Understanding our Republic

I think one of the first steps on my path to becoming a conservative started in school. I’ll never forget hearing my teachers tell me that we were a democracy while sharing the definitions of various types of governments. Among these types of governments included a description of a republic. To me, it just sounded like a better explanation of our government. I would say this to my teachers but the usual response was something along the lines of “But we call ourselves a democracy.” That’s actually not the right way to look at our government.

To get everyone up to speed, I thought I’d share the definition of a republic and the definition of a democracy. Wikipedia says that “Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” So a real world example of true “Democracy in Action” would be when a local government has a vote on a millage and every registered voter in the community gets to vote.

The definition of a republic from Wikipedia is different. It says “A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.” Dictionary.com goes on to add “A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.”

This is much more like our federal government. I didn’t personally have a say in ObamaCare. However, my representative and senators did.

Some may look at this and see both elements in our government. Sure, it was my representative and senators who had a vote in ObamaCare (republic), but it’s the people of my district and state that voted those people in office (democracy). However, one of these two is more important to the structure and operation of government.

Let’s remove all democratic elements of our government. Let’s imagine that instead of voting for our representatives in DC, they were chosen in a different fashion. Perhaps they’re chosen in a manner similar to jury duty. We can do this and the structure of our government is still the same. We still have a Congress representing us. We still have someone serving as the executive. We would still have a Supreme Court. Our three branches are sill around.

Now let’s remove all republican aspects of our government. The structure of our government goes away completely. We no longer would have anyone representing us. We would be the ones who vote on every single issue. Our government would be completely restructured. Because of this fact, we clearly have a republic.

Our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be a republic. The evidence can be seen in history. Consider our Pledge of Allegiance. It says “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.”

In his inaugural address, George Washington said “And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” The words “Democracy” and “Democratic” never show up.

In the Federalist Papers, the United States is called a republic and compared to other republics. In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton listed what he planned to discuss in his writings. In this he wrote “…to the attainment of this object the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government…”

So why does this debate matter? It defines our government and, therefore, how we view our government. When one looks at our government as a democracy, they’re going to view it differently. An example of this can be seen in a debate common in introductory political science classes. Should we keep the electoral college or move to a popular vote? With a democratic view of our government, the electoral college doesn’t make much sense. With a republican view of our government, that’s not so clean and clear.

Probably the most important thing to consider when it comes to a republican view of government compared to a democratic view is how one views the debate of “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Man.” Under a rule of man, an individual or a group of individuals (such as a mob majority) have the final say on all matters. Under a rule of law, the law has the final say. An example of this is the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

When one says the democratic elements trump the republican parts of our government, they are essentially negating the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by a group of representatives. After all, I never voted on the Constitution. So if the popular vote is most important, that means a majority are more important than the Constitution. Therefore, every protection and freedom provided by the Constitution can be wiped out by a simple majority vote of the population. The whole idea of being a republic is looking pretty good, isn’t it?

I created this picture to illustrate my point (and to have a chuckle at the expense of OWS). The Constitution was written and ratified by a small percentage of the country. 1% is actually generous. But the point is still clear. The document created by these people doesn’t necessarily represent the will of a majority on any given subject at any given time. But if we emphasize democracy over the republic, then we essentially erase this document and replace it with the mob.

And the mob can be controlled. This can largely be done by emotion. Look at a number of political ads that have appeared. Take this ad by the people at We Are Ohio:

Who are you again?

Issue 2 was about limiting collective bargaining by public sector employees (Senate Bill 5). This ad features an old lady talking about how firefighters saved her great-granddaughter. It provides no evidence that the bill would indeed lead to fewer firefighters, but it does make a heck of an emotional play. This old lady isn’t an expert in public finance, political science, or anything of that sort. The ad features no substance and silly rhetoric ("The politicians don’t care about the middle class. They’ve turned their backs on all of us”). But that shot of her and her great-granddaughter? Well in the court of public opinion that’s worth more than hard facts.

The power of emotions is just one part of the problem. President Obama’s “Attack Watch” website is another good example. The site is an attempt to tackle false information that’s working its way around the internet and news. On top of that, not every person is fully educated on every issue and topic. Is it easier to educate a few hundred people who showed the initiative to run for office or a few million that showed up because Diddy told them to or die?

That’s the danger we face when we look at our country as a democracy instead of a republic. We work so hard to obtain the characteristics of a democracy because we think we’re a democracy that we run the risk of ignoring the problems that come with that structure.

