Split Decisions

Pundits have characterized current social and political discourse as “polarizing.” They claim that individuals and groups with varying positions have “dug in” and are stubbornly promoting their positions and not allowing for civil disagreement or “progress” on vexing issues. They seem to believe that every problem has a solution and every disagreement can be settled by consensus. My difficulty with that observation is that their “solutions” and their “answers” usually involve the growth of government…..locally, statewide or nationally. For example if my point of view is that the problem under consideration is not a constitutional requirement for government, my position is absolute…..any other solution must include government. So if I seek “common ground” with my opponents, I am in essence denying my original principle of no government involvement.

Put another way….if your position is “zero” on a scale and your foe is at “100” on the scale, any movement by YOU is a surrender of principle. A movement by your opponent is still a partial victory for him, and with the inevitable sliding and growing of government the ultimate rating will be greater than 100. Yet, if you or I refuse to violate our principles, we are ostracized for holding fast to our polarizing positions. Aside from whom our daughters choose to marry, most other highly contentious debates and disagreements are centered on the role of government in our lives.

National Healthcare

Our most recent national debate over the role of the federal government in our personal healthcare is nearly a century old. It impacts every region, every interest group and every person in our country. Some of us who rightly, I believe and know, resist extending government’s reach into our health and well-being are thought to be intransigent and uncompassionate because we appear to be denying quality healthcare for the less fortunate. At the present time our governments already control roughly half of the healthcare spending in the United States. The “poor” as defined by the government’s own statistics represent 25% or fewer of the population. It should be clear that if the poor are underserved with healthcare, the government is failing to properly use the resources they have already confiscated from taxpayers. Why then would any reasonable person be willing risk the integrity of the healthcare system by giving them more power and additional resources? Yet, those who want more government control and those of us who believe governments exercise too much already are polarizing the issue. We are asked to find a common ground (somewhere between 50% and 100%) so that the nation can move forward. I believe the best common ground is less than 10% involvement for government….just enough for battlefield medics and military hospitals. There is no common ground. Statists, big government socialist advocates must be defeated…..or we shall lose. There is no common ground.

EPA Overreaching

Though they may seem to be a national issue, the practices of Richard Nixon’s rogue agency EPA are very regional or local with their negative impact. Along with other bloated agencies the EPA has come very close to placing a stranglehold on the commerce of the United States of America, but it has done so by intruding into one business, one community or one property at a time. In addition its broad scale interventions into the marketplace have placed burdens on our producers that severely limit our global competitive stature. So therefore, if the EPA continually expands its portfolio and control over our lives and our abilities to earn productive wages, where is the common ground if someone seeks to limit my capacity for living and producing? The local nature of most egregious EPA actions allows it to run rampant over our freedom. The “not in my backyard” attitude of too many citizens gives the EPA license to run roughshod over my liberty, and as long as they are not directly or negatively impacted, they allow it…..perhaps even applaud it. There is no middle ground between my stance for freedom and the EPA desire to control my life. There is no middle ground.

When liberty or freedom are at stake….particularly mine and yours if you care about it…….there can be no middle ground. Almost free is not free. In fact I would argue that when government is the controlling agent, “almost free” means that before too long you will be noticeably less free as government increases its power. There is no middle ground. There is liberty, and there is tyranny. Oh yes, we can at times voluntarily subordinate our own desires for the common good….but to yield them to government means that our freedoms will never be returned to us. Polarization is absolutely necessary when freedom is in jeopardy and government control is the alternative. My greatest frustration with the Republican Party has been is willingness to trade away my freedom despite its stated philosophy and numerous party platforms. It has been eager to sacrifice my personal liberty so that the GOP can share power with Democrats, socialists and progressives. I find that position repulsive and unacceptable because there is no middle ground. I will not stand there, and I shall not seek it. It is here for liberty I stand….. first, foremost and forever.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

    

