The Importance of the 10th Amendment

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

This past weekend, ABC News held a debate between George Will and Paul Ryan on one side, and Barney Frank and Robert Reich on the other, during which they argued over whether our government was too large and intrusive. The focus of the discussion was on the role of the federal government in Washington. By omitting any discussion of state and local governments, they impliedly equated the role of all government with the role of the federal government. This debate, though intelligent and interesting, appeared to ignore the real debate that is raging outside of Washington over the size and role of government.

There are two major concerns that have been percolating among voters over the size and role of government, especially among those who embraced the Tea Party movement in 2009. These concerns can be distilled as follows:

• Too much responsibility and power have shifted to Washington from individuals, local governments and state governments, which is contrary to the proper allocation of responsibilities under the Constitution, and which has created tremendous economic inefficiencies for, and imposed artificial costs on, society; and
• All levels of government—local, state, and national—have been operated without a proper focus on their primary responsibilities, and have been managed inefficiently and too expensively, which has caused them to incur an unsustainable debt burden to fund their operations.

Citizens now see that the net impact of these developments has been

• a transfer of power and revenue to the federal government with a commensurate reduction of individual liberty and wealth, and
• the creation of an unsustainable tax and debt burden for future generations.

Our neighbors want politicians who will address these concerns now and take the bold actions to fix them—not just manage them better. It is in this context that so many people have responded positively to the conservative argument to re-invigorate and apply the principles contained in the 10^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been championed by Rick Perry and others.

For a guy like me, who studied Constitutional Law in the early 1980s, this new embrace of the 10^th Amendment is remarkable. Back then, the overwhelming view of the 10^th Amendment (and the 9^th Amendment, too) was that it was merely “surplusage” or a “truism”, which provided no real limit to the responsibility of the post-New Deal federal government. To understand this view, let’s look at the actual language of two constitutional provisions—the 10^th Amendment and the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of Article I, Section 8:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
******
The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

By the early 1980s, so many responsibilities and powers had been usurped by Congress, the President and the federal bureaucracy under Congress’ expanded application of the Necessary and Proper Clause (which was blessed by the Supreme Court), that the 10^th Amendment was viewed as simply recognizing that whatever power Congress had chosen not to usurp remained within the responsibility of the States or the people to exercise. Such an interpretation willfully ignored the concept of Federalism underlying the Constitution, and no longer provided any limitation on the power of the federal government.

In fact, judicial interpretations actually created a perversity of the Necessary and Proper power: as Congress broadened its authority, it expanded the scope of what was necessary and proper to exercise that authority; which, in turn, broadened the federal government’s authority into new areas of responsibility and, thus, broadened the scope of what was necessary and proper to exercise such new authority. It is this continuing and expanding spiral that has led the federal government to exercise the power to do things like regulate all forms of local economic development to protect the life of a local lizard or frog, as well as to underwrite our health and retirements.

Now it is true that the power of the federal government to legislate actually is a little broader than what is just necessary and proper to implement or enforce the responsibilities listed in Article I, Section 8. The specific list of responsibilities in that section are—

• to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …
• to borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
• [to establish] uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• to establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
• to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• to raise and support Armies, …
• to provide and maintain a Navy;
• to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [and]
• to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

In addition to Article I, Section 8, the original text of the Constitution vests other powers in the federal government that Congress can pass laws to effectuate the following:

• to establish rules for its own procedures;
• to make or alter laws regulating the election of Senators and Representatives;
• to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion;
• to publish a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of public funds;
• to approve the receipt of any award by a citizen from a foreign government;
• to allow States to impose certain taxes on the movement of goods in commerce;
• to allow for States to keep a defense establishment in a time of peace;
• to provide for the conduct of the Executive functions outlined in Article II;
• to establish the scope of jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the enumerated issues in Article III;
• to establish the place for federal criminal trials;
• to establish the punishment for treason;
• to proscribe the manner by which States may provide full faith and credit to the laws of other States;
• to allow States to form Compacts;
• to admit new States to the Union;
• to regulate Territories and other property of the Union;
• to guarantee a Republican form of government to every State; and
• to protect the States from domestic violence or invasion.

Finally, amendments to the Constitution have given these additional responsibilities to Congress since 1789:

• to prohibit slavery;
• to protect individual rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and to the privilege and immunities of citizenship;
• to allow Confederates to have full citizenship;
• to lay income taxes;
• to provide for and protect the right to vote for former slaves, women, and 18-20 year-olds, and against poll-taxes;
• to provide for rules as to who will serve as President if no one qualifies to serve as President or Vice-President, or if those who would qualify would have died, by the time a Presidential term should start; and
• to allow for the appointment of Electors from the District of Columbia to serve in the Electoral College to elect the President and Vice-President.

Now, I don’t know about you, but, though these lists appear to be long, the listed powers are really pretty narrow and specific, which is consistent with the concept of Federalism. The sphere of responsibility delegated to the federal government was to be very narrow and specific. The trust to exercise these specific responsibilities were, in turn, vested in a group of representatives, while, closer to home, the people would be more directly involved in the politics of their States and communities where most of the work of government would continue to be done.

Not only did this allocation of responsibility protect and preserve the rights and obligations we call “liberty,” it also made profound economic sense. The specific allocation of the listed responsibilities to the federal government controlled the transaction and administrative costs associated with the operation of government, by reserving most governmental responsibility to local and state governments that could exercise those responsibilities with less bureaucracy and cost. Those activities closest to home—like providing for schools, roads, public safety, public hospitals and clinics, and community support—would be paid for and regulated through local and state governments in coordination with private organizations in each community. One government, one agency, and one bureaucracy would be needed to address each responsibility at each level.

But in today’s world, local and state governments have lost focus and fiscal discipline as the federal government has usurped their responsibilities (and while the federal government fails to perform its proper responsibilities effectively or efficiently). We now have multiple agencies and bureaucracies at each level of government, which overlap in responsibility and power. They each absorb scarce tax dollars to provide these redundant activities; the resulting redundant policies and enforcements often conflict; and the redundant bureaucracies often end up doing nothing because the bureaucrats assume another agency is addressing the problem. Add on to these layers of inefficiency the cost and inefficiency of redundant programs within each level of government (and a trend toward increasing salaries and benefits of public employees to a level that exceeds the level of private sector benefits), and you have the seeds of our current fiscal mess at all levels of government.

Therefore, resurrecting the 10^th Amendment is the natural first step to not only restoring the proper balance of power to protect our liberty, it also is the natural first step toward restoring fiscal sanity to government. But restoring this balance does not set-up the false choice that the debaters on ABC’s program seemed to be discussing—the false choice of government v. no-government. Under a proper application of the 10^th Amendment there will be government, there will be schools, there will be roads, there will be public safety, there will be public hospitals and clinics, and there will be help to those in our communities who need it—but those activities will return where they belong: to responsibility of the State and local governments, and to the people to provide. This re-balanced approach to government should produce less and more cost-effective government in the long-term, but it will not eradicate government—as progressives fear and libertarians hope.

The challenge to conservatives will be to commit to engage in the new balance that will arise if we are successful in resurrecting the 10^th Amendment. This new balance only will work if we individually engage and participate in the operation and oversight of our school districts, our cities, and our state to fix the fiscal messes they face, to hold our local elected officials accountable to re-focus their efforts on those responsibilities they should be exercising, to require that those functions be performed cost-effectively, and to participate in the private organizations that will be needed to help provide certain services in our communities.

If we don’t accept these responsibilities, then our demand for a return to the principles of the 10^th Amendment will be empty, and the vacuum eventually will be re-filled by those who want to centralize all power, responsibility and revenue in Washington.

A Most Misunderstood Man

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that many of our political and social problems here in the U.S. and in Europe stem from the fact that over the last 250 years we have misunderstood, misinterprete d and misapplied the teachings of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin. These

failings apply equally over the centuries to those who have purported to be their followers as well as to their critics. Moreover, these failings intertwined to fuel diabolical military, political and social misadventures that cursed the world from the 1930s and through the 1960s.

But this is not a post about either of these men or their teachings. It is about a third man—a man of the 20th Century—who, unfortunately, now is arguably among the most misunderstood of recent history: Ronald Reagan. As we head into a political season when his real ideas are needed as much as, if not more than ever, we need to address and correct the misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misapplications by both his followers and his critics, or else we could end up making matters far worse in the long run than they are today.

Let me start by saying that I don’t pretend to be a “Reagan Scholar”. On occasion over the years, I have shared with others the fact that I was lucky to have interacted with Reagan when I was young on a handful of occasions when I was between the ages of 10 and 17, and it was based on the last of those interactions that I became a steadfast follower of his ideas—and have remained such a follower ever since. Although I may at some point elaborate on those experiences, what I am going to say now has nothing to do with them. Instead, my observations come from years of following what the man actually wrote, said and did over many decades.

I want to start with the biggest misunderstanding that has permeated our memory of Reagan—the idea that his leadership was primarily a product of his unique speaking skills. Though this fallacy is embraced almost universally, it is the driving interpretation of Reagan from the left. They never saw Reagan as a man of substance, but rather as a “pied piper” who led through the hypnosis of his speaking skills and cue cards (that were written by others). As a character in John Ford’s famous movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance said, “once the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” For decades now, the idea that Reagan was simply “the Great Communicator” has become part of our social legend.

Reagan, himself, tried to dispel the myth in his Farewell Address in 1989, when he said that he was not a great communicator because of how he spoke, but because of the ideas he tried to convey. You see, Reagan had an understanding of himself and his purpose that few have ever comprehended.

The Democrats surely never have. After the Dukakis debacle in 1988, they went looking for “great communicators” and found a young, Southern Governor, with a folksy charm and an Ivy League degree, who could talk for hours about anything and say nothing; and in 2008, found an urbane young man who effectively used a teleprompter and vague, overwrought rhetoric to make his leftist ideas seem mainstream. Essentially, Democrats to this day believe Reagan simply fooled the American people into following Republicans, and they’ve chosen their leaders based on their ability to fool enough people to follow Democrats long enough to win an election. In the meantime, we on the right continue to feed the legend by referring to Reagan as “the Great Communicator,” forgetting the derisive origin of that label, and thereby unwittingly continuing to marginalize the real strength of the man’s intellect.

Recently, through the publication of more of Reagan’s papers and of his diaries, the public is finally getting a glimpse—but still only a glimpse—of a man who may have had one of the greatest minds for political philosophy in the last half of the 20th Century. After receiving a liberal arts education from Eureka College, and after becoming a leader in the labor movement in California after World War II, Reagan began re-thinking all of his political assumptions and absorbed historical and political writings like a sponge. Due to his unique schedule as an actor and labor leader, Reagan had plenty of time to study and reflect during the 1940s and 1950s. Then his chance to continue his study increased with a purpose, when he was engaged by General Electric to be its national spokesman.

By the early 1960s, Reagan had transformed himself intellectually into a force of nature. In one of his last books, The Reagan I Knew, William F. Buckley, Jr., describes this Reagan whom the public never knew. When Reagan burst into the country’s political consciousness with his famous televised speech for the Goldwater campaign in 1964, they saw not a man reading cue cards, but a formidable political intellectual, who wrote his own speech, and who spoke with a purpose using the skills honed over a decade of public speaking for General Electric. It is that politician who won two landslide victories for Governor of California over the best candidates the Democratic Party had in that state; who nearly stole the 1968 Republican Convention from Nixon; who came within an eyelash of beating the incumbent for the 1976 Republican nomination; who, from 1977 to 1980, started to change the Republican Party with a new vision; who, then, changed the political and economic trajectory of this country; and who, with the help of Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, changed the world.

This Reagan believed that economic conservatives who had traditionally supported the Republican Party, and social conservatives who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party, could be molded into a “new” Republican Party, and he worked to create that new party after his loss in 1976. Unfortunately, this new party has never fully formed. Almost from the instant of his great landslide re-election victory in 1984, factions formed within his party, which continue to this day. Although these factions have formed coalitions long enough to win three national elections since 1988, as well as to elect Republican Congresses through much of the last 20 years, they still have not formed the molded party of Reagan’s vision. This failure is the primary reason why Democrats remain viable as a political party, which has led to such disastrous policies since 2006.

The primary reason these factions within the GOP remain divided is that we conservatives still don’t embrace the real vision Reagan had for this party, and our field of Presidential candidates reflects this fundamental problem. Without going down the list of candidates and their misinterpretations of Reagan, let me just present a short list of examples of misunderstandings:

• Reagan’s whole view started with the individual, families and communities. He believed the genius of America arose from individuals, engaging in work in a free market, and engaging in self-governance through families, private organizations, churches, and local governments. Regulations, and government in general, should be focused on protecting those activities.

• Reagan did not believe in small and weak government. Instead, he believed in strong governments at each level whose powers were limited to specific responsibilities, and that we had delegated too much responsibility to the federal government. Responsibility and tax dollars needed to be returned to individuals, local governments and state governments (in that order) who were closer to the problems that needed to be addressed.

• Reagan did not view the reduction or elimination of taxes as a social and economic good in and of itself, but by the late 1970s reduction of taxes had become an economic and political imperative. There is no question that Reagan believed that individuals had the right to keep the fruits of their labor—it was their money that they had earned, and the government had no entitlement to it. He also relied on evidence from the Coolidge and Kennedy administrations that showed that lowering taxes often, if not always, had the effect of raising tax revenue because it increased economic activity. However, he also believed that taxes were needed to fund the legitimate activities of government at each level. The job of each level of government was to determine its legitimate needs based on its legitimate responsibilities and limits, and then raise enough revenue to pay for them. Ultimately, you can not understand Reagan’s views about taxes without understanding his belief in the limitations of the federal government. He often said during his race in 1976 that the tax base diverted to the federal government should be returned to the local and state governments, so that the dollars could be more effectively directed and spent where the local needs were. Over time, if such dollars were raised and spent locally, government would be more efficient and would cost less, so fewer tax dollars would need to be raised from each individual.

• One of the powers legitimately delegated to the federal government was national defense, and he believed in maintaining peace by maintaining a strong military.

• Reagan believed that much of our inherent strength came from our commitment to liberty at home, and that our most important diplomatic duty was to keep America as a beacon of liberty—as an example to others—and to defeat the biggest threat to liberty at that time—communism. He did not believe that every dispute in the world required American intervention; but most disputes at that time affected, or were affected by, the Cold War with the Soviet Union, so he believed in an active engagement in world affairs. His invasion of Grenada and his aid to rebels in Central America were messages to the Soviets and the Cubans, and his aid to Afghan rebels was part of his effort to defeat Soviet expansion. Even Reagan’s famed bombing of Ghadafi’s compound in Libya was a defensive action in response to an attack on American troops in Germany, and sent a message to the Soviets that any attack on our troops would be met with an armed response. However, he showed restraint and prudence when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner with American passengers, when the Soviets tried to thwart Polish independence, and when our Marines were killed in Lebanon. He handled problems with our allies, including the peaceful transition of power in South Korea and the transition from apartheid in South Africa through diplomacy rather than confrontation. In the end, the accomplishments he set in motion were remarkable: the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan; the Soviet Union collapsed, Eastern Europe was freed, and the Cold War ended; South Korea transitioned to a democratic government and a free-market powerhouse; South Africa ended apartheid; and Nicaragua and El Salvador elected democratic governments.

• Reagan believed that the desire of people to come here, even illegally, was a sign of the strength of our beacon of liberty, not something to be feared. Although we can now see that the immigration law of the late 1980s and the grant of amnesty at the time, were wrong, they were part of a sensible approach to a problem from that vantage point, and recognized that it was our freedom—our ultimate strength—that attracted these people to become our neighbors, and that we should never abandon our strength out of fear.

• Reagan believed that America’s future would be strengthened through stronger ties with Mexico and Canada, and ultimately, with all of Central America. I don’t know how long he had held this idea, but by the time he opposed the Panama Canal Treaty, he was advocating a strong economic and political alliance with Mexico and Canada. His efforts ultimately were negotiated over his and G.H.W. Bush’s terms, and became the NAFTA treaty.

• Reagan was committed politically to the preservation of Israel, but also to building a balance of power in the Middle East in which Israel could live without fear and which would deter the Soviets from becoming re-involved in the region. I do not recall Reagan ever promoting our relationship with Israel purely because of its biblical importance, though I am sure one can find a sentence here or there where Israel’s place in our Judeo-Christian heritage would have been noted. In fact, such rhetoric would have inflamed tensions in that region and thwarted his goal of building a balance of power in the region. Reagan would have never abandoned Israel, but, as evidenced by his removal of troops from Lebanon, he did not believe our military presence necessarily made Israel safer.

• Reagan was a man of deep faith, and his faith combined with his knowledge of history and his political philosophy provided the foundation for his vision for the Republican Party and the country. Reagan spoke openly of his faith, the importance of faith to this nation, and the need for people of faith to be engaged in the “new” Republican Party. But, frankly, I think Reagan would have been perplexed by the level of engagement in the organizational structure of the Republican Party by agents of certain congregations and faiths, and by the exclusivity they have sometimes employed as criteria for participating in the GOP. Reagan always was clear that his was a political movement, not an ecclesiastical or ideological movement, and his blueprint for the new party he envisioned required inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

Reagan was, at heart, a reformer, and he had a vision for reforming the GOP and this country. Although the times have changed (e.g.,there is no Soviet Union or Cold War, and the level of taxation is nowhere near what it was in the 1970s), and we have learned from mistakes during the years Reagan was President (e.g., amnesty is an inappropriate policy for addressing illegal immigration), I still adhere to Reagan’s vision for our party and our country:

• an inclusive view of conservatism that is based on the fundamental strength of character of individuals who recognize that liberty is comprised of both freedom and responsibility;

• the centrality of those individuals, their families, and their neighborhoods to the economic, political and social sustenance of the nation;

• the need for most social services to be provided by private organizations, churches and local governments;

• the preservation of strong, but limited governments at each level of government, with the revenue needed to meet their respective responsibilities;

• the preservation of our active role in the world as a beacon for liberty;

• the creation of a strong and lasting relationship with our closest neighbors, and their citizens, based on the strength of our liberty, and not on our fears; and

• the maintenance of a strong military here and abroad to maintain peace.

I hope over the next few months that the spirit of this vision will finally bring the GOP together as the “new” Republican Party that Reagan envisioned.

Is it a Ponzi Scheme?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I thought the last two Republican Presidential debates on MSNBC and CNN have produced pretty good political theater, in large part because of the participation of Governor Perry.  Although I may be a little biased, I think he has more than held his own and is, right now, the best candidate among the field (and I am still more than just a little amazed by all of this).  That is not to say that the other candidates would not make better Presidents than our current Commander-In-Chief—they all would—but Perry has impressed me the most so far.

The dust-up in the last debate over the vaccination-mandate fiasco of 2007 was to be expected, for it was one of the biggest blunders of Perry’s tenure as Governor.  To his credit, he has responded to the criticism the only way he should—he has explained why he did it, and acknowledged his mistake.  There will be some who will never forgive him for this blunder and try to decipher corrupt motives from his actions; but, for many others (including those, like me, who often have been skeptical of his leadership over the years), he showed in the last debate that he learned a lesson from his mistake and has grown from the experience—a valuable and, indeed, necessary trait for a leader in the times we face.

But the really interesting debate that has emerged is over Social Security—and what a welcome and instructive debate this has become.  Essentially, three lines of debate have formed:

1. Governor Perry has framed the debate by calling the current system a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie”, by saying it was an improper use of federal authority when it was first enacted, and by committing himself to fixing the system for future beneficiaries;


2. Mitt Romney has confronted both Perry’s descriptions of the system, and his reflection on its history, as being too provocative, while also committing himself to fixing the system; and


3. The rest of the candidates have committed to fixing the system one way or another, while trying not to get in the middle of the argument over the wisdom of Perry’s remarks.

So, what is the net outcome of this debate so far?  It is now refreshingly clear that Republicans are united in fixing the Social Security system to make it solvent for future beneficiaries; but, so far, only a few of the candidates are willing to confront and describe the actual problem with the system and give us an indication as to how they would approach fixing the problem.  It is clear that Perry—and probably Cain and Gingrich, too—realize that you can’t fix Social Security by tinkering around the edges.  Instead, you have to be honest with the American people about the problem at the core of the system, and how it needs to be fixed.

With that said, is Perry’s criticism correct?  And, if it is, what should we be seeking as a fix to the system?

To answer the first question, we need to understand how Social Security has been marketed to the voters over the years.  Since its inception, the creators and supporters of the current Social Security system have referred to it as an old-age insurance system, as a public pension system, as a trust account, as a contractual promise to pay out in retirement an amount based on what was contributed during working years, and as a social safety net to protect the elderly from poverty.  Are any of these descriptions correct?  Upon close scrutiny, the answer is “no”.  It is neither insurance, nor a pension, nor a trust account because it is not based on either actuarial, investment, or fiduciary criteria that provides for a return to the taxpayer of what he or she paid into the system plus investment growth.  It is not even a promise to receive what you paid into the system, because the dollars you paid into the system were received by other beneficiaries as you paid your tax, and you will receive payments from other taxpayers when you retire.  Finally, there is no real correlation between Social Security payments and poverty prevention—Warren Buffet gets the same benefit that your Uncle Fred and Aunt Martha receive, who, in turn, get the same benefit the poorest of our elderly receive.

So, what is this system, really?  You and I are asked to pay into a system and are told periodically that we will receive an amount of money at a certain age based on these payments.  Our future payments are not derived from the amount we paid into the system plus investment growth, but rather from new payments into the system from other people.  The fact and amount of our future payments are based on whether new people continue to pay into the system, and are dictated by the decisions of the person(s) controlling the system—not by the market.  These are characteristics common to illegal Pyramid and Ponzi schemes.  The only differences are that

1. the Social Security system is not only legal, participation is mandatory; and
2. payments can continue, even if new taxpayers don’t materialize, because the federal government can print money to cover the shortfall.

That means, that, unlike a classic Pyramid or Ponzi scheme, payments can continue with freshly printed dollars—though the value of those dollars will plummet as more are printed.  Eventually, though, you’ll arrive at the same result:  if you rely on the printing press at the Mint to save the system, you really won’t get back the money you were promised (just like how a Pyramid or Ponzi scheme ends—though a little less abruptly).

Quite frankly, if you measure the promises surrounding Social Security against its reality, Governor Perry’s descriptions are fairly accurate—it’s like a Ponzi scheme, and the marketing of Social Security has been a “monstrous lie”.

Well, then…what’s the answer to the second question—what should we be seeking as a fix to the system?  As all of the Republican candidates have acknowledged, the promise of this system, and its protection for many elderly Americans, has existed too long with too much public reliance to end it now, if ever.  But I think it would be immoral to continue lying to each other about this system and to not address and fix its faults.  Over the last 30 years there have been a lot of good ideas floated and even practiced—as in the case of Chile (as Herman Cain often notes) and a handful of other nations in Eastern Europe, including Russia—so we don’t have to come up with answers out of thin air.  Whatever fix we adopt should incorporate most, if not all, of the following basic principles:

1. A cut-off age for beneficiaries should be set above which the system will continue as presently structured, and below which fundamental changes will be made;
2. The age at which benefits are to be paid eventually must be re-set to an older age, and then indexed to the life expectancy of the population, so that both the age at which benefits are received and the average projected period for receiving benefits can be affordably subsidized by the working population;
3. Incentives should be created for allowing older Americans to continue to contribute to the economy through paid or volunteer work, after they have reached a point when they physically may not be able to continue working in their original professions but prior to their receipt of benefits;
4. The system should be re-structured so that younger workers are able to split their Social Security tax payments between support for a safety net for means-tested elderly and the younger workers’ own personal retirement accounts; and
5. Eventually, the payment of benefits from a safety net that is fully supported by current tax dollars should be based on means-testing, so that those who have the means to support their own retirements through their private and public accounts do not receive direct transfer payments from the government; such direct transfer payments should be received only by those who are truly in need.

These principles are neither controversial, nor hard to implement, but for the vested interests and expectations surrounding the politics of Social Security.  Those vested interests and expectations will only be broken through candor coupled with new commitments.  To the extent Governor Perry has forced the Republican field of 2012 candidates to face and debate this issue, he has already met an important test for the leadership we will need over the next few years.

Is There a Right to be Wrong?

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

Before the recent Iowa Straw Poll, Republican Presidential contender and former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum, paraphrased Abraham Lincoln during a debate on Fox News by saying that “the States don’t have the right to do wrong.” Santorum made this statement as a criticism of those conservatives, like Governor Rick Perry (and me), who believe in the application of Federalism and the limitations on federal responsibility confirmed in the 10thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, even when those limitations are applied to certain moral issues that touch the very fabric of our society.

When Santorum made that statement, I was reminded of the statement made by another Republican Senator a generation ago. During the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings, Colonel Oliver North defended the Reagan administration’s decision to secretly facilitate the funding of rebels in Central America, in part, by claiming that Congress had been wrong to cut-off funding in the first place. In response, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire said: “the American people have the Constitutional right to be wrong.”

As we conservatives attempt to re-establish limits on the role and responsibility of the federal government and return responsibility to individuals and states, we need to address the question posed by these apparently conflicting statements—who is right? I believe the answer is that both men are right, but Senator Santorum’s application of the principle is wrong.

I come to this answer by going back to the Declaration of Independence and the original conception of Federalism. Our Founders believed that the primary purpose of a legitimate government was to secure God’s gifts of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” to each individual. Any government—state or national—that deprived individuals of these gifts, or impaired an individual’s exercise of these basic rights without due process, committed a wrong that gave individuals the license to alter or abolish that government. When it came time to create a federal government, our Founders preserved State governments as the primary laboratories for the development of democracy by creating a unique, federal republic. The States’ role as the primary laboratories in this ongoing experiment was further secured by the 10th Amendment.

The Republican Party emerged from the great social and political upheavals in the America of the 1840s and 1850s. Central to all of the upheavals was the institution of slavery. Slavery was a wrong that deprived men and women of their God-given rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Slavery was a wrong that could not and should not have been condoned, and those governments that legalized it were altered and abolished through war and constitutional amendment. It was during a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, when talking about the wrong of slavery, that Lincoln said, “but if you admit that it [slavery] is wrong, he can not logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.” It is that statement that Senator Santorum apparently paraphrased last week.

But the concept of liberty, arising from the gift of free will, requires that individuals, and the states they form, make choices. The very existence of the power of choice foresees the reality that some choices will be right and some choices will be wrong. In fact, the metaphor of the laboratory to describe the role of state governments implies that states will experiment with public policy choices, and the process of experimentation leads to many wrong choices during the search for a right result. Of course there are consequences that arise from our wrong choices that can be dire, and we arguably are now paying for many wrong choices that we have made and tolerated—as individuals, as communities, and through our governments—over the last 100 years, as we have confused liberty and the pursuit of happiness with license and irresponsibility. In fact, we theoretically can make enough wrong policy choices that we can destroy the fabric of our society and bankrupt our economy in the process—such is our right. But as severe as those consequences may be, liberty and federalism require that individuals and their governments have the right to be wrong—as long as our wrong choices do not deprive men and women of their God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What our Founders hoped was that we would continue to value the development and use of responsibility, moral character and wisdom as a guard against making wrong choices; that we would make more right choices than wrong choices along the way; that those wrong choices would be relatively minor; that we would learn and grow from the experiences and consequences of our wrong choices—individually and as a people; and that we would not long tolerate either the wrong choices or the consequences arising from such choices, and eventually correct our mistakes and make right choices in the future.