It’s not to say it’s going to all happen overnight. But it’s the direction we’re headed. Consider the 17th Amendment. It moved us from our state governments selecting our senators to a popular vote. Look at the polls on the nightly news. By and large, they look at what the general population thinks about a bill. Politicians look at what’s popular instead of what’s right. What else will change for our country all in the name of democracy?

So while some of my professors and colleagues believe I’m splitting hairs when it comes to this debate, I believe that it’s a very important distinction to make. How we define anything has a big role in how we view it. We must keep this in mind when it comes to our government.

Something for Your Sunday

Most of the time on this blog, I talk about politics and the sort. However, I spend my Sunday mornings at church and my Wednesday evenings at a Bible Study. I work with an organization called The Hungarian American Fellowship which works to bring the Gospel to orphans in Hungary that wouldn't hear it otherwise.

God is clearly something important to me. The Grace He provides me each and every day is among the best things going for me. So every now and then, I'll share something short and sweet related to this topic.

For the past week, this song has been stuck in my head. I thought I'd share it.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you

As Veterans Day approaches, my mind goes to those that risked and sacrificed so much to serve our country in the military. Their sacrifice does not go unnoticed.

I’ve had the honor of knowing some of these people. I remember my grandfather who flew during World War II. I think of an usher at my church that was there when the allies stormed Normandy. I see my friend Tom who is learning to become a helicopter pilot in the US military, sacrificing time away from his wife and family. I think of Steve, a teammate of mine from high school, who put his life on hold so he can go help make sure I’m free to live mine.

And then there are my students. While I give them the pitch to go to my alma mater, nothing impresses me more than when one says they’re going to join the military. I feel blessed to have played a role in their lives.

As a political science major and a political commentator, I like to talk about the Founding Fathers that gave us this country and our flag. But it’s the men and women of our military who won’t get their name in a history book that have kept this country and our flag from falling. They are the ones who deserve our respect more than any other group in American history.

I’m blessed by these men and women in more than one way. They are incredibly wonderful people. They’re giving, mature, and they truly are the best of us. They have encouraged me to be the same.

While I’m not able to serve due to a number of medical reasons, I don’t feel like our country has lost out too much in me remaining a civilian. That’s because those that are out there risking life and limb do such an amazing job. Consider some of their accomplishments:

• When facing the strongest military during the American Revolution, our men and women secured liberty for all of us.
• During the War of 1812, our nation’s Capitol was burning but they didn’t give up.
• When our country was divided in the Civil War, they stood up for what they believe even if that meant firing at a neighbor.
• When we entered World War I, they lived in the cold and damp trenches so freedom could survive.
• When we were facing Germany and Japan, they were able to win on both fronts.
• When communism worked its way into countries around the world, they went to defend those who were defenseless.
• When America was attacked on 9/11, they went out into harsh environments so we wouldn’t have to deal with that kind of horror again.

We are lucky to have these people represent us. It’s important that not only do we take the time to thank them, but also understand them, who they are, and what they go through.

Kim Kardashian divorce + pro-gay Star Trek cast-member = Stupidity

And the dream has ended. After being married for less than 3 months, Kim Kardashian and whoever she married are calling it quits. Before I get to the point of this post, here are a few things that last(ed) longer than a Kim Kardashian wedding:

• The wait for Android updates to arrive on your particular device
• Firefly’s run on Fox
• The time it takes to open that STUPID plastic packaging without going into a fit of rage or suffering from numerous deep lacerations to your hands
• The time between Bill Maher’s comments that actually have value
• Keith Olbermann’s career on MCNBC of all channels
• William Hung’s celebrity status
• A McDonald’s burger left out in the hot sun
• The virtual pet fad
• A member of Occupy Wall Street’s time in an actual college classroom
• A member of Occupy Wall Street’s last high
• The time between episodes of House where something different actually happens

Okay, now to the main point. During much of the joking around that inevitably took place after a wedding that lasted only a couple of months, George Takei of Star Trek fame and a number of mediocre films, TV shows, and commercials got in on the discussion. For those who don’t know who George Takei is, he’s one of the latest roles.

Regarding Kardashian’s recent divorce following her recent marriage, Takei tweeted “Kim Kardashian files for divorce after 72 days. Another example of how same-sex marriage is destroying the sanctity of the very institution.” After seeing this get re-tweeted a number of times, I got annoyed. What follows very well expresses what I said after reading Takei’s tweet:

I’ve heard this argument time and time again. It is so stupid at its very core, it’s amazing it’s still being used. Nobody is claiming that marriages that don’t even last as long as a 90-day warranty aren’t hurting the sanctity of marriage. So why do those who support gay marriage use divorce as an attempt to make those who oppose gay marriage look like hypocrites?

