1. You want to help others.
2. You’d like not to compromise your own values in doing so.

Simple enough. Now, what do you do when compromising your own values is the best way to help people?

This is the moralist’s dilemma, and every now and then it becomes a focal point of policy. Do we employ torture in the hope that it saves innocents, or do we shun the practice, deciding that the moral implications outweigh the potential good?

What’s interesting politically about such dilemmas is that they are a poor litmus test. For instance, someone on the right might say yes to torture but no to sex-ed that isn’t abstinence-based. Sex education, as with torture in the abstract, compromises their values. But in this scenario, our hypothetical right-wing friend doesn’t think the benefits of lower rates of teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease are worth the moral grey of handing out condoms.

I don’t mean to pick on anyone; the point is you can’t simply say conservatives make moral compromises, liberals don’t, or vice versa. In fact, it would be far more accurate to say that, when dealing with the morally grey, liberals and conservatives alike will only “go there” when the cause matches their ideological bent. Adding to the deficit is OK when it’s to cut taxes, but not when it’s to increase spending. And on, and on.

What brought all this to my attention was this Economist post discussing the recent report (pdf) that birth control in the third world would do six times more to reduce carbon emissions than our efforts to develop renewable energy. (Whether this is primarily a function of inputs [costs] or outputs [carbon reductions], I don’t know. If it’s more a product of the former, I doubt such efforts would gain much ground with environmental groups, to whom cost is not the overriding factor.)

Though the report itself is certainly discussion-worthy, what I found more interesting was the Economist’s discussion on the politics of family-planning.

Over the past 30 years, America has essentially taken itself out of the game of worldwide family planning and reproductive health issues. American “gag rules” on abortion, prohibitions on funding programmes that work with prostitutes, rules mandating that funding be split equally between effective prophylactic promotion and useless abstinence promotion, and so forth are instituted by Republican administrations and removed by Democratic ones; the upshot is that smart reproductive health organisations try where possible to avoid working with American government funding. And smart American organisations in other fields do their best to stay away from anything having to do with reproductive health. The officials running the worldwide anti-AIDS “PEPFAR” programme under the Bush administration would explicitly tell reporters that they expected the holes in their programmes, such as an inability to fund clean-needle programmes for heroin users, to be filled by countries that had no legislative restrictions on such funding, ie the Europeans.

Some of this stuff isn’t likely to change. I’d be mildly surprised if the U.S. touched anything relating to abortion with a 10-foot pole in my lifetime. And it stands to reason that a heroin clean-needle program, like this one in Australia, would spell political death in America where funding (Read: tax dollars) is concerned. (Can you imagine the FoxNews headlines? If you think end-of-life counseling in a health bill is scandalous, try “Govt. to Supply Needles to Drug Addicts” on for size.)

But I would wager that solid majorities of Americans, from the right and left, could be convinced that most moral compromises (if compromises they be) were, if not desirable, at least defensible policies. Ask Americans the torture question ten years ago and you wouldn’t find many who would say torture was acceptable in certain scenarios. Now that those scenarios have become clearer to the public, we’re suddenly a nation of utilitarians.

Spell out third world family planning in similarly clear terms, and I’m not sure how much political traction the opposition would have in the 2009 America of Lady Gaga¹ and Desperate Housewives. Abstinence promotion figures to weigh lightly on balance with the prospect of famine, disease, global warming and whatever else we can tie to rampant population growth.

Heroin needles are a trickier example, in that, to some degree, the government is facilitating a universally frowned-upon practice; it’s not just the value voters that detest heroin. But as with sex, the argument “they’re gonna do it anyway,” at least makes the case for minimalizing the harm, though it goes against many Americans’ morals to do so.

¹It’s been a year since this song came out and I still can’t get over the bridge (2:18 on the vid). What is she wearing? What is she doing with that dog? How did “bluffin’ with my muffin” make it through post-production?

Someday, I’d like to go visit all those countries that (the U.S.) really doesn’t have great relationships with. Because I think the people are more important than politics. Go to Afghanistan, even North Korea. Just to say “hi” to the people.

It’s a short life, and you don’t want to spend it hating on somebody.

– Ron Artest, via L.A.’s Daily News

I mean, sure, I guess.

I gotta say, though, I would’ve pegged Ron-Ron as ascribing to the preemptive self-defense school of thought.

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

Wait, what?

And the pull-quotes from said video (which, oddly, the RCP staff pulled from a Washington Times article rather than from the video that’s being hosted on their own site. Yeah, I’m not qualified to work for you guys.):

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

“If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”

Does RCP honestly think that referencing immigration reform in a speech to Latinos is equivalent to saying, “let’s legalize illegals and give them health care?” Or have the Drudges of the world just blurred the lines so much that otherwise respectable outlets will stoop that low for a sweet headline?

Just because you’re quoting the Wash Times doesn’t mean you have to act like them.

Here’s a snippet, check it out…

Were one creating a Platonic Republic, one might even divvy up legislative responsibility according to expertise: for instance, assigning the teacher-turned-representative from Utah to deal with education and education alone.

