Veritas Rex

Evangelicals Unswayed by Democratic Strategy?

There’s no doubt that values voters left Democrats smarting in 2004. (Bush took 78% of evangelical voters in 2004.) And because Democrats, like most Americans, want to be winners, a change was necessitated. And so it is that Democrats have smartly set out to change the landscape. Hence, Obama has been prone to speak on religion more often than even the Republican nominee.

It’s been a flop. A recent Washington Post poll shows Obama only garnering 22% of evangelical support. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that evangelicals haven’t jumped ship. The article points out the general strategy of the Democratic Party: broaden the agenda to include Democratic-friendly topics including global warming and poverty. One way of dodging the abortion issue, I suppose. Problem is, it hasn’t worked. The article cites the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, noting that while a majority of Americans continue to support stricter laws to protect the environment, only 54% of evangelicals do. In fact, evangelical support of regulation fell about 10 points in the past four years! And poverty is a tough sell to a group who tends to believe in the Constitutional version of limited government. It’s a good article, worth a thorough read.

There is, however, reason to doubt: while there is no shift in the polling, my demographic (20-somethings) have cell phones and are usually impossible to poll. Although an unreliable voting block, there’s a particular adrenaline in this cycle that may translate into an impact. This is the group most easily dissuaded from limited-government political principal (and therefore tending to support environmental regulation and federal welfare).

Goldwater’s Advice For Obama

Goldwater Schools Obama

Goldwater may be dead, but his writing is still telling. My recent obsession with The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater has enlightened me as to why and how Reagan was influenced by Goldwater’s ideas. Reagan arguably brought down the Soviet empire on the strength of “Goldwater principals.” And as a proven model of foreign policy, Goldwater speaks to the underlying foreign policy ideals that the well-intended Obama-types hold today.

Check out and apply these snippets to modern-day foreign affairs:

“If our objective is to win the Cold War, we will start now by denying our moral support to the very regimes we mean to defeat.”

“We should declare the world Communist movement an outlaw in the community of civilized nations. Accordingly, we should withdraw diplomatic recognition from all Communist governments including that of the Soviet Union, thereby serving notice on the world that we regard such governments as neither legitimate nor permanent.”

“We may not make foreign peoples love us—not nation has ever succeeded in that—but we can make them respect us. And respect is the stuff of which enduring friendships and firm alliances are made."

Finally, Goldwater weighs in on Obama’s plan to negotiate with Iran: writing on the 1961 conditions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., he writes:

“I maintain there is harm in talking under present conditions. [N]egotiations are simply an instrument of political warfare. For example, when the Soviets challenged our rights in West Berlin, we handed them a victory by the mere act of sitting down at the conference table. By agreeing to negotiate on that subject, we agreed that our rights in Berlin were ‘negotiable’—something they never were before. Thus we acknowledged, in effect, the inadequacy of our position, and the world now expects us to adjust it as proof of our good faith. Our answer to Khrushchev’s ultimatum should have been that the status of West Berlin concerns only West Berliners and the occupying powers and is therefore not a matter that we are prepared to discuss with the Soviet Union. That would have been the end of the Berlin ‘crisis.’”

It’s Potent. Hate him or not, it’s likely that Bush’s ultra-determined foreign policy is styled by desire to deny moral support to “tyrants.” And a glance at history will overpower the notion that Americans can make the world love us through more money and resigning to a position of weakness. Simply put, I don’t want the next president to be the best president the USSR ever had.

Reagan and Goldwater in the Rose Garden, 1981

Healthcare for All

Eating lunch yesterday at the Indianapolis Farmers Market, I observed a service worker thoughtfully attach a “Healthcare for Everyone” sticker across his shirt. I, too, am for healthcare for all, but I assume we’ve different ways of going about it. And although the incident inspired me to write a fresh post, as a student of history, I know there are reasons we’ve avoided socialized healthcare so far. Thus the Ronald Reagan clip from the American Medical Association’s 1961campaign against socialized medicine: Operation Coffee Cup.

As an aside, I recognize that like many conservatives, I have a habit of relying on history to make present-day arguments. Even the governor has been critical of Reagan-fixation. However history is not only interesting, but also illuminating as to underlying assumptions and motivations. In fact, Reagan relies on history in this clip, quoting James Madison, who points out one hidden danger of socialized healthcare when he says: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Watch the tape for complete context.)

Reagan used history to identify subtle dangers eclipsed by emotion. Moreover, he was a positive and hopeful voice, clearly not advocating poverty or despair. This is a proven model for conservatives and the hope of lovers of freedom everywhere.

A Conservative Conscience Pricked by Poverty

Conservatism’s most daunting challenge is not being correct on the policy issues; it’s overcoming the emotional appeal of the left.

I’m a conservative: I do not believe it is the government’s responsibility to care for me from cradle to grave. But my buddy, Kevin disagrees. Via Facebook, he invited me to his house and makes this revealing jab: “We'll even let you eat our food for free. Fortunately we are not Republicans and won't charge you for it. We don't mind giving handouts to those poorer than ourselves.”

Thanks, Kevin.

Fortunately, I’m reading a book that addresses these problems and more. The Conscience of a Conservative is a title that may surprise those unaware that conservatives have one, but Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 classic is a short must-read for anyone who wants to really understand conservatism.

Now back to Kevin’s concerns. According to Goldwater, the left’s ultimate goal is to subordinate the individual to the State. While some countries accomplish this goal through socialism, welfarism is the predominating form of American subordination today. Goldwater demonstrates: “They understand that the individual that can be put at the mercy of the State—not only by making the State his employer (socialism)—but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.”

While Americans would immediately dislike grocery stores becoming socialized, welfarism is much more attractive because, “[t]he effect… will be felt later on—after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail.”

I want to give people handouts and assist the poor. I really do. But welfarism is the worst solution, creating as many problems as it solves. One mayor recently told me that he expects 5-6% of his town’s population to remain unemployed because they’ve learned to live semi-comfortably and legally on welfare and charity. Fabulous. So here are Goldwater’s three main problems with welfare: it eliminates individual responsibly, it trades dignity for slavery and entitlement, and it corrupts politicians.

If the government is going to feed that bum, why should I or my church care about him? When a storm hits, instead of neighbors bringing hammers and chainsaws, we now depend on the government to do the work while we surf the Internet. Not to mention that the government has proven it’s ability to do this “free” repair quite expensively.

Also, it builds entitlement. Now victims expect to be helped, even after minor storms. Perhaps oversimplified, the 5-6% segment of the population feels owed the right to not work because of the “free” housing and unlimited food stamps. Goldwater says that “it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual [his emphasis] being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.” Compare this with private charity where the receiver knows that good deeds are out of kindness, not owed.

Finally it corrupts politicians because of the temptation to manipulate federal dollars into votes. It’s very easy to campaign on poverty and say we should do something about it. But whether the Constitution allows the federal government the power to do something about it is quite another issue altogether. Even President Roosevelt admitted in 1930 as Governor of New York that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to deal with “a great number of vital problems of government such as… social welfare, and a dozen other important issues.” Among these dozen other issues lies education, which is strictly reserved for the state. Clearly passion sells better than Constitutionalism. It was Hubert Humphrey in 1968 who said: "The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People, human beings, this is the issue of the 20th century.” And if I also loathed the Constitution and was naive about the nature of man, I’d agree.

I’ve arguably won the policy war, but I’m back to where I started: cold and callus. But I believe that families, the Church, communities and charities can do a better job than government. They did a better job before the Great Depression, before the government wrested the responsibility from the individual for political gain. Also, the federal government can allow businesses and individuals the chance to the donate billions that were formerly swindled, mismanaged and splurged.

The government should return individual responsibility, free the entrapped and restore the dignity to the federal government.

They won’t do it on their own. It’s like taking chocolate out of a pregnant woman’s hand. It won't be pretty, Kevin.

A Deliciously Divided United States

I’m starting to think that unity might be overrated. Not that it is always bad, but society is too caught up in this illusory concept. Both presidential candidates are preaching that they going to be “uniters.” a theme central to Bush’s 2000 campaign and likely every one before it. While unity sounds good and plays well, it’s not how politics should work.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s wise appreciation of factions (i.e. divisions) should be heeded. As an even-keeled political philosopher, Tocqueville acknowledged fringe risks, like anarchy, but concludes that divisions are still overall essential. With freedom of speech, vigorous discourse occurs; whereas in a country where unity of thought is emphasized, dissenters descend into shadows and conspiracies thrive. It is for this reason that Tocquville concludes that the right to association ranks as highly as the natural right to personal liberty.

