Of Elections and Sports

It is early Fall.  That means that we are nearing the end of the regular season of baseball, and the New York Yankees are on course to make the playoffs and another run for the World Series title, number 28.  Their chances look good this year, if they can keep their players from injury and the bullpen resumes pitching up to its abilities.

Others are following football.  Already the Washington Redskins have gone from having a lock on getting into the Super Bowl, after winning their first game, to being nearly mathematically eliminated from the playoffs by losing their next two.  As they say in baseball, though with less justification in pro-football, it’s a long season.  And speaking of the Redskins, it has been said that you can tell that someone has been in Washington too long when he begins cheering for the Redskins.  Let that rest on your own taste and experience.

Basketball fans know that in just a few weeks, practice begins for college hoops.  The college basketball season will terminate several months later in the greatest sporting event that the United States has to offer, March Madness!  I don’t know when or whether the professional basketball season ever ends.  I suppose it does.

Somewhere someone is playing soccer, where some team is leading another by the insurmountable score of 1-0.  But I think that we may be in the only few weeks of the year when there are no hockey games—even as the NHL is haunted again by more labor-management strife.

At his school my son is running on a cross country team, the Trinity Tempest.  The motto of the team is not but should be, “Tempest Fugit.”  Instead, it seems to be something like, “Pass the weak, hurdle the dead.”  Nice so far as it goes.  Classical Latin would be better, it seems to me, but I am not a runner and have no say.

Yes, there is much sporting excitement and many sports in the Fall.  Elections, however, are not one of them.  Electing the leaders of our government, who will wield control over life and death, freedom and slavery, prosperity and poverty, is not a sport.  Self-government is one of the most serious activities of life for those who cherish their liberty.  Those who do not will eventually vote away their freedom, as we have seen in places like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia in recent years, and before that in places like Germany of the 1930s.

Of course, you would never know that from the public discourse on television, radio, in newspapers and other media outlets.  Presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional races are treated as if they all were games, with little at stake other than whether your favorite team wins.  Issues are trivialized, if mentioned at all.  The trivializers have even assigned team colors, one side “Red” and another “Blue.”  The most important issue in the media after a debate is “who won?” rather than, “what did we learn about what a candidate believes and what he would do if elected?”  Points are awarded by press experts for style, poise, rhetoric, and gotcha lines.  Panels of talking heads award scores as if they were judges at a figure skating competition.

It is all more than beside the point.  It corrupts the process.  Rather than true debates, in which candidates have enough time to declare and explain their views and policies on important issues, media celebrities offer trick questions, to which the future President of the United States is given two, three, or sometimes even five minutes to respond as he or she fishes for a soundbite to make it into the 60-second news recap (most of which will again be focused on, “who won?”).  Based on this silly exercise, viewers are encouraged to text in (for a small fee) their vote—not for who would be the best office holder—but for who was the winner of the night’s contest.

We should expect and demand better.  Through modern revelation we have been given a set of standards.  You do not have to be a believer in revelation to recognize the wisdom of the counsel:

Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise, whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.  (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10)

Our task as voters interested in preserving our rights and freedoms is too seek out diligently the honest, the good, and the wise.  Anything less is evil.  In an election, in a campaign, in a debate, I want to discover who is the honest, the good, and the wise, and I am little interest in style points. 

That takes careful and diligent effort, for among the honest, the good, and the wise, are the liars, the false, and the foolish intent on deceiving.  These latter like to hide in the noise of the sporting contest and often seek to divert attention to the things that little matter, the stray word, the high school prank.  We need to keep our focus on a diligent search for the honest, the good, and the wise.  With persistent effort, we can find them.

 

In self-government, we are the players.  The issue is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, decidedly not a game.  But if we follow these standards and apply them diligently, then in the end We the People will be the winners.

