Countdown to the election
Starting Saturday, the 24th of October, Publius will speak daily as a 10-day countdown to the election. My hope is that the past year and the next 12 days will have helped you contemplate the issues before us, as free men and women. Let us not forget Reagan's admonition that freedom and liberty are never more than a generation away from extinguishment. Until Saturday...
Week 9: The School Board
In his poem of 1634, “Comus: A Mask Presented at Ludlow Castle,” John Milton wrote, “Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud turn forth her silver lining on the night? I did not err; there does a sable cloud turn forth her silver lining on the night, and casts a gleam over this tufted grove.”
From Milton, we know today the maxim, “every cloud has a silver lining.”
At the national level, the cloud of extreme partisanship turns forth a silver lining in that it presents a seemingly clear choice between the two major parties’ candidates. People tend to love one candidate and despise the opponent. Interestingly, the policies of both major policies have resulted, over time, in greater intrusion into our lives, exponentially increasing government spending and national debt, and rancorous discord in political debate.
Where clarity becomes translucent at best or opaque at worst is in local elections. I found this to be the case as I reviewed the draft ballot for the upcoming election in my voting district. In researching each candidate for every race, particularly for the county commission and for the local school board, I found a dearth of information about real policy positions, positions that could dictate what a local business can sell (e.g., whether or not a brewery can sell beer if they don’t also sell food), and what and how the children of our community learn (e.g., the lessons of Columbus Day versus Indigenous Peoples Day).
At least for me, the sable cloud has descended upon and has enveloped me, even in spite of my efforts to learn about these local candidates.
Let us consider the local school board, an often overlooked yet critically important organ of the government. It is a board that interprets national policy and, to a certain extent, sets local policy on the education of future generations. Is there any function of local government with greater consequence than this? And what do we know of our candidates? Practically nothing.
With regard to each and every socio-political ill we face today, the only cure I have heretofore been able to envisage is meaningful education that endeavors to teach not what to think but how to think. This requires effective and transparent education policy and practice, which, in turn, requires a sound and measured guidance of a school board. The antithesis to this cure is an activist school board, which pushes what to think as opposed to fostering learned inquiry. It is, kind reader, my opinion that such activism leads to tyranny.
In “The Gulag Archipelago,” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn exposed the horrors of the Soviet penal system and its collection of prisons and concentration camps. Of particular note in volume one of the three-volume work was the easy purging of anyone in the working class who opposed (and in many cases even those who didn’t oppose) soviet tyranny during the rule of Lenin, Stalin and their successors. He wrote, “But peasants are a silent people, without a literary voice, nor do they write complaints or memoirs.” This was the rationale for 15 million peasants voluntarily, hopelessly and helplessly, showing up to summons by village officials, who summarily sent them off to forced labor camps and to firing squads.
Without doubt, America’s average citizen is clearly better off than the serf or peasant of tsarist and early soviet Russia. After all, de Tocqueville recognized in “Democracy in America,” that, “You cannot doubt that in the United States the instruction of the people serves powerfully to maintain the democratic republic. It will be so, I think, everywhere that the instruction that enlightens the mind is not separated from the education that regulates mores.”
Nevertheless, the restriction and deprivation of information and knowledge is a key requisite for suppression and servitude. I feel like a victim of that deprivation as I try to understand my local candidates and their positions. Were it not for the sample ballot listing party affiliation, I would encounter great difficulty even knowing who was a Democrat, Libertarian or Republican.
Where this lack of information presents a real danger is in the very example we have been considering – the local school board. Parent or not, we are all stakeholders in the edification of today’s youth…tomorrow’s leaders. I, for one, would like to know I’m electing a school board member who will promote critical thinking as opposed to socio-political indoctrination in our taxpayer-funded schools.
Indoctrination leads to one future and one future only: totalitarianism.
To that point, I have a precisely two weeks to hit the newspapers and internet to discover what else might be out there about my local candidates. I hope, kind reader, you will do the same.
