Thursday, January 28, 2016

Life as a Summons with David Brooks


            Lately, a book keeps coming to my mind that I think has some strong points on character that I have found helpful. I thought I would share one of the strongest points of the book.
            David Brooks (The Road to Character, 2015) refers to two different classes of virtues we write in the course of our lives. One class is the resume virtues. The resume is the career-oriented, ambitious side of our nature. We want to conquer. We want to build, create, produce, and discover things. We have high status and win victories. This resume focuses upon the external matters. We are creative and savor our accomplishments. We want to venture forth into the world and away from home. Brooks will opine that resume virtues in our culture suggests that our accomplishments can provide a deep sense of satisfaction. However, the desires of the resume virtues are infinite. We will never find genuine happiness and satisfaction focusing upon them. The second class of virtues is funeral virtues. They are the virtues we hope people might highlight at our funeral. We want to obey a calling to serve the world. These are the inner virtues, the moral qualities we want to develop. We want more than to do well. We want to be good. We want to love intimately, to sacrifice self in the service of others, to live in obedience to some transcendent truth, to have a cohesive inner soul that honors creation and our possibilities. We might renounce worldly success and status for the sake of some sacred purpose. A primary question we answer in the funeral virtues is why we are here. We often want to return home, savor our roots, and savor the warmth of a family meal.


The art of living is learning to balance the building resume virtues as they confront the funeral virtues. Confrontation is the proper word, for the resume logic is utilitarian. Effort leads to reward. Practice makes perfect. Pursue self-interest. Maximize your utility. Impress the world. Cultivate your strengths. The funeral virtue is a moral logic. You have to give to receive, surrender to something outside yourself, and conquer your desire to get what you crave. Success can lead to pride. Failure can lead to great success. In order to fulfill yourself, forget yourself. In order to find yourself, you have to lose yourself.  Confront your weaknesses.

The art of living will involve cultivating humility, a “going down” before you can “rise up.” This concern for pride going before the fall is part of the journey. Yet, the journey does not mean they receive healing of their weaknesses. One can find a vocation or calling. One can commit to some long obedience and dedicate oneself to something that gives life its purpose.

In Chapter 2, Brooks refers to the importance of responding to a summons. He refers to the idea of discovering your passion, trusting feelings, and finding purpose. The assumption in such language is that the answer is inside of us. Therefore, the first step in the business plan of your life is to take an inventory of your gifts and passions, set your goals, and adopt a strategy to accomplish the goals. As William Ernest Henley put it in his poem “Invictus,” 

I am the master of my fate
I am captain of my soul.
 
It appeals to our sense of individual autonomy and fascination with self. It answers the question, “What do I want from life?” In contrast, Brooks says, if we focus upon the funeral virtues, the question to which we respond is “What does life want from me? What are my circumstances calling me to do?” We respond to the summons of life. It begins with our embeddedness in a community of people, circumstances, and inter-relations. Frederick Buechner famously put it, “At what points do my talents and deep gladness meet the world’s deep need?” Viktor Frankl, in Man’s Search for Meaning (1946), said that it did not matter what we expected from life, but what life expected from us. We need to stop asking about the meaning of life and instead think of ourselves as those of whom life asks questions. He concluded that life had given him a moral and intellectual assignment. Such a calling or vocation feels like the person has no choice in the matter. In reality, of course, any of us can run away. We will usually do so with dire results. If one pursues it, however, one’s life becomes unrecognizable without the calling.

            Much food for thought (I know that is a cliché, but maybe a good phrase here) at this stage of my life. I need to chew on it for a while. I thought it might be good spiritual food for you as well.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Republican Debate (2) January 2016

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. If you want to skip to particular candidates, just scroll down.

I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in this field of candidates. The order reflects that appreciation.

Donald Trump has decided not to be part of this debate. Hopefully, that will make the debate itself better!

This is the first nomination process in which polls are actually the first primary. The only polls that should matter are those involving IA, NH, and SC. That is where the candidates are spending their time. Those voters are getting a close up look. The national poll reflects name recognition, and in the race this time is a master at getting media attention.

This is also the first Republican nomination process in which the top two candidates, Trump and Cruz, I do not like. I hope that the following will help others think through the process. National Review came out with an edition labeled "Against Trump." People like Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Dana Loesch, and Brent Bozell III are hardly the hated "establishment." Some are for Cruz. I wish Rush and Hannity would ban the word "establishment" when it comes to analyzing this nomination process. People have many reasons for adopting the position they do. It is not all about maintaining the establishment. In fact, much of the debate is about method rather than the goal, as I hope to show a little later.

Anger. Trump has made a big thing about being angry, the label Nikki Haley applied to him. Bernie Sanders has done the same. I offer a modes thought. Anger is one of the 7 deadly sins of the Christian tradition. Angry people get the attention. Angry people, under the right circumstances, can get their way. I do not claim great insight here, but it seems to me this election cycle is for anger. I hope calm thought and thoughtfulness will prevail. Of course, one can be angry in a way that leads to appropriate change. It would be hard to fight for justice without some anger. However, I am wrestling with the "righteousness" of the anger that I am seeing. I am not so sure it is "righteous."

First, I reject the notion that the establishment within the Republican Party is not conservative. They (George Will, Krauthammer, et al) believe in limited government, less taxes, and defending the country, with a strong dose of patriotism. What defines the establishment is a style that involves respect for the constitutional process and, whether you like it or not, not closing down the government. Second, they do not like Cruze because Cruze is ... unlikeable. This is obvious, given that he has not been able to persuade other Senators to join him in the projects to which he has committed himself. Cruze will not do what is necessary in politics, which is one of the reasons Washington DC is so dysfunctional, namely, to gain governing coalitions. Third, I am glad that even Rush is starting to see that Trump does not represent conservatism. He is a hybrid. My view is that it would damage the Republican Party by abandoning core conservative principles. Fourth, the establishment, if it exists, would be better to do what it can to get Bush to support Rubio and get out of the race. But you see, this is the problem. The word Establishment implies a shadowy group unknown to us who is manipulating and controlling things. It plays to our fear that we as voters are not in charge of our destiny. The reality is that everyone is trying to figure this out and what is best for their agenda and, one hopes, for the country.

I have never liked it when candidates spend their time attacking other candidates. Pointing out differences is fine, but when you are within the same party, you need to word yourself in such a way that you can justify supporting the person in the general election. Jeb might have gotten this started when he said he wanted to win the nomination without the base. However, with the entry of Trump, the focus has been attacking him and him attacking others, and this has led to further attacking of each other. Cruz has lied in ads against Marco. Bush is attacking Rubio for petty things. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity add to the problem, as they refer to some mysterious group of elites and establishment types. Supposedly, these persons (John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and others in Congressional leadership) have not opposed the Obama agenda. This would be a surprise to many of my liberal friends, many of whom think that is all Republicans have done, with the suspicion they have done so because of his race. In reality, the truth is in the middle. Yes, Republicans opposed Obamacare. However, I refer to the trade agreement as one example of cooperation with Obama. The goal is the same for Republicans in terms of opposing much of what Obama wants to do. The reason for this disagreement, I stress, is a difference in the role of the government in our lives. To put as neutral a spin on this as I can, Obama wants to maximize that role because he thinks it the best way to "help" all people. Republicans want to lessen that role in taxation, regulation, and general involvement, because they believe freedom is what works best for citizens. The country had the same divide in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was President. Some conservatives think Republicans should be more aggressive, such as closing down the government, in opposing Obama and the Democrat Party agenda. Others think it would be a disaster to go down that road.

I think many of us puzzle that the intelligent people we send to Washington, DC cannot get together and make some agreements that will benefit us all. Of course, the differences are real and fundamental. On some big issues, it will not happen. However, on matters of actual governance, we need leaders who know how to work within the constitutional system to govern. It does not seem as if we have much of that.

In the first two primaries, it appears Trump and Cruz will battle it out. I do not like either.

After the last Obama State of the Union, Governor Nikki Haley delivered the Republican response. I read the speech of Nikki Haley. It is a wonderful speech. Debra J. Saunders has a nice of way of discussing her point about bipartisanship and Trump (without mentioning him by name). Kathleen Parker also has a nice article on this theme. I consider it unfortunate that Rush has followed the rest of the press in focusing upon one or two sentences. Many conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin, analyze it the same way. Her emphasis for half of the speech were specific places on which to disagree with what the President said. Actually, what Rush describes as an inability to point fingers was a part of the speech where she agreed with Rush's and Sean's criticism of the Republicans in Congress. Congressional Republicans bear some of the responsibility for not opposing effectively what Obama has done. Rush's interpretation of Nikki is simply wrong at that point. In any case, at a deeper level, I was furious with Rush. Rush spent the whole time the day after Obama's speech ripping into a successful Republican governor and almost nothing on Obama! Constant attacks on conservatives that Rush does not like, calling them (me) elite and establishment, is getting a bit much. An example is Cruz. Apparently, Cruz does not work well with others. He is unable to get fellow Republicans to join him in various efforts he has had in the Senate. Rush considers such lone wolf efforts a virtue, and I consider it a sign that he does not play well with others. Apparently, Rush has become that way as well! A conservative approach to governance is difficult enough to maintain against the human tendency to expand the power of government in the name of the common good. Now, Rush and Sean are helping conservatives turn on each other. Very bad.

In a theme related to the popularity of Trump, but also the attraction of people like Cruz and Carson, I understand the frustration many conservatives have with the way Washington works. However, divided government is frustrating by nature. Divided government reflects the division among the American people. "We the people" seem confused as to what we want out of government. In fact, Cruz in particular receives ovations for saying that he does not work well with Washington Cartel. I would urge fellow conservatives to consider that we need to listen to other Republican Senators, who are clearly not working with Cruz. He has alienated the very people with whom he would need to work as President.

Here are a few general topics that seem appropriate here. Immigration has been issue. George Will discusses the possibility that the Supreme Court might strike down as unconstitutional his executive decisions.

It will be obvious that I favor a conservative vision of governance. I would like to discuss that briefly.

Jay Nordlinger once defined conservatism in a way I like.
"I believe that to be a conservative is to be for limited government. Personal freedom. The rule of law. The Constitution, and adherence to it. Federalism. Equality under the law. Equality of opportunity. Relatively light taxation. Relatively light regulation. Free enterprise. Property rights. Free trade. Civil society. The right to work. A strong defense. National security. National sovereignty. Human rights. A sound, non-flaky educational curriculum. School choice. A sensible stewardship over the land, as opposed to extreme environmentalism. Pluralism. Colorblindness. Toleration. E pluribus unum. Patriotism. Our Judeo-Christian heritage. Western civilization. I want to throw in, too, the right to life."
 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426758/what-conservatism-jay-nordlinger

I became a political conservative in my mid-20s, after reading people like George Will, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman. Arthur Brooks wrote a book that explores the moral case for conservatism, and Gabriella Hoffman summarizes the ideas. Among the major issues in the Republican Party recently is the difference between people who might call themselves "movement" conservatives, like the TEA Party, Hannity, and Limbaugh, and the "Establishment" Republicans, such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Matt Lewis has offered an excellent analysis, using the quick change in the views that movement conservatives have of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump as examples. The issue he raises is that the division is "us vs. them" and not "liberal vs conservative." I was struck in a recent radio broadcast that Rush Limbaugh claimed not to know how Jeb differs from Obama. I think he is way off on this. In fact, both Rush and Hannity have gone the direction of claiming that establishment Republicans are liberals. The reason is the immigration issue. However, to focus on one issue in a matter like this is unreasonable. Some Republicans would like a more assertive (aggressive) stance in relation to the Democrat Party, to the point of closing down the government. Others think that would be a disaster. This is a matter of strategy. It is also a matter of frustration that grass roots conservatives, who have had some successes, but who also see little results in Washington. My point is that while conservatives may differ over strategy, conservatives ought not to write each other out of the conservative approach to the government over such matters.

Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.

Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. In November 2015, Chris Cilizza offers an interesting ranking of his predictions as to who will win, ending with Marco. Charles Krauthammer offers a betting approach to both Republicans and Democrats, giving Marco and Hillary 3-1 odds, and Republicans a 55-45 advantage to win. Thomas Sowell considers the candidates as of August 2015. Arther Laffer says that regardless of who the Republican nominee is, Republicans will have a landslide victory. "Hillary's day is done."


Marco Rubio
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues. After the Simi, California debate, which focused on foreign policy, I must say that he communicates the vision well. Even where I might disagree, I have respect. I remain convinced after the CNBC debate. His strategy, from what I hear, is that he wants to make a "push" in Iowa and New Hampshire in January. I hope that means he will be out more on the shows and the political circuit. People need to see him far more than they do. One of the issues I have had with all the attention to Trump is that it is too early. In January, it will be time for the candidates to make a move in the early states. At this point, I can only say that I hope the strategy works.

I do not appreciate the attacks from the Cruz and Bush campaigns at all. His not being present at certain votes does not bother me in the slightest. His past vote on immigration is of no bother as well. Frankly, that is a plus. In addition, what he says now is a plus. However, George Will has pointed to potential weaknesses in Marco. This is the type of article that I would like to think Marco is mature enough not to respond defensively and learn from these potential weaknesses. He will have to face them if he is President. I do not view the weaknesses as disqualifying, but he needs to listen.

Mark A. Thiessen elevates Marco over Cruz in terms of what the former did in a practical way against the Affordable Care Act. However, Sahill Kapur says the numbers of his budget do add up to a balanced budget.

Since the rise of national security in this campaign, Rubio has gone up in the polls. My concern with him is that around him appear to be the "neo-conservatives" who led the charge into the Middle East under George W. I wish he exhibited more hesitancy to use military force. On the other hand, we are at a time, in my judgment, when ISIS needs to be taken out. Many people I trust in the military actually think this can be done quickly, and with a modest number of troops, maybe 10-20,000, along with Sunni troops. This is a tough matter, but now that terrorists are running country, the country (ISIS) needs to be taken out.

Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch. She also writes about how his understanding of "black lives matter" is on target.

The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans. Michelle Ye Hee Lee says the accusations concerning use of the Republican Party charge card in Florida that it is much ado about nothing. Even his boots became a point of attack.

Albert Hunt has written an interesting article on the possibility of Republicans needing to make a choice between Marco and Cruz. I think that would be very interesting. I agree with him that both Trump and Carson will fade, although for quite different reasons. Trump will fade when people get tired of his bluster (I will do the best, it will be the greatest, etc.) Carson will fade because his lack of political experience will undermine this fine, exemplary man. Jonathan Bernstein thinks that Marco is now in November 2015 the most likely nominee. However, to read this article is also to read of his failure to predict well. In some ways, the article is humorous. Was he smiling ironically as he wrote it?

When I think ahead to the campaign against Hillary, I still think Marco represents the best chance for a solid victory at the national level and that he will help at the local level. If we add a good woman candidate with him as vice-president, it would be almost unstoppable,  I think.

John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. I was reminded of why in watching him at the Jack Kemp forum. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. However, right now, many Republicans do not seem interested in that. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself.

The "however" with him is his performance on the debate stage. His performance in the Simi, California debate was disappointing. He has not done well in the debates. In October, he said things that have not helped him. He is someone who does not seem to campaign well at the national level. His off the cuff statements about his competitors do not wear well. Frankly, although I am confident he is a good thinker about things that matter, he is not able to communicate that on the national stage. In fact, at times, he seems petty and out of touch. He seems like the person who tries too hard to do or be something that he is not. After the Las Vegas debate, I think he will not go far.

A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives. David Shribman says this is his moment. Albert Hunt likes John Kaisch, contrasting his Ohio popularity with the other unpopular governors on this list.

Chris Christie
I like his combative style. I like his willingness to tackle entitlements. He seems like he would be a good one to lead in the area of national defense. Yet, New Jersey has not done that well under his leadership. The economic record, especially lowering of the bond rating, concerns me. He does not have a good record on protecting the second amendment. As I understand it, people in New Jersey are tired of him and want him gone. I am not sure if that is just what happens after eight years. I suppose I wonder how conservative he would be in actual governance. George Will has an article that I wish would have analyzed some of the things just mentioned. Instead, it is more of a campaign horse race piece. Disappointing from a writer of this caliber. Will has been wrong often in the candidates toward whom he feels positive, at least as to whether they catch on.

Jeb Bush
He offers news and positions on issues on his web site. I like much about him. However, it seems as if he conducts a campaign suitable for a decade or two ago, but not suitable for today. It seems like he has little awareness of the frustration that many Republicans have with the direction of the country. Things have changed, and he seems out of touch with the changes. In the debates, he seems to force himself to be engaged. Even in a relatively good debate, such as in Las Vegas, it seems forced.

I have not been a Bush fan, although I think they are wonderful people and desire to serve the nation they love. George H. W. gave us Bill Clinton, and George W. gave us Iraq and Barak Obama. Jeb seems to offer petty criticisms, especially of his friend Marco. Recent attack ads by a superpack have no impact upon me, either against other candidates or for Jeb. I am not sure how they affect others. It also simply looks like he does not really want the job. I saw this recently when Jeb, following Hillary as a speaker, listened to Hillary attack him, and he simply got up and gave his prepared speech. Byron York addresses this incident. In October 2015, he had a reaction to Donald Trump that makes Debra J. Saunders think he is not suitable for President. In October, he has made some silly statements against Rubio and Trump. My own suggestion is that Jeb just keep at it, be himself, and let the chips fall. My concern is that the Republican Party does not need to go the Bush route again.

Guy Benson writes about the relationship between Jeb and George W. William Kristol says that George W. was right on several matters.  Jonah Goldberg is surprised that a family with so much institutional knowledge of how to run for President seems to have so many mistakes at the beginning of this campaign. Erick Erickson discusses some of the problems he has. Debra Saunders has a positive reflection on the energy of Jeb Bush. Kathleen Parker discusses Alzheimer costs to the government and the plan of Jeb to deal with it.

Larry Kudlow thinks that he is right that the economy can grow at 4%. One author suggests that Jeb is more conservative than others think.

Jeb seemed to have a misstep in his response to a question from Megyn Kelly about whether what he knew now would he have done the same thing that George W. did in Iraq. David Harsanyi connects this interest with the vote by Hillary Clinton for the war.

Carly Fiorino
I have appreciated her every time I see her. However, she is not catching on with the people in the early primary states. I must listen to that. In the post-debate discussion after Las Vegas, people still do not talk about her. I put here because of realism.  I would put her higher.

She does not have an issues page, but you can "meet" her. She was a powerful force in the Simi, California debate. She was part of a private sector CIA team after 9/11/2001, and it showed.

When I hear her, I like what she says. She has persistence about her. I would be happy for her to be the first female President. She has integrated her faith journey into her presentation of herself in a powerful way.

She offered a speech on the rise of China in August 2015.

Debra J. Sanders discusses some of the things excite her about this candidate. However, the layoffs at Hewlitt-Packard and the failure to pay off campaign debt promptly are problems with her. Alex Smith discusses the contrast between this candidate and Hillary Clinton.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman explains why she crushed the debate - optimistic, knowledgeable, and articulating the difference between progressive and conservative. She compares her to - Margaret Thatcher!

Mona Charen offers her reasons for thinking that a Rubio/Fiorino or the reverse would be a winning ticket for Republicans, but wonders if America is willing to give a serious examination, given the fascination with Trump. In contrast, John Hawkins makes it clear that her experience at Hewlitt-Packard, her failure in her Senate campaign, and her past positions, do not commend her. Steve Chapman analyzes her time at H-P and her debate performance and draws a negative conclusion. Rich Lowry argues that feminists should fear Carly.

Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. Since the rise of the terror issue after the Paris attacks, his attractiveness has declined. I must say that when I see him interviewed, I have the feeling of wanting to help him say what he needs to say. He takes so long, in contrast to other candidates. My sense of things after the Las Vegas debate is that he is simply not making it with enough people, mostly because he has not been able to convince people that he is ready to be President on Day 1, regardless of the respect people have for him personally.

I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. He did nothing to help himself in the Simi, California debate. He needs to demonstrate knowledge on the enemies that confront the USA today. He did not have a breakthrough moment, and he needs one every debate. The CNBC debate did not help him either. As much as I like him, he is not finding a way to demonstrate his knowledge of the issues. Politicians learn to do that. William Kristol offers an interesting reconsideration of Carson and his experience. Worth reading. In contrast, Jonah Goldberg says it is too late for him to get up to speed on foreign policy and terrorism, which is a concern rising after the Paris attacks in November 2015.

Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology. Rich Lowry writes positively of his non-political alternative to Trump. Michelle Malkin writes of his wife. Debra J. Saunders thinks he stills needs to show he has the executive experience necessary, but she has other positive things about him. It makes sense that as he rose in the polls his opponents would attack his personal story. Politico in November released questions regarding connections with West Point. David French briefly offers that the Politico lied. Rush Limbaugh has offered a strong defense of Carson. One transcript refers to the Politico article as a lie. Another transcript broadens his attack to say that the mainstream media, which has become the communication arm of the Hillary campaign, has a coordinated attack upon Carson. The fact is, I think, Progressives cannot let stand a conservative Black candidate, witness the hit job on Herman Cain in 2012, which were also fabrications.

He offers his plan to defeat ISIS, as of November 20, 2015.

A few press-generated issues come to mind. I think one of the worst things one can be, according to the MSM, is a devout Christian. The puzzling thing here is that Christians, especially evangelical-conservative-orthodox Christians, have been very tolerant, given the rapid movement of culture away from its values. The antagonism against Christianity and its values has its match in the lack of concern for the rise of Islam. For me, all of this is puzzling. The second worst thing one can be is a politically conservative black man. Dr. Ben Carson combines both. He has a target on his back. Thus, some in the Press have taken things Carson has said and twisted them to mean something Carson would never say. As Carson has said, this is why many Americans do not trust the "mainstream" media represented by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, and Washington Post. This represents strong opposition, but when one adds much of Academia and much of Hollywood, it becomes imposing. Among the easiest things to do is twist words. Here are a few examples. Star Parker defends what Dr. Carson said about not promoting a Muslim for President and expecting any Muslim running for office needing to renounce Sharia Law. Wesley Pruden defends his statement as well. David Limbaugh defends what he said about the Oregon school shooting. Ron Fournier, an example of the lack of trustworthiness in listening to Carson, makes his objection to what Carson says about government and guns. Thomas Sowell offers his reflections on the attacks on his autobiography from the Press and from Trump. Brent Bozell has written a book on the lies contained in the autobiographies that Obama wrote. The link is to an excerpt from the book. The positive is that it shows the little interest media had in Obama lying, contrasting to the misunderstanding 14-year old Carson may have had about West Point. Of course, the deeper issue here is that when you read the Politico story, it fabricates its own data to suggest things that were simply not true in order to destroy a black candidate. In contrast, it showed no interest in actual lies of the liberal. This is not anything new, but it is frustrating.

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site.

Rich Lowry has written his reasoning for supporting Cruz over Trump. Of course, Trump is not a conservative and to Lowry Cruz is the true conservative in this election process. Jonah Goldberg also seems to favor Cruz.

David Brooks has written an article getting a lot of press. It points to a disturbing incident in his political career that makes me put him further down the list. With Cruz, it is a matter of "How do I not like thee? Let me count the ways." He sounds like a preacher, in a very bad sense. He reminds me of a used car salesperson, trying to sell me something I do not want. He has made it virtue that no one else in the Senate supports him in his fights. In other words, he does not play well with others.

Here is further reason for me to place him this low.  I have placed Trump at the bottom. Cruz will not go after Trump on any of the outlandish things he has said. Even a modest, "Oh, that is just The Donald" would have been nice. However, he went after Marco. Now, many of us who do not like Trump have Cruz and Rubio in some type of one-two arrangement. His attacks on Rubio, however, were not even accurate. Leon Wolff has identified issue. Mona Charen also points to the dishonesty of Cruz regarding his presentation of his views. Curt Anderson makes the case that Cruz is more narcissistic than is Trump. He has specific incidents of appeasing a crowd rather than speaking honestly of his beliefs.

Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. I guess that fact attracts some conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. He sounds too much like a preacher for me. He sounds like someone who has something to sell, but you are never quite sure if what he is selling is a good product. However, his performance in the Las Vegas debate on CNN in December was impressive. Byron York, after Steve Deace of Iowa endorsed him, examines the increase in support for Cruz since the debate. George Will describes his election strategy of energizing conservatives to come to the polls, a strategy Obama perfected. My assessment is that such a strategy obviously can work of the messenger is right. Reagan had a similar strategy. I do not think Cruz is the right messenger. Jennifer Rubin offers six reasons Cruz has a difficult path to the nomination. Debra J Saunders explores whether he even qualifies as a natural born citizen.

Rand Paul
Not surprisingly, you can quickly access his stance on issues. His libertarian leaning is well-known, and I like it. His stance on the military is a little too far for me. I wish other Republican candidates shared some of his hesitancy to use military force.

I place him here in part because of his petulant approach to the Fox Business placing of him in the second tier of the debate. I do not get it. If he is as good as he thinks he is, he should shine in comparison to the others and move up in the polls. Thus was not a good move.

Brian Darling explores the challenge he brings to the Republican Party, apparently thinking other Republicans favor a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy and are they do not tell the truth about the Bush/Obama NSA spying program. Of course, the way I have worded this, I disagree, but the article is worth reading. Stephen Moore helped put together his tax plan and offers an explanation that it is "flat and fair."





The rest are people that I hope and trust do not get the nomination. Here is my "Please No" list.

Mike Huckabee
Do not ask why. I think he seems like a fine person and good TV host, but President? No.

Steve Chapman thinks that since 2008 this candidate has done things to narrow his appeal rather than broaden it. George Will has concerns related to the way he understands God in politics. David French argues that a loss by this candidate will be a victory for cultural conservatives. Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of the progressive nature of the Huckabee campaign. Todd Starnes thinks he is a man of conviction as he stands for traditional marriage and has concerns over what the Supreme Court will do regarding legalizing gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg does want to defend this candidate, but he did not compare Obama to Hitler.

Rick Santorum
George Will makes it clear that he thinks this candidate is silly for even considering a run for the presidency again. Agreed.

Donald Trump
People puzzle over the attraction of Trump to so many likely Republican primary voters. I confess my puzzlement. Thomas Sowell expresses his disagreement with the Trump campaign.

Let us discuss Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for a moment. Recently, Trump and Cruz are going at each other. Albert Hunt discusses how the supporters differ. The difficulty for me is that I do not like either one. I cannot say that I have had this experience before. As for Trump, some of his opponents have said that Hillary would beat him easily. If so, I ask, what does this say about his opponents in the Republican field? If he were to win the nomination, I do think Hillary would beat him easily. However, my hope is that someone else will be the nominee. He has changed the equation dramatically. Barack Obama is the primary reason for the rise of Donald Trump. I do not mean this to be a polemical matter or even a partisan one. However, throughout the Obama presidency, the policies adopted regarding both immigration and terror have seemed weak and ineffective to many Americans. Someone was going to tap into that perception of things. Philosophically, this is in line with Hegel. Once the primary theme becomes the agenda that Obama has, it becomes "natural" for its opposite to arise, and Donald Trump has tapped into that opposite. However, the opposite to progressive Obama is not necessarily conservative. Yes, it will be patriotic, concerned with physical threats from Islamic militancy, and rein in the federal government at some level. With Donald Trump, we have someone who has done so in the manner of a celebrity. He figures out a way to say something that will grab the media attention. This attention gets him high numbers in the polls. It also gets him free media. He has spent little of his money on the campaign thus far. We can see this strategy in the way he makes policy suggestions. The change began with the way he focused on immigration. His focus on immigration has brought the frustration with this issue to the fore. I see many people in both parties very concerned about the favors granted to illegal immigrants vs. citizens. Many people also do not want their illegal behavior rewarded while those who go through the process legally get pushed to the back of the line. The change has continued with the way he says he will deal with Syrian refugees and with the war against ISIS. Of course, Trump also gives the impression that he will get things done. I recall a similar attraction to Ross Perot in the 1992 election. However, I also sense an emotional connection with his energy, excitement, grandiose claims, and even his anger. The other way he keeps the media focused on him is the way he attacks his opponents if they start climbing in the polls. Interestingly, he often uses what the Democrats say about his Republican opponents. He did this with Scott Walker. He has done it with Ted Cruz. He has even used the Democrat attack against Scalia. Now, this supports something I have long held. Donald Trump is part Democrat and part Republican. He is more like the old-time conservative Democrat, which no longer exist. As a result, his policies, and sometimes his comments, reflect that focus.

As this blog will show again, I am not a Trump fan. If the two dominant political parties give me the choice of Trump and Hillary, let us just say that I will be deeply disappointed - Again. If I were guessing today, Trump will not win Iowa. I see a good chance that he will also lose New Hampshire. This will start the fade of Trump. He will get on his very successful business and celebrity career. The country will get on with the serious business of electing a President. Mona Charen has stated well my concern here as she focuses on what will happen to a conservative vision of government in this nomination process. George Will has nailed it once again on this matter. The election of Trump will mean the end of a conservative vision of governance.

I get the frustration with politicians. Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has tapped into the mistrust that many in the Republican base feel toward the inside the beltway Republicans. I figured that eventually, the Democrat part of Trump would come out in a way that Limbaugh would have to respond negatively. This happened with the way Trump criticized in December 2015. In my reading of conservative literature, I would agree that many feel frustrated. Yet, as Republicans attempt to follow the constitution, where the President does not, there are limits to what they can do, even with majorities in both Houses. My further concern, that Rush does not share, is that Trump will damage conservative ideas by his attacks on conservative and liberal ideas. He is charting his own course, and it is not the conservative ideas that Rush, Bill Buckley, George Will, and Ronald Reagan fought for. I keep having this suspicion that his real objective is the election of Hillary. For me, it is enough that George Will has spoken on this matter. Please read this article if you are still leaning this way. Russell Moore makes it clear that it is time for Christians to stand up against Trump, given his December proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the USA temporarily. There are Muslims in the Middle East, such as the UAE, who are active in promoting a moderate and modern application of Islam. Trump does not seem to acknowledge that his plan would tend to push Muslims in the Middle East toward radical beliefs. Jennifer Rubin highlights the statement made by Paul Ryan against Trump. I like that these articles do not get into inflaming rhetoric of fascism and bigotry, both terms liberals throw around to every conservative. Violence against Trump could be the result. In an interview on MSNBC, Trump praised the leadership of Putin after Putin praised Trump. Quite honestly, in a normal world, this would be enough to defeat Trump. He also found it hard to offer comfort to Muslims in America who are peaceful, beyond his typical, "I have many Muslim friends." My belief is that once people start voting Trump will fade and we will get to the serious part of the campaign. To go to the extreme to make a point, if the best these parties can do is Trump and a woman who destroyed the lives of women her husband sexually abused to preserve her political future, it might be time to find another country in which to live. Charles Krauthammer has expressed well the problem with banning all Muslims from entering the USA.

He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration. He just did OK in the Simi, California debate.  Judd Legum suggests that an essay written in the 1950s by Roland Barthes, a French philosopher, helps us understand the appeal of Trump by appealing to the difference between wrestling and boxing. It reads like someone who does not want to understand the complex reasons people support Trump.

Of course, he has raised the matter of illegal immigration. Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration.  The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Helen Raleigh points to the Know-Nothing Party as a parallel, focusing on immigration.

Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path.

Trump said some things in Iowa in November that puzzled many of us. Obviously,  I am not a fan anyway. However, here are a few articles who explore the attacks Trump made against Carson and Iowa voters: Chris Cillizza, Kathleen Parker, and Jennifer Rubin.

Here are some analyses. David French has identified my primary concern, that Trump is popular because he is not a conservative. He also stresses that the "base" is not as conservative some analysts have thought.  Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump.  After the Cleveland debate, George Will, whose wife works for the Scott Walker campaign, wrote that Trump is a counterfeit conservative. Will continues his probing in a September 2015 article.  S. E. Cupp describes the Trump voter as not part of the base conservative (who thinks of Jeb Bush as establishment, purist) but rather disaffected moderates and even some on the Left. She points to some voters who say that if Bernie Sanders does not make it through the primaries, they are going for Trump. Dana Milbank writes of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley talking back to Trump. Nate Silver says we should not compare Trump and Sanders, and offers his reasons.  Paul Greenberg refers to Trump as in the tradition of the ugly American, Pat Buchannan and the populist know-nothing party. Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against.

Miscellaneous Note:
The CNBC debate in October 2015 raised another issue. I suppose I think of moderators of the debate as in the background, the candidates in the foreground. The point is to ask questions that bring out what candidates believe and how they respond to the issues of the day. It was clear CNBC had a different view. The CNN debate had a different view as well. The agenda seemed in both cases to ridicule the candidates and bring them down. In general, to have any of the non-FOX news outlets moderate a debate is like putting the fate of the discussion into the hands of the biggest superpack the Democrat Party has. What is interesting is that the Democrat Party is getting by with not having a debate on FOX News. So, Republicans are put to the fate of their debates into the hands of the opposition, while the Democrats get by with not one debate in a venue they view as the opposition. In reality, the liberal commentators on FOX News challenge their party to do so as well. All of this makes one wonder if the Republican Party should not simply run the debate, choose the moderators, and allow news outlets to broadcast if they choose. Make it a newsworthy event for the 24 hour news cycle. My point is that these debates, while of interest to many, are actually for those who will vote in the Republican primaries. I should also say that the candidates need to stop talking about how bad the moderators were. They responded well. They responded together. It was good moment for the candidates. Time to move on.

David Brooks on Responding to the Summons


           David Brooks (The Road to Character, 2015) refers to two different classes of virtues we write in the course of our lives. One class is the resume virtues. The resume is the career-oriented, ambitious side of our nature. We want to conquer. We want to build, create, produce, and discover things. We have high status and win victories. This resume focuses upon the external matters. We are creative and savor our accomplishments. We want to venture forth into the world and away from home. Brooks will opine that resume virtues in our culture suggests that our accomplishments can provide a deep sense of satisfaction. However, the desires of the resume virtues are infinite. We will never find genuine happiness and satisfaction focusing upon them. The second class of virtues is funeral virtues. They are the virtues we hope people might highlight at our funeral. We want to obey a calling to serve the world. These are the inner virtues, the moral qualities we want to develop. We want more than to do well. We want to be good. We want to love intimately, to sacrifice self in the service of others, to live in obedience to some transcendent truth, to have a cohesive inner soul that honors creation and our possibilities. We might renounce worldly success and status for the sake of some sacred purpose. A primary question we answer in the funeral virtues is why we are here. We often want to return home, savor our roots, and savor the warmth of a family meal.

