Sarah Palin Prioritizes Family

In late March this blog noted that a Presidential run by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was unlikely. Unfortunately some degree of backpedaling occurred in late August. Nevertheless, it comes as no surprise that Ms. Palin is not running for President. Moreover, it is encouraging that she realizes what most Americans know: a presidential run would not benefit her family.

An Imperfect Yet Excellent Example

In recent weeks Representative Michele Bachmann's presidential star has regrettably begun to fade. As her weight in the polls diminishes, her message isn't the Republican field's greatest loss. Instead it's her unique blend of individual talents and femininity, seasoned with her atypical experiences as a foster mother.

For decades young women were presented with a false choice: they could shed their gender and become successful, or express their femininity and risk their professional goals. Unfortunately, men in positions of authority were often to blame for this subtle discrimination. Times have changed. Now, in a field where personal and political machismo are often rewarded, Ms. Bachmann has french nails. Yet contrary to all the stereotypes, she's also intelligent, relaxed, principled, and passionately articulate.

For those young women who are paying attention, Ms. Bachmann's presence in the Republican spotlight, weaknesses and all, is another good example of a talented, self-confident, feminine woman who is neither dumb nor dull. If Michele Bachmann's presidential luminescence continues to decline, her example will be sorely missed. Hopefully young women (and men), regardless of their political views, will appreciate Representative Bachmann for who she is - an imperfect yet excellent example of modern American womanhood.

A Primary Riddle

Over the next six months, Republican primary voters will be forced to answer a simple question: is it absolutely essential to defeat President Obama in 2012? For individuals who answered in the affirmative, the best general election candidate will be their choice. Yet nested within this decision is a riddle: to whom will displeasure's cold advice most suitable seem – those nearest the ledge, or those farthest afield?

Perfect Justice is Imperfect

Today many Americans fervently desire justice for criminals. Television dramas depict justice being served, investigative shows seek real-life answers, celebrity trials receive copious news coverage, and political leaders attack unpopular white-collar “criminals” daily.

Economist and political philosopher F.A. Hayek once described the Rule of Law in criminal cases as follows: “no punishment without a law expressly prescribing it.” For many Americans that isn't good enough. These individuals wish the rule was “no 'crime' must remain without punishment.” Yet this is precisely how Hayek described the totalitarian societies in which the Rule of Law was all but unknown.

This situation is worrisome. If current educational, political, philosophical, and religious trends continue, foolishly idealistic individuals might one day exchange the Rule of Law for “perfect” justice. The change would be revolutionary, but no one would celebrate it 500 years later.

Bachmann's Bridge to Somewhere

Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has cast herself as a no-nonsense fiscal conservative. In fact, the strength of her fiscal rhetoric has probably soothed the ripples of concern that many of her centrist-leaning or libertarian-leaning supporters (in Minnesota and elsewhere) have heretofore felt. However, the Minnesota Representative's sponsorship of a bill that would use federal money to partially fund a large, expensive, bridge-to-somewhere in her district, will undermine her attempts to highlight excessive federal spending.

In all fairness, the bridge also represents a desire to wisely plan for future needs. In this way, Ms. Bachmann's support for the bridge is reminiscent of conservative Senator Jim Inhofe (R- OK) - a self-proclaimed big-spender when infrastructure and national defense are at stake.

Yet given the nation's present financial situation, many voters - particularly Republicans – want a candidate who is fully committed to a thrifty federal government. Representative Bachmann's vocal support for the new bridge will likely lessen her appeal to these critical primary voters, and thereby unofficially end her long-shot chance of winning the Republican nomination.

A Palin Entrance Could Split the Vote

According to Robert Costa of the National Review online, Sarah Palin is going to seek the Republican nomination for president. Hopefully he's wrong. Yet unlike many in the national media, I believe the former governor is intelligent and capable. Her political views are also quite encouraging.

Nevertheless, Sarah Palin has three substantial liabilities. First, in comparison to her potential rivals, her experience is a bit thin. Second, she is viewed negatively by many voters – including some Republicans. Third, her post-secondary education lacks the gloss many Americans have come to expect from a modern President.

Now in all fairness, none of these weaknesses prove she would be a below average President. In fact, she's most likely more intelligent than a great many past presidential candidates. But the aforementioned weaknesses would make it extremely difficult for her to capture the Republican nomination, and possibly more difficult still for her to beat President Obama in 2012.

Moreover, if Sarah Palin enters the race, there is a fair chance that candidates Cain, Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Perry, and Santorum will split the conservative and libertarian-leaning primary votes amongst them. A moderate nominee (Romney or Huntsman) would be the result. Thereafter, some frustrated Republicans might prioritize principle over party, and consequently refuse to support another distasteful Republican candidate. If that occurred, President Obama would be guaranteed a second term.

While it's impossible to know for sure if the broad field of conservative and libertarian-leaning Republican candidates will enable a moderate candidate to capture the prize, it certainly will be interesting to see if Sarah Palin places a bet.

Europe's Shaky Economy

What if the rest of the world – a factor largely outside American control – presented a danger to America's mid-term economic health? How would this country react? While this question may seem outlandish, it's actually quite timely: Europe is presently in a tight financial spot, and if Europe stumbles the US economy will most likely feel the pain. Hence it would be wise for our government to carefully plan for the future. But in the event it doesn't (and it rarely does), what should individuals do to prepare for difficult times? Here are some thoughts ~

• My grandfather's generation: don't invest in the stock market, save and pay off your debt instead.
• My father's generation: only invest money you can afford to lose.
• My advice: eliminate unnecessary spending, then combine steps one and two.

Prepare for tomorrow by living below your means today.

How Will the Marriage-war End?

A little more than a year after the Confederate Army lost the decisive battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, it was clear their cause was all but lost. Yet driven by a misplaced sense of honor, or perhaps an inability to recognize the obvious, the South kept fighting. Needless death and destruction was the result. Today proponents of traditional marriage are in the process of making a similar mistake.

According to a PEW research report from last fall, Americans are gradually becoming more comfortable with the notion of same-gender unions. In fact, from 1996-2010 every generation became noticeably more supportive of same sex marriage. Presently gay marriage is supported by roughly 25% Americans born before 1946, 35% of Baby Boomers, 45% of Generation Xers, and 52% of the Millennials.

In other words, Generation X was a modern Gettysburg. Now as the children of Generation X make their way through primary and secondary school, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe this multi-generation trend is going to abate. And if the truth be told, social conservatives desperately need the rising tide to not only cease, but also retreat. As a result, advocates of traditional marriage are left with two choices: pursue a political miracle or find a creative solution. Regrettably they are focused on the former.

Generally, social conservatives advocate one of two political strategies: amend state Constitutions or add a marriage amendment to the US Constitution. Neither remedy is likely to succeed. State-level marriage amendments are only viable if five members of the Supreme Court endorse an restrained interpretation of the relevant Constitutional clauses. Given the current membership of the high court, this bet comes with long-odds. Similarly, a federal marriage amendment would require a 2/3 vote from both houses of Congress, and ratification by 38 states. In order to conquer the first hurdle, committed social conservatives would need to simultaneously hold about 65% of the seats in the House and Senate. Even if this incredibly unlikely event transpired, state-level support for gay marriage and civil unions almost grantees that a federal marriage amendment would fail.

Proponents of traditional marriage need to replace both the aforementioned goals with a new one: remove the government from the marriage equation entirely. Most marriage traditionalists would indubitably oppose this recommendation; yet sound reasons for such opposition are few and far between. If, as many traditionalists suggest, marriage is a divine institution, why is the government's stamp of approval necessary? Other rites receive no such recognition, and yet they have thrived for centuries. Clearly legal recognition is not essential. In a similar way, it's specious to suggest that legal chaos will arise if state-endorsed marriage becomes a relic of the past. The truth is, almost half of the adult population is presently unmarried, and legal chaos has yet to emerge. The reason is self-evident - the legal system has evolved.

For decades the civil law has addressed the thorny issue of child support between never-married parents. A few judicious tweaks would apply these rules to all parents, regardless of their private “marriage” status. Likewise, individuals have been able to donate their organs via a check-box on a driver's license form for years. A similar method could be used to invest one or more trusted persons with the power to make medical and financial decisions if the designee were suddenly incapacitated. And prenuptial contracts could, as they do now, effectively outline the particulars of property division if a long-term relationship dissolves.

Detractors might contend state and federal tax codes present unsurmountable hurdles for the aforementioned legal change. The truth lies elsewhere. Individual tax returns would replace joint filings, and each individual could claim one-half of any jointly held and claimed asset or liability. In this way a person's long-term relationship status would neither enhance nor decrease his or her individual tax bill.

The removal of the government from the institution of marriage has, contrary to critics, nothing to do with being on the right side of history. Instead, it's premised on the realization that the war over marriage is all but over. A plurality of Americans arguably favor civil unions, and in the future a plurality of voters will also support same-sex marriage. In the light of these trends, social conservatives must reevaluate their strategic goals.

Returning once again to history, the Confederacy's stubborn refusal to abandon their increasingly unrealistic goal of independence paved the way for Sherman's infamous march to the sea. Unnecessary psychological and economic destruction resulted. If social conservatives refuse to embrace a new goal, they will be unable to avoid the far-reaching consequences.

As today's primary and secondary school students become the young professionals of tomorrow, numerous potential small-government allies will instead become resolute enemies of individuals they see as illiberal bigots. Consequently, as the United States confronts the critical questions of the 21st century - familial privacy, federal debt, and the difficulties of international politics – respected leaders that support a restrained federal government and a modest foreign policy will be few and far between. Hopefully social conservatives will accept the idea that God alone should solemnize marital unions; if they don't, our nation's prospects are dishearteningly bleak.

See related articles ~ Time for a Divorce & The True Marriage Divide

Is Israel the Next Libya?

What if the world as you knew it was about to change? What if the order of things was going to be reshuffled by a power outside your control? This alarming prospect may very well face the nation of Israel and individuals around the globe who support her.

The winds of change became blustery when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome. In it the General Assembly advanced a "responsibility to protect" individuals or groups within a country from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" if their country was unable or unwilling to provide such protection.

Not surprisingly, when the UN Security Council authorized military intervention in Libya three months ago, it did so to protect civilian life. Yet it was the circumstances the Security Council's resolution described that made it interesting.

...gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions...acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel...widespread and systematic attacks...

If these intra-national sins sound vaguely familiar it's because many critics of Israel have (justly and unjustly) placed these same offenses at Israel's doorstep. As a result, regardless of how benign the aforementioned resolution sounds, it provides a precedent for future UN military action in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Today President Obama advocated a US policy that could take the world one step closer to a Libyan-style intervention in Israel -

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejected President Obama's proposed border solution within hours. In the aftermath of this rejection, and given, as the President framed it, the "emotional" significance of "the future of Jerusalem," what would happen if the United Nations officially re-recognized Israel's pre-1967 borders? How would Palestinians and Israelis react? Presumably violence would erupt; Palestinians would riot (or seize their newly granted land), and Israel would defend its citizens and their property.

In fact it's not unreasonable to believe that the situation might begin to resemble that of Libya in February - arbitrary detentions, disappearing leaders, unhappy journalists, controversial attacks, and disputed events. Under these circumstances Israel might find itself unable to successfully balance domestic security with the unrealistic humanitarian expectations of the UN.

If Libya is any indication, UN imperialism could face a worthy opponent – a resolute Israel. And that would be a nor'easter for the ages.

Boehner's Budget Gauntlet

Yesterday House Speaker John Boehner made some uncomfortably strong comments about raising the US debt ceiling.

It's true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process. To increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our debt -- in defiance of the will of our people -- would be monumentally arrogant and massively irresponsible...So let me be as clear as I can be. Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.

Caution requests a softer line; yet the United States' long-term financial problems require a more robust approach. White House rhetoric aside, the OMB projects only modest budget cutting in the near future. From 2011 to 2012 the yearly US deficit is expected to decrease by roughly 500 billion dollars; unfortunately only one-fifth of this decrease is expected to come from spending cuts. Said differently, the Presidents 2012 budget plan would cut federal spending by 2%. Hardly a bold proposition.

Moreover, even if the 500 billion dollar deficit reduction materializes, the US would still have to borrow 30% of the money it spends in budgetary year 2012 (October 2011-September 2012). Consequently bold members of congress need to lead the budget-cutting charge - unafraid of the howls from Wall Street, K street, and Main street. Hopefully Speaker Boehner's speech signals he is ready for the task.

Palin Presidential Run Looks Unlikely

Today's announcement that US Representative Michelle Bachmann will form a presidential "exploratory committee" late this spring suggests that Sarah Palin will not run for President. This conclusion follows from three simple postulates:

• The Republican primary field only has enough political oxygen for one female candidate.
• Bachmann and Palin feature similar political ideas - both are Tea-Party favorites.
• Their shared political ideas would benefit from a Bachmann-only run in 2012.

One interesting possibility is a Palin-backed Bachmann run. Contrary to what some skeptics think, this makes sense. Bachmann's resume is more impressive and her negative ratings are lower; Palin, on the other hand, combines solid crowd-drawing credentials, with a noteworthy ability to raise substantial amounts of money for candidates with whom she agrees.

Speculation aside, the Republican primaries just became much more interesting. Ideally the eventual nominee will have a similar effect on the presidential race in 2012.

A Suicide Democracy?

Rumors of revolution are jolting Middle Eastern leaders from their lethargy, and westerners are broadly hopeful. Perhaps democracy will soon flourish in a region that has been beset with strife, hate, and poverty for centuries. Perhaps.

A revolutionary Middle East may indeed herald a new era, but it could also usher in an even darker, less-tolerant, future for the region. According to Pew research, suicide bombing receives a disturbing level of support among Muslims in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Egypt provides a particularly stark example. When respondents were asked if it was ever appropriate to defend Islam by suicide bombing civilians, 20 percent said such actions were “sometimes” or “often” justified. In fact a closer look at Egypt's demographics raises serious questions about the likelihood of a modern democratic government in Egypt.

Egypt has a population of approximately 82 million. If one optimistically assumes that 10 percent of Egyptian Muslims had a change of heart now that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in power, and if only men from age 15 to 65 are included, Egypt still has roughly 2.3 million individuals who can justify targeting civilians with a suicide bomb in order to safeguard their religious beliefs. Clearly, this ideology poses a substantial problem for the committed proponents of a modern democracy.

In modern democratic countries, citizens of faith are often unhappy with legislative actions, yet few actually commit acts of physical violence because of it. Therefore the question is a simple one: can a modern democratic government exist in a country where hundreds of of thousands of men were willing to end their lives in defense of their religion and its doctrines? Or will the public eventually exchange political principle for personal safety? Understandably the answer is uncertain.