He doesn’t exactly sound like a “united America” preacher.

The right to associate through political parties is fundamental because it allows the ordinary American to make elementary political distinctions between philosophical divides. For example: there’s a party that tends to support abortion and there’s one that does not. So if (fill in the blank) is the issue you care about most, you’re going to vote for the party candidate that agrees with your chief concerns.

We should be careful of candidates that avoid taking stances by rejecting partisan labels. Political divides exist and this fact can’t and shouldn’t be changed. Further, historians who tell us that America used to be more united and politics are more partisan, disqualify themselves as good historians.

America is a melting pot of ideas, rarely unified. We need not vilify strong interest groups and political parties. Through these institutions the power of the majority is honored. Thank God for the deliciously divided United States of America.

Lower Than Angels; Higher than Apes

Except for a very tender spot in my heart for Roundup, I am a decent person who recycles and drives a fuel-efficient Honda. And while you won't catch me chained to a tree, you won't catch me dumping chemicals down drains either. But I don't mind long showers and I appreciate air conditioning.

However, there's a fundamental chasm separating me from the organizers of the Democratic National Convention. NPR and The Wall Street Journal report that the organizers have found 900 volunteers to cooperate in their "resource recovery" system. Translated, they've found 900 foolhardy souls to sift through every scrap of trash to ensure that those balloons and used tissues will be composted or recycled. And it doesn't stop there: finding organic and union-made fanny packs has been an awful predicament, and choosing between petroleum-based disposable plates versus washing china with hot water has created yet another bothersome dilemma. Democrats are scampering around, literally uncertain as to whether air conditioning the Pepsi Center is OK. I won't even get into what their dream energy policies for you and me might look like; that's not my point.

While these circumstances are laughable, it's also unbiblical in that its part of a trend that equates humans as guests of the earth. Psalm 8 disagrees. We were made "a little lower than the angels." Control is given to us over the beasts of the field and the fish of the sea; God has made us to rule over the works of His hands. Like King David, we should admire this gift God has intended for us. And like grateful recipients, we should neither destroy this gift nor be so timid as to refuse what was meant for our pleasure and survival.

This new view has derived straight from the theory of evolution: if man really is an animal, we are equal to other animals and therefore must get along with the other animals. This is why Spain is in the process of granting human rights to apes and Switzerland is considering the "morality" of killing plants. I wish I were kidding.

Now could someone (or an ape) tell me what I'm allowed to eat for dinner tonight? Salad is so last civilization.

Look Both Ways

With Indiana a target of the U.S. Surgeon General’s childhood obesity push, what parent wouldn’t be delighted if their child took up jogging? But what if the child lacks judgment and doesn’t know to look both ways before crossing a street? Clearly the child isn’t properly equipped with the skills to run in this environment, and Mom should have known better. Mindlessly enamored with the benefits and blissfully unaware of the dangers, this an exaggerated, but common logic flaw that parents are applying again and again.

Last week Fox News reported that one Ohio girl averages 15,000 texts a month, but her mother has not problem with it. After all, she gets good grades and is athletic. No problem, right? Mom’s nonchalant attitude overlooks an obvious obsession. While it’s possible to be both naturally smart and athletic, what happens when a generation is devoid of civic or social skills? Mom appears blissfully placated, seemingly unaware of any downsides.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. America will do anything to get their kids interested in math right? Enter Dungeons & Dragons, heralded as a quick way to build math skills. It might be an old game, but yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports that there is a fresh wave of interest as a Hasbro subsidiary, Wizards of the Coast has published a new edition of the rules with much fanfare. An estimated four million people play the board game, with an interest in developing the digital version of the game. The writer views it as a way to “unplug,” and compares it to children turning off the TV to read Harry Potter. But it’s more than that. Many elements of the game are occultic in nature, with numerous first-hand reports of demonic contact. And like popular online game, World of Warcraft, there’s great potential to become addicted.

