America in 2016: Is Democracy Broken?

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for the length of this post. It has been a long time since I have had ample time to organize my thoughts on any political issues and as such, I may tend to ramble a bit more in this post than I had intended. However, I feel that the issue discussed here is something that is certainly worth at least a cursory glance and consideration. I hope my attempts to express my thoughts are at least mildly stimulating, albeit exhaustive. – Evan

PC: CNN

           Every election year has its share of challenges and disappointments. I want to make sure I am clear on that point before I go any further, because I feel it is something that many individuals tend to forget in the midst of the bloodbath that arises as we enter Q3 of a general election year. Elections are messy. They’re brutal. They’re full of misdirection, lies, and attack ads. Good ideas are discussed. Bad ideas are discussed. Democrats blame Republicans for our nation’s problems and Republicans blame Democrats. The media chooses favorites and feeds the horse race, not only in the primary but also in the general election. None of this is new.

        But something about 2016 is different than past elections – at least the ones that I can clearly remember. I admit that my own memory is rather foggy. Honestly, I can recall only vague details about the 2000 race between Gore and Bush. Most of what I know of elections, historically, is from my studies in college rather than from firsthand experience. Still, I find that I am not alone is calling 2016 a litmus test year for our nation.

        Only last year the GOP was positioned extraordinarily well - walking into this year secure in

PC: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

the knowledge that Obama’s approval ratings were plummeting. Republican legislators had swept the House and Senate in the last midterm election, and we had strong Republican figures positioning themselves for the White House race. Jeb Bush, the clear establishment favorite – ideally groomed for the position and riding off of the success of not only a father but also a brother who had served in our nation’s highest office. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina joined Jeb as key figures that seemed to grasp the importance of winning. As Marco Rubio put it in an early GOP debate, “People are starting to understand very clearly that this election is going to be a turning point. That 2016 is not just a choice between Republican or Democrat, it is a referendum on our identity as a nation and as a people…we’re going to bring this party together and we are going to defeat Hillary Clinton.” I was optimistic. I liked the majority of the candidates on the stage. Oh. Except One.

        Donald Trump. It’s funny to think back to last fall. I honestly am stunned by how far he’s come. Sure, he was leading in the polls from the beginning, but that’s normal. Plenty of commentators expected Jeb or Rubio to rise up as the “real” candidate once the novelty of the brash and offensive business tycoon died down. The problem was – that never happened.

PC: Michael Dwyer/AP

        Donald Trump swept the rug out from beneath the Republican Party. He rose on a tide not dissimilar from the momentum seen in the Democratic Party, with a relatively unknown and open socialist, Bernie Sanders. Donald, like Bernie, appealed to the frustrations of the American people with the duplicity of politics. They didn’t speak the same language as the other candidates in either party. They called out political correctness. They pointed out the problems that existed: rising cost of living paired with more and more minimum wage earning adults. Rampant illegal immigration. Apparent discrimination against LGBT communities. Debt. International terrorism. “The System is Broken,” they cried. And Americans rallied behind them.

        Now, as much as I would love to explore the factors that led to a choice of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our two front running candidates, I will refrain. There are plenty of fantastic political commentators who have analyzed the specifics of this election cycle in more detail and provided far better data than I could ever hope to present. But I want to look at one particular topic that I continue to hear echoed among my peers – that the system is broken.

        It’s not unique to Trump or Bernie. It’s a common message this year all around. Earlier in the election, candidates like Cruz and Rubio condemned the established party leadership as an obstacle to true conservative reform. Democrats also point to a broken system – rigged by powerful corporations and businessmen and special interest groups that fight for profit at the expense of “everyday Americans.” Honestly, I thought for a while that this was just the candidates attacking competitors (Jeb was an establishment candidate, Trump is a powerful businessman, etc…). Then about a month ago, I was chatting with a friend on social media, and I heard that phrase again – the system is broken.

        The only thought that I can offer is – Really? Is “the system” really to blame for this election year? For the political issues that exist in our nation and around the world? I would seriously question that premise. In fact, I would argue that our system is as near to flawless as sinful man is capable of crafting.

   

Our Founding Fathers crafted a system of government that combined the best of all worlds, as near as they could find. They rejected the authoritarian monarchy of Great Britain and looked instead to classical political concepts from the Greco-Roman world. They crafted a constitutional republican democracy where the American people have the ability choose representatives who would tackle the difficult issues of their communities at local, state, and national levels. The constitution was crafted as a way to prevent the expanse of government regulation from strangling the liberties of the American people. However, nothing about this era was particularly pure or perfect. There were many issues that presented themselves for representatives to debate. One of our earliest presidents pushed for radical legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which garnered massive opposition and support. In addition, there was the looming issue of slavery that would later erupt into violence less than a century later.

However, the founding fathers were clever enough to plan for all eventualities. The three branches of government, vying over conflicting interests, slow the gears of government action to a crawl to ensure that bad policies are exposed and stopped before they can root themselves in established jurisprudence and legal code. Government in the United States was designed to be inefficient, messy, and overly complicated – it’s the entire purpose of constitutional “checks and balances,” which most Americans will recognize as a good thing for our nation. Unfortunately, the

structure of American society is only as strong as its foundation – the American people themselves. This is the “problem” with democracy. When voters abdicate their role, political elites reign supreme. Parties coalesce and build up their own members. Healthy compromise between ideas turns into quid pro quo exchanges between lawmakers seeking to create their own careers and legacies.

I think this is why many Americans see the system as broken. It’s normal and natural and all democracies eventually reach this point, throughout history. But the issue really isn’t the system, here. It’s the American people refusing to engage in the process. Whether through party alienation, indignation at corruption, or just plain apathy.

If a clock stops working, it doesn’t mean that it’s broken. It just means that no one has wound it for a while. The clock is not to blame – it’s only natural for the gears to stop turning eventually. All it needs is for a person to come and wind it up again and it will work just as well as before. The same is true with the American system of government. It isn’t broken. The gears have just lost momentum and have bogged down from the complexity of the mechanism. However, if the American people step up and engage in the political process, the momentum will return and the “clock” will start telling time again.

Now, you might object and say that “I haven’t disengaged. I’m not a part of the problem.” Well good for you. If you’re communicating regularly with your representatives on how you want them to vote, walking precincts, engaging in civil political debate of ideas, and making an informed decision at the ballot box, good for you! Most of us, however, are busy with our day to day lives. I’m a political junkie – I love to discuss American politics, weigh ideas, and consider alternatives. I try to remain an informed voter. But I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve contacted my representatives and urged their vote on a political issue this year. However, as responsible adults and voters, we cannot continue to lie to ourselves and shift responsibility onto “the system,” when we refuse to even participate. It’s time that we take responsibility for our own failure and take steps to repair the damage we have done.

Come on, America! We’re better than Trump and Hillary. Let’s be optimists again. Let’s fight for our nation, instead of tearing it down. Let’s be that shining City on a Hill that shows the world that Democracy works, when you hold each other accountable.

Let’s actually Make America Great Again. 

-        ~  Evan Gillespie, copyright 2016. 

The Melting Pot

Have you ever heard the analogy that the United States of America is a "melting pot" - where different cultures, religions, ethnicity, and personalities come together to create something unique and special? I've always appreciated this analogy for its simple depiction of what makes America great - our pragmatic assimilation and appreciation of the good ideas in the world. This "melting pot" approach to American society and government can be traced all the way back to the original colonies in this nation. While many were British, there was also a great deal of influence Dutch, Spanish, and French society, as well. Settlers came to have opportunity, land, and freedom from the "old country." As time went on, the predominantly Protestant Europeans also began to be diversified among different denominations, and even Catholicism and some non-Christian sects, as well. By the time America declared independence, there was already a great deal of diversity of culture, religious denomination, and ethnicity represented.

Our political philosophy also traces through centuries of thought - ranging from John Locke to Thomas Hobbes to Aristotle and even Plato.

Something else that we Americans often forget is that even our own government system is a "melting pot" of sorts - at least at its foundation. Democracy was not unique to America. The ancient Greeks actually practiced a form of pure democracy, and the Roman Republic sported a Representative Democracy, something that the USA later mimicked. Even the bicameral nature of our Congress hearkens to back to the British Parliament with a smaller, more elite upper house and a larger, more "common" lower house.

Thus, diversity in our nation is not a bad thing, at its core. However, in order for America to properly function as a melting pot there are three key conditions that must first be met:

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights (Libertarian's excel at this)
2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation (Democrats are good at this)
3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics (Conservatives are good at this)

I'll tackle each of these three in turn, to explain why this is so vital the America's melting pot.

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights

This is perhaps the most universally touted condition, but in many ways the least understood. It is also the most "American" of the conditions. In order for there to be any hope at progressing to Condition #2, individuals must be willing to respect the rights of other individuals in their communities, states, and nation. This is at the very core of the ideology on which our nation was founded. Just because one individual makes choices another disagrees with does not necessarily mean that someone has the right to interfere. Libertarians tend to excel at depicting this condition in society. At its core, it is very Lockean because it depends a respect for an individual's Life, Liberty, and Property.

One of the weaknesses of this condition, however, is that it does very little to encourage a melting pot - in fact, it segregates society into small, confined units of individuals that have little interaction. Many times, this is the weakness in matters of civil rights and diversity because it doesn't allow the full integration and growth of a community that is all-encompassing. It works in small communities, but there is little to no national identity.

2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation

The second condition is an uncomfortable transition from the first because now there arises the problem of competing values. It depends an element of compromise in the interest of unification. Conservatives (GOP & Libertarians) hate this. Democrats thrive on this. As frustrating as this condition is for many conservatives, it is actually fairly uncontroversial at its core - and it is the very basis of representative democracy. In a society of individuals, there will be differences. In order for the society to protect Life, Liberty, and Property there must be a universally respected structure that encompasses the nation-state.

There are many different political theorists that offer different views of government, but I hold most strongly to the Social Contract view which describes government as a conceptual contract to which individuals agree to uphold, whether consciously or subconsciously. Individuals grant to government the ability to make and enforce laws, and agree to abide by laws that are created in accordance with the social contract. In the United States, the government system is Republic in which individuals elect Representatives that pass laws, make treaties, and perform the functions of government. They can tear down "unjust laws" by replacing their representatives with new ones that more accurately represent their values.

The problem with unification and Social Contracts is that there will always be dissenters. Some individuals in
a society will simply refuse to abide by the contract. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they will operate in deviance from the norm. Governments historically create police forces that control crime and deviance by punishing those that are in violation of the law. Not all views, then, can be tolerated in a united society. Thus, a nation must balance competing values in a way that provides the best protection of liberty while also remaining united.

3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics

This is the least palatable condition in contemporary America. I list this condition last, due to its controversy, but in reality, it is the very foundation of a just society.

Allow me to explain...

John Adams, one of America's founders once wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is not an extreme statement. I will temporarily divorce this discussion from religious undertones (don't worry, I'll incorporate them later).
First, let's define "morality" and "ethics" before jumping to conclusions. Merriam-Webster should do fine:

Morality (n): Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.

Ethic (n): Rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good or bad.

 Morality and ethics, at there core, are the glue that holds a society together. Without them, there is no way for a free society to function. The fundamental difficulty in any free society, though, is establishing whose morality and ethics will be followed. This problem isn't as pronounced in smaller societies. However, as any society begins to grow - whether intellectually, culturally, or geographically - the resulting plurality of beliefs and rules of behavior among the body politic begin to diversify at an alarming rate.

This is essentially why any great society - be it ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the Catholic Church in the middle ages, the United Kingdom, and even America - all shift toward authoritarian government. There are other factors in this slide, to be sure. In fact, I could probably spend pages on the other factors, but I'll restrict myself for now. Fundamentally, though, this has been a consistent factor throughout history.

Now, the touchy subject is that I firmly believe the Judeo-Christian tradition - which is the the foundation of Western society - is the most stable and just model for an ethical and just society. Now, I'm not saying this because I am a Christian (okay, that's probably part of it) but for a few key reasons:
 - It emphasizes freedom and justice
 - It gives legitimacy to governmental authority while providing accountability.
 - It has proven the most revolutionary and successful philosophy.
 - It sees human nature as fallen and depraved - and therefore government as fallen and depraved.
Historically, the Republican Party has had the greatest impact in holding to Judeo-Christian values in society - largely a result of Reagan's ability to draw the Moral Majority into his coalition.

The great difficulty in America, however, is preserving this framework of morality and justice - despite the reality that many citizens do not hold to the basic tenants of Christianity - or even Western thought - whether through sheer ignorance or ideological differences. There are a few choices on how to approach this, ranging from forcing "Christian values" on a pluralistic society to abandoning religion-based morality to abandoning objective morality altogether. As terrifying as the third option may appear, in many ways tyrannical law is the only way to sustain a diverse population.

Unlikely Allies: Feminism and its Core in Republican Values

Many conservatives are quick to spout criticism of “feminists” and how the push modern drive for women’s rights has damaged the nation. However, in my experience, true feminists and conservative republicans really share many core beliefs, and the movement itself was rooted in a fundamental understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded. It has certainly been corrupted in recent years, but I would argue that true feminism is a strong ally to the Republican Party, and a vital component to winning the cultural war before us today.

The Merriam Webster dictionary offers a few interesting definitions for "Feminism" that will help illustrate my primary thesis:

1: The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

Both of these definitions offer some insight into the basis of the "feminist movement" - I would blend these definitions to something akin to the following -

"an organized activity on behalf on women's rights and interests, predicated upon the theory that women ought to be politically, economically, and socially equal to men in all respects." 

