Can the 10th Amendment provide a path to address the “Immigration Issue”?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics:

Why can’t we seem to resolve the “immigration issue” this country has been debating, off and on, for the last forty years (and which we have debated intensely and incessantly for the last 4-5 years)?

This question has been nagging at me for more than a month now. It most recently arose during the November meeting of the Clear Lake Area Republicans, when our focus-group discussion identified several issues that we bundle together as the “immigration issue” as the most important local and federal issues we currently face. Then, in mid-December, I attended a debate about immigration policy between two well-intentioned and well-regarded local Republican leaders sponsored by a local chamber of commerce, which ended-up stirring the issues around rather than providing much clarity. I walked away from both of these events feeling that this issue—or bundle of issues—seems to be a wound that we can’t get to heal, no matter how hard we try. In fact, the harder we try to close this wound, the more we seem to bleed from it.

This feeling is exacerbated for me, because I deeply believe that the long-term solutions to many of this country’s problems will be solved, if at all, by re-balancing the allocation of responsibility and power of government based on the principles contained in the 10^th Amendment—and yet, effectively addressing the immigration issue has seemed to me to require a more coherent and aggressive federal, rather than a state and local response. Because Washington seems increasingly incapable of addressing its own responsibilities wisely and effectively, this problem has seemed impervious to resolution, which is why States have tried to act on their own to attack the issue.

But, just when I decided to stop thinking of this issue for a while, some thoughts came to me, which I want to share with you as we move into 2012. I am not promising that my thoughts provide all the right answers, or even the right path toward any of the right answers. But, I hope they will provide a different perspective that could get us closer to finding at least some answers.

I think the reason that the present immigration debate seems like it is beyond resolution, is because the current problem arises from a structural dilemma related to the federal structure of our governments. To understand this dilemma, I first want to digress to discuss that federal structure.

In Federalist 45, James Madison made this following observation about the nature of the different spheres of responsibility and powers delegated to the federal government and retained by the states:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Consistent with this view, the Supreme Court, after the Civil War and the passage of the post-war amendments that expanded the scope of federal authority over civil rights of citizens, articulated the difference this way:

… the United States is not only a government, but it is a national government, and the only government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, …, all of which are forbidden to the state governments. It has jurisdiction over all those general subjects of legislation and sovereignty which affect the interests of the whole people equally and alike, and which require uniformity of regulations and laws, …– all which subjects are expressly or impliedly prohibited to the state governments.

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 555 (1871).

While under our Constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.

The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604 (1889).
What these statements show is that the general division of responsibility and power between the federal and state governments was based on a division between authority over external and purely national issues on the one hand, and authority over local issues on the other hand; and on a further understanding that most issues faced by government were local in nature. With these general understandings in mind, Hamilton, in Federalist 32, describes the further idea of the limited nature of the delegation of authority to the federal government this way:

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

He goes on to identify three types of exclusive delegation:

…where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance the authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant.

Finally, Hamilton identifies the express delegation of the power to “establish an Uniform Rule of naturalization throughout the United States,” as an example of the third type of express delegation, and this view is elaborated upon by Madison in Federalist 42. So, what our Founders intended was to give us a federal government vested with expressly delegated responsibilities, which were intended to address external and purely national issues. One of those expressly delegated issues was Naturalization.

Now, before we return to the primary topic of this post, we need to address the difference between “naturalization” and “immigration”. Naturalization is the process by which a foreigner, once having arrived in the country, may stay and become a citizen. Immigration is the process by which a foreigner comes to, and enters the country. The power over naturalization was expressly delegated to the federal government, in large part because of the problems the colonists encountered with restrictions imposed by Britain prior to the Revolution, and inconsistencies created by the States under the Articles of Confederation. However, the Constitution is silent as to the power over immigration (except for an odd reference in the provision related to the continued importation of slaves until 1808). Consistent with this silence, and with the colonists’ anger over limitations on voluntary immigration imposed by Britain before the Revolution, the federal government did not impose restrictions on voluntary immigration until the 1880s.

When the federal government first imposed restrictions upon immigration, the action was not justified as an exercise of the “necessary and proper” power related to naturalization but, instead, was justified as enforcement of treaty provisions with China and Japan, which restricted immigration from those countries. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that the authority to regulate immigration was inherent in, and arose from all of the powers vested in the federal government to conduct foreign affairs—or, as the Founders would have said, from the delegation of powers over external issues. Then, as we in Texas remember all too well, about 30 years ago in Plyer v. Doe, the Supreme Court narrowed the ability of States to regulate the conduct and status of persons who had entered and stayed in the country in violation of federal immigration laws, by requiring that States provide the children of such persons equal access to public education. And that opinion has led, in large part, to the tremendous strain on States and communities caused by the “immigration problem” in this country ever since.

So what is the structural dilemma I spoke of earlier? Unlike most of the problems that have arisen from the allocation of power during our history, the current immigration problem is unique. During most of our history, we have battled over the adequacy, extent, or legitimacy of the power delegated to, or usurped by the federal government from the states or individuals. Whether the issues have been slavery, civil rights, economic, or social regulation, the debates normally centered on whether the national effects from local actions actually made the issues national in scope, and whether the power being debated could be exercised legally and effectively from Washington. The current immigration debate is the exact opposite. The immigration debate involves an issue that is expressly or inherently vested in the federal government to address (whether it be naturalization, immigration, or border security), but which creates negative effects that are almost exclusively local in nature. From the strain on public schools and hospitals, to the local insurance and job markets, communities are absorbing the brunt of federal inaction. In the meantime, communities and States have very limited legal means at their disposal to address these effects.

That the federal government has failed, and continues to fail, to address today’s immigration and naturalization issues is beyond serious debate. It has failed to develop and maintain an appropriate bilateral relationship with Mexico within which border security and immigration could and should be handled. It has failed to secure our borders to know who is coming and going, and to enforce current restrictions on entry. It has failed to address the problem of expired visas for students and temporary workers. It has failed to enforce laws on the books designed to stop the employment of persons who have entered and stayed in violation of law. It has failed to enforce deportation laws. It has failed to create positive laws that promote immigration of workers we need for today’s economy. These failures have created a de facto federal policy of non-enforcement of illegal entry restrictions.

Though this de facto federal policy has created stresses on State and local governments throughout the nation, the problem is most acute where the policy is most abused: in the States and communities closest to the border with Mexico. In the meantime (though we should get some clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue by June, 2012), current legal precedents limit the extent to which States and local governments can address the impact of this policy. While there is no question that State and local governments can, and constitutionally should enforce federal immigration laws, the current administration has been hostile to even modest attempts by state and local governments to cooperate in or assist with such enforcement. Beyond basic enforcement, state or local regulations that attempt to regulate the activity of people because of their immigration status, to deny benefits to people because of their immigration status, or to impose additional state-law penalties for violating the federal immigration laws, have rarely been upheld by the courts.

So, while the federal government continues to dither, what can we do? What should we do?

The simple answer is that we must do what we can do, and what we can do is take back control of our communities and States, consistent with the 10^th Amendment and with the federal structure I discussed above. To take back this control, we are going to have to embrace a paradigm shift in our thinking, though. This paradigm shift will require a more realistic and forgiving attitude toward those who have come here, or who have stayed here, in violation of the law; and it will require a more appropriate self-image of ourselves and our role in this process.

First, the realism: millions of people who crossed the Rio Grande and stayed illegally over the last generation, or who over-stayed their visas, will never go home. Whether it is because we won’t have the stomach or the resources to do it, we will not deport that many people; and many of them will have planted too many roots here to ever leave voluntarily, no matter how bad the economy gets. Moreover, for those who have established homes in the Southwestern U.S., why would they go home when they can build a better life in a place that is still culturally and historically familiar to them?

Second, the forgiveness: except for our most serious crimes, such as murder, every crime has a “statute of limitations” period, after which someone can no longer be prosecuted. Crossing the border and staying without complying with federal law in order to work and make a living are crimes, but they aren’t murder. Just as society forgives other crimes over time, we need to begin forgiveness (especially if it comes with repentance, such as compliance with payment of fines and prohibition against citizenship). We also need to remember that one of the hallmarks of our legal rights has been the principle that the “son is not liable for the sins of the father,” which is embodied in the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, and to stop condemning children for the crimes of the parents. Finally, we have to understand that all of us—citizen and illegal immigrant alike—have been harmed by the failures of the U.S. and Mexican governments to address the problems that have caused and attracted this continued exodus into the U.S.

Third, and maybe most importantly, we have to stop wallowing as victims over this issue. For years, we have seen ourselves as the victims of a wave of illegal activity without protection from our federal government, and, to add insult to injury, we’ve seen ourselves as having to support the “villains” with public benefits. In response to this feeling of victimization, we’ve come to sound and act collectively like “Inspector Javert,” the character from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, who eventually loses his soul over his quest to bring the petty criminal Jean Valjean to “justice” long after Valjean had paid his penance.

Ladies and gentlemen, these “villains” are our neighbors, regardless of who they are, where they came from, or how they got here. And, as I noted before, most of them and their children will be here a very long time. The Democrats and other organizations know this, and they are advocating that these neighbors remain separate from the rest of the larger community, and, therefore, dependent on unions, government and their political party for years to come. As long as the Democrats can maintain the federal status quo, and we refuse to engage with these new neighbors, we condemn these newcomers to become wards of the long-term Democratic strategy for our country.

So, if the federal government won’t act, the paradigm shift requires us to use the principles of the 10^th Amendment positively and aggressively to build better communities for the future. To accomplish this shift, we will have to take control and build neighborhoods with these new neighbors. The only way to build these bonds of neighborhood is through assimilation, and real assimilation is hard work—and takes both parties to make it happen.

That means, it is time we roll-up our sleeves and help our new neighbors to assimilate: to privately establish the network of churches and private organizations that help neighbors and build communities; to teach English and help them become literate in our culture and history; and to mentor the establishment of private businesses and employment through which they can pay taxes, and support the public institutions that now support them. We can not, and should not, reward the adults among them who committed the initial crime by granting them amnesty through a citizenship path (and we couldn’t do that anyway because that is the essence of the power of naturalization delegated to federal responsibility), but we must begin to fold their families into our neighborhoods so that their children—who will stay here because this is the only home they have known—become productive neighbors, and their children and grandchildren become productive citizens.

I know this paradigm shift does not address the actual needs at the federal level. I do not address the federal problems, because, frankly, we know what needs to be done to secure the border and re-gain control over the legal flow of people into this country. Our elected leaders in Washington will either have the will to pass this legislation, or we will have to keep electing new leaders until we find those who will.

But we can not wait for the stalemates in Washington, and between Washington and Mexico City, to resolve themselves before we begin to retake control of our lives and our communities. That is the purpose of this idea of the paradigm shift—to use the ideas of the 10^th Amendment to positively address the problems created by federal inaction and build stronger citizens and communities in the future; rather than to use the 10^th Amendment as a negative argument to joust with the federal authorities over whether and how to should enforce federal law.

Some may label my paradigm shift as amnesty by another name, but it is not. Amnesty, or other such regulations, deal with naturalization, and that is a federal responsibility. In fact, if my idea would be implemented, there may indeed be neighbors who we help who eventually will be deported if and when the federal stalemate ends. But the conditions of our schools and our communities, and the demands on our local infrastructures, require that we take control of this situation here and now where we live and work. Frankly, this is what the Founders would have expected us to do.

I know many of you will disagree with what I have written here. Do me a favor—read it once, give it some thought, then read it again. Afterwards, give me your comments and let’s start a dialogue on this important issue.

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.