Categories
culture National

The Dangers of a Crisis Mentality


photo credit: paparutzi

Soon after the election last year in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib wrote about the  opportunity presented by the financial crisis for Barack Obama. Perhaps he was simply reacting to Rahm Emanuel’s statement that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Seib summed up that perspective on crisis by saying that:

The thing about a crisis is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential.

That really captures the essence of a crisis mentality. Unfortunately it only looks at the silver lining while ignoring the cloud in front of it. The assumption is that we all can see the dangers of the crisis cloud. Unfortunately the only part of the crisis cloud that most people see is the front side – the possibility with any crisis that we will fail. The problem is that right in front of the silver lining he spoke of there is the hidden backside of the crisis cloud which we conveniently forget.

Because of the sense of urgency that tends to accompany a crisis we not only begin to view once optional courses of action as essential, in many cases we go beyond that and begin to view once forbidden courses of action as excusable.

Categories
culture National State

Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

I started a discussion on term limits a couple of years ago on this site and between what I said then and what I have said on other sites I think my position on term limits is fairly clear – I believe that term limits generally produce benefits that far outweigh the drawbacks that opponents will cite. I think solid evidence of that is that not one state (out of 15) that has enacted a term limit law and had it start limiting terms has ever repealed their term limit law. (Six states did enact laws and then repeal them before they took effect – including Utah.) Coming from that position, I was happy to hear the announcement from Senator Jim DeMint that he plans to introduce a term limits amendment soon.

While I have some questions about some of the specifics of what he plans to propose like how he decided that three terms would be the appropriate limit for members of the House or how flexible he would be on the particular limits he is proposing, I found one statement that he made very insightful about the last time that term limits were seriously pursued by the political class.

Fifteen years ago, Republicans – who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

He’s absolutely right that no significant reform will come in how Washington operates until we make structural changes that force it to operate differently. His comment that many of those who wanted to enact term limits voluntarily term-limited themselves – thus crippling the attempt by leaving it in the hands of those who had no interested in being term limited was insightful. I realized that anyone who wants to make such a change would have to take the attitude and make a pledge to stay in Washington as long as possible until they either got term limits enacted or else until they no longer believed that term limits were worth pursuing. Those who will impose their own limits independent of everybody else will limit their own comparative effectiveness by granting more power to those who do not believe in their ideals (specifically the ideal of having term limits).

Categories
culture National

An Island in the Midst of an Ocean

When I complained about the tone of the Sean Hannity show a couple of weeks ago Frank Staheli pointed me towards the Neal Boortz show broadcast on Freedom 570. Over the last couple of weeks I have been listening to the station. I have heard many of the shows as I have listened at various times and found that I was really enjoying the tone of the shows being broadcast – it was an essentially civil island in the midst of  the ocean of conservative talk radio. Neal Boortz  is not my favorite of their shows, but his tone was so much nicer than Hannity.

Today I discovered a mud puddle in the midst of the Freedom 570 lineup. I drove home earlier than usual today and heard the Todd Schnitt show for the first time which had more of a Hannity tone. While it may not be fully representative of the show I was disappointed to hear Schnitt’s coverage of the apparent uproar over a picture of Meghan McCain that got posted on the internet (by Meghan apparently). Schnitt had to take the time to rave about Meghan’s physique and insist that the picture get a more prominent place on his website.

I have not seen the picture, but I have enough information from what I head from Schnitt before turning the show off to comment on the situation. Schnitt has demonstrated his immaturity and lack of class by the types of comments he felt compelled to make. Meghan has shown her naivety by even posting the image and acting as if the uproar was not predictable. Apparently some have called her a slut – without even going to see the picture I think it’s safe to say that she was just plain foolish. The only good that came out of it is that I now know to pass on opportunities to listen to Schnitt.

Categories
culture National

Make a Commitment


photo credit: doctor paradox

On Wednesday I caught perhaps 10 minutes of the Jason Lewis Show but in that short window Jason captured for about 60 seconds exactly what is wrong with this country and how it can be fixed. (Here’s a link to that hour of his show.) Here is my transcript of the relevant statement (starting at 30:03 in the audio file):

We are consumed by things that don’t matter because we don’t have the intellectual discipline to stay focused, we make excuses.

You know really, if you wanted to make a statement, if you were truly upset and you wanted to make a statement: A) You would be bright enough to understand what’s going on, most people are too obtuse to realize that, most people are more concerned about X-Box than they are about what’s happening in Washington and so, frankly, we’re a nation of dolts. But if you could get people to think and to study and to realize what’s going on and that they knew economics and civics, that would be the first step.

