Tessa has encouraged me to write a statement outlining what I stand for and why I am running. I plan on making several posts on specific topics, but here is an introduction to some of my thoughts on politics and my candidacy.
I think that both major parties engage in “soft” corruption by passing legislation that benefits their supporters more than the American people in general. This is called “special” welfare to contrast it with “general” welfare which is what is explicitly allowed under the constitution. US Constitution Article I Section 8.
The best way to eliminate this kind of soft corruption is, in my opinion, to take a strict and narrow view of the constitution.
Some may wonder why we need to follow the constitution so closely. After all, it's such an old set of laws. But I think that if we, as a society, begin to go soft on how we follow the law, then we risk becoming a lawless society.
This does not mean that I disagree with Thoreau who taught that at times it is our duty to disobey a bad law. But I'm not talking about resisting slavery or unjust wars like he was. I'm talking about the practice of bending the rules to bestow a benefit on a political ally. I'm sure Thoreau would agree with me that that is not a good instance to employ “civil disobedience.”
There is also some virtue in putting up with an inconvenient law or even a bad law while working to change it or to find a better solution. The Declaration of Independence wisely states, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Also, Theodore Roosevelt, when acting as police commissioner of New York City, chose to enforce the unpopular "no alcohol on Sunday" law even though he disagreed with it because he understood the value of doing things the right way. He understood that enforcement was the police's job, while legislating was the legislature's job. Similarly, it is the job of the American people to amend the constitution, not the judiciary's.
The founders knew that they could give the federal government more power than they did. But they knew that the power to do great good, was also the power to do great evil, and it is unwise to trust mere humans with too much of that power no matter how good their professed motives. Thus, the power was divided into three branches and among the states and the people.
A candidate from the Constitution party would not be immune to the soft corruption, but it would be harder to get away with because everyone would know that a Constitution party member has promised not support any “special” welfare projects at all. Any budget she or he votes for would be something that benefits the American people in a broad way. Examples of this are interstate highway systems, bankruptcy courts, military (so long as it is not favoring certain defense contractors...), the postal service, science and education.
Another way that the Constitution party would fight soft corruption is to prohibit congress people from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office. This would cut down on the dealing with special interest groups.
This concludes my general statement, but I want to say two more things. First I want to explain some things about the party that I may disagree with or may be wrongly reported in public sources (like Wikipedia). Then I want to quickly list some ways the Constitution Party differs from the Republican Party and even agrees somewhat with the Democratic party.
1. Wikipedia calls the Constitution Party a “theocratic” party. I don't think that is correct. Even if it were, it would not mean that I am a theocrat because although the Constitution Party is explicitly Christian, that is not why I joined it. Indeed, some members of the party probably view me with skepticism because I'm Mormon. I joined the party for its emphasis on the Constitution. As a Mormon I believe in allowing all people the right to worship how they want or to not worship at all. I would never attempt to pass a law establishing an official religion or criminalizing atheism. I would never force religion down anyone's throats. I would allow a religious person to make religious statements in her capacity as a college professor, but I would allow the atheist professor the same right, which she already enjoys, apparently, to express her beliefs.
2. The Constitution Party could be seen as nativist because it calls for a pause in immigration. I would take a more moderate approach than the party but I do note that most people believe that our immigration system should be overhauled in many ways. If anyone believes that either the party or myself are racist against Mexicans or any other immigrant, let me say unequivocally that I believe all men and women are created equal and that as a congress person I would support legislation combating racism and prejudice. I have even toyed with the idea of supporting a constitutional amendment to enshrine the civil rights act (with some modifications) in the constitution.
Here are some ways that the party agrees with democrats.
1. The party believes in reigning in the military. Neither the democrats nor the constitutionalists want to completely wipe out the military's effectiveness, but the defense department seems to be more like the war department, which is not its proper role. There is now a department of Homeland Security, to do, apparently, what the defense department isn't doing.
2. Many democrats were critical of the Patriot Act, and the accumulation of power in the executive. So is the Constitution party.
3. The Democratic National Committee agrees that we must secure our borders and that immigrants must learn English.
Agreement with libertarians.
1. While libertarians and constitutionalists disagree on what constitutes marriage, we both agree that it is not the job of the government to define what marriage is. I was surprised when many libertarians applauded the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. I can see why they liked the outcome, but they were rejoicing in an act that cemented the Supreme Court's power in deciding what marriage is. Let's allow communities, individuals, families, churches and other groups decide for themselves what marriage is and let the state follow, not lead.
2. Both parties believe in a limited government and low taxes.
3. Both parties would decrease the level of foreign involvement in wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment