'76 Blog

As conservatives, we feel that we are right. We feel as though the leftist agendas have been practiced to failure, exhaustion, and are not even viable solutions. However, many conservatives lack the ability to communicate with those of opposing viewpoints. I have been to countless conservative speaking-engagements, summits, think tanks, classes, et cetera, but these venues shed a “preach to the choir” ambience. What about those who are different, who vehemently disagree with conservative policies, and/or who label us evil, bigots, fear-mongers, callous, immoral, and barrages of other words? If conservatives’ pervasive trait of “realism” is to be tapped, we must realize these are the real people who need to be reached—and the way we communicate with them is crucial. Now, in the wake of a climacteric political race, conservatives need these skills more than ever. I write this not to accuse conservatives, because all of us are different in many ways, but merely bring some thoughts to attention that may help augment our platform. First, know that tone and listening are two invaluable communication tools. I once had someone tell me, “You have two ears and one mouth. Do the math.” Listening twice as much as you speak and keeping your tone to an acceptable, “non-threatening”, and un-condescending volume is a great way to carry yourself throughout a dialogue with a Leftist. Just as the left seems to enjoy discerning faults in the world, they also will find fault in your communication if done improperly or “threateningly”. Second, understand what differentiates Left from Right. Conservatives believe in less government whereas the left believes in more. This is simple but must always be consciously remembered. Third, be ready for an isolated example. Leftists consistently highlight the unfortunate scenario of a small number. For example, people in favor of Obama-Care, socialization of healthcare, and/or other variances of healthcare entitlement programs often use the “cancer-ridden homeless man” story. Essentially, there is a homeless gentleman who is diagnosed with cancer and goes to emergency rooms (since he cannot be turned away) regularly for some sort of panacea because he cannot afford an oncologist (which is what he needs). Two things are routinely pulled from this story by the left: (1) thousands of dollars are being spent treating the wrong problem and (2) this is an atrocity no one should have to go through. The conservative generally responds in a manner viewed as callus and insensitive in the leftist’s eyes—therefore, how can we, as conservatives, avoid less of these unsuccessful conversations? The answer is simple: articulation, tone, and engagement. Thomas Lock’s “Second Treatise on Government” suggests that no civilization will ever be perfect as a result of the fall of man—sin. Sin corrupts all humanity. Therefore, if two humans cannot exist in a perfect Utopian society, how can 320 million? Bring something like this to the Leftist’s attention using tone and calmness and ask, “What do you think about this?” Leftists will generally respond uniquely, since, let us be honest and genuine, every person has a slightly different worldview, another detail that must be kept in mind. All differences accounted for leftists will generally not find it moral to allow the “atrocity”. Maybe then suggest what NGO’s can do for these people and why pry at why this has to be the government. From here, use discernment and follow similar principles. Not using leading questions only, per se, but helping the leftist see how many of these Utopian dreams are merely unfeasible and that conservatism seeks to implement what works best as nothing will ever be “perfect”. Fourth, strive to instill a sense of trust of humanity as opposed to the government. For absolute power corrupts absolutely. Always keep an understanding that leftists are going to consistently be compassionate, Band-Aids to the broken, and speaker forthe unspoken-for. Leftists may have a stronger desire to be humanistic, humanitarian, and philanthropic than many conservatives. Although this is not true in most cases, it helps going into a dialogue with a leftist assuming that is their perception; helping the Left understand that conservatives consistently fund non-profits but merely prefer the right to choose where their money goes if the next step.  Leftists routinely argue that “corporate greed” will prevent money from being distributed and that humanity’s proclivity to sin inhibits our giving, hence why the government is needed. Here, I suggest the theories of expectancy and dependency. For example, a teacher wrote into the O’Reilly Factor saying (paraphrased), “I had a student today respond to what he wants to be when he grows up with, ‘live on welfare and get free healthcare’”. Unfortunately, the “hard-worker” who receives entitlements becomes lost amidst those who treat it as free-money, entitlement, and eventual dependency. Perhaps continue this conservative-leftist dialogue by catechizing a leading question such as, “Obviously this is not right, yes? What would work better?” Last, as a conservative, you already feel as though self-responsibility is becoming a disappearing attribute of the common man and is being juxtaposed with a nurtured sense of entitlement and being “owed something”. Face it! We are owed NOTHING except life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. Entitlement comes with an innate sense of “owed”, and entitlements breed dependency more often than not. The government of the United States of America was not established with the mission statement of granting happiness to all. Fellow conservatives, when you return to your lives, embark with a sense of understanding toward the Left. Understand they want to help, fix, provide, and save but many their ideas are simply unrealistic. Telling them they are unfeasible is impractical and ineffective—as is throwing accusatory statements or putting them on the defensive. When Pilate accused Jesus, Jesus did not respond with the ferocity of the common-Roman-man’s perception of Him. I rest my case in that it is not what you say, it is how you articulate, engage, word, and say it.

