Ponderstorm My Brainstorm on Life & Politics

Recently somebody suggested that Presidential preferences are like this: “The ‘right’ wants a President they can have a beer with. The ‘left’ just wants someone really smarter than them.” My reply was something like the following:

I think its deeper than the “beer and smarts” analogy suggested above. The right wants to know confidently that their key principles (the “3 pillars” of free markets, national security and social conservatism) are held at a core level by the President and they (the President) won’t waver on them. They don’t care much about physical appearance, TV image, speaking ability, etc. as long as these core principles are not abandoned. Delegation as a leadership style is fine and a “hands off” approach by government preferred for most issues. In a nutshell, government is not to do much more than safeguard these principles and protect us from evil nations.

The left, on the other hand, wants somebody who feels their pain and is smart enough to fix everything that is wrong. That means somebody with an Ivy League education is preferred since only they are smart enough to hold such power. They must look good on TV and be respected by other players on the world stage so they don’t embarrass us. They also have to speak well to soothe us and make us feel comfortable after convincing us that they feel our pain and want to help us enjoy life.  Image and perception are everything as long as the economy is good and we are safe from all harms including natural disasters like hurricanes and dirty water. Risks are to be eliminated and the federal government is the ultimate safety net for everybody. Everybody should be equally happy.

I know that’s a light-hearted, broad-brushed view of things; however, I feel it does point out many core differences between liberals and conservatives. What do you think?

Posted under 60 Seconds, Politics

A liberal friend asked me to read an article entitled “Insanity” by DarkSyde at The Daily Kos and pointed out that he thinks it pretty much sums up how most liberals feel about the past 8 years and what this election is about.  I found the article cleverly written and coming from an unusual angle.  It made me stop and think because on a foundational level I actually agree with a some of the broad assessments made in this article even though many of them are grossly exaggerated.

Republicans are often blamed for all the nation’s problems of the past 8 years. I concur that the GOP has been part of the problem for 4 of the past 8 years; however, remember, the Senate was evenly divided when Bush was elected and then 1 GOP member switched to Independent and caucassed with the Democrats so the GOP didn’t control both houses until 2003 and then lost in 2007 after the 2006 election cycle. In fairness to Republicans though, during the 4 years of complete GOP control, Democrats have blocked and/or watered-down virtually all Republican proposed solutions to the problems this article blames them for.

However, in spite of the problems, the overall issue is bigger than simply who controls Washington. The underlying problem in Washington, as I see it, is systemic and part of human nature. It’s something our Founding Fathers were aware of and repeatedly divided government in an attempt to mitigate. It’s simply this: Power corrupts. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that both parties are now corrupt. That doesn’t mean that all members in both parties are corrupt but that the system is corrupt with power. There’s a creeping loss of individual rights and personal liberty every year regardless of which party is in power.

So that brings me to my next point. Since both parties are corrupt and there’s no third party that stands a chance at winning this election cycle, what am I to do as a voter?  I feel I must take the path of less damage and that’s why I am going with the Read More…

Posted under Politics, Taxes

In this latest election cycle I’ve been frustrated by the lack of talk about core principles.  It seems that window dressing is king right now and a few buzzwords about change are shaping the political debate.  That’s bad news for people who think critically — especially for those of us who know that change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. We could change from bad to worse, for example, so I want to know why we need change and where (and how) the change agent wants to change things.

While mulling over these notions, they triggered some thinking about my own core principles. I felt it was wise to put my core beliefs about government in writing (even if in a rough format) and provide some basic application of them regarding the federal government.  I am a strong believer in federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. As such, I feel the Constitution clearly restricts the federal government from action — particularly in domestic issues.  Similarly, in the areas where federal action is authorized, it is often severely limited. In fact, the Tenth Amendment is very specific about this:

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.

In a nutshell, this means the federal government is severely limited to a few (primarily national and interstate commerce) powers with the remainder left to the States and the people.  Thus, I advocate a very limited role for the federal government and argue against many social and spending programs currently found at the federal level. However, please note that I am not against all government social programs. While opposing federal programs, I will argue for more involvement at the state and local levels of governments. At these levels of government there are not the same Constitutional prohibitions. Similarly, I firmly believe that social programs are more effective from a practical and service-oriented point of view when administered at the lowest level of government possible (state, county, city, special district, etc.).

So, understanding the above, I will embark on drafting my “Key Principles of Government” as they relate to the federal government specifically, and to all governments in general. Please note that this is a work in progress — thus the short sentences, bullet format and limited explanation/supportive details.

1. Government exists to protect life and liberty and maintain an orderly society.

Government protects but does not create rights. Our government is a representative democracy (not a direct democracy). Minority rights are safeguarded from the “tyranny of the majority.” The federal government exists primarily to:

• provide national defense (foreign and domestic)
• promote national interests
• administer interstate commerce and conflicts

2. Government should be limited and restrained.

Power begins with the people and authority comes from God. Just because a problem exists doesn’t mean the government should try to solve it. A government that governs least tends to governs best. When possible, local solutions are preferred over national or state ones. The Constitution should be followed explicitly. If additional federal involvement is deemed needed then the Constitution should be amended to authorize such action.

3. Economic markets should be free.

The free enterprise system powers personal prosperity. Because government intervention disrupts the “invisible hand” (see Adam Smith) of the economy and encroaches on personal freedom, it should be rare. Also, to avoid creating special advantages and unintended consequences, government should limit its involvement in the economy as much as possible.

4. Taxes should be low.

It’s not the government’s money. Anything the government possesses it has had to first take from somebody.

5. Simple solutions are preferred over more complex alternatives.

The simplest working solution is usually the best one. The more complicated something is the more parts there are to break. Long-term costs and benefits should be considered above short-term impacts.

What do you think? Did I leave anything out? I invite your comments and suggestions.

Posted under Government, Taxes

On Tuesday voters in Mississippi’s first congressional district elected a Democrat in a special election. Given that this is the third straight loss for Republicans in special elections within “Republican-safe” districts, many political pundits are calling this a wake-up call for the party.

I agree this is a wakeup call for the Republican Party and I offer the following reasons why Republicans are in danger of much greater losses in November.

1. Republicans were swept into power in 1994 with a mandate to change Washington.

Remember the ten point “Contract with America” that brought Republicans to power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years? This was the first significant time in a generation when a majority of the country voted FOR Republicans. Republicans were entrusted with power because they promised specific change, not because they were Republicans.

2. Republicans were favored for a few years while they passed most of the “Contract with America” and held the line on spending.

With their successes, Republicans became more dominant and powerful — even convincing a weakened Bill Clinton to do the unthinkable and sign welfare reform and other significant conservative-leaning legislation.

3. Then a strange thing began to happen as Republicans became part of the Washington Establishment.

After about a decade in power, many Republicans had became overconfident incumbents who enjoyed power. They forgot who put them into positions of power and why they were there. Instead, they shifted their focus onto themselves and began to selfishly act like Democrats and spend like crazy. Ethics took a back seat Read More…

Posted under Mississippi, Politics

The other day a friend asked me about where I find political information related to news and politics in Mississippi. I pointed her to a few online sources that I use as starting points. Some I check daily.

National

For national and often international news (especially regarding the United Kindgom and Israel) I check the Drudge Report. It auto-refreshes about every 15 minutes to keep the headlines updated. In addition to headline-linked articles at major newspaper and media outlets worldwide, many news stories are first broken by editor Matt Drudge. In many ways Drudge now drives many of the stories that are later reported elsewhere. There is also a mobile device version at iDrudgeReport.com that I also use.

Mississippi

Like the Drudge Report is for national and international news headlines and breaking stories, the Magnolia Report is for Mississippi news and politics. This site seems to be updated once per day and has a lot of news and commentary on the Legislature and state government.

I also like the Red/Blue blog at The Clarion Ledger. It features commentary by Jere Nash (blue/liberal) and Andy Taggart (red/conservative). These gentlemen co-authored the 2006 book entitled Mississippi Politics: The Struggle for Power, 1976-2006. The Clarion Ledger is the state’s largest newspaper and also has a mobile device version of their website.

For think tank studies and analysis relating to Mississippi and coming from a limited government and family-values perspective, I refer to the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

I know there are other sources of good information and commentary; however, these are the ones I currently use as starting points. Please share your suggestions in the comments section below.

Posted under Mississippi, Politics