Presidential Qualifications

Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried. (Winston Churchill)

Every four years in this country we elect a president – sadly, often on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Charisma gets votes. So does good hair and the ability to act like one of the regular folk. A talent for believable deception can also help. Sometimes people vote for a candidate because of race or sex, claiming that it time for black or woman president. Then, once the president takes office, none of those characteristics does anything to help the economy, stop terrorists, control crime, or any of the other things we expect from a president. The same can be said of congressional representatives, governors, mayors, and other elected officials. Voters should decide on the basis of real qualification, not superficial things like charisma.

“Timothy Judge of the University of Florida business school says that being an extrovert is correlated with being chosen as a leader, but not with being a good leader. “We go for these effervescent leaders when what's really needed is a dull, focused, plodding [type] building effective groups and organizations.”¹

Leadership requires two distinct but unrelated abilities. First and most important, the leader must make wise decisions. Second, he must motivate people to act on those decisions. Motivation without wisdom only leads people to Hell faster. It is the demagogue, the potential tyrant, who is most likely to motivate without wisdom.

“Charisma attracts votes. It also causes people to act without thinking. Extroverts are the people likely to win elections, but not the most likely to make good decisions. The only possible solution is for voters to pay more attention to substance and less to image.” (From my book, Freedom or Serfdom? Page 259)

Today, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appear to be by far the leading aspirants for the presidential nomination of their respective parties. Both reached that position on the basis of irrelevancies. Hillary gains much support from those who believe we should have a woman president. Trump is a master of publicity. In my opinion, neither is qualified to be president. Once we look beyond the superficial, there is little there. Hillary, asked about her accomplishments as secretary of state, could not name even one. Trump, claiming to be a conservative, has proposed increases in government power by such things as government control of health care. I've not heard either of them praise limited, constitutional government.

Another problem with politicians is that they are usually convincing talkers. Yet when we look at their actions we often find those actions unrelated to promises.

I urge voters to look at not only the promises but the record of politicians. Avoid government by the silver tongue, by promises etc. People can lie with words much more easily than they can deceive with actions.

1 U.S. News and World Report, November 2009, p26

Government by Decibel

Related to things like university students demanding censorship of ideas or information: the problem of government by decibel, the loudest tend to get their way.

Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, or simply the crowd demanding exclusion of some ideas from their colleges. They make so much noise that nobody looks at how many people they actually represent. Too many simply assume that any group that noisy must be important.

I've no idea what percent of college students want to exclude some ideas, what fraction of people support the Occupy Wall Street and related movements, or what percentage want to claim that Black Lives Matter to the exclusion of all lives mattering. I doubt anybody has solid data; the questions are simply not being asked, much less answered. However, it is almost certain that those groups have influence beyond their numbers. Serious students who want real education, working people who want to work and live in peace, Blacks who agree that all lives matter, all those are likely to be too busy to join the screamfests. That means that the protestors are self-selected and almost certainly not representative of the population in general.

Those screamers have excessive influence for at least two reasons. First, too many decision-makers pay attention to them and ignore the majority. Second, many in what we can aptly call the silent majority, allow themselves to be intimidated and do not speak out.

This is a travesty for our democratic society. It puts unwarranted power in the hands of those with no productive employment, the students who scream instead of studying, the fanatic wing of any movement, those who have no jobs and plenty of time to protest. Our government, including university administrators, is supposed to work for all the people, not just whoever who can scream the loudest.

The solution is simple, though not necessarily easy. The silent majority must be silent no more. We must insist that our representatives represent us, not just the noisy. And we must insist that tax money supporting colleges be contingent on those institutions allowing free speech, on any subject. Only when we do that will we turn around the ridiculous state we now find ourselves in.

