With this presidential campaign coming to a close, we have heard claim on claim on tax cuts and who got what tax cuts. I was curious on the facts of taxes and who pays what.
I went out to the Congressional Budget Office's website and accessed information on taxes for the last 30 years. Here is what I found.
In 1981 the wealthest 20% of all tax payers paid 63.9% of all the income taxes and the Top 1% paid a whopping 16.3%. That is understandable, we did have a 75% tax rate for the wealthiest and a people loving President and Congress in office.
But then came the greedy Reaganites and the Reagan Tax Cuts, and the percentage when down to 66.9% and 21.2%, Wait that was not down, it was higher percent. That's strange the averages started to rise and rise. In 2001 the rate was a 82.5 % and 34.4%. The richest 1% paid over a third of all income taxes?
Then comes the illigimate George W. Bush and his "for the wealthy" tax cut, and we all know that poor started paying much more of the taxes. And yes, they did! In 2003, after the first tax cut was in affect rates went down to 84.8% and 34.8%. AH, that was up again.
For sure the 2003 tax cut had the rate drop for the wealthy. We all remember Tom Dachle come out and show that the common person got back only enough for a muffler and the rich could afford a Lexus. ....HUH? the Rate when up again. In 2005, the last year available the rates went up to 86.3% and 38.8%.
Now we are on the verge of having a true champion of the people and he has promised that 95% will not have a tax increase. He has also said that he would get rid of this "Bush TaxCut". Is this not raising taxes on the lower classes of wage earners? Go Figure.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3089&type=0
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc6133/03-01-EffectiveTaxRates.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
ACORN and Limiting Fraud
I have been seeing a number of articles in the last few days on Officials in Battleground States raiding ACORN offices and finding thousands and thousands of fraudulent registrations let alone the ones that were already turned in. With such a close election coming up in November this could affect the balance of power in this country. How can we get the most honest elections by not taking away the most freedoms. I have been thinking about this for a while and this is what I have come up with.
Getting Equal Voter Representation and Limiting Fraud
I am going to make three assumption that I think we can all agree on. First, let us agree that we need an equal representation in each vote. Secondly, We are speaking here as to the best way to limit the fraud. Thirdly, To hide Voter Fraud a group can only do small amounts that affect only 2-5% of the overall election.
Option 1: Direct Democracy
If each person is one vote of 200 million possible voters and each person is limited to one vote we would have Equal Representation. But we have voter fraud that gives people more votes then they are allowed and lowering the real voters representation. So with a direct election each vote is affected by any fraud that is done. So this would be the hardest to limit the affect of Fraud on each vote. Remember at only +5 fraudulent votes for a candidate in the 200,000+ precincts would cause 1,000,000+ more votes for that candidate and Al Gore won the popular vote by only 500,000 votes.
Option 2: State Winner Takes All
If we use today's style of elections where each State's Electors are selected by the popular vote of State we get a little different issue. In Illinois we have 8 million possible voters deciding 21 Electorals. This means that voter fraud that happens in this State affects only 21 of the 538 Electorals. Now we need to realize that since Fraud can only affect 2-5%, without being obvious, Fraud must be done in states that are close. This is why you hear about fraud in Missouri, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada and other "Swing States". This is the weakness in the State's winner-take-all Electoral decision. In the large cities of these States it is easy to hide fraud so a Group like ACORN can breakup into multiple States and cause damage in close Presidential races. 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio both could have been affected by fraud. But these are not the only States that fraud might have affected. Any State that was within 5,000 to 10,000 votes could have easily been affected by voter fraud. So any close national election could easily be affected by fraud in this system.
Option 3: Representative Election
If we made it so each District would elect it's own Elector that is tied to a Presidential Candidate, voter fraud would only affect votes in that District. A Congressional District has approximately 680,000 people or 445,000 possible voters. Since each District had approximately the same population, voter representation would also be retained. one in 445,000 votes would determine one of 438 Electoral and one vote of the States Population would decide two of the final 100 Electorals. This would also make it much harder for Groups like ACORN to perpetuate fraud on a national election. The two Senatorial Electorals would still be determined by the State as a whole and could not be limited as much from fraud, but 19 independent Districts would be. This is better then either of the first two alternatives. To have national fraud, a group would have to have power in many more Districts and can not hide in the large Cities only.
A Representative Election is best way to limit the fraud that happen at every election. For this reason, I believe that each State should change it's electoral election to a District by District election of Electors. This would remove the ability to change election by voter fraud.
Getting Equal Voter Representation and Limiting Fraud
I am going to make three assumption that I think we can all agree on. First, let us agree that we need an equal representation in each vote. Secondly, We are speaking here as to the best way to limit the fraud. Thirdly, To hide Voter Fraud a group can only do small amounts that affect only 2-5% of the overall election.
Option 1: Direct Democracy
If each person is one vote of 200 million possible voters and each person is limited to one vote we would have Equal Representation. But we have voter fraud that gives people more votes then they are allowed and lowering the real voters representation. So with a direct election each vote is affected by any fraud that is done. So this would be the hardest to limit the affect of Fraud on each vote. Remember at only +5 fraudulent votes for a candidate in the 200,000+ precincts would cause 1,000,000+ more votes for that candidate and Al Gore won the popular vote by only 500,000 votes.
Option 2: State Winner Takes All
If we use today's style of elections where each State's Electors are selected by the popular vote of State we get a little different issue. In Illinois we have 8 million possible voters deciding 21 Electorals. This means that voter fraud that happens in this State affects only 21 of the 538 Electorals. Now we need to realize that since Fraud can only affect 2-5%, without being obvious, Fraud must be done in states that are close. This is why you hear about fraud in Missouri, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada and other "Swing States". This is the weakness in the State's winner-take-all Electoral decision. In the large cities of these States it is easy to hide fraud so a Group like ACORN can breakup into multiple States and cause damage in close Presidential races. 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio both could have been affected by fraud. But these are not the only States that fraud might have affected. Any State that was within 5,000 to 10,000 votes could have easily been affected by voter fraud. So any close national election could easily be affected by fraud in this system.
Option 3: Representative Election
If we made it so each District would elect it's own Elector that is tied to a Presidential Candidate, voter fraud would only affect votes in that District. A Congressional District has approximately 680,000 people or 445,000 possible voters. Since each District had approximately the same population, voter representation would also be retained. one in 445,000 votes would determine one of 438 Electoral and one vote of the States Population would decide two of the final 100 Electorals. This would also make it much harder for Groups like ACORN to perpetuate fraud on a national election. The two Senatorial Electorals would still be determined by the State as a whole and could not be limited as much from fraud, but 19 independent Districts would be. This is better then either of the first two alternatives. To have national fraud, a group would have to have power in many more Districts and can not hide in the large Cities only.
A Representative Election is best way to limit the fraud that happen at every election. For this reason, I believe that each State should change it's electoral election to a District by District election of Electors. This would remove the ability to change election by voter fraud.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Tyler's Interview
This is an interview I did with a young man in my church. I am impressed he did so much with so little. I made 27 minutes of ramblings into 10 minutes of semi-ramblings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubkhBvkAhmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubkhBvkAhmI
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Supreme Court
A few years ago the Ten Commandments were removed from the judicial building in Alabama. We here in Illinois we don’t have to worry about a decision that was against a Judge in Alabama. Well unless you consider that if not overturned by the Supreme Court, this might remove the remaining rights from the states and more disturbingly, removed the last bit of credibility from the Supreme Court.
“Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority…“ - United States Constitution
During the creation of the Constitution, not much concern was given to the judicial branch. As was said in the Federalist papers during the ratification period, “The judicial branch…will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” This was because the judicial branch’s job was simple. Interrupt the Constitution. Take what the Constitution says and compare it to the case, decide first if this is a federal issue or a states issue. (Remembering that the 10th amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) Then if this is a federal issue, take the “Fundamental Law” of the constitution and make sure the Congress’ law met this.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – Preamble, United States Constitution
The Constitution was written for the people so it is not that hard to understand. So the “legalese” is not present. What it says “is” what it says. So when an amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, then it should be commonly understood that this means, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not infer that there is a “Wall of Separation between the Church and State, nor does it mean, that “Congress” means anything but congress. Since this only speaks of making law how can it be anything more? Does the Supreme Court make laws? Not until now.
I am a common man, no PHD in government nor a graduate of Harvard Law School. But I am a man that has more education then 95% of the population of the original 13 states, including more then 50% of the “Founding Fathers”. Is the Supreme Court telling me that I cannot understand this document because I have not studied law and understand precedence and the nuances of the law? I say, that unlike criminal law, constitutional law has no precedence possible. The Constitution does not change, even after a decision such as “Separation of Church and State”, the physical document is still the same, unless amended. The Article III does not allow for precedence. A Court has one thing to make its decision on, The Constitution. And the words of the Constitution are very clear. “…extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution …”
Time has come for “We the people” to stand up and speak out for the document that has kept us free for 216 years. Will this Court next deem that the second amendment does not mean that the individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, or that the first amendment say that freedom of speech is freedom to think anything but not to say anything. They have already stated that the 10th amendment is no longer valid.
“Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority…“ - United States Constitution
During the creation of the Constitution, not much concern was given to the judicial branch. As was said in the Federalist papers during the ratification period, “The judicial branch…will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” This was because the judicial branch’s job was simple. Interrupt the Constitution. Take what the Constitution says and compare it to the case, decide first if this is a federal issue or a states issue. (Remembering that the 10th amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) Then if this is a federal issue, take the “Fundamental Law” of the constitution and make sure the Congress’ law met this.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – Preamble, United States Constitution
The Constitution was written for the people so it is not that hard to understand. So the “legalese” is not present. What it says “is” what it says. So when an amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, then it should be commonly understood that this means, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not infer that there is a “Wall of Separation between the Church and State, nor does it mean, that “Congress” means anything but congress. Since this only speaks of making law how can it be anything more? Does the Supreme Court make laws? Not until now.
I am a common man, no PHD in government nor a graduate of Harvard Law School. But I am a man that has more education then 95% of the population of the original 13 states, including more then 50% of the “Founding Fathers”. Is the Supreme Court telling me that I cannot understand this document because I have not studied law and understand precedence and the nuances of the law? I say, that unlike criminal law, constitutional law has no precedence possible. The Constitution does not change, even after a decision such as “Separation of Church and State”, the physical document is still the same, unless amended. The Article III does not allow for precedence. A Court has one thing to make its decision on, The Constitution. And the words of the Constitution are very clear. “…extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution …”
Time has come for “We the people” to stand up and speak out for the document that has kept us free for 216 years. Will this Court next deem that the second amendment does not mean that the individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, or that the first amendment say that freedom of speech is freedom to think anything but not to say anything. They have already stated that the 10th amendment is no longer valid.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Electoral College and the Two-Party System
In November of 2000 the country and most of the world were turned upside down waiting on endless court battles on who will be the most influential position in the world. After a trip to the Supreme Court the decision was made final. We ended with a man that did not gain a victory in the populous vote, but did win a majority of the electoral votes. With all of this chaos brought us to a new retrospection to the way presidential elections are held and the pros and cons of our current system. Some have stated that the Electoral College should be removed to better represent the majority vote. Others have stated that a multi-party system would better serve the country and that the two-party system is the problem. I would say that I disagree with both of these statements. I will first say that the Electoral College was not the problem in the election, but it worked in exactly the way it was supposed to. Secondly, the two-party system is not a system that is enforced but more a natural effect of our form of republican government.
Looking at the figures of the 2000 election, we see that the nation was divided. One side was made up of conservatives with the religious fundamentalist, the individualist, the pro-lifers, and many other groups that believed in a candidate that was in tune with them. And, the other side was made up of liberals that included groups like the environmentalist, the unions, pro-choicers, and many more that believe in an alternate candidate. In the middle are people who are moderates, people that do not involve themselves in political issues until the time to decide the presidency. And, this group ends up dividing itself in to these two factions as well.
The vote totals showed that there was more then the issues that divided the country. Location also dictated how people voted. In the states with the greatest amount of voters in the metropolitan areas voted at a 55% - 65% rate for Al Gore, with areas like DC voting at an 85% to 9% for Gore and rural areas like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho had 68% for Bush. But, in states that were mixed with rural and metropolitan voters were the states that decided the election. Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were all states that selected Al Gore by less then 1%. The infamous Florida election was .1% difference. Not surprisingly the popular vote for the 2000 election was split evenly with a .51% difference, 48.38% to 47.87%. The electoral vote represented this split of the populous vote well. The closeness of the populous vote in these states is best described by the fact that if New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa would have voted just 10,000 votes to the right, Florida would not of mattered. And, if 7000 more people voted for Gore in New Hampshire it would have been a one electoral win for him.
The popular vote being so close, the states became a player. With each of the states receiving minimum of three Electoral votes instead of just one for each district, it gives an electoral benefit for the small states, en masse, to help stop the “Favorite Son” syndrome and to protect the rights of the minority of the smaller states. Since George Bush captured more individual states he was able to win a majority of the Electoral vote. Even though the popular vote was a small victory for Gore, George Bush won the election because he appealed to a greater diversity of people. So, we see that the Electoral College did work the way it was designed to.
With the issue of the Electoral College addressed, I would like to dive into the issue of the Third and multi-parties. What some people are proposing is, if we had a Third party or a multi-party system it would be better for the political wellness of the country. I view the two-party system as a natural consequence of our form of Republic. With the need for a majority of the Electoral votes to keep the election from going to the House, factions need to work together to achieve their goals.
At the time of the creation of the Constitution there were no national parties, nor did the creators think that there would be. Just four years later, we had two, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Two parties seemed to be the natural choice. The next move in the parties happened when the Anti-Federalist fell to the wayside and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson became the dominate party and the Federalist gave way to the National-Republicans and then to the Anti-Masons, the Whigs, and finally to the Republicans of today.
During all the years of political change, the nation has always moved to a two-party system. There have been four occasions in the last 100 years that a third party has gotten electoral votes in the election for the Presidency. Of these four only Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican running as an alternative to the Republican nominee Taft, was able to garner a second place finish.
One reason the two-party system works in our form of government is that our parties encompass many factions. The Republican Party is considered a Conservative party and includes the Pro-Life group, the religious evangelicals, the anti-tax crowd, the gun owners rights groups, the limited government group, and people who believe in capitalism. The Democratic Party is considered a Liberal party and factions like the Pro-Choice group, Environmentalist, Gun Control crowd, the Pro-activist government crowd, and the Unions seem to gravitate to it.
Having these Parties so diametrically opposed to each other gives the public a choice and the parties a responsibility to make decisions to balance the wants of the inner factions and also adjusting the message to help attract persons that are not affiliated with either of the parties. In this way the need for more then two parties is not there. There are some groups that do not believe in the compromise aspect of two-party system and have created other smaller parties, but these groups do not gain national power, although they have won regional races. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are all parties that have attempted to gain national office, but can only garner a minimal support from its most loyal members. The way they can gain power is open them selves to other factions and have one of the two big dogs stop reaching out to others. This is possible, but not likely.
*All election statistics were taken from http://www.infoplease.com/
Looking at the figures of the 2000 election, we see that the nation was divided. One side was made up of conservatives with the religious fundamentalist, the individualist, the pro-lifers, and many other groups that believed in a candidate that was in tune with them. And, the other side was made up of liberals that included groups like the environmentalist, the unions, pro-choicers, and many more that believe in an alternate candidate. In the middle are people who are moderates, people that do not involve themselves in political issues until the time to decide the presidency. And, this group ends up dividing itself in to these two factions as well.
The vote totals showed that there was more then the issues that divided the country. Location also dictated how people voted. In the states with the greatest amount of voters in the metropolitan areas voted at a 55% - 65% rate for Al Gore, with areas like DC voting at an 85% to 9% for Gore and rural areas like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho had 68% for Bush. But, in states that were mixed with rural and metropolitan voters were the states that decided the election. Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were all states that selected Al Gore by less then 1%. The infamous Florida election was .1% difference. Not surprisingly the popular vote for the 2000 election was split evenly with a .51% difference, 48.38% to 47.87%. The electoral vote represented this split of the populous vote well. The closeness of the populous vote in these states is best described by the fact that if New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa would have voted just 10,000 votes to the right, Florida would not of mattered. And, if 7000 more people voted for Gore in New Hampshire it would have been a one electoral win for him.
The popular vote being so close, the states became a player. With each of the states receiving minimum of three Electoral votes instead of just one for each district, it gives an electoral benefit for the small states, en masse, to help stop the “Favorite Son” syndrome and to protect the rights of the minority of the smaller states. Since George Bush captured more individual states he was able to win a majority of the Electoral vote. Even though the popular vote was a small victory for Gore, George Bush won the election because he appealed to a greater diversity of people. So, we see that the Electoral College did work the way it was designed to.
With the issue of the Electoral College addressed, I would like to dive into the issue of the Third and multi-parties. What some people are proposing is, if we had a Third party or a multi-party system it would be better for the political wellness of the country. I view the two-party system as a natural consequence of our form of Republic. With the need for a majority of the Electoral votes to keep the election from going to the House, factions need to work together to achieve their goals.
At the time of the creation of the Constitution there were no national parties, nor did the creators think that there would be. Just four years later, we had two, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Two parties seemed to be the natural choice. The next move in the parties happened when the Anti-Federalist fell to the wayside and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson became the dominate party and the Federalist gave way to the National-Republicans and then to the Anti-Masons, the Whigs, and finally to the Republicans of today.
During all the years of political change, the nation has always moved to a two-party system. There have been four occasions in the last 100 years that a third party has gotten electoral votes in the election for the Presidency. Of these four only Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican running as an alternative to the Republican nominee Taft, was able to garner a second place finish.
One reason the two-party system works in our form of government is that our parties encompass many factions. The Republican Party is considered a Conservative party and includes the Pro-Life group, the religious evangelicals, the anti-tax crowd, the gun owners rights groups, the limited government group, and people who believe in capitalism. The Democratic Party is considered a Liberal party and factions like the Pro-Choice group, Environmentalist, Gun Control crowd, the Pro-activist government crowd, and the Unions seem to gravitate to it.
Having these Parties so diametrically opposed to each other gives the public a choice and the parties a responsibility to make decisions to balance the wants of the inner factions and also adjusting the message to help attract persons that are not affiliated with either of the parties. In this way the need for more then two parties is not there. There are some groups that do not believe in the compromise aspect of two-party system and have created other smaller parties, but these groups do not gain national power, although they have won regional races. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are all parties that have attempted to gain national office, but can only garner a minimal support from its most loyal members. The way they can gain power is open them selves to other factions and have one of the two big dogs stop reaching out to others. This is possible, but not likely.
*All election statistics were taken from http://www.infoplease.com/
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Electoral Folly
I read this article in the Sun-Times and had to write a Letter to the editor here in Peoria.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Electoral College; the Guardian of our Rights
I just read that state lawmakers have been putting together a plan to replace the Electoral College with a mandate that all the electorals would be decided by the national popular vote. This scares me. Of all the things that have been done to the Constitution in the last fifty years this would be the worst.
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Social Welfare, Helping the Butterfly
Our Pastor opened this morning's Sunday School lesson with a story of a boy that found a butterfly that was just getting out of its cocoon and it was struggling. This boy had a heart of gold. He thought that he could go inside and get a pair of siscors and cut the cocoon so the butterfly would have an easier time of getting out. So he did. But he came to find out latter that he had just cursed this butterfly to a life without flight. Because of this charity, the butterfly never had to struggle to come out of the cocoon which just happened to be way that the butterfly gained strength and bloodflow to help him develop the large beautiful wings that carry it in such majestic manner. So this loving boy with the big heart unwittingly changed the fate of this butterfly from a creature that helps nature, continues to pro-create and most of all, brings a beauty to nature that is not always there, into a creature that most likely became toad food within a few minutes of falling from the tree.
The Pastor here went off on Ephisians 5:15-16 and my mind, like always, went in a totally different tangent. My tangent is the affect of the Great Society on the people this program was supposed to help, the poor. In the "Does One Great Man Out Weight 1000 Criminals" post I did a few weeks ago, I tried to show that in the end, I believe that the great society had more to do with the high crime rates starting from the mid 1960s. And now I also want to state that it is also the cause of many other issues that have arisen since, such as the perpetual poverty, high illigitamace rates, and continued racial issues.
This is a repeat of the Boy and the Butterfly. In the 1960s after the long battle to help racial equality our leaders felt this good intentioned need to cut the cocoon and create an assistance to help the poor. Believing that the poor needed help to climb out of poverty, LBJ and congress created a program that gave money to the poor and they magically would become middle classed by having a steady income. But what happened was the "Butterfly" never flew. The checks came and nothing changed. Many problems developed from this. One problem was that the program was setup as an assistance to un-wed mothers only. So the incentive for having legitamite children was gone. Sure they have three squares, but little else. The childern grew up with little hope for the future, boy's had little leadership from fathers and so they replaced that with leadership from the men of the gangs. The rise of gangs caused a rise in crime and as can be seen in the middle of the 1960s on, crime rate increase corrolates directly to the begining of this "Great Society".
