Your Facebook status updates note your intense displeasure over North Carolina voters approving Amendment One. Since as a North Carolina resident you had some actual say in the matter, and to your credit you put boots on the ground by manning the phone banks urging your fellow NCers to vote no, I suspect the last person you want to hear from right now is your überconservative California uncle. However, since as you know I seldom do what people prefer, and considering how I am perhaps the only Republican Deadhead on the planet, my take on things thus leaning toward the individualistic, I’ll chime in.

First, it’s important to note, as you have, that Renee Ellmers, who I hold in the highest regard as a solid conservative who lives in the real world, opposed the amendment. Her stated reason that, while she is opposed to gay marriage, the amendment overreached by also banning civil unions is significant. I know there are those on the right screaming Ellmers should be thrown off the tea party train for this alleged crime against humanity, but since there are always purist zealots ranting about how the slightest variance from their definition of The Way Things Ought To Be is cause for political excommunication it’s no big. I imagine you get the same loose marbles on the left. Well, even looser than the usual loons, a/k/a 99 44/100% of all liberals. (Just making sure you haven’t forgotten I’m your uncle. But I digress.)

It’ll doubtless be no surprise to you that you and I hold different opinions on gay marriage. What may surprise you is the difference. You support gay marriage. I don’t support it. Don’t oppose it either. When it comes to gay marriage, I’m pure honey badger: don’t care. Deeply, profoundly, overwhelmingly don’t care.

My opinion is the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business period. It should issue civil union licenses, without which a couple cannot marry, solely to those who qualify; again in my opinion it should be two consenting adults not from the same family and over twenty-one (I’ve never met a nineteen year old who was ready for that marriage thing which usually takes place after the wedding… and yes, I’m still Uncle Grump). Marriage should be strictly a church issue with zero state participation. Obviously San Francisco’s Metropolitan Community Church would have a different marriage policy than the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption. That’s all right. There is a difference between legal status as a couple and being married. The former is a state matter; the latter a church matter. If a denomination doesn’t believe gay marriages are legitimate, that’s their right. And vice versa. Marriage should be in the eyes of the church. Period.

Note I said two consenting adults, from which one might infer I support gay marriage. I don’t. To me, marriage is one man and one woman. I have gay friends. I pray they find successful relationships, and I’ve counseled more than one on their relationships; not in an effort to dissuade them but rather in the hope of helping them become a stronger couple. That doesn’t mean I believe they have the right to marry each other. If what I suggest above were to become law they could, and I’m fine with that. But not in my church. That doesn’t make me a hater. It makes me a believer in traditional marriage, and it’s my hope that belief will be respected.

Which leads me to the next point: respect. I hope you don’t fall prey to demonizing people who see things, and vote, different than you. I doubt you will; you’re a smart kid (and you’ll always be a kid to me even though you’ve hit the big 4-0). It’s a repulsive thing when people go off the deep end and go off personally on those who see things differently. Don’t go there. Stay calm; stay respectful. Use logic and reason to make your point. If someone continues to disagree, let it be and move on to someone else. Always, always be the better.

There is another aspect to respect. Namely, respecting the people’s will. North Carolina’s voters have strongly stated their preference in defining marriage. So be it. That doesn’t mean resigned acceptance; that response to elections is reserved for when officials are chosen for office. In that case, you shrug your shoulders, analyze where things went wrong and start working on doing better the next time around. You know, like I did after 2008?

Back to Amendment One. I know there will doubtless be court challenges. Don’t support them. Why? Even if they succeed, nothing will be accomplished. A similar measure will be back on the ballot, and a whole lot of ticked off people will vote for it, angered that some judge or judges ignored their previously stated will. A legal win that alienates a majority of the people is as Pyrrhic a victory as possible. You don’t want that win. You want the real deal. That will come by going Marines: winning over hearts and minds. Certainly it will take longer than legal challenges. But it’s the right way.

Those are my thoughts on the subject, dear niece. As I said when I first started blogging, it’s one man, one voice, one opinion; conside it as you will. Take care. My love to you, the hubby and rugrats.

P.S. A side note. Couple of quotes for you:

“In an August 2008 vetting session, we talked about gay marriage. That’s when I told them about Tilly, my junior high friend and college roommate, who, after college, decided to openly live the lifestyle she chose with her partner. To me, she was still Tilly. I loved her dearly — loved the whole Ketchum family. I explained to Schmidt that I opposed homosexual marriage, but that didn’t seem too controversial in the campaign since the Democrat candidate for president held the same position.”

And:

“I had been in office two weeks when the Supreme Court required us to offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

“I support the traditional definition of marriage. One man & one woman to make a marriage. And I don’t support efforts that can lead to changing that definition.

“But on this issue, the court was the lawful interpreter of the state Constitution. The promise I had made when being sworn into office was to uphold the Constitution. That meant I would be bound by the judiciary’s ruling. So when conservatives in the legislature passed a bill that would prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples, the court ruled it unconstitutional, so I vetoed it.

“A few angry lawmakers visited my office, outraged that I hadn’t bucked the court. A couple of them said I should have been willing to go to jail over the issue.

“And if the people want to amend the Constitution via referendum, I told the lawmakers, they have the right to battle it out and do so.”

You know who said these things, right?

Sarah Palin.

And you know Dick Cheney is an open advocate for gay marriage, right?

People can surprise you when you let them.

In addition to being the biggest rock band on the planet (with the possible exception of the Rolling Stones, who hardly qualify as a band anymore), U2 and in particular Bono are known for active stances in social causes. In Bono’s case, his primary focus is debt relief for, and alleviating suffering from AIDS in, Africa. To accomplish this, Bono works with politicians and leaders from both sides of the aisle. This has raised many an eyebrow, but to Bono his causes are not bound to any ideology save that of shared humanity and its corresponding requirement to address the needs of others.