Do you think this will not work? Look at the facts. Government officials may not agree with the majority, but they do agree on one thing: they want to keep their jobs. A few years ago some friends were testifying at the Oregon legislature about a proposed law. They had data, facts, charts etc. Their presentation was impressive. Then one state senator took them aside. “You guys need to understand something about the legislature. We don't care about your charts and data. What we care about is getting re-elected.”

Let's let our representatives know that their re-election depends on representing all of us, not just the noisy. Letters to them and to news organizations can go a long way.

Christmas!

(Because tomorrow is Christmas, I'll postpone further discussion of things like restrictions on speech until next week.)

Like most people, I enjoy the Christmas season. I regard it as a time to celebrate the birth of the Savior of the World (though he was almost certainly not born in December, more likely in the spring, but that is another subject). Even those who do not believe in Him can enjoy the season.

Good will, never in oversupply in this world, seems to peak at this time of year. I remember a few years ago reading of a man who went to a local store, one not patronized by the well-off. He asked if they had anyone who had put Christmas gifts on layaway and was not unable to pay for them. They did, but not for long. He paid for those Christmas presents. That is far from the only example of such generosity this time of year. In some cases, Jews and others even replace Christians who would have to work, allowing those Christians to spend the day with their families.

So I hope you enjoy the season, and that you help others enjoy it. The lonely often find this time of year depressing, maybe you can visit some of them. Some children are sad because their parents cannot afford presents – and many of those parents are unhappy because they cannot give their children a happy holiday. Fortunately there are many opportunities to give to the disadvantaged this time of year. Such giving helps not only the recipient but the giver as well.

So I wish all my readers a very happy Christmas season. If you are a believer, you can celebrate the birth of the Son of God who gives us eternal life and the opportunity for forgiveness. If not, you can still enjoy this time of year and the good will it brings.

Merry Christmas everybody!

Immunity to Ideas and Information

Berlin, Germany, 1971: I stood looking at the wall, its ugly appearance surpassed by an even uglier purpose. It stood four meters (13 feet) high, topped in places by razor wire. However Russian and East German authorities were replacing the razor wire with smooth concrete pipe, large enough in diameter to offer no hand or foot holds. Razor wire is no deterrent to people fleeing machine gun bullets.



The infamous Berlin wall was built to keep people in and ideas out. (From Chapter 26 of my book, Freedom or Serfdom?) That is a terrible, tyrannical objective. Not only does it hold in captivity people denied information, it blocks progress as those people are deprived of the information necessary to advance everything from freedom to technology. The fall of the wall was a cause for celebration as East Germans once again had access to a variety of ideas, reasoning, and evidence. Surely nobody today would want to again put in place such a horrible blockade, would they? Don't be too sure.



Today not only are people creating barriers to information and ideas, but the people erecting those barriers are the very same people being deprived of information! On campuses across the country a minority of “students” demands “safe spaces” where certain viewpoints are prohibited. They demand “trigger warnings” so they can leave class lest they be exposed to diverse ideas. While the East Berlin captives sought information from the West (with the help of some in the west who put up informational billboards visible over the wall), these new captives not only fail to seek a variety of information, they demand that no such information be available. The captives are their own jailers – and enthusiastic jailers at that.



This self-censorship and censorship of faculty goes so far as to try to prohibit law schools teaching rape law! Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk described this in a New Yorker article a year ago. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law
Let us be clear, rape is a serious offense and we should do all we can to stop that crime and punish the rapists. It is for that very reason that law schools must teach the subject. Failure to do so constitutes dereliction of duty, and pressure not to teach rape law gives aid and comfort to the rapists.



Nor is rape the only subject some want to declare off limits. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education documents and fights against many campus speech codes. Often those speech codes block presentation of unpopular political views. If such views are prohibited, we will be right back to authorities dictating what we can think and discuss. And the “graduates” of institutions with such restrictions will be indoctrinated but not educated.



We must fight those campus restrictions. More on that, probably next time.

Forget the Facts, Just Sling Mud, Part 3

(This is the third and final excerpt from Chapter 16 of my book, Freedom or Serfdom.)

