The Eagle Platform

One of my on-line acquaintances is developing what he calls the "Eagle Platform": a political platform which is not closely tied to either current political party in US politics, though it draws from a slightly conservative and more strongly libertarian bent. It provides an excellent starting point for useful political conversation and can be found here at the website of DerekJames. Since I haven't received permission to reproduce in toto, I will just comment on two aspects of it. The abortion and death penalty statements are not directly in line with my personal moral intuitions, but represent an excellent compromise--especially if taken together:

Abortion We recognize the inherent rights of a woman to make decisions about her own body, while acknowledging that personhood is contingent upon an individual's level of development. As a pregnancy progresses, an increasing amount of rights should be conferred to the developing child, and accordingly balanced against the rights of the mother. We agree with the wisdom of the Roe v. Wade decision, in allowing women unrestricted abortion rights in the first trimester, allowing states to limit those rights at their discretion in the second trimester, and allowing states to completely ban the practice, if they choose, in the third trimester.

Death Penalty While the death penalty might be just in principle, for any civilized society, it is impractical. For the state to put a citizen to death, the burden of proof of their guilt must be far beyond the normal threshold for reasonable doubt, facilitating multiple appeals and a prolonged process that in itself could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. We therefore find it reasonable and humane to eliminate the use of the death penalty at the federal level as well as prohibiting states from using it.

I would avoid officially ratifying the trimester system, because I expect that as technology improves it will be possible to support babies outside the womb at some point earlier than the beginning of the third trimester. I don't see any reason why a woman should have an unlimited right to abort when she can remove the child from her body and let it live. These two concepts might be interesting in tandem, because they represent two sides of a raging debate that often go hand in hand. I would have no trouble giving up the death penalty as part of a compromise to allow full protection for viable fetuses. The drug legalization proposal is likely to be very controversial, but I think it strikes the proper tone for further debate:

Drugs We feel that the criminalization of drugs has been a costly, wasteful, and unneccesary distraction. Recreational drugs, if regulated by the FDA, and sold under restricted conditions, would lead to less crime, less abuse, and would contribute an additional source of tax revenue.

I am conflicted about drug legalization. I have seen drug use destroy the lives of many people around me, so I am not at all indifferent to the costs of its use. But there are costs to criminalization as well, and they are under-appreciated. There is a black-market cost. Criminalizing common drugs feeds the creation of gangs and gang-warfare. Both have contributed greatly to the destruction of many of our inner-cities. Fighting those gangs and the enforcing the criminalization of drugs has led to more erosion of our civil rights than the Patriot Act ever did. Because drugs are easily hidden and greatly in demand, police have pioneered ever-intrusive search and detection techniques, and the perversion of police-forfeiture without criminal level review has gotten out of control. Furthermore the criminalization of certain organic drugs (grown elsewhere) has led to common use of far more dangerous synthetic drugs. This can be seen in the popularization of crystal-meth which can be produced at great risk in a bathtub over cocaine (a bad drug but not nearly as horrific in its effects) which is grown outside of the country and imported. Furthermore the drug trade is currently paying for terrorism, which we certainly can't like. Drug abuse is bad, but it is possible (as with the Prohibition) that criminalization is worse. Certainly we could legalize some of the currently prohibited drugs without the world coming to an end. Anyway, I find the Eagle Party platform very interesting. Future of the Republican Party? Maybe we should discuss some of it.

Comments

[Edward]

Great post Sebastian.

I'd go along with the abortion laws by trimester idea with a caveat that anticipates advances in technology somewhat. However, the formula I'm comfortable with is that a fetus' rights increase as it nears "personhood" not as it nears "sustainability." The idea of harvesting three-month old fetuses and then (what?) growing them in testtubes? is too nightmarish. Whose child is it then?

That distinction needs to be clarified, but it sounds better than anything else out there.

The death penalty is barbaric. It always has been. It always will be. I'll never change my opinion on that.

Drug legalization makes sense to me. The arguments against it are not reality-based.

I like their stand on marriage, but am not so sure about school vouchers...I really wish someone could explain the "fairness" implied in that notion.

[Edo]

" I don't see any reason why a woman should have an unlimited right to abort when she can remove the child from her body and let it live...I would have no trouble giving up the death penalty as part of a compromise to allow full protection for viable fetuses. "

sounds reasonable and is morally quite defensible. Question: who pays for the incubation of these viable fetuses?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Question: who pays for the incubation of these viable fetuses?

I suspect the same person who pays for other hospital use for people who can't pay. Me, in fractional proportion to the number of people in the United States with somewhat progressive weighting due to the tax structure.

[Edward]

How long do the fetuses remain wards of the State?

Can parents petition to get their children back after the state's done all the hard work of incubating and paying for them?

Wouldn't any woman who doesn't have the time or inclination to deal with the changes of pregnancy opt for this?

Some very tricky legal/moral issues here, me thinks.

[John Thullen]

I agree with all of this (albeit with a few quibbles, but who cares?).

I would prefer it, though, as the future of the Democratic Party.

You would prefer it as the future of the Republican Party.

Let's say it was the future of both. It would be amusing, no, to watch, say the N.O.W and the editors of Human Events start up a third party out of sheer bile and win the national elections, as they peeled away the base of both of the traditional parties.

Then it would be fun for all of us to sit back and watch that government function.

[John Thullen]

Well, O.K., more than quibbles. I was talking about the items you highlighted in your post, Sebastian, not the full Eagle program.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Edward, they would probably be wards of the state until adopted. And since most trouble with adopting wards of the state comes in the later years of life, that probably wouldn't be a huge problem. I would say that a mother who wants an abortion but is forced to get one of these procedures would be as effectively terminating her rights to the child as if she had the abortion. If rich women want to have their own children that way, they can pay for it themselves.

[ScottM]

I like the platform's broad contours too. I'm a little reluctant on the abortion position-- if you're going to ensure that people must do something, you ought to compensate them... at least for the wages lost bearing the child that you're demanding that they bring to term.

The civil rights position is almost fine-- backing the government out of providing scholarships for race and gender would be OK, but they shouldn't interfere with private groups discriminating so.

Withdrawing from the UN is overkill, though I like the creation of the parallel league of democracies. Dissolving Social Security is definitely overkill-- that's a lot of promises broken if bluntly done. (The later promise to replace it with old age welfare is much better.)

The flat tax isn't what I'd go for, but if enough loopholes were eliminated and a high standard deduction implemented, it might not be the huge tax shift that it usually sounds like.

At a quick glance, it'd be an opposition party that I'd often cross over for. There are enough bits that I oppose to keep me from making it my "home party", but they're more rational positions than most members of either party can deliver.

[Edward]

I would say that a mother who wants an abortion but is forced to get one of these procedures would be as effectively terminating her rights to the child as if she had the abortion.

That's tricky though. Say the child wants to find his/her biological mother. It's like a ghost coming back from the dead essentially. Awful for the child.

The harsh reality of abortion sometimes includes the desire than a certain child not exist.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Say the child wants to find his/her biological mother. It's like a ghost coming back from the dead essentially. Awful for the child.

The harsh reality of abortion sometimes includes the desire than a certain child not exist."

I think this issue is strongest only if we look at finding your biological mother as a 'right'. From a psychological perspective the desire might be strong, but I wouldn't frame it as a right. So long as we don't frame the desire to avoid contact with an aborted child as a right and we don't governmentally ratify a right to find the mother, we don't have a legal issue. The desire issue can't really be dealt with by the government. Children want to know their parents and some parents don't want to know their children.

[Gromit]

Marriage

We believe that the definition and nature of adult relationships is best determined by citizens themselves, and not a governing body. Likewise, benefits provided to employees and their spouses and/or dependents should be at the discretion of employers. We do not believe that certain rights should be conferred to citizens simply by entering into a marriage, and we feel that defining marriage is an unhealthy comingling of church and state.

This might be off-topic, but the plank dealing with marriage, if implemented, would eliminate immigration privileges, inheritance rights, and spousal privilege, among other things. This would be a big windfall for lawyers, and a nightmare for folks who can't afford them. Also, the position of the platform seems to be that marriage is an inherently religious institution, which is an idea that needs to be dragged out behind the shed and shot, pronto.

[Rob G]

Much of the platform sounds fine, but I cannot accept the Civil Rights section.

Come the day that all groups have more-or-less equal opportunities in early-life development (including public education), affirmative action will not be necessary. As things stand, children in certain communities have a huge built-in disadvantage. A longer-term solution addressing early development should definitely be implemented, but in the meantime, the playing field should be levelled.

The criteria of affirmative action should, however, be more economic-based than ethnic. OK, enough hyphens for today.

[rilkefan]

I assume that for the foreseeable future (i.e. until the computers take over our lives) that medical technology will not be able to incubate fetuses as well as women can - that depending on the date of, uhh, transfer, the incubated children will have compromised cognition, vigor, disease resistance, and so forth. I can imagine such a person suing the state for causing their disability.

How about we render children reversibly sterile at age 8 and only allow them to become fecund when the state decides they are responsible; and afterwards provide them with free 100% effective birth control and insist they carry pregnancies to term with full state financial support if needed. Also suggest there be a periodic vote on disallowing abortion with pro-lifers (and non-voters) compelled to pay higher taxes to cover the above.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I can imagine such a person suing the state for causing their disability.

The disability of not being born? I haven't ever bought the wrongful life suits. And there is always sovereign immunity. :)

[fdl]

Abortion: Interesting federalism issue. Under this platform, some states would likely create such a large "health of the mother" exception that even very late term abortions would be tolerated. Other states might want to invest major tax dollars in caring for extreme preemies. (or not. you could see a situation instead where a state essentially forces pregnant women to carry to term then put the infant up for adoption.)

It'll be interesting to see how conservative americans tolerate interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.

Francis

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: And since most trouble with adopting wards of the state comes in the later years of life, that probably wouldn't be a huge problem.

Except for the ones that weren't white.

I don't see any reason why a woman should have an unlimited right to abort when she can remove the child from her body and let it live.

Because it would be a hideously cruel thing to do. You're seriously arguing that spina bifida fetuses should be removed, against the will of the pregnant woman who chose an abortion, and "reared" in a test tube? Evidently you are.

Abortion becomes medically more difficult after the first trimester, and more difficult again after the second trimester. That is why, as you know perfectly well, the number of abortions performed in the third trimester is vanishingly small, and all accounts show, invariably for the health and safety of the pregnant woman. Most states already have laws preventing late abortion for anything but real medical need: the concept that the real medical needs of the woman should fall down against the imaginary "rights of the fetus" is fundamentally wrong: it's the argument that says Martha Mendoza deserved to suffer as she did, because it was more important that people who disapprove of the partial-birth abortion that may have saved her life and her fertility should have their way, than that she should have been given immediate access to the medical treatment that she needed.

Gromit: Also, the position of the platform seems to be that marriage is an inherently religious institution, which is an idea that needs to be dragged out behind the shed and shot, pronto.

Dead right.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I have personal experience in Child Protective Services interning as the child's advocate, so I know a little something about the adoption issue. Maybe it is just California, but we didn't have trouble facilitating adoptions for black or Hispanic children, we had trouble placing older children. Which is one of the reasons that California has gone to much faster termination of parental rights in child protective services cases.

"That is why, as you know perfectly well, the number of abortions performed in the third trimester is vanishingly small, and all accounts show, invariably for the health and safety of the pregnant woman."

I know no such thing, and neither do you. Those statistics are purposely not kept and attempts to track that are always resisted by NARAL and similar groups.

I'm surprised that the drug legalization proposal isn't causing any stir. Are we are pragmatic on the issue here?

[Anarch]

I'm surprised that the drug legalization proposal isn't causing any stir. Are we are pragmatic on the issue here?

With the caveat that "recreational" is a slippery term, I've supported drug legalization for as long as I can remember. Ironic, since I've never indulged in anything worse than alcohol (and, it must be said, three Burmese cigars).

[Brian Palmer]

I think Edward's comments said it best. The abortion and drugs issue are ones that seem reasonable to me.
The position on marriage -- I think it's more logically consistent, but I think there are a number of benefits currently granted to married couples which should be extended to any long-term coupling (which is why I support at least civil unions). The rules against requiring testimony against your spouse, for example -- that can't be granted by any amount of contract between the two parties, and yet it seems inhumane to have a couple married for 50 years be forced to consider perjury or cutting their relationship.

At any rate, this party platform seems like it'd be tempting. But I don't foresee it becoming a tremendously party ; it seems inherently a platform of a crossover party, not a major party.

[radish]

My platform has two planks. 1) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 2) There are (currently) some profound systemic and methodological impediments to good governance in the US, which render all other policy considerations secondary.

For some reason this thread makes me feel like I'm being offered a free pedicure while I wait for the doctor to set my broken leg ;-)

[fdl]

Drugs:

Getting drugs decriminalized is just about as likely as ending farm subsidies. Let's be serious; the no-fun segment of society is rapidly rising in power.

If you actually want to move forward on the issue, what we need is a 2-track system of justice, where possession, even w/ intent to sell, is handled in drug court, and convictions mean living in a halfway house and removing graffiti under Caltrans supervision. (Caltrans work is so hated that many a drug defendant would rather do 30 days in jail [likely getting early release due to overcrowding] instead of 30 days of Caltrans.) Of course, doing so eliminates one of prosecutors' favorite tools--using mules as informants. So expect some opposition to the idea.

Also, we disband the DEA and give up trying to stop importation / defoilation / other source attacks, and focus on demand side instead. Lots of meth. heads want to quit [whiniest group in lockup bar none], but there are not nearly enough detox facilities.

Someone should go bug MARK (kleiman) and get him to post on the issue. the rest of us are just amateurs compared to him.

Francis

[crionna]

I'm surprised that the drug legalization proposal isn't causing any stir. Are we are pragmatic on the issue here?

Well, I had a problem a while back with potentially legalizing MJ in smokable form. I mean, why legalize something that we're pretty sure* causes cancer? Then someone bought up brownies. Drooling ensued and I relented. Would we limit MJ to distilled THC? Or are we talking about allowing the smoking of it while we spend so much on trying to stamp out tobacco smoking?

