Categories
National

Nobody Wants the Status Quo


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Health Care Reform Plan
photo credit: planspark

Proponents of the current health care proposals charge that those who oppose these proposals only want the status quo. No honest Democrats have stepped forward to admit the truth that opponents of these measures have been offering alternatives and decrying the status quo. The leader among dishonest Democrats today is none other than President Obama (whom I have tried to refrain from specifically criticizing) who not only will not admit the truth about opponents of his preferred reform package but who goes further by holding “town hall meetings” where no opportunity for discussion is even considered (as do many of his followers) – these are not chances to discuss and enlarge public understanding of the issue, they are opportunities to indoctrinate the masses one town hall at a time.

Nothing I have said excuses the behavior of some protesters at many town hall meetings who are equally disinterested in any actual discussion, but any real leader would have to rise above such rabble and be willing to engage and explain rather than pontificate and cajole.

Among those speaking against the current reform proposals there is a common belief that has never been addressed by backers of the proposals – that the current prescription will actually be worse than the status quo (which they agree is not an acceptable situation). Not only are they speaking against the dangerous potential of the current direction but here are a few of the ideas that are not being offered to considered by our current leaders.

Categories
culture

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I was tempted not to include Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address among my review of founding documents, but I have become very interested in the parallels between the struggles over slavery and some of the struggles of our day. One question I asked as I read it again was, “have we learned anything in the last 150 years about how to deal with a peculiar and powerful interest within the nation?”[quote] I could not say whether or not we have learned that lesson, but I am confident that we will have occasion(s) in the future to find out whether we have learned that lesson.

I was reminded as I read it that having conflicting opinions and resolving on a uniform course of action while we hold differing perspectives on an issue is a universal and eternal aspect of having an existence endowed with individual liberty – we must learn that lesson individually and as a nation so that we can always say as Lincoln did (whatever the issue we face):

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. (emphasis added)

Categories
State

Online Conservative Desert


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I understand that it is a commonly held belief that the political left has more influence in online political activity than the political right. Now we have research by Richard Davis that sheds a bit of light on that.

Davis also queried more than 200 journalists to learn how they use blog content in their coverage of political news. Most journalists were aware of influential blogs on both sides of the political spectrum, such as Daily Kos and Talking Points on the left and Michelle Malkin and Instapundit on the right. Despite equal awareness, journalists spend more time reading posts in the liberal blogosphere.

For example, more journalists know about Michelle Malkin than Talking Points. Yet twice as many journalists actually read Talking Points than read Michelle Malkin.

I wish I could find the article that first alerted me to this research because it included another tidbit of information – in the research into political bloggers a much higher percentage of right-leaning bloggers read left-leaning blogs than the number of left-leaning bloggers reading right-leaning blogs.

From my own experience here in the conservative state of Utah I can say that we have at least as many left-leaning political blogs as we do right-leaning political blogs.

My question is, why is this? Why, even where the political right vastly outnumbers the political left on the ground does the political left still hold an edge over the political right online? My suspicion is that part of the answer lies in the fact that the political left was functionally irrelevant in national politics as the world of online commentary was becoming more powerful and widespread. Those who had less of a voice in running the governments might easily have been more anxious to use these new tools to communicate and respond. The result is that in some ways they have a six year head start in online organization and dialog over those who were content to be holding the reins of office. In those six years and without the luxury of turning away all who would challenge their thinking it is reasonable to expect that they might have a more vibrant and interesting dialog in general than their counterparts. It may not be that most members of the media natively prefer liberal positions, it may be that they and even some of those on the right are simply allergic to immature conversation that has not had time to develop as widely without that head start gained in the political wilderness.

I believe that this needs to be rectified. The online conversation should be a more accurate reflection of the various positions held by those on the ground. Perhaps some time in political irrelevance by the political right might serve as an incentive to create some oases online of fertile conservative conversation which could plant the seeds so that our online desert can blossom as a rose, just like the desert we live in has blossomed in the last 162 years.

Categories
General

Federalist No. 84


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

In his penultimate federalist paper, Federalist No. 84, Hamilton ties up a few loose ends and once again shows his prescience. As I was reading this thought on the need (or lack thereof) for a Bill of Rights:

a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

I thought about how our present government had become the kind to "regulation of every species of personal and private concerns"and began to wonder if the Bill of Rights opened the door to a larger, more intrusive government than was intended. Then I got to this:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.  (emphasis added)

The argument that I had in my head before reading that was probably substantially the same but I would have said that without the explicit Bill of Rights which was later added the voters might feel more urgency to check their representatives and replace them when they began to make incursions upon the rights that the voters felt were important.

Later in the paper I found yet another argument against the now static size of our House of Representatives:

It is evident that . . . a continuance of the present number {in Congress} would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people.

Categories
culture National

Political Action vs Reaction


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

It’s tax day and I doubt anybody who reads this has not heard in advance about the many "Tea Party" events that have been planned around the country for today. Ive been hearing about them from various sources for months and I have been conflicted in my feelings related to such activities. From a constitutional perspective we have a first amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly so barring any violence there is no question as to the legality of these events. My conflict is in the way the events are being promoted.

Many of the public figures who are promoting these events paint them as a kind of legitimate political action. Among those who really care about the issues of constitutionally limited government and perpetual government deficit spending there are many, such as myself, who recognize that these tea parties have no possibility of bringing about real political results – they are a grand publicity stunt played off of the frustrations of one segment of the population. As such they are merely a  political reaction and political reactions are easy to spin. Promoters are spinning this as an argument against larger government and deficit spending. Detractors are spinning it as a bunch of ridiculous anti-Obama rallies.

Real political action, in contrast to political reactions, is very difficult to spin. It takes much more time and effort than simply gathering some press coverage and getting people to show up one day carrying signs and shouting in megaphones. Real political action, for those who are interested, would include regularly seeking information on issues of interest to you. It would include attending county party organizing conventions. As Rob Miller so aptly said, "If you believe that you have something to contribute to the American experience, you should come to a county convention." In Davis County that would be this Saturday (4/18) for both Democrats and Republicans. If you really want to make a difference you should be looking to be a delegate to county and state party conventions (or even national conventions if you are so inclined). It means participating in those caucus meetings and conventions where parties are organized and candidates are chosen. It means not letting your party get away with ignoring its principles in the name of political expedience. (That does not preclude the possibility of compromise, but it does reject the argument that all of politics is compromise.)

Thankfully today I have come to my own resolution regarding that internal conflict. Real political action is what this country desperately needs from many more people of all political persuasions. We need people who are willing to put in the work and engage in civil debate even when the debate gets spirited. While political reactions do not qualify as real, effective political action they can serve as a first step for those who have not participated in real political action before. I hope that whatever else happens with the tea party events we will see many among the attendees who will start to take part in lasting political action.

Categories
culture

Federal-Sighted


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Most people have probably heard of the two basic classes of vision problems, far-sightedness and near-sightedness. For those who are not clear on the differences, far-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects at a distance while objects up close are blurry. Conversely, near-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects in close proximity while objects further away are unclear.

I have come to the conclusion that as a society we generally suffer from a political far-sightedness that I call federal-sightedness – that is, we focus on issues at a federal or national level while allowing local and state issues to become excessively fuzzy. Just as with personal vision problems that develop slowly and without our notice, our first reaction is to compensate in subtle ways. We step back from near issues and view them from a federal perspective. Rather than tackling problems close up we attempt to fix them from an arms-length away.

The problems associated with this perspective were illustrated to me from a recent comment stating that, “By definition you can’t have individual liberty while at the same enforcing your preferred level of societal morality.” This statement assumes a situation where there is a single layer to government and social order.

The comments were following a golf course analogy at the time  so lets follow through with that imagery to show what I mean. If the governing body of golf were the only source of rules the statement would be true. The reality of the situation is that the governing authority should be promoting individual liberty by only mandating a minimal set of rules defining what makes an acceptable golf course. This would include basic rules regarding how the game of golf is played. It would include rules such as mandating that an official golf course must have 18 holes, that each hole must have a par rating between 3 and 5, that the entire course must have a par total between 69 and 73, and the rules for determining the par rating for a hole. On the other hand, the governing body should avoid making rules such as requiring that the third hole on each course must be a par-5 hole.

While the governing body lays out the general rules of golf the owners and operators of each golf course can determine the design of their own course, their hours of operation, their standards for membership etc. We need not conclude that the governing body is shirking its responsibility to promote individual liberty simply because some golf courses (or even a majority) have closed membership policies.