The realities of this republic, however, afford neither the luxury of specialization nor, even, representation in the sense of a senator making his or her own decisions with the constituency’s blessing. The United States doesn’t work that way: a vote in November isn’t understood to be a blank check for the person elected. Electoral pressures make representation less a mandate to vote on the electorate’s behalf than an appointment to vote as the public demands, lest they be replaced in the future.

For his trouble, Baucus has been teared into by just about everyone. Progressives hate it, chiefly because it scrapped the public option, and even the trigger compromise, in favor of non-profit private health insurance cooperatives. Conservatives hate it because it costs a bunch, doesn’t do much to make insurance more affordable for those who already have it, includes an individual mandate that carries a hefty (up to $3,800 a year for a household) fine, and cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare¹.

Though the plan was released today, The New York Times already assembled a bunch of really smart people to dissect it.

Here’s some snippets of the more interesting critiques.

Jacob S. Hacker, an apparent liberal and political science professor at Yale:

As I have argued elsewhere at length, cooperatives are not a serious means of reliably achieving any of the public plan’s three critical goals: providing choice for consumers, creating competition for insurers and controlling costs over the long term. They are unlikely to get off the ground quickly or broadly, or to have any real effect on the cost and quality of care.

Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the conservative Cato Institute:

The Good:

The plan drops the idea of a government-run “public option” in favor of co-ops. Government involvement with these co-ops would essentially be limited to providing start-up grants. The co-ops are unlikely to have much, if any, impact on the cost or availability of health insurance, but are far preferable to a government run plan. (Ed: I’m not trying to make the man look like an idiot. I find it fascinating that he hates the public option so much as to prefer an alternative that he admits will be an ineffectual waste of money.)

…

The Bad:

The plan would force states to increase Medicaid eligibility to individuals at 133 percent of the poverty level, and to enroll single, childless adults. While the federal government would pick up some of the increased cost, states would be responsible for at least some of the increase, a provision that will undoubtedly strain already tight state budgets.

Dean Baker, a (I guess) left-leaning economist:

The big plus of the Baucus plan is that it will eliminate discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, which means that people will have real insurance.

…

The proposal does not include the option to buy into a public plan. This is important because the public plan provided a potential mechanism for effective cost control. It is hard to see how costs can be contained in this plan. Also, in the absence of a public plan, many people may resent being forced by the government to buy a private insurance plan.

Henry J. Aaron, senior fellow at the lefty Brookings Institute:

Senator Baucus’s plan lowers the overall cost by promising much less generous benefits than previous bills did.

Unfortunately, reducing one problem creates another. Health insurance is costly because health care is expensive. Someone has to cover those costs — individuals or taxpayers. So, reducing the subsidies heightens the risk that health insurance mandate may place undue financial burdens on low- and moderate income households.

It should be noted that many of the complaints on the left came from Baucus’ poor attempts to appease the Gang of Six’s right side. It should also be noted that none of those three Republican senators are all that enamored with the results (nor should they be) and none have said they’re on board.

In the bill’s defense, it did lower the price tag to under $800 billion (CBO estimate); it did address the political red herrings of abortion and illegal immigrant coverage²; and it did at least make a good-faith effort at paying for itself.

Still, unless something weird happens, I’ll defer to Mr. Hacker, who told The New York Times: “The Baucus bill should be dead on arrival.”

The bottom line is, Nancy Pelosi isn’t likely to budge on the public option, and if she did it wouldn’t be for a bill that’s getting universally panned.

¹It should be noted that Republicans seized upon this latter item not on principle, but for its electoral implications. Criticizing Medicare cuts is a sure-fire way to appeal to senior citizens. Were they the majority party, one would expect that tackling rising costs in Medicare would be central to any health care bill, as it should be. (See how much nicer “tackling rising costs” sounds than “cutting?”)

²I call illegal immigrant coverage a red herring with a caveat. Illegal immigrants are a legitimate issue when you talk about health care. However, the reason illegal immigrants are a drain on the health care system isn’t because they’re eligible for it, it’s because they suck up tax dollars at the emergency room. As it’s being discussed vis-a-vis the House bill, it’s a scare tactic with little basis in reality. Baucus’ version really just adds language that already exists in Medicaid law, but it should deter those who say it’s extending coverage to illegals, heaven forbid.

Man, am I a sap.

As a result, my frail psyche has been imbued with just the right combination of self-loathing, boredom and stick-to-it-iveness to put some actual effort into this blog.

What you — Dan, Luke, the spambots and the circus enthusiasts who occasionally stumble upon this blog by mistake — can expect in coming weeks is the following:

• Blog posts. In an abrupt departure from what the Two-Ring faithful have been used to, I will write stuff. Some of it will suck. But it’s better for my general well-being than opening new tabs I don’t intend to use and sporadically clicking my Facebook¹ bookmark.
• Footnotes.²
• Expert³ commentary.
• Hyperlinks.
• Exhaustive coverage of Fox’s hit new sitcom, Glee, airing Wednesday nights at 9 pm EST.

¹Speaking of Facebook: Catherine Anderson “had an epic dream about the sex-slave industry (with elements of her own life mixed in) last night that was the equivalent in plot and detail to five dreams! It might take me a while to sort out everything God is telling me.” Neat-o.

²Also, questionable grammar decisions. Does a footnote go inside the period like a parenthetical citation, or outside the period like a quotation mark?

³-ish.

Of those, I’d say four constitute legitimate news, one — the cash for clunkers piece — a public service, and five, tongue-in-cheek political coverage. Three of those five are about Sarah Palin.

If the Monitor dies in the next decade, it won’t be because the transition from print to web-only proved too difficult. It will be because their domestic coverage is almost non-existent. It will be because their international coverage now consists almost entirely of features and analysis, where it once was a source of daily reporting you simply couldn’t find anywhere else.

It will be because the paper that was once a proud alternative to yellow journalism now drives traffic with drivel like this.

R.I.P.

Memo to the inaptly named Vote Blog: satire in the form of making fun of gossipy political coverage isn’t really satire if you don’t provide any real reporting as an alternative.

And given the contrast between ironclad discipline on the GOP side and the “anything goes” attitude on the Democratic side, it looks like for a while yet we may be in a California-style dynamic where Republicans can’t win elections but Democrats can’t actually pass a governing agenda.

– Matthew Iglesias, ThinkProgress.org

A perfect description of why a big tent supermajority isn’t really a supermajority at all.

Here’s the CliffsNotes of the CliffsNotes version (emphasis his):

Until the Democrats have a plan, they are unlikely to gain ground with the public on health care reform.

If some iteration of health care reform doesn’t pass in 2009, that will be the reason why. Because while it wasn’t unexpected to see a number of competing versions floating around the House and Senate — there is, after all, the bipartisan crowd to appeal to, not to mention moderate Democrats — you’d think that by now we’d have a front-runner of sorts, in the form of either a bill or at least a consensus on major elements.

Instead, we have an awful lot of unresolved questions. Is single payer on the table? Is a public option non-negotiable for the powers that be? Is it politically viable to tax employer-based plans, or is rolling back the Bush cuts early the preferred method of revenue-raising? How is any of this going to fix the funding precipice Medicare is barreling toward?

Is anyone surprised that public opposition for Democrat health care is growing (chart, via 538)

Caught in the middle of this is a man who campaigned heavily — and did well against his opponent — on the issue of health care. So where exactly is President Obama on the health care front?

He’s given his share of speeches, sure, but his fairly detailed plans for health care reform during election season appear to have been forgotten. I don’t intend for this post to advocate such a plan, necessarily, but it is odd that Obama would adopt a largely hands-off role now that the form of that legislation is at its most uncertain.

Now, there are any number of good explanations for his “figure-it-out-yourselves” message to Congress. His poll numbers have been slipping as unemployment has ticked up, and a plurality now think his health care plan, vague though it is, will actually make things worse. And there is something to be said for handling Congress with kid gloves. It might be wise not to alienate Reid, Pelosi and those on the health committees with a my-way-or-the-highway health care proposal in year one of his presidency, thereby undermining their ability to negotiate with moderates or Republicans.

But do those considerations really outweigh the perils of continued uncertainty? To put it another way, if tax increases are coming down the pipe one way or another, wouldn’t an Obama-endorsed pill be an easier swallow for the hesitant swing senator and the public at large?

The Democratic and Republican Parties of Iowa have agreed to a date for the 2010 caucuses–and for the first time they will be held on a Saturday afternoon, the Des Moines Register reports.

While Iowa’s midterm election year caucuses garner little national interest, the Register notes that “it will serve as a great test” ahead of the 2012 presidential caucuses.

The date is set for Jan. 23, 2010, and may alleviate criticism that holding caucuses on a week-day limits attendance for the working class and elderly, among others.

To be honest, I don’t know how necessary a move like this is for a caucus, though I applaud Iowa the effort nonetheless. Primaries and caucuses are already limited to the most politically active, even in presidential races. Coupled with the arduous process of voting in caucuses (especially so if you’re a registered Democrat), I think it’s fair to presume that the type of person that cares enough to vote in a caucus would find a way to leave work early once every two years. And no matter which day you put it on, caucuses are still going to favor the candidates with the most organized voters.

The bigger concern if you’re a voting rights advocate is, of course, national elections. In that respect, what I’d like to see is moving, say, the New Hampshire primary to a weekend. Primaries more closely resemble a presidential election in format, so a New Hampshire test run would tell us a lot more about how the day of the week affects voter behavior.

All this would be rendered moot — as would wacky side effects like making it hard for Jews to vote by using the Sabbath — if the U.S. government would just institute a national voting holiday for presidential and mid-term elections. It’d be a helluva lot more functional in the year 2009 than, say, Labor Day.

You won’t see me linger too long atop my soapbox on this one, as I don’t care all that much whether the apathetic have an easy route to the polls, but it’s a bit baffling that, in the name of Democracy, something as obvious as National Voting Day hasn’t taken root in the same country where Ron Paul can stir up a fanatical following by fashioning himself the Forgotten Framer of the Constitution.