The Economist or The Statist?

A blogger at The Economist has been furiously scratching his head in response to my earlier posts on evolution, trying to understand how an evolutionist such as myself could oppose government mandated instruction in this (and every other) field. I’d like to offer some answers, and at least one factual correction.

First, the correction. The anonymous Economist blogger writes: “We live in a democracy, and most people want their children to be taught scientific truth, or more properly, scientific method.”

In some areas, like elementary physics, that’s undoubtedly true. And I’d be delighted if it were true across the board. It is not. As the polling data I have previously cited demonstrate, either a plurality or an outright majority of Americans (depending on the poll) believe human beings were created by God, in their current form. Most of the rest believe we evolved under God’s guidance. Furthermore, a strong majority of Americans would like to see, at the very least, creationism taught alongside evolution (many probably do not want evolution taught at all – but that option wasn’t offered in the poll question). These beliefs and preferences are not consistent with the teaching of evolutionary theory as understood by the overwhelming majority of biologists.

So the first of my earlier points remains: instruction in a purely naturalistic view of evolution is NOT desired by the majority of the American public, and because the majority has considerable influence over school policy, the teaching of evolution has been hobbled and sidelined in many public schools for generations.

Next, The Economist blogger devises an imaginative but mistaken explanation for my position:

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Coulson’s position is as a form of surrender to fundamentalist Christians: “I don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to upset you, so here’s a compromise whereby I contort my views to support your position.”

The Economist confuses respect for liberty with “surrender.” Recognizing the right of our fellow citizens to disagree with us is a pillar of free societies. That is the insight behind Voltaire’s famous line: ”I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To anyone who grasps the importance of that principle, no ideological “contortions” are necessary to defend the right of families to make their own educational decisions.

It is troubling that so much of today’s intellectual elite seems to have forgotten the crucial role of individual liberty.

There is also a gross contradiction between the lip service given to the limits of scientific knowledge and the desire to see such knowledge established like a state religion.

While the blogger catches himself in the quote above, moderating the term “scientific truth” with “or more properly, scientific method,” he slips later on, rhetorically asking: “Should the teaching of the truth not be compulsory in education?” [emphasis added]

Here he leaves “the truth” unmodified. We KNOW what the truth is, he seems to say, why SHOULDN’T we force everyone to listen to the Good Word?

But anyone serious about science understands that scientific knowledge is provisional. Induction, on which science rests, is incapable of identifying Truth with a capital ‘T’. Science is by far the best tool we have for making sense of the world, but it isn’t a Truth machine. The rational thing to do is to treat what we learn through science as useful working assumptions – as the best approximation to Truth that we can find. Science, well practiced, is humble.

Statist rationalists are not. They want to compel everyone to be taught the methods and provisional conclusions of science, and that is precisely the opposite of what scientist and philosopher Jacob Bronowski so wisely encouraged us to do. Bronowski exhorted us to imbue politics with the empiricism – and more importantly, the humility – of science. He felt that by keeping in mind the imperfection of all human knowledge we could avoid the absolutism and totalitarianism that brought so much death and suffering in the mid-20th century.

But instead of moderating governments by injecting them with the circumspection of science, rationalist statists seek to inject the absolutism and compulsion of government mandates into the teaching of science.

Before continuing down that unsavory road, I hope that The Economist will pause to consider how a free market in education could advance quality science instruction, show greater respect for the limits of scientific knowledge, and comport better with the founding principles of the United States.

And if they’d like someone to do that, or to debate Dawkins on the merits of compulsory instruction in evolution, I’ll be happy to help. There are areas in which the state must demand conformity, such as adherence to a body of basic laws, but uniformity in the teaching of human origins serves no such essential role in the perpetuation of a free society. On the contrary, granting the state the power to decide and proselytize the “Truth” is a danger to free societies.

Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math

During fiscal debates in DC, politicians, the press, and interest groups all complain about supposed budget cuts. Yet every year, the budget gets bigger and more expensive. This seeming contradiction is due to the fact that Washington uses a strange form of math called “current services” budgeting. Under this system, a “cut” occurs anytime a budget doesn’t increase as fast as previously projected. This means that programs sometimes grow at more than twice the rate of inflation, but advocates of more spending get to complain that they are being subjected to “cruel” and “savage” reductions. While everyone inside the beltway understands how this game is played, ordinary Americans are completely deceived. They think that spending cuts are actually cuts - i.e., spending will be lower next year than it is this year. Defenders of the current system argue that “current services” budget is justified because it enables policy makers to know how much spending is “requried” because of inflation, demographic change, and previously-legislated program expansions. There is nothing wrong with having that information, of course, but that doesn’t justify dishonest presentation of budget numbers. If a politician or interest group wants to argue that a program should get a six percent increase because of various factors, that is a legitimate debate. But when a politician says that a program is getting a two percent cut because spending is climbing by four percent instead of six percent, that is deceptive. An article in the American Enterprise Institute’s magazine explores Washington’s dishonest budget math:
President Bush is not “cutting” Medicare spending—all the media hype notwithstanding… the President has not been suddenly seized by fiscal conservatism fever and did not, in fact, propose any spending cuts. Under the President’s proposal, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid is set to increase by $84 billion from 2006 to 2008. That spending increase is certainly not a cut—even when including inflation, it represents a generous increase in entitlement spending. Newsweek confused cutting the rate of spending growth with cutting spending itself. The President’s proposals reveal an interesting picture: instead of growing at a 6.5% rate, the President would have Medicare grow at a 5.6% rate. Medicaid was set to grow at 7.3%; the President has proposed a 7.1% rate of growth. …It’s useful to place this spending restraint in perspective: entitlements face a looming $43 trillion shortage over the next 60 years, and unless entitlement spending is curbed, those programs are headed straight for bankruptcy. What’s fascinating is that if the President’s modest Medicare plans were realized, $8 trillion dollars would already be shaved off of Medicare’s future liability. It’s a hopeful reminder that moderate fiscal restraint can, over time, accomplish a great deal of good.

Some Good News on the Budget

Thanks in large part to the heroic efforts of Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, the corrupting culture of budget earmarks has hit a big bump in the road. Even more important, government spending is no longer climbing quite as fast. To be sure, it is hardly a victory to hold the growth of annual appropriations to the rate of inflation. After all, many of the programs being appropriated should be completely abolished. Moreover, annual appropriations does not include entitlement programs, many of which are growing at twice the rate of inflation. But in a town enriches itself by transferring income and wealth from the productive to the special interests, even a slowdown in the rate of spending growth is welcome news. The Wall Street Journal explains:

On Thursday, White House budget director Rob Portman issued little-noticed guidance to all federal departments and agencies that no Congressional requests for spending should be accommodated unless they are “specifically identified in statutory text” – which is to say, the law. This may sound like it ought to be regular practice, but it’s a revolution in the Beltway. That’s because, in order to dodge the legislative earmark limits that Mr. Byrd has been bragging about, Members have been speed-dialing executive branch officials and asking them to fund their specific earmark requests out of agency budgets even though they were purged from the larger budget bill. This Congressional lobbying can be hard for the average federal bureaucrat to refuse, since he doesn’t want to offend those on Capitol Hill who control his budget. …this means the Fiscal 2007 federal budget could have the fewest number of these pork-barrel projects in many a year. By the way, thanks to efforts late last year by GOP Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to block a last-minute bipartisan spending splurge, the 2007 budget holds overall federal appropriated spending to the rate of inflation; recent years have often seen three times that.

Collins’ Confusion

A couple of weeks ago, I went up to Maine to speak about identification issues at a community meeting in Augusta.  This was the night before the state legislature voted overwhelmingly to reject the REAL ID Act. Maine’s bold step catalyzed a nationwide rebellion, and states across the country are now passing resolutions to reject REAL ID.

Along with that resolution, the Maine legislature will be moving a bill that specifically prevents the secretary of state from spending any funds to comply with REAL ID. A real one-two punch.

Now, here’s a little inside baseball: The resolution was introduced by the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate, Libby Mitchell, and the bill was introduced by Republican Representative Scott Lansley. As can happen, Republicans were a little concerned that the Democrat-introduced resolution would eclipse the Republican-introduced bill in this Democrat-majority legislature. But Mitchell and Lansley got together to be the lead co-sponsors of each others’ measures. Maine is doing the kind of bipartisan cooperation that is so rare in Washington, and Republican Lansley stands to get proper credit for his leadership on this issue.  But …

Along comes U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who this week confounded things by introducing a bill to defend and support the REAL ID Act. Her bill would give the DHS two more years to coerce states into implementing this national ID, and it would fiddle around the edges of the rulemaking process. Delaying implementation helps a national ID go forward in a big way because it gives the companies and organizations that sustain themselves on these kinds of projects time to shake the federal money tree and get this $11 billion surveillance mandate funded.

