscenity laws have been on the books for many years, and courts have already defined what is illegal.

The sale and distribution of pornography is already illegal under federal law.  Title 18, Section 1465[1] uses terms like “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy” and “any other matter of indecent or immoral character” in defining the material that it is illegal to produce. Violators are guilty of Class E felony and subject to up to a five-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine. This law is an example of the ability of lawmakers to define what is acceptable without getting entangled in hopeless disputes.

D.      The Supreme Court has defined what obscenity means and has upheld restrictions on it as an exception to free speech.

In Miller v. California (1973)[2], the Supreme Court set up a famous three-part test to determine whether something is obscene. I will not go into the specifics here, but I would simply point out that this is an example of the court’s ability to define concepts in the process of adjudicating cases.

E.       The possession of child pornography is illegal.

Federal law goes even further when it comes to child pornography. Using language similar to that of the Miller case, Congress has banned producing, distributing, receiving and possessing (with the intent to distribute) child pornography. At the state level, the mere possession of “visual depictions of the sexual exploitation of a minor” is a class 2 felony, at least in Arizona[3]. If the difficulty of defining what is acceptable were really a barrier to lawmaking, then these kinds of laws could not exist.

In summary, the ability of legislatures and courts to tackle subjects that are controversial or tough to define has been clearly established over and over again, and the difficulty of creating a law to address a particular sin should not be a reason that that sin could not be regulated by law.

The second reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

2)      the privacy of the act would make the law virtually unenforceable

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      The privacy of an act does not make it out of the bounds of the law.

It is at this point that Piper’s reasons really start to sound libertarian to me. What people do in the privacy of their homes should generally not be restricted, according to libertarians. But privacy is not a constitutional right, Roe v. Wade notwithstanding. And there are many times when private actions must be restricted. Most crimes are committed in private, because humans have naturally deal with guilt by hiding since Adam and Eve. If privacy were an ultimate standard, we could not have laws against child abuse, rape, or many other horrible actions that happen in private. Clearly, the location where a sin is most commonly committed cannot be a factor in determining whether or not it should be a law.

B.      The difficulty of enforcing a law does not make the law worthless.

The topic of enforcement is one of the most common in my discussions with libertarians. In the minds of many, a law that cannot be enforced easily should not be a law. But how can this be so? Is it easy to enforce laws against rape, murder, and child abuse? Certainly not.  Because of human limitation, our legal system is inherently flawed and thus we require things like “due process” in the enforcement of our laws. Essentially, the concept of due process is to purposely make enforcement more difficult, so that people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Some laws are easier to enforce than others, but this cannot be a criteria for whether or not to have a law.

C.      Law has an educational effect even if it is not enforced.

Historical laws against adultery, fornication, and sodomy were rarely enforced, but they still had value because of their educational effect on the citizens. This effect is especially present in people who do not acknowledge another moral standard, such as the Bible, by which to judge right and wrong. Even Christians will tend to see actions that are illegal as bad and actions that are legal as good, if the Bible is silent on the matter. Wayne Grudem points this out in his book, Politics According to the Bible, in which he describes the difference he has experienced between the opinion of Christians toward guns in Arizona, where gun laws are very lax, and that of Christians in the United Kingdom, where guns are more tightly controlled.[4] Simply because laws exist, citizens tend to see actions as morally right or wrong.

Other examples of this educational effect on law are found in the areas of slavery, abortion, and alcohol. Slavery was considered by many in America to be acceptable behavior at the founding of this country, but now it is almost universally denounced as evil. It is hard to ignore the role that the Thirteenth Amendment had on the opinion of people. Similarly, abortion was considered by most Americans as wrong prior to the Roe v. Wade decision that made it legal. Since it has been legalized, many more people are open to it.

Finally, the prohibition of alcohol is often used by my libertarian friends as what they consider to be a strong argument against ethics-based legislation. However, despite the lack of enforcement of prohibition, consumption statistics prove that prohibition actually worked in the sense that the per-capita consumption of alcohol in the United States was substantially reduced when prohibition went into effect and did not return to pre-prohibition levels until the 1960s, long after prohibition ended[5]. This is strong evidence that the prohibition of alcohol influenced people to drink less, and their drinking habits were affected even after it was made legal again.

D.      Receiving and possessing child pornography is already illegal, even though this happens in private.

As mentioned earlier, we already have laws against child pornography which is most of the time viewed in private. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws because of the government’s compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors.[6] I certainly hope John Piper wouldn’t argue that we throw these laws out as too hard to enforce.

E.       Laws against the viewing of pornography would be no harder to enforce than laws against the use of drugs.

Along similar lines, there are many actions that happen in private that are already illegal and hard to enforce. Would Piper suggest that we legalize all drugs since they are used in private and it is difficult to enforce laws against them? This is the type of law that libertarians would love to repeal, and their reasons sound frighteningly similar to Piper’s.

The final reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

3)      the indirect way that people are hurt make it unfeasible for the law to be handled with proper proportion

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      Actions that only indirectly hurt people still hurt people.

It is ironic to me that Piper would use this argument in the middle of an article upholding the importance of laws that define marriage. The clearest effect of marriage that makes it legally important is children, according to Piper’s fourth statement. And yet children are only indirectly affected by marriage laws, through the actions of their parents. Indirect effects are extremely important to our society, especially when it comes to children. When a sin is committed, there are usually negative consequences not only for the person committing the sin, but also for all the people who live and/or interact with them. These negative consequences can greatly affect society as a whole when major sin is left unchecked over time. It is the responsibility of rulers to “carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Why should wrongdoing that only hurts people indirectly be excluded from this?

B.      Proportionality can be properly handled by classifications in law or left to the judicial system.

Piper seems to be saying that since the use of pornography has different consequences for some people than others, it would be impossible to setup a legal framework to proscribe this behavior in a fair manner. But our legal system is rife with complex behaviors that have differing effects in different situations. This is why we sometimes classify a behavior as a misdemeanor and sometimes a felony. First degree murder is distinguished from second degree. And our legal system gives judges and juries the latitude to determine the proper punishment for individual cases. The possession of pornography could be classified as a misdemeanor and could be enforced as a separate count in a case of rape or sexual abuse. I do not see how this is unfeasible.

C.      Many actions that hurt people only indirectly are illegal and should remain so.

Taking drugs like cocaine or heroin has harmful effects not only on the person taking them, but also on the people around them. If a father takes drugs, his family suffers untold consequences. This is one of the reasons that these drugs are illegal. Other illegal actions such as gambling and assisted suicide are similar in that their harmful effects are often indirect, and yet we consider them bad enough to make laws against them.

There are sins, such as pride, that should not be illegal, but not for the reasons that Piper gives. The clearest reason I see that these sins cannot be made illegal is that they are by definition purely internal to the mind, not external actions of the body. Civil laws are instituted to maintain order in society, but they cannot extend to the affairs of the heart. Dealing with sinful thoughts is best left to the spheres of the family and church, rather than the state. But when sinful thoughts become sinful actions that have harmful effects on society, it is the prerogative of human law to proscribe those actions.

Obviously, the current political reality makes laws against viewing pornography or fornication highly unlikely, but there could come a day in the future (as in the past) when a large majority of a society determines these kinds of sins to be worthy of legal proscription. In that day, will John Piper be protesting along with the libertarians that these laws would be too difficult to define, enforce, and prosecute fairly? Or does he have better, more Biblically-based reasons that we should not have these kinds of laws?  I hope that his reasons for excluding these sins from law in this article were hastily produced and that he will modify them where necessary.

---

[1] http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/71/1465

[2] http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html

[3] http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03553.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

[4] Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible, page ­98.

[5] Geisler, Norman and Turek, Frank. Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible.
Stats available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

[6] http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/747/case.html ­

My True Love

On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me phone calling friends (one call from an old friend each day), three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me eight cheeses melting, seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me nine moves for dancing, eight cheeses melting, seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me ten Lord of the Rings chapters, nine moves for dancing, eight cheeses melting, seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me eleven pipes of licorice, ten Lord of the Rings chapters, nine moves for dancing, eight cheeses melting, seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me twelve Shai Linne songs drumming, eleven pipes of licorice, ten Lord of the Rings chapters, nine moves for dancing, eight cheeses melting, seven goldfish crackers swimming, six M&Ms in an egg carton laying, five pineapple rings, phone calling friends, three french vanilla creamers, two turtle candies, and a pear from a Bartlett pear tree!

Apple remote pausing live TV on Windows Media Center

I recently installed Windows Vista Ultimate on my MacBook Pro using Boot Camp on Mac OS X Leopard. Then I got a USB TV Tuner for Christmas so I can get free over-the-air HD television. I've been using Windows Media Center to record and watch my shows (similar to TiVo), which is cool in and of itself, but I've been a little annoyed because I've had to get off my couch and walk over to my laptop every time I wanted to pause, fast-forward through commercials, etc.  Yes, I know that I am lazy.

Last night I found the solution. I knew that my Apple Remote worked with Boot Camp to control iTunes on Windows. But I couldn't get it to do anything else except control the overall sound volume. So I found this site: Using your Apple Remote In Bootcamp and it pointed me here: EventGhost. With this program I was able to program my left button to the left key, right button to the right key, and play button to the enter key. Now I can play, pause, fast forward, and rewind my shows (and everything else Media Center has) with my Apple Remote! I still haven't figured out how to reprogram the up, down, and menu keys. If anyone knows how to do this, please let me know.

What shows have I been watching? 24 of course, the Suns games, the Cardinals playoff games, The Office, Law and Order, Monk, and Seinfeld. Of these, Sherri prefers The Office, Law and Order, and Monk, but she graciously lets me watch the others too.

