Your Head vs. Your Heart

The recent Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Rhode Island was another manifestation of the perpetual conundrum members of both parties face in a primary, especially when they are in a state predominantly inclined towards the other party. Does one vote for the candidate most ideologically homologous to themself, or do they vote for the candidate who may be farther to the left or right than they are but who ultimately stands the greatest chance of winning the general election?

When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.

Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.

Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.

Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.

Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.

Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.

Response

Has our national political discourse really become so poisoned and so irrational that when we disagree with each other we pour upon the other a cacophony of personal and ad hominem attacks instead of actually stating our disagreements in a civil interchange of reasoned argumentation? Don't get me wrong, the recent barrage of base expletives was quite amusing, in the same way that watching the guests of the Jerry Springer show act in the same manner is. But the entertainment value of the behavior of those who took issue with me is far outweighed by the appalling commentary such behavior provides on the churlish nature of our national political dialogue.

If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.

Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don't have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we're all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.

To respond to the "chickenhawk" label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a "chickenhawk" in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.

To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a "chickenhawk" is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal's strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, "Love it or leave it!" It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.

The "chickenhawk" rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn't, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity---activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: "Well if you like her so much why don't you marry her?"

If an able-bodied civilian can't support the war---or think we should persevere until we do win---without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can't say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.

Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.

There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America's professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.

The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.

For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.

Letter to the Editor, THE WEEKLY STANDARD

TO THE EDITOR:

David Gelernter’s eloquent piece on the scourge "hate crime" classifications represent in our legal system and upon our society gives voice to the sentiments I have long held. The one aspect I would add to his argument however, is the troubling precedent these laws create by criminalizing thought. By criminally defining a certain ideology or prejudice of thought in politically correct terms today, I fear we have begun the descent down a slippery slope of regulating or criminalizing other thought or opinion , such as the government sponsored history found in some European nations that Gerard Alexander documented in your publication a few months ago. As George Will stated in his column some months back, "Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech."

Any criminalization of thought or opinion is antithetical to democracy. It is the action itself that is a crime, and its moral reprehensibility is neither diminished nor accentuated by the motivation behind it. As Mr. Gelernter put it, "Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad."

Win This War

As we remember those Americans lost on this day five years ago it is important to remember the best manner through which we can honor them: remaining steadfast in our effort to fight and win the war of which they were the first casualties.

As trying and painful a war it is to wage, and as much as we may all wish it to be over, we have no other choice left to us but to fight it as hard and as vigorously as it takes, for as long as it takes. The security and well-being of not only this generation, but of generations still unborn, depends upon our willingness to fight and defeat the enemies of democratic civilization today and into the future.

Our fathers and grandfathers accepted this responsibility and confronted these enemies when their age demanded it. Should ours be the generation to forsake their sacrifice and surrender that which they fought and died for on the sands of Iwo Jima and Normandy? Shall ours be the first generation to decline the duty to secure for our children the blessings of peace, security, and liberty?

The thousands of brave and heroic men and women now serving in the armed forces have answered this in the negative. They have and continue to answer the calling of their age. May those whom they serve and sacrifice for at home, and those who lead them more importantly, render the identical answer.

This war is a fight we can and will win, so long as we maintain the will to win it.

Sen. Lieberman's Primary Defeat

I suppose the partisan Republican is a happy man today. Looking for relief from the negative Republican-centric tenor of the national discussion this election year, the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary last night brings into public scrutiny the Democratic Party’s alarming wartime hostility to hawkish foreign policy and military action. In consequence, that perusal of public discourse may now very well shift from the Republicans and their deficiencies to the Democrats and theirs.

That is one way to look at it, and a cavalierly political and partisan way at that.

Though I am a Republican, and in that sense partisan, I find no joy or solace in Sen. Lieberman’s defeat. Now is not the time for partisanship. It is a time of war and elevated national consequence. It is a time for statesmanship. On ninety-five percent of the issues the senator and I completely disagree. He is a stalwart liberal Democrat, I am a stalwart conservative Republican.

But that is secondary to the fact that Sen. Joseph Lieberman is an unapologetic hawk in symbiosis with the great statesmen—Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Senator Henry Jackson—and traditions of a once great party. He is admirably willing to cast aside partisan interest in favor of supporting and strengthening America’s ability to win in Iraq and defeat the great evil of our age: Eighth-Century Islamic fascism.

Joe Lieberman is an honorable man and a credit to the Senate and to his country. In this time of war his statesmanship—his a-partisan courage—is needed now as much as ever, yet it seems to be in such short supply. It is a war we did not initiate, nor is it one we want. But it is a war we must win. To maliciously cut down the few statesmen who understand this and act accordingly despite the immediate partisan and personal implications is as reprehensible as it is self-defeating.

Ours is an age that transcends parties and factions, we need leaders who do the same. We need more Joe Liebermans. It is a sad tragedy that his courage of conviction and indelible principle have earned him the rebuke of his own party.

Take Heed

There seems to be an increasing perception among the punditry that, barring drastic change, Democrats will win control of the House in the November elections. Should this happen, it is important that we keep in mind why it will happen. (That it could happen I have no doubt, that it is an inevitability, I do.)

A Democratic House would not be the product of a popular realignment towards the Democratic Party, for the American public is as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats. The public opinion polls so many eagerly seize upon as evidence that Republicans are doomed and a Democratic ascension is nigh show no public affinity for Democrats. Quite the opposite, the public places a pox on both houses. In fact, in an age of hyper-partisanship one of the few aspects of the American political landscape that actually is bi-partisan is the preponderant negative esteem the electorate holds Republicans and Democrats in. This explains why many incumbents of both parties are vulnerable at this juncture, and a November of the American people’s discontent may just lead to a lot of suddenly unemployed members of congress, from each side of the aisle.

The single, glaring problem with this for Republicans is that, as the majority party, such an omnipotent anti-incumbent inclination will inexorably result in the defeat of more Republican incumbents than Democratic, and possibly lead to a Democratic House. This possibility brings into light an important dynamic at play in this election cycle, a cycle in which, depending upon the result, many are likely to misread or misrepresent the significance of. Should Democrats take the House and/or the Senate it will not be because of any realignment towards Democrats and Democratic principles (How could it be, given that the Democrats are all too often a party without principles), nor, for that matter, will it be the fruits of a highly motivated Democratic base. In the last election cycle the Democratic base was motivated to the point where they were foaming at the mouth in murderous hatred for the president and the Democrats still lost the presidential race and seats in both houses.

A Democratic victory, should one occur, will be based upon an anti-incumbent mood which they are equally the brunt of but, as the minority party in a two-party system, are also paradoxically the ultimate beneficiary of.

Even more paradoxically, Democrats might win the House because of a popular revulsion among conservatives and Republicans at the very traits Democrats of the contemporary flavor represent. Republican political liabilities stem from the fact that national conservatives are aghast at the profligate, big-government style of governance the Republican congress has drifted towards, a style in which the Democratic Party irrefutably embodies. For all the across-the-board increases in spending that occurred under the Republicans watch, Democrats routinely charge them and the president with under-funding everything. How deviantly ironic would it be if on January 3, 2007 Democrats owed their newfound majority to revulsion at a form of governance which fits perfectly with their political and governing philosophies? Or, put in another manner, bemuse yourself at the possibility that a year or two in the future a negative reaction to profligate governance in 2006 turns out to be the cause of....heightened profligate governance.

The effect this would have on the political dynamics going into 2008 and beyond I’ll leave for another day, but I will close with a word of caution to any who would misinterpret or exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory this year. This victory would not mean, as I reiterate, a realignment towards liberalism or the Democratic Party; or the end of conservatism (a theory the inveterate liberal E.J. Dionne hopefully [or maybe hopelessly] posited this week). One victorious election does not a realignment make, and if Democrats do win (after losing the last two elections, arguably three) it will be in spite of themselves. It will be the yield of a popular odium towards a wayward Republican congress so deep that it will have compensated for a similar inclination towards the Democratic Party. The electoral soil may be fertile for a fruitful Democratic election day this year but it is barren for a sustainable Democratic majority or enduring Democratic political prosperity. Jubilant Democrats and despondent Republicans take heed.

Do Not Fail Israel

I have heard rumblings on the radio in the last few days that the United States has informed Israel that it can only provide political cover for its efforts against Hezbollah for another ten to fourteen days. I hope this is not the case, and if it is, shame on the Bush Administration and the United States of America for not standing by and supporting Israel—an honorable democracy and every bit the victim of terror that we are, if not more—in its fight against an evil that would destroy it.

We are in the same boat as the Israelis. When we were attacked on 9/11, and the lives of thousands of our fellow Americans were lost, did we not vow to destroy and bring to justice those responsible, and those who aimed to do it again? Is it not that generational pursuit that we are now engaged in? Why would we not—nay, how could we not—stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, a nation that is engaged in the same situation and pursuit we are (and have been for much longer than we have), in this time of struggle?

Israel’s fight is our fight, and their enemies are our enemies and the enemies of free people throughout the world. Hezbollah’s destruction would not only make Israel more secure, it would make the Middle East and the free world more secure, and the world itself a better place.

Instead of emasculating Israel in its time of need, we should stand squarely beside them. We should unequivocally declare, with as much force, moral certitude, and resolution as we did in those days following 9/11, that we support Israel’s right in this endeavor and share its might in fighting terrorist evil for as long as it takes.

I hope and pray we, the United States of America, will not fail Israel at a moment when it fights for us every bit as much as it fights for itself.

Comment Response

Comment-"Thoughts on the Middle East"

Okay, I read your blog and understood every other word (haha j.k) and agreed with what you said. However, if you don't mind I do have a few questions for you:

1. This is just your personal opinion. Honestly, do you feel that this is, or very likely could be, the early rumblings of WWIII? How long can we keep using diplomacy to stall a full force confrontation between the terrorists and those they attack? I think you realize that all the diplomacy in the world will not stop them from eventually attacking again.
2. Why are the terrorists (and Iran, Syria, anywhere that harbors them) against Israel and western civilization as a whole in the first place? Why did they first begin attacking Israel and the U.S.A? What are their motives, desires, etc.?
3. Do you frequently use so many large words in your normal, day to day conversations or only when you are writing and/or speaking on political issues?

Those were just some things I was wondering about and you seem informed enough that I can at least consider your opinon, so I look forward to your response. If it will be a long response and you'd rather respond by email or something let me know, k?

Anonymous:

1. Whether this is the beginning of World War III or not, I don’t know. Someone will have to explain to me more clearly what exactly is meant by the term or characterization "World War III".

I do believe that a confrontation between—individually or in a combination of—Israel, the United States, and the democratic world with nations such as Syria and Iran is probably inevitable. We are already in a full-force confrontation with Islamist terrorism.

As I stated in my post, Iran has cataclysmic ambitions and will very likely spark a confrontation with the West, especially as they continue to feel greater pressure and isolation with the burgeoning democracy growing on their doorstep in Iraq.

I don’t see the value of diplomacy when you are dealing with nations and groups who seek your destruction, as the Islamo-fascist ideology and its adherents seek ours.

2. A lot of their motivation is their fascistic, nihilistic religious outlook. They see Western culture and democracy as a threat or abomination towards that outlook. As the leader and standard bearer of Western culture and democracy, the United States is naturally their target. They clearly desire a medievalist Islamic civilization built upon the ruins of modern western culture.

Israel is the only viable, Western-style democracy in the Middle East at this point, so they are naturally a primary target. Israel is also located on holy land that radical Islamists believe is theirs and that Israel has no right to. These people refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist after all, and actively promise and seek its destruction. Their anti-Semitism is also a large motivation for their murder.

A more basic reason for their beliefs and actions is that they are, plain and simple, evil; and will employ evil means to reach their ends.

3. Yes, I usually do use such words in most of my conversation, especially in conversations, written or spoken, concerning politics and current events. The level and formality of the conversation generally dictates the level and formality of my verbiage.

I hope my answers are to your satisfaction. If not let me know and I will be glad to elaborate and/or clarify further. Thank you for the questions and for visiting my site. I hope you will do so regularly.

Cracker: I always appreciate the kind words and encouragement. You have been my most loyal reader and friend from the beginning of this site and I am very grateful for that.

Thoughts on the Middle East

Prior to the recent elevation and extension of belligerence in the Middle East the conflict between Israel and Islamic terror had been a game of charades, in multiple ways. The endurance of armed confrontation and terrorism, and the specter of impending war, have ended this duplicitous game however, and exposed its illegitimacy.

Under the previous state there was an imaginary distinction between the Palestinian factions perpetrating acts of terror upon Israel and Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. Though Arafat encouraged, sponsored, and benefitted form the terror, he managed to publicly condemn specific acts of terror each time they occurred so as to assiduously maintain the charade that he was not responsible, but instead needed more power, more leniency, to bring the terror factions within his society to bear. As a product, he was never held to account by the international community for his actions and Israel was prevented from responding to the original and culpable source of the terror it lay victim to.

This distinction can be claimed no longer. The Palestinians perpetrating the terror, primarily Hamas, are now the democratically elected representatives and authority of the Palestinian people. Though many skeptical of democracy in the Middle East have pointed to the Palestinian elections as proof of its poisoned fruits, those elections have brought clarity to the state of affairs within the Palestinian territories and their approach to Israel. Terror is systemic of the Palestinian culture carefully incubated by the late terror-in-chief Arafat, and has become, officially and undeniably, state policy. Israel may now, at long last, respond accordingly.

The rising crises has also betrayed the longstanding charade that the impetus for terror against Israel was its occupation of disputed lands. Israel has vacated Gaza and southern Lebanon, but still Hamas and Hezbollah wage war against Israel. Why? As we all suspected, the cause of terror was never about occupation but Israel’s very existence. Short of Israel’s destruction nothing will appease these terrorist murders and induce them to lay down their arms, missiles, and bomb-laden belts.

Israel’s only refuge is to destroy those who would destroy them, precisely what they seem to be on the verge of doing in Lebanon. International pleas for another cease-fire and "moderation" are null. Cease-fires only give the terrorists respite and opportunity to prepare for their next round of murderous atrocities. Why would anyone want to extend this failed history and the tragic cycle of terror and violence?

Israel is entirely within its right to invade Lebanon. Hezbollah has entered Israel and captured Israeli soldiers, and they have used southern Lebanon as a base from which to launch attacks. Anyone who would prevent Israel from entering Lebanon and eliminating Hezbollah would deny Israel the right to defend itself and would grant Hezbollah the sanctuary to wage war against Israel with impunity.

Even further extension by Israel would be justified no less. Targeting Hamas and Hezbollah alone is tantamount to mowing the lawn—it’s only going to grow back. Neither of those respective organizations would be able to operate with the lethality they do were it not for their state patrons of Syrian and Iran. Through their proxies, both nations are able to wage war against Israel without actually waging war. This tactic is an attempt to obfuscate their involvement and to immunize themselves from being held to account, by both Israel and the international community, and it should not be tolerated.

Could anyone, in good conscience, prevent Israel from waging war against nations who unscrupulously wage war against it and, in regards to Iran, have promised to exterminate them?

If anyone could, or would, let it not be the United States. Iran specifically does not just wage war against Israel, for Israel, due to it’s standing in the region as the lone, western democracy, is, in effect, only a proxy for democratic civilization, for whom the United States is the leading standard-bearer and representative.

Iran’s belligerence has been poorly hidden, and it only grows bolder as the world fecklessly responds to its nuclear development. A confrontation with the west is all but inevitable, and should the Israelis decide to confront the Iranian threat to its existence before it possesses a nuclear capacity the United States should stand alongside them. As Iran would destroy Israel, it would also destroy, and is actively seeking to destroy, democracy and stability in the Middle East. Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions and visions of its own place and mission in the region could not be more dangerous if allowed to burgeon.

