Open Letter to Congressman McCaul, 10th District, Texas

I doubt you remember me, Congressman, but we did meet a few months ago when you came down to [my employer] with Congressman Smith. I tell you this so hopefully you'll realize that I'm a serious observer and I have been paying attention to what you've been doing up there on our behalf. I've reviewed your record, looking into past action. Congressman, you are a good and honorable public servant. And this coming from a man generally suspicious of government and politicians.
And let me just say that your recent action against the bailout bill was right. You did the right thing in voting it down. It's not just the price tag involved, although that is a major factor. If our Congress wishes to spend 700 billion dollars it does not have, let it send it to the people. Seriously, break it down for every American over 18 and send it out. That will solve the problems with solvency as much as giving it people who have proved their incompetence. More importantly, our government is not empowered by the constitution to take this action. No economic situation grants the Congress a power not enumerated in that document. Any bailout action is wrong, no matter the reasons or the fail-safes or guards. Let those institutions that have pushed themselves over the limit fail. It will hurt a lot of people, but all of us are on the line in this bailout and if the government goes insolvent, then it all comes crashing down. Not only that, but any bailout will only encourage further inappropriate and stupid action on the behalf of those institutions you are trying to help. And that will cost this country further pain.
Now is not the time for rash action. Now is not the time for extraordinary measures but extraordinary courage. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a man tied to public opinion to vote against a measure that so many call our only chance. But you must stay the course and show the leadership I know you are capable of showing and bring as many of your colleagues along with you as you can. We, the American People, need you and your colleagues to show courage in the face of hard times. We need you to be willing to risk your positions and vote down this bill once again. Keep it down. Kill it. Make it clear that government will not be stepping in and doing what it always does, throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away. We need real solutions, Congressman, not pretty promises and more debt to foreign countries. Or hadn't you noticed that bad debt is what got us into this situation in the first place?
Once you have killed this bill, we need more courage. We need someone, anyone, to stand up and start talking about what really caused this problem. You and those of your colleagues who have the courage need to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its effects. Especially in how it was utilized by certain organizations and how it was enforced by regulatory agencies. We need people to stand up and talk about the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their implicit government backing and control. We need to looking into the origins of the subprime mortgage market, how it was used, and why it was created. We need our leaders to talk about the effect of the mark-to-market rule which is causing banks to write down perfectly good loans as losses. We need our leadership to lead and admit the failings of Sarbanes-Oxley and how that piece of over-regulation has contributed to the current crises. These are the cause of our problems. We need brave Congressman and others willing to stand up and explain why this is not a failing of the free market and why this is the failing of the government to execute its powers correctly.
I am asking you, Congressman, please show some leadership this week. Don't follow an hysterical mass into more failure. Lead an intelligent and capable people out of this darkness. Have the courage to uncover and talk about the truth on this issue. Have the courage to lead your colleagues into making better decisions based around the facts and the truth. Have the courage to take hard truths to the American people. We can handle it. We can accept it. All you need to do is give us the chance.
I certainly hope that this reaches you, Congressman. I hope that you personally read this message and you consider what it says. I also wish to inform you that I have a personal site at changethedebate.blogspot.com where I will be posting this as an open letter.
My e-mail should be included on this message.
I remain your friend and supporter,
Charles Campbell

Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

Here's another nice little quote from Franklin. He was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what had been wrought. “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I'm also going to borrow from Jefferson real quick. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it”
Keep in mind also the quote from Franklin on liberty and security.
All three of these quotes can be seen as warnings from the two men most responsible for the philosophy and arguments that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin was advocating more freedom and liberty from a very young age, and Thomas Jefferson was the foremost legal mind of his time. It was his arguments on the nature of Law and the British government that provided the Colonies with their philosophical and legal legitimacy.
Mike tells us to consider the Constitution in full. The purpose of the Constitution was to bring the many States of America together into a stronger Federation to ease trade and provide for the common defense. It was not a philosophical document, as was the Declaration, it was a legal one. It gave the enumerated order under which the States would be United into a true Federation. This is one of the major reasons that when speaking philosophically on the nature and purpose of Government, I'm likely to fall back on the Declaration or other works by Jefferson (and sometimes John Locke, Jefferson's inspiration) and not the Constitution.
Now, here a few questions that should probably be answered. Just what do we mean by 'republic?' A republic, in it's most basic form, is a form of government where the deciding body is meant to provide representation of the society as a whole, and the individuals of that body are representing particular sections of that society. I'm sure that most people, right here, are wondering just how that might differ from democracy. In a democracy, all governmental decisions are done through the whole of the population of citizens. In ancient Athens (the only known pure democracy I can remember right now) this was done by calling a meeting of the Senate, in which the group was the first people there up to a certain number. Day to day functions were carried out by offices chosen by lottery. The other major difference between democracy and a republic is that in a republican government, the government provides a check against the passing desires of the people to help ensure that all laws passed are good for the current and future society. This necessitates that the government itself is controlled through some action so as to not aggregate power to a particular person or body, or to the government in general. A country can call itself a 'Republic' very easy. But only when the government is in constant check against power aggregation can it be said to be an accurate statement (I'm looking at you, China).
So, what then does Franklin mean when he says that a republic has been wrought if we can only hold on to it? Franklin's meaning is quite clear: do not trust the government to keep itself in check. Don't give it an inch, for it will take a hundred miles (and desire a light-year). Yes, I mean that even the smallest power given to the government for the sake of 'order' (or 'the good' or 'the children') will lead to an ever increasing aggregation of power at the expense of our freedoms.
This leads me to the quote from Franklin on freedom and security. Mike calls it 'one of the most foolish things he ever said', and argues that because an amount of security is necessary to provide for freedom (true) it only follows to reason that some freedom be 'trimmed' such that security can be provided. However, he misses Franklin's warning. The trading of essential freedom for security provides the government that inch it needs, and so the taking begins. I'll use an example to express my meaning: the registration of sex offenders.
Seems like a good idea, right? Let people know that there is a serial pedophile in the neighborhood so that the people can protect themselves and their children from his perverted ways. I'm going to ignore for the time being the illogic of releasing a person that is still such a danger to society and others that his freedoms must be restricted in such a fashion. This is about government expansion, not about government incompetence. It started with serial pedophiles. Then serial rapists (okay, still good...) had to register. Then came those convicted of a single rape (uh...). And now? Now we're threatening twelve year olds with being put on the lists without trial or conviction because they swatted a female classmate's butt in play.
Want another one? Let's talk taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment confirmed that Congress could tax income at it's discretion (Congress had already attempted to do so and got struck down by the Supreme Court) in 1913. Originally, it was a set, flat tax of 4% on all earnings over $4,000. I don't know all the steps involved, but by the 1970s we had top tax rates at over 80%, and even today we have a single volume of law that counts over 66,000 pages and is enforced by the largest single agency of the United States government. This agency is so powerful that it can operate completely separate from judicial oversight, needs provide no evidence to charge, investigate, and begin prosecution for tax evasion. Not only that, but if an agent of the IRS provides you with incorrect tax advice, you, the citizen, are held accountable and can still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
How about welfare? The first welfare program (still in effect, anyway) was the Families with Dependent Children program. It was designed to provide extra money to widows of World War II servicemen who had children. Today? Entitlement speeding totals over 1.7 trillion dollars, or about 62% of the Federal budget of approximately 2.9 trillion dollars. (That figure includes Medicare and Social Security, which total around 1 trillion and make up the bulk. This wouldn't be nearly so bad if we actually had a SS trust fund the way we were promised back in the '30s.)
This is exactly what Franklin's dual warnings are all about. We're loosing our republic because we allow power aggregation for the 'good' and for 'order'. And as we loose the republic, or freedoms go with it.
And with our freedoms, our security.
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

Freedom, Justice, and Order

This gets us into the prickly question of freedom. With the sole exception of anarchic libertarians, Conservative and Libertarians do agree on this premise. The primary function of government is to keep the peace, defend against foreign enemies and powers and maintaining justice. When the State goes beyond these, it falls into quickly difficulty, because not only it was not “designed” to cover the many facets of life, it is incompetent when it tries to do so. In fact, the more the State tries to shepherd, the less well it performs in its primary functions. So far, so good. Yet even here, our agreement is only on the surface.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.

A little more on inherent rights

“A bill of rights is what the people need against every government.” Three guess who said that. Yeah, I know you'll get the answer in two lines, but stop reading and take a guess or three.
It was Thomas Jefferson, author of the Deceleration of independence and original Republican (Those who we would now call Federalist, but opposed the Constitution until amended, and thus labeled by their opponents and history as Anti-Federalists. This only proves that historians do not appreciate irony.).
Two quick points. Jefferson's state, Virgina, was the first State to ever publish a bill of rights, and the first State to ever adopt a written constitution. And when I say first State, I mean exactly that. In the whole of human history, no government had ever before adopted a written constitution nor a bill of rights.
Second, doesn't that statement just scream inherent rights for you? Does a 'bill of rights' grant you rights, or does it protect them?
I think that Jefferson's position is clear.

Political Alignment

In my introduction, I talked about the fact that I feel the left versus right meta concept that pervades current political discussion is inadequate. And the main focus is on left versus right, even though these terms are generally undefined and don't provide for a good, solid understanding of someone's general political stance. I think a new system is in order, and it will be one I will be using in the future. First though, let me be clear about something. I am not making this alignment system up out of whole cloth. It is very similar to the political compass found at The Advocates for Self Government. A quick plug, take their test and see where you show up. It will be close to the system I'm about to outline below.
The other influence on this system comes from the original fantasy role playing game, none other than Dungeon and Dragons. In D&D characters have a moral/social alignment system that runs on two axises, Good versus Evil, and Lawful versus Chaotic. I'm not going to outline their system here, suffice to say that each axis has three 'settings'. These are 'Good, Neutral, and Evil' and 'Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic'. This makes for nine possible alignments, and gives any player a good, if rough, idea of how their character approaches moral choices.
Therefore, I suggest a similar approach to determine a person's political alignment. In this system, we're actually going to separate social views from governmental views, allowing us to closely examine someones over-all political ideals. Again, I'm going to use two axises, one for social views and one for governmental. Each axis will have three settings. The social axis is 'Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal' while the governmental axis will be 'Libertarian, Moderate, and Progressive'. For maximum precision, we should define these terms.
Libertarians are those who believe in small government, under correct Federalist structure. They will be strong supports of individual and state's rights. They will believe that the maximum amount of freedom comes when the state is as uninvolved as possible, and will general look to private action to handle most, if not all, of society's needs.
Progressives are those who believe that correct government policy can create for a better society. They will support large, intrusive government which makes many decisions. They will be strong supports of the federal over state and local government, and will generally believe that government is the only reasonable way to provide for society's needs.
Conservatives will believe in maintaining traditional values and institutions. They will tend towards being religious, and believe in strong religious institutions to provide for a stable society. They will also take the view of Man as a flawed creature, born into imperfection and thus needing strong social structure to curb man's greater tendencies to harm each other.
Liberals will support the use of reason and thought over traditional values and institutions. They will tend towards the secular, and will generally view religious organizations as suspect if not down-right dangerous. They will view Man as being born perfect, and that it is social values being impressed upon this otherwise perfect being being the source of man's troubles.
Moderates along either axis will have attributes of both in some mix. For purposes of ease, I will always put moderate first if someone falls along those lines, and refer to someone who is moderate on both axises as 'total moderate'. Otherwise, I will put the social alignment before the governmental.
As I have said before, I would self identify on this system as a conservative-libertarian. Though not particularly religious, I do believe that strong social structure provides for a better society, that Man is inherently flawed, and that religious institutions have a place in society. I also believe that our government should be primarily in the realm of the individual, and in a proper Federalist structure with strict adherence of the enumerated powers as listed in the Constitution.
So, what about some famous politicians? I'll do the presidential candidates:
John McCain – Moderate-Conservative. Sen. McCain has always spoken as a religious, if not particularly devout, man. He's generally supported conservative social positions and has a consistent voting record to support that. He's often spoken as being a Federalist, and has often supported positions and actions that would confirm this. He usually suggests that some things belong with States, and that the Federal government shouldn't get involved. However, he has also supported laws and actions that increase the influence and power of the government, and tends to speak and act as though government can create for a better society. While I think he does lean towards the Libertarian stance, he's still a little too Progressive to really count.
Barak Obama – Liberal-Progressive. Sen. Obama also tends to speak as a man of faith, but his record and actions suggest that he doesn't allow his faith to influence his political views. With support of increased abortion freedom, same sex marriage, and many other similar positions he demonstrates a weak, if non-existent, support for traditional social structure. As a supporter of greater welfare, Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security spending, coupled with an increase involvement of government in energy production and over-all higher taxes (especially on business and capital), he is clearly a Progressive.