In other news, Sherri and I recently celebrated 1 year of marriage! Being married to her is an incredible blessing from God. We bought a house in Chandler last fall and are excited about hosting the Truth Project in our home on Friday nights this spring,. We are also the Logistics Coordinators of the Arizona Bible Bee event on September 12, 2009. Finally, our church is planting two new churches this year, so we are excited about the Gospel advancing, but sad that we will be seperated from some friends.

NY Times - September 11, 2003

For all you Bush haters out there: HE WANTED TO REGULATE HOUSING FIVE YEARS AGO!

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
...
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Full Article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

John McCain - The Leadership of a Moderate Republican in the Senate

This is a paper I wrote in 2005 for Congress class at Patrick Henry College. I don't think I got a very good grade on it, but it was in the process of writing this paper that I learned more about how consistent and conservative John McCain really is. I used to be very skeptical of McCain; in fact, I wrote an entry on this very blog about my distaste for his willingness to consider running with Kerry in 2004. But as a result of the research I did for this paper combined with what I've seen of him since, I'm now very pro-McCain and hope he will be our next President.

John McCain - The Leadership of a Moderate Republican in the Senate

Paul Shippy

Dr. Carroll
GOV 230: The Congress
November 30, 2005

John McCain is a Republican Senator from Arizona with a lengthy and multifaceted legislative career. He is also a Vietnam War veteran who suffered for five and a half years as a prisoner of war, so his military heroism has in many ways defined his home style among his constituents. As a Senator, McCain's independent streak and moderate positions have reshaped his reputation substantially. In fact, his ability to maintain a solid voter base among Arizonan Republicans while regularly breaking with Republicans on key policy issues is one of the most remarkable aspects of his career. Reelection is not everything, however. As his career in the Senate matured in the late 1990's, the failure of his tobacco regulation bill and, more importantly, the killing of his campaign finance reform bill seemed to indicate a real weakness in McCain's legislative leadership. But his campaign for President in 2000, though unsuccessful, greatly increased his prowess nationally; and, by 2001, he was able to skillfully gain the votes necessary to pass his beloved campaign finance reform, which was signed in 2002. After being reelected in 2004 to his fourth term, he continued to influence the Senate as a moderate negotiator. It seems that McCain has built a successful legislative career on his personal background, media popularity, and political skill, while he has suffered somewhat from his infrequent opposition to the Republican agenda.

The life of John McCain must be understood in light of the accomplishments of his father and grandfather. McCain was born John Sidney McCain III in 1935 to John McCain Jr., known as "Jack" (Alexander 2003, 12). Both Jack and his father, "Slew," attended the Naval Academy, became Commanders in the Navy, and fought for the United States in World War II (McCain and Salter 1999). Jack also served in the Vietnam War as the Commander in Chief of the Pacific forces. Senator McCain now calls his father and grandfather "my first heroes," and he says that "earning their respect has been the most lasting ambition of my life" (McCain and Salter 1999). It is clear that the McCain family legacy had a huge impact on McCain both personally and politically.

As might be expected, John McCain III was expected to carry on the family tradition (Dorland 2001, 165) and it never even occurred to him that he might not enter the navy (Alexander 2003, 18). Military life defined his childhood and dominated his educational pursuits. After graduating from the Naval Academy and then flight school, McCain entered the Vietnam War in 1966 and flew an A-4 bomber on combat missions (McCain and Salter 1999). Tragedy struck in October 1967 when his plane was shot down by an enemy surface-to-air missile and he was captured by Vietnamese. After five years of torture and months of solitary confinement, McCain sustained numerous permanent injuries including a loss of mobility in his arms and leg that is visible to this day (McCain and Salter 1999, 345). In perhaps the most heroic act of his time as a prisoner of war, McCain refused an offer to be released and sent home because he knew that the Vietnamese intended to use his release as propaganda for their side; this decision resulted in the worst year and a half of his time there (Alexander 2003, 58). McCain said later of his experiences: "Surviving my imprisonment strengthened my self-confidence, and my refusal of early release taught me to trust my own judgment."

The 1970's were difficult for John McCain. After receiving the honors due to his heroism, he spent the next few years writing, studying at the National War College, undergoing multiple operations and physical therapy, and dealing with the physical ailments of his wife, Carol. (Alexander 2003). Problems with the marriage escalated as McCain committed adultery, and in 1979 McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Hensley. After divorcing Carol and marrying Cindy in early 1980, he decided to retire from the navy and move to Cindy's home state, Arizona (Alexander 2003). He was introduced to politics through his assignment to the navy's liaison office in the United States Senate, and he was led to Arizona by his ambition (McCain and Salter 2002). Elected to the House in 1982, and reelected in 1984, McCain was introduced to political life, and he found it satisfactory. When Barry Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1986, he won the vacated seat and has held it ever since.

John McCain's personal history forms a necessary background to his political success primarily because his life before politics has in many ways defined his home style (Fenno 1977). Unlike some politicians, who grow up in the community they represent, McCain could not portray himself as a fellow Arizonan. But the mobility of military life was very understandable to his constituents, and he could easily present himself as a fellow American. In fact, it was his devotion to his country that he relied upon most of all to endear himself to the people of Arizona. Military heroism was a family tradition and he capitalized on the wonder and respect engendered by his sacrifices for the United States abroad.

In analyzing his home style, it is important to recognize who his constituents actually were. As a state, Arizona has a long history of attracting people from all over America to start a new life. It also has attracted many military servicemen, both those retired and those serving in the various air force and naval bases found in Arizona. One example of this is my father, a retired Navy sailor who moved to Arizona in the 1970's because of the favorable climate and stable economy. Most of these veterans and servicemen approached politics from a conservative viewpoint. They saw the military as a top priority for government, and were less interested in domestic programs (unless they related to the welfare of veterans). Thus, most were Republicans. In fact, Arizona was traditionally Republican since it was populated by a large number of Mormons, and the state party held Barry Goldwater as their flag bearer. Furthermore, the entire nation was solidly behind the conservative Republican president, Ronald Reagan, as he had taken office just two years before McCain entered Congress.

It is no surprise, then, that John McCain ran as a Republican. His personal experience matched very closely with people like my father and a certain bond of trust was formed as McCain campaigned. As he walked from house to house in the East Valley in 1982, McCain presented himself as a very conservative war hero and the very conservative audience was receptive. On policy, McCain lined up very well with the Republicans. He was pro-life, anti-gun control, and of course, pro-military. But his policy views were not as important as the fact that he was a Republican and a war hero. After barely winning the primary as the underdog candidate (Alexander 2003, 96), McCain coasted into office in the heavily Republican district.

McCain was not without support financially either. When he met a local home builder named Charles Keating in 1981 at a speaking engagement, McCain was very happy to receive his support. Keating raised $100,000 for each of McCain's first three campaigns, and the two became friends (McCain and Salter 2002, 59). McCain would later regret his close association with Keating when he became the central figure in a notorious savings-and-loan scandal in 1989. Not only did the collapse of Keating's business result in over two billion dollars of taxpayer money lost, Keating was convicted of fraud and racketeering (Thompson 1993). More importantly for McCain, however, was the fact that he, along with four other senators, had met with and questioned the regulators in charge of investigating Keating. The chief regulator, Edwin Gray, felt intimidated by this "show of force" and it appeared that the Senators were improperly furthering Keating's criminal activities because he had contributed to their campaigns (Thompson 1993). Thankfully for McCain, the Senate Ethics Committee simply rebuked his poor judgment and the episode did very little to damage his career as evidenced by his overwhelming reelection in 1992.

Dennis Thompson used the Keating scandal in an article in the American Political Science Review to argue that the nature of corruption in the United States government had changed such that the extent to which the democratic process was damaged by an incident must now be the central criteria for determining corruption (Thompson 1993). Instead of focusing only on individual actors and their motives, the system as a whole has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether behavior is improper. This theory is called "mediated corruption" and Thompson did not see campaign finance reform as sufficient to end this kind of corruption since it focuses on money alone and ignores the ambition and misplaced duty often involved. McCain, on the other hand, saw campaign finance reform as the single best solution to corruption.

Though McCain was absolved by the Senate Ethics Committee, the episode embarrassed him. To clear his name, he decided to return to the United States Treasury a sum of money equal to the amount Keating had contributed to his campaigns, and he promised never to meet with a regulator again (Alexander 2003, 143). He also took on a new signature issue for his 1992 reelection, campaign finance reform. It was not the first time he had dealt with the issue. He had joined Senators McConnell and Packwood in offering an alternative to the sweeping Democratic reform proposal in 1987 (Washington Post 1987). But his new bill would be much more comprehensive and controversial.

John McCain was a Republican, but early on he showed that he was no ordinary party-liner. As early as 1983, McCain broke with the Reagan administration on keeping Marines in Lebanon; he indicated support for cutting Reagan's defense budget in 1985 (Rogers 1985); and he opposed Reagan's cutting of the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance program in 1987 (Blustein 1987). Biographer Paul Alexander argues that McCain drifted toward the middle of the political spectrum throughout the 1980's, becoming more moderate on social issues while remaining fiscally conservative (2003, 149-150). This explanation seems plausible.

For the most part, however, John McCain supported the Republicans in his early years. He supported President Reagan and his agenda during his first term in the House (Alexander 2003, 99), and he campaigned for George Bush in 1988 (Alexander 2003, 116-124). In fact it was the 1988 election that, according to Alexander, launched him into prominence. He gave a powerful speech at the Republican Convention that included a moving anecdote about his POW experience. Although it did not earn him the Vice Presidency, as he had hoped, he was immediately recognized as a rising leader on the national stage (Alexander 2003, 119-122).

