Just Shoot the Messenger: Avoiding the Real Issues

A person who attacks the character of a person who holds a contrary opinion proves that he or she is unable or unwilling to defend his or her own opinion. It's actually quite childish (Remember: "You mother wears army boots?"). The most vivid example of this pathetic behavior is the current cascade of claims that opponents of nationalized healthcare are racists, itself a subset of the idea that anyone who disagrees with our first black President is a racist. The intent is to scare “unbelievers” into accept of ideas they despise, ideas, not people or races.

Personally, I am disgusted by those (Democrats and fellow travelers) who continue to accuse people like me of being a racist. I tutor refugees, mostly young people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. My experience suggests that those who dominate education, media, and government are the real racists because they treat my students poorly. Most significant is their opposition to making English language instruction the first priority for these students. Their attempt at some sort of multicultural justification makes no sense; the intent to keep these young people at a severe disadvantage without English in an English-speaking country makes much more sense. By such planned neglect, they assure that these unfortunate young people are virtually forced to do “the jobs American workers don't want to do.” Never mind that these kids would prefer to do something better!

Various social programs—welfare, jobs and housing programs, the proposed healthcare overhaul, and even the public education system—are equally racist in denying the less fortunate a fair opportunity for achieving prosperity. To maintain a (lower) victim class...and assure they continue to vote for the Democrats...is supremely cynical and racist. Despite their rhetoric, they do not evaluate people based on their character, as Martin Luther King dreamed, but on their color.

Contrary to the frequent accusation, few of us oppose Barack Obama for personal reasons; we oppose his ideas, which we have feared since early in the campaign. A person is known by the company they keep. We all know politicians use every tool available to create an electable persona; wise voters also learn to seek the truth beneath the image. Obama's troubling associates were not black; they were America-hating Marxists and radicals—Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, ACORN, Rhashid Khalidid. We don't hate him, but many of us do hate the ideas he shows himself determined to impose upon us. I don't care that he's (half) black; I would rarely think of his race if his supporters didn't raise the issue in order to silence their opponents.

No only does this false accusation become increasingly vapid, it will fail. It is already failing. The President's support for his radical agenda is gone, except among the extreme Left. While his popularity still holds, somewhat, that too will continue to fall as the people realize his insincerity. Like so many before him, Obama attempts to sound like he cares about the people and the nation, while he systematically pursues programs that are devastating them. How does a man get away with berating his predecessor for his deficit spending while he has orchestrated the largest deficit in American history? The answer is that he does not!

One of the more cynical attempts to advance his healthcare overhaul was to act as Preacher-in-Chief. As such, he tried to court the support of religious leaders, claiming federal restructuring of healthcare was a moral imperative. Those who ranted at President Bush's open Christianity silently accept President Obama's religious exhortations without a whisper of complaint. This is a frequent ruse by the Left, speaking ideas they oppose to win support for their agenda. I am morally in favor of assisting those who need help, but I oppose the government's involvement, first on Constitutional grounds. To put it simply, “It's none of the federal government's damned business!”

As with so much of the current administration's agenda, it violates plain restrictions of the national government. Energy, welfare, education, transportation, housing, business, and healthcare are all beyond the clear list of enumerated powers to which the federal government is restricted. Some might argue that it takes the power of the federal government to solve the most difficult problems, but indeed the contrary is true. In each of these ares, as the federal government has centralized control, success has decreased while costs have increased enormously. I challenge anyone to provide a single example of a federal program being both successful and cost-effective. Those who hate the military love telling stories of thousand dollar toilets, sadly true, but national defense and the military are the federal government's job. We simply do not need it burdening our entire nation with expensive, ineffective performance in areas it has no business being involved.

The brilliant Milton Friedman taught that capitalism and economic freedom are the key to individual freedom, not just a option that free people might consider. By contrast, socialism is the antithesis of freedom; when government controls, then freedom, of necessity, must decrease. “Healthcare reform” or “health insurance reform” as lately the President has taken to calling it, is a strategy to control healthcare—first the finances, but in the end, the people.

Some may remember the late 70's and the energy crisis during Jimmy Carter's Presidency—shortages, high prices, long lines, and price controls. Carter assumed, as all statists do, that the government was the solution. As soon as Reagan assumed the Presidency, he removed the price controls, and the free market self-adjusted. The only role for the central government, in such a situation, is to increase supply if possible. Limited supply or increased demand raises prices and reduces usage; the government does not need to do anything and, if fact, should not.

Neither should the government arbitrarily raise prices (by adding taxes) to reduce demand. The “Cap and Trade” legislation will attempt to do that, despite Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Again, I disagree with him regarding man-made global warming (now called climate change in the face of the coolest summer in the Midwest and Northeast since record-keeping began). I disagree that humans can change it back, and indeed the very attempt I find terrifying; I've seen too many wonderful plans go terribly wrong, and a global plan going awry would be massively wrong! If I agreed with those positions, I would still oppose Cap and Trade because it will undercut the American economy in favor of places like India and China who refuse to participate. This is yet another case of the plans of Democrats contradicting their rhetoric; despite the support of the unions and workers, this legislation will hit employers of those supporters harder than anyone.

I could probably discuss a hundred different areas where I disagree with the President's policies, and none of them has anything directly to do with race, the President's race, or racial politics. However, in addition, I also disagree with that; rather I agree with Martin Luther King, who I think would be horrified to see what has become of the Civil Rights Movement—anti-education, sadly immoral, and grossly dependent on government. This was not his vision nor the vision of those former slaves who aspired to a better life. It is a bitter irony for many American blacks that African immigrants have begun to dramatically outshine them; many of these true “African-Americans” respect education, work hard, and succeed despite the claim that such success is prohibited by racism.

Sadly, none of this matters to the race-hustlers and race-baiters. They in reality care little for the remnants of racism that may still exist in the country; they care only for the political clout that comes with deriding their opponents with the charge. The one group gains money and power through keeping racism alive; the other uses the charge of racism to deflect legitimate questions that warrant answers.

One might ask why they don't simply argue the issues, as they often claim to want. The answer is that they cannot. These elite, would-be nobility want absolute power, where no opposition may be heard. For now, they settle for character assassination, attacks on the intelligence of those who oppose them, and false charges—racist, homophobe, chauvinist, fascist; in other words, any attack that avoids engagement in the actual issues is preferable to debate.

While I must confess to being disgusted by these personal attacks, my recommendation is, as much as possible, to ignore them. I know I am not a racist; I reject the notion that, because I am a white male, I am automatically a racist. Such assumptions incite hatred, and I reject them. I also refuse to be cowed by such attacks; they are not true, but my concerns do matter. I will continue to raise them, go to "tea bag" events if I choose, criticize the President's socialistic agenda, and oppose his so-called "health care reform." I will be persistent in challenging the egregious spending that this President and Congress seem hell-bent on pursuing. I will advocate better ideas that might actually solve the problems, rather than create another over-priced, but failed program like Social Security, the Post Office, Medicaid, public housing, etc.