So, both Senators Rudman and Santorum were right. Senator Rudman was right that, generally, we have the right to make mistakes in our public policy—moral, economic, diplomatic, and military—even to the point of being so irresponsible that we put the whole fabric of our society at risk. Senator Santorum was right, too, because when those wrongs transgress our inalienable rights, they can not be tolerated and they must trigger our right to alter or abolish the offending government—typically, and properly, by election or amendment.

So, why do I say that Senator Santorum’s application of his principle to the example of gay marriage is wrong, and Governor Perry’s position is right? It is because gay marriage, like it or not, does not deprive anyone of Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. I happen to agree with Santorum and others who believe that licensing gay marriage is a wrong policy choice that reveals a collective collapse of responsibility, moral character, wisdom and judgment; and that such policies, if adopted throughout the country, may threaten, eventually, our social fabric. However, such policies do not threaten anyone’s inalienable rights. So, the states have the latitude in our system to experiment with this wrong policy, just as Texas had the right to adopt a constitutional amendment to prohibit such an experiment—this is the frustrating genius of the Federalism of our Founders.

One can only hope that as we conservatives win elections and re-invigorate the development and use of responsibility, moral character and wisdom through our families, our schools and our neighborhoods, that these wrong policies will be corrected. In the meantime, sadly, our citizens, and our governments must tolerate our right to be wrong if we are to preserve our Federal Republican form of government that our Founder’s designed.

Now, the hard question.

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

Ok, so over the last few posts, we been discussing what we will need to do to attack our public debts and permanently limit the size and scope of the federal government.  It not only will require better budgeting and management techniques; it will require a shift of responsibility from government to the individual, and a re-dedication from each of us to civic engagement—to the re-acceptance of individual responsibility, and the re-commitment to neighborly compassion instead of bureaucratic benefits.  For those of you who have followed my posts for a longer period, you know that I have addressed how to do this through processes like the “Tupelo Formula” in our communities, and zero-based budgeting at every level of government. 

What I have been advocating is what I understood to be an approach to government based on those principles drawn from the history of our experiences, of which de Tocqueville wrote and Reagan championed:  an approach to re-building our society for the 21^st Century based on its original purposes and principles—a society built on the foundational relationships formed in families, neighborhoods, congregations, private organizations; facilitated through the activities of free markets and free trade; and then preserved and protected by local, state and federal governments, each acting within their own sphere of competence and responsibility.   It is our adherence over the centuries to these original purposes and principles, which has made us “exceptional”.

 Creation of our exceptional society did not happen over night.  Instead, it arose from the hard work of many generations both before and after the American Revolution, who overcame many obstacles and hardships—and many terrible mistakes.  Over the last century, we have been dismantling this society through the aggressive use of government to supply our neighbor’s needs—culminating with the spasm of new government actions over the last two years.  We can reverse this trend toward larger and more expensive government, and unravel the layers of bureaucracy we’ve created—that’s actually the easy part.  We’ve known what needs to be done, and we’ve known it for a long time.

 The real question is whether we have the will and the desire to make the necessary changes in our personal lives required for re-engagement in the lives of our communities.  We’ve put off addressing this question for over a generation since Reagan told us it was A Time for Choosing and challenged us to form a New Republican Party.  For the sake of our future, we now need to face this question and answer it candidly.

Virtually every piece of data and research about civic engagement and the state of our neighborhoods, as well as the polling data related to our expectations about government, show that even many conservatives may not want to make the lifestyle changes needed to re-engage with our neighbors and re-accept responsibility for our neighborhoods.  That is because we’ve come to a moment in our history when we seem to confuse personal autonomy with Liberty, and to value the former over the latter.  Remember Liberty is based on a certain type of freedom:  freedom from the control of our lives by an anointed elite (hereditary, tribal, political, or religious) and their laws.  Liberty is not based on a right to be free from our neighbors, or from forming the bonds needed for a society to exist and thrive.  To be able to exercise Liberty and have it endure over time, our freedom must exist interdependently with our mutual responsibilities to our family, our neighbors, our communities, and our country.  In essence, freedom without civic engagement is not Liberty, it’s an empty cult of personal autonomy that rots the life of a society.

Through all of the struggles to expand opportunities and wipe away vestiges of discrimination in our society over the last half century, we promoted freedom while we destroyed the civic engagement of middle-class families in African-American and Latino communities, of women in neighborhoods, and of men with their families.  We’ve now created two generations of autonomous Americans at one end of the socio-economic spectrum, and two generations of dependent Americans on the other end.

While children of autonomous parents thrived in the suburbs and good schools, many, if not most, children in neighborhoods just down the street—like those in inner cities like Detroit, where 75% of children drop-out of school before the 12^th Grade—never finished school and often served time in jail.  Those children ended up under-educated and under-employed, and have doomed their families and their neighborhoods to economic decline, while the children of autonomous parents have entered the new global economy and thrived.  Today, most of these autonomous children live far from the home of their youth, travel across the country and across the globe for work, have or will soon have second homes, are as comfortable in an office or flat in Rome as in an office or apartment in Houston, and have developed few ties to the communities in which they currently reside.

Such children are now the second, international generation of personal autonomy.  Now, that does not mean that they, or even their parents, don’t care about other people—they usually do.  They care about the people in Darfur and in other troubled parts of the world, and would travel across the world for the experience of studying their plight; they care about “the homeless” and other disadvantaged, faceless groups of people, and rally for their causes; but, rarely have they looked into the eye of a neighbor in need and had to help.

The difference between these two autonomous generations and the cohorts they’ve left behind has been further exacerbated by the increasing income and educational disparities within our society.  For instance, as has been documented ad nauseum, both the educational performance and attainment levels, and income levels, have dramatically diverged between the top 10% of wage earners and the other 90% over the last generation.  What has not been discussed as much, though, is the incredible disparity that has opened up between the top 1% of wage earners and the other 9% of the top 10%.  This small group has become almost a separate civilization unto itself across the globe—not just autonomous from their neighbors, but virtually autonomous from all societies.  For this group, an eventual economic collapse in one country or region will not materially affect them—they can just relocate themselves and their assets, and then ride out the storm.

For this “Global 1%”, and for a growing number of the two autonomous generations of Americans, the current trend toward providing aid through centralized government entitlements is as beneficial to their lifestyles as those entitlements are perceived to be beneficial by those who receive the benefits.  By allowing government to try to care for our neighbors, the Global 1% and the autonomous Americans can enjoy the fruits of their freedom without any encumbrance of responsibility.  Meanwhile, more and more of the rest of Americans become more and more dependent on government entitlements in their daily lives.

There may be a term for what we are watching develop before our eyes, but it’s not Liberty; and it’s not true to our exceptional heritage.

I’ve recited all of this not to start a class war—because those of us of a certain age are all responsible for having created and fostered this predicament—nor do I advocate going back to some mystical, bygone era that never existed.  Indeed, we know how to correct these problems, and it’s not with more government re-distribution.  But if we are going to be honest with ourselves, we must realize that for a growing number of Americans across the political and economic spectrum, a return to a de Tocqueville America of civic engagement is an anathema—they don’t understand it, they don’t see how they will benefit from it, and it would require a change to their lifestyles that they don’t want to make.

If I’m right—both about what we need to do to wean ourselves from government and the real obstacles to re-building civic engagement—what do we do?

Again, without creating a class war, I think we first need to realize and accept that even though the “Global 1%” has a very large megaphone in our 24/7 media world, they have become so disconnected from the rest of us that they are politically irrelevant to how we address this issue.  If we try to build a program around their wishes we will get nowhere.  Second, it will be very difficult for those in the two autonomous generations to immediately accept the adjustments to their lifestyles that will come with new responsibilities, so engaging them immediately in this effort will merely slow the process down—and time is not our friend.

Instead, we need to focus, for now, on the rest of us—“Main Street Americans”.  We need to begin to promote civic engagement among Main Street Americans who still live, work and raise our families in local communities, and spread that engagement to neighborhoods whose residents have become dependent on government.  We need to focus the way we reduce government and re-align responsibilities among the different levels of governments, and between government and individuals, based on Main Street America’s re-engagement in the lives of our communities; including, for instance, how we re-build our infrastructure to provide for as much time as possible for individuals to care for their families and volunteer in their neighborhoods, churches, civic organizations, schools and local governments.

If Main Street Americans succeed in re-building a de Tocqueville America in this century, the problem with the Global 1% and the autonomous generation will take care of itself.  The result will be like the omniscient voice’s promise in “Field of Dreams”—if you build it, he will come”:  if we succeed, the Global 1% and the autonomous children will come home, because they will see what real Liberty is, and that it works.  America will be where they want to live and work, and together, our children and grandchildren may see the Shining City on a Hill.

What does “Responsibility” mean?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

As I’ve discussed in my last three posts here, and in other posts over the last year or so, our efforts to re-limit the federal government must be coupled with our re-establishment of individual responsibility for our families, our neighbors and our local communities.  In essence, we must re-establish a modern version of de Tocqueville’s America so that we can create Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill for our posterity.

I’ve always believed that what I’ve been trying to convey has been building on the ideas that Reagan, Goldwater, Gingrich, Sowell and others have discussed over the last few decades—mine are not original ideas.  Meanwhile, I’ve listened in order to hear if there are others who are embracing these ideas at this moment.  Recently, I was heartened when I heard Senator Rubio’s speech at the Reagan Library in which he discussed these concepts; and, a few weeks ago, I ran across a gem of a new book entitled Responsibility Reborn, published by Denali Press.

In that book, John Andrews, who served as President of the Colorado State Senate and as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, and who now teaches at the university level, provides a strong argument that what makes America unique is its foundation built on qualities derived from individual responsibility:  “… self-assertion to defend our liberties against intrusive government; self-restraint to control our baser impulses; self-reliance to survive and thrive in freedom; and civic knowledge to participate wisely in democracy.”  He provides a strong argument about the need to restore our commitment to, and exercise of these qualities in order to preserve the uniqueness of our society for our children, and then provides a list of ten steps to help in this process.  It is a great and quick read for anyone who is seeking a ideas about how we will address society’s needs if we conservatives successfully re-limit government.  His ten steps are consistent with what we will be addressing through Renewing the American Community.

In fact, I agree with at least 98% of what Andrews has written—right down to the phrasing he uses.  As I read the book, I felt I had been talking with him in my living room about the ideas I’ve been writing about on this website.  Moreover, I found Andrews to be a kindred spirit in another way—his view of individual freedom and responsibility is informed by his Christian faith, and his understanding of the faith that influenced our Settlers and Founders who established our unique society and government.

However, that 2% of disagreement is real, and I want to discuss that now—because, though our disagreement is subtle and small, it highlights what I believe to be the source for a real chasm within current conservative thought and politics.

My disagreement with Andrews arises from his view about the primacy of responsibility among the values needed for our society to continue to be unique and thrive.  Andrews believes that the duties that comprise individual responsibility are primary to freedom in the hierarchy of values.  In support of this view, he cites C.S. Lewis (who I believe is one of the great thinkers of the 20^th Century) to argue that man was not born to be free, but was born to adore and obey.  I respectfully disagree—since the Crucifixion, man has been born free, but challenged to adore and obey God and serve our neighbors.

Let me digress for just a moment to discuss the word “responsibility”.  It first appeared in the English language when Madison wrote about it in the newspaper opinion columns that became The Federalist Papers.  In Federalist 63, Madison writes,

I add, as a sixth defect [of the current government under the Articles of Confederation], the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the government to the people, ….  …Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to the objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents.  …It is sufficiently difficult, at any rate, to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a numerous body [i.e., the House of Representatives], for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.

In Federalist 70, Hamilton then uses the term in a discussion of the Executive branch  (and continues to discuss it in Federalist 77 and 79):

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.

In modern usage, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “responsibility” as follows:

1.The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.  2.Something for which one is responsible:   a duty, obligation, or burden.

In the context of these definitions, what I believe Andrews is discussing in his book, and what I have been addressing in my posts, is the need to re-establish individual or personal responsibility for specific objects with which we have a relationship—our families, our neighbors, our communities, and our country—those objects that are within our power to reasonably and effectively impact through our daily actions.  Then, we both focus on the duties, obligations, and burdens comprising that responsibility, and the character traits needed to develop and nourish that responsibility.  As for the latter two points, I think both Andrews and I would both agree with the following statements, the first by Adam Smith in his The Theory of Moral Sentiment:

Nature … has endowed him [man], not only with a desire of being approved of, but with a desire of being what ought to be approved of; or of being what he himself approves of in other men….  The second [desire] was necessary in order to inspire him with the real love of virtue, and with the real abhorrence of vice.

and the second from the Virginia Declaration of Rights of June, 1776, written by George Mason and James Madison:

… no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.  …and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.   

With all of this agreement with Andrews, I do not agree with him that individual responsibility pre-exists, or is primary to, freedom.  Instead, they are symbiotic.  Responsibility is the flip-side of freedom, and the ability to exercise liberty can’t long exist without both.  You are born free, but with a duty to be responsible—as St. Paul says in Galatians:  “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, ….  … For you brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”  If you don’t choose to be responsible, freedom on earth eventually will be impaired, even though our birthright from God to be free still exists.  Responsibility doesn’t pre-date or precede freedom in importance; responsibility  must coexist with freedom through our daily choices.

Though this seems like a subtle difference with Andrews, I think it may explain a major reason why there are priority differences when it comes to public policy between conservatives and those who only, or primarily, see themselves as either “social” conservatives or libertarians.  If you believe responsibility is a higher value than freedom, you will prioritize and try to shape policies differently than if you see them as of equal value and priority, or if you see freedom as a superior value to responsibility.

I believe American conservative must view freedom and responsibility as co-equal values that must coexist in equilibrium for a society of free people to endure.  Responsibility without freedom creates a subservience of one man to another, and we were freed from that subservience by the Crucifixion—our only subservience is to God.  Our Settlers established communities based on that freedom from subservience to men, and our Founders created a government to protect that freedom.  However, freedom without responsibility destroys the ability to form and sustain the relationships necessary for a society to exist, and creates a vacuum that other men will fill to impose society—and subservience—on the individual.  You must have both for our unique society to endure—one is not more or less important to the exercise of liberty than the other.

I agree completely with Andrews that for America’s unique society to continue we must restore and promote individual responsibility, along with the character traits and moral actions need to meet that responsibility.  But our goal must be to restore the proper balance to liberty, not to create another form of society that is subservient to man.

What Would Reagan Say

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

In my last two posts here I have tried to discuss the gap between the rhetoric of compassion and true compassion, as that gap relates to both American Conservatism and the goal of re-establishing our communities as we re-limit the size and scope of the federal government.

To punctuate what I have tried to say, I want to provide a pre-emptive answer to that inevitable response that will go something like this: “well, Reagan wouldn’t agree with that;” or, “that’s not what Reagan said.” To those inevitable critics, just saying “you’re wrong” would not satisfy you, so I want to give you Reagan in his own words—words that underlie the creation of the “Renewing the American Community” forum.

Although most conservatives can pick a favorite speech of Reagan’s from that moment in 1964 when he appeared on television for the Goldwater campaign and delivered his “A Time for Choosing” speech, to his Farewell Address in 1989, I believe the speech that most completely presents Reagan’s thoughts may be the speech he gave in September, 1967, at Eureka College in Illinois to dedicate a new library. Let’s remember the context: a second straight summer of unrest had just ended and college students had just returned to campus for a new school year—the riots of 1968 were less than a year away; the Vietnam War, the anti-war and anti-draft protests, and the Civil Rights marches were all in full bloom on the nightly news programs; the Presidential election cycle for 1968 was beginning; and Reagan had just been elected Governor of California less than a year before. In this context, Reagan spoke directly to the students of Eureka College, his alma mater, and presented the seeds of the ideas that would provide the foundation of his vision of the Shining City on a Hill, draw the first lines on the blueprints for his New Republican Party, and animate his leadership over the next generation. Here are extended excerpts from that speech:

…Each generation is critical of its predecessor. As the day nears when classroom and playing field must give way to the larger arena with its problems of inequality and human misunderstanding, it is easy to look at those in that arena and demand to know why the problems remain unsolved. We who preceded you asked that question of those who preceded us and another younger generation will ask it of you.

I hope there will be less justification for the question when it is your turn to answer. What I am trying to say is that no generation has failed completely, nor will yours succeed completely. …

…Are the problems of urban ghettoes and poverty the result of selfishness on our part or indifference to suffering? No people in all the history of mankind have shared so widely its material resources.

We taxed ourselves more heavily and extended aid at home and abroad. And when the problems grew, we planned more and passed more legislation to add to the scores of programs, until today, they are listed in government catalogues of hundreds of pages. We who are called materialist have tried to solve human problems with material means. We have forgotten man's spiritual heritage; we have placed security above freedom and confused the citizen's responsibility to society with society's responsibility to the individual.

We have to re-study some of our social legislation, legislation that meant well, but has failed in its goals or has created greater problems than the ones it was meant to cure.

We have to re-examine our individual goals and aims.

What do we want for ourselves and our children? Is it enough to have material things? Aren't liberty and morality and integrity and high principles and a sense of responsibility more important?

The world's truly great thinkers have not pointed us toward materialism; they have dealt with the great truths and with the high questions of right and wrong, of morality and of integrity.

They have dealt with the question of man, not the acquisition of things. And when civilizations have disregarded their findings, when they have turned to the things of the flesh, they have disappeared.

You are concerned with us and what seems to be hypocrisy and lack of purpose on our part. And we in turn are concerned about you, seeing a rising spirit of unrest, aimlessness, and drifting, a feeling of rebellion without a real cause that results sometimes in meaningless but violent actions. …

…You are needed; we need your courage, your idealism, your new and untried viewpoint. You know more than we did at your age; you are brighter, better informed, even healthier. And because human kind is vertically structured, we can take a little credit for that. But, you want a purpose, a cause, a banner to follow, and we owe you that. …

…Our national purpose is to unleash the full talent and genius of the individual, not to create mass movements with the citizenry subjecting themselves to the whims of the state. Here, as nowhere in the world, we are established to provide the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order. …

…You want a purpose, something to believe in? You might try resolving that you will contribute something to generations unborn—a handhold above your own achievement so that another generation can climb higher and achieve more.

This library is more than a beautiful and functional building. It is first and foremost a repository of knowledge and culture. More facts will be available in this one library than were available in all the libraries of the world a hundred years ago.

That shouldn't surprise you.

Man's knowledge has increased at such a rapid rate since the turn of the century that any book of facts written then would be obsolete now, both in terms of what we know to be true and also what we know to be true no longer.

But a library is more than just a place to go for facts. A library is also a place to go for wisdom. And the purpose of an educational institution is to teach not only knowledge, but also wisdom.

Someone once said that people who want to understand democracy should spend less time in the library with Aristotle and more time on buses and subways.

In a way, that may be true.

But to understand democracy is not necessarily to solve its problems.

And I would venture to say Aristotle, and those others whom you will find not in the buses and subways, but instead in this building here, will give you more answers and more clues to the solutions of our problems than you are likely to find on the buses and subways.

Maybe the best answer is to be found in both, but do not let the library go to waste because you are awaiting the completion of Eureka's first subway.

Now, when I suggest that we turn to books, to the accumulated knowledge of the past, I am not suggesting that we turn back the clock or retreat into some dim yesterday that we remember only with nostalgia, if at all. But we must learn from yesterday to have a better tomorrow.

We are beset by problems in a complex world; we are confused by those who tell us only new and untried ways offer hope. The answers to all the problems of mankind will be found in this building by those who have the desire to find them and perception enough to recognize them.

There will be the knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, and from the vantage point of history, their mistakes. We can look back and see where pure democracy became as dictatorial as a sultan and majority rule without protection for the minority became mob rule.

One of mankind's problems is that we keep repeating the same errors. For every generation some place, two plus two has added up to three, or in another place, five—four seems to elude some of us. This has happened in my generation and I predict, without smugness, it will happen to yours. …

…Do you doubt the answers can be found here? From the eleventh century, Maimonides, Hebrew philosopher and physician, will give you the eight steps in helping the needy to help themselves.

Can you name one problem that would not be solved if we had simply followed the teachings of the man from Galilee? We can redirect our nation's course into the paths of freedom and morality and high principle.

And, in so directing it, we can build better lives for ourselves and our children and a better nation for those who come after us, or we can ignore history and go the way of Greece and Rome.

I think that this is the significance of this library. The fact that we can use it to re-chart our course, not into the great unknown, but onto paths that are clear and which, if followed, can show us how to cope with the new problems that always confront each generation and can lead us, as a people, on to continued greatness. …

“What’s Love Got to Do With It?”

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

With all that is going on in politics right now, it is hard not to have a lot of thoughts about a lot of issues. In fact, I’ve had so many thoughts, that I have had a hard time trying to decide which one I would write about. Then, as often happens, I read something and it crystallized an idea that I want to discuss. Consider this a follow-up to my last post, entitled “The ‘Compassion’ Trap.”

Those of you who follow Big Jolly Politics know that I have returned repeatedly to the subject of the type of country we must re-establish if we conservatives achieve our goal of reforming the federal government, including how we will have to re-engage our neighbors in the life and governance of our communities. I even have been working with a group of people over the last year to create a forum to collect and disseminate ideas to foster this re-engagement, entitled “Renewing the American Community.” What I have found most frustrating about this process has been the difficulty of explaining why we need to re-engage in our communities, and how that is intertwined with our goals at the federal level of government.

Then, I read Peggy Noonan’s column from this past weekend’s Wall Street Journal, entitled, Apres le Deluge, What?. This lengthy excerpt vividly illustrates much of what I have been trying to say:

Here are some statistics of what someone last week called a new lost generation. In 2009, the last year for which census data are available, there were 74 million children under 18. Of that number, 20 million live in single-parent families, often with only an overwhelmed mother or a beleaguered grandmother. Over 700,000 children under 18 have been the subject of reports of abuse. More than a quarter million are foster children.

These numbers suggest the making—or the presence—of a crisis.

Some of these youngsters become miracle children. In spite of the hand they were dealt, they learn to be constructive, successful, givers to life. But many, we know, do not. Some will wind up on YouTube.

The normal, old response to an emerging problem such as this has been: The government has to do something. We must start a program, create an agency to address juvenile delinquency. But governments are tapped out, cutting back, trying to avoid bankruptcy. Which means we can't even take refuge in the illusion that government can solve the problem. The churches of America have always helped the young, stepping in where they can. That will continue. But they too are hard-pressed these days.

Where does that leave us? In a hard place, knowing in our guts that a lot of troubled kids are coming up, and not knowing what to do about it. The problem, at bottom, is love, something we never talk about in public policy discussions because it's too soft and can't be quantified or legislated. But little children without love and guidance are afraid. They're terrified—they have nothing solid in the world, which is a pretty scary place. So they never feel safe. As they grow, their fear becomes rage. Further on, the rage can be expressed in violence. This is especially true of boys, but it's increasingly true of girls.

What's needed can't be provided by government. When the riot begins or the flash mob arrives, the best the government can do is control the streets, enforce the law, maintain the peace.

After that, what? Britain is about to face that question. We'll likely have to face it, too.

What struck me most about this excerpt was this sentence: “The problem, at bottom, is love, something we never talk about in public policy discussions because it's too soft and can't be quantified or legislated.” Not only is this topic not something we talk about in public policy discussions, I rarely, if ever, have heard it come out of the mouth of a conservative politician. Instead, we periodically bemoan the fact that we are really misunderstood people, and really are “compassionate.” But, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that, at some level, what we know and live by in our private lives doesn’t always translate into action in our public lives. We must always remember, that at the heart of compassion, in private or in public, is an active caring love for others—the type of love that is described throughout the New Testament of the Holy Bible (which we conservatives so often reference as the source for our culture and our law).

Real, active caring for our families and our neighbors, and building the homes, schools, churches, neighborhoods, and infrastructure needed to fulfill that care, is hard work. For over 100 years, liberals have tried to circumvent this hard work through grand schemes and government agencies that worked from offices far away from our communities. In the end, however, this movement failed because you can’t remove the humanity of a caring, neighbor-to-neighbor love from the process. Remember that in the ageless parable, Jesus didn’t tell us that the Samaritan helped his neighbor by lecturing to him from a distance, by taking money from other travelers along the road to give to the neighbor, or by developing a scheme to protect all people who find themselves in the same predicament—he told us the Samaritan showed “compassion”: he stopped, dressed the neighbor’s wounds, picked the neighbor up, took him to the Inn, and made sure that the neighbor had what he needed to rebuild his strength and get back on the road. A bureaucrat with 1000 case files sitting in an office in Washington or Austin can’t do this—it’s as simple as that.

If we dismantle the federal Leviathan without re-building our communities, all we will do is create a vacuum of needs that will soon again be filled by liberals, government agencies, taxes and public debt—and we will continue to fail our neighbors as we bankrupt our country, because “[w]hat’s needed can’t be provided by government.” That simple acknowledgement was known by our Settlers and our Founders, but somehow, over the generations, we forgot it. We must re-learn it, and commit to re-teach it to our posterity.

So, I challenge each of you as we proceed into this campaign season to listen to what our candidates are saying about their view of government and what they intend to do. Question them about how they will not only limit government at the national level and run it at all levels more cost-effectively, but how they will help to rebuild our sense of neighborhood so that we creatively meet the legitimate needs of our families and neighbors while never again desiring for grand schemes and bureaucrats.

If you understand what I am talking about and want to get involved in trying to rebuild our communities in the mold of what de Tocqueville described when he marveled over “American Democracy,” then contact me. Soon, we will be launching a website to facilitate our “Renewing the American Community” forum, and we will welcome your input and participation.

The "Compassion" Trap

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

As has so often happened during great debates over domestic policies since the 1930s, Republicans seem to be walking again towards what I call “the Compassion Trap”. If you’ve been involved in, or watched and listened to these debates long enough, you know what I mean.

The Compassion Trap arises when liberals play the last card in their hand—when they claim that a policy promoted by conservatives will hurt groups of individuals by changing, reducing or eliminating a financial benefit currently provided by government. In response to such accusations, enough conservatives try to avoid being labeled as heartless that they refuse to support the policy. In turn, their decision splits conservatives so that the policy initiative fails. In the end, the liberal policies that keep or expand government power and control continue by default.

As our Republican representatives cruise toward the August 2nd debt-ceiling deadline, the Democrats and their media allies are again setting the Compassion Trap. The short-run question is, will enough Republicans avoid the trap and hold the line to accomplish meaningful change, or will enough of them fall into the Compassion Trap again and raise the debt ceiling without gaining meaningful, long-term policy changes?

In the long-run though, the real question is, how can we conservatives destroy the Compassion Trap before it is set again?

I, for one, don’t think it will be destroyed by labeling ourselves, or our movement, as being “compassionate”. George W. Bush tried that approach and it didn’t work. It didn’t work with conservatives because it offended many of us who believed we already were compassionate, and it seemed to imply that some of us had not been compassionate. It didn’t work with independents, because the label ran counter to the long-ingrained perceptions they held about conservatives. Advertisers and marketers will tell you that you can’t simply change the public’s perception about a brand by changing its label.

Quite frankly, if we are going to change the way this game is played and avoid the Compassion Trap in the future, conservatives are going to have to look in the mirror and realize that our approach to political debate must change. We must reflect on the most basic reason politics and governments exist, and reshape our approach to voters accordingly.

What do I mean?

First, let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence and really look at what it says—

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What Jefferson is saying is that the purpose of a legitimate government is to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to its citizens, and to allow for the exercise of those rights within an environment that “shall seem most likely to effect” the “Safety and Happiness” of its citizens. Jefferson is not focusing on abstract ideas and formulas—that will come later during the Constitutional Debates during 1787-88—instead, he is stating that for government, and therefore the politics of government, to be legitimate, it must create and secure an atmosphere in which individuals have the freedom and opportunity to achieve their full, God-given potentials and dreams. That means that Jefferson envisioned people—living breathing people—living and working as family members and neighbors in communities, with the freedom and safety to live the lives they wanted to live.