Week 10: The Fourth Estate
On Saturday, the tenth of June, 1721, an article entitled, “Reflections upon Libelling,” was published in “The London Journal,” a political periodical of the day. In the article, Thomas Gordon, writing under the nom de plume Cato, opined on a free press. He recognized that, in a free society, there are good and bad actors in the press.
“In countries where there is no liberty,” Cato writes, “there can be no ill effects of it. No body is punished at Constantinople for libelling. Nor is there any distinction there between the liberty of the press, and the licentiousness of the press; a distinction ever to be observed by honest men and freemen.”
Cato was saying that liberty and a free press are symbiotic. For one to exist, the other must, as well. Approximately 66 years later, Edmund Burke would use the term the “Fourth Estate” in Parliament to describe the press. This begs the question: what are the first three estates?
In pre-revolutionary France, the First Estate referred to the clergy, the Second Estate to the nobility, and the Third Estate to the commoners and peasantry. But enough of the history of the French caste system. Let us return to American and to the Fourth Estate.
In ratifying the Constitution, delegates to the convention had to make certain concessions to gain the necessary votes for passage, namely agreeing to a Bill of Rights. Framers of the Constitution had not considered such an enumeration of rights necessary, as the very structure of the Constitution and its inherent limitations on government implied the preservation of citizens’ rights and the protection of those rights from government. Nevertheless, the memories of trampled rights were still fresh for the delegates to the convention and to many citizens in their respective states. The adoption of a Bill of Rights secured the ratification of the Constitution. The first among the amendments that constituted the Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This being the First Amendment is not accidental. As it is the bedrock upon which the other amendments are built, its primacy among the amendments is intentional.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” As part of the act, providers (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) are immune from prosecution for libel. In other words, in exchange for such immunity, online providers essentially function as a public forum.
A violation of this arrangement occurred with Facebook and Twitter censoring of Washington Post reporting about shady deals among former Vice President Biden, his son, and oligarchs in foreign countries, including countries hostile to the United States of America. Because of the quid pro quo arrangements between online providers and the government, as described in the Week 26 posting on censorship, moves like those from Facebook and Twitter are tantamount to violations of the First Amendment.
The three estates of clergy, nobility and commoners have a very different meaning in American than in the rest of the world. Clergy are not established functionaries of the state in America. Nobility is anathema to the American psyche. Commoners describes each and every citizen. Regrettably, our unique view of these estates is imperiled. Clergy, or more broadly religion, is under attack. Nobility has been, for many years, establishing itself in the sense of a political aristocracy, which has as its serfs the “average American,” a term countenanced by the political class, but a term that should be repugnant to every citizen.
This leaves us with the Fourth Estate, a free press. As a result of Section 230, this freedom was to be protected. The actions of Facebook and Twitter, vis-à-vis the Washington Post articles, are bastardizing the Fourth Estate, just as the first three estates have been in recent years.
With a mere 16 days until the election, we must be vigilant in seeking out information and the truth, a chore made more difficult by those who control some much of the information we consume. Let us devote the next two weeks to digging for the truth – about all candidates – no matter how difficult the technocrats make it.
Week 11: Supreme Court
It is not quite time for the traditional “October Surprise,” so in this election it is reasonable to assume that there will be more to come. In this election, though, we are experiencing a “September Surprise” with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In today’s essay, we will not explore Justice Ginsberg’s philosophy or rulings; rather, we will discuss the process of appointing her replacement.
The parallel between this election and that of four years ago surely is not lost on us. In 2016, a vacancy on the Supreme Court became open with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February of that year. Following the passing of Justice Scalia, then-President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. The nomination was never brought to the floor of the Senate, because the Senate Republicans said it was inappropriate to consider such a nomination with a Presidential election looming. They maintained that it would silence the voice of the electorate in the appointment process.
