Introduction

Parents play an increasingly vital role in today’s more and more complex and dangerous society. At the same time, many are abdicating their responsibility to the state in the form of teachers, law enforcement, and fundamentals including food and healthcare.

Parents are primarily responsible for everything in their children’s lives.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

Your role, our unique and exceptional roles in our shared unique and exceptional nation, includes being there for our children, and doing the hard work--the consistent hard work over many years--of raising them. Parents are primarily responsible for everything in their children’s lives. Logistical things like food, clothing, healthcare and transportation. Eduction. Moral development. Physical development. Learning the basics of how to succeed as a person and in the world. 

In order to meet this responsibility, parents need to:

Be there. I know that may seem obvious, but with all the missing parents the point, sadly, needs to be made.

Be aware that education is their responsibility. That teachers are coaches are immensely valuable, but the parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s education and mental discipline development. 

Be aware that while law enforcement is obviously necessary, they are primarily responsible for developing their children's respect for authority.

Be aware that employers can teach many things that parents can’t, but the parents are the key to instilling a strong work ethic.

Be willing to sacrifice in order to meet these responsibilities. 

Much has been said and written about the obligations parents have in a child’s early years. Feeding, diapers, late nights, trundling the offspring everywhere you go. Not finishing a sentence. Spending your money on more things than you thought possible. Losing closeness with your spouse. All of this is hard, and at the same time it looks like some sort of exercise, a monumental exercise that can last for several years, perhaps, but an exercise that you can get through, and then it ends. Not so, by the way.

The harder part, yes there is a harder part, is modeling the correct behavior. Let’s start with reading. Reading is critical; not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers. If you want your child to be a reader, you must be one. Have books in the home. Read them. Read to your child, and let them read to you as they develop. Quote from books. Share life lessons you have learned from books. No, not videos--books. Make books come alive, make them fun, make them valuable.

Modeling also includes a strong work ethic, valuing useful education, understanding and demonstrating how money works, and respecting authority. Pause for the obvious: in order to model anything, you must first know how to do it, and then be willing to make it a priority. 

Let’s start with understanding and modeling how money works. As with all of life, following a few simple rules will change everything. And, as with all of life, the rules are easy to understand, and very hard to actually follow. It’s that motivation and discipline thing. Here are the rules: 1. Make more than you spend. 2. Spend less than you earn. 3. Never finance anything that depreciates. And, no, the first two rules are not the same.

Let’s pause for a moment for an example of simple to understand, but hard to do. People do know what to do even in difficult situations. The reason they don’t is not lack of knowledge, but lack of sufficient motivation to do the hard tasks that likely lie in front of them. A friend, the most long-term successful health and life coach I know, provides a great example. When I approached Don about losing weight, he asked two questions. The first was,

Introduction

Having an easy life is not a human right; quite the opposite, it is a dysfunctional way to live. And structuring government policy to make things as easy as possible for people is simply wrong. Wrong for the taxpayers, yes, but more deeply and terribly wrong for those afflicted with an easy life.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you--you and I--have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Yes, you have heard that from me before, and you will hear it again. That’s what drives this podcast.

Your role, our role, includes knowing how to live so that we can learn and grow, and help others to grow. There is no learning or growing that comes from easy; learning and growing come from facing hard times and hard things, and succeeding. And only in that way. 

This evil, yes the evil thought process life must be made easy thought process that is being perpetuated in exchange for votes is as follows:

If life is at all hard for you, that is proof that you are a victim.

Victims need to be fully taken care of with money from other people. You know, the 1% and the corporations.

The “other people” who are being tapped for the money are the very ones who made you a victim in the first place. 

Don’t feel any need to stop accepting the money; this is yours by right--you are owed this.

I call this line of thinking evil because it traps people into small, dependent lives, lives where there is very little triumph and joy. These people cannot be developed in the crucible of life so they can contribute to others. All of this in exchange for votes. What else but evil can you call that?

We all learn more from the hard times than we do from the easy times. I don’t know anyone for whom that is not true. Do you? And with that hard times learning, we can grow and strengthen ourselves to lead stronger, happier and better lives. Yes, I did say “happier.” There is no conflict between hard and happy.

We all know that to make a muscle stronger, we must work it, and the harder we work it, the stronger it becomes. Our minds are like muscles; we must work them to make them stronger, and the harder we work them, the stronger they become.

