Someone to Believe In

Posted on 2007-10-03 by David

After talking about my opposition to Rudy Giuliani and the dangers of the “select someone electable” mentality I thought it would be a nice change to talk about the kind of candidate that I would like to back. My example is Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, who I recently learned about. Much of the discussion about cleaning up national politics comes in the form of the need for an outsider or a newcomer. Condidates in both parties like to lay claim to being an agent for change. One of the tough aspects of political office is that the outsider who gets elected often becomes an insider very quickly. Governor Palin is a refreshing exception to this trend. Before her election she gained a reputation as a whistleblower against insider political activities. After a year of being governor she shows no signs of resting in her efforts.

This week, it was Palin who singlehandedly killed the leading symbol of Republican spending excess in Washington: the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Bridge to Nowhere was actually a state project, to be built with funds earmarked by the state’s powerful Congressman Don Young. Last week, Palin killed the $398 million bridge to Gravina Island (pop. 50), directing that the money be spent on more “fiscally responsible” projects.

In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska’s Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state’s transactional Republican establishment. Don Young has screamed “It’s my money!” when conservative lawmakers challenge his pet projects and blamed the Republican loss of Congress on conservatives who want to cut spending. And Senator Ted Stevens’ record as a porker is rivaled only by the patron saint of the West Virginia highway system.

With Palin now in office for the better part of a year, we have some data points to evaluate whose brand of politics works better. A poll out last month put Palin’s approval rating at 84%, and Fred Barnes has noted that she probably America’s most popular elected official in any party.

One of the things that makes newcomers become insiders is the perception that you have to join the system to get things done, and that you have to bring home the pork to get re-elected. Real change can only come about when we start electing people who are more interested in doing the right thing than they are in retaining their seat.

For voters, we have to vote consistent with our conscience even at the cost of losing the election. If the majority of the country disagrees with me then I have to accept that. I don’t do any favors by voting for someone who can win if they are not the kind of person that I would like to see in office. The political image of this country is taken from the reflection we cast in the voting booths. If we intentionally distort the reflection we can’t know the real character of the country – all we can see is that it is grotesque, like the monsters we see in fun-house mirrors.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

Build Your Own Cage

Posted on 2007-10-02 by David

Thinking about the idea of a split in the GOP makes me wonder about how we got where we are. Why is the leading candidate for the party unpalatable for a large segment of the party base? I am reminded that “parties are simply alliances of groups that can put aside their differences sufficiently to focus on a few areas where they mostly agree.” Considering that it is not so surprising that the fiscal conservatives are ready to back Giuliani after years of being out-shouted within the party by the social conservatives.

The real dynamic of the nomination process is that the Democrats are united in their desire for a large government that will protect us from negative consequences with social programs to help us go to school, pay for necessities when we lose jobs, ensure access to health care services, legislating social tolerance, and promote international good will by throwing money at the problems plaguing poor nations. Social conservatives have been content – even excited – with a large government that will protect us from change by spending money to wage war against radical Islam around the world, building fences at our borders, listening in to our private conversations in case someone expresses an idea they deem dangerous, and regulating our public conversation against indecency. There is a third group who wants less government and more personal responsibility – including the possibility of suffering the consequences of poor social or financial choices. This group is so tired of being pushed to the side that they are willing to settle on any candidate who will at least promise to keep the growth to a minimum.

The ability of this third group to make Giuliani the frontrunner is what has lead to the warning by social conservatives that they might not support Giuliani. After so long in power they seem to forget that this was a coalition. They don’t seem to care that Big Government is the Enemy of Freedom. They want to coerce the nation in to following their vision of what this nation should be and forget that their coercive tactics would lead them into this very trap.

Posted in National | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Could Giuliani Split the GOP?

Posted on 2007-10-01 by David

I found the idea interesting that Christian leaders threaten to abandon Republicans if Giuliani is the nominee. John Hinderaker at Power Line doesn’t think so. I can’t claim to have more information than John, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility. I know that I can’t vote for Giuliani though I can only speak for myself. (Whether I am at all representative of GOP voters at large is highly debatable.) I am not always a fan of James Dobson and for me the Giuliani issue is not a simple matter of his position on abortion. The fact is that I could name three candidates among the Democratic hopefuls this year who I could vote for over Giuliani.

When I consider candidates I essentially rate them on a personal scale – I don’t try to press my criteria on other people, but I imagine that some other people do a similar thing in deciding who to support. This places candidates on a scale ranking who I would be more likely to support out of any given set of candidates. On that scale there is a line which I have decided to call the Write-In Line. Candidates falling below that line can’t get my vote no matter who they are running against. (I considered calling it the Orrin Hatch Line since I think I could vote for Orrin if he were running against Giuliani – but he’s pretty well lost my vote otherwise.) If I am voting in a contest with no candidates above that line I write in a candidate who I could vote for. Who knows how many people there are like me who just could not vote for Giuliani.

