Senator: 'Government Should Not Legislate Morality Unless It's My Morality'

 Senator Chuck Jones (R-AL*) recently became a co-sponsor of a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood "once and for all" in the words of the Senator.

Rex Tillerson and Russia: Conflict or Confluence of Interest?

Politics breeds bad incentives.

While not everyone may agree with that statement, we all routinely witness its unhappy results. Economic policies are passed that benefit a small minority of business interests while raising prices for all consumers. Government officials are often allowed to break even the most serious laws with impunity. And on the most important issue of war and peace, politicians have started wars on false pretenses, even after being elected on an antiwar platform.

The precise reasons for decisions like these will vary–maybe a prominent donor is pushing for it, maybe a politician wants to save their political capital for a higher priority, or maybe a president has a personal affinity for a foreign country and wants to take their side accordingly. Whatever the particulars, the general theme is that many decisions in government are made based on the personal interests of individual actors, not the interests of the American people at large.

This reality offers important context for assessing the president-elect’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson is the outgoing CEO of the ExxonMobil Corporation, which has considerable investments in Russia. Exxon stands to benefit greatly if the economic sanctions against Russia are lifted, and Tillerson himself has spoken against sanctions in the past. Tillerson was also personally involved in many of Exxon’s Russian investments, and he was even awarded the Order of Friendship by the Russian Federation.

All of this would appear to make Tillerson a logical choice for Trump, who has often signaled an interest in improving US-Russian relations. However, given the deeply anti-Russian climate in the US right now, critics have suggested Tillerson’s Russia ties represent an intolerable conflict of interest. To the more conspiratorial types, Tillerson’s selection offers yet further confirmation that Donald Trump was indeed Putin’s “Puppet.”

I will leave it to other pieces to debate whether Trump truly is a Moscovian marionette. In its place, let’s consider the claim that Tillerson’s conflicts of interest would hinder his ability to serve as an effective Secretary of State. For this purpose, we will take as given both that Tillerson has warm relations with the Russian government and has an interest in seeing economic sanctions lifted.*

In political discussions, it is often taken for granted that government–and by extension, all people in it–exists to serve the public interest. But this is not a realistic view, and, as discussed above, it is not borne out by experience. If people are deemed to be greedy and self-interested when they act in the private sector, we cannot assume they undergo a magical transformation into selfless individuals when they transfer into government employee. Of course, this does not mean every politician or official will put their own interests ahead of the public’s in all cases or in any case. No doubt there will even be some courageous individuals who seem to consistently put the public’s interests ahead of their own ambitions. But it is not wise to rely on this behavior for good policy. We must account for the personal interests and incentives as well.

Since we cannot eradicate (or assume away) the personal interest that government actors have, the phrase “conflict of interest” needs to be redefined in order to be useful. Our chief concern is not that government actors have personal interests–this is inevitable. Instead, what we must care about is where these personal interests are at odds with the public’s interest, the interest of the American people. That is what we must mean by a “conflict of interest.” If the personal interests of the politician, the bureaucrat, or even a private corporation are in line with the interests of the American people, so much the better. This is what we might call a “confluence of interest” instead.

Different people will disagree on what truly is in the American people’s best interest when it comes to foreign policy. But it should be uncontroversial to suggest that peace is preferable to war, and that nuclear war is the worst possible outcome for the American people and everyone else. These must be the top priorities with respect to the US-Russian relationship. Other considerations–such as the proper footprint for the NATO alliance and whether a brutal secular or Sunni government ought to be in charge in Syria–must take a backseat if they are to be pursued at all.

With these priorities outlined, Rex Tillerson’s background and personal interests seem to overlap considerably with the interests of the American people. Whatever else is true, his nomination alone clearly sends a signal that Trump is intent on trying to improve the US-Russian relationship. Hopefully, this will include a lifting economic sanctions–which would do much to move the US and Russia back from the brink of confrontation. Sanctions relief would also directly improve the lives of ordinary Russians and Europeans (and Americans to a lesser extent) as a result of increased trade and specialization.

And yes, such a move would also probably increase the bottom line for Exxon.

If we take a completely cynical view, we might assume that Tillerson would push for sanctions relief and warmer relations solely for the purpose of helping out Exxon.** Even if that occurred, however, the fact remains that the American people (and others) would be collateral beneficiaries of the policy. Why such a policy gets implemented is not material; that it gets implemented is. In this regard, there is a clear confluence of interest between the personal interests of Tillerson and the public interest of the American people. This is cause for cautious optimism.

But while this aspect of Tillerson appears to be an asset, it also comes with risks. It must be remembered that President-elect Trump has not outlined a noninterventionist foreign policy. Rather, he just intends to prioritize the destruction of ISIS and other terrorist groups over regime change. This is marginally less absurd than the present policy of being on both sides of multiple conflicts in the Middle East, but it is a far cry from the noninterventionist ideal. It also creates the possibility of the US and Russia outright allying to achieve this end. This would not be a welcome development.

