What Is It We Conserve Again?

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:

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

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 21^st 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.

Integrity

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.

Here’s the order of events.

Tweet, image from Politistick

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.

The Cruz campaign tweet, image from here

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.

Tweet, image from Politistick

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.

The Matchup

I stayed up and watched the Republican presidential debate Thursday night. We’re only a couple more weeks away from the first primary (Iowa, followed by New Hampshire). Texas early voting starts in a month, and our primary day is March 1^st. So it may be time to settle down and make an endorsement.

I’m for Ted Cruz. I’ve been for Ted Cruz since more than a year before he announced his campaign. I voted for him in the straw poll at the 2014 state GOP convention, and picked up a button, just in case. And the promises he has kept as our senator from Texas have kept me in his camp.

So the debates are of interest to me, not to convince me who to vote for, but for me to see what is being said, and what the other candidates are like. (Transcript available here.)

I have also been strongly against Donald Trump since he announced. I think he is an embarrassment to conservatives—because he isn’t one. And he isn’t much of an improvement over the other narcissist authoritarian/dictator/tyrant we’ve been suffering from for the past seven years—the candidate Trump voted for, back just a few years ago. I’m guessing he also voted for Hillary as senator from New York, since that happened during the time he was still calling himself a Democrat.

So, you can expect my view of the debate to be colored by my feelings. However, because I know that, I’m trying to avoid knee-jerk reactions and get a more accurate view of what’s really happening.

What I witnessed was apparently not the same debate the commentators were watching. Immediately afterward they couldn’t say strongly enough how they thought Trump had been brilliant and was the clear winner. That is exactly the opposite of what I saw happen.

Before I talk about Trump and Cruz, let me mention the others—all of whom appeared reasonable and appealing. In another year, any of them might seem quite electable. Maybe even John Kasich, who hasn’t ever been impressive but is, as last night, well-spoken and competent sounding. And while Jeb Bush is on my list of absolutely not getting my vote—because his view on Common Core reveals he doesn’t understand the Constitutional limits of government, nor government’s basic limited role—he also appears reasonable and conservative.

I am a Christie fan. I find him entertaining and appealing. When he says conservative things, he says them with color and clarity that delight me. I feel confident in his economic conservatism, his grasp of foreign affairs, and his willingness to stand up against the tremendous liberal push in his own state of New Jersey. However, on social issues I have my doubts. So I would rather look at him somewhere in the future.

I also like Marco Rubio. People keep talking about him as the youthful optimist, which I find puzzling. He is youthful. But he counters that by sounding very serious—always. He’s clear. He’s articulate. He gives you the sense that he understands the issues clearly and can explain and persuade with some ease. The main drawback is his Gang of 8 participation in an attempt to do “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is translated as “path to citizenship for illegal aliens.”

There is, of course, a need for real comprehensive reform—an easier, fairer process. Something much less Vogon-like. But that can’t be accomplished until the borders are secure. Those of us with some experience recognize that the federal government cannot be trusted on this. They have had funding provided for a border fence, and they failed to use the money and build it. This administration has gone out of its way to allow in illegals and possible terrorists pretending to by refugees—without an appropriate vetting—while keep the process as painful as ever for law-abiding potential immigrants.

I’m guessing Rubio learned that truth the hard way. I’m willing to forgive him for that one thing, pending future evidence that he now knows better.

However, his attacks on Ted Cruz are losing me. This may be some acceptable part of campaigning. I can roll my eyes and ignore it from some PAC. But right there before our eyes, coming from Rubio himself, it was unseemly. And untrue. Attempts to characterize Cruz as inconsistent and dishonest are going to fail, because Cruz is about the most consistent elected official any of us have ever encountered. Plus, his specialty is the law, particularly the Constitution, which is the basis of our law. He’s scrupulously law-abiding. If your campaign depends on painting Cruz as something other than he is, maybe you need to be self-aware enough to realize you don’t measure up.

That said, if the nominee were Rubio, while he wouldn’t be my first choice, I believe I could support him. He would take us in the right direction.

Now, about the two main characters.

Trump appeared petty, vindictive, proud, and uninformed. As usual. The target this time was clearly Ted Cruz. The particular attack that Trump trumped up (pun intended) was the birther issue. It came ahead of the debate, so Cruz was ready for it.

Do you really think one of the best Constitutional scholars ever to run for president would not know whether or not he is a natural-born citizen? He is, of course. He was born to a native American mother; his father was a refugee from Cuba who was not planning to return to Cuba. While Canada may be one country that would allow Cruz to consider himself to be a native Canadian, if he had stayed there from birth onward—unlike most countries—he was his mother’s son, an American.