Senators generally have three primary goals: reelection, good public policy, and increased power and influence. McCain's goals follow close in line with these. First, he wants to be reelected. Like any other politician, he must garner support at the end of his term from the voters in his constituency. Early in his career, McCain won by near-landslides because of the dominance of Republicans in Arizona in the 1980's. But throughout the 1990's, Arizona has become more moderate as more people stream into the state from California and elsewhere. McCain has adjusted well to this shift, staking out a stance independent enough from the Republicans to appease the moderates, and yet supportive enough of Republicans to maintain, for the most part, the support of conservatives. The future of this kind of moderate position is unclear, however, and deserves further discussion.

Another important objective for McCain is good public policy. McCain has become known for two main issues: campaign finance reform, and responsible spending for the public good. The two issues are distinct, but very closely related, as McCain argues that corruption pervades the Senate in the form of pork-barrel spending motivated by large campaign contributions. To alleviate at least the appearance of this corruption, McCain has advocated reforming campaign financing regulations so that Senators cannot be bought; and, on the other hand, McCain seeks to expose and counter the common use of targeted earmarks on omnibus appropriations bills so that taxpayer dollars are more wisely spent. Both of these positions have made him unpopular with the establishment in the Senate. Campaign finance reform has been opposed, especially by Republicans, because it could hurt the parties' ability to raise funds; and McCain's hostility to pork barrel spending has been attacked presumably because many Senators rely upon it to get reelected. The unpopularity of his policy objectives among Senators has resulted in many years of frustration for him as many of his bills have failed.

The third and final objective of McCain's political career corresponds to increased power and influence, but it is more specific. McCain wants to be President. He wanted to be Bush's Vice President in 1988, as was documented above; and despite his unpopularity with the Republican establishment, he fought a tough campaign in 2000 for the Republican Presidential nomination. His actions in the Senate must be taken in light of this goal, as he clearly seeks to gain a national following apart from his role in Congress's, often purely partisan, policymaking. McCain has found the media to be helpful in this regard. Because journalists are interested in controversy, McCain's antiestablishment tendencies are given much press. Furthermore, he has gone above and beyond the average politician to court the press's favor, especially in his campaign for President. In that campaign, he rode a bus called "Straight Talk Express" and invited reporters to come aboard and get a sample of his "straight talk" (Johnson 2002). But as popular as he was with the media, and with many moderate Americans, he eventually was shadowed by the Republican Party's favored son, George W. Bush. John McCain's presidential aspirations did not die in 2000, however. While he rejected John Kerry's invitation to join the Democratic ticket in 2004, he seems to have his eyes set on 2008.

McCain has been reelected five times and his now twenty-three year old career will continue at least until 2010. His goal to become President may still be realized. But how well has John McCain been able to promote good public policy, his second goal? This question is answered through an examination of his legislative leadership abilities in the Senate, both in his early failures and in his later successes.

The elections of 1994 turned out well for Republicans, and John McCain gained power as they took the majority. Appointed chairman of the Commerce Committee, he began working with both parties to accomplish important policy objectives. His priorities, of course, were campaign finance reform and ending pork barrel spending.

The first main test of his leadership abilities started in 1995 when Senate majority leader Trent Lott asked him to write legislation that would enact into federal law provisions of a settlement made by various states against tobacco companies (McCain and Salter 2002, 363). The tobacco bill was an opportunity for McCain to broker compromises between Democrats and Republicans since many Senators on both sides, at least initially, supported it. Unfortunately for McCain, however, he miscalculated the political realities of the situation. He worked hard to draft a policy that won the support of all but one of the Commerce Committee members, which included taxing tobacco at $1.10 per pack (Torry and Dewar 1998). When the committee passed it overwhelmingly, McCain was so excited that he said, "I was starting to think that maybe I could be president, or at least that I should try" (McCain and Salter 2002). However, the penalty was larger than the settlement had required and so the tobacco industry launched a public relations effort aimed at killing the bill. When the bill finally reached the floor in 1998, the Republican leadership, whose campaign ads were paid for by the tobacco companies, threatened a filibuster. Not enough votes could be found to end debate even though a majority of the Senate supported it. This made McCain extremely angry, and it was formative in his decision to run for President. He recalls his final speech on the Senate floor:

"I was just angry, and I expressed it at length, suggesting near the end of my remarks that perhaps the health of children should be a greater concern to my party. When I finished, every Democrat on the floor rose to applaud me, the only standing ovation I've ever received in a Senate debate. Not a single Republican joined in the tribute." (McCain and Salter 2002, 365)

But the failure of the tobacco bill would not be McCain's low point. Though protecting children from tobacco was important to him, it was not his primary issue. Ever since the Keating scandal and his 1992 reelection, McCain was focused primarily on campaign finance reform. In 1994, he sought a fellow reformer on the Democrat side, and he found an ally in Russell Feingold. Though they are on opposite sides of most issues, McCain and Feingold joined together to fight both the appropriations earmarks that represented irresponsible spending and the unregulated contributions that represented corruption in Congressional politics (McCain and Salter 2002, 358-361).

