Commentary

Sowell & Williams: 2 Issues that Unite the Races

Reaching out to Blacks does not mean offering them the same programs that have destroyed their families and blighted their hope for achieving the American Dream. Studies show that the Way of the American Dream is paved by Faith, Stable two-parent families, Education, and Hard Work.  These three things seem to make avoidance of having children out of wedlock before graduating high school, gang-related activity, crime, and violence more likely.

In Thomas Sowell’s JWR column of March 25, 2014, Republicans and Blacks , Mr. Sowell cites School Choice and Minimum Wage Results as two topics Republicans should publicize and shout out about in order to reach out to Blacks. In the article, Sowell further cites the book, Race and Economics by Walt Williams, as a definitive study of government programs which have hurt Blacks.

Walt Williams on School Choice:

“Though many black politicians mouth that we should fix, not abandon, public schools, they themselves have abandoned public schools. They see their children as too precious to be sacrificed in the name of public education. While living in Chicago, Barack Obama sent his daughters to the prestigious University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. When he moved to Washington, President Obama enrolled his daughters in the prestigious Sidwell Friends School. According to a report by The Heritage Foundation, “exactly 52 percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38 percent of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school.” Overall, only 6 percent of black students attend private school.” …

“According to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study, more than 1 in 5 public school teachers sent their children to private schools. In some cities, the figure is much higher. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, it’s 41 percent, and Chicago (39 percent) and Rochester, N.Y. (38 percent), also have high figures. In the San Francisco-Oakland area, 34 percent of public school teachers enroll their children in private schools, and in New York City, it’s 33 percent.”

“Only 11 percent of all parents enroll their children in private schools. The fact that so many public school teachers enroll their own children in private schools ought to raise questions. After all, what would you think, after having accepted a dinner invitation, if you discovered that the owner, chef, waiters and busboys at the restaurant to which you were being taken don’t eat there? That would suggest they have some inside information from which you might benefit.”
Williams’ JWR column, Racial Trade-offs, of Oct. 9, 2013

Thomas Sowell on Minimum Wage:

“Minimum-wage laws are classic examples. The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930. That was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum-wage law.”

“The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was in part a result of a series of incidents in which non-union black construction workers enabled various contractors from the South to underbid northern contractors who used white, unionized construction labor.

“The Davis-Bacon Act required that “prevailing wages” be paid on government construction projects — “prevailing wages” almost always meant in practice union wages. Since blacks were kept out of construction unions then and for decades thereafter, many black construction workers lost their jobs.”

“Minimum wages were required more broadly under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, with negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries.

“In recent times, we have gotten so used to young blacks having sky-high unemployment rates that it will be a shock to many readers of Walter Williams’s Race and Economics to discover that the unemployment rate of young blacks was once only a fraction of what it has been in recent decades. And, in earlier times, it was not very different from the unemployment rate of young whites.”

From Thomas Sowell’s article of April. 27, 2011 in National Review,  Race and Economics

The People’s Revolt against the Ruling Elite

The People’s Revolt against the Ruling Elite

People who are really involved with the Tea Party understand that there is no single monolithic group. The Tea Party is the authentic grass roots movement the Democrats always claim to be. Thousands of groups of concerned citizens reading, meeting, learning the ins and outs of our political system to figure out exactly how to re-rail the family, culture, governments, and Freedom that once supported the American Dream.

That is what makes it so hard to unite, so difficult to treat with. Any group that is chosen as a representative of the large movement is just that–a single entity within it. Even The Tea Party Patriots, though it has thousands of members, does not completely speak for all of its members on every issue.

We do seem to coalesce around constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. However, even the depth of knowledge and resulting positions among groups on these issues differ to the point of passionate dialog and even name-calling at times. All of this good. It is just like the creative times that led to the establishment of our once great Nation.

Because we revere the Creator who gave us unalienable rights and a free Will, we think for ourselves and often argue and disagree passionately. Our faith in Providence gives us hope that we will be able to muddle towards the critical mass needed to turn this behemoth around.

Personally, though I think we must stop letting our hearts and passion rule our discussions, and look at our Founding Fathers more closely. This spirited disagreement is exactly why the Constitution begins with the words, “We the People.” When Federal legislators rule that ALL Americans must do this or that, it is tyranny pure and simple. Under our Constitution the States and the People have the right to govern themselves in all but the few carefully numbered duties and responsibilities of the Federal government.

So, the power grab at the RNC convention in Tampa was rightfully seen by many Tea Party groups as the Ruling Elite of the Republican Party girding itself against the Libertarian actions of Ron Paul followers. Tea Party leaders like myself who know history saw it as an all out attack against grassroots activists in general, including the many American constitutionalists who have been fighting the good fight for decades in the rank and file of the Republican Party on the local levels. They came for the Ron Paul supporters last convention, they will come for the Tea Party next, and eventually for all who believe that the People, not the Federal Government are the rulers of our Nation.

Too many members of the current Republican leadership, like the lock-step-unless-they-are-running-for-office-Democrats, do not really believe that they are the servants and We the People the locus of Power constitutionally. So a victory with the current Republican leadership would not be a conservative victory at all.

So, where do we start? I agree with Mark Levin, though I am uncertain that the Liberty Amendments are the best solution for our problems that have our Nation balanced precariously on the edge of the proverbial cliff. Discussion, reasoned, calm discussion among friends, family, co-workers, bosses, political enemies and friends alike. Everywhere, all the time. It is time to look at the elephant in the room, and instead of decorating and camouflaging it, figure out how to remove it from the premises altogether.

Political isms kill the People. Look at history-this fact is unassailable. Often left out of the equation is crony capitalism-the picking of winners and losers by our governments which leads to oligarchical coups, even when bloodless.

Today we see it in the waivers granted to friends and donors of the President from ObamaCare. However, we also see it in the Emerging Technology funds at the State-level that bribe large companies to come to one State rather than another. Tea Parties are nearly unanimous in supporting the framework put in place by the Founding Fathers which succeeded so well. This model emphasizes creating a climate of limited government and entrepreneurial freedom: only necessary services and guidelines with the lowest possible levels of taxation and regulation to attract and keep entrepreneurs and their businesses complete with jobs that will compete and thrive on a level playing field.

I am a constitutionalist who believes with every fiber of my being that the Founding Fathers knew and understood History and our human nature, which has not evolved one iota over the millennia. I am an awakened free-born American citizen learning to work with my peers and a Tea Party leader looking towards a restoration of the Freedom, Rule of Law, and common sense values that once made the United States of America the Land of the Free, and the American standard of living the envy of the world.

by Robin Lennon, President & Founder of the Kingwood TEA Party in Kingwood, TX.

One way to win the immigration debate

by Kyle Scott

Here is an article on winning the immigration argument by Kyle Scott, published in the Desert News.

What gets lost in the immigration debate is the importance of tradition and custom. Conservatives can clearly articulate pragmatic reasons why we need stronger controls on immigration, but we often neglect the more nuanced, and perhaps more important, reasons for protecting our borders.

A core value for conservatives is a belief in an enduring moral order that is revealed to us through custom, convention and continuity. Without an adherence to tradition and custom, societies must rely exclusively on laws, which means, they must look to the government rather than institutions such as family and church for guidance. Immigration threatens to undermine tradition and custom in the U.S. Unless immigrants are asked to assimilate, we will lose what binds us as a people and relegates the government to the background. Without a common understanding and history, the government is pushed to the foreground, unhinged from anything of meaning or lasting value.

If we continue to be a nation that welcomes immigrants but does not ask them to take our norms, customs and history as their own, then we are left with no choice but to have a government define for us who we are as a people. Furthermore, in a government that is increasingly being pushed toward radical democracy, there is a risk that the laws promulgated will be without ethical merit.

Liberty under God and law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Liberty is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order or convention; it only recognizes the will of the majority. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism — and thus radical democracy — is a dependence upon an impersonal “schoolmaster.” Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established through immemorial usage is required for liberty and self government.

Our political climate rarely leaves time or space for sincere reflection. Grandstanding has been substituted for statesmanship, and talking points have taken the place of principle. If we are to create a politics which can rise above the gutter, we must take the first step of identifying core principles and why we adhere to them. Conservatism recognizes man has limits and must reconcile himself to those natural limits. From this fundamental truth springs conservatism and the policies which are consistent with conservative ideals. If we do not take this as the fundamental reason for securing our borders, we will lose the moral high ground and eventually lose the political battle.

---

Kyle Scott is a professor of political science at University of Houston and a trustee of the Lone Star College System. Dr. Scott, the Conservative Professor has a blog at kyleascott.

Part 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

PART 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

By Dr. Kyle Scott, The Conervative Professor

From his blog

The first three principles of conservatism given by Russell Kirk are belief in an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in what may be called the principle of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage. Readers will recognize how the argument developed here applies to same sex marriage and other threats to tradition. These first three principles may sound stifling, but I will demonstrate how adherence to these principles is the only way self-government can be maintained and liberty protected.

Liberty under God and Law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Responsible liberty, dignified liberty, is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order; it only recognizes the will of the majority. But self-government is sustainable only when man operates within traditional limits.

Daniel J. Mahoney writes, “unencumbered choice can never be the sole-criterion for judging the thought and action of human beings. Liberty understood as pure freedom unconnected to larger ends and purposes fatally undermines the dialectics of truth and liberty, and liberty and virtue, that define true human existence.” This touches upon a truth about the human condition, which is that man is an ever-wandering, searching being who can never be satisfied by looking within himself. Man is incomplete and cannot complete himself or his longings by staying within himself. Man must reconcile himself to his limited capacity and recognize that there is an enduring moral order he must submit to as well as the fact that those who have come before him can offer guidance.

It is undignified to undermine traditional structures for doing so separates man from what he needs to attain his dignity. Per Aristotle, man can only reach his telos within a community whose traditional order he acts according to. To be happy and complete—not to mention moral—man must act within traditional boundaries so long as those boundaries reflect an enduring moral order. All people—to a greater or lesser degree—are like children testing their boundaries. Responsible parents realize they must set boundaries for their children otherwise they risk having a child who has no direction, sense of self or natural restraint. The same is true of a citizen who seeks to unhinge himself from the traditional order. A person with no limits will be nihilistic, disenchanted, and doomed to failure.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness, and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism—and thus radical democracy—is a dependence upon an impersonal ‘schoolmaster.’ Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established immemorial usage is required for liberty and self-government. Man is in need of limits. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

INTRO: Why We Need Conservatives

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

INTRO: What is Conservatism?

From Dr. Scott’s blog

The government is rapidly making policy changes that deal with marriage, guns, the military, immigration and nearly every other facet of our public and private lives. These changes are taking place rapidly because Republicans seem to be giving into the demands of Democrats with recent speeches by Eric Cantor and other Republicans whose positions on immigration and same sex marriage have quickly “evolved” over the past few months. These developments illuminate the need for conservatism and its role in balancing the liberal desire for rapid change.

Change in and of itself is not always a bad thing. The problem is not with change necessarily but with the nature and rapidity of the change. If you have ever worked for a company that changed management you might know the feeling. When new management comes in and introduces immediate changes, there is backlash among the employees. The same thing happens with rapid government reform. Our understanding of what to expect and what is expected of us is disrupted with abrupt and radical change. This unsettles the existing order as well as the individuals within it to the point where society’s order is thrown into question. If these sorts of changes are instituted on a regular basis, the existence of the society is put at risk. Our understanding of marriage, education, constitutionally protected rights and healthcare are under assault from a government that thinks it knows what is best.

The liberal establishment’s desire is rooted in a view of the world that defies reality. Liberals are the contemporary adherents to the principle of modernity that places man above nature and nature’s God; they assume that they and they alone can construct a society which leaves nothing to chance and can be planned according to their view of what is good. This is what can be termed the hubris of modernity. Positive law and institutions, according to this view, can overcome traditional constraints and the traditional order by simply instituting reforms. This view thinks of tradition as a hindrance rather than a constructive way of ordering society which limits the need for government intervention.

To counteract this liberal philosophy, one needs to embrace and understand the counterbalancing force of humility. Humility provides a block against the hubris of modernity. Through humility we recognize the limitations of human reason and individuality and come to embrace the wisdom of the traditional order as revealed through faith, family, and community.

My view of humility mirrors Erasumus’ worldview. Erasmus was a Dutch priest and scholar who was influential during the Reformation. Though Erasmus admitted humanity’s tendency to carnal corruption and lampooned its manifold foolishness, he still believed in the essential goodness of a human nature made in the image of God and in the human ability, with the help of grace, to come into harmony with the divine purposes evident in creation. The Hobbesian contractor (which is to say liberal modernity), on the other hand, had to impose order on a chaotic natural world. The desire for control and uniformity will bring us under greater constraint from a central government. Only our humility can prevent a shift in that direction.

In The Conservative Mind Russell Kirk wrote, “We ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.” The U.S. is in dire need of conservatives who can articulate this idea both through rhetoric and policies. If such a voice cannot be found our politics risks losing its counterbalance to progressive reform.

From Dr. Scott’s blog – 4/2/13

PART 4: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further considering what it means to be a conservative

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

Part 4: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further Considering What It Means to Be a Conservative

From Dr. Scott’s blog

A statesman ought to be prudent as prudence is the fourth conservative principle provided by Russell Kirk. This is an area in which Edmund Burke and Plato agree as well; both place prudence as the first among the equal virtues to be possessed by a statesman. Prudence is simply the recognition of the complexity of problems and the need to take a measured assessment before acting. This principle may seem foreign to our world of instant everything, but it is a virtue worth reclaiming.

Kirk comments that, “[s]udden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.” It is oftentimes impossible, and almost always difficult, to roll back the effect of an imprudent action whether it be committing troops to war or creating a new bureaucratic apparatus. But consequentialist reasoning is by no means a sufficient basis on which to build philosophy. And Kirk does not rest his argument on consequentialist grounds. Kirk posits that human society is complex and the human mind’s capacity is limited. Thus, the human capacity to resolve all issues sufficiently well is improbable and doing so quickly is impossible. Kirk’s endorsement of prudence is grounded in the reality of the human condition.

Progressives want change immediately as they feel that progress comes from within the human rather than in a commitment to a thing greater than self. Progressives put faith in man. Once man is given the capacity, as progressives proclaim they have, to control his environment for the better there are no restraints on his actions. This is what Nietzsche meant when he wrote, “God is dead.” Within Enlightenment philosophy individuals were given full agency which meant they had to defer to no higher authority beyond their own will. Progressives are committed to the human mind and the products thereof without recognizing the limits we as people have. Prudence recognizes natural limits and asks us to act accordingly. Prudence runs contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment.

As we look to the situation in Syria we can apply what Kirk puts before us. First, there is no immediate threat to the U.S., its citizens, or its allies if we do not intervene in the Syrian civil war. Second, there is plenty in the historical record to show that limited military engagements are rarely successful at accomplishing their goal and rarely remain limited once they are begun. The use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians is appalling and we are all moved by the images, but we should be prudent and not allow emotions to take over our judgment. Obama must plead his case before Congress and the American people before moving forward with military action given the amount of lives and treasure that could be lost with an involvement in Syria. Once we have committed ourselves, it could take years to settle the matter if not longer.

Furthermore, we must meet with the Israelis and give them time to consider the options given that any retaliation by the Syrian government not directed at its own people will be directed at our closest ally in the region, and maybe even the world. There is no need to be hasty in this situation. There is no urgency for American involvement given that there is no American interest under direct threat. We can take time to deliberate and thus act prudently.

To say that we can predict the outcome of our potential involvement is an act of hubris. To take action in Syria is to assume the Syrian people, and the world in general, will be better off if the U.S. involves itself in the civil war. There is no way to know the answer to this question but committing troops is a commitment to the idea that we do know the answer. We owe it to our citizens, our troops and our allies to act prudently in this and all other scenarios. It is what a conservative would do.

PART 2: What we need for victory in 2014 and beyond

PART 2: What We NEED FOR victory in 2014 and Beyond

by Kyle Scott

From Dr. Scott’s blog.

Since 2012 there has been soul searching among Republicans about what went wrong and how we can win back the Senate and the White House as well as win local elections. What has been lacking is a serious discussion about what it means to be a conservative and thus what the Republican Party ought to stand for. No political strategy will be successful if we don’t have a solidified sense of self. If Republicans are to expand our sphere of influence, we must first decide what it is they mean by conservatism. It is not enough to talk about protecting the border, cutting taxes, and defunding Obamacare. Republicans must possess a core set of values and know why those values are conservative. Enough of the clichés!

On the national level Rand Paul and Chris Christie are exchanging barbs, and each has a different vision for the Republican Party and country. They also have different ideas of what it means to be a conservative. Republicans at all levels disagree among themselves about certain issues, such as whether Edward Snowden is a traitor or patriot. These disputes occur because there is not a clear, accepted definition of conservatism.

The effect of this lack of definition has deleterious effects on our governing as well since it frees up Republicans to act contrary to conservatism. Simply look at the grades given out by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and one will see that many Republicans serving in the Texas legislature are not beholden to principles of fiscal conservatism. Republicans in the House like Patricia Harless, Debbie Riddle, and Dan Huberty received failing grades, which indicates they voted against fiscal responsibility on a consistent basis. This is what happens when voters and representatives lack a sophisticated core—representatives can be easily pushed in the direction of big spending and away from conservative values. In order to demonstrate leadership and resist the temptation to go with the flow, an individual must know what he stands for and why.

There are innumerable definitions of conservatism and treatises on the topic. But a good place to start a sophisticated discussion of conservatism is Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles. They are as follows:

1. conservatives believe in an enduring moral order,
2. conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity,
3. we believe in what may be called the principle of prescription—that is, of things established through immemorial usage,
4. we are guided by principles of prudence,
5. conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety,
6. we are chastened by our principle of imperfectability,
7. conservatives believe that freedom and property are closely linked
8. we uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism,
9. the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions,
10. the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Over the next several posts, I will explore each of these principles and relate them to contemporary concerns while grounding them in a sophisticated exploration of what it means to be a conservative. I have taken up this task before in an earlier post and in a different context, but I think it is worthwhile to pursue the idea in more detail. Without a clear understanding of conservatism, there can be no Republican Party. Without a clear understanding of conservatism there won’t be a Republican Party worth having. We must understand who we are, what we stand for and why in order to win in the political arena and to make that victory matter. We must not be hasty but we must move swiftly.

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?

By Kyle Scott

Since the 2012 election, there has been quite a lot of talk about Harris County moving from Republican to Democrat. But anyone who is paying attention to this legislative session will see that the Republican legislators from Harris County are not particularly conservative on budgetary matters anyway. There has been a 26% increase in this budget over the previous budget. Rather than banking additional tax revenue this legislature has decided to spend more and then take $4 billion out of the rainy day fund.

With the passage of a budget that allowed for a raid on the ‘rainy day fund’, for an encore Harris County-based Representatives Dan Huberty, Patricia Harless, and Debbie Riddle joined with Democrats to support HB 16 and HJR 2 thus allowing for the rainy day fund to be raided with impunity. The Senate passed a bill that included a baseline under which the rainy day fund would not drop—a poor consolation for raiding the fund in the first place but a consolation nonetheless. When that bill came before the House the baseline was removed. Now, thanks to a coalition of irresponsible spenders, the rainy day fund can be raided with impunity.

The irresponsible budgeting of the Texas legislature during this legislative session has even garnered national attention with the Wall Street Journal comparing Austin to Sacramento. Texas is experiencing a boom—thanks to oil—in the same way California had experienced a boom—thanks to real estate—when it had decided to increase spending in the face of a positive financial outlook. Texas legislatures have failed to learn from California in recognizing that good times come to an end and a budgetary surplus can come in handy down the road. When one asks the government “How much can you spend?” the government usually replies, “How much do you have?” and then it takes some more.

Even a casual observer of politics and economics knows that saving money in good times is generally a good idea and that spending like the good times will go on forever will wreak havoc on a budget in the long run. The Texas legislature would do well to make two adjustments to the budgetary process in order to prevent these mistakes. First, we need a zero-based budgeting approach for all state agencies. Zero-based budgeting would allow legislators to assess how much money is really needed by an agency and not just how much money an agency usually gets. Second, discretionary spending should be handled after mandated spending and matters such as transportation and water are dealt with. Right now legislators are trying to say they need to raid the rainy day fund for roads and water. And they are right, we need to fund road and water projects. But these projects should have been dealt with first, not last, and discretionary spending measures should have been moved to the back of the line. By moving the most important matters to the back of the line legislators manipulated the situation to make it appear as though there is more of a scarcity of resources than there actually is. While money is the most important thing in making budget decisions, timing comes a close second.

We should all be alarmed by the dangerous and irresponsible budget practices by this legislature. What should be particularly alarming is that the conservatives are not acting like conservatives which means the spending will only increase and raiding the rainy day fund will only continue.

– See at: Dr. Scott’s Blog. .

VIDEO: CAIR Confronts Allen West & Gets Schooled by Him

VIDEO: Sarah Palin: Inspired… Inspiring…