…it is part of a senator’s responsibility. Let me explain.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the power (and responsibility) to provide for, among other things, the general welfare of the United States. The Preamble to the Constitution also enumerates among the responsibilities of “The People,” and especially those who represent them as their voices in the elected legislature, as insuring “domestic tranquility” and promoting the general welfare.
As a member of Congress, a United States senator is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and is obligated to abide by its enumeration of powers. As such, it is a U.S. Senator’s responsibility to promote a climate that encourages and fosters economic growth and the job creation that comes with it.
The current senatorial race in Nevada is focused heavily on the economy, and the rhetoric coming from both major party campaigns has to do with jobs and job creation.
The state of Nevada is among the nation’s leaders in unemployment with about 14 percent of the state’s population out of work.
On one side, the republican challenger, Sharron Angle, is questioning the democratic incumbent’s Congressional efforts to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. She is also ultimately charging U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, with responsibility for job creation.
Reid, meanwhile, is disputing his challenger’s criticism, having stated that he isn't responsible for our nation's unemployment rate. And yet, out of the other side of his mouth, he has stated unequivocally that job creation is a senator's responsibility. His campaign has launched political television advertisements touting the senator’s efforts to save existing jobs and bring new clean energy jobs to his state.
Interestingly enough, the challenger has said that job creation isn’t the job of a U.S. senator. Yet, she charges her opponent with responsibility for Nevada’s high unemployment rate.
Strange how both candidates tout the economy and job creation as the most important issues in this year’s senate race. Both candidates play up the importance of a senator’s role in job creation. And both also deny that jobs or their unemployment counterparts are a senator’s responsibility.
Oddly enough, both are right and both are also wrong.
Angle, the GOP challenger, has said quite plainly that the job of a U.S. senator is not to create jobs. She’s right.
It is not the government’s role or responsibility to create jobs. That task belongs primarily to the private sector. Sure, government can create government jobs or pass legislation for projects that require temporary jobs. But long-term, permanent job creation can only be achieved by those entities that exist on profit and engage in marketplace competition. Economic growth is reliant on the success of the private sector, which itself is reliant on consumers, the majority of whom are employed in the private sector. Our economy is circular, and the rightful place of government is not in the circle or even part of it, but on the outside.
By this I mean to say that the government’s proper and Constitutionally appropriate role—as defined by the philosophies of its framers—is to provide an economic climate in which both consumer spending and job growth can flourish.
As such, a U.S. senator’s responsibility is to support a strong economy by proposing bills and voting on legislation that promotes and provides for the general welfare of the United States.
How this gets accomplished is among the fundamental differences between left and right wing politics.
Reid, who has held his senate seat for the past 24 years, is facing a serious challenge for the first time in more than a decade. As the acting Senate Majority Leader and arguably the third most powerful politician in Washington, D.C., few in the nation’s capital are in position to affect a climate of economic growth and job creation than he is.
Angle has charged Reid with responsibility for Nevada’s 14 percent unemployment rate, among the highest in the country. While he isn’t responsible for unemployment, and job creation isn’t a senator’s job, the most powerful man in the senate does have a responsibility to support policies and laws that promote economic growth, part of that general welfare clause in the Constitution.
In a manner of speaking, then, Angle is correct.
Reid is partially responsible for Nevada’s economic woes.
After all, he did support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, federal home loan programs for low income, first-time homebuyers. The programs have proven to be abject failures as viable financial entities.
Reid also supported federal policies that strong-armed mortgage loan companies into offering products which low income consumers could afford. This precipitated the housing collapse, the impetus of which was a tidal wave of loan defaults and foreclosures on properties purchased by people who could no longer afford their mortgage debts.
Contrary to the claims of the Democratic Congressional leadership, and the Reid campaign, the recession is not entirely the result of corporate avarice and greed, or deregulation by the Bush White House and former Republican Congressional majority. Many of the big problems we face from this recession were simply the result of government literally putting its two cents where it really doesn’t belong. Others responsible for the recession include the millions of consumers whose incomes were far exceeded by their spending. The current recession is the result of a credit crisis, and financial irresponsibility run amok.
Everyone, from Congress and the President on down to the individual consumer overextended on his or her credit, has a role to play in this recession and shared responsibility for it.
This includes Senator Harry Reid, who, along with his cohorts in Congress and the White House, has done a poor job of fostering economic growth with policies and legislation aimed at promoting real, long-term recovery. What Reid and the Democrats have done is spend hundreds of billions more dollars on financial bailouts to companies and industries “too big to fail,” and a largely ineffective stimulus package that could only offer, at best, short-term, temporary relief to a long-term problem.
Despite the $787 billion stimulus package passed in the spring of 2009, the national unemployment rate remains in double digits. Nevada’s, in particular, has grown to around 14 percent. This is legislation that Reid whole-heartedly supported. It was claimed to be an answer to the recession; but what it has done is only perpetuate the problem.
The Reid campaign claims that the Senate Majority Leader has either saved or created thousands of jobs in Nevada by way of promoting clean energy technology and using federal pork to bail out Nevada businesses in financial trouble.
And yet, the campaign disputes the challenger’s assertion that the incumbent is responsible for Nevada’s unemployment rate and sour economy.
Well, which is it, Senator?
Either you are or you aren’t responsible for jobs.
