Tim Russert

It's been a few days since Tim passed away, but since the funeral is today I thought it was fitting to say a few words. Not that I knew Tim, but like many Americans I admit to a feeling of kinship with him because of what he did and what he was trying to accomplish.

Though I have seen his commentary on news programs for more than a decade, I only became a regular Meet the Press viewer a couple years ago. It quickly became one of my few regular TV programs, even though I disagreed often with his method of interviewing. Reflecting on this paradox, I think I enjoyed the program because I got the impression that Tim was really, honestly, trying to get politicans to communicate a clear and coherent message, and nailing them when they did not. Although I'm sure he was as ambitious as the next guy, it seemed his desire to have politicians live up to a high standard was the real driving force behind his career and fascination with politics.

I am increasingly skeptical that the commentators, pundits, anchors, and even 'experts' on many news shows have my knowledge and the general welfare as their primary concern. I'm not naive; I don't expect it to be their only concern, but I would like to see a little more social consciousness and accountability exercised in television journalism.

I watched MTP because Tim, for whatever intangible reason, did not give me that impression. It seems he genuinely cared. In today's politics, and in today's television journalism, that's a quality we can ill afford to lose.

American Exceptionalism

A front page article in today's New York Times proclaims that that, when it comes to free speech, the U.S. is "exceptional" because we impose a higher bar than other countries, most notably Canada, when it comes to censoring individuals and/or the press. Now, the word "exceptional" by itself can have both positive and negative connotations, and I first thought it was a testament to the editorial staff of the Times that they used such a deliberately ambiguous word. However, such thoughts gradually disappeared from my mind as I read the article, which seems to have a bone to pick with the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and the state of free speech in America today.

After spending some time discussing the heavier speech regulation in other nations, and tacitly agreeing with some quoted philosophers that such regulation might make sense to preserve tolerance and cohesion in a liberal democracy, the article spends a couple sentences surmising that this American "exceptionalism" probably has something to do with our history and focus on individual liberty.

You could say that.

In truth, this is a vast oversimplification of one of the bedrock principles of a uniquely American mode of governance. While it is undoubtedly true that words can be as dangerous as firearms, it does not follow that they should be equally regulated. This is due to a simple and obvious truth which the Times seems to have missed: speech is our most direct outward expression of thought. To regulate speech is, by direct implication, to attempt to regulate thought and belief. Indeed, most speech regulation in other nations is an attempt to suppress a particular belief and encourage another. And while it may be clear to us that some beliefs and thoughts are clearly wrong, dangerous, and ignorant, in the end that amounts to nothing more than a disagreement, vehement though it may be.

"...that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." These words are familiar to most Americans, and yet serious thought is, sadly, rarely given to its meaning and implications. For it has a very specific meaning, drafted by a man trained in the law and schooled in logic and rhetoric. An "unalienable right" is one that cannot be given away, even if one wishes to do so. It is inherent and non-transferable. Now, clearly such an absolute reading would cause serious administrative problems (witness Holmes's famous example of crying Fire in a crowded theater). Nevertheless, the sentiment expressed is one which sets itself firmly in the individual liberty of Americans to talk and believe as they will. Madison followed firmly in Jefferson's footsteps when he drafted the Bill of Rights - indeed, one could say that much of it was a collaborative effort.

Okay, I'll stop. I don't want to (nor do I have the time to) write an entire essay fleshing out these arguments. However, to me it is clear that our modern free speech jurisprudence is grounded not only in history, but also in sound political philosophy. While other countries might choose to promote tolerance over free thought, and superficial consensus over occasional discord, such a value system is distinctly un-American. It creates an atmosphere where certain thoughts are illegal, and certain beliefs are heresies against the state. If one is to preserve a liberal democracy, the only heresy I can think of is tyranny.

Calling All Bets

David Brooks implies in his column today that American society is imperiled as a result of a dramatic increase in debt and the loss of frugality and industry as virtues in American culture. No doubt he is right that debt has increased noticeably in the past few decades, but I would be surprised if its recent increase represents an increase in the rate of increase. In other words, debt has always been increasing --- a rather predictable outcome of our capitalistic society that runs on credit and speculation (a lesson I learned painfully a few years ago, when i was informed my credit score was horrible because i had no debt). In fact our country has always run on speculation. George Washington himself speculated on land.

He argues that the 'dramatic increase' in debt in our society (assuming for the moment that the rate has increased dramatically) is destructive because it "inhibits social mobility and ruins lives." Unfortunately he does not back this up with any evidence, leading us to speculate as to the bases for this assertion. Such a simple diagnosis seems a bit naive for such a complex problem, and I wonder if the increase individual, family, and governmental debt over the past few decades is the result of a lack of social mobility, instead of the cause. Or perhaps it's more of a chicken and the egg thing. Regardless, I'm fairly sure this is not quite as well thought through as David Brooks would like to think.

Despite the weakness of the argument presented (I won't go through the whole thing), there is something compelling about the call to action. The 'debt society' as some have called it is an issue of significant national concern, contributing as it does not only to the precariousness of the economy but also to the undermining of reasonable expectations and thus the general happiness and contentment of Americans. This is my main concern, and what draws me to the subject. The average American should not expect to leverage his finances and gain money --- the virtues of industry and frugality are ones that have stood the test of time, and should not be allowed to pass without serious consideration.

However, it should be noted that many of the founding fathers, that David Brooks refers to as establishing this Puritanical backbone for our country, did not walk the walk. Though they proclaimed the virtues of frugality and independence from creditors, many themselves lived well beyond their means on a regular basis, most notably Thomas Jefferson. Debt and speculation have been part of the history of this country since its founding. It's not really its presence that is the problem, but the rather its prevalence and standing in our society. Because you never know when the debts are going to be called in.