Politics and Religion, Part 3 (Romney)

Let's get specific now. I've discussed some general issues of politics and religion, but let's talk about a particular candidate. Mitt Romney appears to be leading the Republican race for the presidential nomination. From what I know of him, he appears to have the makings of a good president. However his religion has already become an issue in some circles, so let's discuss that.

Full disclosure: I am of the same religion as Romney. I am inclined to support him for president, though my mind is not fully made up on that score. I like his demonstrated ability, both in business and as governor of Massachusetts. I believe he would bring some much needed improvement to the way our federal government manages its power and finances. I also believe he would appoint judges who are more in tune with the constitution than many now on the bench. He has even, both at the Salt Lake City Olympics and as governor, shown the ability to get big egos with disparate agendas to work together. However I have doubts about his commitment to limited government. There are other candidates worth a look, notably Herman Cain who is another successful businessman of great ability and commitment to the country.

Be that as it may, let's look at Romney's (and my) religion and how it might affect, or not affect, his performance as president.

First, is he committed to that religion? That is a difficult question since it is impossible to see inside the mind of anyone. However his actions would indicate that he is. Mitt Romney has spent uncounted hours doing unpaid work for his church, first as a missionary in France, then in various positions up to and including stake president. That last is equivalent of running a diocese in other churches – except he had to do it while holding down a full-time job elsewhere. Also, there is not even a hint of scandal in his background, no indication at all that he does not live the teachings of his church.

That said, is there anything in his church's teaching that should concern us? For example, would he try to impose his religion on the country? The answer is “no,” loud and clear. In fact one of the central beliefs of “Mormonism” is that it is against God's will to force anyone into any religion. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (LDS Article of Faith 11) Se also the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, 134:7, “We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.”

There is clearly no indication that Romney (or any other committed member of his church) would use government to force religion on anyone.

There is, however, one LDS (Mormon) teaching that bears strongly on how I hope Romney would govern. The church teaches that the Constitution is inspired.* (See Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80, and 109:54). We have every reason to hope that Romney, if elected, will follow that constitution.

Finally, there is a charge by some that the LDS are not Christian. That accusation lacks foundation in fact. While it has some differences with mainstream Christianity, the Church is centered on Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind and the only way we can reach any form of salvation. Even a modest perusal of LDS scripture shows the centrality of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Even if Christian belief were a requirement for office, Romney meets that requirement.

In short, Romney's religion is no reason vote against him, and provides some reason to vote for him. It is of course not the only factor to consider, but it should not be an impediment.



*Note however that “inspired” does not mean perfect. For example the Constitution initially allowed slavery, something repugnant to not only all right-thinking persons but to LDS scripture and belief. In fact the most severe persecution the Church faced was in Missouri, largely because most of its members did not like slavery.

Different Mindsets

Most of us know about Benjamin Franklin's kite. He showed that lightning is an electrical phenomenon. Based on that theory Franklin invented the lightening rod to protect people's homes. He had the curiosity of a scientist combined with the practical mind of an inventor. In fact had he not been so famous as a statesman he would be famous for his scientific and creative endeavors.

Over a hundred and thirty years later the great German scientist Heinrich Hertz showed that radio waves are electromagnetic. He produced a scientific paper. It was left to Marconi in Italy to turn that knowledge into a practical radio – and Marconi had to go to England to get financial support for his invention. Though Hertz's paper was valuable in terms of scientific knowledge, he had no apparent interest in putting it to practical use.

I believe those two events illustrate a difference between what we might call the European and American mindsets. I suspect the difference comes from our respective histories. Europeans have a tradition of class structure with the aristocracy not stooping to manual labor or to such mundane things as engineering or invention. Why should they? They had servants to take care of everything. Because of that it was easy for the Europeans to think of practical labor as the province of the lower classes, people who were not as good as the dukes, princes and other aristocrats. In some cases anyone there who engages in practical work will suffer a lower status.

The U.S., on the other hand, explicitly rejected any form of aristocracy. The belief that “all men are created equal” allows for no inherited class structure. Our constitution allows any citizen to aspire to any office. (It is said that any baby born in the U.S. could become president and that is just one of the risks he takes.) A people who had to survive in an untamed land tended to have more respect for practical skills than for noble birth. In fact our first president was a farmer and by all accounts a very good one. George Washington continually sought ways to improve production on his farms.

This mindset is undoubtedly behind many of the differences between the U.S. and Europe described in Hannan's book The New Road to Serfdom which I reviewed earlier. It is easier for the Europeans to accept elite that will rule without direction from the masses. With a history of regarding the king as God's anointed, it is easier for them to adopt the statist attitude that government is the source of wisdom.

However if we believe that we are all created equal we usually accept the corollary that we should all have an equal voice in how we are governed. We are more likely to reject the quangos Hannan describes and to form movements such as the Tea Party.

Of course this is not a 100% separation. There have been European inventors and there are Americans who consider the intellectual life a higher form of existence than working for a living. However in general Europeans are less likely than Americans to ascribe high status to the practical inventor and Americans are more likely to demand that their government listen to them. With this difference in mindset is it any wonder that Europeans often regard the U.S. as having a “cowboy” attitude while we often regard them as cowards?

This is something we should keep in mind as President Obama and others seek to have us emulate Europe. Do we really want to hand our thinking and government over to quangos or even to elected officials with unlimited power? I know my answer to that question.

Independence Day

[I'm going to repeat, with very little modification, what I posted here a year ago for Independence Day.]

Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?

The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.

Ours was a revolution not just of armies and government, but of ideas and a way of thinking about government. The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).

The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.

Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.

Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.

First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.

A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you are a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.

The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.

Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.

However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.

We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.

Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.

Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.

Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.

*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.



If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.

A Dangerous Tipping Point

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” (Attributed to Alexander Tytler or Tyler, last name is a bit uncertain.)

I believe that the above quote does have core of truth and a warning for the United States today though it is, in my opinion, overly pessimistic. In fact it has usually been misguided elected officials who have led the way toward overspending on government largesse. Charismatic politicians such as FDR, Kennedy* and Obama have pushed through “reforms” that expanded government programs. While those programs usually failed to fulfill their intended purposes, they did increase the size and power of the federal government, and that is the problem. However the temptation is always there for voters to order up more largesse for themselves, whether the treasury can support that largesse or not.

There are many reasons to oppose new programs but one often overlooked is the sheer size and power they provide to the government. A dangerous (and again often overlooked) manifestation of that is the number of people who become dependent on government for all or part of their livelihood. We must recognize that voters who receive government money are more likely to vote for higher taxes and more government benefits. That is true whether the benefits they receive are in the form of welfare, earned payments, or pay for work. Social Security recipients are unlikely to support a roll-back of benefits. Government employees are unlikely to support a reduction in the size of government. Defense contractors seldom urge cut-backs in defense spending. All those people and more are dependents of government and will usually vote to continue their gravy train.

As the government reach increases, we should concern ourselves with the results of this increase in voters who depend on the treasury. What percent of voters are now government dependents? What percent will make it impossible to hold back government spending? Are we approaching that point of no return or maybe even past that point?

I do not claim to know where that “tipping point” is but obviously there is some point at which so many voters will be government dependents that they can control elections, regardless of how non-dependents vote. At that point, unless they show a restraint uncharacteristic of human nature, our government will become a tyranny of government over private citizens.

“Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage” (Probably from Henning W. Prentis)

This country has gone from bondage through liberty and abundance and may now be in the selfishness/complacency stage. That complacency is allowing an unprecedented expansion of government powers and the creation of a dependent class. Unless we reverse course, the result will be a return to bondage. Indeed that may already be in process as government is now ordering people to buy insurance from the very insurers our president criticizes.

In fact there is probably no better example of government growth than the recent health care “reform.” It makes the entire citizenry into public dependents.

