The Questions to Ask

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.

Nice Problem to Have

Texas has a deep bench. All state level positions for a while now have been held by Republicans. And you can’t get anywhere unless you speak conservative. And if you speak conservative without living it, you’ll be found out.

Add to that, some top positions have been occupied for a while—ever since Governor George W. Bush stepped up (some Texans would say stepped down) to become US President. So there have been people building up their conservative skills in several other positions in this big state, and they’re ready to take the field. It’s a bit like a college football team with a second string better than most teams’ star players—and they’re all calling out, “Put me in, Coach!” (We voters are the coach.) It’s a nice problem to have.

The primary election comes up here in Texas on Tuesday, March 4^th. For you Texans, that means it’s also precinct meeting night, after the polls close. That’s one of the best places to get involved at the grassroots level. You’ll decide what you’d like to see in your state party platform, and you’ll choose delegates for the county/district convention, where those same things will be done for the next level up. (Yes, I did mention this last time around; thank you for asking.) For you people in other states, you probably have a primary coming up very soon as well. Your precinct meetings might be called something else, and they might be held separately from a voting day, but most places and parties have them in some form. So look it up, and then pass the word along to your friends.

Debate held Monday, January 20th, at King Street Patriots

One of the big races is for lieutenant governor, a rather powerful second-in-command position in the state. The slate of candidates for Texas Lieutenant Governor is down to four: incumbent David Dewhurst, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and District 7 State Senator Dan Patrick. In different circumstances (not all against each other), I would probably be happy with any one of them. They’re all conservative, personable, articulate, good-humored, and effective over time with a strong record. They squared off in a debate here in Houston this past Monday, which I got to attend.

Maybe something should be said about why there is such a challenge for a relatively popular and effective incumbent. I’m guessing on this. Back in 2012 Lt. Gov. Dewhurst ran for the US Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s vacated seat. He lost to Ted Cruz. I think that was a surprise to him at a point in his career when logic said it was time to move up. Failing that, I think it was assumed by many he would run for governor, once Gov. Perry (who has been governor longer than any other in Texas history) announced he would not run again.

But after the confidence loss of the senatorial race, along with the announcement by the popular and effective Attorney General Greg Abbott that he was running for governor, Dewhurst seems to have decided to stay with the safer Lt. Gov. position. It’s just that, by the time he made that decision, there were a number of others who had been planning their futures based on the likelihood of a vacancy in the Lt. Gov. position. And even after it was known Dewhurst was staying, there was a sense that 14 years is more than enough for anyone; get out of the way! So the challengers went ahead as planned.

That Dewhurst senate campaign, in 2012, wasn’t particularly effective: too much attacking a noble and effective person, and too many formal settings, meaning debates and distance from the people. This time around he has surrounded himself with handlers who let him do better what works for him—talk one-on-one with people, in small groups, with individuals, unscripted. He’s charming in person. A couple of months ago he came to our little local tea party meeting. He asked if he could meet with leadership ahead of time, just sit around at a table and talk, for a full hour. Our tea party isn’t exactly full of titles. We have a president, who arranges speakers for our meetings and manages our email group and Facebook page. N one else has an official position. I’m just a faithful, longtime participant, and I’ve taken on some assignments from time to time. But I got invited to that meeting. He spent an hour with four of us, asking us questions about what was important to us, answering whatever he could. He connects very well in that kind of setting. Then he spent another half hour or so speaking to the whole group once they arrived. That was more of a stump speech, but he included Q&A time at the end.

I should mention that this was something like a visiting team disadvantage. Dan Patrick is our state senator. We have known him since he was just the guy on the radio (he owns local station KSEV and did a daily talk show, which he still does as time permits). Most of us decided to support him in his first run, in pre-Tea Party years. He has been much more responsive than his predecessor. My kids and I have met with him in his Austin office during legislative sessions. Without appointment there were a couple of times he stood with us in his foyer and answered anything we were concerned about for twenty minutes or so. He knows his stuff. He was effective this past session heading the education committee, and I’ve noticed as he has become more informed about homeschooling and more in favor of choice for parents. He’s the only candidate who doesn’t currently hold statewide office, but in our little corner of the state—which happens to be one of the largest and most conservative districts—he’s seen as practically heroic.