Back to Elizabeth Emken. Her story, as told on her website:

For over a decade Elizabeth Emken has served as an advocate for developmentally disabled children, most recently as Vice President for Government Relations at Autism Speaks, the Nation’s largest science and advocacy organization devoted to the public health emergency of autism.

Before becoming active with the autism issue, Elizabeth served in management, financial analysis, and corporate operations at IBM. As an efficiency and cost cutting expert, Elizabeth utilized activity-based cost analyses to identify administrative savings across IBM U.S. – helping streamline operations, eliminate waste, and save the company millions of dollars.

Elizabeth graduated from UCLA in 1984 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Her studies included course work at Cambridge University, where she focused on political and economic issues in China and the Middle East.

Elizabeth began helping families of children with autism, like her son Alex, more than a decade ago when she learned how little was being done to help individuals and families with disabilities. Elizabeth became a citizen-advocate, and as a Board Member, handled legislative advocacy for Cure Autism Now. She coordinated advocacy for the first major piece of federal legislation addressing autism, the Advancement in Pediatric Autism Research Act, ultimately becoming the lead title of the Children’s Health Act of 2000, which authorized programs totaling more than $200 million over 5 years at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and Health and Resources and Services Administration.

A vital element of this accomplishment, Elizabeth led the charge to ensure transparency and accountability on how the NIH would spend autism research dollars. For the first time at the NIH, her efforts produced a portfolio analysis of autism spending that would have to withstand public scrutiny – a policy Elizabeth believes should apply throughout the entire government.

Elizabeth led autism community advocacy for the Combating Autism Act of 2006 on behalf of Cure Autism Now, Autism Speaks, and 17 other leading autism organizations. The Combating Autism Act of 2006, which passed in December, 2006, authorized nearly $1 billion over 5 years to combat autism through research, screening, early detection and early intervention.

Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 where she immediately launched a multi-state campaign to secure insurance coverage for autism-related services. Since then, 29 states have enacted autism insurance reform laws, saving participating states millions in taxpayer funds that would otherwise have been directed to state health care and special education services. This groundbreaking legislation, aimed at ending marketplace discrimination against individuals with autism, passed into law in California on October 9, 2011.

Elizabeth has worked extensively on behalf of military families, advocating for support totaling $24 million at the Department of Defense since 2007, and supporting health care coverage for autism related medical services in TRICARE, the health care program for active duty service members and retirees.

In 2008, Elizabeth secured, for the first time, placement of autism as a Presidential campaign issue with mentions at both party conventions and debates. This was followed by a first ever commitment for autism funding in a President’s full year budget proposal.

In the past few days, much has been made of a photo making the rounds showing Emken with President Barack Obama. The photo was taken in 2007 when she and other autism activists visited Washington to meet with members of Congress including Obama, who was at that time the junior senator from Illinois.

According to her opponents, the photo not only proves Emken to be someone who will consort with “the enemy,” but also one of the most eeeeevil kinds of people there are — special interest lobbyists. Because, you know, only a self-seeking, self-serving, socialist selfish pig would ask the government to devote research dollars to finding the cause or causes for, and from there more effective treatments of or perhaps a cure for, an emotional and mentally crippling condition presently estimated to affect one out of every eighty-eight children born in the United States. You know who will bear the brunt of paying for continued care for these kids throughout their lives, right? You saw him or her in the mirror this morning.

Sarcasm aside, just when did asking the government to put an effort into doing something that will benefit the public as a whole, and should its efforts be successful ultimately save the American taxpayer money, become a heinous crime? Whatever happened to the notion of honoring someone who gave up a very lucrative career to not only care for her son, but actively work toward raising awareness and the necessary funds for research? There’s no ideology here; no political party affiliation. There is a mother’s love for her son, and her work to bring hope to other mothers of autistic children that one day they will be freed from their emotional and mental hell.

When there is common ground, refusing to set foot on it because of belief doing so would taint your ideological purity is foolishness. It gives the other side the upper hand. Of course the government shouldn’t fund the unaffordable designed to perpetuate a lack of self-sufficiency by those seeking to skate through life. But when an investment that promises to both enhance the lives of many of its citizens along with offering future savings due to lowered publicly-borne health care costs is available, seize the opportunity. That’s what Elizabeth Emken has done. That’s what Bono does. And we are all the better for it.

Period.

P.S. As long as we’re talking U2:

Yup, that's where I worked for fifteen years.

Back in my retail days, a lesson oft taught was what really hurts in terms of losing customers. It wasn’t the chronic complainers and yellers, always ranting and raving about how they’re never coming back and they’re going to tell all their friends (like they have any) to do the same. Annoying to be sure, but despite their loudly voiced threats they always came back. Always. No, it’s the people who say nothing, yet never return, that do the most damage to a store’s bottom line. That’s the truth.

Nothing hits harder than the truth. It knows no agenda, serves no one’s purpose and pays no attention to any side of any given issue. It’s the truth. It stands on its own, unapologetic and unafraid. Either we get with it, or we get lost.

This came to mind a few days ago when Mitt Romney was severely criticized in conservative circles for saying that President Obama was a nice man. Here’s the full quote:

Now I happened to have met him four or five years ago at a dinner in Washington DC where we were both invited to tell some jokes about our respective parties. And I found him to be a nice guy. I think he’s a nice person. I just don’t think we can afford him any longer. I don’t think the American people can afford to have Barack Obama as their President.

