Good Grief!

Good grief! Have I stumbled into a lousy re-make of “Groundhog Day?” As I view the GOP debates and listen to the “informed” pundits, I recall that I’ve heard all this garbage before. This movie should be titled “The Lesser Evil Again.” For more than 150 years the two old parties have followed similar paths at differing speeds to lead us to the same result….socialist state followed by fiscal collapse followed by either violent anarchy or tyrannical totalitarianism. Yet, the pundits, our “leaders,” and even some frightened constitutional activists plead with us to accept the lesser evil because another path would lead to loosing. Here’s a news flash: winning with the lesser evil guarantees that we lose…not just the party, but everyone loses.

The most predictable behavioral aspect of American voters, self-identified conservatives and progressive-leftists alike, is their predictability. They continually select lesser candidates in order to avoid losing to a worse candidate while sacrificing principles for short-term political gain. Clearly, our elitist statist leadership is exactly what we deserve because we appear steadfastly committed to handing them the reins of power. We are engaged in a march toward national suicide because we continue to promote and elect career politicians whose lack of political courage places their fingers on the trigger of our demise.

Most of us prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar. Our tendency is to continue repeating our behaviors until circumstances force us to change. For example, during the past several election cycles U.S. voters have allowed the mass media to define the candidates and design the criteria for choosing. Media buzz-words such as “extreme,” “frontrunner,” “electability,” and “isolationist” are sprinkled through the broadcast or story to tilt the coverage and audience perceptions. By choosing which candidates to vet and which elements of their pasts merit reporting, the media construct the public images of the various candidates. Many of us who consider ourselves to be politically aware and astute, nevertheless, swallow the media meme, and we choose our preferred candidates based on the media definition of “electable.”

A recent Battleground Poll suggests that roughly 55% to 60% of the voters in the United States self-identify as “conservative.” Any discerning observer would view that number skeptically because the term “conservative” roams all over the philosophical, ideological and political map. Many conservatives truly desire a constitutional government that confines the federal beast to its enumerated powers. Others appear to be “OK” with a massive federal apparatus that wanders far beyond the Constitution as long as private-sector markets remain unhindered. Another group of conservatives are focused on lifestyle issues and view the federal machinery as a force for coercing and limiting certain personal choice. It seems, therefore, that a conservative majority of voters in the 55% to 60% range is meaningless. Divided priorities, “winning over principles,” and accepting media definitions merge together to create a majority comprised of a collection of poorly defined or articulated minorities.

It appears that while many profess to desire change…especially a return to constitutional principles…they are unwilling to fully commit to candidates who have the principles and the courage to implement the new direction. Their attitudes are similar to the MBA graduate who dreams of becoming CEO but is afraid to leave the comfort of the mailroom in order to enhance his career. So-called constitutional conservatives pine for principled candidates who honor ALL of the Constitution, but hesitate to vote for them for fear of “splitting the vote” or backing a possible loser. So, as a consequence, they vote for the “lesser of two evils” and elect a certain loser while insuring that the nation, too, becomes a loser. Weak-willed voters and weak-on-principle candidates are a combination that will lead to the collapse of our nation. It is impossible for weakness compounded by more weakness to withstand the tides of chaos and destruction. Despite the principles of mathematics wherein two negatives yield a positive, the opposite is true in governance.

Normally I have a good head of hair. I sometimes cut it very short to make it easier to work around the farm, but it does not qualify me as presidential material. Neither does a winning smile nor a resonant voice guarantee that one has the capacity to govern a massive nation. Many years of political service may actually be a detriment for a candidate who is committed to reform because she or he has become too familiar with the status quo. Looks, appearance or poise are not the best criteria for a political leader. Principle, character and consistency are the traits that we should seek for our elected officials.