Perhaps the Republicans were recalling the passage of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, on Christmas Eve 2009. The Democrats had lost control of Congress in the elections that November. The People had spoken, and they were soon to be turned out of office. Despite the People’s voice, as the election was much about socialized healthcare, the Democrat Congress voted to pass sweeping health insurance legislation, knowing it would otherwise die on the vine in the incoming Republican-controlled Congress.
By way of a little more background, the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2013, used a procedural mechanism, Rule XX, commonly referred to as the “nuclear option,” to require only a simple majority to provide advice and consent for court nominees, as opposed to the supermajority envisioned by the Founders for matters of such weighty import. The so-called “nuclear option” also sets aside Senate Rule XXII, requiring 60 votes to close debate prior to a vote.
In this election season, the Democrats may reap what they have sown. Be assured, though, that the tables will someday turn. Because neither party deals with the other in good faith, each eventually gets what it deserves. To borrow from and Scripture and to twist it just a bit, those who live by suspension of the rules, shall die by suspension of the rules.
For approximately a decade after Independence, our new nation was governed by the Articles of Confederation. As is often the case, once you live with a new approach to doing something (e.g., self-governance), you come to discover the flaws and foibles in the approach. Federalist Papers 15-22, are discussions of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, thereby supporting the case for a new Constitution. The Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 essays discussing the rationale behind the provisions of the new Constitution, were written from Saturday, Oct. 27, 1787 to Wednesday, May 28, 1788.
Federalists 76 and 77 speak directly to the appointing power of the President. Nowhere in these essays is it suggested that a President not make nominations if he or she is in the last year of his or her term.
Let us explore this further. Prior to entering office, each newly elected President takes the following oath, as written in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Nowhere in Article II does it state that the President’s mandate to faithfully execute his or her office ceases or diminishes in the year final year, months, weeks or days of his or her term in office. Nor do Hamilton, Jay or Madison, writing collectively under the nom de plume “Publius,” suggest in the Federalist Papers anything to this effect. It is clear. When a person is serving as President, he or she is duty-bound to fulfill that role, including the nomination of justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, regardless of the point in time of his or her administration.
Article VI of the Constitution also requires of legislators, at both the national and state levels, to swear or affirm their support of the Constitution. Consequently, members of the Senate are duty-bound to perform their collective role in the process of advice and consent. To that point, I think it was a mistake for the Senate, in the waning days of the Obama administration, to forgo a vote on Judge Garland. If the Republicans didn’t want Garland, they should have voted so. I suppose it was easier and politically safer in the moment to prevent Garland’s nomination from coming to the floor of the Senate.
Be that as it may, it now poses a – what is the correct word? Dilemma came to mind, but it is not a dilemma for unscrupulous people to reverse a position that was supposedly set on principle. It really just poses a public relations issue, one Senate Republicans will easily pass through, just as Democrats have passed through similar ethical lapses in the past.
In the present situation, some are calling attention to the reported last wishes of Justice Ginsberg that her seat not be filled until after the election. As much as it may tug at one’s heartstrings – the dying wish of an accomplished person – it should have no effect in the affairs of state. I understand that she would, as anyone may, want to preserve her legacy, and her wish may have been expressed only in a private sense; nevertheless, a Supreme Court justice should know, better than most, that we are a nation of laws, not of men or women and their whims. I humbly beg your pardon, kind reader, if that critique seems harsh. I do believe, though, that it is an accurate perspective.
In short, a President is sworn to execute the office, while he or she is in office. Similarly, the Senate is sworn to do its job. Let it be so and let the political chips (which often seem to be more akin to cow chips than to decisions made in fidelity to the will of the people) fall where they may. In contrast, comparatively little concern is made over dubious pardons made in the final minutes of a President’s term. Why should any other political decision, made in the execution of Presidential duties, be different.
As November draws nigh, consider which candidates – for any office – understand the principle and the duty to execute the office they seek, and which blow with the political winds that stink of expediency. Then, fellow citizen, vote accordingly.
