It was the most-watched political event in the history of
television, but I didn’t watch the presidential debate last night. I was
traveling. But I probably wouldn’t have watched it anyway. I have only a peripheral
interest, since the constitutional republic of the United States of America is
not what these two candidates wish to preside over. One wants to rule over the
United Socialist States of America—a country and concept I do not agree to be
ruled by. One wants to rule over the National Dictatorship of America, which will
be great, and yuge, believe it—except
I don’t believe it.
Trump and Clinton first debate 2016 Image from here
I learned one thing during this past eight years: don’t
listen to the speeches. I read, instead of watch or listen. With Obama, it has had to do with his tone. I
hear condescension, and disdain for me and people who believe as I do, because
we are a hindrance to him and his anti-constitutional intentions. And there are
the grating verbal tics—the ubiquitous ums
and uhs, the use of “folks” that
never sounds real, the use of a long a
when the indefinite article a comes
before a consonant, even though none of us talk that way normally, which means
it’s an affectation or a teleprompter-reading problem. So even the little
things grate. Listening is not only hard on me, it makes me harder on the
speaker than I would be without the additional auditory and visual input.
And last night we had two of the most grating voices America
could come up with. Hillary sounds like she is always yelling. She sounds
stiff, stilted, and annoyed—as if it is beneath her to condescend to do this
talking to the public that a campaign requires. The term harpy seems to have been created for such a voice. If she were
saying things that were valuable to our constitutional republic, the voice
would be something we would just have to be tolerant and forgiving of. But, in
her case, the voice comes with lies, deceptions, and power-mongering. I think
we’re justified in hating that voice.
Then comes the carnival barker voice of Donald Trump. Like a
used car salesman, he hides the details and just says, “Believe me,” when he
has provided nothing beyond is over-bloated personal opinion to go on. It is an
unseemly voice, often speaking unseemly and anti-constitutional things. Some
people find that voice entertaining on a reality TV show; it was unappealing to
me even when that is all it was.
So, I did not watch. But I will be looking at transcripts.
And I offer that as a better tool for judging how the debate went, if you care.
So that you can experience the debate without the talking
over one another, and without the tonal problems, here is the full transcript.
Here is a partial transcript interspersed with an NPR attempt
to fact check (so consider the source).
I am beyond believing any presidential choice this year can
get us out of tyranny, back up to northern hemisphere freedom. I am interested
in what I can do to make my community, my state, and then my nation a place of freedom,
prosperity, and civilization.
This debate offers me no option for my vote. But
if a future debate includes independent candidate Evan McMullin and, possibly, Libertarian candidate
Gary Johnson (who is not on my list to possibly get my vote, but who should be
in on the debate), I might be willing to tune in.
A couple of weeks ago I read this piece by Stu Burguiere,
which I thought was entertaining but impossible. But because I’ve been looking
for something to hope for. Stu describes his scenario:
First, don’t try to get to 270 electoral votes. If no
candidate gets to 270, then the Constitution dictates that the incoming House
of Representatives would vote for President. Each state delegation would get
one vote. The good news? Republicans currently hold over 30 of the state
delegations, and therefore would select the next President from the top three
candidates with electoral votes. You must have at least one electoral vote to
be considered.
There are plenty of logistical problems with this, which we
can address in a moment. But, let’s address the most pressing first. How does
this NOT help Hillary Clinton?
The answer: You have to be very selective. Don’t try to get
on the ballots of 50 states, or even 25. The goal is to get on the ballot of a
few deep red states that Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning anyway.
Essentially, you hurt Trump without helping Hillary.
Again: we never take
one vote from Donald Trump in a state that Hillary Clinton can win.
Here are the scenarios that could happen:
1.If
Hillary gets 270, she’s the President. But she wins entirely with electoral
votes from states in which our conservative third party candidate is not on the
ballot. In other words, we had nothing to do with her victory.
2.If
Trump wins in a convincing way, he’s the President. Even if he loses a few of
our small deep red states, he’ll still have more than enough to get 270
electoral votes if he can pull off a decent amount of the purple states where
he goes head to head with Hillary.