The lesser of two evils is definitely lesser and obviously evil. We can no longer permit our nation to be in the hands of lesser types who lack a moral and principled compass. We must choose courageously if we expect our elected officials to act with courage.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tues. & Wed., 6-7pm, 1370 WSPD   www.wspd.com

Consistency of Character

Consistency of character is something that not many of us can claim. We all want to be viewed as people who can be relied on to do the right thing time after time. Unfortunately most of us can recall instances where we failed to come through when someone or some occasion needed our strength and our assistance. Even without the descriptor of character attached, consistency is difficult to accomplish. For those of us who are parents we have often second-guessed our inconsistent guidance for our offspring. Consistency is a highly-valued trait in professional sports….with limitations…. a consistent .100 hitter will find himself consistently re-assigned to a lower league. Consistency is a valued attribute when it is productive or represents a favorable behavior. Consistent character in the lofty world of national politics is truly rarified air. The term “flip-flop” has more social relevance today for chameleon-type politicians than for flimsy footwear.

It is time for a mea culpa. Back in my ultra conservative GOP days I thought Ron Paul was a somewhat looney nagger. His constant harping about the Constitution and the abuses by the Federal Reserve seemed quaint but somewhat far-fetched…..a little “out there” if you know what I mean. But time and circumstances have moved us all “out there” as we realize that Dr. Paul’s predictions were “spot on.” The unconstitutional forays into “never never land” by Congress and administrations have resulted in a massive, intrusive, expensive and inefficient government. The secret manipulations by the Fed when added to the known digital creation of money from thin air have led to the value of our currency becoming debased while the specter of runaway inflation haunts us. Ron Paul has understood the gaping faults within the Federal Reserve for a long time, and we ignored him.  The current knock on Congressman Paul from his detractors involves his foreign policy positions. They accuse him of being an isolationist, or naïve…..or “wacko.”

The title of this piece is “Consistency of Character,” and if one is to be faithful to the Constitution, one must be consistent regarding domestic policy, foreign policy and government-citizen interactions. As I have written in previous columns, the United States Congress has not DECLARED war since December 8^th, 1941. Consistent constitutional adherence would not permit the multitude of military actions that we have pursued during the past 70 years. To praise Dr. Paul’s constitutional integrity regarding the size and scope of government while condemning his constitutional foreign policy stance is both hypocritical and self-serving. If Dr. Paul’s critics want him to become a flaming interventionist who spends trillions of dollars and countless lives, they should amend the Constitution to allow for frequent willy-nilly military operations against every perceived threat, real and potential, with a minimal legislative or constitutional justification…..rather like we have been doing for seven decades. The chief reason that no war has been declared in all that time despite our being in nearly constant conflict for the entire period is that Congress and the presidents have lacked the political will and courage to take a recorded stand. Cowardice should not be rewarded…..nor tolerated.

Now, regarding Mr. Paul’s specific stand on Iran and the nearly universal gnashing of teeth and wailing about his unwillingness to initiate aggressive military action against the Iranians, in a previous column (“Do Something”—8/19/2011) I identified several nations that are legitimate threats to the security of the United States. That number has increased with the events in Libya. That nation is on the verge of anarchy with tribal, regional and ideological factions all vying for power. At stake is the broad range of weapons of mass destruction that have been sequestered throughout the country. Those armaments are particularly vulnerable for acquisition by groups committed to terror. Iran certainly is a threat…a considerable threat with no air force or missile delivery system …but to focus on the potential of Iran without watching the reality of other threatening countries would be….could be…a disastrous oversight.

Dr. Paul thoroughly understands that fixation on the enemy du jour could lead to a devastating consequence for our nation. He believes in a strong defense and a powerful swift response if any nation directly challenges our people. Those who would dismiss Congressman Paul as a serious contender for the presidency because of his foreign policy views are hypocritically disingenuous. It is radically hypocritical to laud Mr. Paul’s steadfast consistent compliance with the Constitution while decrying his constitutional position with regards to international ventures and military action. It is disingenuous to insist that the only true leaders are those who violate the Constitution by sending our armed services personnel into harm’s way while playing the role of chicken hawk cowards who are unwilling to go on the legal record to justify their actions.