Diplomacy itself may not be dead, but with Iran categorically determined to acquire nuclear capability the possibility of diplomacy is only viable in regards to the international community coming together to stymie Iran. It is possible, I suppose, that crippling sanctions could bring down the regime. But if those sanctions failed to work, diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake must be abandoned.

If a nuclear Iran is as "unacceptable" as everyone says it is—and it is—than the international community, or at least those within the community responsible enough, must do what is necessary to prevent it. That burden should not be Israel’s to shoulder alone. A nuclear Iran threatens all of democratic civilization, not just Israel, and all of democratic civilization must be prepared to stop it.

The Public Interest & The N.Y. & L.A. Times

The New York and Los Angeles Times recently published stories disclosing a classified anti-terror government program which monitored terrorist finances through the surveillance of banking transactions. "In the end," stated the editor of the Los Angeles Times, "we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the political cost to counter terrorism efforts.....We have an obligation to cover the government, with its tremendous power and to offer information about its activities so citizens can make their own decisions. That’s the role of the press in our democracy." It is beyond dispute that in a viable democracy the press has an august responsibility to not simply cover the government, but to proficiently scrutinize it. What is at question is whether these respective newspapers served the public interest or offended it in this specific affair. Having given weight to the nature of the program and, most importantly, the broader context which provided the complete inducement for it, the only conclusion I can reach is the public interest was contravened, not served, here.

Transparency and accountability in government are generally the requisite traits and hallmarks of democratic self-government. From the most obscure municipal government, to state government, to the national government; public erudition of the conduct of public servants is integral to insuring they are serving the public interest. Government transparency is a mighty bulwark protecting the public from nefarious public servants who require a shroud of secrecy to diabolically abuse, in whatever manner, the public trust placed in them. Additionally, the people’s apprehension of the totality of their government at work lends to their ability to competently evaluate the candidates and issues placed before them each election day.

As a conservative, my most natural reaction is to cringe upon hearing the words "secret government program." In abstraction, conservatives distrust arbitrary government power, a sentiment amplified if said power is exercised surreptiously. Government’s cardinal tendency, left unbridled, is to aggrandize its own power and influence. A government so unencumbered and omnipresently empowered serves it own interest, and the interests of those individuals who constitute it, to the detriment of the public. Prevention of this depends upon limitations, structural and practical, placed on the government’s power. For a conservative, limited and enumerated powers are synonymous with, if not the determination of, good, accountable government. Without them little would staunch government usurpation.

Unfortunately, practical realities occasionally preclude the luxury of operating within abstract theory. The obligation of the federal government, specifically the president, to effectively protect national security boisterously exemplifies this. Classified government power, executed within the confines of strictly constructed parameters, is indispensably linked to protecting America from her enemies. Were the president and the federal government to be prohibited from maintaining secrets in the interest of national security, they would be denied the means to achieving that end.

In these specific times the unconventional nature of our enemies only amplifies this. Al-Qaeda and its operatives and followers are dogged in their pursuit to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. They operate in virtual anonymity, amongst and undistinguishable from the innocent. The intelligence methods of yesterday—crafted towards the adversaries of yesterday—are archaic methods inadequate towards thwarting them. Phone and bank records, not aerial surveillance or conventional espionage, are mandatory in identifying and stopping those who would, individually or in small groups, perpetuate acts of terror on American soil and on American interests.

These programs are vital, and their efficacy is contingent upon their confidentiality. It is self-evident that sustainable detection and surveillance of terrorist threats is possible only when those threats are themselves ignorant of their detection and surveillance. Should they become aware of their detection and surveillance, and the means through which they are detected and observed, they will obviously adapt and craft other manners through which to operate outside of our observation, compromising (to put it heavily euphemistically) our capability to foil their barbaric intentions.

According to the New York and Los Angeles Times, this debilitating consequence is an acceptable exchange for aiding the public’s presumably heavier interest in preventing any possible presidential or governmental abuse of power. Blithely ignoring the very real, tangible threat our enemies pose, the editors felt justified in spoiling an effective means in countering that threat based upon a conceived and hypothetical threat posed by the possibility that the president or government may abuse the power they have and exercise in enacting those means.

This paralyzing logic would, if propagated further, devastate national security and America’s ability to wage this war on terror. If the mere hypothetical possibility that the president or federal government could abuse their power and responsibility to protect and preserve national security justified a program to public exposure, then every newspaper, magazine, television news program—every reporting agency under the sun—would have license to expose any and every program—covert or overt, no matter how successful or narrowly tailored within the confines of the law—to the public. In such a state we’d be powerless to protect ourselves, but at least we’d be secure from the possibility of the government abusing its power to protect us, never mind that the federal government would be impotent in its obligation and responsibility in that sphere, for which the power was given it in the first place.

Of course, this rationale is intrinsically illogical. The president and the federal government have an obligation to protect the nation. To fulfill this obligation they must have the requisite powers, or access to the appropriate means, to do so. As Madison states in Federalist 44, "wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." The New York and Los Angeles Times would deny the president and the federal government these powers and access to the appropriate means simply because there is a hypothetical possibility that they may employ those powers and means abusively.

This in itself is specious justification. Every power vested in the government, whether it be related to national security or not, can hypothetically be abused. Should government itself then be abolished? I doubt the Times’ believe this. The possibility that a power may be abused is an inherent appendage to granting that power. To borrow from Justice Scalia: "A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused."

The public has an interest in insuring the president and federal government do not abuse the powers the public has placed in them. In this regard the New York and Los Angeles Times were correct. However, the public also has an interest in the president and the federal government adopting the necessary means to keep them safe. The latter outweighs the former, yet the actions of the two respective papers served the former at the expense of the latter. Because of this the papers contravened, not served, the public interest.

Writing Policy Into the Constitution

The Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in the 8th District of Illinois, David McSweeny, has voiced his support for a constitutional ban prohibiting abortion in all instances. I oppose such a measure for two reasons; one substantive, the other structural.

On substantive grounds I oppose any statutory prohibition of abortion that does not contain exceptions for instances of rape, incest, and desideratum to the survival of the mother. I have elaborated why previously and will not superfluously plagiarize myself here.

Structurally, I believe it infelicitous to write substantive, policy-specific language into the constitution because such language does not belong there. The province of a constitution is to devise the structure and nature of a government. That government, so constituted, is responsible for devising specific law. Should you write policy-specific language into the constitution you controvert its very function and obfuscate the distinction between a constitution and the government it inaugurates. A constitution creates a government, that government creates law.

Moreover, the framers deliberately mandated super-majorities to amend the constitution because they did not want it to devolve into an inconsistent, un-prestigious, elementary reflection of fashionable policy persuasions held at any one point in time. They understood that for the constitution to be a durable document immune from the erosions of time it had to be limited to simply devising a framework under whose auspices the actual substantive determinations could be made by the people and future generations.

For these reasons it would be inappropriate to write policy, any form of it, into the constitution.

Enforcing Decency

Last week the president triumphantly signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing fines on networks who broadcast indecent material. The whole affair strikes me as mere symbolism and, in fact, illuminates the value pandering and substanceless government action hold in politics today. For sure, entertainment is saturated with gratuitous sex and violence, but tighter FCC regulation and steeper fines are unequal to the task of curbing this. The thought that a three-hundred thousand dollar fine will curb, or even dent, the sex and violence culture preponderant in entertainment is absurd, as is the message this law proffers: it is incumbent and necessary for the federal government to stem salacious pop culture entertainment. There are avenues through which televised sex and violence can be ended, FCC action is not one of them. (Never mind the farcical pretense of the government regulating cultural mores of proprietary conduct and behavior. If the indecent material targeted by this regulatory regime was really so far outside of our common cultural conception of decency it would not be accepted and thus would not be so widely permeant, defeating the supposed need for government regulation in the first place.)

