Today’s Cato Online Forum essay takes a look under the hood — or, rather, describes what should be under the hood — of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal, if it is to succeed at minimizing trade diversion and spreading its benefits to third countries. In her essay, Inu Barbee explains why today’s globalized value chains necessitate smart rules of origin and inclusive regulatory standards in the TTIP. Read it. Comment. And register to see and hear more at Cato’s TTIP conference on October 12.

If you’ve ever wondered why a person would earn (and relish) titles like “ObamaCare’s single most relentless antagonist,” “ObamaCare’s fiercest critic,” “the man who could bring down ObamaCare,” et cetera, my latest article can help you understand.

“Health Care’s Future Is So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades” is slated to appear in the Willamette Law Review but is now available at SSRN.

From the introduction:

Futurists, investors, and health-law programs all try to catch a glimpse of the future of healthcare. Lucky for you, you’ve got me. I’m from the future. I’ve travelled back in time from the year 2045. And I am here to tell you, the future of healthcare reform is awesome.

When I presented these observations at the Willamette University College of Law symposium “21st Century Healthcare Reform: Can We Harmonize Access, Quality and Cost?”, I was tickled by how many people I saw using iPhones. I mean, iPhones! How quaint. Don’t get me wrong. We have iPhones in the future. Mostly they’re on display in museums; as historical relics, or a medium for sculptors. Hipsters—yes, we still have hipsters—who wouldn’t even know how to use an iPhone, will sometimes use them as fashion accessories. Other than that, iPhones can be found propping up the short legs of coffee tables.

I also noticed you’re still operating general hospitals in 2015. Again, how quaint.

It’s not often I get to cite MLK, Bono, Justin Bieber, the Terminator, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, two Back to the Future films, and Timbuk3, all in one law-journal article.

The nation is abuzz with the visit of Pope Francis. There is, of course, a lot that could be discussed with the coming of the Pope, but for education it is a good time to remember the crucial importance of freedom. After all, for much of our history the biggest fights in education were over the public schools’ inability to accommodate Roman Catholics.

From the earliest advocacy of public schooling, arguably the primary goal has been to unite diverse people. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush put it in his Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, “Our schools of learning, by producing one general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.”

Of course, there is a fundamental problem with this: diverse people will almost certainly want diverse things out of education, so conflict – and suppressing of politically weak minorities to end it – is inevitable.

For much of American history, there was no bigger flashpoint than religion.

Notably, the first religious disputes over “common schools” were not between Catholics and Protestants, but among Protestants. In the Massachusetts of common schools “father” Horace Mann, many orthodox Protestants took issue with the public schools that were to teach “nonsectarian” Christianity, a lowest-common-denominator Protestantism that, among many things, appeared to be Unitarian – Mann’s denomination. It is likely that Mann just wanted to avoid doctrines that would spur theological disputes, but even that proved impossible, with the absence of such doctrines also appearing sectarian.

Even with this divide among Protestants, it was the arrival of large numbers of Roman Catholics that really amped up religious combat over the nascent public schools. Driven by ancient European animosities and fears of Church authority being incompatible with democracy, defenders fought hard to keep a distinctly Protestant cast to the common schools, including reading only from the King James version of the Bible and using textbooks that at times featured content hostile to Catholicism.

Earlier, I used the term “combat” to describe the fights between Catholics and Protestants over the schools. Usually that only applied metaphorically, but not always, most shockingly with the Philadelphia Bible Riots, which were touched off by an ongoing conflict over whose version of the Bible could be used in the public schools. By the end of two waves of street-level warfare hundreds of people had been injured, tens killed, and millions of dollars of property damage inflicted.

Of course, there was not always conflict. Some districts found ways to work with Catholics, and many Catholics accepted the status quo. Still, a huge way by which peace was achieved was Catholics withdrawing from the public schools and starting their own institutions. But that meant paying twice for education: once for hostile public schools, a second time for schools that taught their religion and shared their values. It was an inherently unequal, unfair system.

Today, Catholic schools are not nearly as numerous as they were at their peak in 1965, when roughly 12 percent of all school-aged children – about 5.5 million kids – attended them. There are myriad reasons for this, including Catholics’ full integration into American society, movement from urban areas to suburbs, and the huge decline in school staffing by clergy and sisters who kept personnel costs at rock-bottom levels. But it is also clear that it is very hard to get people to pay for private schooling when there are free public schools, even if the free education is not as good. Making matters worse are charter schools, schools of choice that many parents perceive as private schools but which are, in fact, free public institutions.

Troublingly, it is perhaps now more than ever that we need school choice, because Americans are more diverse than ever.

There continues to be major religious diversity, and options outside of public schools appear to be especially in demand among evangelical Protestants who see public institutions as hopelessly devoid of God. There are also Lutheran, Episcopalian, Quaker, and other religious schools in demand by people who either want specific religious tenets taught to their children, or just access to schools with strong and coherent moral anchors. And then there are public schools where many atheists or members of minority religions perceive too much religious influence.

Of course, diversity doesn’t stop with religion…at all As you can see on Cato’s Public Schooling Battle Map, Americans have diverse and conflicting views on moral issues apart from religion; on what should be taught in history classes; on how freely students should be able to express themselves in school; and as recent headlines makes clear, on how strict discipline policies should be. And, of course, there are ongoing fights over how to treat racial and ethnic groups that have suffered far worse discrimination that Roman Catholics.

All of this – the incessant forced conflict and the subjugation of the politically weak often needed to end it – is utterly inconsistent with the individual liberty that is supposed to be at the core of American life. Perhaps the arrival of Pope Francis can spur us to remember how painfully that has played out in the past.

In 2012, Exit Polls

revealed that President Obama garnered 71% of the Hispanic vote, while his Republican rival Mitt Romney captured a mere 27%. In 2008, Republican John McCain didn’t do much better, capturing only 31% of the Latino vote to Obama’s 67%. In sum, Latinos have demonstrated a strong affinity towards the Democrats. Is that because they hate Republicans? The data suggests no. 

A recent MSNBC/​Telemundo/​Marist poll finds that while Latinos are more favorable towards Democratic presidential candidates they are not antagonistic towards Republican candidates either, they just don’t know them—except for Trump.

On average, 17% of Hispanics gave negative ratings to potential Democratic nominees Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders. Nearly the same share—15% gave negative ratings on average toward Republican candidates including Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. This number excludes, however, the 70% who gave a negative rating of Donald Trump, immigration provocateur.

While Hispanics don’t disproportionately view Republicans unfavorably, they do give more positive marks towards the Democrats. On average, 35% of Latinos had positive ratings of Democratic candidates and 20% had positive ratings of Republican candidates. 

A major difference between Republican and Democratic candidates was the share of Latinos who had never heard of, or had no opinion of, the candidates. On average, 42% of Latinos had no opinion of Republican candidates (again, excluding Trump from this average) compared to 27% who had no opinion of Democratic candidates. 

This data indicate that Latinos don’t hate Republicans. Instead, Republicans haven’t shown up in community venues or in news mediums to garner greater exposure in Hispanic communities as much as Democrats. When Republicans do make headlines in Hispanic communities, it’s typically for bombastic proposals like Trump’s plan to forcibly deport 11 million unauthorized immigrants, necessarily breaking apart families and loved ones.

Perhaps surprisingly, Latinos’ negative attitudes toward Trump do not spill over toward the other GOP candidates. This means GOP candidates can stake out different positions on immigration and potentially win over a fast-growing demographic in the country.

Trump the Exception Not the Rule?

Donald Trump is the one Republican that Hispanics have disproportionately heard about—and what they’ve heard is not good. While Republican candidates on average received negative marks from only 15% of Hispanics, Trump got a 70% negative rating. Trump has made a number of provocative and controversial statements on the campaign trail, and his positions on immigration are likely behind his inability to connect with Latinos. 

A recent Washington Post/ABC news survey model found that immigration attitudes are the strongest statistical predictor of Trump support. Trump is not a limited government conservative, and neither are many of his supporters. But rather his controversial immigration positions are key to his support, and negatively define him among Hispanics as well.

For more public opinion analysis sign up here for Cato’s weekly digest of Public OpinionInsights.

A sense of historical perspective and responsible rhetoric may be too much to ask of candidates at this stage in a presidential campaign. With fifteen contenders all looking to score points some hyperbole is to be expected. Even so the level of threat inflation and “world in flames” talk last night was troublesome given how at odds it is with fundamental trends in world affairs.

Here is just a sampling of last week’s overheated discussion of global dangers:

Donald Trump: “The world is blowing up around us. …These are extraordinarily dangerous times that we live in.”

Ben Carson: “We’re talking about global jihadists who want to destroy us. …They are an existential threat to our nation.”

Rick Santorum: “Yes, they (Iran) are radical Islamists, that’s true. But their particular version of it, which is an apocalyptic version, which is a death cult, they believe in bringing about the end of the — end of the world. If you — if you poll Iranians and Iraqis, Shiites in the region, more than two-thirds of them believe that the end of the world is going to come within their lifetime. …They believe in bringing about the end of times. That’s their theological goal and we are in the process of giving them a nuclear weapon to do just that.”

Mike Huckabee: “This is really about the survival of Western civilization.”

With the candidates competing to outdo each other’s apocalyptic visions of the threats facing the U.S., it is no surprise that their policy prescriptions for Russia, Syria, Iran, and ISIL displayed a distinct tendency toward irresponsibility and overkill. Of the candidates in the debate, only Rand Paul and John Kasich articulated more temperate visions of U.S. foreign policy, Paul suggesting that sometimes intervention makes things worse and Kasich that the U.S. should actually wait to see how Iran behaves before simply ripping up the Iran deal and pursuing more aggressive options.

Just a few of the GOP debate’s policy proposals included:

• Spending billions of dollars to “rebuild” a military that is already by far the most powerful in the world
• Arming Israel with earth-penetrating ordnance to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities
• Conducting offensive cyber attacks on China as a form of deterrence
• Sending 10,000 (or more) U.S. ground troops in to Syria to take on the Islamic State

The reality is that the world, though troubled, is more peaceful than at any other point in modern history. As scholars like Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of our Nature), John Mueller (Retreat from Doomsday), and Joshua Goldstein (Winning the War on War) have powerfully argued, warfare – indeed conflict of all kinds – has been on the decline for decades. The result, concludes the recent Cato volume, A Dangerous World?, is that the United States enjoys unprecedented security despite the presence of the Islamic terrorism and other troubles abroad. Nor is the good news limited to the decline of war. As the Cato project Human​Progress​.org documents, the world has made steady progress in the past 100 years on all fronts from life expectancy and poverty reduction to the expansion of political and economic freedoms.

Unfortunately, this kind of good news won’t help Republicans get elected. And thanks to this relentless overselling of global dangers, few Americans understand the world’s peaceful trajectory and too many support shortsighted and counterproductive interventionist strategies.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs just released its 2015 survey documenting American foreign policy attitudes. Entitled “America Divided: Political Partisanship and U.S. Foreign Policy,” the Council’s report emphasizes the stark disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over foreign policy goals and the means for achieving them. While there are certainly important differences between the two camps, there is a dangerous underlying consensus today that unites left and right: Americans of all stripes suffer from an “interventionist itch.” With respect to fighting terrorism and the Islamic State, Americans are far too supportive of the kinds of military intervention that have proved ineffective and counterproductive in the past.

As 9/11 receded and the war in Iraq descended in to insurgency, Americans became less interested in having the United States play an active role in world affairs and more wary of military intervention. Over the past year, however, as concerns have mounted over the Islamic State, so has the public’s willingness to support various measures to combat terrorism. Drawing on the CCGA survey, Table One reveals public support across party lines for a host of interventionist activities. In addition, the CCGA report notes, a majority of Americans would support cyberattacks and airstrikes (though not the use of ground troops) against Iran should Iran renege on the nuclear agreement.

American Support for Military Intervention: In order to combat international terrorism, please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following measures (% favor)*

These figures suggest several sobering conclusions. First, they clearly indicate a stable interventionist consensus that includes both obvious advocates (Republicans) and less obvious advocates (Democrats and even Independents). Such a consensus is somewhat surprising considering all evidence from the past 14 years of intervention makes clear just how poorly such tactics have worked and because the public has repeatedly come to oppose the interventions they previously favored after they prove ineffective. On the other hand, the presence of this consensus is understandable given the interventionist agendas of the Bush and Obama administrations and the vocal support from both Republican and Democratic leaders for more intervention of various kinds.

Second, the consensus illustrates the degree to which the threat of terrorism has come to dominate the U.S. conversation about national security. The 2015 CCGA study finds no increase in support for the use of military force to aid Taiwan, or Israel, or South Korea. But terrorism, even 14 years after 9/11, remains a lighting rod capable of inducing overheated rhetoric and overheated fears.

Finally, these figures indicate that interventionist cries from the candidates will find a receptive audience as we approach the 2016 elections. All of the Republican candidates (Rand Paul aside) as well as Hillary Clinton have staked out positions arguing for more intervention. There is thus every reason to believe that the United States will find itself further entangled in the Middle East in the near future.

The FOMC decided last week against raising interest rates given its concerns about the global economy and financial conditions. While these concerns are reasonable, the FOMC’s decision highlights a growing problem that has increasingly plagued the Fed since the crisis erupted: its incredibly ad-hoc approach to monetary policy.

Just a few months ago the FOMC was signaling it would almost certainly raise interest rates, but now it has changed its mind. This change would not be so bad if it were predictable, but it was not so. No one expects the Fed to perfectly forecast the economy, but we should expect the Fed to make clear how it would respond to differing states of the economy. This simply has not happened. From the QE programs to forward guidance to lifting interest rates from zero, Fed policy has been made up on the fly. This unpredictable behavior has meant that no one, including Fed officials, knows for sure what will happen from one FOMC meeting to the next.

As a result, markets have become more and more obsessed with every word coming from the mouths of Fed officials. Post-FOMC press conferences like the one last Thursday became must-watch TV for anyone concerned about investments. Ironically, then, the Fed’s attempt to calm markets through these ad-hoc measures has only made them more fragile.

It would be far better for the Fed to focus on a narrow mandate in a rule-like manner that makes conditional forecasts possible. For example, if the Fed were to target a stable growth path for total dollar spending and adjust policy as needed to hit it there would be far less of the Fed’s current guessing game. The FOMC’s decision last week highlights how sorely this change is needed.

[Cross-posted from Alt‑M.org]