Will we be the “masters of our fates” in 2012?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs, and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Men at some time are the masters of their fates:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, we are underlings.

Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

On Monday night, I sat and watched the debate among the currently-announced Republican candidates for the Presidency. As of this writing, I am still searching for a candidate to support.

I am not still searching because, like the media continues to argue, the current field is inadequate. No, this field, together with others who are still openly considering a run at the Presidency, is filled with highly qualified, and highly gifted men and women who represent virtually every facet of modern conservative thought in this country. Each one of them would make a better President than the current occupant of the White House.

Moreover, I believe each of these men and women understand the urgency of the fiscal problems facing this country and the profound impact they will have on our future, and the world’s future, if they are not addressed immediately.

What is lacking in this field is not purpose or courage; it is, rather, an understanding of how we can correct the problems we face and still function as a society of free men and women. That is, when all is said and done, and all the budgets have been cut and the programs have been dismantled or restructured, how will we be the “masters” of our “fates” going forward. Unless the next President formulates the answer to that question correctly, and persuades the American people that his or her answer provides the correct path forward, he or she will fail. Unless the American people understand the new path they must follow and commit themselves to follow that path, eventually old habits will re-emerge and new federal schemes will be created to address our many problems, our appetite for larger and larger government will swallow our future, and we will return to our self-imposed position as “underlings” to another “Colossus”.

The answer the next President must formulate should be based on an inherent trust in you and me to govern ourselves, our families, and our neighborhoods without “guidance” from a “Colossus” in Austin or Washington. Then, we must look in the mirror and commit ourselves to live as truly free men and women: as men and women willing to sacrifice and be responsible for ourselves, our families, and our communities; as men and women who are willing to do the important work of governing our communities, rather than delegating that work to others.

If the next President has that trust in his fellow citizens, and if we make the commitment to accept the responsibilities that come with that trust, then we can truly limit government in size, scope and cost to its proper functions at every level. We, then, will be the masters of our own fates and give our children the chance to be the masters of their fates in the future. We, then, will be the society our Settlers and Founders intended.

When I find that candidate, he or she will have my full support.

Some Thoughts on Congressional Redistricting

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Early this coming week, I am told that the Texas House will vote on the proposed Congressional Redistricting map. The current version that I have seen would create a new Congressional District—District 36—that would run from Eastern Harris County through the Big Thicket Counties of East Texas to the Louisiana border. This new district will include the part of Harris County where I live. Having looked at it closely, I believe the current map is flawed and am asking that the legislature re-draw it, because it does not reflect the present and future interests of the communities that form the new district and the adjacent districts.

Essentially, the new map divides communities in the Galveston Bay area that share economic and political interests, while retaining an increasingly irrelevant bond between Sugar Land and the Johnson Space Center. It appears that what our politicians have drawn is a map that divides the very Republican-leaning corridor of communities running through at least four counties (Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston and Harris) among three different districts to maximize Republican voting strength for at least two Republican incumbents. However, if the lines were more appropriately drawn, those incumbents would still be protected, while the new district would be more likely to elect a Republican, too—but one who would represent the interests of a more integrated political community.

If properly drawn, Congressional District 22 should represent the growing communities of Fort Bend and Northern Brazoria Counties, which increasingly share economic and political developments that are unique in the Greater Houston/Southeast Texas region. The economic areas of greater Pearland, Sugar Land and Katy deserve a strong and focused voice in Congress, which they would retain in the incumbent, Pete Olson, who resides in Sugar Land.

Meanwhile, Congressional District 14 has long represented the interests of coastal and rural interests. Although the western boundary of that district has now shifted to the east, it should be further drawn to take in the rest of the coast line to Louisiana, and to the north of Beaumont and Orange into the Big Thicket to retain its representation of rural Texans. Dr. Paul should be able to win this district and would know how to represent the interests of all the communities in the newly-drawn eastern portion of the district.

That would leave the new District 36 to represent the increasingly economically and politically integrated communities of the Galveston Bay area, including the key employment centers of the Johnson Space Center and the Port of Houston. It should include Friendswood, League City, Clear Lake Shores, Kemah and Dickinson in Galveston County; the Clear Lake Area communities of Webster, Nassau Bay, Taylor Lake Village, Seabrook, and the Clear Lake portion Council District E of Houston; the communities that surround the Port of Houston, including Shoreacres, La Porte, Deer Park, Pasadena and Baytown; and the surrounding communities of Chambers, Liberty and Polk Counties.

Instead, all of these communities have been carved and shuffled among the three districts in a manner that makes no economic or political sense. The residents of Taylor Lake Village, Seabrook, La Porte and Baytown have nothing economically or politically in common with the residents of the small communities in the Big Thicket, while they have been separated from their neighbors in Pasadena and Northern Galveston County, who live and work together at the Space Center, the refineries and the Port. Meanwhile the interests of the residents of these communities that serve the Johnson Space Center increasingly have nothing to do with the growing interests of Sugar Land and Katy.

All of these communities need coherent, coordinated, and focused representation in Washington, which requires separate representation in Congress. As the Texas House takes up this important issue over the next few days, I hope our representatives will reconsider the lines of these three districts and draw more appropriate boundaries. If they do, they will retain and probably increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress from Texas, while giving the communities in this region proper representation over the next 10 years.

The Lesson We Should Learn From The Civil War

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

This month, 150 years ago, the Civil War, or “War Between the States,” began with the attack on Fort Sumter, South Carolina. This month, 146 years ago, that War on the battlefield ended with the fall of Richmond, and the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse (though the military and political occupation of the states that had formed the Confederacy would continue for another 11 years). In between those two Aprils in the 1861 and 1865, on a cold and overcast day in November, 1863, President Lincoln crystallized the purpose for which the War would be fought to a conclusion:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.…

----------

…It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…

----------

– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom

----------

– and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Over the last few weeks several pundits have been wringing their hands over a renewed debate over the cause of the Civil War: was it state’s rights, was it slavery, or was it something else altogether? Moreover, the perennial debates have re-emerged over the propriety of flying a version of the flag of the Confederacy in public places. Most of the pundits seem to be chastising Americans who don’t seem to “get it” that the War was about slavery, and these same editorialists continue to froth at the mouth over the sight of the Stars and Bars.

I have a slightly different take on all of this that I’d like to share with you, and which I hope will add to mix of thoughts we consider as the nation’s Sesquicentennial of the Civil War starts its four-year observance.

I want to start by sharing an observation that would not have been accurate when I first came to Texas as a young man 31 years ago: the Civil War is finally over. Some time over these last three decades we stopped looking at each other with distrust or disdain while asking “where are your from;” we stopped celebrating a holiday for Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee and, instead, began celebrating a holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and universally celebrating Memorial Day; the party of Lincoln became the dominant political force in Dixie and selected a Chairman who was African-American; and we have elected an African-American as President of the United States.

For those people younger than 40 who grew-up as the final social remnants of this War faded from our habits and customs, it is hard to appreciate how miraculous this development really has been. For many of us who trace the roots of our family trees to the United States that exited before 1860, our family histories and heir-looms often include cherished stories and artifacts from the War, while for some those histories and heir-looms remind us of a darker, more painful memory of our failure to live up to our ideals. The collective memory fueled by these family histories helped continue habits and customs of regional, social, political, and racial animosities for generations—but which now seem so odd that they are truly hard to explain to young people today.

I was blessed to grow-up learning a very balanced story of the War. My ancestors fought on both sides of the War, and I grew-up with stories and heir-looms from both sides of the conflict. But I also grew-up in the region of Central Illinois, where Lincoln rode the circuit, and where he and Douglas debated in 1858. Surrounded by Lincoln’s memory, we were taught that, although the Confederacy had better generals and military strategy, and defended arguably correct interpretations of the Constitution and the law as it existed at that time, the purpose of the War described that day in Gettysburg by Lincoln, and the ultimate preservation of our nation that resulted from the War, were just and right.

Somehow, after all these generations, we have learned to retain a pride in the heritage of our families and communities, while at long last putting aside the animosities that we held for so long. Now, for all but a few diehards, we share a belief that preserving the nation and its founding ideals, and working to make those ideals a reality for all men and women who call themselves Americans, was just and right.

But to acknowledge all of these developments doesn’t mean that we have stopped thinking—or should ever stop thinking—about what caused that War, because those underlying causes are deeply imbedded in the continuing American experience:

* The division of our governmental responsibilities between states and the federal government;

* The different influences that the vast and varied geography spanning North America continue to have on regional and national economics and politics;

* The central influence that religion has played in developing our national character and shaping public debates;

* The ambition to create one people out of settlers and immigrants from every corner of the globe, and to equally protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of each individual; and

* The restlessness of spirit that liberty agitates.

By the 1840s, the institution of slavery had become the catalyst by which each of these causes combined to tear the country apart.

Although Americans have always shared a restless spirit, the 15 years that preceded the War may have been the most restless in our history. Our borders expanded through war and annexation to include what is now the entire Continental United States. New territories were being formed and settled, and new states admitted into the Union. America began to absorb one of the first great waves of European immigration due to drought, famine and revolution. Gold was discovered in California, which caused the greatest internal migration the country has ever experienced, and which invited immigration from across the Pacific, all of which would keep parts of California in a state of violent turmoil until the start of the War. The opposition Whig party would disintegrate into several factions arguing over the political impact of these issues, and slavery, and would eventually lead to the formation of a wholly new political party by the mid-1850s—the Republican Party. Central to all of these phenomena was the question of what to do about the institution of slavery.

By the 1840s the continuation of slavery was being challenged throughout the Western World, but it truly was coming into stark contrast with America’s ideals. However, no one quite knew whether and how a society could last that was not based on, and run by a homogeneous race, ethnicity, clan, tribe, or religion. Even the most enlightened thinkers of the day were pessimistic that a society could be maintained among people of different races (let alone people of different races who also came from different ethnic groups, clans, tribes and/or religious traditions) largely because it simply had never been tried or accomplished by any other society. This question impacted not only the debate about slavery, but also the fierce debate over immigration during the 1850s.

Throughout the political and economic debate over slavery, religious leaders were on both sides of the issue, created religious teachings to support each side, and lent a tone of moral fervor to each side’s hardening positions. These hardened positions split denominations and congregations, as well as communities.

The differences in climate and geography between the North and the South had created completely different economies and societies. Slavery was not just a moral and political issue, it was an issue that impacted the credit and solvency of the entire region, because slaves were used as collateral for credit throughout the South. The Southern economy, in turn, perpetuated plantations, small farms and small towns, while the North had begun its development of larger farms and urbanization based on a free-market for labor. By the end of the 1850s, though, the economics of slavery was beginning to unravel due to prolonged droughts in Europe and the development of high-yield cotton production in Egypt, which made Iowa farm products more valuable to our trading partners—and to our nation’s diplomacy—than Southern cotton.

The imbalance between the power of the states and the federal government prohibited the federal government from crafting a national solution to slavery. Time after time, Congress had attempted to reach compromises that addressed the slavery issue, but each time the compromises failed or were overturned by the Courts. Finally, the infamous Dredd Scott decision clarified for all that the national government lacked the power to address an issue that crossed state lines and was of national importance—the institution of slavery.

By the eve of the 1860 election, all of these causes of division between the North and the South became entangled with the issue of slavery. To glibly say that any one of the causes of division can be separated from the issue of slavery as the “cause” of the War is as wrong as saying that “slavery” was the only cause of the War. All of these problems came together over slavery to bring about the War, and “slavery” had to be resolved in order to address the underlying divisions that caused the regional conflict and end the War.

Slavery officially ended with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution immediately after the military conflict ended, but resolving the underlying divisions took more than 100 years. Moreover, the causes of those divisions still roil our national debates today, and probably will for as long as there is an America. For instance:

* though we have expanded the scope of the power of the federal government 9 times by amendment, we still desire a limited federal government and debate the correct balance of local versus state versus federal authority;

* though mass media, mass production, and mass migration have reduced our regional economic and political differences, geography and history still combine to produce different regional viewpoints and activities that affect the nation;

* though race is no longer a source of religious dispute in this nation, the disciplines of our respective faiths still play a major role in the way we view the role of government and how we vote;

* though we have become the most heterogeneous society on Earth, we still struggle with how to assimilate new people into our nation and how to live by our ideals; and

* our desire to live as free people, and to develop our talents to their fullest potential, keep us restless and constantly in dynamic motion—both as individuals and as a society.

Rather than defend the public display of artifacts of a dispute long over—like flying the Stars and Bars over a government building—it is time to put those artifacts on our private shelves and get on with the continuing work of making our Founders’ vision work. Rather than continue to debate whether and how slavery helped cause the Civil War, we should recognize that slavery arose as the single issue that caused our divisions to become irreconcilable.

Then, we should commit to study and debate the tensions that will always exist in our society, and why, in the middle of the 1800s, they caused us to go to war with each other, in order to make sure that we never let that happen again. Through the learning that comes from such study and debate, we should gain the wisdom to never repeat that mistake.

Now that the Civil War is finally over, I hope that we start to gain such wisdom during this Sesquicentennial commemoration.

What is the Fundamental Purpose of Our Public Universities?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

I want to congratulate our Republican legislators in both Austin and Washington, who have started the long process of addressing our fiscal problems. What they’ve passed so far is not perfect, nor everything that many of us wanted, but it has been a good and needed first step. In fact, the federal budget plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday incorporates many good, long-term ideas that begin to address both fiscal discipline, and the need to reduce the role of the federal government in local and individual decisions. The debate Paul Ryan’s plan has started is good for the country.

Closer to home, another debate seems to be unfolding over the role of classroom teaching within our state-supported universities in Texas. It’s that debate that I would like to discuss in this post.

I want to start with definitions of three words taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition):

•Education: “The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process.” (p. 569).

•College: “An institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor’s degree in liberal arts or science or both.” (p.362).

•University: “An institution of higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master’s degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.” (p. 1883).

Now, let’s also look at the original provision in the Texas Constitution that authorized the eventual creation of our state-supported university systems: “The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class…” (Art. 7, Sec. 10).

When you read all of this together, it’s pretty clear that the fundamental purpose of our state-supported universities is to provide an education to students—specifically, an education that can lead to the award of an undergraduate, graduate or professional degree through a process that includes learning from both teaching and research. Reading these sources, it’s also clear that teaching and research are neither distinct purposes, in and of themselves, for the existence of a university, nor are they independent functions that are separate from the process of providing an education.

Yet, if you listen to the debate over the hiring of Rick O’Donnell by the University of Texas Board of Regents, and the promotion by Governor Perry of Jeff Sandefer’s “Seven Breakthrough Solutions” for higher education (http://texashighered.com/7-solutions) you could come to the conclusion that providing an education is no longer the central purpose of our state-supported universities. Instead, you could determine that the central purpose of our universities is now to provide a source for economic growth for the communities in which they are situated, and for the state, through attracting top researchers and grants and conducting economically-beneficial research. Consistent with this new purpose, the task of providing an education and a degree now may be merely an incidental source of income to the university rather than its core mission.

Quite frankly, I find this whole debate fails to address the real problems with our educational system. Though some correction may be needed, a wholesale change in the way we hire and retain university faculty is not needed. However, the more professors and administrators attack any change, the more they make the case for the wholesale change they don’t want. In the meantime, no one is really addressing how we improve the education of our children.

On the one hand, it is true that there is evidence showing a significant shift in emphasis on some campuses from teaching and research focused on providing an education to students, to “pure” research designed to obtain independent economic benefits for the school and the community. This shift has created an imbalance in the use of public resources (as well as private grants and donations) to create and maintain facilities and faculties for “pure” research on some campuses. Perversely, on some campuses this shift has led to documented under-utilization of existing facilities, which could be more efficiently used to provide more education-related teaching and research. Implementation of a few of the “Seven Breakthroughs” might effectively address this shift and restore the proper focus of teaching and research to education, while still allowing for the incidental, yet important, “pure” research that enriches the learning process while providing an additional source of income and economic benefit. However, a wholesale change in the way universities hire and retain faculty, and provide and account for teaching and research, is not needed to fix the imbalance on some campuses; indeed, there are a lot more fundamental problems with our educational system, starting with kindergarten, that need to be prioritized and addressed over this issue.

On the other hand, the clueless and condescending reactions from some who have attacked the ideas promoted by Governor Perry, Mr. Sandefer, and Mr. O’Donnell underscore a fundamental question that many taxpayers, parents and students now have about our entire educational system: are schools operating for the benefit of the students, or for the benefit of the teachers and administrators? I think most of us outside of the educational system had thought state-supported schools at all levels operated to benefit students. However, to read some of the op-ed pieces and interviews from current and former faculty and administrators, you would think that students are merely incidental nuisances with whom they have to interact periodically while running their facilities and conducting their research. These reactions, combined with the video of teacher union protests in Wisconsin and the sentimental news stories about teacher lay-offs across this State, give credibility to the movement supporting wholesale change in the way we hire and retain teachers, professors and administrators.

While we may not need all “Seven Breakthroughs” to re-balance the functions of our universities, teachers, professors and administrators at all state-supported schools need to remember that they only have one fundamental obligation: they work for the taxpayers and the parents of this State to provide our children, young adults and adults with an education through the processes of teaching and research—everything else, including the research they conduct as part of their job, is incidental to and dependent upon meeting this fundamental obligation. Once we all get this point straight again, re-balancing the use of public resources within our universities and school systems, as well as fixing the more pressing problems with our whole educational system, should be easier to accomplish.

Reflections on Ethics and Local Government

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

This post should not be read as a comment on any specific allegations against any current elected official in the City of Houston or Harris County, or as a recommended course of action in response to those allegations. But with one City Council member having just been investigated for ethics questions related to doing business with the City, and with one County Commissioners having just been tried for bribery, I want to address the larger issues raised by the specific questions involved in those cases.

Specific questions raised by those cases are—

· When should a public official continue doing business through a private entity with the government he or she was elected to supervise?

· Where does a public official draw the line between the intent to accept gifts as part of a continued friendship, and the appearance of accepting payments for influence with the government he or she was elected to manage?

From a broader perspective, these questions, for me, raise more fundamental questions, which have nothing to do with whether a criminal or civil law has been broken:

· At what point does an elected official’s behavior violate the public’s trust?

· What should be the consequences for breaking that trust?

It is these larger questions I will address in this post.

Let’s start with two obvious, yet fundamental, points:

· First, most public officials are just like us—they do their best to be honest and to do their jobs every day with integrity.

· Second, none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes and misjudgments throughout our life—that is part of being human. Being human has never disqualified anyone from serving in public office.

However, mistakes and misjudgments made by public officials, even in matters, relationships, or transactions that normally would be considered private, affect the conduct of public affairs. The real question at the core of this issue is, at what point do arguably private misjudgments of public officials violate the public trust?

This is a question that has vexed our society since the first settlements were formed. Although our Founders addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers, and believed they were creating a national government that reduced the risk of graft and unethical use of public office through the checks and balances built into the system, they recognized that the system was not fool-proof—and history has shown us that our national government has not been scandal-free. But even a cursory review of American History shows that our most enduring problem with ethics has been at the local level of government.

Why have our local governments been so susceptible to this problem over the centuries? I can think of at least three factors that continuously intertwine to perpetuate this problem:

· none of us are angels; even when we have been raised in an atmosphere that prizes the traits and exercise of character and virtue, we periodically will succumb to temptations, fail to exercise self-restraint, and take risks that lead to making wrong choices, especially when such choices seem to benefit us without appearing to directly harm anyone else;

· the greatest external restraint on elected officials in local government was supposed to be the fact that they would not risk the humiliation to themselves or their families of being caught lying to, cheating, or stealing from their neighbors; but as our communities have grown into cities, and our neighbors have become more anonymous “voters” to our elected officials, this fear of humiliation no longer plays a strong role in restraining behavior; and

· fewer and fewer people actually pay attention to local government, know who their local officials are, or know what they do, and those that do are usually those with a financial or political incentive for gain from local government; as a result, a lot of mischief happens when no one is looking.

We can pass all the civil and criminal laws we want, and force attendance to as many “ethics” classes as possible, but without some personal restraints applied at a personal level by or on our local officials, no law or class will thwart the temptation for some to seek as much private gain as they possibly can get from public office.

So what are the answers to my questions—at what point do arguably private misjudgments of public officials violate the public trust, and what should be the consequences for that breach?

In answer to the first question, the best I can come up with is to ask our elected officials to envision what our children would think if they knew the behavior you were engaged in, or were contemplating. For instance:

· Would our children think it is right or fair to continue to do business and profit from that business with the very government you were elected to supervise?

· Would our children think it is right or fair to continue accepting gifts from a friend while that friend was seeking and obtaining business and profit from the government you were elected to manage?

· Would our children think that it is right or fair to continue such behavior without at least abstaining from the process of approving or supervising those transactions with the government you were elected to manage?

Better yet, if our children came home and told us that they were engaging in this type of behavior at school, or in an extra-curricular activity or organization, would we condone it?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then a switch should flip in the brain that says “stop.” If you want to proceed with the transactions and continue to receive the benefits, then you should leave public office—there is nothing dishonorable about that choice. On the other hand, if there is no flip of the switch and you continue with the behavior, or if it flips and you still proceed with the behavior, and decide to stay in public office, I believe that the public trust has been breached regardless of whether a law has been violated. In that event, you have created the appearance that you are using your office for private gain—and the public can no longer trust that you have not used your office in this way regardless of your intentions. The consequence for violation of that trust should be exposure and censure, and, eventually, dismissal by the voters at the next election.

In the end, however, the ultimate consequence should be our vigilance as citizens to shine as much light on our local governments as we shine on our state and national governments, and to hold our local officials to the high standard that we are entitled to expect from those who have asked us for the privilege of serving our community. This vigilance is even more important today if we ever want to limit government at the federal and state levels, because we will need highly effective and ethical local governments to serve as tools for helping to rebuild our communities and schools.

If we don’t exercise that vigilance, then we will deserve the behavior and the government that results.

Renewing the American Community: A Case Study and A Challenge

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Recently, some of the feedback I’ve been getting focuses on both the enormity of our the fiscal issues facing this country, and how we implement the right policies going forward to avoid getting into this mess again. It is that last issue that I have tried to address in many of my posts on this website over the last year. So to respond to this feedback, I want to summarize and amplify what I’ve tried to say over the last year.

First, I want to go back to what I said about the Founders in a recent post, and then what I felt were important actions we had to take:

To them, citizenship in a free society required active involvement in the life of the community and all its organizations; it was not a license to receive tax-paid benefits, nor a right to delegate community involvement to tax-paid bureaucrats. Democracy is what transpired in town hall meetings and town councils called or elected by the people to govern communities, in service organizations and church congregations, and in schools; while the work of elected representatives in state and national capitols was limited to a few specific tasks outlined in republican constitutions. …

… Remember that the remnants of our unique society still exist under all of the layers of government we’ve created. Those basic relationships that formed the core of our democratic communities still function every day. …

On these remnants we can re-build our unique society and re-establish limited and fiscally-sane government. But, we have to be willing to believe that the blueprints provided by the Declaration and the Constitution are still viable, and then re-commit ourselves to this project. We have to re-engage in the democratic life of our communities. We have to start and support local businesses, join our local service organizations and churches, and involve ourselves in our schools and local governments—and then demand that these enterprises shoulder the needs of our communities with our help, rather than look to Austin or Washington for action.

The skeptical questions I’ve gotten in response to these statements range from “that’s impossible today,” to “you’re advocating social revolution.” To both these sentiments, my answer is that I am no wild-eyed dreamer or revolutionary—but I am an optimist. We have examples all around us of how to make the transformations in our personal lives and in our political policies, which will be needed to accomplish this mission.

For example, here in Harris County our elected officials have established local medical clinics, and alternatives to juvenile detention, that are innovative, that involve the private sector, that improve local neighborhoods, and that provide services cost-effectively (or through private foundations, service organizations, or churches) without Austin or Washington. Our Commissioners and Juvenile Court Judges are showing that what I’ve called the Tupelo Formula works—if we’d just trust ourselves to apply it with conviction and consistency.

In an earlier post I re-told the story of how Tupelo, Mississippi pulled itself out of the Great Depression and other calamities to become a regional economic engine. I outlined the “Tupelo Formula” for local action as follows:

· The community faced a problem that appeared intractable, and that had been confounded by multiple events—not unlike the confounding factors of under-education, under-employment, chronic crime and poverty, and the impulse to be “left alone”, which exist in many of our neighborhoods today;

· One person, followed by a group of civic leaders, saw a strength within the community that created an opportunity that could be exploited to help the community address its problem;

· These citizens had the courage to take a risk with their own resources to take advantage of the opportunity and to share the gain with the community;

· These citizens involved businesses, private organizations, and local government in both the planning and the implementation of their plan; and

· The gains to the community were both short-term, and long-term, and were broadly shared—e.g., businesses were created and expanded, employment grew, per capita income grew, and schools improved.

I am confident that this model for local action will work not just in Harris County, but across the country, as the innovative former Mayors of Indianapolis and Jersey City, Stephen Goldsmith and Brent Schundler, and innovative educators like Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein, have shown over the last 20 years. Harris County is unique in that we are rich with innovative leaders in our private and public sectors, who could begin analyzing and addressing our communities’ needs through the prism of this formula, including:

· Our educational system, including the type of citizen we want to emerge from an elementary, secondary and college education in this state; the proper curriculum and delivery system needed to produce that citizen; and the most efficient and cost-effective mechanisms needed to pay for, account for, and administer that delivery system;

· Our transportation system and physical infrastructure, including a vision of where our citizens will live and work over the next 25 years; an understanding of how and where our goods and services will need to move; the maintenance cycle for all capital investments; an appreciation for the property rights of all Texans; and the most efficient and cost-effective mechanisms for paying for the needed infrastructure improvements; and

· Our criminal-justice and mental-health systems, including the effectiveness of such systems to protect victims, the public, and the person being held and/or treated within the systems; and alternatives that can reduce recidivism and improve the educational opportunities and long-term economic viability of the families and neighborhoods affected by the incarceration or mental-health treatment.

We should confront these issues by creating long-term strategies for addressing them at the most local level possible, but not based on the old “tax-first-figure-out-a-plan-later” strategy recently used to pass Proposition 1 in Houston. Instead, we need to start with the idea that individuals and the private sector are the first sources for ideas, action, and funding—with local government’s strategic support as a resource for mobilizing and coordinating the efforts. This approach will make government live by our principles while addressing urgent problems; and will allow us as a society to begin to address some of the most vexing structural pressures on our public budgets, which put upward pressure on our taxes and downward pressure on job growth.

To start this transformation, we have to rebuild the human infrastructure needed to implement and sustain the Tupelo Formula, by:

· Starting new businesses and promoting policies that encourage small-business creation—small business creation is the easiest way to help people balance their need to make a living with our country’s need to rebuild neighborhoods. Businesses employ people, and employing people effects their lives. Every paycheck sets aside a retirement fund, pays for health care, provides for the sustenance of a family and (indirectly) for the support of the neighborhoods where employees live. Products or services generated by a business effects its customers, and those people touched by its customers. Wealth created by businesses increases the tax base and tax rolls, which in turn fund our schools—more wealth, creates better-funded schools. Programs that a business supports can enrich the lives of residents in the community where the business is located, as well as the lives of its employees. Each of us spends more time every day with our co-workers than with our family: the positive bonds you formed through this activity ripple out in every direction.

In essence, the greatest community service you can ever provide is to create or support a local business.

· Starting or joining a service organization, and promoting involvement in a traditional community-based service organization—between 1870 and 1920 many of the organizations that we remember as the backbones of our neighborhoods were created, and most still exist: Rotary, Kiwanis, the PTA, and many more. These organizations were designed to help serve the needs of their communities, and provide the social networks that build and maintain neighborhoods. Most of these organizations are crying for new members, but time and other commitments keep people from joining.

Find an organization that fits your interests, your community, and your available time, and support it. Then, promote policies that shorten commutes to work, offer tax breaks to companies who give employees paid time to work for schools and volunteer organizations, and offer tax breaks to individuals to donate time to charities (and faith-based organizations) as well as money or assets.

· Getting involved in assimilating our neighbors—To be a nation we must assimilate. Schools, churches, and childhood activities in the neighborhood were designed to assimilate children into our society as adults. Newcomers need the same help. We’ve argued way too long about the failure to promote assimilation. Let’s not just argue about it, let’s act.

Find an organization that is helping newcomers assimilate, and support it. Then, promote policies that give incentives to private organizations to create community centers and teach adults English and citizenship; that give children a safe place to meet, do their homework, and play; and that give families a safe place to interact and get to know and care for each other.

· Supporting organizations that help keep families and neighborhoods intact and building wealth, and promoting policies to accomplish those goals—As I mentioned before, our local GOP Juvenile Court Judges worked to create a model program, funded with private dollars and partnered with neighborhood churches, that is keeping first-time, non-violent juvenile offenders in school and out of jail. These types of programs will fight the long-term problems of under-education, under-employment, and chronic poverty that fester in communities where too many young people drop out of school and get a criminal record. We need more of these innovative programs that help rebuild strong schools, strong families, and strong neighborhoods.

By now you are thinking, “I can’t do all of that.” Well, nobody is saying you need to do all of that, but each of us can do some of the things I’ve listed to start rebuilding a service infrastructure in our neighborhoods that can sustain the needs of our neighbors without tax dollars. It is this overall effort that I’ve referred to in prior posts as Renewing the American Community. If you still don’t think it’s possible, let me leave you with a story that combines this message with my other favorite subject—Baseball.

When I was growing up as a White Sox fan in the mid-60s, one of the stars of that team was a young outfielder named Floyd Robinson. Unfortunately, a very promising career was cut short by an injury, and, in 1968, he left Baseball and returned to his home town in the Logan Heights neighborhood of San Diego, California.

Over the last 43 years, Logan Heights has come to be known as “Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood.” Taking up where his father left off as a small-business owner after World War II, Floyd Robinson and his wife built a successful construction and real-estate development firm. With the income from that business he maintained a small grocery store in the neighborhood where he employed and mentored young men, some of whom went on to play college and professional sports. He also used his income to fill a need for a senior-citizen assisted living center, which he financed and built, and which he has continued to manage for almost 30 years. Although he could afford to move to “nicer” neighborhoods in San Diego, he and his wife still live in the neighborhood he helped to build and maintain. And for some of you, another interesting epilogue to this story is that Floyd Robinson accomplished all of this as an African American in an integrated neighborhood.

Renewing the American Community using the Tupelo Formula is not only doable, but seeds for this transformation are being planted everyday by thousands of Floyd Robinsons—some of whom we know as neighbors, and some of whom we may never meet. All we have to do is accept the challenge. In fact, I soon will be putting a lot of time and effort where my mouth is on this issue, as I am working with a group of people to launch an effort to promote the goals of Renewing the American Community, including innovative solutions utilizing the Tupelo Formula.

So with this challenge in mind, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

What Are Our Priorities?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

I don’t know about you, but I’m already counting the days to two dates: Opening Day for Major League Baseball; and New Year’s Eve. I want to escape into my box scores, and then escape this year all together. The first quarter is not even completed, and yet this year already has presented us with more consequential events and decisions than we normally face over a decade.

Unfortunately, history doesn’t allow any of us to escape the time in which we live, so we need to face these events and decisions, and establish priorities. As I am watching events unfold, though, I see few people willing to take the reigns and focus seriously on setting these priorities. Even many of our Republican leaders seem to be flailing at the symptoms of our illness, rather than focusing on a proper treatment plan.

My guess is that anyone of you could come up with your own list of problems, but I believe that the three great issues of 2011 so far are our national debt; unrest throughout the Middle East; and the devastation of Japan. If we don’t make the right choices in addressing these issues this year, the consequences could create problems for the U.S. for at least a generation. So, I will deal with these in the order of importance that I see:

Our National Debt

When I say “National Debt”, I don’t just mean the debt owed by our federal government—I mean all public and private debt. Let’s take a look at of some numbers that I have gathered from multiple sources, including numbers recently compiled for Dick Morris, and by Americans For Prosperity:

• It is estimated that the total value of assets in the U.S. exceeds the total value of liabilities by about $25 trillion;

• U.S. national Gross Domestic Product—GDP—is between $14 and $15 trillion;

• Total federal-government debt is now over $14 trillion, grows at a rate of over $5 billion per day, and, over the last two years, has grown at a rate 27 times faster than over our entire history from 1789 to 2009;

• Annual federal-government expenditures exceed revenue by about $1.3 trillion;

• The State of Texas is dealing with a shortfall for the current fiscal year of $3 to $5 billion;

• The Texas Legislature also is grappling with a projected difference between what would be needed to continue state government’s current activities and projected revenue over the next two years of around $20 billion, which does not include future liabilities for outstanding bonds or unfunded pensions; and

• The total bond debt owed by just Harris County exceeds $3.4 billion, and the total bond debt owed by my local school district—Clear Creek ISD—is $1.077 billion, for an aggregate debt per Harris County resident within CCISD from just these two governmental agencies of $30,452.43 (which is more if you also live inside a municipality that is in debt).

On top of these numbers, the total private debt owed by U.S. citizens is estimated to range between $50 and $57 trillion—3 to 4 times GDP, and more than double the net worth of the country as a whole. Moreover, the price of most commodities have skyrocketed, as have unemployment and the money supply over the last two years, while average personal income has stayed flat or declined in real terms. As for the examples of local figures, these numbers don’t include the billions owed in short-term operating debt, long-term bond debt, and unfunded pension liabilities by local governments, special purpose entities (sports and convention authorities, port authorities, and transit authorities), and school districts.

Regardless of what the Paul Krugman’s of the world may say, this path is unsustainable. Unlike the 1930s, when our nation was the world’s largest creditor and held the greatest reserve of gold and other public and private assets, and could afford to incur more public debt to finance a public recovery, or unlike the 1950s when our economic wealth and industrial capacity could finance the Interstate Highway system and NASA, the U.S. in 2011 simply doesn’t have the wealth, or wealth-generating capacity to cover a continued growth in debt—or to maintain debt on this scale. We could tax the “super rich” up to their last penny, and, even if they didn’t flee to another country, the amount we would obtain would not cover more than a few months of the debt we are incurring.

We can no longer run government (including our schools), let alone our own households and business, in a “business as usual” manner. On the one hand, cuts to budgets and to social programs, no matter how draconian, will not be enough to address the problems we face; and raising the federal debt ceiling may seem prudent within the halls of the Capitol, but it is simply cowardice. On the other hand, Texas, like most states, has constitutional obligations, including the education of its 4 million students; while the federal government has constitutional obligations, including providing for our common defense—and we just can’t stop meeting these obligations.

Instead, we must stop incurring debt; we must re-structure salary, benefit and pension obligations of public workers to bring them in line with the private sector; we must set priorities for each level of government based on their core, constitutional responsibilities; we must zero-base budget for those priorities; and then we must agree on a fair system of taxation to pay for those priorities. We must find innovative private and local solutions for problems now managed by state and federal bureaucrats—innovations that will involve citizens and the private sector, including private foundations, service organizations and churches. State and federal governments can have a coordinating role to match the right people and organization to the needs of their communities, but these governments should not create, administer or pay for the resulting programs.

What is most needed, though, are leaders who will take the risk to stop this fiscal madness and set the new priorities we need. Some are emerging, like the new Governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and New Jersey. As leaders like these emerge in Washington, Austin, and locally, they will have a loyal ally and foot soldier in me.

The Middle East

In early February, I wrote a post with some thoughts about the emerging uprisings across the Middle East, which are largely confined right now to the Arab countries in North Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula. At that time, I wrote the following:

…we need to find a way to be on the side of the dreams of people of this region for freedom, education, and opportunity, rather than being perceived as siding with their monarchs or their extremists. We can not impose freedom, education, and opportunity like we tried in Iraq, and like foreign powers tried, to one degree or another, for centuries. Instead, we need to find a way through a mixture of trade, engagement, and security to help the people of that region build their own future.

Not long after that I wrote another post, in which I supported renewal of the Patriot Act. Some people who read that post could not square my thinking in the first post, and my thinking about limited government, with my support for renewal of the Patriot Act. With the opening of a third-front in Libya, in what now appears to be a never-ending military mission in the Middle East, I want to explain how I square these positions.

I believe very strongly that when our country has decided to go to war, and when Congress has authorized the Commander-in-Chief to prosecute the war with a clear instruction, Congress has the duty to provide the Commander-in-Chief with the means to fight that war effectively. Obviously, those means must be tempered and balanced by our commitment to civil liberties for our citizens, but, as Justice Robert Jackson observed many decades ago, our Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” A war-time balance normally calls for sacrifices that would not be tolerated in peacetime. I believe that the Patriot Act has given the President—both Bush and Obama—measured and balanced means to carry out the clear instructions in the war authorization following 9/11, especially in light of the 21st Century technology of communication and travel used by an enemy that wears no uniform and represents no single government.

However, my support for giving the President the means to carry out his orders contained in the war declaration, does not mean that I necessarily support a continuation of the war in all its current facets; and it certainly does not mean that I support an extension of our military footprint in the Middle East.

• First, we can’t afford continuing this fight in the manner we are fighting it (remember, that the National Debt would be my first priority).

• Second, even though the Arab League asked the West to intervene in Libya, many of those same Arab leaders are killing freedom protesters in their own streets. Those protesters must be asking, “who’s side are we really on?” At some point, we must ask this hard question ourselves before we start shooting off more missiles.

• Third, although the world will be far better off without Gadhafi and his sons (just as it is now with Hussein and his sons), is it really in our national interest to intervene in this civil war (and if it is, why did we wait until the rebel cause was almost lost to intervene)?

• Fourth, if this is a proper, limited fight for the West or Europe, couldn’t we leave this to France, Britain and the Arab League to fight, just as Eisenhower left it to France, Britain and Israel to fight the Suez War in the 1950s? Sixty-six years after the end of World War II, do we have to join every battle that our allies feel the need to fight?

We can and should at least discuss these issues, even if we end up disagreeing about them. In the end, we simply can not hope to fix all of the tribal, political and religious problems in the Middle East—many of which we simply don’t understand—with a gun. Again, what is most needed, are leaders who will take the risk to stop and think, and to set new, realistic priorities for our dealings with the people of the Middle East.

Japan

Words still can’t convey the horrible tragedy that has struck the people of Japan. On top of a second decade of economic stagnation, a governmental debt that is 200% of GDP, and the lowest birth rate in the industrialized world—all of which have been slowly eating away at the vitality of Japan—now comes this Apocalyptic series of catastrophes. All any one of us can do at this point is to pray for the Japanese people, and to provide as much support as we can in the months and years ahead.

Although it may seem cold-hearted to discuss this right now, our leaders must start thinking about an Asia without a vibrant Japan for the foreseeable future. This predicament will impact our diplomatic, economic and military policies in the region for years to come, and will immediately impact the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula and with China. Because of our indebtedness, and Japan’s indebtedness, Japan can not re-build with just our help, as it did after World War II. In fact, Japan will need and be able to depend on Chinese support, more than it will be able to depend on our support, and that will change the entire balance of power and alliances in the region. We must begin re-shaping our strategic thinking to be ready for this new reality.

And it is on this last topic—China—that I will end this post. Looking across the first three months of this year, the big winner of 2011 so far is China. Whether it is our debt and the continued stagnation across the U.S. and Europe, the uprisings within the oil-producing states of the Middle East, or the fortuitous emasculation of our strongest ally in Asia and the third largest economy in the world, China now is holding all of the economic and strategic cards—just as we did on the eve of World War II. Historically, China has never sought conquests beyond Asia, but, historically, it has never had the economic and strategic interests it now has on every continent—nor the economic and military strength it now enjoys. We must prepare ourselves for increasing diplomatic, economic and military competition and tension with China for years to come.

The best way to prepare for this competition is to face our National Debt and fix it, to change our approach to the Middle East, and to prepare for a new strategic reality in Asia.