Compared to the 2008 election I have posted very little about the upcoming presidential election. There are some good reasons for this.
If you voted for B. Hussein Obama in the last election you probably now fall into one of three groups. The first group were those who were enthusiastic about the possibilities that a relatively unknown could do with his hope and positive message. They have now seen what Obama can do (or doesn't do) and hopefully they have come to understand that he is not a good leader for our Nation.
The Second group were those who have more progressive leanings or Democratic sympathy to begin with and could not stand the thought of McCain and Pallin leading this country (I don't really blame them). They now have a very viable alternative who, while still a conservative, is very successful in business and has a history of working with liberal agendas (as evidenced by his record in Massachusetts).
The last group are those zombies that want the government to control every aspect of their lives, redistribute all goods, and give them goods and services that they have not earned. They will always vote for the extreme socialist-liberal agenda.
If you voted for the McCain/Pallin ticket with hopes that they would be better than they seemed you now have a much better conservative candidate to vote for. A man with integrity, success, values, and a love for this country.
If you have done any real research at all you will see that Romney is as genuine as you or me. You will also find that Obama is sketchy at best. So, everyone either sees Obama for the lack-luster (possibly sinister) "leader" he is and will want anyone else to lead or they have bought into the "free ride" sheep mentality and will vote for whoever gives them the most stuff. Either way there is really no debate. I just hope that We, the people, vote for liberty, freedom, and responsibility rather than tyranny, injustice and degradation.
Go vote.
November 05, 2012
September 21, 2012
Door Number Three?
(written in August 2012)
So, the coming presidential election looks like it is shaping up to be Obama and Romney. Going into this year I was hoping for a good candidate to run against Obama and it seemed like Romney is it but the more I see him on TV and the more I read about him the less I am enthused. Do not get me wrong, I would vote for just about anyone over Obama. Obama has plunged our country into debt, tarnished our reputation with our allies, pandered to the masses with outright lies and passed laws and orders that are completely illegal.
Ron Paul is touted by many to be naive, hypocritical or crazy. He may be a little crazy but do some research and you'll find this man has got his constitutional head on straight. His social views may be too conservative for some of my liberal friends out there but more important than what he wants to accomplish politically is HOW he wants to to it. He basically wants the states to function as they should (governing closer to the people and bringing the state together) and trim the un-wieldy Federal Government, INC. back to what it should be doing: working with inter-state issues and dealing with foreign nations.
I am still torn. If I was not worried about Mr. B. Hussein Obama being re-elected I think I might just vote for Ron Paul; but I am worried. I think Ron Paul (or someone like him) might be the meat this country is not ready for.
Hmmmmm..
So, the coming presidential election looks like it is shaping up to be Obama and Romney. Going into this year I was hoping for a good candidate to run against Obama and it seemed like Romney is it but the more I see him on TV and the more I read about him the less I am enthused. Do not get me wrong, I would vote for just about anyone over Obama. Obama has plunged our country into debt, tarnished our reputation with our allies, pandered to the masses with outright lies and passed laws and orders that are completely illegal.
Ron Paul is touted by many to be naive, hypocritical or crazy. He may be a little crazy but do some research and you'll find this man has got his constitutional head on straight. His social views may be too conservative for some of my liberal friends out there but more important than what he wants to accomplish politically is HOW he wants to to it. He basically wants the states to function as they should (governing closer to the people and bringing the state together) and trim the un-wieldy Federal Government, INC. back to what it should be doing: working with inter-state issues and dealing with foreign nations.
I am still torn. If I was not worried about Mr. B. Hussein Obama being re-elected I think I might just vote for Ron Paul; but I am worried. I think Ron Paul (or someone like him) might be the meat this country is not ready for.
Hmmmmm..
American Morality
I just stumbled upon this great article from Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It discusses why we are having so many political and societal problems which lead many to view our constitution as "out of date" or flawed. I believe this article was written by Steve Forbes but I cannot confirm this.
=================
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6486
=================
The Moral Basis of a Free Society
Sustaining a healthy society requires more than capitalism and democracy. It takes a commitment to moral renewal
When the government of China tells people they can read state-run newspapers but not print and distribute Bibles, imprisoning and torturing dissenters; or have one child but not two, forcing women to have abortions; or watch state-run television but not listen to Radio Free Asia, jamming broadcast signals and threatening students--that is not freedom.
But the absence of centralized state control is not necessarily freedom, either. The people of Beirut are not free. Neither are the people of Medellin and Cartagena, the drug capitals of Colombia. Freedom is not anarchy, chaos, and mayhem. The freedom to "let soulless forces operate," as the great classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises termed it, is actually tyranny in another guise.
So what is freedom? How can a widely pluralistic society sustain freedom without degenerating into chaos? What is the moral basis of a free society? Today the citizens and leaders of every nation are looking to America for answers to these questions. From Mexico City to Moscow, from Johannesburg to Jerusalem, from Bombay to Beijing, people have an eye on America as they struggle to make the exciting but difficult transition to free markets, free elections, free speech, and free worship.
No nation, after all, has ever enjoyed the status that America does today. The greatest empires of history were but regional affairs. Today, America is truly the world’s only superpower. Yet our strength comes not just from the might of our economy or the brilliant capabilities of the men and women in our armed forces. It comes also from the example we set for the rest of the world of how a free people can adapt to and advance in changing times and circumstances.
While others look to us, however, Americans themselves are seeking answers to some painful and bitter questions. Can a free society survive the collapse of the two-parent family, where one-third of children are born into homes without fathers? Can a free society long endure a culture in which newborn babies have been thrown into trash dumpsters and young people have doubled their rate of heroin use in a single year?
As the 20th century comes to an end, the world is learning from America that the economic and political freedoms that come from capitalism and democracy are the most powerful and productive way to organize society. At the same time, we in America are discovering that capitalism and democracy alone are not enough to sustain a healthy, vibrant society. We are learning the hard way that a self-governing nation must consist of self-governing individuals. A breakdown in the moral fabric of society has dire consequences. An explosion of violence, crime, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and out-of-wedlock births undermines the blessings of liberty and prosperity.
The stakes, therefore, are enormous. If America makes the economic, political, and moral changes necessary to move forward in the years ahead, then the rest of the world has a chance of getting it right. But if America drifts off course, then the rest of the world will be in trouble as well.
A Free Society
Americans have always defined true freedom as an environment in which one may resist evil and do what is right, noble, and good without fear of reprisal. It is the presence of justice tempered with mercy. It is a rule of law based on fundamental moral truths that are easily understood and fairly and effectively administered. It offers individuals and families equal opportunity to better their lives morally, spiritually, intellectually, and economically.
Freedom, in other words, is neither a commodity for dictators to distribute and deny at will nor a moral, spiritual, or political vacuum in which anything goes. Freedom is a priceless treasure that the state is supposed to safeguard. Why? Because human beings have an intrinsic right to be free, a right that comes not from the state but from God. To the Founding Fathers, this was a "self-evident" truth. It is the essence of the American experiment in self-government.
The Founders, even those most suspicious of organized religion, believed that man’s place in the universe was no accident--that man himself and the world in which he lived were created and sustained by a just and loving God. "It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being," wrote George Washington, "and it is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being." James Madison put it this way: "The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources."
To navigate the oceans without consulting fixed stars, Americans knew, is to risk being turned around by waves and wind, circling aimlessly with dwindling stores of food and water. To believe in the randomness of man’s appearance on the earth, the Founders likewise intuitively understood, would be to deny the existence of fixed moral truths, established outside of man’s own personal whims and predilections. In such a world, no one could judge with authority what is right or wrong because everyone would be entitled to his own personal system of values. Hence there could be no equality before the law, because the law would consist of whatever people in power declared it to be. That would elevate jungle law--what Darwin would later term "survival of the fittest"--over the rule of natural law. And that, in turn, would legitimize both the centralized European regimes of the Founders’ day and the anarchic Beiruts of our day, where the powerful rule over the weak, use force to obtain wealth, and use wealth to reinforce their power.
Instead, the Founding Fathers staked the future of the country on the principle that human beings are created by God, and therefore have certain intrinsic, absolute, nonnegotiable rights. "[A]ll men are created equal," reads the Declaration of Independence, and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Government’s role in society, then, is to "secure" these rights, not create or dispense them. This is the moral basis of a free society.
The order of these rights--first life, then freedom, and then the equal opportunity to pursue one’s own happiness--was written with great care and precision, not haphazardly. The Founders understood the need to balance man’s right to be free with man’s responsibility to be honest, just, and fair. For example, if it makes you happy to shoot and kill someone while you rob a bank--well, the law says you’re out of luck. A person’s right to live supersedes your "freedom" to steal and murder. This may seem obvious, but it is profound. It is also the linchpin of Western civilization. Switch the order of these fundamental human rights--putting happiness before liberty, or liberty before life--and you end up with moral chaos and social anarchy. Deny the God-given nature of these rights and you open the door to tyranny.
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God?" asked Thomas Jefferson. Or, as John Adams put it, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The people of the former Soviet Union are discovering this the hard way, in a tragic drama we have been tracking with great interest and concern at Forbes magazine. Communism destroyed not only material progress there, but also the moral and spiritual foundations of the country. Trust between strangers, the fundamental moral component of a free-market economy, barely exists. Without trust, how do you sign or enforce business contracts? How do you operate a system of credit? How do you maintain a basic sense of order? The people of the former Soviet Union are discovering that a free, self-governing society is nearly impossible without a moral foundation. Theft is rampant. Their murder rate is several times higher than our own. Mafias are moving into the vacuum left by the fall of communism to seize control of vast sectors of economic activity. A Hobbesian world has emerged, where life is "nasty, brutish, and short."
America’s Moral Crisis
In America today, however, not everyone regards these basic moral truths as "self-evident." Modern liberalism, which rejects absolute moral standards, has abandoned the proper ordering of man’s fundamental rights. As a result, modern liberalism has undermined a long-held American principle: that the law should protect the weakest among us, not just the strong, the healthy, and the rich. Abortion and euthanasia violate this principle by removing the protection of the law from society’s most vulnerable members.
There is no need here to catalog in detail the lamentable results since the 1960s of liberalism’s passions. The effort to legitimate all moral claims, to give personal freedom an utterly free hand--to "define deviancy down"--has given us the following: horrific increases in violent crime, out-of-wedlock births, family breakups, and substance abuse; dramatic declines in educational and cultural standards; a proliferation of increasingly bizarre lawsuits; a blizzard of regulations that defy common sense and assault our rights to property and due process; a growing corruption of the tax code; and a judiciary that often acts like an imperial aristocracy hurtling decrees down upon the rest of us.
Modern liberalism has adopted a view of liberty that is at the same time too broad and too narrow. Liberalism wrongly insists, for example, on a parent’s freedom to choose an abortion while simultaneously denying parents’ freedom to choose the schools their children may attend.
Ideas have consequences. Liberalism’s moral confusion over the sanctity of human life and the vital importance of the traditional family has reshaped American law and society. The statistics are grim enough. But the anecdotal evidence hits home: An 18-year-old girl attending her senior prom in New Jersey last spring allegedly delivered her baby in a rest room, disposed of it in a plastic bag where it suffocated to death, cleaned herself up, and went back to the dance floor, where she asked the DJ to play a favorite song. A teenage couple in Delaware has been charged with giving birth to a baby boy in a motel room and then tossing him into a trash dumpster, where he died a cold, horrifying death. A 15-year-old boy in Detroit who disappeared for six months had reportedly been sold by his mother to a drug dealer to cover a $1,000 cocaine debt. Meanwhile, "Doctor" Jack Kevorkian now claims to have "assisted" in more than 100 "suicides."
Certainly crime is not new. But Americans have rarely been so confused about right and wrong, about what is acceptable and what is to be forcefully condemned.
So we must be clear: A free society cannot survive the collapse of the two-parent family or the absence of fathers, love, and discipline in the lives of so many children. A free society cannot survive an unchecked explosion in violent crime. Nor can a free society survive a generation of crack babies and teenagers whose minds and bodies have been destroyed by illegal drugs.
Like millions of people, my wife and I are deeply concerned about the moral condition of our nation. We are raising five daughters in a society whose wheels, it often seems, are coming off. It is difficult enough in any era to raise young girls to be wise and virtuous young women. But it is particularly difficult today. Movies, television, music, and the Internet bombard young people with cultural messages of sexual revolution and self-absorbed materialism that tempt them away from good moral character rather than appealing to the better angels of their natures. Affluence does not protect children from temptation; sometimes it makes temptation more accessible.
The good news is that this is not the first time we have faced such dark times and turned things around. America has seen several periods of renewal and reform, most notably the Second Great Awakening and the Progressive Era. Both periods marked a return to America’s founding ideals; both offer guidance as to how we might strengthen our moral commitments while preserving freedom.
The Second Great Awakening
Following the Revolutionary War, America experienced a period of moral decline. The chaos of battle, the pain of death and separation, the anxiety of wartime inflation, the excitement of subsequent political change, and the all-consuming nature of building a new nation drained people’s time and energy. Fewer and fewer people attended church. Spiritual devotion waned and social problems proliferated. From the late 1770s until the late 1820s, per-capita consumption of alcohol in America rose dramatically, to about four to five times per person what it is today. Everybody took a swig from the jug--teachers, preachers, children. They called it "hard cider," but it was nothing like the cider we buy at the grocery store today. In those days, it seemed everyone was in a haze by noontime. The social consequences were predictable.
"Illegitimate births were rampant" during the early 1800s, wrote Tom Phillips in his book Revival Signs. "Alcohol, the drug of the day, was destroying families and wrecking futures. Thomas Paine was proclaiming that Christianity was dead--and certainly the body of faith appeared to be in a coma. Yet even as church rolls were shrinking and greed, sensuality and family breakdown were becoming more widespread, America was about to experience a great spiritual revival."
Slowly at first, then building over the next several decades, one wave of spiritual renewal and religious rededication after another swept the country in what historians now call America’s "Second Great Awakening." In one community after another, people began to wake up from their moral and spiritual slumber as though saying, "If we’re going to have a self-governing nation, it must be occupied by self-governing citizens."
The first public-health movement in America was launched not by the government but by citizen-activists such as Lyman Beecher, the founder of the American Bible Society and a pastor who went on to form the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance in 1826. This enterprise became known as the Temperance Movement--and it worked. Within one generation, alcoholic consumption in America fell by two-thirds.
Soon pastors and community leaders were opening elementary and secondary schools (this was before "public" education), founding colleges and universities, setting up orphanages and homes for abandoned children, creating shelters for the poor, building hospitals, and exhorting people to stop drinking and spend more time with their families. The Reverend Thomas Gallaudet opened his school for the deaf. William McGuffey wrote his famous "Eclectic Readers," of which 120 million copies were printed. The first Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) opened in Boston, followed shortly by the first Young Women’s Christian Association.
It was during this rebuilding of the moral foundations of a free society that French historian Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in 1831. "Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention, and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things," he wrote. "In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country."
Eventually the religious and moral renewal of the Second Great Awakening gave birth to the abolitionist movement, one of the nation’s greatest struggles to reassert a moral order based on man’s fundamental rights.
This gets to one of the great strengths of the American democracy. It is not that we do not make mistakes as a people and as a nation. We are, after all, only human. But when we do stumble, we have a record of rediscovering our first principles and resuming the journey toward faith and moral renewal.
Roosevelt and the Progressive Era
In the early years of the 20th century, Americans were filled with optimism. The nation’s rapid industrialization and urbanization created enormous new social, economic, and political problems, but these were confronted by bold, imaginative national leaders and the energetic efforts of people voluntarily working together to promote shared objectives.
The period speaks to us today. The 1890s had been a troubled time. The rise of large corporations and massive industrial monopolies seemed to mock the idea of individual entrepreneurship. The rise of big cities with corrupt political machines supplanted the tradition of democratic town meetings. People feared that massive immigration, which was several times greater in proportion to our population than what we are experiencing today, would degrade the American character and culture. How, they asked, could we assimilate so many people from so many different races, nationalities, and religions? These years were also plagued by drug addiction--primarily to opium.
American churches and synagogues responded to the challenge of the new industrial era by combining a message of spiritual renewal with practical, personal care for those in need. Dwight L. Moody, a former shoe salesman, became the most influential American evangelist of the 19th century. He launched a Sunday School movement in Chicago to provide moral instruction for more than 1,500 poor, urban street children. He opened a Bible college to challenge other young people to follow his example of helping destitute and demoralized people turn their lives around. And, in an age without radio or television, he communicated his message of spiritual and moral renewal to millions of people before his death in 1899.
The spiritual and practical needs of America’s burgeoning city populations were also addressed by social reformers such as William and Catherine Booth, who founded the Salvation Army in the United States in 1880. Women took a particular interest in the needs of those who found themselves financially and morally bankrupt. By 1913, more than 500 urban rescue missions were operating in the United States and Canada, many of them organized and run by women of faith. Catholic nuns and Jewish and other fraternal societies also labored to help the needy everywhere from little mining towns to urban slums.
At the same time, President Theodore Roosevelt was ushering in an era of political and economic reform known as the Progressive Era. He declared in his Inaugural Address, "Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. Our forefathers faced certain perils which we have outgrown. We now face other perils, the very existence of which it was impossible that they should foresee. Modern life is both complex and intense, and the tremendous changes wrought by the extraordinary industrial development of the last half-century are felt in every fiber of our social and political being."
From 1901 to 1909, Roosevelt sought to expand individual opportunity and strengthen individual control over personal, business, and political affairs, as well as to increase America’s economic and military influence in the world. He busted up incestuous and anti-competitive trusts and corporate monopolies, attacked government and political corruption in both major parties, supported the right of workers to organize, expanded U.S. trade with other nations, and built up our armed forces, particularly the navy. He advocated the direct election of U.S. senators, the right of women to vote, the creation of open presidential primaries, and the introduction of citizen initiatives, referenda, and recalls--all of which soon became realities.
Roosevelt reinforced his battle for political and economic reform by publicly, vigorously, and consistently reasserting the notion that there must be a moral foundation to a free society. It was he, after all, who coined the term "bully pulpit." While governor of New York, Roosevelt once declared, "It is absolutely impossible for a Republic long to endure if it becomes either corrupt or cowardly," and he never lost sight of that essential truth. He rightly believed that private, local, character-forming institutions must be left free to strengthen the moral fiber of the nation. The role of religious faith in society must be affirmed, not undermined. He did not believe that government should establish a state religion. But he did not shrink from the right or responsibility of a public official to encourage individuals to attend to their moral and spiritual character.
Eight years after leaving the White House, Roosevelt was still offering Americans his "top 10" list of reasons for going to church. "In this actual world a churchless community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs is a community on the rapid downgrade," he wrote in 1917 in Ladies’ Home Journal. "It is perfectly true that occasional individuals or families may have nothing to do with church or with religious practices and observances and yet maintain the highest standard of spirituality and of ethical obligation. But this does not affect the case in the world as it now is, any more than that exceptional men and women under exceptional conditions have disregarded the marriage tie without moral harm to themselves interferes with the larger fact that such disregard if at all common means the complete moral disintegration of the body politic."
Not all of Roosevelt’s policies were wise. (He argued vigorously for a graduated income tax, for example.) Some of his policies, such as trust-busting, made sense for his time but should be adapted in our day to such causes as breaking up government education and entitlement monopolies in favor of individual and parental choice and control. Still, Roosevelt lived during the historic transition from the Age of Agriculture to the Age of Industry; his vigorous spirit of renewal and reform on behalf of individuals and families should inspire us today as we make the transition from the Age of Industry to the Age of Information.
Renewal and the 21st Century
As we prepare to enter the 21st century, the American experiment is again being severely tested. The stakes are greater than they were in Teddy Roosevelt’s time. It is not only our own future that is at stake, but ultimately the world’s. Can we renew the moral and spiritual foundations of our free society, and make the economic and political changes necessary to enable all Americans to have a chance to pursue their dreams and fulfill our destiny as a positive, inspiring example to ourselves and to other nations?
The answer is: yes. The reasons derive from three great events that are already transforming our society--the end of the Cold War, the dawn of the Information Age, and encouraging signs of another moral and spiritual awakening.
We take the end of the Cold War for granted, but it has enormous implications for our system of self-government and for others’. To understand why, just ask yourself: How did America--the most pro-individual, anti-statist nation ever invented--come to permit its government to assume the size and scope it has today? The answer is war--the great shaper of this century. Throughout history, warfare fostered government centralization. You cannot face a major external threat unless you have a strong government to marshal the resources necessary to meet that threat. For most of the last 80 years, America has faced a major external threat of one sort or another--first World War I, then World War II, and finally the Cold War.
These conflicts have been cited to justify government expansion in every direction. How did we justify federal aid to education? The initial rationale was national security. Federal aid for research and development and the space program? National security. Even the interstate highway program begun in the 1950s was partially justified on national security grounds. It seemed natural to some that if government could mobilize resources to fight external enemies, it could solve an array of domestic problems as well. Hence the "War on Poverty."
It has taken us 30 years to learn, very painfully, the limitations of Big Government. Now that the Cold War is over, we no longer need such a massive, centralized federal government. We now have the opportunity to downsize Washington and shift money, power, and control back to individuals, families, and local communities.
Just as Teddy Roosevelt started the new century by attacking government corruption at its source and busting up anti-competitive monopolies, it is time to start the next century by shrinking Big Government. That means junking the current federal tax code--the biggest source of political pollution and corruption in this country--and replacing it with a simple, honest, and fair flat tax that also lowers everyone’s tax bill. That means creating a new Social Security system for young people, expanding medical savings accounts for all Medicare recipients, and creating educational savings accounts and vouchers to give parents more control over where their children go to school and what values they are being taught. After all, it is the moral right of the parents--not bureaucrats, politicians, or union officials--to decide what is best for their children. Financially, the taxpayer, not the government, has the right to decide where and how his education dollars should be spent.
The dawn of the Information Age means a fundamental transformation in the way we live and the way we work. This new era is symbolized by the microchip, which is extending the reach of the human brain the way machines extended the reach of human muscle in the 19th century.
Step back and think about it. At one time, if you learned to drive a tractor, you could do more work in a day than 100 Herculean plowmen. Today, if you learn to use a personal computer, you can do more research, analysis, writing, and communication from your basement or den than entire companies could do 50 years ago with a whole division of secretaries and staff assistants.
The Machine Age was all about bigness--big factories, big companies, big unions, big cities, and big government. The Microchip Age is almost Jeffersonian in its dynamic--anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, anti-centralization. It gives us more control and more choices in our lives. This puts further pressure on big corporations who must constantly fight to stay nimble and innovative in a highly competitive national and global economy. It also puts tremendous pressure on Washington to make the tax, regulatory, and legal reforms necessary to let small business owners and entrepreneurs compete and win in the Microchip Age.
Signs of Spiritual Revival
At the same time, there are encouraging signs of moral and spiritual renewal in this country. Consider, for example, the tone of the welfare debate last year, which focused not on the fact that billions of dollars are being spent but on the fact that welfare is destroying the lives of the very people it was created to help. With less federal interference, many governors and mayors have been making dramatic reforms to help people move from welfare to work. They are urging churches, civic groups, and local businesses to help educate and employ welfare recipients-and Americans are rising to the challenge. Welfare rolls nationwide have fallen by 25 percent since 1996.
At the same time, millions of baby boomers are returning to churches and synagogues for the first time in years, some to meet their own spiritual needs and some to build strong moral foundations within their children. Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, for example, attracts more than 15,000 people every weekend. Millions of high-school students are also meeting for prayer and Bible study in small groups all over the country. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio ministry, heard on more than 1,500 stations, is having remarkable success teaching couples to build strong, successful marriages and raise morally healthy children. William Bennett’s Book of Virtues, an 800-page compilation of old poems, songs, and stories written to develop character, rocketed to the top of the bestseller list not long ago. His wife, Elayne, runs a successful sexual abstinence program for teenage girls in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Wade Horn’s National Fatherhood Initiative and Charles Ballard’s Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization encourage young men to take parenthood seriously. And these are just a few of many examples.
Consider, too, the Promise Keepers movement, an impressive series of rallies held in America’s stadiums aimed at helping men make and keep seven promises ranging from racial reconciliation to being a good husband and father. Launched in 1990 by former University of Colorado football coach Bill McCartney, the first gathering drew 72 men. By 1994, a series of regional conferences were held drawing more than 280,000 men. By 1996, Promise Keepers conferences had attracted more than 1 million men from all over the country. In October 1997, hundreds of thousands of men attended a single Promise Keepers event in Washington, D.C.--not to call for political change, but to pledge themselves to personal change.
Some Americans are uneasy with such public demonstrations of religious faith. But this is not new to American history, either. "The first time I heard in the United States that a hundred thousand men had bound themselves together publicly to abstain from spirituous liquors," wrote Tocqueville, "it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement." He added, "I did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides." But Tocqueville was eager to learn. "I at last understood that these hundred thousand Americans, alarmed by the progress of drunkenness around them, had made up their minds to patronize temperance. They acted just in the same way as a man of high rank who should dress very plainly, in order to inspire the humbler orders with a contempt of luxury."
What Is Government’s Role?
Samuel Johnson once wrote, "How small, of all that human hearts endure/That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!" How true. Personal moral and spiritual renewal must happen in families, churches, and synagogues, as is beginning to happen. But government leaders do have a limited and specific role to play in re-establishing the moral foundation of a free society.
Presidents, senators, and other government officials are not archbishops. They do not have primary responsibility for the life of the spirit. Yet our early presidents and other leading Founders knew well how crucial religion is to the cause of liberty. (To see this, you need only consult Article I of the early constitutions of the commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.) The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote that the history of liberty is in fact, "coincident" with the history of Christianity, sprung from Judaism. In the words of Jefferson, "God who gave us life gave us liberty." To save liberty, our Founders never failed to stress the role of faith.
At a particularly difficult impasse at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin proposed a pause for solemn prayer to Providence, just as in The Federalist Papers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay three times noted the interventions of divine Providence in the cause of establishing freedom on this continent. Presidents have declared national days of Thanksgiving to Almighty God. The inaugural speeches of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, to take but three examples, are breathtaking for their moral and religious reach.
In short, our national leaders have sensed a duty to express this nation’s need of divine guidance and its gratitude for the Creator’s manifold acts of assistance. In this country, we do not have an established church. But the foundations of our liberty are dug deep in the voluntary and heartfelt faith of millions.
To root our liberties more firmly in a moral soil, presidents and other officials can also show leadership in word, in deed, and in law. Here are a few examples:
Writing in defense of the Constitution, James Madison noted in The Federalist no. 51 that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are not angels. They are prone to attack, abuse, and impose upon the lives, liberties, and property of others. Therefore, Madison went on to assert, "justice is the end of government," its highest purpose and mission.
Conservatives have been accused of denying any significant role for government in promoting a just and healthy civil society. The accusation is utterly misguided. Government has a profoundly important role in recognizing and defending Americans’ fundamental rights. Indeed, when the issue is the right to life--that is, defining the boundaries of the human community--government has no higher calling. And this is not just a matter for the states: The federal government has always had the responsibility, whether it acknowledged it or not, to secure this highest, most cherished of rights. That responsibility is again being severely debated and tested today.
Part of the reason for this social and political tension is that we as a nation seem so unclear about the proper ordering of our fundamental rights--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, there are at least three issues that serve as flash points for this debate: abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and the battle against illegal drugs. Each is a life issue; each has become embroiled in arguments over the relationship between life and liberty.
Abortion. Many Americans are uncomfortable discussing abortion, and understandably so; it is not a pleasant topic. Today, however, there is no doubt--medically, genetically--that individual human life begins at conception and ends with natural death. The starting place for the discussion, then, is the recognition that abortion involves the violent ending of life--the first and foremost of our natural rights, the one that trumps all others. That is why abortions are a moral wrong and a national tragedy. As Lincoln said of slavery 140 years ago, abortion is and must be on the road to extinction.
The real question is: How do we achieve this goal of making abortions disappear? We must recognize that we as a nation lack an overwhelming consensus about the primacy of life over liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We must recover such a consensus, but we cannot do so simply with the stroke of a legislative pen or a Supreme Court vote. In a democracy, we cannot impose; we must persuade. Thus, the only way to eliminate abortions in this country is to bring about a change of heart, a change of conscience, a change of attitude. In order to change the law, we must change the culture. To change the culture, we must change the law little by little. I took a lot of heat for this view during the 1996 Republican presidential primaries, but as the political passions of the moment have settled, I think more people are recognizing that this approach makes eminent sense.
We must all acknowledge that there has been a little legislative progress in restricting abortions since 1973, but only a little. Still, that is only part of the story. What is exciting is that change outside of Washington is truly visible. The number of abortions performed has declined to its lowest point since 1976. The number of doctors willing to perform abortions has fallen. The number of schools willing to teach abortion is down dramatically.
Why is this? Because since 1973, when the practice of abortion was legalized in all states, the medical knowledge about birth available to doctors and the public has advanced by giant steps. We now have a knowledge of the genetics of the first human cells, we have sonograms, and we have many more lifesaving techniques for infants threatened in the womb.
In this changing moral climate, now is the time to advance the issue legislatively, step by step. We should start by banning partial-birth abortions, a euphemism for infanticide. Support for a ban is growing. We should also ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection, ban fetal tissue research, and end all federal funding for abortion. As the father of five girls, I also support parental notification and consent in the case of minors. We must also work to end abortions in late pregnancy. Our hospitals today are like a house divided. In one room, doctors work heroically to save a premature baby born at 22 or 23 weeks. Most of those babies now survive. Yet in another room, physicians and nurses work to kill a baby at that same stage of pregnancy. This house divided is untenable.
So where there is consensus on limiting abortions, let us codify. From there, let us persuade. Great social change has happened before in American history, and it can happen again.
Doctor-Assisted Suicide. At the other end of life, government must protect the elderly as well. Our nation should not be misled. Assisted suicide will lead us down the path to a dreary and dangerous society. At the altar of liberty, the Jack Kevorkians of the world are prepared to sacrifice the inherent value of all human life.
My mother died from lung cancer five years ago. Near the end, the doctors asked her if she wanted a living will. She thought they meant that they wanted to pull the plug, and she was outraged. She said, "No way--I’m fighting this to the end." My brothers and family and I were inspired by that. Just as we drew strength from her in adversity, she drew strength because we rallied around her in adversity. The medical profession must do more to alleviate physical pain. But the pain, too, can be spiritual and emotional. While science makes progress on the physical side, we must work to provide real relief on the emotional and spiritual side, supporting others when they are in need.
Doctor-assisted suicide is the first step toward euthanasia, which is turning doctors the world over from healers into killers. Doctor-assisted suicide is not about people being on a respirator where technicians can barely find a brain wave. Nor is it about people who voluntarily refuse heroic measures. Rather, this is about what has happened in Holland, where they effectively legalized euthanasia. Since then, thousands of patients have been killed without their permission. With legalized assisted suicide, families will become greedy for their inheritance. The elderly will feel guilty for carrying on. People will say, "You’re using up resources that others could use." Someday people may say that to you and me. It is a hideous, barbaric road for society to take. It encourages the elderly to believe they are obstacles, not human beings reflecting God’s image. We must fervently fight it every inch of the way.
Drug Legalization. Finally, there is the issue of illegal drugs, which are still destroying many young people. This, too, is an issue where life supersedes liberty. Illegal drugs imprison drug takers within sometimes violent and murderous obsessions. They are designed to alter our moral sensibilities, to dull our sense of duty and integrity. Addictive drugs are wrong because they enslave and eventually destroy the body. They take away free choice--the hallmark of human dignity. When the world of adults winks at rampant drug abuse, we abandon children to emotional and moral chaos, thus threatening their very lives.
We must not be misled by state initiatives that claim only to legalize drugs for medicinal purposes. Relieving pain and legalization are separate and distinct issues. America must not be made safe for Colombian-style drug cartels. Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion that someone’s "freedom" to grow, sell, and use deadly drugs overrides society’s right to protect lives. If an illegal drug contains a property that helps people in pain, that property can be extracted, or synthetically manufactured, and given to patients under proper medical supervision. The drug Marinol, for example, treats cancer and AIDS patients with a synthetic form of an active ingredient found in marijuana. But it is safe and available legally by prescription, without exposing users to more than 400 other toxic chemicals found in smokable "pot."
Parents must repeatedly emphasize to their children how dangerous drugs can be. But society also has a right to protect itself from mind-altering, life-threatening drugs by the rule of law and its effective enforcement. Government must not use the fight against drug distribution and abuse as a license to deny individuals their constitutional rights. That said, however, the vast majority of Americans want a vigorous, effective fight against drugs. Yet they are not getting it. In his first year, Bill Clinton reduced the staff at the office of the "drug czar" by 83 percent. He has never delivered an Oval Office address on the drug issue. In the first two years of his administration, he gave more than 3,300 presidential statements, interviews, and addresses, yet illegal drugs were only mentioned 24 times. He is now proposing to reduce prison sentences for possession of crack cocaine.
At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Governor Bill Clinton told the nation that George Bush "hasn’t fought a real war on crime and drugs. I will." But as president, Bill Clinton is not keeping his commitment on one of the greatest causes of crime and human destruction.
The Unfinished Challenge
America’s moral and creative energies have always come from the ground up. When Tocqueville visited America 160 years ago, he noticed the enormous energy that comes from people laboring together voluntarily--through churches and synagogues, schools, hospitals, sports, cultural activities, and professional activities--for a shared goal and purpose. That is the great historic strength of America. I believe we are now beginning a Fourth Great Awakening--and none too soon.
From the beginning of our nation’s history, Americans have understood that freedom has three vital components: economic, political, and moral. In the 20th century, the argument for economic freedom--that free markets and entrepreneurship are vital to social and economic progress--has largely been won. No one outside of entrenched elites on some of our university faculties argues that centralized control and ownership of a nation’s economy will lead to freedom and prosperity. The battle now is to expand economic freedom while shrinking government, both here in America and around the world.
The same is true with the argument for political freedom. In this century, we have witnessed and participated in brutal battles over the right of self-determination. People everywhere understand that they have an intrinsic right to free speech and free and fair elections. Here at home, people understand that government has gotten too big, promised too much, and delivered too little. More than that, where government has advanced, personal freedom and responsibility have retreated. Our challenge is to reform our political institutions here at home while setting an example for others struggling to determine their own destinies.
Yet the argument that there must be a moral basis undergirding a free society is one of the great unfinished challenges of our time. We have neglected the vital task of teaching our children, reminding ourselves, and communicating to others that man’s rights to live free, pursue happiness, and own property come from God and are to be secured by the state. We have failed to assert at home and overseas the fundamental importance of spiritual faith and religious liberty in sustaining both freedom and democracy. Indeed, too often we have averted our eyes from those suffering persecution and even genocide.
As we end this bloody and brutal century, however, we must acknowledge that neglecting the moral basis of freedom has been terribly costly. We must also commit ourselves to a different road as we head into the 21st century.
America today has the potential for the greatest economic boom and spiritual renewal in our history. As we have done numerous times in our history, we can once again brighten economic prospects for everyone, reform our corrupt political institutions, and restore the severely weakened moral foundations of our country. In so doing, we can truly fulfill our national destiny as the leader of a free world. The question is: Will we seize the glittering opportunities that lie before us? Or will this become known as an era of missed opportunities?
I am an optimist. I believe that when historians look back on this era, they will have to conclude that once again the American people confounded the critics, the skeptics, the doubters, the negativists. They will have to conclude once more that the American people rose to the occasion, and that the American nation once again resumed her place--her rightful place--as the leader and inspiration of the world.
When the government of China tells people they can read state-run newspapers but not print and distribute Bibles, imprisoning and torturing dissenters; or have one child but not two, forcing women to have abortions; or watch state-run television but not listen to Radio Free Asia, jamming broadcast signals and threatening students--that is not freedom.
But the absence of centralized state control is not necessarily freedom, either. The people of Beirut are not free. Neither are the people of Medellin and Cartagena, the drug capitals of Colombia. Freedom is not anarchy, chaos, and mayhem. The freedom to "let soulless forces operate," as the great classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises termed it, is actually tyranny in another guise.
So what is freedom? How can a widely pluralistic society sustain freedom without degenerating into chaos? What is the moral basis of a free society? Today the citizens and leaders of every nation are looking to America for answers to these questions. From Mexico City to Moscow, from Johannesburg to Jerusalem, from Bombay to Beijing, people have an eye on America as they struggle to make the exciting but difficult transition to free markets, free elections, free speech, and free worship.
No nation, after all, has ever enjoyed the status that America does today. The greatest empires of history were but regional affairs. Today, America is truly the world’s only superpower. Yet our strength comes not just from the might of our economy or the brilliant capabilities of the men and women in our armed forces. It comes also from the example we set for the rest of the world of how a free people can adapt to and advance in changing times and circumstances.
While others look to us, however, Americans themselves are seeking answers to some painful and bitter questions. Can a free society survive the collapse of the two-parent family, where one-third of children are born into homes without fathers? Can a free society long endure a culture in which newborn babies have been thrown into trash dumpsters and young people have doubled their rate of heroin use in a single year?
As the 20th century comes to an end, the world is learning from America that the economic and political freedoms that come from capitalism and democracy are the most powerful and productive way to organize society. At the same time, we in America are discovering that capitalism and democracy alone are not enough to sustain a healthy, vibrant society. We are learning the hard way that a self-governing nation must consist of self-governing individuals. A breakdown in the moral fabric of society has dire consequences. An explosion of violence, crime, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and out-of-wedlock births undermines the blessings of liberty and prosperity.
The stakes, therefore, are enormous. If America makes the economic, political, and moral changes necessary to move forward in the years ahead, then the rest of the world has a chance of getting it right. But if America drifts off course, then the rest of the world will be in trouble as well.
A Free Society
Americans have always defined true freedom as an environment in which one may resist evil and do what is right, noble, and good without fear of reprisal. It is the presence of justice tempered with mercy. It is a rule of law based on fundamental moral truths that are easily understood and fairly and effectively administered. It offers individuals and families equal opportunity to better their lives morally, spiritually, intellectually, and economically.
Freedom, in other words, is neither a commodity for dictators to distribute and deny at will nor a moral, spiritual, or political vacuum in which anything goes. Freedom is a priceless treasure that the state is supposed to safeguard. Why? Because human beings have an intrinsic right to be free, a right that comes not from the state but from God. To the Founding Fathers, this was a "self-evident" truth. It is the essence of the American experiment in self-government.
The Founders, even those most suspicious of organized religion, believed that man’s place in the universe was no accident--that man himself and the world in which he lived were created and sustained by a just and loving God. "It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being," wrote George Washington, "and it is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being." James Madison put it this way: "The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources."
To navigate the oceans without consulting fixed stars, Americans knew, is to risk being turned around by waves and wind, circling aimlessly with dwindling stores of food and water. To believe in the randomness of man’s appearance on the earth, the Founders likewise intuitively understood, would be to deny the existence of fixed moral truths, established outside of man’s own personal whims and predilections. In such a world, no one could judge with authority what is right or wrong because everyone would be entitled to his own personal system of values. Hence there could be no equality before the law, because the law would consist of whatever people in power declared it to be. That would elevate jungle law--what Darwin would later term "survival of the fittest"--over the rule of natural law. And that, in turn, would legitimize both the centralized European regimes of the Founders’ day and the anarchic Beiruts of our day, where the powerful rule over the weak, use force to obtain wealth, and use wealth to reinforce their power.
Instead, the Founding Fathers staked the future of the country on the principle that human beings are created by God, and therefore have certain intrinsic, absolute, nonnegotiable rights. "[A]ll men are created equal," reads the Declaration of Independence, and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Government’s role in society, then, is to "secure" these rights, not create or dispense them. This is the moral basis of a free society.
The order of these rights--first life, then freedom, and then the equal opportunity to pursue one’s own happiness--was written with great care and precision, not haphazardly. The Founders understood the need to balance man’s right to be free with man’s responsibility to be honest, just, and fair. For example, if it makes you happy to shoot and kill someone while you rob a bank--well, the law says you’re out of luck. A person’s right to live supersedes your "freedom" to steal and murder. This may seem obvious, but it is profound. It is also the linchpin of Western civilization. Switch the order of these fundamental human rights--putting happiness before liberty, or liberty before life--and you end up with moral chaos and social anarchy. Deny the God-given nature of these rights and you open the door to tyranny.
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God?" asked Thomas Jefferson. Or, as John Adams put it, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The people of the former Soviet Union are discovering this the hard way, in a tragic drama we have been tracking with great interest and concern at Forbes magazine. Communism destroyed not only material progress there, but also the moral and spiritual foundations of the country. Trust between strangers, the fundamental moral component of a free-market economy, barely exists. Without trust, how do you sign or enforce business contracts? How do you operate a system of credit? How do you maintain a basic sense of order? The people of the former Soviet Union are discovering that a free, self-governing society is nearly impossible without a moral foundation. Theft is rampant. Their murder rate is several times higher than our own. Mafias are moving into the vacuum left by the fall of communism to seize control of vast sectors of economic activity. A Hobbesian world has emerged, where life is "nasty, brutish, and short."
America’s Moral Crisis
In America today, however, not everyone regards these basic moral truths as "self-evident." Modern liberalism, which rejects absolute moral standards, has abandoned the proper ordering of man’s fundamental rights. As a result, modern liberalism has undermined a long-held American principle: that the law should protect the weakest among us, not just the strong, the healthy, and the rich. Abortion and euthanasia violate this principle by removing the protection of the law from society’s most vulnerable members.
There is no need here to catalog in detail the lamentable results since the 1960s of liberalism’s passions. The effort to legitimate all moral claims, to give personal freedom an utterly free hand--to "define deviancy down"--has given us the following: horrific increases in violent crime, out-of-wedlock births, family breakups, and substance abuse; dramatic declines in educational and cultural standards; a proliferation of increasingly bizarre lawsuits; a blizzard of regulations that defy common sense and assault our rights to property and due process; a growing corruption of the tax code; and a judiciary that often acts like an imperial aristocracy hurtling decrees down upon the rest of us.
Modern liberalism has adopted a view of liberty that is at the same time too broad and too narrow. Liberalism wrongly insists, for example, on a parent’s freedom to choose an abortion while simultaneously denying parents’ freedom to choose the schools their children may attend.
Ideas have consequences. Liberalism’s moral confusion over the sanctity of human life and the vital importance of the traditional family has reshaped American law and society. The statistics are grim enough. But the anecdotal evidence hits home: An 18-year-old girl attending her senior prom in New Jersey last spring allegedly delivered her baby in a rest room, disposed of it in a plastic bag where it suffocated to death, cleaned herself up, and went back to the dance floor, where she asked the DJ to play a favorite song. A teenage couple in Delaware has been charged with giving birth to a baby boy in a motel room and then tossing him into a trash dumpster, where he died a cold, horrifying death. A 15-year-old boy in Detroit who disappeared for six months had reportedly been sold by his mother to a drug dealer to cover a $1,000 cocaine debt. Meanwhile, "Doctor" Jack Kevorkian now claims to have "assisted" in more than 100 "suicides."
Certainly crime is not new. But Americans have rarely been so confused about right and wrong, about what is acceptable and what is to be forcefully condemned.
So we must be clear: A free society cannot survive the collapse of the two-parent family or the absence of fathers, love, and discipline in the lives of so many children. A free society cannot survive an unchecked explosion in violent crime. Nor can a free society survive a generation of crack babies and teenagers whose minds and bodies have been destroyed by illegal drugs.
Like millions of people, my wife and I are deeply concerned about the moral condition of our nation. We are raising five daughters in a society whose wheels, it often seems, are coming off. It is difficult enough in any era to raise young girls to be wise and virtuous young women. But it is particularly difficult today. Movies, television, music, and the Internet bombard young people with cultural messages of sexual revolution and self-absorbed materialism that tempt them away from good moral character rather than appealing to the better angels of their natures. Affluence does not protect children from temptation; sometimes it makes temptation more accessible.
The good news is that this is not the first time we have faced such dark times and turned things around. America has seen several periods of renewal and reform, most notably the Second Great Awakening and the Progressive Era. Both periods marked a return to America’s founding ideals; both offer guidance as to how we might strengthen our moral commitments while preserving freedom.
The Second Great Awakening
Following the Revolutionary War, America experienced a period of moral decline. The chaos of battle, the pain of death and separation, the anxiety of wartime inflation, the excitement of subsequent political change, and the all-consuming nature of building a new nation drained people’s time and energy. Fewer and fewer people attended church. Spiritual devotion waned and social problems proliferated. From the late 1770s until the late 1820s, per-capita consumption of alcohol in America rose dramatically, to about four to five times per person what it is today. Everybody took a swig from the jug--teachers, preachers, children. They called it "hard cider," but it was nothing like the cider we buy at the grocery store today. In those days, it seemed everyone was in a haze by noontime. The social consequences were predictable.
"Illegitimate births were rampant" during the early 1800s, wrote Tom Phillips in his book Revival Signs. "Alcohol, the drug of the day, was destroying families and wrecking futures. Thomas Paine was proclaiming that Christianity was dead--and certainly the body of faith appeared to be in a coma. Yet even as church rolls were shrinking and greed, sensuality and family breakdown were becoming more widespread, America was about to experience a great spiritual revival."
Slowly at first, then building over the next several decades, one wave of spiritual renewal and religious rededication after another swept the country in what historians now call America’s "Second Great Awakening." In one community after another, people began to wake up from their moral and spiritual slumber as though saying, "If we’re going to have a self-governing nation, it must be occupied by self-governing citizens."
The first public-health movement in America was launched not by the government but by citizen-activists such as Lyman Beecher, the founder of the American Bible Society and a pastor who went on to form the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance in 1826. This enterprise became known as the Temperance Movement--and it worked. Within one generation, alcoholic consumption in America fell by two-thirds.
Soon pastors and community leaders were opening elementary and secondary schools (this was before "public" education), founding colleges and universities, setting up orphanages and homes for abandoned children, creating shelters for the poor, building hospitals, and exhorting people to stop drinking and spend more time with their families. The Reverend Thomas Gallaudet opened his school for the deaf. William McGuffey wrote his famous "Eclectic Readers," of which 120 million copies were printed. The first Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) opened in Boston, followed shortly by the first Young Women’s Christian Association.
It was during this rebuilding of the moral foundations of a free society that French historian Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in 1831. "Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention, and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things," he wrote. "In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country."
Eventually the religious and moral renewal of the Second Great Awakening gave birth to the abolitionist movement, one of the nation’s greatest struggles to reassert a moral order based on man’s fundamental rights.
This gets to one of the great strengths of the American democracy. It is not that we do not make mistakes as a people and as a nation. We are, after all, only human. But when we do stumble, we have a record of rediscovering our first principles and resuming the journey toward faith and moral renewal.
Roosevelt and the Progressive Era
In the early years of the 20th century, Americans were filled with optimism. The nation’s rapid industrialization and urbanization created enormous new social, economic, and political problems, but these were confronted by bold, imaginative national leaders and the energetic efforts of people voluntarily working together to promote shared objectives.
The period speaks to us today. The 1890s had been a troubled time. The rise of large corporations and massive industrial monopolies seemed to mock the idea of individual entrepreneurship. The rise of big cities with corrupt political machines supplanted the tradition of democratic town meetings. People feared that massive immigration, which was several times greater in proportion to our population than what we are experiencing today, would degrade the American character and culture. How, they asked, could we assimilate so many people from so many different races, nationalities, and religions? These years were also plagued by drug addiction--primarily to opium.
American churches and synagogues responded to the challenge of the new industrial era by combining a message of spiritual renewal with practical, personal care for those in need. Dwight L. Moody, a former shoe salesman, became the most influential American evangelist of the 19th century. He launched a Sunday School movement in Chicago to provide moral instruction for more than 1,500 poor, urban street children. He opened a Bible college to challenge other young people to follow his example of helping destitute and demoralized people turn their lives around. And, in an age without radio or television, he communicated his message of spiritual and moral renewal to millions of people before his death in 1899.
The spiritual and practical needs of America’s burgeoning city populations were also addressed by social reformers such as William and Catherine Booth, who founded the Salvation Army in the United States in 1880. Women took a particular interest in the needs of those who found themselves financially and morally bankrupt. By 1913, more than 500 urban rescue missions were operating in the United States and Canada, many of them organized and run by women of faith. Catholic nuns and Jewish and other fraternal societies also labored to help the needy everywhere from little mining towns to urban slums.
At the same time, President Theodore Roosevelt was ushering in an era of political and economic reform known as the Progressive Era. He declared in his Inaugural Address, "Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. Our forefathers faced certain perils which we have outgrown. We now face other perils, the very existence of which it was impossible that they should foresee. Modern life is both complex and intense, and the tremendous changes wrought by the extraordinary industrial development of the last half-century are felt in every fiber of our social and political being."
From 1901 to 1909, Roosevelt sought to expand individual opportunity and strengthen individual control over personal, business, and political affairs, as well as to increase America’s economic and military influence in the world. He busted up incestuous and anti-competitive trusts and corporate monopolies, attacked government and political corruption in both major parties, supported the right of workers to organize, expanded U.S. trade with other nations, and built up our armed forces, particularly the navy. He advocated the direct election of U.S. senators, the right of women to vote, the creation of open presidential primaries, and the introduction of citizen initiatives, referenda, and recalls--all of which soon became realities.
Roosevelt reinforced his battle for political and economic reform by publicly, vigorously, and consistently reasserting the notion that there must be a moral foundation to a free society. It was he, after all, who coined the term "bully pulpit." While governor of New York, Roosevelt once declared, "It is absolutely impossible for a Republic long to endure if it becomes either corrupt or cowardly," and he never lost sight of that essential truth. He rightly believed that private, local, character-forming institutions must be left free to strengthen the moral fiber of the nation. The role of religious faith in society must be affirmed, not undermined. He did not believe that government should establish a state religion. But he did not shrink from the right or responsibility of a public official to encourage individuals to attend to their moral and spiritual character.
Eight years after leaving the White House, Roosevelt was still offering Americans his "top 10" list of reasons for going to church. "In this actual world a churchless community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs is a community on the rapid downgrade," he wrote in 1917 in Ladies’ Home Journal. "It is perfectly true that occasional individuals or families may have nothing to do with church or with religious practices and observances and yet maintain the highest standard of spirituality and of ethical obligation. But this does not affect the case in the world as it now is, any more than that exceptional men and women under exceptional conditions have disregarded the marriage tie without moral harm to themselves interferes with the larger fact that such disregard if at all common means the complete moral disintegration of the body politic."
Not all of Roosevelt’s policies were wise. (He argued vigorously for a graduated income tax, for example.) Some of his policies, such as trust-busting, made sense for his time but should be adapted in our day to such causes as breaking up government education and entitlement monopolies in favor of individual and parental choice and control. Still, Roosevelt lived during the historic transition from the Age of Agriculture to the Age of Industry; his vigorous spirit of renewal and reform on behalf of individuals and families should inspire us today as we make the transition from the Age of Industry to the Age of Information.
Renewal and the 21st Century
As we prepare to enter the 21st century, the American experiment is again being severely tested. The stakes are greater than they were in Teddy Roosevelt’s time. It is not only our own future that is at stake, but ultimately the world’s. Can we renew the moral and spiritual foundations of our free society, and make the economic and political changes necessary to enable all Americans to have a chance to pursue their dreams and fulfill our destiny as a positive, inspiring example to ourselves and to other nations?
The answer is: yes. The reasons derive from three great events that are already transforming our society--the end of the Cold War, the dawn of the Information Age, and encouraging signs of another moral and spiritual awakening.
We take the end of the Cold War for granted, but it has enormous implications for our system of self-government and for others’. To understand why, just ask yourself: How did America--the most pro-individual, anti-statist nation ever invented--come to permit its government to assume the size and scope it has today? The answer is war--the great shaper of this century. Throughout history, warfare fostered government centralization. You cannot face a major external threat unless you have a strong government to marshal the resources necessary to meet that threat. For most of the last 80 years, America has faced a major external threat of one sort or another--first World War I, then World War II, and finally the Cold War.
These conflicts have been cited to justify government expansion in every direction. How did we justify federal aid to education? The initial rationale was national security. Federal aid for research and development and the space program? National security. Even the interstate highway program begun in the 1950s was partially justified on national security grounds. It seemed natural to some that if government could mobilize resources to fight external enemies, it could solve an array of domestic problems as well. Hence the "War on Poverty."
It has taken us 30 years to learn, very painfully, the limitations of Big Government. Now that the Cold War is over, we no longer need such a massive, centralized federal government. We now have the opportunity to downsize Washington and shift money, power, and control back to individuals, families, and local communities.
Just as Teddy Roosevelt started the new century by attacking government corruption at its source and busting up anti-competitive monopolies, it is time to start the next century by shrinking Big Government. That means junking the current federal tax code--the biggest source of political pollution and corruption in this country--and replacing it with a simple, honest, and fair flat tax that also lowers everyone’s tax bill. That means creating a new Social Security system for young people, expanding medical savings accounts for all Medicare recipients, and creating educational savings accounts and vouchers to give parents more control over where their children go to school and what values they are being taught. After all, it is the moral right of the parents--not bureaucrats, politicians, or union officials--to decide what is best for their children. Financially, the taxpayer, not the government, has the right to decide where and how his education dollars should be spent.
The dawn of the Information Age means a fundamental transformation in the way we live and the way we work. This new era is symbolized by the microchip, which is extending the reach of the human brain the way machines extended the reach of human muscle in the 19th century.
Step back and think about it. At one time, if you learned to drive a tractor, you could do more work in a day than 100 Herculean plowmen. Today, if you learn to use a personal computer, you can do more research, analysis, writing, and communication from your basement or den than entire companies could do 50 years ago with a whole division of secretaries and staff assistants.
The Machine Age was all about bigness--big factories, big companies, big unions, big cities, and big government. The Microchip Age is almost Jeffersonian in its dynamic--anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, anti-centralization. It gives us more control and more choices in our lives. This puts further pressure on big corporations who must constantly fight to stay nimble and innovative in a highly competitive national and global economy. It also puts tremendous pressure on Washington to make the tax, regulatory, and legal reforms necessary to let small business owners and entrepreneurs compete and win in the Microchip Age.
Signs of Spiritual Revival
At the same time, there are encouraging signs of moral and spiritual renewal in this country. Consider, for example, the tone of the welfare debate last year, which focused not on the fact that billions of dollars are being spent but on the fact that welfare is destroying the lives of the very people it was created to help. With less federal interference, many governors and mayors have been making dramatic reforms to help people move from welfare to work. They are urging churches, civic groups, and local businesses to help educate and employ welfare recipients-and Americans are rising to the challenge. Welfare rolls nationwide have fallen by 25 percent since 1996.
At the same time, millions of baby boomers are returning to churches and synagogues for the first time in years, some to meet their own spiritual needs and some to build strong moral foundations within their children. Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, for example, attracts more than 15,000 people every weekend. Millions of high-school students are also meeting for prayer and Bible study in small groups all over the country. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio ministry, heard on more than 1,500 stations, is having remarkable success teaching couples to build strong, successful marriages and raise morally healthy children. William Bennett’s Book of Virtues, an 800-page compilation of old poems, songs, and stories written to develop character, rocketed to the top of the bestseller list not long ago. His wife, Elayne, runs a successful sexual abstinence program for teenage girls in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Wade Horn’s National Fatherhood Initiative and Charles Ballard’s Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization encourage young men to take parenthood seriously. And these are just a few of many examples.
Consider, too, the Promise Keepers movement, an impressive series of rallies held in America’s stadiums aimed at helping men make and keep seven promises ranging from racial reconciliation to being a good husband and father. Launched in 1990 by former University of Colorado football coach Bill McCartney, the first gathering drew 72 men. By 1994, a series of regional conferences were held drawing more than 280,000 men. By 1996, Promise Keepers conferences had attracted more than 1 million men from all over the country. In October 1997, hundreds of thousands of men attended a single Promise Keepers event in Washington, D.C.--not to call for political change, but to pledge themselves to personal change.
Some Americans are uneasy with such public demonstrations of religious faith. But this is not new to American history, either. "The first time I heard in the United States that a hundred thousand men had bound themselves together publicly to abstain from spirituous liquors," wrote Tocqueville, "it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement." He added, "I did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides." But Tocqueville was eager to learn. "I at last understood that these hundred thousand Americans, alarmed by the progress of drunkenness around them, had made up their minds to patronize temperance. They acted just in the same way as a man of high rank who should dress very plainly, in order to inspire the humbler orders with a contempt of luxury."
What Is Government’s Role?
Samuel Johnson once wrote, "How small, of all that human hearts endure/That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!" How true. Personal moral and spiritual renewal must happen in families, churches, and synagogues, as is beginning to happen. But government leaders do have a limited and specific role to play in re-establishing the moral foundation of a free society.
Presidents, senators, and other government officials are not archbishops. They do not have primary responsibility for the life of the spirit. Yet our early presidents and other leading Founders knew well how crucial religion is to the cause of liberty. (To see this, you need only consult Article I of the early constitutions of the commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.) The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote that the history of liberty is in fact, "coincident" with the history of Christianity, sprung from Judaism. In the words of Jefferson, "God who gave us life gave us liberty." To save liberty, our Founders never failed to stress the role of faith.
At a particularly difficult impasse at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin proposed a pause for solemn prayer to Providence, just as in The Federalist Papers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay three times noted the interventions of divine Providence in the cause of establishing freedom on this continent. Presidents have declared national days of Thanksgiving to Almighty God. The inaugural speeches of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, to take but three examples, are breathtaking for their moral and religious reach.
In short, our national leaders have sensed a duty to express this nation’s need of divine guidance and its gratitude for the Creator’s manifold acts of assistance. In this country, we do not have an established church. But the foundations of our liberty are dug deep in the voluntary and heartfelt faith of millions.
To root our liberties more firmly in a moral soil, presidents and other officials can also show leadership in word, in deed, and in law. Here are a few examples:
-
Appoint judges and Supreme Court justices who respect the moral outlook that produced the Constitution they are interpreting. Such judges will not imagine themselves philosopher-kings who can dispense with centuries of ethical tradition, or single-handedly determine difficult social questions for an entire nation.
-
Reinforce the concept that marriage is a legally binding contract. Most Americans still marry in places of worship, acknowledging the sacred nature of the vows they make to one another. To them, of course, marriage is much more than a legal contract, but it is certainly not less than one.
-
Reform adoption laws to make it easier for loving, married couples to care for abandoned children. This would signal an awareness that all children have a fundamental right to loving parents, a right that supersedes the claims of the state or of special-interest groups.
-
Reject racial discrimination in all its guises, including quotas and set-asides. Equality in the eyes of the law is one of the most important ways we affirm the dignity and worth of all people.
-
Protect people of all faiths--or of no faith--from encroachments by the state that violate their consciences and most deeply held beliefs. The Founders never intended the separation of church from state to become a separation of religion from public and civic life. There is no reason why a child should be denied the right to hold a Bible study before or after school, or write an essay about a biblical figure during school.
Writing in defense of the Constitution, James Madison noted in The Federalist no. 51 that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are not angels. They are prone to attack, abuse, and impose upon the lives, liberties, and property of others. Therefore, Madison went on to assert, "justice is the end of government," its highest purpose and mission.
Conservatives have been accused of denying any significant role for government in promoting a just and healthy civil society. The accusation is utterly misguided. Government has a profoundly important role in recognizing and defending Americans’ fundamental rights. Indeed, when the issue is the right to life--that is, defining the boundaries of the human community--government has no higher calling. And this is not just a matter for the states: The federal government has always had the responsibility, whether it acknowledged it or not, to secure this highest, most cherished of rights. That responsibility is again being severely debated and tested today.
Part of the reason for this social and political tension is that we as a nation seem so unclear about the proper ordering of our fundamental rights--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, there are at least three issues that serve as flash points for this debate: abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and the battle against illegal drugs. Each is a life issue; each has become embroiled in arguments over the relationship between life and liberty.
Abortion. Many Americans are uncomfortable discussing abortion, and understandably so; it is not a pleasant topic. Today, however, there is no doubt--medically, genetically--that individual human life begins at conception and ends with natural death. The starting place for the discussion, then, is the recognition that abortion involves the violent ending of life--the first and foremost of our natural rights, the one that trumps all others. That is why abortions are a moral wrong and a national tragedy. As Lincoln said of slavery 140 years ago, abortion is and must be on the road to extinction.
The real question is: How do we achieve this goal of making abortions disappear? We must recognize that we as a nation lack an overwhelming consensus about the primacy of life over liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We must recover such a consensus, but we cannot do so simply with the stroke of a legislative pen or a Supreme Court vote. In a democracy, we cannot impose; we must persuade. Thus, the only way to eliminate abortions in this country is to bring about a change of heart, a change of conscience, a change of attitude. In order to change the law, we must change the culture. To change the culture, we must change the law little by little. I took a lot of heat for this view during the 1996 Republican presidential primaries, but as the political passions of the moment have settled, I think more people are recognizing that this approach makes eminent sense.
We must all acknowledge that there has been a little legislative progress in restricting abortions since 1973, but only a little. Still, that is only part of the story. What is exciting is that change outside of Washington is truly visible. The number of abortions performed has declined to its lowest point since 1976. The number of doctors willing to perform abortions has fallen. The number of schools willing to teach abortion is down dramatically.
Why is this? Because since 1973, when the practice of abortion was legalized in all states, the medical knowledge about birth available to doctors and the public has advanced by giant steps. We now have a knowledge of the genetics of the first human cells, we have sonograms, and we have many more lifesaving techniques for infants threatened in the womb.
In this changing moral climate, now is the time to advance the issue legislatively, step by step. We should start by banning partial-birth abortions, a euphemism for infanticide. Support for a ban is growing. We should also ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection, ban fetal tissue research, and end all federal funding for abortion. As the father of five girls, I also support parental notification and consent in the case of minors. We must also work to end abortions in late pregnancy. Our hospitals today are like a house divided. In one room, doctors work heroically to save a premature baby born at 22 or 23 weeks. Most of those babies now survive. Yet in another room, physicians and nurses work to kill a baby at that same stage of pregnancy. This house divided is untenable.
So where there is consensus on limiting abortions, let us codify. From there, let us persuade. Great social change has happened before in American history, and it can happen again.
Doctor-Assisted Suicide. At the other end of life, government must protect the elderly as well. Our nation should not be misled. Assisted suicide will lead us down the path to a dreary and dangerous society. At the altar of liberty, the Jack Kevorkians of the world are prepared to sacrifice the inherent value of all human life.
My mother died from lung cancer five years ago. Near the end, the doctors asked her if she wanted a living will. She thought they meant that they wanted to pull the plug, and she was outraged. She said, "No way--I’m fighting this to the end." My brothers and family and I were inspired by that. Just as we drew strength from her in adversity, she drew strength because we rallied around her in adversity. The medical profession must do more to alleviate physical pain. But the pain, too, can be spiritual and emotional. While science makes progress on the physical side, we must work to provide real relief on the emotional and spiritual side, supporting others when they are in need.
Doctor-assisted suicide is the first step toward euthanasia, which is turning doctors the world over from healers into killers. Doctor-assisted suicide is not about people being on a respirator where technicians can barely find a brain wave. Nor is it about people who voluntarily refuse heroic measures. Rather, this is about what has happened in Holland, where they effectively legalized euthanasia. Since then, thousands of patients have been killed without their permission. With legalized assisted suicide, families will become greedy for their inheritance. The elderly will feel guilty for carrying on. People will say, "You’re using up resources that others could use." Someday people may say that to you and me. It is a hideous, barbaric road for society to take. It encourages the elderly to believe they are obstacles, not human beings reflecting God’s image. We must fervently fight it every inch of the way.
Drug Legalization. Finally, there is the issue of illegal drugs, which are still destroying many young people. This, too, is an issue where life supersedes liberty. Illegal drugs imprison drug takers within sometimes violent and murderous obsessions. They are designed to alter our moral sensibilities, to dull our sense of duty and integrity. Addictive drugs are wrong because they enslave and eventually destroy the body. They take away free choice--the hallmark of human dignity. When the world of adults winks at rampant drug abuse, we abandon children to emotional and moral chaos, thus threatening their very lives.
We must not be misled by state initiatives that claim only to legalize drugs for medicinal purposes. Relieving pain and legalization are separate and distinct issues. America must not be made safe for Colombian-style drug cartels. Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion that someone’s "freedom" to grow, sell, and use deadly drugs overrides society’s right to protect lives. If an illegal drug contains a property that helps people in pain, that property can be extracted, or synthetically manufactured, and given to patients under proper medical supervision. The drug Marinol, for example, treats cancer and AIDS patients with a synthetic form of an active ingredient found in marijuana. But it is safe and available legally by prescription, without exposing users to more than 400 other toxic chemicals found in smokable "pot."