Many traditional Muslim beliefs, like their Christian and Jewish counterparts, occasionally disagree with secular notions regarding sexuality, marriage, family, divorce, religious freedom, freedom of expression, and privacy. If the Muslim Brotherhood's influence on Egyptian politics turns out to be moderate, almost secular, Egyptians will do well. But if extreme traditionalists are able to utilize the Muslim Brotherhood to shout “inimical to Islam” every time a controversial reform is suggested, Egypt may have a dark future ahead.

For idealistic Americans, Mubarak's resignation represented a chance for Egyptians to experience freedom; many Egyptians felt the same way. Yet with such a large segment of society expressing support for suicide bombing, it's hard to believe that a majority of Egyptians desire a modern democratic government. So idealists be warned: sometimes revolutions are great, and sometimes great revolutions aren't very revolutionary.

Change - Endogenous and Exogenous

The problem with analyzing the growth or decline of nations, businesses, churches, and civic groups, is that endogenous and exogenous variables are often at work. Regrettably, short-sighted, semi-rational, self-interest often lies at the heart of many endogenous problems, while the interplay of complex forces is often responsible for a unique set of exogenous circumstances. With this in mind, blaming a negative situation on one factor is, and should be, considered a gross over-simplification of the facts - a habit Americans regularly praise in politicians.

The Republican Party's Dangerous Ground

Today, the morning after a historic electoral victory by Republican candidates, the political world just became more interesting. Throughout the election season, many Republicans promoted the issues of individual liberty, smaller government, and a balanced budget. They said the right words, now America gets to see if their actions match their rhetoric. The stakes are high.

Some commentators have suggested that if the Republicans backslide, their party could go the way of the 19th century Whig party. This would seem likely. Unable to effectively address key political questions (among them slavery), the Whig party fractured. From its ashes rose the Republican party - a party that opposed slavery and united various reform-minded groups.

Many of the individuals who voted for Republicans in 2010 - particularly those affiliated with the TEA party movement - have already been burned once. In the early part of this decade these principled individuals blindly embraced Republican promises of fidelity. Euphoria followed. But soon many Republican members of congress jettisoned their promises in favor of a passionate fling with the nymph of Big Government.

If, after their landslide victory in the House of Representatives last night, Republicans re-embrace their "we are the lesser-of-the-two-evils" mantra, the party is in deep trouble. Issues like individual liberty, a smaller federal government, and a balanced budget, are not only political ideas, but elements of a creed that had its genesis in America's founding generation. Voters who fully adhere to these ideals will abandon a politician or political party long before they will consider sacrificing their political philosophy.

Consequently, if the Republicans in congress fail the fidelity test a second time, they will alienate a critical percentage of their voters (probably 2-10%), and without these voters it will be almost impossible to achieve widespread electoral success. Absent electoral success, the Republican party may join the Whig party in the history books.

Coburn & Kagan Discuss the Constitution

On Tuesday June 29th, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn asked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a series of questions designed to shed light on her interpretation of the constitution. In one exchange, Sen. Coburn inquired whether the commerce clause empowered the federal government to require everyone to consume three servings of vegetables each day.

Ms. Elena Kagan answered indirectly. The application of the commerce clause, she contended, is limited to the regulation of economic activity. On its face, this rational sounds promising, but the details only raise more questions.

According to Ms. Kagan, Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes believed citizens could, through their legislators, "go hang themselves." And while she averred Holmes' conceptualization was not universal, she apparently found it generally acceptable. The implication is obvious: she reads the constitution's commerce clause broadly.

If Senator Coburn had asked a slightly different question, America might have heard an even more revealing answer. For example, can congress pass a law requiring each American family to cultivate a small vegetable garden? The economic implications are obvious, the intrusive nature of the law is indisputable, and the answer would have been very interesting.

An affirmative answer from the nominee would have raised questions about the relationship between congress' power under the commerce clause, and the scope of liberty guaranteed under the 14th amendment. The net result would have been a greater insight into the Solicitor General's judicial philosophy.

The difficulty is that a broad reading of the commerce clause can be seen from two perspectives. Either it is judicial restraint at its best, or it is judicial neglect at its worst. Elena Kagan seems to hold the former view, while Senator Tom Coburn apparently holds the latter opinion.

But if the truth be told, yesterday's discussion between Senator Coburn and nominee Elena Kagan was not really about the commerce clause, a Supreme Court vacancy, or even ideology. Instead was about the delicate balance between individual liberty and government power.

Regrettably, all to many Americans seem willing to embrace an evolving Constitution that places ever more power in the hands of our elected officials, and thereby leaves fewer and fewer areas of life unspoiled by government intrusion.

***The conversation regarding the commerce clause begins at about the 20 minute mark.***

Is Eminent Domain the Solution for Detroit?

A few months ago the city of Detroit made the headlines when it was announced the city was considering plans to create green spaces in semi-vacant, economically lifeless pockets of the city.

This plan, like any similar venture, gives rise to serious questions about the relationship between private property rights, civic responsibility, economic development, and “green” planning. Although fraught with difficulty, it is not impossible to rectify these divergent concepts.

On the surface, the idea of creating green zones in badly blighted areas has great appeal; yet a closer look suggests practical and Constitutional problems exist. The practical problems are relatively straight forward. Who defines the boundaries of the blighted communities? How does the city fund a massive relocation program? What if residents of blighted areas don't want to move to a new community? Even if the city of Detroit is able to address the first two questions, the third provides a substantial obstacle, and a point of litigation for many attorneys.

Following in the wake of Kello v. New London, there is no doubt that the city of Detroit has the legal power to forcibly purchase all the blighted properties in question, even if some of the properties end up in private hands. The more interesting question is whether the city would have been able to use eminent domain to create public parks without the Kello decision. I believe the answer is no.

The fifth amendment endows the government with the authority to acquire “private property” for “public use.” Since city parks are tax exempt, funded by the public, open to all citizens, and frequently staffed by city employees, it would be an impressive feat of logical gymnastics to defend the notion that the establishment of city green spaces does not fit the “public use” exception. However, this analysis assumes a purely textual approach to the Constitution. A quick glance at the Constitution's historical context suggests different conclusion.

Before the revolutionary war, warrant-less searches and writs of assistance (warrants that empowered the British colonial officials to search for anything illegal), met with wholehearted colonial disapproval. Indeed, the effects of this disgust can be seen in the fourth amendment's search and seizure clause. In addition, the unwarranted search of a house, is similar to the seizure of an individual's home or business in this respect: both events represent dramatic incursions into a citizen's private sphere.

Considered in this light, a striking similarity of ends becomes apparent – both amendments were designed to protect average Americans from the curse of an over-reaching government. From this vantage point we can furthermore surmise that the founders would have expected the forcible seizure of one's property to only occur when the essential functions of government were in question. The plans under consideration in Detroit fail to meet this criteria.

Eminent domain can and should be used to facilitate the delivery of services that are incontrovertibly public in nature - administrative buildings, police and fire stations, schools, and roads. But unlike the aforementioned projects, creating additional urban green space is not a indispensable government activity. At best it is a secondary, or even tertiary government goal. As such, the local government's usage of its most powerful tool of social engineering, eminent domain, is dubious at best.