And it was in this setting that Dewhurst came and sat to talk with us. That was brave. And time-consuming. It was generous of him to come, and I wanted to be open to be persuadable.

He is tall and impressive in person. He seems much more articulate in an intimate setting than in a debate. He doesn’t seem slow of speech or slow of thought when he’s making a personal connection. And he does have a valid point that Texas has done very well, compared to the rest of the country, by moving more conservative over this past decade. And the worse the federal government is for the country, the better Texas looks.

Still, there are some specific issues we conservative Texans are concerned about: border security, low taxes, standing up against federal government intrusions. Federal regulations that prevent people from using their land and resources because there might be some lizard living on those thousands of acres, for example. Filing lawsuits against the federal government, by the dozens, has been the common practice. And while I think that is one direction to go, simply refusing to abide is sometimes what Texas should do. We did that in refusing to set up an Obamacare state exchange, for example. We’re trying to protect our own border, since the federal government fails to do so.

I want to give a fair representation of all of the candidates, including how they did in this debate, covering how they approach the issues. So we’ll do a part II tomorrow.

 

If you’re a regular here, you may have noticed that, after I came back from the holiday break, I’ve been writing just twice a week. I’m spending my other allotted writing time on a related writing project. But some weeks I may just have to write more. We’ll take it as it comes.

It's That Time of Year

I’m sure you’re aware, this time of year is…just a couple of months before the primary election. That’s why this past Saturday, a week and a half before Christmas, a crowded roomful of people met at our local tea party meeting to hear from candidates.

In addition to local candidates, we heard from two more candidates for Texas governor: Republican Lisa Fritsch and Libertarian Kathie Glass.  A few months ago we heard from Tom Pauken, a long-time grassroots Republican activist. I’m not sure what the full slate of candidates will be. We may not get a personal visit from Greg Abbott in this statewide race, although I’m still leaning his direction. But I enjoy hearing the conservative message—the only message that is viable among the interested grassroots conservatives of Texas. It’s kind of like Texas barbecue—everyone’s entitled to their own favorite flavor of sauce, but it’s still the long-time roasted meat that people line up for.

However the vote goes down eventually, it’s worth noting a few things we heard from the candidates.

Lisa Fritsch had an interesting story. I’m including her photo, because, if you listen to the media, people like her don’t exist—and certainly wouldn’t show up at a tea party meeting. Yet we find that stereotypes don’t match reality. She fits in with us just fine. Her mother taught her some basic ideas that have stuck, and they're our ideas too.

Lisa Fritsch, GOP candidate for TX Governor
at Cypress Texas Tea Party

Fritsch says she became a Republican in second grade, although she didn’t know it for a while. She grew up with a hardworking single mom in a low income area—in “a sea of Democrats.”  But they never went on public assistance. Her mother said she would rather starve. At one point the young Lisa suggested her mother could give up her third job, which was paying for tap lessons she was willing to give up, but her mother refused.

In high school (if I’m getting the details right), she did less than stellar work in a class, and gave the complaint going around that the particular teacher graded blacks lower. Her mother called around, found another smart girl in the neighborhood in that class, and learned from her mother that the girl had gotten a 95% on the same test. And she told Lisa that being black would never be a good excuse for not succeeding.

In college at University of Texas, she tried to think of herself as a liberal, getting in arguments with her conservative roommate. The trouble was, sometimes her roommate’s line of reasoning seemed to make sense. So she got this idea that, if she could get a clearer idea of the opposition’s reasoning, she’d better be able to refute it. So she found the campus meetings for the Young Republicans, and sneaked in the back to listen, “as well as a six-foot-tall black woman can sneak in the back.” And the more she heard, the more it made sense. She has been an active Republican for the past fifteen years. She has been a radio show host, a writer and commentator. She occasionally appears on Fox News. Her opinions can be found on YouTube speeches and her candidate website Lisa4Texas.com.

