The "New" Socialism?

In 2002, I recoiled when the U.S. seemed to approve of President Hugo Chavez's ouster by pro-business conspirators. But what is happening in Venezuela today is dark indeed. President Chavez is promoting a new constitution. Much of what the constitution promises is noble if ill-conceived (six-hour workdays, state pensions for housewives and maids, banning sexual orientation discrimination, the lowering of the voting age to 16, etc.). I support at least two out of four. Nevertheless, Venezuelans must reject this measure that, among other things:

1. Eliminates term limits for the president, but not for mayors or governors.
2. Shifs power from governors and mayors (read, states and cities) to "communal councils" filled with pro-Chavez elements.
3. Raises the number of signatures required for a recall vote.
4. Allows President Chavez to declare states of emergency to shut down televisions and newspapers.

Any substantive gains made by this new constitution is outweighed by the procedural impediments it places on future attempts to remove Chavez, or any president, for that matter, from office. Venezuela is not yet an authoritarian state in the traditional sense of the word, but this is certainly a step off of a bottomless cliff. Admittedly, unlike our "ally" in Pakistan, Chavez has submitted his proposals to the people of Venezuela, but soft Chavezism is only different in degree; our own King George would certainly love to have this kind of power.

The Tribune article also includes this disturbing piece of information:

Lacking here, for instance, is the authoritarianism one might expect in a country where billboards promoting Chávez have proliferated in the last year.
Looming above the Centro San Ignacio, this city's glitziest shopping mall, is one of Chávez hugging a child while he explains the "motors" of his revolution. Others show him kissing old women, decorating graduates of the military university and embracing an ally, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Forgive me, but last I checked President Ahmadinejad is no fan of socialism, democratic reform or free thought, for that matter. That President Chavez hugs the Iranian proto-Nazi while promoting a constitution that protects gays and lesbians is bewildering and suggestive of a pragmatic, anti-U.S. petroleum alliance, not a dedicated egalitarian movement.

For a brief period in the 20th century, we had checks on this soft authoritarianism. Oh, the good old days, when the powers of a state's executive could be countered by self-interested legislators and a media not as complicit or, in the old vernacular, yellow.

Those who have immediate interests that will be negatively affected by the referendum appear to be resigned to its passage. Perhaps just as dissident Russians are resigned to President Putin's move to the center of political power after the expiration of his term, so too are the Venezuelans who stand to lose from this referendum.

In November of 2004, I was extremely depressed to see the American people seduced by this kind of majoritarian "populism," "re"-electing a power-mad, constitution-defying president of dubious character and approving anti-gay ballot initiatives in over a dozen states. If we have learned anything from our post-September 11th political experience, it should be that the procedural safeguards protecting minority rights, free association, speech and elections, limiting the powers of the political branches and preventing the destabilization of a country's economy are vital to modern democracies. Our dance with majority rule, the cult of militant personality (and yes, that goes for King George as well) and perpetual struggle is a dance that is fitting for moths and flames, not for civilized human beings.

Immigration Policy: Yet Another Wrong Turn

So Governor Spitzer of New York has finally dropped his plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. I am personally agnostic on this question. Initially I was opposed, although I believe that a limited "driving only" licensing system would be appropriate. The key, of course, is insurance coverage, and simply a reflection of the fact that there are millions of undocumented workers in the United States. Berkeley has provided a brief overview of California's experience.

I find this debate both tiresome and weirdly abstract. Obviously, there could easily be a class of licenses that would not only permit insurance coverage but would also prohibit the use of such licenses for identification purposes outside of the driving context. Of course, those licenses would be a red flag to immigration officials, which undercuts Mitt Romney's argument that this "was exactly the wrong approach to enforcement." If anything the use of those licenses would make enforcement easier. But as "I was for abortion and gay rights and universal health care before I was against it" Romney illustrates, our politics are not exactly a field of clarity or nuance. I actually appreciated Senator Clinton's level-headed response during the debate, and the attacks on her by both competing Democrats and the Republican candidates felt forced and shortsighted.

If you ever get hit by an undocumented worker without insurance, just remember: anti-immigration fanatics made your losses possible.

Pastoral Care and Traffic Law Sentencing

An Ohio state appellate court has upheld the imposition of zero fines and community service handed out by a municipal court judge. The appellate decision is available here. After imposing community service, the judge stated the following:

In March, Curtis, a former pastor at Cleveland's Cory United Methodist Church, was cited for running a stop sign. He soon struck a deal with Cleveland prosecutors and agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge - operating an unsafe vehicle - and pay $150.
Municipal Judge Marilyn Cassidy did Curtis one better. She waived the fine and court costs and instead sentenced Curtis to community service. And noting his job, Cassidy ruled the pastor's daily duties would satisfy the punishment.

This decision is interesting, not for First Amendment purposes, but for the fact that one's employment constitutes community service. A pastor's daily duties, however noble the judge may find them, are not punishment; the imposition of this "community service" does not serve the deterrence or retributive functions. I find it hard to believe that an appellate court would uphold this nonsense if this was a DUI conviction.

Toledo Approves Registry for Gay and Straight Unmarried Couples

From the Akron Beacon Journal:

The City Council has approved an ordinance to allow gay or other unmarried couples to register their domestic partnerships as proof of eligibility for benefits such as health care.
Those who sign an affidavit at City Hall would receive a certificate and cards to provide employers as proof of an unmarried but committed relationship.

Ohio passed a broad anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004, but it is unclear how the amendment would affect this ordinance. Earlier this year, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld domestic violence laws that were challenged by criminal defendants who argued that domestic violence laws, as applied to unmarried couples, recognized a non-marital relationship in violation of the amendment. Unlike domestic partnership provisions passed in other jurisdictions (municipal and state), this registry does not mandate employer recognition of these relationships.