Nevertheless, decades of mismanagement, misfortune, and tough economic times have caused Detroit's elected leaders to search for ever more powerful methods of promoting urban regeneration. Regrettably this headlong push for a remedy has obscured more palatable alternatives.

Instead of embracing the controversial notion that eminent domain is the key to rebirth, Detroit's elected leaders should try to achieve the same ends by different means. For example, Detroit should begin an aggressive, voluntary campaign to purchase blighted areas of the city. One method of encouraging participation might be to name local parks and their paths after the neighborhoods or home owners who once inhabited the vicinity.

Next, the city should create special tax havens that target the economically challenged areas of Detroit. Over time businesses can be expected favor the reduced-tax areas of the city, and thus slowly bring jobs back to the most underemployed areas of Detroit. In addition, city officials should offer even deeper tax breaks for property owners who renovate their blighted assets. By giving property owners an incentive to increase the value of their properties, the city will have encouraged landlords to voluntarily beautify the poorer communities.

Finally, Detroit should institute a carefully crafted system of fines that discourage property owners from allowing their uninhabited houses or unused buildings to gradually deteriorate. Recalcitrant property owners would face a choice: improve their dilapidated asset, or pay significant fines. Revenue from the fines would in turn help defray the costs of voluntarily creating new green spaces.

If the recorded history is anything more than a subset of literature, it is this: our society should incorporate the wisdom of past generations, and thereby improve society. In the present case, this means giving the private property rights of the individual the widest possible latitude. It is for this reason that the city of Detroit should eschew the use of eminent domain whenever possible. Not only will property rights be safer, but the city will occupy the moral high ground – a particularly salient point when city leaders hope to re-brand and revive a once great city.

Marrying a Non-Profit

When it comes to public policy, Americans of every political affiliation loudly decry the marriage of big business and big government. They are right to do so. However, it appears that many of those same people will happily accept a union between non-profit groups and the government.

Under President Obama, this new-bedfellows strategy has taken the controversial guise of federal funding for the now-discredited organization ACORN. And, although ACORN lost its federal funds a few weeks ago, some reports suggest that loss was only temporary.

Not so long ago, the Bush administration used a slightly different tact. The office of "Faith Based Initiatives," for example, was designed to spread-the-wealth to faith-inspired entities. These groups did laudable work, and many center-right faith-based organizations applauded. Unfortunately, the government was in bed with non-profits long before Bush arrived in Washinton DC.

This morning Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann announced that ACORN played a unique role in the government's community redevelopment strategy in the 1990's.

"So as part of the demand from the federal government, what they said is if the banks fail to lower their lending standards, then the federal government would shut down their interstate bank branches and they would not allow banks to open new branches."

However, the government beneficently offered banks an alternative:

"...one way the banks could satisfy their requirement under the Community Reinvestment Act is they could partner with ACORN. So a bank could either make a cash donation to ACORN, they could give equipment donations or they could work with ACORN to provide these loans to people who are poor credit risks..."

If this allegation proves to be true, the questions are sobering. Could a non-profit entity abuse its relationship with the government? What happens if the government systematically begins to turn benign non-profit organizations into bastions of pro-government propaganda? A specific answer may be uncertain, but a general answer is not - the country would be one step closer to a rule of the government, by the government, and for the government.

Service or Self-government

More than 300 years ago, Thomas Hobbes speculated that governments arose when ordinary people could no longer tolerate the danger and uncertainty that accompanies a state of continuous warfare. According to his theory, individuals willingly gave up every right but self-defense, thereby trading their independence for servility. And servitude, in its worst sense, is but slavery by another name.

The civil rights movement for example, was an effort to permanently remove races of people from defacto servitude. Of course, service has a positive aspect as well: it is laudable to voluntarily help a person in need. Unfortunately, this altruistic urge recently acquired a new and dangerous character when it became a pledge to the President of the United States.

In ancient Rome Julius Caesar benefited from such loyalty: his soldiers willingly flouted Roman law in order to serve their leader. Motivated by patriotism, glory, and perhaps greed, these soldiers changed the course of history. This is not to say President Obama is Julius Caesar – he's not. Nor is it to say that the President's ardent supporters are as ignoble those soldiers from two millennia ago – because they aren't. Regrettably the dangers aren't that simple.

Today our democratic republic is threatened by an altruistic fervency that leads otherwise rational individuals to voluntarily exchange the title of “master” for that of “servant.” Thinking citizens should never pledge their service to any political leader. Instead, each citizen must actively defend the rule of law – our Constitution - from gradual encroachments by intelligent, affable, public servants.

Self government requires each citizen to be well informed and vigilant; servitude requires neither. A useful servant only needs to follow directions. By pledging their service to an individual leader rather than our Constitution, enthusiastic Americans have inadvertently begun to embrace the role of servants. This role reversal turns public servants into elected rulers - a substantial change that undercuts our Constitutional system.

For some Americans today, the prospect of serving a political leader is preferable to the status quo. Thomas Hobbes would be proud, and the patriots of 1776 would be disgusted. Indeed, if any of our founders were to join the political debate today, he would surely wonder if servile Americans truly understood the blessings of liberty, or the indignities of servant-hood. The contrast could not be more obvious: our founders shouted “give me liberty or give me death,” now some Americans pledge to serve a leader.

Hopefully thoughtful Americans will once again recognize how important liberty really is, remember what self- government really means, and recapture the ideals of 1776 - the ideals that have made us Americans.

Euthanasia & Rationed Healthcare

Politicians are notorious for underestimating the real-world cost of a given program; universal health insurance will be no different. With that in mind, many Americans are concerned that the expensive nature of the proposed healthcare reforms will lead to healthcare rationing, and possibly even euthanasia. Naturally, President Obama used a portion his most recent weekly address to quell the “outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia.” Concerns about rationed healthcare were left unaddressed. And there's a good reason why: the President has tacitly acknowledged that some rationing is necessary.

For example, in the not so distant future, businesses, justified by the presence of universal government coverage, will attempt to reduce their healthcare overhead by cutting back on the coverage they offer employees. Indubitably this action will only increase the numbers of Americans who are eligible for government funded health insurance. As a result, the real cost of any government insurance program is likely to far exceed current estimates. Given the budgetary realities our country faces, the government will be forced to engage in a controversial cost-benefit analysis of elder care. It is at this juncture that older patients will be forced to choose between a pill and pain: costly end-of-life healthcare procedures will be out of the question.

In the long run, the President's support of “health insurance reform” will probably not be benefit Medicare recipients. On the contrary, given Medicare's impending financial crisis, and the monumental inefficiency of maintaining a parallel health insurance program, it's highly plausible that most Seniors will eventually be covered by the universal insurance program currently under consideration. So although we can take comfort in the knowledge that the bill doesn't promote euthanasia, the thought of living one's final years in pain, or a medicated stupor, will probably make even the best of us occasionally wish the government insurance covered assisted suicide.

Editor's note: this article is a great example of why many Americans believe, regardless of the President's rhetoric, that government cost-cutting will eventually lead bureaucrats to deny some patients the opportunity to undergo expensive treatments.

Does Sarah Palin's Resignation Reveal a Double Standard?

On July 3^rd Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shocked the political world by announcing that she would step down in three weeks. Immediately, political pundits began venturing opinions about Sarah Palin's political future. Some analysts found it inconceivable that Ms. Palin's resignation fell outside the “normal” reasons for leaving the political fray: ambition and scandal. Other commentators hinted that she was getting out of the political kitchen because she couldn't take the heat. Many neglected to discuss the dichotomous expectations public officials face.

