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

Insert Voting Slogan Here

Should we really encourage people to vote?

This past week I received an e-mail from a former student of mine asking for some sources that argue why we should vote. After searching around both among my texts and online, I was able to find very little. There were plenty of pithy slogans about voting (Thanks MTV), and there were plenty of sites pushing partisan fear-mongering (come out and vote for us or the world ends!). What there was not much of was intelligent talk as to why people should vote."Rock the Vote". "Choose or Lose". "Vote or Die". Radio and TV anchors tell us to vote, no matter who for. "Non-partisan" (yeah right) groups spend hundreds of man-hours registering people to vote. Teachers and professors decry our country's low voter turnout rates.

Around 60% of Americans who are eligible to vote do not. There is an overwhelming sentiment in the American media and in educated circles that this is a travesty that must be corrected. Voting is a right--a right for which, sadly, many Americans had to fight--and is something I, and likely you if you are reading this, value. But is it something that we should really work to compel most Americans to do?

No, it's not.

Two years ago, right before the 2004 presidential election, a Newsweek editorial by Leftist Anna Quindlen argued that America should follow the lead of Austrailia and other countries in forcing their citizens to vote or face a fine. The idea is called compulsory voting, and it's a horrible idea.

Here's what Quindlen wrote in her Oct. 18^th, 2004 editorial:

Low voter turnouts hurt everyone because they erode the notion of government by the people and for the people....In fact it's astonishing that we've blithely allowed Americans to drop out of the electoral process for so long. There's no argument about this: when we make an act optional, we inevitably suggest that it's not that important.

Quindlen is dead wrong. Wrong as wrong gets. There are an infinite amount of things Americans deem important, but are in every way optional, as they should be. Were it the government's job to mandate and require us to do everything they deem "good"...well, if I continue down that line of thought I will end up name-calling. Point is this: we are a free country. Each of us gets to decide what is good and bad, worth doing and not worth doing, worth voting for or against, and, yes, whether we should vote at all. Every bit of my daily life revolves around free choices I make. Does that mean those choices are not important? They are. Often they are life-changing. In fact, the sum of them is my life. The government has no business making any of these choices, or even making me choose in any of these situations, compulsory. That brings me to my real point: I wish more people would be informed about politics, and would therefore vote.

However, people should not vote simply because the act of voting is good.

If we truly value voting, we must focus on why voting is important and emphasize those things. Voting is a means to an end, not an end in itself. For what end do we want people to vote? The issues for which, and the people for whom, we vote will determine the direction of the country. Unfortunately, we live in a Freak Show age, where being as extreme, superficial, and confrontational as possible will get you noticed by the most people, and can win you the most votes. By contrast, being brilliant, creative, moderate, problem-solving, and policy-minded will get you appointed to be the ambassador to Greece.

I'm dancing around my point, so let me just get to it: our political culture is stupid. Check out this chart about why people didn't vote, courtesy of The Onion:Obviously ridiculous, but it's getting at the point: the people who don't vote don't care. Why should we encourage someone who doesn't care to vote? Voting is not inherently better than not voting. The ideas and issues are much too important to have people who are uninterested or uninformed, or genuinely uncaring to have a say in matters as important as these.

I do not want the people most influenced by the Freak Show to vote. I don't want to encourage the person swayed by every mud-slinging ad to vote. I don't want uninformed, unintelligent, uninterested people to vote. I do want more people to vote, but I want them to vote because the issues and people we choose are important. I want them to know the issues. I want them to think logically through complex problems. I want emotionalism to end. I want a smarter America. I don't want people to vote because P-Diddy said "Vote or Die" or because Claire McCaskill implied Jim Talent wants to kill people who have a disease. Those people are stupid and should not vote. Stay home.

It will make me sad if our Voter Turnout stays low or goes lower. It will make me more sad if more people vote because of pithy slogans about voting. It will make me sadder still if people vote because the Freak Show convinced them to vote for the worse of two options.

The Battle for America

The Presdient, the Senate, and the House are obviously the institutions of power in America, but all three look like beggars compared to the Supreme Court. The Court is the true power-broker in our system. The Founders never meant for the Court to have this power. Frequently they overstep their Constitutional authority and trample the separation of powers. When judges overstep their Constitutionally prescribed authority (which is to interpret a law or ask Congress to clarify what they meant) it is called "judicial activism".

There are times when the outcome of judicial activism has definitely been laudable. The instance that is always applauded as the triumph of judicial activism is Brown v. Board. In that case the Court opened the doors of then-white public schools to black students. Clearly and unequivocally a commendable decision that should be celebrated.

Cases like Brown are the exception, not the rule.

More often than not the end result of judicial activism is the subversion of the will of the people. In modern day, special interests groups and activists attempt to use judicial activism to impose their will--which often has already been rejected by the people--on the rest of society. The ACLU is the Extreme Left activist group that is most guilty of this abuse of our Constitution.

Short history lesson: the Founders wanted the Court to be the least powerful of the three branches. They gave it little power and expected it to be the tag-along-kid-brother of the branches. That all changed in Marbury v. Madison wherein the Court GAVE ITSELF the power to declare laws--laws passed by Congress and signed by the President--unconstitutional. Bottome line: the Founders never envisioned the Court having this power. As such, they put absolutely no check on this power.

If the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional and you don't like it you have two options: 1. Amend the Constitution (good luck with that); 2. Suck it up. The process of amending the Constitution is so cumbersome that it is, for all practical purposes, not an actual option for checking the power of the Court. The end result: a judiciary with complete and total control over the direction of the government.

There are two types of judges. The first type revels in their power and is perfectly content to read politically charged decisions into the Constitution. They "read between the lines", establish a vague principle from specific words, then apply that vague principle to our specific circumstances however they wish. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but it is not the sacred cow of rights. How did this happen? The Supreme Court added a couple of amendments together, established there was a vague principle there, and extracted a new right. This right has thus became the building block for many of the most controversial political decisions made both in the legislature and in the courts.

The second type of justice is one who is not willing to replace the words of the Founders with other words that he/she finds more acceptable. They are not willing to read abortion, gay marriage, privacy, or any other of the host of controversial issues into the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't address it, they will not say it does. These are the justices who practice "restraint".

We need fewer activist judges and more who practice restraint.

Last month the standard bearer for judicial restrain, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, walked into the lions' den. He agreed to a debate with one of the leaders of the ACLU at their national convention. Ballsy. Here was the exchange that was particularly important:

• ACLU Rep: "There are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority, no matter how small or unpopular that minority might be."
  Interpretation: judges should/must subvert democracy to enforce those things they consider "fundamental" right, even if those things are not in the Constitution.
• Scalia: Determining "Whether [a controversial issue like abortion or homosexual rights] is good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution."
  Interpretation: Judges must not read into the Constitution anything that's not there.

Go get 'em Antonin. Those who practice restrain are the defenders of democracy and the Constitution.

The meeting between the ACLU and Scalia, while being truly entertaining to only political nerds like me, nonetheless represents the battle for America. We need more restrain, and we need more Scalias.

Under this new Senate the Scalias of the world will never make it to the bench. Only the activists will survive a Chuck Schumer and Teddy Kennedy led Judiciary Committee in the Senate. And that's the real kick to the crotch in Allen losing Virginia and Burns losing Montana. The Scalias will be left out in the cold and the activists will be ushered in to create whatever Far Left crap they want to read into the Constitution.

Bush may not get to appoint another Justice, but if the Senate stays blue and the White House goes that way, too, this Battle for America will go the Left's way.

Long live Scalia (literally).

The Freak Show

So I decided to punish myself the other day by looking at the Daily Kos (the political blog that has become the major voice for the Extreme Left). It took me all of four second to be whipped into a frenzy of anger, disdain, and general pissed-off-iness. Why I chose this form of self-punishment, I do not know.

On this occasion, more than on most others, I was peeved by all the little things that I can usually ignore as part of our current political culture. The thing that really got my ire was the word "progressive". I see it as essentially a marketing ploy by the Far Left to avoid all the negative connotation associated with their ideas. So incensed was I that I quickly fired off an anti-"progressive" rant.

Irrational anger and unintelligent thought are the nemesis of this site, so after settling down I thought long and hard about whether to post such a rant. The shame of it is, this was quite a catch-22. Posting irrational anger dripping with snide comments sells in our society. I'm sure posting such a rant would make people laugh and probably cause more people to read the VoterVault more often. On the flip side, it is exactly this type of commentary that is degrading our political debate and generally weakening our ability to think critically.