Week 12: Conformity
In an interview with Lenard Larry McKelvey, known on his syndicated radio show as “Charlamagne tha God,” former Vice President Joe Biden stated, “Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” As it happens, Mr. McKelvey is Black. Mr. Biden was forced to walk back his comments and to offer a pseudo-apology for his statement. It leaves one wondering which remark was sincere: the statement or the apology.
As a cynic, not only about Mr. Biden but about almost all politicians, I suspect his true belief was made known in his statement on Mr. McKelvey’s show, as opposed to his apology.
For any faults Mr. Trump has, a lack of candor is not among them.
Let us return, then to Mr. Biden’s statement, because it bespeaks of the conformity that politicians, specifically those who embrace socialism, be it in the guise of “the greater good” or full-on communism, promote and desperately need to advance their agenda.
Racial conformity just happens to be a perennial favorite for the socialist, which for all intents and purposes may be a term appropriately ascribed to today’s Democrat party. Gender is a close second in terms of the characteristics that are used to slice and dice the populace. I would suggest that the use of these means to differentiate and discriminate is insidious and deceitful, but it is not. It is not, because the socialist, be he or she mild or extreme, makes no secret of the fact that they view people of one skin color, one race, one gender, etc. as common in their respective thoughts and beliefs.
If, as Mr. Biden suggests, you are not of the collective mind of that group, you lack legitimacy within that group. In the example above, all Black people must be committed to voting for Mr. Biden. If you happen to have black skin but prefer another candidate (i.e., Mr. Trump), you are not Black, thereby disenfranchising you from your lived experience as a Black person.
This approach to characteristic-based conformity comes in many forms, providing, of course, those forms are based on characteristics that are easy to see but otherwise have no meaning. Does the one’s race, color or gender actually dictate what one thinks and believes? In other words, is there a causal relationship? If your answer is “yes,” I would be intrigued to hear your argument and evidence. Keep in mind the important difference between causation and correlation.
The notion that a conformity of belief is causal in terms of certain characteristics is an evil notion, as it diminishes the value of the individual and his or her moral worth and unique value. It is a notion, as evil as it may be, that is essential for collectivism, which is to say socialism, and if an individual human being elects to break from that conformity of thought, he or she is cast out and, in the parlance of our day, canceled.
Pray tell, what might be more dangerous in a republic than to have an elected representative, especially the head of state, “canceling” individual citizens based on their beliefs.
As suggested above, these differences must be easy to discern in order to stir up others in the frenzy of hatred and distrust. As a white man, the socialist wants it to be easy for me to discriminate against someone else. What better way for them to achieve their end than to endeavor to make me believe that a Black person, or better yet a Black woman, might be my political, economic or social opponent. Their wicked chore would be much more difficult if they sought to divide me from my fellow human beings by what we thought – something I cannot deduce by looking at another person. If they sought to sow the seeds of disharmony based on thoughts and beliefs, their end would require as its means discussion and thoughtful exchange among individuals, which is most assuredly the best way to foster harmony and peace, both of which are death knells to their political aims, which ultimately converge in power and control over you and me, the good citizens of this republic.
Evgenii Zamiatin wrote about the dangers of conformity in the early days of the Soviet Union. His 1921 essay entitled “I Am Afraid” was prescient indeed, as he foresaw the Bolshevik stifling of non-conformist thinking, be it expressed verbally, in the written word, in music or in art. A couple years later, his novel “We” foretold of a time in which people lived according to preordained constructs, called tables, and conformity to these was paramount for the functioning of the collective.
In Record Nine of “We,” Zamiatin writes, “Да, это была торжественная литургия Единому Государству, воспоминание о крестных днях-годах Двухсотлетней Войны, величественный праздник победы всех над одним, суммы над единицей...” As translated, “Yes, it was a solemn liturgy for the United State, a reminiscence of the great days, years, of the Two Hundred Years’ War – a magnificent celebration of the victory of all over one, of the sum over the individual…”
Statements, like Biden’s and others of the establishment ilk, lay bare their belief that we neither can nor will think for ourselves or lay claim to our individual Liberty, another concept that is anathema to the socialist agenda of today’s Democrat party and to some Republicans, too.
