So youâ€ve just been elected to the state legislature.

Here are some things you should know and be prepared for. (These are based on my own experiences and observation in the political arena and are my own opinions, not those of any other individual or organization.)

1. This is not a career. This is not your identity. This is an “in addition to.”

2. Thereâ€s a big difference between a campaign speech and a vote. Youâ€re going to face a crisis of belief after you get in. Youâ€re going to face the question “What DO I actually believe?” And youâ€re not necessarily going to have an immediate answer. Be prepared for this. Itâ€s a watershed moment and your response will define who you are going forward. Also, donâ€t try to do it solo. This is what trusted advisors are for.

3. Itâ€s not enough to vote right. Most political fights happen behind the scenes, and your constituents wonâ€t ever know unless they pay super close attention (and many times not even then). People who will show up and press the red button are fairly easy to find. People who will actually fight bad policy using the entire system are rare. You need to decide now whether youâ€re going to be half-hearted about this or go all in.

4. Conventional wisdom says to lay low till you get the hang of things, and remember your place as a newbie. Donâ€t do it. This isnâ€t what you were elected for. Patrick Henry started the American Revolution by opposing the stamp tax before heâ€d been in office for a month. Donâ€t get half-cocked about it (there will be times you should keep silent and learn), but remember that this isnâ€t about you or your career and certainly not the traditions of the legislature. Itâ€s about your constituents, and they deserve representation.

5. Be prepared to make mistakes. Youâ€ll fall on your face if you actually do jump in and get moving, but itâ€s better to do that than to atrophy. Itâ€s also how you learn. Donâ€t sweat it when it happens.

6. There are a lot of unspoken rules. Many of those rules are not in the favor of good policies. Ignore them. Others are based in courtesy or at least do no harm. Itâ€s a respectful thing to follow those. If you do the right thing, youâ€ll be upsetting a lot of people there by turning convention on its head. So follow convention where you can.

7. Work hard, read the rules, and study the system. The worst possible situation is to have an opinionated gonna-change-the-world upstart going in like a bull in a china shop who has no idea what heâ€s doing. They will despise you, and rightly so. Being principled and believing right is no substitute for doing the hard work. Remember, respect has to be earned.

8. When a manâ€s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). Iâ€ve seen this over and over. Regardless of what conventional wisdom says, as long as you do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly, you can be at peace even with your political opponents. Conversely, if you are arrogant, abrasive, and vindictive, you will not be at peace with your opponents and it will be your own fault.

9. Itâ€s a club, and in many ways a family down there. Thereâ€s a real sense of camaraderie and a strong pull to be included. In some ways, this is a good thing. But know that truly belonging in the capital means not truly belonging to the people. Enjoy the friendships, but remember that allegiance lines, while invisible, are no less binding. Choose who you are going to belong to before you go down there.

10. Stopping bad bills is your #1 job. Passing good ones is secondary.

11. The greatest force in politics is inertia, and the leadership is very, very effective at sending things into motion. This is one reason opposing the leadership (to pass and to kill bills) is so difficult. That said, the fact that the political process is designed to be difficult is another source of inertia and is your biggest asset when it comes to stopping bad bills. Saddle that inertia. Now, this means you have to know the rules and the system like the back of your hand, and you have to be willing to break the unspoken rules and conventions and be willing to offend and be thought crazy. But it can be done, and itâ€s your job to do it.

12. Politics is more like farming than fighting. Thereâ€s a lot of boring, hard, mundane work. Victories and exciting moments are few and far between. It takes strategy, planning, and long-term commitment. So donâ€t sweat the failures and the barren stretches. Live for the goal, not the victories. This perspective is what will keep you from burnout.

13. Donâ€t listen to the flattery. Proverbs was written for these kinds of situations. Youâ€ll be buttered up wherever you go (for the most part). Remember that lobbyists get paid to make you feel good about yourself. Be friendly, listen, (most of them really are nice people), but donâ€t fall for it.

14. Guys, there are a lot of attractive women in politics. Please, please be careful. You have two things to watch out for: good working relationships that get out of hand, and intentional manipulation for nefarious reasons. The dangerous thing about both of these is that you may not even realize whatâ€s going on until itâ€s too late. The capital is a place you need to bend over backwards to both avoid all appearance of evil and keep your heart on the straight and narrow. Establish your boundaries ahead of time and stick to them.

15. Different people and organizations have different roles, and that means that even when they are on the same side, theyâ€ll respond to the same situation in very different ways. This is how itâ€s supposed to be. If you understand this, it will save you a lot of heartburn.

16. There is such a thing as friendly fire. There will be times when as a legislator, you know things the grassroots donâ€t know, and that necessitate actions they will not understand. Youâ€ll try to explain, but they wonâ€t always listen. This is the price of serving your country. Be prepared for it.

17. Compromise where you can, but where you canâ€t, donâ€t (h/t Peggy Carter). There will always be a tension to manage between principle and strategy, but there are also things that should not be on the table. One of the most poignant movie lines Iâ€ve ever heard is from the lapdog Senator in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: “I compromised. Yes, so that all those years I could sit in that Senate and serve the people in a thousand honest ways.” Those guys are why our country is such a mess.

Be THIS guy.

18. The most important characteristic in any leader is a healthy reluctance. The moment you lose that, the moment the office becomes more important to you than the reason you ran, that is the moment you need to get out.

The year was 1603. The previous monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, had just died with no direct heir and England had already endured years of instability. Elizabeth had taken the throne after the tumultuous reign of her half-sister, Mary I (also known as Bloody Mary), and had revived the fledgling English Reformation Mary had tried to extinguish.

Once again, the nation was at a crossroads.

What was at stake? Freedom of religion, and by extension, protection of property rights, personal liberty, and even the right to life itself (considering the bad habit of religious zealots in those days to burn the unlucky people with whom they disagreed at the stake).

In a small village in Nottinghamshire, these were more than just philosophical concerns. William Brewster and a small group of kindred spirits had been meeting for years to secretly worship in violation of the law. So far theyâ€d gotten away with it, but if the new monarch wasnâ€t inclined to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing, persecution, confiscation of personal property, imprisonment, deportation, and possibly death stared them in the face.

Who would England choose for a monarch? It was – dare I say – the most important election of their lifetimes.

Most of Brewsterâ€s worst fears came true. The British government chose Elizabethâ€s closest relative, James IV of Scotland. Being a nice, amiable gentlemen of a reasonable temperment, he declared that every Tom, Dick, and Harry would comply with his religious system or he would “harry them out of the land.”

You know the rest of the story, how that small band of religious protesters known as Separatists endured tremendous persecution and loss at the hands of government and finally considered themselves fortunate to escape the land they called home. How they sunk all their resources in a daring venture to the New World and a ship called the Mayflower. And how against all odds and at great personal cost, those brave men and women forged a new life full of freedom and opportunity for themselves and their descendants.

All of that, thanks to the coronation of the rascally King James.

This is only one example of many. The Old Testament is full of these kinds of stories, and youâ€ll see them throughout the history of Christendom. While this is an important election, itâ€s nothing compared to what other countries have been faced with.

The Rise of Adrenaline Politics

I tell that story for two reasons: 1. While our nation is certainly in trouble, itâ€s not nearly as bad as many others have had it, and 2. The tendency to hype up the stakes is a very, very poor tactic that will hurt us in the long run.

This “most important election of our lifetime” trend has concerned me for some time. It could be called “adrenaline politics” – hyping the grassroots up with tales of woe and danger and the possible extinction of civilization if they donâ€t turn out and vote.

The trouble is that adrenaline is not sustainable. Adrenaline is, by its very nature, short-lived and tied to a particular situation. In the case of politics, itâ€s tied to whether you win or lose.

In this approach, you whip the grassroots up into a frenzy, and then when you lose, they get discouraged and go home (and some of them start stockpiling ammo. Not their fault if they believe things are actually as dire as you told them!). Or you win, and then they dust their hands off and go home (again, you told them the key to saving the country was electing a particular candidate, not staying involved.).

Is it any wonder we canâ€t keep people involved in politics, and that thereâ€s so much burnout?

When you look at history, we honestly arenâ€t doing so badly and there is a lot to be encouraged about. Itâ€s time to change our paradigm when it comes to civic involvement.

Civic Involvement: The Price of Living in Freedom

Every privilege in life has a corresponding responsibility. When you get married, you pledge to love, honor and be faithful to your spouse for the rest of your life, in exchange for the privileges of the relationship. In the same way, you go to work each day to “earn your living” – literally. Itâ€s the responsibility that comes along with staying alive.

Political involvement is the same way. Itâ€s not just something we desperately need to keep our nation alive. Itâ€s the responsibility of living in a free country. Itâ€s paying your dues, and itâ€s understanding that it will be a part of your life for as long as you enjoy the privileges of living in freedom. When you understand that, you know that just as sure as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, you will get up and continue to be involved in politics, no matter how many victories we win or defeats we suffer.

Thatâ€s why you vote. Not because the nation will fall apart if you donâ€t, but because itâ€s your duty and to whom much is given, much is required.

Itâ€s going to be okay.

In conclusion, I just want to offer a word of encouragement: we will be okay. Other nations have gone through worse and survived. Hard times may be ahead (and probably are), but it wonâ€t be the end of the world until God says so, and His instructions are for us to occupy till He comes.

Remember, God doesnâ€t wait till the final chapter to pick up His pen. He is writing the whole time and none of this is catching Him by surprise.

So vote, stay involved, love those you disagree with, and as the Psalmist said, “Trust in the Lord and do good. So shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.”

(Psalm 37:3. Translation credit to the aforementioned rascally King James. See, he didnâ€t get the final say in anything!)

I am currently in the middle of the biography of Napoleon Bonaparte, and was struck by what he said to the French legislature during his coup. At this particular moment, he was trying to convince the legislature to scrap the constitution and give him control of the French government:

You are on a volcano. The Republic no longer has a government. The directory has been dissolved, the factions are agitating, the time to make a decision has arrived. You have summoned me and my companions-in-arms to aid your wisdom, but time is precious. We must decide.

I know that we speak of Caesar, of Cromwell, as if the present time could be compared to past times. No. I want only the safety of the Republic and to support the decisions that you are going to take.

Caesar and Cromwell were both wildly successful generals (like Napoleon) who took over their respective governments. Napoleon was attempting to convince Franceâ€s leaders to overlook clear historical precedent and believe that he actually WAS trying to serve the government instead of subverting it.

Now, contrast that with the speech delivered by Patrick Henry in the days leading up to our own Revolution:

We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a long and arduous struggle for liberty?…For my own part, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future, but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what is in the conduct of the British ministry for the past ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen are pleased to solace themselves and this House.

Napoleon told his fellow statesmen to shut their eyes and ignore the very history he was in the process of repeating. Patrick Henry told his fellow statesmen to open their eyes to history and let it guide their interpretation of current events.

There are two lessons here. First, be very suspicious of anyone who asks you to ignore history. Second, to keep history from repeating itself, you have to know your history in the first place. Not knowing history is ignoring it by default.  

If only we had more politicians who thought for themselves, like Mayor Pike.

If you pay any attention at all to politics, you’ve probably noticed that politicians speak a very specific language, refined over decades of political tradition specifically for the purpose of getting you to elect them and allow them to spend your money and hamper your freedom in any way they see fit.

When I was preparing this post I asked on Facebook for suggestions of common words and phrases used by politicians, and judging by the response I’d guess I’m not the only one tired of politicians. So, here’s a guide to help you translate what these guys are actually saying.

* * *

Commonsense reform – This means that you’re not going to understand what we’re proposing, and we want you to think that it’s because you’re stupid, not that it actually doesn’t make sense.

“I’m the only one on this stage who” – Often heard in political debates. It has no correlation to facts and should be translated “Look at me! Listen to MEEE! Look at me!”

Come together – Can mean one of two things: a) I’m about to propose a compromise that no one will take, but I need to posture for the taxpayers, or b) I’m about to propose a compromise you will probably accept, and I hope the taxpayers aren’t looking.

“I appreciate your leadership on” – political equivalent to “bless your heart.” After you say it, you can say anything you like about that guy’s filibuster/bill/opposition/shenanigans. Could also be translated “That guy’s a %*#)% and needs to shut up.”

Comprehensive – means everything. Literally. Every aspect, nook, and cranny are covered in this bill, and they threw in the kitchen sink for good measure. You should get nervous when you hear politicians start tossing this one around.

“I’m fighting for you” – Whatever it is you think a politician should be doing, I’m doing it. (You’re probably not seeing results, which is why it’s “fighting for you” and not “winning for you”.) This one means nothing.

Budget/spending/tax cuts – This could refer to one of two things: a) shifting money around among programs without actually cutting anywhere, or b) increasing spending a little less than we had originally planned. You’ll know when this term is to be taken literally by all the politicians breaking out in hives and yelling that the sky is falling.

Take America back – this means “fix it.” Whatever “it” is, whatever is wrong with it, whoever did it – and you’ll get different answers for every person you ask, which is why politicians rarely go into specifics – we’re gonna fix it. If you show up wearing red, white, and, blue, they’ll be sure to use this one.

Balanced budget amendment – this is your silver bullet ticket to financial utopia. Passing this will guarantee that the politicians in charge will suddenly morph into miniature government versions of Dave Ramsey. (Here’s a hint: South Carolina has one. They’re not all they’re cracked up to be.)

“This administration has” – The guy currently in office is a two-faced, cheating, low-down scumbag who wants to see your babies dead. It’s his fault your Uncle Joe doesn’t have a job, your kid got a “D” on his last report card, and that your car had a flat tire. Oh, and that speeding ticket? His fault too.

“When I’m elected” – this is your silver bullet ticket to utopia, period. I will fight for you, cut spending, pass a balanced budget amendment, pass comprehensive reform, and take America back. *cue cheering*

Create jobs – Below are definitions of this phrase according to the type of person who’s using it:

• Career politician: “I’m a good politician. Vote for me! What do you mean, what does this mean? It means I’m gonna create jobs!”
• Bureaucrat: “Let’s eliminate technology and increase red tape. This will both require us to employ more people in low-wage jobs AND stifle the free market. Win-win!”
• Republican: “We solemnly promise to take taxpayer dollars generated by small business and invest them in big business without a professional opinion on whether they are actually wise investments and without follow-up or accountability to ensure an actual return.”
• Democrat: Any combination of answers 1-3
• Conservative: [We were unable to find instances of true conservatives using this phrase. They don’t seem to think it’s government’s role.]

An alternative phrase is “grow the economy”.

Bipartisan – this means that it’s corrupt enough for all of them, and watered down enough to be practically unidentifiable. This is usually heard in conjunction with “come together”, “comprehensive”, and “I appreciate your leadership.” You should be nervous about this one too.

Transparency – We have decided to open up all the back rooms that we use for deal-making to the public, and they are now non-smoking zones. No, that’s not a bunch of new construction out back.

Accountability – We are aware of your odd impression that government is full of crooks and cheaters, so we’re proposing a plan to run everything through a board appointed by the Governor from nominations by a group of legislators from both bodies appointed by a select committee, composed by legislators appointed by the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate and confirmed by both Houses. That way we’ll be sure to catch it if anything dishonest is going on.

On the fence – This means they haven’t decided yet which will cost them more: voting for, or voting against. When speaking with a politician who uses this phrase, it’s important to use the terms “votes”, “campaign donations”, and “press coverage”. If you really want to scare them, say “primary challenger.”

That’s just not how it’s done – This is the phrase they use when they are explaining things to you. It really means that doing what you ask would cost them too much. Disregard this one.

“I’m not a politician.” – I am a politician.

For the children – Should be translated “Ha! Gotcha! Now vote against it if you dare. (No, of course it has nothing to do with the children. What are you, an idiot?)”

Unconstitutional – This is a catch-all word that just means I hate your idea. It should not be taken to imply any actual violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Democracy – This perfect, glorious system of government which is awesome because Alexis de Tocqueville said so in a book. Yay America! *Waves flag frantically*

Pork – Lotsa bad stuff in the budget I wanna take it out doggone it

Move forward – This either means it’s the new guy’s turn to have a go at wrecking the country, or that the guys already in there are turning up the treadmill. Yay for progress!

Establishment – Them. Not me. Because I’m great. I’m not like those guys. *adjusts bow tie*

After a loooong day yesterday live-tweeting the #SCBudget debate, here are a few lessons/thoughts in no particular order (click here for an analysis of the original Ways and Means budget):

1. Mandating a certain amount of revenue every year for roads sounds like a good idea, but practically speaking it just wonâ€t happen. Or the local government fund (LGF) would be fully funded in the budget before it left committee. Speaking of which…

2. The law requires funding of the local government fund, but when youâ€re a lawmaker that doesnâ€t really matter. Apparently.

3. If you ARE going to try to fund the local government fund, for pityâ€s sake donâ€t do it with money thatâ€s already been appropriated or thatâ€s going to roads. We all know how well thatâ€ll go over. So well, in fact, that one must question if you didnâ€t really want the funding to pass to begin with.

4. Economics 101: you canâ€t spend the same money twice. If you try to spend the same money twice, you will eventually have to decide….how youâ€re really going to spend that money. Thatâ€s actually called…wait for it…the budget process.

Unless, of course, you want another budget process at the end of your budget process deciding where youâ€re going to spend all the money youâ€ve already allocated two or three times over again. I canâ€t believe weâ€re even discussing this.

5. To some of our legislators, a gas tax hike will ever and always equal TRULY taking care of our roads forever and aye. Amen.

6. You know that money yâ€all had set aside for the tax cut that was supposed to make up for the gas tax hike? You COULD just go ahead and cut taxes anyway. Just a thought.

7. No one should be a sacred cow to state government. At one point, one Representative relayed a conversation in which a lady who is a state employee complained that teachers and law enforcement were sacred cows, but the rest of them weren’t. Sorry, Ma’am, but you’re sounding a lot like another animal right now. Oink, oink. 

8. Guilt trips donâ€t work. Even if they are administered by Rep. Mandy Powers-Norrell and are better than your mother’s. Even if they are trying to convince you to add the newbie Reps to the state retirement plan the old-timers are on, or raise the gas tax, or give the state employees yet another raise. They just don’t work. The end. 

9. When the House has been in session for hours, youâ€ll hear some surprising reasons for policy decisions:

•  Pitts doesnâ€t want to support LGF because counties donâ€t give the legislature credit for things it does. True story. 
•  King wants money for a district office because itâ€s embarrassing not to have one, and because he doesnâ€t feel safe having constituents come to his house. I can’t even…
•  Quinn thinks that if we already passed a certain policy, we should naturally do it again. Thatâ€s also the definition of insanity.

10. That moment when it dawns on retiring Rep. Walt McLeod that properly funding roads means less money to spend on other things…priceless. You’ll be treated to a speech featuring “the dark side of the moon” and ending with “Good luck and Godspeed, and may you have some luck in the years ahead, but I don’t see it.”

11. Parliamentary procedure battles can get hairy: “I would raise a point of order that Mr. Hill’s point of order is out of order” is a verbatim quote. That point of order was not sustained, btw.

12. A martyr complex when discussing how to vote could mean that you’re ready to DIE doing the right thing, or it could mean you know you’re about to commit a flagrant violation of the will of the people who elected you on, say, the gas tax for instance (*cough*Rep. James Smith*cough*).

Ah, politics.

All opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any other individual or organization (and certainly not those of Sen. Hugh Leatherman). 

Last week the Senate (temporarily) ended weeks of gridlock on the roads issue with a compromise amendment that removed the gas tax bill, among other things.

This may sound like a huge conservative victory, but unfortunately it isnâ€t. Hereâ€s why.

1. Itâ€s not real reform.

More important than the money we dedicate to roads is how we spend that money. Why? Because last year we gave $1.6 billion to transportation. Why are our roads still crumbling? What have they done with that money? We donâ€t know.

To prove this, letâ€s talk about how road repair decisions are currently made.

The DOT is governed by the 8-member DOT Commission. The Commissioners are screened by the Joint Transportation Review Committee and elected by the approximately 30 legislators from each of the 7 Congressional districts (the Governor gets one appointee).

Now, thatâ€s how it works in theory. In actuality legislative leadership is able to pretty well control the candidate approval process so that the legislative elections are a mere formality and often donâ€t even happen (they just sign a letter approving the recommended nominee).

Why does this matter? Because this system spreads the accountability out so thinly that the real power over our transportation system and road money stays with a few legislators, not the people.

If you are dissatisfied with the road conditions, what can you do? Who can you call? This is why itâ€s so important to abolish the Commission and put the DOT directly under the Governor.

That is not what the Senate compromise does.

The Senate compromise keeps the DOT Commission in place, but lets the Governor appoint all 8 of them with the Senate confirming them. That sounds good, but think about it for a minute. You still have 8 people deciding how road money will be spent. Who are those 8 people accountable to if they are doing a bad job?

Well, no one, because the Governor canâ€t fire the Commissioners. So once she appoints them, they can forget about her for the next four years. The ones they will be influenced by are the ones who hold the purse strings: the Legislature. See, nothingâ€s really changing.

The whole point of putting the DOT under the Governor was to give the people of SC more control over how their road money is spent. This compromise just shuffles things around a little without giving the people any real additional power.

Plus, there are no transparency measures built in, which means we still have no real oversight over their spending and contracts.

That being the case, the $400 million of additional revenue is just more money chucked down a black hole.

The other problem is that the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank isnâ€t eliminated. Bluntly speaking, that legislative fiefdom needs to die (hereâ€s why). All the Senate compromise does is to require that the DOT Commission approve their decisions. Since the DOT will still be accountable to the legislative leaders instead of the taxpayers, that wonâ€t do us much good, and it wonâ€t help with all the rest of the shenanigans that agency is responsible for.

In a nutshell: this compromise doesnâ€t change who holds the power, which is the key to fixing our roads.

2. Itâ€ll make real reform harder to get if passed.

Hereâ€s where strategy comes into play. If a bill passes, you canâ€t bring up the same issue next year. In the minds of politicians and, more importantly, the people of SC, youâ€ve taken care of that issue whether the bill actually reforms anything or not.

We saw this happen several years ago. We needed to eliminate the Budget and Control Board and put the executive functions under the Governor. What we ended up with was a bill that pretended to strengthen the executive branch with a few inconsequential new powers, all the while keeping the job that matters most – procurement – in the hands of yet another unaccountable hybrid board (the SFAA). No real reform, but do you hear anyone today talking about the need to restructure state government?

Nope. All that public pressure was squandered on a bill that did next to nothing and we wonâ€t get a chance to revisit the issue for years.

This is why doing nothing is far, far better – not to mention more honest – than pretending to do something while actually doing nothing.

3. The gas tax will probably get added back in.

The Senate compromise is an amendment that was adopted, but the bill itself is still up for debate. The day after the amendment was adopted President Pro Tem Hugh Leatherman stated that several amendments were being drafted and would be debated the following Tuesday (tomorrow) when the Senate comes back in for session.

The Democrats are not happy with this compromise. The Republican leadership doesnâ€t like it either, and since anything the Senate finally passes will go back to the House, then (most likely) to a conference committee, there will be plenty of chances to put the gas tax hike back in the bill.

Iâ€d be surprised if they donâ€t at least try.

Now, if conservatives really wanted to kill the gas tax hike, they could have forced the Senate to kill this bill and start over, in which case the gas tax couldnâ€t have been re-added at any point due to the Constitutional requirement that revenue increases must start in the House, not the Senate.

If all that is true, why is this compromise being celebrated?

Well, mainly because it takes out the gas tax hike. Thatâ€s like saying that Iâ€m a good person because I have decided NOT to clobber you in the head with a baseball bat after all.

We have some good guys in the Senate. The problem is that they are so used to playing defense that for them, getting pushed back three yards instead of fifteen is a conservative victory.

No! Guys, those three yards are three yards of freedom, citizen control of government, and responsible spending that we want to keep. And we didn’t just send you there to hold your ground. We sent you there to reclaim territory thatâ€s rightfully ours, not to negotiate on how much ground we will give up this year.

Itâ€s not just what they believe, itâ€s how theyâ€ll fight.

So many elected officials sound great, but when they get down there, will they just sit back in their padded chairs and push the red button when bad bills come up, or will they study the rules, take on the leadership, and persevere in fighting that bill every step of the way?

The most powerful force in politics is inertia, which means the odds are automatically against getting anything done. All our guys had to do is harness that inertia. That is what happened when Senator Davis filibustered for weeks, effectively destroying any consensus over the road plan – until now.

How much more could we accomplish if Senate conservatives were determined to win this thing on the peopleâ€s terms?

If our guys donâ€t grow a backbone and decide to be fighters, we may never find out.

One final note: if a gas tax becomes law this year, it will be the fault of the Senate conservatives who could have killed the bill, and chose not to.

Believe it or not, Carson and Fiorina actually agree on this more than you might think. In spite of what you might be reading on Facebook, their positions do not disqualify either one from being a viable option for conservatives. Iâ€m going to analyze their positions closely in just a minute, but first letâ€s set the stage.

Catholics: The Founding Fathers†“Muslims”

In the medieval era, the Catholic church was a totalitarian system. The church controlled large tracts of land in most western countries, they amassed huge amounts of wealth, and they owned the souls, figuratively and literally, of citizens and sovereigns alike.

Since civil control was the underpinning of the Roman Catholic racket, they did everything they could to amass and retain their wealth and control. They plotted with allies, sent out assassins, and aided and even started wars.

You know that phrase “separation of church and state”? This is what they were talking about.

Western culture was only just coming out of that system when America was founded. The Catholic church had not yet been completely transformed into a harmless religious system with no political control, so some of the Founders were very leery of Catholics holding office in the early days of our country.

Why?

Because the Founders considered that the Catholic belief of ultimate allegiance to the Pope was completely inconsistent with American principles and dangerous to American freedom.

Did that mean that all Catholics in those days were disloyal to America and wanted to subvert the country to the political power of the Pope? No. Most of them were peaceful citizens who wanted freedom like everyone else. But because it had been such a recent danger, power in the hands of Catholics was still a legitimate concern to some.

We are at a similar place today regarding Muslims.

If you take the words of the Quran and apply them literally, you have ISIS. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorist infiltrators at heart? No, it does not. Many of them are peaceful people who want freedom like anyone else. You don’t hear about them, because they are just that: peaceful.

That doesn’t change the fact that most, if not all, Muslim nations are totalitarian in nature, that the spreading of Islam by force and violence is a consistent historical practice, and that there are numerous Muslim organizations on a crazy crusade to subdue and/or kill every person on earth who doesn’t submit to their religion.

This is why Ben Carson has concerns about a Muslim president. Carly Fiorina is catching flak for disagreeing with him, but let’s analyze what they each said a little closer.

Carson said that many of the tenants of Islam are incompatible with the Constitution. Strictly speaking, he is correct, and Fiorina didn’t disagree with that.

Carson did not say that a Muslim could not serve as president, and Fiorina pointed out that the Constitution says that religion cannot be a legal restriction. They are both correct.

Carson said that for lower offices like Congress, Muslim candidates should be evaluated individually to see if they actually stand for the right things. Fiorina basically said that Muslims candidates for all offices should be individually considered. They are both correct.

Carson’s and Fiorina’s statements differ in two areas:

1. They disagree on whether to trust a Muslim with the presidency.

Carson is unwilling to take the risk of possibly electing a closet Jihadist, and Fiorina is. And here’s the thing: neither stance is wrong.

You don’t owe any candidate trust based on skin color, religion, policies, beliefs, family ties, history, or anything else. Who you trust to represent you as an elected official is an entirely personal choice. If Ben Carson, looking at the history of Muslim interactions with “Christian” nations over the last few centuries, is unwilling to chance a Muslim in office, that doesn’t make him intolerant of Islam. Religious toleration and peace and good will toward men do not demand political trust.

At the same time, Fiorina isn’t wrong to be willing to consider a Muslim. She is not saying there’s nothing wrong with Jihad. She isn’t even saying it isn’t a threat. All she is saying is that she would give a Muslim contender for the presidency the same consideration she would give anyone else, and that being a Muslim per se wouldn’t necessarily make a bad president. Like it or no, she is right. It is possible to be a freedom-loving Muslim (see this article as well). Every vote you cast for public office is a risk. Shucks, I didn’t know for sure what kind of representative I’d be getting when I voted for my brother last year. The kind of risks you take at the ballot box are your personal decisions and yours alone.

2. They disagree on whether or not there is any value in Islam.

Technically, I can’t say they disagree on this, but I don’t think Carson would agree with Fiorina’s statement that “people of faith make better leaders, whether it’s a person of Christian faith, or Jewish faith, or Muslim faith…”

You can disagree with her, but she is only echoing the Founding Fathers:

“Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. . . . [A]ll its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well-being of civil government.” – Benjamin Rush

What both Benjamin Rush and Carly Fiorina are referring to is this: the greatest threat to tyranny is accountability to God. Accountability to ourselves alone leads to license and corruption, which is why citizens need police officers and politicians need voters. But the consent of the governed only goes so far to keep politicians honest, as was tragically demonstrated by the French Revolution.

It’s when you believe in “a future state of rewards and punishments” that true accountability kicks in. Neither Benjamin Rush nor Carly Fiorina are commenting on which religion provides the most accountability for human sinfulness (and both gave Christianity the ultimate endorsement: their own lives). They are simply stating that any accountability is better than none.

The Founders actually spoke to the issues of Muslims in office:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, Pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans (or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion) can never be elected to the office of President or other high office but in one of two cases.

First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.

Another case is if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. – Samuel Johnston

You may disagree with Fiorinaâ€s stance, and that’s okay. It makes for a rousing philosophical and theological discussion. But far from making either one unfit for president, both Carsonâ€s and Fiorinaâ€s positions have early American precedents, and are actually rooted in the oldest of American traditions and lines of thought.

When we Southerners do something, we do it big and loud. That includes scandal, drama, and controversy. As I’ve watched the ongoing Confederate flag debate since my last post, here are some additional thoughts that have come to mind, in no particular order.

1. This was a cultivated controversy.

There wasn’t any talk about the Confederate flag, initially. The focus was on what actually happened and the outpouring of support for Charleston, AME Church, and the victims’ families. The media and Democrats are the ones who skillfully brought the flag into focus. Why? Because Charleston isn’t Ferguson, or Baltimore. We meet hatred and racism with love in South Carolina. They couldn’t have that, so they created a controversy with the potential to tear us apart as surely as the riots in Ferguson did. Guess what? It’s working.

2. This is no longer about the Charleston victims.

They have faded from the public eye as the Confederate flag takes center stage. Suddenly, it’s no longer about the unity of Charleston and the forgiveness of the families. This terrible tragedy has been exploited to fuel a political debate. The victims’ families weren’t blaming the flag. They were spreading the love and forgiveness of Christ. That is the true solution for racism and where our focus as a state should be. Instead, we’ve lost sight of all of that as we go on a Confederate flag witch hunt.

3. Freedom of speech is in great danger now.

There’s a difference between what is displayed on state property and what a citizen displays on his own property. However, what with the Confederate flag now being equated with racism and killing, we are not far at all from the point where people won’t be allowed to disrespectfully disagree on the flag. As I said in my last post, the flag truly does mean different things to different people, and that’s okay. You are not an evil person if you display the flag, but we are starting to forget that.

4. The Confederacy itself was a Democrat movement.

The Democrat party was unequivocally pro-slavery and led the secession movement when the newly-minted Republican party (composed of abolitionists) took the White House. They were the ones who flew the flag, and they were the ones who embraced white supremacy. After the war, the KKK went around terrorizing white Republicans as well as blacks, seeking to keep the Democrats in power. So….are House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford and the rest of his henchmen going to renounce the party that was behind all of this racism? And if they insist that the Democrat party stands for different things now, couldn’t that be true of the flag as well?

5. Nikki Haley doesn’t deserve a VP nod just because she called for the flag to come down.

With the eyes of the nation on SC, she had to say something, and she certainly wasn’t going to take what was shaping up to be a very unpopular stand. Lay off on the VP talk already.

6. If the SC General Assembly truly wants to prevent this from happening again…

…one good place to start is to expand the rights of citizens to defend themselves from crazy killers. All these mass shootings have one thing in common: they happen in gun-free zones. Coincidence? Nope. If one person with a gun had been in that church, he could have stopped Dylann Roof. I am pretty sure Roof didn’t care whether the Confederate flag was flying or not on Statehouse grounds. But would it have made a difference if he knew there was a good possibility one of those church members was carrying? Most likely. The guy wasn’t crazy, unfortunately.

7. There is a place for revisiting the flag.

I have very strong opinions on it myself. But discussing the flag right now politicizes the Charleston tragedy, and that is the worst form of disrespect we could be guilty of.

8. You don’t pass legislation to make statements.

You pass legislation to take care of state business. Our legislative session is over and we have yet to pass a budget. All of that has been shoved to the backburner as the General Assembly argues about the Confederate flag. How is that responsible? It isn’t.

There have been a number of responses to the tragic Charleston shooting earlier this week. There’s been an outpouring of grief, support, prayer, and most lately, renewed calls for the complete removal of the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds.

This is understandable. The guy was obviously a white supremacist and his car had a Confederate flag license plate. There are several things we need to keep in mind, however.

1. The rebel flag isn’t necessarily a racist symbol.

The South seceded over slavery, no question about it. The Civil War was fought because of slavery. It was the official Confederate position and the reason the South fought the North.

But that isn’t why Robert E. Lee fought.

Nor is it why many soldiers fought for the Confederacy. For many of them, it was family loyalty, southern/state loyalty, states’ rights, etc.

The Confederate flag is the same way. The rebel flag as we know it today was never the official flag of the Confederacy. Rather, it was Lee’s battle flag and was officially adopted by the Confederate Navy. It was, in its official usage, a military flag representing the Confederate forces, not a flag representing the Confederacy itself.

Since the war, the flag has come to mean different things to different people. For some, it’s a symbol of Southern heritage, for others, it’s a symbol of white supremacism. But to assert that it is an inherently racist symbol is as narrow-minded as claiming that Lee personally fought to keep slavery. Technically, you would have a point in both cases, but to leave it at that is simply inaccurate.

This is important because there is so much emotion on both sides of the debate, and emotion clouds judgment. (That’s also why making decisions in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy tends to be very unwise.) Seeing where the other side is coming from is a vital first step to wise decisions.

2. The Confederate movement may be our history, but it’s not something to be proud of.

On the other hand, we need to take a hard look at our own history. Yes, we fought the North. Yes, we were brave (hurrah!). Yes, we whipped the daylights out of those doggone Yankees over and over (and no true Southerner can help being proud of that.).

But.

It was over slavery. The first seven states to secede did so in direct response to the election of a Republican President. There had been absolutely no action taken against the South by Lincoln or anyone else. He wasn’t even sworn in yet. The South had simply promised to secede if a Republican was elected.

Why?

Because the Republican party was composed of the abolitionist cast-offs of the Whig party and the other abolitionist third parties. The official Republican position was that slavery should be abolished. So as soon as it was clear that the Republican party was in power, out the door went the first seven states.

If you don’t believe it, read the documents passed by each of the legislatures along with their secession ordinances, starting with South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes.”

So, we have to ask if this part of our heritage is something we should celebrate and commemorate. Think about it this way: what if present day Germans celebrated their Nazi heritage the way the South celebrates its Confederate heritage?

I’m not trying to say that the two movements were moral equals: simply that they were both morally evil. When a movement is inherently evil, you don’t celebrate it. You mourn it. You raise war memorials as an acknowledgement of the history, because it is important not to forget the mistakes of the past, but you don’t glory in them.

3. There will always be racists.

There are racists in every state. There are racists of all ages and skin colors. There are black people who hate white people. In the past, there were white people who hated Indians. I read once that in the days of the wild west, the blacks hated the Mexicans.

I think there is more of the “whites against blacks” strain in the South, but racism isn’t a Southern problem. It’s a human problem. Anywhere you find people who are different, you’ll find other people who despise those differences.

Our heritage sowed the seeds of racism and they are still bearing fruit today. But you don’t eradicate a poisonous plant by chasing the farmer who planted it and clobbering him with a hoe. You eradicate it by attacking the plant.

4. Dylann Roof would have murdered those people even if the Confederate flag wasn’t flying on the Statehouse grounds.

It may make people feel good to call for the removal of the Confederate flag. It may bring a sense of relief, a sense of doing something in response to the tragedy. But really, what will it accomplish?

White supremacists will still be racists. They’ll fly the flag anyway. Even if you outlaw the flag, they will hate black people as much as ever. More so, perhaps, because suppressing things like this galvanizes the fanatics.

You can’t fix sinful human hearts with legislation. Sure, you can take down the flag. But what will that accomplish? How could something so impotent be considered a response even worth mentioning?

5. The answer to racism is Christ.

There is only one solution to a sinful human heart: the blood of Christ. The only way to fix racism is by the work of Christ in that heart.

So the proper response is to spread Christ’s love and power. It’s an outpouring of prayer, for both the victims’ families and the shooter, and the racists that think like he does. It’s taking a hard line against racism in our churches and in our own lives. And it’s showing Christ’s love at every opportunity.

The most powerful example of this so far occurred at Dylann Roof’s bond hearing, when the victims’ families had a chance to speak to him:

“I forgive you,” the daughter of victim Ethel Lance, 70, said through tears to Roof, who appeared at the bond hearing via video-conferencing from jail. “You took something very precious from me and I will never talk to her ever again. I will never be able to hold her again. But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul.”

….

Bethane Middleton Brown, the sister of Rev. DePayne Middleton-Doctor said, “For me, I am a work in progress. And I acknowledge I am very angry. But one thing that she’s always joined in our family with is that she taught me that we are the families that love built. We have no room for hate so we have to forgive. I pray God on your soul and I also thank God that I will be around when your judgment day comes with him. May God bless you.”

“I forgive you,” said Anthony Thompson, the husband of slain Myra Thompson, 59. “But we would like you to take this opportunity to repent. Repent, confess, give your life to the one who matters most: Christ. So that he can change it, can change your ways no matter what happened to you and you’ll be OK. Do that and you’ll be better off than what you are right now.”

(via ABC News)

Folks, racism cannot stand against that. Racism cannot win against that.

So should we take down the flag?

Not as a response to this shooting. Should it be done at all? If you take the flag down, it needs to be after a careful consideration of the actual merits of the case (see points #1 – #2), and hopefully after all the emotion has died down.

The second verse of “Lead On, Oh King Eternal” perfectly sum up the proper response to the Charleston shooting:

Lead on, oh King eternal
Till sin’s fierce war shall cease,
And holiness shall whisper 
The sweet “amen” of peace.

For not with swords’ loud clashing
Nor roll of stirring drums, 
With deeds of love and mercy
The heavenly kingdom comes.

We fight bad policy with legislation. We fight racism with the love of Christ.

And the love of Christ is enough.

Thereâ€s a lot of buzz about how a Convention of States (CoS) to amend the Constitution is the perfect solution for an out-of-control Federal government. The ugly truth, however, is that a Convention of States wouldnâ€t fix anything and would in all likelihood make things much worse. Hereâ€s why.

1. The current Constitution isnâ€t broken, just unenforced and neglected.

Thereâ€s nothing wrong with our current Constitution. Sure, things are currently out of control, but thatâ€s because weâ€re not using the Constitution, not because itâ€s inadequate to deal with 21st-century problems. There are so many checks and balances built in that could fix our current situation. To name just a few:

• Congress has the power of the purse. They can limit anything by cutting off spending. Specifically, the House has the power of the purse, and Republicans have controlled the House for the last several years. They are unwilling to use it.
• Congress has the power to impeach the President. If he is overstepping his bounds in an unconstitutional usage of power (and he is), they should institute impeachment proceedings. That kind of dereliction of duty calls for it. They can also cut off spending for his projects, disband his agencies, and refuse to confirm his appointees.
• Congress has tremendous power over the courts. Did you know that the Constitution doesnâ€t spell out what the Supreme Court should look like? Thatâ€s up to Congress. As Congressman Steve King said, “Constitutionally, Congress can reduce the Supreme Court to nothing more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.” Or they could impeach the whole lot of them and start over.
• Congress can also take issues out of the purview of the courts.
• We the people can easily replace our legislators with people who will do our will.

The founding fathers gave Congress the most power of the three branches of government, because that is the branch most easily controlled by the people. These changes are within our reach, as the recent Republican wins demonstrate. Why wonâ€t the Republicans utilize what the Constitution currently provides?

2. If the powers-that-be wonâ€t follow the current Constitution, why would they follow an amended one?

The Founders were very clear that the Federal governmentâ€s jurisdiction was limited to the enumerated powers. Obviously, that hasnâ€t stopped Uncle Sam from doing whatever he wants. Why would amendments change that?

In order for amendments to make a difference, they have to be followed and enforced. If itâ€s not happening now, why would it happen then? This is a human nature problem, not a governmental structure problem.

3. The state governments are out of control as well as the federal government.

CoS proponents talk about how the states would determine who the delegates to the convention are, and would hold them accountable. Letâ€s be realistic, people. What state has its own government small, its spending responsible and reasonable, its debt paid, its corruption eliminated, and its people free?

Show me that state and Iâ€ll move there!

If the state governments are out of control, corrupt, and living off the federal governmentâ€s bounty (and they are), what on earth possesses CoS proponents that those state governments will suddenly shape up and send good delegates with the interest of the people at heart, and will exercise proper accountability over them?

And if the people of the states are so out of touch and apathetic that they let their own state governments get that way, what makes CoS proponents think that the people would suddenly step up to the plate and make sure their state governments handle the convention delegates properly?

Get a grip, people! This isnâ€t fairyland!

4. What happened at the first Constitutional Convention would happen again.

The delegates to the first Constitutional Convention in 1787 were not authorized to develop a Constitution binding 13 independent states into a united country. The states had only authorized their delegates to revise the Articles of Confederation that bound the states to an alliance.

These were good men, who had the interests of their country at heart. They were some of the brightest minds our country has ever produced. They were men who had put their lives on the line for freedom from Britain, and hadnâ€t forgotten the value – and cost – of liberty.

Even then, they stepped outside their bounds and produced a Constitution that was unasked for, unauthorized, stripped the states of their independence, and created a Federal government with unprecedented power since our independence from Great Britain.

As it turned out, it was okay that time, because being wise, patriotic men with the good of their country at heart, they gave us the Constitution we needed.

Our country isnâ€t there now. We donâ€t have that level of wisdom, character, and patriotism anymore. The delegates today wonâ€t be founding father class: they will be politician class.

And they will step outside their bounds just as those founding fathers did.

God help us if that happens.

5. The states wonâ€t just authorize the good amendments.

According to CoS proponents, even if the Convention passes some ugly amendments, thereâ€s no harm done because 3/4s of the states have to ratify them. Ratification would take 38 state legislatures OR 38 state conventions.

Is that impossible?

It would be challenging. But hereâ€s where it gets tricky: who decides whether the convention or legislative method is used to ratify the amendments? Congress.

So picture this: thereâ€s no way the state legislators are going to pass an amendment gutting the 2nd Amendment. So, Congress decides to go the state convention route. The powers-that-be in Washington work overtime to make sure the conventions are planned and controlled by their allies, the RINOs in the state government and GOP. Actually, the conventions would probably look something like the SCGOP Convention typically looks like: the convention outcome is planned out ahead of time, and ruthlessly controlled to ensure that desired outcome.

Maybe a state legislature would block a bad amendment, but do you think a state convention would do it just as easily? Not on your life.

Donâ€t laugh at this scenario, because itâ€s exactly how the Prohibition Amendment was repealed in 1933.

The temperance movement was still alive and well back then, and Washington politicians were concerned that the state legislators wouldnâ€t be able to buck the temperance supporters. (In plain English, Congress was concerned that the state legislators would listen to their constituents.) So, Congress opted to ratify the 18th Amendment by state conventions. It worked like magic and the rest was history.

And, of course, thereâ€s always the possibility that enough state legislatures would indeed vote to pass bad amendments. See point #3.

 

The problem with our country is the citizens, not the government. 

The reason the Constitution isnâ€t followed is because none of us read it and know it, therefore we donâ€t enforce it.

Thereâ€s no quick fix for that.

This is a people problem, not a government problem. Rules, legislation, and government are checks and balances on human nature, they rein it in and limit it, but at the end of the day, if people refuse to do the right thing there is nothing anyone can do about it. You canâ€t fix human nature with legislation.

If we can just keep our Constitution intact, those checks and balances will be there waiting to be utilized as we step up to the plate and elect more and more legislators who understand the Constitution and are willing to shake things up. Our job is to quit looking for quick fixes and focus on plowing and planting for a long-term harvest.

Until then, the only thing standing between us and utter ruin right now is the most sublime example of representative government in the history of mankind: the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789.

Letâ€s not sink our own lifeboat.