When candidates run for office, voters want them to be “one of us,” but once a candidate is elected, they are expected to act more nobly than those they represent. Unrealistic though this is, critical observers are frequently eager to call the public's attention to any violation of this odd code of conduct. Consequently, many politicians – including Sarah Palin – receive negative press coverage when they transgress this unwritten rule. And, as unfair as it is, the critics are rarely held to the same dichotomous standard.

For example, if a well-paid pundit or average American left their current job for a promotion with another company, editorial writers wouldn't complain. Similarly, if an ordinary individual was offered a job that promised less stress, a salary increase, and better hours, he or she would take it. Elected leaders like Sarah Palin don't have that choice – at least not without being roundly criticized.

In light of this double standard, Sarah Palin's decision to step down before the end of her term is much to-do about nothing. At worst, Sarah Palin plans to seek a prestigious promotion (higher office), a better paying job (public speaker), or a more enjoyable method of earning money. Where is the travesty? Thousands of Americans change jobs for these reasons each year. Moreover, from an employer's perspective, an unhappy employee is not going to do a top-notch job. As a result, even the departure of a highly talented employee (e.g. elected leader) can be beneficial.

There is, however, another scenario: Sarah Palin believes her political career is less important than her family and its finances. If indeed this is the case, she has once again upstaged her critics by proving she lives by the values she advocates. Unfortunately, even if this does prove to be true, pundits, political hacks, and all to many average Americans, will be too busy to notice. After all, another promotion and a raise is just around the corner.

Political Gamesmanship Goes Latina

At this juncture in American political life, many politicians, and even more voters, have concluded that Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court should be carefully scrutinized. This is particularly true with regard to a potential judge's constitutional interpretation. Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is no exception. Once considered a low-risk candidate for the pending vacancy on the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor has become a polarizing figure. This is in large part due to subtle ideological “tells” that have quickly emerged. Here are a few highlights -

• When asked about judicial activism prior to he first appointment to the federal bench, Sotomayor used language that suggested elasticity. “Judges,” she wrote, “must provide fair and meaningful remedies for violations of constitutional and statutory rights.” Moreover she contended that only “as a last resort and limitedly” should the Judicial branch interfere with the other branches.

• In 1995 Sotomayor co-authored an article for the Suffolk University Law Review. According to the article, “(T)he Law...judges declare is not a definitive, capital 'L' law that many would like to think exists.” Likewise, “a continually evolving legal structure” was hailed as an integral part of the American legal system. Simply put, an “always evolving, society” needs the law to evolve as well.

• At the outset of the confirmation hearings in 1997, then Senator Strom Thurmond requested an opinion on the following statement (in part): “...The ultimate question must be, what do the words and the text (of the Constitution) mean in our time.” Sotomayor disagreed, and averred that historical context and precedent were important. Yet when she was pressed about “a constitutional right to homosexual conduct,” Judge Sotomayor cited Romer v. Evens - a decision that was a significant departure from historical precedent.

• In a 2002 speech published in the Berkeley LA Raza Law Journal, Sotomayor said that “equality in the judicial system” was not an end unto itself. Instead, she contended that “significant numbers” of minorities would effect “the development of the law.” And although she acknowledged “a danger embedded in relative morality,” Sotomayor seemed to suggest that deep reflection is the appropriate counterweight to experience-oriented legal judgments.

Judge Sotomayor isn't polarizing because she believes that the law must evolve, but because she's convinced the judicial branch must control the evolutionary process. Unfortunately, conservatives who oppose her nomination are often dismissed as partisan demagogues. Some doubtlessly are. Liberal politicians however, often purposefully conflate principle with partisanship, virtue with vice. The payoff is short-term political advantage; the cost is hypocrisy. By seeking political advantage instead of carefully opposing a conservative principles, liberals are engaging in the same gamesmanship they attribute to those who oppose them. And for this our country is worse off - regardless which side is grandstanding. Hopefully one day voters will raise their expectations, maybe then Senators will indulge in a less grandstanding, and ask better questions.

Politicians & Constitutional Interpretation

As another Presidential election approaches, politicians have once again begun using the language of “rights,” often in the context of hot-button social issues. Generally, each candidate will spice up his or her rhetoric with strangely familiar predictions about what will happen if their opponent is elected. Often there is a modicum of truth in their words. Even more interesting however, is what candidates frequently avoid discussing: the constitutional interpretation behind their rhetoric.

Until the 1960's, few Americans realized the importance of a lawmaker's constitutional interpretation. In recent decades this has changed, although many politicians still avoid speaking about the subject in any depth. Why? Numerous politicians have unwisely made sound-byte proclamations; one contending that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, another suggesting that judges must help the Constitution evolve. Both concepts leave voters unsettled – a troubling prospect for any politician on election day.

The trouble is, constitutional interpretation is complex. Aside from the notion of stare decisis (cases are frequently decided “on the basis of precedent”), there is no consensus about how the US Constitution should be interpreted. In fact, there are three major interpretative approaches: original understanding, textual analysis, and living constitution. From a politician's perspective, each approach could have a disagreeable affect on the electorate; hence lawmakers avoid the specifics of constitutional interpretation. For example:

Original Understanding – The Constitution's original intent is paramount

• Positives –A well-defined constitutional framework, government retains founder's wisdom
• Negatives -Hard for Government to address societal changes, incomplete historical record

Textual Analysis – The meaning of the text is the key to any interpretive question

• Positives – Easy to apply, should promote stability, ideally reflects wisdom of founders
• Negatives - Possible lack of textual clarity, conflicts between clauses are difficult to resolve

Living Constitution – The Constitution evolves with each generation

• Positives – Enables the Constitution to address new issues, and reflect evolving standards
• Negatives – Judges guide evolution, minimal stability, politicization of Constitution

Obviously, the foregoing schools of thought make it clear how experienced judges can see specific rights from two very different perspectives. This reality, combined with a general lack of legal knowledge, relegates many politicians to the constitutional sidelines. The irony is that politicians are regularly called upon to tacitly judge the constitutional merits of a particular law. And while many of them shirk that duty by reflexively voting yes, these same individuals are unable to avoid the rhetoric of constitutional rights during campaign season.

All of this leads to one conclusion. Unless voters begin to demand that candidates discuss constitutional interpretation more throughly, the electorate will be forced to hide a collective smile as politicians seem to know so much, and yet so little about the Constitution.

Technical material: Rossum, R., & Tarr, G.A. (2003). American Constitutional Law Vol. II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments.

The Political Masquerade

Formal masquerades have been a part of Euro-American culture for centuries; political masquerades have been around much longer. Given recent political developments, it has become obvious that presidential candidate Barack Obama and Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius are in full masquerade regalia this election cycle. Each has attempted to obscure a controversial approach to an important issue by trumpeting politically meaningless personal beliefs. The subterfuge is clever, but not impenetrable.

When Obama weighed in on the recent California Supreme Court ruling that marriage could not be defined as one man and one woman, he blundered. According to Jeff Bell in the Weekly Standard, the potential nominee “said he 'respects' the decision of the court.” Bell went on to note that candidate Obama does not favor the Clinton era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or a federal marriage amendment. So what does he favor? Apparently a state-by-state approach.

