The Needs Of The Many . . .

It has been a week since WorldNetDaily reported on a breakthrough in adult stem cell research in which scientists in Pennsylvania claim to have demonstrated that adult cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply. Not surprisingly, the discovery has received little attention from the “mainstream” media, as it has joined with the left in investing much emotion and energy to demand that the federal government fund research on cells harvested from embryos.

The logic behind the passionate rhetoric coming out of the left regarding embryonic research – including the allegation that conservatives like George Bush are against helping the disabled – is hard to understand, to put it mildly.

The fact is that, contrary to the verbiage used by its most outspoken proponents, there is no ban in the United States on embryonic stem cell research. All that the Bush administration has said is that it will not allow federal tax dollars to be spent on the research. Anyone with the financial means, or who can convince those with the means to back him, can legally conduct such research to his heart’s content. And perhaps the lack of private funds being made available for such research is more telling than proponents would like to admit.

Private investors are never in short supply to fund research or technology that shows great promise. The fact that such investors are not lining up to fund this research may be the surest sign that, apart from other reasons not to fund such research, the federal government is actually making a wise financial decision for a change.

The truth of the matter, when it comes to the various efforts at using stem cells to provide treatments and cures for disabled humans, is that adult stem cells have shown far more promise than embryonic cells simply by producing any treatments – embryonic cells have produced none to date. Despite this, embryonic research advocates insist that such research should continue – with government backing – due to the alleged – and, as yet, unproven – advantage embryonic cells possess with regard to their ability to reproduce. The significance of this recent discovery by scientists in Pittsburgh is that it may eliminate that supposed advantage that embryonic cells have over adult cells.

But that is not the reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Advocacy of the research is a bipartisan affair, with prominent members of both parties calling on President Bush to set his ethical concerns aside and allow federal funding for the research, with no certainty of it producing anything useful. But to set the ethical concerns aside, as so many already have, could take mankind down a dangerous road.

Suppose that the situation was reversed from what it actually is, and embryonic stem cell research was the only research that had shown such promise. Would that be reason enough to set aside the ethical concerns? Is the culture ready and willing to pursue the objective of medical breakthroughs with no moral restraints on how they are obtained? Do the ends justify the means? For many, they obviously do.

But what if it wasn’t a question of stem cells? What if it was discovered that, for example, several forms of cancer, and spinal cord injuries could be cured through the use of brain tissue harvested from recently-born infants? Would these same advocates be willing to sacrifice one human life in order to improve the life of another?

It may be that some would, but the probability is that the vast majority would not. The interesting thing about this is that those who advocate medical research unfettered by any reasonable ethical constraints, if they advocate the destruction of embryos for such research, are no different in principle than those who would take an infant’s brain tissue. Sacrificing oneself for the good of others is a noble act. Sacrificing another’s life for the good of others is an act of tyranny of the worst kind. Just act anyone who has spoken out against the Chinese government’s practice of harvesting organs from executed criminals. Then ask them what the difference is between that, and creating life just to be destroyed.

Remember What It's All About

Last night’s presidential address to the nation on the war in Iraq might best be viewed as an attempt on the part of the Bush Administration to get back “on message,” and remind Americans of the context within which the current fighting takes place. Whether that attempt is successful will go a long way in determining if living with terrorism will become a fact of life in America – as it has in other places – because it will go a long way in determining if the American people will have the stomach to see the struggle through to the end.

Such an address has been long overdue, as the opponents of the President – abetted by their allies in the “mainstream” media – have been allowed to spin the current situation to suit their purposes, with very few corrective words coming from the White House. It is not surprising, then, that public support for the war has begun to wane.

This is because those unchallenged spins churned out by the Democrats have been quite effective at distracting the public from the larger overall goals in the ongoing war on terror. And, no doubt fearing that their strategy could be imperiled by what President Bush reminded the people of last night, the most prominent among them wasted no time in trying to pull the debate over the war back to within a framework that would support their political goals.

Maybe it’s because they possess the same short memory that they rely on the general public possessing, or maybe it’s just because they are willing to do anything, including distorting reality, to damage George Bush, but whatever the reason, their insistence on portraying the situation in Iraq as one in which the U.S. is losing, calling for a recall of the troops as soon as possible, overlooks an important fact – the American people are safer now than they were before the invasion took place. And this is, when all is said and done, the reason for the war in the first place.

Naturally, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took issue with this notion as he proclaimed that “Our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.”

Whether Osama bin Laden is still our most dangerous enemy could be subject to debate. But regardless of who may possess that esteemed title at the present, the fact is that the war has never been about capturing a single individual, any more than the Second World War was about capturing Adolph Hitler. It seems safe to say that, while they would love the opportunity to see bin Laden killed or captured and brought to justice, most Americans would be content to let him rot away in a cave somewhere for the next several years, so long as he could no longer do them or their families any harm.

Well, the fact is that tracking down and capturing a single individual who is determined not to be found and has the ability to find cover within a large portion of planet earth is a difficult business. And it may be several more years before bin Laden the fugitive becomes bin Laden the captive or casualty. But hasn’t Mr. Reid or any of his partisan colleagues noticed that neither he, nor any other terrorist leader, has killed anyone in America in nearly four years? Or would they attribute this merely to the fact that he must no longer be interested in attacking America?