Just as darkened windows protect the innocent passerby from the lewd contents of a strip club or adult bookstore, the "Power" button on the standard t.v. remote protects the innocent television viewer from uninvited images of sex and violence. You do not need to rely upon punitive regulation from the federal government to protect you. If you do not want to watch pure raunchiness, or do not want your children to, then change the channel or turn the t.v. off altogether. My suggestion: ESPN is a Sistine Chapel-sized sanctuary from the archetypal prime-time lineup.

If simply utilizing the television viewer’s veto—the remote—on an individual basis is not enough, then those indignant at the entertainment industry’s product can handle matters the old-fashioned way: through mass consumer boycott. Entertainment is a business just like any other; if no one watches their product they will not offer it any more; lest profit turn to loss, black ink into red. The entertainment industry wants your money, and they will pander to you to a degree that would make Senator John Kerry blush in order to get it. Were there a broad revulsion towards televised sex and violence, such images would never reach your television screen.

Moreover, bad publicity is the bane of any profitable business. Monsoons of disgruntled letters to the editor, public rallies and demonstrations, even picketing corporate headquarters, will garner the industry’s attention if substantial enough. At the very least they will accomplish more than a fine from the boys at the FCC will.

Then again, mass, organized action is probably unnecessary. Ratings get the attention of the entertainment industry better than all else because they determine their revenues. The concerned and conscientious citizen may effect change, as I have argued here already, by simply turning the channel and watching something else, diminishing a particular program or network’s ratings. Lower ratings equal lower profits, and if no one is watching a particular program, or genre of programs, then networks will not show them. The individual viewer can enforce decency in broadcasting with his or her remote far more effectively than the FCC can with its regulations and fines.

If anything, such individual action is an important indication of our republic’s civic health. After all, one characteristic of a country more appalling than an entertainment industry replete with sex and violence is a citizenry dependent upon the government to do for them what they can and should do for themselves. It does not take the federal government to enforce decency, just a simple click of the remote.

The '06 Mid-terms

Elections are not referendums: voters cannot simply vote yes or no on a candidate or a party. If elections were referendums the Democrats would have control of congress within their grasp. Republicans and their deficiencies would be solely scrutinized by voters without due regard towards the Democrats and theirs. A yes or no referendum on congressional Republicans, in the current environment, is an election Republicans lose.

Unfortunately for Democrats, elections are a choice between two alternatives. The greatest obstacle standing between Democrats and control of congress is that they are the alternative to the Republicans. As much as voters may be disenchanted with Republicans, they glance towards the other side of the aisle and see something equally odious. Yes Republicans spend too much, are too often too comfortable in their seat of power, have not accomplished the big items they promised, and lack focus and discipline. But the Democrats are mindlessly obstructionist, petty and churlish, and stand for and promise nothing but the failed liberal policies of the past.

Granted, Democrats are likely to gain a seat or two in both houses in November. As the party in the majority, voter disillusion will grate heavier upon Republicans than Democrats.

The Democrats transparent shortcomings likely preclude them from taking control of congress however. If anything, voters in the middle are likely to glance at both choices and stay home on election day. A low-turnout election equals a virtual perpetuation of the status quo, not a new Democratic majority.

The special election in California-50 this week corroborates this. The vast majority of those who turned out to vote were members of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Independents constituted a very minimal fraction of the vote and neither of the two candidates ended up receiving a majority.* The Republican candidate, Bill Bilbray, was able to achieve a minimal victory in a reliably Republican district. He received less of the vote share than President Bush won in that district in ‘04 but still received enough of the vote to win.

This is a pattern we could see throughout the country in November. Dissatisfaction with Republicans might earn the Democrats a few more points than they normally would receive, but minimal independent turnout will prevent these nominal gains from ever becoming substantial enough to take control of the House or Senate, or both. To garner a wave large enough to depose the Republican majority, Democrats would need their own base and independents to turn out against the Republicans Party.

An energized Democratic base with a heavy turnout is unlikely to suffice. As disheartened as Republicans may be with their own party, visions of Denny Hastert turning over the gavel to Nancy Pelosi January 3, 2007 are likely to nullify the vote-depressing effect this sentiment entails.

I am just as disappointed in congressional Republicans as the next voter. If the choice were between the current crop of Republicans in congress and a party who would spend responsibly, stay the course in Iraq, reform entitlements, and pass comprehensive immigration reform, I would chose the latter. But that is not the choice. That a Democratic congress is the only alternative to the current Republican one serves as the largest motivation insuring my enthusiastic support for Republicans this year. I suspect most of my fellow Republicans feel the same.

If the current quality of the choices voters face remains the same, most independents in the middle are likely to just stay home election day, leaving rank-and-file Democrats disgusted by Republican rule to square off against rank-and-file Republicans terrified at the thought of Democratic rule in a battle of which party can turn out more of their faithful. Such an environment may be conducive to Democratic gains, but not control of congress.

* Although added together the total vote share from Mr. Bilbray and a conservative independent in the race, William Griffith, who ran on a tighter border security platform, constituted a majority of the vote at 53%.

Zedner & Legislative Intent

In his opinion for the Court in Zedner v. U.S. Justice Samuel Alito explored the legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, along with the text of the Act, in coming to the conclusion that said Act did not permit a criminal defendant to waive his right to a speedy trial in federal criminal proceedings. Justice Antonin Scalia joined the opinion of the Court but in a separate concurrence chastised Justice Alito’s exploration of legislative history.1 " I believe that the only language that constitutes ‘a Law’ within the meaning of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7, and hence the only language deserving our attention, is the text of the enacted statute."

I agree with Justice Scalia. Trying to determine the intent a legislature had when passing a law is the equivalent of a dog trying to catch his own tail. There are as many possible intentions behind a law as there are legislators voting to pass it. Some intentions may be noble, some may be nefarious. Some legislators may have read and understood it one way, others may have read and understood it another. The intent of the legislature cannot be discovered because one, discernible intention does not exist.

As Justice Scalia has pointed out, even if legislative intent could be reasonably ascertained, "it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.....It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."2

Constructing law via the unidentifiable legislative intent behind a given law is starkly antithetical to the notion of a country governed by the rule of law. We are a country governed by laws, not the undiscoverable intentions of our lawmakers. The Supreme Court, and every other court in America, should avoid venturing into legislative intent exploration.


1. That Justices Scalia and Alito disagree over the value of legislative intent places one more nail in the coffin of the notion held by many liberals during Justice Alito’s confirmation process that he is a Scalia clone ("Scalito"). The Washington Post editorializes on this very point.

The Post’s description and criticism of Justice Scalia’s repugnance towards legislative history is another matter. If adhering to the actual text of a statute is "rigid" then a toast to judicial rigidity, it is an assurance that we are all governed by laws, not men.

2. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)

A Federalist Marriage Amendment

On Tuesday, June 6 the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I agree with the propriety of an amendment to the constitution regarding marriage. I disagree with and oppose the specific amendment before the Senate, and urge its rejection. Instead, I propose an amendment based upon principles of federalism.

Our founders created a federalist system because they recognized that allowing the heterogeneous states to retain much of their sovereignty was the only practical mechanism through which a union of those states could be preserved. As David Gelernter points out, federalism designs "a vast garment for America that hugs where it should hug and stretches where it should stretch......federalism accommodates profound national disagreement by allowing each state to tailor the local climate to suit itself."

As we have seen with abortion and Roe v. Wade, creating a rigid nationalized standard incubates a bitter sense of polarization within the country. By taking the issue of abortion out of the province of the individual states the ability for them to have their differences but live within one union harmoniously was obliterated.

Prior to Roe the good people of Vermont could broadly allow abortion within their state while the good people of South Dakota could mostly restrict it. After Roe no such system has existed. Every vacancy on the Supreme Court has turned into a fractious battle between pro-life and pro-choice activists. No longer allowed to simply disagree and pass divergent laws which reflected their own values within their respective states, Americans must now fight with one another to have their own view accepted as the national standard.