What Kim Kardashian did is pathetic. If it wasn’t, the whole internet wouldn’t be mocking her. If we thought it was acceptable, it wouldn’t be a headline. She’ll have to deal with the fallout and ramifications on her own. What Brittany Spears did with her marriage that lasted until the hangover wore off is also a disgrace. Nobody is defending these things and saying they’re fine or that they don’t hurt the sanctity of marriage.

Let’s set the record straight. Divorce rates being what they are today hurt the sanctity of marriage. Pre-marital sex hurts the sanctity of marriage. Affairs hurt the sanctity of marriage. Couples that play “house” prior to getting married just because they can hurt the sanctity of marriage. Gay marriage hurts the sanctity of marriage. That’s how it is.

For those who are lost or don’t see what I’m saying, let me put it like this. It’s like WWII and we have people saying “We need to stop the Germans. We can’t let the Germans take over another country!” What Takei said with his argument would be the equivalent of someone saying “Yeah. The Germans. Because it was the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor. They’re the real threat to America.” The people going on and on about Germany didn’t say Japan wasn’t an issue. They’re just making sure people understand that the Nazis also pose a threat instead of leaving them unchecked. Just because they aren’t ranting about it as loudly doesn’t mean they don’t see it. Occupy Wall Street is ranting right now about the problems we have in this country surrounding corporations and the “crimes” they commit. I guess they don’t believe the things such as assault and rape aren’t that big of a crime. Wait! That’s a bad example!

Let’s try this. People that fight against animal cruelty must not believe domestic violence is that big of a deal because that’s not the cause they’re fighting for. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) must not have a problem with kids who will go hungry today because they never mention that problem. At least that’s the same logic Takei is using.

So let’s please stop with the stupid, idiotic arguments. They accomplish only one thing. They make the person using them look like an ignorant fool who can’t think for themselves and would better serve this world if they were a parrot since that’s all they can do. I say all of this because if there’s one thing we need to rid ourselves of in this country, it’s stupidity. The first step to that is getting rid of stupid arguments. Step 2? That’s probably that plastic packaging that we all hate.

What do we want in a President?

In recent news broadcasts, we’ve been hearing more and more about Herman Cain and an alleged case of sexual harassment. Most articles have centered around the debate of the timing in relation to his climb in the polls, if the claims are true, and what the source of the story actually was. My question: Does it matter?

Being a football fan, I can’t help but think of the Pittsburgh Steelers. As a Steelers fan, I’ve seen story and story about quarterback Ben Roethlisberger’s off-field antics. They can be, to say the least, embarrassing. His behavior at times has been closer to that of a child than a grown adult. But am I calling for him to be removed from the team? No. Not at all.

The reason for that is because I have to consider what matters in a quality quarterback. In short, there’s a reason Pittsburgh has made so many trips to the Super Bowl in recent history and Ben Roethlisberger is a big factor. He has what matters when it comes to being a quarterback. If I had a single sister who wanted to date him, that would be a completely different story. I don’t care how much money he’s making, there’d just be no way.

And this brings me back to Herman Cain. What does this whole thing have to do with his ability to fulfill the job as president? If he was sexually suggestive to a couple of women, it just means he’d make a lousy significant other and I’d have reservations if he wanted to pastor my church. But it doesn’t say anything about his ability to fix the economy, get people back to work, or restore state rights.

Kayleigh McEnany recently wrote an article in the Daily Caller that discussed the concept of a president we’d like to have a beer with. She makes a good point in saying that the important thing is that they’re a good leader. A President needs to have good policies and the ability to get things done.

This all makes perfect sense. Each job has different qualifications. Anything outside those qualifications really doesn’t matter. If I ran a Formula 1 team, I would want a driver who has the talent needed to drive an F1 car. If he bashes Ronald Reagan in his spare time, that just means I probably won’t be inviting him over for dinner very often. On the flip side, I’m looking for a candidate who can bring back the Reagan philosophy. If they struggle with their turn signal, it just means I’ll think twice about hitting the road when I know they’re driving… anywhere… in the known universe.

Now I’m not a Cain supporter. I’m not sold on his “9-9-9” plan quite yet. But it is important that we keep this race focused on what matters: Who’s going to make America great again? And much like Ben Roethlisberger’s off-field antics, I don’t see too much impact on Cain’s ability to lead unless these allegations end up being significantly bigger than most seem to believe they are. This whole thing doesn’t change the value of his “9-9-9” plan. It doesn’t wipe away his experience in the private sector.