A lot had changed since the 1987 campaign reform bill. Though McCain had sponsored that bill as counter to a Democratic proposal for public financing of elections, many of the early McCain-Feingold bills included elements of public financing of elections. One other important contrast can be made. While the 1987 bill McCain supported was championed by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, McConnell became McCain's chief nemesis in the campaign finance debate of the late 1990's (McCain and Salter 2002, 361).

From 1997 to 1999, the McCain-Feingold bill was thwarted time and time again by Senate procedural votes and McCain was unable to muster the necessary 60 votes. A weaker form of the bill was presented in the late 1999 session, sandwiched between two other highly inflammatory bills – the nuclear test ban treaty and the partial birth abortion ban. This was McCain's last chance to pass his bill before the 2000 elections and his presidential campaign was already in full swing. The bill ended the soft-money loophole that had become synonymous with corruption for McCain because it allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to parties. Since the parties were using the money to promote their candidates, McCain saw a linkage between these donations and pork-barrel spending that benefited the corporations later. But McConnell and many other conservatives saw the bill as a limit on free speech. They attacked McCain's claims of corruption in the middle of the debate and asked him to back up the statements he had made on his website that particular Senators had misused public funds to benefit their supporters. The debate became emotionally charged, "reflected personal animus toward McCain," and diverted from the real issue, according to political scientist Roger Davidson (Davidson 2001). After debate ended, a partisan cloture vote failed since the forty-five Democrats were joined by only seven Republicans. Thus the bill was killed, and McCain took down the offending references on his website. It seemed that he had failed.

John McCain did not give up. His presidential campaign made campaign finance reform the number one issue, and he was successful in raising the public's awareness of its importance. When Bush took office, McCain met with him to try to head off a possible future veto and was somewhat encouraged by Bush's disposition toward the issue (Drew 2002, 17). It was his meeting with Majority Leader Trent Lott, however, that resulted in a promise for two weeks of debate on the bill in March 2001 (Drew 2002, 20). The new McCain-Feingold included a ban on electioneering ads within sixty days of an election, a highly controversial provision that many thought was unconstitutional. McCain also wanted to raise the limits on individual hard money contributions from one thousand to two thousand dollars, but it took quite a bit of negotiating with Feingold and the Democrats to get them to back this idea (Drew 2002, 43). Eventually, the provision was included and the Senate passed the bill.

There are two important strategic reasons that McCain-Feingold finally passed the Senate. First, McCain prepared himself emotionally for the debate; and he surrounded himself with supporters so that it was not a one man fight. Second, McCain ingeniously used Senate floor strategy to manage the negotiations of ever-shifting coalitions.

McCain learned his lesson in 1999 and his strategy changed. He puts it this way: "I'm not going to let them pull me into a personal combat. That was my worst test. I'm not going to engage in that again" (Drew 2002, 3). While a certain amount of tenacity was required to "shake things up in Washington" as he had promised to do in his presidential campaign, he could not stand against his party any longer. The 2000 elections had proven the Republicans' strength, and so he had to avoid "antagonizing Republicans who [hadn't] supported reform before but who might come over to his side" (Drew 2002, 30). Thus, he formed a coalition of twelve of the bill's strongest backers and divided the workload of the debate among them.

Secondly, McCain skillfully used amendment strategy to keep the maximum number of Senators behind his bill. The best example of this is with the issue of raising hard money limits. Republican Fred Thompson, a strong supporter of the bill, proposed an amendment to raise the limits to three thousand dollars, and Democrat Dianne Feinstein proposed a two thousand dollar limit. The Democrats, represented by Daschle, agreed to support Feinstein's amendment but that was as high as they wanted to go. McCain, along with his close aide, Mark Buse, came up with a strategy. They would let both amendments be put to a tabling vote, but they would make sure both amendments failed. If Feinstein's amendment had been tabled, the Democrats would have bolted, but McCain urged Republicans not to table Feinstein's amendment. This triggered a lengthy negotiation between the two proposals, and the compromise was a huge success – it passed 84 to 16 (Drew 2002, 55-57). This was a fine example of the type of powerful leadership McCain was finally able to gain.

The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was signed by President Bush and survived a Supreme Court challenge in McConnell v. FEC. McCain continues to fight with the Federal Election Commission over enforcement of the ban on soft money, especially with the rise of 527 organizations in the 2004 election. But the act's passage is monumental for McCain's career, as it represents his first major legislative success. Further examples of McCain's influence recently include his leadership over a bipartisan group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who struck a deal to end the filibuster of several of Bush's judicial nominees earlier this year (Continetti 2005), and his "little triumvirate" with Senators Warner and Graham which has become "a powerful political force at a time when President Bush's popularity is sinking" (Stolberg 2005).

