TJKCB

TJKCB

風險的平衡 = 民主 ?

TJKCB (2019-10-31 10:20:30) 評論 (1)

pov: 為什麽民主？ 信任大多數人，而不是相信所有的雞蛋-不要相信一個人-有罪的人性why democracy? trust in the majority, better than put all eggs in a spot - don't trust in a single person - sinful human nature.

領導者做出的許多決定都涉及風險的平衡。 在刑事司法中，“無罪直到證明有罪”一詞旨在傳達一個決定，即我們作為一個社會，應該更多地擔心使無辜者定罪的風險，而不是讓一個有罪的人逍遙法外的風險。 監管決策通常也反映了這種“風險與風險”的權衡。 如果我們對電子煙產品的管製過於寬鬆，則這些產品可能會傷害人們。 如果我們對它們的監管過於嚴格，則冒著更多的風險是吸煙而不是吸煙。佩洛西議長在首先決定是否展開彈inquiry調查時，現在麵臨著要進行多快的問題以及是否就開始進行這種調查進行表決的問題，一直在努力平衡風險。 她正在權衡政黨的風險和國家的風險，這使她的任務變得複雜。

作為眾議院民主黨領袖，議長對她的政黨負有責任。 進行彈believe，如果公眾不認為這樣的做法是正當的，將使溫和的民主黨人在尋求2020年連任時麵臨共和黨的挑戰。失去溫和的民主黨人的席位反過來會威脅眾議院的民主黨多數派。 在她任期的前九個月中，這種風險似乎在佩洛西的思想中占主導地位 "Many decisions that leaders make involve the balancing of risks. In criminal justice, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is intended to convey a decision that we — as a society — should worry more about the risk of convicting an innocent person than the risk of letting a guilty one walk free. Regulatory decisions also often reflect this “risk-risk” tradeoff. If we regulate vaping products too loosely, these products may harm people. If we regulate them too tightly, we risk more deaths from people smoking tobacco rather than vaping."

By Stuart Shapiro, opinion contributor — 10/30/19 03:30 PM EDT 846

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

, Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi50 Cent meets with Pelosi, lawmakers on Capitol Hill Democrats raise stakes with impeachment voteOvernight Energy: House passes bill to prohibit mining near Grand Canyon| Union says EPA refuses to renegotiate contract | Climate protesters occupy Pelosi's office over California firesMORE (D-Calif.) has had a difficult line to walk. The more progressive wing of her caucus wanted to move quickly on impeaching President Donald Trump citing campaign finance violations, the emoluments clause, and the then still-to-be-concluded Mueller investigation. Meanwhile Democrats elected in more moderate districts worried that impeachment would hurt their re-election chances.

Many decisions that leaders make involve the balancing of risks. In criminal justice, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is intended to convey a decision that we — as a society — should worry more about the risk of convicting an innocent person than the risk of letting a guilty one walk free. Regulatory decisions also often reflect this “risk-risk” tradeoff. If we regulate vaping products too loosely, these products may harm people. If we regulate them too tightly, we risk more deaths from people smoking tobacco rather than vaping.

In first deciding whether to open an impeachment inquiry, and now facing questions of how quickly to proceed, and whether to have a vote on the floor about opening such an inquiry, Speaker Pelosi has been wrestling with balancing risks. Her task is complicated by the fact that she is weighing the risks to her political party as well as the risks to the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the leader of the Democrats in the House, the Speaker has a responsibility to her party. Pursuing impeachment, if the public does not believe such a course is justified, leaves moderate Democrats open to challenges from Republicans as they seek re-election in 2020. Losing seats held by moderate Democrats in turn puts at risk the Democratic majority in the House. For the first nine months of her term, this risk seems to have predominated in Pelosi’s mind.

However, the Democrats also faced (and continue to face) risks by neglecting to impeach the president. The 2020 campaign for Congress will likely be focused on how people feel about the president since he will be at the top of the Republican ticket. A decision not to impeach clearly sends the signal that the offenses  to the current Ukraine scandal — was nothing more than “fake news” and that the Democrats agreed with him (or else they would have pursued impeachment). This would weaken the Democratic electoral position.

As the Speaker of the House, Pelosi also has the responsibility of considering the risks to the country of either impeaching or not impeaching the president. Impeachment would be a national spectacle, and it is unlikely that Congress would be able to work on other legislation while it progressed (although it’s not clear that the Senate is allowing much legislation to pass anyway).

On the other hand, if one believes, as Speaker Pelosi appears to, that Trump’s offenses amount to the very high crimes and misdemeanors envisioned by the founders, the risk of not impeaching him is to sanction those offenses and give future presidents (of either party) license to pursue them. Not impeaching Trump would also exacerbate the risk of the century-long trend of strengthening the executive branch at the expense of the legislature.

The Ukraine scandal, and the constant drumbeat of revelations that it has unleashed, seems to have changed Speaker Pelosi’s assessment of the risks. Her decision to hold a vote on Thursday on the floor of the House is evidence of this change.  As polls indicate growing support for impeachment, the electoral risks to Democrats have shifted — and the risk of not impeaching now outweighs the risk of impeaching for Speaker Pelosi’s party. And the increasing certainty that the president offered Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in return for investigation of his political rivals (and that he abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria) has made it clear that the risks of not attempting to remove him from office have increased for the country.

Impeachment by the House has become increasingly likely. Soon the job of assessing risks both to his party and his country will pass to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Stuart Shapiro is professor and director of the Public Policy Program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University,