All this story is doing is it’s distracting from the conversations that really matter during this campaign. I would like to see more analysis on “9-9-9.” I want to hear more of what Newt Gingrich has to say as he’s been impressive as of late. I would like to get a better idea of how Mitt Romney is going to be a conservative leader in the White House. None of these have anything to do with the off-field antics of any of the candidates. Now if I had a single family member looking to date one of them…

The brilliance of Occupy Wall Street

I know I’ve been on this horse for a long time. But, there’s just so much to say about Occupy Wall Street. Since it’s a Friday, I’m going to share videos from YouTube about this and provide my commentary.

My idea for this started with Steven Crowder’s video for the week. So to understand where I’m starting from, here’s the video:

Well this inspired me to look into some videos right from OWS. What are these people thinking?

The first piece of entertainment involves a guy complaining about racism (which I didn’t know was part of the OWS mission). He complains about people calling white people crackers and saying that it’s wrong when anyone says that white people are part of the problem. Oh wait, that’s what he does. His definition of capitalism, by the way, is the middle finger. I missed that one in my econ classes. Be warned, there is a LOT of profanity… because apparently profanity helps make someone sound sane and rationale.

“Name a black person who has the power to control anything in this country?” Did he really ask that?!?

This next one cracks me up! I knew it was going to be interesting when it starts off with one person calling another “Comrade.” But the real gem is when a woman complains about paying taxes on her unemployment. Hold on. Now I’m not sure how exactly the taxes work on unemployment, but let me get this straight. She gets free money and then the people who give her the money ask for a little bit of it back? She then complains about corporations that are profitable getting more breaks tax-wise than she is. I question that, but let’s run with it. She thinks it’s upside down that someone who is profitable is treated better than someone who’s not producing anything? I’d like to see where that kind of thinking would get us as a nation. Actually, I take that back. I don’t want to see that because I would be in the middle of it. She then says these corporations are doing nothing. She just said they’re profitable. I challenge her to do nothing AND be profitable. There can only be one Snooki and that role is taken.

Runner-up on this next video is the guy who goes on about how corporations are ruining health care and how he worries how it will impact his daughter and how he wants her healthcare guaranteed. Having had a battle with cancer, I know how corporations work in health care. When I needed a scan, there was a big “GE” logo on the machine. Who produced the drugs I needed? Medical corporations. It was a network of “evil corporations” that brought the doctors I needed together. We could get corporations out of healthcare, but that also means we’re probably headed back towards a world of leeches and other medieval kinds of healthcare. But enough talk. Enjoy!

Next up is a student complaining about how we’re pretty much trapped when it comes to going to college. I agree. But isn’t that more because we’ve made the high school diploma practically worthless? She should Occupy a classroom, not Wall Street.

But it seems I’ve stumbled on why the Occupy Wall Street movement exists. The problem is misinformation. Take the guy in this upcoming video:

He talks about a politician. It sounds like he’s saying “Harry Brawn.” I’ve never heard of Harry Brawn. I did an internet search and came up with nothing. There was a Harry Browne. Looking through some books he wrote, he’s clearly a capitalist. Between “The Secret of Selling Anything” and “You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis” he’s hardly in line with the movement.

He then makes up stuff about the 5th Amendment saying that it says that the people have the right to vote on anything Congress passes. Here’s the 5th Amendment for you:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Anyone who knows the very basics of the Constitution knows the 5th Amendment covers things such as double jeopardy and self incrimination. It’s not an amendment about Congress, but the rights of the accused. Maybe if this guy spent some time in a government class that taught the Constitution, then he wouldn’t be so gullible.

Finally, I want to take a look at what Occupy Wall Street is accomplishing. They set out to take down the corporate fat cats and stand up for the little guy. Well, how’s that working out?

And yet, Apple Stores and Bank of America branches across the nation are open for business

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Occupy Wall Street

I thought it would be a good idea to break down what we’re hearing out of these nuts at Occupy Wall Street. After all, since they apparently don’t have anything to contribute to the workplace (if they did, they’d go to these things called jobs), it might be interesting to see what they have to say.

 

The Good

While I’ve heard that if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all, it’s really hard to do that with this crowd. However, I wanted to stay true to this. I figured that even a broken clock is right twice a day. So it shouldn’t be too surprising to find something that the NYC campers have gotten right.