It’s all very confusing. First of all, Senator Collins’ move to support REAL ID faces right into a headwind known as “the will of the people of Maine.”  The state legislature overwhelmingly voted to reject REAL ID. Senator Collins, famous seeker of compromise, appears to be compromising not among the differing interests of her voters, but among the interests of her voters and the interests she hears from in Washington.

Secondly, Republican Collins is crossing up state Republican leaders like Scott Lansley and muddying the party’s message at home. Someone is looking out-of-touch. (Hint: It’s not Scott Lansley.)

The famously moderate Collins is backing a law that is most strongly favored by immoderate anti-immigrant groups.

Here’s what is most bizarre: Collins is moving to support REAL ID even though it stripped out identification provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that she is widely credited with crafting!

Senator Collins may be confused. I know I am. Unfortunately, her move to protect REAL ID has attracted some support. Senator Collins should disavow this bill as a blunder, or explain her conversion to support of the REAL ID Act and a national ID.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairman Joe Lieberman called the drivers license provisions of REAL ID “unworkable“ when it was attached to a military spending bill and rammed through the Senate without a hearing or vote. The passage of an additional two years will make them no more workable.

A More ‘Social’ EU

Nine EU nations are calling for a greater focus on “social protection” and “social rights” in order to promote “social Europe.” Needless to say, “social” is a code word for bigger government.

Most of the nine nations are in the usual-suspects category, but Hungary and Bulgaria are strange additions. Do they really think they can overcome the legacy of communism by shackling themselves to socialism?

The EU Observer reports on the latest skirmish in Europe’s fight against globalization:

France, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Hungary, Belgium and Greece have all signed up to a two-page long declaration in which they argue that the 27-country bloc should be more than just an internal market. Calling their statement, which has been sent to all member states, “enhancing social Europe” the currently nine-strong group want to use the ongoing negotiations on the EU constitution as a springboard for their ideas.

It continues by saying that a Europe of 27 member states “cannot just be a free trade zone but shall guarantee the necessary balance between economic freedom and social rights.” Social Europe is defined as a set of “common values” such as social justice, equality and solidarity.

The call for more social Europe goes to the heart of a debate in Europe about the extent to which the bloc should adapt to the force of globalisation and the extent to which it should set certain social, environmental and work standards, which detractors say could hamper growth and competitiveness.

Singapore Cuts Corporate Tax

If the average state levy is included, the U.S. corporate tax rate is about 40 percent, which is higher than the coporate rate in every European welfare state. American companies also must endure heavy regulatory burdens — especially in the aftermath of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Politicians fret that America is losing manufacturing jobs and they complain when American companies build plants overseas. Contrast the short-sighted behavior of U.S. lawmakers with those in Singapore. As noted by, the government of Singapore has just announced that the corporate tax rate is being reduced to 18 percent to boost international competition. The government also is boosting the value-added tax, so Singapore is not a perfect role model, but at least lawmakers understand the negative impact of high corporate tax rates:

In his Budget Statement for the Financial Year (FY) 2007, Second Minister for Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced a two percentage point reduction in the corporate income tax rate to 18% to sharpen Singapore’s competitive edge. However, the corporate tax cut will be balanced against a number of revenue raising provisions, such as…an increase in the GST rate from 5% to 7%.

How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution

For conservatives generally and the Republican Party in particular, now is a time of intense soul-searching. For the first time in a dozen years, Republicans have lost control of Congress. As a result, they are being forced to reexamine who they are and what they stand for. Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution, a new book by Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner, provides an incisive analysis of the roots and core beliefs of big-government conservatism and the major currents that fueled its growth—neoconservatism, the Religious Right, supply-side economics, national greatness conservatism, and Newt Gingrich–style technophilia—and offers a detailed critique of its policies on a wide range of issues.  Leviathan on the Right is a clear warning that, unless conservatives return to their small-government roots, the electoral defeat of 2006 is just the beginning.