The goal should be peace with Russia, not a military alliance. Not only would such an alliance be futile in terms of the 15-year-long “War on Terror,” it would also likely increase the potential for blowback against the American people. Just as the US alliance with Israel helped make Americans a target for violence, an alliance with Russia cause the US to unwittingly inherit its stateless enemies as well. Depending on how warm Tillerson’s relations are with Russia, he could help facilitate such an overcorrection. This could represent a risk down the road.

Compared to some of the other names that were in the running for Secretary of State, Tillerson represents a major improvement. (Of course, one of those terrible candidates, John Bolton, was selected as Deputy Secretary, so there’s still plenty of deeply concerning news to go around.)

Summary

It remains to be seen whether Tillerson will successfully get through the Senate confirmation process to become the next Secretary of State. No doubt, we will hear much more about his alleged conflict of interest with Russia after Trump is inaugurated. However, we must understand that all government officials face their own personal incentives and interests. What truly matters is not whether such interests exist, but whether they overlap with the interests of the American people.

This is why the Tillerson nomination is cause for some relief. We don’t know his position on everything. But at least on the most important foreign policy issue today–the relationship between the US and Russia–Tillerson’s personal interests seem to point in the same direction as the American people’s, in the direction of peace and commerce.

*It is entirely possible that Tillerson will severe all formal ties to ExxonMobil and sell his shares in the company in order to ease his confirmation as Secretary of State. Even if this were to occur, it seems reasonable to assume Tillerson would still retain some affinity for his lifelong employer and its interests.

**It should be clear that I am here referring to broad-based sanctions relief that frees up trade for all or many industries, rather than some kind of narrow exemption for Exxon. The latter policy would be deplorable mere crony capitalism and would not provide the same economic benefits to regular people, nor would it contribute as much to the state of the US-Russian relationship.

Ku Klux Klan Endorses Humanitarian Intervention: 'It gets results'

Birmingham, AL--At a press conference on Wednesday, the Grand Spellcaster of the Ku Klux Klan, William Gordon, strongly endorsed humanitarian intervention in Syria and "anywhere else."

Man Claims Right to an American Job after Being Born Here

Huntington, IN--Speaking to reporters after President-elect Donald Trump's major announcement that Carrier would be keeping some additional jobs in the US, a local employee Ben Jackson was ecstatic that someone in power was finally "trying to protect American jobs".

Horrible Boss Laments Delay of New Overtime Rules

 It was going to be awesome.

Portland Pro-Coup Protester: "Why Not Here?"

 Portland, OR--Here in the Rose City, outrage and activism have mostly died down just a couple weeks after the surprising victory of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Once there was courageous civil disobedience disrupting the evening commute and pro-democracy property liberation in the dead of night--occasionally mislabeled by critics as "vandalism"--to dissent from the election of Not-My-President-elect Trump. Now, the streets of downtown Portland are relatively calm. Actions still happen many days, but they are sparsely attended.

One gets the sense that many Portlanders have come to accept the reality of an impending Trump Presidency. An uncharacteristically gloomy and rainy November season seems to reflect their sentiments well.

That said, another interpretation is that we may just be experiencing the calm before the storm.  A major action is being planned in Washington, DC to peacefully disrupt the peaceful transfer of power from President Obama to Trump scheduled for January 20, 2017. Activists who can't make it to DC are encouraged to hold local actions in solidarity.

In light of these historic plans, The Daily Face Palm sat down for an exclusive interview with one of the leaders of the Portland protest movement, Keith Davis, to learn more about his ideas and vision for the future. Highlights from our conversation are included below, edited as necessary to clarify the responses and make them more inflammatory:

---

DFP: A lot of skeptics have been wondering what the point of protesting the election really is. What would you say to those people?

Davis: That's easy. Our stretch goal is to hopefully get the election overturned so Hillary Clinton will become president instead of Donald Trump. It's the only way to save our democracy. Also, many of us looked into moving to Canada before the protests and decided it's way too f---ing cold up there. Do you know they actually get snow routinely? Unbelievable. I live in Portland for a reason.

DFP: You probably know what I'm going to ask next? What about the electoral college and the rule of law and all that?

Davis: Look, who should decide the American president? Should it be 270 random old white guys arbitrarily chosen to be "electors"? Or should it be the American people? Hillary won New York and California fair and square, not to mention the overall popular vote. I think it's pretty clear the people have spoken.

And to be fair, Hillary isn't the only one who has had victory stolen from her. It also happened to the Carolina Panthers earlier this year in the Super Bowl. The Panther defense held the Denver Broncos to dramatically fewer yards, and everyone knows defense wins championships. Yet in spite of this, the Broncos were still declared the winners because they happened to score more points. Completely unjust.

DFP: Do you believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president?

Davis: I'm not her number one fan, but we must #DumpTrump. The way I see it we were bound to have one accused sex offender in the White House come January 20. I'd definitely prefer it was the first husband rather than the actual president.

DFP: Just to clarify, you don't actually have to say "hash tag"; our people can add that in later.

Davis: My bad.

DFP: Let's move on. Some people have expressed concerns that if the election was overturned in favor of Hillary Clinton, the response from the deplorable Trump supporters might be less than peaceful. What do you think about that?