Do you disagree? Fantastic! I am more than happy to engage in discourse on any position I take. Prove me wrong if you can; I will not attack your character, as I hope you will not attack mine. Indeed, the civility of many on the Right might seem to be a weakness, given the virulent attacks commonly used by their opponents. Given the current crop of political leaders, civility isn't easy; some of the most visible invite name-calling. The evident double standard that the media and many left-leaning public figures use is difficult to ignore. Nevertheless, we need to discuss and argue the issues, even if our opponents prefer to call us names.

The Greedy Hand of Government

Thomas Paine said, "Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry." Too bad we have ignored his wisdom, as we have ignored the collected wisdom of our founders. Of course, most taught in public schools never hear much of what our founders believed, those who fought to create this nation where every person was understood to be free as a natural gift from God.

Instead, people have turned to government for just about everything, and the "greedy hand of government" is more than willing to "provide." Except that that greedy hand is better at taking than providing, after using the rhetoric of promise, hope, and change. Our government with a totally unopposed Democrat majority and Democrat President has worked overtime to take as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Nearly every Congressman and Senator should be put out of office for the worst kind of malfeasance, after passing the huge "stimulus plan" that no one read, though in fairness to minority Republicans, they weren't given much time. Now they've done the same with "cap and trade," another huge bill, passed largely unexamined for lack of time. Worse, its ostensible purpose is to stave off climate change, despite increasing indications that the global climate is cooling, not warming. Of course, this is no climate bill; it is a bill designed to increase the cost of energy, destroy American industry, especially the industry in the heartland, and weaken the American economy competitively with the rest of the world.

The President has interfered with the financial and auto businesses, despite his lack of experience in either. Indeed, he lacks experience in anything but being a professor and community organizer. Why would someone with so little knowledge be in such a rush to do what he has done and seeks yet to do? No, he is not a genius! I doubt he is any smarter than I, except as a politician, and politicians excel at doing one thing--gaining and keeping power.

His next target is health care. The government has run Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid into the ground, and now they would "fix" health care. Nonsense! Anyone who believes that is an idiot (Sorry!). Forget, for a moment, that "greedy hand." Consolidating any endeavor into one large bureaucracy increases costs because it increases the number of people it takes to manage the huge system created. The education system demonstrates this well. The enormous federal bureaucracy is filled with the highest paid officials, who do not teach a single student. They create mandates, collect money to Washington to then dole out as they choose, increase the necessity of larger administrative departments in both the states and in each school system. By supporting unions, this has also increased the cost of teachers without a corresponding increase in performance. As all of this has developed, our American kids' educational competence has fallen.

I contend that this is unavoidable in the best of all possible situations. Big is not better! However, this is not the best. Those in charge have highly suspect motives. Forget their overt ideology. Their haste tells the story. They move quickly and in the cover of darkness (like the three hundred page amendment to Cap and Trade, this morning at 3 a.m.!). Speaker Pelosi demands her troops fall in line, and most do. Furthermore, this bill is designed to hold off some of the worst provisions till 2012, after the President runs for a second term. So much for the "urgency" of climate change!

I'm old enough that what happens may not bother me so much, although the increased costs of living, driving, etc. may not be easy for me as a tutor. I don't relish dealing with a government bureaucracy for medical care, even though I have lived without health insurance for six years. I fear that none of those government programs will offer much to me as an aging "baby boomer." Still, it troubles me far more to think that the many young friends and family I care for will suffer the devastating effects of this government's greedy hand, of these politicians' greedy hands.

Why are they doing it? This President does not see himself as a leader. By the Constitution, his job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He sees himself as a ruler, which the media support by treating him like royalty. Frankly, the leaders in Congress are either stupid or crooked--Pelosi both, Reid, Frank, and Dodd crooked, Kennedy, well words fail me, but he's not half the man of either of his brothers! Speaking of crooks, how many tax cheats did the President appoint? How many of his promises has he broken so far? Even the Left has noticed, and I wonder how many of the more conservative among us now realize his infidelity?

With all of that, it's still not clear why. Is it a power grab? Yes, it certainly is. This greedy hand seeks to control our country and its people, while leaving only themselves free. They seem to wish to re-create the noble elite who enjoy privilege while condemning the rest to servitude. They already send their children to private schools to avoid the messed up public system they've helped create. They will exempt themselves from the health care they would provide the rest of us. Their salaries and benefits will protect them from the economic chaos their stimulus, cap and trade, and TARP will bring down onto the country.

Yet, with all of that, what kind of leaders will destroy their own country? Greedy hands, indeed, but hands that seem, at the same time, capable of crippling and tearing down what generations have built. Stupidity, corruption, power-seeking--none of these seem adequate to explain what they are doing. I find myself wondering, though I'm no conspiracy buff, if a "Manchurian Candidate" seeks to weaken us so that our enemies might prevail.

I am, by nature, an optimist, but it will take more than optimism to deal with this. I hear too many voices accepting defeat and despair. It is time for a concerted effort to slap that greedy hand! It will take more than voting; that's only one piece. We need to set our sights on defeating every person who supports this crazy agenda. That means we must talk to our neighbors, relatives, co-workers, and any person we can engage in constructive conversation. Ideological warfare won't do it! We need to inform ourselves, be able to ask solid questions, and provide thoughtful explanations. Empty rhetoric is not the way. We must avoid angry, polarizing conversations. Instead, we must engage lovingly, thoughtfully, and substantively.

American Christians have fallen into materialistic comfort. As a result, we have lost our voice. Too many who do speak, speak harshly ("God hates fags," indeed!). When did God exchange "Blessed are the peacemakers" with "Blessed are the angry agitators?" The world has become a scary, dangerous place because of some who use religion to gain power, and our nation has become an angry, contentious place for reasons too numerous to list here. We Christians must step up and make our gentile, wise voices heard for faith and for freedom.

Paul told Timothy," I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" We dare not neglect to pray, even for those I've called ignorant and dishonest. It's clear from Scripture that their authority comes from God, and that he can and will deal with them as he sees necessary, including the blessing of our efforts to remove them electorally.

The people of this country have been generous and compassionate, helping when the rest of the world was in need, whether from tyrants or from natural disaster. We haven't stopped. I personally do not believe he is finished with the United States. Right or wrong, I know we have things we must do, not just for our own personal good, but for the good of future generations and for the rest of this world that has looked to the U.S. for hope and freedom. It is our duty as citizens of both this earthly nation and the kingdom of Jesus Christ to fight the good fight, resting in the eternal confidence we have in God.

Jefferson Had it Right!

Capitalism and Individual Liberty Work

Government Control Does Not!

Thomas Jefferson was a great man although many of Americans, especially those taught in our government schools, don't know much about him. A “founding father,” principle author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President, he shaped many of the ideas that made this a nation of individual liberty, religious freedom, and republican democracy.

Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” If only the voting citizens of the United States understood the prophetic truth in that statement! The Democrat Party, basically a socialist party, under the leadership of a new President and with the urgency of a presumed economic crisis, is working very hard to run everything in this country from Washington, guaranteeing that we will “soon want for bread,” as well as safe food to eat, affordable energy, jobs able to support us, decent medical care, homes to live in, schools capable of teaching anything, crime free neighborhoods, or an economy to support their plans. The Republican Party cannot do better or even survive until it learns to convince this generation of the truth of Jefferson’s wisdom, unless it focuses individual liberty and local government as the key to prosperity. Unfortunately, till recently most Republicans seemed more interested in getting their own piece of the power and money, acting an awfully lot like the Democrats. Frankly, I don’t care who rallies citizens to this truth, but I pray somebody does!

The Constitution gives only “limited powers” to the federal government, which Presidents, Congress, and courts have slowly but surely been expanding. Of 15 current cabinet level departments in the Executive Branch of the government, interior, agriculture, labor, commerce, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, energy, and education all operate beyond these Constitutional limits. None of these areas require national control or regulation and, as Jefferson predicted, federal “direction” generally reduces effectiveness, raises costs particularly in the expansion of huge Washington bureaucracies, and accrues ever-increasing debt. Nowhere is this clearer than in recent bailouts and so-called stimuli.

The remaining departments—state, treasury, defense, veterans’ affairs, homeland security, and the office of the attorney general—are appropriate federal functions, although some, especially treasury, have expanded well beyond reasonable limits. We do need a single voice to deal with foreign powers, provide for our “common defense,” maintain a common currency, care for our military and their families given their sacrificial service, secure our borders and protect our communities from international terrorism, and enforce our national laws. Interstate commerce and a few other matters that involve relationships between and among the various states may require some federal oversight. Otherwise, the Tenth Amendment plainly restricts the expansion of federal power: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” We do not need the federal government riding roughshod over the states in these areas, and we certainly have not amended the Constitution to authorize Washington to take over private business, whether it is financial or medical!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that the federal government is growing beyond all decent limits, attracting rogues and profiteers, many of them our elected representatives! Interest groups and influence peddlers focus their energies in Washington, bypassing the voters and often imposing on all, laws and regulations that would not pass if the voters had to approve them directly. Lobbyists wield power through huge amounts of money, some itself tax dollars, used to buy votes, by-passing the will of voters. Abetted by various leaders in Washington through their support of trial lawyers, juries, make laws, in effect, by awarding clever attorneys judgments that force other potential defendants to function as if a law was passed, for fear they will be sued and ruined financially. State and federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, also ignore the plain sense of the Constitution to impose their own opinions, which become the law of the land. No decision of this kind is clearer than Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, set aside many state laws, and created a so-called “right to privacy,” which does not even exist in the Constitution, or Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded “eminent domain,” primarily to benefit builders and investors, not the public, well beyond the obvious intent of the Constitution. I will be very interested to see what SCOTUS decides about some of the cases surely to come from the work of the current administration.

The last set of Presidential candidates and many in the Senate and House of Representatives would permit illegal immigrants to remain in the country despite the opinion of an overwhelming majority of American citizens? Do Americans want universal health care? Many want “free” healthcare and imagine they want the government to provide it, without understanding what it will ultimately cost them in choice, coverage, and speed of diagnosis and treatment. How many oppose drilling for oil on American land, again despite the wishes of the majority, because of the influence of global warming, environmental, and alternate energy fanatics? Globalists and those favoring the United Nations would go even further, tearing down borders, and moving toward a world government, even though it is obvious that the bigger the government, the poorer its ability to function effectively, the more it costs, and the more likely it will become corrupt, as it attracts, like moths to a flame, those who seek money and power. The corruption and ineffectiveness of the United Nations already proves this. In every case, Washington ignores its citizens, creates enormous, expensive bureaucracies, and reduces the end result it delivers. Corruptions plays a role, but central control doesn’t work and never has, as the lack of a single effective example proves. Bigger is definitely not better when it comes to government!

One of the schemes leaning toward “one world” purports to deal with global poverty. The United States has tried from Washington to “cure” poverty, but government cannot cure poverty. Dispensing money is not a cure but an entitlement that encourages dependency. Laws may address factors that tend to foster poverty, and governments may provide services that address particular problems in poor areas. Doling out cash is like pouring water down a rat-hole; there is not limit to how much will be absorbed with little effect. Expanding such notions to a world-wide scope merely creates a bigger rat hole. Such schemes tend to ignore the real key to reducing poverty, which is individual freedom and opportunity. Given the chance, most people will work themselves out of poverty, if those with power will just get out of their way.

Of course, now, the “rat-hole” is the global economic crisis, and there seems to be little limit to how much leaders are willing to pour down it, although some in the European Union seemed to have found it. In addition to understanding Jefferson’s warning, perhaps the people need to understand anew that only “the people” know how to make bread, whether it’s a literal or metaphorical kind. Governments print money, but productive people give it value. People and their representatives need to understand that spending what doesn’t really exist leads to disaster, beyond a credit “crunch” or “melt-down” to a literal debt disaster. Even if the entire system manages not to collapse, the Democrats’ profligate spending with no apparent limit, as yet, will burden future generations unbelievably. A government that willingly bankrupts its own people is odious; a government that will bankrupt the future is an abomination!

One of the first crises of the new nation was finding a way to repay the monies borrowed to fund the Revolutionary War. This problem revealed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation in uniting the colonies and provided the motivation to create the Constitution. Still, the states did not want to become a single State; each wished to retain a substantial measure of its individual power to control its own future. The answer was to create a system that provided only limited powers to a central government. The framers would be appalled at the way recent leaders have accrued a far more massive debt, simply because they chosen to live beyond nation’s means. Jefferson would be even more disgusted to learn that the reasons were to gain more power and wealth for those very leaders, disgusted but not surprised.

Why are the people willing to accept this oppressive assumption of power, despite the plain restrictions of the Constitution? Some are enamored of Barack Obama’s image and promises of change; they tend to believe him uncritically. A large number are woefully ignorant including many in government, knowing too little of our history, constitution, and actually manner of government. The President does not make laws although he asserts immense power (that I believe he should not) through fiat; Congress enacts laws. The President does not declare war as Commander-in-Chief; Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it should not be involved in fighting it, which is why we have a Commander-in-Chief! The Supreme Court is supposed to “interpret” law and the Constitution, not implement the personal opinions of its members.