Of Elections and Personal Responsibility

Personal involvement in the community, including thoughtful and diligent participation in elections and other essential elements of self-government, is not just a good idea.  It is central to the achievement and preservation of freedom.  For Latter-day Saints, it is also a sacred commandment.  Modern prophets have taught that the establishment of a constitutional-based nation in modern times was not an accident, nor can it be preserved by indifference.

In December 1833, the Lord declared,

I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)

This teaching would have been no surprise to the Founders of the nation.  Many wrote of the protecting hand of God in the American Revolution and sensed His inspiration in the development of the principles on which our constitutional government was built.

When the Constitution was established, now some 225 years ago, the Lord was not finished with His interest in the American experiment.  God declared that perpetuation of that work was an ongoing responsibility.  The Constitution was to be “maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77).  Note the Lord’s intended role for the United States as a benefit for all mankind. 

In his book, The Battle, Arthur C. Brooks observed how the United States has been a refuge of freedom for people from many nations.

For immigrants from around the world, the United States represents the land of second chances, a place where you have the possibility of determining what you will become. (Arthur C. Brooks, The Battle, p.82)

America’s influence for good has not been reserved only for people who have immigrated.  Since its founding the United States has acted on the world stage like no other nation in history.  While not neglecting the national security, the positive influence of the United States internationally has been obvious, not the least by those who hate what the United States has done to promote respect for individual rights and human progress.  The Islamic terrorists, the Marxist revolutionaries, the Nazi tyrants, the monarchists of earlier years, and oppressors of every other stripe for more than two hundred years have correctly seen the United States as a threat to their core beliefs.  Arthur Brooks described it in these words:

The claim that American militarism is to blame for the world’s woes is indefensible.  In World War I American military strength brought to an end the bloodiest, costliest war that had ever been waged up until that point in history.  In World War II, which began for the United States when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on us, the American nation mobilized to end the twin evils of Japanese militarism and Nazism—and converted Japan and Germany into prosperous, free nations.  And through victory in the Cold War, won without a direct engagement of troops, America gave freedom to hundreds of millions of people previously in the shackles of Soviet communism.

(Arthur C. Brooks, The Battle, p.121)

 Historian Victor Davis Hansen echoed that theme, writing,

When we list the rogues’ gallery of thugs and killers that the United States has gone to war against in the last three generations—Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh, the Stalinists, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden—while providing postwar aid rather than annexing conquered land, it reminds us that no other country has had either the capability or willingness to take on such burdens.

(Victor Davis Hanson, “Is America Periclean?”, The New Criterion, October 2011, p.12)

In August of 1833, the Lord reemphasized that personal rights of freedom under constitutional safeguards are indeed unalienable, as the Founders held in the Declaration of Independence, a divine entitlement for all of His children.

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.  Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-7)

That these rights may be violated history has amply proven and modernity continues to demonstrate.  But their virtue never goes away, as these rights continue to assert themselves, as all eternal things do.

I would also note, which is my key point today, that Latter-day Saints have a particular responsibility in “befriending” constitutional law as the protector of freedom.  That is because, as the Lord went on to explain in the revelation of August 1833, “when the wicked rule the people mourn.” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:9)  Constitutional government is demonstrably the least violent and most successful means for a people to deliver themselves from the oppressions of wicked rulers.  The United States is not and has not been immune to them, but our remedies for over two centuries have been ready at hand.  For Latter-day Saints, there is an obligation to join with our fellow citizens to use those constitutional remedies.

The Lord also gave counsel on how to meet that obligation:

Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10)

Before each election the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remind the people of this duty.  The Latter-day Saints are not told who to vote for, as discovering that is part of the personal responsibility to seek “diligently,” but the duty and the purpose cannot be escaped, to find and support the honest, the good, and the wise.  Anything less than that is evil, for Latter-day Saints, and for anyone else who holds his rights and privileges of freedom to be unalienable and dear.

Of Aliens in Washington and the National Symbols

Driving into Washington, D.C., each day, it is easy to become blindly accustomed to the rich symbols that delight and inspire the more infrequent visitor.  Occasionally, such as when the choke of traffic allows reflective moments, or the morning light or evening illuminations stimulate more meditative inspiration, even the hardened local can again be moved by the monuments of the nation’s capital.

One such recent morning, as reflections led to marveling at our wonderful and unique nation, and musing followed musing, I was struck by how out of line the Obama Administration is with all of these symbols and what they mean.  The differences between the symbols and the resident reality are not minor.  It is as if some group of aliens had taken dominion of the Capital of Freedom.

Consider an example a mere few days old.  In Barack Obama’s most recent weekly radio address he made the following statement.  Read it carefully.

It’s time to build a nation that lives up to the ideals that so many Americans have fought for—a nation where they can realize the dream they sacrificed to protect.

The address was entitled, “Honoring Our Nation’s Service Members and Military Families”.  Its main thrust was to provide that honor through more federal spending on “roads and runways and ports.”  Apparently, President Obama’s view is that this is what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have been fighting for, or as he said, “That’s how we can honor our troops.”

Back to the highlighted quote, however, the rhetorical apogee of the speech.  Aside from the President’s revelation that he had tarmac in mind when he envisioned the dreams of our veterans, there is the declaration that, “It’s time to build a nation”.  Why would the President of the United States of America declare that now is the time to build our nation?  What does he consider to have happened in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was boldly adopted?  Was it not then that the building of the nation began?  What does he believe that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the many other Founders did?  What does he consider was the purpose of the Constitution if not “to form a more perfect Union”?  Does he believe that America has been waiting for Barack Obama to begin the building? 

It is hard to escape the impression that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in meaningful ways alien to the current President, that he does not recognize what they wrought.  For President Obama, now is the time to build the nation.  Apparently, he does not like what he sees. What kind of alternative nation does Barack Obama want to build? 

I suspect that what my father fought for in two wars was akin to the ideals embodied in our national symbols, not more government construction projects.  I doubt that in France, Germany, or Korea he ever spent a single moment imagining that he was risking his life for new highways.

Which brings me back to my musings on the highways of the federal city.  I see the Lincoln Memorial, in which the words from President Lincoln’s last address to the nation are inscribed, proclaiming malice toward none while seeking to unite a nation and bind up the nation’s wounds.  I contrast that with the current President and his long list of those he labels enemies:  big oil, big banks, big insurance, big medicine, business in general, the world’s financial center in New York, people of strong religious conviction, among others.  Instead of unifying the nation, it is impossible to avoid his constant efforts to divide the nation into racial, ethnic, and interest groups, as if the citizens of the United States are black, or white, or rich, or poor, first and Americans second.

From almost anywhere in Washington you can see the Washington Monument, soaring over 500 feet high.  The monument is simple and unadorned, symbolizing the man declared by mourners at his death as, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” who set the pattern for freedom protected by limited government, where government office was a service to the nation and its people.  In little more than the last three years we have instead experienced an unprecedented accretion of power to the government in Washington.  Government workers make decisions reaching into nearly every aspect of people’s lives, even as the President declares that the achievements of individuals are as much or more the work of government than the fruits of their own efforts.  Rejecting the example of George Washington, who turned aside a crown and walked away from generalship and public office into quiet retirement, President Obama fosters an imperial cult of personality, where the light of every achievement, real or imaginary, is focused on himself.

Ringing the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are Jefferson’s words, “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  Today we have a presidency filthy with politically correct speech, that pounces on any words of opponents that can be made to appear at odds with the official doctrines of the administration.  Instead of free speech and open debate, the President declares that for his priorities, such as global warming, health care, financial legislation, “the debate is over.”

In H.G. Wells’ classic science fiction story, The War of the Worlds, the invading aliens are at last destroyed by simple bacteria in the air and water that men breathe and drink, defeated, “after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.”  Was our Declaration of Independence correct that God has placed similar protections in our society, the heavenly endowed unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?  Will these simple, fundamental rights will out and preserve our nation from our present alien occupation?  They may, if we employ them as the Founders did.

Of Coming to Heaven and the Lord’s Supper

The lyrics to a Spanish song that I enjoy listening to include this line:

Para entrar en el cielo, no es preciso morir.

That translates into, “In order to enter heaven it is not necessary to die.”  Of course, that is true.  I have often said and know from some experience that eternal life can begin even in mortality, since the core element of eternal life is to possess the spiritual gift of charity, meaning the pure love of Christ (see Moroni 7:47), the one spiritual gift that never ends.

While it is not necessary to die to receive eternal life, we do need to come unto Christ.  Eternal life means living with God the Father, in His presence, and inheriting all that He has.  To qualify for that existence where perfect love and goodness prevail from this world of imperfection, corruption, and sin, it is necessary to come unto Christ, who has overcome all and who offers to help us to overcome all.

We come unto Christ only on His terms.  We cannot command that He come to us on our terms.  He is the perfect being, and we are very much short of that.  We are the ones with distance to cover.  Christ condescended to come as mortal man into our presence and our world of evil, but He did not condescend to partake of the evil.  We have.  He left our world through death, as we all will, but then was resurrected, which none were before Him, but because of whose resurrection all will follow.

Following resurrection, we will all be judged by the Father to determine whether we may remain in the Father’s presence and continue to grow and develop under His care.  At that judgment, Christ will identify for the Father those who have come to the Son and thereby qualified to remain in heaven.

How do we come unto Christ?  What are His terms?  Just these, that we solemnly promise by covenant with Him and the Father that we will accept Him and keep His commandments.  That is, we promise that we will follow Christ and stay with Him.  How can coming unto the Savior mean anything less?  Either we come unto Him or we do not.

The Savior has declared that this solemn promise and covenant is to be made in such a way as to be unmistakably imprinted on our minds, rich with the symbolism of washing away sin, burying the unrighteous way of life, and then rising to newness of life in accordance with the laws and ways of heaven.  This covenant and symbolism are present in the ordinance of baptism.  We place ourselves in the Savior’s hands via those whom He has personally chosen to represent Him.  We are buried in water, washed and cleansed from sin, and arise out of the water in the image of the resurrection into a Christian life.

The person who approaches baptism truly repentant of all of his sins, genuinely committed to a complete turning away from all evil, will feel the powers and joys of heaven filling his heart.  He will enter into the presence of God through the power of the Holy Ghost.  In fact, shortly after baptism, the next step in coming unto Christ is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of Christ’s representatives, just as the Samaritans anciently, who were baptized by Philip and soon thereafter were given the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles Peter and John (see Acts 8:12-17).

I have experienced those steps personally and testify that it works just that way.   Through faith, repentance, and baptism, sins are washed away, and through the gift of the Holy Ghost the heart is changed and filled with the gift of charity, the pure love of Christ.

Sad to say, and I would not excuse myself by noting that it happens to us all, not long after the covenant is made the covenant is broken, and it is not broken by God.  He perfectly fulfills His part.  On our part, sins are once again indulged in, old or new ones, or both.  The Spirit is grieved and withdraws, the gift of charity is also withdrawn, the man is left back on his own.  With the covenant broken what are we to do?

With a graciousness that far surpasses the patience of any mortal man, God allows us to remake the covenant and come unto Christ again.  We need not be rebaptized.  God has provided another ordinance that allows us to reaffirm the baptismal covenant and reclaim its powers and blessings.  As with baptism, it is a physical action that embodies a spiritual commitment.  Also, like baptism, it is designed and prescribed by God in a symbolic form that reminds us of Jesus Christ through whom our redemption is possible.

I refer to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  As with baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper comes in two parts.  In the first, we partake of broken bread, reminding us of the Savior’s body broken for us and soon after resurrected.  In the second we partake of water or wine to remind us of the blood shed by Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross.

As we partake of the sacrament with the same intent and spirit with which we were baptized, the whole baptismal covenant is reaffirmed and renewed, and we resume our Christian life.  We return to Christ.  We need this sacrament or our baptism would be nullified by our later sins.  We need it to retain the effects of our baptism.

It is astonishing, really.  It is a marvelous manifestation of the grace of God that He offers us this opportunity, weekly, to renew our solemn baptismal promises that we not so solemnly break.  While we renege, the Lord does not.  In fact, He offers us the second, third, and hundredth chance, which by all rights and justice He need not do.  Which of us would have such patience with those who broke their promises to us?

Because of the Lord’s patience, to enter into heaven, the presence of God, again and again, it is not necessary to die.  It is necessary to live, and to do that we must come unto Christ, and He beckons to us, all the time.  Why wait to answer His call?

Of Money and Morality

Prussian King Frederick the Great reportedly mocked the delicacy of Austrian Empress Maria Theresa over the 18^th century dismemberment of Poland, with the words, “She weeps, but she takes her share.”  Such were the ways of European kings and empresses.  I am reminded of those words, however, when I hear people criticize money, all the while more than eager to get their share, earned or not.

I can imagine this conversation between such a money mourner and an advocate of money:

Barry:  Hey, Franklin, can you lend me a couple of bucks?

Franklin:  I think it was Disreali who cautioned, never lend money to a friend unless he is a friend you want to be rid of.

Barry:  Come on, Franklin, it’s only a couple of bucks, and I’ll pay you back tomorrow.

Franklin:  In that light, here are two dollars.

Barry:  How about 5?

Franklin:  How did 2 suddenly become 5?

Barry:  Come on, Franklin, what’s the difference?  It’s only money, and you’ve got it.  You always have some money in your pocket.  I’m good for it, and we’re friends.

Franklin:  Because we are friends, I’ll give you a choice.  I’ll give you $2 or lend you $5.  Which do you prefer?

Barry:  I wish we didn’t need money.  It would be a lot better world without it.

Franklin:  Would it really?  Because of money we are having this conversation, discussing a free transfer of value between the two of us.  You are asking me freely to lend you value that you promise to return to me.  I do not ask what you want it for; that is your business.  We are having a conversation based upon our honor and promises to one another.  Without money, this whole conversation, this honorable exchange, would not take place.  You would either go and just take what you want the money for, or it would be beyond your reach.  Money is giving us both a choice to work together for your good.

Barry:  Well there is no way I can take what I want.  I need the money for lunch.  I can’t just walk in and take it.

Franklin:  Then, without money—mine or yours—you would be hungry.

Barry:  I’m hungry now.

Franklin:  And you would stay hungry.

Barry:  That’s why money is so immoral.  It’s keeping me hungry unless I can get it and use it to persuade someone to let me have something to eat.

Franklin:  Where were you going to get something to eat?

Barry:  Over at the hamburger joint.

Franklin:  Do you know anyone over there?

Barry:  No, not really.

Franklin:  So you want a perfect stranger to give you some of his food, prepared the way that you want it.  Why should he do that?  He doesn’t know you, you don’t know him.

Barry:  It’s not his food.  He just works there.

Franklin:  He works there for nothing, of course.

Barry:  No, they pay him.

Franklin:  With what?

Barry:  Money.  So what’s your point?

Franklin:  The morality of money.  Look how it makes it possible for several people all to work together and cooperate, friends and perfect strangers, all to make it possible to end your hunger.  I, as a friend, provide you the money, that you take over to the hamburger joint, where a perfect stranger gives you in exchange for your money a meal made according to your liking, and he does that because the owner of the hamburger joint pays him money to do it.  Think of whether any of that would happen without money.  That little bit of money allows us all to work peacefully together in free association.  What kind of a society would we have without money?

Barry:  Look, are you going to give me the money or not?

Franklin:  I'll give you 2 or lend you 5, what's your preference?

Barry:  Lend me the five.

Franklin:  Good choice.

Of Democracies and Demagogues

The demagogue has ever been the bane of democracies.  By definition, democracies rest upon the choices of the people.  When wisdom guides, democracies prosper.  As history shows, wisdom does not always prevail, and it never does when demagogues do.  Since the demagogue seeks his own power by taking power from others, once the people give him their voice they will be hard-pressed to get their power back; the democracy deteriorates into dictatorship, invoked in the name but never the reality of the rights of the people.

Why would a free people yield their power to the tyranny of the demagogue?  It is not reasonable to place your own hands and feet in fetters.  In every successful democracy there is a balance between reason and emotion.  Rather than advise wisdom, demagogues appeal to the basest popular emotions to overcome reason.  American Founder, James Madison, drawing lessons from the best known democracy of history, the democracy of Athens, warned Americans of the danger:

      In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.  Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

(James Madison, Federalist no. 55, as quoted in John Samples, “James Madison’s Vision of Liberty,” Cato Policy Report, Vol.XXIII No.2, March/April 2001, p.12)

Madison recognized that in groups fiery emotion can make for a more persuasive pitch than cooler reason can.  He recommended the Constitution as a defense against demagogues, a structure of fundamental limitations on government and against those who would seek to govern by preying upon the passions of the people.  The formula has worked and the Constitution has held—against many trials, including a Civil War—for more than 200 years. 

The typical demagogue is a forceful speaker who seeks power by stirring up the people, whom he sees as masses to be manipulated and managed rather than as a body politic of reasonable individuals.  It does not particularly matter which emotions are invoked against reason; the most successful demagogues draw upon a variety.  Perhaps the emotion most powerful to the ends of the demagogue is fear, but he will also use hatred, avarice, envy, sorrow, vanity, vengeance, vainglory, among others.  He will even try to invoke love, though love is hard to make compatible with the demagogue’s message of contention, but it can be used to garner sympathy and to get people to let down their guard against an appeal to baser emotions.

Are Americans and the American constitutional democracy perpetually proof against the demagoguery that has destroyed democracies before?  The Founders did not think so.  A popular watch phrase among them was, “eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty”.  They were referring more to internal dangers than dangers from foreign enemies.

How do we keep watch on the threshold of the 21^st Century?  Here are ten tests to help unmask the demagogue:

• He gives powerful, emotional speeches, as public speaking is one of his most powerful tools.  “Facts” will usually play a minor role in the speech, and when used will often either be half-truths or outright lies, sometimes very big lies with passionate appeal.
• As discussed, emotion rather than reason predominates in his arguments, with fear the most prevalent emotion.
• He conjures up apocalyptic dangers and manipulates crises (and creates them when none are readily available).  The sky seems to be always about to fall.
• Riding on the wave of crisis, he will offer sweeping “action plans” that would cede to him major powers and authorities and push aside sources of opposition.  “Forward” is the frequent cry shouted to drown out objections, “the debate is over.”  (In a real democracy, can the debate ever be “over”?)
• He dishonors the Constitution and violates it without regret; the Constitution and demagoguery are incompatible.  Neither can survive while the other prospers, to paraphrase J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter formula for her fictional demagogue.
• He accuses others of employing his own despicable tactics.  In order to create fog and camouflage, and blunt criticism of his own actions, the demagogue will often claim opponents are lying, fomenting contention, engaging in petty partisanship, and so on, all the while employing those tactics himself.  Note that the accusations will usually employ an appeal to sentiment.
• He points to enemies of the people, enemies that his plans will vanquish.  These enemies are usually chosen to evoke emotion, such as “big business” to foster fear, “the rich” to stir envy, race or ethnic divisions to feed hate.
• He calls for unity while proposing plans that divide the nation, opponents of his plans being cast as those who would seek to divide a nation that would be unified by agreeing with him.  Issues are chosen that find and feed emotional fissures in public opinion.  Most effective, the demagogue will propose to take something of value from a group in a minority and “share” it with the group whose favor he seeks, such as targeted taxes or confiscations to provide some popular benefit.
• Following on that point, he develops classes of supporters dependent upon what he promises to give them from the government, benefits that will need his continued care to be sustained.  That is what lies at the core of the difficulty in fixing problems with welfare, Medicare, and Social Security, and why the demagogues have a field day when anyone offers reasonable proposals to deal with these very real issues.
• He hates a free and independent press that raises objections of fact and evidence to challenge the emotional appeal, but he loves an obliging press that magnifies his message and drowns out dissident appeals to reason.