Now, he points out he did not cause the recession. But, he did made it worse. And he says, “Well, look; things are getting better.” And I sure hope they’re getting better. Gosh, I hope they’re getting better. But that’s not because of him. That’s in spite of him. He has made this recession harder to come out of.

And for people who say, “Well, why do you say that, Mitt?” Well, you go through his so-called signature achievements and ask yourself which of those that are causing employment to rise right now. Gosh, I hope it’s right. But what are the things that would encourage employment? How about his stimulus? Well, that was three and a half years ago. Remember that stimulus, where he borrowed all that money and said he would hold unemployment below eight percent with that stimulus? Hasn’t been below eight percent since? Thirty-eight straight months? If we’re seeing any job increase now — and I sure hope we are — and a slow reduction in unemployment — I hope it’s coming down — it’s not because of the stimulus that was three and a half years ago. It’s in spite of that stimulus, and it’s thanks to the entrepreneurship of the American individual.

And then look at the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone really think Obamacare has encouraged businesses to hire people? Just the opposite. I go across the country. I get the chance to talk to small businesspeople. The number one thing they mention time and time again is their fear of Obamacare. It’s one reason why businesses have held back on hiring.

Then there are his labor policies. Does anyone think that stacking the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges encourages businesses to go out and hire people? Just the opposite.

There was much more to the speech, but you get the drift. Romney was detailing Obama’s policy failures. Other than the people in attendance, no one seems to have heard that. The couple of sentences when he didn’t personally demonize Obama? Front page news.

Why?

What possible benefit is there in personally attacking your political opponent? Now, remember that this is something Obama has done in past campaigns, albeit through surrogates and not personally. When he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois, his campaign managed to convince the courts to unseal his opponent’s divorce agreement. Recently we saw Democratic power player Hilary Rosen say Ann Romney, a stay at home mother of five who raised her children without a nanny or other assistance, had never worked a day in her life. When that backfired big time, everyone from Obama on down ran for cover. There is no reason to think Obama, through his surrogates (i.e. the media), will not personally attack Romney on everything from his religion to whatever else they can invent… er, drag out of the swamp.

Romney isn’t going that route. He’s staying on message, that message being Obama’s policies are utter failures.

So how do conservatives respond?

Correct. Hyperventilation because he didn’t wield a flamethrower with one hand while tossing raw meat into the audience with his other.

Really, people? Really?

Perhaps Romney believes in treating others as he himself would like to be treated, although he did run brutal attack ads on his primary opponents.

Or, perhaps Romney is of the mindset that the Prince of Peace trumps politics every time, and that perhaps if you treat other people properly it’ll assist in reaching them with Christ’s message of salvation and changed lives.

Or perhaps he honestly thinks Obama is a nice guy, which is why he said it.

In any case, why are we screaming about it when 99 44/100% of what Romney said is dead on accurate? Why aren’t we focusing on that? Why are we letting the media drive the agenda by highlighting one thing Romney said, knowing what it would make hit the fan so once again we conservatives can be portrayed as hate-filled knuckle-draggers and in all likelihood raaaaacists?

C’mon, people, Quit yelling. You’re scaring off the shoppers we need to win this election.

P.S. Yes, we did use to go around the store singing this, albeit somewhat sardonically:

This came to mind earlier today when contemplating two seemingly disconnected events, one being the now concluded BlogCon in Charlotte and the other a blog post by Jennifer Dailing Waite detailing her frustration with, and anger toward, God over the daily sorrows she bears. She has very legitimate beefs: a father who passed away far too soon, her husband’s difficult and genuinely dangerous job others sneer at because he’s a government employee, a house that stubbornly refuses to sell leaving her and her family’s living arrangements in limbo, and a son mentally and emotionally kept away from her and everyone else as he’s locked up in autism’s mocking prison. It’s the latter that is sapping her strength and faith the most.

I call the two things disconnected because despite BlogCon being, at least in theory, all about promoting blogging and the blogging community while educating bloggers on how to do things better, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Based on tweets from those present, it was in fact an extended session of tongue baths, mutual admiration society sessions and as much partying as could be crammed into three nights and two days. Oh, and a lot of people claiming affiliation with Andrew Breitbart’s legacy.

Really?

As I mentioned the other day, although I never met nor spoke with Breitbart, based on numerous reports from those who did I have no doubt that had we ever met and actually conversed beyond a brief himynameis moment he would have taken the time to look up this modest little way station on the information superhighway and offered it, i.e. me, a hand up toward increased exposure. From his associates I’ve learned to expect no such thing. It’s a mixture of ironic and disappointing that the closest association I’ve ever had with anyone on Breitbart’s roster came when the Daily Beast linked to a post I wrote detailing Dana Loesch, in my opinion, behaving foolishly. There’s something about aggressively engaging your enemies yet not giving those on your side the time of day I’ve never quite fathomed. Perhaps it’s just me.

I’m hardly alone in this regard. There are many writers out there, truly superb writers, who deserve maximum exposure far, far more than I do yet never receive their just share. Either they don’t kiss the right ass (or don’t kiss at all), or they don’t go to the right parties… er, conferences, or what have you. Whatever the reason may be, they’re not welcome. As a result, the world to which we’re supposed to be communicating truth suffers.

Last night on Twitter, after having read one too many “look at me — SQUEE!” comments from BlogCom attendees I ranted: “I started blogging to express opinions, share information and communicate with people, not to join some eternal high school clique. Blogging’s purpose should be ‘what do you think of this idea, news, opinion or analysis.’ Not ‘look at MEEEEE!’ Blogging is supposed to be a non-hierarchical entity when people of like mind share with, and promote, each other based on common beliefs.” When I read Jennifer’s post this morning, these thoughts crystallized all the more.

There’s certainly nothing objectionable in people of like mind gathering together to share ideas and information along with enjoying one another’s company. And if some of us can’t go for financial reasons, or as in the case of Jennifer not able to leave family for a number of days, that’s life and there’s no sense in becoming angry. Hope everyone who is going has a great time; hopefully those of us not there will in time get a turn on the carousel. However, when what should be a group effort splinters into cliques making no effort to enrich the whole, there’s a problem. And no, pounding down brewskis in Stephen Kruiser’s hotel suite isn’t advancing the conservative cause or helping anyone not in attendance.

Of what use is a BlogCon, or RightOnline or what have you, to those not in attendance? Do they encourage attendees to reach out to those not there, letting them know blogging by people of like minds is an inclusive entity? Or are the fortunate hotel and convention center dwellers so busy consuming red meat and ego strokes in-between photo ops and pounding down shots they forget there is a community outside their door?

What it comes down to is that all people matter and many of them have something worthwhile to say, not just the ones who can afford a ticket to the party. When you’re feeling like mus adulteri Dei because you’re at wits and faith’s end, it’s difficult to not wonder if it’d kill people to put the drink down long enough to reach out to you. We may be rat bastards, but we still like to look at the city of lights and dream of one day being welcomed by its residents. So how about it?

The beautiful people, all send their excuses:
(Real estate and sex lives, livestock and ex-wives)

But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

There’s a string ensemble, and the King’s court jester
Telling parables and big jokes, to mongoloids and old folks

The blind are seeing, the dead are breathing
And the mummies dance in geriatric style
The amputees are rolling down the aisles

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

Candlelight and party hats, duck and pheasant under glass
Aluminum walkers, thin white canes, caviar and pink champagne
The bride and the groom waltz on
Club foot lane at the banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end

Say the beautiful people (the poor are coming)
“We’ll live with the lights out (the lame are running)
Leave us alone now because (the blind are seeing)
Hell feels like home now” (the dead are breathing)

Meanwhile…

But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news

“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”

Mr. Wehner is currently a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Center’s stated goal is “to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues.” I’m guessing that translates into everyone play nice now with a side dish of gentle Jesus meek and mild.

There is, of course, an inexorable thread of said Judeo-Christian moral traditions woven throughout our country’s history. A prime example is how the Declaration of Independence’s second sentence states (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is also the First Amendment to the Constitution (again, emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In this, the Founding Fathers declared that while there would be no state religion, there would also be no suppression of religion.

With this as a background, on to Mr. Wehner’s article for Commentary. The article text will be in blockquotes.

Among conservatives today, there’s a phrase that has become an all-purpose term of derision: “the establishment.” The purpose of the charge is to call into question the bona fides of self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans. The choice is supposed to be between “true” conservatives and “establishment” ones.

From the get-go Mr. Wehner could not be more mistaken. The concern among conservatives is not between “true” conservatives and “establishment” conservatives. It is between conservatives period, be they an existing member of government or no, and those who assume the conservative label yet whose actions — or lack thereof — declare them to be content with the status quo and going along to get along. They’re not for genuine spending cuts or reigning in the amount of control government has over so many aspects of our daily lives.

I wonder, though, how many conservatives who rail against the establishment these days realize they are appropriating language from the 1960s, when the New Left attacked the authority structures in society and presented themselves as “anti-establishment.” Back in those days, it was conservatism which saw its role to protect society from the radical tendencies of those on the left and defend the beneficial social effects of an establishment. Yet today, even so quintessential an establishment figure as Newt Gingrich explains opposition to his candidacy chiefly in terms of opposition by the “Washington establishment” rising up to block “bold change.”

The comparison is ludicrous. The anti-establishment movement of the 1960s has nothing in common with today’s conservative movement. Today’s conservative movement seeks to restore the federal government to a Constitutionally-based system that is not overreaching into the private sector and is not racking up crushing debt. It has nothing to do with overthrowing the system, which was at the heart of the more radical elements in the 1960s. It has everything to do with overhauling the system and getting it back to its roots.

But that’s where this critique begins to break down. Many members of the conservative establishment, after all, were hoping Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan would run for president because Daniels and Ryan are arguably the most committed and best informed when it comes to the most urgent and difficult domestic issue of our time, which is reforming the entitlement state, and Medicare in particular.

First off, there wasn’t a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for Daniels to enter the race. Ryan, yes. Second, again Mr. Wehner runs with the false assumption there is a blind loathing by conservatives of all things “establishment.” There is not. As noted above, the opposition is not an automatic knee-jerk reaction to anyone and everyone in public office. It is to those in office who say they are conservative yet refuse to act based on conservative principles.

To complicate things even more: polls tell us that many members of the Tea Party, which embodies anti-establishment feelings, are lukewarm when it comes to reforming programs like Medicare. And many of the loudest voices against the establishment have spent relatively little time laying out the case for structurally reforming Medicare. In fact, some of these conservatives have criticized President Obama for cutting Medicare (albeit to pay for the Affordable Care Act rather than as part of a broader reform agenda).

