The Rearview Mirror

As is every one's M.O. on the last day of the old year, it's time for the VoterVault's look back at the year that was. Here are our top 10 political happenings from 2006, in order of our subjectively perceived importance:

1. The Midterm Elections: The War was the story as voters showed up to vote against Republicans. The Democrats had the good fortune of being the only viable option, and found themselves back in power, with Nancy Pelosi at the helm in the House (see the great Onion piece about her as the first female speaker).
   
   
2. Iraq: the call from the radical Left for an immediate withdrawal, and the call from McCain for a surge of troops has been moderated by many in the notion that there are only "bad options and worse options". Agreed, but keep up optimism--it brought down the Soviet Union, while pessimism brought us down in Vietnam (ridiculously oversimplified).
   
   
3. Airliner Plot: Remember how the Brits and Americans stopped a major plot near its execution? Few do. Good news fades faster than any other kind of news.
   
   
4. Iran: Their rise to the front of the world stage was rapid. They have surpassed North Korea in both the "dangerous" and "crazy" categories. Don't worry, Kim Jong Il still remains unrivaled atop the "weird" list. The U.N. finally slapped them with sanctions, only to have their president say something to the effect of "the world will regret this". Hitler, anyone?
   
   
5. Illegal Immigration: As hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supporters marched the streets in the South and Southwest's major cities, backlash against them was already forming. That Congress will do anything about it now that Democrats have taken over is unlikely. Especially with 2008 approaching.
   
   
6. Hezbollah and Israel: Seems like ages ago, but it was only this past summer that Hezbollah invaded Israel, captured two soldiers, and sparked a month+ long conflict that left much of Lebanon in ruins. Oh yeah, and Ariel Sharron wasn't there due to his stroke.
   
   
7. Saddam Convicted: This may well lead to one of the top stories of 2007, as they seem set to hang Saddam for mass murder within weeks. Will the Sunnis riot? Will this intensify the Sunni-Shiia conflict? We'll know soon.
   
   
8. Dick Cheney: Shoot a guy in the face and as long as he's not seriously hurt, it makes for great comedy.
   
   
9. Congressional Scandals: The GOP had one nasty year in Congress: Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff. The Dems did a little better, but were still newsworthy. Remember the Dem Congressman with $90,000 in his freezer? Or how about the little-covered Harry Ried land scandal? Rumors are floating of a shady Barack Obama real estate deal as we speak. Yup, it was a rough year for Congressional ethics.
   
   
10. Tie: Rumsfeld Resigns/Valerie Plame leak case. Rumsfeld should have been out before the election, and 43 looked like he had his tail between his legs when it finally went down. The main story in the leak case wasn't what happened, but what didn't: Karl Rove was not indicted. Scooter Libby is still on trial for perjury, but there was no real evidence that someone in the White House was the first to leak her name.

That's a rough but exciting year. We'll see you back here on Tuesday for a new year of the VoterVault. Have a safe and happy New Year's celebration.

The New Year

Thank you to all of you who read the VoterVault regularly throughout these last few months of 2006. As 2007 approaches, there are several things to keep your eyes looking for in the realm of politics. Below is a short list of things that are or are not currently getting media attention that will be crucial in the first month or two of the new year:

• Though there has not been a news story on it since December 20^th, the health of Senator Timothy Johnson (D-SD) will determine whether the Senate will be controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans. See this post for some more thoughts on the matter.
• The power/lack of power wielded by the new House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. As you hopefully heard, she made a colossal blunder in trying to appoint her own House minority leader in the person of ethically-challenged John Murtha. Will she live up to her own image? Or will she be the truly benevolent leader she claims to be? The new year will tell us.
• Many of the possible 2008 candidates have blown smoke about how they have not yet decided if they are running. Both McCain and Obama said they would "talk it over with their friends/family over the holidays". Well, the holidays will soon be over, and they will all probably declare by the end of February at the latest--probably the end of January. Edwards made it official today. Seems like bad timing--the holiday week when people are paying very little attention to politics?
• Iraq: the hot potato for 2008. Will Bush send more troops? Will he start to pull them? Will McCain keep calling for more? Will the House, especially, put their money where their mouth is and actually vote for a pullout, or to defund the War? We'll know rather quickly. My money says they do nothing but call for "new leadership in the White House".
• Will there be any fallout from Senate Minority Leader Harry Ried dodging the Ford ceremonies? Doubt it, but it could hurt him if he ever tries to run for the White House.

Of course there will be a slew of things to be looking for come the new year. These are just a few. Join us here tomorrow at the VoterVault for our last post of 2007.

Merry Christmas

Hope you were able to celebrate your Christmas (or other religious or non-religious holiday) with those close to you. There will be no new posts here at the VoterVault until Thursday, 12/28. Until then, please check out the VoterVault's first ever guest post (below) by Baxter CG on race in America. He asks some tough questions and both he and I would love your comments. Happy holidays, and see you again on Thursday.

Where Are We Now?

Several days ago I posted this message in response to a thread on Tyranny of the Minority:

...do you really think that we live in a greatly unequal society? It’s a debate that I have been kicking around with many friends lately. I say no. Whatever racism that still exists is a from a whacked out few that causes a great deal of problems for those of us who are indeed not racist in the least….not to mention, it is much easier to prove someone has acted like a racist than it is to prove someone has not acted like a racist…which creates a false negative impression. Secondly, I feel as though there is way too much attention given to the negative perspective on race: it goes like this, "Minorities, especially black are still not 100% equal and we are still fighting for the rights the over-privileged white. The only way it will ever happen is through laws that force people to hire us, admit us in to college, or even provide some small form or reparations. Its disgusting, this world." To me that is an argument that is forever divisive and will never lead to a solid and diverse coalition of humans working hand in hand to stop the few who still are divided by color. In my mind society has made, and continues to make great strides on the issue of race…the debate on race should be phrased in this manor: "Minorities and black people have more rights and more equal opportunities to succeed than any people of any color of any era. Now is the time and opportunity to attack poor reading and test scores among our youth, so that they are prepared to be extremely successful in life. Now is the time to work on social issues like black on black violence and the infatuation with gang culture. Now is the time to bring families together instead of breaking them apart. Now is the time to be accountable to mistakes made...to be accountable for our actions...now it the time to take the rights and privileges and opportunities we have and make our ancestors proud. Make them proud by doing what's right...showing them that their fight for freedom...fight to sit at a lunch counter...fight to drink from a public fountain...right to be heard in government did not stop there...but propels us into a glorious future!" If I made those comments at an NAACP convention I would be called the spawn of David Duke. Why? Because it does not fit the action line of almost every civil rights leader since the death of MLK (whom I believe is a great American hero and different from Jackson/Sharpton/etc)...the action line of we have been wronged...we still are being wronged...and someone must pay.

So, the question is why bring it up again? Well...this is a great debate that I am tossing around with colleagues, friends, and myself and I am desperate for more opinions and thoughts. So far, the commentary on this blog has been excellent and I value your views. My concerns:

(A) Am I out of touch...you see my opinion above...am I blind to the injustice?

(B) Are others correct...are we still a greatly unequal society?

(C) Do whites still have tremendous privileges that other minorities do not?

(D) Do we understand the implications of (or are we) using race as the easy answer for some of out great social issues in this country...especially in education...or are we blinded by race and therefore unable to find the true problem and solutions?

I would love to hear what you have to say...please share.

*Note: Thank you to k. randolph for allowing me to contribute to this blog. I have great respect for him and his views on a variety of topics.

Left Behind

[Editor's Note: We've been talking much about the 2008 election, so it's time to take a break and have a good ol' policy piece. Today, it's education. Check back in tomorrow for a first ever guest post on the VoterVault as Baxter CG will be asking some tough questions about race in America. End Editor's Note]

American schools are the single most socialized part of American society. It is free for everyone, taxes pay for it, it is run by the state, and on the whole its quality is poor. That is socialism to a tee.

There are very good schools out there, but sadly, those are the exception rather than the rule. Journalists, politicians, celebrities, businesspeople, and athletes have called the low quality of our schools "a crisis". Bill Gates is on a mission to change our schools. Tiger Woods has opened several "Tiger Woods' Institutes" in California. Oprah has done several specials to draw attention to the problem. Everyone who really wants to make our schools effective in producing people who can be successful in the new global economy knows that radical change is needed.

Everyone, sadly, except those with the power to make the changes.

A few days ago a report on education was published by the National Council on Education and the Economy. I've the executive summary PDF, and if their plan could be implemented it would likely take America's schools back to the top among the modernized world. Without question, their call for change is a radical one. For my part, I'll say that I largely agree with them, so I'll just lay out for you what they recommend and you can make your own analysis. Here goes:

Their premises are these:

• Our current schools were build for an age of industrialization, not an age of globalization.
• Without making radical changes in our educational system America will continue to fall further behind as global competition kicks our butts.
• There is plenty of money in the system, but it is largely wasted.
• To use their words, "The problem is not with our educators. It is with the system in which they work." Therefore, a radical restructuring is needed.

As the global economy keeps changing, more and more work--even highly skilled/educated/creative work--will go to those who will work for the least (e.g. India and China). If, however, our education system changes, here's how American industries could look:If we don't change, expect that you could exchange the places of "In The United States" and "In less developed countries".

Here are some of their recommendations:

• Create a set of Board exams that would determine your post-high school course. Get a high enough score, you can go to community or technical college as early as 11^th grade. Get a higher score and you can stay in high school and study for a second set of boards. No one is allowed to just "slide by". No social promotion allowed. If you fail your boards you keep studying and try again. Here's the general vision:It sounds pretty tough, but they did call this report Tough Choices or Tough Times.
• Recruit teachers from the top third of high school students going to college. To do this change teacher compensation from one that is "backloaded" with most money being spent on the oldest--and retired--teachers, and "make retirement benefits comparable to those of the better firms in the private sector". This would raise the salary of a starting teacher dramatically.
• Teachers would be employed by the state, not by local districts. There would be a state salary schedule, with increased pay for highly effective teachers, teachers in tough urban or very rural areas, teachers in fields where there are shortages (science and math).
• Teachers would have to have a bachelor's degree in the subject area he/she wishes to teach, and would have to pass a rigorous teacher performance exam.
• Schools would be operated by independent contractors and run by teachers. School boards and central office jobs would be geared toward assessing the effectiveness of the contractor, and determine if the company should be retained.
• State funding would go to each student, whose family could choose which contract school to send students to. Here's the awesome introduction of capitalism: "The competitive, data-based market, combined with the performance contracts themselves, would create schools that were constantly seeking to improve their performance.
• Students in highly disadvantaged areas will receive more money for school than other students.
• Set up adult and continuing education aimed at getting adults to pass state boards. Once a person is past school age they will not be shut out of the educations system.
• Create individual competitiveness accounts, similar to personal health savings accounts, that could be used only for adult job training later in life. The government's contribution would be $500 for every person at birth and would grow tax-free.

Pretty awesome if you ask me. The disappointing thing is that none of this will ever happen. The NEA is a force within both the Democratic party and the state legislatures in most states. They value the status quo. They think money, and money alone, is the magic bullet that will fix America's schools. They grade politicians with an "F" who don't buy into their status-quo-protecting ideal.

But may we see that there are indeed tough choices that must be made, and if they are not, we are in real trouble. May the Left lose their grip on the schools and free them to do what's best for students, not what's best for teachers.

The Second Fiddle

As many of us here at the VoterVault have been discussing, the Democrats have star power on their side. The three media darlings of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards stand as a political powerhouse. The GOP side has only one bright star who may be able to (but won't) match the draw of the Democratic Trifecta: John McCain.

McCain obviously wants to be president. His exploratory committee has a website, in which he poses in a series of glamor shots like this one:
As we all know, McCain has some serious problems with the conservative base. He is a maverick, sides with the President on immigration, is a member of the Gang of 14 (the moderate group of Senators who compromised over judicial nominees), drafted the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform (which many see as an assault on the first amendment), refused to vote for the federal marriage amendment, and would not stump for the marriage amendment in his own state.

Let's assume for one second that all these things and more will lead conservatives within the GOP to vote down McCain in the primaries. Who is the next in line?

Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani has nearly as much star power as McCain. He has a solid public image. He is "America's Mayor". Rudy can run on his post-9/11 record as a strong leader. Close your eyes and you can envision his campaign commercials already: pictures of the city after 9/11 with Giuliani taking the reins. He is a mythical leadership hero.

But can he beat McCain in the primary?

Let's do a quick and dirty rundown of the McCain positions for which he is vilified, and see how Rudy compares:

• Moderate on justices: McCain led the charge in the Gang of 14 to come up with a compromise with the Democrats, rather than leading the charge to get conservatives on the bench. Basically, he can't be trusted to fill the Court with strict constructionist justices.
  • Giuliani: could be expected to do the same.
• Immigration: McCain has supported the comprehensive approach to immigration reform, which many conservatives view as rewarding those who broke our laws to get into this country.
  • Giuliani: as mayor was even softer on immigration than McCain.
• Campaign Finance Reform: McCain wrote the bill that enlarges the government bureaucracy and assails free speech, and simultaneously fails to control the influence of money on politics.
  • Giuliani supports the bill and has been willing to attack free speech when it is politically convenient for him.
• Gay Marriage: McCain voted against the federal marriage amendment, and though his official stance was in favor of his state's ban on gay marriage, he refused to campaign for it.
  • Giuliani is openly pro-gay marriage.
• Hostile to religious conservatives: McCain blasted the Religious Right after his 2000 primary loss to 43 (something for which I cannot blame him, as I discussed here). Only recently has he begun to play to the Religious Right and court their vote.
  • Giuliani: If McCain is not religiously conservative enough, then Rudy must be downright anathema to them.

We here on the conservative side see a McCain nomination as a weakening the conservative presence within the Republican party. As we study the candidates, what is clear is that the liberals have solidified their position within the Democratic party and the moderates are on the rise on the Right.

Is there a conservative candidate out there who can knock off both McCain and Giuliani? Is it Brownback? Doubt it. Is is Huckabee? Who's Huckabee? Is it the stormin' Mormin', Mitt Romney? Likely unelectable.

I am far from suggesting that conservatives suck it up and vote for McCain or Giuliani. My point is simply this: at this point conservatives are faced with a choice: do we want to vote for someone who can win to keep a member of the Trifecta out of office? Or are we to vote our conscience, vote for a true conservative who is less likely to win the general election, and hope to make the GOP more conservative?

Here we are, 14 months from the primaries, and the options are bleak. May things change, and change dramatically.

Primary Assault

Parties hate primaries for many reason, and we are heading headlong into primary season.

Though I would like to see some modifications to our primary system nationwide, there is one major strength the current process possesses: it ensures that the candidate who emerges will be battle-tested by his/her own party. The weakest are weeded out in a rather Darwinian fashion. The strong survive, the weak perish.

That was what was running through my head as I read yet another article about Barack Obama. This article, however, was quite different than any other on the subject. It focused on why Obama might not run. If you have time, I encourage you to read the whole thing. If not, here are some highlights:

• Just as I mentioned in this post, the author notes that "Mr. Obama is also smart enough to know that he has become too popular too quickly. His supporters are doing him a disservice with their indifference to his lack of experience."
• Hillary's side is already preparing Obamattacks against him like "Just a little while ago, he was in Springfield worrying about license-tag fees"
• Obama still represents somewhat of an "empty vessel" into which people are pouring their hopes. Being an empty vessel can very quickly turn into being viewed as an empty suit instead.

The thing that the parties hate most about the primaries is that they are a civil war. One of the huge advantages Bush had over Kerry is that he did not have a primary fight. Kerry emerged early, but nonetheless had been battered by the likes of Dean and Gephardt. Now It's the Democratic trifecta who will beat up on each other for a while. Unless Obama and Hillary come to an agreement to run together (Clinton for Pres. and Obama as VP), this could get ugly. As long as it's a three-way race, Edwards will be forced to play the most agressive, and therefore the most attacking campaign.

There is another big attack line against Obama that will come from the Clinton people, though not from Clinton herself. Hillary has spent the better part of three years running away from the Left and trying to appear moderate. She got herself appointed to the Armed Services Committee to bolster her foreign policy experience. She refused until just this week to bash the Iraq War. She voted for the War to begin with. She has been following the traditional (Bill) Clinton school of politics. Here's where the big attack on Obama will come:

On Obama's liberalism: "The fact that he originally opposed the war in Iraq would help him with primary voters, but it's unclear how many Democrats want to plump for someone who, according to National Journal, has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. Last year Mr. Obama had a perfect 100% voting record from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO...[And] his record as a state legislator is even more liberal. In 1996, he spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and Mr. Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999 he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders. Is anyone naive enough to believe Mrs. Clinton wouldn't use those positions as evidence that he couldn't win?"

Yes, she can, and yes, she will. "Barack Hussein Obama is too liberal to get elected" will be her rallying cry. That is, unless they form an alliance before that.Obviously, a Clinton-Obama alliance would be horrific for the Red Team. It would merge the star power of the two and further marginalize McCain or (insert seriously-unlikely-to-win-candidate here). Perhaps each of their own political ambitions will prevent such an alliance. Perhaps Clinton will bash him into oblivion. Those, however, seem at this point like wishful thinking.

The most hopeful perspective for those of us on the Right is this scenario: Clinton sees Barack as her only serious competition. She bashes him and bashes him until he approaches her and offers to be her VP. They run together and America is truly opposed to Hillary. Her public image tanks (unlikely, seeing as how she has become so politically skilled), and America votes against her rather than for the Red Team.

Not a great outlook, I know. But lots can change in 22 months. Here's to hoping.

[Editor's Note:If you have not yet, and you have a chance, check out the comments on yesterday's post. Lots of great comments from some really intelligent folks. [End Editor's Note]

The Pretty Pony

They are refusing to confirm or deny it, but it appears that John Edwards, the former Vice Presidential nominee, is throwing his name in the hat for a presidential run in '08. His political skills are solid. His Southern accent a plus. His looks...well, he's long been noticed by the ladies.Edwards is joining a field that is dominated by political celebrities in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While Edwards may fall far short of their celebrity status, he can certainly hold his own among them.

Ponder this question for a while: can the GOP match the star power of this Democratic trifecta?

As we sit still over 22 months away from the Presidential election, it appears that no matter who the Red Team fields in '08, he/she will be over matched. Even John McCain, with his strong positioning as a moderate and a war hawk, pails in comparison to the media attention lavished on the Big Three Dems.

To a large degree the media has created these political giants. In the Freakshow age, it is likely that only the media could bring them down. At this point, both Clinton and Edwards are relatively battle-tested. As discussed earlier, Obama is at the mercy of the Freakshow, and sadly could lose control of his public image relatively easily.

Hillary was destroyed by the Freakshow in the early years of Bill Clinton's first term. She led the charge to socialize health care and faced backlash in both the media and the electorate. She became the face of the imposing, big, impersonal, wasteful, socialized government. They even created a word to symbolize the debacle that was her health care initiative: hillarycare.

Having been destroyed in the last decade, she has rebuilt even stronger in this one.

Edwards has never been destroyed by the Freakshow, nor has he been squarely in its sights for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, he has tasted enough of it, and has shown an ability to navigate its minefields. He is silver-tongued and his "Two-Americas" mantra has the ability to be useful in both the primaries and the general election. That is a sing of a quality message, despite the fact that it's loaded with liberal though about how to address that problem.

McCain has a cozy relationship with the media, but with his age, his party affiliation, and his propensity to go against his party just to be the maverick, he is constantly in danger of losing control of his public image to the Freakshow that is the American political culture.

22 months away, but all signs indicate that this election will be fought in the Democratic primary. I hope things change, but the Pretty Pony's entrance into the race is certainly an indication that the Democratic field is jam-packed. The GOP field, on the other hand, is looking pretty sparse.

Senate in the Balance

The Democrats slimmest of majorities might is in danger.

Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota, as many of you know, has suffered a brain hemorrhage, undergone brain surgery, and is in critical condition. In critical condition as well is the Democratic control of the Senate. Should Johnson be unable to return to office the Governor of South Dakota would have the power to appoint a replacement until a new election could be held in 2008 (which also happens to be when Johnson's term expires).

South Dakota's Governor is a Republican. As such, he would likely replace Johnson with a fellow GOPer, which would send the Senate to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The result would be that the GOP would retain control of the Senate.

Many conservatives are very excited about this possibility. I for one am not.

Call me a compassionate conservative, but I cannot in good conscience get excited about benefiting from someone else's suffering. I cannot look at the situation at root against Senator Johnson. I can't even bring myself to dispassionately look at the circumstances and become even slightly happy about this situation.

Frankly, I don't want my party of choice to get control like this. I'd rather lose the Senate than benefit from someone else's misfortune. This may be exactly why I would not make a good politician. I can't be a cold-hearted political animal. Yes, I can be cold-hearted. But not like that.

Despite saying this, of course we have to look at the possibility of what would happen if Johnson is unable to recover. I would refer you to this post, in which I argue that the Democrats may have weakened their overall positioning for 2008 by taking the Senate. If the GOP retains control the Democrats get all the advantages they lost by winning the Senate. To recap:

Had the Democrats won the House but lost the Senate, here's what they could have done:

• Played the role of a fierce opposition, fighting the mighty Republican empire, plagued with corruption, ineptitude, and general evil.
• Laid the blame for all things Iraq at the feet of Republicans.
• Maintained the brilliant political tactic of vague and loud opposition to the war, without having to articulate any clear, unified position for what to do about it.
• Kept beating the drum of "change for the sake of change" going into the presidential election in 2008
• Continued the strategy of attack, name-call, and paint the world in the colors of negativity

Being in the minority is always easier that being in power. Majority= you are always on defense, justifying your positions and proving that you have produced results. Minority= playing offense (yell and scream about everything; say how horrible the world is).

Controlling the Senate might actually weaken the GOP position for 2008. The big benefit would be the power to control who would be on the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise.

All that aside, our prayers and thoughts go out to Senator Johnson and his family. May he recover fully.

Tyranny of the Minority

By now most of you should have heard about the hullabaloo in Seattle over the Christmas trees in their airport. If you have not, here is the link.

There has been much said about this uproar already, so I will not waste your time rehashing all the arguments about this event itself. What is more important is the backdrop that allowed this situation to occur.

American society and culture has fallen under the power of an ominous tyranny of the minority.

We have entered an era where any discomfort, any disparity, and any irritation that is suffered by someone in a non-majority group requires that the majority change. This is not just happening with Christmas trees, but in all types of areas involving all types of people. Take for example the case involving U.S. currency. Recently an advocacy group for the blind sued the U.S. government, claiming that American paper money is discriminatory because the blind can't tell bills apart. Rather than using the democratic process to affect this change, they went to the courts, who could subvert the system through judicial activism.

Our paper money has been "discriminatory" for decades and decades. Why sue now? Why now take this issue to the courts? Two reasons: 1) As I've discussed before, judicial activists now feel it is their duty to push their "enlightened" perspective onto the rest of us; and 2) We've come to the point that our society bends over backward for anyone who is not in the majority. Our society has changed.

For generations upon generations it was understood that being in a group other than the majority meant having to deal with this reality. Obviously, gross abuses like discrimination, racism, sexism, and the like cannot be tolerated and must be addressed by any means necessary. But we have long since left that realm when dealing with things like seeing a Christmas tree in an airport, or having to ask the banker which bill is which, or having to hear Christmas music in the mall, or having to go to the office Christmas party.

We live in a country that is predominately Christian, even if only culturally so. We live in a country that can mostly see. Because you do not like the fact that you live in a country that is unlike you does not give you the right to demand that everyone else change so that you can feel like you are part of the majority.

Yes, the government cannot endorse one religion over another, but to a certain degree the government reflects the people it governs.

So we've changed it to the "holiday tree", we've changed them to "holiday parties", we've changed it to "winter break", we've changed them to "holiday concerts". We bend over backward for the minority. It is their country now. The minority, no matter what minority, may make nearly any demand of the majority, and the majority folds. Racism, sexism, and outright discrimination must be addressed by the system.

The problem is, this is more than just a systematic, governmental problem. In the nuanced areas where this battle is being fought it is a battle for control over our culture. Will we have a moral, religious society, or a secular-liberal one. Culture must be democratically decided.

As for now, it's not. It's a tyranny of the minority.

Serious Ideas Done Right

When in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago I did something that no other normal human being would have done: I spent an afternoon visiting a think tank. There was no tour group, and it wasn't one of the sessions at the conference I was attending. No, I did this for fun. And yes, I had tons of fun.

The think tank in question was the Cato Institute.Cato is a libertarian organization. A quick (ridiculously oversimplified) overview of libertarian thought goes as follows: Libertarians are committed to freedom in all aspects of life; limited government is their mantra (though in the most radical sectors the word "anarchy" is spoken in whispers); government involvement is almost always bad; anything that takes away your right to do what you wish must be eliminated.

For about two and a half hours a student relations manager (no, I'm not a student, but I don't think they knew who else to send out to deal with a guy in town who just wanted to talk politics) and I sat and talked about their ideas and philosophy. Please keep in mind that there is no one authoritative voice on libertarian thought, but here's a short list of the things that came out of our conversation:

• Though I am not a libertarian, I respect their ideas deeply
• They hold the Constitution in high regard, often going so far as to physically hold it up in mid-argument to make a point
• Because they hold the Constitution so highly, they find judicial activism highly suspect, which endears them to me a great deal
• They have a firm grasp of their position in society and do not expect to gain any ground in the political system
• Therefore they focus on winning arguments and trying to move people one step at a time closer to their ideals
• Many of them don't vote
• Those that do vote (those who don't vote for the Libertarian party) find conservative thought more appealing than liberal thought, though not always
• As with any set of overarching ideas, there is no single authoritative source, and therefore there is vigorous debate as to how to best achieve the most liberty for the most people
• They love the free market--especially the free market of ideas

Like I said, I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative. Libertarians are very socially liberal. Though I disagree with them in this realm, I find their arguments in this area quite reasonable, unlike the arguments that come from traditional social liberals.

One thing the Cato Representative told me was quite interesting: someone did a study of university professors regarding their political philosophy. Though it has long been known that college professors are by-and-large a bunch of bleeding hearts, this study delved into specific issues of policy. One of the findings was quite astonishing: of the profs who claimed to be "liberal", their answers on specific policy questions lined up almost perfectly with the Democratic party's platform. However, of those professors who called themselves "conservative", and who vote Republican, there was a great deal of diversity in the responses to policy questions. The way the Cato rep summarized it to me went like this:

When looking at conservatives and liberals within the political system, liberals typically all toe the same line. Even though they talk about 'diversity', their ideas are basically homogeneous. However, when conservatives or Republicans talk about having a 'big-tent', it seems like they mean it.

The majority of libertarians who vote (and who don't vote for the Libertarian Party) vote Republican, in large part, because their ideas are welcome within the tent, even if only to a limited degree.

Let me bottom line for you why I deeply respect the Cato Institute: they are rational and reasonable, even when their ideas are so extreme as to be completely untenable. For example, I was trying to find articles to put together a pro-con piece on welfare when I came across an article from Cato. The conclusion: end welfare all together. I laughed out loud, not because the idea was crazy--to the contrary, the article was cool-headed, thoughful, intelligent, and well-written--but because that is quite obviously a political non-starter. That is what is excellent about their organization. They do not put out empassioned, emotional PR pieces. They do not have to (and don't want to) win the votes of Joe American. They want to convince. They want to persuade. They want to move people one step closer to their goal of a more free America. Democrats and Republicans can't do this.

Imagine if they could, though. America would be a much more civil, much more intelligent, much more pleasant place.

Even if we reject their ideas, may we act, talk, and reason like these people.

Obama by the Ads

The election has been over for a month. Hopefully by now our anger, disgust, and disdain toward all the negative ads has subsided enough that we can have a frank discussion about why these are so bad.

In order to have a concrete understanding of the depth of awfulness that these ads embody let us embark on a case study: Barack Obama.There are rumors and articles on a daily basis on Obama's likely presidential run. He made the very overt step of visiting New Hampshire this past week. So basically, he's running. Everyone seems to love him. He is very endearing, very well-spoken, very charismatic, and very attractive. I've heard lots of people very excited about this rising star. He talks about hope, about his upbringing in poverty, and about his faith. It's no wonder that people are drawn to him.

However, it has long been understood that his biggest weakness is his lack of experience. Usually when someone says "I really like Barack Obama" I ask them what he has done that they like. Invariably, they revert to "he's smart, he's charismatic, he seems very nice...I just like him." Fair enough. However, this is the big problem for Barack: he has impressed them with his looks, charm, personality, and talking points, and they have fallen in love. But this love is built on a foundation of his persona.

Foundations built on personality are inherently susceptible to collapse.

In the minds of most Americans, Barack is not clearly defined. His book about hope got him a ton of press, especially when he went on Oprah, but it has not cemented in the mind of Joe American who this guy is.

Enter political ads.

In our fast-food, YouTube, CNN, Infotainment culture, Americans have a very short attention span. If you are reading this blog (and especially this far down in a post) you are not likely one of those people who are easily swayed by political ads. Unfortunately, you are not like most people. Joe American can be easily swayed. If he couldn't, politicians would not use negative ads. If Joe American were rational, reasonable, and truly took the time to sort through complex issues, negative ads would be a thing of the past. Sadly, they are not.

These ads are designed to appeal to our emotions, whether it be fear, anger, disgust, hatred, or all of the above. Since they are rooted in an appeal to emotion, they are by definition not concerned with being reasonable. Let's take for example just two ads (one Republican, one Democrat):

GASP! SHOCK! CHAGRIN! This sex-crazed, tax-payer-abusing piece of slime wants our vote?! That's our political culture. What you don't know and won't see unless you research it is that the "call to a phone sex line" lasted only a few seconds and the phone number shares the same last seven numbers as a state department phone number. Obviously, someone dialed the wrong area code and immediately hung up. But this is the Freakshow. There is no room for reason or decency--only emotion. How 'bout this one:

WHAT A TROOP-HATING BASTARD! Yeah, only one problem: every statement of fact was proved wrong. Every bit of it (yes, every bit) was a bold-faced lie. The supposed "vote against" body armor for the troops was an amendment to give over a billion dollars for unspecified items for the national guard. When pressed for more specifics, the amendment's sponsor said it would go to "skin exposure reduction paste" (read: sunscreen), "mobile chemical agent detectors", and "collective shelters" in case of chemical attacks in Iraq. While we can debate the merits of those things, what is clear is that the claim that the politician voted against armor for the troops is a load of crap. But what an emotional load of crap it was.

Let me get to my point. I don't know if Barack Obama would make a good president. Despite being a very politically-informed person, I can't tell you what he would do as president. I can't tell you what his most firmly held positions are, or what policies he firmly opposes. What I do know is this: political ads will not help me understand who this man is or what he would do as president.

Most likely, because Obama's image is not built on a foundation that has stood the test of time, a series of negative attack ads have the potential to destroy him before his campaign gets very far off the ground. These attacks will likely come from other Democrats in the primaries. In the end, since I'm a conservative, I will likely vote against Obama, but that fact makes me no less sad that our unintelligent political culture is positioned to destroy him so someone else can gain power.

This culture of attack will only take you and me further from understanding the truth. It will certainly take both you and me further away from any kind of rational discussion about what is best for the country. If we never discuss what is best for the country we cannot understand who is best fit to lead us there.

Political ads may make you and me vote a certain way, but if we do not rise above them we are just playing roulette with the future of America.

Glimpse of Greatness

Much apologies about the late post today--the weekend was packed with all work, no play. Instead of just throwing something together to get a post up, I would ask you to take the four minutes you usually spend reading The VoterVault, and spend them listening to
this response President Bush gave to a BBC reporter during the Bush-Blair press conference last week. We all know 43 is a horrible communicator, but in this 4-ish minute rant, Bush displays the kind of fire rarely seen/heard from him. This is one of the few (if only) times Bush has seemed Reaganesque, Kennedyesque, FDResque, or even inspiringesque. Where has this guy been, and can he please come out and stay for a while?

America, the Beautiful

There's a guy I work with who can complain about anything.

Last year our employer, right before Christmas, gave us what amounted to a bonus. Of course it wasn't actually a bonus, but we got money that we did not earn. That's a bonus in my book. Somehow this guy found a way to complain about it. It was amazing. A few months later he also complained that our employer re-painted one of the hallways white (yes, it was white before). Free money and fresh paint: yup, I guess that's worth complaining about. Some people can really make you think that life is terrible, and that the world is falling apart.

Thinking about that guy made me realize what a great country we live in. I haven't been to all the countries of the world, but I have god reason to ssuspect that the U.S. is the greatest country going. If you are spending your complaining time on free money, life must be pretty awesome.

If my co-worker lived in some other countries, here's what he could complain about (by country):

• China: those Communi--(insert mysterious disappearing here)
• Finland: free hospital lines are outrageous
• Canada and Europe: taxes
• Venezuala: white pai--(insert mysterious disappreaing here)
• Russia: the government "officials" glow
• Mexico: the lack of free transportation to my border crossing
• France: America
• Iraq: Those lousy Shi'i--(insert death squad here)

I guess things aren't so bad here after all. In fact, we have it so good we don't even know it. There is so much good here in the U.S., we are rolling in awesomness. To list everything that's great about America would take days, nay, weeks. But all we hear is how crappy everything is.

Several weeks ago, shortly before the election, I got to go to a special roundtable discussion with several professors, political operatives, lawyers (read: bastards), educational leaders, etc. The topic was the election and the state of our government. As it neared the end the tone became increasingly critical about our government structure. Particularly, they were complaining that our Congress is not representative enough of the people. As the tone dragged on I raised my hand and asked the group "if you were studying comparative politics, and you could choose America's government, or any one else's government, which would you choose? No one could suggest a government system that is better than ours.

For all our flaws, for all our crap, for all our poor, for all our inequity, it doesn't get any better than here. Sure, tell me about how great France's worker's rights are. I'll tell you about their unemployment and job growth. Tell me about Canada's health care, and I'll tell you about their taxes and the low quality of their care. Tell me about any one part of another country that's great, nay, better than America, and I'll give you that point. Show me another country's government that, on the whole, is better than America's. I doubt such a thing exists.

Perfect is not an option. No one ever said it was. We should never stop working to make this country a better place. But let us not lose sight of the big picture in our gripes. Life is not fair and never will be, but life, here in America, is great.

Civility War

Iraq is the defining feature of our time. There seems to be an hourly happening there, none of it good. There also seems to be an hourly update on something somebody somewhere said about it. If these people have something important to say that will move us forward to finding the best possible solution there, I'm all for it. We need to have a vigorous debate on where to go from here in Iraq. That would be for the good of the country.

Unfotunately, the majority of politicians refuse to have any Iraq debate without playing the political games of backhanded name-calling. Let's take a case-in-point from our old buddy, Al Gore.Former Vice President Gore went on the Today Show yesterday morning and talked at length with Matt Lauer. Let's leave aside all the intense liberal bial from Lauer (who rather than asking Gore if he planned run for president, basically pleaded for him to do so) and just focus on what Gore said about the War. Here was his first comment:

This was the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States...

Then this one,

But I would urge the President not to, to try to separate out the, the, the personal issues of being, of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it's not about him, it's about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and, and to prevent a regional conflagration there.

Then this one,

This is the equivalent of a car wreck....

What the former VP said was not necessarily untrue. Though there can be rational--and even strong--defenses for invading Iraq, no one can deny any longer that what is going on there is nothing short of a worst-case scenario. This might well be an "utter disaster" a "mistake" and akin to "a car wreck". My point is not to tear down the former VP for saying these things. My point is that saying these things is not helpful to move us forward.

Those leading this country--and especially those who may have ambitions of being the executive leader of the nation--must now lead. We need people to step up and say, "this is the way to go; follow me". What did Gore do? He rehashed what happened three years ago. In his arrogance, even when he talked about doing what's "best for the country", he said President Bush needs to not worry about "being blamed in history" for what has happend. Why didn't the former VP talk at length about what we should do now? Lauer even asked him directly if he would pull the troops out. Gore didn't answer. Instead, what did he do? Personal attack, personal attack, personal attack.

We can't go back to 2003 and uninvade Iraq, yet we keep going back to 2003 in our discourse.

It's hard to imagine our great leaders blaming each other for the past rather than moving the country forward. Imagine Lincoln standing up at Gettysburg and saying "man, this Civil War is a wagonwreck. Look at all these dead guys. This is the worst strategic blunder in our nation's history. Thanks alot, John Calhoun." Or envision Washington, his troops bloodied by the British saying, dealing with a constant barrage of "signing the Declaration of Independence was the biggest mistake this country has ever made. We should have found a diplomatic solution to gain our freedom."

It is not my intent to insult your intelligence by equating Iraq to Emancipation, or Baghdad to Bunker Hill, but my point remains: in times of trouble great leaders lead. They do not blame. They do not focus on what brought them their travails. They get to work and they get to leading.

Who is our Lincoln? Who is our Washington? Who is our Jackson? What is more, who are the people who will support such a person when he/she stands up to take charge? Will the Freakshow force them to go back to the politics of bash and blame?

We must leave behind the politics of destruction.

If Al Gore--or anyone else for that matter--wants the ticket to the Oval Office, that person should stand up and say, "we all know Iraq is a mess, but focusing on what got us here takes the focus off of how to get us moving forward. We need to focus on how to do what's best for Iraq and for America. Leave behind the politics of bash and blame. America is a great nation, and we will not lay down and wallow in defeaat. Follow me as we find a way forward."

That's a leader, regardless of party, I could get behind. Couldn't we all.

Political Celebrities

Walking around our nation's capital taught me a great deal. All the usual tourist hotspots were bustling--the Capital; the White House; the Lincoln Memorial; the War Memorials; etc. Being the nerd that I am, I visited all of them. Being the extreme nerd I took it one step furter. Despite the fact that Congress was not in session, I went to the offices of the Congressmen from my area, and both of my state's Senators' offices (at least while Talent's office is still Talent's office). The halls were long and mostly empty. The pace was slow.

All of the staffers were still there, fielding phone calls and checking their e-mail (or looking for jobs if their candidate lost). They were generally nice people. Talent's were particuarly friendly. I also stopped by McCain's office--his staffers are quite funny and realistic, noting that their guy is the front-runner "for now".

Walking around the Congressional offices produces an amazing feeling: these are real people. Those we lambast, praise, vote for, vote against, support, curse, and treat as political celebrities are real people. They have to walk down those long halls. They have to obey the "don't walk" sign between their offices and Congress. They have to open those huge office doors. They have to ask their staff who called. It's not some giant TV show, and it's not just stuff that happens in the newspaper.

The Freak Show that is American politics has made it all to easy to pretend that these people aren't real. In the mind of Joe American they are all playing one big reality TV show. If one of them screws up they get voted off.

This is more than a TV show, though. This is the future of our country and, in turn, the future of the world. The people who grace those offices have to be amazing people. They must be the ones who are simultaneously serious enough to handle foreign affairs, domestic policy, economic theory, and the like. Yet at the same time they must be nimble, agile, and creative enough to avoid the "gottcha" media, the mudslinging, the YouTube generation, and the Freakshow itself. Walking around their offices makes it all the more impressive that these officials are not actors--they are real people who have done one heck of a job to inherit that office.

While there are plenty of positive things to be said about these folks, the reality is that ideas matter. Policy matters. Decisions matter. These very real people have the potential to do both very real good and very real harm. The person who will become the 44th president will be the one to walk the fine line between utilizing the Freakshow and having the Freakshow blow up in his/her face.

There are tons of great things to be said about the advancements in technology and media. People can now have access to nearly anything a politician says. You can send him/her an e-mail. You can call his/her office. You can blog about them. You can see that person in real-time debating ideas. All of this is great for democracy. Unfortunately, the negative inevitably comes with the positive.

One of those negatives is that we now treat our politicians like celebrities, rather than as our representatives. It's now more about how Hillary looked or sounded doing something, than what she was actually doing. Press conferences have become about raising one's stature rather than raising the issues. Commercials are meant to tug your heartstrings. It sucks.

Here's how you can tell who will be President in 2008. When a candidate starts to become a front-runner, ask "what image do I have of this person in my head". Then ask "is this the image this person wants me to have". If then answer to question number two is "yes", that person has a real shot at becoming president. If the answer is "no", write that person off.

We'll talk more about this in the coming months as the candidates begin to emerge and shape their images. For now, keep this in mind: these real people live in the world of serious ideas, but must win in the world of serious celebrity. The one who can shape his/her celebrity image to that of a serious, hardworking, idea-driven, likable candidate will win. Guaranteed. The one who loses control of their image will lose.

[Editor's note] If you live in Texas, take note that at least one of Kay Baily Hutchinson's staffers is a real b----. I tried to make conversation with her on the elevator, only to get a look and furrowed brow that implied "sure, Congress is not in session, and I'm running meaningless errands, but I'm too busy doing absolutley nothing to consider your existence". You should probably write your Senator and tell her as much. Coming from a Texan, it might mean something. [End Editor's Note]

A Bad Case of Baselash

From 1999 to early 2005 President Bush enjoyed the favor of 51% of Americans. Despite the intense hatred against him from the Far Left, he walked the fine line of placating the base, while taking some strong and very visible stands in the opposite direction, thus helping his standing with moderates. He worked this masterfully for a long while. The base tolerated his occassional jaunts off the conservative trail (such as the prescription drug benefit) because they saw that such moves were taken with an eye to preserving the political success of the movement as a whole. That time has past.

Bush has lost the base.

The dynamics of 43's presidency changed dramatically after his re-election. Events turned against him and there was no longer the constant threat of a Democratic presidency to rally the base to his side. Without that driving motivation, and without wild success in foreign policy, the base was tired. As Halperin and Harris point out in their book The Way to Win, "There is a thin line between rallying the base and being trampled by the horde".

