Put the Shoe on the Other Foot


photo credit: Doug20022

I’m beginning to conclude that we should never make a political decision without first reversing our perspective of the decision and seeing how it looks. For example, on health care there is a lot of focus on what this will look like for those who want insurance but can’t get it. Only now do any politicians seem to be considering what this legislation does to those who have insurance or don’t want it.

Rep. Ron Paul does this with Afghanistan and I’d like to have a hypothetical look at Iran right now to see what it looks like.

Continue reading

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Liberty is . . .

If I am pursuing liberty it seems reasonable to try defining what “liberty” is. Let me start off by saying that I chose the name very carefully and in the years since then I have confirmed many times that I chose correctly – liberty is what I am pursuing, and nothing short of liberty will satisfy me.

The primary (top) dictionary definition of liberty is:

a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.

c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

I would like to add my own working definition of what liberty is. Let me preface that list of what liberty is with a couple of statements of what liberty is not:

Now for what liberty is:

  • Liberty is hard work
  • Liberty is personal responsibility
  • Liberty is the freedom to make choices
  • Liberty is attainable only on an individual level
  • Liberty is compatible with all universal laws (laws of physics, laws of human nature, laws of economics, etc.)
  • Liberty is the highest goal a person could achieve

Finally I would like to state that there is no such thing as purely political liberty except in the sense that it is possible to live in a society that promotes/provides political liberty while personally making choices that curtail ones own personal liberty. This means that in order to achieve political liberty we must be willing and able to attain personal liberty in other areas of life through our use of personal choice and accountability – anything less than that is simply freedom.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Legislator as Fundraiser

When it comes to raising money to run a campaign an ideal legislator needs to understand the real value of money in politics. They need to accept that a serious campaign will require more money than they can personally supply (unless they have significant personal wealth). They need to be comfortable asking people to support them financially – that requires not only being comfortable making the request, but also confident in the message they are promoting in their campaign. On the other hand, an ideal legislator should never fall into the trap of thinking that money can overcome the absolute necessity for them to be putting in hard work on the ground making their case among the people who will be casting their votes.

Here is where I know some people will disagree with me. I contend that a campaign even for federal offices can be financed entirely through personal donations by people residing within the jurisdiction of the office being sought. Contributions from businesses should be refused. Businesses and industries that are part of the district for the office being sought should make any desired contributions through the individuals within those companies. Money from Political Action Committees should not be given to specific candidates. Committees that wish to help a candidate should spend their own money in whatever way they feel will best help the candidate without the candidate ever receiving any money from them. “Abc PAC” can endorse a candidate, can buy booths saying they support that candidate, can make and distribute literature and other advertising materials for the candidate, but should not write a check to the candidate. Anything they produce should never have the candidate saying that they approved the message – in other words, the PAC and the candidate should be independent of each other with full right to voice their support of the efforts of the other.

Personally I would prefer that a candidate never run a campaign on debt although I am not ready to say that I could never support a candidate that uses debt to help finance their campaign. I would say that no good candidate should ever carry debt from one campaign to another. If they have not paid off their expenses from a previous campaign (for the same office or another office) they should not be running a new campaign.

I know that there are people who would argue that this ideal is not feasible in our current political environment and I am open to thoughts on what can and should be done, but please don’t just shoot down my ideal without explaining why we should not desire it.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

Under-Informed Health Care Debate

Considering how widely discussed the health care issue is and how long running that discussion has been it is easy for people to think they have all the available and relevant information on the subject. The fact is that despite the appearance of coverage you can only scratch the surface of available information unless you search beyond mainstream news sources. Here’s a letter in the  Salt Lake Tribune yesterday as a case in point:

To President Barack Obama and Congress, I say: Negotiate the various health care reform bills — soon. Get the Blue Dog Democrats on board, and pass a bill — soon, before your public becomes so weary of partisan infighting that we oppose anything you pass.

The Republicans, for all their bluster, have not offered any alternative, except our Sen. Bob Bennett with Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, and that bill has received only token Republican support. . .

The author is right that the Health Americans Act by Wyden and Bennett has received only token Republican support – largely because it is only fleetingly different from the various Democrat only bills in circulation. On the other hand, he is far from right that Republicans have offered no alternatives – that’s just the line that Congressional leaders and the administration have been feeding to the media. Just browse the sites of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Jim DeMint to get an idea of some of the Republican counter-proposals that have been offered. Then consider that for every idea presented by those two members of Congress there must be dozens of ideas that were offered in negotiations before the Republicans left the tables that never received even token consideration by leaders of the various committees.

On the very day the letter was being published Rep. John Shadegg (AZ-03) was talking about one of those non-existent Republican plans that was apparently introduced back in July and cosponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01) among others. (h/t Right Truth) As always in the health care debate, each bill should be measured against the findings of David Goldhill to see if it actually addresses the real problems in the health care system. (Shadegg’s bill appears to do better than the bills actually acknowledged by the media from what I’ve seen.)

Although I maintain that being truly informed requires that we look at more information sources than the mainstream media that also means that we have to be discerning about the accuracy of each information source. I think it’s safe to doubt the accuracy of anyone (especially an MD) that believes that our current health care system suffers from a “lack of government regulation.” I’m amazed that someone could seriously argue that the current proposals under consideration represent free market solutions and that solutions based on free market principles would be a good thing while also arguing that the free market is the cause of our health care woes.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Re-Founding Requires Renewed Statesmanship


photo credit: mharrsch

Bob Henline strikes again, but this time there is nothing he said that I would argue with.

. . . all we end up doing is enacting more ridiculous laws that only spin the problems, never really resulting in any tangible effects. That leads us to ask the question of why this is the case?

