President Reagan established a proud legacy during his two terms in office, the philosophical hallmarks of which were a reduction in the size of the federal government and empowerment of the private sector of the economy. What is not fully appreciated is that Reagan intended another aspect, which should still be added. Reagan started a process whereby he would overlay this aspect through executive order, at least initially. Unfortunately his attempt to provide a technology strategy and vision did not survive the follow-on George Herbert Walker Bush administration.
The executive order was drafted towards the end of his second term and would have created a government agency somewhat on par with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The agency would have answered directly to the White House and had the mission and the means to enable U.S. government organizations and American companies to work together in a highly coherent and unprecedented fashion. Reagan essentially tried to provide the marketplace, as well as select government planning agencies, with new tools that were possible with the onset of the Information Age.
Reagan was convinced that this additional aspect would ensure not only America’s economic survival, but also its preeminence and continued economic superpower status. On the basis of his draft executive order, Michael C. Sekora established a prototype program called the Socrates Project within the U.S. intelligence community. The program was aimed at improving America’s economic efficiencies and reducing the frictional components of the marketplace through better information, particularly in those domains relating to technology. The program design was meant specifically to address an apparent decline in U.S. manufacturing and competitiveness worldwide. The Socrates Project’s mission was two-fold: to determine the underlying cause of America’s declining competitiveness; and to use this determination to propose the subsequent development of means to reverse the economic decline.
To determine the cause of America’s declining competitiveness, the Socrates team used all source intelligence to generate a holistic, bird’s eye view of competition worldwide. The team’s view and understanding went well beyond the inferior data that is still the best available to most university professors, think tank analysts and consultants, in terms of scope and completeness.
What the Socrates team determined was that the source of America’s declining competitiveness followed an epochal shift in thinking that took place after World War II. It was not directly related to investment or to patterns of destruction, so much as it was based on the decision-makers’ response to post-war political and economic conditions. At the end of World War II decision-makers throughout the U.S. began shifting away from technology-based planning and began adopting economic-based planning instead. Within a few years, the economic-based planning model had become the standard, all-but-unchallenged foundation for decision-making throughout U.S. industry, government and academe. At the same time, much of the rest of the world continued refining and utilizing technology-based models of planning.
In technology-based planning the foundation for decision-making is the acquisition and utilization of technology, where technology is defined as any application of science to accomplish a function, in order to produce a better product or service. Based on targeted information, technology can be manipulated, offensively and defensively in a chess-like way, in order to acquire and maintain competitive advantage. In contrast, economic-based planning models lead to manipulation of funds as the foundation for decision-making. The measure of success based on economic-based thinking, is the efficiency at which one manipulates so-called economic drivers. Economic manipulation, unlike its technological counterpart is unrelated to anything real or tangible and is not even integrally coordinated with the nation’s wealth or productive outputs per se.
What was also obvious to the Socrates team from their unique bird’s eye view of competition, was that countries like China and India were using technology-based planning to catch up and further, to undercut America’s ability to generate or regain competitive advantage. Indeed, they were rapidly transforming themselves into world economic superpowers as our status slipped and the U.S. position was being eclipsed. While we in the U.S. were coming up with increasingly sophisticated economic shell games to maximize profits, China and India were systematically outmaneuvering us in the acquisition and utilization of technology to eliminate our ability to produce products and services that had competitive advantage in foreign markets, and increasingly in our own domestic markets.
With the global bait and switch nearly completed and the United States suffering through its worst recession since the Great Depression, Reagan’s initiative with Socrates seems positively prescient. With revitalized conservatism in vogue again since the last election, tea partiers and conservatives in the next Congress would do well, not only to follow the fiscally prudent “Roadmap for America’s Future” laid out by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), but to revisit the national strategic level effort required which Ronald Reagan suggested before we got into this mess.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
When there’s Not a Lot to be Thankful For (Issue #477)
One out of every ten workers is unemployed and a much higher percentage is left piecing together part-time gigs just trying to make ends meet. Half of all marriages end in divorce and forty percent of all babies are born out of wedlock, this in addition to the more than a million babies aborted every year as a form of birth control or convenience or because a mistake was made. More than half of unmarried relationships are also on the rocks, albeit they are certainly entered into and ended at an ever quicker pace. Technology has geared us for speed not accuracy, information instead of knowledge. And who has the time for wisdom, whether it doth cry or not? Our people are increasingly distracted, error prone, fidgety, unable to focus, tethered to alarms and bells and ringtones, games and virtual realities that are not their own.
President Obama just promised jobs to India. Meanwhile thousands of American young adults with college education find it hard to get their first job, at least one modestly commensurate with their level of education. It takes them ten years to pay off their education loan. More Twenty-Somethings are in fact living at home with parents or grandparents now. Sixty-Somethings who want to retire can’t, because they lost half of their retirement savings in the financial collapse of 2008.
The United States finds herself in a swirl of crisis dynamics—at once economic, social and political. We truly haven’t seen structural problems of this magnitude since the Great Depression. The economy is in something of a free fall, as yet hidden from view by the Fed and U.S. Government while China eats our lunch. We elected a Chief Executive two years ago with hardly any experience and a penchant for proposing Marx as the solution. The rest of the political class couldn’t lead themselves out of a wet paper bag. The only caveat: it simply remains to be seen if the new “Class of 2010,” though well-meaning, has any clue at all about what to do next. And you say that we should celebrate Thanksgiving? Well, what exactly for?
If one is graceful, one is well, full of grace. If one is hopeful, then full of hope. Thanksgiving implies being thankful (full of thanks) or grateful (full of gratitude), which still begs the question why be that at all? It really doesn’t make much sense, considering that gratitude applies to things we already have. Unless my gratitude prepositions me for getting more or at least not losing something, then what good is it? Should I be grateful for fixing the tire when the tire is fixed? How about some assurance that it never goes flat again? (I’d rather be assurance-and-insurance-full). If God would just do that, i.e., shower His blessings in advance, before they are needed or wanted or even asked for, it would be a lot more efficient. Otherwise, as Eddy Arnold sang it so well, “Make the World Go Away” and I reckon I’ll be grateful for that. That is, unless there’s more to this thing called Life than a pocket full of posies.
There’s a story in the Bible about Jesus healing ten lepers (Luke 17:12-19). Only one of them, after he’d been healed, thought enough about it to pause and get down on his knees and actually thank God. It wasn’t as if Jesus was going to take back the healing! And yet Jesus recommended the actions of the one grateful man over the inaction of nine who were simply thankless. Now that’s interesting. If one is graceless, one is less or without grace. If one is hopeless, then without hope. Being thankless implies ingratitude or the absence of thanks. The implication being that there must be a quality missing: something good, something of innate value that should have been there but wasn’t. Gratitude is that missing quality in the example, and its presence may bear a relation to something received or to some other circumstance of living, but it really isn’t dependent on anything. God could have kept the lepers from getting their disease in the first place. Why be grateful for a healing, especially when one is healed?
Now consider the counsel King David gave to the people of Israel. He told them to give thanks to God under any and every circumstance. Not only because “Both riches and honor come from [God]” and He rules over all and is able “to make great and to give strength to all” (I Chronicles 29:12), but because an offer of thanksgiving is payment of “vows unto the most High” (Psalms 50:14). That is to say, it is a dedicating of oneself in service and to a certain way of life; it is an active promise of love and fidelity. The promise is also ‘for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health’ as with marriage. Thanksgiving therefore is an affirmation of one’s relationship to God and not to things or to however well things are going, nor even to His blessings. Thanksgiving is a duty but not one that is negative or coerced. It is a voluntary expression of love and loyalty to God and His great project called Life. People do it, and Nations do it. Moreover, it is always the right thing to do, even when there’s not a lot that’s obvious to be thankful for.
President Obama just promised jobs to India. Meanwhile thousands of American young adults with college education find it hard to get their first job, at least one modestly commensurate with their level of education. It takes them ten years to pay off their education loan. More Twenty-Somethings are in fact living at home with parents or grandparents now. Sixty-Somethings who want to retire can’t, because they lost half of their retirement savings in the financial collapse of 2008.
The United States finds herself in a swirl of crisis dynamics—at once economic, social and political. We truly haven’t seen structural problems of this magnitude since the Great Depression. The economy is in something of a free fall, as yet hidden from view by the Fed and U.S. Government while China eats our lunch. We elected a Chief Executive two years ago with hardly any experience and a penchant for proposing Marx as the solution. The rest of the political class couldn’t lead themselves out of a wet paper bag. The only caveat: it simply remains to be seen if the new “Class of 2010,” though well-meaning, has any clue at all about what to do next. And you say that we should celebrate Thanksgiving? Well, what exactly for?
If one is graceful, one is well, full of grace. If one is hopeful, then full of hope. Thanksgiving implies being thankful (full of thanks) or grateful (full of gratitude), which still begs the question why be that at all? It really doesn’t make much sense, considering that gratitude applies to things we already have. Unless my gratitude prepositions me for getting more or at least not losing something, then what good is it? Should I be grateful for fixing the tire when the tire is fixed? How about some assurance that it never goes flat again? (I’d rather be assurance-and-insurance-full). If God would just do that, i.e., shower His blessings in advance, before they are needed or wanted or even asked for, it would be a lot more efficient. Otherwise, as Eddy Arnold sang it so well, “Make the World Go Away” and I reckon I’ll be grateful for that. That is, unless there’s more to this thing called Life than a pocket full of posies.
There’s a story in the Bible about Jesus healing ten lepers (Luke 17:12-19). Only one of them, after he’d been healed, thought enough about it to pause and get down on his knees and actually thank God. It wasn’t as if Jesus was going to take back the healing! And yet Jesus recommended the actions of the one grateful man over the inaction of nine who were simply thankless. Now that’s interesting. If one is graceless, one is less or without grace. If one is hopeless, then without hope. Being thankless implies ingratitude or the absence of thanks. The implication being that there must be a quality missing: something good, something of innate value that should have been there but wasn’t. Gratitude is that missing quality in the example, and its presence may bear a relation to something received or to some other circumstance of living, but it really isn’t dependent on anything. God could have kept the lepers from getting their disease in the first place. Why be grateful for a healing, especially when one is healed?
Now consider the counsel King David gave to the people of Israel. He told them to give thanks to God under any and every circumstance. Not only because “Both riches and honor come from [God]” and He rules over all and is able “to make great and to give strength to all” (I Chronicles 29:12), but because an offer of thanksgiving is payment of “vows unto the most High” (Psalms 50:14). That is to say, it is a dedicating of oneself in service and to a certain way of life; it is an active promise of love and fidelity. The promise is also ‘for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health’ as with marriage. Thanksgiving therefore is an affirmation of one’s relationship to God and not to things or to however well things are going, nor even to His blessings. Thanksgiving is a duty but not one that is negative or coerced. It is a voluntary expression of love and loyalty to God and His great project called Life. People do it, and Nations do it. Moreover, it is always the right thing to do, even when there’s not a lot that’s obvious to be thankful for.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Election of 2010: Analysis and Prospectus (Issue #476)
When the smoke finally cleared, Election Day November 2nd turned out to be about as big as conservatives could have hoped. If expectations soared unrealistically high in some areas (many hoped the GOP might retake the Senate but had to be content flipping six seats), still elsewhere those expectations were exceeded (as with the conservative sweep across the country at state level). Democrats lost control of nineteen state legislative chambers and eleven governorships. In Texas, Republicans expanded their two vote majority in the state house to almost fifty.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi may yet serve as Minority Leader in the U.S. House next session, but she is defanged without her Speaker’s gavel. Democrats have started to reorganize with or without White House direction, inventing an “Assistant-to-the-Leader” position basically to promote moderation inside the Democrat leadership. Considering that come January 2011 for the first time in more than six decades there will be fewer than two hundred Democrats in the House, it probably isn’t such a bad move.
The year 1994 was considered a wave election by Republicans too, but that “revolution” fizzled when President Clinton beat a very fast track back to the center. This time the wave election turned out to be a veritable tsunami—nearly twice as big with Republicans picking up 60 seats in the House. President Obama also seems far less likely to dance a soft shoe; and anyway, the Tea Party contingent of the GOP, which did not exist in 1994, will hardly be impressed. Clinton took everyone’s breath away, and even his opponents swooned when he declared ‘the Era of Big Government’ to be over. It was a lie. Now Tea Partiers and conservative stalwarts know better and won’t fall for the line again.