Davis: There's no question that we've seen a massive increase in hate crime violence in the wake of Donald Trump's victory, and it's pretty clear what has caused it. Trump's supporters are violent, hateful people like we've been saying all along. And his victory has emboldened them to do their worst.

That said, everything changes if Hillary is set to become the new president. Trump's supporters are all violent racists, but they're only acting out now because they feel like their worldview has been vindicated. If the presidency is returned to Hillary Clinton, I'm sure they'll calm down and go back to the gun ranges and NASCAR races they crawled out from.

DFP: Wait, what?

Davis: You heard me. You know, another thing people are forgetting in all this is that the US is the unchallenged expert in political coups. Iran, Panama, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Yemen, Ukraine, etc. You name the country, and we've probably helped orchestrate or support a coup there in some way.

Now, a lot of those may have been disasters, but everyone knows that's only because we didn't stay. If we had a coup in the US, it'd be different because, well, the US government would kind of have to stay wouldn't they? So our question to the skeptics is this: We've given coups and democracy to many other countries in the world; why not here?

DFP: Okay. Got it. My last question for you today is something that's been in the news a lot. When you're choosing the nature of your action, why block the roads? Isn't that just going to make everyone oppose your cause out of spite?

Davis: Yeah, we hear this question a lot. But democracy is something worth fighting for, and if we happen to piss a few people off along the way, so be it. Frankly, since they're busy destroying the planet by driving home (most of them without even the decency to carpool), I can't say I really feel that bad for them.

Getting back to your question though, it's a strategic consideration. Right now, we feel like we need to bring this issue to people's attention because it may not even be on their radar. We may upset them, but at least we'll get them to take notice. That trade-off is worth it for us.

Now, if it was a more well-known issue, our tactics would be different. For instance, if we were protesting the US-backed War in Yemen which has killed thousands and made millions of people malnourished, or the scheduling of kratom as a narcotic which created a new class of nonviolent criminals overnight, or even the widespread practice of civil asset forfeiture where people are effectively assumed guilty until proven innocent, then we wouldn't be blocking the streets. Everybody already knows about those issues because that's what the media focuses on to get viewers.

But how many people know that we just had a presidential election and the illegitimate president-elect is a racist misogynist with a terrible taste in ties? That's why we have to be in the streets, to raise awareness.

DFP: Thanks for chatting with us, Keith.

*The individual quoted in this piece is fictional. Any similarities between his expressed positions and those of public figures or trolls on your social media feed are entirely coincidental.

Economist Praises Federal Reserve 'Expert' Stock Market Manipulation

 Renowned economist Dr. Richard Hackney has released a new white paper praising the Federal Reserve for its "expert" manipulation of the stock market.

In recent years, the Federal Reserve's easy monetary policies have come under increased scrutiny, and some have argued that have created an artificial boom that will lead to a disastrous collapse. Dr. Hackney says these skeptics have it completely backwards.

"At this point, an artificial boom is all we got," Dr. Hackney told the DFP. "And frankly, it's better this way."

According to Dr. Hackney, in the old days, growth in the stock market--and in the overall economy to some degree--was dependent on real factors. Companies needed to develop products that consumers actually wanted in order to make a profit. Consumers needed to have enough savings and income to actually afford the companies' offerings.  The government needed to ensure that the expansion of destructive new policies was sufficiently slow to not get in the way. In Dr. Hackney's telling, at least one of these requirements was always bound to fail, "Relying on real economic growth to grow the economy is just too risky."

That's why he is ecstatic to see the outsized role the Federal Reserve has taken on after the Great Recession. Now, instead of looking closely at the growth prospects of leading companies, their generally falling profits, or the surging corporate debt levels,  Dr. Hackney said that investors look to the Fed, "Everything rises and falls based on the signalling of the Federal Reserve. And as long as Dr. Yellen says she sees a need for a 'caution' or that the Fed is willing to pursue 'accommodative' policies, it's all good. Stocks will continue to go up. Janet's a pro; we can count on her."

Dr. Hackney also made a compelling argument on humanitarian grounds, "We're talking about people's retirement here. Why should someone's nest egg get destroyed just because Apple decided to make a pair of bad Gothic earrings an integral part of its flagship product?"

Still, the skeptics remain. The Daily Face Palm reached out to one such economist, Paul Burton, at George Jefferson University to understand why they continue to deny economic science. Burton's response was characteristically naive and simplistic:

"Markets only work if they're responding to real information. If that information gets distorted, like when the Federal Reserve forces interest rates to be artificially low, then people make the wrong decisions. That's how we get disasters like the Great Recession--years of distortion by the Federal Reserve ending in an inevitable collapse. There's no reason to think it's different this time."

This kind of free market fundamentalism remains a fringe view however, with most academics and pundits focusing on Bush-era tax cuts, and the abolition of financial regulation in the 1990s as causes for the crisis.

In any case, Dr. Hackney's response to the skeptics seems authoritative, "There will always be economic doomsayers out there. But all I know is that the Dow is near 19,000, and we're in one of the longest bull markets in history. The Fed deserves credit not criticism. This time it really is different."

Update: Note that all of the individuals quoted in this piece are fictional, and any similarities to the sentiments or names of real people are entirely coincidental.