However, because of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, the odds are good that a marriage recognition case will eventually reach the Supreme Court (e.g. South Dakota refuses to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in California). The ensuing decision will force each state to recognize all marriages performed in the other 49 states. Thus while Obama may personally believe marriage is a union of one man and one woman, his actions tell a different story: for all intents and purposes Barack Obama is a quiet proponent of gay marriage.

Nonetheless, since the prospect of gay marriage troubles many potential voters, Senator Obama is always careful to hold up the mask of his irrelevant personal views; by so doing, he hopes to garner a few more votes. Sadly, he probably will.

Kansas' Governor Kathleen Sebelius wears a mask that is equally as transparent. Because of her Catholic faith, the governor believes in the sanctity of life; yet her actions as a public servant hardly betray the fact. Indeed, she has readily assumed the mantle of a pro-abortion partisan.

About two weeks ago, Archbishop Naumann (Kansas City), observed that the governor recently vetoed a bill “that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them.” Simply put, the bill recognizes society's desire to insure that abortion providers offer each woman the chance to make a fully informed choice.

Why would a politician who believes in the sanctity of life veto such a bill? It is hard to say. But if the legislature's attempt to override the governor's veto is any indication, she cannot cite a strong public outcry. Two unflattering rationales remain - precedent, and political utility.

If a fear of political precedent motivated the Sebelius veto, the nexus between her personal views and public policy goals is almost completely nonexistent. Therefore her personal beliefs are unimportant. Similarly, if political expediency leavened the decision making process, Kathleen Sebelius is a politico, and her personal values are irrelevant. In either case Governor Sebelius is a masquerading politician who uses her personal values to mask her true policy preferences.

Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius are both masked politicians. They hold up an opinion for one crowd, and a different opinion for a another group of voters. Regrettably they aren't alone. Morally flawed Republicans are in the same class. They hold themselves out as the guardians of traditional values – all the while violating the very moral rules they so aggressively uphold. The difference is, Republicans often wear masks of personal convenience, whereas elected leaders like Obama and Sebelius don masks of political expediency.

In the end, a politician's actions reveal the truth behind the mask. Hopefully the electorate will look beyond the smiling mask of every politician, otherwise election day may bring some unpleasant surprises.

A Betrayal of Liberty

In 1787, former governor and legendary defender of liberty Patrick Henry declared, “The great and direct end of government is liberty.” Sadly, a majority of Virginia’s elected leaders no longer agree with Patrick Henry.

When Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell campaigned for the post of Attorney General he promised to get tough on sexual predators. The Attorney General kept his promise. This spring, after a little more than a year in office, Virginia lawmakers passed groundbreaking legislation championed by Attorney General McDonnell. Unfortunately, privacy, an essential component of liberty, suffered in the process.

According to the Attorney General’s office, the legislation “creates a database of email addresses and IM names” used by convicted sexual predators. In addition, the law “allows social networking sites…to access that information.” Innocuous though it appears, this legislation is a reevaluation of the importance of privacy in the state of Virginia.

According to its supporters, this groundbreaking extension of government authority is justified on two grounds. First, the registration of email addresses and IM names is analogous to the street address registries found in many states. Second, recidivism rates among sexual predators necessitate special legal precautions. Although these arguments are powerful, the legislation's precedent promotes grave concern.

Heretofore, without a strong indication of criminal activity, the inherent privacy of a person's home and property was respected. Now, a permanent class of suspects have lost the right to privately engage in lawful activities without notifying the government. Remarkable!

In the process, Virginia has not only amended the notion that the home is an inherently private sphere, but also weakened the presumption of innocence that has historically under girded America's justice system.

Instead of tracking the internet identity of violent sex offenders, electronically monitoring them, or sending them to psychiatric hospitals after the completion of their prison sentences, politicians should try a novel approach: get tough.

Politicians like to talk tough – but few really follow through. A mandatory 40-year no-parole sentence for repetitively violent sex offenders would be a good start. Many state attorney generals probably believe the cost would be too high, but it doesn't have to be.

Until relatively recently, many prisoners were forced to do hard manual labor to offset their debt to society. Violent sex offenders should spend a minimum of 40 years doing just that. A prisoner's labor could never pay for the innocence that was stolen from his or her victim, and would probably not cover the costs of his or her incarceration, but it would be a start.

Critics will argue that forced labor is a form of “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, that's not what the 13^th amendment suggests. Moreover, giving sexual predators a measure of freedom via electronic monitoring degrades American liberty.

If liberty is to have any meaning at all, privacy must be its foundation. The precedent set in Virginia this spring raises questions about how seriously the government takes the privacy of a peaceful citizen's home. Weakening this fundamental right will only serve to unsettle the freedom to peacefully believe, communicate, and act without government regulation.

Nevertheless, liberal and conservative politicians in Virginia have allowed the political ease of supporting a bad precedent to triumph over wise lawmaking, a convenience that doesn't serve the cause of liberty. Patrick Henry would be ashamed.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell's press release

Predators released in NY

Iran and Iraq: A Dangerous Future?

In the Middle East, few things are what they seem. Obscured by the heat of perpetual conflict, important details are lost. Iran's interaction with Iraq is no different. Over the last few months, the Iranian government has made it clear that it wants a peaceful and stable Iraq. Idealistic western leaders see an opening for dialog, but realists see a different scenario.

Currently, the Middle East lacks a strong non-Jewish state - and Iran knows it. Worse yet, western idealists have had a long history of ignoring the aspirations of rogue countries. Unfortunately Iran knows that too. Where does Iraq fit in? Both countries have Shiite Muslim majorities. In Iran, almost 90% of the population is Shiite; similarly Shiites make up roughly 60% of the Iraqi population.

Critics correctly point out that although a majority of Iranians and Iraqis are Shiites, religion has not historically been the unifying factor one might expect. This is largely due to ethnic differences and intra-Shiite disagreements. Nevertheless, the globalization of information, coupled with a common dislike of the “invaders” might minimize traditional disagreements between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites. Indeed, some experts believe this is already happening. Where is the proof? Iranian Shiites are said to be aiding their insurgent Iraqi brethren.

If Iranian and Iraqi Shiites are temporarily putting ethnic and religious differences aside, the question is why? What could Iranian Shiites possibly gain from promoting political, social, and economic instability on their national doorstep? The answer is disturbing: a favorable balance of power in the Middle East. In fact, manageable instability in Iraq could benefit Iran in three key ways. First, a weakened Iraq is one less obstacle to Iran's growing importance in the region. Second, an unstable Iraq will have difficulty building the strong democratic government that could cause young Iranians to second guess their own political system. Third, if Iraq remains weak, the United States' ability to project its power in the Middle East will have been compromised, thereby solidifying Iran's newfound strength in the Middle East.

If Iran is able gain strength by fomenting instability in Iraq and developing a nuclear arsenal, it would most likely seek to assert it. Iraq would be the natural place. While a close relationship between the two countries is unlikely, it is not impossible. Why? Stability. In the event that moderate Iraqi Shiites are faced with a marked increase in sectarian violence, security at the cost of Iranian meddling might be acceptable. Baghdad would thus become Tehran’s regional accomplice.

Hopefully, the fears of collaboration between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites are misguided. However, if the West is to effectively deal with Iran, idealism is not the answer. Instead, policy makers must remember that in many parts of the Middle East, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Furthermore, analysts cannot afford to view each new development in a vacuum. Rather, the West must critically consider the sum of Iran's actions. Only then will Western governments realize that Iran's nuclear ambitions and pro-insurgency activities are but two road signs pointing to the same destination: a brave new world.