Is there a solution? If so what is that solution? Unless we expect human nature to change we cannot expect politicians to cease demagoguery, nor can we expect voters to suddenly become unselfish. No, we must look elsewhere and that elsewhere has been with us since 1787. It is the limited government built into our constitution but generally ignored since the early 1900's. The only way to limit government is to adhere to the restrictions built into that document. By that I mean all of the constitution, including the ninth and tenth amendments which have simply been ignored for decades. Unless we do that we are doomed to continue the cycle Prentis describes above.

*Kennedy did not actually live to see his “war on poverty” become law but was the driving force behind it when it was passed after his death.

You Have a Right to – Nothing

There is something conspicuously – and wisely – missing from the Bill of Rights in our constitution. It does guarantee many rights. We have a right to be free from government interference in our speech, our religion, our press. Government may not deny our right to keep and bear arms nor may it quarter soldiers in our homes except under extraordinary conditions. Government may not require excessive bail nor impose excessive punishment. However there is one kind of right nowhere to be found in the constitution. That is the right to have anything given to us.

The constitution contains no right to a “living wage” or even to any food. While government may not take our life, liberty or property without due process, we are not guaranteed life, liberty or property at taxpayer expense. If a person acts carelessly and dies, or even dies because of disease, the constitution provides no remedy. If someone binds himself to debt to the point that he loses much of his liberty, the taxpayers have no obligation to bail him out. If he carelessly loses his property or just fails to acquire any, the constitution does not require anybody to correct his lack.

In fact the Bill of Rights gives us a right to nothing – though that nothing is very important. There are areas where government should do nothing and is constitutionally mandated to do nothing. WE have no restriction on speech but also no guarantee anybody will listen to what we say. We have no restriction on the press but also no guarantee we will have the money to print what we think everybody should read. No restriction on the right to bear arms (except for felons) but also no guarantee that we will have the money to purchase those arms. Nobody has any constitutional right to anything beyond the fruits of his own labor.

Constitutional freedoms might be called negative freedoms. They are things that may not be done to us. There is nothing there to force any private citizen to do anything for any other citizen. Nor if there anything to force the government to do anything for any citizen.

There is a great difference between the constitutional rights of freedom from certain government actions and what some today are pushing as right to have something. For example many of our politicians are claiming that health care is a right. That would be a right to have something whether you've earned it or not. Those politicians fail to mention two important facts:

1. Any such right can only exist if somebody else is obligated to provide it. We cannot have a right to health care without imposing the obligation on someone to pay for it. Giving someone such a “right” hands over to that person the fruits of other people's labor.
2. We do not have unlimited resources. Those who multiply “rights” to health care, decent housing, adequate nutrition etc. seem to assume that there is some source of food, housing, medical care etc. which must only be directed to those in need. That is a nice theory but it cannot withstand the trial of empiricism and facts. In fact, giving people what they want regardless of their labor encourages them to avoid that labor, thus reducing the resources that would otherwise be available.

Nobody has any constitutional right to the fruits of another person's labor.

I am old enough to remember the 60's when the phrase “the world owes me a living” became popular among some young people. Prior to that time nearly everybody, at least in the U.S., understood that work was required to produce the necessities and niceties of life. Work is still necessary. Someone has to produce and transport the food and clothing we need, build our housing, undergo the arduous regime of medical school etc. The “world owes me a living” attitude cannot change that. At best it will take from the worker and give to those who do not work. More likely it will discourage work and reduce the resources available to everybody. When those resources are all allocated, someone will go without as happened in the USSR.

The world does not owe anybody a living. At most it owes us opportunity to scramble for that living ourselves. There is an immense difference between a right to speak without government interference and a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. That is why our founders were wise when they included in the constitution many rights of freedom from government control, but no “rights” to have anything someone else would have to produce.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

The “Living Constitution”

Suppose you are the president of a building maintenance company. In about 1982 that company signed a contract agreeing to maintain all the windows in a certain office building. The option for yearly renewal has been exercised so the contract is still valid.

One day you get a call from the building manager informing you that you are in default and he will sue unless you correct the problem. What? You've had people there every week, cleaning the windows and making sure that they are weather tight, how can you be in default? The manager points out that the contract says all the windows in the building. However you have done nothing for the Windows operating systems on the computers in the building. Many of them are now virus-infected and not working properly. He demands that you fix them.

Of course you respond that the contract never meant computer windows which didn't even exist when it was written. “Not so,” he replies. “We have a living language and the contract is written in that living language so it is a living document. The term 'windows' now applies to computer Windows which means the contract does as well.”

Of course that sounds silly. Should you be sued I would hope that any judge would throw it out of court. The contract has the meaning it had when it was written. To claim otherwise would potentially change the meaning of all contracts. For any agreement to be useful it must have a fixed meaning. Otherwise we would not know what we will be expected to do to fulfill our part of the bargain.

Unfortunately there are many who want to change the meaning of the most important agreement we have in this country – our constitution. Those people claim that it is a “living document,” a high-sounding phrase, but essentially without meaning. Documents do not live except in the sense that they can be changed by the agreement of all parties involved. Contracts can be changed if all signers agree. Likewise the constitution includes provision for changes, two methods of making changes in fact. That has been exercised throughout our history so that it now has 27 amendments. That in fact is the only sense in which the constitution was ever intended to be a “living document.”

Those claiming that we have a “living constitution” simply want to change its meaning without getting the people’s approval in the manner provided. Effectively, they want to arrogate to themselves the dictatorial power to change our government, regardless of the will of the people.

“But wait,” some will say. “What about the fact that some parts might be understood differently? In fact some of the writers themselves disagreed over what they wanted it to say.”

Those objections are common today but are in general mere smoke screens, put up by people who do not like constitutional restrictions on government power. While there are a couple of points that might be difficult to understand, the great bulk of the document is quite explicit when we look at the common meaning of the wording at the time it was written. That is the only valid way to look at it, just as with any contract the only valid meaning is what the wording meant when it was written.

The fact that there is now a computer operating system called called “Windows” has no effect at all on contracts written before it existed. Likewise the fact that some words have changed their meaning since 1787 has no effect on the meaning of the constitution. We have to look at what those words commonly meant in legal documents of 1787, or in the case of amendments, at what they meant when the amendment was written. The meaning must remain fixed if it is to have any meaning at all.

As for the writers disagreeing among themselves as to what they wanted the constitution to say, that is also meaningless. When people get together to write a contract there is almost always disagreement on what that contract will say. Some may want an escape clause, some may oppose it. Some may want automatic renewal in the absence of specific cancellation while others may want renewal only if all parties specifically agree to it. That means nothing, what counts is what eventually gets written in the final, signed document.

Likewise what the constitution's writers wanted has no validity. Some wanted a quick end to slavery, some wanted slavery to be protected forever. Neither viewpoint became part of the constitution. Only the wording actually included and ratified has any force or validity. That is the only way that remarkable document can protect our liberties. If its meaning can be twisted to suit the whims of politicians, it becomes nothing more than a historical artifact. However if we follow the wording as it was understood in the time and context of its origin, we will protect our liberty from homegrown tyranny.

To allow twisting of the constitution's meaning removes our ability to know what to expect as citizens and in our businesses. That harms our personal life as well as our economy just as an ex post facto law would. (See my blog on that at http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=ex+post+facto).

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

An Independent Judiciary?

We regularly hear about how important it is to have an independent judiciary. However that leaves out an important point: Independent of what? The idea behind judicial independence is that neither congress nor the president should control the judicial branch of our government. That is great, it is one of the checks and balances our founders built into the constitution. The judiciary should be free to judge according to the law and constitution. However judges should not be independent of that law and constitution.

Exhibit A for an independent judiciary is probably Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 attempt to stack the Supreme Court. That court had overturned some of his programs as unconstitutional, so he attempted to get congress to add more justices whom he would appoint. That failed, but Roosevelt was eventually able to appoint a majority of justices and get what he wanted anyway. He succeeded in removing the court's independence, at least temporarily. We are still living with the legacy of his court and the massive expansion of the federal government it allowed.

On the other hand, it sometimes appears that our judiciary is independent of the law and the constitution. That is not what was intended and it is dangerous to our freedom and to the rule of law. The constitution envisions not three separate governments but three branches of one government, each helping keep the others in check. When judges act with little regard for the constraints of law, they become a separate government – a government not accountable to the voters. That can allow them to take on aspects of a dictatorship.

A case from Clackamas County Oregon illustrates the point. In 2008 Russell Paul Hamblen was accused of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse of minor girls. It looked like a good case for prosecutors, especially since his son and co-defendant had already pled guilty and been sentenced. Bail was set at $500,000. So far so good, that would likely keep a pedophile off the street – unless Judge Deanne Darling had her way. She ordered the state to post his bail! Her “reasoning” was that Hamblen should be free so he could help plan for the care of another son. There was nothing in the law or any precedent to support her order, she just made it up to suit her own belief.

Darling acted independently of other branches of government, but also independently of the law. Fortunately her order was overturned on appeal, but what if such an order were to come from the Supreme Court? There would be no appeal.

“But wait,” you say. “Surely no supreme court would ever act in that manner.” Are you sure about that? Consider the issue of homosexual marriage. In 2006 the New Jersey
Supreme Court ordered the legislature to pass a law allowing same-sex marriage or creating a similar institution for same-sex partners. So much for separation of powers, that court treated the legislature as a servant to be ordered around. Again the court was not only independent of the governor and legislator, but also of law and constitution. Other state supreme courts have likewise overruled constitutional law on this issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court? Surely that one is immune to such nonsense, is it not? No, it is not. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the explicit promise that quotas would not be required. Yet today we have de facto quotas in many areas, mandated by the courts and approved by the Supreme Court. Though the court has backed off somewhat in its support of such quotas, they still effectively exist in many areas. Many businesses and state and local governments set out hiring and promotion “goals” for fear of being sued.

An even more frightening possibility is the desire of some justices to apply foreign law to the U.S. Though it has not yet become a majority view on the court, there are some justices who clearly want such law to be a factor here. They want to act independently of the constitution which clearly states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...” Nothing there about following the laws of European countries from whom we freed ourselves over 200 years ago. Yet Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer seem to think they should look to foreign law for guidance. Justice Sotomayor, the newest justice, has in the past appeared to agree with that sentiment.

When judges look around for foreign law that supports their own prejudices, they are looking for a way to circumvent our own law and constitution. That places them in the position of dictators, ignoring the rule of law in this country. They thereby declare their independence from law and constitution. If Canada wants a law against criticizing homosexuals it may have such a law. If France wants a law against publishing anti-Islamic opinion, it may also have such a law. However those laws would pertain only to Canada and France, not to us.

This is an important reason why we must insist on judges who are committed to our constitutional form of government. They must have the integrity to put aside their own preferences and rule on the basis of our law and constitution. They must commit to independence from other branches of government but they must also commit to strict dependence on the law and the constitution. They are not independent rulers but are to be agents of the people according to the conditions set out in that law and constitution.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Identity Politics, Part 3, A Polarized Society

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.

Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.

Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.

Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.

What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.

Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.

What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?

Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.

Identity Politics, Part 2

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me

Senator Patrick Leahy has strongly implied that criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is racist. And what were those “racist” remarks? The culprits quoted Sotomayor verbatim. There is no doubt that Sotomayor made a racist statement. There is no doubt that she said it multiple times. Yet Leahy has the nerve to accuse people of racism when they simply point out what she said. Worse, he misquoted her, apparently deliberately.

Leahy claimed, “[Sotomayor] said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'" Notice that he claims to be quoting her verbatim. That was a lie; he was creatively editing her words to make her statement sound neutral when in fact it was racist.

What Sotomayor in fact said was, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The claim that her race and sex would reach better decisions is clearly racist, as I’ve discussed in my blog on the Gander Test. Removing the racist part of the quote is dishonest. Leahy is a liar when he says that he is quoting her statement.

However we should not be surprised that someone like Leahy, well on the left of the political spectrum, would do such a thing. Many of those people are incapable of recognizing racism in anybody but a white person. Leahy probably thinks that telling his lie is actually serving a good cause. Many of those people actually believe that it is not possible for a Black or Hispanic to be a bigot. That is a part of identity politics, they judge people by the color of their skin or their sex, not by what they actually say or do. However racist is as racist does, contrary to what the leftists claim.

This is the other side of identity politics, excusing all manner of sin on the basis that the culprit is a minority. Worse, anyone who criticizes a minority, even for valid reasons, is labeled a bigot for having the temerity to speak the truth or a non-politically-correct opinion. This is widespread in our country today. For example, anyone who opposes homosexual marriage will be called homophobic and anyone who opposes affirmative action will be called racist. That is just the way identity politics works.

Another aspect of this is the article of faith on the left that any minority must be leftist. Many go so far as to call a black person who does not toe the leftist line “not an authentic Black.” In fact recently Senator Barbara Boxer used testimony by Harry Alford, chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, to imply that the other groups represent black people but that Alford’s organization does not because it does not go along with the leftist agenda.

Many of Boxer’s ilk think that minorities should remain in lockstep and not be allowed to stray from the leftist reservation. They think that minorities off that reservation lose their identity.

Can we change the adherents of identity politics? I doubt it, at least not most of them. They tend to have closed minds on the subject and will reject facts or sound reasoning. In fact they will call such facts and reasoning bias, but of course cannot tell us how they are biased. Oh there may be a few who listen to reason but most won’t. Most regard the accusation as proof, no more discussion needed.

What we can do is refuse to give in to the twisted accusations of identity politics. Of course first we must examine ourselves to be certain the charges are untrue. If they are all we need do is make a simple statement of that fact.

A leftist might say, “You’re a bigot, you called Sotomayor racist.”

A good response might be, “I am not a racist, in fact I have many Black and Hispanic friends. I simply quoted her own words, words she has spoken multiple times. Then I pointed out that if someone made a similar statement, claiming that a white man could make better decisions than a Latina woman, it would be recognized for the racism it is. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Sotomayor’s statements are racist.”

Such a response probably won’t change the mind of the accuser; he is likely too closed-minded to understand it. However it will have an effect on neutral observers. Furthermore it will help us avoid the temptation to become as biased as the accuser in an attempt to avoid the accusation.

Leahy and his ilk will undoubtedly continue to make false accusations of bigotry. However I do not believe they are the majority in this country. I believe most people are smart enough to see how ridiculous those accusations are.

Identity Politics, Part 1

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So spoke the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. To a great extent his dream has been realized. Official barriers to certain races have been eliminated. The Jim Crow laws are no longer with us. Of course there are still bigots in the country but at least they can no longer use the force of law to keep people out of schools or jobs just because of skin color. However the official forces of evil have are still with us, ironically now sometimes represented by the very people who claim to follow Dr. King.

The identity politics of Dr. King’s time involved blatant discrimination against black people. Today’s identity politics is not as blatant but still advocates discrimination. In the name of civil rights some are now advocating that people be judged by the color of their skin or by their sex instead of by the content of their character or their ability. In the state of Oregon for example, the Department of Human Services brags about having a great majority of women in upper pay ranges. They claim that having a majority of women somehow gives them diversity. They also say that they need to hire more people of certain races. That is hardly the color-blind society of Dr. King’s dreams. I have to admit that I fail to see how that can be squared with the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.

Identity politics is based on the idea that certain people should be given preference. That used to mean not hiring Blacks, Irish or people of certain other ethnicities. Today it again means discrimination against people of a certain skin color or sex. It is a group-based instead of an individual based legal theory. If a white man of 50 or 100 years ago discriminated against a black man of that same time, identity politics says that today we should discriminate against a white man to make up for it. The fact that both men from 50 or 100 years ago are now dead does not enter into the equation, nor does the fact that neither the white man discriminated against today or the black man benefiting from discrimination were even born when the earlier discrimination occurred. This theory punishes and rewards people for actions outside their control, actions done by people long dead.

