A Principled Stand

It's a time for reflection of a far different nature this weekend in more than one of the world's major religions. Such contemplation is far more important than anything that I have to say about pretty much anything. I will not therefore bore you with a long rant this weekend, but instead just a quick note as we begin the run up to primary voting in just one month.

---------------

No matter which side of the political argument you're on, you have to admit that there are some on the other side that are saying and doing some pretty stupid things these days. The fact that by such admission, you are likewise admitting that there are some on your own side that are saying and doing equally stupid things should not dissuade you from doing so. 


This is not to say that all politicians are stupid (though it sometimes seems a near thing), but that far too many are more concerned with playing to the worst of their respective audiences than with taking a well thought out and truly principled stand. 


Such after all, is most of the nature of political argument in these days of Twitter, Facebook, and 24-hour news networks. Those in front of the cameras and the microphones and those in front of the keyboards and the cellphones are committed to the "sound bite" and the "moment" in an almost desperate need to be clever; even when they are not. Those not in front of the cameras and who long to be, are willing to breach common sense and common decency if it gives them a shot at their 15 minutes (or 15 seconds for that matter) in the spotlight. 


How else should we expect them to behave in these days of self-involved television shows where truly talented and wildly untalented alike are granted the media spotlight, where reality shows that are as close to being real as they are to being entertainment search for the lowest common denominator in humanity, and where media outlets that are hell-bent on blurring the lines between journalism and punditry spend half of their time confusing the issues and the other half accusing their competitors of doing so? How are we to respect legislators who find it difficult to find time to speak to their constituents or show up for a vote, but can find time to read pages of natural fertilizer into the Congressional Record on C-Span's cameras to an empty room? 


It has in fact become so confusing that even those of us who actually spend time trying to sift through the muck of the issues have difficulty in telling the difference between a principled stand and a made-for-media posture. Then again, considering that those showing up to vote regularly in elections normally slips well below half of those eligible to do so, how many really care to know? 


It's a shame when you think about it, but I suppose that it's part of human nature. Much like people, a culture can grow weary; especially under the constant effort required by the effective application of limited democracy in a Constitutional Republic. Perhaps 200+ years of such effort is beginning to show on the one that we are a part of. It must often make one feel like Atlas bearing the weight of the world on ones shoulders (Could this then be why Ayn Rand believed that "Atlas Shrugged"?). Little surprise then, that so many should find it so difficult to take, to maintain, or to expect from political leaders a principled stand.

Convictions

Update:

2/4/10

It appears that you will have to wait for the column in the TFP, as space considerations in this week's publication got it bumped. I have been assured that will be both in print and online next week however, allowing for some unintended and unneeded anticipation.

----------------------------

I have been writing columns for the TFP for some time now, and one of the toughest things that I have had to learn is that once you turn in an opinion piece in, you have to live with others making comment upon it. I am far from unwilling to have my arguments debated, though I sometimes find the form that these comments take a bit of a disappointment to say the least.

This week, with the cooperation and assistance of its editor-in-chief Michael Miller, I am attempting something new. I will be linking to this posting from my latest effort for the TFP instead of the other way around, so as talk a little bit about the tone of discussion in that publication recently, and to provide for some of its readers some insight into the convictions that I hold near and dear.

In doing so I hope to give those who believe that they agree with me a better understanding of why they might, and those who appear to disagree with me a better reason to do so.

I will post a link to the TFP Column as a follow up as soon as it is available.

• I believe in the necessity of government, though I believe that the least amount of government that we can get by on is the best for all concerned.
• I believe that it is the responsibility of citizens to pay for such government to provide for police, fire, and military protection; but not for one that wishes to speculate in the real estate market or compete with and own private businesses.
• I believe in the Constitution of the United States exactly as written. I believe that not only does this document properly and superbly limit the scope and power of government, but that it does so without the need to be interpreted as a “living document”; since the ability to adapt or change it when necessary is provided in the process to amend it.
• I believe that new legislation should be put to the Constitutional test before passage. While it is the purview of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of legislation, Congress at least checking to see if such legislation is within their purview would simply be fulfilling the oath of office that they take.
  
• I believe in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that the federal government has violated and subverted the rights of people and states that were insured under it.
• I believe that the Seventeenth Amendment is wrong and should be repealed. When we moved away from the appointment of Senators by state legislatures to the popular vote; we subverted a protection provided to us by the Founders in the legislative branch of government, robbed the individual states of their power to make at least one legislative house answerable to them, and began the creation of the current political party gridlock that many of us so detest.
• I believe that the process of governing in this country is currently subverted by the “two party system” which places higher value on party loyalty than on loyalty to the electorate, or to personal and fiscal responsibility.
• I believe that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans hold exclusive province to the answers to this nation's problems, and that the continuing focus on party politics distracts us and them from finding those answers.
• I believe that pensions for members of Congress and many other elected officials should be abolished. It was never the design of the Founding Fathers to create an oligarchy of professional politicians, and in the absence of workable term limits for these offices the best way to get back to citizen service in government is to force them back into the private sector to provide for their own futures.
• I believe that far too much of the legislative and regulatory power in government resides in the hands of faceless bureaucrats, neither elected by nor responsible to the people; whose only goal is to gather more power and funding to their respective fiefdoms.
• I believe that it is not the province of government to support the arts, subsidize businesses, crops, or forms of media; nor do I believe that it is possible for it to create jobs. Instead it is the responsibility of government to provide an environment conducive to the such support, subsidizing or creation by the private sector.
• I believe that anyone who thinks that we live today in a free market economy is fooling themselves, and that many of the problems that we see with John Stossel rightly calls the “crony capitalism” in the US are a direct result of the poor attempts by the government to manage something far too large and complex for even experts to control, let alone politicians.
• I believe that the current tax code is confusing and confiscatory and cannot be repaired, but must instead be scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
• I believe that I know better what to do with my money than government at any level; and that if allowed to keep more of it I would: stimulate the economy, provide support for those less fortunate than myself, and perhaps even save enough to provide for my own medical care and retirement.

This is certainly not the complete list ladies and gentlemen, but it should be enough of one to give you an idea of where I am coming from. I hope that they provide some insight, some reason for discussion, or at least some entertainment; and will look forward to what I expect will be a lively dialogue of them.