Con-promise

Some things are vastly over rated. Atlantic Coast Conference football is not good enough to merit an automatic BCS (Bowl Championship Series) bowl appearance for the conference champion. Rap music is over rated. We might describe it as monotonic anti-social indecipherable blather. Certainly, “Reality TV” is over rated. It is rarely true reality and barely qualifies as television….definitely not as entertainment television. Most political compromises are over rated. They are crowned with the mantle of wise accommodation, when in fact, they do little to achieve real goals or address pressing problems. In many cases the compromise may erect barriers to a satisfactory solution. A true compromise involves two directions of seemingly equal value that are bound and trimmed to provide a satisfactory workable solution for the advocates of each path. In my personal view the critical operative word is “satisfactory.” Too often political operatives adopt a compromise merely to put off the arduous task of arriving at the best answer to a vexing problem.

Compromise is never a good option in matters of principle. Where the underlying principle is intact, compromise may be necessary regarding an amount or a time frame to reach agreement among the parties. But compromising on principle is a losing proposition. When one yields on a matter of principle, one is, in effect, admitting that the principle has no value. Negotiations become browbeating and bullying because one side recognizes that the other has surrendered the moral high ground of principle. Compromising on matters of preference is a good approach in marriage, partnerships and ad hoc social encounters. We have all witnessed amazingly bullheaded people who had a “my way or the highway” attitude about unimportant matters. We should not ever confuse that immovable personality disorder with someone who stands his or her ground for a principle. There’s a Kenny Rogers classic called “The Gambler,” and one of the verses includes “know when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.” Always “hold” for principle, but be willing to “fold” on minor matters.

Now comes the big question of the day: Are most career politicians capable of detecting the difference between a principle and “small potatoes?” Is it possible that their arrogance is so great that they view everything, or at least most things, as unworthy of defending? It must be a flaw in the psyche of most career politicians that causes them to ignore or minimize some of the most basic principles of good governance. For them “the deal is the thing,” and they can smugly approach the cameras and crow about what a difficult process they endured while arriving at a ‘solution” that “serves the best interests of the American people.” In their feeble little ego-centric minds runs the following refrain: “Whew! That’s over for now. Time for drink.” How about drinking some hemlock, Clowns? Cut the DEAL and cut outta there….that’s no way to run a country.

Many politicians run for office while professing the love and loyalty for the Constitution. They glibly discuss the Founders and the Framers as they extol the wonders of our glorious democracy…..huh? Democracy? No wonder they appear so eager to ignore principles while engaged in the business of the nation. Democracies are popularity contests. Examine any statewide issue that’s on the ballot. Advertising, posters, troops of supporters or opponents appearing on radio and television attempt to convince the voters that their position is the best one. The purpose is to amass the greatest sum of votes on Election Day. In a Republic, on the other hand, citizens elect representatives to perform two major services. The first is to represent the people of the district or state and prevent their isolation or abuse by the Federal Government or other states. The second responsibility is to thoughtfully and fairly weigh the desires of the district or state versus the overall good for the nation. Elected officials are presumed to use their calculating powers for weighing the nation-district advantage….not to support noxious and costly proposals that aid their re-election prospects but subvert what is preferable for the country. This dynamic explains the prevalence of “pork” in so many legislative initiatives. Politicians sought favor with various constituencies using “other people’s money,” without measured consideration about the impact of such appropriations on the nation’s fiscal health. All “pork” spending is compromising. “I’ll vote for yours, if you vote for mine.” Principles are absent, and we get “bridges to nowhere” and projects that should be adopted locally.

People especially political types who refuse to compromise on basic principles are usually characterized as “obstructionists.”  Their strong stance slows or stops the unprincipled compromise from going through. If the rhetoric becomes more heated, we often hear terms like “ideologue,” “extremist, “ or any number of unflattering terms designed to weaken the holdout’s resolve as well as to activate his or her constituents’ pressure. One shouldn’t bend when critical questions are being decided. Holding to principle, standing firmly with the Constitution of the United States, and weighing every vote or decision on the scales of Liberty are absolutes. There is no nearly principled stance, no almost-Constitutional position, and definitely no approximately-free approach to Liberty. The debate should never be about the wisdom of a certain absolute because they are foundational and vital for the rebirth of our republic. Any other position, any nuanced compromise of principle condemns us to the quicksand of socialism and the quagmire of irrelevancy.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com            or            www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Heard Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo, Ohio

www.wspd.com

   

Statesmanlike Stupidity

Comity and collegiality in elective politics are overrated. It’s the progressive-statists who consistently beg for a “new tone” while savaging those who believe in responsible governing. Moderates, wimps and Republican officeholders are the only classes of people who fall for the lefty ruse. GOP elected officials long to be seen as statesmen…as reasonable accommodators who want to do “good.” Statists, on the other hand, will use any means…deception, intimidation or power…to achieve their goals. A lefty statist will rip your lungs out through your throat if it would help him achieve his objective. A Republican would seek compromise and a “meeting of the minds.” Statists have been winning. Wimps, moderates and the GOP have been losing the country…one law, one regulation, one compromise at a time.

Democrats and statists fight like cornered rats when they are challenged. Republicans fight like lazy lap cats…stuffed ones. The country, our future, needs fierce alley cats that will take no prisoners and allow NO MORE STATIST ENCROACHMENTS ON OUR LIBERTY! Compromise and statesmanship are valuable when dealing with marginal issues, but on matters of principle and survival, they are deadly tactics. Compromise on principle and the nation loses. Compromise on survival, and we die. Our career politicians have become so enamored with deal-making …so obsessed with statesmanship that they unwittingly ignore principles and jeopardize our survival. Diplomats have their purposes, but when the ramparts have been breached, we need warriors.

Compromise can indeed be useful for resolving certain types of disputes or disagreements. Price haggling for example is a form of compromise. My liberty, our freedom is priceless, and I condemn those politicians who so cavalierly swap our liberty for power or the approval of others. They must learn before we collapse that a “no resolution” for a disagreement is always better than a bad solution. Stalemate is preferable to our losing a little more of our liberty, our property or our nation. Warriors who are leaders would transform the stalemate into checkmate as they battle to topple Big Brother’s oppressive kingdom. We are facing an all-too-common problem in our halls of government: too many self-appointed chiefs and too few braves.

Real braves become leaders by proving that they are warriors in the heat of battle. Chiefs who hold their positions because of longevity or their ability to compromise are undermining the cause of liberty. In 1773 a group of locals dressed as Native Americans dumped symbols of British tyranny into the cold waters of Boston Harbor. To bring a parallel forward to today…Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and their peers were warriors…braves. The chiefs of the 18^th Century colonies fled to England or Canada. The warriors led the battle for freedom. We can hope and pray that our present day chiefs (Tories who embrace the existing order) run to another place so that the business of restoring our liberty and saving our nation can get underway. Please take note Speaker Boehner, Mr. Cantor, Mr. McCarthy, Senator McConnell and Senator Kyle. Your collective style and your eagerness to accommodate the massive growth of government and the bankruptcy of our nation have caused you to become impediments to the cause of liberty. Your time has passed. You’ve done enough damage by allowing the statists to succeed with nary a whimper. We need warriors who hold the line and not deal it away.

Today’s rant has been precipitated by a couple of events that took place this past Father’s Day weekend. First, Minority Leader McConnell stated that he expected a short-term small increase in the national debt limit to allow for more negotiation on the forthcoming budget. Second, Speaker Boehner and Ohio Governor Kasich played golf with the President and the Vice President. Certainly, civil behavior and common courtesy should be practiced, but it’s time for the “old boy go along to get along” system to stop. The statists have driven our nation to the edge of destruction with the complicity of the GOP. The people have been dumping tea into the harbor of discontent for nearly two years. It is time for the leaders of the opposition to either lead or remove themselves. Failure is no longer an option.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com