Reid’s campaign slogan this year is that “no one can do more” for Nevada than Reid can.
Perhaps.
But what exactly has Harry done for his state lately? Don’t just show us the money, Harry; show us what has been done with it.
All of those clean energy jobs you claim to have brought to the Silver State don’t do a majority of out-of-work Nevadans much good, because they are skilled jobs requiring a certain amount of technical experience and education. Many unemployed Nevadans are unskilled or possess skills limited to the construction and service industries. What good are those skills in qualifying for clean energy jobs?
And once all those solar panels, wind farms and geothermal projects are completed, what will happen to the project-based jobs? More than likely, they will be gone with the Nevada wind.
I find it fascinating that Sen. Harry Reid, one of the most powerful voices in Washington, claims that no one can do more for his state than he can; and yet, in spite of this, his state continues to be among the highest in the nation in unemployment, foreclosures and loan defaults, declining real estate values, individual and corporate bankruptcies, and failed small business ventures.
Are you sure you can’t do any more for Nevada, Sen. Reid? Either you haven’t done enough, or what you’ve done so far has been ineffective, because the results speak for themselves.
More to the point: Are you sure, Senator, that most of the bacon you’ve brought home to your state has gone to promote and provide for the general welfare? Or has it perhaps gone to promote and provide for the welfare of your specific interests?
Considering the evidence, I’d be hard pressed to believe that Nevada has truly benefited from your power and influence.
Sharron Angle is right that you haven’t done enough for the economy in your state while you’ve been in the best position a Nevada Congressional representative has held for the first time ever.
If your leadership and influence in Washington, D.C., has been so great for Nevada, then why is it worse off now than it was three years ago when the housing market crashed and the recession hit? Frankly, it gives me reason to pause and question the kind of policies you’ve supported of late. Have these policies really encouraged and fostered a climate of strong economic growth, or have they merely feathered your nest and those of your most important campaign contributors?
I wonder.
I also wonder why, Senator, you of all people have so vehemently opposed nuclear waste in Nevada when there is evidence showing that nuclear waste can not only be recycled, but also provide efficient alternative, renewable energy and be a possible economic boon to your state? An entirely new industry is right here for the taking. The feds don’t want the waste, and either do the other states that send theirs to us. Why don’t we take advantage of that and develop it into a viable industry that will provide jobs, energy alternatives to consumers, and vital dollars to the state of Nevada?
Why not? Because your interests don’t want it here; that’s why not. As a result, you’ve turned your back on a possible solution to Nevada’s economic woes. You do nothing while an industrial boon just sits underneath a mountain collecting dust and half-lives.
Sharron Angle is right to question your efforts to help your state. Throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve it. Rather, it’s like putting a bandage over a severed artery or ointment on a first-degree burn. All it does is cover up the problem temporarily until another bandage or more ointment is needed to relieve the bleeding and the pain.
What you ought to be doing, Sen. Reid, is promoting policies and proposing legislation that will foster economic growth in your state and create a climate that encourages entrepreneurs to not only make money, but to grow their ventures and invest in new ones. You should be supporting policies and proposing bills that encourage small businesses to stay in business, to grow, flourish and invest in their communities.
Instead, you support the President’s tax plan to increase income taxes on the wealthiest Americans earning $250,000 a year or more. Don’t you realize that a significant number of these so-called wealthiest Americans are also small business owners around the country and in Nevada?
All you’ve done so far is throw money at the problem. As soon as that money is spent, then what? What has happened to the Big Three automakers is a perfect example. They were bailed out twice in three months. And yet, in spite of all this government cash, two of the three have filed bankruptcy; the same two that clamored for a bailout in the first place.
Much of the stimulus money Nevada was due to receive it hasn’t got. Yet you are the Senate Majority Leader. I might have expected your state to be among the first to benefit.
Exactly what good has all of your power and influence done Nevada in the last three years?
To Sen. Harry Reid I’d like to say that you haven’t done near enough to help your state out of its economic doldrums, in spite of all the help you claim to have brought. I don’t see the evidence. All I see is more Nevadans out of work now than when the recession first began, and more foreclosures, loan defaults and bankruptcies than three years ago, too. Whatever money you’ve sent Nevada’s way, it hasn’t addressed the root problems. And frankly, no amount ever will. You have to stand up and be a statesman for your state, an advocate in the senate, before Congress and the President. Stop being a party stooge and a money launderer for your special interests. Stop trying to buy off your constituents with hush money and be the representative to them that you once were. Stop being a politician and start being a representative. The two are distinctly different: One requires a lot of back scratching and boot-licking, while the other requires simply that you be your own man instead of somebody else’s, and stand up on your own rather than with the aid of your party crutch.
To Sharron Angle: It isn’t enough to just attack Sen. Reid. Your party is just as responsible for America’s and Nevada’s economic mess as Reid’s party is. Are you prepared to vote for prosperity and economic growth? Are you prepared to propose bills and support policies that encourage private sector growth? Paying it lip service isn’t enough, either.
You must be prepared to act, and do differently than Harry Reid has done as of late. You must accept the responsibility of addressing jobs and the economy that the office of U.S. senator requires. No, creating jobs isn’t your job; but creating an atmosphere and a climate conducive to job creation is your job. Remember that.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The truth about freedom
What is freedom, and what does it mean?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines freedom as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action…the power or condition of acting without compulsion.”