The Other Side of the Coin – When the Shoe Fits

I'm confident that nearly everyone would agree: unsubstantiated name calling is bad. It is dishonest and distracts from the real issues. But what if the apple really is rotten? What if a politician is a thief, a scoundrel, even a traitor? Unless the voters know about such things they will not be able to vote wisely. Evidence-based, correct description of politicians is not only good, it is required if we are to avoid demagogues and keep our freedom. There is a big difference between unsubstantiated name calling and pointing out verified problems. If a politician has a track record of lies and broken promises, voters should know about it. That is true whether those lies and broken promises were to the public or confined to family and friends.

What should we think of politicians who cheat on their wives, people like Anthony Weiner, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, or John Edwards? Does their private behavior bear on fitness for office? Years ago I saw a quiz intended to measure people's attitudes toward some work issues and help them understand the importance of having the “correct” attitudes. One question asked, “If you found out that your boss was having an extramarital affair, would you think less of him as a boss?” The “right” answer was that no, that should not change how you regard him. His personal life has nothing to do with his work life.

That “right” answer is nonsense.

To believe that a person can have high integrity at work while lacking integrity in personal life is to believe that the person is split into two different characters. It just doesn't happen. If someone cheats on his spouse and not on his employer there is a simple reason: at present he finds it attractive, and of acceptable risk to cheat on his spouse but not on his employer. What will happen when he finds it attractive and of acceptable risk to cheat his employer (or the country)? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to answer that question.[1] Integrity is not situation-dependent. The person who is honest only when honesty is convenient, or when dishonesty is dangerous, lacks integrity. When the situation changes, he will cheat. That is true in family life, in business, and in government.

Newt Gingrich, for example, cheated on at least two wives, eventually divorcing both.[2] He then talked of Christian forgiveness, using that to try to convince people that they should support him. As a Christian I believe in repentance and forgiveness, but so what? The issue is trust, not forgiveness. In fact, I am in no position to forgive Gingrich; he did not wrong me. His ex-wives and his children must deal with that. For voters the issue is trust; and trust must be earned. In fact while Christian scripture repeatedly commands us to forgive, I do not know of any scriptural admonition to trust the offender. Jesus even instructed his disciples to be “wise as serpents.”[3] Surely such wisdom would include trusting only those who are trustworthy.

In our romantic lives, business, or politics we must require that people be trustworthy. That integrity should be manifest by actions, not just words. The politician who fails to demonstrate integrity by his actions should be rejected – be those actions public or private.

We must seek the truth about our politicians. If they are liars and cheaters, we should know that and not vote for them. If they are falsely accused, we should also know that and not hold the accusations against them. And of course we should refrain from unsubstantiated name calling ourselves.

---

[1]      There are a few people who agree to “open marriages” wherein each allows the other as many affairs as he or she wants. However such marriages are, as far as I can tell, officially unheard of among politicians so they need not concern us here.

[2]      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633

[3]      Holy Bible, Matthew 10:16

Forget the Facts, Just Sling Mud, Part 2

(This is the second of probably three posts from Chapter 16 of my book, Freedom or Serfdom?)

Other Sneaky Tricks

One common manifestation of Godwin's law today is what is appropriately called turnspeak, that is, accusing your opponents of your own sins. Psychologists call this projection.

Turnspeak goes back at least as far as Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Trying to excuse his own imperialism, he claimed that those countries were complicit in a plot to invade Germany, and he even staged a false Polish attack on a German radio station.^[1] That is what turnspeak is; turning the facts around 180 degrees as Hitler did when he accused the Czechs and Poles of the imperialism he himself was committing. And it is what all too many in politics do today. Come out against big government and they will likely call you fascist, in spite of the fact that fascism is a form of big government.

One problem the turnspeak victims face is that the accusation many seem so obviously false that it should need no refutation – and it seems trite to refute something so flagrant. Plus refutation risks involvement in a “you are/no I'm not” argument. However, if allowed to go unanswered, the accusation will stick. It is probably best to just do something like point out that the free man is the opposite of a fascist while the statist wants big government just like the fascists did.

However, the real test is when we hear someone else called fascist or something similar. Do we just accept the accusation, or do we examine the evidence? Politics creates so much turnspeak that we should be careful about which accusations we accept. If there is solid evidence, we can accept the accusation. Otherwise, we owe it to ourselves and other citizens to publicly oppose the lie.

And there are yet worse forms of political chicanery.

Other Nastiness

False flag operations and agents provocateurs are the foulest excrement of politics. The idea is to make opponents look unattractive no matter what it takes, honesty and integrity be damned. The agent provocateur tries to goad his enemy into doing something stupid; for example he may try to get him to appear to agree with a racist remark. The false flag operative pretends to be one of his opponents while doing something stupid or racist. There have been several attempts of these types, especially against the Tea Party. 

For example, in 2010 a school teacher in Beaverton, Oregon created a web site urging people to crash the Tea Party and to “use misspelled protest signs, make wild claims during interviews or other actions that would damage public opinion of the party.”^[2] That is an example of a false flag operation – and I know statists who defended that deception. Of course, should that pretender manage to goad his targets into doing something stupid, he will become a successful agent provocateur.

But that was just a rogue teacher, right? I'm afraid not. At least one former high ranking Democrat tried the same trick. Kathy Sullivan, former chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, openly sought Democrats “willing to pose as Tea Partiers and hold up anti-Obama, racist signs at the Tea Parties.”^[3] It would be difficult to think of a more dishonest dirty trick.

There will always be at least a few liars around, and in politics some will engage in such things as false flag or agent provocateur operations. That should be illegal; perpetrators should go to jail. Such shenanigans attack the very integrity of our political system. Until we have such a law, free men need to identify those deceivers and expose them publicly. And we need to be careful to not fall victim to provocations designed to get us to act stupidly. Of course as fee men, in the Tea Party or not, we must never use such dirty tricks ourselves, and we must try to purge from our ranks anyone who does. If we want the trust of the voters, we must strive to be beyond reproach.

By being aware of the dirty tricks some statists use, we can defend ourselves. That we must do if we are to defend our freedom. Our opponents have those dirty tricks on their side, plus an attractive sounding idea described in the next chapter. Unless we expose them, we will lose our freedom.

---

[1]      http://www.warhistoryonline.com/articles/wwiis-first-victim-a-nazi-plot-to-provide-an-excuse-to-invade-poland.html

[2]      http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2010/04/school_officials_ investigate_beaverton_teacher_who_urged_people_to_crash_the_tea_party.html

[3]      http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/04/14/new-hampshire-democrats-search-for-tea-party-crashers-to-hold-up-racist-signs/

Keep Muslims Out?

The controversy over Donald Trump's latest statement about Muslims deserves comment. In case anyone hasn't heard, he said we should not allow any Muslim immigrants into this country. (He actually worded it as, “Donald J. Trump is calling for...” I shall not at present comment on his tendency to describe his statements in the third person instead of just saying, “I am calling for...” However the psychologists may be able to make something of that.)

While we clearly need to keep terrorists out of our country, and his statement has created justifiable controversy, that controversy has not yet mentioned one salient fact: Trump's proposal is essentially unworkable. To do it, we either have to stop all immigration, or find some way to determine who is and is not a Muslim. No, we cannot just ask them.

The sad fact is that the terrorists who would enter our country are world class liars. To them, lying in pursuit of their objectives is not only acceptable, it is expected, regarded as a positive good. The terrorists wanting to come to our shores will simply claim to be Christian, or even atheist or Jewish, and we have no way to determine if they are telling the truth. Trump's proposal would keep out the honest Muslims while allowing in the fanatic terrorists.