The second step would be – everybody in the year 2010 would simply devote, make a commitment right now that they are going to spend two hours a week, three hours a week, four hours a week on campaigns. They’re going to take back their city council, they’re going to take back their party, they’re going to take back their county commission, they’re going to take back their state legislature, they’re going to take back Congress. Their going to find a candidate or two and they are going to work harder than they ever have, they’re going to spread the word, they might write a check for thirty bucks or three thousand bucks, but they’re going to do something.

There’s no substitute for commitment and hard work and that’s what needs to take place. Am I certain it will? No I’m not at all.

I’m absolutely sure that Jason is right about that. In fact I would go further and say that this nation would change drastically within two years if 60% of eligible voters would take just three hours per week to take the actions he suggested – that includes the fact that all those voters would come to a wide variety of conclusions about the proper course of action to deal with the problems we face.

Categories
culture

Freedom OF Religion

[quote]By now everybody in Utah at least has heard about the speech given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at the BYU-Idaho devotional yesterday on the subject of freedom of religion. It will surprise nobody who knows anything about me to hear that I agree 100% with everything he said.

Considering that I could not hope to add insights beyond those of Elder Oaks some might question why I would bother to write anything about his speech. There are two reasons – first, this subject of our freedom of religion (for any atheists I could comfortably call it “freedom of conscience”) is important to every American who cares about preserving a viable nation where we enjoy any amount of liberty whatsoever and thus I could not pass up the chance to promote that message; and second, when I saw that some of what he said was being misunderstood (as shown in a poll where 2 in 3 respondents disagreed with his  assertion that the retaliation and intimidation against supporters of Prop. 8 was similar in nature to the voter-intimidation of blacks in the South) I knew that it was necessary for people who understood what he said to stand up and declare their understanding.

Categories
culture

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.

Categories
culture State

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.

Categories
culture

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.

Categories
culture National

Carter’s Race Card

When I heard the news this morning that Jimmy Carter thinks Obama critics are racist, my initial reaction was to reject the idea. Then I decided that it was only fair to consider the idea before choosing to accept or reject it. First, here is what he said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way. I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude towards minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans – and that racism inclination still exists.

Upon a brief examination I realized that my impulse to reject that idea was based on the fact that the opposition that I have expressed to various actions by the Obama Administration is based on ideological perspective, not race. The weakness of that rejection is the same as the weakness of Carters assertion – it is a hasty generalization because I am no more qualified to know the motivations of other people than Jimmy Carter is (that would be “hardly qualified whatsoever”) and therefore other people can be motivated by racism even when I am not. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that some people are in opposition precisely because of their racist feelings – although I believe the worst offenders will openly admit that fact.

The real question then is not whether racism fuels opposition (anyone who has an anti-black attitude will be in opposition to Obama) but whether racism represents “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition. Here is where I really doubt Mr. Carter – although I admit that where he lives (whether that is “in the South” or “in side his head”) racism being an overwhelming portion is more likely than in other places.

The other half of my reflection was why I was so unhappy with the mere suggestion of racism. Carter would certainly argue that it is because I am a closet racist (doubtless he thinks every white person is). The truth is that I dislike Carters use of racism as a red herring. His comments encourage us to drop the issues that divide us and concentrate on the motivations behind our differences. Of course our motivations can be an important factor in how we deal with differences, but claims of racism almost always cloud the issue in question when they are made rather than clarifying the issue.

Confusion is definitely not in short supply which is why I dislike the charge so much. Thanks Mr. Ex-President – you’ve just done another (dis)service for the country.

Categories
culture National

Re-Founding America


photo credit: Why Tuesday?

I don’t pay attention to talk radio because even though I am very conservative I find that the conservative perspective shared on talk radio is generally laced with too much thoughtless and inflammatory perspective that is designed to stir reactions rather than provide information. Despite that general disinterest I was intrigued when I heard about Glenn Beck calling for a re-founding of America. The idea fit so well with what I have been focused on that I thought I would share my perspective on the idea here.

On January 1, 2008 I wrote that what America needs is a new birth of freedom. Before I wrote that, and even more since then, I have been looking for exactly that within our nation. The final answer is as difficult as it is uncomplicated – we need people to be converted to the idea of America – no more is it enough to be born here – we must individually be converted to the idea of liberty that our founders fought and died for. During the last couple of years I have found two groups that give me hope for a way forward in giving this nation that new birth of freedom.