43 has been trampled by the horde. Worse, he does not have the political capital to restore order among the rank-and-file. This happened not long after his second innagural address. The President laid a three-strike whammy on the base and lost them for good.

Strike One: Harriet Miers. The ultimate treasure of one's party winning the presidency is nominating members of the Supreme Court. When Clinton won, who did he choose? None other than the chief counsel of the ACLU. The ACLU for goodness' sake. The ultra liberals. The Far Left incarnate. That was his right. He won, and he got the prize. Conservatives gave her the up-or-down vote she deserved, and that was that. 20-40 years of the ACLU on the Court. It makes my blood boil, but that's how it is. I, like all other conservatives, must get over it. He won. That's his right. But then our guy won. The swing vote on the Court retired. The Chief Justice died. One solid conservative (Roberts) replaced the Chief. And who does 43 choose to create the new conservative majority? Harriet Miers. Harriet Freakin' Miers. Conservative firebrand? No. Solid conservative record? No. Enough to make Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer squirm? No. The base took a step back.Strike Two: Dubai. Oh, someone wants to buy our ports? This company (or its owner, the United Arab Emirates) has had ties to terrorism? No big deal. Hey, it's a free market, right? The problem with this move was not even that it was a bad one within itself. Dubai has a solid history of operating ports in Western countries without incident. The problem with this move was that it was so gallactically stupid on a PR level as to make every conservative in America as "where the h--- is Rove and why is he letting his team be so moronic?" And the base took another step back.Strike Three: Immigration. Without question there is a free-market-for-labor crowd within the conservative movement. They are well-reasoned and well-meaning. But on the PR level, they are a lost cause. Safety. Security. Rule of Law. These things are paramount among the base as a whole, and among swing voters. Arguing for any position--no matter how nuanced and intellectually honest--that is soft on people who broke the law will incite backlash among the voters. Especially among the base. And the rallying base becomes a trampling horde.This last strike is rearing its ugly head once again.

Yesterday it came out that the Democrats are planning on passing an immigration reform bill that makes it basically painless for people to break our laws, break our borders, come here illegally, pay a fine, and voila! they can jump right on the path to legal citizenship. The rub of it is that 43 agrees with them.

Congress and the President will dress this bill up nice and pretty as anything but amnesty, but in the end we all know the truth. This is amnesty lite. It doesn't matter that most Americans oppose amnesty. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the conservative base opposes amnesty. 43 no longer needs the base to win office. He has entered the lame-duck years. This is to our country's peril. There are even rumors that the Dems will cut the funding for the 700-mile double layer fencing to be build along the Mexico border. Frankly, I hope they do. Why? That will create a backlash against them.

Here's the big picture as we gear up for '08. The base is fragmented and disenchanted. Is there anyone who can put this broken picture of a movement back together? Can McCain? Can Guilliani? Can Romney? Can Anyone? It will take a master to rally the base without it becoming the stampeeding horde.

For now there is no master on the horizon. May we fine him/her, and may he/she come to our rescue.

Outside the Bubble

[Editor's Note]Before getting down to business, I apologize for not posting at the end of last week. I was in Washington, D.C. for a conference and did not have a laptop (nor the time) to post. Those of you who read on a regular basis know that the VoterVault is a five-day-per-week operation, so next time I something like that goes down I'll line up some guest posts.[End Editor's Note]


The last five days I had the privilege of visiting our nation's capital. It is an amazing place that at once inspires awe, wonder, and cynicism. The things I saw and learned there will inform my analysis of politics for a long time.

One of the things I learned happened before I even arrived at my hotel: we all live in a bubble. Some of our bubbles are very big, and some are very small, but we are nonetheless in our own sphere. There is something awakening about being thrust outside of one's own bubble. It is invigorating to be brought face-to-face with people and places outside your world.

Two people I met taught me this.

The first person was a young woman on the plane. She boarded at the last second with her four small children. Somehow she was navigating kids aged 7, 5, 3, and an infant across the country by herself, and her children all were very well behaved. By the time we were halfway through the flight she had impressed me very much. She noticed the book that I was reading about politics; that got us talking. Without saying so specifically, it was clear that she used to identify herself as a conservative, but has been turned off by, as she put it, "the money in politics". Reading between the lines, she was tired of scandal. Seeing as how she lives in Virginia, she no doubt was one of those who delivered the Senate to the Democrats.

She did not seem angry or frustrated, just tired of the way things work in Washington. That's something the President campaigned on way back in 2000--he was an outsider. He was going to restore dignity in Washington. Despite the fact that this was an impossible mission from the start, this much is clear: for the GOP to retake the government will mean recapturing the high road and working for the people. It will mean not just talking values, but showing values, from the party leadership on down, and from the grassroots up to the top. Maybe then we can get back the vote of that stay-at-home mother of four.

The second person I met was a Lt. Colonel stationed at the Pentagon. When traveling (which is rarely) I like to shake the hand of every military officer I see and thank them for serving our country. After shaking his hand in the security line, little did I know that he and I would be on the same flight. We got to talking about the War on Terror, Iraq, and the President.

The Lt. Colonel served on the ground in the First Gulf War. He expressed great support for the President and the War, but wished we had taken out Saddam back in 1991. The thing that struck me more than anything else, though, was his fear for the War going forward. He's not concerned about increasing sectarian violence. He's not worried about al-Maliki's ability to govern. He's not even worried about rising or falling troop levels.

What's he worried about? The politicians.

In this War we are at a crossroads. What he is concerned about is politicians making decisions that will effect the future of the world. As they make these decisions, some of them care more about making decisions that will help them (or their party) win than about doing what is best and right.

It is not my point today to get into the minutiae of thier points. Instead, my point is that it is good to have dialogue. It is good to ask people about their views. It is good to hear the perspective of different people. We need to have an open, intelligent discussion about where we are going as a country.

After talking politics for ten minutes the mom with four kids asked me which side of the aisle I was on. For the first time in my life when not in front of students I refused to answer. I told her, "I'm concerned with the direction of the country, and I think we can have an open discussion about what is best for America without dividing into competing camps." She agreed.

As a partisan, I am firmly convinced that our answers to the pressing questions facing the country are better than theirs. Those arguments will stand or fall on their own merit when we make the discussion about ideas, not party or personality.

It's good to get out of our bubbles. It's great to talk to the people we meet there. It's best to do it in a constructive way. May we do just that.

Why Lawyers Suck

There is lots of animosity in this country toward lawyers. Need proof?

Q. What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A. Not enough sand.

Q. If you see a lawyer on a bicycle, why wouldn't you swerve to hit him?
A. It might be your bicycle.

Q. What's brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
A. A doberman.

It's not that I hate people who are lawyers. I have many lawyer friends, most of whom are genuinely kind people--kind, at least, in the situations where I usually find them. They can be giving, caring, compassionate, sincere, and trustworthy people.

But for some reason, however, you can take a person with all those great qualities, put them through four years of legal training, stick a suit on them, throw them in front of a judge, and they turn into the spawn of Satan. What is wrong with these people?

There can, in fact, be lawyers who are not perpetually evil. They are the exception. I'm talking about the other 97% (yes, 3% is being very generous).

Here are my reasons for despising this profession (yes, they all bear on politics):

#1 They make the rules that necessitate their own existence.
Have you ever tried to read a legal document? Enough said. You know why they have to write it that way? Two reasons: 1) It ensures that you need to hire another one of them to understand it; 2) If they didn't write it that way one of their bretheren would come in, say it was too vague or too specific or too clear or not clear enough and would sue the pants off someone.

#2 They are responsible for the Death of Responsibility
Lawyers, over the last twenty years (maybe more) have found clients in those people who want to sue. Sue sue sue. That's the motto. Since this gets the lawyer paid, they become blamemongers. Nothing is your fault. Got fired? Boss must have been in the wrong. Let's sue. Spill coffee on yourself? Oh, you're the victim. Let's sue. Oh, you're fat? Sue Jack in the Box. Just google "frivilous lawsuits" and you can read for hours. Even though most of those lawsuits are summarily dimissed, some lawyer filed the papers, stood before the judge, and with a straight face told him/her that whatever harm came of the client's stupidity was really someone else's fault. It's never your fault. Blame someone else. Sue.

#3 These same people become judges.
You may have read about how much I loathe judicial activism. It's no wonder that judges are willing to violate the sanctity of our Constitution and the foundations of our government for whatever purpose they choose. They have already been trained to violate the sanctity of truth, of reason, of responsibility, and of common sense. What's one more step in the process.