What President Bush did last night was remind Americas of what he told them on September 11, 2001 – that living with terrorism is something that the United States chooses not to do, and that the struggle to eliminate it as a threat to the American way of life – or any other peace-loving nation’s way of life – is not a struggle that will be won quickly. Until it is won, better to fight it on their ground than on ours. And the brave men and women of the United States’ Armed Forces are guaranteeing that very scenario.

Naturally, it is distressing to think of American forces being, in effect, “magnets” attracting terrorists from several nations to Iraq. But fighting bad guys is what American soldiers do. And by fighting them in Iraq, they keep many of them from carrying their mayhem to other places. Places like New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Would the leading Democrats prefer that the battles be fought at those places once again?

Religion and America: A Matter Of Record

Of the logic and reasoning that went into the strange combination of rulings on the Ten Commandments issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, much has already been, and will, no doubt, continue to be written. But perhaps what should be taken note of, at least more than it has been, is the fact that the mindset that has led to the ballooning number of cases of this nature in recent years is a relatively new one.

If one didn’t know any better, he might think that the desire on the part of some, and the acceptance on the part of most, Americans for religious displays on public property was a relatively new phenomenon. But they are not. The “mixing of religion and government,” as the militant secularists who are behind such lawsuits seem to understand it, goes back to the earliest days of the republic when such notables as Thomas Jefferson – who coined the phrase “Separation of Church and State” – and James Madison – the principal architect of the Constitution that such displays supposedly violate – both took part in church services conducted within the Capitol Building in Washington.

Throughout the history of the republic, the American people have seen fit to acknowledge the prominent role that religious beliefs played in motivating the settlement of this continent as well as the development of the American government – matters of historical record.

Indeed the founders themselves acknowledged that the government they had created could not long endure absent some Higher Authority prompting a certain level of self-governance on the part of the citizenry. In other words, as John Adams put it, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In this light, such displays that remind Americans from whence the nation’s ideas of what is right and just come could almost be viewed as a civic service to all citizens – by encouraging behavior that promotes the continued stability of American society and culture, and prevents the need for coercive action on the part of government to force accepted standards of behavior. Certainly that is how the founders would have viewed them.

Rather than the displays themselves, what actually is a relatively new phenomenon is the desire on the part of some to eradicate such displays from the public square. Witness the case arising from a Ten Commandments monument in Texas – that had stood for forty years before being contested – that was argued in the Supreme Court Building – that has had its own various and sundry “Ten Commandments Monuments” on display since its construction seventy-three years ago.

There are facts about any nation and culture that, whether they be good or ill, are simply part of the historical record in the development of that nation’s culture and heritage. And while it is true that many Americans choose not to embrace the Judeo-Christian heritage that is embodied by the Ten Commandments, the fact remains that, as Jonah Goldberg has noted, they are the seed stock of American law and culture as it has traditionally been understood, regardless of their association with religion.

One would have to look long and hard to find a quote from George Washington on how the Wiccan faith serves to promote good government, or from Benjamin Rush on the need for reliance on Islamic wisdom in the development of good citizens. Or even from Charles Pinckney on the value of Humanist wisdom in civilized societies. But such quotes simply aren’t there, because these faiths were simply not the driving forces in the development of the United States as it has traditionally been known.

If the anti-religious left truly wants to argue in favor of changing America into their vision of a strictly secularist society – and it would involve changing America – that is certainly their right. But it would help their credibility if they would stop trying to make their argument from the governing document that was written by men who would surely oppose them at every turn, where they alive today.

Selective Indignation?

Leading Democrats in Washington were quick to become outraged, and eager to share their outrage with anyone who would listen, following remarks made by Presidential Advisor Karl Rove recently. When Mr. Rove, who has long been a lightening rod for the enraged left for his part in George Bush’s two successful presidential campaigns, drew a contrast between conservatives and liberals in their response to the terrorist threat that was revealed on September 11, 2001 – by pointing out from the factual record what was said by members of both camps – the howls of protests were quick in coming from leading lights within America’s liberal party.

Minority Leader Harry Reid called for an immediate retraction. New Jersey Senator John Corzine accused Mr. Rove of practicing the “politics of divisiveness and distortion.” New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke of a line that shouldn’t be crossed, while pointing out that Mr. Rove “jumped way over” that line. Six Senators from the Metropolitan New York area – including Messrs. Corzine and Schumer signed a letter demanding an apology from Mr. Rove, with four of them stating that he should be fired if the apology is not forthcoming.

What a difference a few days makes.

Perhaps the American people should be happy to find that Democrat leaders have found their voice when it comes to fighting against “divisive language” and the hostile atmosphere that pervades official Washington of late. After all, it was only a few days ago that these same voices within the minority party were deafeningly silent as one of their own, in the person of Illinois Senator – and Assistant Minority Leader – Richard Durbin made a few incendiary remarks himself.

But then, maybe the Democrats – through their unbalanced reaction to these two episodes – are merely acknowledging that there are actual differences, in both circumstance and substance, between what was said by Mr. Rove and Mr. Durbin. Goodness knows this writer is willing to acknowledge such differences, if that is the case.

Of course, the respective roles within the political scene occupied by these two men are vastly different. Mr. Rove speaks not as a policy maker, but as a Presidential Appointee and Advisor, while Mr. Durbin speaks as a United States Senator, a leader within his party, possessing far more direct influence over American policy – which may explain why it was only Mr. Durbin’s comments that were carried extensively by Al Jazeera. And whereas Mr. Rove made his comments to a private gathering of like-minded people – the Conservative Party of New York, Senator Durbin chose to make his on the floor of the United States Senate – as a part of the Congressional Record.

But without a doubt, the most significant difference between these two episodes is in the substance of what was actually said by the two men. Mr. Durbin’s comments regarding the conditions at the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp need to be seen for what they are – one man’s opinion, a subjective evaluation. By contrast, the comments Mr. Rove made that have caused such hysteria on the left are backed up as a matter of record. One has only to go back to the written accounts of the time to see that those on the left did indeed advocate understanding for those that carried out the murderous attacks on New York and Washington. They did indeed think initially of the need to acknowledge what America had done to “bring this attack upon itself.” All in the world Mr. Rove did was point out facts, including the fact that the Arab world has seized upon Senator Durbin’s remarks and put them to good use in their propaganda mills.

But therein may lie the scandal. For some time now, it has been a common cry on the part of the Democrats that Republicans are playing dirty whenever they bring up the matter of Democrats’ records on certain issues in which they find themselves out of the American mainstream – issues that include matters involving national security and the war on terror. Apparently, since the only thing that keeps the American people from voting in greater numbers for the Democrats is this nasty little matter of what they have done on the record – it is considered bad form to point the record out.

But if a party’s record is to be off limits in the national political discourse, upon what are the American people supposed to determine who to support at election time? The fact is that the records of both candidates and parties are among the best indicators that voters have as to what to expect out of them if they are elected – or returned – to positions of power. It appears more and more that the current Democrat leadership recognizes what a perilous political situation that fact puts them in, meaning that anyone who has the audacity to point out what they have actually done with what power that they have been given – including Karl Rove – must be beaten down mercilessly. Such an approach to political dialogue certainly resembles the tactics of certain leaders of the past – but none that are remembered kindly by history.

Nothing Above The State?

If any case ever demonstrated how important the current battles over the federal judiciary should be to all Americans, surely it was the one that was decided yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court. If certain elements of the population will not be prompted to action by the implications these battles have for social policy issues, maybe they will be motivated by the implications these battles now have for private property issues.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut has the right to invoke Eminent Domain in order to evict city residents from the homes that they own. Of course, the doctrine of Eminent Domain has long been accepted in the United States, even from the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, which implicitly acknowledged, via the Fifth Amendment, government’s right to invoke it so long as two conditions were met.

The second of these conditions – the requirement that just compensation be provided to the citizen whose property is to be seized – is not what’s at issue in yesterday’s Kelo v. New London case. Indeed, it is the first condition imposed by the Fifth Amendment that must be met before any questions of compensation even become relevant: The requirement that the property to be seized is to be for public use.

In this particular case, the City of New London, the Connecticut Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court have all clearly missed the mark. For the property seized in this case is not being seized for public use. It is to be sold to the Pfizer Corporation and certain private developers for the purpose of building a research facility to be surrounded by upscale residences and businesses. In other words, at the end of the day, the property that is to be taken from private parties will not be publicly owned. It will merely be awarded to other private parties – private parties that can pay more taxes than the individuals currently residing on the property in question.

The tortured reasoning used by New London in its attempt to justify this infringement on its citizens’ private property rights is this notion that the new – private – owners of the property will be able to generate more revenue for the local government, thus, they argue, meeting the “public use” requirement for invoking Eminent Domain. Yet, while the new owners of the property may be able to line the city’s coffers on a more lucrative scale than did the old ones (A new means of buying influence?) the property itself that is at issue will still be in the possession of private entities, not the public.

Of course, ironically, in its effect, this ruling has rendered the notion of private property in America as passé (pardon my French) anyway. If government can seize any private property and award it to private parties for their ability to feed its insatiable appetite for cash on a grander scale than other private parties, it can do so with all private property. This means we now own our property only with the permission of the government. Never before has America looked more like Mussolini’s vision: “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.” Perhaps the corporate entities that benefited from this ruling will one day remember it with horror when they are bumped out in favor of some other company with still deeper pockets.

The effect of this decision makes it indisputably the most historically significant decision that will come out of this term. And unfortunately, as has been the case with some other of the most historically significant decisions, it is wrong and will have to be corrected later, if ever, only after causing much heartache for the American people in the meantime.

In this light, it is useful to note that, among those who offered a commendable dissent against this travesty are Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia – the men who President Bush has cited most often as the models for his ideal Supreme Court nominee. And, of course, the very men most vilified by the Democrats in the Senate who seek to block the President’s nominees at every turn.

Which raises a reasonable question: If the Democrats in the Senate, who insist on usurping the Executive Branch’s prerogative in selecting nominees for the Federal Bench, kick so viciously against the type of jurists who act so passionately in the defense of private citizens’ property rights, what will their “ideal nominees” have to say on issues such as these, if they are allowed to ascend to the bench? For many of us, that is a question to which we hope to never learn the answer.