The mid-term election is more akin to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 in terms of its size and its professed ideological purpose. In an article by Lou Cannon appearing in Politics Daily, he attributes four factors to the results of the election in terms of Republican resurgence. Accordingly, “The first [factor] is public dismay with the slow pace of the recovery. The second and related factor is the perceived ineffectiveness of the stimulus and various government bailouts. The third is reaction to Obamacare, which the White House wrongly expected would become popular after it became law…. [and the] fourth factor, both effect and cause, is the tea party….” This litany of causal factors is more or less complete and indeed now common wisdom, except that Cannon overly limits his explanation about the tea party in his piece. The Tea Party as such, is more than just a populist reaction to the serious economic downturn. Yes it bears resemblance to other populist backlashes, except this one has a history and a serious accumulation of discontent dating back years even before the tea party movement coalesced in 2009.
The oversight is worth pointing out, because what is behind the Tea Party also offers causal explanation for the Republican tidal wave. The additional factor is correctly identified as a simmering brand of strict Constitutional construction, which has mostly been maligned, shoved aside or overlooked since the 1960s. It is an insistence no less populist but altogether separate. It is a subsurface and traditional inclination of a majority of the American people and is defensive aggressive in its nature, which explains its robust reappearance. Classically it is a response to tyranny or perceived tyranny and is a distinctive conservative lineament of political philosophy very closely aligned, by extrapolation to the Founding Fathers’ worldview. Its critique of the current social, economic and political milieu has it that government is indeed too big, and also too powerful, too intrusive, too much “in the way,” too overbearing and monitoring, as with Big Brother or the stereotypical Nanny. It is also far too costly of late, and—to the extent that the federal government no longer respects its legal and constitutional bounds, may constitute an impediment to Freedom writ large (which is after all the American project), as well as a physical and moral threat to the People themselves.
A “neo-federalist” wing of the Republican Party with direct Southern and Middle American historical roots has been kept down for years by the GOP establishment and most recently by domination of the neo-conservative wing, which reached its zenith of power during the years of George W. Bush. States rights and Tenth Amendment advocates are now demanding their day in the sun, and the intramural strife will be clearly in play as the GOP seeks next year to integrate its newfound friends in the Tea Party, much like swallowing an anaconda.
The Election of 2010 could very well herald a new era of conservative dominance, whatever its eventual stripe. While winning elections is hard work, however, it is only the first step towards what one hopes will be effective governance. Tea Party freshmen are going to Congress for a purpose, but they are going to need continuing grassroots support and a constant store of encouragement and concrete ideas to get anything done over the long haul. The enthusiasm of new Tea Party members in Congress will also eventually have to translate into specific policy actions that really do help “restore the Republic” according to the Constitution and Founders’ Intent, if that’s what they want to accomplish. Policies and legislation are most definitely required to put Americans back to work and to achieve full and sustained economic recovery—and sooner rather than later, as the Democrats found out. There is also the long and intentionally ignored political imperative that the United States must secure her borders; and then address the sheer magnitude of legal and illegal immigration, ensuring it reaches a reasonable and assimilative level.
The new kids on the block are going to have a lot of work to do. The Tea Party “revolution” could very well fizzle like others before, if they fail to repeal Obamacare or compromise too much with the president on this issue; if they are unable to get government spending under control, or reverse the trend of ballooning national debt. If the Republican Party establishment is seen to subvert the tea party effort, there will almost certainly be a third party alternative for an increasingly large number of disaffected conservative voters inside the GOP’s base, and this could portend a potential realignment or collapse of the Third American Party System.
The best thing that could emerge from the Election of 2010 is a new and more conservative consensus, marked by serious bipartisan hard work and honest efforts to address the crisis dynamics in our economy and polity. Another more likely scenario is that we could be looking at two more years of not only divided, but also gridlocked government leading up to the Election of 2012. If this happens of course, what’s hot is likely to get hotter and what’s a problem is likely to get worse. Arguably only when one of the two major parties (possibly with the help of a strong independent contingent) takes charge of two branches of government (usually the Congress and Executive Branch), does gridlock give way to a period of significant political and economic achievement—the next one presumably stamped by clear conservative branding, but only as it emerges from the Republican dustup. .
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi may yet serve as Minority Leader in the U.S. House next session, but she is defanged without her Speaker’s gavel. Democrats have started to reorganize with or without White House direction, inventing an “Assistant-to-the-Leader” position basically to promote moderation inside the Democrat leadership. Considering that come January 2011 for the first time in more than six decades there will be fewer than two hundred Democrats in the House, it probably isn’t such a bad move.
The year 1994 was considered a wave election by Republicans too, but that “revolution” fizzled when President Clinton beat a very fast track back to the center. This time the wave election turned out to be a veritable tsunami—nearly twice as big with Republicans picking up 60 seats in the House. President Obama also seems far less likely to dance a soft shoe; and anyway, the Tea Party contingent of the GOP, which did not exist in 1994, will hardly be impressed. Clinton took everyone’s breath away, and even his opponents swooned when he declared ‘the Era of Big Government’ to be over. It was a lie. Now Tea Partiers and conservative stalwarts know better and won’t fall for the line again.
The mid-term election is more akin to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 in terms of its size and its professed ideological purpose. In an article by Lou Cannon appearing in Politics Daily, he attributes four factors to the results of the election in terms of Republican resurgence. Accordingly, “The first [factor] is public dismay with the slow pace of the recovery. The second and related factor is the perceived ineffectiveness of the stimulus and various government bailouts. The third is reaction to Obamacare, which the White House wrongly expected would become popular after it became law…. [and the] fourth factor, both effect and cause, is the tea party….” This litany of causal factors is more or less complete and indeed now common wisdom, except that Cannon overly limits his explanation about the tea party in his piece. The Tea Party as such, is more than just a populist reaction to the serious economic downturn. Yes it bears resemblance to other populist backlashes, except this one has a history and a serious accumulation of discontent dating back years even before the tea party movement coalesced in 2009.
The oversight is worth pointing out, because what is behind the Tea Party also offers causal explanation for the Republican tidal wave. The additional factor is correctly identified as a simmering brand of strict Constitutional construction, which has mostly been maligned, shoved aside or overlooked since the 1960s. It is an insistence no less populist but altogether separate. It is a subsurface and traditional inclination of a majority of the American people and is defensive aggressive in its nature, which explains its robust reappearance. Classically it is a response to tyranny or perceived tyranny and is a distinctive conservative lineament of political philosophy very closely aligned, by extrapolation to the Founding Fathers’ worldview. Its critique of the current social, economic and political milieu has it that government is indeed too big, and also too powerful, too intrusive, too much “in the way,” too overbearing and monitoring, as with Big Brother or the stereotypical Nanny. It is also far too costly of late, and—to the extent that the federal government no longer respects its legal and constitutional bounds, may constitute an impediment to Freedom writ large (which is after all the American project), as well as a physical and moral threat to the People themselves.
A “neo-federalist” wing of the Republican Party with direct Southern and Middle American historical roots has been kept down for years by the GOP establishment and most recently by domination of the neo-conservative wing, which reached its zenith of power during the years of George W. Bush. States rights and Tenth Amendment advocates are now demanding their day in the sun, and the intramural strife will be clearly in play as the GOP seeks next year to integrate its newfound friends in the Tea Party, much like swallowing an anaconda.
The Election of 2010 could very well herald a new era of conservative dominance, whatever its eventual stripe. While winning elections is hard work, however, it is only the first step towards what one hopes will be effective governance. Tea Party freshmen are going to Congress for a purpose, but they are going to need continuing grassroots support and a constant store of encouragement and concrete ideas to get anything done over the long haul. The enthusiasm of new Tea Party members in Congress will also eventually have to translate into specific policy actions that really do help “restore the Republic” according to the Constitution and Founders’ Intent, if that’s what they want to accomplish. Policies and legislation are most definitely required to put Americans back to work and to achieve full and sustained economic recovery—and sooner rather than later, as the Democrats found out. There is also the long and intentionally ignored political imperative that the United States must secure her borders; and then address the sheer magnitude of legal and illegal immigration, ensuring it reaches a reasonable and assimilative level.
The new kids on the block are going to have a lot of work to do. The Tea Party “revolution” could very well fizzle like others before, if they fail to repeal Obamacare or compromise too much with the president on this issue; if they are unable to get government spending under control, or reverse the trend of ballooning national debt. If the Republican Party establishment is seen to subvert the tea party effort, there will almost certainly be a third party alternative for an increasingly large number of disaffected conservative voters inside the GOP’s base, and this could portend a potential realignment or collapse of the Third American Party System.
The best thing that could emerge from the Election of 2010 is a new and more conservative consensus, marked by serious bipartisan hard work and honest efforts to address the crisis dynamics in our economy and polity. Another more likely scenario is that we could be looking at two more years of not only divided, but also gridlocked government leading up to the Election of 2012. If this happens of course, what’s hot is likely to get hotter and what’s a problem is likely to get worse. Arguably only when one of the two major parties (possibly with the help of a strong independent contingent) takes charge of two branches of government (usually the Congress and Executive Branch), does gridlock give way to a period of significant political and economic achievement—the next one presumably stamped by clear conservative branding, but only as it emerges from the Republican dustup. .
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Special Category of Hero (Issue #475)
Tom Brokaw wrote an introduction to the coffee table book called Medal of Honor containing portraits of Medal winners some years ago. In it he recounts the arbitrary sort of way that veterans may be regarded by their government or fellow citizens depending upon the time in history. Veterans know this better than most, because a distance of inches or time measured in seconds is often the dividing line twixt life and death on the battlefield, or even in training. Timing is everything as they say. Being at the right time and place makes all the difference. Even mistakes, all but inevitable, will figure in to how things turn out. A mistake or shortcoming can evoke guilt in some, ironic gratitude in others. Veterans of the Korean Conflict were, according to Brokaw, “caught in the backwater of World War II.” Americans were so preoccupied with their own lives at that point that the bloody conflict received very little public attention. Then as we were consumed by the assassination of President Kennedy and the terrible social and political upheavals that followed in the sixties and seventies, to include bitter divide over the Viet Nam War itself, regard for the veteran and his sacrifice actually receded. It stayed sour to some degree until after the First Gulf War.
There are also family members or friends one may know, who may or may not have been veterans, but who are or were bigger than life characters. The fact that no one knows them makes it no less of the truth. God keeps the full and complete record. History is poorly written, even at its best. Most soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen serve and sacrifice nearly anonymously. In a similar way, the politics swirling before, during and after every conflict or engagement, and constant these days throughout every tour of duty, remains a separate reality, unimpressive for the most part, subordinate certainly to the daily tasks and the military missions of all who serve in uniform—with the possible exception of some top brass, who have to answer to the civilian political leadership! When there is a civil-military dispute, the top brass voice their concern or position to political leaders, but then support and implement whatever decision is duly and legally reached. If disagreements are fundamental or some political embarrassment ensues, top brass may very well have to resign—but this is far preferable, so that the bulk of forces remains insulated from all the furious tempests in teapots that have nothing to do with the proximity of life and death issues in a day’s work, or the short and long-term physical wellbeing of men and women defending our nation.
Defense of American’s homes and Homeland remains paramount under any circumstance, disagreement or no, just as every man and woman who joins the armed services swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. The American fighting man or woman is a thinking man or woman too. The special category of hero we cultivate, and sometimes celebrate knows what he is doing, or at least knows in advance what he might do if the training and conditioning kick in. American heroes show forth more moral courage than animal courage. The American soldier who wields his weapon is as deadly, say, as the Hun was in his day—but they are not the same equivalent moral agents, even if sentimentality and an immediate reference to the civilized order must wane until the blood cools and safety will allow it.
American veterans comprise a special category of hero precisely because of who they were going into military service. In a democratic-republic such as ours, the young recruit represents us going in. He or she represents the collective responsibility we share to protect and defend our way of life. So we send our best, and we literally send our hope—out of the city, off the farm, from small towns and neighborhoods they go. Frequently they delay college or their career, and place young family life on hold, or else put it through the lonely hardship of separation. The new recruit represents every citizen, indeed he is a surrogate for the same: to bear the assigned risk; to meet the many challenges, to accomplish the mission, to master skill and craft, to face the enemy. And so, notwithstanding an exquisite execution of violence or the longsuffering execution of mundane duties, the American veteran is heroic, who returns home bringing the same good he brought into service back with him. Indeed, he often packs more of a positive nature and value in his rucksack than what he at first had, in terms of those hallmark signs of military service: maturity, discipline, self-confidence, teamwork, learning and yes, even humanity.