When they moved back to the US, when Cruz was still a preschooler, there was no need to apply for naturalization; he was already a US citizen. To assume that his parents could return to the US with him, where he would live the rest of his life, and raise him as a Canadian instead of an American is absurd. As the law in practice has said repeatedly. Words with the nat root refer to birth: nature, native, nativity, natal. He was born a native American citizen, not naturalized (made native through a legal process) later.

Cruz pointed out that in September Trump had been asked the question about Cruz’s eligibility, and he had said he had asked his lawyers and there was no question about Cruz’s eligibility. As Cruz said, “Since September the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have.”

What had changed was the threat in the polls from Cruz. Trump insisted temporarily that his only thought was the Republican party, because there will be a legal challenge to Cruz’s eligibility. But eventually he admitted that he brings it up now, because Cruz is doing better.

In other words, he lied about it not being an issue in September because he didn’t think Cruz was important enough. Or he’s lying about it now, because Cruz is a threat.

The exchange was highly entertaining. Cruz verified that the main Trump’s legal expert was a far-left partisan—so no wonder Hillary, et al., are jumping on with Trump’s claim. Some of the experts twist the “natural-born citizen” law to the point that they insist a presidential candidate must have not only been born on American soil, but must have both parents born on American soil. You should hear Cruz present this—about a minute in:

Trump’s response appears to me a combination of embarrassment and failure to understand what Cruz is saying. To view this and think Trump came off better is to fail to see.

That’s why the pundits’ response was so puzzling. To get a view of what actual Americans saw, it helps sometimes to watch Frank Luntz’s focus groups. Usually he asks for a raise of hands for the winner. This time it was so clear, he let them just say it. With one voice, they said “Cruz.” 

Another attack that was supposed to have thrown Cruz off the rails was his comment a few days ago abut Trump being a New Yorker, and we all know what New York values are. We do. But Trump took issue with that, as did a few newspeople who live and work in New York (Megyn Kelly was one). So that nonsubstative issue also came up at the debate. And Cruz said people outside Manhattan know what he means by New York values: not very many conservatives come out of Manhattan.

Trump countered with William Buckley. Yes, Buckley was conservative. But what was remarkable about him was his ability to be conservative and good humored while surrounded by unfriendly liberals. And he’s been dead for some years now. In a city of 8.4 million, Trump can only recite one person—one who is no longer living.

He might have mentioned Rudy Juliani, who was a very successful law-and-order mayor there, and a Republican. But he’s not a conservative either and would have only proved Cruz’s point.

New York conservatives aren’t completely unheard of. But they are rare. I saw a figure of voters in Manhattan (not the whole city, but representative for our purposes). Of registered voters, 82% were Democrat, and 12% were Republican.

Being Republican does not necessarily mean conservative, especially Constitutional conservative, which Ted Cruz is. In Texas we could estimate maybe 50% are conservative—in this reddest of red states. New York is much more likely to produce “progressive” Republicans. But to be generous, if we say half of Manhattan Republicans are conservative, that’s 6%. That’s only 6 out of every 100 voters. They’re as outnumbered as blacks voting against Barack Obama. So that means Cruz’s statement is accurate.

Being referred to as having New York values does not mean all New Yorkers are bad people, or that all their values are bad. He was, as he said clearly, referring to the tendency to be socially liberal—favor abortion and gay marriage, disfavor freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. But the only values Trump could come up with were the ones that matched the whole rest of the nation after 9/11. Those weren’t at issue. Only someone as thin-skinned as Trump (or Obama) would jump at the chance to misconstrue.

But Trump took it personally. He takes everything personally. He would rule personally, by his gut, regardless of the law or the Constitution. I do not trust his New-York-values-laden gut. Or him. Or his temperament or preparation for this powerful position.

I do trust Ted Cruz, who handled the attacks with calmness, good humor, and an extraordinary command of facts. Even on those ridiculously irrelevant issues. On the issues that count, he is very prepared.

One of his better points (and it was offered first by Dr. Carson) is that, if we do not elect a Republican (and I add, a conservative dedicated to the Constitution), the next president will appoint three or four justices who agree with the dissenters on the Heller case: they believe in depriving Americans of the right to defend themselves with arms. As Carson put it, if “a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it.”

Since Trump has agreed with the Clintons on so many issues over the years, I have no confidence that he would appoint better jurists to the Court than Clinton or Sanders.

In terms of the Spherical Model, Trump would do nothing to move northward; he might move the country further southward. Most of the candidates might be capable of moving us a tick or two northward, toward the equator. Cruz is determined to move us up where we have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, prosperity, and civilization. 