3.If
Trump wins in a squeaker and would have just cleared 270 electoral votes, our
candidate would grab enough electoral votes to throw it to the House. Then the
Constitutional magic happens.
Do I think this scenario is likely to play out? No. Is it
possible? Maybe.
And I would never vote for Trump because he is a
narcissistic, authoritarian bully—something like we’ve suffered under for the
past two terms, but with even more obvious character flaws. So, no.
That means that I need an alternative. That could be a third-party or
independent candidate, or a write-in. I’ve been willing to write-in Ted Cruz,
even if I’m told I’m not allowed to, if it comes down to that. Or I would leave
that race blank—which comes with some risks, because presidential undervote is
rare and might look invalid.
So I was willing to hear from Gary Johnson. Some people I
respect like him. He was reportedly a good Republican governor of New Mexico.
Already he’s better than Hillary or Donald.
But there are some big flaws. He’s
ready to legalize drugs—let the buyer (addict) beware. He’s pro-abortion—because
it’s about doing what you want—even though in this case there’s another human
life at stake. And his stance on religious freedom is more than troublesome. He
sees it as an issue of religions using their beliefs as an excuse for bigotry,
so government should step in and coerce service.
The issue at stake here is mainly about same-sex “marriage,”
and requiring bakers, photographers, and florists to perform services against
their religious beliefs. Johnson, who usually qualifies as a libertarian,
thinks government ought to override religious freedom and coerce the services. I’ve
heard him explain that position a couple of times; every time his clarification
makes me sure I heard him right the first time.
So, Gary Johnson would almost certainly be less bad than the
two main party candidates. But if I’’m looking for a soul-saving vote, he’s not
it.
Then, on Monday, a new candidate entered the race.
His name is Evan McMullin. Chances are you’ve never heard of
him before this week. I hadn’t. But if you’re looking for a candidate with national
security, economic, and legislative experience, he’s there. He spent a decade
as an anti-terrorism specialist with the CIA. Then he got an MBA and worked a
few years for Goldman-Sachs. Then he went to work as a policy advisor for the
House of Representatives.
He’s a conservative Republican—running as an independent. Normally
an independent getting into the race this late would be hardly noticeable,
because there would be no chance. Maybe it would be about getting a little
attention for a particular issue or point of view. But in this case McMullin
might be noteworthy.
He happens to be a Mormon. To us Mormons, or those who know
Mormons really well, we know what it takes to live that lifestyle. We’re pretty
much the definition of social conservatives. No alcohol or drugs. No sex
outside of marriage. Honest. Trustworthy. Kind. Charitable and service
oriented.
It’s not something you can easily fake. We’re very connected
people. While I don’t yet know anyone who personally knows McMullin, I wouldn’t
be surprised if I come across someone who has in the next couple of weeks.
This is important, because there are a lot of Latter-day
Saints who love America, are loyal to the Constitution, and despise the idea
that either Clinton or Trump might become president. They’ve been looking at
Gary Johnson—or any other alternative—to possibly deserve their vote.
McMullin is opening and headquartering his campaign in Utah.
It’s actually possible that he could win in Utah. And maybe also Idaho and
other Intermountain West states with a significant Mormon population. I don’t
know if we’ve got big enough numbers to help in many other states. But if he
wins a few states, that might be enough to trigger Stu’s scenario.
McMullin claims he is working to be competitive in all
states, that things are underway to get his name on the ballot. We’ll see if he
can pull that off.
Since Monday, I’ve heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s Tuesday morning radio show (might require subscription to hear). Hewitt is conservative, but he doesn’t
suffer fools easily. It was respectful, and McMullin presented himself well.
Then I saw a longish Bloomberg interview, from Monday. McMullin had a chance to go over his
history and background, his policies, and his reasons for getting into the
race. He waited, hoping someone with more name recognition would step up. But,
at this nearly last minute, he decided to go for it. He’s had a team looking
into the possibilities for some months, because there are some big challenges
getting on ballots across the country.
There’s a Monday night ABC News interview where he takes on
Clinton and Trump, asserting they are both are "woefully unfit for the
responsibilities they seek." While he’s careful about the words he uses,
he doesn’t hold back. I think it was in this interview I heard him say, "I've spent my life trying to serve and avoiding the limelight. Trump has spent his life avoiding service and seeking the limelight."