So what went wrong with this Great Society? I believe that the premise that it was created with was the problem. I think the framers had seen the great strives in the Civil Rights and wanted to continue it to better the plight of the lower income blacks. They used the tool that they believed to be the best to do this, Government. I don't think they realized that government was not what gave them the victories in the Civil Right fights, it was the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and all the people that followed them. It was the struggles to get out of the cocoon that created this great change, not government. So what do we do now? Most importantly we restore hope. With all the government assistance, people never had something to look forward to except a check. Cool, we can live one more week. But what can they look forward too? I think we as a society need most is to give hope to the needy. The problem is that the government can't give hope. Hope only comes in knowing that things will get better. Only then do people stop being angry. Only then do they start looking at how they to better there life. I believe that only the Churches, Mosques, and Synogoues can start the revival of Hope. It's time to return this issues back to where it belongs, the people that give hope not just money. Let us give each American the vision and hope that Martin Luther King gave in his "I have a Dream" Speech;
"...I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."
And the butterfly takes flight!!
The Pastor here went off on Ephisians 5:15-16 and my mind, like always, went in a totally different tangent. My tangent is the affect of the Great Society on the people this program was supposed to help, the poor. In the "Does One Great Man Out Weight 1000 Criminals" post I did a few weeks ago, I tried to show that in the end, I believe that the great society had more to do with the high crime rates starting from the mid 1960s. And now I also want to state that it is also the cause of many other issues that have arisen since, such as the perpetual poverty, high illigitamace rates, and continued racial issues.
This is a repeat of the Boy and the Butterfly. In the 1960s after the long battle to help racial equality our leaders felt this good intentioned need to cut the cocoon and create an assistance to help the poor. Believing that the poor needed help to climb out of poverty, LBJ and congress created a program that gave money to the poor and they magically would become middle classed by having a steady income. But what happened was the "Butterfly" never flew. The checks came and nothing changed. Many problems developed from this. One problem was that the program was setup as an assistance to un-wed mothers only. So the incentive for having legitamite children was gone. Sure they have three squares, but little else. The childern grew up with little hope for the future, boy's had little leadership from fathers and so they replaced that with leadership from the men of the gangs. The rise of gangs caused a rise in crime and as can be seen in the middle of the 1960s on, crime rate increase corrolates directly to the begining of this "Great Society".
So what went wrong with this Great Society? I believe that the premise that it was created with was the problem. I think the framers had seen the great strives in the Civil Rights and wanted to continue it to better the plight of the lower income blacks. They used the tool that they believed to be the best to do this, Government. I don't think they realized that government was not what gave them the victories in the Civil Right fights, it was the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and all the people that followed them. It was the struggles to get out of the cocoon that created this great change, not government. So what do we do now? Most importantly we restore hope. With all the government assistance, people never had something to look forward to except a check. Cool, we can live one more week. But what can they look forward too? I think we as a society need most is to give hope to the needy. The problem is that the government can't give hope. Hope only comes in knowing that things will get better. Only then do people stop being angry. Only then do they start looking at how they to better there life. I believe that only the Churches, Mosques, and Synogoues can start the revival of Hope. It's time to return this issues back to where it belongs, the people that give hope not just money. Let us give each American the vision and hope that Martin Luther King gave in his "I have a Dream" Speech;
"...I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."
And the butterfly takes flight!!
Calling all Cast Members
Chad Stembridge, a friend and a finalist in the Young Movie makers awards, is calling for people to be in his new film. With great job he did with his first short, I am sure this will be an even better film then the first.
Hello Friends,
You're getting this because I thought that you might be interested, or have friends that may be interested, in participating in Stembridge Mill's next short film, Precious Treasure.
So as not to be redundant, I'll not waste time explaining everything in this email that you'd read anyway if you read the postings on my website. So here's the link.
Even if you wouldn't be able to help physically (as in being in the cast or production crew), you could help by spreading the word, contributing, or praying for the project (in fact, there are crew role designations for these very things!).
The tentative production dates are either March 31st to April 5th, or April 7th to April 12th. At this point, however, I am leaning towards beginning production on the 7th of April. Though I'm hoping to get six solid days of shooting in, there is the possibility that 1) locations will be unavailable for partial days, 2) we'll need to schedule a couple extra shooting days (I'll try to schedule it so that I won't need a full cast or crew for extra days), or 3) we won't need to use all six days (preferred choice!).
I'm also planning on having a meeting for anyone interested in helping, tentatively on Feb. 23, to allow for further details and interaction. This meeting most likely will take place in the auditorium of Princeville Baptist Church, Feb. 23rd, 7:00 PM. If you need directions, let me know. Attendance to this meeting is not required for people to be a part of the production.
Cast auditioning will be tentatively held on March 1st or 8th, most likely also at Princeville Baptist Church. Once again, attendance to auditions are not required, but some form of audition will be carried out if a person is interested in playing a character role. Persons interested will receive at the very least the portion of the script auditioning will be taken from, and possibly up to the whole script.
If you're at all interested, please let me know! If you know of anyone that would be interested, please spread the word.
Thanks!
Soli Deo Gloria!
--chad stembridge
Hello Friends,
You're getting this because I thought that you might be interested, or have friends that may be interested, in participating in Stembridge Mill's next short film, Precious Treasure.
So as not to be redundant, I'll not waste time explaining everything in this email that you'd read anyway if you read the postings on my website. So here's the link.
Even if you wouldn't be able to help physically (as in being in the cast or production crew), you could help by spreading the word, contributing, or praying for the project (in fact, there are crew role designations for these very things!).
The tentative production dates are either March 31st to April 5th, or April 7th to April 12th. At this point, however, I am leaning towards beginning production on the 7th of April. Though I'm hoping to get six solid days of shooting in, there is the possibility that 1) locations will be unavailable for partial days, 2) we'll need to schedule a couple extra shooting days (I'll try to schedule it so that I won't need a full cast or crew for extra days), or 3) we won't need to use all six days (preferred choice!).
I'm also planning on having a meeting for anyone interested in helping, tentatively on Feb. 23, to allow for further details and interaction. This meeting most likely will take place in the auditorium of Princeville Baptist Church, Feb. 23rd, 7:00 PM. If you need directions, let me know. Attendance to this meeting is not required for people to be a part of the production.
Cast auditioning will be tentatively held on March 1st or 8th, most likely also at Princeville Baptist Church. Once again, attendance to auditions are not required, but some form of audition will be carried out if a person is interested in playing a character role. Persons interested will receive at the very least the portion of the script auditioning will be taken from, and possibly up to the whole script.
If you're at all interested, please let me know! If you know of anyone that would be interested, please spread the word.
Thanks!
Soli Deo Gloria!
--chad stembridge
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Audacity of Huck
Here is a great Article on the way "Blue Blood" Republicans feel about the Religious Right. I have read a number of articles that have tried to explain this, but this one seems to be the best.
January 28, 2008 IssueCopyright © 2007 The American Conservative
The Audacity of Huck
The Religious Right roils the establishment by backing one of its own.
by Michael Brendan Dougherty
Mike Huckabee was supposed to be an amusing sideshow. Just last August, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani dominated the GOP big tent, capturing the spotlight with their massive fundraising efforts and early endorsements. Meanwhile, without a single reporter in tow, Huckabee wandered around New Hampshire and Iowa, speaking to perhaps a dozen people at a time, joking that other candidates “pay $150 for an exfoliation. I could just hand them a bar of Lava soap.” Beltway conservatives and consultants, enjoying Huck’s genial act, speculated that he might make a nice vice president and laughed at his harmless quips. They aren’t laughing anymore.
