Creating the Future Together

When I visited the People's Republic of China in 1984, I was struck by the enthusiasm the people had. As one professor at Fudan University put it, "yes, there have been excesses in the past. But look how far we've come in 35 years. And together, we are building the future!"

With the advent of a new administration, there is always the jubilation of the victors combined with the sour grapes of the losers. The victors typically have grand plans, especially for the first 100 days, the honeymoon period.

The challenge for the loyal opposition is to work for the common good, being prepared to recommend alternative approaches to achieving shared goals.

I think we conservatives have a unique opportunity to demonstrate that we too want to live in a peaceful and prosperous country, where the blessings of liberty and justice extend to all her citizens. We just believe that there may be better ways to achieve those ends than the liberals typically propose.

We can help lead the conversation in several ways. First off, remember the first rule of marketing, that people make decisions based on emotion and then justify the decision with reason. It's the emotional connection of the vision that motivates people, and we need to focus on creating powerful positive visions of the future we want to strive for. Fear makes us shrink, while aspiration and hope let us grow.

Second, be willing to challenge assumptions behind policy prescriptions. For example, the whole argument for taxing carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) is based on the assumption that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" that is goosing global warming. As the IBD Editorial page noted yesterday, evidence is amassing that the overall climate stopped its warming trend in 1998 and we may be entering an extended cooling period. If there's no global warming, there's no need to worry about restrictions on CO2, whether it's a culprit or not.

Third, absent empirical data, suggest pilot studies as experiments to provide guidance in setting policy, rather than wholesale implementation of questionable approaches to achieving stated goals. Capitalists point out that the "market" allows competing approaches to be tested and refined something that Darwinists should applaud! Fortunately, when it comes to economic and tax policy, there are a lot of case studies among the 50 states to provide clues on what approaches are effective and which are counterproductive.

Let me close with a quote from President Reagan's first inaugural address:

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.

Related posts:
When Social Justice is Counterproductive
Creating Positive Change
The Vision Thing

Congratulations

Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama.

May he and those in his administration do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. (after Micah 6:8).

When Social Justice is Counterproductive

Who doesn't support the lofty ideal of "social justice"? It has such a nice high moral tone to it.

But what does it mean in practice? That's much harder to determine, for "social justice" covers a broad range of platitudes. Consider A Social Creed for the 21st Century from the National Council of Churches:

We Churches of the United States have a message of hope for a fearful time.

Just as the churches responded to the harshness of early 20^th Century industrialization with a prophetic “Social Creed” in 1908, so in our era of globalization we offer a vision of a society that shares more and consumes less, seeks compassion over suspicion and equality over domination, and finds security in joined hands rather than massed arms.

Inspired by Isaiah’s vision of a “peaceable kingdom,” we honor the dignity of every person and the intrinsic value of every creature, and pray and work for the day when none “labor in vain or bear children for calamity” (Isaiah 65:23). We do so as disciples of the One who came “that all may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10), and stand in solidarity with Christians and with all who strive for justice around the globe.

In faith, responding to our Creator, we celebrate the full humanity of each woman, man, and child, all created in the divine image as individuals of infinite worth, by working for:

• Full civil, political and economic rights for women and men of all races.

• Abolition of forced labor, human trafficking, and the exploitation of children.

• Employment for all, at a family-sustaining living wage, with equal pay for comparable work.

• The rights of workers to organize, and to share in workplace decisions and productivity growth.

• Protection from dangerous working conditions, with time and benefits to enable full family life.

• A system of criminal rehabilitation, based on restorative justice and an end to the death penalty.
  

In the love incarnate in Jesus, despite the world’s sufferings and evils, we honor the deep connections within our human family and seek to awaken a new spirit of community, by working for:

• Abatement of hunger and poverty, and enactment of policies benefiting the most vulnerable.

• High quality public education for all and universal, affordable and accessible healthcare.

• An effective program of social security during sickness, disability and old age.

• Tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between rich and poor, strengthen democracy, and provide greater opportunity for everyone within the common good.

• Just immigration policies that protect family unity, safeguard workers’ rights, require employer accountability, and foster international cooperation.

• Sustainable communities marked by affordable housing, access to good jobs, and public safety.

• Public service as a high vocation, with real limits on the power of private interests in politics.
  

In hope sustained by the Holy Spirit, we pledge to be peacemakers in the world and stewards of God’s good creation, by working for:

• Adoption of simpler lifestyles for those who have enough; grace over greed in economic life.

• Access for all to clean air and water and healthy food, through wise care of land and technology.

• Sustainable use of earth’s resources, promoting alternative energy sources and public transportation with binding covenants to reduce global warming and protect populations most affected.

• Equitable global trade and aid that protects local economies, cultures and livelihoods.

• Peacemaking through multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral force, the abolition of torture, and a strengthening of the United Nations and the rule of international law.

• Nuclear disarmament and redirection of military spending to more peaceful and productive uses.

• Cooperation and dialogue for peace and environmental justice among the world’s religions.

We—individual Christians and churches—commit ourselves to a culture of peace and freedom that embraces non-violence, nurtures character, treasures the environment, and builds community, rooted in a spirituality of inner growth with outward action. We make this commitment together—as members of Christ’s body, led by the one Spirit—trusting in the God who makes all things new.

Oh, where to begin? Alex LaBrecque writes,

"The founder of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, regarded churches as an ideal vehicle for advancing the Marxist cause."

What's so Marxist about the Social Creed above? The Rev. Mark H. Creech observes:

What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced. Therefore, the image of God in man — his creativity and productivity — is suppressed, while those who are indolent prosper.

What is more, socialistic principles fail to take into account man's depravity — his fall away from God and into sin. The socialist contends if man's environment is changed, he will change. He'll be better to his neighbor. It discounts man's need for redemption in Christ and contends that if all have an equal share, then there is less reason to war and steal, etc. But the fact is socialistic principles change nothing about human nature and only concentrates economic power in the hands of a few sinful individuals who are more able to exploit the public. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps more germain is that the NCC's Social Creed lists lots of "common good" theories that have been miserable failures in practice:

• Employment for all, at a family-sustaining living wage, with equal pay for comparable work.

The living wage laws that numerous communities have instituted drive up costs but keep the poor poor, according to a study from the Cato Institute.

• The rights of workers to organize, and to share in workplace decisions and productivity growth.

Powerful unions at GM, Ford, and Chrysler haven't prevented layoffs or plant closings - see How Detroit Drove Into a Ditch from this weekend's Wall Street Journal. And let's not forget the effort by unions to have Congress pass card-check legislation which even Sen. McGovern deplores. (You can read more at EmployeeFreedom.org and Bad Labor Law Is a Path to Economic Ruin.)

• High quality public education for all and universal, affordable and accessible healthcare.

• An effective program of social security during sickness, disability and old age.

The Democrats' prescription for universal health insurance is predicted to lead to fully socialized medicine like Canada and Great Britain. Yet we ignore at our peril the examples of US government hospital systems which have been fraught with scandal and poor service for decades. If the Federal Government can't do military hospitals well, why should we expect better results if they're in charge of all health care? As for Social Security, it's a fiscal timebomb waiting to explode if current law isn't changed.

• Tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between rich and poor, strengthen democracy, and provide greater opportunity for everyone within the common good.

Hmmm. To reduce disparities between rich and poor, either we make the poor richer or the rich poorer or both. "Spreading the wealth around", as Senator Obama told Joe the Plumber, usually means redistribution of income, not increasing opportunity for everyone to succeed and become richer. Investor's Business Daily notes:

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.

This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Hugh Hewitt predicts, "An Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika will shutter the creation of wealth in the country, though it will do an extremely good job of spreading existing wealth around through massive transfers through the federal government."

• Public service as a high vocation, with real limits on the power of private interests in politics.
  

Do we really want to make the solons in Washington and the state capitols even more detached and arrogant than they already are? If I have a beef with Congress, the First Amendment guarantees that I have a voice, whether I do it myself or band together with others and hire a lobbyist. The McCain-Feingold Act was intended to insulate politicians from the "corrupting" power of big-money donors. Instead, it hinders political speech and pushes the big money donors into the shadows where they're harder to find but just as manipulative of the process.

And then there's the requisite diatribe against prosperity in the Social Creed:

• Adoption of simpler lifestyles for those who have enough; grace over greed in economic life.

I liked what Peter L. Berger had to say in Pennies From Heaven:

Poverty (of sorts) is suddenly in fashion. Politicians and commentators blame the financial crisis on greed, not only by malefactors on Wall Street but also by all the denizens of Main Street who live beyond their means, accumulate useless possessions and despoil the environment. It is not quite clear what a nongreedy Wall Street would look like. But for the rest of us, after due repentance, the solution to our financial woes is held to be a more ascetic life. If it is voluntary, rather than compelled by circumstance, it has the glow of moral superiority. "Green is good," says a latter-day Gandhi as he goes to work by bicycle. But if you are really poor, asceticism does not mean giving up your SUV -- it means eating just one meal a day because it is all you can afford.

Far more attractive to poor people, who are a majority of its adherents, is the "prosperity gospel," a version of Christianity asserting that material benefits will come to those who have faith, live a morally upright life and, not so incidentally, give money to the church. Broadly speaking, this is what Max Weber called the Protestant Ethic, but with much less emphasis on self-denial and more on hard work, planning for the future, family loyalty and educating one's children.

The last four are precepts the Left uses as rationale for economy-busting "carbon" taxes with mis-placed priorities; anti-trade legislation; withdrawal from Iraq in the face of victory; subverting the US Constitution and national sovereignty; and cutting military spending no matter what. (And note that there's evidence the earth may be cooling, not warming.)

• Sustainable use of earth’s resources, promoting alternative energy sources and public transportation with binding covenants to reduce global warming and protect populations most affected.

• Equitable global trade and aid that protects local economies, cultures and livelihoods.

• Peacemaking through multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral force, the abolition of torture, and a strengthening of the United Nations and the rule of international law.

• Nuclear disarmament and redirection of military spending to more peaceful and productive uses.

Platitudes, by definition, sound wonderful. But when the policy prescriptions that go with them make a bad situation worse, we need to rethink the assumptions and world-view behind them.


Further reading:

A Reality Check On Obama's Wish List, Michael Barone in IBD Editorials

T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

The Vision Thing

If you focus on what you left behind, you will never be able to see what lies ahead.

- Chef Gusteau, "Ratatouille"

One of the main tenets of The Secret is that in order to attract what you want in life, you must do two things: have a clear vision of what you want to have happen, and make it vivid emotionally so you are passionate about it coming into your life.

The passion is critical, for without it, you simply have wishful thinking.

The Law of Attraction can be used for good or ill, however, just like the dark side of the Force in the Star Wars movies.

These days, we are beset by enemies who are patient in their hatred of our freedoms and Western Civilization in general. Not only radical Islamofascists, but Marxist revolutionaries like William Ayers who are determined to overthrow -- or undermine -- this country, following the methods prescribed by Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky and his disciples preach an anti-gospel of sorts, that focuses on the negative to get people emotionally involved in "change". From Frontpage Magazine:

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.”[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict”[41] and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’”[42] “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44] precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.

Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”[47] He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”[48] [Ed: emphasis added]

Are we in danger of losing our cherished way of life to those who are more passionate about their nihilism than we are about creating a brighter future, building on our many strengths as a nation?

If so, then part of the problem is what we're focusing on and putting our energies into, courtesy of the "if it bleeds it leads" mainstream media. We are focused on our past and our pain, not our future aspirations. Just where the radicals want us.

What we believe about the world around us shapes our actions and behaviors. We limit the options we're willing to consider, the possible futures we can conceive. And our basic attitude of optimism or pessimism further influences how we think the game of life will unfold, for better or for worse.

I think part of the left's antipathy toward Governor Palin is due to her optimism and glad heart. As Beldar noted, "Sarah Palin's campaigning is infused with contagious joy":

I'm watching Sarah Palin address a campaign rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania, live on Fox News, and I can't recall ever seeing a GOP rally like this. The crowd is genuinely pumped, which is rare enough. But what's particularly amazing is watching and listening to Gov. Palin. I can't recall ever seeing a politician who so clearly relishes campaigning. She's animated and enthused. I know she's speaking from a teleprompter, and she's probably delivered large chunks of this same speech before many times, but she's tuned in on every line.

She is simply infused with joy. And it flows off the stage, and it's picked up quite powerfully by the TV cameras.

I propose that it's time for us to help our elected officials define the world we want to live in, locally, state-wide, nationally, and globally. The challenge is to define Utopia in positive terms, not as an absence or negative of something. It's not about "hope" or "change". It's about a crystal clear vision of that shining city on the hill.

However, it's hard to remember you came to drain the swamp when you're fighting the alligators.

For example, say there are pot-holes on your street. If you're like most people, you'd probably complain about them to your family, and commiserate with your neighbor when he pays for an alignment after hitting one with his car. If you're moderately ambitious, you might even call up City Hall and complain to the surly civil servant on the other end of the phone. You focus a lot of energy on the fact of the potholes, and are exquisitely sensitive to how quickly they seem to multiply.

Rather than focus on the pot-holes, imagine your street with new asphalt, clean sidewalks, happy children playing in the yards, friendly neighbors, and a spirit of optimism bathing the neighborhood. Talk to your family, neighbors, and friends about how you'd like the world to be. Take action as the opportunities arise, staying focused on the goal.

Count your blessings, and nurture the seedlings of what's good in your life. You may be surprised at the results!

Remembering 9/11/2001

It's been seven years since the planes were aimed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet even while we were in shock from the tragedies and filling the church pews, some clergy were already counseling us to seek inside ourselves to change that which provoked the attacks.

In other words, they told us to blame the victims for the crime.

I reject that interpretation. After all, the radical jihadists have made it quite clear that they have no desire to share the planet with us infidels.

Four years later, 9/11 fell on a Sunday and my pastor opted to use a memorial litany that made my blood boil. So I wrote a letter to my pastor in protest, "Why I didn't go to Church today", dissecting the litany and proposing a new one. Herewith is my Litany for Liberal Christians:

We have focused on our own short-comings as individuals and as a nation with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but failed to move forward and seek constructive ways to build a better world.

We have been fearful of change, clinging to failed policies and ideologies, unwilling to face realities that don't fit neatly into how we understand the world works.

We have learned the wrong lessons from history, focused on our mistakes and ignored our victories.

We have cheered when cartoon heroes fight evil doers, but declined to call evil by name in the real world. We have apologized to our enemies for our very existence while rebuking our leaders for fighting that evil.

We have been hypocrites, piously intoning our commitment to freedom and self-determination for all people, freedom of religion, economic justice, and women's rights, while castigating those who are working to achieve those lofty ideals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere.

We have been timid in our Christianity, instead making sacrifices at the altars of "multi-culturalism" and "political correctness" that have sapped our strength and undermined the Great Commission to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Great God, forgive us.

Related posts:
Why I didn't go to Church today
Litany for Liberal Christians
Overcoming Evil with Good
Stuck on Stupid
Creating Positive Change

The more things change...

When I visited Leningrad in 1984, our tour group visited the Museum of Ethnography. We had an unusual group: 37 women engineers, three husbands, and 1 male tour guide. Our city Intourist guide was thus inspired to share a feminist joke while we viewed a life-size scene of two Russian men sitting at a small table in a home's parlor with a wife(?) standing behind them circa 1900. It went something like this:

A husband and wife went out to dinner at a restaurant where there was a band and dance floor. After a while, the manager came up to the table and addressed the husband.

"Oh sir, your wife is a vision of loveliness. I would be most honored if I could have a dance with her."

"Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner," the husband replied.

After a while, the manager came back. "Oh sir, I implore you to let me dance with your wife this evening. She lights up the room. She is a beautiful flower. I will pine away if I can't dance with her."

"Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner," the husband repeated.

A third time, the manager came over to plead his case. This time, however, the wife responded, "Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner. Please leave us be."

The manager flew into a rage, and turning to the woman, spat out, "Shut up bitch! Can't you see that two gentlemen are conversing?"

Creating Positive Change

In September 1984, I visited the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union with a People-to-People tour organized by the Society of Women Engineers. We traveled to Shanghai, Bejing, Moscow and Leningrad over the course of two weeks. China was just beginning to open up to Western visitors. In Beijing, we were housed at the Diaoyutai State Guest House, in the same quarters that Henry Kissinger used while opening diplomatic relations during the Nixon administration. We were in the USSR just after Andropov had died, Chernenko was in power, and Gorbachev would take over in a few months.

I was struck by how different the attitudes and outlooks were between the two cultures. In China, where they were getting ready to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the PRC's founding, the attitude was "yes, there were grave mistakes made in the past, but together we are building the future!" The people were optimists, proud of their accomplishments, forward-looking, and very curious about us Americans.

In Russia, where almost 40 years after the end of WWII sugar was still rationed, the propaganda line amounted to, "If you only knew how much we suffered under the National Socialists (Nazis), you'd understand why we haven't gotten anywhere." The people tended to be morose, passive, and seemingly proudest about the glory days of the Czars! (The post-war restoration of Petrodvorets, the Summer Palace, is an amazing story in its own right. The Nazis had razed it during the seige of Leningrad, leaving only the foundation and one wall standing.)

I tell you this tale because I see a similar attitudinal divide between the Democrats and Republicans. And attitudes matter. I wrote after the 2006 elections:

The stories we tell ourselves say a lot about what we want to do, and what we think of ourselves. Stories help us tether abstract ideas to the real world, providing concrete examples of the principles the leader wants us to consider. The language we use is important, for it can inspire us or depress us, encourage us to find new answers or chastise us for trying to change the system. We can imagine the best of all possible worlds, or worry ourselves into a pit of despair.

The Democrats denigrate this country, lecture her people, and belittle our accomplishments: change for them is couched as being against what is wrong.

The Republicans celebrate this country, encourage her people to greatness, and build on our accomplishments to make America greater and stronger ethically, economically, and spiritually. Fred Thompson said to the RNC:

[W]hat we're doing at this convention is also important to our country, because we're going to nominate the next president and vice president of the United States of America.

We do so while taking a different view of our country than that of the other party. Listening to them, you'd think that we were in the middle of a Great Depression that we're down, disrespected, incapable of prevailing against challenges that face us. Now, we know that we have challenges. Always have, always will. But we also know that we live in the freest, strongest, most generous and prosperous nation in the history of the world and we're thankful for that. [Emphasis added]

I still remember President Reagan and his ability to inspire me with his vision for our country. He was an aspirational leader, preaching hope and high ideals:

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

President Reagan delivered this speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.

Related posts:
Inflection Point
Changing the Conversation

Update: Check out Dr Sanity's post, "GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION"

...McCain, with a little help from Palin, in a short time has suddenly made most of the non-committed Americans realize the kind of change they really want:
-They want to be proud of America again and not be constantly told how 'evil' it is;
-They want America to get on with winning its wars without all the PC posturing and military bashing;
-They want government to help the less fortunate, but not to tax those who work hard to the extreme; while financially rewarding those with poor judgment and a grand sense of entitlement. Americans want to help out "the little guy"--probably more than any culture (and we are the most giving culture in the world); but we help them so they can get back on their feet; not so they can constantly put their hands out for more. As a culture we still believe there are consequences for bad judgment and behavior (though sadly, that attitude is becoming more politically incorrect every year as more and more "victims" vie for cash handounts and special treatment).
-They want government not to stand in the way of the their life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness.

Reforming Congress

In his acceptance speech last Thursday, Senator McCain said:

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington.

The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as President. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not.

Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it. This amazing country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.

We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.

The harsh reality, however, is that intransigent majority leaders in Congress such as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Senator Reid, can and will oppose every good idea from a Republican President unless it is to the obvious benefit of the Democrats. Consider today's editorial from the Wall Street Journal, "Quicksand for Judges":

Since the beginning of the year, the Senate has confirmed a total of four nominees to the federal circuit courts -- including Democrat Helene White, whose appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was part of a compromise with Bush nominee Raymond Kethledge. The confirmation of Judge Steven Agee on the Fourth Circuit was likewise the product of a deal between Virginia Senators Jim Webb and John Warner, displacing the nomination of highly respected nominee Duncan Getchell, who withdrew in frustration at the interminable wait.

And who can blame Mr. Getchell? According to the Committee for Justice, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees has risen to 348 days during the Bush Administration from an average of 238 days under President Clinton. Nominations by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan made it through in an average of 69 days each.

That sorry record has been overlooked in the media, which is good for Majority Leader Harry Reid because it belies his multiple promises. In a letter to us in June, Mr. Reid said Senate Democrats would "treat President Bush's judicial nominees with more respect than President Clinton's received from a Republican Senate."

Today that looks like a whopper. In President Clinton's final two years of office, a Republican Senate confirmed 15 circuit court judges and 57 district court judges. Merely to match that record, Senate Democrats will need to confirm five more circuit court nominees and nine more district court nominees when they return for a session that will only last a few weeks.

Even White House capitulation hasn't earned any Senate concessions. In recent months, the White House has repeatedly dumped "controversial" (read: conservative) nominees in favor of candidates who either came off the lists of home-state Senators or had otherwise garnered the blessing of liberals on the Judiciary Committee. Yet even "moderate" nominees like Glen Conrad on the Fourth Circuit haven't been spared last-ditch obstruction tactics. When Mr. Conrad was nominated in May, Mr. Leahy suggested the nomination may have come too late.

This doesn't bode well for Mr. McCain when he becomes President. His efforts with the so-called Gang-of-14 to get President Bush's judicial nominations through the Senate did little to improve the process overall, and were irrelevant once Democrats took control of the Senate again under Harry Reid. After the 2006 elections, Hugh Hewitt wrote:

From June of 2001 through April of 2005, the Senate's Democrats radicalized the nomination process, further dismembering a process already disfigured by their disgusting attacks on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, and which had not recovered despite the GOP's rejection of such tactics during the confirmation hearings of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer.

Finally, in April of 2005, the GOP's 55 member majority had identified at least 50 from among its numbers to confirm a ruling from the Senate's Chair that would have delivered on the promise of "up or down votes on the floor of the Senate for all judicial nominees," by declaring that it was not acceptable under Senate rules to filibuster judicial nominees.

Had such a vote occurred, a crucial part of the constitutional order would have been restored. There would have been political aftershocks, but the vast majority of GOP senators and, crucially, the voters and donors who had elected the 55, were ready to fight for this key principle.

And then Senator McCain threw the principle --and many fine nominees-- under the bus. The window dressing for this surrender was the confirmation of some fine judges. But, and this is a key "but." they would have been confirmed anyway after the vote on the "constitutional option."

The Gang of 14 did not even work in the term now ending. Many fine nominees who ought to have received votes under the "deal," didn't. They may never get them.

It is commendable that Senator McCain and Governor Palin are well-versed in bipartisan efforts. However, in order for McCain to fulfill his campaign promises most effectively for lower taxes, judges that won't legislate from the bench, and less government intrusion in our lives, he needs Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

Vote Republican this fall! Contribute to the GOP! Get active!

I'm supporting Mark Ellmore for Congress representing Virginia's 8th District and Jim Gilmore for Senate.

The Downside of Acquisition Reform

Recently, I attended a "Hot Topics" Forum at the Defense Acquisition University. The topic was the Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Developmental Test & Evaluation. The speaker (non-attributed) discussed the findings and recommendations from the report, substantially covering the Executive Summary of the report.

The Task Force was "asked to recommend changes that may contribute to increasing the number of programs undergoing Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) being evaluated as Operationally Effective and Operationally Suitable." The Task Force examined practices for Army, Navy, and Air Force. The main findings include:

• The high suitability failure rates were caused by the lack of a disciplined systems engineering process, including a robust reliability growth program, during system development
• Sequential workforce cuts in the last ten years had a significant adverse impact on the DoD acquisition capability
• Acquisition personnel reductions combined with loss of guidance documents and retirement of experience senior industry and government personnel have exacerbated the adverse impact
• Strong OSD and Service leadership commitment is vital to solving the major acquisition problems which include widespread suitability deficiencies
• The implementation of Acquisition Reform provided flexibility but, when combined with an eroding workforce, sometimes resulted in less discipline in program formation and execution
• DT&E needs improvement but changes in test processes will not remedy systemic program formulation and execution deficiencies
• Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) shortfalls are frequently identified during DT, but program constraints (schedule and funding) often preclude incorporating fixes and delaying IOT&E
• Additional emphasis on integrated testing will improve T&E process efficiency as well as allow for program cost reductions

The cover letter states: "The single most important step necessary to correct high suitability failure rates is to ensure programs are formulated to execute a viable systems engineering strategy from the beginning, including a robust RAM program, which includes reliability growth, as an integral part of design and development. No amount of testing will compensate for deficiencies in RAM program formulation."

To put it another way: you can't test in quality.

Many program managers, both in the government and private industry, consider a thorough development test program too expensive, so it's often short-changed in funding and/or schedule from the start. The fact that test & evaluation (T&E) is typically the last phase in the development process means that T&E gets squeezed further if the product development exceeds budget or is late because it's the last opportunity to try and bring the overall program in on time and on budget.

Unfortunately, without a comprehensive strategy to build in quality -- both in product development and program management -- the program manager often has to pay even more for testing than originally estimated due to rework/redesign and subsequent retest to deal with the inevitable problems. There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over.

There is a political point to be made here. Both Presidential candidates promise "change", but the intent and implementation of the change can be worse than maintaining the status quo.

One of the maxims I learned long ago is that HOW change is implemented goes a long way toward its ultimate success. The Congress' approach to acquisition reform needs to be rethought: their mandating personnel cuts without regard for the side effects have created worse waste and overruns than when they started.

Related posts:
Airbus Discovers Integration Matters
Not the way to roll out software!

Mistakes and Redemption

A caller to Hugh Hewitt this evening mentioned how redemptive the Palin's approach to their daughter's pregnancy is.

It brought to mind one of the most prominent out-of-wedlock pregnancies in history: Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph of Nazareth. The child she bore would change the world. Joseph wasn't really happy about the situation, since the baby wasn't his and the opportunity for scandal was large. But he had a dream and it changed his mind. As Matthew's Gospel records (KJV):

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Joseph accepted Mary and loved her and the child she bore. What a wonderful example for the rest of us.

Political Calculus

My two cents on the political reasons for canceling the evening events for the Republican National Convention today.

1. Hurricane Gustav, aside from being a reminder of the devastation wrought in New Orleans by the levee breaks after Katrina, will pre-empt media attention from anything going on in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The fact that the media are pushing the Katrina comparisons to hype the drama of a natural disaster-in-the-making doesn't help.
2. Why give talking points to the Democrats? Katrina tarnished the Bush administration, the Dems like to say that McCain is another Bush, and even if he isn't, the Dems would hound the Republicans for "partying" and not feeling the pain of the victims.
   

I think this is another example of McCain's OODA loop being inside the opposition's. He pre-empted their entire line of attack by changing the ground rules again.

Astute Blogger has more.

Related Katrina posts: "Angels in Disguise", "After the Storm", "The Great Trailer Debate"

The Feminist Angle on Sarah Palin

You might have noticed in my last post that I didn't mention Governor Palin's gender as a reason I'm happy Senator McCain chose her as his running mate. But I do find the feminist angle interesting.

At City Journal, Lisa Schiffren writes:

Now about that woman thing: some commentators object that Palin was chosen primarily as a sop to female voters, especially disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Well, of course the McCain campaign wants to entice those women to vote for the Republican ticket. Putting together coalitions is how elections are won. Women happen to be 52 percent of the electorate. Ignoring them, let alone insulting them as Barack Obama is perceived to have done, is politically foolish. Some worried that McCain would pick a token woman, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas—she of the long Washington tenure, liberal Republican views, and few accomplishments (though she does look the part). Instead, he surprised many by picking Palin.

Hugh Hewitt linked to a wonderful essay today by John Mark Reynolds. In it he writes:

Women like Palin do not ask for respect, they earn it. They may not like it when their previous work is denigrated, but they move on. That is wise.

That does not mean that the rest of us have to put up with narrow-minded foolishness that thinks only paid work gives valuable experience, that writing your own autobiography twice is always more interesting than helping run the family business and educating your kids, or that chattering as a guest on Sunday talk shows gives a better education than doing hard physical labor.

A wise culture would look at the sum of Sarah Palin’s life and her experience and be thrilled to say:

“Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” [Proverbs 31:31]

Over at PoliPundit.com, W.C. Varone linked to the YouTube video ad put out by the die-hard Hillary supporters known as PUMAs (as in Party Unity My A**!). The ad is "PUMAs for Palin", and it closes:

Country First
Come and be a part of history
Help us forever shatter the glass ceiling
OUR time
OUR hope
OUR change
OUR moment
OUR year
Right now
And for forever

Geraldine Ferraro wrote, "There are a lot of women who are disaffected by how Hillary was treated by the media, by how she was treated by the Obama campaign, by how she was treated by the Democratic National Committee — [Democratic party chairman] Howard Dean not speaking up when sexism raised its ugly head in the media. They’ll be looking to see what happens now." And the McCain campaign quotes Ms. Ferraro saying, "The other thing I must say this is the first time that anybody who is in a national position, has publicly thanked me in 24 years." (FOX's "Fox & Friends," 8/30/08)"

That generosity of spirit, to echo The Anchoress, is already paying dividends.

Over at National Review's Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty shared some of his email from Hillary supporters. For example,

At the outset, let me note that I am THRILLED that McCain picked Palin. But, I'm extremely disappointed in the media coverage and the assertions that feminists won't support her. Such statements show a total misunderstanding of what a feminist truly is.

In the mid 1990s, Christine Hoff Sommers (a Democrat) wrote Who Stole Feminism? She opines, and I believe correctly so, that there are two types of feminists—equity feminists, who want women treated equally, and gender feminists, who basically dislike the other gender and always claim victim status. I am one of the former—I want to be treated equally and judged on merit, not on my gender. I am also pro-choice (not pro-abortion, but pro-choice). And, I have always been a Republican. I think Palin was a perfect choice. She had made it on her own—not because she is a woman and not by claiming victim status. She was judged on her merits and has basically lived the American dream. I am also greatly impressed by her decision to remain pro-life in light of the information that her fetus had Down syndrome. She was allowed to make her choice and she stood by her principles.

There are going to be lots of electrons dedicated to divining how the "feminist" vote will play out this November, with various categories applied. Over at Capitalist View, Jill Fields posits "[t]here are three types of female voters who play into the outcome of this selection (sic)": Party and policy loyalists, the feminist and women’s opportunity advocates, and glass-ceiling smashers.

Ultimately, I agree with Jim Geraghty:

The thing is, McCain doesn't need all the Hillary voters and PUMAs. He just needs... enough.

Update: The indispensable Betsy's Page has more - "Palin and the women's vote"

Count me in!

Wow! Senator McCain surprised me by picking Governor Palin as his running mate. But, oh my, am I delighted with the choice. Let me count the ways:

1. Senator McCain picked someone with street cred to reinforce his message about reforming the moribund Republican party, and the open-wallet Capitol Hill ethos. [The challenge will be electing a working Republican majority in either the House or the Senate that shares the same goals.]
2. Governor Palin is articulate and seems to have her priorities well-ordered. She's passionate about governing well, "with a servant's heart", and has acted on that principle as Governor.
3. Governor Palin is willing to stand up to the the politically-correct environmental lobby, having sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently on the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species (polar bear populations are increasing, by the way).
   
4. She's a breath of fresh air in a race that's been all inside-the-Beltway and Senate-centric. If nothing else, her being on the ticket is getting people talking – like a couple of 70-something European-immigrant(?) women I overheard at lunch today.
   
5. Like other state governors, she commands the Alaska National Guard "while it is not in active federal service." She has visited them in Kuwait and at the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
   

All in all, a class act.

Some scorn her experience level, but she's running for Vice-President, not President. I'm sure she'll have more opportunities as understudy to Mr. McCain if he wins in November than Truman had under FDR. She'll have the benefit of the team of advisors he assembles, plus the countless years of combined experience and institutional memory provided by the military and Civil Service bureaucracies.

Update: Check out Greta van Susteren's interview with Major General Campbell for the scoop on Governor Palin's involvement with the Alaska National Guard. (h/t Hotair)