There are also family members or friends one may know, who may or may not have been veterans, but who are or were bigger than life characters. The fact that no one knows them makes it no less of the truth. God keeps the full and complete record. History is poorly written, even at its best. Most soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen serve and sacrifice nearly anonymously. In a similar way, the politics swirling before, during and after every conflict or engagement, and constant these days throughout every tour of duty, remains a separate reality, unimpressive for the most part, subordinate certainly to the daily tasks and the military missions of all who serve in uniform—with the possible exception of some top brass, who have to answer to the civilian political leadership! When there is a civil-military dispute, the top brass voice their concern or position to political leaders, but then support and implement whatever decision is duly and legally reached. If disagreements are fundamental or some political embarrassment ensues, top brass may very well have to resign—but this is far preferable, so that the bulk of forces remains insulated from all the furious tempests in teapots that have nothing to do with the proximity of life and death issues in a day’s work, or the short and long-term physical wellbeing of men and women defending our nation.
Defense of American’s homes and Homeland remains paramount under any circumstance, disagreement or no, just as every man and woman who joins the armed services swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. The American fighting man or woman is a thinking man or woman too. The special category of hero we cultivate, and sometimes celebrate knows what he is doing, or at least knows in advance what he might do if the training and conditioning kick in. American heroes show forth more moral courage than animal courage. The American soldier who wields his weapon is as deadly, say, as the Hun was in his day—but they are not the same equivalent moral agents, even if sentimentality and an immediate reference to the civilized order must wane until the blood cools and safety will allow it.
American veterans comprise a special category of hero precisely because of who they were going into military service. In a democratic-republic such as ours, the young recruit represents us going in. He or she represents the collective responsibility we share to protect and defend our way of life. So we send our best, and we literally send our hope—out of the city, off the farm, from small towns and neighborhoods they go. Frequently they delay college or their career, and place young family life on hold, or else put it through the lonely hardship of separation. The new recruit represents every citizen, indeed he is a surrogate for the same: to bear the assigned risk; to meet the many challenges, to accomplish the mission, to master skill and craft, to face the enemy. And so, notwithstanding an exquisite execution of violence or the longsuffering execution of mundane duties, the American veteran is heroic, who returns home bringing the same good he brought into service back with him. Indeed, he often packs more of a positive nature and value in his rucksack than what he at first had, in terms of those hallmark signs of military service: maturity, discipline, self-confidence, teamwork, learning and yes, even humanity.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Voting about Faith, America’s Survival (Issue #473)
This week I attended a funeral. A three-year old special needs child had passed away. The sun broke through the overcast day, when the gates of Heaven opened up to receive her—at least that’s how it seemed to all the believers gathered there at the graveside singing hymns, mourning, and bearing witness to how precious a little life can be.
People of faith believe that identity is always intact. God keeps us safe with Him, where we are always looking and acting our best in the image He created us in. People of faith believe their purpose extends beyond the temporal material world and into Eternity. Everything in this physical life therefore is couched in the context of a relatively brief mortal existence on earth, and the Life and Time indestructible elsewhere. People of faith tend to live according to discretion and morals, by virtue of a continuous reference to the Life that is to come. This reference smoothes out some emotional rough edges, allays disappointment, enables forgiveness to occur, and displaces class envy. The crash or the burn-out, or so-called “postal” bouts of anger and revenge, are more often characteristic of someone without faith or someone who enters into a crisis of faith.
In politics faith has implications too. Government is seen as a portion, or mere functional piece, of that relatively brief mortal existence here on earth. Caesar is to be respected certainly, but a person’s natural rights—even a little person’s—are more important. Government is subordinated to one’s spiritual journey. Government is subordinated to certain values, which constitute the duty of a faithful and faith-filled people to their God. People of faith are always, potentially, revolutionary. The Declaration of Independence is their civil creed.
The First Amendment to the Constitution had once established a useful firewall, even as the advance of secularism continued over two centuries to affect the democratic society at large. States even towards the end of the Twentieth Century remained sovereign with respect to most matters of religion, in the context of our federated Republic. Within the states themselves moreover, a high regard for matters of the spirit and of religion, provided for a libertarian approach that gave space and freedom for entire communities of faith to deviate from the majority norms in their pursuit of happiness. People also knew how to mind their business then. Property more or less ensured privacy, because it wasn’t lightly taken away, or heavily taxed, or invaded by the government. The advance of secularism, coupled with a corrosive leveling form of democracy, eventually dismantled the federalist construct of our government and has all but killed the Constitution. It was only a matter of time before every remaining pocket of religious freedom and faith-based “deviant” institution would be under attack.
Today any semblance of resistance to the secular norm is quashed at every level of government and society. A consolidated national democratic and secular majority-will, skewed, corrupted and expressed by a conformist and no-longer-federal government, invades every family and household in the country. People of faith are about to be extinguished—or rather, the faith of the people, which is the real aim of attack. Ironically, faith can inform and cause people to respond in two very different ways whenever their Caesar presumes upon the prerogatives of their God and His people. It is, of course possible, to take solace and comfort from the fact that life is short and there are sure rewards and perfect justice in Heaven. The other way is to live heroically, knowing that whatever the cost or ultimate sacrifice, it is well worth the teaching and the example of the Lord, in order to bring His Prayer to fruition: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). It is certainly worth the fight if done in defense, and for the future of freedom and the future of America’s posterity. It is worth voting too when the ballots are not bullets, and when a peaceful way forward presents itself in order to bring about political revolution.
There is indeed a time for every season, but much involves the choice that free men and women make as it were, in time. People without faith will vote for their stomachs every time. They will give in to fear and to fearful political exhortations of envy, because they never see beyond the grave. They empower government to take from others what they think they need, and acknowledge no higher authority than their own selfish greed and that of greed’s henchman, the bureaucrat with a badge and snub-nosed gun. After all, they have nothing else to reconcile, nothing more to redeem, nothing to justify outside the narrow confines of incidental breath and an accidental heartbeat. The truth is that it was never unconstitutional according to the Founders’ Original Intent to have prayer in schools, public or otherwise—it is entirely unconstitutional, however, to have the Federal Government telling sovereign states what they can and cannot do and defining what is or isn’t allowed in their schools.
The underlying problem has never been about prayer or monuments. It isn’t about how or whether to teach objectivity, critical thinking, logic or the scientific method. It sure isn’t about studying Chinese in kindergarten, and whether to double up on increasingly ungraded math and science homework! The crisis in schools is massive, and the failure to educate readily apparent. The solution, as with so much else, involves transmission and receipt of our cultural inheritance and of history again. It involves preparing kids and young people for the workplace and for society, concentrating on skills but also on discipline and character. Education will fix itself, when the Republic is restored and the American people, including all people of faith are free again. The biggest problem we face today isn’t phonics or bilingualism. It isn’t the amount of money thrown at something, or the quality of teachers in low-income neighborhoods. It has everything to do with the Federal Government and its massive overreach in terms of raw power. It has to do with entire branches of the Federal Government, which no longer serve the best interests of the American people! The solution has to do with knocking the Federal Government back down to a proper constitutional size and scope. GOOD CHRISTIAN: IF YOU VALUE ANYTHING AT ALL IN THIS LIFE, YOU MUST VOTE!
