gototopgototop
" The adult in our time is asked to reach his or her hand across the line and pull the youth into adulthood. That means of course that the adults will have to decide what genuine adulthood is. If the adults do not ... help pull the adolescents over, the adolescents will stay exactly where they are for another 20 or 30 years. "
—Robert Bly


keithbeach2

…that measures its sanity by the percentage of its people who know they are free. People with unshakeable clarity that their most fundamental rights — to think for themselves and speak their minds without fear of jail, to form voluntary associations of their choosing, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to acquire private property and protect it at gunpoint if necessary — are not given by government, or society, or any person.

A nation whose vitality and resilience depend on individuals who consider those rights intrinsic to their very being: the spiritual equivalent of DNA. Such that when any aspect of the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is assaulted — they feel it like a punch in the gut. Patriotism gets personal. Conversations begin around the office water cooler, over back yard fences, at diners, gas stations and softball fields. In this way diverse people find out they’ve got something crucial in common. Born free and mean to stay that way.

America’s Founders were that kind of people. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison risked the gallows when they declared government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. When they insisted that the fundamental duty of government is to secure (read: safeguard) our inherent and “unalienable” natural rights. They brought forth a republic with the Constitution of the United States as supreme law of the land. No better instrument has been devised for protecting personal liberty by establishing a limited and defined role for government.

Now this great achievement is threatened by a worldview that contradicts the principles of America’s Founding at every turn. By an ideology that promotes the psychology of victimization and rage against imaginary villains, infantile claims to entitlement and compensation, primitive feelings of envy and inferiority. Marxist in fact though seldom in name, this movement demands guaranteed rewards regardless of talent, skill, motivation or effort. This militant crusade vows to meet the needs of “The People” from cradle to grave, betting that a majority can be seduced to support candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.

Fortunately the politics of perennial preschool is free — or seems so — only at first. Tuition day eventually comes. The same government that offers to absolve us from responsibility for our lives gets to determine what we can own, eat and drive; how we manage our businesses; how much of our money we can keep; the number of guns — if any — they will let us own; what we are allowed to say.  Even what we are permitted to think (thanks to the advent of “hate crimes”).

Good news: more and more Americans are figuring out that annexing the core functions of adulthood to the state involves unacceptable trade-offs. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, we face an alarming crisis.

And a remarkable opportunity.

The Founders knew it was up to each successive generation to keep the Spirit of 1776 alive. “Don’t blow it.” That’s what I imagine the 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence telling us. Their mission was to create a government where the primacy of constitutional authority is basic to liberty, opportunity, prosperity and the social contract. Where personal responsibility, voluntary cooperation, fiscal integrity and abiding respect for life all are crucial to the foundation of culture.

A society where the first requisite of a good citizen, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.” A country that supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world, and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

That’s also the mission of Sane Nation. Welcome.

Meg Whitman

All Eyes On California

Keith Thompson Wednesday, 09 June 2010 13:31


So the race begins, with some fantastic contradictions. Meg Whitman, labeled the more "conservative" candidate, actually lays claim to being the innovator in the campaign to choose California's next governor. She'll base her campaign on the imperative to cut back the power of the public service unions that are bankrupting the state, as well as on simple fiscal accountability, like: income should exceed spending. It tells a lot about our times, that these are "innovations" in politics.

Meanwhile, former governor Jerry Brown is back. In the 1970s he made his own claim on the mantle of innovator, based chiefly on personal idiosyncrasies like choosing to live in an apartment rather than in the governor's mansion, insisting on riding in an ordinary sedan rather than a limo, including "explore the universe" in his mission statement.

Whitman's a billionaire who can afford to self-fund the general election campaign. Brown will rely on big money from the very unions whose influence Whitman seeks to curb. Brown will seek to paint her as an enabler and beneficiary of Wall Street's worst excesses, and as a political neophyte with a spotty voting record, who aims to "buy" the governorship. Brown's attempt to balance his considerable  resume (offices held: governor, secretary of state, attorney general, mayor of Oakland, talk radio host) with a claim to be a lifelong political "outsider." For her part, Whitman will insist that her non-political background, combined with her considerable business success, makes her the ideal candidate to take on the entrenched political status quo in Sacramento.

Both candidates know there's going to be no real rest after yesterday's primary. Both will spend the coming weeks attempting to define the other candidate as out-of-touch, unqualified, unsuited, a dangerous choice, the wrong direction, too risky — all the usual charges. Whitman's potential liability — her lack of political experience — is the flip side of Brown's problem: his long political and media career presents ample opportunity for Team Whitman to dredge up a lot of Brown's wild political utterances. For instance:

"I've been in office and I've been out of office. And if I were to choose, I'd rather be in office."

"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs."

Because Brown made many such statements on the air as a radio host, you can be sure Whitman is going to use his actual voice in radio and TV commercials. Her campaign's goal will be to present him as a seventy-something throwback to the Seventies, and a slightly dotty one, at that. Meanwhile, Brown will argue that Whitman's monied status makes her intrinsically untrustworthy in the wake of recent financial crises. Expect this from Jerry: "I've got plenty of experience at a time when experience needs to count." Meg will reply: "Plenty of experience saying and doing truly bizarre things."

It's way too early to handicap the race. But from where I sit as a former political campaign honcho, Whitman's got the upper hand going into the fall campaign.