For the people of New London, the answer to the current local problem may be to clean house in the next City Council election. For the remainder of us, it may be to vote in 2006 and 2008 for the party that has been most supportive of the voices of dissent in this particular miscarriage of justice.

Follow Me, And I Will Make You Fishers Of Registered Voters

In the latest attempt on the part of leftists to try to convince the powerful evangelical bloc of voters that they are, too, reaching out to proponents of traditional Christian values, as noted in Thursday’s Washington Times, a new group called the Christian Alliance for Progress announced itself to the world recently. But, like virtually all earlier attempts on the part of liberals to attract the “values voters” – who are attributed with putting the current Republican-dominated government in place – this “outreach” is more about packaging than substance.

The group’s approach to the current dilemma in which the Democrat party finds itself is billed as being different from earlier approaches. According to its leaders, the CAP is unlike other such attempts in that it does not advocate for Democrats to change their positions or message to attract “Christian” voters. Rather, they say they want to present biblical justification for the positions liberals currently hold.

The problem, for the CAP, is that this approach is not “unlike” earlier approaches at all. Ever since the 2004 elections, in which exit polls attributed “values” as one of the chief factors in determining how a majority of Americans voted, the Democrat party, and various groups supporting it, has declared a need and intent to “change course” and become more considerate of “values issues” in its approach to governance. If it had actually done that, the approach of this new group would indeed be a change of tactics.

The problem is that no course changes were ever made in the Democrats’ agenda, only in how they packaged the agenda they already held. Rather than try to moderate certain of their positions to be more attractive to Christian voters, they began to explain to these voters as to why they should already be attracted to the liberal positions as held – by virtue of the fact that these positions are more in line with Christian teaching than the positions actually held by Christians. The only difference between CAP’s approach and earlier attempts is that CAP is actually brazen enough to say this is what they are doing up front.

What will not be any different, however, is the end result of this latest manifestation of leftist arrogance. The voters that CAP is going after have already had numerous attempts to weigh the positions of the left in the scales of their values, and found them to be deficient.

The fact is, it would take – ironically – a miracle for this group to convince Christian conservatives that, as CAP states, providing healthcare to one’s neighbor is a test of one’s spirituality, or that homosexual marriage is part of some biblical call for “equality and justice.” Yet these are precisely the kind of things that the group is determined to do. And while it may be possible to make it sound like the scriptures support such stances by picking and choosing different statements out of context, convincing the scriptures’ adherents that this is an honest and reasonable approach to arriving at truth is a different matter entirely.

As is the case with any problem, the key to the liberals’ problems with “values voters” is to first acknowledge that they have a problem, and acknowledge what truly is the problem. Until they are willing to move past the condescending attitude that says those Christian rubes just don’t know what’s good for them, the Democrats and their liberal supporters will continue to face an uphill battle in the competition for these folks' votes.

A Lott Less Penalty For Durbin

It may be that the controversy over Illinois Democrat Senator Richard Durbin’s silly remarks regarding the Guantanamo Bay prison camp will start to fade now that he has issued his tearful apology from the Senate floor. And maybe that’s as it should be. It certainly is from the perspective of the many Washingtonian Senators who are always anxious to rid themselves by any means necessary of any issue that upsets their comfort and “collegiality” up on Capitol Hill. But if it is indeed to be a settled matter from this point on, one would hope that the public will take note of the difference between this and another controversy involving a Senator’s boneheaded comments.

I should note from the get-go that I am no fan of Trent Lott and am, quite frankly, thrilled that he is no longer the Republican Leader in the Senate. But let’s face it, when he made his remarks about Strom Thurmond at the South Carolina Senator’s one-hundredth birthday party – away from the Senate floor, mind you – no objective person could really believe that he intended to hurt anyone. He was merely trying to say something nice about an old man on his birthday, and he said the wrong thing while trying to do this. Nevertheless, his very poor choice of words did indeed hurt people, and the opposition party would not let the ensuing controversy go, despite repeated apologies from Mr. Lott, until they had convinced other Republican leaders to chase Mr. Lott from his leadership position. All this over a misunderstanding about a Senator’s poor choice of words – exactly what Senator Durbin says has happened in this case.

By contrast, Mr. Durbin will be getting off quite easily if all he has to do is say he feels bad if anyone misunderstood him and was offended by what he said – while never acknowledging that what he said was simply wrong. (Does any public official ever actually just say “I was wrong, I’m sorry” anymore?)

The fact is, most Americans who were offended by Mr. Durbin understood his remarks – obviously intended to hurt someone in the person of George W. Bush – perfectly well. The problem for him was that, in his zeal to tear down another leader of the United States, he was willing to trample on the reputation of those who serve this nation, and the memory of those who died at the hands of some of history’s truly most infamous regimes. And, unlike Senator Lott’s poor choice of words, Senator Durbin’s comparison of American servicemen to the killing squads of dictators, by virtue of his uttering them on the floor of the United States Senate, became part of the official congressional record. A fact not lost on the Arab propagandists of Al Jazeera.

Despite all this, it seems evident now that, at the end of the day, Mr. Durbin will retain his position as the number-two Democrat in the Senate, ranking below only Minority Leader Harry Reid. And, ultimately, that is the Democrats’ call to make. But if this is to be how the controversy ends, Americans might do well to take note of the contrasts between this and the 2002 Lott fiasco.

Rarely do Americans get to see how the different parties handle almost identical controversies involving their members. When they do, they should take note of how each such controversy is handled by those in both parties. The differences can be quite instructive in recognizing which party seems to truly value national unity over partisan points, and which is willing to let its rage at the opposition cloud its judgment in its evaluation of wartime policies. Thank goodness the adults are in charge right now.

The Reality Of The Situation

How ironic it is that Republican Nebraska Senator and Presidential wannabe Chuck Hagel accuses the White House of being disconnected from reality with regard to the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

In comments he recently made to U.S. News and World Report, the Senator added his voice to those who are trying desperately to convince the American people that we are losing the war on terror. However, as one looks at the current struggle in the context of history, he can’t help but be struck at how the face of defeat has changed over the years.

Certainly, members of America’s two greatest generations – those of the 1770s and the 1940s – knew what impending defeat looked like. And it didn’t look much like what we face today. In those days, Americans faced enemies that were quite literally driving them from the fields of battle early on in their conflicts. Nevertheless, the ultimate victories America won for itself – as well as for many other nations – in these conflicts are still points of pride to generations yet unborn at the time of their conclusion.

By contrast, in the current struggle, America has seen her armies topple two totalitarian, terror-sponsoring regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indigenous governments are being established within these countries, and their peoples are accepting their responsibility to learn to protect the innocent within their borders – witness the recent thwarting of an assassination plot against the U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan and the rescue of the Australian contractor in Iraq, both of which were accomplished by native forces. And certainly, it takes no small effort for one to miss the fact that the total number of successful terror attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001 comes to – zero. These are hardly the sort of circumstances that would have led earlier – perhaps more hearty – generations of Americans to declare defeat, and the need to withdraw from the fight.

And yet, one must be willing to acknowledge that, even as these earlier generations turned almost certain defeat into victory, this generation is still quite capable of turning almost inevitable victory into defeat – if it is willing to say that the blessings of liberty and safety are not worth the costs required to procure them. America has faced long struggles in its past, struggles in which it found itself on the bottom at first, and having to fight its way to the top. Yet here America finds itself on the top, fighting to crush the current enemies of freedom once and for all. And contrary to what the naysayers looking to score political points and further their personal ambitions say – the reality is that America is not losing in this fight.

The real problem where the chicken-littles of our nation are concerned is not that we are not winning the war – we are. The problem is that we are not winning it fast enough. After over two years in Iraq, and over three years in Afghanistan, there are still elements within both countries looking to carry on the fight against us and carry their acts of carnage back to American soil.

And it may very well be that we are not winning this war as fast as we could. One could certainly make the argument that it has been fought with one hand tied behind our back from day one. There has been no massive mobilization of the American people to focus their energies on the war effort, as there was in earlier conflicts. Whereas those generations were urged to make bandages or donate rubber and aluminum, this generation has been asked to visit Manhattan and attend a Broadway show – hardly the kind of sacrifice one would expect in the midst of a total commitment to total war. Which may, by the way, explain why the numbers of Americans who believe the troops should start coming home is starting to climb – Why send Americans to die on foreign soil when it doesn’t appear that we are really fully committed to war anyway? But that’s a discussion for another time.

In any event, failure to eradicate our foes within a certain timeframe hardly qualifies as an indicator of impending defeat. And while the loss of a single American life at the hand of such bloodthirsty adversaries is the source of much heartache for all Americans, it is really quite remarkable to consider how little this war has cost us in terms of human life. Over the course of three years of fighting, America has lost fewer lives than it did in one day at a time it wasn’t fighting. If this is what American defeat looks like, America’s committed enemies will truly have something to tremble about when they see what American victory looks like.

Biden, And The Insider's Albatross

It’s hard for some of us to believe, but apparently the fact that Joe Biden wants to be President of the United States is considered news to many in the media.

It would not be any great revelation to disclose that Senator Biden (D – DC via Delaware) has believed himself to be more qualified for the job of president than any man who has held the office since he first arrived in the United States Senate thirty-two years ago. For that matter, it is evident that he also believes himself to be more qualified for virtually any cabinet position than any person who has held said position during that same time. If confidence in one’s own abilities were all that is required to be elected President, Mr. Biden would be a virtual shoe-in.

Unfortunately for the Senator, the American people – rightly or wrongly – have their own criteria for determining who they want to be their leader. And one of these in particular could be problematic for him, as well as any other sitting U.S. Senator who campaigns for the office.

It is an oft-repeated mantra that Americans are generally disinclined to transfer a sitting Senator to the top of the Executive Branch of government – John Kennedy being the last man to convince them to do so in 1960. Granted, the reasoning may have nothing to do with the qualifications of the person in question, but the truth of the matter stands nonetheless. And one doesn’t have to spend a whole lot of time listening carefully to the voices of the people to get an idea of why this is so.

The short version of the explanation is simply that Americans do not want the single most powerful office in the nation held by someone who is not “one of them.” And, try as they might to overcome that obstacle, men – and women – who decide to make their careers and homes in the Federal District have a difficult time convincing people that they are “one of them.”

It is impossible to put a precise measurement on the amount of time one must spend in Washington before the people of his state begin to view him more of a member of the Washington crowd than the Dover, or Phoenix, or Albany crowd. Some certainly get to that point more quickly than others. But it seems safe to say that, after thirty-two years, one would certainly be perceived in this way.

Not that being from Washington is an inherent disqualification from office. Only that the perception has taken hold that those who come to identify more with the Capital city and its institutions than they do with the hometown and its institutions have trouble convincing a majority of Americans from states other than their own that they can set aside their personal relationships with other Washington “players” and focus on the interests of those “back home” – wherever that may be in America. And well-publicized “deals” between these players – such as the recent pact between the “group of fourteen” regarding judicial nominations – only further add to this perception.

In other words, whether a Senator actually fits this description or not on an individual level, his association with an institution filled with those who do fit it acts as an automatic “first obstacle” to be overcome. One that puts a person in this position at a distinct disadvantage compared to those who didn’t have to overcome it in the first place – think William J. Clinton and George W. Bush, or Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney.

If a Joseph Biden – or a John McCain, or a John Kerry – truly believes in the necessity to convince the voting public that he is connected to its heartbeat in order to be elected President, he should give these truths serious thought before taking up what is perceived to be permanent residence in the isolated air of Washington. Or perhaps follow the leads of the Bill Frists and John Edwards by taking their leave of the city for a while before making a run for its most cherished real estate.

The Latest From The Big Tent

Anyone who believes that the GOP is hostile to dissenting voices, and not a “big tent” party, needs only to read former Senator John Danforth’s Op Ed in this morning’s New York Times to see evidence to the contrary. Calling on “moderate” Christians to have a greater voice in government while seeking to discredit Christians of a more conservative bent, Mr. Danforth clearly puts to the lie the notion that the Republican party is monolithic.

Taking his cue from the post-modernists who are uncomfortable with the notions of truth and absolute standards of right and wrong, or at least of the ability of humans to recognize them, the picture Mr. Danforth paints of the “moderate” Christian is one of someone who really wishes he was more certain of what he believes, and is resentful of those who are.

It would be one thing for Mr. Danforth to merely use the forum he has been given to advance his beliefs and the reason for them. But what he in fact does in this piece is engage in a systematic attempt to silence the voices of more conservative Christians who would offer dissent to his own take on the role of the believer in society and government. Or, at the very least, he tries to convince the uncommitted that the take of the moderate Christians on issues of the day – some of which he enumerates – is the “one authentic Christian perspective on politics” – a tactic of which he accuses the conservatives.

In essence, the premise of Mr. Danforth’s discomfort with the conservatives can be summed up via his declaration that for the moderates, “the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.” An interesting statement, particularly for an ordained Episcopalian minister, as the commandment he cites is actually called by Jesus the “Second” great commandment. Conveniently left out of this formula for dealing with mankind’s ills is the “First” commandment – to love the Lord above all else.

Of course, it’s that first commandment that is so difficult for those who are uncomfortable with confrontation under almost any circumstance. That ultimate love for the Lord that Christians – who are, after all, the topic of Mr. Danforth’s column – are to have necessitates a love for His truth, and a willingness to stand for the truth, no matter the consequences. In fact, the sharing of the truth - coupled with a humble willingness to actually listen to other opinions - is the ultimate act of love demonstrated to one's neighbor. And yes, this commitment to the truth holds even if it means some people will dislike the believer for doing so.

Nevertheless, Mr. Danforth finds this to be a distasteful practice on the part of the conservatives when they try to work within the American constitutional system to have an influence on public policy. The unstated implication of the piece is that any attempt on the part of Christian conservatives to participate in the political process – the same political process in which moderates and liberals have the right to participate – is an attempt to forcibly impose their views on others, lacking in the spirit of humility that he attributes to his own kind. Never mind the fact that they have to get the same number of votes in Washington, or throughout the nation on election day, as any other group.

The unspoken, yet certainly real, fear harbored by Mr. Danforth and others of his ilk is that the conservatives will actually meet with success in promoting their agenda. That there is a very real chance that a majority of Americans agree with them, and are thus willing to promote policies and candidates that will further that agenda.

No one likes to lose in the public-policy arena, but that is always a danger in a democratic society. Which is why it is all the more important that various factions focus their energies on talking to the American people about why their position should be supported, and on engaging in rational debate with those of opposing views.

Unfortunately, it seems that the further toward the left one drifts, the less likely he is to be willing to engage in such rational debate. Demonstrating this, well, truth, Mr. Danforth has chosen the path of merely trying to discredit his opponents by telling anyone who listens that his opponents really shouldn’t be engaging in policy discussions anyway. At least that is what is to be believed if the reader agrees with Mr. Danforth that the relationship between the rise of activism on the part of Christians and the breakdown of collegiality in government is undeniable, although no similar consideration is given to the rise of the secular left in this light.

Mr. Danforth, and others like him, are certainly welcome in the Republican party. But unfortunately for them, the other major American party has already demonstrated how effective the tactics he has chosen to use are in winning policy fights – by virtue of the continued dominance of conservatives in Washington, in no small part as a result of these tactics.