As Huckabee moved up in the polls, his campaign chairman Ed Rollins declared the Reagan coalition dead, implying that Huckabee could form a new one in its place. The leaders of the conservative movement struck back: free-market activists spent thousands on ads to halt Huckabee’s rise in Iowa, and editors of the leading conservative publications denounced his “populism” and “evangelical identity politics.” Rush Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners that a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster.
Then he started winning. In Iowa he beat the heavily funded, establishment-approved Romney by 9 points and moved from sixth to third in New Hampshire, scrambling the entire Republican race. He is running close to John McCain in national polls and leading in delegate-rich states like South Carolina and Georgia.
Huckabee has convinced his supporters that the Religious Right has too long endured second-class citizenship in the conservative movement. Ironically, the anti-elite posture that Beltway conservatives taught heartlanders to assume when confronting the media or academia has been turned against establishment conservatives themselves. David Brooks declared in the New York Times, “The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.”
The Beltway Right has reason to worry. As a rhetorician, Huckabee is as good as anyone in politics today. He can stir an audience like Barack Obama, but he adds a deft sense of humor and pop culture that allows him to keep up with media figures like Stephen Colbert or Jay Leno—qualities unexpected in a leader of the Religious Right.
But obvious as his talents are, Huckabee’s policy prescriptions have been hard to decipher. On foreign policy, he grabbed headlines by denouncing the Bush administration’s “arrogant bunker-mentality,” and in a nod to realism, he wrote that the U.S. policy toward Iran should be containment, not confrontation. He says that there are options between “shock and awe” and “cut and run.” But just as observers began speculating that Huckabee might decouple Christian conservatives from the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration, he suggested that Palestinians could form their own state in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. So far, he has managed to make members of nearly every school of foreign policy uneasy.
Asked about economics, Huckabee claims to be “a Main Street Republican, not a Wall Street Republican” and preaches a message of economic independence—even nationalism. Speaking to a group of social conservatives, he declared, “A country that cannot feed itself, that cannot fuel itself, and that cannot fight for itself with its own weapons which it manufactures itself is a nation that is not longer free. … I don’t want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia, and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia.” Yet Huckabee has not called for an end to NAFTA or for implementing protective tariffs, insisting against evidence to the contrary that he is a free trader.
Establishment conservatives, deciding that the joke from Hope has gone on long enough, have begun sneering with increasing condescension. “That bait shop on the lake—it’s looking good,” Lisa Schiffren blogged on National Review Online. “You’ll be surrounded by nice neighbors, real Christians, and you can be the smartest guy in the room. … Remember Huck—Jesus wouldn’t be dumb enough to go into politics. You were right on that one. Maybe it’s not what he wants from you either.”
Former House majority leader Dick Armey penned a blistering attack on Huckabee’s “feel good politics” and told TAC that he “sounds more like John Edwards than John Edwards.” According to Armey, the conservative movement must balance its priorities: “The traditional, successful, happy Reagan coalition is a coalition of conservatives that came from an economic wing and a social wing tied together by their commitment to constrain the growth of government.” Armey laughs at the idea that Republicans want evangelicals in the backseat: “I can’t remember someone who has been elected besides Reagan that hasn’t caused Jim Dobson to say, ‘He’ll betray us.’”
Asked which candidate comes closest to his vision for the party, Armey chooses Rudy Giuliani. The former mayor’s tax plan, Armey enthuses, “is the biggest supply-side statement of any candidate in the race,” and Giuliani’s commitment to small government commends him to the conservative movement. Of course, Giuliani is also pro-choice and pro-civil-unions.
It is precisely Armey’s understanding of “balance” that has created the backlash for Huckabee. Consider: Romney’s conversion to social conservatism is recent and, to many, unconvincing. Yet National Review endorsed him. Giuliani has been considered an enemy of social conservatism since he was first elected mayor of New York. And John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. Writing in The American Spectator, George Nuemayr sympathized with evangelicals: “How is it that the bar of conservative entry for a presidential nominee lowers for the Romneys and McCains, then rises for the Huckabees?” Nuemayr suspects that vitriol is directed at Huckabee not because he “takes this or that heterodox position on issues of economics/trade/foreign policy; it is that he’s a transparent Christian conservative.”
Joe Carter, an activist at the Family Research Council, took a leave of absence to spend a month acting as Huckabee’s rapid-response man. He seconds Nuemayr’s analysis and highlights the barely disguised class conflict in the GOP: “The establishment Republicans don’t want some hillbilly preacher to be president.” To Carter and others, the conservative establishment’s contempt for Huckabee feels familiar. It mirrors the liberal establishment’s disdain for conservatives generally. And so just as Beltway conservatives have taught middle America to resent the liberal elites, so Huckabee and his supporters have leveraged evangelical discontent at those who tell them to “sit down and take what the party gives you.”
The turning point in Huckabee’s campaign came at the Values Voters Summit held by FRC last October. All the Republican candidates came to speak to the largely evangelical crowd, and the leaders of social conservatism hoped to announce their united endorsement. Though Romney was given the keynote spot, Huckabee blew the doors off the conference, saying, “I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you. … I think it’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-synch the lyrics to our songs.” Attendees bought Huckabee’s identity-based appeal and voted for him overwhelmingly in the event’s straw poll.
In the weeks that followed, Huckabee continued to call for evangelical solidarity, telling Zev Chafets of the New York Times, “If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.” Recently, campaigning in Michigan, Huckabee told reporters, “Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction ... the social conservatives, were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.” For years the Beltway Right had posed to heartlanders as an “us,” but for evangelicals supporting Huckabee, National Review, the Club for Growth, and the Republican establishment now resemble a “them.”
Huckabee’s success also corresponds with an intellectual shift among conservatives focused on rising middle-class anxiety. This summer, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are set to publish Grand New Party, in which they argue that the Republican Party must address the economic needs and aspirations of its middle-class base, transforming itself into the party of Sam’s Club rather than the country club. They praise Huckabee’s populist sensibilities.
Similarly, in a column that told Huckabee-fearing Republicans, “Be Not Afraid,” neoconservative David Brooks framed the preacher’s rise this way: “Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.” Brooks argued, “A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.” Huckabee doesn’t yet demonstrate policy sophistication, but it’s easy to imagine reform-minded conservatives refining his instincts.
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
January 28, 2008 IssueCopyright © 2007 The American Conservative
The Audacity of Huck
The Religious Right roils the establishment by backing one of its own.
by Michael Brendan Dougherty
Mike Huckabee was supposed to be an amusing sideshow. Just last August, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani dominated the GOP big tent, capturing the spotlight with their massive fundraising efforts and early endorsements. Meanwhile, without a single reporter in tow, Huckabee wandered around New Hampshire and Iowa, speaking to perhaps a dozen people at a time, joking that other candidates “pay $150 for an exfoliation. I could just hand them a bar of Lava soap.” Beltway conservatives and consultants, enjoying Huck’s genial act, speculated that he might make a nice vice president and laughed at his harmless quips. They aren’t laughing anymore.
As Huckabee moved up in the polls, his campaign chairman Ed Rollins declared the Reagan coalition dead, implying that Huckabee could form a new one in its place. The leaders of the conservative movement struck back: free-market activists spent thousands on ads to halt Huckabee’s rise in Iowa, and editors of the leading conservative publications denounced his “populism” and “evangelical identity politics.” Rush Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners that a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster.
Then he started winning. In Iowa he beat the heavily funded, establishment-approved Romney by 9 points and moved from sixth to third in New Hampshire, scrambling the entire Republican race. He is running close to John McCain in national polls and leading in delegate-rich states like South Carolina and Georgia.
Huckabee has convinced his supporters that the Religious Right has too long endured second-class citizenship in the conservative movement. Ironically, the anti-elite posture that Beltway conservatives taught heartlanders to assume when confronting the media or academia has been turned against establishment conservatives themselves. David Brooks declared in the New York Times, “The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.”
The Beltway Right has reason to worry. As a rhetorician, Huckabee is as good as anyone in politics today. He can stir an audience like Barack Obama, but he adds a deft sense of humor and pop culture that allows him to keep up with media figures like Stephen Colbert or Jay Leno—qualities unexpected in a leader of the Religious Right.
But obvious as his talents are, Huckabee’s policy prescriptions have been hard to decipher. On foreign policy, he grabbed headlines by denouncing the Bush administration’s “arrogant bunker-mentality,” and in a nod to realism, he wrote that the U.S. policy toward Iran should be containment, not confrontation. He says that there are options between “shock and awe” and “cut and run.” But just as observers began speculating that Huckabee might decouple Christian conservatives from the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration, he suggested that Palestinians could form their own state in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. So far, he has managed to make members of nearly every school of foreign policy uneasy.
Asked about economics, Huckabee claims to be “a Main Street Republican, not a Wall Street Republican” and preaches a message of economic independence—even nationalism. Speaking to a group of social conservatives, he declared, “A country that cannot feed itself, that cannot fuel itself, and that cannot fight for itself with its own weapons which it manufactures itself is a nation that is not longer free. … I don’t want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia, and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia.” Yet Huckabee has not called for an end to NAFTA or for implementing protective tariffs, insisting against evidence to the contrary that he is a free trader.
Establishment conservatives, deciding that the joke from Hope has gone on long enough, have begun sneering with increasing condescension. “That bait shop on the lake—it’s looking good,” Lisa Schiffren blogged on National Review Online. “You’ll be surrounded by nice neighbors, real Christians, and you can be the smartest guy in the room. … Remember Huck—Jesus wouldn’t be dumb enough to go into politics. You were right on that one. Maybe it’s not what he wants from you either.”
Former House majority leader Dick Armey penned a blistering attack on Huckabee’s “feel good politics” and told TAC that he “sounds more like John Edwards than John Edwards.” According to Armey, the conservative movement must balance its priorities: “The traditional, successful, happy Reagan coalition is a coalition of conservatives that came from an economic wing and a social wing tied together by their commitment to constrain the growth of government.” Armey laughs at the idea that Republicans want evangelicals in the backseat: “I can’t remember someone who has been elected besides Reagan that hasn’t caused Jim Dobson to say, ‘He’ll betray us.’”
Asked which candidate comes closest to his vision for the party, Armey chooses Rudy Giuliani. The former mayor’s tax plan, Armey enthuses, “is the biggest supply-side statement of any candidate in the race,” and Giuliani’s commitment to small government commends him to the conservative movement. Of course, Giuliani is also pro-choice and pro-civil-unions.
It is precisely Armey’s understanding of “balance” that has created the backlash for Huckabee. Consider: Romney’s conversion to social conservatism is recent and, to many, unconvincing. Yet National Review endorsed him. Giuliani has been considered an enemy of social conservatism since he was first elected mayor of New York. And John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. Writing in The American Spectator, George Nuemayr sympathized with evangelicals: “How is it that the bar of conservative entry for a presidential nominee lowers for the Romneys and McCains, then rises for the Huckabees?” Nuemayr suspects that vitriol is directed at Huckabee not because he “takes this or that heterodox position on issues of economics/trade/foreign policy; it is that he’s a transparent Christian conservative.”
Joe Carter, an activist at the Family Research Council, took a leave of absence to spend a month acting as Huckabee’s rapid-response man. He seconds Nuemayr’s analysis and highlights the barely disguised class conflict in the GOP: “The establishment Republicans don’t want some hillbilly preacher to be president.” To Carter and others, the conservative establishment’s contempt for Huckabee feels familiar. It mirrors the liberal establishment’s disdain for conservatives generally. And so just as Beltway conservatives have taught middle America to resent the liberal elites, so Huckabee and his supporters have leveraged evangelical discontent at those who tell them to “sit down and take what the party gives you.”
The turning point in Huckabee’s campaign came at the Values Voters Summit held by FRC last October. All the Republican candidates came to speak to the largely evangelical crowd, and the leaders of social conservatism hoped to announce their united endorsement. Though Romney was given the keynote spot, Huckabee blew the doors off the conference, saying, “I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you. … I think it’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-synch the lyrics to our songs.” Attendees bought Huckabee’s identity-based appeal and voted for him overwhelmingly in the event’s straw poll.
In the weeks that followed, Huckabee continued to call for evangelical solidarity, telling Zev Chafets of the New York Times, “If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.” Recently, campaigning in Michigan, Huckabee told reporters, “Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction ... the social conservatives, were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.” For years the Beltway Right had posed to heartlanders as an “us,” but for evangelicals supporting Huckabee, National Review, the Club for Growth, and the Republican establishment now resemble a “them.”
Huckabee’s success also corresponds with an intellectual shift among conservatives focused on rising middle-class anxiety. This summer, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are set to publish Grand New Party, in which they argue that the Republican Party must address the economic needs and aspirations of its middle-class base, transforming itself into the party of Sam’s Club rather than the country club. They praise Huckabee’s populist sensibilities.
Similarly, in a column that told Huckabee-fearing Republicans, “Be Not Afraid,” neoconservative David Brooks framed the preacher’s rise this way: “Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.” Brooks argued, “A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.” Huckabee doesn’t yet demonstrate policy sophistication, but it’s easy to imagine reform-minded conservatives refining his instincts.
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Does One Great Man Out Weigh 1000 Criminals
I read a book called Freakanomics and in it was a statement that the drop in crime rates in the mid-1990s was a direct correlation to the Roe-v-Wade decision 20 years earlier. In this train of thought the unwanted children, that had been forced to be carried by the mothers that did not want them, were now off the streets and not there to commit the crimes so there was a drastic drop in crime. In the world of facts and figures without contemplation, this might be a good explanation, but under scrutiny this does not hold much water. If we take 20 years before the peak crime era in the late 1980s, we see that it is true Abortion was illegal in most states. It is also true that a number of poor childern were born to poor and unready mothers. And some of these childern became criminals. But if his theory was correct then would not crime rate always been high when abortion was illegal and hard to get? It happen that crime rates had started to spike in the late 1960s and slowly increased until 1993. Before that the crime rates were 1/3th of what they were in the 1990s after the so-called effect of abortion. A better theory if this author wants to try and explain the fall in crime, or better explain the initial rise in crime is look at the effect of the "Great Society" on crime. I see a better corrilation to the beginning and the reduction of crime to the beginning of "Welfare" and the "Welfare Reform" in the middle 1990's.
