The Bipartisan Panel and the Republican Debate Jan 10

Still More Thoughts on the Bipartisan Panel

Here’s a thought for you. Read through the opening statement of the Transcript of the OU Bipartisan panel. (The link is in our earlier posting, Reflections on the Oklahoma Bipartisan Panel). The opening statement is on pages 4-6. Those pages have some very accurate assessments of our situation in a number of critical areas.

Now think back to the debate you listened to last night. Even better, if you recorded the debate, listen to it again. (And, by all means, do the same thing with the upcoming Democratic debate.) Ask yourself this question. To what degree do the questions asked and the answers given match the reality of the situational assessments from the panel? Interesting, isn’t it?

Now let’s highlight some more of the other remarks of the panel members.

Brock said that political parties are the bridge between the people and its government. That bridge is being eroded by the so-called 527 groups who put out the swift boat type ads we first saw in 2004. My comment is the centrist voter used to be able to switch allegiance between one party or the other and still count on a relative degree of competence and trust. That seems to have gone away with no third party to fill the gap.

Many people ask me when I think the intense polarization began. Chuck Robb blamed the advent of computers that made the micromanaging of districts possible so that representatives no longer had to worry about bipartisan achievement to get re-elected. Indeed, one of the remarkable aspects of watching this panel was that the genuinely liked one another, regardless of their political philosophy. To get it back, maybe Tim Cox and GOOOH has the right idea. Let’s throw the whole group and their petty animosities out and start all over again.

Ms. Todd Whitman reinforced Robb’s statement when she said that reaching out to others to form a solution is not a compromise of your principles. My comment is the first principle is to find what works. What does the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people for the longest period of time as balanced against doing the least possible damage to the fewest amount of people for the shortest period of time and is the best solution we can get for the dollars available given competing priorities. That may seem like common sense, but common sense sometimes isn’t common.

King and Cohen both noted we as voters are part of the problem. King quoted Mark Twain as saying, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Our politics has been one of avoidance, particularly when the solution is hard and requires sacrifice.

Lippman stated that we have been takers and taken the good from things and not put goodness back. We have reached the point where there can be something for nothing any longer. We are engaged in fiscal child abuse by passing our burdens and problems to our children.

My own comment is one I have written before. Jim Rohn says you must endure one of two pains in this life. One is the pain of discipline. The other is the pain of regret. Since we are showing zero discipline, that means we are cruising for tons of regret.

Ms. Eisenhower commented that getting control meant making hard choices and setting priorities. That means voters must demand of candidates that they show us where the money would come from and what priorities their programs would have when there wasn’t enough money for everything. (Joe Biden, before he gave up the race for the white house, had some very coherent arguments in that regard.)

Former Senator Graham noted that one of the purposes of public education was to prepare citizens for the responsibilities of citizenship. Graham called for the re-invigoration of the concept of citizenship. Someone else noted the amazing statistic that 80% of our colleges and universities do not require a course in government or citizenship to graduate. That statistic, to me, was a validation of what we are doing with my book and this blog.

I have had people tell me in call in shows how confused they are by the process and don’t know who to believe or vote for. Small wonder since 80% gets no instruction in the execution of citizenship. We probably do better with sex education, but barely. This is why people rely on their friends and relatives to tell them how to vote. This is why people choose one side or another to vote for because they think that side represents certain values. But then those people never check to see whether their side actually governs by those values or is critical enough to see the inconsistencies in their behavior.

If you are one of the people (or you know someone) who is looking for a way to clarify their own political philosophy, then we urge you to try reading our book and continue reading this blog.

So far we’ve gushed over the good things in the conference. Tomorrow we’ll tell you where we felt the conference fell short.