Gun control: An Idea that Misses the Mark

Advocates present tough federal gun control laws as a pragmatic solution to a tough problem; in reality, gun control another example of appearance trumping substance. Advocates frequently cite three specious reasons for gun control: society has changed, gun control will disarm criminals, and the Second Amendment only guarantees a “collective” right.

The most common rationale for gun control is that American society has changed over the past two centuries. Indeed, most Americans don't hunt for food, and fewer still ever need a gun for self defense. The trouble is, if changing times are the measure an amendment's relevancy, other cherished constitutional rights are also in jeopardy. Obviously this notion is dangerous in the extreme. As such, it provides a poor justification for gun control.

Frequently, gun control is blithely touted as a common sense strategy to keep guns away from criminals. Experience suggests otherwise. For decades, various drugs have been illegal. Have they become impossible to get? Far from it. Instead, the profits have become astronomical. If the war on drugs teaches Americans anything, its lesson is that criminals cannot be expected to obey the law.

In a similar fashion, gun control advocates contend the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of law enforcement personnel and national guard members to “bear arms.” However, history casts doubt on this “collective” interpretation.

In Federalist 46 for example, James Madison contended that if the government ever jeopardized basic freedoms, roughly 1 in 3 eligible males would take up arms in defense of liberty. Clearly, even before the Constitution was ratified, Madison saw peaceful gun ownership as an implicit Constitutional right.

However, in New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, an implicit guarantee was not enough. As a result, each state ratified the Constitution – but not before pointedly declaring that law-abiding citizens had a right to own fire arms. Thus it was only natural that when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment began with the following unambiguous language: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

While its undeniable that Second Amendment's final language is more ambiguous than Madison's initial offering, a collective interpretation of the Second Amendment is simply not the most rational explanation of the facts.

From a collective perspective, James Madison proposed language that explicitly protected the implicit right of gun ownership - only to settle for language that guaranteed almost nothing. Equally as puzzling is the collective assumption that the five state legislatures were mollified by an amendment that failed to guarantee a right they had boldly articulated during the ratification debate.

Independently, these assumptions are improbable; taken together they are unbelievable.

Left in this decidedly illogical position, gun control advocates scrupulously avoid the most logical conclusion: the Second Amendment was designed to allay the fear that the federal government would disarm liberty-loving Americans.

Instead, in an effort to present their ideas as the moral and Constitutional high ground, gun control advocates conveniently overlook the Second Amendment's historical context. But after considering the historical context, the three most common justifications for gun control bear the unmistakable hue of partisan opinion; a poor rationale for a new government initiative.

Purchased Influence

Idealists believe campaign finance reform will tame the old-fashioned money-influence nexus. The idealists are wrong. Our creative elected leaders have been developing another system of purchased influence for decades. But before unhappy citizens can engage in a ballot-box makeover, this scheme requires a little explanation.

In the past, local party bosses would purchase influence by “delivering” his locality to a specific candidate. Sometimes this involved ballot-box stuffing and outright dishonesty; however it often simply entailed rewarding the party's steadfast supporters with contracts, jobs, housing, and perhaps even food. Then the New Deal arrived.

Designed to put people back to work during the Great Depression, the New Deal gave politicians the power to help needy constituents through a wide variety of public projects. Before long, elected leaders realized that their constituents were simply interested in tangible benefits. The cozy relationship between political influence and wasteful government spending had begun.

Unlike their late 19^th century counterparts, modern congressional lawmakers no longer need the cover of darkness to parlay their office into personal gain. Indeed, over the last few decades, both major political parties have become startlingly proficient at using taxpayer money to fund wasteful projects for their constituents. According to the non-partisan Citizens Against Government Waste, taxpayers paid 29 billion dollars for 9,963 wasteful projects in 2006 alone. Naturally, these projects encourage local voters to support their “favorite” Representative or Senator in the next election. Waste is the new graft.

More than a century ago, President Grover Cleveland cautioned that “public expenditures should be limited by public necessity.” Clearly this is no longer the case. Instead, members of Congress have consistently mismanaged taxpayer dollars. Consequently, the federal debt tops 8 trillion dollars – a sum future generations will have to pay.

Sadly, most voters no longer believe President Cleveland's assertion that “the waste of public money is a crime against the citizen.” He was right; but until voters embrace the concept of governmental thrift, politicians are free to endorse balancing the national budget while hypocritically voting for bills laden with waste.

It's painfully obvious - campaign finance reformers are wrong. The most egregious money/influence nexus is not found on the campaign trail, but in the halls of congress. It is there that wasteful projects purchase reputations and thereby influence voters at the taxpayer's expense. The question is, do voters want real change?

The other side: The electoral college protects electoral minorities

In less than two years Americans will choose a new president. And two years from now critics will claim the Electoral College is an undemocratic Constitutional relic devised by scheming aristocrats. Unfortunately, this proletarian rhetoric glosses over two important facts.

First, the argument relies on a faulty assumption: the United States was intended to be a democracy. History disagrees. Instead, America was intended to be a democratic-republic where citizens would thoughtfully deputize men and women to be their representatives in the halls of government.

Second, arguments against the Electoral College presuppose that majority rule is the central principle of American government. It isn't. As the existence of a Bill of Rights attests, the American Experiment was founded on the belief that the rights of the minority must sometimes be protected at the expense of majority rule. That is exactly what the Electoral college does.

As a practical matter, the Electoral College protects the rights of Americans living in less populous states by including a state's Senators in the electoral weight equation. For example, an electoral system based on population would assign Alaska one electoral vote. Instead, Alaska has three electoral votes.

By amplifying, if only slightly, the political voice of Americans from less populous states, the Electoral College protects an often ignored political minority. While critics will debate the minority designation, the 2000 census indicated the ten least populated states accounted for roughly 3% of America's population. That's a minority by any numeric assessment!

More importantly, Americans living in these states frequently have backgrounds, interests, and perspectives that differ widely from citizens in more highly populated states. This is the essence of a real minority group.

Democratic-Republics are fairly good at protecting the rights of the majority; unfortunately the same cannot be said for rights of the minority. By making it easier for the residents of less-populated states to be heard, the founders made an effort to protect an electoral minority. And that is not an ideal Americans should abandon.

Principles or Power?

When Tom Delay resigned from the House of Representatives, Republican leaders in Texas' 22^nd congressional district expected to place a different candidate on the ballot. The courts said no. Consequently, Republicans were left with two viable options: back Libertarian Bob Smither, or begin a write-in campaign. The Republicans chose the latter.

By declining to back Smither, Republican leaders made two key assumptions. First, Smither would be unable to attract 8-15% of the vote; second, a write-in candidate could win a federal election for the first time in almost 25 years. But why make such tenuous assumptions?

There are two good explanations - a commitment to principle, or commitment to power. Staunch conservatives will cite principle. If conservatives are right, the Republican party's decision was probably due to its position on the following issues: wartime executive power, foreign policy, and social legislation. Cynics embrace a different notion.

From a cynical perspective, if the Republican party endorsed Smither – thereby legitimizing him - the party would loose a small portion of its power. Furthermore, the presence of a true fiscal conservative in congress would weaken the Republican party's grasp on disenchanted conservatives in the 22^nd district.