The art of living is learning to balance the building resume virtues as they confront the funeral virtues. Confrontation is the proper word, for the resume logic is utilitarian. Effort leads to reward. Practice makes perfect. Pursue self-interest. Maximize your utility. Impress the world. Cultivate your strengths. The funeral virtue is a moral logic. You have to give to receive, surrender to something outside yourself, and conquer your desire to get what you crave. Success can lead to pride. Failure can lead to great success. In order to fulfill yourself, forget yourself. In order to find yourself, you have to lose yourself.  Confront your weaknesses.

The art of living will involve cultivating humility, a “going down” before you can “rise up.” This concern for pride going before the fall is part of the journey. Yet, the journey does not mean they receive healing of their weaknesses. One can find a vocation or calling. One can commit to some long obedience and dedicate oneself to something that gives life its purpose.

In Chapter 2, Brooks refers to the importance of responding to a summons. He refers to the idea of discovering your passion, trusting feelings, and finding purpose. The assumption in such language is that the answer is inside of us. Therefore, the first step in the business plan of your life is to take an inventory of your gifts and passions, set your goals, and adopt a strategy to accomplish the goals. As William Ernest Henley put it in his poem “Invictus,” 

I am the master of my fate
I am captain of my soul.
 
It appeals to our sense of individual autonomy and fascination with self. It answers the question, “What do I want from life?” In contrast, Brooks says, if we focus upon the funeral virtues, the question to which we respond is “What does life want from me? What are my circumstances calling me to do?” We respond to the summons of life. It begins with our embeddedness in a community of people, circumstances, and inter-relations. Frederick Buechner famously put it, “At what points do my talents and deep gladness meet the world’s deep need?” Viktor Frankl, in Man’s Search for Meaning (1946), said that it did not matter what we expected from life, but what life expected from us. We need to stop asking about the meaning of life and instead think of ourselves as those of whom life asks questions. He concluded that life had given him a moral and intellectual assignment. Such a calling or vocation feels like the person has no choice in the matter. In reality, of course, any of us can run away. We will usually do so with dire results. If one pursues it, however, one’s life becomes unrecognizable without the calling.

Responding to a Call


Circumstances can be challenging, and we can hear the call of God in it.

Some of you might remember the 2004 movie Cellular, in which someone kidnaps a woman, but she manages to use a broken telephone to call for help and reaches a total stranger. She begs him for help, hoping he will not hang up. Well, the movie has many action sequences along the way, but eventually Ryan rescues Jessica. She thanks him and asks him if there is anything she can do to repay him. At that point, the two are attractive enough that you think a hint of romance is coming next. He responds, “Yes, don’t ever call me again.”

            Receiving a call can be difficult.

            Most of us do not have circumstances as difficult as was the man in the movie. However, we have our difficult circumstances to face.

            In Hamlet, the play by Shakespeare, Hamlet experiences hesitation in a challenging call. 

The times are out of joint
oh cursed spite
that ever I was born to put them right. 

            Yet, out of such difficult circumstances, we may well experience a summons. In that case, we are no so much looking deep inside. We listen to the people and circumstances that are part of our lives. We respond to what we hear if we are attentive.

I was in college, wrestling with what I was to do with my life. I knew I enjoyed studying and learning. What was I going to do with what I enjoyed? At a church service, I felt the tug in my heart that God wanted me to devote myself to what in 1970 we called “full-time Christian service.”

            Some of us run away from the call. Dallas Willard put it: 

Our failure to hear his voice when we want to is due to the fact that we do not in general want to hear it, that we want it only when we think we need it.[1]   

Running away will have harmful effects in the way we lead our lives. To run away from the call will also mean running away from that which will provide deep satisfaction in life. Some of us need to ponder the witness to our lives that we desire. What do want family and friends to say about us when we leave this earth and receive a new life with God?

Some of us need to cut through some misconceptions. Dan Cumberland[2] identifies three myths to avoid when trying to discern God's call: 

Myth 1: Your calling is a job
-- Your calling is larger than a job, for the calling provides a direction and impact to your entire life. You will express your calling in your job, but in other parts of your life as well.  

Myth 2: Your calling is somewhere out there; you just have to find it
-- Your calling is somewhere out there, which is the partial truth in this myth, but you have to be attentive to what is “out there.” We need to be attentive to the people and circumstances of our lives. We will hear the summons “out there” if we listen to our hearts. It is not in the wind, the fire or the earthquake. It is in a still small and familiar voice.  

Myth 3: Your calling is a place of obligation
-- "Your calling and life's work are places of freedom. God has a reason for you to be here, so your calling will be life giving.  

            The call that we hear may actually bring some difficulty into our lives. It may well push us to our limits and beyond. For that reason, we may well want to run away. Of course, calling moves us beyond a job and a sense of obligation. It moves us toward deep satisfaction, as we are attentive the people and circumstances of our lives, listening and responding at a deep level.
 
            Frankly, reflecting upon calling a calling to which we respond should get us thinking about the end of life. To what do want people to testify about us? For what do we want those who love and care about to remember about us?


[2] --Dan Cumberland, "3 big myths about calling: Ideas to avoid when figuring out what to do with your life." Relevant, April 14, 2015. relevantmagazine.com. Retrieved August 10, 2015.

Volunteering or Calling


An article came across my desk back in 2001. It offered a few examples of volunteering. The stories may well point to something deeper.

James is 13 years old. He lives in New York City. His family has gone through hard times. His father lost his job as a butcher when the owner of the shop suddenly died. They were evicted from their apartment. His parents split up, and James and his brother have lived with their mother in two different shelters.

Nevertheless, James is one of the lucky ones. He has a friend, a mentor, who has been with him for six years now.

Her name is Sara Mosle, who describes herself as a "volunteer." She taught in the New York City public schools for three years and since then has volunteered as a mentor to some of her former students. At times, the group has been as large as 12 kids. A few were Dominicans, the rest were black. She is 36, and white.

She has introduced these youngsters to words and experiences like chopsticks, Avery Fisher Hall, the Staten Island Ferry, Mexican food and Duke Ellington.

She is the kind of person the federal government has in mind when it urges the private sector to assume some of the traditional services of the state. Sara knows the political lingo, such as "A thousand points of light," "charitable choice" and "compassionate conservatism." She understands Colin Powell's powerful endorsement of volunteerism. Therefore, when the government called, Sara answered.

These two stories are not just a matter of volunteering because one feels guilty if one does not. They recognize that for many people, that for which they volunteer comes out of a sense of calling. The people with whom we have interacted, the circumstances of life that have challenged us, the need that we have sensed in the world, become the occasion to hear a calling. In that sense, it was not just a matter of listening to what is “inside” us. Rather, we need to listen to what is “outside” us.

Time is finite for all of us. Listening to such a call and responding with Yes builds the virtues to which we would like people to testify at our funeral, in the manner that David Brooks (The Road to Character, 2015) writes. These virtues point the way to deep satisfaction of having lived our lives.
Maybe, instead of wondering what will make us happy, we need to ponder a different question. Are we responding to a summons?

Democrat Party Debate - January 2016

My intent is to offer information about the anticipated election of 2016. The focus here is Hillary Clinton and the issues raised by her candidacy. I will stay away from fiercely partisan writers and focus upon analyses that will be as objective as possible. I do so as one who changed from Democrat to political conservative in my mid-20s (1970s), due to the influence of William Buckley, George Will, and Milton Friedman. My primary reason for the change was a shift in my understanding of the role the federal government ought to have in the lives of its citizens.

Hillary will be the nominee. I grant that for many people, Hillary is simply not likable. I will also grant that Senator Saunders is getting some press, but I think this remains mostly a media creation to keep people interested in the nomination process. I also do not think that a Democrat administration will allow any legal proceedings brought against Hillary. The only way any of the scandals surrounding Hillary "matter" is if Democrats will withdraw votes due to them. I do not see that happening.

I offer a few general observations.

Here is a brief discussion of socialism between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Less than 4 minutes. Given the nature of the Democrat primary, it is worth hearing again.

The Democrat Party likes to attack the Koch Brothers, to which Jonah Goldberg responds.

Here is some fact checking of the Democrat debate in January.

 Cal Thomas offers his reflections.Laura Hollis takes the approach of sharing questions "they" refuse to ask of Democrats. I would offer that the debate reflects precisely what moved me away from the Democrat Party. The fact that a socialist touting northern European style socialism, which the Scandanavians are pulling back from, is enough for me. On the national security front, the fact that Bernie can identify climate change rather an the rise of Islamic fundamentialism, Russia, or China is amazing. The attacks on the "one percent," who are the true "forgotten person" in the economy, seems like an appeal to envy. Most of all, the appeal to give Americans free stuff is very dangerous. Nothing is free. If something is free to you, it has come at the expense of someone else. If that is OK with you, we have a moral and character problem. In any case, using the government to make our neighbors provide us free stuff is a form of governance with which I want nothing to do.

Michael Barone offers an interesting analysis of the death of the center-left dimension of the Democrat Party. He uses an analogy with England. Jeff Greenfield offers an analysis of the effect of Obama on the Democrat Party nationally. It is not good. Dana Bilbank refers to the death of the blue dog Democrat as revealed in the House in November 2015. David Shribman describes surprises in the campaign as of June 2015.

Charles Krauthammer offers a betting analysis of the election, giving Hillary and Marco 3-1 odds to win respective nominations and 55-45 for the Republicans in the general. Thomas Sowell offers analysis of the election, as of August 2015.

Thomas Sowell offers his account of how the Left is fact free, using some recent issues. In another article with the same theme, he focuses on the help the Left wants to give to those who need it, and the harm they end up doing. Larry Elder also provides statistics that suggest that African-Americans are worse off since Obama became president.

The approach of Obama to terrorism, and the similarity with Hillary, will be an issue. From my perspective, the nation needs to consider a militant form of Islam as an enemy. If the nation does not deal with it "over there," the result will be infiltration "here." The weakness of Obama on this topic, shown especially in his response to Paris and to San Bernadino, will be a concern to many Americans, but probably not to most people in the Democrat Party. It has also led to the popularity of some perceived to be "strong," such as Trump and maybe even Cruz.

One of the issues will be President Obama and his economic policies. Stephen Moore thinks he has divided the nation along class lines. In this article, he writes of the myths about poverty with which Obama seems to live.

Iraq remains an issue. Robert Gates explained how Iraq went from strength to dangerous weakness. Catherine Herridge explains that the prediction of the rise of ISIS and its apparent ignoring by the administration. The rise of ISIS has and the approach to Syria has led to a refugee crisis in Europe as of September 2015. Jonah Goldberg discusses some of the dynamics of this. Jonah Goldberg offers critique of Obama on handling ISIS. Wesley Pruden thinks that when things get tough with ISIS, Obama changes the subject to immigration of Syrian refugees. Rich Lowry reminds us why there are so many refugees, laying it at the feet of Obama. Michael Barone explains that while ISIS attacks, Obama gets angry at Americans who disagree with him. Mona Charen discusses the mistakes of Obama that have led to Syrian refugees.

Iran is an issue. Rachel Marsden reflects upon the importance of a pathway to economic security. Ben Shapiro compares the deal with Iran to Neville Chamberlin, but adds that one could argue that Chamberlin loved his country. While this idea is challenging, the point here is that Obama wants an enemy to become a regional power. Ken Blackwell argues that the proposed Iran deal is worse than what Chamberlin did and he refers to the speech by Winston Churchill in opposition. David Horovitz offers 16 reasons the Iran deal is a victory for Iran and a catastrophe for the West. Peter Morici discusses the economic advantages Iran will receive with the negotiated deal, making it an economic powerhouse in the region. Charles Krauthammer discusses the nuclear deal and is not favorable.

With the decision of the Supreme Court in June 2015, Obamacare will be an issue. Elizabeth Slattery thinks the judges acted like lawmakers rather than judges. S. E. Cupp says this was a gift to the Republican Party. David Harsanyi thinks the Court turned its back on the rule of law. George Will discusses what he thinks is the real problem with the decision.

Hillary Clinton
I share with you some general comments.

One of the serious issues raised by the long public history of Hillary is her character.

I like the questions that Michael Barone thinks Hillary needs to be asked.

First, should the Bill Clinton scandals regarding women influence the Hillary campaign? In my view, the answer is affirmative. Christians can differ on the role of government in the lives of citizens. However, here is one place where, I confess, I have difficulty seeing how Christians can support her. In this case, the issue is not so much what Bill did, but what she did in response. I think Joe Scarborough is right in saying that times of changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her. She personally destroyed women who were on the receiving end of sexual advances from Bill Clinton. These women were not her political enemies. They were victims of the sexual predator she had as a husband. She acted to protect his political career. This was important to her because she valued her political career. She willingly destroyed the lives of several women for these reasons. Camille Paglia discusses how the Bill Cosby rape allegations could negatively affect the campaign of Hillary. Her point is that young women will not take kindly to the way Hillary attacked other women who experienced the sexual advances of her husband. Suzanne Fields explores this matter as well, under the theme that young millennial women will not like what they hear about Hillary and her role in covering for Bill. Victor Davis Hanson says that when she condemns other people, she condemns herself. Donald Trump produced a video that pulls no punches.

Second, the matter of Benghazi has a strong character element. The movie 13 Hours is very good. It is not a political movie. It does offer the perspective of some of the soldiers on the ground during the Benghazi attack. It says nothing directly about Obama or Hillary. We as viewers may well leave wondering if those on the ground were right -- more could have done by those above them. The context here is that she did not reinforce the embassy because of the Obama campaign meme that al qada is on the run. However, the character issue is that after the attack and the killings, she told the grieving families it was the result of a video when she knew, according to released emails, that it was the result of a planned attack. For me, someone who can lie to grieving persons like that has a profound character issue. Again, she did this to support the false campaign theme of Obama. I invite you to reflect upon the issues involved here. In January 2016, Bob Tyrell and Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself. Stephen Hayes described a day that showed private emails and Benghazi revelations, making it a bad day for her. Yet, will it matter? The email scandal was prominent. Guy Benson explains some of the elements of this complicated story. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. Byron York explores the matter, wondering whether Hillary or the State Department is lying. Byron York is on the case again, analyzing another document released by her campaign regarding this matter. Eugene Robinson says Hillary is self-destructive, has no respect for "us," and has no respect for truth. He wishes she would apologize and get out of the race. Judge Andrew Napolitano analyzes the legal trouble in which he thinks Hillary finds herself. He also offers some questions that the committee could could ask. John R. Schindler, a national security expert, reviews why this controversy is so important. Jonah Goldberg writes simply of the email scandal. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary. Judicial Watch points to a set of emails released in November in which Huma says Hillary is "often confused."

Third, the corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation is an issue. In early 2015, one of the stories about Hillary Clinton involved the Clinton foundation. The basic story involved the Clintons becoming wealthy after their departure from the White House, from which they famously emerged as "in debt" and "broke." They quickly became wealthy through the speeches they made. Their foundation gained much in wealth, while giving 15% of its income to charities and the rest to "other." Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article. Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article. Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece. John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions. Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena. Emmett Tyrell Jr says that indictment on these matters is coming as of January 2016. We will see.

I realize that many people are devoted progressives, liberals, and Democrats. However, I invite you to consider the character of this woman. Read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."

Now, as much as I believe Hillary has a strong moral and character issue that disqualifies her from the presidency, I also think it does not matter. At this level of conversation, people are quite set in their views. When it comes to the Clintons, many people simply love them and support them. They can do wrong. So, let us turn to policy. In fact, my suspicion is the persuadable people in this election are persuadable only on the basis of policy. Charles Krauthammer includes some of these matters in a broader discussion of the investigations conducted by the House. In essence, they do not work. My contention is that they cannot work, due to the bond that exists between the Press, the progressive agenda, the Democrat Party, and the Clintons. Further, for these groups, conservatives are more of an enemy than is radical Islam. I am not convinced, in other words, that one could discover anything in the area of corruption and morality that would shake the bond, because the over-riding issue or the Left is their agenda. As long as someone advances the political agenda, their character does not matter.

One campaign theme will be the war on women. The theme of the "war on women" has taken an interesting turn. In August 2015, she compared Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood to terrorists. Carly Fiorina responded. So did Mark Halperin. She does not pay women on her own staff as much as men. The Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Islamic states that oppress women. Further, terrorists are beheading people for their ideas, while Planned Parenthood is crushing the heads of babies in order to sell baby parts. Stephen Moore re-directs this issue to the Obama years and how difficult it has been for working women.

Jonah Goldberg wonders if actual accomplishments will be downfall of Hillary.

David Harsanyi wonders when Hillary will be held accountable for her vote on Iraq.

Hillary was Secretary of State. Herb London offers a relatively reasoned assessment of her years there. Jennifer Rubin discusses the failure of the policy regarding Libya.

Hillary has flip-flopped or evolved on her view of illegal immigration, according to Matt Vespa.

Hillary offered a major economic speech. Although I did not listen, even sympathetic listeners said it was tired and uninspiring. Donald Lambro analyzes her economic recommendations and finds them lacking. Cal Thomas also looks at the speech and considered it boring, as well as tired and expected rhetoric. Michael Barone, who thinks she is likely to be the next President, examines this speech as a throwback to the year of her birth, 1948, when government was the solution to every problem. Robert J. Samuelson analyzes her proposal for encouraging profit-sharing. Fred Barnes considers her economic plan as a way to shrink the economy further.

Hillary seemed to get into demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote. Bill Murchison discusses this matter. Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.

Planned Parenthood is selling the body parts of the fetuses they abort. S. A. Miller describes the vigorous defense of the organization against attacks, putting to rest the hope that some people had that those on the opposite side of the abortion question could unite in opposition to this practice. Joy Overbeck ponders the founder of the organization, Margaret Sanger, and the praise Hillary placed upon her.

To conclude, one of the issues is that Hillary is the only realistic candidate. She may have a bad day, or even a bad week. However, given this context, what would that mean? She will not be denied the nomination. When it comes to the election, she will have a set number of Democrat votes, no matter what. For me personally, I confess to boredom with the Clintons. In July 2015, a poll showed a weakened position for Hillary in some key states. In another poll in August 2015, people were asked what word comes to their minds when they think of Hillary. The top three were liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. My personal view is that the only way such evidence "matters" is if they matter to the major news outlets and they take out after Hillary (they will not) or if members of the Democrat Party turn their backs on her (they will not). This confirms an early observation that a "bad" day for Hillary is relative. It will not detract from her inevitable march toward the nomination. The only possible derailment of this train is Obama and the Justice Department. If they bring actual criminal charges against her, all bets are off.

Jack Shaffer explains that the way Hillary is running her campaign suggests that she thinks of herself as running as the President, rather than running for President. Michael Barone wonders if Hillary will be able to reverse a six-year decline in turnout for Democrats. Rich Galen thinks Hillary is losing ground to herself. Fred Barnes points to the already closing gap between top Republicans and Hillary and her inability to raise big money as signs that many Democrats are in a panic. Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. Thomas Sowell examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes. George Will has some serious questions that he thinks Hillary ought to answer. Jonah Goldberg examines her flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Trade deal and a few other such alterations of policy positions, suggesting that one cannot trust any position she has.

The Democrat Party could save itself a lot of money by cancelling further debates and primaries and have a coronation of Hillary.

Martin O'Malley
Cal Thomas thinks this candidate is positioning himself to be the go to candidate if Hillary falters. Olivia Niuzzi of The Daily Beast seems to go a similar direction, but describing the kickoff of the campaign as embarrassing.

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders is an opponent of Hillary from the Left. Donald Lambro discusses his notion of redistribution and socialism in Sanders. Emmett Tyrrell argues that he will have the historical role of one who is a spoiler, something like Eugene McCarthy. He also offers Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg as alternatives to Hillary. Katie Pavlich writes of the essay Bernie Sanders wrote in the 1970s about the sexual fantasies of men and women, the latter fantasizing about gang rape. David Harsanyi says that Bernie Sanders, as a socialist, represents the direction the Democrat Party has been moving. Mark Halpern has an insightful way of reflecting on how Bernie could win. Larry Elders discusses the inability of the head of the Democrat Party to distinguish between a Democrat and a socialist. He things that there is no difference. In August 2015, Jonah Goldberg describes the problems this life-long socialist presents to the Democrat Party. In September 2015, Nate Silver says we should not compare Sanders and Trump.