He’s got a statement on each. I’ve read them. For the most
part we’re in agreement. Even where we’re not exactly aligned, I don’t know yet
if that is careful speaking on his part. I was for Ted Cruz all the way. Cruz
speaks in bold capital letters. McMullin speaks sotto voce but mostly head on. There’s enough here that I want to
know more.
This is a little like starting to date someone. You’ve had a
really good first date. Wanted to keep talking. Want to get together again
really soon. See if this will go somewhere. You want it to. Especially because—as
a twist to the story—you’ve got three months to make the commitment or you’ll
lose your inheritance. Something like that.
So, I’m not sure I know everything I need to know just three
days into the relationship. But I’m hopeful. I’d like to have a country-saving
vote. But at the very least, I’m hopeful that in McMullin I’ll have a
soul-saving vote.
The world at large seems to have an inaccurate definition,
at best, of the word conservative. They
would say conservative means
unwilling to change, stodgy, boring, stuck in the past, overly careful. And in
the political world, the way the media (aligned with Democrats/ liberals/ progressives/ socialists)
defines conservative as racist,
bigoted, jingoistic, stingy, as well as unwilling to change, etc.
It’s always better to define your own terms, rather than to
have enemies define who you are.
Back in October I wrote a piece called “What We Conserve.” I
said then that I’d like to ask presidential candidates, “Are you
conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?” In Saturday’s
Republican debate in New Hampshire there was a question that came close, asked
of three candidates in different forms. So I’d like to take a look at how they answered, and then compare to the standard I was looking for. (I’m editing Kasich for
length, but trying not to cut anything essential to the meaning. You can get
the entire transcript here.)
The moderator here is ABC’s David Muir. He asks John Kasich
first:
MUIR: We’re going to turn now to what it means to be a
conservative, and I want to turn to Governor Kasich.
Governor, while campaigning here in New Hampshire, you were
already asked about groans from some conservatives after your endorsements from
the New York Times, and the Boston Globe. You said, quote, “What
conservatives have to know is they have to say, look isn’t it nice to have a
conservative like me liked? And, maybe they ought to think about it because if
I get elected president, the Republican party and the definition of
conservatism is going to change.”
How would you change conservatism?
KASICH: Well, first of all, look. As the New York Times said,
he’s certainly not a moderate, but he can bring people together to solve
problems. The fact of the matter is I’ve cut taxes more than anybody in the
country this year. I have balanced budgets, the federal budget, the state of
Ohio budget…
But, here’s the beauty of it, it’s not just balancing a
budget, it’s about jobs….
We have to have economic growth, but once we have economic
growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows. I
believe we need to help the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor.
We need to help the developmentally disabled to rise, and we need to help our
friends in the minority community develop entrepreneurship.
In other words, in America, conservatism should mean not only
that some rise with conservative principles, but everybody has a chance to rise
regardless of who they are so they can live their God given purpose. That’s
what conservatism should be.
OK, to summarize, conservatism means solving problems,
cutting taxes, balancing budgets, jobs, economic growth, and then helping the
disadvantaged to rise.
I don’t want to quibble over words, but conservatism might
lead to those things, but it isn’t those things without a context of some
philosophy.
Next David Muir turns to Donald Trump:
MUIR: Mr. Trump, you’ve heard the argument from many of the
candidates on this stage that you’re not a true conservative. Tell the voters
watching tonight why you are.
TRUMP: Well, I think I am, and to me, I view the word conservative as a derivative…of the word
conserve. We want to conserve our
money. We want to conserve our wealth. We want to conserve. We want to be
smart. We want to be smart where we go, where we spend, how we spend. We want
to conserve our country. We want to save our country. And we have people that
have no idea how to do that and they are not doing it, and it’s a very
important word and it’s something I believe in very, very strongly.
He does approach this as a word definition question. What we
conserve is money, wealth. Conservatives are smart about spending, about
economic issues. And we conserve, or save, our country, unlike the incompetents
failing to do that now.