I do not know from what source or sources Mr. Wehner is getting his data, but it is in error. There is not a Tea Partier alive who does not believe in immediate, strong entitlement reform. We know there are massive, ever-growing unfunded obligations that cannot possibly be paid for if the current situation is allowed to continue. We know there needs to be hard solutions that may well involve some not receiving the benefits they have paid into and been promised for decades. We trust the Paul Ryans of this world to propose sound economic platforms that will simultaneously minimize the pain and end the progressive bankrupting of the country. Mr. Wehner is badly mistaken.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment that criticisms of the current establishment and political class have some merit. I’d simply suggest that the picture is incomplete. There’s an important role for the establishment in American politics. For one thing, it’s comprised of people who have substantive mastery over issues. Think of the difference between, say, Christine O’Donnell and Herman Cain, who embodied an anti-establishment style but who were not fluent on policy, and Representative Paul Ryan, who qualifies as part of the establishment under any meaningful definition of the term. (Ryan worked at a Washington, D.C. think tank and as a staffer on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, he was elected to Congress in 1998, he’s now chairman of an important committee and is undeniably a part of the governing elite.) The establishment, at its best, provides experience and guidance, a stabilizing presence and a practical (rather than a rigidly ideological) outlook, all of which should appeal to conservatives.

The only incomplete picture is the one being painted by Mr. Wehner. He states that “the establishment” is comprised of people who have substantial mastery over issues. When and where is this being denied by conservatives? We know and trust Paul Ryan and other members of “the establishment” who have proven themselves to be in the establishment but not of it. (How’s that for a Judeo-Christian reference? But I digress.) Mr. Wehner then goes on to politely ridicule Christine O’Donnell as lacking in knowledge on policy issues when in fact, as anyone who has read her book Troublemaker can testify, it was taking advice from members of the establishment that derailed her 2010 campaign. Finally, there is no comfort to be taken from a “practical” outlook when dramatic changes need to be swiftly implemented in this country’s political and economic course.

As in so many areas, we can learn something from the wisdom of the founders. In her book “Miracle at Philadelphia,” Catherine Drinker Bowen wrote this:

Most members of the [1787]) Philadelphia Convention … were old hands, politicians to the bone. That some of them happened also to be men of vision, educated in law and the science of government, did not distract them from the matters impending. There was a minimum of oratory or showing off. Each time a member seemed about to soar into the empyrean of social theory — the eighteenth century called it “reason” – somebody brought him round, and shortly. “Experience must be our only guide,” said John Dickinson of Delaware. “Reason may mislead us.”

How many times will Mr. Wehner reinforce the same invalid point? The contemporary conservative movement does not dismiss experience or automatically disqualify someone for a lengthy tenure in office. It does oppose those who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk regardless of what position of power they may hold, or how long they might have held it. This is why there is such a deep distrust among conservatives for Mitt Romney, whose current policy declarations are for the most part solidly conservative yet whose record in public office was far more moderate to liberal.

Many of the most impressive individuals in political history were “establishment” figures, including Burke and Madison. They knew a great deal about government. And very few, if any, of the founders would have would argued that less government experience would make people better fit to govern. It requires a different skill set to comment on politics than it does to govern, including (among other things) the ability to make wise compromises.

Compromise is why we are in the mess we are in. Capitulation is not a skill set. There are necessary give and take elements in public policy. However, when the fundamental core of increased government control and spending remains untouched regardless of which party is in charge — it warrants mention that Mr. Wehner served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, whose rampant deficit spending was overwhelmingly opposed by conservatives — experience is of no consideration. Note how Mr. Wehner works in a thinly disguised slam against commentators, insinuating that adherence to ideological beliefs prohibits effective governing. Really? When you’re right, chuck it in favor of compromise? Now there’s true leadership for you.

Speaking of which: among some conservatives these days “compromise” is considered an offense almost equal to being a member of The Establishment. So it’s once again worth recalling the elegant words of Bowen, who wrote, “In the Constitutional Convention, the spirit of compromise reigned in grace and glory. As Washington presided, it sat on his shoulder like the dove. Men rise to speak and one sees them struggle with the bias of birthright, locality, statehood…. One sees them change their minds, fight against pride and when the moment comes, admit their error.”

Again (and again and again and again) Mr. Wehner preaches the compromise evangel at a time when compromise has led to the precipice on which we are teetering. The middle does not work. It has never worked. Pick a philosophy and stick with it. Either we keep going on the economic and political course laid out by President Obama or we go in a different direction altogether. Your choice. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously cut spending while removing government involvement in our professional along with personal lives and pursue the goals and agendas of the current administration. The paths are complete opposites. And no amount of wishing to make nice can change this.

To be clear: members of the Washington establishment can be knaves and fools. Compromise can be just another word for capitulation. And there are reasons to be frustrated with the way things are done. At the same time, reflexive attacks on both “the establishment” and compromise are unwise. We were fortunate at the founding of America to have a political class consisting of individuals with governing experience, scholarly insights, and strong convictions. The best among them took the long view. They were conversant in both theory and practice. They were also undeniably members of the establishment of their era. And their compromises – including between those who favored adding a Bill of Rights and those who did not, between big states and small ones, and between northern and southern states – led to the greatest governing charter in history. These things are worth bearing in mind even, and maybe especially, for conservatives.

And so we cycle back to Mr. Wehner’s beginning, one hundred percent inaccurate premise. The conservative movement is not anti-establishment. It does not reflexively dismiss government officials regardless of their length of service. It does demand those it supports be consistent and firm in upholding the conservative principles of limited government and corresponding limited spending. That is all it asks. Too bad Mr. Wehner isn’t listening.

No, I am not running a picture of President Obama petting Bo to be snarky. There is a reason. Read the post, please.

Last Friday (March 16th), President Obama issued an Executive Order titled National Defense Resources Preparedness. The order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950.

As summarized by FEMA on its website:

The Defense Production Act (DPA) is the primary source of Presidential authorities to expedite and expand the supply of critical resources from the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and homeland security. In addition to military, energy, and space activities, the DPA definition of “national defense” includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Stafford Act and protection and restoration of critical infrastructure.

Title VI of the Stafford Act is (again quoting from the FEMA website):

Title VI of the Stafford Act – The purpose of this title is to provide a system of emergency preparedness for the protection of life and property in the United States from hazards and to vest responsibility for emergency preparedness jointly in the Federal Government and the States and their political subdivisions. This title states that the Federal Government shall provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance, and shall provide necessary assistance, as authorized in this title so that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for all hazards.

The order issued by President Obama outlines its policy:

The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

It defines its general functions in this manner (emphasis mine):

Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

(d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

The order directs various Cabinet members as to their specific duties. It also reiterates the provision of the Defense Resource Act for these Cabinet members to, as deemed necessary for the procurement of necessary goods and supplies, guarantee loans by private institutions for the purchase of said goods and supplies.

The order also establishes, under the control of the executive branch, the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER). As defined in the order:

In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.

Please read the entire order.

Now, commentary, starting with NDER. If this sounds like something from the Cold War fallout shelter days… you’re right. In 1950, the same year that the Defense Production Act became law, an additional bill titled the Federal Civil Defense Act was passed and signed into law by President Truman. It outlined, initially without providing funding for, the organization of local citizen defense actions in case of nuclear attack.

NDER has a far greater reach than the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 in that it provides funding and organization under the federal rather than local level. This noted, NDER as of yet is not fully defined. From the executive order (emphasis mine):

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program.  The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Shouldn’t determining periods of national defense emergency, unless the President is unable to do so, be the sole responsibility of the President?

Setting NDER aside, a look at the executive order’s general function. The “in peacetime” bit troubles me. While I am not a member of any conspiracy theory crew, it takes no dip into the nut squad pool to note the current administration’s track record is one of continued, deepening reach into the private sector as evidenced by the government takeover of General Motors & Chrysler, Obamacare, the stimulus and so on. Will “evaluate” morph into increased control of the private sector under the banner of preparing for a potential national emergency?

Finally, there is the executive order’s policy outline.

I used the picture of President Obama petting Bo to illustrate a point about how regardless of the sharpness of the political divisions in this country, or the difference between my philosophy and Obama’s which is a large one indeed, he is still the President.

We live in a strained time. It is becoming increasingly apparent that in its self-defense Israel will soon strike Iran with the intent of eliminating its nuclear weapons program before a weapon is developed, employed and then deployed against Israel. This will not be a local skirmish. It will certainly plunge the world into a deep economic crisis as the flow of Middle Eastern oil will doubtless be curtailed if not completely shut off. It will draw the United States into a hostile position against both Russia and China, which support Iran. It will be used as an additional rallying cry by Islamic terrorists bent on destroying the United States and its freedoms. If Israel attacks Iran, no one in this country will escape the consequences. No one.

We need President Obama to govern wisely, to not abuse his position and to be the man who pets his dog and takes his daughters to church. Sooner rather than later he could be faced with a situation not unlike what faced President Bush after 9/11. For his sake, that of his family, and for all of us he will need to make wise decisions.

One can only pray this will be the case, because it’s about to get real.

It’s high time this principal is applied to political discourse.

What is one of the stock answers immediately brought forth by a child caught misbehaving? “They started it!” To which every parent responds with a firmly expressed indifference to the behavior’s inspiration. It doesn’t matter what the other person did, or who did what first. You are responsible for your own behavior.

Why, then, do we accept for ourselves excuses we do not allow our children to use?

Left and right have both thoroughly chronicled the vile speech of the other side in regard to individuals and issues. Let’s be clear about this. Both sides are guilty of repeatedly crossing the line. Neither side is innocent.

Yet what is the cry that comes forth whenever one side is asked about its own transgressions? “Well, what about the other side? Look what they’ve said! They started it!”

To use a oft-utilized parental response, and if the other side jumped off a bridge would you emulate their behavior, then blame them for your own action when you hit the water?

We need to deal with our own sins. They are our responsibility and our responsibility alone.

The other side needs to deal with their own sins. You can’t absolve yourself of your misdeeds by attacking others for their errors.

What you can do is say, as Joshua said, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

Directly put, this means no more alibis. No more finger pointing. No more saying you’ll stop when they stop. No more crying about what big meanies are across the aisle.

It means we stop regardless of what others on either side choose to do.

We, each of us, choose to stop.

We, each of us individually, choose to be the better.

Being the better does not mean muting our criticism of people and events. It does mean we are respectful of the other individual while carefully, professionally, politely detailing why they are wrong. Stick to your guns, but never grab a shotgun when the situation calls for a sniper’s rifle. Be precise and accurate. Do genuine research, not mouth the talking points provided by others even if you are in complete agreement with them. No matter how the other side chooses to react, do not let their choice serve as an excuse for you choosing the wrong path. Stay focused. Stay on target. Stay clean.

Regardless of personal preference when it comes to neighbors, the fact is we live in a community. Our community has but one barn of civility. Right now, that barn is on fire. Our response has been arguing over who struck the match. That’s the wrong response. When the community barn is on fire, it is not important who struck the match. Everyone needs to do their part to put out the fire now. There will be plenty of time for arguing afterwards.

Be the better. Just be the better.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to And So it Goes in Shreveport for the link.

You know… the one where conservative bloggers and pundits actually praised each other?

First, this morning there a lengthy and thoroughly unpleasant Twitter exchange between John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine and columnist for the New York Post, and Dana Loesch of Big Journalism fame. It started when Mr. Podhoretz wondered aloud:

I note that a certain anti-Romney tweeter is calling Romney supporters “prog lites.” She supported Romney in ’08. Why was that?

To which Ms. Loesch, she who is loathe to acknowledge supporters but will fight to the death anyone who looks at her cross-eyed, replied:

I made a differentiation that you apparently chose, either by accident or obtuseness, to ignore.

The response:

You mean the distinction between your support for Romney in ’08 and your detestation of him in ’12? I missed that.

And it was on, with Ms. Loesch repeatedly accusing Mr. Podhoretz of name-calling and other assorted crimes against nature for reminding one and all that Ms. Loesch did indeed support Romney in ’08. She, in-between temper tantrums, insisted it was solely because she disliked John McCain so much she found Romney to be the lesser of two evils. Which may well be. But you still supported him, Ms. Loesch.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m thinking a simple, calm “yes I did support Romney in ’08 and here’s why” rather than striking a pose as the put-upon, perpetually outraged, poor poor pitiful me, “I’m just a girl” girl. But no. We must be outraged! We must defend our virtue (no comment)! We must attack! We must maintain our carefully contrived… er, controlled image as the mucha macha sexxxy albeit unavailable sista! Or something.

Later in the day, Ms. Loesch PMS’d with Ace, who has been known to do the same. This time, it was in reference to an interview with Romney. From the looks of it, he misunderstood, or misheard, the reporter’s question in regard to the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which would insert into Obamacare an exemption for organizations whose principals prohibit artificial birth control methods from being forced to provide said artificial birth control methods, through whichever health care plan they offer, to their employees. First Romney said he was against the bill, then said later in the day he was for the bill.

In dashed Dana, flicking spittle every which way as she railed against Romney’s obviously fatal flaw and/or deliberate disingenuousness. Ace, who was on the Rick Perry bandwagon until it finally crashed and burned, then jumped aboard the Romney ride, was quick to defend his chosen one. Naturally, given the two participants it wasn’t long before they butted heads on Twitter.

And I thought I could be contentious.

I’d say it’ll all be better once a candidate is finally selected, but no. The lessons of 2010 about continuing the fight the primary after it’s over by trashing the person the voters in said primary selected (ask Christine O’Donnell how that feels) have not been learned. Regardless of who wins the nomination, or if it comes to a brokered convention who is selected, the friendly fire will continue unabated. And if the Republican nominee loses in November, woe be unto his or her supporters as the rest of the right will vent their full fury against them for, as they will be accused, single-handily condemning us to four more years of Obama.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Conservative Commune and The Daily Beast for the links.

One of the lessons my late father taught me was about the place, and purpose, of humor. His philosophy was that given how many situations in life are desperately unfunny, whenever the opportunity for humor arises, seize it. Which he did; I can still hear the sound of his laughter roaring through the house, be it at a television show or a book he was reading, often to my mother’s chagrin as she preferred a more discrete decorum. Although, in her defense, she could be pretty darn punny herself.

As he said, and as Regina Spektor beautifully sang, there are times in life when neither it nor God are funny:

Not that this doesn’t stop some people from trying to make everything a joke. It’s all they can do. They’re too uninventive to break free from their shtick.

Case in point would be one David Javerbaum, he of the self-celebratory New York City crowd (“oooh, he used to write for Jon Stewart!“) currently promoting his new book which is a memoir by God. Because nothing beats God humor for pretending to be edgy; never mind it’s as tired as it comes.

Most comedy relies on some form of shtick, the trick being whether the audience finds it funny. Some do, some don’t. I know people who declare The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension to be the funniest movie mankind has ever seen, whereas the one time I watched it left me utterly unmoved until ten minutes before the end when I muttered, “Oh, this is supposed to be satire, isn’t it.” At which, to me, it was a complete failure. And nothing in comedy is worse than failed satire.

Said all that to say this. If you can have shtick comedy, can you also have shtick politics?

By shtick politics I’m referring more to pundits who cover it than politics or politicians themselves, although many of those involved are quite clichéd in word and deed. They can be dealt with later. For now, let’s talk about the talking heads (no, not David Byrne and company. Never did like that band. But I digress).

Shtick isn’t limited to humor. There’s plenty of room for humor when discussing politics. Mark Steyn is a prime example of genuine inventive comedic ability. Where things fall into shtick is when an overriding one-size-fits-all theme emerges in a pundit’s work, one that throttles all authentic insight and commentary.

It can be safely argued that a reliance on shtick indicates there is no genuine insight and commentary, but shtick itself does not indicate this. Case in point would be Rush Limbaugh’s well-honed self-mocking pompous act. You know he’s kidding. He knows he’s kidding. But it does it anyway, because it’s part of his on-air persona. It’s the lesser lights who regurgitate whatever a Limbaugh, Steyn or Mark Levin say as though they are genuinely adding to the discourse that are the true purveyors of shtick.

Politics isn’t a game, and neither is political commentary. Yet so many make it a game in which the sole object isn’t winning over hearts and minds, but rather who can grab the biggest piece of the pie everyone else is attempting to claim as their own.

Examples? Sure.

• Don’t You Dare Doubt My Political Creds – I Post Twenty Times A Day: Volume rules!
• Macha Chica: I have buns n’ poses… er, guns n’ roses! Plus tattoos and, when convenient, married with children. But don’t worry. I’m a Bible-believing husband-submitting Christian. Or a good girl. Or something.
• I’m Big On Twitter: How could I be anything but an expert when I have all these followers?
• How Can You Possibly Believe You’re Right When I Just Gave You A #Headdesk: You’re so not worth talking with about anything, I’m not going to bother defending anything I say. Oh, and if you don’t like it? Don’t follow me!

There are more, but you get the idea.

All of the above have one unified cry: Why aren’t people listening to me?

Um… because you’re not saying anything that hasn’t already been said, and better?

It’s almost comical. The only problem is, no one is laughing.

PS: Speaking of laughing…

Last night, Christine O’Donnell announced on the Sean Hannity show, television version, her support of Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. This led to a chorus of catcalls from various conservatives heavily involved in social and/or traditional media, most of whom trotted out the same tired jokes about O’Donnell they have used ever since the infamous “I’m not a witch. I’m you.” commercial that doomed her Senatorial campaign in Delaware last year.

Making fun of O’Donnell has become something of a cottage industry within conservative circles. According to some, she is the symbol of all that is wrong with the conservative movement, citizen politicians and just about anything else one cares to imagine. She has been assailed for lack of common sense, intelligence and the least little bit of political savvy. O’Donnell is routinely shunned, ignored, belittled and any other negative action verb that ends in a D currently in the dictionary. She is portrayed as the ultimate punchline in a very long-running, incredibly unfunny joke.

Yet, a curious thing takes place when you ask those who cast aspersions upon O’Donnell why they feel the way they do about her. Invariably they will trot out both the campaign ad from last year and some vaguely remembered accusations hurled against her by traditional media. A few bitter clingers-on will vociferously complain about how had the Republicans in Delaware only nominated the very liberal Mike Castle, they could have won the GOP Senate seat in Delaware, thus bringing the Republicans one step closer to wresting control of the Senate away from the Democrats. Never mind that the polls showed Castle was just as likely to lose to eventual winner Chris Coons as O’Donnell. Remember, we are talking about the state that gave us Joe Biden. ‘Nuff said about that.

When pressed to give any solid, specific reason as to why they so despise O’Donnell, the average self-identified conservative freezes. The truth is, they don’t know the reason. They might insist that they do, yet they are incapable of coming up with it. Other than trotting out the aforementioned campaign ad plus whatever they have heard, usually second or third hand, via traditional media.

O’Donnell irks people in much the same fashion as does Tim Tebow. Tebow is not supposed to win because he does everything wrong, at least by the definition of those who insist they know how the NFL quarterback position is to be played. O’Donnell was not supposed to win the Delaware GOP primary because she, too, did everything wrong. She wasn’t a smooth politician who had all her soundbites down pat and all her high roller donor ducks in a row. Instead, she came out and was exactly who she is: a human being not afraid to admit mistakes yet fiercely determined to proclaim and actively practice the basic constitutional principles upon which the Tea Party was founded.

Much like Tebow, O’Donnell also makes no bones about how her deep faith shapes her life, values and political views. This, too, aggravates many in the South Park Republicans club who preach fiscal conservatism just as long as it doesn’t interfere with the party. To them, O’Donnell is as bothersome as the most leftist liberal imaginable because she embodies that which they most despise: the notion that there are genuine rights and wrongs in the world.

There are, of course, differences between Tebow and O’Donnell. While both have a penchant for starting out slowly, Tebow usually manages to put together a last minute drive that saves the game, while O’Donnell’s campaign last year never recovered from the disastrous ad. There were many definite mistakes O’Donnell made in her campaign for Senate last year. She should have ignored all of the side issues traditional media was attempting to trump up and gone after Coons nonstop over his penchant for being a big spender and a big tax increase advocate. Had she done this, while she still might not have won the election in an overwhelmingly liberal state, she undoubtedly would have fared far better.

Unlike I suspect most if not all of O’Donnell’s critics, I’ve actually taken the time to start reading her book Troublemaker. I am about halfway through it. In the book, she interweaves both her personal story and the story of the 2010 campaign. She admits mistakes, especially the one where she listened to a high-profile Republican consultant who put together the now infamous “I’m not a witch. I’m you.” ad. She didn’t come up with the ad, she didn’t write it and she hated it the moment it was proposed to her. Unfortunately, she believed the consultant who assured her it would be just one of a set of ads, the rest of which O’Donnell approved and featured Delaware citizens talking about their economic struggles. She says flat out this was a very bad mistake on her part. Instead of doing what he had promised he was going to do, the consultant immediately put out the “I’m not a witch” ad with predictable – at least to everyone but the consultant – horrific results. Either the consultant was clueless beyond words, or he was part of the GOP elitists who detested O’Donnell for upsetting their chosen one Castle in the primary, petulantly trash talking her from the moment she won the nomination until the day they cackled with glee when she lost the general election. Although if you think about it, cluelessness features prominently in either of the above scenarios.

It’s interesting, given how one of the Tea Party’s cornerstones is both opposing the professional politician and not believing traditional media’s liberal lies. Here is an individual, not a professional politician, with the courage to stand up and enter the bloodsport that is politics today. For her efforts the traditional media routinely libels, slanders and mocks her. Yet the very people for whom this individual makes this sacrifice and upholds the values they profess to embrace, willingly go along with the narrative by making her a pariah for not being the very things they insist they oppose.

Now, do I agree with O’Donnell’s endorsement of Romney? No. While unlike many conservatives I do not believe Romney to be the antichrist, I greatly prefer Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum. However, I have read and respect her reasons for her choice. Something I have learned along the way is that it is not necessary to agree with every everything a politician or pundit says or does, casting him or her aside the moment they fail the least little litmus test. There are times it is necessary to speak out when someone with whom you generally agree varies on one point or another. But seldom if ever is it a dealbreaker.

Back to Christine O’Donnell. She is, regardless of how the media portrays her, an intelligent woman who loves her country and is devoted to the basic principles of a constitutionally guided, limited government as well as traditional moral values rooted in her fervently held faith. If this upsets people, so be it. O’Donnell has never claimed to be perfect. She isn’t. In this, the awful campaign ad got at least one thing right. She is us.