More Image Over Substance

The Social Security system still faces insolvency problems not too many years down the road, but apparently no reforms will be passed this year.

There are still a number of judicial – and other executive branch – nominees awaiting confirmation by the Senate, with no indication of when, if ever, said confirmation will be forthcoming.

Despite the steady, and rather rapid, rise in energy costs, the energy bill still languishes in Congress.

But thank goodness! At least we got an apology for lynching passed by the United States Senate.

An article in this morning’s Tennesseean notes that Tennessee’s Junior Senator, Lamar Alexander, was one of sixteen senators – all Republicans – who did not sign on as a co-sponsor for the resolution apologizing for the Senate’s refusal to right a wrong some sixty-five years ago – around the time the good senator was born. And, as could be expected, despite the fact that his office has confirmed that he would have voted in favor of the resolution had a roll call vote been taken – it passed on a voice vote – he, and others who weren’t “on board,” is being subjected to criticism from the usual suspects.

Speaking about Senator Alexander and his colleagues who didn’t bother to join in the Senate’s exercise in window-dressing, Hilary Shelton of the NAACP stated that, “An apology begins with an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. For those who weren’t willing to do that, you have to pause and take wonder as to why they’re here in the first place.”

Frankly, this writer has to wonder the same thing about the members of the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” who can’t be bothered to pass meaningful legislation that actually accomplishes something and addresses real needs, but are all too happy to take up floor time to debate and pass a resolution that accomplishes nothing and reveals nothing that wasn’t already known – Why are they “here”?

That it was a failure on the part of the United States Senate to pass the legislation when it had the opportunity in the first half of the twentieth century is not disputed, and I am sure that Senator Alexander and the others would agree. But the fact is that such legislation has been passed since that time, which is a far more meaningful expression of that acknowledgement of wrongdoing that Mr. Shelton so desires than any non-binding resolution could ever be. This resolution did nothing to strengthen such legislation. Nor did it do anything to solve any of the social ills being faced by that community that suffered the most at the hands of lynch mobs. It merely apologized for the past failures on the part of the Senate to act. A classic case of image over substance.

Because the apology itself is meaningless gesture. Virtually the entire generation of Americans that had the power to stop the practice at the time it was going on is gone. Certainly, there are no members of the Senate from that era that still serve – all jokes about Robert Byrd aside. The resolution passed by the Senate is roughly equivalent to me apologizing to my neighbor because the guy who lived in my house before me once smashed his mailbox. I have nothing for which to apologize, and my predecessor in the house has not been absolved of his malice.

But the resolution does manage to make members of the Senate feel good about themselves – a skill that has been honed to perfection in the “Upper House” of Congress. But one has to wonder how much comfort that will be to Americans, whether of African descent or otherwise, who pump their $3.50-a-gallon gas while pondering what standard of living their retirement income will afford them.

Frankly, my hat is off to Senator Alexander, as well as his fifteen colleagues, who had the presence of mind to stand up and declare that the emperor had no clothes on, while preferring to put their hands to other legislation that would actually work to alleviate the problems facing the minority communities in the United States. Just one more example of the truth of the statement: “It matters who governs.”

Wanted: Rational Opposition

The heckling of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday as he delivered a commencement address at Santa Monica College has provided the latest example of the jeopardy that the American two-party system faces. Not that there is any real danger of one party folding up and going out of business anytime soon, mind you. But what does appear to be happening could conceivably be just as dramatic in its potential impact on American governance.

While still in grad school, I recall a classroom discussion once on the subject of groupthink – the phenomenon in which only one possible course of action is seriously considered because there is no one involved in the decision making process who will advocate for any other, or at least play “devil’s advocate” and ask difficult questions about potential flaws in the accepted plan – and how this phenomenon can have dire consequences, as many believe was demonstrated in the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The point being made in the discussion was that it is a dangerous thing for decision makers to be totally surrounded only by people with the exact same point of view. Flawed humans – in other words, all humans – are benefited when there is someone involved in policy making who is not sold on the same approach to a problem as everyone else. The give and take of discussing alternative approaches can often identify problems in either approach. And, certainly, those interested in uncovering facts, truth, and the best possible course of action have nothing to fear from such “reasoning together.”

But here’s the catch: Those who oppose the accepted position must offer a rational alternative, and do so in a rational way. In early 1961, the CIA advocated for President Kennedy to launch the disastrous invasion in Cuba, with few to no alternative ideas advocated by anyone who might have questioned such a course of action. But how much different would the decision have been had the only person advocating an alternative been doing so by trying to shout down his opponents while suggesting a nuclear strike against Moscow? There would have been just as much consideration of this alternative as there would be for no alternative.

So, how does this relate to the heckling of Governor Schwarzenegger? In that it is only the latest – and, I am confident, not the last – example of the extreme left’s eschewing of rational debate in favor of irrational displays of rage. Consider some other such incidents:

- As Pentagon Advisor Richard Perle engaged in a formal debate with Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in February, an audience member threw a shoe at him as he spoke.

- Also in February, a Sacramento couple hanged a U.S. Soldier in effigy while displaying an Iraqi flag in their window.

- In March, a man with an anti-Bush/War sign in his car attempted to run a woman with a Bush/Cheney sticker off the road in Tampa.