At this point I want to ask another question. What is effect of Abortion on Society? If you think thru this questions you would have to say that a good number of criminals do comeout of the poor or unready mothers giving birth, but that is not all that comes out of these situations. Some of the greatest men in our nation's history have come from very difficult situations. What if these men were not born? Let us use an active history look at Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson was born in rural Carolina just months after his father had died and his mother was living on the charity of others. Today a mother in this situation would be suggested to have an abortion. "You can't raise this child, he will not have a happy life. He will be nothing in society" If this happened what would this country look like? For one the Indian Wars in Alabama could of ended much differently. Jackson would not of been in the position to expell the English in Mobile months before they landed in New Orleans. The commander of the garrison at New Orleans would not have the volunteers from Tennessee and Kentucky nor would they of had the Pirates of the Cajun such as Jean Lafitte. They also would have had a commander that was a Bureaucrat not a fighting general. And most likely the city would have fallen without a shot. England would have held New Orleans and most of the Gulf coast and we would have had no way to regain it. Without Jackson we also would not have been there to stop Spain from ceding Florida to England. This would not end here.
If there was no Jacksonian Presidency then many more betterments would never have happened. The populous movement would never have had the strong figurehead it needed. He stopped the first secession of a state. He first showed the strength of the bully pulpit that the President has. He was also the founding force of the modern Democratic Party. (Nobody's Perfect) He fought the corrupt banking system and won. And due to Jackson's support of the Texan revolution and the underhand support of this adventure by Sam Houston, Texas would have stayed part of Mexico and because of this, California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico would never have become part of the United States and we would have a narrow path to the Pacific Ocean.
With the lost of one poor orphaned child, with no money or status, we as a country would have been harmed enourmously. How does a society balance one great man? One Criminal, 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000? How many lives did Andrew Jackson change for the better? The Population of the country and all the posterity. The worth of one man conqurering adversisty is far in excess of millions of possible criminals.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Plato's Republic
After church one day, I spoke to a friend and I brought up a thought I had during the service about David and Solomon being the first Philosopher Kings. Everything I heard about Plato’s Philosopher kings was that he led by great wisdom. I started to think if Plato used Solomon as the cornerstone of his work “The Republic”? Solomon, being the wisest man the world has known, brought great wealth and power to Israel and the people were at peace. He would have been the perfect person to base a great leader on. Plus Plato lived in the 4th Century BC. Plus he traveled greatly during the time including a trip to Judea before writing this Classic. This peaked my interest, that perhaps the great Philosopher King that the earthly world is clamoring for is based on Solomon? I had to do more research. I had read many accounts of “The Republic” but I had never read the Dialogue, so I read the work and here is what I found.
The Dialogues of Plato are written almost as plays, that places his old mentor Socrates as the central character. Plato seems to explain his thoughts through the interaction of Socrates with the other characters in the story. The Republic starts as Socrates and a few friends going to a festival and they start talking about philosophy of a just man, then move into a story of the best government for the people and who should lead it. All through this Dialogue he uses Socrates’ questioning style to maneuver the other characters into his line of thought. He speaks about leaders and being a just ruler by stating that a just ruler does thing for the weak the same way that a Doctor does things for the sick and not the healthy, and the same way a captain does things for the good of the crew not what is good for him.
Then he goes on and describes justice and praises the just man. Socrates’ friend gives a description of the purely unjust man and shows how a perfectly unjust man will seam like the most just man of all. They state that the truly unjust man will go about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that is not perfectly unjust will gets caught and is considered incompetent and is not the perfectly unjust, since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. The perfectly unjust man will have reputation of being the most just man. Then we need to contrast him with the “truly” just man. He is a simple and honorable man that does not appear to be just. We must deprive him of the appearance of justice because the appearance of justice will bring him recognition and rewards and then it will not be clear if his motive for justice was a desire for justice or a desire for the rewards and the recognition. This I disagree with completely, that a perfectly just man will not care of the view of others. He will do what is just and leave it at that, not boasting or using this deed. Plato contends that we must strip him of everything but justice. He must have the worst possible reputation for injustice but truly being just, and have this reputation until his death. This description almost makes me think that Plato has a premonition of the only truly just man. Does not Christ meet every aspect of the truly just man listed above? Was he not given a criminal’s death when he was completely just? They then talk of the life that awaits them both here on earth. The unjust man would ask to rule cities because he has the reputation of justice. He can marry who he likes and make contract and partnership with who he wants. He finds it easy to make himself a rich man because he has no compunction about acting unjustly. And the just man is nothing of the sort. He just receives a cross to bear (These are my words).
Socrates defends the just man. And he gives the just man three elements to being just; Courage, Wisdom, Temperance or Self-discipline. First Socrates changes the subject to a just city but intends to describe the just man with the description of the just city. They start with the origin of a city. He starts stating that the origin of a city is because not one of us is self sufficient and need others. He starts talking about how a city is formed and what makes a just city and come to conclusion that a just city is just because of its rulers are just. At this point, he explains that citizens should be classified into four types, the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and Iron. Gold should be the ruling class and would be the best of the people. They should be trained to be the most just and wise. They should also be removed from the need for money and therefore not be restrained by greed. They should learn the needs of the people and learn what is best for the people. The Silver would be the warrior class and the other lesser important leader roles like doctors and such. And next would be the Bronze and lower classes. These are the common people that need leaders.
The guardian class or Gold class would live communally and would need for nothing except the needs of their people. They would learn from an early life the philosophy and manager skills to run a city. Socrates finally states that these leaders should be Philosophy Kings, for only the Philosopher can have the wisdom to run such a city. He states that these rulers should do whatever is needed to better the lives of the people. Then a question on the women and the children come up, and he comes to say that the families for the ruling class should be in common, that women should be treated the same as the guardian men, each man with knowledge of each women and not knowing his children. With children he states, that the best class should reproduce and have many children and with the lower classes it would only be best that the embryos never see the light of day. This is also the view of any deformed children; only the best people should be born, not the lesser people.
After defining the just city he returns to the just man and states that the just man would be one that does what he is best suited to do; a hunter being a hunter, a farmer being a farmer, a bronze man being a bronze man and a ruler being a ruler. A hunter should not be a ruler because he does not have the skills to be a ruler. Only one trained to rule should rule.
All in all I came from this book with a greater understanding of the liberal view of today’s society. The leaders of the liberal view feel that they are Philosopher Kings in charge of a great just city, and they are the great defender of this city. These are the same liberals that called for free love and communal living in the 60‘s. They force abortion on the lower classes and try to destroy the common people’s society by degrading the value of marriage. All of this thought came not just from Plato, but also from Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau and Voltaire shouted “let us make a heaven here on earth and forget about God. Let us rely on reason and human understanding.” These are the same people that attempted at trying to have Enlighten Despots in many European nations, that would rule a nation like these Philosopher Kings of Plato and Socrates, but they all failed with huge amounts of bloodshed; with the French Revolution the bloodiest of all.
In all of these descriptions of the just man I saw one thing. The just man that they described is the perfectly unjust man of the first part of the story. "...The truly unjust man goes about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that gets caught is considered incompetent since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. They will have the reputation of being the most just man..." They gave this statement when describing the unjust man. Does the Just man in the second part of the story not sound like he will have the gone about it in the right way? This just man lies to his people because “The end justifies the means” and ends up doing what is not just for all the people; only the ruling class. He does all of this in the guise of making the best choices for the society.
Plato tried to introduce his great leader as a man that uses his great human reasoning ability. He believed that man’s wisdom could create a society that was perfectly just, but he did not want to admit that man could never be perfectly just. That ingrained into him was something that would always move to the evil inside of his spirit. Since he lived only a couple hundred years after the greatest part of Israel‘s history, Plato must of known of the story of how David and Solomon ruled with great wisdom and created a great and just nation. He must have known that with this great wisdom that each man ended up doing unjust things after failing to follow God’s guidance. So in the end even Solomon, whom was considered the wisest man ever to live, that had great courage, and was very self-disciplined, ended up becoming unjust to his people and led them astray.
I will say that at the same time of the Enlightenment and the attempts of Philosopher Kings in Europe, a group of castaways in the new world created a different republic that was not formed in the image of Plato’s Republic, but in the theory that each individual is as great as another and getting representatives from all the people would create a truly just nation. They based there nation on something different then man’s wisdom; God’s wisdom. Thomas Jefferson, who admired the French enlightened leaders as a Deist, still spent many a line on the importance of God in society. As is written in a Memorial dedicated to this man are these words.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. That his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between Master and Slave is Despotism. Nothing is more written in the book of fate then that these people are to be free.
This Book of Plato’s does give good information, but not of the proper enlightened government, but of the folly of man’s justice. As Solomon has shown us, man can rule justly, as long as he follows the guidance of the truly just man, Jesus Christ.
The Dialogues of Plato are written almost as plays, that places his old mentor Socrates as the central character. Plato seems to explain his thoughts through the interaction of Socrates with the other characters in the story. The Republic starts as Socrates and a few friends going to a festival and they start talking about philosophy of a just man, then move into a story of the best government for the people and who should lead it. All through this Dialogue he uses Socrates’ questioning style to maneuver the other characters into his line of thought. He speaks about leaders and being a just ruler by stating that a just ruler does thing for the weak the same way that a Doctor does things for the sick and not the healthy, and the same way a captain does things for the good of the crew not what is good for him.
Then he goes on and describes justice and praises the just man. Socrates’ friend gives a description of the purely unjust man and shows how a perfectly unjust man will seam like the most just man of all. They state that the truly unjust man will go about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that is not perfectly unjust will gets caught and is considered incompetent and is not the perfectly unjust, since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. The perfectly unjust man will have reputation of being the most just man. Then we need to contrast him with the “truly” just man. He is a simple and honorable man that does not appear to be just. We must deprive him of the appearance of justice because the appearance of justice will bring him recognition and rewards and then it will not be clear if his motive for justice was a desire for justice or a desire for the rewards and the recognition. This I disagree with completely, that a perfectly just man will not care of the view of others. He will do what is just and leave it at that, not boasting or using this deed. Plato contends that we must strip him of everything but justice. He must have the worst possible reputation for injustice but truly being just, and have this reputation until his death. This description almost makes me think that Plato has a premonition of the only truly just man. Does not Christ meet every aspect of the truly just man listed above? Was he not given a criminal’s death when he was completely just? They then talk of the life that awaits them both here on earth. The unjust man would ask to rule cities because he has the reputation of justice. He can marry who he likes and make contract and partnership with who he wants. He finds it easy to make himself a rich man because he has no compunction about acting unjustly. And the just man is nothing of the sort. He just receives a cross to bear (These are my words).
Socrates defends the just man. And he gives the just man three elements to being just; Courage, Wisdom, Temperance or Self-discipline. First Socrates changes the subject to a just city but intends to describe the just man with the description of the just city. They start with the origin of a city. He starts stating that the origin of a city is because not one of us is self sufficient and need others. He starts talking about how a city is formed and what makes a just city and come to conclusion that a just city is just because of its rulers are just. At this point, he explains that citizens should be classified into four types, the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and Iron. Gold should be the ruling class and would be the best of the people. They should be trained to be the most just and wise. They should also be removed from the need for money and therefore not be restrained by greed. They should learn the needs of the people and learn what is best for the people. The Silver would be the warrior class and the other lesser important leader roles like doctors and such. And next would be the Bronze and lower classes. These are the common people that need leaders.
The guardian class or Gold class would live communally and would need for nothing except the needs of their people. They would learn from an early life the philosophy and manager skills to run a city. Socrates finally states that these leaders should be Philosophy Kings, for only the Philosopher can have the wisdom to run such a city. He states that these rulers should do whatever is needed to better the lives of the people. Then a question on the women and the children come up, and he comes to say that the families for the ruling class should be in common, that women should be treated the same as the guardian men, each man with knowledge of each women and not knowing his children. With children he states, that the best class should reproduce and have many children and with the lower classes it would only be best that the embryos never see the light of day. This is also the view of any deformed children; only the best people should be born, not the lesser people.
After defining the just city he returns to the just man and states that the just man would be one that does what he is best suited to do; a hunter being a hunter, a farmer being a farmer, a bronze man being a bronze man and a ruler being a ruler. A hunter should not be a ruler because he does not have the skills to be a ruler. Only one trained to rule should rule.
All in all I came from this book with a greater understanding of the liberal view of today’s society. The leaders of the liberal view feel that they are Philosopher Kings in charge of a great just city, and they are the great defender of this city. These are the same liberals that called for free love and communal living in the 60‘s. They force abortion on the lower classes and try to destroy the common people’s society by degrading the value of marriage. All of this thought came not just from Plato, but also from Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau and Voltaire shouted “let us make a heaven here on earth and forget about God. Let us rely on reason and human understanding.” These are the same people that attempted at trying to have Enlighten Despots in many European nations, that would rule a nation like these Philosopher Kings of Plato and Socrates, but they all failed with huge amounts of bloodshed; with the French Revolution the bloodiest of all.
In all of these descriptions of the just man I saw one thing. The just man that they described is the perfectly unjust man of the first part of the story. "...The truly unjust man goes about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that gets caught is considered incompetent since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. They will have the reputation of being the most just man..." They gave this statement when describing the unjust man. Does the Just man in the second part of the story not sound like he will have the gone about it in the right way? This just man lies to his people because “The end justifies the means” and ends up doing what is not just for all the people; only the ruling class. He does all of this in the guise of making the best choices for the society.
Plato tried to introduce his great leader as a man that uses his great human reasoning ability. He believed that man’s wisdom could create a society that was perfectly just, but he did not want to admit that man could never be perfectly just. That ingrained into him was something that would always move to the evil inside of his spirit. Since he lived only a couple hundred years after the greatest part of Israel‘s history, Plato must of known of the story of how David and Solomon ruled with great wisdom and created a great and just nation. He must have known that with this great wisdom that each man ended up doing unjust things after failing to follow God’s guidance. So in the end even Solomon, whom was considered the wisest man ever to live, that had great courage, and was very self-disciplined, ended up becoming unjust to his people and led them astray.
I will say that at the same time of the Enlightenment and the attempts of Philosopher Kings in Europe, a group of castaways in the new world created a different republic that was not formed in the image of Plato’s Republic, but in the theory that each individual is as great as another and getting representatives from all the people would create a truly just nation. They based there nation on something different then man’s wisdom; God’s wisdom. Thomas Jefferson, who admired the French enlightened leaders as a Deist, still spent many a line on the importance of God in society. As is written in a Memorial dedicated to this man are these words.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. That his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between Master and Slave is Despotism. Nothing is more written in the book of fate then that these people are to be free.
This Book of Plato’s does give good information, but not of the proper enlightened government, but of the folly of man’s justice. As Solomon has shown us, man can rule justly, as long as he follows the guidance of the truly just man, Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)