I believe a more serious, fundamental problem has lead to America’s acceptance of de facto socialism (I believe Communism is even more the right word, but I leave that for another discussion). People have become too comfortable and simply want someone else to take care of them. They don’t want to be bothered with guarding their own liberty, educating themselves so they know what is and is not legitimate, making themselves aware of the struggles already faced and the lessons learned in those struggles, or, in many cases, working for their own physical and economic security. In their apathy and ignorance, the promise to provide equally for everyone, something very different from “equal opportunity,” sounds attractive and reasonable. Attacks on the anonymous wealthy, typically characterized as evil profiteers who have “stolen” their riches from everyone else, buy votes with no recognition of the essential economic role they provide as both producers and financiers of the jobs, resources, and technologies that have blessed our contemporary American life.

As a Christian, I reject big government, socialist, progressive secularists on principle. I prefer to live in a place where I as an individual am free to live my life, work and worship as I choose, work hard to become prosperous if I want, and accept responsibility for my own housing, education, healthcare, and retirement. As an educated man, I reject big government socialism because it does not, will not, and cannot ever work! In that light, I recommend two books by Ayn Rand—We the Living and Atlas Shrugged—the former for its stark but accurate depiction of the early Soviet Union and the latter for its clear portrayal of the struggle between producers and looters (socialists). Yes, I know that Rand was ardently anti-Christian and included their kin among the looters; some so-called Christians belong there! I don’t recommend her books for their religious teaching but for their clear insight into this dangerous struggle, which the “looters” are currently winning. We the Living is a depressing look into what happened to the wealthy, the business owners, the middle class, their families, and eventually everyone in Russia after the Communist takeover. After almost 75 years, the rejected that system amid it oppressive failures; I don’t want to see the United States go through that.

In the end, the Soviet Union had too little bread, and people stood in lines for hours just to get a loaf of bread. Jefferson knew what he was saying, and Russian history proves it. Their system worked so poorly, they couldn’t even raise enough wheat to feed their own people. Where did they go for wheat? They bought wheat from the capitalist enemy they despised, the USA, which grew far more wheat than it needed. American history from back in the Carter years, when the government tried to control gas shortages with price controls, also proves that Jefferson was right. Unfortunately, I fear we will get an abundance of further proof if America does not rise up and stop the current usurpation of Constitutional power.

Do you recall what the colonies did, a few years prior to Jefferson’s wisdom? They rejected another example of the trouble that comes with government power. For them, many born Brits who loved their tea, it was the tea tax; their response was the Boston Tea Party. Many Americans are taking a page from their book on April 15.

Neither Left Nor Right

"God's view of government dictates that it carries out a specified and limited role in human affairs. The church and civil government are made necessary by the same thing (sin), but do not have identical responsibilities (Matthew 22:15-21). The humanist view of the role of government is to perfect mankind. The Scriptural view of the role of government is to protect mankind. Throughout Scripture, God is clear that civil government is charged with a limited responsibility and that good leaders decide to take a Scriptural view of government's role. We also see in Scripture that God has a welfare plan—people are to look to the family, then the church, then the community (1 Timothy 5:3-16, Leviticus 19:9, 10, 23:22). The humanistic plan is publicly funded, coercive, and creates cycles of dependency. God's plan is community-oriented, voluntary, and empowers people."—Nathan Tabor

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn't pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Begin with the food and fiber raised in the farm, to the ore drilled in a mine, to the oil and gas from out of the ground, whatever it may be—through the processing, through the manufacturing, on out to the retailer's license. If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business."—Ronald Reagan

"Well, there's something known as American conservatism, though it does not even call itself that. It's been calling itself 'voting Republican' or 'not liking the New Deal.' But it is a very American approach to life, and it has to do with knowing that the government is not your master, that America is good, that freedom is good and must be defended, and communism is very, very bad."—William F. Buckley Jr.

"The government is best which governs least."—Thomas Jefferson

"The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The right subscribes to the American formula, 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable. The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions... The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality."—Dennis Prager

I have a strong aversion to labels I think labels are used, far too often, to replace meaningful discussion and understanding of other people and their views. Many have the attitude, “I have my mind made up; don't bother me with the facts!” I think many are afraid to hear the reasons others might have for different positions and ideas. Undoubtedly, many conversations about Left and Right demonstrate that very problem. Those who have power use labels and name-calling to avoid real discussion of ideas. Ordinary people, led by ideological leaders, often echo this strategy. My personal preference is to discuss the issues, but that can be very difficult when people are accustomed to name-calling.

In mediation, an important part of facilitating reasoned discussion is to distinguish interests and issues. Ideologues and politicians intentionally confuse such distinctions, speaking of issues which conceal their own interests, such as gaining power.

I often wonder “Why do some prefer ‘the Left?’” Why do they say that they are “liberal?” Is it anything more than thinking the word itself sounds good? I observe that many people have such a preference because they perceive the choice as open-minded or progressive in contradistinction to the narrow-minded, reactionary Right, but many on the Left are no more open-minded than some on the Right. I hope those who know me personally realize that I am not narrow-minded or reactionary; I try very hard to avoid knee-jerk reactions or appeals to ideology for its own sake. I try to listen and consider thoughtful opinions, evidence, and logic.

To the extent that my views lean right, it is because I believe certain things, and people decided, at some point, to label them “right-wing.” Indeed, it seems to me that labeling is part of a strategy to demonize or marginalize those with conservative or, at least, non-Leftist beliefs (a strategy that may be used by either side although it seems to come much more from the Left).

The truth is that I am largely libertarian or classically liberal, because these descriptions have their roots in the word liberty. Unfortunately, both of those terms, as well as many other labels, simply enable people to pigeon-hole a person. I would rather explain what I think about specific issues rather than have people assume they know my views because of a label.

I favor individual freedom, and I have a healthy fear of anyone or any system that seeks or accrues great power, especially government. I believe humans are naturally sinful, and that any great source of power attracts the worse kinds of sinful people, who will use that power—at the least, to serve themselves, and, at the worst, to harm others. The greater the power, the greater is its potential for serious harm because “power corrupts.” One of the greatest threats is the restriction and destruction of individual liberty. Those with power cannot tolerate the threat posed by free people; the lessons of tyrants make that abundantly clear. “Not by might, not by power, but by my spirit” (Zechariah 4:6) also tells me that this has a spiritual dimension, and it means I favor power on the Right no more than I favor it on the Left. Earthly, political power is dangerous regardless of whose hands hold it, except for God himself.

So many of the issues, that seem to distinguish the Left from the Right, involve taking power, choice, and freedom from the individual. Perhaps, in some cases, this begins innocently enough when zealous people, believing in their cause so strongly, think they do right to make any other position illegal at the highest level of authority. Those who favor such issues enjoy the freedom to hear, evaluate, and choose what they wish to think and do; yet once they elect representatives who agree with them, they seem to prefer denying that same freedom to the rest of us. So many issues—abortion, global warming, evolution, poverty, economics, to name a few—involve “solutions” that take freedom away from individuals. Even worse, they don’t want free and open discussion; for them, the matter is settled, no one may make another choice, and freedom is a little less free.