People of faith believe that identity is always intact. God keeps us safe with Him, where we are always looking and acting our best in the image He created us in. People of faith believe their purpose extends beyond the temporal material world and into Eternity. Everything in this physical life therefore is couched in the context of a relatively brief mortal existence on earth, and the Life and Time indestructible elsewhere. People of faith tend to live according to discretion and morals, by virtue of a continuous reference to the Life that is to come. This reference smoothes out some emotional rough edges, allays disappointment, enables forgiveness to occur, and displaces class envy. The crash or the burn-out, or so-called “postal” bouts of anger and revenge, are more often characteristic of someone without faith or someone who enters into a crisis of faith.
In politics faith has implications too. Government is seen as a portion, or mere functional piece, of that relatively brief mortal existence here on earth. Caesar is to be respected certainly, but a person’s natural rights—even a little person’s—are more important. Government is subordinated to one’s spiritual journey. Government is subordinated to certain values, which constitute the duty of a faithful and faith-filled people to their God. People of faith are always, potentially, revolutionary. The Declaration of Independence is their civil creed.
The First Amendment to the Constitution had once established a useful firewall, even as the advance of secularism continued over two centuries to affect the democratic society at large. States even towards the end of the Twentieth Century remained sovereign with respect to most matters of religion, in the context of our federated Republic. Within the states themselves moreover, a high regard for matters of the spirit and of religion, provided for a libertarian approach that gave space and freedom for entire communities of faith to deviate from the majority norms in their pursuit of happiness. People also knew how to mind their business then. Property more or less ensured privacy, because it wasn’t lightly taken away, or heavily taxed, or invaded by the government. The advance of secularism, coupled with a corrosive leveling form of democracy, eventually dismantled the federalist construct of our government and has all but killed the Constitution. It was only a matter of time before every remaining pocket of religious freedom and faith-based “deviant” institution would be under attack.
Today any semblance of resistance to the secular norm is quashed at every level of government and society. A consolidated national democratic and secular majority-will, skewed, corrupted and expressed by a conformist and no-longer-federal government, invades every family and household in the country. People of faith are about to be extinguished—or rather, the faith of the people, which is the real aim of attack. Ironically, faith can inform and cause people to respond in two very different ways whenever their Caesar presumes upon the prerogatives of their God and His people. It is, of course possible, to take solace and comfort from the fact that life is short and there are sure rewards and perfect justice in Heaven. The other way is to live heroically, knowing that whatever the cost or ultimate sacrifice, it is well worth the teaching and the example of the Lord, in order to bring His Prayer to fruition: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). It is certainly worth the fight if done in defense, and for the future of freedom and the future of America’s posterity. It is worth voting too when the ballots are not bullets, and when a peaceful way forward presents itself in order to bring about political revolution.
There is indeed a time for every season, but much involves the choice that free men and women make as it were, in time. People without faith will vote for their stomachs every time. They will give in to fear and to fearful political exhortations of envy, because they never see beyond the grave. They empower government to take from others what they think they need, and acknowledge no higher authority than their own selfish greed and that of greed’s henchman, the bureaucrat with a badge and snub-nosed gun. After all, they have nothing else to reconcile, nothing more to redeem, nothing to justify outside the narrow confines of incidental breath and an accidental heartbeat. The truth is that it was never unconstitutional according to the Founders’ Original Intent to have prayer in schools, public or otherwise—it is entirely unconstitutional, however, to have the Federal Government telling sovereign states what they can and cannot do and defining what is or isn’t allowed in their schools.
The underlying problem has never been about prayer or monuments. It isn’t about how or whether to teach objectivity, critical thinking, logic or the scientific method. It sure isn’t about studying Chinese in kindergarten, and whether to double up on increasingly ungraded math and science homework! The crisis in schools is massive, and the failure to educate readily apparent. The solution, as with so much else, involves transmission and receipt of our cultural inheritance and of history again. It involves preparing kids and young people for the workplace and for society, concentrating on skills but also on discipline and character. Education will fix itself, when the Republic is restored and the American people, including all people of faith are free again. The biggest problem we face today isn’t phonics or bilingualism. It isn’t the amount of money thrown at something, or the quality of teachers in low-income neighborhoods. It has everything to do with the Federal Government and its massive overreach in terms of raw power. It has to do with entire branches of the Federal Government, which no longer serve the best interests of the American people! The solution has to do with knocking the Federal Government back down to a proper constitutional size and scope. GOOD CHRISTIAN: IF YOU VALUE ANYTHING AT ALL IN THIS LIFE, YOU MUST VOTE!
Monday, October 11, 2010
Loss of Manufacturing is the Federal Government’s Fault (Issue #471)
Anne Marie Cox of Catholic News Service (CNS) reported on the president during his recent campaign swing through four states. On September 29th President Barack Obama visited a Mid-West family in a Des Moines, Iowa neighborhood and spoke to a group assembled in backyard lawn chairs. The local parish priest, Father Michael Amadeo of the Holy Trinity School, was the last one to pose a question. The priest shared a story about a parishioner. Apparently the 55-year-old father had lost his manufacturing job over one year ago and the family was struggling. The priest asked what the president’s economic policies would do in the next year to help people in that circumstance. If anyone were looking for hope, however, they might as well have phoned a call center in India.
President Obama responded that many of the manufacturing jobs simply will not return, because modern factories are so efficient and require fewer workers. Moreover, some jobs are moving overseas where wages are cheaper. His concluding advice was for the unemployed man to keep his skills honed and to be ready when the economy finally turns around again. The president plugged clean energy as a promising business alternative and then left. Not only was the president less than empathetic to the priest’s question or the plight of unemployed man, his administration has got its economics all wrong and government policies are sure to drag this recession all the way to Kingdom Come.
The following analysis is taken from Tom Pauken’s excellent book, Bringing America Home (2010). In it he details those policies behind our nation’s marked economic decline. A central reason for huge trade deficits and the shift of economic power from Main Street to Wall Street is a business tax system that gives private-equity moguls incentives to take imprudent risks with the companies they control. In this respect, they have a distinct advantage over owners of U.S. companies who would like to run their businesses in a tried and true conservative fashion or pursue capital accumulation-based strategies, but find that our tax structure “disincentivizes” them. The United States has a corporate income-tax rate of 35 percent. That rate is an economic incentive for financiers to load a company up with high levels of corporate debt in order to avoid taxation. It is a no-brainer—you can write off debt on your taxes, but savings and investments get taxed heavily. No rational businessman would want his company to accumulate significant savings if the interest on those savings is taxed at 35 percent.
American businesses that have their plants and employees in the United States also do not operate on a level playing field with our trading partners or competitors. Every major trading country in the world except for the United States provides a tax advantage for domestic manufacturers. Even as other countries have removed tariffs over the past four decades, they have been careful to put into place value-added taxes or VATs that provide their companies with a significant economic advantage over foreign businesses. Austin business economist David Hartman has developed data on the effects of a border-adjusted VAT. Starting with France in the mid-1960s, European countries began adopting border-adjusted VATs that now average 19 percent. All Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, made up of over 30 developed countries—all except the United States, that is—have since adopted VATs or their equivalents averaging 18 percent. As a result, U.S. goods carry the full burden of federal, state, and local taxes, plus an added tax averaging 18 percent when they are shipped to foreign markets. To make matters worse, foreign goods that are shipped into the United States enjoy an 18-percent VAT abatement—yet are subject to none of the taxes imposed on U.S. manufacturers.
It really is small wonder that so many big companies have moved their manufacturing outside the United States. It is more of a wonder why the rest haven’t gone! The hollowing out of our manufacturing base and the resultant unemployment and regrettable socio-economic inequalities that have been produced, were predictable. They were caused by the federal government’s regressive tax and trade policies. The president shows every indication of perpetuating the same policies of what Doug Ingram has called a design for “exporting prosperity.” In the past ten years the United States has lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. Obama did not start the problem, but Obama’s deficits after less than two years in office already exceed President George W. Bush’s after eight years. Unemployment is stuck at nearly ten percent and is likely to remain there for two more years. The Democrat Congress, for the first time in recent memory has not even passed a part of the proposed budget out of committee for the fiscal year that already began. In other words, the president honestly can’t give much hope to the priest in reply to his question. Either the president doesn’t know what to do in the next year, or else his intent is for more of the same that got us in this mess in the first place.
President Obama responded that many of the manufacturing jobs simply will not return, because modern factories are so efficient and require fewer workers. Moreover, some jobs are moving overseas where wages are cheaper. His concluding advice was for the unemployed man to keep his skills honed and to be ready when the economy finally turns around again. The president plugged clean energy as a promising business alternative and then left. Not only was the president less than empathetic to the priest’s question or the plight of unemployed man, his administration has got its economics all wrong and government policies are sure to drag this recession all the way to Kingdom Come.
The following analysis is taken from Tom Pauken’s excellent book, Bringing America Home (2010). In it he details those policies behind our nation’s marked economic decline. A central reason for huge trade deficits and the shift of economic power from Main Street to Wall Street is a business tax system that gives private-equity moguls incentives to take imprudent risks with the companies they control. In this respect, they have a distinct advantage over owners of U.S. companies who would like to run their businesses in a tried and true conservative fashion or pursue capital accumulation-based strategies, but find that our tax structure “disincentivizes” them. The United States has a corporate income-tax rate of 35 percent. That rate is an economic incentive for financiers to load a company up with high levels of corporate debt in order to avoid taxation. It is a no-brainer—you can write off debt on your taxes, but savings and investments get taxed heavily. No rational businessman would want his company to accumulate significant savings if the interest on those savings is taxed at 35 percent.
American businesses that have their plants and employees in the United States also do not operate on a level playing field with our trading partners or competitors. Every major trading country in the world except for the United States provides a tax advantage for domestic manufacturers. Even as other countries have removed tariffs over the past four decades, they have been careful to put into place value-added taxes or VATs that provide their companies with a significant economic advantage over foreign businesses. Austin business economist David Hartman has developed data on the effects of a border-adjusted VAT. Starting with France in the mid-1960s, European countries began adopting border-adjusted VATs that now average 19 percent. All Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, made up of over 30 developed countries—all except the United States, that is—have since adopted VATs or their equivalents averaging 18 percent. As a result, U.S. goods carry the full burden of federal, state, and local taxes, plus an added tax averaging 18 percent when they are shipped to foreign markets. To make matters worse, foreign goods that are shipped into the United States enjoy an 18-percent VAT abatement—yet are subject to none of the taxes imposed on U.S. manufacturers.
It really is small wonder that so many big companies have moved their manufacturing outside the United States. It is more of a wonder why the rest haven’t gone! The hollowing out of our manufacturing base and the resultant unemployment and regrettable socio-economic inequalities that have been produced, were predictable. They were caused by the federal government’s regressive tax and trade policies. The president shows every indication of perpetuating the same policies of what Doug Ingram has called a design for “exporting prosperity.” In the past ten years the United States has lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. Obama did not start the problem, but Obama’s deficits after less than two years in office already exceed President George W. Bush’s after eight years. Unemployment is stuck at nearly ten percent and is likely to remain there for two more years. The Democrat Congress, for the first time in recent memory has not even passed a part of the proposed budget out of committee for the fiscal year that already began. In other words, the president honestly can’t give much hope to the priest in reply to his question. Either the president doesn’t know what to do in the next year, or else his intent is for more of the same that got us in this mess in the first place.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Texas is Winner in Debate about the Debate (Issue #470)
Debates provide information about candidates and their responses under pressure. In close contests, voters may wait for debates before deciding for whom to vote. This is especially true of independents, those voters who are not registered as members of a particular political party. Those who watch debates also tend to vote more often on the issues, whereas those who do not watch are more likely to vote on the basis of personality and feeling. The media not only report on a debate itself but also usually announce a “winner,” and of course the verdict affects voter behavior by creating a positive bandwagon effect. Candidates try to use debates to their advantage, in order to overcome negative perceptions or defuse certain issues. Debates are great for a candidate to reach sizeable television audiences, but just as easily debates can torpedo a campaign and are considered risky so long as the candidate enjoys a sizeable lead.