- There has been a recent spate of incidents in which pies or salad dressing were thrown at conservative writers Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, William Kristol, and David Horowitz at different places and times as they attempted to speak.

But the actions of certain “mavericks” in our society wouldn’t necessarily reflect upon actual leaders of the opposition party in government, would it? Not necessarily. So consider also the following:

- On Election Day, 2004, five Democrat operatives, including the son of Representative Gwen Moore slashed the tires of several vans in Wisconsin that were to be used by the Republican party to take people to the polls.

- On Inauguration Day, a staffer for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had to be escorted away from the festivities after he and others disrupted the event for many in the crowd.

- DNC Chairman Howard Dean declared in January that he hates “Republicans and all that they stand for.”

- In May, Senator Reid himself referred to the President of the United States as a “loser,” and showed no remorse over his choice of words when asked about it later.

- Earlier this month, Senator John Kerry announced his intention to look into impeaching the President based on a memo – that has floated around far left websites for months – that most rational observers agree says very little of what Mr. Kerry and others wish it would say.

What one sees in all of these incidents, many of which feature high-ranking Democrat officials within the government, is an abandonment of rationality and decorum in a desperate attempt to stop any and all policy activity on the part of the President and party that the American people have put into power. There is little to no attempt for the minority party and its supporters to “reason together” with the majority party. All rational tactics have been abandoned in favor of ones that call for the casting of aspersions while trying to silence any response.

And where Governor Schwarzenegger is concerned, it is ironic for the leftists to try to silence him in this way, as his relatively liberal positions on many issues make him someone who might actually be willing to lend a sympathetic ear to much of what they have to say. But the problem is that he is a Republican, and, in the view of the new Democrat party, must be silenced for that reason alone. This does not give the appearance of a party that has nothing to fear from reasoned and rational debate.

The problem is that reasoned and rational debate is good for our society and government. We need those rational voices of opposition to force us to consider reasonable alternatives and consequences that we might not come up with ourselves.

And that is not what we are getting right now. As long as one party allows itself to be manipulated by the irrational extremists within its ranks, who accuse the President and his colleagues of virtually everything short of causing male-pattern baldness, we are deprived of one of the principal benefits of the two-party system. We need to hear the opposing voices of rational Democrats. If they are still out there, here’s hoping they make a resurgence soon.

Wilder Vs. Washington

It has been said that, when he heard that George Washington was voluntarily stepping down as leader of the United States, King George III of England declared, “If that is true, he is the greatest man in the world.”

As to whether Washington truly was the greatest man of his day, there may be some debate. But that he was a great man – and an ideal example to future generations of what principled American leadership ought to be – is beyond dispute.

I couldn’t help but think of such things as I recently read an editorial in the Nashville City Paper about Tennessee’s Senate Speaker/Lieutenant Governor John Wilder.

Mr. Wilder, of course, is the longest serving leader in any legislative body in the United States, having held his powerful position since 1971. And his experience provides a distinct contrast with that of General/President Washington. While Washington astounded the world of his day by first giving up his position as the nation’s military leader, and then as the nation’s civil leader, Wilder has become a sad example of a fading star desperate to hold onto power at any cost.

Witness the deal-making that went on following the 2004 elections, in which Republicans won a majority in Tennessee’s Senate for the first time in 140 years. The people of Tennessee, who put that Republican majority in place, could reasonably expect the men and women they elected to replace Democrat Wilder with one of their (the Republicans) own.

But it was not to be, as alleged Republican Senators Michael Williams and Tim Burchett put personal ambitions and loyalties ahead of their sense of loyalty to their constituents by casting their lots with Mr. Wilder. And, his need for power undiminished by his advancing years, Mr. Wilder was all too happy to accept their support and, no doubt, reward it appropriately – as evidenced by Mr. Williams’ newfound status as President Pro Tem.

And now, as Tennessee’s government faces its worst scandal in at least a decade, one can’t be blamed for wondering if he is not seeing the fruit of Mr. Wilder’s “leadership” in the General Assembly. The ethical rot that has resulted in criminal indictments of three Senators and one Representative (with others possibly following) did not begin overnight. The lack of significant ethics regulations and their enforcement upon the legislature is a problem that has been festering for quite some time. And whose face is most consistently seen in the legislative leadership pictures over the past thirty years?

Understand, this is not to say, necessarily, that Senator Wilder is guilty of the same indiscretions of the Fords, Crutchfields, Bowers, and Newtons. But it does suggest a significant lack of leadership on the part of the one person in the General Assembly who has had more time and opportunity to clean up the ethical mess on Capitol Hill than any other single individual.

Now we are hearing, as noted in NCP, that “if Mr. Wilder were forced to step down, he would never recover from the emotional hardship of giving up his powerful position.” While the editorial writers at NCP say this is understandable, this writer has to wonder if a certain Virginian, who could have become a virtual monarch of America if he so desired (many desired it for him), would agree with that sentiment.

John Wilder’s desperate cling to power, whether it be for prestige or influence, may in fact be the single greatest indicator that he is no longer fit to hold the office he so cherishes. It is sad to see a man of advancing years be forced to give up something so dear to him against his will. But then, it is sad to see a man or woman of any age so devoted to maintaining their own prestige at the expense of the state they claim to serve.