(Centennial Fellow) David Mamet, a novelist, screenwriter and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, has come out of the closet as a conservative, and in his milieu of Hollywood's unrelenting liberalism, this is so astonishing a development that both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times Magazine have interviewed him on the revelation. My thanks go to both newspapers. To Mamet, I'd like to say it was amusing to read your thoughts, not least when you talked in the Journal about liberals always finding something "bad, bad, bad" -- trans-fats, maybe, or global warming or hydrogenated vegetable oil -- and then making their nonnegotiable demand: "And something must be done!" They mean it must be done by the government, federal, state or local, though the federal coercers are preferable to them because they can have at everyone of us and are oh, so much smarter than you and me, not least of all the bureaucrats who are always jamming up the traffic in Washington and something else in the nation. These supposed giants among Lilliputians are jamming up normal lives with abnormal infringements, and they are getting so thorough at it that we may each eventually have a federal guardian following us, instructing us, fining us, sometimes arresting us if need be. Before that happens, we have the likes of Michelle Obama telling restaurants they must start serving smaller portions to her fellow Americans. Funny, but I always thought that matter was between customers and the restaurant, not some distant third party, and while I get it that the First Lady is dreadfully concerned about people like me getting obese, my scales and I have achieved a mutually appreciative relationship, thank you. If I ever do want to eat like a horse, I still want Michelle Obama to stay out of it, though I am pretty much a doggie-bag kind of guy. What does she want as her legacy -- an end of doggie bags as a source of tomorrow's lunch? Maybe, you say, this White House occupant is non-governmental, but if she did not have the political heft of a husband who is president, you think the National Restaurant Association would have met with her advisers? I doubt that group would meet with my wife's advisers, even if she had advisers, or that she could get the attention of some in Congress and several federal agencies. Something else in the news lately -- the misuse of Title IX to say that if college women do not want to enter sports in the same numbers as men students, that's too bad for the men at those schools. It's got to be equal. Some schools, in order to accommodate the more eager fellows, have lied about the number of women participating, and The New York Times, which broke the story, is in an editorial snit, saying this may be illegal. The law was instead written to deny federal funding to schools that didn't afford women desired opportunities in sports because too much of the available resources were being spent on the men. Most schools had already begun altering old practices because our culture was changing., and the law’s goal was not meant to be close to strict sameness in numbers until the bureaucrats began throwing their weight around. Interpreted their way -- cut off heads to make everyone the same height -- it's a bad law that breeds disobedience, and while I do not intend to go on the record in favor of lying, I can promise you that I have talked to business operators who have told me there is a sure way to go broke. Heed all the stupid regulations. I'd like to cite more examples, but I would need something like 450,000 pages to be exhaustive, because, as Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has observed, that's the probable size of the 2012 U.S. Code when published. Obviously, some of these laws are needed, but as Tucker notes, this is "as elaborate and detailed as any set of laws that have ever governed any society in the history of the world." As Mamet said, liberals keep finding things that are bad, bad, bad, and as I would add, our lawmakers keep making them worse, worse, worse.

