 |
| This was the array of candidate materials from the last primary election. They're just beginning to trickle in for 2020. |
We’re 177 days away from Primary Election Day (here in Texas—other
states may vary), looking beyond this November's election, which locally includes only ballot propositions and possibly school board positions.
2020 is a presidential election year, plus there may be senators,
governors, and other officials on your ballot. And all across the US there will
be congressmen on the ballot, since their term is two years.
That means, as a voter, you have a lot of homework to do. I’ve
tried from time to time to offer advice on getting the right information from candidates.
For example, from the Spherical Model website[i],
there are these qualifying questions you might ask a congressional candidate
who has to decide on policies in order to make laws:
· Is the policy being debated something that an
individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to
his/her government? For example, a
person has the right to protect his own life and property. He can, therefore,
combine resources with his neighbors and hire a government entity, such as a
sheriff, to do that job for him. Similarly, the several states can combine to
delegate the power of defending the nation to a national government entity.
Conversely, a person does not have the right to take his neighbor’s excess
grain production, for example, and bestow it on himself, because his neighbor
was more prosperous in a particular season. He can, of course, ask his neighbor
for charity, but he cannot coerce the neighbor to give. That would rightfully be
considered theft. Therefore, the person cannot delegate the redistribution of
wealth to the government to do for him.
· Does the policy infringe in any way on the
rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise
of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is
political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to
bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the
policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not
committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the
policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in
the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then
government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people.
· Is the idea being debated a proper role of
government, some aspect of protection (including defense, protection from
interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized
weights and measures and currency, the judiciary that guarantees the protective
laws), as enumerated in the Constitution? If not, then accepting the idea is
outside the Constitution and below the northern 45th parallel.
A couple of weeks ago at a townhall, my representative, Dan
Crenshaw, mentioned two important questions he asks when deciding on policy:
1. Is
this law going to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens?
2. Is
it going to have the effect you want it to have?
Let’s add to that something we say here often at the
Spherical Model:
Whenever government attempts something beyond the
proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it
causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the
interference.
There are some additional guiding questions for asking candidates,
divided into the Political, Economic, and Social spheres. It’s a good idea to
know your own answers to these questions before you ask them, so you know
whether the candidate is a good match to you, and you know you’re not easily
swayed by nice sounding words from people who are skilled at that kind of thing,
which is how they got into politics.
 |
| The three spheres of The Spherical Model |
Political Sphere—for preserving or
regaining freedom
· What do you believe is the proper role of
government, and what are the limits?
· Do you have favorite portions of the US
Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed,
clarified, or improved?
· When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that
you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive
and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?
· What do you believe is the proper balance
between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe
government needs to do to reach that balance?
· Who are your favorite examples of a good
president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?
· How do you define extremists, and what views do
you think are examples of extreme?
Economic Sphere—for preserving or regaining
prosperity
· What do you believe is the optimum percentage of
GNP that should be taken in taxes?
· What do you believe is the government’s role in
contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession
(as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?
· What do you believe is government’s role in the
distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?
· What do you believe should be government’s role
in charitable help to the poor and suffering?
· What do you believe are the purposes and limits
of the commerce clause of the Constitution?
· What do you believe is the role of the Federal
Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?
Social Sphere—for preserving or regaining
civilization
· What do you believe about the connection between
moral values and the law?
· Which institution is most responsible for
raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government,
churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?
· Which constituency’s desires is public education
best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local
government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?
· What do you believe should be government’s role
in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?
· What do you think is government’s role in
defining marriage, and why?
I wrote that list in 2013, at this time of year,
when we were starting to have the occasional candidate forum to prepare for the
2014 primary. There were a few additional questions I suggested that were issue
based, rather than strictly under the above categories. These questions have
held up surprisingly well, which may mean we haven’t made much progress. Again,
know your own answers to these questions ahead of time:
· What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and
what do you think should be done?
· What do you believe are the motivations of
people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?
· What are your beliefs about border security and
immigration?
· What do you believe is the proper role of
government concerning climate?
· What do you see as the US role in the world, and
what is your view of the UN?
· What are your opinions on national debt,
national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?
Here’s an additional clue: you won’t find a major Democrat
candidate answering these questions in a way that leads to freedom, prosperity,
or civilization. Not a single one of the 20+ Democrat presidential candidates
qualifies. I don’t know what you might find among Democrats at a very local
level, but their platform basically weeds them out. So then the problem comes
down to which Republican candidate can be trusted to understand how to get
toward freedom, prosperity, and civilization. At least that simplifies things.
 |
| Rep. Dan Crenshaw screenshot from his Facebook video August 10, 2019, 12:18 PM |
How do these conversations go? You want evidence that your
candidate fully understands the principles undergirding our Constitution—that it’s
their native language. Here’s an example.
About a month ago, Rep. Dan Crenshaw faced a number of
constituents about an issue that needed some further elucidation, because a
general term, “red flag laws,” has become incendiary—probably with good reason.
And yet, all of us want to figure out how to prevent mass shootings by deranged
individuals. We probably shouldn’t use that term at all. And maybe we don’t
even need a new law, but some policy for enforcing existing laws. Anyway, he
posted a video on Facebook that explained in a way that you will want your
candidates (whether already your representatives or not) to do. Fully, and calmly.
So emotion doesn’t overtake rationality. Here’s part of his response[ii]:
At its heart, what we’re talking about is the ability to
confiscate weapons when there is clear evidence that violence is about to be
committed. It’s that simple. And it isn’t that controversial.
What is controversial is how that due process is protected,
and I think that’s where a lot of these concerns are. Making sure that due
process could not be abused is at the heart of any conservative solution to the
supposed “red flag laws,” and our version of what those would look like.
I have laid out specific safeguards that would have to be in
place for us to support any type of “red flag law.” Among them would be clear
and convincing evidence, punishment for false accusations, right to attorney
and cross-examination, and limited standing so that not just anybody can accuse
you. For instance, not just a neighbor, not just an ex. It has to be somebody
with standing. Maybe a family member, or maybe only police officers. We’ve got
a great study by Cato Institute that lays this out exactly.
Here’s the thing: I understand your fears about bad “red flag
laws.” “Red flag law” is a general concept; there can be good ones, and there
can be bad ones. You should be against the bad ones, as I am.
The whole purpose of what the President did and what I am
doing in trying to start a conversation about this is so that we take control
of the narrative and propose solutions that actually do protect due process
rights, and ensure that we aren’t on the sidelines when Democrats are proposing
blatantly unconstitutional laws that would not protect due process.
Last thing is this: no one is saying this is definitely the
solution. It’s a conversation. I haven’t come out in support of any particular bill
or state law. It’s a conversation that conservatives have actually been having
for a very long time; it’s not new at all. And it definitely doesn’t deserve
the emotional reaction it has gotten. We are better than that. Let’s be better
than that.
[i]
From the article “The Political World Is Round,” the last section, “The
Principles of the Freedom Zone.”
[ii]
Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Facebook video post, August 10, 2019, 12:18 PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment