Liberty ‘08

Dude, Where’s My Revolution?

Turning from apathy and cynicism to political involvement

If you were to ask almost anyone of voting age in America who they planned to vote for in November you would get quite a few different answers. Some of them would be along the lines of “I’ll think about that later,” “I’ll vote for anyone but Hillary,” “Voting doesn’t matter, no matter who we pick the lobbyists and power brokers either rig the system or end up corrupting the people in power,” “I think I want to vote for (major party candidate X) but I’m worried about him because of (media scandal Y).” What do these generic and cynical responses mean in an age of democracy, an age when people are expected to choose who governs them?

In the last presidential election just over 60% of eligible voters showed up at the polls (the highest number since 1968) (link). 80% of respondents in a recent poll say the USA is on the wrong track (link). Even assuming that the overlap is as little as possible, this means that at least 20% of the US citizenry, people who didn’t vote for President of the United States in the midst of major economic and foreign policy debates, are now incredibly upset. I wonder, if this 20% could choose to vote George W. Bush out of office today if they would decide to. Considering that the margin of victory for George W. Bush was incredibly close, if even half of those abstaining voters had showed up at the polls we would have a very different government today (and if they had collectively voted for third party candidates that would have clearly indicated exhaustion with the two-party system and spur both Republicans and Democrats to change their agendas to meet such a rising challenge). From these data we can deduce that fewer people vote than should vote (if they were perfectly happy with everything the government did maybe they would have an excuse for not voting). From everyday observations we realize that those who do vote are often ignorant of the issues and because of this they often wait until the last hour to decide who they want to vote for. This group of voters (the last minute group) is heavily influenced by the media, especially mainstream newspaper and television. If an individual were to obtain political values only through these means they would see every election as either a circus in which the political process is nothing more than playing to the cameras, or they would choose to accept the various media narratives as mostly true and use them as the basis for deciding which candidate deserves their vote. This wouldn’t be such a horrid prospect if the media narratives weren’t slanted to be shallow and attention-grabbing: McCain is a war hero so I can trust him to keep us safe from terrorists; Obama represents real change which means that if I vote for him the economy will turn around and I’ll be better off financially. The problem with both of these responses is that in both cases while the voters appear to be making moral choices (pick A over B because it will benefit me/the country more) what they are really doing is cheating both themselves and the nation.

The subtitle of this article hints at a solution. First, let me tell you something that may turn you completely off at this point: find your own solution. Yep, I said it. Only you, yourself, the person on the other side of the monitor, really knows what it will take to get you not only interested in but genuinely excited about political candidates and issues. My second piece of advice: ignore cable news as much as possible. If you equate loud talking heads with political education you will either get exhausted extremely quick or end up a partisan hack (someone who doesn’t know when to shut up and let the other side get a word in). This isn’t to say that all cable pundits are bad, but sifting the wheat from the chaff is very difficult if your previous diet was only network commentary; cable news will often delve very deeply into candidates and issues but too often the intent is to smear and excite, to promote ratings rather than education. Finally, keep your feed reader rotating. If you don’t read any blogs on a regular basis (maybe only occasionally finding intriguing entries through search engines), start doing so; sticking close by an author for an extended period of time (I’d suggest at least 2-3 weeks, a near eternity on the Internet) will give you a better idea of how they come to the conclusions they do, where their philosophical roots lie. If you do read blogs but follow only a select few that you consider “necessary,” expand your horizons. For nearly any blog there is at least one other covering the same subject but doing it in a different way; even a difference in something as simple as writing style can change how you see an important issue.

Anyways, I’ve said enough for now. I have things to do, a life to live—I can’t spend all of my time blogging! Being informed doesn’t mean you spend every waking hour huddled over a monitor. It does mean you are willing to listen next time a protest passes by, a pamphlet ends up on your door-step, your neighbor sends you an email. Take time to learn. And, when all of your learning has made you truly excited, take the time to tell others.

-Signing out for now,
Ken

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Liberty and Christianity

I’ve finally gotten around to reading a book that I was very happy to find under the Christmas tree: Democracy in America. In the original introduction to this classic treatise, the author, a French nobleman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville, lays out some of the apparent conflicts between religion and political progress. I don’t know (this far into the book) whether I can say that Tocqueville himself bears the marks of a believer, but I can say that he speaks very fondly of the “Zealous Christians” of his own time, people who held a philosophy of God that was not only compatible with thriving democracy and individual rights but whose faith forms a bedrock for the claims of equality before the law. The paradox of religion and political progress is thus pointed out in contrast to what Tocqueville sees as natural regarding a proper understanding of Christianity.

Zealous Christians may be found amongst us whose minds are nurtured in the love and knowledge of a future life, and who readily espouse the cause of human liberty as the source of all moral greatness. Christianity, which has declared that all men are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. But, by a singular concourse of events, religion is entangled in those institutions which democracy assails, and it is not unfrequently brought to reject the equality it loves, and to curse that cause of liberty as a foe which it might hallow by its alliance.

By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks are turned to the earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans of liberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but more especially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerely desire to extend its sway, and to impart its blessings to mankind. It is natural that they should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen religion in the ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of them attack it openly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it. - Alexis de Tocqueville

It is because Tocqueville sees Christianity and his own understanding of progressive politics (not progressive in the way understood by the Progressive or Democratic parties but progressive from Tocqueville’s favoring of a sort of “classic liberalism,” government by and for the people where official castes and enforced classes are minimized or do not exist) as naturally compatible and mutually beneficial that he is so puzzled when he looks out into the real world and observes the often polarized assumption that to be pro-liberty is to be anti-religious and to be a strict “religionist” means one is often in favor of conservative (again relative to his time and place) regimes and policies and uses their position in society to beat back against the forces of political change.

A modern day example of a “partisan of liberty” being confused by the entanglement of religion with oppression is Andrew Davis in a recent blog post attempting to clarify the differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. In particular, I felt that the paragraph below indicated a deep mistrust of mixing religious and political values:

Though the Constitution Party has a very real and intense dedication to Constitutional provisions–made clear by the fact that they support many of their platform planks with citations from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence–their raison d’etre is to essentially establish a “Christian” nation, and somehow maintain religious tolerance (though this latter portion is never explained).

In response to core criticisms (mostly presented in a friendly tone) of Andrew Davis I would respectfully argue that the attitude that modern libertarians (with a small “l”) ought to adopt is one that recognizes (as Tocqueville did) the synergy between Christianity and liberty as the natural mode of things rather than assuming that combining Christian philosophy and libertarian philosophy is something new and alien to the Constitution Party.

- signing out for now,
Ken

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Redirecting the Ron Paul Revolution

Yesterday, Ron Paul officially ended his bid for the presidency. (link)

Today, I’m officially announcing my support for Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States of America. Presented below is a list detailing a few of my reasons for this decision:

1. I believe that in a society where Christians are given the ability to influence public policy, shunning that ability is immoral. The prophets of the Old Testament were very concerned with the immorality of powerful forces in society. Christ and the New Testament authors call Christians to lives that exemplify truth in a world full of deception and hypocrisy. While we have the ability to follow after the modern Pharisees of our day (those who profess faith when it is convenient but whose words and deeds clearly demonstrate that they are not believers) as Christians we are called to be a light to the world. Part of this light is being subject to proper government (Romans 13:1 in particular highlights this responsibility). In a nation that calls itself a democracy and rests its founding authority on the will of the people (although power is often handed to unelected elites and those opposed to any notion of popular good or the rights of individuals) being committed to making informed votes is a moral obligation to a Christian that seeks to be light and to submit to proper authority.

2. The killing of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs is a despicable practice that our nation has unjustly and unconstitutionally legitimized. Over 3000 abortions occur every day in the United States (link). This is not a small problem and it is not something that can be fixed by merely “encouraging” women to have fewer abortions. Indeed, the state continues to encourage women to have abortions by subsidizing the practice. Chuck Baldwin supports Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, one of the most far-reaching attempts to restore both a constitutional and moral perspective to the political battle over abortion. (link to Baldwin’s issue page on the sanctity of life) (link to the text of Paul’s proposed legislation)

3. The American participation in the wars and conflicts in Iraq must come to a complete and immediate end. President Bush says that history will judge him but it is clear from the numerous published accounts of his administration that in the lead-up to the war the case for weapons of mass destruction was highly exaggerated (if not a complete and total deception) and not based on any sound intelligence. While the actual reasons for entering into a war in Iraq are still being debated (possible motives include manipulating domestic politics, enriching corporate cronies, and attempting to establish/enlarge a 21st-century American Empire) what more and more people from both sides of the aisle are realizing is that America has no legitimate reason to stay any longer. Or, to borrow one of Ron Paul’s favorite arguments: it doesn’t matter why we are there when you consider that there is no way that we can afford to stay; the cost of the war in Iraq continues into the trillions with the US still footing the vast majority of the bill. Furthermore, the argument that “if we leave there will be chaos” is facetious. We invaded on false pretenses and created the chaos. We continue to occupy that country with an insufficient number of troops while brokering limited peace with competing militia groups, creating more chaos and anti-American sentiment than what existed at the beginning of the occupation. All the while our leaders dreamily insist that Iraq is just about to flower into a stable unified democracy even while we undermine the weak coalition government by declaring our intention to build a massive embassy and numerous permanent bases. A puppet-government is what hawks like McCain want but it is something that is abhorrent to the Arab world and at direct odds with real democratic determinism. Chuck Baldwin has taken a very strong stance against the war in Iraq and insists on using only rational and constitutional means to oppose the threat of terrorism. (link to Chuck’s issues page on military adventures)

4. Electing principled leaders is important. The histories of the kings of Israel and the histories of modern presidents reveals that when honest executives are in power the nation as a whole is more likely to pursue honest objectives. The Israelite kings had great power to lead Israel into idolatry by their example or to lead efforts to tear down the temples dedicated to prostitution and infant sacrifice. While the moral leadership of a United States president is necessarily far more limited than a king of ancient Israel they too have a similar burden to either promote good or to promote evil. If a leader has a deeply flawed personal life there is a good reason to worry about his ability to make just decisions when he or she becomes the occupant of the most powerful office in America. One of the reasons that I very actively campaigned for Ron Paul was because his defense of liberty was very passionate and principled. It did not arise from an attempt to pander to voters or to attract a rabid base of fans and this can be seen from his consistency in his positions since first taking public office in 1979. His stout conservatism preceded the “Reagan Revolution” and he continued to be a voice for fiscal responsibility throughout his time in Congress–never once voting for an unbalanced budget. A look at his personal life reveals a similar consistency, the kind of character that cannot be faked. He has been married to the same woman for fifty years and his children and grandchildren have never been a cause for shame during any of his many campaigns for office. He is also one of the few practicing medical doctors in Congress, highlighting the fact that he is more than just a career politician. Chuck Baldwin can be said to be bosom buddies with Ron Paul. Baldwin was one of the few prominent evangelical pastors to endorse Ron Paul, insisting that believers had a real choice when it came to their presidential candidates (even if that choice would be less popular in the eyes of the media and the world). Baldwin actually wanted to draft Paul for the Constitution Party. Baldwin has not adopted his political stances lightly. In 2004 he ran as vice-president on the CP ticket. He has been a consistent critic of George W. Bush. A quick google search will reveal that he is not afraid of having his real thoughts and views known (Chuck has a radio show and a national column besides a broad resume of media appearances). Chuck also has a very prosperous and commendable family. A look at one of the candidates that many Ron Paul supporters plan to throw their weight behind reveals a very different story. Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate for president, is not a principled man. Indeed, until very recently he wasn’t even a Libertarian. Although he has since changed his mind he voted for both the Patriot Act and the authorization to use force in Iraq. His personal life is a wreck; he has had two divorces and there is evidence that his second marriage failed because of infidelity. While he may have more political name-recognition than Chuck Baldwin his moral reputation (is he just a shallow opportunist?) leaves much to be desired.

I sincerely hope that my personal reasons for endorsing Chuck Baldwin will have an impact on not only your vote in November, but your activities and political discussions in the months leading up to the election. You may have your own reasons for wanting to support Chuck Baldwin. Do your own research. Nothing that I have stated here is difficult to affirm with a little googling. If you have a question about Chuck Baldwin or some reason that you think I should not be supporting him (or should be supporting some other candidate besides him) please leave a comment.

Signing out for now,
-Ken

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »