Tag: big government

  • Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong and we have a duty to support Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in the upcoming general election. Here at A Sensible Life we cannot shy away from pointing out error, even when expressed by one whom we otherwise hold in high regard.

    I was saddened to see Dale Ahlquist’s editorial in the May/June issue of Gilbert Magazine. As his thesis Mr. Ahlquist asserted that he would not vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ahlquist. Unfortunately, I found his reasoning in this case very weak and his conclusion to be both dangerous and unsound.

    Mr. Ahlquist spent much of his editorial describing how George Bush became the Republican Party nominee for president in 2000 and dedicated additional space listing the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, ignoring the pro-life, pro-freedom successes of that same presidency. He admits his cynicism toward the Republican Party. Perhaps his uncurbed cynicism has blinds him to the real differences between the only two parties in this country who have any possibility of winning a presidential election. His uncurbed cynicism leads also to his unsupported assertion that the nomination of Mitt Romney is, “all about money.”

    Mr. Ahlquist justly draws a parallel between the big business tendencies of the Republican Party and the big government tendencies of the Democrat Party. He also points out, correctly, that the Republican Party has contributed to the expansion of government rather than succeeding in reducing its scope. However, in the interest of making his case, Mr. Ahlquist overstates the role of Republican Party in growing government. He also ignores the support from the Republican Party for small business and fails to recognize that it is always the Democrat Party that pushes hardest for government expansion and that the Republican Party when in power generally slows or stops the growth, though rarely succeeding in actually reducing government reach. He also ignores the profound differences between the parties with regard to political philosophy; differences to be seen in the Republican view of the Constitution as an enshrinement of individuals’ rights and a curb to government power. This view of the Constitution is most evident in Republicans’ appointments to the courts, which for the most part have been excellent in the last thirty years. There have been some disappointments in this area but no Democrat would ever have appointed Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia.

    All of this said, the most glaring and disappointing deficiency in Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial is his failure to recognize the importance of the upcoming general election in the context of the ongoing battle for the soul of our country. He fails altogether to draw any distinction between the two viable parties in our country with regard to issues such as the secularization of the political philosophy of our national government, defense of life, protection of marriage, human freedom, freedom of conscience, regulatory and tax burdens on small business, etc. Is Mitt Romney perfect on these issues? No rational and informed individual would claim that he is. However, there are members of Congress who understand what needs to be done in these areas and stand ready to do so. Mitt Romney may not be the boldest leader on all the issues that lie before us but mark this well, without a Republican in the White House (and Romney is our only option at this point) there is absolutely no chance that the good men and women whom we have elected to Congress will make any progress on the road to fixing the ills of our country.

    It is an impoverished view of our civic responsibility to suggest that because we do not wholly agree with the results of the nomination process we will refuse to vote in the general election (or we will vote for some unelectable third party candidate).

    I cannot state this too strongly, a vote for President Obama is a vote for the current steep downward trajectory of our country; a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a presidency that will at worst decrease this trajectory and a presidency that has the potential (even if that potential be slim) to turn the trajectory upward. Make no mistake about it, to fail to vote for Mitt Romney in November is to cast half a vote for President Obama. This truth remains, no matter how loudly you claim non- support of the current administration.

    Mr. Ahlquist to many stands as the arbiter of Chestertonian thought in the United States. It saddens me that he would publicly take this position and by doing so potentially draw many votes away from a much-needed victory in the battle for the American soul. Don’t forget, Mr. Ahlquist, God can write straight even with bent instruments like Mitt Romney and you and me. I will close with a remark of Chesterton’s from What’s Wrong with the World, “Men have never wearied of political justice; they have wearied of waiting for it.” Please do not weary of waiting for political justice here in the United States. And please do not express weariness, despair and cynicism by failing to do all necessary to replace the current secular administration with one that holds a brighter potential.

  • The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court

    In the last couple of days I have been reading and listening to a lot of commentary from a variety of folks regarding the role of our chief justice in the recent PPACA decision.  I and others have commented on the motives of our heretofore fairly solid chief justice.  I realize the danger of trying to figure out motives but the reality is that when a person acts out of character I want to seek to attempt to understand and to explain.  I firmly maintain that if Chief Justice Roberts’ motivation is simply the preservation of the legitimacy and the non-partisan public perception of the Supreme Court, and this is the most altruistic motive I can see that explains the behavior, then his motivation is misplaced. I insist that all of the Supreme Court justices including the chief justice have been appointed to serve the constitution and the founding principles of this nation enshrined therein. When they neglect this sacred duty in order to preserve the perceived reputation or legitimacy or “political neutrality” of the institution of the Supreme Court they are in effect turning the constitution on its head. What is more important, the constitution or the institutions created by the constitution? What happens to constitutional checks and balances when one of the branches of government refuses to exercise its authority out of fear that it will be perceived as political?

    This idea has been tossed around that the chief justice views the role of the Court as that of an umpire.  This idea is repugnant.  The Court has an active role to play in the preservation of this country and its founding principles. Ah, “activist court”, you counter. Well, when a Court needs to assert the constitution and assert the freedoms and government limitations contained therein then the court must act, regardless of whether or not the media or the political parties may point to its action as activism and even partisanship. The Court’s duty it to do what is right not what the public may perceive to be right. When I worked at the Supreme Court back in the 1990?s, I used to help the justices go through their mail. When a big case came along there were justices who would actually have their mail separated and counted according to the positions taken regarding the upcoming case. This “voting” was then allowed to influence these certain justices’ opinions on the case. I found reliance on public opinion by justices repulsive then and I do now.  If the public is wrong let us educate the public but in the meantime let the Court do what is right.

    I have seen a lot of commentary to the effect that those of us who oppose PPACA should take the necessary political steps and not look to the Supreme Court to carry out our will in the realm of public policy.  Guilty as charged, I am one of those who want to get rid of PPACA because it is bad law.  And I wanted the Supreme Court to act.  However, I did not want the Supreme Court to act because the law is bad.  I wanted the Court to act because the law is unconstitutional. I wanted the Court to act because its failure to do so leaves the judicial and executive branches of the national government unchecked in their continual arrogation of power. Unless this tide is stemmed states’ rights, individuals’ rights and families’ rights will be a thing of the past in short order.

    As many commentators have pointed out, the way to deal with PPACA is now political. I totally agree, and I’m on board. Let’s get with it. In fact, the whole PPACA debacle should never have arisen if we had done a proper job of forming ourselves in our voting in 2008. But I’m going to make this one final point with regard to the Court – its reason for being is to serve the founding principles of this country as they are enumerated in the Constitution.  The failure of the people to exercise their responsibility well does not absolve the Court from its obligation to exercise its responsibility well.

  • The Death of Federalism

    The Death of Federalism

    Federalism is now officially dead. Chief Justice Roberts declared today in his majority opinion in the PPACA ruling that the national government (I refuse from now on to call it the federal government) has the right to force individuals to purchase health insurance and to penalize them with a fine if they fail to comply. This supposed right of the national government somehow derives from its “taxing power”. Well, if the national government can now coerce me into purchasing something against my will and impose a penalty for my non-compliance in the form of a fine (now called a tax) then no limit now constrains the power of the national government.

    In reality, I am probably late to the party in declaring the death of my beloved federalism. Power has been shifting from states, communities and families to Washington for the last 100 years. This shift occurs in fits and starts but always follows an inexorable path forward (or backward). Once powers move to this central authority they never move back. In this progression, however, today’s decision by the Supreme Court, marks such a profound shift that it is not overstating the case to say that we have reached the culmination, the death of federalism, the death of the idea that individual freedom and state sovereignty are more important than the national state, the death in short of any semblance of subsidiarity.

    If you think I state my case too strongly read the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissenting opinion to today’s Supreme Court ruling, “The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the federal government is one of limited powers,” Kennedy said. “But the court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

    Can federalism be resuscitated?

    All things are possible. I cling to the hope that we can return to the founding principles of our country and turn the tide. Unfortunately, we face a very strong tide. In order to return to a sensible approach to governance in this country we must (a) overcome the historical trend of this country toward centralization of power and (b) overcome the lack of formation of great swaths of our citizenry concerning principles of political philosophy especially as they pertain to the limitations of government and the rights and responsibility of individuals.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that government has no role in our lives. What I am saying is that government has forgotten that it derives its power from the people. And many of our fellow citizens have forgotten this as well. It will require a massive concerted effort from the people in order to wrest the power away from the national government that it has accumulated to itself. I hope We the People stand willing to engage in this effort.

  • Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    The modern Green Movement represents a profound departure from man’s ancient obligation to practice Thrift. In fact, one might almost say that the two ideas are diametrically opposed. This may seem odd given that Thrift with its impetus towards moderation in using the resources gifted to man in creation as well as by its focus on stewardship and guardianship of these same resources shares many common goals or objectives with the Green Movement.

    The root of the distinction between Thrift and the Green Movement lies just there, at the root and source of these ideals. That is, the distinction flows from beliefs about the nature of things (and people). Thrift finds its roots in its understanding of man, who man is, what his relationship is with nature and, therefore, what his responsibilities are toward nature. The Green Movement, on the other hand, finds its roots in a denial of man, a denial of man’s relationship with nature and a denial of man’s role as guardian. One might almost say that the Green Movement is the Anti-Thrift.

    Are my ideas too strongly stated? Let’s look at a couple examples.

    How about the way we should treat animals? Thrift (and its associated virtues) would tell us we should treat animals well because they are gifts to us from a Creator who expects us to care for them. Thrift would also tell us that animals have use to us as human beings (whether it be as companions, beasts of burden or sources of food and clothing) and that by being good guardians of these creatures we will, in addition to doing the right thing, be enhancing their usefulness to us and ensuring they will continue to live and prosper and continue to fulfill our needs (physical, aesthetic, spiritual) and those of our children. The Green Movement, on the other hand, would tell us that our obligation toward animals derives from the animals’ equal status with us as co-inhabitants of nature. Therefore we have no rights where they are concerned and our obligations to them are limited to a sort of non-interference. This view of our relationship with animals is not only illogical but it results in a very impoverished understanding of our relationship to nature, an impoverished understanding of our obligations to nature. Rather than the robust and positive view proposed by Thrift, the Green Movement proposes a neutral or even negative view of our obligation. Rather than cultivating, beautifying and enriching, our role is simply to do as little damage as possible.

    Let’s look at the related example of the care of our forests, and the animals in them. Thrift would tell us to enjoy our forests, use the abundant resources to be found in them, live in them, ensure the endurance and prosperity of at least large sections of them and maintain (or increase) their beauty and health. Thrift would tell us to care for the streams and rivers within our forests both because of their beauty and goodness and for their value as a source of water and fish. What of the Green Movement? Well, the predecessors of the Green Movement (those who practiced conservation) have stopped all logging in our forests and have spent years doing their best to put out all forest fires within their eaves. And now these same folks and their big government allies are moving to limit all human access to the forests. Rather than following the path of Thrift that would have led to a rational planned use of our forests, including thinning the forests and using the lumber gained from the thinning for legitimate human needs, we now have overly dense forests (many times more dense than they were 100 years ago) that are subject to devastating fires that simply destroy the timber. Additionally, of course, they kill countless animals and wreak havoc on the forest streams. This is what happens when we practice conservation rather than Thrift.

    I will not go on. I will simply conclude by saying that in A Sensible Life we will propose ideas aimed at living Thrift – sensibly, rationally and with an eye toward goodness and beauty.

    And because we cannot end without a word from Chesterton, here is one from What’s Wrong with the World, “If a man could undertake to make use of all things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare.” I’m sure he meant no disrespect to Shakespeare…