Modern Whig: Florida Whig Party has left the MWP

As some of you may know, the FWP has left the Modern Whig Party. The FWP left, according to their website, because of an unfulfilled request for information from the leadership of the MWP. Although there have been disagreements between the FWP and the MWP, this temporary separation is actually a good thing for both entities. First, it gives the MWP time to determine whether or not the FWP is a centrist, moderate organization with the same goals tenants of the MWP. Second, it gives the FWP the necessary separation to fully focus on their candidates. They are currently running three candidates for national office, which takes a lot of time and money. And finally, it allows for a cooling off period.

When you get people that are this passionate about changing things, oftentimes you end up with disagreements and hurt feelings. Passion is a great motivator but can sometimes be harmful if things get out of hand. What the FWP did was exactly what they should have done. All of us involved with the Whig movement are passionate and emotional about this. We do not get paid but spend a lot of our off time trying to do something that has not been done before, and that is, build a viable, moderate national party. We get emotionally vested, deeply vested, in the party.

It will be interesting to see if the FWP remains separate and a MWP chapter is established there or if they come back to the MWP. But, regardless, their success as a third party can only help the MWP movement, and thus, I wish them the best of luck.

Modern Whig: Expected Attacks

There has been an anonymous blogger that has decided to take it upon himself or herself to try to discredit the founders and leaders of the Modern Whig Party. They are attacking the record, integrity and patriotism of veterans and other leaders, and that is unacceptable. I ended up being part of this attack, and they tried to use my name to accomplish their goals. About a week ago, I sent an internal letter to the leadership of the MWP notifying them that I will be stepping down as chair of Georgia. The vicechairman will be taking my role. I felt it was best for Georgia as the vicechairman has a unique vision that will help Georgia, and I wanted to make sure he had all the resources he could to bring that to fruition. Well, the blogger at "The Truth About the Modern Whigs..." found out and decided to turn a letter in which I praised the organization and the people and misquoted me. It is unfortunate, but I am now consulting with other attorneys and am considering legal action against this blogger. But, there is a lesson here, in that what has been done is typical of what is going on now in politics. When our politicians disagree with each other, instead of being agreeable, they attack each other, often ending in personal attacks. Despite what you hear, most of the people that are elected are good people.

Here is a screencap of a posting about my transfer. the blogger took it down, but I had already saved the misquoted posting.

Ideologies: Their failure

People keep asking me how I can say I stand for something when I continue to refuse to adhere to an ideology (i.e. lower taxes, bigger government, etc). I often struggle with the discussion because we have been lead to believe that ideologies are solutions, when in fact, they are soundbites to lure an unwary public into voting for someone. I have discussed before concrete evidence of how ideologies simply do not work (republicans increase debt; democrats failure to solve poverty). But, I want to put it into a simple story.

A bridge manufacturer has developed an expertise in designing and building bridges using lightweight, composite materials. In fact, all they do now is build bridges using that material. Composite materials are more expensive than steel and do not have the same physical properties, but this manufacturing company is so sure of the benefit, that is refuses to build using anything else.

along comes a village in the north atlantic. they hired this company to build a bridge over a river. the crossing is buffeted by winds and freezing temperatures most of the year. ships pass through the river, creating unique currents. the conditions present a unique challenge to the company, but they are so sure of the superiority of composite materials, they convince the villagers to buy their bridge. oh yeah, since it costs a lot more, the bridge design is not as robust, but that is okay, because composites are superior to steel. the villagers believe them and spend their money on hiring the company to build the bridge. two months after the bridge was built, a cold spell hit the town. they were used to this level of temperature, but the company did not realize that it gets that cold in that part of the world. at the same time, an iceberg splits into several massive chunks which start impacting the bridge. this is normal too but the extent unknown to the bridge company. and last, but certainly not least and not unexpected, a freezing rain hits the village. as we can guess, the composite material could not handle the conditions and the bridge fails and several villagers die. it is later discovered that the use of steel would have been a superior choice at half the price.

What happened? the company was so sure of the superiority of composite material that they used all their energy into fitting it into the problem. the use of composite material was the solution (for them) and they were going to do whatever it taked to make sure that the solution they wanted was used. but, there were big problems. first, they ignored completely the issue at hand. there were unique conditions in this village that the company did not know of or bother to understand. instead, they fully relied upon prior knowledge and assumed that this situation was going to be similar. the small differences made the difference. second, they already had the solution before they analyzed the problem. they were hell bent on using composites. if they had gone into the problem with open eyes, they would have realized that composites were a bad design choice. and finally, they cut costs. the villagers could not pay for the expensive bridge they wanted, so they cut costs to still build a bridge despite the fact that the cutting of corners would seriously hamper the safety of the bridge.

Now, take that story and apply it to what we hear day in and day out from politicians. we are told we have to believe something. the democrats' solution for everything is bigger government. the republicans solution for everything is lower taxes. each problem is unique unto itself, and we deserve more than soundbites, we deserve solutions.

I end with this. Conservatives and Republicans hoist Reagan as being the beakon of conservative government. "He lowered taxes." "He decreased the size of government." go to factcheck.org or look around. You will quickly see that he did not. Reagan's genius was not in actually implementing a conservative ideology. His genius was in fooling others into believing that he did. He knew you needed to look at problems individually, and he did.

Where are the jobs?

Last november, all we heard from the Democratic leadership was how they were going to focus on jobs. Along the way, several heard the call from Rahm Emmanuel saying to not let a good crisis go to waste. So, instead of focusing on job creation, for the entire past year, Congress has essentionally been focused on healthcare reform. What amazes me is that while America bleeds jobs, Congress focuses on the largest spending program in history. It is unfortunate, but a political reality, that people who would rather not live off the taxpayer dime are forced to. There is one thing the Democratic leadership has been good at since the unfortunate passing of JFK: the creation of victims.
And the Republicans fare no better in this debate. Their proposals are loaded with special interest plays as well.

It is frustrating to see this whole thing go down. Instead of analyzing the solution for what it was, each party has decided to implement their ideologies and try to find a solution that fits within those ideologies. The square peg in the round hole. No matter what the outcome, rest assured, the solutions have little to do with the problems of healthcare costs and are only based upon ideologies and special interests. We the taxpayer get caught in the middle. This is pure laziness and power grabs by the Democratic parties (and the republicans proposed plans). Lazineses. Blindly going along with ideologies. Smaller government, lower taxes - Republicans, I hate to tell you, but everytime you elect Republicans to control either one of the houses, deficit spending goes through the roof and taxes go up. Instead of listening to how Reagan allegedly reduced taxes and reduced the size of government, go to factcheck.org and start the process of learning it yourself. Reagan's genius was not in his adherence to ideologies (he knew that ideologies are not solutions). No, Reagan's genius was in his ability to fool the people into believing that he was implementing them.

And the Democrats are the same. Instead of looking at the issues in an unbiased manner, they set forth social agenda with little regard for the actual problem. For years, spending on social programs has increased (even under Republican governments), yet, the income gap is essentially the same. Throwing money at a problem does nothing. You need to empower the people. You need to give them teh ability to work through their problems. You need to give them the chance for a victory, on their own. You need to let them feel proud. you need to quit creating victims. And btw, if anyone thinks that Republicans are in the tank for corporations, look at the pattern of corporate giving. The Democrats fare much, much better.

The point of this post, other than to just vent, is to say that enough is enough. We need people in congress that are not lazy, know how to look at a problem and solve it. Quit giving us soundbites and give us real solutions.

The Rightful Function of Government

Although I realize beforehand that in order to fully explain what I write below will take an entire treatise, I am outlining what I believe to be the function of government, and its limitations.

The power of Government (local, state, and federal) should be limited to only that which is necessary to ensure or enhance the efficient operation of society.

The size and manner of operation of Government (local, state and federal) should be extended only to the point necessary to ensure its efficient operation.

The goal of any Government should be to minimize its influence upon the individual while maximizing its effect to cause an efficiently operating society.

The default should be, when solving a problem, to go from no government intervention to full government control not start at the opinion that government is the solution to solve a problem.

Any government program should, on a yearly basis, justify both quantitatively and qualitatively how its existence provides for a benefit greater than the burden required to fund such a program.

The government of a just society would temper the realization that the only guaranteed rights are those set forth in our Constitution with the fact that a large segment of our society has, by action of law, not been able to enjoy and benefit from these guaranteed rights until relatively recently.

Question about Gay Rights

In a discussion, I was asked my opinion on Gay Marriage. While I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party, much like the differing opinions in the Democratic party, I believe that the denial of Gay Marriage rights is unconstitutional. Currently, there is a national "right" called marriage. It is not really a "right", but a status that affords the citizens that obtain a legal marriage certain benefits which include tax and survivorship benefits. In order to obtain this status, a man and a woman must have a legitimate marriage, either performed as a civil ceremony or as a civil ceremony which is part of a religious ceremony. By having a legitimate marriage, individual states cannot deny certain benefits afforded on a national level (each state has different benefits, but the marriage must be recognized).

And this is where the ban on gay marriage runs aground Constitutionally. Assuming all else is equal, each citizen is supposed to have rights equivalent to others in the same position. In other words, a woman is supposed to have at least the same rights as a man, and a man in one state is supposed to have at least the same rights under the US Constitution in one state as another. The Constitution is a quid pro quo document. It is stated in the Constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. Taking all of those together, it is illogical, and mere ideological based thinking, to deny the right of a man to marry another man when they have the right to marry a woman. That would mean that in certain situations, rights are curtailed merely based upon gender. In other words, remove all of the religious and moral arguments. At the very core, the denial of gay marriage rights is gender based discrimination.

Notice how I did not insert any moral aspects. This is merely based upon case law and logical thinking. I can be opposed morally to gay marriage yet, if I believe in the Constitution, I have to affirm the right of marriage to those of different sexual persuasion.

But, for the sake of argument, let's inject morality into this discussion. The number one reason why people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is tradition based upon the fact that this country was founded by Christians. While I do not want to get into a lengthly discussion of the Christianity of our founders, they were also white, men, and half slave owners, so by that logic, we should also remove the rights of minorities and woman and bring back slavery. Do you see the absurdity? But I digress. Let's get back to the moral aspects. So, if the union between a man and a woman is more moral than the union between a woman and a woman, why are their laws permitting divorce? Divorce is the absolute destruction of a marriage, and in some religious orders, a moral sin. Yet, we seem to be comfortable as a society with this aspect.

See, the problem with morality is that it only works for those with the exact same viewpoints. While it is great that we live our lives in a moral fashion according to our own beliefs, what is our right to force our morals onto others? I cannot remember where I heard this, but to me, this rings true. "I am fearful of the day in which my guns and my religion are controlled by the same organization."

Fortunately, for us, America is composed of people with morals and ethics that span opinions. While we must legislate baseline morality (e.g. no killing, no theft, etc.), we should rely upon our Constitution and our desire as Americans to include all rational and reasonable viewpoints. To me, although others in the Modern Whig Party may have differing opinions, this type of thought process is the way of the moderates and the way of the Georgia Modern Whig Party.

Are Whigs Republican-Lite

There is a great discussion going on right now in a posting the Daily Kos about the article of the Georgia Modern Whig Party made it look like we were Republican-lite. There are some great comments and some offhanded insults, but really most were genuine in their analysis.

Unfortunately, because of space, my comments regarding my political ideologies was unfortunately cut-off. Mr. Howard provided a great, balanced article, but I think the fact that he only invited comment from the Republican county leader evidenced that I may have not made my point. I am a moderate. I believe that the solutions to a problem come from various sides of the political spectrum. We are reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans that are increasingly left behind by their parties. We believe in being socially progressive.

But, please let me be clear, I believe that ideological based solutions are incomplete and an incompetent manner in which to govern. How long do we as citizens have to suffer from dealing with politicians that pander to their extreme base by offering solutions based not on logic or data, but rather, on ideologies. The constant and incessant attempt to fit the proverbial square peg in a round hole is hurting us all.

To the leaders in Georgia, and from what I have gathered by talking to my fellow citizens in Georgia, being a moderate is not about being a middle of the road type of person. That tends to lead someone to believe that we believe in nothing, which is absolutely untrue. Rather, we believe that being a moderate is not succumbing to ideologies and putting forth rational, common sense solutions.

We believe in principles and goals, not ideologies. We believe in accountability and measurability, not ideologies. We believe in having an open mind, realizing that listening to opposing viewpoints is an opportunity to learn rather than a sign of weakness. No single one of us has all the answers, but together we do. It is this moderate thought process that gave us the Constitution.