If you disagree with these, let me know. I know the system has its flaws. For one, the terms could be unwieldy, especially in spoken conversation. However, it is precise, and precision is my goal here. So, tell me, do you think my identification of the presidential candidates is wrong? If so, please tell me why, and tell me where you think they would fall on this two-axis system.

The Politics of Marriage

Last night's forum asked both candidates for President to define 'marriage'. A good question, and the definition of such has been a major contention of debate here in the United States for some years now. It mostly centers around the question of the 'right' to get married, and why such a 'right' is denied to those of homosexual persuasion. Some have claimed homosexuality to be a life-style choice, and use this as a justification to argue against same-sex marriage. I'm not going to be discussing homosexuality at all, so I'm not going to go into any further depth. For the purpose of this post, sexual attraction as being preset or a choice is irrelevant.
The simple fact is, you do not have an inherent right to get 'married'. By the same token, the State has no business granting or denying marriage licenses. This whole argument is going to be about semantics, but I will also tell you that the whole political debate on marriage is about semantics. And dealing with the specific question of marriage in America is nearly impossible to make an easy determination about what constitutes a 'traditional' marriage because the institution of marriage throughout history has gone through many permutations and changes. And it's impossible to pin down what exactly might be the best way to determine how we should approach this issue, at least with a low-level research of the subject. History is so filled with conflicts and changes on the subject, that one can simply pick and choose the facts one wants to support their arguments. So I say, toss history, or at very least, remember the traditions and use some proper reason.
Here are some things we can know. Christian tradition and doctrine has a great deal to say about marriage, including the definition of such as being a union between man and woman before the eyes of God. I've stated before that inherent rights are the gift of our Creator and it would stand to reason that if Christian doctrine defines marriage as a union between man and women before God, then we should have the inherent right to marriage. Well, yes, but only if one assumes the Christian tradition as the final word on all things Divine. I do not confuse the Church with the Divine. The church is still man-made organization (even if it is divinely inspired, it is not divinely run). Along with the traditions found in most religions supporting marriage, we can safely put marriage as a mostly religious institution. This is not to deny the tradition and evidence of it being a social and civil institution in the past, but it is important to realize past influence of religion on civil society, and to understand that it is only after the Enlightenment that civil government and religious influence began to truly separate. Indeed, it appears that most of the earliest marriage laws in America, passed in the 19th century, were primarily designed to prevent interracial marriage, and not to sanctify the practice.
At this point, let me be clear what inherent right you do have. You do have the inherent right to form a union of mutual commitment with whomever you choose. The government has the responsibility to recognize this union. This also includes the right to enter into polygamous or polyandrous committed unions. And yes, I'm using committed unions in place of the term civil unions. A civil union is recognized by the government, the ruling civil authority. Where the real question comes in is what interest the government might have in such things. The answer is very little. Government has no role of society, let alone determining the relationships of the individual. It's only question comes in taxation, and it can set its rules as it desires there.
Now, I said this was going to be all about semantics. And it has been. Marriage is the holy union of a man and a woman before God, and thus the realm of the Church and not the government. Civil unions are the place of the government. It is not up to the government to determine with whom you can or cannot form such a union. That determination is your right, and the government's job is to protect that right, not regulate it. And as long as the government continues to push itself in where it shouldn't be, namely in granting marriage licenses, then it will continue to either destroy a traditional institution or create a dual level of citizenship, where on group (homosexuals, in this case) will not be have the same rights as another group. And we do have a word for this, it's called discrimination.

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency: First Impressions

Okay, so it's another current events post. But this is important. This article assumes that you have watched the forum or have read a transcript. I think it's understandable without having done so, but having watched the forum will provide a better understanding.

First, some general observations on the format. I loved this format. It provided clear contrast between Sens Obama and McCain, and the extra time provided to each candidate really gave us a clear insight into each one. We need more forums like this. Not necessarily before religious congregations, but in a plethora of venues. Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with questions that were over-all neutral. Maybe not in the particulars, some questions were better for one than the other, but over-all, it was a fair and honest attempt to provide the candidates with time and space to express themselves.
Second, who did better? Over-all, I think that Sen. McCain did a great deal better. If we want to talk about a winner as in a normal debate, Sen. McCain would be it. This will be clear as I move into the direct contrast in answers.

General contrast:

Both candidates seemed very relaxed, got several laugh and applause lines, had a good chemistry with the moderating pastor, and gave good answers most of the time. It should be obvious by now that McCain is very comfortable in forums where he is being surprised by questions and is more free-form. It should also be just as obvious that Sen. Obama is not as comfortable in these forums as he is with more set-piece engagements. At no point has this contrast between the two candidates been more clear. Sen. Obama gave 'filler words' on almost every question, lots of 'uh' and 'um' as he was thinking about how to answer the question. Sen. McCain gave a few of these as well, but not nearly as many. And while Sen. Obama paused after almost every question, Sen. McCain answered quickly, occasionally even before Pastor Warren had finished his question. And I also think that Sen. McCain's answers were, generally, far more direct and straight forward than Sen. Obama's. Sen. Obama seemed to want to answer with a great deal of straddling, trying to express a desire to hear or consider 'both' sides of an issue. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, often answered with direct 'yes' or 'no' answers, then backed those up with reasoning and anecdotes.

I think that we can draw some important conclusions from this general contrast. These statements are my observations on thinking based off of observing the behavior in this forum; I do not claim to speak for, or know the actual thinking of, either of the Senators. What I see is one Senator, McCain, who knows what he believes in and will govern from that philosophy, and one Senator, Obama, who isn't so assured of what he believes and will rely more on advice and reason than on centered ideals.

Now for some specific contrasts:

First, on the question of the definition of marriage. Both senators gave the same definition, between a man and a woman, and also made it clear that rights shouldn't be denied to homosexuals. Neither candidate specifically mentioned this group, but we all know that it was to whom they referred. They were speaking, of course, about the right to form civil unions or legal contracts. However, the major contrast to me is in their choice of words. Sen. Obama said that he is secure enough in his faith and marriage to 'afford those rights' to others. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, said that they have these rights and shouldn't be denied. I cannot stress how important this difference is. While it might seem that the difference is simply semantic, or choice of words, it does make for a serious look into the thinking of the candidates. Both of these men are politicians, they are the deciding force in our government. Which would you rather have? A politician who recognizes your rights as existent, or one who is 'willing' to provide them?
When it came to the question on the existence of evil and what should be done, I think both candidates provided solid, well reasoned, and well spoken answers. I also think that both candidates could learn a little from the answer of the other. Sen. Obama gave some good specific examples, such as referencing the current genocide in Darfur, but he also talked about the evil occurring right here in the United States. I think this was a good answer overall, especially considering the evil committed here in the US. However, McCain did make a transcendent moment. Again, with a straight forward answer he said 'Defeat it.' and paused for the applause. He then followed this up with a discussion of Al Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism. While not quite an Evil Empire statement a la President Reagen, it was still more than President Bush has really done and defined the Islamic Fundamentalist movement overall as an evil movement. We need more politicians in this country and internationally willing to do this.
Both candidates gave some pretty standard answers about taxes and the rich from an ideology/party stand point. Sen. Obama did define rich as anyone making over $250,000, and stated that he feels the tax code should be used to create a fair, balanced income status. This is standard Democrat fare. Sen. McCain refused to actually define 'rich' from an income standpoint. He made a good point about small businessmen and women working 16 hours a day and some (probably a reference to Sen. Obama) would consider rich. He also said that he doesn't want to raise anyones taxes, and what's really important is lowering government spending. While as Sen. Obama tried to justify higher taxes by talking about schools and roads and other such things, Sen. McCain made clear that spending is the problem by talking about a couple of pork-barrel spending items. Also, while I don't think Sen. Obama gave any 'gaffes' in his answer here, I do think Sen. McCain made a gaff when said 'five million' would be a good number. He clarified his remark well, by first saying that we cannot really give an income value to the term 'rich'. But this answer will be used against him.
When Pastor Warren asked about Supreme Court justices was a defining moment in the forum. Obama talked about Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. He claimed that Thomas was not sufficiently experienced for the position, not a strong enough thinker and jurist at the time of his nomination. He might be right here as I am not aware enough of Justice Thomas to argue against it, but I think Charles Krauthammer of Fox News gave a good point when he said Sen. Obama should not be talking about experience needed for high office. However, his objections to Justices Scalia and Roberts were specifically political, and in their view of the role of government. Sen. McCain spoke specifically against all four of the Justices generally called 'Liberal' and the current court. However, he backed this up with good reasoning. He stated that the Justices should be nominated and confirmed based on their Constitutional views, and specifically on the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Here, he is absolutely correct. An odd statement from Obama was when he said that the Court's primary function is to protect the Courts and Legislator from Executive encroachment. He's kind of correct here, but misses the point. What about the Court protecting the people from Government encroachment of individual rights?
Finally, I want to talk about their answer to their great moral failures and America's. Sen. Obama provided, for himself, a fairly 'light' answer about drug and alcohol use. He justified this answer talking about selfishness and how it lead him astray for a true moral path. I call this a light answer because, while honest, I think that he could find a better answer and provided a more introspective, and less well reported, failing. Perhaps even a couple of things he should admit to be failings, but hasn't as yet? Sen. McCain stated the failing of his first marriage was his greatest moral failure. Considering that this man has admitting to providing the North Vietnamese at least some American secrets while being tortured, this was such an honest and wonderful answer that I almost cried. I myself am a divorcée and can agree with him here. He also didn't provide any excuses for his actions. The answers on America's moral failings were even more illuminating. Sen. Obama talked about a failure to support those who are in lower incomes, and called this a failure because he suggested that equal opportunity isn't there. Facts do not support this conclusion, as most people and families in this country move quickly from the lower income levels to at least middle, if not upper, incomes over time. Sen. McCain talked about a failure to engage in issues greater than our own self-interest. I think we was talking both about us as individuals (a common theme with Sen. McCain) as well as the United States taking action in some cases where the government felt our national interest was involved while not taking action in other, similar situations where the government did not feel our national interest was at stake.