To preclude this from happening with marriage I support a federalist constitutional amendment containing two provisions. The first would state that gay marriage can only be legalized by a vote of the state legislature or by popular referendum within every individual state, not by a ruling from that state’s supreme court. The second provision, to make the first provision valid, would carry an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution.

Article IV, Section 1 dictates that "[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." If states are to be allowed to decide whether or not their own state will recognize homosexual marriage then an exception to this clause must be passed in any amendment granting them that authority. Without said exception the amendment’s effect would be meaningless. A homosexual couple could get married in a state recognizing gay marriage and then move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage and the latter state would be constitutionally obligated to recognize that marriage; effectively nullifying their power to decide whether or not they will legally recognize gay marriage.

Allowing the states to define marriage via their own individual terms will prevent the distasteful acrimony and national polarization that has accompanied the issue of abortion since Roe. Instead of having to accept one national standard that may or may not reflect the mood of the state, the good people of South Dakota will not be forced to accept the views and values judgments of the good people of Rhode Island, and vice-versa. They, and the other forty-eight states, will be allowed to create their own definition. A federalist marriage amendment will allow all of us to live together peacefully by allowing us to have our differences.

The Jefferson Raids & Their Constitutionality

The constitutional disputation which has arisen between congress and the Bush Administration over Justice Department raids of Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office is as absurd as the new constitutional rights the U.S. Supreme Court is so characteristically fond of making from time to time. Congress has argued that the raid violated the Speech and Debate Clause of the constitution. The clause’s text and the facts behind the raid do no support this assertion.

Article I, Sec. 6 of the constitution holds that members of congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Rep. Jefferson was not arrested. He was not prevented from going to or returning from the House. He was not questioned or challenged on any speech he made in the House. His office was raided, as was his home, on the authority of a valid and legitimate search warrant signed by a judge after Rep. Jefferson failed to comply with a Justice Department subpoena.

The immunities of the Speech and Debate Clause do not apply to the facts of the raid, or a raid of a congressional office in general. Nothing in the clause’s text explicitly or implicitly renders an office of a member of the legislative branch immune from a search by the executive branch. Said search was executed legally via a legal search warrant. As Tony Blankley accurately points out, congress’ argument would create "the right of a crooked congressman to be secure in his person, papers and effects even from reasonable searches supported by a warrant issued on probable cause."

The raid may have violated traditional deference between the separate branches of the federal government, but it did not violate the constitution. To argue otherwise is a feeble attempt to give the Speech and Debate Clause a meaning its text simply does not bear.

The Common Law & American Democracy

I write this in response to, and in concurrence with, the views and commentary on the common law presented by Justice Antonin Scalia in his essay A Matter of Interpretation.1 He specifically focuses upon the role the common law plays in a civil law system. I seek to explore the role the common law should play (if any) in a democratic republic such as ours.

I share Justice Scalia’s view and conclusion that the common law approach American jurists adopt when interpreting legal texts "is a sure recipe for....usurpation."(Scalia, p.14.) As I will argue here, not only do I believe this, but I believe the common law approach in itself constitutes judicial usurpation. Beyond even that, I will argue that the common law theory itself is a contradiction in terms, in that the whole purpose of law itself is defeated by it.

To arrive at the conclusion that a common law approach to judicial adjudication in a democracy is illegitimate one need only examine and understand what the common law is. As Justice Scalia succinctly explains it, the common law "is law developed by the judges."(Scalia, p.4.) In England, the place from which the common law originated, judges served as agents of the sovereign—the king—vested with the power to develop law through hearing disputes between the king’s subjects and rendering decisions in those disputes. These decisions, put together, developed into one common body of law—the common law. Though resolving specific disputes between two or more parties was important, the most important function of common law judges and courts "was to make the law."(Scalia, p. 6.)

The same formula is at work in the creation of law in America: the sovereign designates agents with whom the authority to make law is vested in. The difference is that in America the people, not the king, are sovereign; and the agents vested with the authority to make law are the people’s elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches, not judges. Same formula, different components.

It is here wherein a common law approach to judicial adjudication in American democracy is illegitimate. Judges do not have the power to make law in America, as they did in England under the English common law; and the common law is judge-made law. In America the power judges do have is to apply the law, created by the agents of the sovereign, to specific legal disputes arising between two or more parties and/or "to say what the law is"2 when applying that law. To make the law and to say what the law is are two completely divergent functions.

Common law lawmaking is only legitimate when the judges creating the common law have been vested with the power to make law by the sovereign. This was the case in England, it is not the case in America. Our system of separation of powers simply does not condone judge-made law, and the common law process of adjudication undertaken by any federal judge is simply an act in trespassing across those brightly colored lines that distinguish the lawmaker from the judge.

Moreover, judge-made law is as illegitimate in our American system of democracy as it is farcical in its very essence. Technically, under a common law regime, a judicial opinion creating law is supposed to carry the effect of a legitimate, binding law through the legal principle of stare decisis, the doctrine of precedent "under which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points are again in litigation."3

However, to a judge eager to create a new law—one more to his liking—the controlling power of previous precedent under the principle of stare decisis is limited. As Justice Scalia explains, "[n]o rule of decision previously announced can be erased, but qualifications can be added to it."(Scalia, p. 8.) Anytime a judge does not like a relevant or controlling precedent all he need do is distinguish between the circumstances relevant in that supposedly controlling precedent and the circumstances present in the current case. After all, no two cases are ever completely identical. This ability to distinguish enables him to add new qualifications to a given precedent suitable to his sense of justice and opinion of what the law should be. If that law is not attractive to a future judge, he can distinguish further and add a qualification upon the previous qualification.

No such sense of lawlessness within the law exists in the civil law system present in American democracy (provided that is, that judges do not take a common law approach to their work). In this system law is not made through judicial opinion, and then remade over and over again until the very idea of law becomes a mockery. It is made by statute, codified into an actual legal text. Unlike a judicial opinion which applies only to a set of very specific and limited circumstances, a statute is a general rule of law immune from judicial distinctions and qualifications. As Justice Scalia explains, "it is the text of the law rather than any prior judicial interpretation of that text which is authoritative. Prior judicial opinions are consulted for their persuasive effect....but they are not binding."(Scalia, p. 7.)

One useful purpose I do see the common law providing is its possible expository value in ascertaining the meaning of legal terms or provisions crafted in the common law tradition. As former English subjects, the framers of our constitution were great admirers of the English common law, and many of its traditional provisions, canons, and terms of art can be found in the federal constitution and the various state constitutions crafted in that time period. The writ of habeas corpus, a legal guarantee enumerated in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 in the constitution4, finds its roots in English law, as far back as the Magna Carta possibly, and was a common principle found within colonial American common law prior to independence.5 The Seventh Amendment explicitly contemplates "Suits at common law"6 no less.

For his part, Justice Scalia declares that he is "content to leave the common law, and the process of developing the common law where it is,"only questioning "whether the attitude of the common-law judge....is appropriate for most of the work that I do, and much of the work that state judges do."(Scalia, p. 13.) I am inclined to share a similar sentiment, yet I wish Justice Scalia had elaborated more on where exactly he felt the common law is appropriate to leave in place.

Regardless, though there is some question as to where exactly the common law is and should be appropriately left in place, there is no question as to where it should not: in constitutional and statutory law, where a law’s actual text, enacted via a democratic process, should and must be the definitive word; left only to be applied and clarified, but not altered or redacted by the judge. Judge-made law profanes the notion of democratic self-government, where laws are enacted by the people through their designated agents, not by a robed oligarchy.


1. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

2. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.,)

3. Garner, B (Ed.). (2001). Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.

4. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

5. Hall, Kermit L.. (Ed.). "Habeas Corpus". (2005). (2nd ed., New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

6. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Memorial Day '06

For Those Who Cherish Freedom, The Fallen Will Not Be Forgotten

President Bush Another Nixon?