It is only when we push ourselves, mentally and/or physically, that we improve, get stronger, and further prepare ourselves for leading contributing, independent lives. The corollary is also true: When we don’t challenge ourselves, nothing gets better. If fact, things get worse. These physical and mental muscles will atrophy. And we get more than a touch lazy in the process.

Life is bad enough when we don’t challenge ourselves, when we don’t take responsibility for getting through the hard times. We are hurting ourselves and those around us. As bad as that is, it is far worse when powerful voices in leadership tell us that if things are hard, that not only is it proof that things are unfair, but that someone else is responsible for getting us through the hard bits. Why is it their responsibility? Because, we are told, they are the ones who made it hard for us in the first place. That’s the reason that identity politics were dreamt up in the first place, and are so often in the news. The idea is to relieve certain groups, those victimized by other groups, of responsibility while placing the blame and the responsibility on the groups who are said to have created the victims in the first place. This is called intersectionality. I call it identity group wars. Wars where only politicians win, and everyone else loses.

Remember the part about how we learn much more from our hard times than we do from the easy ones? The only thing that we learn from someone else easing our hard times by being...

Introduction

We have a massive and inexcusable crisis at our Southern border. But the crisis is merely a symptom; the disease is in DC--and in us. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you--you and I--have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Yes, you have heard that from me before, and you will hear it again. That’s what drives this podcast.

Your role, our role, includes knowing what is happening in our immigration system, how to fix it, and what our role is in fixing it. Yes, we all have a role to play here.

Our government, both sides of the aisle, is failing us. The immigration solution is simple to understand, and very implementable. Personal and party gain are what is keeping our elected representatives from doing even the basics of their job with immigration. They feel, with some cause, that attacking and insulting will get them what they want; to be elected and to keep being reelected. If we want more from our elected representatives, we, we the people, we the voters, need to lead.

To get to what our role is here, we need to ask one--one-- simple question, hoping for a simple, truthful answer; “Do we want open borders?” We have open borders between states. Travel is unrestricted; one can become a citizen of a different state by merely showing up and staying. We are one nation, with free movement among the states, and free access to the benefits, including a variety of taxpayer-supported services, the various states offer. And voting; more states, like my home state of Colorado, offer same-day voter registration. Is that what we want for our country? Do we want to offer the same type of free, instant access to taxpayer-funded benefits and voting--in other words instant, full citizenship privileges and benefits--to residents of other countries that we allow residents of other states?

If the answer is yes, then we must have the courage to say it clearly and out loud. “The simple truth is, I want open borders. National boundaries should mean no more than state boundaries.” We could stop spinning our wheels in disingenuous arguments about the effectiveness of walls and who is and who isn’t being fair and inclusive. And we could stop wringing our hands about terminology like “undocumented” vs. “illegal”--everyone would be legal. Declaring the simple truth “I want open borders” would take the debate to a very different--and honest--level. Right where it needs to be.

Pause to define undocumented vs. illegal by example. If I am a qualified driver and am driving without my paperwork with me, I am undocumented. If I am not a qualified driver and am driving anyway, I am illegal. Being pulled over and asked for my paperwork does not have any effect on my status; it merely exposes it. 

I don’t want open borders. No nation can exist for any length of time like that. And I don’t want to be the State of America in the United Nations of the World. What I do want is a secure, prosperous, welcoming America; an America that can continue to be attractive and lead the way for the rest of the world. Here’s how we do that--5 easy steps:

Secure our borders. Stop using the term “wall.” We don’t need a wall everywhere; technology, manpower and natural boundaries can be very effective. 

Insist that employers use E-verify prior to hiring.

Use technology to track those who overstay their visas; by most accounts most of those who are here illegally have overstayed their visas.

Create a path to citizenship for illegals. Put them behind those who came here legally and followed the time-consuming legal process. And no path to voting; that’s a bridge too far for anyone who snuck in. Yes, this is amnesty. But with secure borders--finally--it will be...

Introduction

We need economic and financial sustainability.

Sustainability is a concept much in the news these days. Sustainable fishing, energy and wood products, to name a few. We were told, without complete consensus among scientists, that we have 12 years, now a bit less than that, to live on earth without experiencing a complete climate disaster--announced to be an existential threat--a threat to our very existence. Unless, we are told, we immediately find radically different and sustainable ways to live. 

What about economic and financial stability? All of the Green New Deal remedies start in the trillions of dollars. Add in the cost of social new deals like Medicare for All, All being defined as everyone currently residing in the US along with free college and many more trillions in spending are proposed. And that’s with a current federal budget of less than $5 trillion. How can that be financially sustainable? How is that not a clear and convincing threat to life as we know it?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast

Continuing

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you--you and I--have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Yes, you have heard that from me before, and you will hear it again. That’s what drives this podcast.