In the end, it's impossible to say what motivated the Republican leaders. Hopefully it was principle. But if it wasn't, conservatives in Texas' 22^nd district need to find the gumption to put principles before party.

Electoral Predictions

Election day is less than two weeks away. Naturally, now is the time when pundits from both political parties make reassuring, hopeful, and in some cases confidant projections. After studying polls, district maps, predictions, and engaging in a series of lengthy treks down Intuition Lane, the following electoral predictions took shape. But first a disclaimer: one should not bet the family farm on political prognostication. Enjoy.

Senate

Campaignnetwork.org rates 16 of the 33 senate seats as “safe” - a good indication there is little reason to discuss them. Thus, there are really only 17 important Senatorial races. Of these key races, the outcome is all but assured in 7: AZ, FL, CT, NE, VT, MN, MI. None of these seats will change ideological hands. As a result, only 10 Senatorial races are really worth watching. Republicans hold 7 of these 10 seats. So what will happen? Here is an hypothesis.

MD – Maryland is heavily Democratic, Steele looses by roughly 4%

MO – Talent wins by 1%, perhaps less

MT – Incumbent “foot in mouth” Burns looses by 3-4 points

NJ – NJ has been moving left in recent years, Menendez by 3-4%

OH – DeWine will be lucky if he looses by less than 5%

PA – Santorum should polish his resume, Casey wins by roughly 5%

RI – Chafee will loose by about 2%

TN – Close, but Corker “fits”, Corker by 2%

VA – Allen has been too popular too long, Allen by 5%

WA – Expect Cantwell to win by 6%, perhaps even more

Net result: Democrats gain 4 seats in the US Senate.

What it means

There can be no doubt, the Republican losses in the Senate will be very important. The Democrats will have reached 49 seats (counting Vermont Independent/Socialist Bernie Sanders), leaving Republicans with a majority that is tenuous at best. Indeed, a defection by two or three moderate Republicans would give Democrats a de-facto majority. As a result, specific pieces controversial legislation will be stymied. And conservatives can forget polarizing judicaial appointments.

House of Representatives

The sheer number of close house races makes it incredibly difficult to predict what the 110^th congress will look like. Before the scandals and resignations began, Republicans held 232 seats while Democrats (including Independent/Socialist Bernie Sanders) occupied 203 seats. The question is: Will the Democrats be able to win the 15 seats necessary to claim a majority?

Campaignnetwork.org suggests that 18 house races are too close to call. Nevertheless, a healthy dose of hypothesizing has led to the following conclusion: Democrats will gain at least 13 of 19 highly contested seats. A Democratic pickup of less than 11 seats, or more than 16 would be a surprise. Here are the top 12.

AZ 8^th – Graf is Conservative, district is moderate, Giffords by 6%

IN 8^th – Hostettler's luck has worn out, Ellsworth by 1-2%

NC 11^th – Conservative Democrat, local football star, Shuler by 3%

OH 15^th – Pryce is too far down, Kilroy by 4%

OH 18^th – Padgett was Ney's handpicked successor, Space by 2%

PA 6^th - The last election was very close, too close, Murphy by 1%

PA 10^th – Conservatives + adultery and abuse, Democrats by 10%

TX 22^nd – Republican's traded a shot for nothing, Democrats by 3%

FL 16^th – Anybody want to vote for Foley? Democrats by 6%

CT 4^th – Undecideds are too high after 18 years, Farrell by 2%

NY 24^{th –} Spill-over from Ithaca? Arcuri by 6%

PA 7^th – Weldon's a fighter, can he pull it out? Seastak, by 1.5%

The unlucky 13^th seat will be one of the following: NY 26^th, MN 6^th, PA 8^th, CT 2^nd, CO 7^th, or NM 1^st. Of these, the NY's 26^th is arguably the strongest possibility. If this scenario comes to fruition, Democrats would only need to win two of the remaing five seats listed above to regain control of the House for the first time in 12 years. It is going to be a long night.

What it Means

There will be a multitude of close votes. Indeed, Republicans will be almost incapable of realizing any significant legislative goals. Because it is not unusual for moderate Republicans to side with the Democrats, look for compromises on controversial issues such as: the minimum wage, the environment, and homeland security/civil liberties. If the Democrats gain a majority, the Republicans should watch out! If Tom Delay was “The Hammer,” Pelosi will be “The Sledgehammer.”

Base Voters: An Impending Republican Problem

National Republican party leaders should be worried, but they aren’t. Strangely enough, wise Democrat leaders are – but it’s a little too late. What is the cause of all this concern? Base voters. In reality, the very label “base voter” is a big part of the problem. The label is too broad. And the parties are, or soon could be, paying the price.

In political-speak, base voters are often perceived to be “yellow dog” voters – voters who would vote for their party’s candidate even if it were a yellow dog. Unfortunately for the two major political parties, there are fewer of these voters than party leaders believe. Over the last 35 years, the Democratic party has found this out first hand. The Democrat’s once solid south is solid once again – but now it's in the Republican column. Halfway through the 21^st century’s opening decade, the Republican party could be on the verge of learning a similar lesson.

Over the last 30 years, the Republican party's state and national landscape has been frequently marred by intra-party disagreements between committed conservatives and mortified moderates. In recent years, these ongoing disagreements have bred a powerful misconception. Specifically, conventional wisdom says that since conservatives have re-built the Republican party over the last few decades, they wouldn’t consider going anywhere else. But that’s precisely why modern Republican leaders should be concerned.

If conservatives have had the gall to tug the Republican party toward the right, what happens if these conservatives bail out? What happens if they suddenly feel out-gunned, used, and abandoned? Remember those old-fashioned westerns, and the more recent action films? That's right - a few conservatives might become mavericks. Now it’s important to note, these ex-Republican mavericks would probably only account for one or two electoral percentage points, give or take. Nonetheless, a couple percentage points in the right states could decide a future presidential election.

Many Republican party leaders scoff at such an the idea, but they shouldn’t. All the party moderates must do is create the perfect storm. Like natural storms, this exodus-storm would be a result of the right conditions – all of which exist today.

Social issues are probably the highest on this list of perfect storm conditions. Many social conservatives are conscience driven voters – if their conscience isn’t comfortable, the candidate doesn’t get their vote. If socially moderate-to-liberal Republicans back a socially moderate Presidential candidate, it could spark an exodus.

Illegal immigration is another important issue-condition. Stated bluntly, many conservative voters are outraged over the current level of border security. If these voters become disillusioned mavericks, Republicans could start loosing close races in states where illegal immigration is significant campaign issue.

Fiscal conservatives are also vocally unhappy with many of the Republicans in Washington, and to a lesser extent their state-level brethren. Boasting perhaps 10% of the Republican party, a desertion by a significant number of fiscal conservatives could cost the Republican party big time. One more Republican president like George W. Bush could be the trigger.

Strangely enough, a growing portion of the Republican party is wary of a government that insists on invading their privacy. As more Americans become aware of just how powerful modern technology is, the number of rock-ribbed Republicans concerned about the privacy implications of various law enforcement and security measures is likely to grow.

For those who say this could never happen, it’s important to remember that the Republican party began in just this way: a hodge-podge of issue oriented groups that were unsatisfied with the political options available. Make no mistake, a third party will never over-take the Republican party. However, the very possibility of a perfect storm that would cost the Republican party its national majority and a future presidential election (or two) should cause great concern among national party leaders.