John McCain's recent successes have not been entirely positive for his reputation among his constituency, however. In fact, many conservative Republicans in Arizona are largely skeptical about McCain's commitment to their values and only reluctantly voted for him in 2004 when no challenger stepped forward. At the same time, however, the end of campaign finance reform may have been the beginning of a new John McCain. My father, despite having voted for him in every election since 1982, had been questioning whether McCain represented his viewpoints until just recently. As a grassroots leader, he attended an event where McCain spoke and was very impressed with how conservative he seemed. Perhaps McCain is attempting to shed the "maverick" label and return to his traditional conservative war hero image, or maybe he never lost that image among his constituency, and now he is able to downplay his independent streak more convincingly since he no longer has an unpopular crusade to carry out.

The future of McCain and moderates like him is unclear. For a while, it seemed like the Republicans were going to dominate as they maintained control of Congress and Bush was reelected. But the difficult Iraq war and domestic issues like Hurricane Katrina have made Bush and the Republicans quite unpopular. Since Democrats seem unable to present a coherent platform of their own, it may be the time for moderates like McCain to step in and make things happen. However, the partisanship of both houses of Congress has continued to increase, so it seems unlikely that the polarizing debate will be significantly moderated. If McCain can continue to form coalitions between Democrats and moderate Republicans, it is possible that he could repeat the success of 2001. But even if he cannot, his career may be on the upswing as a vacated White House looms large in his horizon.


Works Cited

Alexander, Paul. 2003. Man of the People: The Life of John McCain. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Blustein, Paul. 1987. Reagan Seeks to Divert Program Funding To Finance Raises for Federal Workers. Wall Street Journal. January 29. New York.

Continetti, Matthew. 2005. Round One to McCain. The Weekly Standard. 6 June 2005: 8.

Davidson, Roger H. 2001. Senate Floor Deliberation: A Preliminary Inquiry. In The Contentious Senate, edited by Colton C. Campbell and Nicol C. Rae, 21-42. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Dorland, Gilbert N. 2001. Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam War Era. Washington: Brassey's, Inc.

Drew, Elizabeth. 2002. Citizen McCain. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Fenno, Richard. 1977. U.S. House Members in their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 7, no. 3: 883-917.

Johnson, James W. 2002. Arizona Politicians: The Noble and the Notorious. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

McCain, John and Mark Salter. 1999. Faith of My Fathers. New York: Random House.

_____________ 2002. Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir. New York: Random House.

Rogers, David. 1985. Ten Years After -- Vietnam's Legacy: Two Veterans of War Find in Public Office Other Ways to Serve. Wall Street Journal. February 11. New York.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. 2005. In the Senate, A Chorus of 3 Defies the Line. New York Times. November 21. New York.

Thompson, Dennis F. 1993. Mediated Corruption: The Case of the Keating Five. The American Political Science Review 87, no. 2: 369-381.

Torry, Saundra and Helen Dewar. 1998. Senate GOP Kills McCain Tobacco Bill. The Washington Post. June 18. Washington, D. C.

Numbers surround me

- I'm working on converting a CALCULATOR to a new codebase at work.
- Sherri and watch the show NUMBERS frequently.
- I'm reading the book of NUMBERS in the Bible.
- I'm shopping for the best mortgage RATE and deciding on a good home PRICE.
- I'm watching stocks and ETFs falling in VALUE.
- Sherri and I were reminiscing about MathNet and Square One.
- Numbers keep coming up in our conversations.

I'm not complaining. :)

In the month I was born...

Thank you Ronald Reagan. 

9th Circuit allows pro-life license plates! YES!

I can't believe I'm saying this. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made the right decision! Reversing the federal district court's decision, they ordered Arizona to allow the "Choose Life" license plates. The Arizona License Plate Commission had rejected the application based on the controversial nature of the message, but the court ruled correctly that such a decision represented unconstitutional viewpoint descrimination in a limited public forum. Now Arizonans will be able to proclaim their pro-life views on their license plates and help fund a pro-life organization at the same time! YES! For more information, see http://www.azpolicy.org/ff.php?id=973#article1 and the case.

Hitman on YouTube!

 

Have some extra cash to invest? Get returns of 9% or more by lending to other people who want to start a business, need to consolidate debt, etc.

I'm back and the trip went well. For details, see the blog at http://www.sovgracechurch.com/blog/index.php?cat=58&paged=2

Now, I'm focused on working, advising the resurrected Chandler/Gilbert YMCA Youth & Government program, and planning a wedding. :)

As some of you know, I am going to Bolivia on a missions trip with other members of my church in three weeks. The August 7-17 trip will be my first international missions trip. I'm writing to let you know where I will be and also what I will be doing with the hope that you might pray for me and the trip as a whole. I am very excited that God has called me to this opportunity because I want Him to be glorified in all the nations. He has forgiven my sin and I want to spread His love to those in need of His powerful gospel.