Your role, our role, includes knowing the debt and deficit numbers, how they are likely to grow, and what they mean for us, for America. And for our children and grandchildren.

As of today, the 330M people in the US owe $22 trillion, money we have borrowed to keep going. That’s $67K owed by every man, woman or child in our country. If you add in what the federal government has promised in things like government worker pensions, Medicare and Social security, we are over $90 trillion in debt. 

Pause for definitions: The deficit is the difference between what the feds receive in taxes, and what they spend. The deficit is covered by borrowing. Just like a credit card; if you spend more than you make, you need to borrow to make things work. The debt is the total amount the feds, that’s the taxpayers, owe. Again like a credit card, the debt is the total amount owed, while the deficit is the amount you just borrowed. The total debt is accumulated deficits. Our national debt is $22 trillion, with an average annual deficit of $1 trillion. At the risk of making your eyes roll back in your head, let’s bring up another comparison between the feds and a person or family. Fair? The annual federal budget is about $4.7 trillion. An annual deficit of $1 trillion, means that our government is borrowing over 20% of its budget each and every year. If a household spent the US annual average, $60K a year, it would have to borrow $12K, 20%, each and every year to match the feds in borrowing compared to budget. How long could a household sustain, there’s that word again, that percentage of borrowing before it collapsed? After 10 years, the household would owe $120K, and that’s not counting interest, which could easily double that amount. With no end in sight. Here’s a better question; how long can we, the US, sustain that kind of borrowing?

We cannot and should not tax our way out of this mess. We do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Said differently our golden goose is healthy and producing ever more golden eggs. If we continue to threaten the national golden goose by increasing taxes and regulations, we will kill the American goose. 

For those of you who were actually paying attention in school, and not reading Aesop’s fables, Aesop wrote of a farmer who had a magical goose; one that would lay golden eggs every day. The farmer lived quite well selling the gold, but he got impatient; in his ignorance of how things worked, he cut the goose open to get all the eggs at once.

Introduction

We need to stop using labels to either define ourselves or to categorize others. Labels like left, right, progressive and conservative are mindless substitutes for actual thought and productive discussion. Cliches like “Lock her up.”, “Trump the dictator.” “Baby killer.” and “You are against women’s rights.” are also not arguments as much as empty-headed claims that anyone who disagrees is an idiot or worse. Kinda makes me yearn for the return of the 20-second sound bite. By comparison, that was real discourse. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Today’s podcast, and there are two a week, Tuesday and Friday each and every week, goes into more depth about how to fill that role. My last podcast had specific ideas about self-talk. Today it is about no labels and common goals.

A Revolution 2.0™ subscriber, G. O. in Denver, was agreeing with this no label position by observing that Revolution 2.0 espouses looking at policies rather than politics. Exactly. We have a bingo. Don’t ask me what label I am. That will lead to you assuming what I believe on a variety of issues--likely to be wrong, easily having mis-guessed my thinking based on a label. Labels like: Conservative. Liberal. Republican. Libertarian. Moderate. Democrat. Progressive. Independent. Fiscal conservative. Social liberal. Those are the benign descriptors that people apply to themselves. 

Now let’s look at the labels that are often applied to others: “Libtard”, “Trumpist”, and, “You’re a Fascist,” “No, you’re a fascist.” These labels cannot possibly identify, educate and inform; they are simply insults. And we often hurl these “labels” at each other. 

We have weaponized labels.

Stop.

Restart.

Think and speak about issues, not labels.

I started my political life thinking that I was a Democrat. After all, they are the ones who want to help people. Right? Then I thought I was a Republican. They are the responsible ones. Yes? I really thought that I knew who I was politically when I heard Jimmy Carter say that he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Ah. Perfect.

For many years, I was happy with describing myself the way then candidate and later President Carter described himself. But as the political landscape has become dysfunctionally more polarized, the original definitions of Mr. Carter’s terms have become obsolete. “Fiscal conservative” no longer means simply handling taxpayer money efficiently and having tax and regulatory policies that support robust, responsible economic growth. For many, it is coming to mean that you are at least somewhat suspicious of the Federal Reserve, support a return to the gold standard, and want a retreat to the original Federal Income Tax rate of 2%. Similarly, “social liberal” used to mean, at least to me, live and let live when it came to lifestyles. Now, it seems to be morphing into meaning “anything goes.” And not only simple tolerance for the “anything” that’s going; we have growing numbers of groups demanding elaborate accomodations for, well, just about anyone who declares themselves to be different. So now what do I do? How do I describe myself politically? Can I find a home? Let’s create a new home by dropping labels and talking about issues and common goals.

I describe myself as a man seeking common goals. (How’s that for a party name?) Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common  ground (yes, it exists),

Introduction

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcas

Continuing

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

Dr. Martin Luther King called the Declaration’s breakthrough vision for a new nation “a promissory note”. I have called that vision a “statement of direction.” Whatever the descriptor, let these words sink in: “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.” The Constitution took the promises of the Declaration and gave us a set of rules, a path, to becoming a constitutional republic, with government having limited, enumerated powers. This path has led to the US being the world’s oldest free nation. 

We are called to continue along this path. With all that has been done to continuously fulfill the promise of the Declaration, much has been left to us. So, with this calling, what should we do? “How then shall we live?” (Luke 22:31-38)

Today’s Action Item: Start with changing ourselves. Specifically, always think in terms of common goals when talking to yourself. No more who’s right and who’s wrong, winning or losing, this political label vs. that label. Common goals. Always and only. We change everything by--and only by--changing ourselves.

“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.

When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. 

My family and I could have made an impact on our town. 

Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.”

Written by an unknown Monk around 1100 A.D.

The calling is not as much to rid the nation of vestigial prejudices or evening things out with more income redistribution as it is to not return to the days when we were ruled by King George III. No, today’s threat is not a one-person monarchy; it is something much worse. An entrenched, career-based, ruling-class government, surrounded and defended by millions of bureaucrats whose very livelihoods depend upon a government growing in size, scope and power. All bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars; dollars exchanged for the promise of riskless ease. We will be more comfortable than King George’s subjects, but we will be subjects nonetheless. 

Let’s hear a voice from Revolution 1.0 in 1776. “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” -Patrick Henry in his famous “Give me liberty or give me death.” Revolution speech. 

Paraphrasing, are ease and lack of risk “so dear” as to be purchased at the cost of increasingly limited freedoms, including mounting restrictions on what we can do and say--perhaps even think--without being...

Introduction

Subsidized self reliance is an oxymoron, a self-cancelling phrase. Like civil war, or jumbo shrimp. In yet another triumph of doublethink (from Orwell’s 1984), over reason and integrity, it is being sold as being humane and compassionate. It is precisely the opposite. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

It has long been true that if allowed one false premise to build upon, then just about anything can be “proved” to be true. For example, when the prevailing belief was that the earth was flat, it was easy to “prove” that a ship going a distance in any direction would fall off the edge of the world. More recently, when 1930s Germany promoted the false belief that Jews, homoexuals, gypsies, etc., were not people, it allowed those who accepted that thinking to treat the people in these groups in horribly inhumane ways. With apologies to Bertrand Russell, here’s a fun example: 

Someone once challenged Bertrand Russell to prove that, "If  1=2 (the allowed false premise) then you, Russell are the Pope. Russell replied, "Either the Pope and I are one person or we are two people. If 1=2 then in either case we are one person. Therefore, I am the Pope."

Allowing the false premise of subsidized self reliance to stand will lead to claiming that subsidizing people will make them self reliant. In other words, if I just keep giving you new a fish every day, you will eventually learn how to fish. And more importantly, you will be motivated by all the free fish to provide your own fish after a time of being giving them for free. (The people esposing this way of thinking are silent on just how long the free fish have to be given out before, like spontaneous combustion, learning and motivation flare up.)

Pause for a definition. The kind of subsidies we are talking about here are the long term and extended giveaways like “Healthcare is a human right” and free college with the forgiveness of current student debt. As in $1.5 T for trillion in student debt. One third of our annual federal budget. That’s more than all of the outstanding credit card debt. Hey, why not pay that off for everyone as well? We are not talking about the temporary subsidies that have correctly existed for many decades, like good public schools (when they were good), merit-based scholarships and efficient public transportation--where that exists. All subsidized, and all good investments, designed to give the individual what they need when they need it. And allow and encourage them to wean themselves from the subsidies. Eventually to contribute to subsidizing others either through appropriate taxation or personal charity. 

Let’s take a quick re-look at a drawing that deals with the issue of what is a good, effective and compassionate subsidy and, well, what isn’t. This Can’t v. Won’t drawing is a useful guide. 

