Obama and Romney Agree

In the third presidential debate between challenger Willard Romney and President Barack Obama, the president said to debate moderator Bob Schieffer, “Well, my first job as commander-in-chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe.” You can see it at the 4:40 mark in this video.

Willard “Mitt” Romney, in remarks to the American Legion said, “The first job of government is to keep the American people safe – and as President, that will be my commitment to the American people.”

Whew! I feel better now. While it doesn’t help us much when making a choice in this election, I suppose that we should all be comforted that whichever candidate is elected, we’ll be kept safe.

Is that all there is to it? Before I push my keyboard out of the way, I’d like to explore this just a little bit further. While I suppose I could rant about how safe Americans really are especially in light of the recent events in Benghazi, I would rather explore this philosophy of safety.

While both answers were in a context of foreign policy, I think it’s safe to say that neither candidate’s philosophy of safety ends with keeping Americans safe from violent attacks by evildoers, foreign or domestic.

It is very noble to want to keep people safe. Who wouldn’t like people to be safe? But, to borrow from the Bard, ‘To be safe or not to be safe, that is not really the question.’ The questions are what kind of safety? How much? At what cost? And, from whence cometh this, this… ‘safety’?

When the answer to the last question is that we as individuals provide for our own safety, we make the decisions on the other questions in our daily lives. Where will we live? Will we purchase a monitored alarm system for our home? What kind of car do we drive? How and where will we drive it? How much insurance will we purchase? Will I get a concealed carry permit? The decisions are endless. We decide for ourselves the costs and benefits of the various kinds and degrees of safety that we’ll provide ourselves and our families. But when the answer to the last question is ‘government’, the answers to the other questions become much more problematic.

If government at all levels would confine its energies to keeping us safe from foreign invasion, violent crime and such, I suppose I wouldn’t complain much. But the government hasn’t done that. It’s been on a veritable safety crusade for a century or more.

We now have government ostensibly keeping us safe from terrorists, drugs, economic downturns, illness, big banks, racism, poverty, monopolies, climate change (formerly, global warming and before that, global cooling), transfats, large soft drinks, smoke, cars that go too fast or use too much gas… the list is endless. Is it any surprise that government has grown endlessly?

It is important to remember, as George Washington reminded us that, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” The government doesn’t persuade us to act safely. Government imposes safety through the barrel of a gun. When government imposes safety, it becomes dangerous not to comply. If you don’t believe that, just try objecting to molestation by a TSA agent.

Patrick Henry knew that when government is providing the safety, the cost is liberty. Give me safety or give me death! Wait. That just doesn’t work. Try picturing the Founders, milling around in a mob pleading and crying for someone to keep them safe. You can’t can you? Because that’s not the behavior of free men. They envisioned a president who would “...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In other words, a president who would keep the Constitution safe.

I stand with Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin who said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

In Search of the Non-establishment Candidate

U.S./Cuba relations seldom make it to the top tier of my list of interests. However, when campaigning in Florida, the topic invariably comes up. It's basically a question of whether or not the candidate supports continuing the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. The question is asked at 8:40 into this portion of the recent Florida, CNN debate.

Florida CNN Debate - part 6

The long-established Republican response to this question is, summarized... we should continue the sanctions against Cuba and if possible, increase the intensity until the regime in Havana collapses, is overthrown or in some other way cries, 'Uncle!' and democracy is established. You might call this answer, the Establishment Republican answer.

This answer is believed to be popular among the Cuban immigrants in Florida. Perhaps it is. I'd say it's pandering but it's actually entirely consistent for Establishment Republicans to threaten force and impose sanctions against countries with leadership that is evil or illegitimate. To hear them tell it, Establishment Republicans are belligerent with these evil and illegitimate regimes because Establishment Republicans are principled. Well, some evil and illegitimate regimes. Not all of them. Now that I think about it, 'principled' may not be entirely accurate.

As I expected, three of the candidates gave some version of the Establishment Republican answer. They waxed eloquent about how they support and want to help the Cuban people, about how Obama is rewarding the evil Castro regime by relaxing travel restrictions, how Obama is ignoring Latin America, how they support Helms-Burton (one of them even attempted to claim credit for Helms-Burton), and how they want freedom for Cuba. Only one candidate gave a different answer. Who do you suppose that was?

Why, it must have been the 'non-establishment' and always unpredictable (Romney might even say, 'zany') Newt Gingrich, of course! Buzzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing. Please try again.

Ah, then it must have been 'non-establishment', sweater-vested Rick Santorum! Buzzzzzzzz! Wrong again. One more guess.

Hmmm... Well, Mitt Romney is the Establishment Republican candidate so surely he'd give an Establishment Republican answer. Dang! I'm stumped. Who was that other guy?

Have you noticed that there are quite a few of these 'only one candidate' situations in this campaign? Only one candidate has committed to cutting $1 trillion from the budget in the first year. Only one candidate actually voted against ObamaCare. Only one candidate has been entirely consistent on his approach to government interference in our healthcare and for that matter, the rest of our daily lives. Only one candidate has a different perspective on the effects and wisdom of drug prohibition. The list is long. Guess what? 99% of the time, that 'only one candidate' is Congressman Ron Paul. Hey! You might even say that Ron Paul is the 99% candidate.

But, back to U.S./Cuba relations... Granted, Congressman Paul's answer wasn't particularly eloquent. But, you know what? His answer was principled. It was clear that he doesn't spend a lot of time meditating on the minutiae of the U.S./Cuba relationship. He doesn't have to. He's spent his life meditating on the subtleties of liberty and the Constitution. And when some esoteric question arises, as usual, he applies the standards of liberty and the Constitution. By these standards, his answer made complete sense. It was even obvious. We should talk with Cuba, trade with them and stop committing and threatening acts of war.

Now that we've contrasted the platitudinous, Establishment Republican answer with the Congressman's principled answer, let's examine the practical effects of the Establishment Republican approach to U.S./Cuba relations. Perhaps we might be able to make a judgment on whether this approach has been a success or a failure.

So, what is the U.S. attempting to accomplish with this embargo? The embargo began in earnest in the early 1960's after Castro came to power and nationalized the property of U.S. citizens. The embargo underwent several adjustments and renewals in the 70's, 80's and 90's. To summarize the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. seeks "a peaceful transition to democracy" in Cuba and will "maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights." In a nutshell, the U.S. government wants democracy in Cuba.

After three years of an Obama regime, Republicans are fond of asking the question, "How's that hope and change working out for ya'?". Well, I've got a question. How has 50 years of a trade embargo against Cuba worked out for the U.S. and the Cuban people? Last I looked, a Castro is still the dictator, gunboats still patrol the waters looking for aspiring emigrants and the Cuban people are horribly oppressed and impoverished. As usual, it's not the Castro regime but the people of Cuba, who we are ostensibly trying to help, that are feeling the sharp end of the busybody's good intentions stick.

What kind of dementia afflicts a person who can look at this policy and not see that it hasn't achieved its stated purpose? Is 50 years just not quite long enough? Then, after examining the waste and destruction they have wrought, they propose to prolong and, if possible, intensify it? I'm reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity.

And Rush Limbaugh and respected 'conservative' media everywhere call Congressman Paul, crazy.

The State of the Union Address...

...before being edited by the elite media.

State of the Union Address

Republican Debates

Yes, there have been a lot of them. I haven’t had the stomach to watch them all. Seven or eight people, mostly statists, up on a stage taking ‘gotcha’ questions from ‘moderators’, trying to answer with a memorable quip... not my idea of an enjoyable evening.

I’ve actually grown rather weary of these ‘presidential debates’. For the most part, they’re not presidential and they’re not really debates. Wait! Now that I think about it, what could be more fitting exercise for those attempting to ascend to the presidency of an American Idol nation?

In Thursday's CNN South Carolina debate, Newt Gingrich really skewered John King for asking about the latest tabloid topic from Gingrich’s past. Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining. I even got the urge to do a little fist pump. Of course, about three seconds later, I was pondering if Newt really thought that asking him a question on this topic was “as close to despicable" as anything that he can imagine”. Hmmm… Really?

Perhaps Newt’s imagination isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Supporters and detractors alike have described him as “an idea a minute” kind of guy. Well, perhaps that says more about them than it does him. If he can’t think of anything more despicable than being asked a question about how he treated his second wife, then perhaps his reputation for intelligence is as inflated as his opinion of himself.

And, come to think of it, what else is John King going to ask him about? Is there anyone who doesn’t already know where Newt stands on everything? I mean he’s the guy who teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to evangelize the dangers of global warming. He’s the guy who said that was the “dumbest single thing he’s done in recent years” (hmmm… I think that there’s a lot of competition for that title). He’s the guy who is all in favor of an individual mandate. He’s the guy who thinks that’s an individual mandate is a bad idea. He’s the guy who said that Paul Ryan’s budget proposal was right-wing social engineering. He’s the guy who said that it wasn’t. Or something like that. All together now, “That Mitt Romney is such a flip-flopper!”

And how about Rick Santorum? Now, my understanding is that this guy is supposed to be a righteous dude – always on the side of the angels, principled, pro-life, conservative, dedicated Catholic. So, taking all of that about him at face value, I had to wonder why he attacked Congressman Paul on the topic of abortion. You know the one – Dr. Ron Paul, OB-GYN, delivered over 4,000 babies. The same Ron Paul that denounces aggressive violence of any kind.

As Dr. Paul accurately explained, they do have different approaches about how to best end or at least impede this scourge of abortion. Santorum could have shown the distinction between his preferred approach (more federal government force) and Dr. Paul’s (removing abortion from federal judicial jurisdiction). But that’s not what Rick Santorum did. He instead tried to paint Dr. Paul as not really pro-life.

So, we have to ask ourselves, does Santorum really believe in the substance of his attack? If so, then he’s a moron. If not, then he’s a slanderer. Yeah, righteous dude!

Another highlight was when the moderator decided to go to the audience for some questions. One guy got the chance to ask a question of the four remaining men competing for the Republican nomination to the presidency. On national television. Millions watching. The best he could come up with was, “When are you going to release your taxes?” Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! On behalf of MTV, I’m proud to present this election’s ‘Boxers or Briefs’ award. And I didn’t think it was possible to make these horrible debate ‘moderators’ look good. What’s even funnier is that Romney couldn’t answer the question.

Move over American Idol.