Consistency of character is a commodity that is rare in the halls of political power. Honesty and integrity are also in short supply. For those of you who are or may know someone who is a serious follower and believer of faith, you may be aware of how some people like to ridicule believers and poke fun at their faith. It is similar to someone like Dr. Paul who takes his oath of office seriously but is the target of derision by those who claim to support the Constitution. There are three valid remedies to this situation: amend the Constitution, stop falsely claiming to support it, or engage in a serious examination of Dr. Paul’s positions in the light of constitutional awareness. If you, yes You, truly want a restoration of constitutional government for our nation, you must perform your due diligence and request that other candidates stop claiming to be followers of the Framers while they pursue their interventionist world-policeman and unconstitutional foreign policies. Let’s be consistent.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Listen in to 1370 WSPD radio on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 6:00pm to 7:00pm. www.wspd.com

Diving for Cover

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Dear Congress

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader and Members of the House Republican Caucus,

You have been returned to the majority because most of the people of this nation have recognized that our country is facing a severe economic, social, fiscal and political crisis. The majority of voters in November of last year discerned that the Democrat majority under Speaker Pelosi had relinquished any semblance of fiscal responsibility that they may have ever held. In addition to their profligacy, their legislative agenda undermined the liberty of our citizens and generated more tension between the taxed and the beneficiaries. You were either elected or re-elected to stop the madness and to turn around from the disastrous direction that our United States of America clearly is headed.

We understand that many of you are career politicians who lust for office and the accolades that shower you. We understand that many of you may be honest and moral, but you appear to lack the finely honed principles that should guide you. You have taken an oath of office………

                                 I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

We have some questions for your consideration. Did you take the oath seriously? Do you understand the oath? How would you define “support and defend the Constitution?” Have you done so during your political career? Is a “good idea” necessarily Constitutional? Where do you personally draw the line about when to support the Constitution and when to ignore or dismiss it? Have you willingly violated your oath because the nation has needs that are not addressed by Article 1 Section 8? Or have you violated your oath because the Constitution has been abused by Congress for so long that it cannot be fixed….you know, that toothpaste back into the tube dilemma?

We know that Democrats lie, cheat and steal (votes) to move their agenda. We are grateful that, for the most part, you seek to fulfill your duties and obligations with honor and integrity. We want you, however, to be bold, courageous and principled….fight constantly and consistently for Constitutional principles and the restoration of personal liberty for all citizens of the United States. You appear to have resisted advancing ideas, strategies and legislation that would challenge this incremental march toward personal and economic tyranny because they might fail. I might add here that the incremental march has become a gallop. Why are you afraid to fail on a matter of principle? You should know that your vote to repeal the healthcare fiasco was appreciated, but we know that you have made no serious effort to defund it. In fact, during this debt ceiling/budget cuts kabuki dance, the President declared that his opening gambit for socialized medicine was “off the table,” and we hear nothing…….crickets from the House of Representatives. Many of the people who have supported you are sorely disappointed that your actions have been so feeble and so hesitant. We frankly do not care if Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi does not like you in fact we prefer it that way. Only a few of your members seem to understand that “business as usual” is no longer a viable option. The conditions in our country are no longer usual, they have become critical.

If you are reluctant to battle on principle because you may not have the votes, or the Senate will shoot it down, please note that when an underdog football team has a powerhouse on the schedule, they show up, get dressed and play the freakin’ game. They do not hide on the bus or refuse to leave the locker room. Their opponents may be faster, stronger and better coached, but once in a while the underdog wins. You cannot win if you refuse to get off the bus. I understand that expecting career politicians to be courageous could be classified as wishful thinking. I also understand that desiring you to stand for principles and Constitutional integrity may be asking for more than you are capable of delivering. I am aware that a principled Constitutional position may jeopardize your chances for re-election. Are you aware that some 235 years ago some men pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? And you are worried about your image, your polling or your next election? If so, that is shameful. It is also a symptom of why we are in this current mess.

We heard you say many times during the last campaign that you had learned a lesson from the last time you had a majority, and the voters reacted with fury. I do not believe you. Learning a lesson should propel you to take bold action for the nation. Nibbling on the margins suggests that you are merely doing so for appearance’s sake. We suspect that many of you resent those of us who want smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom. Some of you believe that we are “kooks” or “wackos.”  We love our country, and we do not want to watch anyone destroy it….or simply stand by while it disintegrates. Please be bold. Be courageous. Be principled, and follow the Constitution…or have the guts to amend it. We, and I, will be watching you. Remember your oath or affirmation. Our nation is at risk, and we cannot afford to have you piddling around any longer.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or         www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com