Let us vote in a way that allows for a magnificent celebration of individual Liberty over repression of the sum.
Week 13: Focus on the policies
While character should count in the officials we elect, let’s face it, it doesn’t.
In an article today, a woman has come forward to say that, in 1997, Donald Trump forced his tongue down her throat. In the last election there were also reports of his disparaging remarks about women and their genitalia. Is this type of behavior beneath the Office of the President of the United States? Certainly, it is.
But it certainly is not a tally in the Joe Biden column of the score sheet.
Recall not too long ago the woman, a former Biden staffer, who came forward and recounted Biden’s sexual fondling, not to mention his publicly displayed groping and kissing and sniffing of women on a regular basis.
OK, so they may both be creeps. Let’s here no more arguments on this topic. If you want a non-creep candidate, go with Jo Jorgensen.
On an almost daily basis, people decry Trump’s childish name-calling and his inflammatory Tweets. Are these becoming of the leader of the free world? Of course not, but neither is Biden’s confrontational behavior and name-calling of citizens who dare question his record in town hall forums, not to mention his challenging people to go outside and fight. At least Trump’s taunts are directed at those in the political establishment, as opposed to everyday citizens.
OK, so they are both bullies. Let’s have no more arguments on this topic. If you want a candidate who doesn’t bully colleagues and who respects you and me – We the People – go with Jo Jorgensen.
People suspect Trump of violating the emoluments clause, abusing his power to enrich himself and his family. Some may point to his desire to hold a political meeting at one of his resorts, a decision he reversed in light of unfavorable public opinion. Disregard the fact he was fabulously wealthy prior to his election and that he divested management of his companies to his son. Nevertheless, he’s cast as a greedy, power-abusing fiend. But Biden’s hands are not clean in this respect. He used his power, when he was Vice President, to stop an investigation of a foreign company on the board of which his son was a member, going so far as to pressure the head of state of that country to fire the public prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company, using U.S. government aid as blackmail in that transaction. Biden even boasted of the incident on television! Biden, himself, has grown wealthy in his role as a public servant, as has many of his relations, some of whom acknowledge that their good fortune is a result of Biden’s political positions.
OK, so they are both greedy bastards. Let’s have no more arguments on this topic. If you want a candidate whose financial house is well ordered and ground in ethical behavior, go with Jo Jorgensen.
However, if you, kind reader, are still determined to vote for one of the two major parties’ candidates, disregard the issues of character. As discussed above, neither candidate will win at that game in the public square.
Focus, instead, on their policies. Focus solely on their policies.
Reflect on which candidate’s policies best conform with the founding principles of our republic. Reflect on which candidate’s policies will truly enrich the lives of all Americans: with sound education that empowers parents to choose the best schools for their children, with healthcare that restores the relationship between patients and doctors, with an economy that grows industry and provides opportunities for employment, with a national security strategy that keeps us safe without losing yet one more generation to the battlefields of foreign lands.
After your reflection, good citizen, examine the record of each candidate. Who has demonstrated success? Who lacks demonstrable success? For example, who has implemented policies that provided historic gains in employment to our long-suffering, underrepresented communities? Who has fought to expand the welfare state and to keep those communities as vassals of the state? Who has sponsored crime legislation that disproportionately incarcerated people of those same communities (which is among the reasons so many cry out for justice today)? Who has signed legislation to fix that injustice?
To paraphrase Charles Dickens, a man’s deeds foreshadow certain ends. What do Trump’s deeds (i.e., policies) foreshadow? What do Biden’s deeds (i.e., policies) foreshadow?