One common theme at OWS is in regards to the bank bailouts and how those were a mistake. That’s very true. The banks should have just failed. Americans were insured thanks to FDIC and it wouldn’t have been as disastrous as some painted it to be. Those who could run quality banks that didn’t take stupid risks could have stepped up and filled in the gap. If there was any concern about lost revenue, the government could have selected to allow dollars that have left the US for tax reasons to return to the country tax free and we could have new investments to make up for any loss that may have happened.

As far as those who had more in a bank than what they were insured by the FDIC, well that’s their problem. I’ve heard from a number of people who bring up cases like Enron. Well if there’s anything to be learned from Enron, it’s that we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. We constantly hear about building up a nest egg and we take that a bit too literally as a single egg can only be in one place. Here’s a novel concept: Have nest eggs and put them in different places. That way, when one goes bust, it’s not the end of the world.

The Occupy Wall Street Crowd also seems to be opposed to crony capitalism. Well they can join the Tea Party and a number of conservatives. I hear Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin complain about this more than Keith Olbermann. While most comparisons between the OWS crowd and the Tea Party are completely misguided, this is the one and only place where they are similar. I just find it interesting that I haven’t seen too many signs about Solyndra at the protests. Perhaps they aren’t against all crony capitalism. They’re just against the cases they don’t agree with. So much like the broken clock, OWS is right on two occasions.

The only thing about their these two complaints would be that it shows how misguided OWS really is. The bank bailouts and crony capitalism are things done by Washington and not Wall St. The government didn’t have to give hand outs to these organizations. Why are they camped out in New York?

 

The Bad

The Occupy Wall St Crowd constantly says that they are the 99%. Actually, that’s far from the case. They’re more like the 1%

• Around 7% of the people in the world have a college degree
• Only about 45% of the countries in the world are free
• Less than 9% of people in the world own a car
• About 20% of people in the world own a TV
• 40% of people in the world don’t have indoor plumbing
• They’re asking for iPads and iPhones which would put them in a global minority
• Then there’s water
• A 5 minute shower uses more water than some people in developing countries use in an entire day
• 884 million people lack access to safe water. That’s about one in eight
• Half of the world’s hospitalizations are attributed to water-related illnesses

In the case of OWS, a number of them have college degrees, own a car, have a TV, have indoor plumbing (or have been using a cop car as a replacement), and can get clean water. Given all of this, OWS is closer to representing the 1% of the world than the 99%.

 

The Ugly

I could go into the sanitary issues currently at play in the hippie camps, but that’s all too easy. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, I’ll just use a couple of those.

I like the sign that says “Capitalism Doesn’t Work” in the background. In this camp of socialists, garbage collectors apparently don’t work. If nothing else, that’s enough for me to side with the greedy capitalist fat cats.

I like how the hippies are using cardboard for signs and then just abandon them. I wonder how many of them are tree huggers.

OK. Now that we’ve poked fun at that, let’s focus on the complete ignorance in one statement I’ve heard all too often from the OWS movement. They say corporations aren’t people.

When I was in high school, I had some money set aside for my college education. Well, I wanted to increase the amount of money in that pot. So what did I do? I bought stock.

I didn’t buy a lot, but at one time, I was part owner of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), a corporation that makes computer processors. I was a part of that company. If the company went belly-up, I would have lost something. I was invested in the corporation.

Corporations are people who have come together for various reasons. Some are looking to make some money so they can live out their dream. Others are trying to create a product or service that people will like. When a corporation fails, people are the ones who are hurt because they were a part of that corporation. If corporations weren’t people, then when Enron went south, nobody would have cared. Nobody would have argued to bail out GM or Chrysler if corporations weren’t people.

But then OWS doesn’t understand this. They just see “corporation” and think of it like it’s a machine. They don’t think of the car salesman who’s working to support his family by selling cars with a corporate logo on it. They don’t think of the bank teller when they see a giant “Bank of America.” They don’t consider the engineer who earned his/her position by being the best at what they do when they look at a computer. They look at a corporation and think it’s a robot. That’s far from the truth. Corporations provide jobs, products, and services for all of us. The same can’t be said of these bums who are trashing a park and not producing anything for the rest of us. Corporations came together and put together my computer, phone, and meals. These socialists came together and put together a giant pile of garbage and the biggest indictment of the American education system to date. That’s just ugly.

So as OWS goes into another week of camping in a park and no clear voice, keep in mind that while there’s some good, it’s outweighed by a lot of bad and a whole lot of ugly.