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg penned a piece of couple of weeks ago musing over the similarities between the nation’s thirty-seventh president, Richard Milhous Nixon, and the nation’s current president, George Walker Bush. After perusing through the plethora of liberal characteristics present in the Nixon presidency, Mr. Goldberg concludes that though President Bush "is certainly to the right of Nixon on many issues.....at the philosophical level, [President Bush] shares [President Nixon’s] supreme confidence in the power of the state. Bush rejects limited government and many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie that position. He favors instead strong government."

I do not disagree with Mr. Goldberg’s characterization of President Bush’s conservatism as one of a "strong government" flavor. What I do disagree with is his implication that President Bush’s desire for strong government is synonymous with Nixon’s very liberal, very big government. I find very little similarities in the governing philosophies of Presidents Nixon and Bush, aside from the fact that both philosophies are products of their own unique times and that both president’s have seen the federal government as a means in achieving an end; two completely different ends mind you.

President Nixon entered office at the climax of the age of New Deal and Great Society liberalism, a time when big government was at its pinnacle. President Lyndon B. Johnson had been reelected four years earlier in 1964 riding the wave of popular support for his Great Society initiatives. His popular downfall towards the end of that term was not precipitated by any popular revulsion at big government or the Great Society, but by the course of the Vietnam War. Had it not been for Vietnam it is highly likely that vast political capital, predicated upon decisive public support, would have allowed President Johnson to more thoroughly enact the programs of the Great Society.

Conversely, President Nixon was able to defeat Vice President Humphrey in ‘68 not because he promised to shrink the federal government, but because his national security credentials lent him the credibility to convince the American people that he would end the conflict in Vietnam. The demand for Johnsonian big government was still very much alive, and President Nixon was there to provide ample supply for that demand. In President Nixon’s five plus years in office his administration created the Environmental Protection Agency and the Philadelphia Plan, pushed for wage and price controls, and appointed Harry A. Blackmun to the Supreme Court, among other items; all repugnant to any conservative.

To express dismay or surprise at this though would be naive. President Nixon presided over the nation in an age of prolonged, perpetual government expansion where political survival depended on conformity to prevailing liberal, big government persuasions. His liberal Republicanism was but a means in not only surviving in this atmosphere, but thriving in it.

Not so with President Bush. The age of Great Society liberalism has ended. The welfare state has been reduced and reformed, as has the federal tax code. The days of unfettered and appalling government expansion have subsided.

This does not mean we are exactly in an age of small government though, but rather somewhere in between Great Society liberalism and the pristine federal government of limited and enumerated powers envisioned by the framers.

Upon this reality President Bush’s conservatism is predicated. Though President Reagan was able to do much to reverse the excesses of the Great Society, he was only able to go so far. Attempts at exorcizing much of the Federal bureaucracy, including the Education Department, tried and failed. There were, and still are, too many special interests invested in a large federal bureaucratic state for efforts to diminish it to be successful.

President Bush has not tried to fight this. Instead of wasting time in trying to trim the size of the federal government in an age un-conducive to such efforts, he has tried to manipulate the government apparatus and use it for conservative ends, with the hope that by doing this the demand for big government will continue to decline.

Examples of this philosophy abound. In No Child Left Behind localities were given greater flexibility in curriculum and setting standards while also being held to greater account for reaching and meeting those standards by the federal government. Increased local control and accountability are both conservative principles.

The president’s Social Security reforms, though un-conservative on their face in that they would be exorbitantly costly, are, in fact, quite the opposite. Instead of compelling workers to surrender six percent of their income to the federal government, the president would allow workers the option to take that income and invest it in the stock market. This proposal would further conservative principle by vastly diminishing the control the federal government holds over individual’s retirement, thus empowering the individual worker.

The same idea is at work in the president’s promotion of health savings accounts, which help diminish the role government plays in health care by allowing individuals to choose among health care competitors on the free market.

The most obvious conservative attribute of the Bush presidency is, of course, his tax cuts. Tax cuts represent the epitome of conservatism in that they are based, in President Bush’s case at least, upon the belief that an individual can spend his or her money better than the federal government can.

None of this is to say that the Bush presidency has not had its liberal streaks. The prescription drug benefit, though it contained health savings accounts, was an enlargement of government entitlement spending and obligations of a magnitude President Johnson would have been proud of. The farm subsidy bill, signed into law in 2002, was a lavish government handout, no way around it.

All that proves though is that President Bush is not a perfect conservative; but no conservative is and no conservative president ever will be. What the president is is a faithful and consistent adherent to the brand of conservatism that does not try to futilely shrink the federal government in a direct sense, but instead accepts reality and uses the federal government as a means in enacting conservative ends.

It is here whereupon the notion that Presidents Nixon and Bush are identical in nature is mistaken. Yes both presidents used the federal government as a means to an end (and to pure small government conservatives this in itself precludes any president from claiming to be conservative), but the ends they used it for are completely different.

President Nixon’s ends were unquestionably liberal; they unabashedly and, in my view, recklessly enlarged the size of the federal government and, along with the similar policies of the New Deal and the Great Society, created a prevailing culture of dependency which degraded our national character and strength.

President Bush’ proposals and philosophy on the other hand use the federal government to promote conservative principles of personal freedom, ownership, and self-determination; all principles which enhance national character and strength. As Fred Barnes* has pointed out in his analyses of President Bush’s conservatism, it doesn’t matter "how big government is but what it does."

The current size of the federal government is not going to shrink, at least not for the time being. Faced with this reality it is completely compatible with conservatism to use the federal government as a means in promoting and achieving conservative ends. A large federal government is not ideal, but it can be utilized to strengthen the nation through conservative principles.

Unlike a federal government employed to advance the liberal principle of simply expanding itself ad infinitum, a strong federal government can be a tool in enhancing the strength, independence, and character of the American people, eventually diminishing popular dependency and demand for a large federal government. If following and promoting this philosophy is not conservative, than I no longer know what being a conservative really means.

*Barnes, Fred (2006, January 23). "Strong-Government Conservatism". The Weekly Standard, 11(18), 24-31.

On Immigration Reform and the President's Address

In his Monday night address to the nation the president laid out a pragmatic, rational plan to solve the mess along the southern border. This has not, nor will it, politically help the president with his alienated conservative base however, whose unrest over illegal immigration, after festering for years, has reached a boiling point. These conservatives want one thing and one thing only—an impregnable border protected by a wall re-enforced with increased border security.

This, for the most part, is what the president promised. He called for six thousand new border agents, a virtual and physical wall at designated spots, aerial surveillance, additional funding for local law enforcement, temporary deployment of the national guard, an end to "catch and release", and so forth. Since the president’s address the Senate has even passed an amendment calling for the construction of a wall along the entirety of the southern border, a provision similar to one passed by the House and something the president has indicated his support for.

But this has all been for naught. The minute, nay the second the president uttered the words "temporary worker program" any support he may have engendered among those conservatives solely interested in fortifying the southern border was squandered. If an impregnable border is the one thing these conservatives desire, then amnesty, or any policy perceived as amnesty, is one thing they absolutely will not tolerate. Opinion among this group holds that the president’s proposal is "amnesty" properly and succinctly defined. Following the address John Hinderaker of Powerline wrote that once the president "started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over." John Mcintyre of RealClearPolitics maintained that the president "missed a real opportunity to help fix a substantive problem facing the nation which politically would have significantly improved his standing among the public and his party’s position heading into the midterm elections." Mr. Mcintyre continued that any immigration proposal without a wall is simply further evidence, to estranged conservatives at least, that the federal government is still not serious about stifling the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. Those who oppose the president’ guest-worker proposal because of its contested lack of sincerity are lacking sincerity themselves. As the president emphasized Monday evening, the only viable plan is a comprehensive plan. A plan enacting only increased security along the border would be just as feckless and ineffective as one enacting only a guest worker program.