Parents must repeatedly emphasize to their children how dangerous drugs can be. But society also has a right to protect itself from mind-altering, life-threatening drugs by the rule of law and its effective enforcement. Government must not use the fight against drug distribution and abuse as a license to deny individuals their constitutional rights. That said, however, the vast majority of Americans want a vigorous, effective fight against drugs. Yet they are not getting it. In his first year, Bill Clinton reduced the staff at the office of the "drug czar" by 83 percent. He has never delivered an Oval Office address on the drug issue. In the first two years of his administration, he gave more than 3,300 presidential statements, interviews, and addresses, yet illegal drugs were only mentioned 24 times. He is now proposing to reduce prison sentences for possession of crack cocaine.
At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Governor Bill Clinton told the nation that George Bush "hasn’t fought a real war on crime and drugs. I will." But as president, Bill Clinton is not keeping his commitment on one of the greatest causes of crime and human destruction.
The Unfinished Challenge
America’s moral and creative energies have always come from the ground up. When Tocqueville visited America 160 years ago, he noticed the enormous energy that comes from people laboring together voluntarily--through churches and synagogues, schools, hospitals, sports, cultural activities, and professional activities--for a shared goal and purpose. That is the great historic strength of America. I believe we are now beginning a Fourth Great Awakening--and none too soon.
From the beginning of our nation’s history, Americans have understood that freedom has three vital components: economic, political, and moral. In the 20th century, the argument for economic freedom--that free markets and entrepreneurship are vital to social and economic progress--has largely been won. No one outside of entrenched elites on some of our university faculties argues that centralized control and ownership of a nation’s economy will lead to freedom and prosperity. The battle now is to expand economic freedom while shrinking government, both here in America and around the world.
The same is true with the argument for political freedom. In this century, we have witnessed and participated in brutal battles over the right of self-determination. People everywhere understand that they have an intrinsic right to free speech and free and fair elections. Here at home, people understand that government has gotten too big, promised too much, and delivered too little. More than that, where government has advanced, personal freedom and responsibility have retreated. Our challenge is to reform our political institutions here at home while setting an example for others struggling to determine their own destinies.
Yet the argument that there must be a moral basis undergirding a free society is one of the great unfinished challenges of our time. We have neglected the vital task of teaching our children, reminding ourselves, and communicating to others that man’s rights to live free, pursue happiness, and own property come from God and are to be secured by the state. We have failed to assert at home and overseas the fundamental importance of spiritual faith and religious liberty in sustaining both freedom and democracy. Indeed, too often we have averted our eyes from those suffering persecution and even genocide.
As we end this bloody and brutal century, however, we must acknowledge that neglecting the moral basis of freedom has been terribly costly. We must also commit ourselves to a different road as we head into the 21st century.
America today has the potential for the greatest economic boom and spiritual renewal in our history. As we have done numerous times in our history, we can once again brighten economic prospects for everyone, reform our corrupt political institutions, and restore the severely weakened moral foundations of our country. In so doing, we can truly fulfill our national destiny as the leader of a free world. The question is: Will we seize the glittering opportunities that lie before us? Or will this become known as an era of missed opportunities?
I am an optimist. I believe that when historians look back on this era, they will have to conclude that once again the American people confounded the critics, the skeptics, the doubters, the negativists. They will have to conclude once more that the American people rose to the occasion, and that the American nation once again resumed her place--her rightful place--as the leader and inspiration of the world.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6486
Muslims, Mormons and Liberals
A very interesting article. The main message is about the "liberal" mindset and the possible hypocrisy found therein; at least when it comes to mocking religions. (There are 946 comments accompanying the article which range from presidential debate to theology and history.)
=========================================
On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.
The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.
No
matter. The film, the administration says, is "hateful and offensive"
(Susan Rice), "reprehensible and disgusting" (Jay Carney) and, in a
twist, "disgusting and reprehensible"
(Hillary Clinton). Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays
sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim
world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of
his staff in Libya.
So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.
Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are concerned.
And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."
That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?
It needn't be. A principled defense of free speech could start by quoting the Quran: "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." In this light, the true test of religious conviction is indifference, not susceptibility, to mockery.
The defense could add that a great religion surely cannot be goaded into frenetic mob violence on the slimmest provocation. Yet to watch the images coming out of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a is to witness some significant portion of a civilization being transformed into Travis Bickle, the character Robert De Niro made unforgettable in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?"
A defense would also point out that an Islamic world that insists on a measure of religious respect needs also to offer that respect in turn. When Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi—the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a pope—praises Hitler for exacting "divine punishment" on the Jews, that respect isn't exactly apparent. Nor has it been especially apparent in the waves of Islamist-instigated pogroms that have swept Egypt's Coptic community in recent years.
Finally, it need be said that the whole purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular, heretical, vulgar and stupid views. So far, the Obama administration's approach to free speech is that it's fine so long as it's cheap and exacts no political price. This is free speech as pizza.
President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do.
On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578002010241044712.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
=========================================
Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?
- By
BRET STEPHENS Wall Street Journal 9/17
'Hasa
Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of
Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase
mean? I can't tell you, because it's
unprintable in a family newspaper.On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.
The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.
'The Book of Mormon' performed at New York's Eugene O'Neill Theatre
So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.
Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are concerned.
And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."
That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?
It needn't be. A principled defense of free speech could start by quoting the Quran: "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." In this light, the true test of religious conviction is indifference, not susceptibility, to mockery.
The defense could add that a great religion surely cannot be goaded into frenetic mob violence on the slimmest provocation. Yet to watch the images coming out of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a is to witness some significant portion of a civilization being transformed into Travis Bickle, the character Robert De Niro made unforgettable in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?"
A defense would also point out that an Islamic world that insists on a measure of religious respect needs also to offer that respect in turn. When Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi—the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a pope—praises Hitler for exacting "divine punishment" on the Jews, that respect isn't exactly apparent. Nor has it been especially apparent in the waves of Islamist-instigated pogroms that have swept Egypt's Coptic community in recent years.
Finally, it need be said that the whole purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular, heretical, vulgar and stupid views. So far, the Obama administration's approach to free speech is that it's fine so long as it's cheap and exacts no political price. This is free speech as pizza.
President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do.
On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578002010241044712.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
August 02, 2012
The Rising Storm
Some thoughts on the political landscape of the day:
Voter Suppression?
- Apparently Pennsylvania recently passed a law requiring photo ID to vote (it is currently under dispute). I have mixed feelings about this: it's good in that it helps to prevent voter fraud but it may be a voting hurdle for those who do not have picture ID. I think that in conjunction with this law that the state should create a way to easily obtain an official state picture ID and maybe create a marketing campaign to help people be aware of the situation.
- In Florida they are trying to purge the voter rolls of illegal aliens, etc. Some people are outraged because Whites and Republicans are less likely to be targeted. I understand how this may seem unfair but doesn't it mean that there are fewer illegal aliens who are white and fewer illegal aliens who are registered Republicans? Also, if they are ILLEGAL they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to vote anyway.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/
Chick-fil-A -
- First off, I have always thought "Chick-fil-A" was a dumb name. Now, those who flooded Chick-fil-A establishments all over the country yesterday were doing it (supposedly) to back up the owner who expressed that they were in favor of traditional marriage. They also went to show their support of traditional marriage (or against making marriage apply to same-sex couples - however you want to see it). The issue was not pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality (I hope. There are always those who miss the point) but about defending marriage and expressing conservative values.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/02/no_tolerance_for_chick-fil-a_--_tea_party_critic_morgan_freeman_gets_a_pass_114977.html
Suburban Warfare -
-Perhaps the most startling article I have read recently (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz?pg=2) talks about how Obama is part of a scheme to suppress the conservative vote by slowly forcing the integration of suburbs into cities. It's hard to explain and maybe a bit paranoid but it does bring up some very interesting ideas and definitely deserves some studying.
Voter Suppression?
- Apparently Pennsylvania recently passed a law requiring photo ID to vote (it is currently under dispute). I have mixed feelings about this: it's good in that it helps to prevent voter fraud but it may be a voting hurdle for those who do not have picture ID. I think that in conjunction with this law that the state should create a way to easily obtain an official state picture ID and maybe create a marketing campaign to help people be aware of the situation.
- In Florida they are trying to purge the voter rolls of illegal aliens, etc. Some people are outraged because Whites and Republicans are less likely to be targeted. I understand how this may seem unfair but doesn't it mean that there are fewer illegal aliens who are white and fewer illegal aliens who are registered Republicans? Also, if they are ILLEGAL they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to vote anyway.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/
Chick-fil-A -
- First off, I have always thought "Chick-fil-A" was a dumb name. Now, those who flooded Chick-fil-A establishments all over the country yesterday were doing it (supposedly) to back up the owner who expressed that they were in favor of traditional marriage. They also went to show their support of traditional marriage (or against making marriage apply to same-sex couples - however you want to see it). The issue was not pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality (I hope. There are always those who miss the point) but about defending marriage and expressing conservative values.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/02/no_tolerance_for_chick-fil-a_--_tea_party_critic_morgan_freeman_gets_a_pass_114977.html
Suburban Warfare -
-Perhaps the most startling article I have read recently (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz?pg=2) talks about how Obama is part of a scheme to suppress the conservative vote by slowly forcing the integration of suburbs into cities. It's hard to explain and maybe a bit paranoid but it does bring up some very interesting ideas and definitely deserves some studying.