When asked about her ideas for Texas, her priorities were to secure the border before reforming immigration. She probably didn’t win over a lot of people even talking about the next step—finding a path to citizenship, especially for those here as no fault of their own (children of illegal immigrants). She wants to eliminate the underground economy, get them to pay taxes, play by the rules, stop them from getting benefits. All of this she insisted was completely separate from dealing with the drug and human trafficking elements of illegals, which should be shut down. It’s a difficult conversation to have, because both sides make negative assumptions about what the other side really means.

Kathie Glass is about opposite in looks—a short, blond, middle-aged woman. She’s fiery, with a down home Texas accent. She’s about taking back power to the state—power that’s there in the US Constitution and should never be ceded just because of unwillingness to stand firm. Sometimes with a bully all you have to do is say no. Sometimes you have to get more aggressive, but you don’t know that if you don’t even try to say no.

Kathie Glass, Libertarian candidate for TX Governor
at Cypress Texas Tea Party

She used the scary “N” word: nullification. The last candidate I brought that up with said he thought that was a settled issue back in the 1800s. I disagree. Kathie Glass doesn’t think it was settled either. And, while she’s not afraid to use the word, she actually refers to things we’re already doing. The states (including Texas) that refused to set up health care exchanges just because the federal government told them to—that is nullification. Whenever and wherever the federal government oversteps its constitutional limits, just say no. Don’t put all your eggs in the basket of the courts, risking that they might not agree with you; better to just act according to the way you read state vs. federal rights without asking permission.

Glass also talked about the border. She proposes using the Texas Guard on the border, which is already part of the state budget. I asked her, since protecting international borders is actually one of the few appropriate roles of the federal government, but they’re not doing it, what do we do about the money they’re taking and not using for that purpose when we have to spend it ourselves. She said to just consider sunk costs sunk. Referring to money already spent, in practicality I agree; we won’t get that money back. I’m looking for a pre-tax mechanism to divert federal tax money from ever getting to Washington, if we have to use it to protect our own border, or for any other misuse of Texas money. I thought that was something a libertarian might take on, but she didn’t go there.

Glass talked about public education being corrupt. We might not be able to fix it by tweaking it here and there; we might have to knock down the whole thing and start from scratch. I cheer along with that. But it would take more time from her to hear practical steps to accomplish something that drastic without depriving students of options during a year—or a few years—of total disarray. But in the meantime, we at least need to get everything locally controlled.

Both candidates subtly (maybe not so subtly) jabbed Attorney General Greg Abbott for fighting the federal government through lawsuit after lawsuit. While I agree that there are plenty of ways to stand up against the federal government, when your job is to advise the state on legal issues and represent the state in courts, you don’t say, “No, let’s not bother with the judiciary.” Abbott has been doing his job, and doing it well. Abbott describes his job as, “I go into the office in the morning, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home.” It makes me smile.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
photo from Wikipedia

They also jabbed him as a “career politician,” which I didn’t think was fair. Abbott was a private practice attorney from 1984-1992. He then served as a trial judge in Houston for three years before being appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by then-Governor George W. Bush. Judges are appointed in Texas only to fill openings, and then they are elected. But it’s not typical to refer to a judge as a career politician. He became Texas Attorney General in 2002—only the second Republican since Reconstruction to have that position—when John Cornyn went on to the Senate.

Abbott is probably best known for successfully arguing the case for displaying the Ten Commandments on the State Capitol grounds. The main argument in that case, as I recall, was about the culturally historic (rather than religious) tradition of the Ten Commandments monument, showing that the display did not “establish” a religion, nor a specific religious preference. It was an argument that worked, even though I personally didn’t believe it was the right argument—which is that we the people have a right to display whatever we want, religious or otherwise, on our own state property, without any interference from the federal government—so get out of our faces and leave us alone! Nevertheless, Abbott knew the practical argument that would win the day in the particular court where he was arguing. I don’t know of another time I’ve disagreed with him.

I’ve heard him speak a number of times—first time at the state GOP convention in 2004. He’s one of my favorites. From what I’ve seen, he’s a man of exceptional integrity. I want to hear more from him as a candidate for governor, but knocking him as a “career politician” because he’s the most prominent law advocate for Texas looks to me like there’s nothing else to knock him with.

That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate other candidates stepping up and giving it a good try, and taking the opportunity to spread the conservative message in the meantime. Let’s all keep doing that.