If a genuinely secure border is to be achieved we need a wall along the southern border doubly re-enforced by security personnel/technology and a guest worker program. A physical barrier comparable to the Great Wall of China would still be no match for the waves of highly motivated, highly incentivized Mexicans trying to enter this country to make a living and enjoy a better life in America.

Those conservatives who dismiss the president’s guest worker program as "amnesty" need to get realistic. The president’s approach is not only the correct one but the most feasible one because it prescribes the proper remedy for a real, substantive problem. By allowing those illegals currently within the country to enter upon a path to citizenship we in America exhibit our refusal to let an immigrant underclass reminiscent of those which currently permeate Europe to develop in our own country. The esteemed George Will made this argument this week:

Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society’s crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France.

The president merits credit and praise for his effort to prevent this from happening, and to insure access to equal citizenship and status to those who come here looking for something more than what they had back home.

Though they came here illegitimately, the great majority of illegal immigrants came here for the right reasons; the same reasons immigrants from all over the world have always risked everything to come here and become Americans for. As the president eloquently stated in his address, our "new immigrants are just what they’ve always been—people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the great hope on the horizon, an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they come from, because we trust in our country’s genius for making us all Americans—one nation under God."

To those who oppose the president’s proposal: neglecting to punish those who have entered our country illegally disproportionately to their offenses is not "amnesty", it is simply the right and American thing to do. After they have paid their debt to society, illegal immigrants deserve the right to pursue the same promise all our forefathers sought when they came to this great land—the promise of freedom, prosperity, and a better life for themselves and their posterity.

Hat Tip: Daniel McKivergan

Close Down Guantanamo?

The United Nations Committee on Torture has called upon the United States to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This only echoes similar calls which have come from other international organizations and leftist entities within this country. Amnesty International labeled Guantanamo as "the Gulag of our times" in its 2005 report and Sen. Richard Durbin infamously compared Americans there to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings" on the floor of the United States Senate.

This most recent call for closure, along with every other one previously made, merits a multiple-pronged response.

First and foremost, there is sparse, if any evidence that detainees are being mistreated in the Guantanamo detention facility. Sure there have been isolated incidents of mistreatment, as is inevitably the case in any detention facility of a nature roughly similar to Guantanamo. But no evidence has come to light exposing any structural or systemic existence of detainee mistreatment or torture. In fact, when detainee treatment at Guantanamo was in a much more prominent position in the public consciousness and discourse multiple congressional delegations visited Guantanamo and every member, even those who had been critical of detainee treatment there, reported that detainees were being treated considerably well.

Secondly, were the United States to close down Guantanamo what would the U.N. Committee on Torture propose we do with those detained there? Surely they don’t suggest we simply drop them off in their home countries, free to once again take up arms against the United States and our allies, the exact reason for which they were captured and detained in the first place? If we were to close down Guantanamo we would have to hold the Guantanamo detainees in an establishment identical in nature and effect to Guantanamo. Closing down the current Guantanamo would only necessitate the need to construct another Guantanamo by a different name.

Finally, instead of badgering the United States about Guantanamo shouldn’t the U.N. Committee on Torture, as well as the international community and the American left as a whole, spend its time addressing actual havens of torture such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc.? If the committee is to justify its name, I am of the opinion that it ought to focus its time and energies on countries where torture is an actual policy, not on free and democratic countries such as the United States who abhor the practice and blush deep shades of red when it is carried out by Americans against national policy and standards of human rights and decency.

This report is just another frivolous waste of time from an increasingly frivolous United Nations.

Hat Tip: John Hinderaker

Comment Response

Comment- "RE: 'The End of Roe'":

i dunno about this selective killing ... if all human life is "valuable" what about the 2400 men and women who we have killed in iraq ... not to mention all those 'valuable' iraqi people we setting up for more of the same ...crazy justification and warped ethics and a deceived public makes for a dangerous society ...

peace & harmony,
elaine

My Response:

-----I have to say I disagree with equating the practice of abortion to lives that have been lost during times of war. On the one hand you are dealing with a procedure which, in most circumstances, needlessly and tragically destroys an unborn human life. Lives lost during war on the other hand, depending on whether that war is justified and/or what cause the lives were lost in the pursuit of, can be lives needlessly lost and wasted or they can be lost in the pursuit of something noble such as the freedom of others and/or the preservation of more lives in the present and future.

-----Who are these "2400 men and women we have killed in Iraq"? If you are referring to the American soldiers who have died there, as I assume you are, then we didn't kill them, the terrorists in that country did.

----"All those 'valuable' Iraqi people we [are] setting up for more of the same"? A statement like that insinuates the Iraqis were living in perfect freedom, peace, and serenity before we went there. They obviously weren't. Iraqis were being tortured and executed by the day under the previous regime, all for the purpose of insuring that regime maintained it's brutal stranglehold on power.

What we are setting the Iraqis up for is the capacity to pacify their own country and to build a stable, representative government which will insure the peace, tranquility, and the preservation of Iraqi rights. Accomplishing this means fighting terrorists who do not want to see such a government arise, which inevitably means that, tragically, brave Iraqi and American soldiers will be killed and innocent blood will be shed.

If we succeed however, those who have given their lives and have shown the last full measure of devotion to the cause of freedom will have done so so that innocent Iraqis will no longer have to needlessly lose their lives and live in a state of terror under a cruel and repressive regime, as they would have had Saddam Hussein been left in power.

I appreciate you visiting my site and sharing your thoughts Elaine. Hopefully you'll find my response illuminating and respectful. God bless.

Revitalizing the Bush Presidency: Possibilities, Realities, & Choices

The president’s low approval numbers have been the preeminent fodder for discussion in the country’s political classes for months, but especially of late. This discussion has primarily focused on two topics: how the president’s numbers have sunk so far and what he and the administration can do to reverse the decline, which has spanned nearly the entirety of his second term.

The consensus answer to the former is multi-faceted. Persistent bad news from Iraq, administration incompetence in reaction to Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports Controversy, runaway federal spending, the empirical manner in which the White house has treated congress and disaffected congressional Republicans (who have thus exhibited little reluctance in increasingly criticizing the president), have all been mentioned as factors; and I would agree that all, more or less, are responsible.

The answers to the latter piece of discussion—what the White House can do to rectify the president’s sagging poll numbers—have been just as varied. Some have suggested a shakeup of the White House staff and cabinet, while others have opined that nothing can be done, the president has lost all power and influence in Washington and will ride out the remainder of his term a feckless lame duck. I dissent from this view.

I believe there are a number of actions the president can take to reinvigorate his presidency and reestablish it as a force in Washington (though I do not necessarily think the White House is not a force today). But before I enumerate these, I must first acknowledge that the task of reinvigorating a presidency in its second term is swimming against the swift and powerful current of history. Over the past century all presidents fortunate to have been elected to a second term have experienced problems; from Roosevelt, to Reagan, to Clinton, and now to Bush. Roosevelt was saved by the extension of World War II upon America, while presidents Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from the Iran-Contra and Lewinsky scandals to leave office fairly popular. The current president can do it too, but it will require several actions, at the minimum.

One of those actions, and in regards to the notion that the president needs to overhaul his staff, would be adding a few outside faces. I agree this would have a positive effect, though not a drastic one, especially within an administration that has presided over some of the most consequential times in recent history. Fatigue and burnout among the president’s staff is a reality. Some new faces, with an added, fresh perspective, would help.

But then again, this is already happening. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has resigned and been replaced with OMB Director Joshua Bolten, who has been given a free reign by the president to reshape the White House staff. Mr. Bolten’s scrutiny should be directed towards White House communications, an area within the administration especially in need of attention and alteration.

Following the ‘04 victory the administration phased out of campaign mode, a dire mistake in a long, tough war exhausting upon Americans’ patience, as America’s engagement in Iraq is. In the Camp David planning retreat following the 9/11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested the wartime communications effort be run "like a political campaign with daily talking points. Sustaining requires a broad base of domestic support. Broad, not narrow. This is a marathon, not a sprint. It will be years and not months."1.