Now here’s a news flash: both liberals and conservatives care about people. The difference between us is what Thomas Sowell has called “A Conflict of Visions”. Unfortunately, our conservative rhetoric rarely engages the public in a debate over these visions and how these different visions impact their lives.

Sometimes we conservatives talk about politics as if we’ve forgotten about those living, breathing people—including ourselves, our family members, and our neighbors—that Jefferson envisioned, so we fail to talk about the hopes and dreams they have, which government is supposed to allow and protect. Instead, we talk about formulas and models and constitutions and markets and theories and rights and history, but too often we never talk about people. On the other hand, liberals incessantly babble about people and how government should not just provide a secure environment for them to flourish, but should actually dictate what peoples’ hopes and dreams should be, and how and when they can achieve those hopes and dreams. By talking about what they will do for people, rather than about the proper mechanics of government, liberals have convinced voters that they care about the common man and that we don’t.

We won’t change that perception with new labels—the perception is simply too deeply ingrained. We will only change that perception when we start talking about our neighbors as living, breathing people, and about how our vision, and our policy ideas, will help our neighbors pursue their happiness. In essence, we need to paint a picture of the Shining City on a Hill and explain how we get their and how it will allow our neighbors, and our neighbors’ children, to live better lives.

So, to those Republicans currently in the trenches fighting over the debt ceiling and facing the Compassion Trap, and to those Republican candidates who will face the voters (and the Compassion Trap) during the next campaign, re-arm yourselves by changing the way you talk about what you believe and how you would perform in office. For example, talk to Americans about what a reduced federal government will mean for their lives, their schools, their communities and their local governments; how greater local control and individual responsibility will allow them greater freedom to improve their lives and their communities, and greater opportunities to fulfill their dreams for themselves and their children. Help your neighbors see how individual volunteering and activism changes lives and builds communities, in contrast to the deadening dependence on government and bureaucrats that is at the end of the liberal vision of the future. Help your neighbors see a greater future—to see themselves living, working, volunteering and raising families in that Shining City on a Hill—and you will not only win the next election, but we will finally destroy the Compassion Trap and we will be able to enact the policies needed to again create and secure the society Jefferson envisioned.

If he runs, I will support Governor Perry for the Presidency

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

There is nothing quite like a vacation to allow you to clear your head and look at issues and ideas from a fresh perspective.

As I was finishing the first vacation in years during which I have done virtually no work and just focused on fun and family, I picked-up and read a newspaper article about the unfolding Republican Presidential race. As I finished the article, I reached a decision that really surprised me: if Rick Perry runs for President, I will support his candidacy.

Now before I explain why I will support Governor Perry’s candidacy, I need to write a quick disclaimer. I am declaring my support as an individual, and not as a representative of any group or club of which I may be a member or officer. Moreover, no one asked me to do this—this decision and the timing of this post were driven purely by me.

Ok—with that disclaimer behind me, let me explain why I am surprised by my decision, and why I reached decision.

I am surprised primarily by the change of fortunes and political viability of Governor Perry since 2006. Remember, that when he ran for re-election that year, he won with only a 39% plurality in a four-way field—not exactly a conventional predictor of a future presidential candidacy. Then, he pursued at least two policy initiatives that set his base on fire against him: his attempt to impose vaccinations on the young women of Texas without legislative approval; and his advocacy for the Trans-Texas Corridor development. When I ran for an appellate judicial seat in a ten-county district during 2007 and 2008, the negative reaction against the Governor and his political future were expressed openly in virtually every Republican meeting I attended. In fact, few openly predicted he would (let alone advocated that he should) run for re-election in 2010, and many were discussing Senator Hutchison as his successor.

Then, the Tea Party movement exploded. This new movement gave the Governor a new platform that he used effectively to articulate and advocate his political vision, and an attentive audience hungry for the message he was giving. The combination seemed to give the Governor a visible injection of energy and purpose as the 2010 campaign ensued. Eventually, he steamrolled over Senator Hutchison and Debra Medina without a run-off, and over the popular former Houston Mayor, Bill White, in the general election—a truly amazing turnaround. And it was a turnaround based on substance, which mixed the message of growth, frugality and federalism with the accomplishments of his tenure as Governor.

Given where his political fortunes stood a few years ago, and my own reservations over some of his specific decisions and positions over the years, I never thought I would be considering Governor Perry for President. But, in a time when our country needs a President who understands the need to down-size the federal government in order to reduce public debt and return political power to states, local governments and individuals, and in a year when there are obvious short-comings in each of the announced candidates for the Republican nomination, Governor Perry has emerged as the right man at the right time. He is the only candidate who seems to be clearly articulating the vision of the proper role of government at all levels.

Now there will be some who say that his prior political inconsistencies are too many to allow them to support him. To them, I recommend that they remember what Emerson said about “a foolish consistency.” In an essay about Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson asked us to not judge consistency on the day-to-day life decisions and actions that we often make in reaction to events that we had not previously planned to address, but on an individual’s character that can only emerge from looking at a lifetime of decisions and actions. With the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, such perspective is harder and harder to apply. However, if we look at Perry’s career over three decades of public life, his positions evidence a remarkable consistency in support of the economic and social conservatism that forms the core of the modern Republican Party. Moreover, his stated positions are closer to the vision for the “new” Republican Party that Reagan first espoused in 1977 than any of the other candidates in this year’s field.

As I write this post, there are two concerns I still have about a Perry candidacy, which I hope he and his team will address if he chooses to run. First, he must address the schizophrenic view of government held by most Americans—the view that simultaneously wants a smaller government that lives within its means, and low taxes, but wants no change to the government benefits they, or their family members, currently enjoy. Over the last 100 years, we gradually have allowed the federal government to use public tax dollars to provide charity to the less-fortunate and to underwrite economic risks—the risks associated with disability, retirement, health, home purchases, a college education, small business creation, and many others. Any Republican, who wants to beat Obama and actually obtain a mandate to lead this country through the changes needed to address the size and debt of the federal government, must explain to the independent voters who leaned Republican before 2008, but who voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, how these changes will affect their lives—how will charity be provided to the less fortunate, and how will the risks of currently underwritten by government be addressed? Will government have a role? If so, what level of government will have that role, and what role will that level of government have? If government’s role is to be reduced, what will be expected from each individual in order to provide for charity and to protect against the risks of life that we all will inevitably face? If the answers to these questions are not clearly articulated, a Perry Presidency may not ever occur—but if it does, I fear it will fail.

Second, Governor Perry must address the concern that many outside of Texas will have in electing another Texas Republican so soon after both Bush Presidencies. Part of this concern will be addressed by the story of Texas’ economic growth during his tenure. However, I think Governor Perry also needs to consider a running mate who is from another region of the country, and preferably one who is addressing the current economic and governmental problems effectively. Ideally, one of the Republican Governors from Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio or New Jersey, would fit these criteria while also giving the ticket a better chance of picking up a state that Obama carried in 2008.

I know that this post (and its early timing) will surprise some of my friends and allies, as well as some within our party with whom I’ve had disagreements in the past, but I feel that, as Governor Perry makes his decision, it is important that he know the breadth of support he will have. To that end, I feel it is important for many of us in Texas to indicate our position about his candidacy now—one way or another. So, for what it’s worth, I pledge my support to his candidacy if he chooses to run.

A Timeless Summer Question

This column originally appeared over at Big Jolly Politics:

With the All-Star Game approaching, and with the birth of my first grandchild—a boy—my thoughts have been turning lately to my other obsession: Baseball. As my mind has wondered, I’ve thought a lot about the teams I’ve followed over the years, and those that I consider my “favorite” teams. Then, inevitably, I’ve thought a lot about that timeless question that all die-hard Baseball fans eventually argue over—which team was the “best team of all time”? If you’re not interested in contemplating this question, I’d find another post to read.

One of the few hobbies I’ve enjoyed over the years has been my love of Baseball, including the study of its history and statistics, which my late father loved and taught me to love, and which I hope to pass down to my grandson. As part of this study, I think I’ve consumed virtually every book there is on the “best team” question, and how different “experts” have answered it. And, I’ve come to these conclusions: the answer is not objectively knowable; and it depends on how you approach the question.

To objective fans, I think my first conclusion should be obvious—the more you learn about Baseball history and statistics, the more you realize that you will never be able to control for all the variables in order to arrive at an objectively provable answer. So every potential answer to this question ends up being subjective.

What I mean by my second conclusion is simply this—identifying the best team depends on the criteria you look at to determine the “best” team. I have often found that those late-night or afternoon arguments usually lead to no resolution because we each define “best” differently. That is, when we are looking for the “best team,” some of us look for the team that, if it took the field against any other team that has played Major League Baseball since the Modern Era began in 1901, it would win; others look for the team that most dominated the era in which it played, or for the team that most dominated the year in which it played, or for other, completely different attributes? Then, based on how we define “best,” we focus on different statistical and historical information to prove our case.