The short answer to this question is that we lack anything resembling long-term thinking in this country. Our politicians have shelf-lives of 2, 4, or 6 years and our general public has an attention spam of about 12 seconds. This situation doesn’t lend itself well to long-term solutions, but it does lead to amazing long-term problems. Over the course of the past 50 years or so we have done an amazing job of creating problems and of pushing them off onto future generations. The problem that we now face is that we are the future generation that is stuck with the tab.

Continue reading

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Civility in Politics

Last Night Sutherland hosted a blogger briefing discussing the topic of civility in politics and where we draw the line between being passionate and being civil. Dave Hansen and Rob Miller spoke – representing republicans and democrats in the discussion – and then they opened up for questions. It was a pretty good discussion in which they agreed on almost everything.

The main thing that I took away from the questions about how to foster civility  in political discussion is that first and foremost we must each govern ourselves. Rob emphasized that multiple times – that it starts with an individual decision to keep our heads about us and be honest in our interactions whether we agree or disagree. Being honest requires that we not pretend to agree, that we not disagree in order to play devil’s advocate, and that we admit when we make mistakes or get some of our facts wrong. If we each keep our emotions in check we will be able to treat others in a dignified way, as all people deserve to be treated, and we can keep ourselves from escalating tensions when our feelings inevitably get bruised in the tussle between competing opinions.

Posted in culture, State | Tagged , | 2 Comments

My Way or the Highway

I have come to the conclusion that any broadcast news is going to be full of content that is designed to help listeners think their are being informed when in reality there is no substance to the content. Usually the headlines are enough to get the point across. That’s why I like getting news from feeds where I can glance at the headline and only take time for the full story (video, audio, or text) if the headline promises information that I don’t already have.

Because of this conclusion I no longer leave the radio on the same station all the time (for what little time I listen to it). Today I found myself listening to Sean Hannity and within 10 minutes I had confirmed why I avoid talk radio. When I first tuned in Sean was busy making sure that his listeners knew how stupid some of his previous callers were in disagreeing with his position on the news story of the moment. Seeing as I agreed with Hannity on that particular story I let it go. A few minutes later a caller voiced an opinion on another story that Hannity disagreed with. This time I had heard the caller and I got to hear the way Hannity responded to him – it was disgraceful.

Hannity badgered his caller and ignored everything the man said that he did not agree with. In this case I could not ignore Sean’s tone for two reasons – first, I heard the caller so I knew what Hannity was responding to; and second, I disagree with Hannity and think that besides being wrong he is doing a great disservice to conservatives everywhere by ruthlessly shutting down debate with anyone who disagrees with him. I accept that there are many people who believe as Sean does on that later issue and although I strongly disagree with that position I could not consider myself a decent human being if I were to shut down any opposing voices as ungraciously as I heard Sean doing today.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Legislator as Candidate

My experience with many campaigns – especially for any office higher than state legislator – is that the majority of them spend their time talking about a) the fact that they need your money to run the campaign, and b) the fact that whoever they are running against is not the right person for the job. Few of them talk about the seat they are trying to fill, or the issues that are relevant to that position.

All the time spent soliciting money is time not spent promoting the candidate. It is universally understood that campaigns need funding and the candidates do have to mention that at times, but when that is the primary focus of the campaign it indicates a shallowness of purpose that seems to degrade the office they are seeking. Requests for donations should always be the sideshow of the campaign message.

Secondly, I have no reason to trust what Candidate A says about Candidate B unless I have already chosen to support Candidate A – in which case Candidate A is probably wasting time preaching to the choir.

A good legislator should not be spending their time running against an opponent, they should be running for a position. This does not mean that they cannot say anything against their opponent(s) but whatever they say against another candidate should demonstrate why the criticism is relevant to the office they are seeking. This same principle applies to what a candidate says about themselves. It doesn’t matter if a candidate bases their positive platform on “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m an Independent” or “I’m pragmatic” or “I’m experienced” in all cases what they say should be reinforced with evidence of why what they are (or claim to be) is relevant to the position they are seeking.

If the platform or message of the campaign revolves around anything other than the position they are seeking (even if it revolves around the Constitution) then the message of the campaign is distracting from the purpose that should be driving the decisions of the voters.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Legislator as Campaign Strategist

I had thought to cover the ideal candidacy of a good legislator in a single post but it has become obvious to me that there is just too much to cover in one sitting. On top of that, the campaign is arguably the aspect of being a good legislator where candidates – whether they end up winning or losing – stray from what a good legislator should do.

From a campaign strategy perspective the most important thing that a good legislator should do is understand the system that they are to be working in. I saw what I thought was a good example of this in the Jason Chaffetz campaign for Utah’s 3rd District congressional seat in 2008. For the sake of clarity I would like to say that I was not part of the campaign nor do I live in the 3rd district  – I am simply an outside observer who happens to share the same party affiliation.

My observations were of a campaign where they understood the Utah Republican Party rules to receive the nomination and they focused their efforts on getting that nomination. As far as I could see goals of fund-raising were completely secondary to goals or raising support among those who would actually be casting the votes for the Republican nominee in the district – first the state delegates, and then the members of the Republican party when he fell just shy of averting the need for a primary race against Rep. Cannon. Again from my outsider perspective it appears that all other goals were designed and pursued only as a means of reaching and persuading those who would actually be casting the votes. Contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, there is more to it than raising large amounts of money and buying up as much advertising as possible – as proven by the fact that Chaffetz was significantly outspent by Cannon.

The reason that a legislator needs to be a good strategist with a solid understanding of the system is not simply so that they can get elected, but also because those skills are important in working within the legislative body to which they are seeking membership. Again from my outsiders perspective Rep. Chaffetz appears to demonstrate this by the fact that he has been able to garner more attention and influence than I would have expected to see in a freshman congressman in the minority party of the House.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

We Must Be Clear About This


photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Continue reading

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments