What distresses the authors most is that the rural, Midwestern towns containing the “real Americans” politicians try to comprehend every four years have been steadily losing their best and brightest young people to more metropolitan locales over the past few decades. This exodus has caused the median age in these towns to skyrocket, caused schools to close, and created a dearth in civic leadership, economic growth, and medical facilities. As the Heartland’s “creative class” invest their human capital in cities such as Austin and Phoenix, the “regional losers—the laggard, blue-collar red states […] find themselves fighting to keep their communities and counties viable.”

Carr and Kefalas moved to a northern Iowa town to investigate this phenomenon for themselves. They discovered that students whom they aptly termed “Achievers” left not only because of unappealing employment prospects but because the town expects them to leave, attend college, and accomplish great things—despite the fact that these towns are shooting themselves in their proverbial feet. “Stayers” are towns’ underinvested in, low test scorers, those of lower-middle class status who marry right out of high school and find work locally. They enter the workforce little comprehending that they will make the same paycheck at 40 as they did at 18.

While states are scrambling to build campaigns to attract “Achievers” to return to Iowa or Kansas, Carr and Kefalas would urge small rural towns to nurture and invest in the “Stayers”—to equip and update them with technical skill sets utilizing the community college system, to emphasize computer skills, and to generally “raise the human capital of those who stay.” They also recommend that there be a “national call to move to sustainable agriculture and green energy technology” to the heartland, and that immigrants be given the opportunity to gain legal status and work in well-regulated industries.

But why should Americans care about the future of small towns in our heartland? After all, in a capitalist system, are there not going to be winners and losers? Carr and Kefalas argue that it isn’t that simple: the country, they claim, couldn’t properly function without these small Midwestern towns. Our food and other natural resources come from these areas, they say. Do we really want to see the continued propagation of cheap and unhealthy food grown by large corporations? The Midwest is ground zero for sustainable agriculture, as well as green energy. It is one of the best places to develop wind and solar power. The region is also historically central to the health of the nation, they argue, and America is best when unified. We should care about all parts of our country; as we care for struggling urban areas, we should also invest in struggling rural ones.

As disastrous as I believe President Obama’s domestic policy to be, it pales when compared to his foreign policy with regard to the “elections” in Iran; a foreign policy that would be generously described as tepid, insincere, passionless, or even disinterested. 

Let me be clear: with regard to the sham elections and the violent fallout that has arisen as a result, the position of the Leader of the Free World should be a full-throated denouncing of the criminal tactics of Ahmadenijad and his ilk, and unwavering support of the protestors and a call for outside, neutral investigations and recount. 

Perhaps President Obama is simply nervous about inserting the full power of the US government into delicate and difficult circumstances.  Still, he has felt no compunction about telling Israel how it should handle the delicate situation in Gaza.  As we are some of Israel’s last allies, a scolding from our Commander-in-Chief is hardly the kind of support a nation under almost constant terrorist attack needs.  And his domestic policy would certainly suggest that there is little he believes the US government is unable to fix.  But that is for another post.

Yet for all of this, somehow the best we can manage when the democratic process is ignored in a state already on the edge of an international confrontation for its nuclear program, combined with its rampant anti-Semitism, and it’s support of multiple terrorist organizations, is this, “It is not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections.”

It remains unclear how stating that injustice is being done to an entire populace is “meddling” and apparently even President Obama’s own administration finds his inarticulate defense of free and fair elections to be less than appropriate.  While I recognize that care is necessary when dealing with the internal politics of any other nation, especially a nation such as Iran, I think it is ridiculous that any President would feel the need to tip-toe around publically denouncing the killing of political protestors, or the violent repression of a free election.  It is not redundant to state publically what we are for, and what we oppose, especially in a case such as this.  For the people of Iran, the powers that be all seem to have conspired against them; why should we flinch from demonstrating how different we are?

Perhaps we could forgive Mr. Obama; after all, this is only the second time in less than a year that the cause of freedom and liberty have been challenged while he had access to the largest microphone in the civilized world.  Or, perhaps the President is simply not comfortable being the spokesman for Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.  One begins to wonder exactly which basic principles of our society, if any, he is comfortable promoting.

First, it’s redundant.  Is there any doubt that anyone in Iran (much less, the world) knows whose side the Americans are on in this conflict?  A diverse population, young and old, rich and poor, clergy and laity, Persian and Arab, male and female, are uniting in peaceful protest in the streets of Iran’s major cities, marching in silence against corruption and violence in their electoral system.  The protests echo the footsteps on US-80 to Montgomery, and earlier ones to the sea at Dandi.  It is a movement that is growing exponentially by the day, with almost 3 million people reported at rallies today to mourn those murdered by the Basij for participating.  Is there even a chance that the world might question, especially in light of recent clashes with Ahmadenijad, what outcome American leaders favor?

Second, it would undermine the movement.  The election wasn’t about American-Iranian relations.  The protests don’t even represent a massive ideological divide in the Iranian electorate.  As many commentators have observed, Mousavi’s policies aren’t dramatically dissimilar to those of Ahmadenijad.  This movement is about political legitimacy.  Iran is an illiberal democracy, a system with the trappings and functions of a democratic state but without the guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties necessary to maintain a true democracy.  The Guardian Council decides who may or may not run for office, but the Iranian people expect that the elections themselves will be legitimately decided by the voters.

This election was obviously and audaciously rigged.  The movement is a genuine, grassroots rejection of the results by the electorate.  Already, the Iranian government is attempting to prove that the U.S. and Israel are behind the protests, to discredit this as genuine outrage on behalf of the citizens of Iran.  We must not lend aid to that attempt at propaganda.  We must not cut the legs out from under our brothers and sisters who refuse to be silenced.  Our speech would silence them in their own country.

Third, it would endanger the protesters.  Ahmadenijad was elected by the skin of his teeth in 2005.  His popularity has declined as he failed to make good on any of his campaign promises.  The only popularity he seems able to retain in the electorate is what he gets from being an outspoken opponent of the U.S.  The more we oppose him, the more powerful he gets.  Some analysts have even speculated that he would have no power at all in Iran if not for the Bush administration’s rhetoric.  The rhetoric was intended to call him out, but some argue that it merely gave him legitimacy within the country (especially since U.S. statements rarely distinguished Ahmadenijad from the rest of Iran).

If President Obama speaks out against Ahmadenijad and the Supreme Leader’s decision to ignore the will of the people, he will only help those in power cling to it more desperately.  It could allow the government to become more brutal in its attempts to suppress the protests, casting the violence in the language of struggle against U.S. imperialism.  We must protect those who are willing to lay down their lives for freedom.  Sometimes that means not saying things that make us feel better about ourselves.

What can we do instead?  This is a time for the people of America to act on behalf of their leaders.  If you’re not on twitter, sign up here. Follow #iranelection or #gr88 to find out what’s going on.  Change your location to Tehran and your time zone to GMT +3.30 to help confuse Iranian authorities who are trying to arrest protesters.  Visit this Guide to the Cyberwar site for more information on how to help (and not accidentally hurt) the Iranians’ fight for freedom.

And pray.  As our own Rachel Motte so elegantly said, the sons of Isaac pray for the sons of Ishmael, for we all come from the same father.

Judge Sotomayor is a brilliant choice for Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court.  Though many on the Right will try to paint her as a radical liberal loose constructionist, her record shows Sotomayor is an experienced, methodical judge who painstakingly examines the intricacies of the law.  While she enthusiastically advocates an interpretation of the law that promotes equality in cases of race and gender discrimination, her ruling from the bench has demonstrated her work as a jurist who considers each case on its own terms.  She has frequently left idealism aside in order to reach a decision that accurately applies the principles of the law.

A lot will be said about comments Judge Sotomayor made at a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University Law School, which have been circulating on YouTube ever since her name was mentioned in a pool of likely candidates for nomination:

All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court-of-appeals experience, because it is – court of appeals is where policy is made.  I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law, I know. [The audience laughs.] OK, I know, I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m, you know. Um. OK.

It lacks eloquence, as off-the-cuff remarks often do, and seems to advocate unbridled judicial power.  The trouble with using this statement to prove Sotomayor is a radical revisionist who legislates from the bench is twofold.  First, her record simply doesn’t show that’s the case.  Second, it’s just a little civics 101.  Someone, usually the White House, proposes policy.  Congress enacts legislation to put that policy in action.  The Executive Branch, usually the bureaucracy, executes that policy.  But in the policymaking process, the courts determine what the law says.  That interpretation determines what the policy looks like in practice.  Instead of fearing a radical jurist, we should be delighted that a nominee to the Supreme Court recognizes that power and, so far, has cautiously exercised that power.  Let’s hope for a quick confirmation full of excellent debate over constitutional interpretation!

Of course, the more exciting judicial news of the day came around 10am Pacific time from the California Supreme Court.  In a six-to-one majority, the Court upheld the voter-approved ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, Proposition 8.  Immediately upon receiving the news, scores of protestors crowded the streets of San Francisco and other California cities, railing against the blow to human rights and calling the justices all manner of names.

Regardless of where you stand on gay marriage, however, you have to accept the legality of the situation.  The California Supreme Court wasn’t asked to rule on gay marriage at all.  In fact, its previous ruling on the subject, In re Marriage Cases in June of 2008, overturned voter initiative Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Likewise, the 2008 ruling precipitated Proposition 8, which amended California’s constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.  The question before the Court for today’s decision was simply whether or not the Constitution had been legally amended by voter initiative.  Was it an amendment, which the California constitution allows voters to determine in general election, or was it a revision, which is a legislative matter?

The question came to whether or not Proposition 8 was presented to voters in the right form, and whether or not it substantially changes the constitution’s equal protection provisions.  The Court decided today not for or against gay marriage, but that the authors of Prop 8 had done their homework while drafting the amendment.  Unfortunately, it was not in the Court’s jurisdiction to decide whether or not it’s idiotic to allow 50.1% of voters to substantially amend the state’s constitution.

Gay marriage proponents vow tonight that the fight isn’t over.  For now, in California, it seems it may be.  Much more substantial changes need to be made to the method of constitutional amendment, or a small percentage of the electorate must be convinced to overturn the amendment in the next election for anything to change.  After all, Prop 8 passed by a margin that was hardly decisive.  But even then, the fight won’t end here.  Ultimately, gay marriage is a federal issue, and must be decided by the Supreme Court.  It is the ‘full faith and credit’ clause, not any lingering moral code set forth by the Framers that pushes the argument into the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  And, it seems with the recent action on the issue in Iowa, Washington D.C., New York, and elsewhere, we won’t be able to ignore the federal battle for much longer.  The state initiatives are just a prelude to the moral conversation we must have on the issue.  Its outcome will determine who we are.

Most notably, the first African American President nominated the first Latino woman to the bench of the Supreme Court.  More on this in a moment, but all patriots should feel affirmed in their faith in our Republic.  The system does work, and even the highest halls of government are open to our minorities.  Cynics everywhere should take note; things are not actually as bad as the failing newspapers suggest.  We are not in desperate straights; we do not require someone to save us.  While it would be foolish to suggest that there are no challenges to the cohesiveness of our society, it is equally foolish (and perhaps intentionally divisive) to insist that America is hopelessly divided by prejudice.

Only slightly less noteworthy is the news that the California Supreme Court upheld the will of the voters to legally define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.  Considering the battle that was waged over this issue last year, opponents and supporters alike should take heart; the court functioned as it was intended to, and did not assert it’s preferences in direct contradiction to the desires of the electorate.  The state voted and the issue was settled by the will of the people, and by a margin of 6 – 1 the court ruled that the people had the right to make this determination.

It was a landmark day, and one that Conservatives should reflect on as we launch into what looks to be quite a busy Summer.

The ramifications of President Obama’s choice for the replacement of Justice Souter are not earth-shattering.  It’s still early, but Justice Sotomayor looks to be an unsurprising pick from a President in a position to nominate and confirm almost anyone he fancied.  All accounts suggest that she’s a moderate Liberal judge, and is hardly a threat to all the last vestiges of Conservatism.  We could not have reasonably hoped for someone less liberal (in fact, her comparitively mild ideological stance is surprising, given that this is the President’s best opportunity to nominate and confirm a Justice of his choosing).  This is the natural result of losing an election, and there seems to be little sense in opposing it simply because it is not the Conservative choice.  Conservatives may be the Opposition Party at this point, but that hardly means we should oppose everything; a necessary step towards making our voices relevant in the marketplace once more is choosing carefully which debates we take on.

Giving Sotomayor a hard time because she’s the President’s choice would be a bad call.

Rather than taking up the clarion call for a battle we cannot win, we should focus on articulating the importance of the victory we have already achieved.  We should be happy that gay marriage was not legitimatized by the courts in California; however, we cannot assume that the matter is settled.  It is vitally important to understand the significance of this victory, and to figure out how to repeat it.  Conservative ideas, in this instance, persevered in the midst of a general rout of conservatism.  We achieved this unique accomplishment for three reasons: first, we made unexpected allies; second, we managed to frame the debate in terms that made our stance broadly acceptable; and third, we were able to use the rule of law to our best advantage.