Why the administration has not followed such an approach is beyond me. A media hostile to the effort in Iraq, and to the president himself, is not going to tell the full story there. They have deliberately ignored the rebuilding efforts, the improvements in Iraqi civil society, the construction of a viable and functioning republic, and the heroism of brave Iraqis and Americans fighting against Islamo-fascist terrorists. It is up to the administration to talk about these aspects; a task they have been mostly negligent in so far.

In terms of American strategy on the ground in Iraq, I by no means urge the president to alter anything. In fact, I believe the current approach should be left intact. Regardless of much of the current conventional wisdom within Washington, the strategy in Iraq is indeed working, slowly but steadily. The progress is there for anyone interested to see. Altering or vacating the current approach would likely suspend that progress and aggravate the tense but stable situation on the ground.

No, it is the administration’s public defense and discussion of the effort in Iraq, not its strategy on the ground, that needs adjustment and improvement. Whether this requires a new communications team I’m not sure, but the White House needs to get serious about it’s wartime communication obligations and employ a sustained public defense commensurate to the consequential nature our effort in Iraq is. The stakes there are simply too high and the cost of failing too great to countenance a sub-par public information campaign.

With all of this said the administration’s problems extend beyond mere communication deficiencies and no communication effort on Iraq, no matter how effective it is, will cure all that ails the president’s political standing. As I already have acknowledged, public apprehension and pessimism over Iraq is the main source of the president’s political weakness, but it is not the only source.

George W. Bush prides himself on having a presidency guided by big ideals, ideals worthy of the attention and advocacy of the president of the United States. In his first term these grand ideals and issues were tax cuts, education reform, and the prescription drug benefit; with the ultimate but unexpected issue of the War on Terror outclassing all. In the second term there was originally comprehensive social security reform, which, because of entrenched interests in opposition to any reform and hyper-partisan demagoguery, flopped.

Following that the administration has adopted no new substantial domestic issue in which to undertake. As a result, the administration has been largely adrift, stuck on the sidelines and relegated to responding to events and circumstances instead of shaping them.

To rectify this, I make a few suggestions. First, complete the last real issue remaining from the president’s first term: permanent extension of the tax cuts. Accomplishing this will have two positive effects, at the very least: it will insure the continued health of an already strong economy and it will remind conservatives, who may be currently disenchanted with him, why they supported him in the first place and why he and Republicans, despite their flaws, are better than the alternative. After all, does anyone really wonder what Democrats, who are openly proud of their opposition to lower taxes, would do to the Bush tax cuts if they were in power?

Thirdly, the president needs to find one or two domestic issues in which to support and promote. One possibility is publicly pressing the importance of confirming his lower-court judicial nominees. Robert Novak has documented the senatorial inaction on many of the president’s nominees, and a little presidential publicity on the issue is what is needed to alleviate this. The state of the judiciary is of high salience among national conservatives and is a sure political winner, for the president and Republicans. More importantly, the judiciary is in need of more judges who adhere to the constitution and it is incumbent upon the president to do what is necessary to see that action is taken on his own judicial nominees.

Other issues the president could take up are tax-code reform and health savings accounts. Currently our tax-code is a monstrosity of a headache, as hours and money are wasted simply trying to correctly fill out tax returns. Simplifying the code would relieve a substantial burden upon the American economy.

In regards to health saving accounts, a little free-market reform is exactly what is required to lower the costs of health care. When consumer choice is entered into the equation, costs decrease while quality increases.

Arguments like these, expanded upon of course, are the types that the president should be making repetitively.

------------

I would like to end in much the same place in which I began. The prospect of reinvigorating a presidency in it’s second term is daunting, given historical precedent and contemporary circumstances. The president may very well enact all the measures I suggested and still experience minimal improvement in his public popularity. The situation in Iraq, far more than any other issue, will ultimately determine public perception of the president.

Though it improves over there by the day, inching closer and closer to viable democracy, the American public’s mood continues to sour. At this point, barring some unforeseeable breakthrough or development, this trend is likely to continue. As long as there is a substantial American presence in Iraq Americans’ dour outlook is likely to persist and the president’s popularity is likely to wallow in the low thirties or forties. Staying the course is and will be politically costly.

The only question then becomes whether the president is willing to trade political popularity for persistence in Iraq. Given the president’s tendency, for better or for worse, to ignore the ever-changing winds of political pressure, I believe it is clear that it is a price he is ready to pay, and has been paying. The right thing to do is not always the popular thing to do, but that does not mean it is not worth doing. This fact the president understands, and for that I profoundly admire him.

If approval numbers in the low thirties are the cost of staying the course and finishing the job in Iraq, then so be it. It is worth it.

1. Woodward, Bob (2002). Bush at War. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

RE: "The End of Roe"

Before I respond to Mark Noonan's recent post let me begin by restating my own views on abortion. I am generally pro-life. I oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or in instances to save the life of the mother. Every human life is valuable, no matter what circumstances the child may be born into. The practice of abortion robs each of it's victims of their right to life and the world of their unique talents and gifts. I believe a woman should be allowed to receive an abortion in the circumstances I listed above because I cannot, in good conscience, compel a woman to carry to term a pregnancy she had no choice in creating; nor can I compel a woman to give up her life in order to carry a pregnancy to term.

In regards to Mr. Noonan's post, I believe he makes some valid observations on the American public's fallacious understanding of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe decision and it's meaning and application. In his analysis of the data he discussed however, he makes some comments I find incendiary and excessive:

[Y]ou have to be a real, genuine, God-forsaken barbarian to think that abortion on demand is the correct course of action (heck, that is an insult to barbarians, actually); most Americans probably wouldn't imagine that the Supreme Court of the United States would rule that abortion is something that can happen any time for any reason whatsoever...I mean, think about it: what kind of inhuman SOB would do such a thing?

Abortion is a mostly objectionable, always tragic practice; but to classify anyone who supports abortion on demand, as extreme as they may be, as a "God-forsaken barbarian" is over the top. This form of rhetoric does a disservice to the pro-life movement and diminishes those who purvey it into a position equivalent to the most extreme abortion on demand proponent. It poisons the tone and substance of political discourse. Say what you will about abortion on demand proponents, they believe and support what they do not because they are barbarian or uncivilized, but because they, in good conscience, believe it is the most ethically tenable position to hold.

Moreover, this type of rhetoric is a repellant to moderate, mainstream Americans who are uncomfortable with abortion but acknowledge there are certain circumstances in which it's exercise is justifiable. Not many people will seriously listen to an individual who derides those he strongly disagrees with in such terms, and it may ultimately turn those still undecided away from the pro-life position.

If we are to have a mature and civil national discussion on abortion this type of over the top bombast needs to be restrained. Mr. Noonan is well within his right to freely express views such as these, I do not seek to deny him that. If given the opportunity though, I would advise him to more carefully and artfully select his words when discussing abortion and those with whom he disagrees, for all of those reasons I highlighted above.

Iraq Takes Another Step

If it had not been already, the notion or claim that Iraq has descended into civil war was dispelled once again today by the appointment of a new prime minister, agreed to by both Sunni and Kurdish parties. The new prime minister will have thirty days to form a new government. A new speaker for the parliament and two deputies were also selected, along with the reelection of Kurdish President Jalal Talibani.

Though finding consensus on who will fill posts in the most significant ministries is likely to cause as much tension as finding a prime minister was, the fact that Iraq is making slow but steady progress is irrefutable. The next step in forming the nation’s first constitutionally formed government has been made, Iraqi security forces grow stronger and more experienced by the day, the economy is growing, and Iraqi civil society continues to develop. Sectarian strife and violence does exist, no one denies that, but exceeding that, at least at this point, is a broader desire within Iraq to keep the nation on the path towards secure democracy. There is no civil war, not now, because the Iraqi populace and it’s leaders have not allowed one.