One of the reasons that the Left seems to be more effective, many times, in winning elections or in winning support of unthinking people is that it tends to be monolithic and cohesive. Against them, the so-called Right is made up, largely, of a diverse assortment of people and issues who often disagree among themselves. One clear division is between social and fiscal conservatives, between the religious, mostly Christian groups, on the one hand, and economic, pro-business concerns, on the other. While at times they have worked together, as when led by Reagan for example, at other times their diverse priorities enable the Left to gain an advantage.

Secular progressives, who make up the majority of the Left, dominate education, the media, and the Democratic Party, as well as the unions, the environmental movement, universal health-care advocates, the pro-abortion feminists, and the gay rights movement. Their opponents are not correspondingly unified, even though they may share many of the same opinions.

One of the popular myths of this polarized view of things is that the Right favors the rich while the Left cares for the poor. This view is largely rhetorical, but the class warfare, so created, has become very real. Reality suggests that there are calloused, greedy rich people on all sides, and in fact there is more honest charity on the Right than on the Left. Furthermore, while I am closer to the poverty level, by far, than the rich, I still oppose the income tax, especially the graduated tax, not because I want rich people to keep their money but because high taxes destroy the economy, lower employment, eventually cause inflation, ultimately lower overall tax receipts to the government, and harm everyone. Even JFK understood this and lowered taxes. More fundamentally, I oppose confiscatory taxes because I don’t the government has the right to take anyone's money merely to support a bloated federal system that was not Constitutionally authorized nor should ever have been! Even more, I oppose the use of tax policy and government programs to redistribute wealth when the ultimate purpose is to empower the redistributors!!

I believe in “e pluribus unum,” that is, one out of many. This means I oppose both the divisive rhetoric of “hate the rich” and the multicultural agenda, which includes the race-baiting that has become so prevalent. I don’t accept the idea that America or any nation is nothing more than a collection of victims oppressed by a handful of wealthy victimizers; if there is any oppression it rests in the government more than in the wealth of private citizens or business, for the most part. I despise the tactics of the Left when it pits one group of Americans against another just to gain votes. That is sick at the least and evil at the worst. Even more, I despise those who call a person a racist, simply because they have an honest argument against their agenda (an not uncommon example of the name-calling I mention above).

This assault by personal attack has become the favored method of the Left in dealing with any who attempt to argue rationally against any of their favored views, whether it is global warming, environmentalism in general, capitalism, free trade, religious freedom, big government, race, open borders and illegal immigration, Islamist-led terrorism or the war on terror, or welfare. My views on each issue may place me to the right, but I have thought about and studied most of these issues. My positions are do not flow simply from a single ideological position. I think, investigate, and form my own opinions. As a result, I am neither Left nor Right. I am just me!

I would like to comment on one final matter. Those on the Left believe that the government is the answer to their concerns and look to the government to do what is necessary to achieve them. I suspect such people assume that those who oppose them also look to the government to achieve their goals. This is a huge difference between Left and Right. Many of us, presumably on the Right, want to reduce government, not empower government to achieve our wishes.

The idea that we are fascists comes from such thinking. I won’t deny that some fascists may hold seemingly conservative ideas, although many have more in common with the Left. However, true conservatives and certainly libertarians reject fascism because we reject powerful government. We want to take power and money away from politicians and bureaucrats and return it to the people, or at least to more local levels of government, where such power must be exercised. For me and those like me, fascists, communists, socialists, oligarchs, and dictators are equally objectionable, even if they attain power under the guise of democracy.

By the way, the recent attack on so-called “Christianists,” Christians who wish to impose their beliefs and morality by way of government on everyone else, comes from a similar assumption, under the circumstances I’ve just described, a reasonable one but still as wrong. Christians do not want to impose their religion on anyone. In that sense, we are nothing like many Muslims who have a goal of universal shariah law throughout the entire world. For a genuine Christian, the hope is leading people to faith by persuasion, ending in a free choice without any coercion. We do want the freedom to do so, and that makes us political conservatives or libertarians, for the most part (To be honest, I do not understand evangelical Christians, Catholics, or Jews who find Leftist or socialist thinking acceptable).

Issues like abortion and gay marriage have challenged such Christians. Life, marriage, and family are sacred to us, and having our country move toward positions that endanger them is deeply troubling. We believe life begins at conception, and to destroy that life is murder. Male and female and the joining of them in marriage is one of God’s oldest creations, and redefining it to legitimize homosexual behavior is unacceptable, despite the uncertainty of the cause of homosexuality itself (as yet still unproven to be inborn or genetic). We regard a traditional family as the best place for the rearing and protection of children, and we see the increasing promiscuity in the culture to be offensive, degrading, and ultimately harmful to both men and women. Most of us would prefer to maintain the wholesome culture that characterized the United States and the West for most of its history. At the least, we demand the freedom to life and act as we believe without being forced to accept a morality contrary to our faith. Some would accuse us of imposing our values on everyone, and this is not altogether untrue. After all, every law is an imposition of someone’s values. In a democratic society, with the privilege of free speech, we merely have the chance to persuade our fellow citizens to our way of thinking.

In the end, regardless of the specific issue, I favor freedom and faith over an ever-increasingly powerful and ultimately oppressive government. That certainly doesn’t make me a fascist, and it generally means I’m not right-wing as many perceive such to be, in that I do not want government to impose my wishes on everyone else. In other words, I’m neither Left nor Right.

Civility: A Bedrock Value

Civilization is impossible without the “civil.” Civility is critical for a large number of people to live close together, especially today where fast, cheap travel and easy communication brings us even closer. Sadly, our shrinking world seems to be growing less civil. Intense rivalries, huge infusions of money, and perpetual competition have overshadowed sportsmanship, the civility that once ruled athletics. Biased media and an endless assortment of talk shows “amuse” us with angry guests and promote spite and vitriol among viewers and callers. Campaigning and party politics, never shy of distortion or untruth, once had a sense of “civil service,” well-mannered conduct among “respected colleagues” and statesmanship among those who at least called their rivals “the gentlemen (or women) across the aisle.” Today winning seems to be everything. Is it any wonder that civil discourse is becoming an increasing rarity today?

What is causing this degeneration of civilized behavior? Power always invites the worst sorts of conduct, and a chance at winning power—athletic, political, or ideological—justifies cruder methods. It will demonize a respected adversary is as inferior, evil, or even contemptible. To achieve arguably worthy goals, advocates become unable to express even begrudging respect for a person who represents defeat. Instead, ideologues attack character, belittle opposing values, and impugn the reputations of their adversaries. The attitude seems to be “Anything to win!”

Using division, propaganda, and manipulation to win speaks poorly of both the content of the ideas and the basic character of those who use such methods. If we really believe that the core beliefs a group advocates are better, then those who hold them would seek to persuade others of their merit. Using domination rather than persuasion implies that a group doubts its own beliefs or that perhaps the group has a purpose apart from those supposed beliefs. For example, does everyone who cites their concern for racism or gender bias really care about those issues, or are they merely a means to gaining power?