Forgetting other components of the movement, I would argue that this definition is deeply rooted in an understanding of Republican values. In fact, I will go one step further – this definition fits perfectly within a conservative Christian view of American politics.

The truth is, Christianity is, in many ways, responsible for the cultural respect for the value of women in society. There is extensive evidence that nations lacking Western traditions –deeply rooted in religious traditions – also have greater levels of human rights violations and abuse of women. I have spent time in the past describing how “Christian” the founding of America really was, but I will condense this argument, for now, to the simple statement that our founders recognized that Christian morals were vital to the nation’s survival. Even those that were personally deists or atheists, still recognized that Christian values were necessary.

John Adams once wrote that “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” These same founding fathers argued that “all men are created equal” and that they possessed “inalienable rights” such as life, liberty, and property. This understanding of natural rights is what allowed the women’s liberation movement to take steam, as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s – recognizing that all of mankind possesses God-given rights. The Feminist

movement recognized the fact that there was not equality of opportunity – women did not have the same opportunity to achieve as men, and they pushed for legislation that would overcome this obstacle and allow for equal opportunity for men and women.

Yet somehow, in recent years, that same movement has entangled itself with the LGBT community, advocating less for equal status for women, and more for legislation recognizing “gender identity” – a concept that is actually detrimental the very values that represent the core of the feminist movement.

On June 26, 2014, Slate published an article on the subject of gender identity, claiming that a doctor declaring your newborn as male or female is "infant gender assignment," which causes your baby's life to be:

 ...instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished - both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. 

The author advocates that parents should object to a doctor "assigning" your child's gender at birth because "Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby's life."

Do true feminists really wish to create a society where biology is ignored in favor of a euphoric belief that one’s identity is a choice?

As the Slate article illustrates, many in today’s society feel that recognizing one’s biology has “reduced” them to “one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” This is diametrically opposed to feminist thought, which advocates that in order to achieve equality among the sexes, gender stereotypes must be broken down and both sexes should be allowed to pursue their own interests. Have feminists abandoned their own cause in favor of another?

Finally, while gender neutrality is more of a concept than an actual movement, it also has great potential harm for feminists in the future. Once the concept of male and female is blurred, there is very little opportunity for legislation and regulation that ensures that “women” have equal opportunities as men. If people can pick their own gender identity, how long will it be before biologically female individuals once again find themselves underrepresented?

"Tyler"

I’ll wrap up with the story of a girl named Kathryn, whose parents have made her into a key figure in the transgender movement. According to reporters, at the age of 2 she insisted she was a boy. The parents then accepted it, and allowed their “son” to change her to “Tyler.” She’s now 7 years old. The Washington Post records the evidence of how good their “son” is doing now that [s]he’s accepted the change:

“Come on! Let’s play Batman!” he screamed to my younger son, his partner in crime on a recent play date. The two boys swam together, compared Lego guys and had sword fights. Whenever the family watches television, Tyler roots for the boy characters. His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple. (Washington Post)

Now, I may not completely share the same view as many modern feminists –  I do believe that there are differences between men and women both physically and emotionally. I think that there are areas that men are more suited to, and women are more suited to. In addition, in many ways, parents fail to establish how much of a gift gender is and how the differences between men and women actually compliment each other and lead to a more balanced family and society. However, I also recognize that there are exceptions - not all women fit a mold, nor do all men - there are plenty of tomboyish girls, and more feminine boys.Which is why I find it incredibly fascinating that the evidence presented for “Tyler” being a true “boy” was her interest in perceived “masculine” activities. Most of all, though, I find it disheartening that feminists would accept such a stereotype and condemn a 5 year old girl to a life as a mascot of the LGBT community simply because she dared to have interests in “masculine” activities.  

In the end, I believe that conservatives and true feminists really have a great deal of common ground on many of these issues. If these two unlikely allies can find it in their power to unite and remember our common heritage and values, there is a chance that both our goals can be reached. If there are women that truly wish to fight to allow for greater equality of opportunity and representation, they must unite with conservatives that wish to resist the trend toward gender identity and neutrality legislation which is detrimental to this very objective and to our families, and our nation at large.

"When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." - Genesis 5:1b-2 ESV

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Poverty: From a Conservative Viewpoint

As with many of my posts, this topic was inspired by a class discussion on development economics and the ensuing follow-up conversations with fellow students. I think it is a fascinating topic to discuss and analyze as well as a very important social ill that much of the world -including our own nation, continues to struggle with on a daily basis. Any follow-up discussion that you would contribute is welcomed and encouraged, in the comment section below.

Poverty. The greatest social blight of the world. We've all seen the commercials for the non-profits that seek to sponsor children living in poverty. Most of us have seen documentaries and newscasts from experts that discuss the implications of poverty on society in Africa and Southeast Asia. In lieu of the sheer mass of public awareness campaigns and NGO's that we encounter in our daily lives, it can be easy to turn a blind eye to the reality of this issue in the world. There are millions of individuals in the world living in extreme poverty with little or no hope of climbing the economic ladder and achieving a higher per capita socioeconomic status. 

If this seems a little daunting of an issue for this blog to tackle - and maybe a little too globally minded - I understand. For many of us, addressing poverty and disease in Africa and the rest of the developing world is not even an option -- our daily lives are more than enough to figure out, and the financial and time commitments necessary to help the rest world are simply impossible for us. But there is another area of poverty that is often ignored - local poverty. Poverty in our own neighborhoods, cities, and states. The city of San Francisco had approximately 6,436 individuals living in homelessness in 2013. That's huge. 

While thinking about this issue, it occurred to me - in light of the fact that conservatives often find themselves on the defensive with regard to their opposition to government policies and regulations, I thought it might be nice to discuss how a conservative (myself) views the issue of global and domestic poverty - and how Americans, and my fellow Christians, can remain compassionate and attentive to this serious social ill while maintaining our fiscal responsibility in government policymaking.

In my Political Economy class, we made a distinction between the two primary views on how one should address poverty in the world. The first category are labeled as "Planners" while the second are "Searchers." Planners seek to gather research, discuss policy and with the collaboration of various experts - create a plan to solve the issue. This approach is associated, in part, with the approach advocated by Jeffrey Sachs. Searchers, on the other hand, view the issue as too complex to address through any expert-plan. Poverty is an issue that must be addressed piecemeal through homegrown solutions. Do these arguments sound familiar? They should - this is essentially the permanent policy debate between conservatives and liberals, when it comes to social policy and economic development. In light of this, you can probably guess which side of the fence I come out on. I align with the "searchers." Primarily. 

To show my hand - I do not believe that poverty can be eradicated. Ever. I think that some form of poverty will always exist - to deny this, I believe, is to deny human nature and the entire history of civilizations in the world. However, I do believe that poverty is still a social ill that individuals should seek to fight and resist - it is certainly possible to reduce poverty - and even work towards a temporary solution by alleviating the amount of absolute and extreme poverty in the world. I believe that poverty is a serious issue and one that many of us, and especially many Christians, fail to devote serious thought or time toward addressing. If Christians, such as myself, claim to follow the teaching and work of Christ - then we should be seeking to address the physical as well as spiritual needs of those around us. Micah 6:8 declares, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" 

So - poverty should be fought - but how?

I believe that to address poverty and limit/eliminate it, one must first understand where the issues of poverty really come from. Is it the result of exploitation by the rest of the world? Is it the result of lack of innovation and engagement? Is it self-caused, or a byproduct of other people's and government's actions?

Answer - Yes. And No. Because global poverty is far too big of an issue to boil down to one cause - in some places, all of these might be the case. In others, none. In some, it may be a mix of a few of these, but not all. This is why I am a "Searcher" and not a Planner - just as this is why I believe in the Free Market and limited government - it is impossible to accurately predict all of the variables that will influence economics in the future or the present - but we have consistently seen that when individuals are provided with a basic framework of law and order and equality of opportunity - then competition allows some to shine, while others fail. Government policies to help those in poverty are not preferable, but at times, they might be necessary. The most desirable approach to fighting poverty, though, in my belief, is by those outside of poverty living with and engaging in community with those trapped in the social conditions of poverty. This allows those who truly need change to have policies formed based on the realities of those in need, not based on the decisions of political elites. It also allows those in poverty to have an opportunity to be equipped and empowered to pull themselves out of poverty - when they see the decisions and choices that must be made to achieve success, and observe them working, they will be more willing to accept these changes than if someone simply tells them what to do.

The most important thing to remember, however, is that talking about poverty and doing something about poverty are not the same thing. Tossing money to homeless person might be all well and good, but it does little to actually help them out of their situation. I admit, that I am often guilty of repeating this mistake, because it is much easier to give money than to give time. However, if you do have time or the resources, I would encourage us all to make time - even if only on occasion - to volunteer and assist organizations and individuals seeking to address local issues of poverty. Small steps can lead to big changes. Only by going out of our way to help equip individuals with the knowledge and skills that they need to pull themselves out of poverty, do we have any hope of solving this very real and tragic issue in society.

WJU San Francisco Outreach Team, November 2013