The next round is already underway and the debate will rage on until it inevitably erupts onto the Federal stage (whether it should or not).  Conservatives will need to once again articulate why traditional marriage is a foundation stone to our society, and we will need to do it in a way that does not validate the argument that the issue stems from anti-gay bigotry.  Again, as the opposition party, it is necessary to pick our fights wisely and to conduct them with percision.  This is an issue worth pushing back on, and with the momentum from today’s victory we should begin to lay the ground work for the national discussion that will follow.

If Conservatism would win it’s way back into mainstream relevance, we must be prepared to offer reasonable, persuasive arguments to the nation for why we believe what we believe.  The time to start prepping for that challenge is now.

So, what do we think about the announcement that Justice Souter will step down in June?  Who should Obama appoint to fill his seat?  Will this be the beginning of a slew of retirements from the elderly liberal justices on the Court (because let’s face it, you know several of them were just hanging on until a Democrat was in the White House!)?  Is ideological balance an ideal for the Court, or was Sorkin crazy?  What’s more important: fierce ideological debate on the Court, or uniform ideology that accomplishes your judicial agenda?  Which is more dangerous?

Let the debate begin!

~Lang

The bottom line is, between saber rattling, boycotts, the climate, disease, the economy, Presidential photo-ops, political upheaval, border relations, etc…it’s a scary world.

The United States is a leader in this scary world; some might say the most powerful leader, some would say we have lost our position as the most influential nation.  Regardless of where we sit in the global pecking order, the question that faces us is obvious: what is our responsibility when the world is faced with a crisis?  Do we make it our own, or do we close-up shop in the troubled nations and keep doing business where it’s still profitable?

We pose this question to our readers: what is America’s role in times of global crisis?  Should we use our abundance to help those struggling?  Is the first responsibility of our government to protect we, the citizens?  Should we be led to sacrifice and provide for those in need around the world by our government, or should this be reserved for private citizens?  Is international aid even feasible for private citizens, or are the problems we face so large they must be entrusted to the government?  Is Xenophobia the only good phobia?  We want to hear your thoughts!

Regardless of your politics, it is important to recognize this truth: no earthly government will solve all of your problems.  Conservatives like myself often take this to justify our argument that, in fact, no government will solve even most of our problems, and therefore we’re better of with less government.  Liberals maintain that, while our government is flawed, it is a powerful tool and might as well be usefully employed; therefore, we should use it as effectively as possible.  However, we will both agree that a necessary component towards seeing the government accomplish our goals is our own involvement. 

We have a role to play in our nation; the question is, what?

Conservative Christians in America today often get labeled as being fans of Armageddon; as if we are rooting for the end of the world in war and pain.  Unfortunately, I cannot deny that there are voices in the church that do seem to call out for the total destruction of our nation and the world, justifying this postion with the argument that such a cataclysm will bring on the Kingdom of God.  This stance puzzles and frightens those not in the church (and some within the church, to be honest); how can any group of people claim to love their neighbors, while cheering on the brutal end of the world?

I am not going to get into a eschatological debate here (as if defining and arguing about government weren’t difficult enough!) but the way we think about how this world will end does seem to color the way we live in it.  The majority of the church in America is in danger, it seems to me, of living as if tomorrow will be the last day, so we need not care how we live today.  This may be true in many areas, but in the realm of our civic duties it seems particularly prevalent. 

Our stated goal is often to merely save souls, rather than to redeem our culture.  I have recently begun to think that we cannot be effective at one if we do not participate in the other. 

Perhaps I sound like an alarmist.  We live in the United States of America, and regardless of the different surveys that Newsweek or Gallop or CNN take, for the most part this nation identifies itself as a Christian, religious nation.  What’s the worry, right?

On the other hand, much that was once the natural province of the church has been ceded to the realm of social justice.  Whereas in ages past the church was the forefront of education & charity, and would be one of the natural counsellors to those in power, today more and more the state and secular institutions are the sole providers of education & charity, and there are increased efforts to prevent any trappings of Christianity from being present in the government, or encouraged in the main-stream of the culture.

