Voting is a Sacred Right and Solemn Responsibility

In recent weeks there have been shocking stories about highly organized efforts to fraudulently register voters. Thousands of duplicate registrations have been reported along with the registrations of dead people, ineligible people, and even nonexistent people. Fraudulent votes have already been cast on behalf of the mentally impaired and the dead. In some states, political leaders have led aggressive efforts to register soon-to-be-released prisoners, while finding technical grounds to disqualify absentee ballots from our personnel in the armed services. These efforts are sinister, often criminal, and those involved should be prosecuted.

This reported fraud being carried out throughout the nation not only demonstrates a contempt for our country and its Constitution, it is an attempt to diminish and even take away the sacred right that you and I have to determine those who will represent us at the local, state and federal levels of government. In a nation of, by and for the people, those who carry out such activities are as much a threat to our nation as any enemy combatant.

Of course we hear in many quarters that all of this activity is simply to ensure that everyone votes. But what is the benefit to society in having everyone vote? In San Francisco, illegal aliens have been given the right to vote in municipal elections. A Boston Alderman has proposed that legal, non-citizens should be permitted to vote in that city’s elections. And some free Western nations actually compel everyone to go to the polls. But our founders did not create an absolute democracy where the emotions and whims of the mob rule. Instead they created a republic where certain things, such as one’s right to life, liberty, and property, and even the right not to vote, can never be taken away by majority vote.

There are many people we encounter every day who have no interest in government, politics, and the domestic and foreign affairs of our country. No doubt many of them are good people who love their families and contribute to their communities. But should they be rounded up and delivered to the polls to make decisions about issues that effect all the rest of us and on which they have little if any interest or knowledge?

No eligible citizen should be denied his or her right to cast a vote. But when illegal aliens who don’t speak English, and who know nothing of our history, Constitution, laws and culture, are encouraged to vote, is our country made better or is it made worse?

At the beginning of our national life, only 20% of adult males cast ballots. No one suggests that we should return to such a limited franchise, but those informed voters did manage to elect such monumental historical figures as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.

Efforts to ensure that anyone with a driver’s license becomes a registered voter, or to permit phone-in votes as one Colorado organization advocates, cheapen and demean our political process and potentially turn what should be a high privilege and solemn responsibility into a common task.

Those who devote themselves to ensuring that ballot boxes are jam-packed with as many legal, as well as illegal, votes as possible would do our nation a far greater service if they directed their energies to ensuring that our citizens are truly prepared to knowledgeably exercise their responsibility as voters.

As President Kennedy stated: "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure

Mark Twain’s observation that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" is an important thought to keep in mind when looking at government statistics, opinion polls, and so many of the surveys and studies that are presented daily to the American public. Indeed, many in government and in business and advocacy groups have learned that the way information is calculated, the phrasing of a question in a poll, or the methods used to structure a so called “scientific survey” can dramatically influence the results.

One area where reported statistics frequently misrepresent reality is in the host of ways school districts and states calculate graduation rates. It does little good to compare one district with another, or one state with other states, because they may all use different ways to calculate the percentage of students who actually graduate.

Thirty-three states use the “Leaver Rate” which divides the number of students who received standard high school diplomas by the combined number of students who dropped out, who graduated with a standard diploma, and who graduated with other completion credentials.

Only ten states do what many people of common sense would do, which is to compare the number who enter the ninth grade with the number of those who graduate with a diploma four years later.

The other states use an array of meaningless calculations, such as basing published graduation rates on the percentage of high school seniors, counted in the fall of their senior year, who graduate in the spring. Of course, this method conveniently ignores the fact that many high school students drop out during their sophomore and junior years.

Perhaps most leading and dangerous to our democracy are the flood of polls, all purporting to “scientifically measure” what Americans think. Thirteen different polls currently measuring support for the two major Presidential candidates show one candidate leading by nine different percentages, ranging from a lead of 2% to 14%.

Whatever the latest news-making survey, poll, report, or study might show, it’s always a good idea to look behind the curtain to determine who is sponsoring the project, to consider what their motives might be, and how they may be attempting to influence public opinion. It’s my “unscientific opinion” that nine times out of ten, somebody has an agenda!

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

President Reagan and the Triumph of the Conservative Movement

In 1947, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. proclaimed: "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." There is no doubt that champions of big, activist government dominated the first half of the twentieth century. But historians like Schlesinger are better at looking back than predicting the future. The pendulum had indeed swung far to the left but, imperceptibly at first, it had begun to turn by the century’s midpoint.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was so accepting of New Deal principles that both parties sought to make this celebrated war hero their nominee. When he ultimately decided to seek the Republican nomination, he easily beat a conservative challenge from the highly respected Senator Robert Taft. Nevertheless, the relatively serene Eisenhower years were a time when conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman were laying the intellectual foundation for a new conservative movement that would be built with the timbers of a renewed commitment to small government, individual liberty, faith, family, and economic opportunity.

The Kennedy-Johnson years were a triumph of big government liberalism with greatly expanded roles for the federal government. The so called “war on poverty” began with $3 billion and spawned numerous new agencies such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Jobs Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Model Cities Program, Upward Bound, and many others. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Teachers Corps marked a new and constitutionally questionable role for the federal government in education. Medicare and Medicaid were established, along with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There were greatly expanded roles for the federal government in public broadcasting, consumer protection, environmental protection, transportation, and civil rights, with scores of new departments and agencies serving various targeted constituencies.

Finally, many in America, later known as “the silent majority,” had had enough. In 1964, they flocked to the candidacy of libertarian Barry Goldwater. But a nation so recently rocked by the Kennedy assassination was in no mood for a second change in Presidents in little more than a year. Goldwater strategist John Sears observed, however, that Goldwater “changed the rhetoric of politics” by challenging the principles of the New Deal, “something no Democrat or Republican before him had dared to do.”

Although Goldwater lost in a landslide, his bold philosophies inspired a new grassroots conservative movement that produced the entry of thousands of young people in American politics and policymaking. Goldwater’s campaign also spawned a new political star, Ronald Reagan, whose clarity of principle and persuasive speaking captured attention when, late in the campaign, Reagan delivered a speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” That speech contains the essence of Ronald Reagan – a hopeful, optimistic vision of a better, free and prosperous America, where the foundational principles of our republic and its founding fathers guide America’s ship of state to its “rendezvous with destiny.” The memory of that powerful speech helped him two years later to defeat the incumbent Governor of California by one million votes.

In the fourteen years between Ronald Reagan’s election as Governor of California and as President of the United States, there was little philosophically that separated Democrat and Republican presidents. Federal spending continued to grow at record rates, inflation was frequently out of control, and a Republican president went so far as to impose wage and price controls. By the end of the Carter administration, with unrelenting inflation, soaring interest rates, fuel shortages, and the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Americans were finally ready to break with the political culture of nearly a half century.

President Reagan acted quickly and boldly to cut income taxes 25%. He reduced the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% and indexed all rates to blunt inflation’s hidden impact on those rates. These measures resulted in 60 straight months of growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since government began keeping statistics in 1854. There were 15 million new jobs created and just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services. Policies belittled then and now as “Reaganomics” fired America’s economic engine in ways unseen before or since, and led to the defeat without even firing a shot of one of the most dangerous regimes the world has known.

Great as America’s economic renewal was under President Reagan, his buoyant, optimistic belief in the power of freedom, individual initiative, America’s Constitution, free-market principles, and the idea that America’s greatest days lay ahead, provided spiritual renewal to an America beaten down by twenty years of political assassinations, scandals, advancing socialism, inflation, war and defeat.

The name Ronald Reagan has become the gold standard for conservatives -- his name still is invoked in every debate -- and yet the great movement that he ultimately led to victory now seems fractured and leaderless compared to the conservative movement that emerged as a result of his efforts.

In the past decade, the size of the federal government has exploded, our economy is in extreme distress, and the federal budget deficit has soared to record levels. Yet many in their desperation look for still more government to solve problems that all too often are the result of already too much government.

It has been said that Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while President Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government. Perhaps that is the key to what it really means to be a conservative -- an abiding belief in the dignity and power of free individuals, unshackled from government interference to create lives for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Concluding his first Inaugural Address, President Reagan told the story of Martin Treptow who gave his life for our country in the First World War. The President concluded by saying:

“The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.”

Reagan’s words were so true then. They are so true still.


(This is the fifth and concluding installment in a series on What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?”)

Trust Capitalism and Let It Work

In recent weeks I’ve been reflecting on what it means to be a conservative. Given the extraordinary economic events of the last couple of weeks, I want to comment on our current economic crisis before concluding my series on conservatism.

The current economic crisis is complex and many people and institutions both in Washington and on Wall Street have a role and bear some level of responsibility for it. Many attribute the crisis to the quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others attribute the crisis to the intervention of the Federal Reserve and the market distortions it may have created with artificially low interest rates. Still others blame the crisis on Wall Street greed and the extraordinary pay, bonuses, and severance packages realized by corporate CEO’s even while the institutions they headed were failing.

Whatever flaws and abuses exist in our economic system, what most observers agree upon is that this economic emergency has been precipitated by an extreme softening of housing markets in many parts of the country. And at the deep root of this problem is overzealous government interfering in credit markets by requiring lending institutions to abandon sound lending practices to advance a political agenda. Leading the list of government culprits are members of Congress.

In the 1970’s Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with the intent of requiring financial institutions to expand credit to a wider marketing base rather than to just credit-worthy customers. The lofty goal was to provide more affordable housing and promote more home ownership among low-income families. But the effect and scope of this act was fairly limited until 1995, at which time the Clinton Administration promoted new regulations requiring even more aggressive marketing of mortgage loans among low-income groups, imposing quotas, and mandating stiff penalties for banks that failed to offer “no money down” mortgages, floating rates, and loans made to people with no credit history or even bad credit history.

Federal law required banks to set aside prudent lending practices. Financial institutions began making profits in the expanded mortgage origination process, and they knew that even if borrowers defaulted the government would bail them out for defaulted loans they held. And so our most financially vulnerable citizens were encouraged to buy homes and take on debt they could scarcely afford. With growing pools of money being made available for home mortgages, home prices grew faster than inflation, ultimately creating a huge bubble waiting to burst.

Eventually, interest rates began to rise thus creating a crisis for those borrowers who had been enticed by adjustable rate mortgages. As monthly mortgage payments were dramatically rising, so too were gasoline prices. Many borrowers stopped paying, the once overheated housing market became a glut of foreclosed properties, lenders stopped lending, housing prices declined, and the bubble finally burst.

A national crisis -- threatening the very foundations of our nation, the stability of the dollar, and the economic well-being of future generations -- has been caused by a Congress willing to disregard the laws of human nature, prudent business practices, and free market principles all for the sake of a political agenda and the political benefits that come with promising something for nothing.

The free market is one of the most highly efficient and productive forces on the face of the earth. It intuitively understands that businesses that show poor judgment in their business practices deserve to fold, while stronger, well-run businesses gain market share and expand their profit margins for their owners.

Freed from government interference, the marketplace functions precisely as it should. Investors who made mistakes in this market should be held responsible, and those who managed to navigate all the distortions imposed by Washington should be rewarded. The last thing we need is for government to play an even larger role, to prop up institutions that should be allowed to fail, and to use massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to further interfere with the marketplace. Should we really trust the very members of Congress who created the mess and failed to see the crisis coming with the task of fixing their mess?

When we free our markets of government controls, manipulation, and political considerations to pursue what free markets do best, which is to create wealth and jobs, our nation will be stronger. A so called “bailout plan” that saddles every American with thousands of dollars of debt, that artificially props up failed institutions, and that actually penalizes risk-taking and success will make our economy smaller and weaker, and only postpones a day of eventual reckoning that will likely include even more serious economic troubles.