It is not hard to recognize demagogues among us today appealing for ascendancy.  Democracy in our day demands that we retain our freedom and that we do not yield.  More than our freedom is in the balance, but our freedom is in the balance.

Of Government and Getting What We Deserve

There is a theory that I believe but I am not sure how to prove (this side of the final judgment) that over time people tend to get the government that they deserve.  This idea comes to mind when I hear complaints in the public media about the Congress.  You have certainly heard them.  They come in various flavors, but they are the same soda:

• Why can the Congress get nothing done?

• Congress is unable to rise above partisan politics.

• The people in Congress seem so out of touch with the rest of America.

• Congress avoids making tough decisions.

You could surely add to this list.  The underlying theme is that the Congress is not doing its job.

These comments are a frustrating alloy of truth and silliness.  There is a lot that is right and wrong with the current Congress.  Who put these men and women on Capitol Hill?  With the exception of a handful of Senators appointed by their governors to fill temporary vacancies, and the few dozen congressmen who by order of the Supreme Court must be elected in districts where there really is no democracy (I refer to those from districts mandated by the courts to provide only minority representation), all of these congressmen and Senators were elected—by the people whom they represent.

I mention that to refer to both sides of the coin.  We, the people, put those people there.  The other side is, we the people can send them home.  That is a weighty responsibility, one that we cannot discharge faithfully by just complaining.  We cannot do our legislators’ jobs for them and be involved in all of the minor details of all that they do, but we can and must hold them accountable for the sum of what they do and for the general tone and direction of their actions.  To be successful we need to have a clear idea of what we want our representatives to do and be well educated about what they are doing—not just what they are saying.

One of the sillier comments I hear is the suggestion that we should “throw them all out.”  Is that true?  Is every single congressman and Senator doing a bad job?  Even a basic review of congressional action should tell us that is not the case.  On nearly all of the most important issues there is in fact quite a divergence of views and actions.  Again, our inescapable job is to figure out what is the right policy and look carefully at how our elected representatives are conducting themselves with regard to it.  We should weed the garden, not plow it under.

There are many policies and many issues from which to choose.  Let me suggest two.  The first would be the Constitution.  What have been the actions of our own particular representatives with regard to supporting and defending the Constitution and the rule of law?  Our current President has been active in undermining the Constitution and disregarding the rule of law, so this is not a theoretical issue.  What have our representatives been doing to combat voter fraud, to make sure that the executive branch does not spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, or to prevent bureaucrats from telling law abiding people how to spend their money, run their businesses, freely express their opinions, or observe their religion?  There have been many other assaults on the Constitution by people in Washington.  As voters, we should be mighty touchy about any of those efforts and reluctant to vote for people who do not share our sensitivity about the importance of the Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The second issue I would suggest is economic growth.  We will never really get out of this recession (that feels depressingly like the 1930s) unless we place a top priority on getting the economy growing.  We cannot solve our budget deficit and federal debt problems without economic growth.  People forget that the few years that we had a balanced budget in the 1990s did not come by government action.  Congress and President were in fact surprised by the surpluses.  They came about because the economy grew more strongly than expected.  We should support those legislators who act like they understand that economic growth creates jobs and that economic growth is created by private initiative.  We should support those legislators who consistently vote to remove barriers to business creation and innovation and defeat those who do not.  Those barriers include higher taxes and increasing government involvement in business decisions and operations.

All of this will take work on our part.  We cannot expect to have legislators who work for what is right and wise unless we do our work to find and support those who do.  There are many of them in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today.  We need more of them.

I believe that people eventually get the government that they deserve, and I yet believe that we deserve better than we have and that the time has come to get better.