In the future I may well post a more dispassionate discussion of the negative effects of lawyers on America with more analysis, data, and argumentation. For now, let us realize that they are slowly but surely poisoning America with their flagrant disregard for personal responsibility.

A Corner on Compassion

Recently I read an article discussing what is coming of twentysomething evangelicals regarding politics. The article presented a balanced view of how evangelicans are impacting the poltical landscape.

Somewhere from 75 to 85% of evangelicals have voted Republican during the last two election cycles. Nonetheless, there is a growing and vocal contingent of twentysomething evangelicals who consider themselves politically liberal. I go to a theologically conservative church that has a very non-traditional service format. This creates an interesting blend of persons and personalities who attend. Most of my friends there are those very twentysomething evangelicals on whom the article focused. And yes, several of them are politically liberal.

One line from that article caught my attention, and it is something I would like to flesh out a bit:

"Some religious voters are second-guessing their political commitments. In particular, twentysomething evangelicals are tuning in to issues related to social justice, fighting poverty and protecting the environment. And it's starting to affect how they think about politics."

The obvious implication here is that the conservative predominance of the evangelical community could be changing. While I can make no apology for conservatives' lack of concern for the environment, I take issue with the idea that liberals alone care for the poor and downtrodden.

Here's my question: do liberals have a corner on compassion?

If it is true that more young evangelicals are paying attention to issues of poverty and social justice, must it follow that they vote Democrat? Is it possible for someone to want to help the poor, yet be conservative? Can an evangelical want to end injustice but remain firmly on the Right?

If you read my Letter to the Religious Right you know that though I am an evangelical conservative, I am no fan of what is commonly identified as the Religious Right. The negative connotations associated with that term have been well-earned by the leaders of the movement who routinely make every religious voter look like a brain-dead Bible thumber. That's why we get bumber stickers that look like this:Sad. Christians have become identified with an ideology of stupidity, ignorance, and cold-heartedness. Don't mishear me: I do not think any of these things are true. I simply think the leaders of what is seen as the "Religious Right" have given people who hear them just cause to draw such conclusions.

All this begs the question, "if you are an evangelical Christian, and you care about helping the poor and outcast, must you vote Democrat?"

Conservatives have let the Left dominate the debate about helping the poor. Christians have fallen into the same trap. As an evangelical Christian, I genuinely want to help the poor. My wife and I give money to charities. We sponsor a child in a third-world country. We've given out blankets and food to the homeless in our area. We help those in our lives who are in need. So how is it that my identity as a conservative gives people the impression that I don't want to help the poor?

Simple: I think government does a bad job of helping the poor.

Conservatives have sat idly by and let the Left define care for the poor as support for handouts provided by a big, impersonal, high taxing government. I will give out of my pocket all the days of my life to help the poor, but I will oppose attempts to force me--and every other tax paying American--to give the government so that they, in their infinite wisdom, can give it to the poor. The problem with my view is all too clear: tons of people don't want to give, and if the government didn't mandate it, they would not. But that does not change the simple fact that the government does a bad job at helping the poor.

Government, because it's assistance is both value-free and responsibility-free, does an awful job at ending poverty.

It makes no attempt create self-sufficiency. It makes no attempt to end fatherlessness. It makes no attempt to end illigitimacy. It makes no attempt to end the use of crime, drugs, or alcohol. It makes no attempt to do anything but throw money at a problem.

Throwing money at poverty is like treating a stroke victim for arm pain: it is addressing a symptom, but not the root cause. Government is too big, too irresponsive, too bureaucratic, too value-free, and too impersonal to end poverty. To truly make a dent in poverty will take people helping people. It will take initiative on the part of charties, civic groups, charties, and, most importantly, Christians themselves. It will take an attitude change that says, "yes, I want to help". What it does NOT take is a vote for more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, or any of the other "helping the poor" programs the enlightened Left touts.

Conservatives in general, and Christians in particular, need to redefine what it means to help the poor. The way the Left has always helped the poor is not helping. We need to take the lead in giving of ourselves and supporting organizations that move people from poverty to self-sufficiency. We need to practice what we preach and reach out to those in need.

I am a Christian, I want to help the poor, and yes, I am a conservative.

Moderation in Moderation

Democratic takeover of Congress this year and the Republican Revolution of 1994 are not all together different.

To be clear, I stand behind my claims that, unlike 1994, this year people were voting against something, not for something. The Republican Revolution was about a core set of principles, and how those principles differed from those of the Democrats of the time. People rallied around those principles, and it was the crowning moment of 15+ years of the country's slow and steady move to the Right. This year was very, very different. It was all "Iraq sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans are all little Bushs, we need change". Very different from '94.

But there is one very important parallel to be drawn between the Revolution and 2006, and that is how the parties behaved afterward. After the Republican Revolution, Clinton was still president. That meant the Republicans would not be able to institute solidly conservative measures across the board. Anything the Democratic President deemed too conservative would clearly meet the veto pen. That's not to say that Republicans didn't push solidly conservative stuff. They did. Welfare Reform may well stand as the crowning achievement of the Clinton years (history will give him, not Congress, credit for that). The same is the case now with the Democrats. The President is a staunch conservative (unless you ask people in the Core Base about his conservatism), and therefore the Democrats must moderate their positions in order to bring change.

Here's the big difference: Democrats will not moderte their position to promote good government; they will moderate their position to win the White House and thereby increase their power to institute the liberal change their radical base seeks.

A group of ultra-liberals from the House of Representatives appeared on the Sunday TV shows this weekend. You might have seen it. It was an amazing thing. They seemed to have a rare moment of self-reflection. These Congressional liberals emphasized that for the next two years they are not going to act like liberals. Let that sink in for a second.

They are not going to act like liberals...for two years.

It's pretty shocking that they said this. Really shocking, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to the Bat Cave and Pelosi slapped them around a little for letting the cat out of the bag. It's like they showed their playbook for all to see. If we were to translate their statements from politiceese to English, it would look something like this:

"Yeah, we know that Americans really don't like liberals. We really had to push that Iraq mess thingy in order to get voted in. If we straight up told America what we want, they would have voted for three Iraqs. Now that we're in control, we really want the White House. That means for the next two years we need to pretend that we're not liberal. That way, we can get a closet liberal into the Oval Office and use our control of Congress to pass all kinds of kookball Far Left stuff. It's gonna be awesome."

Seriously, if they really thought that America wanted liberals in office they would push for a liberal Congressional agenda. It's like they realize how weak their position really is. I give Democrats a ton of credit for being smarter and stealthier than anyone realizes. They understand the mood of the country is still generally conservative, or, at the very least, not liberal. So they're doing the smart thing for their side--not fighting for their side. On the other hand, why put this strategy out there for all to see? Why acknowledge that you even realize this? Here are some of their actual quotes:

• Rep Barney Frank (D-MA)--"Our first efforts are going to be to do those things that I think the mainstream of America wants...[things like overthrowing the military's policy on gays are] not what we are going to begin with."
• Rep John Dingell (D-MI)--"Democrats like winning elections...We want to win elections and we're going to do our best to do so. This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense."
• Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY)--"We don't want really a fight with the president. What we want to do is to prove we can govern for the next two years."

Each quote in itself sounds harmless enough, but the overall sense is clear. They might as well have said, "America doesn't want liberals, so we'll do what most Americans want now, and we'll leave the crazy stuff that America doesn't want until we win the White House".

We all know that the media has spent the better part of the last six years making fun of President Bush. Iraq, his inability to be a competent orator, his demeanor and Southern character--all have served as foddor for the media. What is interesting as we look back on the politics of this millenium is two things: first, the attacks on conservatives have been aimed at personalities, not very much at ideas. Even listening to Pelosi attacking the President this is clear. It's all "he's dumb" "he's incompetent" "Iraq sucks" "his fault". There is no real bashing of conservative ideas. It's all Freak Show stuff. Second, since the minority always gets to attack, and since the media loves to cover an attack, the minority has been shielded from the the attacks on their ideas.

The liberals are now back out of the shadows and on the stage They seem to realize that to get elected they need to be able to keep the attention off of themselves. No liberal agenda. Nothing controversial. Just bills like "Flags for Orphans" and "Puppy Abuse Prevention". Nothing liberal.

Pretty smart.

Beware, though, when the country realizes what Rangle, Frank, Dingell, and Pelosi really stand for. Then it will be back to the shadows for another decade. However, if they can moderate their position for two years, they may well be able to fool America into electing one of their ilk to the Big House.