Big media agencies such as The Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, San Antonio Express-News, and The Houston Chronicle, together with KLRU “Public” TV are sponsors of the October 19th Texas Gubernatorial Debate in Austin at the UT Campus. There are five candidates running for Governor, and the sponsors changed their rules to allow two major and two minor party candidates to participate, they said to foster an exchange of ideas and promote the health of our “democracy.” They voted to allow every single candidate except one, however, to participate. The only candidate excluded by sponsors is the officially registered write-in candidate, Andy Barron, who collected thousands of petitioner signatures and then also paid the hefty registration fee. In other words, he met State Law for ballot access—and one would hope this were sufficient to be heard. The sponsors actually dropped their criterion down from ten percent to one percent of public support when Governor Perry declined to participate, but the substantiating poll the sponsors used did not pick up sufficient support for Barron’s write-in insurgent candidacy. Notwithstanding, a recent KWTX News Channel 10 poll showed support for Andy Barron in the Central Texas area to be in double digits.
The Andy Barron for Governor Campaign is currently paying for a prestigious outside research group to conduct a statewide scientific poll, on the outside chance that the campaign’s media ads have stirred recognition of their candidate and upped public support sufficiently to break the sponsors’ threshold for inclusion in the debate. The irony is that only Governor Rick Perry’s recalcitrance has materialized a debate involving more than two dominant party representatives. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules would not have allowed the sponsors to go forward with just one candidate, turning the planned debate essentially into an interview. Other candidates would have to be afforded equal time under such a circumstance. The Republican Governor has long demanded that Democrat Bill White release his 1990s income tax returns from when White served as Texas Democrat Party Chairman and Assistant U.S. Energy Secretary, or else he would not engage him in a debate.
Now there’s a good chance Andy Barron will prove public support above the lowered threshold of one percent statewide and could possibly receive a late invitation to participate. If Barron is still not afforded an invitation to debate after showing sufficient scientific polling to prove his level of support above one percent, there could be basis for a lawsuit. Many in Barron’s campaign already suspect an anti-religious bias and specifically anti-Christian discrimination. If four or five candidates who were invited actually appeared, it will be the most interesting cross-section of political opinions ever represented before the public in Texas gubernatorial debate history. There would also emerge a most difficult situation for Perry, particularly if his lead in the polls narrows by a couple points. In that situation where four of five candidates are scheduled to appear and the race between Perry and White is close, Perry might be pressured to join the debate himself. Since 1984 the Presidential debates have become such an institution, that a candidate finds it difficult to avoid them no matter how big his lead, at least without making his refusal a big issue in its own right. We may be headed for a similar situation in the context of gubernatorial debates.
Tea Party support among candidates for Governor this year is divided between Governor Perry, who has the backing from Sarah Palin, but also Libertarian Kathie Glass, as well as “Other” party write-in candidate, Andy Barron. All three have expressed support for the key constitutional concept of nullification, a doctrine whereby states may prevent enforcement of Federal authority in cases where encroachment of the Federal Government on states’ rights exceeds Constitutional authority to do so in that area. Imagine a debate scenario in which three of five candidates for Governor of Texas actually support the sovereign right of the State to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress and unconstitutional executive orders by the president! That would make Texas the winner no matter who finally wins election on Election Day, November 2nd.
Big media agencies such as The Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, San Antonio Express-News, and The Houston Chronicle, together with KLRU “Public” TV are sponsors of the October 19th Texas Gubernatorial Debate in Austin at the UT Campus. There are five candidates running for Governor, and the sponsors changed their rules to allow two major and two minor party candidates to participate, they said to foster an exchange of ideas and promote the health of our “democracy.” They voted to allow every single candidate except one, however, to participate. The only candidate excluded by sponsors is the officially registered write-in candidate, Andy Barron, who collected thousands of petitioner signatures and then also paid the hefty registration fee. In other words, he met State Law for ballot access—and one would hope this were sufficient to be heard. The sponsors actually dropped their criterion down from ten percent to one percent of public support when Governor Perry declined to participate, but the substantiating poll the sponsors used did not pick up sufficient support for Barron’s write-in insurgent candidacy. Notwithstanding, a recent KWTX News Channel 10 poll showed support for Andy Barron in the Central Texas area to be in double digits.
The Andy Barron for Governor Campaign is currently paying for a prestigious outside research group to conduct a statewide scientific poll, on the outside chance that the campaign’s media ads have stirred recognition of their candidate and upped public support sufficiently to break the sponsors’ threshold for inclusion in the debate. The irony is that only Governor Rick Perry’s recalcitrance has materialized a debate involving more than two dominant party representatives. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules would not have allowed the sponsors to go forward with just one candidate, turning the planned debate essentially into an interview. Other candidates would have to be afforded equal time under such a circumstance. The Republican Governor has long demanded that Democrat Bill White release his 1990s income tax returns from when White served as Texas Democrat Party Chairman and Assistant U.S. Energy Secretary, or else he would not engage him in a debate.
Now there’s a good chance Andy Barron will prove public support above the lowered threshold of one percent statewide and could possibly receive a late invitation to participate. If Barron is still not afforded an invitation to debate after showing sufficient scientific polling to prove his level of support above one percent, there could be basis for a lawsuit. Many in Barron’s campaign already suspect an anti-religious bias and specifically anti-Christian discrimination. If four or five candidates who were invited actually appeared, it will be the most interesting cross-section of political opinions ever represented before the public in Texas gubernatorial debate history. There would also emerge a most difficult situation for Perry, particularly if his lead in the polls narrows by a couple points. In that situation where four of five candidates are scheduled to appear and the race between Perry and White is close, Perry might be pressured to join the debate himself. Since 1984 the Presidential debates have become such an institution, that a candidate finds it difficult to avoid them no matter how big his lead, at least without making his refusal a big issue in its own right. We may be headed for a similar situation in the context of gubernatorial debates.
Tea Party support among candidates for Governor this year is divided between Governor Perry, who has the backing from Sarah Palin, but also Libertarian Kathie Glass, as well as “Other” party write-in candidate, Andy Barron. All three have expressed support for the key constitutional concept of nullification, a doctrine whereby states may prevent enforcement of Federal authority in cases where encroachment of the Federal Government on states’ rights exceeds Constitutional authority to do so in that area. Imagine a debate scenario in which three of five candidates for Governor of Texas actually support the sovereign right of the State to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress and unconstitutional executive orders by the president! That would make Texas the winner no matter who finally wins election on Election Day, November 2nd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)