What this means to the average American living in freedom every day is being able to choose what you say or do without government restraint or compulsion to say or do something else.
America’s founding generation regarded essential liberty as being able to say or do what one wants, but choosing to do or say what one should instead. In other words, the founders believed in the freedom to choose right from wrong without having to be compelled to do right by government.
This is the Enlightenment principle of self-governance, or self-regulation, which establishes that when men are given the freedom to choose right from wrong, and they do so, then there is little need for laws that compel men to do what they ought to.
America’s founding generation believed so strongly that men were capable of making such choices freely that it set out to establish a new nation built upon an entirely new political system to prove it. Thus, what has been known for more than two centuries as the Great Experiment, the result of which was the establishment of a Constitutional Republic, the basis for which is trust in the individual to do the right thing.
Evidence of this is in the establishment of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as the foundation of American society and government. These rights are grounded in the philosophical tenets of the Age of Enlightenment; specifically, the Fundamental Rights of Man as detailed and articulated in the writings of philosophers John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes, as well as authors Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson et al.
Jefferson penned perhaps the most profound expression of trust in the individual with these words from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
How much trust does it take to guarantee a person life (to be and exist), liberty (the ability to choose) and the pursuit of happiness (to do whatever one wants)? Or, even more poignantly, to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, thereby fully entrusting the individual with his own security and that of his neighbors?
A substantial sum, to be sure.
Yet, so strongly was the belief and conviction of Jefferson and many others of his time in individual trust and self-governance that they literally staked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish a society that practiced such values.
Trust in the individual.
Such a notion seems as obscure today just as it was at the time of the American Revolution.
Once upon a time in America, trusting the individual to do the right thing was a concept both commonly believed and widely practiced. There was a time when Americans put more faith in God and in the private citizen than in government and legislation. There was once a time when confidence in the individual trumped confidence in government.
I fear those times are gone.
Maybe I’m wrong—and I hope that I am—but it seems to me that there is much less trust in the individual to do the right thing these days, and a greater trust in the government to keep the individual honest and in line with the law.
Meanwhile, American politicians pay lip service to freedom and liberty by defending choice and touting the Bill of Rights without really understanding or appreciating the very basis of those laws.
Elected officials will proclaim loudly their support of the First Amendment—and in particular the freedom speech—and then turn right around and pass yet another law telling us what we cannot do all in the name of the public good and to protect us from ourselves.
There appears to be a prevailing notion in America that freedom means doing and saying whatever one wants. Our politicians especially subscribe to this belief.
Why? Because each violation against somebody else grants them license to pass more laws for our own good.
Politicians encourage us to do whatever we want, because they know that many people will do so without consideration of others and despite any consequences. They understand human nature, which is to think and act impulsively. They recognize that many Americans will do whatever they want just because they can and liberty affords them this right. Political demagogues are counting on the fact that thousands of violations against others will occur in the name of freedom all because people can do whatever they want.
Each occasion we violate others with our freedom gives politicians an excuse to step in and say “this is wrong,” and “I’m going to propose a bill to fix it.”
In other words, more laws meant to keep you and me from governing and regulating ourselves.
This is why freedom is so fragile. It can be lost much more easily than it is gained. All that is required to lose essential liberty is to take it for granted and take advantage of freedom by doing whatever one wants, rather than consider others and do what one should.
Political leaders are more than willing to step in and govern us if we choose not to do it ourselves. All one has to do is look at the United States Code and the tens of thousands of laws that have been passed over the decades in an effort to keep the people honest and in line, because the government doesn’t trust the people to do the right thing.
Quite frankly, We The People haven’t really given our elected leaders much reason to trust us, either. Truth be told, we’ve done a very poor job of self-regulation over the years. Instead, we tend to give into our impulses just because we can and have the freedom to do so. Unfortunately, the choice to do wrong rather than right—doing what we want instead of what we ought—has resulted in myriad laws meant to protect us from ourselves because we are not trusted. We aren’t counted on any more to do the right thing. Rather, government is relied upon to do the right thing for us and to make sure we comply.
Current state laws banning cellular telephone use while driving serve as an example, an object lesson, of how our failure to do the right thing results in the loss of choice.
Politicians have consequently taken it upon themselves to propose and pass laws that prohibit us from using cell phones while driving, because the public must be protected from itself. The people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Therefore, government must do it for them.
Well, we’ve only ourselves to blame for that. We abused the freedom to choose to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing simply because we had the liberty to do so. Consequently, the government has essentially taken away that choice by compelling us to do the right thing.
You see? True freedom and essential liberty are defined by the ability to freely choose without compulsion. When you choose to do the right thing, you put the power to govern and regulate into your hands, instead of in the hands of government. By doing what one should or ought to do, rather than what one can or wants to do, one takes power away from government and puts it into the hands of the individual.
Benjamin Franklin, a Founding Father, statesman, ambassador and inventor, said it best: “Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
What he meant was that those who defer to the government what they could otherwise do for themselves do not deserve either the freedom to choose, or the security of government to choose for them.
He’s right. Americans don’t deserve essential liberty if they are willing to let the government tell them what they ought to do. They don’t deserve government security, either, because they aren’t disciplined enough or willing to act with personal restraint; that is, doing what they should.