Looking Up

Mitt Romney at GOP Convention
photo from Ann Romney's Facebook page

Here at the Spherical Model, instead of a left/right model, we have a three-dimensional model, with the good at the top: civilization, freedom, free enterprise. The southern hemisphere contains the bad: savagery, tyranny, controlled economy. The side-to-side direction is basically neutral, but based on interest, from individual/family at the center west, and expanding outward through local, state, regional, national, on up to  global perspective. The general rule is that the controller of decisions should be left to the most local level possible; otherwise there is usurpation of power, which is a tyrannical position (southern hemisphere).

So when I look at who I should vote for, I look at how well the candidates’ ideas line up with the principles that we know lead to civilization, freedom, and free enterprise. This week at the GOP convention (which I watched from home) has been a good week. A lot of looking up—how to get up to the northern, civilized, freedom zone.

Others may be watching for strategy, or for excitement that will motivate the army of activists to go get out the vote, or for some rhetoric so soaring that it will be remembered and compared in future years. I very much enjoy a brilliant, well-said phrase; I collect the quotable. But I mostly leave that kind of examination to others. I want to know the philosophy and character, to know how well it lines up with what we know will place us in the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model.

There was much to enjoy in Paul Ryan’ talk, as well as speeches by Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Chris Christie, and others—and I may take a later post just to enjoy those. But what we need to know is whether we have upper hemisphere hopes from our future president—who will lead the direction of the country. And Romney’s speech did what it needed to for me.

He used the word “optimism” four times, and referred, in various ways, to hope for a better future a few more times. That in itself is upward looking—if it’s tied to the right principles. And I believe it is.

Some of what we need to know about Romney, I have known for a long time; it was a matter of getting the picture out for others, during a time when cynicism is so rampant that a decent family man who wants to serve others seems too good to be true. But he has indeed lived his life that way. Some of the telling had to come from others, and that happened this week. Ann Romney began to introduce this good man to people who hadn’t noticed before, or been willing to believe who he was. And that was followed by a string of actual recipients of his quiet, unpaid, unrecognized service. This must have gotten the story out, because after his speech, the PBS commentators stumbled, trying to come up with descriptors for the speech that clearly didn’t align with their worldview, but they decided to agree Romney is just, really, a decent man.

Does he believe in God, so that he can understand God is the giver of our inalienable rights? Yes. Does he live the Ten Commandments as the basic level of civilization? Yes, and refined with the Sermon on the Mount, I Corinthians 13, and other scriptural directions on how to be the person God wants you to be.

Does he place family as the central civilizing force? Yes.

About Paul Ryan, he said, “I love the way he lights up around his kids and how he's not embarrassed to show the world how much he loves his mom.”

About his parents, and then his and Ann’s family, he said:

My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all – the gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would BE, and much less about what we would DO.

Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to pass on to our sons and now to our grandchildren. All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family--and God's love—this world would be a far more gentle and better place.

The line I highlighted lets us know, maybe more than anything, that this is not someone who believes in taking power to enforce government on minions.  This line, about connecting with his church and community, also tells us he understands how thriving civilization happens:

And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.

A look at Romney’s business record is an example for the world of free enterprise at its best. He told a little of the Bain story—and having it come after the “evil vulture capitalist” claim was revealed as a lie made it clear his success was real success. And that allowed him to say this:

These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it.

We know he understands and believes in the free enterprise system when he follows his story with this:

It's the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow's prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today's.

That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: "you are better off today than you were four years ago."

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president.

He didn’t have to be personally negative about President Obama; that would have seemed gratuitous piling on when it is clear to everyone—everyone—that he has failed to provide financial success, American freedom, and social thriving. Obama has failed because he follows the rules that keep people in the southern hemisphere of tyranny. He is literally a tyrant, whether he has the personality of other worldwide tyrants or not. But it isn’t necessary to use that kind of term; all that is necessary is to point out that what we want—personal freedom, economic opportunity, and thriving civilization—can be reached on a path that claims government control is the answer.

This was one of my favorite lines, because what I want during this campaign is to see clearly the truth about the candidates. This shows the contrast:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family.

He doesn’t mean he will micromanage your family from Washington; he means he will set an example of a strong family—and how to Dad—but also will help by getting roadblocks out of the way so families can succeed through hard work and helping one another. Economically, things will get better. Freedom will improve with adherence to the Constitution:

That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.

That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.

That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.

This is an America we remember, if we’re old enough and from the right places (I am both). And now I feel free to hope we will return to thriving. Things are indeed looking up.