If the goal of this group in raising the option of a GOP split is to keep Giuliani from getting the nomination then their best chance would be to go one step further and choose a candidate now that they could support – I have a short list if they’re interested. I would say that they have to back someone no later than the day after the Iowa caucuses if they want to have any impact in the nomination. If they are really like me and could not vote for Giuliani then I would say that the possibility of a split is real and a Giuliani nomination could change the face of American politics.

Posted in National | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Bureaucracy in Action

Posted on 2007-09-29 by David

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over "the rules." (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

"The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,’" Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.

Posted in culture, State | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Voucher Related Tidbits

Posted on 2007-09-28 by David

The closer we get to November the more likely we are to see commentary related to vouchers. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of it was as well thought out as Conner Boyack’s Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program – but I won’t hold my breath. Connor seems to be trying in a single post to sum up the entire voucher debate – which is an impressive task. Perhaps one reason that I like Connor’s thoughts is that his conclusion is quite similar to mine – the voucher bills might be flawed (as most bills are) but I believe they will prove to be a positive move for education in Utah.

Though I support vouchers I can’t say that I support all the political maneuvering of voucher supporters (not that I favor political maneuvering of voucher opponents). I find it disturbing to hear reports of potential political retaliation (in reference to this article). Vouchers should stand or fall on their merits – there should be no stooping to coercive tactics to bolster political support.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Fostering Engagement

Posted on 2007-09-27 by David

I have been contemplating the implications found in Scott Hinrichs’ Civically Disengaged ever since he posted it. I have been concerned about the lack of civic involvement by most people for a long time because I am convinced that it is a cause for many of our social problems – especially our increasingly divisive political environment which only makes all our problems seem larger and discourages individual participation at all levels of government.

Scott has identified some causes of our disengagement:

Why has this happened? Part of it has to do with the mass movement of women into the workforce. Americans have become uncomfortable with single-sex organizations. Although women still do most of the work at home, men have accepted many more domestic duties than their fathers did. Thus, they have less free time to devote to pursuits outside of the home and family.

The whole of our society has become less formal as people have sought out more flexibility. People are less comfortable with conformity. People of the boomer generation and younger aren’t into special handshakes, funny hats, and mandatory meetings.

Another factor is mobility. People are far more mobile than ever before. It takes time to sink roots in any new location. Increasing diversity, as Putnam’s recently released study shows, decreases interpersonal and communal trust, even among people that are most alike, resulting in people drawing inward and away from social connections. The tendency increases with population density.

Putnam says, however, that the biggest factor in civic disengagement is TV. He said that back in 1996 before many people were connected on the Internet. Going online can be far more interactive than TV. It can even lead to civic discussion and coordination. But certainly not in the same way or at the same level as involvement in traditional civic organizations.

Finding out where we are and how we got here is nice, but the operative question is always – where do we go from here? I’d love to have some solid answers but lacking that I’ll share my own ideas. The causes illustrated above are:

    • We have become uncomfortable with single-sex organizations
    • Men have less free time to devote to pursuits outside of the home and family
    • People are far more mobile than ever before
    • Television discourages interaction

I am convinced that the discomfort with single-sex organizations could be easily overcome by building new coed organizations to replace the old single-gender groups.

The issue of having less free time is partially a matter of priorities. If people viewed civic groups as being more relevant and important than other things that compete for their time they would chose to be engaged. This may be a marketing problem as civic organizations attempt to show people how they can make a positive impact in the community. It might also be an issue of the organizations themselves adapting to a new cultural setting. It may be that we need to build organizations that are better suited to our current society or such civic organizations might already exist and we just need to give them time to gain the influence that has existed in older civic organizations.

I think the issue of mobility is the most crucial and subtle deterrent to civic engagement. It does take time to sink our roots somewhere and we do ourselves a disservice if we wait to sink those roots. Imagine how much more engaged someone would be civically if they settle down at 25 knowing that they are going to stay put for 50 years. By 35 they can be very well established in the community and contributing. Not only that but they care much more about a place if they expect to stay there for half a century. By contrast, imagine someone who moves every 3 to 5 years from one job to another until they are 40 years old where they then stay until they go into a kind of active retirement by the age of 55. By the time this person has set down any roots they can only expect to participate civically for a very few years – if it’s even worth the effort.

As for television – by itself it is a deterrent to civic engagement, but it can be used by groups to invite engagement. While the internet might some involvement that is inferior to the engagement in real civic organizations it can also be used as a strong tool to increase involvement and communication for an organization in a way that can compensate for some of the other factors in our society that discourage engagement. For example, I can still participate with civic organizations when my company sends me to live overseas for 6 months or a year.

Scott lists many groups that have been shrinking (scouts, bowling leagues, labor unions) does anyone know of civic organizations that are growing? Does anyone else have suggestions of how to help people participate in their communities civically?

Posted in culture | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Jeffs Guilty Verdict

Posted on 2007-09-26 by David

After having posted my thoughts on the intent of the Warren Jeffs trial I thoughts I would follow up with my thoughts after his conviction. I am quite certain that Jeffs is guilty of any number of crimes related to polygamy and his actions within the FLDS community. If this trial really cuts down on the forced marriages of young girls then that will be a very positive thing. Despite that I think it is still a dangerous thing to prosecute against the belief in polygamy – which this case clearly seems aimed at doing. If it were simply a matter of enforcing the law that had been breached there would also be a rape trial for the young ex-husband. (UPDATE – the ex-husband has now been charged – thanks Jeremy)

It will be interesting to see if polygamy continues to be a target of legal action. If there is continued pressure against underage marriages that would be commendable, but if this is just a token case against a high-profile church leader then the overall effect will be negative.

I also found a very good summation/analysis that some people might find interesting to read. I can understand the feeling of those polygamists quoted in the article that this was a biased proceeding.

Posted in culture | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Political Conundrum

Posted on 2007-09-25 by David

I have been evaluating my position with regards to the presidential candidates – specifically those in the Republican party. Right now there is a front runner that I don’t think I could be compelled to vote for in the general election no matter who his opponent was. I could give up all hope except that I really do think that Mitt would make a good president and despite any of the early questions about whether he could get the nomination he has shown that he has a legitimate shot to win the primaries.

My conundrum is that I really like Mike Huckabee as well. In fact I wish that he were in the top tier on par with Mitt (unless that would split the votes and pave the way for Giuliani to get the nomination). I think that Mike would make a much better president than McCain or Thompson. So my challenge is deciding how much to support Mike Huckabee without inadvertently helping Rudy Giuliani.

I have talked to Laura about this and also sought input from some other family and friends. Does anyone have any suggestions about how they might face this conflict of hopes?

Posted in National | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

Fiscal Realism

Posted on 2007-09-24 by David

I keep returning to the sentiments of Reality Check – that we need to realize that on tough issues we will not be able to satisfy everyone and that the decisions we make must be based on what is best and not merely based on what offends the fewest people. This comes up again as I read the platform for Divided We Fail. This is an initiative of the AARP. I do not wish to accuse the AARP of not caring for the future, but I think it is fair to note that when push comes to shove the best solution for the next 5 years is going to be more favorable to the AARP than the best solution for 30 years from now.

Their platform consists of 6 points – 3 on social security and 3 on health care:

  • All Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.
    • This sounds like a noble and universal sentiment.
    • We can deduce from their other points that the path they envision is one of government backed health care which is not possible without being a burden on future generations so this goal is unattainable in its fullness – one part has to give.
    • For more insights here go read No Free Lunch.
  • Wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities.
    • Absolutely. This is the one undeniable truth, and the single most influential factor in the rising costs of our current health care system. How do we go about doing this?
  • Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care – allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options.
    • Agreed. Only, what “affordable financing options” do they have in mind?
  • Our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations.
    • Everyone (the AARP as well as their children and grandchildren) deserves an adequate quality of life when they retire. We might need to define “adequate quality of life” because what that seems to be today may well be unsustainable.
    • On the other hand, there is no possible way to strengthen social security without increasing the burden on future generations. Some generation is going to have to take the fall on this one. The program needs to receive its sunset – Sadly, I feel compelled to volunteer my generation. I don’t expect to receive social security benefits. Even if social security benefits are still available I hope not to avail myself of that benefit. (Why should I be a burden to my posterity?)
  • Workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.
    • I agree.
  • Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely.
    • This is another point that sounds good but the pessimist in me is skeptical that we will ever really educate the majority of our population on money matters.
    • I also believe that managing money more wisely requires more than financial literacy – it requires a new attitude about the value and nature of wealth. So long as we are driven to keep up with the Joneses financial literacy won’t make us wise managers of our money.
Posted in National | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

An American DREAM

Posted on 2007-09-21 by David

When I first heard about the DREAM Act it seemed reasonable to me. When I saw it called Backdoor Amnesty I was not really surprised, but I thought that I should look into it more closely. That meant going to see the actual text of the bill. The last time I talked about immigration I said that we needed to decide what we believe on the issue before we run around legislating a position. My own position, the more I consider it, would have us be much more open for immigration than we are now (on the books).

As I look at the text of this bill I believe that it is fundamentally sound. The purpose is to allow a path to citizenship for those who came to the US as children (under 16) and who have lived lives in the U.S. that are worthy of citizens (no run-ins with the law, no orders for deportation, completing their educations) and contributed or prepared to make positive contributions to our country (complete degrees at institutions of higher education without federal grants or served two years in the armed services without an other than honorable discharge). Not only that but they must have lived as residents for at least 5 years – no hopping back and forth across the border (limitations against 90 days at one time or an aggregate of 180 days outside the US in the last five years).

The one potential problem that we should guard against is having this used as a back door for children to get legal status and then use that as a lever to gain legal status for their parents. This law should only be applied to those who came as minors and have since completed their secondary education and followed the path to continued contribution to this country. Those who have done so should not be held liable for being brought here illegally. They should not have any special opportunity to help parents (who are accountable for coming here illegally) gain priority access to legal residence. Those parents should be required to seek legal status through existing means. Children who have not yet completed their secondary education should be returning to their country of origin with their parents and if they choose to return to America legally we should welcome them.

Posted in National | Tagged , , | Leave a comment