Defining Moments, and not necessarily good ones:

Actually, it was talking on the same issue, if not the same question, where I felt both candidates had their defining moments of this forum. I think that for Sen. McCain, his moment was positive, but for Sen. Obama it was negative. The issue was energy, but again, it was at different questions.

For Sen. McCain, it came when asked about a position held ten years ago but now abandoned. For McCain, he immediately said 'Off-shore Drilling'. His total answer was why it was defining, but it was using this question to provide it that makes it so positive. Because he both admits to it being a change, and because he makes it clear that it's a change of understanding rather than being a political move. And his follow-up, expanding on off-shore drilling and general energy policy. Explore every option, move forward on all fronts, and provide the United States with more energy, and cleaner energy. He also made a good point that off-shore drilling is a national security issue. Replacing possible domestic sources with foreign sources causes a large amount of American capitol to be moved off-shore, and often to countries that are ideologically, politically, or morally dangerous to the United States. Sen. McCain's statements here were spot on, well delivered, and had evident passion.

For Sen. Obama, it came with his very last question. He was asked what he would say if there were no repercussions. Sen. Obama gave a long winded answer, talking about getting everyone together and making sacrifices to create a more energy-efficient economy. This man really just doesn't get how dangerous these kinds of statements can be. America is about freedom. I'm not opposed to sacrificing for others, for the greater good, or for freedom. But government mandated energy conservation is an attack on freedom. Every American individual and business has the self-interest in conserving as much energy as possible for simple economic reasons. We don't need our government coming in and rationing energy use, which is precisely what any government mandated attempts to greater conservation. However, I do think that Sen. Obama's statements to the previous question about what to tell people opposed to the venue (a religious congregation) were pretty good. Especially when he talked about the forum being necessary to provide better insight into the candidates, and his knock against negative politics was brilliant.

There was so much to this forum, that I couldn't hope to cover all of it. I seriously hope that we see more of these both in this election, and in future ones.