Millions of America’s brightest minds are being dulled by unending hours on the interactive video game, with undocumented and often dire consequences. Where are the drop-out statistics related to World of Warcraft? If they exist, I can’t find them. But anecdotal evidence on gocollege.com reveals that the mentality is contributing to academic failure. I suspect it is one of the top reasons for dropping out of college. As a former resident assistant (RA), I witnessed first-hand the implications of this game on my own floor. Guys so entrapped, they eventually became uninterested in campus life or even going to class. One professor confided concern over the physical health of one of my residents because of numerous absences; nope—just a bit of World of Warcraft. It was like having zombies in the dorm. However, at least one college has gone as far as incorporating it to teach language skills. Connecting with foreign players, the students can practice to verb conjugation and more through the game.

Of course, not everyone becomes addicted, but we should definitely teach our children to look both ways before crossing an interstate.

No Fair Fairness Doctrine

Sometimes it’s all about how the question is asked. Contrast these: “Should an equal amount of discussion be mandated for partisan political perspectives?” Or this one: “Should the government shut down the local Catholic AM radio station for refusing to air a pro-choice perspective?” See the difference? The proponents of the Fairness Doctrine certainly do.

The Fairness Doctrine is first and foremost a misnomer. Originally enacted in 1949, the since-abandoned law regulated the proportion of time given to particular perspectives, or as the FCC described: “controversial issues of public importance.” Clearly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Now Nancy Pelosi wants to bring it back. Here is the chief reason why: since it was scrapped, talk radio has flourished as a largely conservative bastion. Take for instance this week’s renewal of Rush Limbaugh’s massive eight-year, $400 million contract. He’s without a doubt the most powerful name in talk radio and today’s Wall Street Journal reports that his show attracts a steady 20 million listeners. Clearly, he’s influential. But he’s not the sole target. For years groups like Focus on the Family have promoted pro-family values that have often conflicted with the interests of the left. And how did pro-family groups become such a policy-driver? Through the media.

In the free market of ideas and in our free country, the open exchange of ideas is supported by our First Amendment. Here, the ACLU and all lovers of liberty should work to stop this dangerous doctrine. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) has been actively working to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would prevent a president from regulating airwaves without an act of Congress.

Censoring free speech is for dictatorships, not republics. And while you may hear some conservatives complain about liberal bias, you won’t hear a conservative wish that the government would step in and dictate “free” speech. And it’s not like the conservatives are without competition. After all, my tax dollars are propping up NPR.

Download fairness_doctrine.jpg

Our Pied Piper Rocks

America has a rat problem. And it’s gotten to the point that we’d be glad to have a Pied Piper. In case you’ve forgotten, the Pied Piper is the weird little dude with the colorful kicks who goes to towns, plays his pipe and thereby eradicates rats. What are our rats? Well, like Hamelin, there’s quite an infestation of them including, but not limited to, market uncertainty, worsened by an energy crisis, coupled with the terrorists who just don’t like us, and then there’s those social movements clashing right in our very streets. And that’s not even considering all the baby rats (or are they fetuses?) still in gestation! Just the thought makes you want to hop on the nearest stool and shriek.

So when the Piper came to town and offers a way to get rid of the rats, it gave much hope for the first time in a long time. “You mean, you can just play those pipes and they’ll simply leave?” they gush. “That’s quite right,” he platituded. I mean, gosh, you can just vote for him, he’ll redistribute the wealth, there will be no poor to feel guilty about! If we just vote for him, he’ll play his pipes and the terrorists will abandon their bombs and dance in the street; if we just vote for him, we won’t have to worry about that old Second Amendment either!

So what happens when he replaces the free market with an alternative? When we simply stop ‘picking fights’ with the terrorists? What if we make every interest group say one nice thing about the other side? The result will be utter chaos. We’d have twice the rats. Worse rats! And what if the Piper is unhappy when we don’t pay?

And so it is that we’re thrilled about this fix; we’re little mindful of who this piper is and what happens when his ideology undermines civilization as we’ve know it. Worse, what happens when our children follow our mindless example and themselves become entranced by the Piper, never to be seen again? Mindless, chestless children never to be seen again. Oh won’t that be quite a rat! Won’t we wish for yesterday as we finally descend the church steps, dazed and in utter bewilderment.