(Centennial Fellow) Give at least this much credit to the liberals "progressives" (LPs) in the Democratic Party:  they don't let little things like losing 63 seats in Congress discourage them. For LPs, a Robin Hood tax policy – one that extracts higher taxes from the successful and industrious and spends it on expensive social welfare programs for the slothful and underachieving – is an article of faith that cannot be compromised. (No one in the political mainstream disputes the need for a "safety net" to help those who are disabled and truly in need, but for LPs, turning the safety net into a hammock is political strategy, not an economic one.  If more people depend on government, then more people will vote for the party of dependency.) Showing for the first time a Clintonesque inclination to put his desire for re-election ahead of his desire to transform America into just another declining economy run aground by bloated social welfare programs, President Obama recently agreed to forestall for two years a return to Clinton-era tax rates.  The LPs came completely unhinged. OK, even more completely unhinged. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the goofiest man in America with a microphone, sanctimoniously blathered to his infinitesimal audience of economic illiterates that the erstwhile messiah is not simply wrong but "g**-d***** wrong." Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said, Obama "has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency . . . and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight." Refusal to fight?  Perhaps Obama doesn't fight well or doesn't fight smart, but from the perspective of anyone to the right of Howard Dean, Obama certainly doesn't appear to pull many punches. He ignored public opinion to ram ObamaCare down our throats.  Before the election, he told Hispanic voters, in unpresidential fashion, to "punish their enemies" (read: vote against Republicans).  Even after reaching agreement to extend the current tax rates, he referred to Republicans in Congress as "hostage-takers." Now the LP faction that propelled him into office muses about a primary challenge in 2012.  This is all just so much talk.  Democrats will oust the first black President about the same time the Nobel Committee honors Sarah Palin. Obama, they say, is "demobilizing the troops and demoralizing the public" – still ignoring that "the public" isn't whacko liberal – because he's finally recognized that he'd better knock off the bigger government, higher taxing, more intrusive, debt-exploding poppycock if he has any desire to salvage a second term. It's hard to say who is more devastated: the Left, by Obama's compromise with political reality, or Obama, by the realization that even he can't sell the Left's socialist agenda to mainstream Americans. For the Left, class warfare is a rare battle worth fighting.  The evil rich – job creators, entrepreneurs, investors – must be punished by higher tax rates that take money away from job creation and innovation and give it instead to government bureaucrats. So many liberal progressives make a career working for government or for nonprofits that rely on government, they fail to grasp that the middle class cannot prosper without someone creating middle class jobs – not on yet another extension of unemployment benefits. They ignorantly seem to believe that the evil rich stash their cash under a mattress.  Any other investment – whether in a bank account, the stock market or back into their business – generates more jobs and, hence, more tax revenue. If growing government truly bolstered the economy, then our economic engines would be roaring after the trillion-dollar stimulus enacted by Obama and the Democrats in February 2009.  Instead, job creation is stagnant as employers cautiously weigh impending tax increases, direct and indirect costs of ObamaCare, and uncertain implications of the Federal Reserve's Monopoly money policy. As Ronald Reagan said, "The problem with our liberal friends . . . is that they know so much that isn't so."  Fortunately, the rest of us still have a vote. Centennial Institute Fellow Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer.  To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

(CCU Faculty) In 2004 I taught Western Civilization and U.S. Foreign Policy as a Fulbright Scholar in Eastern Europe.  My primary duties were at the largest state university in Belarus, as well as at their Institute of International Relations.  While there I was contacted by George Soros’ Invisible College.  It is one of several Invisible Colleges in European capitals, each funded by the Soros Foundation.  It allowed students from both the State University and the Institute of International Relations to take courses and transfer them back to their other schools.  Several of my students at the other institutions were at the Invisible College and one of them likely recommended me to them.  I had the feeling that the students at the Invisible College were there by special invitation, being groomed for a particular purpose in the field of International Relations. I was asked to repeat a presentation, which I had given at one of the other colleges, on how Globalization could bring prosperity to their country.  My primary metaphor was that the stones in the wall which had divided East from West during the Cold War could be used instead to build bridges between East and West. That this country, which stood at the crossroads between East and West, could benefit by being a center of trade between Russia and the West.  I encouraged the students to be more international in their scope and find some way in which they could help raise the standard of living in their country.  It was received well by the Invisible College, and I was invited to return. I was not assigned a topic for my second presentation, but when I suggested the foreign policy of George W. Bush they were interested.  Apparently, I agreed with them on the importance of economic globalization, but I was soon to discover that we disagreed on the Global War on Terror.  In that second presentation the following week I stressed the importance of America’s role in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the world needed a police force, and that neither the U.N. nor the E.U. were up to the task.  Since tyranny should not be tolerated, and there should be no safe haven for terrorism, America had to remain strong and vigilant in order to insure global peace and stability.  At the end of my presentation I was ushered quickly out the door and was never invited back. Over the past few years I have often reflected on my visits to the Invisible College.  At the time I only knew Soros as a wealthy and successful currency trader, but wondered why he was so interested in spending so much of his fortune training young people for the new global economy.  I have now become convinced that he has a broad reaching agenda for the world, and that he is training a cadre of young scholars for a specific purpose.  What that purpose is, I am not quite sure.  That is why I had resisted publishing anything on the topic.  However, Glenn Beck has recently focused on George Soros, and has his own ideas on what Soros wants.  All I can do is add my own experience to the public discussion.

(Stowe, Vermont)  When a mix of personal and professional responsibilities had me traversing the East Coast from D.C. to Vermont, I seized the opportunity to don the cloak of undercover investigative reporter and spy on the liberals who abound in these precincts, get an update on why Barry Goldwater wanted to saw off this part of the country and “let it drift out to sea”, and generally get some insights on why the Lefties in our dear country are so discouraged, depressed, confused and cantankerous. So I said goodbye to my wife, sent loving e-mails to my children, packed a full suitcase of L.L. Bean gear, sharpened my grating Boston accent, dialed up my most reliable sources from back in the days when I-like Ronald Reagan- was a Democrat, and stowed my lucky “Ted in ’62” campaign button. This awesome devotion to journalism would involve arduous duty like lurking the lobby of the Willard (D.C), leaning on the bar at Sardi’s (NYC), lunching at Locke-Ober’s (Boston), a farm show in Maryland, and best of all a Barney Frank rally in Newton, Massachusetts where I am a taxpayer in good- if unhappy- standing. To further my research I promised myself I would watch MSNBC at least as much as Fox since Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow  are as good a guide to the loony left as one could hope for.  I faithfully read those other bastions of objective reporting- The Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe, sampled lefty alternative papers- Boston’s Phoenix,  NYC’s Village Voice and perused local sheets like Newton’s Tab or the Stowe Reporter.  I even acquired a copy of Bob Woodward’s Obama Wars which every liberal seems to have in his briefcase these days. A particular hour of illumination occurred when I visited my old home along the banks of Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland’s Calvert County and attended an event that used to be a political “must” in my time as County Superintendent- The  Fall Farm Exhibition.  When I approached an elderly bib overalled  farmer of my acquaintance and asked how my old Congressman Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was doing he laconically allowed as how he “hadn’t seen much of Steny lately-‘cept on television”.  Amazingly other locals felt Steny might be in for a “surprise” come November. I‘ve saved the best for last- The Frank Rally!  Barely a hundred people there at the Community Center, but to my practiced eye these were “hard core” liberals.  Twice I was asked “Who are you with?”, when I blurted out “Newton Taxpayer Association!” I was immediately the object of several suspicious gimlet eyed stares.  During the informal coffee hour (darn I was expecting white wine and brie) that  preceded Barney’s remarks I was tempted to approach him and say “ I knew you back in the sixties when you were the funny fat guy who worked for Boston Mayor Kevin White and I remember the night you Blank, Blank, Blank” but  figuring I would probably get a visit from the IRS within 48 hours I opted instead to sit at the rear and take notes on the back of a hand-out I got at the door listing Barney’s fabulous accomplishments on behalf of his constituents( no mention of Fannie or Freddie however). After Barney’s remarks making clear that everything wrong with the country was the fault of George Bush, greedy bankers, Rush Limbaugh and Fox news there followed a surprisingly contentious questions and answer session.  Remarkably not one person expressed concern about Deficits, Debt or Spending.  Two did speak against Obamacare, but only to insist, it didn’t go far enough, and was a failure because it lacked a Public Option. After Barney rushed off to another event I stayed on and artfully engaged the Public Option advocate in some conversation by expressing concern at the prospect of losing so many Democratic seats.” Yes, we’ll lose a lot of seats”, he said, “but there is a silver lining”.  He felt the Democrat party would be “purged” and “purified”.  The losers would be those “spineless” Blue Dogs who had been such a “dragging anchor” on the Obama agenda all along. So, there you have it.  The true believing liberal knows November 2nd is going to be bloody, but he’s in denial about the reasons why.  He thinks its bad people, not bad policies.  The poor Blue Dogs are at least in touch with reality.  They may be in the wrong party, but the true believers are in the wrong country. William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow, and former Colorado Education Commissioner.  His columns have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington  Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Baltimore Sun.  

(CCU Faculty) “We won’t have any trouble about inventors under Socialism, for there won’t be any.” So wrote F. G. R. Gordon “agitator and author,” in a letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1909.  “The non-competitive system will tend to discourage genius.”   Entrepreneurs, inventors and innovators are found to varying degrees in virtually all political economies around the world.   In the past they have been referred to as capitalist pigs for various reasons.  This human livestock is responsible for the creation of every single technological disruption caused through virtually every innovation and invention that mankind has put into use.  How many resources have been wasted in the failures of those who tried and lost?  How many jobs have vanished?  Have the last 100 years of relative free markets in the western world really been a “positive for the people”?  Is the world really a better place with all this destructive inventing by loose cannons and uncontrolled selfish mavericks?  Imagine if there were no technology.  Work would be so much more organic - focusing on the basics of daily living – everyone walking around equally and free from the constraints and requirements of technology (fig leaves for clothing perhaps? – no wait, that would be innovation too). Well, why do we have clothes anyway, do we really need them?  Do we need houses?  Computers?  Cell phones?  Cars?  Heat?  Let alone food from a grocery store?  Wouldn’t you prefer a simpler life, say in a plain cement block house - the same for everyone - where you were provided for?  Wouldn’t that be Eden?  Well no, wait, cement blocks are technology going way back to some early Roman entrepreneur – they should have stoned him (pun intended).  Yes, in fact wouldn’t it be preferable and so much less destructive if we all lived in caves?  That’s more equal!  Of course how do we get the caves all the same size…?  Well, don’t worry, the way things seem to be going in the U.S. now, maybe we will have true equality like that very soon and we can figure that out!    Proponents of free markets and entrepreneurship point to so called evidence showing that where entrepreneurial activity occurs in abundance, where it is valued and promoted, economies are stronger and healthier, more jobs are created and more wealth is more efficiently distributed across populations, than with any other economic system in modern history, and quite probably in world history.  But up until recently these economies just didn’t have the highly developed, efficient and smart government systems that we now have in place.  All we really need now is for the smart people at the top to figure it all out, tell us what we need to do, and voila, we have solved the inequality and greed problem caused by free markets and entrepreneurship!  Then everyone can get down to really enjoying the simple pleasures in life like digging up wild roots for a snack to share or at lunchtime catching trout with their bare hands – yum sashimi!  It is a topic for another day perhaps, but eventually maybe we wouldn’t even need offices any more or artificial forms of energy to run our manmade machines that destroy the planet. We know that there are always ongoing changes in the world and it seems that where there are people, some form of entrepreneurship happens regardless of socio- political economy.  We can see however, that particularly where there is the rule of law protecting private property and voluntary exchange, entrepreneurs are found creating opportunities (or trying) with whatever resources seem to be at hand.  What we must do then, is remove (or at least handicap) the rule of law that protects private property rights and voluntary exchange that seem to be at the heart of the entrepreneur capitalist pig phenomenon. As for the creation of wealth, another so called result of entrepreneurship and free markets, what we really need to do is to simply pick those ideas that are going to work and put everyone’s money into them.  Again, we just need a few smart people at the top to figure it out and pick the right ideas.  Our government for example!  After a little trial and error experimentation, with more regulation to control the selfish entrepreneur/inventors from running wild, and with more taxes and fees to distribute that wealth a little more equally, we can be certain to finally have the right government solution. One hundred years after F.G.R. Gordon spoke those words, we are in the U.S. again in a position to create a non-competitive system that discourages such “genius” as invention.  Maybe this time we can rid the world of this inane free market movement; roast the entrepreneur capitalist pigs and have them for dinner.  Once that problem is taken care of..., …wait now -- where’s the next meal coming from?

Faced with another fellow’s misfortune, some genuinely yearn to help.  Some believe that they do, although they may not acknowledge a less honorable motive, not even to themselves.  Some  witting or not  truly seek either ego-strokes or control or both. A profoundly significant difference delineates the truly humane helper from the self-serving one: their objective -- for the genuine helper, a beneficiary; for the others, power.   But determining the subtle distinction requires seeing beneath their surface similarity. The false helper’s quarry is people who have been, or can be persuaded that they have been, victimized.  When a helper identifies a victim, he offers to alleviate the victim’s real or imagined hardship.   It doesn’t matter whether or not the helper actually can significantly change anything, or even whether or not he actually intends to try.  The objective has been gained. But at whose cost?  The false helper will not pay.  Rather, he will find a means for luring or forcing others to do so.  Worse, the victim pays with his freedom and his dignity. Except for those self-activating ones who refuse the role, the victimization sequence becomes self-perpetuating.  Once defined as a victim, the susceptible person absorbs the role of helpless dependence.  The acquiescent victim comes to require subsidies, special treatment and privileges, emotional and financial support, ever more aid.  Spiraling downward, the “victim” finally does indeed become a victim, ruined by the helper -- well-meant or insidious. In the July-August 2010 Centennial Review and his presentation at the 2010 Western Conservative Summit, author and business professor Arthur Brooks observed that, far less than monetary rewards, it is satisfaction that motivates achievers.  Effective people crave a sense of accomplishment.  By drowning a victim in welfare and ease, the helper denies him of any chance for achievement and robs him of his self-worth. Moreover, Brooks noted, the satisfaction-starved victim naturally becomes increasingly unhappy.  Never strengthened and thus never empowered to surmount life’s challenges, the victim cannot savor simple contentment.  Thus the victim develops a genuine grievance. At that point the true helper feels deep frustration, for his well-intentioned efforts have only worsened the victim’s plight.  But, for the false self-serving helper, this is the moment! Now he has power and control.  Now his ego gleams. All false helpers gain a powerful ego-rush.  What could be more self-elevating than the role of rescuer?   By declaring another as victim, the helper feels soaringly superior. So addictive is this ego-rush, self-serving helpers constantly seek out new victims -- unsuccessful people, threatened species, even our planet.  Find or conjure a problem, declare an enemy, sally into the limelight, bask in the warm glow of feeling powerful and significant and popular. That woeful victimization sequence also demonstrates the fundamental and lasting difference between Conservatives and the Left.  Of course, Conservatives demand fiscal responsibility and Constitutionality.  In addition, Conservatives care deeply about social and environment problems.  Indeed, Conservatives’ generosity and efforts in aid of true misfortune outshines any doubt.  Nonetheless, Conservatives address suffering entirely differently. First, Conservatives do not create victims because Conservatives do not seek the power, the control, nor the ego-rush.  Quite the contrary, Conservatives cherish independence and empowerment for all. Even more illustrative is the means that Conservatives or the Left apply to alleviating problems. The Left immediately calls forth the State, legislating regulations and compelling taxpayer support. In contrast, when a Conservative encounters a genuine problem, he pursues a solution on his own or through the voluntary cooperation of like-minded companions  perhaps a civic club, faith group or local charity. The Left’s goal is diminishing the victim to perpetual dependency, whereas the Conservative’s goal is restoring him to success.  Conservatives work to empower individuals, whereas the Left culls power from citizens to the State. All Statist regimes, even the originally well-intentioned, must garner more and more power over an ever wider spectrum of activities involving larger and larger segments of the population.  The eventual outcome is tyranny.  Thus the helpers become oppressors and we all become the State’s victims. Simón Bolivár concisely declaimed this dire destination, “A state too extensive in itself or … its dependencies ultimately falls into decay, its free government … into tyranny; it … finally degenerates into despotism….” How to escape this devolution into tyranny?  Preserving precious individual freedom requires courage, perseverance and vigilance, ever asserting our right to self-activation, ever rejecting intrusive “help.”  Preserving individual freedom further requires demanding adherence to Constitutional limits on overweening government.  Individual freedom must have as its foundation the Rule of Law.  As truly compassionate helpers, we Conservatives strengthen our fellow citizens and thus strengthen our nation to withstand the false self-serving helpers’ persistent onslaught.  Then we may all thrive.

As the confirmation hearings for nominee Elena Kagan begin this week, we again return to the question of how Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution.  Central to this inquiry is the approach that justices take towards both the text and the fundamental principles which undergird our Constitution.  There has been a long-running debate concerning this among varying judicial philosophies, one that in many ways mirrors current tensions among the Christian church.  The recent phenomenon of the emergent church movement provides us with a striking similarity to the approach taken by many of our nation’s modern/activist judges. A very attractive approach in our modern culture comes to the following conclusion: When I no longer like the orthodoxy, I’m in favor of changing it.  The temptation to question and challenge orthodoxy is indeed strong; in fact, our nature drives us to it.  The history of religion finds numerous cases when those who were dissatisfied sought to overturn longstanding truths in favor of new ideas that “better suited” the circumstances of the day.  Typically, what happens is that when we find orthodoxy no longer convenient, we seek to replace it by crafting something new, rather than align ourselves with it.  More often, this is done through clever reinterpretations of the original. In recent years, such a group has been increasing in their influence among the church.  This group, commonly referred as the “emergent church” has intentionally remained elusive in declaring their doctrine.  Yet among many in the movement, there are significant challenges to the fundamental orthodoxy of Christianity: through faith in Christ alone is the sole means of salvation.   These revisionists are denying the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the reality of Hell, and the very nature of the Gospel.  The emergent movement comes out of frustration that the 21st Century church doesn’t fit well within a 21st Century mindset.  For instance, it is indeed uncomfortable to think about eternal damnation in Hell.  What to do? Remove this threat from religion.  Or, it does indeed seem arrogant that Christ is the sole route to salvation.  What to do? Open it up to other alternatives.  Many in the emergent church movement are doing just these things. Of course, this tendency to contradict the orthodoxy is not limited to religion.  There are great similarities in the causes, methods, and desired ends of the “emergent” movement toward a “living Constitution.” Justice William Brennan, in a 1985 speech at the Georgetown University School of Law, laid out his view of constitutional interpretation.  “Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.  The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked.  It majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure.  This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text.”  Brennan concluded that the text of the Constitution was less important than his own desired ends of “justice.”  When discussing the issue of capital punishment, Brennan, a longtime opponent, concluded that the Constitution was incompatible with state-sanctioned executions.  Where did he find this?  He certainly could not have concluded that capital punishment conflicted with the 8th Amendment concerning cruel and unusual punishment, as the authors of the amendment certainly had no such opinion.  Looking to other portions of the Constitution, there is clear evidence that execution is permissible.  Both the 5th and 14th Amendments permit its usage.  The requirement that no person “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” presupposes that when a person has been guaranteed due process, then capital punishment may indeed be used. Brennan is forced to ignore both the mind of the authors and the clear meaning of the text.  Simply to state that the text is ambiguous, Brennan seeks to give himself permission to interpret it however he sees fit.  What Brennan challenged is the very concept of rule of law and the principles of limited government.  He does this through the activist and “living constitution” approach to judicial review.  The Supreme Court Justice, under our model of constitutionalism, is not entitled to “make the law what they want it to be.”  Rather, they are to apply the law as it was intended.  It is fine that Justice Brennan disliked the usage of capital punishment.  It is absurd to conclude that it violates the text and/or the fundamental precepts of the Constitution. What we need are justices who recognize the truth and value of the orthodoxy and who have a commitment to uphold it.

The Colorado Senate President, a Democrat, writes in the Denver Post today that he prefers "shades of gray" to my "rigid ideology" as expressed in a 6/20 column(previous post) framing this year's election around whether Americans are fit to be free.  . But Shaffer offers no answer to that question, focusing instead on an 8th-grader's advice that we "not be judgmental" -- even as he judges me guilty of "dirty character assassinations" (no evidence provided).  . Meanwhile, evidence abounds that Brandon Shaffer's party, in complete control of Washington DC as well as Colorado, does not believe you and I can be trusted with freedom as the Founders intended.  Health care, energy, the list goes on.  The 2010 election is about exactly this, as I wrote on Sunday.

Well, well. So my former legislative colleague and adversary Andrew Romanoff now styles himself a man of "backbone" in the Democratic Senate primary against Michael Bennet.  Interesting since for upwards of 15 years, as Lynn Bartels noted in a Denver Post blog, yours truly has been using the imaginary town of Backbone Colorado USA to symbolize the qualities Americans must uphold if our country is to survive.  . Given that Andrew, the liberal Democrat, and Andrews, the conservative Republican, agree on little besides our love for the Broncos, one of us must be dealing wooden nickels.  Which is it?  . Is backbone more truly expressed in the self-reliance, self-restraint, and self-assertiveness that built this free society, and in the rock-ribbed original Constitution that guards our liberties -- or in the manipulation and government dependency exemplified in Romanoff's approach to such issues as health care and energy, facilitated by an invertebrate Constitution easily bent by imperial judges?  . I'd love to debate the brainy and likable Romo about this, but he is no doubt busy with other things until the primary in August; perhaps all the way to November; and just possibly for six years of a Senate term after that.  As to the latter, I hope not.  The wishbone he mistakenly calls spine is already far too prevalent in Washington, DC.