“Can’t” and “won’t” are completely different. Much of how we see and deal with ourselves, family and society depends upon how we define those two terms, those two states of mind, and how we apply those definitions in our lives.

For example, we all want to help people who can’t and don’t want to help those who won’t. 

As we go forward together with these podcasts, this can’t or won’t distinction will become more important as we begin to outline a complete political, personal and financial philosophy. A way of looking at, living in and contributing to the world around us.

This definition, this distinction, is a good example of the many places in our lives where there is a lot of grey, but we need to make--and act on--firm choices. And just having an honest, non agenda-driven discussion will be hugely beneficial. And advance everyone's thinking in useful directions.

Today’s Key Point: Don’t surrender the word compassion...

Introduction

Yes, hate speech, barring encouragement to physically harm others, is free speech. Otherwise, why have a First Amendment at all?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire French Historian and Philosopher, and ardent defender of freedom of speech, and religion, 1694-1778. That justifiably famous saying should be the gold standard.

Hate speech is speech you hate, or perhaps just disagree with. The solution is not to either shout it down or ban it should you have the power. The best response is to show the speaker up as a fool, to destroy the speaker’s argument. That will gain you converts. Shouting down or banning will gain the speech and the speaker you hate followers.

Does anybody remember the phrase, Banned in Boston? Once puritanical, in Boston the city officials took it upon themselves to ban anything that they found to be salacious, inappropriate, or offensive. Until well past the middle of the 20th Century, the “Banned in Boston” label was slapped on anything the “officials” did not want seen or heard. And the very people who were selling those “unsavory” books and movies used the tag Banned in Boston to boost sales. And it worked. 

The difference is that today’s Puritans, those who also want to squelch speech they disagree with, are not only sending a warning, they are working to disallow certain speech in the first place. Today’s anti-free speech mobs are not content with merely warning about speech they dislike; they want to ban it altogether. No word, no picture they dislike should ever see the light of day. Let’s remember it was the early Puritans who brought us the Salem Witch trials. Outrageous and false accusations led to ruined--and ended--lives in those times. Today’s Puritans, once again trotting out false accusations and outrageous claims, use economic boycotts and mob violence to block invited speakers, intimidate politicians and rout dissenters on social media. Ending, by design, with ruined lives and careers whenever today’s Puritans can pull that off.

Let’s take a look at what is in the First Amendment:

“Amendment I

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.”

As I count, there are five parts to this amendment. 1. Against establishing a state religion. 2. Freedom of speech. 3. Freedom of the press. 4. Right to peaceably assemble and 5. Right to petition government to redress grievances. We seem to take 1, 3, 4 and 5 quite seriously. Even to the point where a case where a cross on public property went to the Supreme Court as a potential violation of the establishment clause, no. 1. And some of the Justices actually thought it was. Crosses. Like in public cemeteries. Freedom of the press is much in the news, and is vigorously defended. And looking at the many and large protests, we see that 4 and 5 are broadly interpreted and defended as well. 

So, what’s up with the attack on freedom of speech? A. This attack is part of the dangerous “The ends justify the means” thinking. In this case, this would mean, “It is wrong to deny free speech to others, the same free speech that I value and defend for myself, but the wrong is justified if I can eliminate hateful utterances in others.” That eliminates rational, independent thinking about right and wrong, and makes whoever has the might automatically right. Many of the same people who defend the argument that all cultures are equal, including ones that promote practices like female genital mutilation, are saying that differences of opinion on subjects...

Introduction

The term “loyal opposition” was born in the parliamentary government system, meaning that those out of power, while still having many disagreements with the party in power, were still loyal to their country and the need for the government to get things done for the citizens they--all sides--serve. In any governmental system, including ours here in the US, opposition, if it is loyal, can be a huge plus. If the opposition is disloyal, it can be an equally huge minus.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Both Republican President Lincoln and Democratic President Roosevelt were justifiably well known for using a “Team of Rivals” as their Cabinets and senior advisors. Churchill did the same when he became Britain’s Prime Minister in 1940. He appointed the most two senior members of the opposition Labour Party to his 5-man war ministry. One of the two was Neville Chamberlain, then Prime Minister when disgraced himself by capitulating to Hitler with his infamous, “We shall have peace in our time” claim after giving Czechoslovakia to ‘ol Adolph in exchange for a piece of paper promising peace. Hitler attacked, starting WWII a few months later. These American Presidents and the British Prime Minister knew they could rely on their opposition to be loyal to their countries and meet their countries' needs--despite their political differences.

Lincoln, Roosevelt and Churchill chose the team of rivals approach because it best served their nations. It had to be much harder to have dissenting voices in their inner circles, but all ideas were heard--to everyone’s advantage. And the citizens in the countries had to be comforted by seeing that their leaders were working together for their benefit. As World War II approached, Democrat Roosevelt appointed new individuals to key positions. Frank Knox, the 1936 Republican vice presidential nominee, became Secretary of the Navy while former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, another Republican, became Secretary of War--key positions, especially in wartime. Both men performed admirably under Roosevelt, and as part of a Democrat/Republican Team of Rivals.

President Lincoln’s cabinet included all of his major rivals for the Republican nomination for President in 1860—William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Simon Cameron and Edward Bates. Some of these men had been effectively promised positions as part of the negotiations that led to Mr. Lincoln’s nomination at the Republican national convention in May 1860. Many of them objected to the inclusion of each other in the cabinet. There were worries about both geographic distribution and balance between former members of the Whig and Democratic Parties. But it worked, and worked well.

 

Politicians today are too busy accusing each other, including competing members of their own party, of everything from being idiots to being traitors, that they are unable to take advantage of individual strengths, regardless of party, as part of successful teams that deliver for America. In the US, most politicians seem to have taken an oath to be the disloyal opposition. Quite the opposite of a team of rivals, the current approach is to make anyone who disagrees with them the enemy. The actual enemy. “Resist.” Either by openly resisting any and all action by the other party, or by supporting those who walk around openly and angrily resisting.

Politicians know the advantages of a team of rivals approach, but those advantages accrue mainly to the country and its citizens--not to them and their party. So that's out. We voters are also guilty. We have allowed ourselves to be so deeply influenced by the us-vs-them approach to life in general and politics in particular, that we keep voting for “My team is the only team” politicians. On both sides. And the media actively support this dysfunctional way of...

Introduction

Career politicians serve themselves. Citizen politicians serve the citizens. The country’s successful founding depended on, and anticipated the continuation of, citizen politicians to serve the country. Today we have career politicians who serve themselves.

We must return to the days of citizen politicians by voting in term limits.  Career politicians will fight us tooth and nail. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states on February 27, 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. (There is an exception, but it is minor and does not matter much.) We have term limits with the presidency, the highest level of our government. Many state and local governments have term limits for some offices as well. It is past time for the US to have term limits for Congress.

Geroge Washington term limited himself--twice. His republican (note the small “r”) values gave him a distaste for career rule, even for himself. He gave up power at the end of the revolutionary war when he resigned his military commission, and again at the end of his second term as president when he refused pleas to seek a third term. He set a standard for American presidents that lasted until FDR, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran for and was elected to four terms. King George III, king of England during Washington’s time, and clearly not term limited, asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what George Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch replied, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Washington had served his country extraordinarily well both  militarily and politically; I argue better than anyone before or since. Yet he walked away from those pleading with him to stay in power. And I agree with King George that this final step of walking away from power and adulation made Washington a truly great man. And as hard as power and adoration are to attain, walking away from them at the height of both must be all that much more difficult.

Yet today we have politicians on both sides of the aisle scheming and plotting to raise more and more campaign money and to out promise each other about what they will give to the voters--if only they will vote for them. Today’s politicians are shameless in their drive to attain and keep power. If Washington was the “greatest man” because he walked away from both military and political power, what does that make our current pack of politicians where many will say and do anything to cling to and increase their power?

Career politicians serve themselves; citizen politicians serve the citizens.

Here’s a specific suggestion about Congressional term limits: one term for Senators (6 years) and three terms for Representatives (three, two-year terms). If the limits are slightly higher, no matter. But we must demand limits. And if you are incensed, as am I, about the power that lobbyists gain from contributing cash to multiple campaigns for the same politician, know that term limits will cause lobbyists to lose a lot of their power. Lobbyists who wine and dine candidates, along with contributing to many of their campaigns over the decades, build up real power and influence with that office holder. Politicians need money--and lots of it--to stay in power. Lobbyists have the money to help them do exactly that. It does not take a lot of thought to know with certainty that politicians will use at least some of their long-held power to make the helpfully generous lobbyists happy. If the best a lobbyist can do is to contribute to six years in power for someone in Congress, as opposed to, say, 30 or 40 years, their power is greatly reduced.