We should not be shocked that we are opposed when it comes to influencing the powerful; even if we were a neutral voice, those positions of influence are few and are always up from grabs.  Everyone wants their voice to be heard; when we fail to be convincing and impact our community, we can hardly expect to keep the same ammount of influence on the affairs of state.  Compound that with the fact that Christianity is not a morally ambivalent system of belief, and should result in a change to business as usual, which will naturally prompt opponents to actively seek to undermine us…can we really be surprised that we’re opposed in government at times?  Weren’t we assured of that very thing?  The opposition we face reflects the stakes; we fight for the soul of our nation, and it is actually our task as American Christians to work to see the nation redeemed and restored.  No one party has the monopoly on the solution; I have my preferences and arguments in favor of one over the other, but we should not limit ourselves to the same party politics that the secularists around us promote.  Our goal is more than any one politician’s agenda or political party’s platform.  Our goal is to see the Kingdom of God on earth.

Now…I am not a utopian, and I have no delusions that we can make the world perfect.  My argument is simply this; we, the Church of Christ, have this commission: to go and make disciples of all men.   Our primary interaction with our fellow man is through our own community, our neighborhoods, our governments, local and federal.  If you read this blog, I’d assume that government is something you enjoy thinking and talking about; I’d encourage you to reflect further on how the interactions you have with your community further the cause of Christ in our Nation.  Remember that a culture saturated with Christians who live lives aimed at establishing Christendom cannot remain secular for long. 

Good Christians are the foremost patriots; not because our state is the same as the church, but because the Church intends to change the nature of the state.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it… The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”

             Woodrow Wilson

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

             Thomas Paine

What is the right to Liberty, and how should the government protect and provide for it? 

I have spent time, off and on, over the past week trying to find the words to answer this question.  My best thoughts amount to this: liberty, as we refer to it in terms of government and it’s citizens, is the space provided by the government, by which the citizens are allowed to explore and appreciate the ambitions of their hearts.  Where this space exists, there is liberty; where it is absent, there is tyranny.  The greater the space, the greater the liberty: every additional intrusion by the government into the private lives and personal governance of it’s citizens is a stripping of liberty.

Should the space be absolute, should the government be entirely restricted from inserting itself into our lives?  The answer is obviously no!  We are a people of law, and our government exists to protect us and allow us the peace necessary to make the space of liberty a good thing.  Liberty without a government is not unlike the freedom of being homeless: with nothing to tie you down, the world is open to you; however, there is also nothing to shelter you from the harsh reality of the world.  We need a home to protect us; in the same way, we need a government to serve as a safe-guard against the unfetered wrath of nature. 

However, just as we would not be shut-in to our homes, never to venture out and appreciate all that the outdoors has to offer, so we will not be so encompassed in the safety of our government that it becomes impossible to enjoy the joys that exist apart from the government.  Our government’s good is not the only or even the best good.  We should not be limited to the vision of even a democratically elected representative for our future.  Our personal prosperity, so closely tied to our ability to explore and expand our horizons, is not and should not be the priority of the government; the consequence of this reality, however, is that we need the government to give us a free hand to pursue prosperity.  Less government oversight and regulations actually means broader horizons, and while there should be some safeguards, a nation where each individual is expected to make for themselves the most of the opportunities we have all been given is a nation of greater accountability and responsibility.

Our personal excellence should be allowed to flourish; likewise, we must also be permitted to pay the price of failing. 

This last point might seem controversial.  Where is the compassion in a government that allows it’s citizens to fail, and fail brutally?  It’s a fair question…my answer is, the government’s role is not to show compassion to it’s citizens.  That is the place of the citizens; we should (and do) minister to fellow citizens in need.  In fact, charitable giving is higher when the government taxes it’s people less. 

The happy result of having fewer government intrusions and restrictions to our livelihood is citizens who are more self-sufficent, more personally responsible, and more charitable.  Liberty is not merely the privelege of a free society; it is integral for the survival and flourishing of such a society.  Less government, more freedom!

Ostensibly, taxes are the quid pro quo for the services we expect from the government.  We pay taxes, they give us roads.  We pay taxes, they provide us with a national defense.  We pay taxes, they form a myriad of government agencies to employ hundreds of thousands of employees who cannot be fired regardless of they level of competence…

The honest truth is, if we do pay taxes, likely very little of our money goes towards aspects of the government we appreciate.  Be it the military or public education or the NEA, etc., its a good bet that we would spend our money differently, even if we still had to give it to the government, if we were entrusted with that responsibility. 

Which makes this the next question; Lang asked what we think of paying taxes.  I ask, what should we do with taxes?  Fund health care for illegal aliens?  Provide a bail-out for failed businesses?  Sponsor wars in Asia Minor to get more access to oil?  The possibilities are endless…what are your thoughts?