That being said, below I've gone ahead and posted the rant. However, I'm posting it as an example of derogatory, negative, nonconstructive political speech, and shaming myself and those who write like this. Here it is:

Progressives?

Seriously, that term drives me friggin' nuts every time I hear it. You are liberals. Hey Daily Kos: you are liberals. Hey Moveon.org: you are liberals. Shut up with your stupid, condescending "progressive" crap. No one is buying it.

You know why you have to call yourselves "progressives"? Because every time someone hears the word "liberal" they cringe. And you know why they cringe? Because you suck, that's why. Every idea associated with the word "liberal" makes every average, red-blooded American want to puke all over your Progressive hippie ass.

Every time an article appears like this one or this one or this one or this one you make the 95% of America who are not you want to run the other way. So you hide. You change your name. You come up with a marketing ploy that is the word "Progressive". As though that somehow changes all the crap you stand for. It doesn't. It's wrapping a turd in a shinny package and saying, "Look! See! We're not Liberal...we're Progressive!" Shut up.

You know why Conservatives don't mind being called Conservatives? Because we're not crazy. Because we are proud of our ideas. Because we don't have to shy away when called upon. We can stand up and say "I'm a Conservative...". You? You run. You change your name. When you stand up and say "I'm liberal", Joe American wants to barf on you. So you stand up and say "I'm a progressive" in the hopes that Joe American says "oh, Progressive, what's that?" Wouldn't that be nice for you--to not be barfed on.

It's only a matter of time that your own ideas get tied to the word "progressive". Then the barfing can resume. After that, you can start focusing on your next new title to try to escape Joe American's attitude to your every belief.

Man, that's pretty bad. That's not the kind of discussion and analysis we need. I got thinking about this while reading a book about the 2008 presidential election called The Way to Win by Halperin and Harris. They call modern American politics "The Freak Show". They discuss in detail that our society, culture, and therefore our media, value extremism, partisanship, showmanship, and emotionalism. By doing so they devalue analysis, constructive debate, moderation, the common good, and serious thought in general.

I don't want to be part of the Freak Show.

That means fewer people will read, which is disappointing. But the Freak Show is bad for our system. The Freak Show is bad for our country. Two important features of the Freak Show, as put by Halperin and Harris: 1) The New Media (like this blog, cable news, talk radio, etc.) have caused "the disintegration of editorial filters in the Old Media, which in an earlier age prevented the most salacious tales and better accusations from entering the public arena"; and more importantly 2)led to the "erosion of basic habits of decorum and self-restraint, in politics and media alike".

May the VoterVault raise the level of discourse and practice the basic habits of decorum and self-restraint. May you call me out if it does not.

A Base without a Bride

The day after Republicans lost control of Congress, I got an email from a friend. This guy is not politically active, nor is he the kind of guy who strikes you as really politically savvy. Actually, he's a math nerd. His geekiness aside, he made this excellent observation: "[the Republicans have become distracted] from the core issues: lower taxes, smaller government, liberty and personal responsibility."

Amen, brother. Amen.

In the mid and late 90s the Republican party was dominated by a solid, vibrant conservative base. It was defined by core principles--exactly those principles my friend mentioned in his e-mail. Those principles were embodied in the "Contract with America". Clinton politics, along with his personal charisma, forced the GOP to yeild the Contract to a more moderate agenda. (Important sidenote: this was bad, but not all bad. See: Welfare Reform). Nonetheless, the tide was in the GOPs favor through the 2000 election, and the base of the Party was one primarily concerned with the core principles. Dare I say, the principles of Reagan. Let's call those who love and desire these core principles the "Core Base". I might add "strong defense" to this list. So the "core list" would go: lower taxes; smaller government; liberty; security; and personal responsibility.

9/11 changed everything, including the GOP.

After the attacks, security became the dominant theme. Shortly thereafter it was the War. Nation Security. That's the name of the game. '02 and '04 enlarged the Republican stronghold on government. Bucking historical trends, the GOP gained seats in both the Midterm and at re-election in spite of the fact that the man sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania wore Red. No doubt the furry over gay marriage added a significant voting block to the Core Base in '04, and the Party grew. It was high times for the GOP.

But with size comes weakness.

By the time the beginning of 2005 rolled around the formula looked like this: Core Base + Security Moms + Gay Marriage Moderates= A Party in Firm Control. What had begun to happen in the days after 9/11 had reached a tipping point: of the three groups, the leadership of the party had taken the Core Base for granted and focused on the other two groups. While this is obviously necessary in the short-run to shore up an election victory, in the long-run it is and will be their peril. Drunken-sailor spending. Immigration non-reform. Social Security non-reform. The growth of entitlements. The expansion of government. The continued slow and painful death of personal responsibility. Add to this the lack of empassioned, principled, well-spoken leadership, and what you have is a party ripe for a long-term fall.

The anger over gay marriage waned. Even in the states that had marriage amendments on their ballots in '06, the ire over the audacity of the hard Left had diminished to a dull pain. On the security front, irony set in. The more secure one is, the less one feels the need for security. Ignore the Iraq fiasco for one minute and it becomes painfully clear that the GOP was in trouble even without The War. New formula: Disenchanted Core Base + Not-Very-Angry Gay Marriage Moderates + Moms who Feel Secure Enough= A vulnerable party.

The Red Team may well have developed a large enough base to survive these travails in an alternate, non-Iraq War universe. But there is no non-Iraq world.

I am firmly convinced that the Security Moms and Gay Marriage Moderates would not have joined the GOP cause in '02 or '04 if the rest of the Republican platform were unacceptable to them. The Party needs to return to principled, persistant, persuasive emphasis of the Core Principles. Only then will the base hold, the moderates move Right, security be strengthened, and America be made forever strong.

As for now, the Core Base is a Base without a bride.

The Left that Lost

Imagine you're one of the Daily Kosers. You've spent the last 3-4ish years preaching the socialist, anti-American hard Left gospel (cloaked largely in Anti-Bush rhetoric). Your hatred for all things Republican boils over all the time. You bleed Blue. Your party finally gets power for the first time in twelve years. And how did that come to be?

You were the only viable alternative.

What a kick to the crotch that must be. You win power and Time says "The center is the place to be." You don't want the Center. You want the Left. What's worse, the very people who carried you to victory don't share your views. Double-shot to the crotch. Tester: pro-gun. Casey: pro-life. Lieberman: pro-war. Webb: who knows, but not hard Left. The reality that your party would not have been able to take the House or Senate if the candidates pushed your view must cut deep.

Man, that sucks.

What message did the electorate send to the new Democratic Congress? If you listen to the Old Media, every report seems to say the same thing: Americans want moderation. NBC says Americans want an end to partisan bickering. ABC says they want a return to the middle. Their analysis is that voters are asking for unity and a more centrist style of governance. TIME even put this on their cover:

I disagree with their analysis. The center is not the place to be. The center is the place to be for Democrats.

The electorate did not vote Democrat because of their moderation. This is blatantly obvious. Were the Democrats running a campaign of unity? Were they talking like Moderates? Were they calling on Left and Right to share in a big group hug? No. Certainly, several moderate Democrats won key election, and that deserves special attention (which it will receive below), but my point is this: the only Democrats talking about moderate positions were themselves moderates. Pelosi, Kerry, Dean--they all trotted out the same bashing and slandering they've run out there before. It was not a call to moderation, nor was it what the people voted for. Instead, they voted against the War. They voted against corruption. They voted against drunken-sailor spending. They voted against President Bush. The Democrats were in the fortunate position of being the only viable alternative.

People neither voted for the Left, nor for the Middle.

The Middle is the place to be for Democrats for several reasons. First, as I discussed in this post, being in power is going to force the Democrats to put up or shut up. Let's go over the points briefly concerning why the Dems can't go Left:

• The times the Dems have run hard Left, they've gotten their hats handed to them by the voters (see 1992-1994 and the resulting Republican Revolution). The hard Left is simply even less acceptable to the people than the hard Right. Every time I read an article like this it makes me and every other normal American want to puke. That's the hard Left.
• They have the weakest Senatorial majority possible--one vote. Three words: Lieberman, Tester, Casey.
• The veto pen. Even if they could push through a Leftist agenda, Bush holds it and will certainly use it. One could argue that they could force Bush's hand and thereby make him look like the bad guy. That's not likely. Remember, Bush can't go much lower, and the Dems have to produce. Voter's won't buy the "Republicans stopped us" excuse.