Character Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, in the movie “Jurassic Park,” summed up essential liberty with this: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
One of my all-time favorite movie lines.
Millions of Americans have become so preoccupied with whether or not they can do or say something that they have never stopped to think if they should do or say something. Consequently, government gets bigger and its oversight into our daily lives more invasive and expansive. More laws get passed every day under the guise of our own safety and for our own good.
What we don’t see is the harm this does to essential liberty and its impact on individual freedom. The impact of a single law alone may be so insignificant that most people wouldn’t even know it exists; but the impact of thousands of laws just like it can not only be felt, but also plainly seen.
When you chip away at a tree, one chip or shaving seems to make little difference. However, hundreds or thousands of shavings can mean the difference between a tree and a stump. If we look at all the laws passed for our own good, we might be shocked at just how different liberty looks after all the chips that have been taken to it over the years and the pile of shavings that is left are counted.
Just remember: Each new law passed for the public good is yet another shaving off the statue of essential liberty. Each one we allow reduces essential liberty that much more to an unrecognizable pile of shavings.
It is time to take a stand for essential liberty by taking control of our lives. Take back control of government and regulation by beginning again to regulate and govern ourselves. Preserve essential liberty and the choice to do right or wrong by practicing to do right more often. The more we can choose to do right, the less likely we will be compelled to do right.
And that, my friends, is what essential liberty is all about. Now go do the right thing. America’s future generations will thank you for that.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines freedom as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action…the power or condition of acting without compulsion.”
What this means to the average American living in freedom every day is being able to choose what you say or do without government restraint or compulsion to say or do something else.
America’s founding generation regarded essential liberty as being able to say or do what one wants, but choosing to do or say what one should instead. In other words, the founders believed in the freedom to choose right from wrong without having to be compelled to do right by government.
This is the Enlightenment principle of self-governance, or self-regulation, which establishes that when men are given the freedom to choose right from wrong, and they do so, then there is little need for laws that compel men to do what they ought to.
America’s founding generation believed so strongly that men were capable of making such choices freely that it set out to establish a new nation built upon an entirely new political system to prove it. Thus, what has been known for more than two centuries as the Great Experiment, the result of which was the establishment of a Constitutional Republic, the basis for which is trust in the individual to do the right thing.
Evidence of this is in the establishment of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as the foundation of American society and government. These rights are grounded in the philosophical tenets of the Age of Enlightenment; specifically, the Fundamental Rights of Man as detailed and articulated in the writings of philosophers John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes, as well as authors Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson et al.
Jefferson penned perhaps the most profound expression of trust in the individual with these words from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
How much trust does it take to guarantee a person life (to be and exist), liberty (the ability to choose) and the pursuit of happiness (to do whatever one wants)? Or, even more poignantly, to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, thereby fully entrusting the individual with his own security and that of his neighbors?
A substantial sum, to be sure.
Yet, so strongly was the belief and conviction of Jefferson and many others of his time in individual trust and self-governance that they literally staked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish a society that practiced such values.
Trust in the individual.
Such a notion seems as obscure today just as it was at the time of the American Revolution.
Once upon a time in America, trusting the individual to do the right thing was a concept both commonly believed and widely practiced. There was a time when Americans put more faith in God and in the private citizen than in government and legislation. There was once a time when confidence in the individual trumped confidence in government.
I fear those times are gone.
Maybe I’m wrong—and I hope that I am—but it seems to me that there is much less trust in the individual to do the right thing these days, and a greater trust in the government to keep the individual honest and in line with the law.
Meanwhile, American politicians pay lip service to freedom and liberty by defending choice and touting the Bill of Rights without really understanding or appreciating the very basis of those laws.
Elected officials will proclaim loudly their support of the First Amendment—and in particular the freedom speech—and then turn right around and pass yet another law telling us what we cannot do all in the name of the public good and to protect us from ourselves.
There appears to be a prevailing notion in America that freedom means doing and saying whatever one wants. Our politicians especially subscribe to this belief.
Why? Because each violation against somebody else grants them license to pass more laws for our own good.
Politicians encourage us to do whatever we want, because they know that many people will do so without consideration of others and despite any consequences. They understand human nature, which is to think and act impulsively. They recognize that many Americans will do whatever they want just because they can and liberty affords them this right. Political demagogues are counting on the fact that thousands of violations against others will occur in the name of freedom all because people can do whatever they want.
Each occasion we violate others with our freedom gives politicians an excuse to step in and say “this is wrong,” and “I’m going to propose a bill to fix it.”
In other words, more laws meant to keep you and me from governing and regulating ourselves.
This is why freedom is so fragile. It can be lost much more easily than it is gained. All that is required to lose essential liberty is to take it for granted and take advantage of freedom by doing whatever one wants, rather than consider others and do what one should.
Political leaders are more than willing to step in and govern us if we choose not to do it ourselves. All one has to do is look at the United States Code and the tens of thousands of laws that have been passed over the decades in an effort to keep the people honest and in line, because the government doesn’t trust the people to do the right thing.
Quite frankly, We The People haven’t really given our elected leaders much reason to trust us, either. Truth be told, we’ve done a very poor job of self-regulation over the years. Instead, we tend to give into our impulses just because we can and have the freedom to do so. Unfortunately, the choice to do wrong rather than right—doing what we want instead of what we ought—has resulted in myriad laws meant to protect us from ourselves because we are not trusted. We aren’t counted on any more to do the right thing. Rather, government is relied upon to do the right thing for us and to make sure we comply.
Current state laws banning cellular telephone use while driving serve as an example, an object lesson, of how our failure to do the right thing results in the loss of choice.
Politicians have consequently taken it upon themselves to propose and pass laws that prohibit us from using cell phones while driving, because the public must be protected from itself. The people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Therefore, government must do it for them.
Well, we’ve only ourselves to blame for that. We abused the freedom to choose to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing simply because we had the liberty to do so. Consequently, the government has essentially taken away that choice by compelling us to do the right thing.
You see? True freedom and essential liberty are defined by the ability to freely choose without compulsion. When you choose to do the right thing, you put the power to govern and regulate into your hands, instead of in the hands of government. By doing what one should or ought to do, rather than what one can or wants to do, one takes power away from government and puts it into the hands of the individual.
Benjamin Franklin, a Founding Father, statesman, ambassador and inventor, said it best: “Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
What he meant was that those who defer to the government what they could otherwise do for themselves do not deserve either the freedom to choose, or the security of government to choose for them.
He’s right. Americans don’t deserve essential liberty if they are willing to let the government tell them what they ought to do. They don’t deserve government security, either, because they aren’t disciplined enough or willing to act with personal restraint; that is, doing what they should.
Character Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, in the movie “Jurassic Park,” summed up essential liberty with this: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
One of my all-time favorite movie lines.
Millions of Americans have become so preoccupied with whether or not they can do or say something that they have never stopped to think if they should do or say something. Consequently, government gets bigger and its oversight into our daily lives more invasive and expansive. More laws get passed every day under the guise of our own safety and for our own good.
What we don’t see is the harm this does to essential liberty and its impact on individual freedom. The impact of a single law alone may be so insignificant that most people wouldn’t even know it exists; but the impact of thousands of laws just like it can not only be felt, but also plainly seen.
When you chip away at a tree, one chip or shaving seems to make little difference. However, hundreds or thousands of shavings can mean the difference between a tree and a stump. If we look at all the laws passed for our own good, we might be shocked at just how different liberty looks after all the chips that have been taken to it over the years and the pile of shavings that is left are counted.
Just remember: Each new law passed for the public good is yet another shaving off the statue of essential liberty. Each one we allow reduces essential liberty that much more to an unrecognizable pile of shavings.
It is time to take a stand for essential liberty by taking control of our lives. Take back control of government and regulation by beginning again to regulate and govern ourselves. Preserve essential liberty and the choice to do right or wrong by practicing to do right more often. The more we can choose to do right, the less likely we will be compelled to do right.
And that, my friends, is what essential liberty is all about. Now go do the right thing. America’s future generations will thank you for that.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
A summer like no other
The summer of 1776 must not have been much different from other summers gone and yet to come: Hot, muggy and miserable for those who had to work out in it. And in 1776 that included most people.
Like any other summer, that particular one 234 years ago was alive with fragrances in full bloom; the sounds of children playing in fields of wild flowers, and splashing about in creeks and ponds where it was cool; young animals frolicking in the fields; men and women toiling in their gardens and on their farms; and the happy songs of birds, crickets and frogs relishing in the summer solstice.
But as common as the summer of 1776 seemed at the time, little did the people living in it know that it would become the summer unlike any other in the history of the world.
For in June and July of 1776 a group of delegates making up the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to form a new nation, conceived in individual liberty and political freedom. They spent days agonizing in the heat while struggling to come to an agreement of what to say to King George III, monarch of Great Britain and absolute ruler over the American colonies.
For the last several years, resistance to the British crown had been escalating because of political tyranny and inequality. From the Stamp Act to the Tea tax, angst and anger among the American colonies over the King's unfair treatment of his subjects in the New World was spreading. Colonists reacted to the King's proclamations with exclamations of their own, including the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre.
In 1775, King George dispatched a legion of several thousand troops to the colonies in an effort to snuff out rebellion and discourage further spread of revolutionary fervor. The trouble is that he was too late. By the time the British army landed, colonists were waiting for them with baited breath. Night riders like the famed Paul Revere rode from town to town warning of the advance of the British army into the countryside. Militias of armed colonists met the British Red Coats at the crossroads of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.
Before the convention of the Second Continental Congress in late June 1776, the colonies had unofficially been in rebellion against Great Britain for over a year. The infamous yet inspiring Battle of Bunker Hill had already taken place and the Continental Army had been driven from Long Island, New York.
Colonial forces, led and commanded by Gen. George Washington, were already on the run when the delegates in Philadelphia met to come to an agreement on independence.
A young Virginia lawyer named Thomas Jefferson was in charge drafting a declaration that was to be sent to and read by King George himself.
The exact date of the signing of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is uncertain, but we know that the convention of the Second Continental Congress was in session on July 4, 1776 and that a draft of the Declaration had been presented around or on that day.
Nonetheless, when Jefferson penned the final draft, it was presented to the delegation, which then, to the last man, signed it.
The very last words of the Declaration of Independence turned out to be its most poignant: "To these ends, we, the undersigned, pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
That just about summed up what America's Founding Fathers stood for. They were prepared to shed their own blood, if necessary, to not only defend independence, but to see it come to fruition. They were prepared to give the last full measure of devotion for an idea that men are not only created free and equal under God, but also have a right to be free and equal.
I often wonder what the founders would think about American society today. What would they say about the growth and size of government over the last century? How would they feel about the role of government in our daily lives? Most importantly, what would they think of the tens of thousands of laws passed by Congress over the decades all in an effort to protect the American public from itself?
Would they approve, or perhaps be aghast at the gross violations of individual liberty being committed by government today and the apathy and complacency of the people to let it happen to them?
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security."
It seems that today's America has either forgotten or ignored those words. Nearly every law passed today is supposedly for our own good. But each law that is passed shaves and chips away a little bit of personal, individual liberty. So small is the change from each law that we scarcely notice it. But put all of those chips and shavings into a pile and we might become alarmed at just how much individual liberty has been lost over the years.
And why? Because people have misused and abused liberty for their own selfish purposes and gains. Their misconception of liberty being the freedom to do whatever one wants has led to abuses that have hurt others. Add to it that politicians see suffering as an opportunity for them to make changes and exert their power and authority. The result is a recipe for lost liberty and superficial freedom; that is, freedom that the government permits us, rather than authentic freedom that comes only from the grace of Almighty God.
This is not the freedom that the founders staked their lives, their fortunes or their sacred honor for. This is not the freedom that thousands of early colonists died to obtain during the American Revolution. This is not the freedom that hundreds of thousands more have perished to protect and defend over the centuries and decades.
America has lost her way. I fear that the sacrifices of our ancestors may have been in vain if we don't wake up, take gentle hold of precious liberty and cradle it as the fragile, priceless gift that it is; not the entitlement we have come to expect it to be.
I hope we all remember what the Fourth of July is really all about. Not fireworks, hot dogs, barbecues or parties. Not flags or colors or even patriotism.
The Fourth of July is really about the birth of an idea; an idea that changed the world for the better. An idea that has given hope to millions worldwide.
But like any other ideas, those of the America Revolution are not invincible. In fact, they are fragile. They die if we do not take care of them, love them, cherish them or hold them dear to our hearts.
May this Fourth of July, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Ten, be the one that spawns change in our hearts, our culture, our society and our government. Change that brings us back to where we should be and where individual liberty can flourish without being choked to death by laws, policies and regulations. May this be the year we decide as a people to live by the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution; not just pay them lip service.
Those values were relevant then and they are relevant now. They are the values that promote and spawn individual initiative, invention, ingenuity, and greatness. They promote equality for all; not just a few. They support the pursuits of happiness for everyone; not just the privileged.
And these values were designed to keep government honest; something I think every one of us--liberal, conservative, progressive, moderate, right and left wing--can appreciate.
There are those among us who say that the values of the American Revolution, America's traditional values, are antiquated and outdated. They cannot be applied effectively in today's culture and society.
I say they can. People change. Values and principles do not. All it would take for the revolutionary principles to succeed again is for peoples' beliefs in them to change. When you believe in something, you will do what it takes to make it work.
The America of our founders can live again, if we will it to. The question is, do we have the courage and the fortitude to do what the delegates of the Second Continental Congress did 234 years ago? Are we willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to an idea? If we are, then America's greatness will return. If not, she will sadly fade into obscurity.
I hope and pray that Americans haven't lost their will to fight for what they believe in. I cling to a hope and belief that the principles and values of the Revolution and the Declaration are not forgotten and are still loved.
This Fourth of July, make an effort to plant the seed of liberty into your heart, nurture it, cultivate it, and help it grow. Resolve to teach your children that liberty isn't free and it comes at a great price. But it is one worth paying, because it has done so many great things for people worldwide.
Be happy, be safe, but most of all, be free.
Like any other summer, that particular one 234 years ago was alive with fragrances in full bloom; the sounds of children playing in fields of wild flowers, and splashing about in creeks and ponds where it was cool; young animals frolicking in the fields; men and women toiling in their gardens and on their farms; and the happy songs of birds, crickets and frogs relishing in the summer solstice.
But as common as the summer of 1776 seemed at the time, little did the people living in it know that it would become the summer unlike any other in the history of the world.
For in June and July of 1776 a group of delegates making up the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to form a new nation, conceived in individual liberty and political freedom. They spent days agonizing in the heat while struggling to come to an agreement of what to say to King George III, monarch of Great Britain and absolute ruler over the American colonies.
For the last several years, resistance to the British crown had been escalating because of political tyranny and inequality. From the Stamp Act to the Tea tax, angst and anger among the American colonies over the King's unfair treatment of his subjects in the New World was spreading. Colonists reacted to the King's proclamations with exclamations of their own, including the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre.
In 1775, King George dispatched a legion of several thousand troops to the colonies in an effort to snuff out rebellion and discourage further spread of revolutionary fervor. The trouble is that he was too late. By the time the British army landed, colonists were waiting for them with baited breath. Night riders like the famed Paul Revere rode from town to town warning of the advance of the British army into the countryside. Militias of armed colonists met the British Red Coats at the crossroads of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.
Before the convention of the Second Continental Congress in late June 1776, the colonies had unofficially been in rebellion against Great Britain for over a year. The infamous yet inspiring Battle of Bunker Hill had already taken place and the Continental Army had been driven from Long Island, New York.
Colonial forces, led and commanded by Gen. George Washington, were already on the run when the delegates in Philadelphia met to come to an agreement on independence.
A young Virginia lawyer named Thomas Jefferson was in charge drafting a declaration that was to be sent to and read by King George himself.
The exact date of the signing of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is uncertain, but we know that the convention of the Second Continental Congress was in session on July 4, 1776 and that a draft of the Declaration had been presented around or on that day.
Nonetheless, when Jefferson penned the final draft, it was presented to the delegation, which then, to the last man, signed it.
The very last words of the Declaration of Independence turned out to be its most poignant: "To these ends, we, the undersigned, pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
That just about summed up what America's Founding Fathers stood for. They were prepared to shed their own blood, if necessary, to not only defend independence, but to see it come to fruition. They were prepared to give the last full measure of devotion for an idea that men are not only created free and equal under God, but also have a right to be free and equal.
I often wonder what the founders would think about American society today. What would they say about the growth and size of government over the last century? How would they feel about the role of government in our daily lives? Most importantly, what would they think of the tens of thousands of laws passed by Congress over the decades all in an effort to protect the American public from itself?
Would they approve, or perhaps be aghast at the gross violations of individual liberty being committed by government today and the apathy and complacency of the people to let it happen to them?
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security."
It seems that today's America has either forgotten or ignored those words. Nearly every law passed today is supposedly for our own good. But each law that is passed shaves and chips away a little bit of personal, individual liberty. So small is the change from each law that we scarcely notice it. But put all of those chips and shavings into a pile and we might become alarmed at just how much individual liberty has been lost over the years.
And why? Because people have misused and abused liberty for their own selfish purposes and gains. Their misconception of liberty being the freedom to do whatever one wants has led to abuses that have hurt others. Add to it that politicians see suffering as an opportunity for them to make changes and exert their power and authority. The result is a recipe for lost liberty and superficial freedom; that is, freedom that the government permits us, rather than authentic freedom that comes only from the grace of Almighty God.
This is not the freedom that the founders staked their lives, their fortunes or their sacred honor for. This is not the freedom that thousands of early colonists died to obtain during the American Revolution. This is not the freedom that hundreds of thousands more have perished to protect and defend over the centuries and decades.
America has lost her way. I fear that the sacrifices of our ancestors may have been in vain if we don't wake up, take gentle hold of precious liberty and cradle it as the fragile, priceless gift that it is; not the entitlement we have come to expect it to be.
I hope we all remember what the Fourth of July is really all about. Not fireworks, hot dogs, barbecues or parties. Not flags or colors or even patriotism.
The Fourth of July is really about the birth of an idea; an idea that changed the world for the better. An idea that has given hope to millions worldwide.
But like any other ideas, those of the America Revolution are not invincible. In fact, they are fragile. They die if we do not take care of them, love them, cherish them or hold them dear to our hearts.
May this Fourth of July, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Ten, be the one that spawns change in our hearts, our culture, our society and our government. Change that brings us back to where we should be and where individual liberty can flourish without being choked to death by laws, policies and regulations. May this be the year we decide as a people to live by the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution; not just pay them lip service.
Those values were relevant then and they are relevant now. They are the values that promote and spawn individual initiative, invention, ingenuity, and greatness. They promote equality for all; not just a few. They support the pursuits of happiness for everyone; not just the privileged.
And these values were designed to keep government honest; something I think every one of us--liberal, conservative, progressive, moderate, right and left wing--can appreciate.
There are those among us who say that the values of the American Revolution, America's traditional values, are antiquated and outdated. They cannot be applied effectively in today's culture and society.
I say they can. People change. Values and principles do not. All it would take for the revolutionary principles to succeed again is for peoples' beliefs in them to change. When you believe in something, you will do what it takes to make it work.
The America of our founders can live again, if we will it to. The question is, do we have the courage and the fortitude to do what the delegates of the Second Continental Congress did 234 years ago? Are we willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to an idea? If we are, then America's greatness will return. If not, she will sadly fade into obscurity.
I hope and pray that Americans haven't lost their will to fight for what they believe in. I cling to a hope and belief that the principles and values of the Revolution and the Declaration are not forgotten and are still loved.
This Fourth of July, make an effort to plant the seed of liberty into your heart, nurture it, cultivate it, and help it grow. Resolve to teach your children that liberty isn't free and it comes at a great price. But it is one worth paying, because it has done so many great things for people worldwide.
Be happy, be safe, but most of all, be free.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Zealots need not apply
I cringe whenever I hear politicians say they want to be elected to office, because to “want” something implies a degree of ambition and zeal. Have you ever wanted something so badly that you would be willing to do anything to get it? If so, then at one time or another in your life, you have been a zealot.
Politicians, as a general rule, are by their very nature zealots whose ambition is for power, which, in a constitutional republic like the United States of America, exists in elected office.
Historically, U.S. politicians have sought office for a variety of reasons, among them: to advance a political agenda, to establish for themselves a forum to express their views, to achieve position, and to reap the monetary benefits of public service. But no matter how you slice it, what the bottom line comes down to is power.
There is power in pushing and leading a cause or agenda. There is power in standing on a soap box for everyone to see and hear you. There is power with achieving a higher social position. And, there is certainly power with money.
Power is narcissism, pure and simple. It is ego-boosting and self-aggrandizing, period. That is why so many politicians want it. And, as important as we’ve made self-esteem out to be in modern times, it is no wonder. After all, nothing really matters except feeling good about ourselves. If power makes a politician feel good, then so be it.
The trouble is, throughout human history, men and women have sought power with reckless abandon and relentless pursuit. You can trace the rise and fall of many civilizations, both ancient and contemporary, back to the pursuit of power. Rome crumbled from within because of the appetites of the Caesars and their successors. The Mongols collapsed because of power struggles between the Khans. Europe has been plagued with wars since the Dark Ages because of power—the last of which came at a cost of millions of human lives.
As different as their views and circumstances were, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler were both zealots who sought power. Just look at the results of this zeal: Ninety years of human suffering under communism and fascism, resulting in the deaths of millions. Men like Lenin and Hitler spawned followers, such as Mao Zedong, Pol-Pot, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the Ayetollahs and Shas of Iran, Moamar Ghadaffi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, even Osama bin Laden. Their appetites for power have been the same, and the results of their power also comparable.
Julius Caesar’s ascension to power was the death of the Roman Republic and hastened the end of ancient Roman civilization.
The First Crusade of England’s King Richard the Lionheart to Israel led to a dozen more just like it and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Power and its pursuit have historically resulted in human suffering.
But human beings either don’t get this connection or just don’t care.
Closer to home, we see relative human suffering everyday with local economies reaping the consequences of overzealous politicians. Whether it’s a city councilor voting to raise taxes to pay for a state-of-the-art facility, or the President of the United States signing a bill that results in dozens of companies going out of business and thousands of jobs lost, there is a great toll on the human burden to fuel this power.
With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow a phrase.
There is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately, many of our elected leaders become so focused on the power that they lose sight of the responsibility that comes with it.
As such, I am not impressed by candidates who say they “want” public office. I am more impressed by candidates that express their interest as a duty and a responsibility, rather than a want or desire. God knows we could use fewer zealots and demagogues in elected office and more level-headed people who have a sense of responsibility and obligation to represent their neighborhoods, communities, districts and country.
Politicians, as a general rule, are by their very nature zealots whose ambition is for power, which, in a constitutional republic like the United States of America, exists in elected office.
Historically, U.S. politicians have sought office for a variety of reasons, among them: to advance a political agenda, to establish for themselves a forum to express their views, to achieve position, and to reap the monetary benefits of public service. But no matter how you slice it, what the bottom line comes down to is power.
There is power in pushing and leading a cause or agenda. There is power in standing on a soap box for everyone to see and hear you. There is power with achieving a higher social position. And, there is certainly power with money.
Power is narcissism, pure and simple. It is ego-boosting and self-aggrandizing, period. That is why so many politicians want it. And, as important as we’ve made self-esteem out to be in modern times, it is no wonder. After all, nothing really matters except feeling good about ourselves. If power makes a politician feel good, then so be it.
The trouble is, throughout human history, men and women have sought power with reckless abandon and relentless pursuit. You can trace the rise and fall of many civilizations, both ancient and contemporary, back to the pursuit of power. Rome crumbled from within because of the appetites of the Caesars and their successors. The Mongols collapsed because of power struggles between the Khans. Europe has been plagued with wars since the Dark Ages because of power—the last of which came at a cost of millions of human lives.
As different as their views and circumstances were, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler were both zealots who sought power. Just look at the results of this zeal: Ninety years of human suffering under communism and fascism, resulting in the deaths of millions. Men like Lenin and Hitler spawned followers, such as Mao Zedong, Pol-Pot, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the Ayetollahs and Shas of Iran, Moamar Ghadaffi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, even Osama bin Laden. Their appetites for power have been the same, and the results of their power also comparable.
Julius Caesar’s ascension to power was the death of the Roman Republic and hastened the end of ancient Roman civilization.
The First Crusade of England’s King Richard the Lionheart to Israel led to a dozen more just like it and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Power and its pursuit have historically resulted in human suffering.
But human beings either don’t get this connection or just don’t care.
Closer to home, we see relative human suffering everyday with local economies reaping the consequences of overzealous politicians. Whether it’s a city councilor voting to raise taxes to pay for a state-of-the-art facility, or the President of the United States signing a bill that results in dozens of companies going out of business and thousands of jobs lost, there is a great toll on the human burden to fuel this power.
With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow a phrase.
There is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately, many of our elected leaders become so focused on the power that they lose sight of the responsibility that comes with it.
As such, I am not impressed by candidates who say they “want” public office. I am more impressed by candidates that express their interest as a duty and a responsibility, rather than a want or desire. God knows we could use fewer zealots and demagogues in elected office and more level-headed people who have a sense of responsibility and obligation to represent their neighborhoods, communities, districts and country.
How to qualify for office
Every presidential election season seems to begin with a lot of talk about who is the most experienced, most energetic and most enthusiastic candidate for the office of President of the United States. But I dare say that none of these qualities are necessarily attractive when it comes to choosing the next commander-in-chief.
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience can be a liability, too
Whoever said, “Experience is the best teacher,” probably was not referring to politics.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A farewell...not a swan song
This is going to be my last blog entry for a while. I don't know yet how long "a while" is going to be, but first things first.
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