Of course, each American must vote his or her conscience, but let each person’s conscience be informed and guided by intellect, by principle, and by proof from this historical record.
Week 14: The rich and the poor
Trump and the “Right” love the rich and hate the poor. Biden and the “Left” hate the rich and love the poor. This is the common narrative pushed from almost all corners of the political playing field. With all due respect, it seems that neither is an accurate perception.
Prior to our discussion of preceding statements, permit me to share my utter disdain for the terms “Right” and “Left,” as applied in a political context. They are lazy constructs to divide us, to pit us against one another, and to establish an either-or worldview in which there is no middle ground, no room for deep analysis nor for complex and nuanced beliefs.
Nevertheless, the political class seems comfortable with the either-or worldview. The establishment politicians, who promote this worldview, prostitute themselves (i.e., sacrificing any principles they may have had for the sake of political expediency) for its advancement and perpetuation. Consequently, I will employ these simplistic terms in a narrow manner to refer to the political elite. I will play the game as they have defined it.
Regarding the so-called “Right,” it is true that they love the rich. Generally, those on the “Right” fall into the economic camp of capitalists, some of whom advocate free-market capitalism. They want to establish conditions that make it possible for the machinery of industry to run smoothly and efficiently. They understand that private sector success results in employment and raises people out grinding poverty in a way that government handouts cannot. They also understand that well-being, be it economic or otherwise, is not a fixed pie. Success by one does not come at the expense or failure of another. In fact, in a free-market society, success only comes by way of voluntary exchange and agreement. There is no coercion.
In this sense, not only do they not hate the poor, their policies are designed to benefit the poor, as well as the rich. Another example is education. As we’ve discussed before, those in most need of help to improve their lot in life are the same people who are forced into failing schools and subject to inefficient healthcare systems. The “Right” seeks to introduce choice and competition into these and similar systems. In areas in which such competition and choice has been made available to people, results have been favorable.
Regarding the so-called “Left,” it is true that they hate the rich. The exception to this general hatred is the rich of the political elite. Often the people who denounce the private sector’s rich have themselves become rich over the course of a long career in office, a topic we recently discussed. Notwithstanding that exception, the “Left” look at the rich as greedy opportunists, who, rather than create value, exploit the worker and take his share of wealth, believing that economic well-being is a fixed pie. To the “Left,” the rich serve as a source of funding for their social engineering experiments, which interestingly fail time and time again. Look at California, Illinois and New York, for example. Companies are fleeing those states’ socialist economies for states that provide a favorable environment for businesses to thrive. Who is hurt in this situation? The people of California, Illinois and New York. They are left with fewer options for employment and are consequently damned to poverty. The political “Left” blames the companies and their greed for this situation rather than their redistributive policies, which effectively – quite effectively – kills the goose that lays the golden egg.
This is where the disingenuous assertion that the “Left” love the poor is shown for what it is: a lie. If the “Left” loved the poor, they would seek ways to lift them out of the terrible poverty that destroys their lives and smothers their hope, such as a quality education, which enriches the mind and spirit, and a robust job market, which provides employment and builds self-esteem. Instead, they offer schools that bear greater resemblance to prisons than to academies, and they offer welfare programs that decimate skills and foster dependency. To the “Left,” the poor are little more than political pawns for tearing down political opponents and for buttressing their own power. There is no love; there is only a twisted form of political utilitarianism.
Again, we’re looking at the gross generalities of the either-or worldview of the political establishment. This is not my worldview, but it is the game that the political class has set up, so some analysis of that game is necessary.
The problem is that this is not a game! This is your life and mine – we, the citizens, whose lives are not protected by Secret Service bodyguards nor by loopholes, like those used by politicians to exempt themselves from the very laws they impose on us.
Insomuch as we can, I hope each of us will consider the candidates before us and will choose those most likely to mitigate or eliminate the sick, twisted, seditious worldview that we must accept either “Right” or “Left.”