August 01, 2012
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
===========================
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama's commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' ... The framers of the Constitution didn't envision a president preventing states from upholding the law. . . . When the federal government abrogates its constitutional duty to protect the states, the states must protect themselves. A statute on the books is useless when the occupant of the White House calculates that it's in his political interest not to enforce it." --The Washington Times
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' -- as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities. . . . To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable." –Camille Paglia, self-identified lesbian professor, author, scholar
===========================
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama's commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' ... The framers of the Constitution didn't envision a president preventing states from upholding the law. . . . When the federal government abrogates its constitutional duty to protect the states, the states must protect themselves. A statute on the books is useless when the occupant of the White House calculates that it's in his political interest not to enforce it." --The Washington Times
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' -- as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities. . . . To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable." –Camille Paglia, self-identified lesbian professor, author, scholar
May 08, 2012
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
============================
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude.'" --economist Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)
-----------------------------------
"'I saw many signs in this campaign,' said Richard Nixon the day after he was elected president in 1968. 'But the one that touched me the most was one that I saw in Deshler, Ohio, at the end of a long day of whistle-stopping.... A teenager held up a sign, "Bring Us Together." And that will be the great objective of this administration at the outset: to bring the American people together.' ... The desire to see an incoming president as a unifier, a healer of the national breach, is an old American tradition, especially in times of acrimony and political conflict. But Nixon, needless to say, didn't heal the breach. ... Time and again, Obama promised what Nixon promised: to bring Americans together. That pledge ... went to the essence of his candidacy. And on the night of his election, before a vast crowd in Chicago's Grant Park, he underscored it: 'Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.' Yet far from resisting that temptation, Obama has rarely bypassed any chance to indulge it. The would-be uniter whips up envy and resentment, demonizing those who disagree with him, and aggravating the nation's racial, class, and party tensions." --columnist Jeff Jacoby
-----------------------------------------------
"Between 1787 and 1930, our nation suffered both mild and severe economic downturns. There was no intervention to stimulate the economy, but the economy always recovered. During the 1930s, there were massive interventions, starting with President Herbert Hoover and later with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their actions turned what would have been a sharp three- or four-year economic downturn into a 10-year affair. In 1930, when Hoover began to 'fix' the economy, unemployment was 6 percent. FDR did even more to 'fix' the economy. As a result, unemployment remained in double digits throughout the decade and reached 20 percent in 1939. President Roosevelt blamed the high unemployment on his predecessor. ... Americans have been miseducated into thinking that Roosevelt's New Deal saved our economy. That miseducation extends to most academics, including economists, at our universities, who are arrogant enough to believe that it's possible for a few people in Washington to have the information and knowledge necessary to manage the economic lives of 313 million people." --economist Walter E. Williams
-------------------------------
"Some Americans are old enough to remember when going on the dole was something one did only when every other option became untenable. And even then, a certain degree of lingering shame accompanied that choice, along with an equal amount of determination to change course and return to being productive as quickly as possible. How quaint such ideas must seem to current generations of Americans, many of whom have been steeped in the idea that someone owes them something -- for nothing, no less. . . . It is remarkable how many Americans have become thoroughly convinced that there are more than enough workers -- who will go on working no matter how onerous it becomes, no less -- to underwrite all of the slackers, and ever-growing number of fence-sitters moving to their side of the ledger. It is far less remarkable that we have a president who would exploit such selfishness and ignorance by taking an American virtue . . . and turn it into a vice, which is what Mr. Obama is doing when [he] labels the alternative to his socialist/Marxist vision as an 'on your own' society. This is nothing less than a full-frontal assault on our national character. Or what used to be our national character until progressives convinced substantial numbers of Americans that success is something that should elicit feelings of envy, rather than admiration and a sense of aspiration." --columnist Arnold Ahlert
------------------------------------------------
“As U.S. GDP growth remains just one notch above stagnant, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by 70 percent since 2008. This increase, while certainly an indicator of the Obama administration's abysmal failure, is also part of a much larger picture: the growth of the Welfare State since the 1960s. In fact, the number of people receiving food stamps grew from 17.2 million in 2000 to an astounding 44.7 million in 2011, and the cost grew from $20 billion to $78 billion over that time. Even more disturbing is the fact that the food stamp program is only one of 12 food assistance programs and a mind-boggling 79 federal welfare programs.” –Mark Alexander
-----------------------------------------------------
"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all." --Ronald Reagan
============================
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude.'" --economist Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)
-----------------------------------
"'I saw many signs in this campaign,' said Richard Nixon the day after he was elected president in 1968. 'But the one that touched me the most was one that I saw in Deshler, Ohio, at the end of a long day of whistle-stopping.... A teenager held up a sign, "Bring Us Together." And that will be the great objective of this administration at the outset: to bring the American people together.' ... The desire to see an incoming president as a unifier, a healer of the national breach, is an old American tradition, especially in times of acrimony and political conflict. But Nixon, needless to say, didn't heal the breach. ... Time and again, Obama promised what Nixon promised: to bring Americans together. That pledge ... went to the essence of his candidacy. And on the night of his election, before a vast crowd in Chicago's Grant Park, he underscored it: 'Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.' Yet far from resisting that temptation, Obama has rarely bypassed any chance to indulge it. The would-be uniter whips up envy and resentment, demonizing those who disagree with him, and aggravating the nation's racial, class, and party tensions." --columnist Jeff Jacoby
-----------------------------------------------
"Between 1787 and 1930, our nation suffered both mild and severe economic downturns. There was no intervention to stimulate the economy, but the economy always recovered. During the 1930s, there were massive interventions, starting with President Herbert Hoover and later with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their actions turned what would have been a sharp three- or four-year economic downturn into a 10-year affair. In 1930, when Hoover began to 'fix' the economy, unemployment was 6 percent. FDR did even more to 'fix' the economy. As a result, unemployment remained in double digits throughout the decade and reached 20 percent in 1939. President Roosevelt blamed the high unemployment on his predecessor. ... Americans have been miseducated into thinking that Roosevelt's New Deal saved our economy. That miseducation extends to most academics, including economists, at our universities, who are arrogant enough to believe that it's possible for a few people in Washington to have the information and knowledge necessary to manage the economic lives of 313 million people." --economist Walter E. Williams
-------------------------------
"Some Americans are old enough to remember when going on the dole was something one did only when every other option became untenable. And even then, a certain degree of lingering shame accompanied that choice, along with an equal amount of determination to change course and return to being productive as quickly as possible. How quaint such ideas must seem to current generations of Americans, many of whom have been steeped in the idea that someone owes them something -- for nothing, no less. . . . It is remarkable how many Americans have become thoroughly convinced that there are more than enough workers -- who will go on working no matter how onerous it becomes, no less -- to underwrite all of the slackers, and ever-growing number of fence-sitters moving to their side of the ledger. It is far less remarkable that we have a president who would exploit such selfishness and ignorance by taking an American virtue . . . and turn it into a vice, which is what Mr. Obama is doing when [he] labels the alternative to his socialist/Marxist vision as an 'on your own' society. This is nothing less than a full-frontal assault on our national character. Or what used to be our national character until progressives convinced substantial numbers of Americans that success is something that should elicit feelings of envy, rather than admiration and a sense of aspiration." --columnist Arnold Ahlert
------------------------------------------------
“As U.S. GDP growth remains just one notch above stagnant, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by 70 percent since 2008. This increase, while certainly an indicator of the Obama administration's abysmal failure, is also part of a much larger picture: the growth of the Welfare State since the 1960s. In fact, the number of people receiving food stamps grew from 17.2 million in 2000 to an astounding 44.7 million in 2011, and the cost grew from $20 billion to $78 billion over that time. Even more disturbing is the fact that the food stamp program is only one of 12 food assistance programs and a mind-boggling 79 federal welfare programs.” –Mark Alexander
-----------------------------------------------------
"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all." --Ronald Reagan
January 30, 2012
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
==========================
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." –Patrick Henry
------------
"To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by 'the Establishment' -- with 'the Establishment' defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt. Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, 'when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],' but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment" -- because, again, 'the Establishment' is anyone who opposes Newt." --columnist Ann Coulter
------------------
“Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised ‘a blueprint for an economy.’ But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can't even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.” –John Stossel
-------------------
“The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.” --Pres. Barack H. Obama
(if this doesn't scare you, you need to study the constitution more)
---------------------
"I know it's been said before, but it merits repeating: the debate about taxes in general, and about extending the Bush tax cuts in particular, only sounds like the issue in question is fiscal. It's not. The Right and Left differ on tax policy primarily because of a difference in values. Broadly speaking, the Right believes that your stuff is yours. The Left believes your stuff doesn't really become your stuff until the government says it is. So the Right sees taxes as a way to pay for necessary government services. The Left sees taxes as an instrument of social control and redistributive justice. . . . It is simply not credible for Democrats and liberals to say they oppose extending those tax cuts because of concern for budget deficits. The real reasons are just old-fashioned envy, hard egalitarianism, soft socialism, and Keynesian claptrap about the economic benefits of redistributing income to promote consumption over saving. I agree with the supply-side argument that virtually all Americans benefit from the growth effects of keeping marginal tax rates low. But the most important reason to extend the tax cuts for everyone is that it is wrong for the government to steal and redistribute income." --National Review's John Hood
---------------------------
"In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn't alleviated the nation's economic pain, he'd be a 'one-term proposition.' When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the 'wrong track' and even Bill Clinton calls the economy 'lousy,' how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case. It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. . . . Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich. . . . For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. . . . A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It's mis-investing. . . . In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions 'are now forced to take their children to food banks.' You have to admire the audacity. That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you've been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection! Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. . . . This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
==========================
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." –Patrick Henry
------------
"To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by 'the Establishment' -- with 'the Establishment' defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt. Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, 'when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],' but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment" -- because, again, 'the Establishment' is anyone who opposes Newt." --columnist Ann Coulter
------------------
“Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised ‘a blueprint for an economy.’ But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can't even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.” –John Stossel
-------------------
“The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.” --Pres. Barack H. Obama
(if this doesn't scare you, you need to study the constitution more)
---------------------
"I know it's been said before, but it merits repeating: the debate about taxes in general, and about extending the Bush tax cuts in particular, only sounds like the issue in question is fiscal. It's not. The Right and Left differ on tax policy primarily because of a difference in values. Broadly speaking, the Right believes that your stuff is yours. The Left believes your stuff doesn't really become your stuff until the government says it is. So the Right sees taxes as a way to pay for necessary government services. The Left sees taxes as an instrument of social control and redistributive justice. . . . It is simply not credible for Democrats and liberals to say they oppose extending those tax cuts because of concern for budget deficits. The real reasons are just old-fashioned envy, hard egalitarianism, soft socialism, and Keynesian claptrap about the economic benefits of redistributing income to promote consumption over saving. I agree with the supply-side argument that virtually all Americans benefit from the growth effects of keeping marginal tax rates low. But the most important reason to extend the tax cuts for everyone is that it is wrong for the government to steal and redistribute income." --National Review's John Hood
---------------------------
"In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn't alleviated the nation's economic pain, he'd be a 'one-term proposition.' When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the 'wrong track' and even Bill Clinton calls the economy 'lousy,' how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case. It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. . . . Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich. . . . For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. . . . A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It's mis-investing. . . . In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions 'are now forced to take their children to food banks.' You have to admire the audacity. That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you've been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection! Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. . . . This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Tea Party Woes
I keep hearing and reading about "the Tea Party losing it's grip on the Republican Party" and "the Tea Party failing to produce a good, alternate republican candidate." When, if ever, was "the Tea Party" part of the Republican National Political Party? My experience with the Tea Party is that it is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and independents; conservative and liberal. Also, The "Tea Party" is as much of a political party as the original Boston tea party (not at all).
The Tea Parties (yes more than one) of recent years are groups of citizens across the country who decided to rally and make some change. I don't know where the surge of patriotic activism is but they did have a very large effect on the most recent National congressional elections. I wish the fervor was still alive. The idea behind the Tea Parties was that the Federal Government is broken in very many ways and it's time to stop, take a step back and look at what is going on. The idea was to support each other as citizens and make a difference in the elections. It was never about re-shaping and existing Political Party, it was a fight against them.
The Tea Parties (yes more than one) of recent years are groups of citizens across the country who decided to rally and make some change. I don't know where the surge of patriotic activism is but they did have a very large effect on the most recent National congressional elections. I wish the fervor was still alive. The idea behind the Tea Parties was that the Federal Government is broken in very many ways and it's time to stop, take a step back and look at what is going on. The idea was to support each other as citizens and make a difference in the elections. It was never about re-shaping and existing Political Party, it was a fight against them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)