Assuming that, in fact, Pelosi, Reid, et al, don’t go that far Left, they will have a serious base problem. Moveon.org and the Daily Kos are powerful forces within the Democratic party that must be reckoned with. They are the new, ugly, hard Left. They have effectively subverted organized labor and the Old Media as the power-brokers on their side of the aisle. They raise money like it’s no one’s business. When George Soros went looking for ways to spend millions to beat Bush in '04, he didn't even blink. It went to moveon.org. The last thing any of the Dem Presidential hopefuls will want to do is anger them. This will force presidential contenders to run further Left than the rest of the party, thus weakening the position of the eventual nominee come general election time.

The irony in all this is, assuming they stay somewhat close to the center, their '08 problem will be the same one the GOP had ’06—a base not in love with their party.

The Democrats won, but the Left may well have lost.

The Defeat in Victory

The Democrats lost by winning.

The War, Bush, a disgruntled conservative base, frustrated independents, moderate Democratic candidates, Congressional corruption--all these brought sweeping Congresssional victory to the Democrats. The 110^st Congress will be the first Congress the Dems can call their own since the Republican Revolution of 1994. A huge vicotry.

Or was it?

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). This past election the Democrats were even decrying the economy as terrible, even though unemployment is nearing record lows, the Dow is setting record highs, and household income is on the rise. Yell. Scream. The sky is falling. That's what's great about being in the minority.

They've lost that edge.

The grand prize is now only two years away. The candidates' exploratory committees are being formed (McCain went public with his on Friday). The race has begun. To win the White House the Democrats will now have to produce results in the next two years. Now they must share in the solution. It would sure be a lot easier to just name-call for the next two years. They have lost that freedom. If they offer a solution to Iraq and it fails, they are at fault. If they offer no solution, they are at fault. Iraq is a nightmare from which we will not awake in the next twenty-four months. Had they not won the Senate, the Dems could have kept their hands much cleaner than the Republicans'. Now they'll get to play in the dirt, too.

In case their twelve year journey in the political wilderness has caused them to forget, the lesson they are about to re-learn is this: governing is hard. They are in for a jolt of reality. The Red Team tried to call the Blues "obstructionist" when they couldn't produce results. America didn't buy it. The electorate will be equally unforgiving of a Blue Congress that doesn't produce the goods.

I'm still convinced, as I suggested in this post, that the Dems aren't stupid enough to move to the far Left, cause voter backlash, and blow their first shot at power in a long time. But this is clear: their road to the White House was made more difficult the second George Allen hung up the phone after conceding Virginia's junior Senate seat.

The Democrats lost by winning.

Leave Virginia Alone

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Virginia Senate race knows the story. Macaca. That's the story. It's tempting to tell the whole story like this: "Why did Allen lose?" he asked. "Macaca." came the reply.

George Allen should have been among the safe seats the Red Team could count amongst their win column in 2006. That list should have gone; Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Virginia. Allen was a popular ex-Governor in the state and a likely presidential contender for '08. Then it happened. Allen, with the wind at his back, polls looking outstanding, and his warm-up-for-the-white-house-race going well, ended his political career. In a moment of outright stupidity, it happened. In a moment when old-school politicking collided with the YouTube age, it happened. And it all came crashing down. He looked right at a minority--a minority from his opposition's camp--a minority pointing a camera at him--and he called him a name. Macaca. In the old world, rumors would have spread, his opponent would have demanded an apology, he probably would have chalked it up to a misunderstanding, he would have lost a percentage point, his opponent would have made a stink and possibly looked desperate, and Allen would have cruised to victory. But this isn't the old world. This is the YouTube world. Within no time flat, political junkies and then everyday folks were watching Virginia's incumbent Senator call a minority a name. Within days it was on the evening news. And it was over.

Of course, that's not the whole story.

If that were Allen's only gaffe, or if that were the only thing he had going against him, he would have survived pretty easily. Heck, even with all he had going against him he lost by all of .3 percentage points. So what was the straw that broke Allen's back? Let's do a quick rundown of all Allen had going against him:

• Bush
• Iraq
• Macaca
• Macaca leading allegations of racism from those in his past
• Bush
• Rather insensitive/uncouth remarks about Judaism when it was found his mother's family was Jewish
• He came off as a fundamentalist by pointing out sexual passages in his opponent's war novels
• Iraq
• His opponent was a moderate, thereby diffusing the always powerful tactic of "he's too liberal for Virginia"
• His opponent's son is deployed at present, thereby negating any "hawkish advantage" Allen may have had
• Bush and Iraq

Without Macaca Allen doesn't get accused of further racism, his mother's ancestry wouldn't have been an issue, and his opponent would have been too far behind in the polls for his moderation or his son's service to the country to have mattered. In elections, perception is reality. When it was perceived that Allen was unbeatable, Allen was unbeatable. When that perception was shattered by Macaca, the ceiling came crashing in on good ol' George Allen. It was a mess of his own making. It's a wonder he broke 40%.

Or was it?

Let's take a look at the Virginia county-by-county Senate race map.

This is a pretty typical Virginia map. Most of the state is red, with the blue being limited to the D.C. suburbs and the southeast part of the state. The big mama-jama is the county adjacent to D.C., Fairfax County. In Virginian politics it is the mothership. Like most metro areas in the country, the suburbs closest to the urban centers lean blue. To win in Virginia, or Missouri, or any other Redish state with one or two major metros, the Republican must limit his/her loses in those suburban areas. Allen was able to do that in 2000 when he ran against incumbent Charles Robb. That presidential-election-aided year Allen lost Fairfax County by only 4 points. He limited the damage and let rural Virginia bring him home. This year, Fairfax killed him. Check it out.

That killed Allen. Thumped him. Mangled him. Allen fell short in the overall election by only 8,000ish votes, but Fairfax county alone cost him eight times that amount.
One more thing is interesting to note about that table. In this non-presidentially-aided election year, Fairfax County registered a smaller percentage of the total number of votes than in 2000. This is super interesting because it means that Allen did even better in outstate Virginia in 2006 than he did in 2000. Yet he got smoked (assuming .3%=a smoking).

Conclusion: rural voters are willing to forgive almost anything a GOPster does to not have to vote Blue. In the suburbs it's simple: Iraq + Bush + Gaffes + Moderate Opposition = End of Allen.

Show-Me Defeat

Going into the election on Tuesday Republicans were expecting to lose the House. Indeed, they did. The loss of the Senate came as an unpleasant surprise. On the eve of voting polls were indicating that Blue team had 49 seats locked up (Burns in Montana came in much closer than the polls were suggesting), and the Red Team had 49 (with Corker in TN pulling ahead late). The two seats remaining were Missouri and Virginia. Today I'd like to take a detailed look at Missouri, and tomorrow a look at Virginia, to figure out what happened in these two states.

Let's roll.

For over forty years the Democrats controlled the state Legislature in Missouri. As late as the spring of 2000 Republicans in the state legislature would direct conservatives looking for interships to work with Democratic legislators since, as I heard one GOP Rep say, "If you're are Republican in Missouri, you have no power". In the past six years the tide turned in favor of the GOP. Most of us know that Missouri has voted for Bush handily in the last two elections, but to give you a sense of how Red the state has become, here's a chart comparing the make-up of the State House from 2000, and one from 2006.

Along with the rest of the country in this election, the Iraq War, 43's approval rating, and general frustration wove together a tapestry beautiful for Dems. In a typical election year, Talent would have won re-election handily. Talent was a workhorse in the Senate. He stayed off the Sunday talk shows and was never mentioned in the conversations about "those extreme right-wingers" in Congress. He was never mentioned as a Presidential hopeful, and never had to go on local tv to justify his votes. He just went to work. But this was no typical election year.

Credit McCaskill for running an intense, grinding campaign. No one can take anything away from her. At the same time, she had the wind at her back the whole campaign. Riding along with McCaskill was the Missouri Stem-Cell Amendment. The 6-page, 2000-word amendment had the support of upwards of 70% of Missourians in early summer. By election day that race was a nail-biter. McCaskill used the amendment in ways that Talent could not. Jim kept his position on the issue as quiet as he could for as long as he could. Coming out against something so popular would have been suicide. Not coming out against it made the base quite angry. So Jim did what he could: no big speeches; dodge the issue where possible; come out in support of all non-cloning stem-cell research.

McCaskill, on the other hand, trumpeted the issue in the weeks before election day. She made national news when she ran an ad with Michael J. Fox, off his meds (as was his custom according to his own book) touting the candidate's position on the issue, and blasting Talent (by name) for the same. On election day, both Talent and and his position on the Amendment were defeated. Below are two maps comparing, county-by-county, the Senate race and the stem-cell amendment.

The two overlap pretty well. All along people assumed that if you voted for the amendment, you had to vote for Claire, and if you didn't you had to vote for Jim. While that appears to be the case, it was not absolute. It certainly was not absolute in rural Missouri. Darn near no counties outside of St.Louis, KC, and Columbia voted for the amendment. Support for Talent was not nearly as uniform, which was likely his undoing.

If Talent had been more vocal in his opposition to the amendment, could he have rallied the base a bit more and swung more of the "Claire Catholics" to his side?

Probably not. Coming out forcefully against the amendment would have only rallied St. Louis and KC more strongly against him. This election may well be the beginning of a trend: rural Missouri can no longer stand in opposition to the will of St.Louis and Kansas City. The urban vote did in Talent. Even the suburban vote killed him--he lost 10,000 votes compared to when he ran in 2002 in the heavily Republican St. Charles county, just outside St. Louis.

Claire ran a good campaign--appeals to emotion, demonizing all things Republican, linking Talent to Bush, screaming for a higher Minimum Wage (also on the Missouri ballot), beating the stem-cell drum, producing better advertising, and campaigning hard in traditionally Republican territory.

In a normal year, nice-guy Mr. Talent goes back to Washington. This was the wrong year to come up for re-election.

Life in the Wilderness

Last night the electorate handed the Republicans a sweeping rebuke. I liked the way President Bush put it: "a thumpin'". As expected, the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, taking 28 seats. Only the next few years will tell us if this was another 1994. What was more surprising was that they took the Senate. Heading into the night the polls indicated that all the Red Team needed was one of Missouri, Virginia, or Montana. They got blanked.

It would be nice if I could let myself believe what is very well possible--that the people didn't vote for the Dems, but against the Republicans. It would be nice to believe they voted against Bush and Iraq. Certainly possible. No...probable. In fact, that's probably true. So why can't I let myself believe it? Simple. Moving the country is like moving a cruise ship by swimming next to it and pushing it where you want it to go. Once it is going in one direction, it's not going the other way any time soon. To get less philosophical and more practical, it seems silly to think that John Q. Independent said "man I'm pissed at Bush. I'm so pissed. ARRRRG. I'm voting for a Democrat in the House. [vote cast]. Man, do I feel better. Ahhh. Now I can go back in '08 and vote my favorite GOPster back in." That's crap. What's more likely to happen is this: Dems spend the next two years beating the "we have to try to fix this mess the Republicans made for us" drum. When they don't get anything done they say, "man, this Republican mess was way worse than we thought". And the John Q. Independent, in his continued frustration with the war and Bush, vote again for their now-incumbent Democrat. It's Iraq, and it's not going away.

The GOP is now in the political wilderness, and they should probably make the place look comfortable, 'cause they're going to be there for a while.

On the bright side, it'd be easy for the Dems to blow this thing. If Pelosi acts like Pelosi, and Reid like Reid, the country will easily reject their radicalism in two years. However, I don't think they are that stupid. What we saw when they were in the minority was the real Pelosi and real Reid. What we are more likely to see in '07 (forget anything approaching controversial in '08) is the party that passed on Howard Dean in 2004 when they realized he couldn't win. It will be a party that plays to the emotional issues that seem to be steering the ship right now--health care, minimum wage, stem cell research, Iraq anger, and the like. Issues that can touch the heart strings. Issues you don't have to go about the ugly business of "explaining" or "justifying". Issues you can use to demonize your opposition with if they vote against you. The plan is simple: demonize Republicans. Make them unacceptable. Play to the heart, not the mind.

Bottom line: If they can resist the pull to MichaelMooreize their party, they will be in the driver's seat for a while. Anger and disenchantment with the Republicans will wane into complacency and lesser-of-two-evils-type-thinking.

Other thoughts:

• Is it a good sign when the rest of the world, which at best resents and at worst hates America celebrates our election results?
• The Republican Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort is always lauded as an amazing enterprise. I am an active conservative. I've volunteer for campaigns within the last year. I always have yard signs. My gosh--I was offered a job on staff for my state's Senate race. I offered to volunteer. I called headquarters and asked for a sign. Total number of calls I received in the GOTV effort: 0.
• Rumsfeld is out. Would it have made a difference if 43 had accepted his resignation when he first offered it? We'll never know.