The antidote for federal-sightedness is local activism. Local activism helps us to focus on those things which are within our locus of control thus making for a much more functional society. This was brought to my attention with the news today of a group that stopped waiting for federal funds before fixing a bridge that had been destroyed in a flood. Although they had as much claim on federal disaster relief funds as New Orleans after Katrina or Minneapolis after the collapse of the I-35 bridge they changed their focus from waiting for help to making a difference with what they had. The end result, their bridge is fixed sooner and without costing $4 million.

I have seen much evidence of federal-sightedness among those who are politically active online – in fact I have suffered from this malady myself. Thankfully I am coming to my senses and trying to be more involved in finding solutions that are closer to home. It is a move that was recently demonstrated by Rob Miller as he decided to shift his political activity from the state party level to the county party level. Obviously we need people involved at all levels but I am left wondering how many of our federal problems would evaporate or whither away to manageable levels if we were more busy as a society focusing on the issues directly around us and spending less time waiting for help from a larger society.

Our propensity for federal-sightedness has been assisted by newspapers focusing on larger and larger issues at the expense of focusing locally. The newspapers are suffering from that ill-considered shift and so is society. Hopefully if we shift our focus back closer to home we will experience a social renaissance in which our problems become manageable – just as I noted that newspapers with a local focus are surviving better than national papers.

There is an opposite to federal-sightedness which is local-sightedness. This condition ignores the larger society and holds dangers of its own. Thankfully it is a much more rare condition today than federal-sightedness.

Categories
General

How Do We Maximize Political Power


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

This is a question – not a dissertation. I would like to get more perspectives and experience than I have on the question of how citizens can have the most political influence. Suggestions must be activities that all citizens can participate – in other words, holding office does nto count because if I hold an office you can’t hold that office. Things like voting in general elections, primaries, caucus meetings, or party organizing conventions as well as activities such as writing to the newspaper or your elected representative are what I aam looking for – in other words activities where my action on an issue does not take away your chances of partaking in the same activity.

I’d like to know which activities are the most effective at bringing about the changes that citizens might be seeking and why. I’ll be sharing my own experience and the input I receive in a future post.

Categories
National

Accountability Now


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

MoveOn.org has proven that they can be a political force, so has The Daily Kos, and long before either of them existed labor unions were already very influential in politics. That made me very interested to read that those three were teaming up to form a new political action committee called Accountability Now.

Their stated goal is to help recruit and promote move liberal democratic candidates in areas where moderate democrats are currently in office. So how soon until they decide to target Jim Matheson? (And who would they get to challenge him in Utah?) One of their founders also raised the possibility of taking action in Republican primaries as well. (I can just imagine if they had been supporting Chris Cannon against Jason Chaffetz.)

So I’m curious about what other people think about this. It’s obviously a part of the internal debate that Reach talked about in comments earlier this week. Do we think that this approach to the internal debate is healthy, or destructive? Is it better news for Democrats or better news for Republicans – or is it simply bad news for proponents of a civil political process?

Categories
life Local

Running for Treasurer


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have decided to run for the position of Treasurer for the Davis County Republican Party. Those those who are interested can visit my campaign website although any regular readers here will not find any surprises there.

The vote is 8 weeks away, but call this an early invitation. Anyone in Davis County who is a registered republican is encouraged to support me at the party organizing convention. I see this as an opportunity to put my beliefs and principles into action to help make the Republican party the best it can be here in Davis County.

Categories
Local

Community Activism


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have not said anything about this before (mostly because I have not put much energy towards the cause) but today brought great news that the proposed cogeneration plant in West Bountiful has been put on hold. The thing that interested me is that there has been no government obstruction so far to the plans proposed by Consolidated Energy Utah. The thing that got the plans put on hold was the activism of citizens in the community. Most prominently, the Davis County Community Coalition (DC3).

This to me is a perfect example of a free society. Government is not necessary for every problem. The decisions and actions of DC3 are not binding on other communities. There have been no new government regulations created to drive up the cost of business in the future, but the community got what they wanted – no cogeneration plant. The real role of government is to ensure that citizens are free to make their own standards and enforce them without total disregard for the rights of the minority.