A few years back, two authors—Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein—tried to answer the question relying upon one key statistic: the sum of the standard deviations between a team’s runs scored and runs allowed versus the performance of the other teams in the league in that season. They then applied their analysis to teams that performed at a high level over more than one season. What they came up with was a list of 15 teams since 1901 that virtually all Baseball fans could agree with:

1. The 1906-10 Cubs;

2. The 1910-13 Athletics;

3. The 1911-13 Giants;

4. The 1926-32 Yankees;

5. The 1926-32 Athletics;

6. The 1936-43 Yankees;

7. The 1942-44 Cardinals;

8. The 1951-53 Yankees;

9. The 1953-55 Dodgers;

10. The 1961-63 Yankees;

11. The 1969-71 Orioles;

12. The 1972-74 Athletics;

13. The 1970-76 Reds;

14. The 1986-88 Mets; and

15. The 1997-99 Yankees;

(They also addressed many of the following “honorable mentions”: 1901-03 Pirates; 1912-18 Red Sox; 1917-20 White Sox; 1921-24 Giants; 1920-23 Yankees; 1924-25 Senators; 1925-26 Pirates; 1929-35 Cubs; 1930-33 Senators; 1930-34 Cardinals; 1934-40 Tigers; 1936-37 Giants; 1939-49 Red Sox; 1949-52 Dodgers; 1950s Giants; 1950s Indians; 1950s White Sox; 1956-59 Braves; 1960s Cardinals; 1960s Dodgers; 1968 Tigers; 1976-78 Yankees; 1984 Tigers; 1988-90 Athletics; 1990s Braves; 1990s Indians; and the 2001 Mariners. You can probably think of more teams you would add to this list, and it is way too early to really assess how good the teams of the last decade have been relative to the history of the game).

Other experts, including, most notably, Bill James (who is considered by many to be the greatest Baseball statistician and historian of the last generation—if not ever), believe that all Neyer and Epstein’s new analysis does is confirm the obvious, but it doesn’t actually help answer the question. Specifically, James and others believe that the Standard Deviation only confirms that the 15 teams dominated their eras, but tells us nothing about the overall competitiveness of those eras and how the teams would perform in other eras, or against each other. Personally, I agree with James—the Standard Deviation approach doesn’t control for eras when competition was skewed because hitting dominated pitching (as it did from the late 1920s until World War II); pitching dominated hitting (as it did from at least 1965-68), or the competition was diluted because of wars (World Wars I, II and the Korean War impacted the level of competition during those years by taking players away from the game) or expansion.

This problem is highlighted by Neyer’s and Epstein’s conclusion that the best team of all time was the 1939 Yankees (a conclusion that other experts currently hold, too). Although this team is certainly one of, if not the most, dominate teams relative to the year in which it played (as evidenced by the fact that it scored 400 more runs than it allowed), it is hard to look at the overall statistics from the teams that it played against in the American League in 1939 and come to the conclusion that it played in a highly-competitive environment—especially as to the pitching and defense it faced (though, curiously, it did lose its season series of games to the Boston Red Sox). In fact, one can make a strong, if not stronger argument that the either the 1937, 1938, or 1941Yankees were actually better teams, due to the level of competition they faced in the American League during those seasons.

So, having come to the conclusion that there is no one, right answer to this question, here is how I answer the question: I’ve broken it down by a few categories, looked at the statistics and history, and come up with the a handful of teams, and one subjective answer.

First, I looked at which team was arguably “greater than the sum of its parts”—that is, the team that consistently performed at or above the talent of the players that formed the team. An objective analysis of the data leads to virtually only one answer to this question: the 1947-64 Yankees (including the 1951-53 and 1961-63 “great” teams), which shared one player—Yogi Berra. In fact, Berra exemplifies this team throughout the entire era. Although Hall of Famers Berra, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Ford would play for the Yankees during this period, the team was held together by players like Billy Martin, Hank Bauer, Gene Woodling, Gil McDougald, Bill Skowron, Elston Howard, Hector Lopez, Tony Kubek, Bobby Richardson, Roger Maris, Tom Tresh and Joe Pepitone, as well as the managing of Casey Stengel, Ralph Houk and Berra, who each seemed to know exactly when and how to make the right moves to stay one step ahead of the Indians, the White Sox, the Tigers, the Orioles and the Twins throughout those years. Few of the players who made the Yankees win day-in and day-out would have flourished—or did flourish—playing for other teams. This truly was a great “team” in the aggregate sense of that term.

Second, I looked at which team’s “sum of its parts was greater than its whole”—that is, the team that arguably amassed the greatest assortment of “great” players. This evaluation was much harder, and more subjective, than the first one, but my conclusion was the 1926-1932 Athletics. The core of this team was built around five players—Al Simmons, Robert “Lefty” Grove, Mickey Cochrane, Jimmy Foxx, and Jimmy Dykes—all of whom would not only star on this team, but they would go on to star on, or manage other teams over the next several decades, including the Tigers of 1934-38 and the Red Sox of 1939-46. In addition, other stars would play for this team who had starred on, or would help build, other great teams, including Ty Cobb (Tigers), Eddie Collins (Athletics, White Sox and Red Sox), Zack Wheat (Dodgers), and Tris Speaker (Red Sox and Indians). The team was single-handedly assembled by the only person to manage two of the 15 greatest teams—Connie Mack.

Third, I looked at the most dominate team of an era. In this I have to agree with Neyer and Epstein—the 1936 to 1943 Yankees were the greatest team over a multi-year era, winning seven pennants in eight years, and six World Series championships. The team was built around Joe DiMaggio, Bill Dickey, Tommy Heinrich, George Selkirk, Frankie Crosetti, Red Rolfe and Red Ruffing, but would also share in the early years Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, and Lefty Gomez, and in the later years Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, and Phil Rizzuto. No team ever dominated not just the standings, but the day-to-day play of the game like this team for such an extended period of time; and they did it in a highly-competitive offensive era that included explosive offenses on the Tigers, Red Sox and Cardinals. Although I question the choice of 1939 as the “best” of these teams—especially considering the overall lack of competitiveness of the American League of that year, that Gehrig stopped playing at the beginning of this season and was replaced by a very mediocre young player, and that DiMaggio was injured for an extended period of the season—I think there is little objective argument that the Yankee teams of this era formed the finest “team” the Yankees ever assembled over the course of a multi-year period (and that’s saying a lot).

Having said all of this, the single-season team I believe is the best of all time may surprise you—not because you’ve not heard of them before, but because it is so obvious you’ll think that I’ve given this question no real thought—the 1927 Yankees. In fact, I’ve tried every way I know how to conclude that another team deserves this title, but the facts always point back to this team. Why? Well, because—because it is the most historically significant team of the Modern Era, because it was the most balanced and successful of the great Yankee teams, and because it decisively beat another one of the 15 great teams in the only sustained head-to-head competition among such teams.

The 1927 Yankees not only changed the way Baseball would be played and teams would be assembled, it changed the way Baseball would be perceived by the public—no other team before or since had this impact on the game. Reading about the mis-match between the Yankees and the Pirates in the World Series of 1927 reminds one of watching the films of the German tanks invading Poland in 1939 and being met by the Polish cavalry on horseback—the Pirates were a very good team (and won the World Series in 1925), but they were assembled for an earlier era, while the Yankees were the “new technology” for a new age. The 1927 Yankees created the prototype for the modern offensive line-up, and dictated the type of talent that general managers have looked for ever since. That team’s success, and the celebrity status of its stars, also changed the way the public would view professional sports and athletes, and its expectations about how Baseball should be played.

The 1927 Yankees won 110 games with incredibly balanced pitching and hitting—especially for the era in which it played. Its team batting average was a remarkable .307, and its runs-per-game of 6.3 is among the highest ever recorded (and about 1.4 runs per game above the league average). Meanwhile its team Earned-Run Average for its pitching staff was a relatively low 3.20 against a very good hitting league (the American League batting average was .286), and was almost a full run-per-game below the league average.

Finally, this Yankee team played 22 games against one of the other 15 great teams (the Athletics), and, over the course of its great years from 1926 to 1932, played exactly 154 games (a complete season of games) against that team—and it beat the Athletics in 1927 in the head-to-head match-up by 6 games (14-8), split the seven season match-ups 3-3-1, and ended the 154-game rivalry with an aggregate 10-game advantage (82-72). In fact, during the three great seasons for the Athletics from 1929 through 1931, the Yankees essentially split the head-to-head series during the last two of those seasons, (10-12 in 1930, and 11-11 in 1931). Although some of the other great teams would meet in one or more World Series, there is really no other statistically significant head-to-head comparison to evaluate. The Yankees were clearly better than the great Athletics of this period, which is the best circumstantial evidence we have of how the Yankees would fare in head-to-head competition with any of the other “great” teams of the Modern Era.

One last thought—an asterisk, if you will. There is one other team that could qualify as the “best team” but for the facts that it played before 1909, and it did not win the World Series—the 1906 Cubs. In fact, it is very hard to tell just how good this team really was even though it won 116 games while only losing 36 games. These Cubs won 116 games with not only good hitting and phenomenal pitching, but also with remarkable fielding in an era—before 1909—when players did not uniformly use fielding gloves and most catchers did not use any protective gear, which led to a disproportionate number of errors and unearned runs compared against other eras. It is just impossible to know how good this team really was, especially when they could not beat one of the worst offensive teams (except for, possibly, the St. Louis Browns of 1944) to ever make the World Series.

Well, there you have my mid-summer thoughts. Who do you think is the “best team of all time,” and why?