politicalcivility.com Blog

The Sutherland blogger briefing debate proved very interesting on Tuesday morning.  Next time, I’ll need to make sure that JasonThe gets a 7:25 wake-up call.

A few quick takeaways for me from the debate:

1. Never “demand” an apology from your opponent.  It looks childish and usually just gives the concern or misquote or mischaracterization more unneeded air time.  Some has already been talked about on the bloghive about Chaffetz demanding an apology from Bennion Spencer about tent city comment. Jason, your a nice fellow, but please don’t demand again.
2. Energy Independence was highlighted as the No.1 issue of this election and the 3rd district campaign.  Bennion’s comment on ANWR betrayed his limited understanding of basic economics and supply and demand.  He made it sound like he was opposed to drilling unless all the oil stayed in America, which is a big government solution.  The oil doesn’t have to stay in America for it to help oil prices in America.  In fact, mandating that the oil stay in America would most likely lead to a price increase versus decrease.
3. Both candidates agreed on several issues. For example, both highlighted the need to secure the borders and Spencer went so far as to say that we need to punish people who take advantage of them (read American businessmen). Both are strongly pro-life and anti-abortion.
4. Spencer really criticized the media, which I found interesting.  He seems to be more of a journalist purist/idealist.  My read on what he said is that the media is failing in their role as the government watchdog.

After listening to the both men, one question really remained in my mind.  Is Bennion Spencer really a Democrat? 

Spencer made the comment that the Founders were divinely inspired; he’s pro-life; he’s pro-border security.  Those sentiments and policy positions would put him in direct conflict with his own party.  He sounds more like the Republican congressmen I interacted with in Ohio.  Maybe Bennion represents a growing trend in the democratic party: socially conservative and fiscally liberal (health care was the only real difference I saw in terms of policy between Chaffetz and Spencer).  But I don’t think he’s any different philosophically than a Cheryl Allen (republican in the house) or a Lyle Hillard (republican in the senate).  So is Bennion running as a Democrat because he believes in the Democratic platform or because like a lot of other Utahns he’s tired of the majority party and just wants to be different? 

I can’t judge his intentions (frankly, I really enjoyed getting to know Bennion), but it makes me wonder.

BTW: Thanks to Rob Miller for posting clips on YouTube, which you can view on the UtahAmicus or Sutherland channels.

As I have spent the last several months studying Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution i have often pondered the question, why didn’t I hear more about this in middle school and especially high school.  I remember three US history classes in school: 8th grade with Mr. Rosenthal, AP US history with Mr. Williams and finally, AP Gov’t with Mr. Thomas.  Not one of them came close to teaching me about US history or gave me an appreciation for our Republic and constitution like reading Story.  I believe we are failing in large measure to heed Story’s admonition in the closing sentences of his book.

“Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence…Republics are created by the virture, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens.  They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”

I wrote a letter to the editor @ the desnews on this, which hit this morning.

here’s the link: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695243437,00.html

“You just can’t have a system that is all Republican or all Democrat,” Wayne Crabb said. “There is a reason the government has been set up the way it has with both Democrats and Republicans.”

(http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695242527,00.html)

I’d like to ask Mr. Crabb to show me where in the constitution of our country or of any state that has been set up for two parties.  I can’t seem to find that “check” in the document.  What’s more is that many of the founders actually warned about the problems the country could face if we had a two-party system.  Mr. Crabb’s comments are just one more example of the impact of an education system that is failing to teach and prepare citizens to participate effectively in our society.

I have been reading Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.”  I’m not a lawyer so at times it’s all I can do not to gloss over because of the writing style.  However, I have learned a tremendous amount about the intent of the framing and am slowly getting a better understanding of what constituted the proper role of government in the eyes of those who founded this great country.

Amidst all the legal detail, Story throws in the occasional gem of a quote and so I thought I’d share one of those gems I crossed over yesterday in Story’s comments on the “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” clause of the Preamble.

Speaking about our Founders, Story writes, “How much more do they deserve our reverence and praise, whose lives are devoted to the formation of institutions, which, when they and their children are mingled in the common dust, may continue to chersich the principles and the practice of liberty in perpetual freshness and vigour.”