[Editor's Note: In case you missed it, SNL did a Pelosi skit that starts to draw attention to the logical conclusion of liberal though. Ridiculous, but the idea is clear--liberal thought is crazy. It's not making fun of her person, but her policy positions. Sorry, you have to watch a commercial before it will play.]

A Thankful Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Here are the (political) things for which I am thankful:

• We have free speech
• We live in the greatest country in the world
• We can have a peaceful transfer of power between parties
• The people can change which party controls Congress
• I'm not going to be personally threatened when Democrats take power (and no one is)
• Neither of our two parties are overtly socialist or communist (this is to say nothing about third parties, and nothing about underlying principles)
• The people are smart enough not to vote for radicals (see Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich)
• Voting is not compulsory
• Checks and Balances, and Separation of Powers
• Strategy, campaigns, and the fun of the battle

There is much to complain about regarding our government. I hear it all the time from people that they "hate politics", and with good reason. But we have so much for which to be thankful. I, personally, live a blessed and amazing life--an amazing wife, a job that makes me happy, a small-but-nice house, a blog to express myself--and I'm sure you do to. Let's remember that tomorrow, or Monday, when we go back to the grind and the emphasis is not on being thankful.

Is this a Losing Battle?

99% of the time I love following politics.

I love talking about, writing about, obsessing over, analyzing, etc., politics. It's easy for me to get passionate about it. I can get angry, excited, passionate--generally emotional. But it's the type of emotion that one gets watching a sporting event: you are in to what is going on, frenzied, worried, excited, dismayed, or at some other point on the emotional spectrum. But, like with a sporting event, if things don't go your way, when you get home at the end of the day, those emotions are easily shelved (relative to the concerns of your family, work, friends, and daily life). 99% of the time, that's how my emotions go concerning politics.

There are times, though, when that 1% rears its ugly head.

That 1% hit me last night when I read an article, then read the comments readers had made about it (a newer phenomenon in journalism--an attempt by the mainstream media to be more like the New Media, i.e. the blogs like this one). The story was about President Bush's daughter, Barbara, who was mugged while in Argentina yesterday. She did have the Secret Service with her, but somehow they blew it. Normally I would not pay much mind to this story, since it is a single, isolated event that has almost no connection to policy or politics or really anything that would have a long-term, medium-term, short-term, or any-term impact on our country.

But then I read those comments at the bottom of the page.

It was then that the 1% hit me hard. I became genuinely sad for our country. The sadness I felt reading those comments was very different from my usual politically-induced emotion. It was as though I saw the heart and soul of the nation breathing its last breaths before me. It was as though America was gasping for air, but it was futile, as death was setting in.

As I read about this young lady who was attacked, hatred, abuse, venom, lack of reason, and utter stupidity dripped off the page. It made me think we're so far gone that all my (and hopefully your) efforts to raise the level of discourse are all for naught. I wondered if I'm fighting a losing battle.

Here is what the readers (readers who, by the way, cared enough to click on the link, read the article, and, further, cared enough to comment on it) had to say about the story. Remember, the article was about how the President's daughter was attacked. The comments that broke my heart for our country can be divided into three categories. The first I will call "Cold-Hearted Indifference to a Victim Based on Politics" Comments:

• "Did [the attacker] steal her dignity as well? If so, charge him with petty theft!"
• "they can afford to replace [whatever was stolen]. i won't be surprised if there travel is at gov't expense. it evens out."
• "[Barbara and her sister Jenna] are the Paris and Nicole of Washington, D.C. I'm surprised her pet chihuahua wasn't snatched too."
• "Too bad the Secret Service doesn't protect Barbara's and Jenna's father like this."
• "Selfish, self-centered spoiled brats. Who care's what they are doing anyway?"
• "Ok guys, no problem. As we paid for [her stolen cell phone] with our taxes, she'll buy another one. Congratulations!! now she can get one with bluetooth!"

A young female was attacked and mugged. These people not only don't care, but are happy to then add petty, childish, poorly-grammared insults to her injury, simply because they hate her father. My heart breaks.

Here's the second category of soul-of-America-crushing-comments. Let's call these "Lack of any Reason, Sheer Appeal to Unfounded, Unintelligent Emotion" comments:

• "Why don't they get jobs like everyone else? I guess they're living off the Exxon $$ their dad made off of the rest of us."
• "if those girls were serving in the military like they should be, in irag [editor's note: yes, this person called it "irag"], that wouldn't have happened."
• "I pay for the bush twins' bodyguards, I want my money back to place on my daughters' safety; they are MUCH more important to me than those twins!"

Here we have no regard for logical argumentation or intelligent addition to the political debate. Sheer Freak Show nonsense.

The third category of sadness-for-our-country-inducing-comments combines both the hatred, and the lack of intelligence (only one example this time, as this is a rare breed that should be studied by researchers with PhDs in a remote lab somewhere):

• "who cares with all the oil their moronic dad is getting from this stupid war, they can buy new 'everything' daily. Besides, maybe they were drunk when it happened."

Sad. Very sad.

Hate the President all you want. Loathe his policies. Bemoan his incompetence. All this is fine. But why use an attack on his daughter to spew your America-destroying hatred? Why degrade all hope at civility? Why display your stupidity for all to see? Why revel in your heartlessness? Why?

Are we so far gone that there is no hope?

I pray we are not. One comment gave me a glimmer of hope, that maybe--just maybe--fighting for rational, intelligent, compassionate, well-reasoned, anti-Freak Show dialogue is not a lost cause:

"I don't like many of her dad's policies but I don't think she should get injured because someone doesn't like her dad or America."

Amen. Perhaps hope remains after all.

A Letter to the Religious Right

Dear Religious Right,

Hi. I am an evangelical Christian, and I vote conservative across the board. Yet, as far as I'm concerned, you suck. Well, not actually you, but your leaders. You know, the ones on TV that the media pays attention to. They suck. Unfortunately, when they speak the world reflects their feelings toward those people onto the entire group of people for whom they allegedly speak. If you happen to agree with those leaders and follow everything they say, and defend them when they say something stupid, then you suck, too.

Sound strange coming from a conservative, evangelical Christian? It should. If one were to overlap my views with the views expressed by many of your leaders, they would line up just about perfectly. Yet somehow, the existence of what is now identified as the "religious right" in America makes my life more difficult on a near-daily basis.

You suck not because of the issues on which you choose to focus. It's not because of your stance on those issues. It's not because of your demographics, your voting history, or even because of the influence you wield (after all, I want to achieve the many of the same ends as you). So why would a conservative, evangelical Christian be writing you a letter to tell you that you suck? Let's see...

You suck for the countless times you made me look stupid. Every time I hear about something the 700 Club said about politics or world events, it makes me look less intelligent. I end up having to distance myself from you, even though I am quite often in agreement with you ideologically.

You suck because the strategies you employ to implement your views are unsuccessful. You argue against gay marriage (a position upon which I happen to agree), but you do so largely on anti-intellectual lines. You say that God disapproves of this type of relationship. I agree. Problem is we live in an unbelieving world. Joe American, if the statistics are correct, is not an evangelical Christian. Appealing to the Bible, whether Leviticus or Romans or Ephesians, makes no difference to them. All it does is make us look like we have no line of argumentation outside of the Bible. That kind of thing is what has given the word "fundamentalist" a very negative connotation.

See, here's the thing: you make clear what you want, but you employ arguments that only cement the opposition against you. I sincerely wish that everyone in the world had a relationship with the living God. They don't. As such they don't share our morals or values. Since they don't share them, they are not only unresponsive, but are repulsed from your position when they hear that line of argumentation. Don't mishear me: I agree with most of your positions. What I loathe is how you go about advocating them.

Arguing that the government or the voters should take a position solely because of God's Word will only fuel anti-evangelical sentiment, and will add fuel to the already burning "America must fight against theocracy" movement. We must find good reasons to support our positions in addition to God's Word. And when we identify them, we must make those reasons our strongholds in the fight for the heart of America.

Finally, you suck because your make it appear that the Church cares more about politics than people. More about power than people. More about gay marriage and abortion than people. The sad thing is that the overall impression the Christian community has imparted on the rest of the world has not been sufficient to drown out these negative images.

Please hear me, Religious Right. I don't want you to change your positions. I want you to change your tactics. If you are compassionate, caring, intelligent, well-reasoned, loving, and thoughtful, you will see a world that wants to accept your faith, accept your worldview, share your values, and the world will be better for it.

Much better than if you just get the votes you want on abortion or gay marriage.


Sincerely,

k. randolph