Suppose your neighbor whose hair is the same color as yours were to steal a large amount of money, then disappear. His victim also moves away to parts unknown. Would it be fair to require you to pay back the money to someone in the victim’s old neighborhood whose hair is the same color as the victim’s? Yet that is essentially what today’s identity politics does under the name of affirmative action. Its advocates want to punish people for having an appearance similar to dead bigots. They want to use that punishment to the advantage of people who look like dead victims of discrimination. Rewards and punishments are handed out to people who had no control over the actions on which those rewards and punishments are based.

Consider three babies born the same day in the same city. One is the child of a wealthy black physician, another the child of a white single mother who struggles to pay the rent, while the third is born into a middle-class Chinese family. The physician’s child goes to a top-tier university, expenses paid by his father. The white child manages to get into the same university, taking out loans and working part-time to get his education. Both graduate with honors and apply for the same job. Who do you think will be hired? Most likely the doctor’s child because of his skin color. In fact, for many jobs the black person will be hired even if his qualifications are lower than those of the white person.

And what about the child of Chinese ancestry? He wasn’t even admitted to that university, even though he was more qualified than the other two. He had the misfortune to live and study in California where students of oriental ancestry have done too well. They are discriminated against in order to restore “racial balance.”

Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.

In the long run identity politics harms everybody. While it’s obvious how in harms those discriminated against, there is also real damage to the supposed beneficiaries. Those people are encouraged to spend their time and energy defending their preference instead of working to get educated and preparing to compete on a level playing field. The person who spends his time working to get preference in hiring may come away with a job but will probably not feel competent in that job. If he spends that time studying engineering, science, business or something similar he will probably become qualified for a rewarding and possibly lucrative career.

Fairness and the constitution both require a color-blind society. We must work toward that end. Identity politics and affirmative action mean judging people on ethnicity or other irrelevant characteristics, not on character or ability. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

Words, Just Words

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.

“Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.”

Believe it or not, that quote is from the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Article 124. That’s right, under communism the Russians and their colonies had a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. We all know how effective that guarantee was. The communists wrote freedom of religion into their constitution, then ignored it.

The fact is that constitutional protections depend on more than the words on paper. There are always people willing to stretch or even ignore the words. They may have good intentions or they may just want to amass power to themselves. Either way, it is only by constant vigilance that we can maintain our freedoms. For a U.S. example we need look no farther than the ninth and tenth amendments, both of which have been ignored for decades:

Article 9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We have seen the federal government continually take powers not delegated to the United States, powers that should be reserved to the states or the people. For example my state allows medical marijuana and assisted suicide (both of which I oppose). The constitution clearly does not delegate regulation of drugs and suicide to the federal government, yet that federal government has stepped in to try to overturn the state law. Years ago the federal government issued quotas regulating who could grow wheat and how much. They even prosecuted a farmer who grew wheat that never left his own farm but was used to feed his animals. Such actions were in clear violation of the ninth and tenth amendments, yet the government got away with it.

The federal government has also imposed de facto quotas on employment, requiring equal outcome instead of equal opportunity under the guise of outlawing disparate impact (also known as adverse impact). As a result, the 14th amendment is often ignored if authorities prefer to give preference to certain groups.

Those constitutional abuses continue because the citizens fail to defend the document. Reportedly Benjamin Franklin was once asked what kind of government we had been given. His answer was, “a republic – if you keep it.” Keeping it requires constant and informed vigilance. I believe that this means that citizens must:

1. Know what the constitution actually says and means. In general this is not that difficult, it is not a lawyers’ document. Normal people can understand the words and meaning.

2. Understand the reasons behind the various provisions. For example, the founders did not intend to give us a pure democracy. Instead they intended to provide a limited government, restricted from doing certain things no matter how many people want them. They also intended to provide a balance between heavily populated states and states with smaller populations, and between the different branches of government.

3. Be willing to sacrifice their own short-term interests for the benefit of long-term freedoms and the benefits that come from living under a constitutionally restricted government.

4. Vote wisely. Too often people are urged to vote as though just voting would help the country. Instead they should be urged to inform themselves and evaluate the issues and candidates carefully. We do not need more ignorant or apathetic voters, we need voters who care enough to learn and think about how they are voting. We need to support candidates who are wise, ethical, and committed to constitutional government.

5. Participate in government by writing representatives and by other means. Congress, the president, governors etc. are our employees and like any boss we should keep up with what they are doing and let them know how we think they should do their duty as our employees.

The constitution is a wonderful document. However it will remain just words unless we the people actively defend it.

Independence Day

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.

Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?

The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.

The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).

The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.

Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.

Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.

First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.

A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.

The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.

Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.

However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.

We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.

Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.

Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.

Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.

*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.

Hiring a Justice

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Hiring decisions can be difficult or relatively simple, depending on the nature of the job. It can be easy to hire someone to pick up litter in a park; almost anyone can do that. Even if the person hired does a poor job no long-term damage is done and it’s easy to replace him. However as the job gets more complex, the difficulty of finding the right person increases, as does the potential damage he can do. A corporate chief executive officer can ruin a company in a hurry. There are not many people available who can and will do the job right. For that reason companies looking to hire a CEO usually take a long time and carefully evaluate potential candidates.

The hiring of a justice of the Supreme Court is more important than hiring a corporate CEO, maybe even more important than hiring a president of these United States. Justices receive lifetime appointments and are essentially accountable to nobody. A vote of five justices decides a case, making it the law of the land. There is no appeal. That makes each justice effectively one fifth of a dictatorship. It is a position of extreme trust and with the ability to do a lot of damage. This is not a position for which we can take a chance and replace the person in a few years if we don’t like the outcome. Selection of justices has to be done right, and done right the first time.

That means we should not just make sure there is no evidence against a potential justice. We must make certain that the person is qualified. This is not a criminal trial in which the appointee is innocent until proven guilty. Instead all candidates should be considered unqualified until shown beyond reasonable doubt to be qualified. The burden of proof is on the candidate and his or her supporters. I repeat here the five requirements I regard as mandatory for such justices:

1. Absolute integrity.
2. Commitment to the constitution and constitutional law.
3. Ability to subordinate personal belief and preference to the constitution and the law.
4. Intellectual ability to weigh issues and to decide wisely based on evidence, fact, and logic.
5. Sound knowledge of the law and the constitution.
I’ll be up front about the fact that I do not believe Judge Sotomayor is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. In fact I think there is evidence she does not meet two of the above requirements. She does seem to have great intellectual ability and a sound knowledge of the law so she probably meets requirements 4 and 5. I have no knowledge of her integrity so will hope that suitable investigation has been done on that score. However her commitment to the constitution and her ability to subordinate personal preference to that constitution appear to be lacking. Sadly, she seems willing to apply her stated racist views to court decisions.

The most cited case of this was Ricci v. DeStefano. This New Haven, Conn case involved firefighters denied promotions they had qualified for simply because not enough minorities qualified. I discussed that case in my last blog so I won’t repeat it here. I will, however, reiterate that Sotomayor’s acceptance of what amounts to a racial quota shows a disregard for the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the constitution. She failed to defend the constitution in that case.

Sotomayor is also a member of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic organization that strongly supports “affirmative action.” What affirmative action has come to mean in practice is that one group is passed over for employment or promotion in order to fill the quota of minorities. A friend of mine is a manager in a large company. He tells me that their human resources department regularly refuses to let him hire the person he regards as most qualified. The reason? Simply because that person happens to be a white male. His company has been cowed into taking those measures because both government officials and many independent civil rights organizations regard affirmative action as requiring de facto quotas. That is a clear violation of our constitution.

The most important job of the Supreme Court is protection of the constitution. Any justice who allows his or her own preferences or beliefs to supercede the constitution is a danger to the country. We need justices who can make decisions they hate and disagree with but which are what the law and constitution require. Oliver Wendell Holmes was such a justice and has left a legacy to be worth emulation. Will Sotomayor do that? Sadly, her record indicates otherwise.

We should all contact our senators and urge them to carefully evaluate Judge Sotomayor’s beliefs and judicial qualifications, especially her commitment to the constitution. If she fails the test of commitment to the constitution, she should be rejected.