BLOG: The Decision Tuesday

This piece is different than most.  I usually try to lay out clear ideas on a subject of interest, and support it with logic and research.

Today, I want to simply express an opinion.

This election on Nov. 6th, 2012 is not about people, or parties, or issues. This election is about one central idea, and all the other issues and talking points and controversies flow from that central idea.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not central to this debate. As I point out in this post, politicians are largely captive to public opinion, and to their supporters.  They are vessels carrying the agendas of those who support them. The election, therefore, is not about the agenda of the candidate, but the agenda of his supporters.

On the ballot this Tuesday is really only one question: Will we take responsibility for ourselves?

Many other questions and answers flow from this one. Will we hold ourselves and our neighbors accountable for their actions? Will we allow our government to do to our neighbors what we would never do ourselves? Will we value our freedom, and pay the costs, or sell our freedom for a little “security”? Will we rely on what we earn, or will we demand our neighbors provide for us? Will we take full responsibility for our own choices, or will we expect our government to make many of our choices for us?

When I was a child, we presumed that the most precious thing we had was our freedom, and we understood that freedom came at a price. That price was not only the sacrifice of our soldiers, but also the cost of making mistakes. A free society must contain a measure of chaos, and a measure of danger. It comes with the territory.

The engine of our prosperity, and our amazing wealth—and we are tremendously wealthy—is our free enterprise system. The very markets that have been demonized in the last 4 years as “risky” and “corrupt” are the same ones that brought us the prosperity that raised our standard of living far beyond anywhere in the world, with an almost continuous record of progress for the last 50 years.

As Milton Friedman has pointed out, strong economies depend on freedom, and freedom depends on economic independence.

… and freedom also depends utterly on the discipline and virtue of the people.

On Tuesday, we will have a choice between two ideologies. One believes that freedom is less important than “security”. It believes that equality of results is paramount, and that evidence of unfairness can be found in every instance of inequality, and government must correct unfairness. Individual merit is little more than happenstance. Personal responsibility is an exception, not a rule. It is something to be considered an ideal, not a requirement.

The other ideology is less well articulated, because the virtues of egalitarianism and compassion have clouded its vision. The latter ideology is coming to see, through the excesses of the current political environment, where the current ideology is taking us. It has no single champion, but a phalanx of groups, pundits and candidates grappling with the issues. They don’t have crystallized solutions, but they understand the central role of personal responsibility, the importance of individual merit, and how freedom, strictly limited government, and the wisdom of our founders is a far better foundation for our future.

On Tuesday we will make a choice. Will it be for leaders that will support personal responsibility and freedom, or leaders who will grow government, and try to buy our freedom from us with our neighbor’s wealth.

Choose well on Nov. 6th.

 

BLOG: Maybe it Wasn’t Reagan

This November 6th, we will elect a new president. We have confidence that whoever we choose will take us in the direction promised in the campaign, but in reality, we know it’s not that simple.  It ignores the central role that public opinion plays in American politics.

President Obama made many promises 2008. I have no doubt that he earnestly wanted to fulfill his promises, but in many cases, he was thwarted. He would like us to believe it was the “other party” that thwarted him, but that’s not the case. The reason he was unable to keep many of his promises is that public opinion stood in his way. At every turn-closing Gitmo, holding trials for terrorists in New York, the DREAM act –  attempts to keep promises were derailed by public opinion, and the efficient pandering machine that is Congress.

In our governments – federal, state, and local – very little happens without the assent of the people. Politicians are nothing if not masters of the art of sensing public approval. Those who do not have this gift do not stay in office long. Politicians are acutely aware of the mood of the public, and don’t wait until election time to take action. Pandering is a 24/7, full contact sport in Washington DC.

Presidents do it too, and not just in election years.  Their words and actions have enormous influence on the success of politicians at all levels, especially those from the same political party. Political allies depend on the president’s success, and the president depends on them.  Presidents do not, and cannot act alone.

Ronald Reagan is beloved by conservatives as a leader and transformational figure.  Conservatives see him as a revolutionary, turning back the tide of pessimism and government overreach in the 1980s, and opening an era of prosperity. However, I wonder if Reagan gets too much credit. The tremendous sensitivity of congress to public opinion was no less in 1980 than it is today. Congress has been in the business of getting re-elected since the beginning of the republic.  Ronald Reagan didn’t even have a majority in Congress to support him, yet he got major legislation passed early in his term to enact his agenda.

It may be that we have it backwards. Maybe it wasn’t so much Reagan who led us out from under President Carter’s malaise. Maybe Reagan was more a talented man in the right place, at the right time. He caught the mood of the people, and so did congress.  The people were sick of being told that they were in decline, that their best days were behind them, and that they could not fix it themselves.

Maybe Reagan didn’t lead as much as follow. He didn’t create the ideology that he championed. Maybe his role was to crystalize the will of the people into magnificent rhetoric and put it into action.  Maybe he was little more than a superb vessel.

Mitt Romney has worked hard to be a “moderate,” much to the chagrin of many conservatives.  While this choice makes him a suboptimal choice for those “real” conservatives, it makes him an excellent vessel. His job, as with all politicians, is to do the will of the people. What better way to do this than to elect a man ready to carry out the wishes of the people, without too many preconceived notions of what must be done.

As with Reagan, maybe we are not choosing a leader who will take us somewhere, but a politician who will reflect our will, and followour lead.

Maybe we look at elections backwards, too.  Maybe election day is not the end of a process, but the beginning.  If politicians are so sensitive to the wishes of the people, as I believe they are, the people have a responsibility – a duty – to hold their elected representatives’ feet to the fire.  As with pandering, accountability should also be a 24/7, full contact sport in America.

Vote carefully on Nov 6th, and remember that no matter who wins, your voice should not fall silent when the returns are in.

The real work begins on Nov 7th.

BLOG: Politically Correct Vandals?

There is an article in City Pages about a “Vote Yes” billboard that was vandalized recently.  This is a crime that needs to be punished, not a humorous incident to snicker at.

Minnesotans live together, but disagree about many things.  I vote yes, you vote no.  We can argue, but if I beat you up, or break the windows in your house, or slash your tires, I should go to jail.  If I say to the judge “I was drunk” or “but he insulted me”, the judge doubles my sentence and adds a fine.  Excuses don’t wash. The judge is looking for repentence and a commitment from me that mycrime will not be repeated.  Motivation is irrelevant, I crossed that line, committed a crime, and should be punished.  Civility and public safety in our free society depend utterly on the self control of its citizens.

If you read the article in City Pages carefully, you will detect an attitude that almost blames Minnesota for Marriage for their foolishness in putting up the billboard.  Of Course it got vandalized!

As City Pages put it: “It’s the old ‘mess with the bull, you get the horns’ thing.”

The editors at City Pages should remember that they may take controversial stands some day.  If someone commits a crime to silence them, and the police say to them: “mess with the bull, you get the horns”, will they apologize for being foolish, and fade away?

Do we give a pass to those who commit crimes, when the victims are unpopular?

Given the frequent rhetoric of the “vote no” community that they are protecting the oppressed, the irony is thick.