Closely tied to doubts about group’s core values is the possibility that people actually come to see their rivals as inferior. Since many who think of themselves as “liberal” are highly educated, do they come to believe that they are smarter than non-liberals? The rhetoric suggests that many do. Cintra Wilson’s screed is a good example. Her writing is angry, vile, and contemptible; but, despite her implications, her ideas are not intelligent, far from it!

I get weary of the hate-filled contempt spewed at President George W. Bush. It began after the 2000 election with claims of “stealing the election,” though every count and recount in Florida confirmed that he won and would have won without intervention of the Supreme Court; but the Court was right in ending the legal shenanigans perpetrated by Al Gore’s allies. President Bush has not been a perfect President, and I have huge areas of disagreement with him. However, he is not Adolph Hitler incarnate, and his leadership regarding the War on Terror has not been filled with lies, especially concerning Saddam Hussein and the likelihood of WMDs, opinions shared by President Clinton before him. The steady drumbeat of antipathy is political and ideological, and it is unworthy of American civilization.

The recent attacks on Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, such as the one mentioned above, are equally disrespectful, political, and mean-spirited. The values espoused by the Left are not the dominant values of the citizenry, even if those who hold them dominate the media, academia, and the Democratic Party. The “Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor” line is not only incorrect and irrelevant; it is absurdly foolish. Christians still constitute a majority of Americans, granted of many different denominations, but disparaging Jesus is just dumb, to say nothing of continuing the messianic pretensions of Barack Obama. By the way, most of us think Jesus was far more and far greater than any "community organizer."

I am a Christian, conservative if not libertarian, and traditional in most of my values. At the same time, I have some very progressive ideas, in certain areas. I am willing to discuss anything. What troubles me is that hardly anyone really wants to talk. Many like to argue, but despite our phraseology, no one typically “wins” an argument. The very nature of such exchanges tends to set peoples’ positions in concrete, from which they will not budge. For Christians, this need to be right is nothing less that arrogance and pride; when it permits the expression of disrespect and hostility toward fellow believers, it is sinful. Furthermore, the wisest method for determining wisdom and the will of God is consensus, a state we cannot achieve through argument and strife.

I have invested more than 20 years of my ministry life in Christian or Biblical peacemaking, using methods such as negotiation and mediation to help people resolve disagreements. I know it is possible to have thoughtful, civil conversation regarding difficult issues without anger, insult, or accusations. The question is why aren’t such dialogs more common. I have already suggested 2 of the primary reasons. Party or ideological candidates seeking power only want to win and will use whatever they deem necessary to gain victory and the power it assures them. Otherwise, most people just don’t realize there is a better way, not only to choose candidates, but also to find the best answers to difficult problems.

At a church dinner recently, I sat with a couple that I don’t know well. The wife sings with me in choir, and we got into a friendly round of comments about several groups that would meet while we were in rehearsal. We both agreed we might be too outspoken for the discussion of election year politics (Just because I’m a peacemaker doesn’t mean I always act like one!). I went on to make a couple of comments, only to find out that my friend from choir disagrees with me regarding which of the candidates we support and regarding abortion. The amusing thing was that she let me blather on before wryly advising me that she didn’t share my opinions. The manner of our conversation, however, demonstrated the very thing I’m getting at, here. We can disagree amiably, with humor and civility.

American culture has lost a great deal in rejecting its Judeo-Christian heritage. We have rejected authority, common decency, and mutual respect, qualities that are largely well-regarded in much of the rest of the world. In the name of progress, civilization has actually regressed into a kind of paganism that is often visceral, angry, and even violent. The ultimate irony is the angry rhetoric of many advocating “peace.” Intolerance is common among those promoting tolerance. William Watkins made his point well when he titled his book The New Absolutes. Thomas Sowell nailed it, too, when he wrote of The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, about those who seem to think that only their perspective is legitimate. Such thinking encourages incivility and the decline of civilization.

While it isn’t clearly related, ignorance is obviously another mark of the decline of civilization, and it is related to the anger and hostility that is becoming more common. In a strange alignment with the elites, ignorance also breeds intolerance. The one group does so condescendingly, thinking themselves superior; the other does so simply by knowing nothing, a condition encouraged by the elites through a poorly performing, pubic education system, a failure that may well be intentional. I especially enjoy the charge of ignorance directed at people like me, not because I lack education—I have 2 degrees and read extensively—but because I hold values they, the educated elite, reject. By believing what I believe, by their view, I am ignorant (not unlike a similar conclusion that, by nature, being white, I must be a racist, despite my extensive history as a ESL and refugee tutor).

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this decline is that parallel, synchronous decline among Christian people. I am saddened most by the anger and hostility I hear from my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether from fear or despair, I have too often observed ardent pro-lifers or gay right opponents speaking abusively of or to those who advocate contrary opinions. We don’t win arguments that way. We don’t win people to Christ that way. Jesus didn’t deal with his worst adversaries that way. His harshest words and actions were reserved, not for unbelievers with opposing views, but for supposed religious leaders.

I have a suggestion for my fellow Americans and for my fellow Christians siblings. Try talking kindly to those with whom you disagree. Be patient, persuasive, thoughtful, and engaging. In place of scorn and disrespect, try honoring your adversary with attentiveness; listen with a goal to understanding what and why they think as they do. Then you may respond in a manner that encourages them to understand what and why you believe as you do. Mutual understanding is a good first step toward civility, and it is also the best way to win converts to your way of thinking.

As I intimated above, one reason for the antagonism between us is a fear of being wrong. When a person is confident in his or her beliefs, there is no need to hide behind rudeness or disrespect. My fellow choir member mentioned one particular reason for her opinion about abortion, and it is a concern I will explore. Even if one's view of an issue is correct doesn’t settle all issues and questions. With abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, both sides share an interest in reducing the number of abortions; civil interaction might allow that goal to be achieved, without necessarily resolving the overall issue.

I do relish a future that continues the trends toward incivility I see today. I am not encouraged by the prospects of a Church that abandons respectful and loving conversation, even with adversaries; and, frankly, many have difficulty dealing with disagreement among believers! I do believe we can turn things around. There is a power in love, as the old song goes, "wonder working power." Yes, it is centered in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but it is available to all who would love as he loved. In such love, I see a renewal of civility.

Keep Our First Amendment Freedoms Free

Imagine this: You have an opinion. Since we live in a land guaranteed freedom of speech, you express your opinion. Now a government agency comes along and says, “Wait, you may only express that opinion only if you arrange to have someone available to express the opposing point of view.” “Ridiculous,” you say, and you are certainly correct. We don't have our free speech rights threatened but not by that absurd arrangement, at least not yet! That only applies to radio, at least if some get their way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you don’t recognize them, those are the actual words of the First Amendment, the top of the original “top ten list” of the rights of citizens. In the intervening 217 years since they were ratified, in 1791, a lot of silliness has altered the common perception of their meaning. Like the Bible, the Bill of Rights has suffered from the interpretations of experts, when a plain reading will understand it. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws to restrict religion institutions and religious liberty, freedom to speak, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably gather; it also protects the citizen’s right to tell the government to back off, when it intrudes where it doesn’t belong and isn’t needed (That’s what redress of grievances means).

Nothing has changed to warrant any other interpretation, except that the courts have taken on legislative powers that were plainly denied the Courts. Our founders would undoubtedly express shock and horror at the expansion of judicial power, as well as at the size and power of the federal government, all strictly and plainly prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

Perhaps one area is different. Freedom of the press is wholly inadequate to offer the protection that the media need today. Radio, television, and Internet were not even imagined in 1791, but there is no doubt that the founders would have included them, had they known. One undeniable need is to extend First Amendment protections to those areas. The Broadcaster Freedom Act is one way, and we should support it. I personally would favor a Constitutional Amendment that adds the phrase “freedom of any form of information transmission (speech, press, broadcast media, electronic communication, satellite delivery, or any future forms of communication), without government interference or regulation” (Fairness Doctrine indeed!).

The inconsistencies of judicial “interpretation” make it abundantly clear that we need to elect Presidents and representatives who respect the original meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and render judgments that hold to that meaning. We ought to begin to voice our opinions in phrases like “If it protects raunchiness, then it also protects Rush” and “Freedom of speech covers the words of political ideas more than the work of pornographic images.” Censorship is a bad thing, most critically when it censors the people attempting to rein in the ever-growing power of the government. The Fairness Doctrine, hate speech laws, political correctness, and campaign finance reform all tread on our First Amendment freedom, as do court decisions to silence the prayers of students at their own school graduations.

As with so many things, clever people have figured out how to turn common sense on its ear, so that limits on the government's power have become restrictions on the people's liberty. If it’s not clear enough anywhere else, it’s plenty clear in the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution gave no branch of the federal government the powers that they exercise today. With the Bill of Rights, it plainly prohibits the President, Congress, and Supreme Court, as well as their respective surrogates, from doing most of what they’re doing today. Career politicians have largely become snake oil salesmen, who are selling a cure when, in fact, they are the disease! Education, energy, transportation, business, housing, urban development, health care, the environment, poverty, aging, drugs, disability—none of these are the government’s job or the responsibility of politicians, and the people without the government’s interference can do a better job dealing with each of these areas. Furthermore, the government's monkeying in these areas has caused many of the problems, especially the inflationary costs of most of them, by requiring all sort of extraneous provisions and regulations that ordinary folks would eliminate for the sake of accomplishing the primary purposes in each area. A case in point is public education, which neglects the effective teaching of the basics, encumbers teachers and classrooms with ideological indoctrination, and often teaches what it teaches so poorly that it has become unimaginably (and unimaginatively) boring! Then end product of government management is poor management.

The Constitution delegates to the federal government only security, foreign relations, defense, a national currency, controlled but limited immigration, and a few other areas that require a “united” and coordinated approach Those duties are clearly spelled out in the Constitution; you will be hard pressed to justify most of what the government over-taxes us to provide and restricts us from doing as we choose. The dominant issues of the current election campaign are national security, energy, the economy, education, and health care. Except for national security, virtually none of that is the President’s responsibility. Furthermore, by meddling in them, rendering them less effective and more expensive, Washington elites, at the same time, neglect critical duties that are to keep us safe, constructively engaged with the rest of the world, but sovereign over our own future.

Those who covet the power of a bloated, ever-expanding federal government would prefer to silence any of us who not only object but also do so with clear Constitutional justification. That is undoubtedly why the First Amendment is first! The new media have kept the elites from doing what they seek to do, things they have often done in the past, without much notice, since their friends largely controlled the old media, the only sources of information. The original “Fairness Doctrine,” which ended under Reagan’s FCC, prevented radio and then TV from airing contrary views by requiring “equal time.” Indeed, the original federal management of broadcast frequencies was largely a ploy to prevent unrestricted free speech. The proof is how little they care, today, about crude speech while they are intensely concerned about critical speech.

Equal time is not a provision of the First Amendment. If more people hold a particular view, then they will naturally express it more than perhaps a small number who think differently. We allow those with minority opinions to express them, but nothing guarantees them “equal time.” Indeed, the idea is ludicrous. A few people may still believe in a flat earth, but they don’t get equal time with the prevailing scientific opinion. The real intent of “fairness” and “equal time” provisions are to silence opinions that those in power might prefer to remain unheard. This is precisely what the First Amendment intended to protect. If left-leaning, pro big government activists did not dominate some courts, this would not even need discussion. All judges should protect the plain sense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; we should impeach judges who do otherwise, for they are plainly violating their primary Constitutional duties.

Freedom of religion has also been turned upside down. The Bill of Rights has no “wall of separation.” Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church using this phrase, but that is not in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but no one had any business using it to “interpret” the First Amendment. The amendment's words were the ones debated, chosen, and approved as an amendment, not some letter, regardless of who wrote it. Such “interpretations” opened the door to further departures from the words and plain sense of these documents; today it may be the laws of other countries or the feelings of the judge himself or herself, making the Constitution a “living document,” paramount nonsense but a powerful tool in the hands of a judicial activist.

As a preacher and interpreter of the Bible, I have long advocated that ordinary people read and seek to understand Scripture for themselves and not depend on any teacher, no matter how good or wise. I urge the same regarding our national documents. We may learn for well-educated experts, but not all experts agree. Our religious and political orientations may swayed any of us to “find” our biases in the words we interpret. The framers intended the First Amendment to enable a free and informed citizenry to decide for themselves, speak the minds, and vote their consciences, free of oppressive government interference or domination. Christian people, who were intimately involved in creating them saw a limited government as a protection for religious people from having one religion exercise coercion through the government, the very coercion the non-religious are using today.

The only way we can preserve these critically important protections or hope to restore them to their original state is the use them now, while we still can. We can no longer afford just to vote; we must speak to our families, neighbors, co-workers, and anyone else we can reach to persuade them to demand, in every way possible, that our leaders protect these freedoms. The United States of American has nothing without them, and the prosperity we have enjoyed, a direct result of free enterprise, will wither into the same economic blight much of the rest of the world lives in. We must especially work to educate our younger citizens who, thanks to the contrary biases of the elitist-run public schools, understand far too little of this. Of course, you may yourself be poorly taught. The resources to discover the facts are right at your fingertips. I urge you to use them. Then use your voice, your right to assemble, and your right to demand that our leaders to what they swear to do, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Hopeless Change or Hopeful Progress?

The roles of race and women have come to dominate this year’s Presidential election; as a result, many choose, thinking to advance the rights of the supposedly disadvantaged. Some support the first black nominee, primarily because of his color; Pat Buchanan has asked what will happen if he loses, in fact, suggesting a lose/lose scenario. Some for similar reasons favor one, who might have become the first woman nominee, for similar reasons, and their disappointment may be major factor in the outcome of this election.

Hope, change, and leadership, often in very non-specific terms, are virtually meaningless bases for choosing a candidate, and many contrary contrary indications tend to make one wonder. The reality is that our country has been changing, in the areas of race and gender especially; unintended consequences provide a warning to us as we consider the future that any nominee or prospective representative proposes. Do they actually seek to lead us somewhere specific? We need more than a vague hope for a better future, the kind of hope with which people play the lottery. Changes can be bad or good; change in itself means nothing. In fact, when it comes right down to it, many of us don't like change; and that is true regardless of ideology.

One of my roommates observed several young women walking by our home, and he was appalled by the way that they talked. We all have heard girls with mouths like sewers, the result of poor parenting and r-rated media, among other things. Is this the gender equality the movement had in mind? Did the rhetoric seek to lower the feminine to the worst of the masculine? A man who speaks with a limited vocabulary filled with crudity and cursing lessens his effectiveness in conversation; seeking power, perceived as macho, in offensive words actually reduces his power. It is even worse for a woman, who corrupts her femininity by taking up the lowest of masculine expression. A strong woman may be tough, speak firmly, and deal with others actively without being crude and offensive.

Words are only a more visible indication of this equality by lowering. The inner reality is far worse. Men have been the hunters and the soldiers; by virtue of their greater size and strength, the male has been the punisher and, when necessary, the life-taker. He has often suffered for it, with post-traumatic stress, flashbacks, and physical and emotional scars and handicaps. The majority of violent criminals are men. This is not an aspect of life that women should want to embrace, just to be equal; unfortunately, they have. Women have become life-takers rather than life-nurturers.

In particular, feminism has embraced abortion as necessary for equality. The movement has long passed the notion of abortion for the sake of a woman’s health; it has taken up the cause of abortion for the convenience of a woman, who prefers not to have a child or to avoid the actions that conceive a child. The meaningless rhetoric about when life begins has become irrelevant; every woman and a good many men know that aborting a fetus kills a living organism. Killing a baby, regardless of its stage of development, is worse than the coarsening of speech; this is a hardening of the female heart. The defense of partial birth abortion and other kinds of infanticide, as well as the well-publicized cases of mothers killing their children, show where this is headed and, to some extent, has already gone. Woman in this don't become equal to men, in taking life, but less; life-givers have evolved into life-takers.

Others have noted that women, now prevalent in most workplaces, enjoy many of the same symptoms of stress that men have suffered—greater incidence of heart attack, shortening life expectancy, neglected relationships—all so they could earn more money, have careers, etc. Is it worth it? The early feminists claimed they could “have it all,” but they have learned that it's all about trade-offs. To gain in these areas, other areas suffer. Children grow up in homes without any parent; instead they have childcare with all the new problems that represents, such as the foul-mouthed girls I noted above. Two working spouses have even less time for relationships; good relationships take time. Is it any wonder that so many marriages fail? Those who don’t marry have even less enduring partnerships. For the sake of equality, women have careers, children they seek to raise alone, and often less material wealth than if they were home-makers. Still, the corruption of the woman as nurturer into destroyer is the worst un

The racial equality movement has yielded similar “unintended consequences” for black families, which are even more broken, although non-blacks are working hard to catch up! Government entitlements for the presumed victims of slavery and prejudice have arguably wrecked even greater havoc on American blacks, driving fathers from the home, encouraging out-of-wedlock births to sky-rocket, and creating dependence on welfare. Subsequent generations of black children blame racism for their plight, encouraged to believe this myth by politicians who need their loyalty to win elections. These politicians are the greater racists, whether they believe that blacks are incapable of self-sufficiency or just prefer to keep them dependent for the political benefit. The inner cities have become cesspools of poverty and cultural blight caused more by government and political strategery than by racism. The proof lies in the success of recent African immigrants who work hard, get their education, and prosper, despite whatever lingering remnants of racism may touch them.

If all of that isn't enough, abortion is a huge factor within the black community, too. Some have suggested that the so-called "pro-choice" movement is a kind of quiet racial genocide. Certainly, the eugenics movement leaned in that direction, including Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. The more overt aspects of this attitude is the encouragement given to parents of unborn children with disabilities to abort them.

Positive change is desperately needed, but little is evident in the current political rhetoric. The need is opportunity unhindered by government fixes. The more the government is removed from the social fabric the better. Sufficient remedies already exist in law to protect the rights of women and minorities. More “programs” to assist them actually only assist career politicians in gaining power by keeping those they would “help” dependent on them and their largess.

Many leaders in and out of government love to mock religion and traditional values. Of late, a favorite claim is that some Christians desire a theocracy, government dominated by religious values. They like to compare radical Islam and Christianity, as if they were similar, but they are not. Christians, with very few exceptions, prefer to persuade to convert. We want the freedom to do so and then to practice our beliefs freely. A few failed experiments long ago proved that even a genuine Christian government is as likely to oppress as any other. Most result in a corruption of true faith as oppressors use religion to advance their own agendas, much as some radical Muslim leaders are doing today. Until God himself takes charge, most of us prefer the American way—republican democracy.

We need genuine leadership, men and women who actively seek to restore limited constitutional government. We seek leaders who believe that American liberty and opportunity can solve a problem better than any government program, who lead us away from more centralized power, and who recognize the dangers that too much government create. For women and minorities, the best hope is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” equally available to every citizen. The notion, implied by the harsh criticisms of the current President, is that he or she ought somehow to be able to keep us safe, make us prosperous, prevent natural disaster, and assure our individual happiness. Any candidate who implies he or she will do all that is an idiot, a megalomaniac, or liar. Any voter who believes a President should or could do all that is stupid, crazy, ignorant, or a fool. People who deny the hope and power of God, who yet put their faith in a fallible or even evil human, are not unexpected, but they are making a dangerous choice.

Many well-meaning citizens are naively putting their “faith” in empty rhetoric. It is sad when people do that and destroy their own lives; it is frightening when they collectively choose such a course and potentially threaten the very security and existence of an entire nation. Socialism in a small nation only robs its own people of freedom; socialism in a world power, whether it was the Soviet Union or will be the United States, threatens the freedom of the entire world as well. In such a circumstance, change will destroy hope, and leaders will become tyrants.

I hope for a different kind of progress, not toward bigger government or a one-world authority. I would like to see a change away from the course our culture has been slowly following that has produced foul-mouthed girls, life-taking mothers, and devastated black families, among many other sad and tragic results. I hope for leaders who want more freedom for us and not more power for themselves, true civic-minded, civil servants that have become a rare breed. Spare me the empty rhetoric! Show me you know how to take us to a truly brighter future where freedom and faith not only create prosperity but a better citizenry. That kind of hopeful progress I will support whole-heartedly.