*I really don't want to research the articles again, but I think Edward and I figured it as cancer-causing.

[crionna]

Another problem with legalizing drugs lies in the statement about the recommended Universal healthcare: This insures that all citizens collectively cover the health needs of one another in a fair and consistent manner.

How is it fair that I must pay for the cancer of a smoker, heart disease of the obese, cirrhosis of the drunk, drug treatment for the "rec" user and they for damage caused my proclivity to ride a motorcycle with all the risks that entails? It seems that many folks have desires/habits that would increase thier price of HI to the point that we all would have to step in and subsidize it.

I guess that I'm ok with it if everyone else is, I just don't know how fair it is to the teetotaling, vegetarian, marathoner looking forward to vacationing to Europe on the savings they get from being healthy and risk-free.

[Jackmormon]

Crionna,

Your reward is your health. Seriously.

And Sebastian,

I liked the causal argument you raised about the near-total drug ban creating incentives for home-grown chemical drugs rather than imported organic ones.

I'm not sure how totally I believe the narrative. German scientists pre-WWI first synthecized methamphetamine, in an era of free drug trade, and its use spread pretty quickly. I'm not sure how competitive meth was in areas where cocaine was available; it must have been cheaper, though, if more harmful.

And BTW, I don't entirely agree with the generalization that organic drugs are less harmful than synthetic ones; cocaine vs. meth is a good comparison, while belladonna (I swear there are people who use this recreationally) vs. MDA or MDMA is trickier.

[Don Quijote]

The flat tax isn't what I'd go for, but if enough loopholes were eliminated and a high standard deduction implemented, it might not be the huge tax shift that it usually sounds like.

Very much depends on the definition of taxable income, best I can determine Repubs seem to believe that only wages should be taxed, in which case a flat tax is nothing more that the transfer of the tax burden from the Wealthy to the Middle & Working Class.

The criteria of affirmative action should, however, be more economic-based than ethnic. OK, enough hyphens for today.

That sounds like socialism!

Withdrawing from the UN is overkill, though I like the creation of the parallel league of democracies.

Who defines what a Democracy is? If a Defined Democracy elects a Communist Goverment who then proceeds to put their parties' platform into law, are they still a Democracy?

Dissolving Social Security is definitely overkill-- that's a lot of promises broken if bluntly done. (The later promise to replace it with old age welfare is much better.)

What do you think SS is if not Universal Old Age Welfare?
If it was not "Universal" it would have demonized into non existance a long time ago!

[Jesurgislac]

in which case a flat tax is nothing more that the transfer of the tax burden from the Wealthy to the Middle & Working Class.

Surely that's the whole point? Wealthy people would prefer to be paying less tax (wouldn't we all?) and wealthy people have the clout to ensure that their plan for paying less tax than people less well off than them is marketed well: it's amazing what you can sell to the American people when you run a really aggressive marketing campaign, even a tax plan calculated to make the rich richer and the middle/working classes worse off.

[platosearwax]

Crionna wrote something that I have been thinking about a lot lately. I live in Norway and of course we have universal health care. And it works, too. And I think health care is something that everyone should have, though I am not totally sure how to impliment it in the States on the scale it would need to cover so many people.

Having said that, what I have been thinking about and Crionna mentioned was that once the government starts paying for your health care, then suddenly they have a say in all kinds of things that lead to them shelling out money for you. Like alcohol use (alcohol is 3-4 times more expensive here and you can't buy it after 8pm (6 on Saturday) and not at all on Sunday in the shops.). Or tobacco. But even other things like mandating that I have snow tires on my car in the winter (if I crash the state pays for everyone's hospital stay).

So while I like the idea of universal care in the States, I don't know if I am totally comfortable at the intrusion into everyday life that I live through here.

As the the Eagle platform, it ain't bad. I might have voted for it over the other two parties (even though I have some disagreements).

[Oberon]

Shorter version: pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, pro-drugs.

Even shorter version: extreme liberal.

(That being said, I agree with all three positions.)

[Gromit]

Opposing criminalization of a behavior is not equivalent to condoning it, Oberon.

[tonydismukes]

I'm with ScottM on this one. I have reservations about parts of the platform, but I certainly would respect a party with this paltform enough to frequently cross over vote for it.

Actually, given that the author seems to possess a degree of thoughtfulness, intellectual discipline and understanding of pragmatic compromise beyond what I'm used to seeing in politicians from either major party, I'd likely consider voting for him regardless of his affiliation.

[Kent]

Sebastian, if you think the Republican party should go down this road, then how on earth can you support the REAL Republican party, as it really exists right now? It's been completely taken over by people who disagree with all of those planks.

[Jesurgislac]

Kent: Judging by Sebastian's first post after November 2nd, he really wanted John Kerry to win. Does that answer your question?