We will be working with the Sovereign Grace church in La Paz doing service projects, street evangelism, and encouraging troubled teens. In addition, we will be ministering to children at an orphanage in a more rural part of Bolivia. I would appreciate your prayers for the following:

- Personal growth in godliness and boldness in evangelism
- Effective and fruitful ministry
- Grace to communicate across the language barrier
- Increased love for people who need to hear the gospel
- Health and safety in the high altitudes and cold of August in the Southern Hemisphere
- Sufficient financial resources

On that last point, I have been personally paying for my expenses so far but would appreciate your help if you can give a small amount. Unfortunately, any donations would not be tax-deductible since they would go directly to me. You can give with a CC online through PayPal to my email address.

Thank you so much for your prayers and support!

The Wedding Date

January 19th it is!

Bookmarks and favorites? Why?

I virtually never use IE's Favorites or Firefox's Bookmarks. Other people in my family use them all the time, and I just realized why I don't. When I need to get to a site I go to often, I go to the address bar and start typing the URL. The browser provides me with a list of the sites I've been to, so I simply select the desired site and I'm there. Does anyone else do this, or am I the only one?

Watch this

http://www.hollywoodblasphemy.com/ Wow, this video is very convincing. It certainly changed my mind. Watch to the end - it's good.

Listen to this

 I like talk radio. But I've never heard it quite like this before. If you need a laugh with some encouragement and gospel-centered commentary on current events, I highly recommend that you listen to this:

Subscribe to Way of the Master Radio Podcast

I'm ENGAGED! Sherri said YES!! Glory be to God alone for the success of our courtship! Email me for the story.

What's going on in Paul's life?

- Job/internship as applications developer for The Center for Arizona Policy
- Job as software developer for ESS, a Microsoft-partnered provider of Emergency Health & Safety and Crisis Management Software
- MacBook Pro, free after 18 online offers, $116, and a lot of hassle (don't tell ESS I have a Mac...:)
- Trips to PHC to visit Sherri in our last semester
- Joining SG-Gilbert and loving twentyfour-seven
- Trying to build some muscle weight
- Thanking God for His grace and enjoying Him more and more

Right now I'm actually in VA, and tomorrow is the Faith and Reason lecture with Dr. Smith. It's so good to be back and hang out with everyone, but I'm very glad I'm done with school, at least for a while. God has been blessing me immensely, as always, and I'm doing my best to trust and wait on Him for what's coming next.

I would never claim that a person's heart can be changed through politics. But just as we ought to step out in faith to talk to someone about Christ who may oppose us, we also ought to step out in faith to try to enact laws that protect life despite any opposition. It's the loving thing to do. Before a child's heart can be changed, it has to be born. Before an addict's heart can be changed, he has to be sober. Before a poor child's heart can be changed, he has to hear the gospel. Society is important to God because people are important to Him. Laws that keep society just, free, and protected enable lives to be changed. God uses the transportation worker who gets you to church on time just as much as He uses the pastor who preaches.
--exerpt from email debate on the church & government

Mr. Clooney on Tolerance

I can't resist posting about this. Nicholas Clooney's latest article is about Dr. Farris and his supposed "intolerance." Like so many in our culture, he equivocates between the word "tolerance" and "acceptance" in his argument that democracy and dogmatic religions can't mix. According to Clooney, unless you affirm that everyone's beliefs are equally valid, you are at odds with democracy. He even tries to argue that America's founders would agree with him, again equivocating between modern liberal "tolerance" and the "tolerance" of the founders (i.e. religious freedom).

What is so amusing is that he would use Michael Farris, a staunch defender of religious freedom, as an example of "intolerance." At the end of the article, he says that his Protestant grandmother "smiled on her beloved Jewish son-in-law, laughed at her agnostic neighbor, [and] welcomed Muslim visitors..." Here, he describes tolerance here in the old sense, a willingness to recognize the freedom of others to believe differently. Dr. Farris is very "tolerant" if this is what it means. But Clooney redefines tolerance with the claim that his grandmother "did not judge anyone." I find it hard to believe that Mr. Clooney's grandmother was a relativist to the extent that he apparently believes democratic people should be, but even if she was, that relativism is not the same as the religious freedom our founders sought to guarantee.

Relativism, in fact, is a denial of religious freedom. For how can Dr. Farris's beliefs be "tolerated" if they are "at odds...with the tenets of American democracy?" Where is the tolerance of non-relativists like Dr. Farris and myself? Religious freedom allows differences in truth-claims, while relativism excludes ALL truth claims, except its own. Relativism, therefore, is one of the most exclusive, "intolerant" and nonsensical beliefs in the world today.