A few notes on freedom and government

When we looked at the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York City, still not rebuilt, we got angry and wanted government to find and punish the people who destroyed it, then hunt down the people who helped them do it. When we went to the doctor and the price was exorbitant or we tried to buy health insurance and were told that our history of illness made us uninsurable, we wanted government to help us get the care we needed at a price we could afford to pay. When our financial system imploded and we lost our houses or our savings or the value of our stocks, we wanted Uncle Sam to step up and fix the problem. When we were mugged on the street or robbed in our homes, we wanted government to find the bad guys, lock them up, and get our possessions back to us. And we wanted all of these things all at once, which meant that government had to be large enough to do the job. And since we added these things to the things which government had already been doing on our behalf every day, this functionally means that government at every level has grown in power, size, and scope significantly beyond where it was in the 1980s when President Reagan talked about government as being the problem, not the solution to our problems.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - The Declaration of Independence

It is incredibly important to remember these words when we are tempted to believe that government is something that we should trust unreservedly. Government is a tool that we use to maintain our freedoms, a carefully constrained assortment of organized principles and laws that we use to protect us from foreign interlopers, assure our public safety, and adjudicate disputes amongst ourselves. It is not a benevolent monarch who dispenses freedoms and goodies to us at his discretion and in accordance with our need or our connections.

"Government," as Washington pointed out at our Founding, "is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

In times such as these when using our great and dangerous tool appears to be the easiest way to resolve our problems; when the force of government is most attractive in resolving the inequities of health care or the vagaries of our market economy; when we want most to simply MAKE our fellow citizens do the right thing instead of taking the time to convince them or outvote them; we must remember Washington's injunction, and use government with care that our servant does not become our master.

Farewell, Senator

I have noted previously that I have little in common with Senator Edward Kennedy, either politically or personally. He was an unrepentant liberal and the scion of a dynastic American family, neither of which remotely describe me or my experience in life. The Senator was a man larger than life, a Rabelaisian raconteur with undeniable personal charm who, nonetheless, had an eye out for those whom society had left behind. It is also true that he was a man with undeniable personal flaws, whose mistakes were played out on a public stage for all to see and comment upon.

It is easy to took at his life and see the man who panicked at Chappaquiddick, whose reckless behavior and appalling judgment resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. It it is also simple, indeed, to focus upon his carousing and womanizing, and make the case that he was nothing but a spoiled rich man's son whose career was handed to him on a silver platter. Many people see these things and leave the story there. But Kennedy's story is also one of tragic losses and, ultimately, of redemption.

He was a gifted politician, a man who understood that to get things done you must, always, get along. Over the years he served in the United States Senate, you would be hard-pressed to discover legislation of any significance that did not have his fingerprints on it somewhere. He counted as friends and allies not only the members of his own Democratic party, but also numerous conservative Republicans with whom he crafted compromise legislation. He, like Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson, understood that getting part of what you want in a bill is greatly preferable to standing on unbending principle and ending up with nothing at all. Besides, having achieved some measure of your goal, you can always go back for more. And he did, time and time again.

He was a devoted father to his own children and a doting father figure to the children of his brothers John and Robert. He was a good and fair boss from all accounts, a devoted Catholic, and easily the most popular and best loved member of the Senate. And he fought the good fight against the disease that ultimately took his life.

Take Edward Moore Kennedy all and all, match the good and the bad against each other, and, on balance, you end up with a good and decent man who will be missed, and who God, in His mercy, will welcome to his rest.

No sale for Obama...yet.

After watching the presidential “debate” on Tuesday last, three things became glaringly apparent. First is that Senator Obama is a better speaker than Senator McCain. But we already knew that. Second, Senator McCain knows little about how one makes an effective attack against a political opponent. He left opportunity after opportunity on the board, and on those occasions when he went after Sen. Obama, the attacks were clearly scripted and had no follow up prepared. And, third, the national media is in the tank for Sen. Obama. Period.

And yet? Given all of that, as well as an election year that has been trending Democratic since 2006, presidential approval ratings that rival Nixon’s at the depths of Watergate, the worst financial meltdown since the mid 1930s, and virtually unlimited ability to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars, Senator Obama is: 1) still under 50% in ANY poll; 2) only two to nine percentage points ahead, depending on the poll; 3) still a month from the election against a candidate with a criminally dreadful political organization; and 4) clearly not finalizing the sale.

Why? On CNN that same night, David Gergen posited that the polls might be anywhere in the neighborhood of six percent inaccurate due to Senator Obama’s race. He speculated that while many people are attracted to the candidate and his manifest abilities and say so openly to pollsters and the like, when push comes to shove in the voting booth, they will decide against him for no other reason than pigmentation. Of course, this does not take into account the numbers of people who are planning to vote for him in large part because of his race…and what it says about the wonderfulness of those voters. No less than his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, commented early on in the campaign to the New York Observer about Sen. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” But not a word…until he was chosen as a running mate…that there might be some substance to the story.

People compare Senator Obama with JFK, noting the shared youth, the theme of generational change, and the manifest ability to give speeches rife with eloquent and elegant language. But that analogy can be taken entirely too far. At a similar age, Jack Kennedy had commanded a PT boat in the Pacific Theatre in WWII with manifest heroism; had won a Pulitzer Prize for his book Profiles in Courage; had served six years in the US House of Representatives and seven years in the United States Senate; and had been under serious consideration by Adlai Stevenson and the 1956 Democratic National Convention as a vice-presidential candidate. In the immortal words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen to the hapless Dan Quayle in their vice-presidential debate in 1988, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”

Then, too, Kennedy’s opponent in the 1960 election, Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, was a far more focused, resolute, and able politician than Senator McCain has any dreams of being. Nixon was equally knowledgeable on either domestic issues or foreign policy, and was a capable debater. He was no pushover, and fundamentally was out to WIN…and very nearly pulled it off.

So there has been no sale yet. Both of these gentlemen are flawed candidates with flawed records and spotty accomplishments over the years. Senator McCain obviously has a more heroic biography, but what that says about his ability to lead as president is debatable. Similarly, Senator Obama has shown that he is a gifted politician, but whether he is sufficiently pragmatic to set aside his liberal predilections and look for reasonable solutions and compromises in the future is debatable as well.

The truly interesting thing about this election is that the only individual on either ticket with actual executive experience is Governor Palin (who the press has been working overtime to marginalize), while the person best qualified in terms of experience and breadth of knowledge is Senator Biden. As conservative as I am, I would be far more comfortable with Joe Biden in the Oval Office than either Barack Obama or the man whom John McCain has become. Is Biden liberal? Absolutely. Unabashedly. But he is also funny, smart, engaging, and definitely not a programmed candidate. He is always interesting to listen to on questions of policy, because even when I find myself disagreeing with his conclusions, I can always trace the thought trail that led to them. His personal story is extraordinary, and there is something to be said for a man who has not gotten rich in the service of his country.

But he ain’t running for the top job; the other two are. And I suspect that a fair amount of the country is going to wait this one out and decide very, very late. Possibly, they will make up their minds in the voting booth. And maybe they will go “Eenie, meeney, miney…” and vote for “Moe.”

Another Lion of the Senate

Here is a “for the record” disclaimer: I doubt that you could find many points of agreement with my politics and those of Senator Edward Kennedy, but I know of one point that is huge and telling. His record shows that he understands the difference between ideological purity on the one hand and the necessity of finding common ground in order to govern effectively on the other, and he nearly always comes down firmly on the side of effective governance.

In the initial news reports following the announcement of the Senator’s medical condition, the appearance of commentary from across the political spectrum was immediate and concerned…if not heartbroken. What is it about this man, deeply flawed as he may be, that evokes the obvious and evident regard of people as dissimilar as Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy? Simply put, Senator Kennedy learned the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Politics is important business, but it is not a campaign between good and evil. People of good character and fine intentions disagree about how one might best achieve optimal results in a democratic society, but there is far more that we have in common than separates us. Men like Senator Kennedy understand that you should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and so you find those points of agreement and agree on them. Then you compromise to allow each side to get some more of what it wants. And, finally, the majority will get a slightly larger say just because it can, and then you have a bill. It will not be perfect, but you can always fix the parts that don’t work, and, in any event, you are addressing a problem with legislation that a broad spectrum of representatives can support.

A few years ago, I started digging into Senate history and discovered what was, to my mind, an astonishing truth: in the course of his public career, Senator Kennedy has been one of the most effective legislators in United States history. There is scarcely a major piece of legislation since 1962 that does not have his fingerprints on it somewhere. And it isn’t just the result of excellent staffwork (though his senatorial staffs have been consistently top notch). He works at it conscientiously, and apparently loves the give and take that goes into the process. Even more important in a collegial body like the Senate, he apparently refuses to hold a grudge.

I find I cannot hold one either. The good he has done in his life far outweighs the sins and flaws in my estimation, and I wish him Godspeed and good luck.

And there was this from the Democratic National Convention in 1980:

“And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down, and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met....
Tho much is taken, much abides....
That which we are, we are--
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
...strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

To Senator Craig...

I am a fellow Republican, and I have been since I was old enough to know the difference between the parties. To me, that difference came down, more than anything, to trust. We trust our officeholders to make appropriate choices and use their best judgment; and politicians trust us to take the long view and wait out the passions of today. In short, you do what you need to do, and we give you the time and support to do what must be done. By that standard, we have trusted you all along; but when push came to shove, you did not trust us.

I do not care, could not care less, if you are straight or gay, so long as you live up to your word and up to your responsibilities. It is simply none of my business. Most Republicans I know or are acquainted with share a similar view. We truly do not care what you do in your private life, so long as you hurt no one, break no laws, and keep our interests firmly in mind during the day. Sadly, this you failed to do. By being arrested in the manner that you were and by pleading guilty to ANY charge, even a lesser one, you accepted that your actions, in a public setting, were wrong and actionable. You broke the compact.

I see no way for you to come through this experience with credibility intact, either at home here in Idaho or in Washington. These are troubling times in need of character and steadfast resolution, and hairsplitting about whether you should have done this or ought to have done that serves no purpose save your own ambition and sense of vindication.

A number of years ago, Senator Packwood chose to resign under circumstances involving sexual/public misconduct. There was no "proof" in his instance, either, and he was plenty steamed when his hometown paper, the Oregonian, printed page after page of allegations. In the end, there was nothing for it but to leave, and he chose to exit as gracefully as he could. Senator Adams of Washington, when faced with worse allegations, refused to run for re-election.

Senator, I hope that you will see fit to free the party and the Senate from a full consideration of your case. I know that it hardly seems fair to you on a certain level, and that your instincts, as mine would likely be—initially— are to fight back hard. But this is a battle you cannot win. In the end, I think you will decide that you will have to take one for the team.

Resignation now would allow Governor Otter to appoint your successor, who would then have a prohibitive advantage in retaining the seat. It is likely that, even in the event you choose to remain and not run for re-election, the seat will stay in GOP hands. But if you run for re-election as vindication, you will almost certainly lose. Over 40% will vote against you as a starting point, simply because you are a Republican. And you cannot count on more than 50% of the Republican vote, because of the allegations and the guilty plea. The Democrats will use you and your troubles in a nationwide attempt to paint Republicans as hypocritical, and will get some traction with the issue. You know that, sir. The strong probability is that you will lose; if you do, the national party will lose as well, and these are serious times when we can ill-afford a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate.

I take no joy in this because I respect the work you have done on behalf of Idaho and the Nation, but for the sake of the Republican Party—and, more importantly, for the sake of Idaho and the US—I respectfully urge your resignation as Senior Senator from the State of Idaho.

Immigration follies

I don't believe I have ever seen an instance before where the political elites of this country want something very badly and it somehow fails to happen. I'm not referring to elections; if that were the case, we would presently be looking to the end of the Gore Administration and hoping like hell he could keep the country from devolving into complete disaster. No, I am referring to the fact that between big business and big politics, the fix appeared to be in on the immigration bill presently before the Senate. And yet, somehow, it is going down to ignominious defeat. Why? Because no-one, not even the career politicians attempting to pass this abortion of an omnibus bill, truly believe it will do what they claim it will do. Instead, it will simply increase the number of low cost workers in the United States, and give the Democrats a leg up on new voters.

Oh yes. And depress wages for Americans, cost the tax system far more per illegal than they pay in Social Security withholding, and lead to even more immigration than before.

The people have caught onto the shell game that amounts to a pea under every shell, or, perhaps more appropriately, there is poison in any glass we can select.

The claim is that, without the current bill, the borders cannot be secured, the numbers of illegals cannot be counted or deported, and crops will rot in the fields.

These things we know. Fences work. Ask the people of Berlin. Or ask the Mexican nationals near San Diego. You will have to go to Mexico to do it, though, since the fence there has forced migrants to move farther east to sneak into the US.

We do not have to be against the idea that migrant families should be reunited. Workers should be allowed and encouraged to go back home to their families...in Mexico. We are under no obligation to let illegal immigrants bring their families here.

We cannot reasonably find, arrest and deport all 12 million illegal immigrants, but if we make the fence as nonporous as we can manage and insist that employers vouch for the legality of their employees (and fine or close them if they cannot-or will not), illegal immigrants will find that the living here is not quite as easy as it once was. Many will opt to go home. And that is what we want as well.

To this date, the bill is not dead, but it will need to be resurrected if it is to be a continued threat, and that will take sixty votes. Any luck at all, and the senate will not find them.

It feels like starting over...

That's probably because it is.

There are a couple of circumstances that have served to force it along, neither of which makes me overjoyed with the universe. First is the fact that my personal circumstances are severely changed. Second, our friends at Blogger/Google have locked me out of my old blog. I have tried to rattle the appropriate cages, to no effect whatsoever. My account remains deadlocked.

And so I move on, and the Snark will not be resurrected. The times seem to call for more serious examination of everything, and however lighthearted I can feel about this and that (mostly that), there is still an air of utter seriousness that ought to be acknowledged. This is not to say that funny is done; just that there are other fish to fry these days, and funny has its place within that...not instead of that.

If you follow me.

So if you are interested in rereading the old posts, they will sit (who knows how long) at Moonbat Central untouched by human (or, at least, my) hands. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the new focus, Constant Readers. I shall try to make it worth your while, all two of you.