So, it’s a conservative approach to money, not defined, and
saving our country, not defined. If this were a high school answer, I’d give it
a B-. Not completely wrong or irrelevant, but very surface. If this were a
college answer, I’d send it back for a rewrite, with some details, and more
than just “conserve money and country” without showing anything concrete about
what that might mean.
Next David Muir asks Marco Rubio to respond to Trump’s
answer, which he uses it to give his own
definition:
MUIR: Senator Rubio, you have said yourself that you don’t
think Donald Trump is running as a conservative. Did he convince you?
RUBIO: Well, I think conservatism is about three things and
Donald touched on one of them, but it’s about three things.
The first is, conservatism is about limited government,
especially at the federal level. The federal government is a limited
government, limited by the Constitution, which delineates its powers. If it’s
not in the Constitution, it does not belong to the federal government. It
belongs to states, local communities, and the private sector.
It’s about free enterprise, which is an economic model that
allows everyone to rise without pulling anyone down. The reason why free
enterprise is the greatest economic model in the history of the world is
because it’s the only economic model where you can make poor people richer
without making rich people poor.
And it’s about a strong national defense. It’s about
believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place
when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet.
That’s conservatism.
I didn’t cut any of his words. When you only have a minute
or two, you have to be concise, and he was. Three parts: limited government,
free enterprise, and strong national defense. That is close to being the
complete three-legged stool of conservatism, except that he separates out small
government and strong security, along with free enterprise. Those three are
considered the basics by many. But small government and strong security both
apply to the Political Sphere. So what's missing is the social/civilization
sphere—which Rubio in general is strong on. So although his answer misses that,
he’s pretty good.
I’m always looking for better, shorter, more direct ways to
say things. So I was interested in an interview Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse did
on MSNBC with Chuck Todd in late January.
Here's the transcript:
CHUCK TODD: What is a conservative, in your view, today?
Define conservatism in the 21st Century, via Ben Sasse.
BEN SASSE: Thanks. That is a great question. America is the most
exceptional nation in the history of the world, because the US Constitution is
the best political document that’s ever been written. Because it says something
different than almost any people and any government has believed in human
history. Most governments in the past said might makes right, and the king has
all the power, and the people are dependent subjects. And the American founders
said, “No. God gives us rights by nature, and government is just our shared
project to secure those rights.”
Government is not the author or source of our rights, and you
don’t make America great again by giving more power to one guy in Washington,
DC. You make America great again by recovering a constitutional republic where
Washington is populated by people who are servant leaders, who want to return
power to the people and to the communities. Because what’s great in America is
the Rotary Club, it’s small businesses, it’s churches, it’s schools, it’s fire
departments, and it’s little leagues across this country.
What makes America great is not some guy in Washington who
says, “If I had more power I could fix it all unilaterally. That’s not the
American tradition.
So, we conserve the Constitution.
It’s about government preserving our God-given rights. To recover the
Constitution, we need servant leaders. America is great because of good
American people and local organizations.
He covers the political and social
sphere, but the economic sphere only by inference. Still, in a brief minute he
nails it. “Government is just our shared project to secure those rights” is a
sentence worth memorizing.
I still take longer than a minute
to get the ideas out. But here’s a review of what we conserve in each of the
three spheres, from the October piece:
Political: If
we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to
infringe on our God-given rights….
If you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a
commitment to conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of
these limited duties of the proper role of government.
Economic: There’s
a simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.
Government doesn’t have much business being involved in the
economy, except to protect our property….
So, a conservative not only wants small, limited government,
but limits spending to the proper role of government, leaving the largest
portion of income to the people who earn it.
This conservative approach to the economy is the engine
behind thriving prosperity and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of
the way of a productive people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s
wealth and their freedom to pursue their work.
Social/Civilization: Civilization
requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human
life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally
live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture….
A conservative leader recognizes that religion is… an
essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our
obligations to one another are….
A conservative leader lives a life that shows commitment to
family. Such a leader would have no sexual scandals coming up from the near or
distant past. Such leaders would be so consistent that all those who know
him/her would stand up to defend against such an accusation, because they would
know such an accusation is inconceivable.
A conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she
tithes (ten percent of income) plus more, regardless of income level.
A conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his
word is his bond, and everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes
deals in darkness. He doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving
“bribes” or offering them. He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate
to him does it with the clear knowledge that as an elected official he will
vote based on principle.
We can sum this up the same way we did in October:
The answer to what we conserve ought to include clear
evidence of understanding of the Constitution and its purpose, strong
commitment to the free market and property rights, and strong personal
religious practice that values family and marriage, innocent life, and truth.
And the answer must come naturally, as part of the basic vocabulary, because
the person is a natural conservator of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.
In∙teg∙ri∙ty
n.
1. The
quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness;
entirety 2. The quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition;
soundness 3. The quality or state of being of sound moral principle;
uprightness, honesty, and sincerity—SYN.
See HONESTY
Integrity is a good thing. A virtue. Something we value if
we want thriving civilization.
So it’s something we want—need—in our leaders.
That’s why I was concerned a couple of evenings ago when I
first saw the story that the Ted Cruz campaign had sent out a false story that
Carson was dropping out of the race in order to persuade Carson caucus goers Monday
night to change to Cruz. At the first moment I felt a sort of kick in the gut.
But since I’ve done quite a lot of vetting of Senator Cruz—for years, since I
vetted him when he ran for the Senate from Texas—I thought there must be
something more to the story. And there was.
Much more detail came out yesterday. I didn’t do the
original research on this; you probably heard it from several sources already. (Jennifer
Burke at Politistick, Mark Levin on his radio show, Dana Loesch on The Blaze,[i]
for example). I’m not a news outlet. So
after we summarize the story, we’ll get to the commentary.
CNN reporter Chris Moody heard from as-yet unidentified person in the Carson campaign that, instead of heading to New Hampshire and South Carolina, Carson was heading home to Florida for some R&R before Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast. He took this news and tweeted it. CNN then reported this on TV at 6:45 PM (Iowa
time, so shortly before the Iowa caucuses began)—Dana Bash and Jake Tapper,
during their Iowa Caucus coverage. The banner over their report said, “Campaign:
Carson to take break after Iowa.” They noted that this was unprecedented for a
presidential campaign—unless they were planning to drop out, they implied. So
that was the natural speculation.
Five minutes later the Carson campaign began trying to
clarify: they were heading to Florida to avoid a storm and to pick up some
fresh clothes. Getting that clarification to spread took some time.
By 7:00 the Cruz campaign put out the news to precinct
captions in Iowa, saying, specifically:
Breaking news. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is
taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big
announcement next week. Please inform and Carson caucus goers of this news and
urge them to caucus for Ted Cruz.
It was signed by Spence Rogers. Shortly afterward Iowa’s
Steve King tweeted the same message, as did the Ted Cruz campaign, including a
screen shot of the CNN story in the tweet.
The Rubio campaign also pushed the story. The evidence is a
tweet by Rubio proponent Conrad Close.
This was posted at 7:29 Iowa time, Monday, as the caucuses
started. Almost twenty-four hours later Rubio was on Fox News with Megyn Kelly,
decrying the unfair dirty tricks of the Cruz campaign, righteously indignant,
saying his campaign was above such things. The above tweet still existed at 7:29 PM Tuesday,
during that interview, but disappeared at 7:30, which wouldn’t have been known
if the Politistick writer hadn’t
taken a screen shot.
Backing up to the Iowa caucuses. Going in, Carson was
polling fourth; he came in fourth—with a higher percentage than predicted.
There are no stories of visible scrambling and discussing the story among Iowa caucusgoers
of Carson leaving. There was no visible exodus of Carson voters. Nor are there,
to date, any anecdotal stories of individuals who changed because of the news
story (or Cruz's campaign's passing it on, or Rubio's either) about Carson’s plans.
Following the outcome Monday, Trump even sounded somewhat
subdued and humbled—honored to have come in second, which was more than
originally expected. When asked about that low-key attitude change, he said he
was trying to be a bit dialed back, and presidential sounding, because some
people like that, he was told. The point is, Monday night he congratulated Cruz
and was unaware of anything amiss in the caucuses.
The Cruz campaign didn’t lie. They didn’t stretch the truth.
They repeated what was being told on the news, which is fair game. That is what
we think the Rubio campaign was doing as well.
On Tuesday, after the Cruz campaign note came to the
attention of Carson, he called it dirty tricks, and what you expect from
politicians, and why we need a non-politician, etc. In other words, he took
political advantage of the situation to advance his own campaign narrative.
Ted Cruz did what you would expect of someone with integrity.
He apologized for the misunderstanding. Some people took this to be an
admission of guilt. Later he clarified that there had been a misunderstanding based
on the CNN news report (it wasn’t, by the way, the Cruz campaign’s
misinterpretation, but the CNN reporter’s wording and subsequent speculation,
which the Cruz campaign merely passed along as newsworthy), and his apology
specifically was that, once they became aware of Carson’s clarification (which
came to them during the heat of the ongoing caucuses), they didn’t send out a follow-up
correction. They hadn’t said Carson was ending his campaign, but they were
apologizing for not following up to say directly that Carson wasn’t dropping
out.
Carson invokes his Christianity, and Cruz’s, and refuses to
accept the apology.
Rubio, as noted above, decides Cruz’s note was purposefully
deceptive, and fails to mention the use of the same information by his own
campaign.
Trump opportunistically decides that a huge injustice has
been done to his dear friend and fellow candidate, Ben Carson. So this is, in
his opinion, a monumental bad deed done by Cruz personally, because he’s an
evil person. And then it becomes about him. He decides to claim that a huge
portion of Cruz voters resulted from this dirty fraud, and if it hadn’t been
for this huge shift of voters from Carson to Cruz, Cruz wouldn’t have had a
high enough percentage to beat Trump. So he calls for a redo of the entire
caucus, or at least a negation of Cruz’s win—depriving him of his delegates,
leaving Trump the winner. How convenient.
Back up to November, when Carson was leading in national
polls. Trump trashed him daily in his ubiquitous media, going so far as saying
he’s pathologically violent—incurable, like a pathological sex offender. Mark Levin catalogued those attacks on his radio show (particularly at 12 minutes
in). That was what Trump calls fair. But
what Cruz did was so costly to Carson that he should be disqualified entirely?
So, what we see is pretty much what we expect from all the
characters, if we’ve been paying attention:
Cruz is gracious and meticulously scrupled. He has
integrity, which we had supposed all along.
Carson is overly sensitive and politically inexperienced. A
bad thing happened to him—apparently because of his own behavior, which had
meaning that he did not anticipate. He’s angry at Ted Cruz in the moment and
unwilling to forgive—for now. But I think, as things play out, and Cruz becomes
the nominee, Carson will get over the immediate anger and disappointment and see things
more clearly. He won’t remain unforgiving. I’m guessing that. Maybe he is just
using this as an opportunity to get sympathy and invoke his “non-politicians
are better” message. That is happening. But I think he really is a decent
person who hasn’t yet grasped his own role in this kerfuffle. He doesn't appear to be fully in integrity at the moment, but I expect he will get there again.
Rubio may or may not be aware that his own campaign was
doing precisely what he calls underhanded from the Cruz campaign. If he knows,
he’s simply a slick liar when it comes to politics. If he didn’t know, he’s
using this opportunity to attack an opponent in the race—because that is what
politicians do. Lying about it is completely out of integrity. Taking advantage
of it in a campaign is what politicians do, but I don’t like it. But it doesn’t
make him worse than whoever our Democrat opponent will be. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and guessing it's a political opportunity rather than outright lie, based on what we’ve seen of him in the past. So I don’t completely
write him off, even though he’s not my choice. I’m hoping that years of
experience will lead him to greater integrity.
Donald Trump is what we have come to expect: self-centered,
opportunistic, lying, manipulative, a bully and a sore loser. He clearly doesn’t
care about Ben Carson; we know that from his own voluminous words. He doesn’t
know what fraud is in legal terms. But he’s willing to use his money to try to buy, through
lawsuits or other means, the outcome he wants for his own advantage. Integrity
is not a word we apply to Donald Trump. “The quality or state of being of sound
moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity” is a definition that rarely intersects with him even tangentially.
One more mention about integrity: Rand Paul. He bowed out
Tuesday (Santorum and Huckabee also bowed out). This presidential race wasn’t the right time for
Rand Paul, as it was never the right time for his father. But he served a
purpose in the conversation. The debate connects with the Constitution much
more than it would have without Ron and Rand Paul input. Rand Paul and I don’t agree on
everything. He’s libertarian, and I am not quite. But I believe the conversation needs
to be between conservatives and libertarians talking about the Constitution. I
think Paul has been honorable. He hasn’t been altering his message in a
misguided attempt to get more mainstream voters. I appreciate his integrity in
this campaign. It would have been a better political season if his message had
been magnified in place of Trump’s. It is my hope that his followers will
recognize Cruz as the closest to their cause.
Integrity is something we want and need in a leader, but it’s
a rarity in politicians. Ted Cruz is a rarity. I’m glad the truth came out
quickly this week, when his integrity was impugned. If it had been true—or unrefuted—it
would have done more damage to Ted Cruz than anything said about Carson's going
home after Iowa.
[i]
This link might require a subscription to view.
There’s a
question I’d like to ask candidates—presidential candidates have our attention
now, but it’s a question for anyone who asks to be allowed to lead us. I’d like
to ask: Are you conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?
Any typical
conservative is likely to say, “Yes, I’m conservative.” They may even believe
they’re conservative. So what we need is how they define it.
The GOP Presidential Candidates, including Perry and Walker, who have withdrawn from the race Image found here
In
the Spherical Model, what we want to conserve—or, in large part, to restore—is freedom,
prosperity, and civilization. Let’s look at the specifics of what is conserved
in each of these spheres.
Political Sphere
We want to
conserve our freedom to live our lives, free from oppression. Government serves
that purpose only if it is limited to the specific tasks the people ask of it.
Otherwise government becomes the oppressor.
Our
founding documents give us some specifics. The Declaration of Independence
summarizes freedom this way:
We hold
these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So our
life is protected, our freedom from coercion or slavery is protected, and our
choice to pursue a livelihood or live our lives as we see fit. This last
includes our right to own property and protect it.
The
Constitution outlines a government that would offer these protections. The
Preamble lists this limited government’s purpose:
We the
People of the United States,
·in
Order to form a more perfect Union,
·establish
Justice,
·insure
domestic Tranquility,
·provide
for the common defence,
·promote
the general Welfare,
·and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The body
of the Constitution spells out how a government can go about these limited
duties. But the founders believed it was necessary to spell out some of the
God-given rights in the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments, in case there
came a time when they weren’t quite so self-evident. Here are a few of the
rights government is particularly denied the ability to abridge, because in
their experience other countries regularly denied these rights:
·Right
of freedom of religion
·Right
of free speech
·Right
to peaceably assemble
·Right
to petition government from redress (sue the government)
·Right
to bear arms
·Right
to freedom from coercion to quarter soldiers
·Right
to freedom from illegal searches and seizures
·Right
to refuse to incriminate oneself, and to be free from double jeopardy
·Right
to life, liberty, and property except following due process of law
·Right
to just compensation for private property taken for public use
·Right
to a speedy, public trial by impartial jury
·Right
to freedom from excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment
·Rights
enumerated to government are still retained by the people
·Rights
not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the
States or to the people
If we’re
going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe
on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what
we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do
infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our
Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected
judges.
When these government powers are translated into current issues, the government should be seeing to the
strength of our sovereignty, the security of our borders, the limitation of
immigration to those who will contribute to our society and adopt our beliefs
in freedom. Our military should be strong, to protect us and our interests, in
a world in which enemies would rejoice in our ruination, and would gladly use
nuclear weaponry and terrorism for our destruction.
If
you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a commitment to
conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of these limited
duties of the proper role of government.
Economic Sphere
There’s a
simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.
Government
doesn’t have much business being involved in the economy, except to protect our
property. Government duties do require some money. For the first century and a
half, that didn’t require any income tax. At first, doing all government needed
to do took $20 per person (modern dollars). And during war time, only a few
hundred a year. If the federal government did only what it is granted
enumerated powers to do, a flat rate of 10% would probably be far beyond
adequate.
Every
dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more
money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone
says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.
The budget
should primarily consist of military budget and FBI and other federal law
enforcement. Infrastructure is arguably a federal duty, so there could be some
budget for roads, dams, bridges, etc. Government offices and staffing could be
much much smaller than current levels. And, after my recent visit to Washington,
DC, I’m not against maintaining our national monuments and museums.
Charity
isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government.
Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to
give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare
food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.
Conservatives
don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those
in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as
churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love;
it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing
conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help
those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater
prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.
So, a
conservative not only wants small, limited government, but limits spending to
the proper role of government, leaving the largest portion of income to the
people who earn it.
This
conservative approach to the economy is the engine behind thriving prosperity
and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of the way of a productive
people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s wealth and their
freedom to pursue their work.
Social Sphere—Civilization
Elected
officials have power mainly over the political and economic spheres, but there
is also important work they can do in the social sphere—if they understand what
civilization requires, and they live those principles in their own life.
Civilization
requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human
life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally
live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.
It’s
possible to live in a civilized society without believing in God, as long as a
person values the same things as the typical religious person. But civilization
(my definition) can’t grow and thrive without a critical mass that sees the
source of our rights as God, and sees our obligation to live God’s laws. It’s
great if non-believing individuals choose to live good, civilized lives. But
depending on their gut feeling as to what is right is precarious at best. The
authority has to be something bigger than the changeable individual. It has to
be the arbiter of Ultimate Good. God is the only source for that.
So, it’s
possible, at some levels, for civilized but unbelieving persons to be
electable. But at the national level, electing such a person is a bad idea.
Electing someone based on their particular religious affiliation or claim to
religiosity is also unwise. What we need to see is a person who turns to God
for direction, daily and regularly, and knows what inspiration looks like when
finding answers to serious questions. And we need a person whose life shows us
their consistency in valuing family, life, property, and truth. We need a
person with integrity.
A
religious person missing other ingredients is better than a nonreligious person
missing the other things. But it’s better to have a religious person who
understands how religious values lead to Constitutional principles and economic
freedom.
A
civilized religious person knows government should not be interfering with fit
parents’ decisions about the care, education, and upbringing of their children.
Such a person would value adoption for children born to unwed parents—exclusively
placing those children in the homes of married mother and father, because every
child is entitled to a married mother and father. Such a person sees no role
for the federal government in education beyond providing a resource for new and
proven ideas, and providing government documentation for history. Even state
and local officials must recognize the parents’ supreme role in decisions about
their child.
Family is
formed when a man and woman are lawfully married, with a permanent covenant, so
that children that come because of the union are raised by their parents. There
is nothing better economically and socially, in the aggregate, for children. A
good leader recognizes this basic truth, and doesn’t yield to media, propaganda,
and pressure from the savage end of society.
A conservative
leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority
of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand
what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question
about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists,
and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our
leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.
A conservative
leader lives a life that shows commitment to family. Such a leader would have
no sexual scandals coming up from the near or distant past. Such leaders would
be so consistent that all those who know him/her would stand up to defend
against such an accusation, because they would know such an accusation is
inconceivable.
A
conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she tithes (ten percent of
income) plus more, regardless of income level.
A
conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his word is his bond, and
everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes deals in darkness. He
doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving “bribes” or offering them.
He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate to him does it with the
clear knowledge that as an elected official he will vote based on principle.
So, the
answer to what we conserve ought to include clear evidence of understanding of
the Constitution and its purpose, strong commitment to the free market and
property rights, and strong personal religious practice that values family and
marriage, innocent life, and truth. And the answer must come naturally, as part
of the basic vocabulary, because the person is a natural conservator of
freedom, prosperity, and civilization.
It’s a
high bar. No presidential Democrat candidate meets it. Several Republican candidates fail. I’m looking
at the others, and praying for the best we can possibly get. Because that is
who we need more than ever.
