Connecting the Dots

Republicans need to start connecting the dots. As voters we need to be accountable to our responsibility to choose the leader of the free world. For the time being the RNC is playing along in what I pray is a desperate attempt to keep Trump from going third party, but in the meanwhile they are leaving the rest of us shaking our heads in utter despondence and disbelief. So, before it’s too late we need to connect the dots on Donald Trump, and I’m going to try to help us all do it.

For the record, I am not going to spend any time apologizing or qualifying what I’m about to write. There are always counter points and differing perspectives, but the gap between reasonably differing views and denial is wide enough that I’m not going to waste our time.

1^st Dot: Politics Aside

Before we get to politics let’s start with basics: Donald Trump is a terrible person. He is a misogynist who has been accused by his ex-wife of raping her. He calls women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals, and has told a female contestant on his show, the apprentice, that she would be prettier on her knees. During the debate Megyn Kelly made a point of asking him to clarify his attitude towards women, and he has since responded by saying "she had blood coming out of her eyes, and probably blood coming out of her wherever.” This man owns not an ounce of humility, and dismisses those who disagree with him as fools, idiots, lightweights, and, apparently, menstruating bimbos. He criticizes war heroes for getting caught, and implies that POWs deserve to be tortured because their incompetence is what led to their capture. He carries this incredible sense of superiority while being a silver spoon sucking draft dodger who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from his father the real estate mogul.

The Origin of Trump's Fortune

Fun fact: from 1974 to 2015 inflation alone would account for a 400% increase in the value of a dollar. So, if Trump were to inherit a business that was valued at say $480 million, inflation would result in it being worth approximately $2.4 billion today. His financial track record is even less impressive when you remember he’s had to use bankruptcy four times to cover his mistakes.

Consider all of this for a second, and then ask yourself: would my parents be proud of me if I acted this way? Would I be proud of my child for embodying this persona? Should a coach or teacher tell a child that Donald Trump is the type of adult we should aspire to be? The answer is No; however, somewhere along the line it became acceptable for this morally bankrupt individual to be our nation’s representative to the rest of the world.

2^nd Dot: Hypocrisy of the Highest Order

Hypocrisy is one of the worst parts of politics, and being a Republican I appreciate that we generally do a good job of being logically consistent. To that end, we skewer anyone in our party who dares to flip flop on any issue. Whether it be Rubio on immigration, Jeb on education, or Romney on healthcare, we tar and feather them all. Now, take that same mirror you looked at a minute ago, and ask yourself: what has Trump done to be forgiven for a lifetime of political opportunism that makes John Boehner look like Ted Cruz. Donald Trump supported a single payer healthcare system, supported Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, praised Barrack Obama as “a champion” and went on to say he’d “definitely hire him”, told CNN that he identifies more as a Democrat, and strongly supported the right to choose. I believe that each of us have the potential to achieve some level of personal evolution, but nobody…let alone an egomaniac like Donald Trump…would be capable of this level of overwhelming transformation. Be honest with yourself and consider how much hypocrisy you’re willing to accept from your nominee and from yourself.

A List of Trump Flip-Flops

3^rd Dot: You’re Not Electing Trump

Ok, so you’re mad at the establishment, an ineffective government, and selfish career politicians who are more interested in themselves than the people they represent. I applaud and share this view with many of you; however, Trump is not the solution. Real change takes real effort, real leaders, and real opportunities. Voting for Trump is none of these things:

1. Putting forth real effort means working to find an actual solution, not supporting the first candidate that doesn’t sound or look quite like everyone else. If your goal is to break an addiction to drugs you don’t switch from crack to heroine. If you really want change in Washington you need to go to political rehab, not shoot Trump into your veins.

2. Trump is not a real leader. Real leaders understand self-sacrifice, self-awareness, and possess an unrelenting desire to better themselves in pursuit of bettering those who rely upon them. Please, be honest with yourself, is Donald Trump really a leader in your eyes, or is he simply a slightly better brand of terrible? I’ll admit that we’re pretty thin on real leaders these days, but if you’re going to reject the status quo at least support a respectable leader like Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson. 

3. Supporting Trump will in no way provide an actual opportunity for change. It’s been said 100 times by Democrats and Republicans alike: a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Clinton. If your goal is to deal a blow to the establishment, then you really need to consider how four years of Hillary fit into your agenda. If you want change you have to do more than symbolically support it.

4^th Dot: We are Better Than This

This is not my opinion as a Republican, a voter, or even as an American; this is my opinion as a human being. We are on the cusp of an incredible age of exponential growth in technology, communication, and discovery, and now we want to usher in that new era under the leadership of Donald Trump? No, there has to be a line, and we need to draw it here. Honey Boo Boo, Toddlers and Tiaras, and Jersey Shore…we can chalk these things up as bad entertainment. However, Donald Trump is turning the election of the leader of the free world into the 15^th season of The Apprentice. Here’s the line; we cannot cross it.

See the Whole Picture

As I said before, it’s time to connect the dots. There’s more, and it’s likely there’s worse, but this is enough. We need to stop forgiving what could be perceived as isolated incidents and see the big picture, which is simply this: Donald Trump is an affront to Republicans, Americans, and our role as the leaders of the free world, and he will destroy what little credibility our political system has left.

BUT the Economy...

There are some pretty obvious disconnects in public sentiment and election results, and as a conservative it is something that I tend to worry about.  I am not a loyal Republican, but 9 times out of 10 the person running with the (R) next to their name is more likely to represent my view on the issues most important to me.  Being who I am I’m willing to ignore a lot of the other issues candidate “X” and I are likely to disagree on:  Gay Rights, Creationism, etc.  Yes folks I’m a social moderate, and not because I hate god, but because if I am going to rally for my own personal freedoms I have no intention of trying to strip others of theirs. 

First of all, I believe I should start with a couple examples of the disconnects I reference earlier.  When polled Americans overwhelmingly cite the economy as the issue that concerns them the most⁽¹⁾, and yet BHO was elected over Mitt Romney despite the fact that Romney consistently performed better in the “who do you trust to handle the economy” category⁽²⁾.  

At present, the second most important issue to Americans is the federal deficit⁽¹⁾, and no matter who you support most rational people can agree on this point:  it is unlikely that President Obama is going to cut spending enough to materially reduce the deficit.  So, despite running four years of trillion dollar deficits (no, 2008 doesn’t count, but projected 2013 sure does) the nation went back to BHO.  In addition, there’s a new Pew Research poll out today that shows that a majority of Americans believe the federal government is a threat to their personal rights⁽³⁾.  In fairness this only flipped recently, I’d speculate as a result of the gun control debate, but even as far back as March of ’10 the split was 47/50.  Lastly, on Election Day, the President had an approval rating under 50%⁽⁴⁾.  The point of all of the above is not to argue that there’s statistical proof that Mitt should have won by X.X%, but to make the point that there’s an anomaly that drove Democrat success in November ’12.

I have several views on what the causes of the anomaly may be, but for the sake of brevity I’ll stick with the two that I believe are both the most prominent and impactful.  First, many voters can’t overcome their disdain for “Republicans” no matter how bad the economy may get.  Second, the average voter simply isn't well informed enough to represent their views at the ballot box.  I’d also note that where these issues overlap is where we see the greatest impact of said anomaly.

Now this shouldn't come as a surprise to most of you reading this, but Republicans have huge, largely self-imposed, image and social policy problems.  I can’t tell you how consistently surprised I am to find out that a large number of Democrats (not Indies, registered Democrats) agree with me on the issues of deficit spending and the economy.  Citing the previously discussed poll those two issues encompass nearly 80% of what Americans deem as their “most important issue…”, which in theory means Mitt should have done quite well flipping Dems.  However, when asked why they vote “D” I almost always get the same response: “I just can’t vote for a candidate who is so socially appalling”.  When explored further there’s always some combination of not believing in evolution, standing against gay marriage, or reproductive rights.  Ironically, I don’t think any one issue is particularly damning; however, I believe that by constantly painting themselves as socially backward they've created an image problem that is greater than the sum of the parts.   In essence, if it were just about Pro-life/choice I don’t think the GOP would have nearly the problem they do, but because they consistently show themselves as “out of touch” (yep, it links to that too) they manage to lose votes despite how people align to core issues like the economy.  I will take a moment here to say that I always try to remind people that gay marriage isn’t a federal issue but a state issue, and that no matter who is elected we’re still going to teach evolution in schools, but in the end the mistrust that comes from these concerns overrides the “logic” that it isn’t really important. 

My second topic concerns the uninformed (low information) voter.  This group comprises the casual voter who shows up once every four years and votes based on TV commercials.  You know this person, they think that the fact that unemployment is down from 10% to 7.9% means we’re on the road to recovery, or that Romeny’s platform is to take birth control away from our daughters, or that ObamaCare is going to give them free health insurance.  Now I don’t have any stats, but I’d be willing to bet that 10%-15% of voters fall in this category.  What’s troubling is that I don’t think we have the means at this time to really impact this problem. 

Side note, I've always liked @RBPundit’s views that we need a grass roots machine to tackle this issue:   http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/01/happy-new-year-im-exhausted/ 

The media leans left (yes, being nice here) and at the present it’s taboo to be a Republican.  We can scream all we want about common sense and issue education, but in the end this goes right back to point 1.  As long as the right has such a profound image problem we’re going to lose a decent chunk of these voters to the left because they aren't going to dig deep enough to get through the party stereotypes

Now folks, here the part that’s hard to accept regarding the Right’s image/issue problems:  If we’re to be honest with ourselves…we should totally get it.  We all look at certain qualities in employers, friends and mates that are automatic deal-breakers.  For me this social backwardness stereotype isn't  but I can see how it could be. Look back to 2004 when exit polls showed Kerry winning in a landslide because, as it turns out, voters didn't want to admit to a pollster that they voted for Bush!  Now, before everyone gets mad and accuses me of pandering to the center I want to be very clear:  I’m not saying we should pretend to support socially progressive views, I’m saying that that we need to be tolerant and honest about what’s really important.  If you don’t believe in marriage equality that is your prerogative, but I don’t believe it should be a cornerstone issue when voting in a primary.  Politicians are who we train them to be, and a candidate will always need to appeal to the base if they want to get elected.  If that base requires them to cling to either religious or outdated social principles we’re going to be in trouble.  Again, you don’t have to support it, but you can choose to make it a non-issue.

In the end this all circles back to, and for anyone who follows me on twitter (@JHarri31) you've heard it before, we are not losing elections because we aren't being extreme enough.  We are losing elections because we’re scaring away moderates and independents by calling rape babies a gift from god.  If you’re such a “hardcore Republican” that you won’t vote for a candidate because they support marriage equality then you really should reexamine your priorities.  At the rate we’re going the only way we’re going to get a fiscal conservative in the White House is for the economy to get so awful that the average voter can’t ignore it.  That said, don’t forget that $4T in new debt and 8% unemployment wasn't enough…

So, here it is folks, if we want to take back the White House and the Senate we need to be the party of self-accountability that we claim to be and start thinking about what we want to hold our candidates accountable to.  We may not like it, but I believe we need to take a long hard look at what we hang our hats on politically, and consider whether the economy, deficit spending, and gun control are worthy sacrifices to push against marriage equality and for debates about creationism.

(1) http://www.pollingreport.com/

(2) http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12.htm

(3) http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/31/majority-says-the-federal-government-threatens-their-personal-rights/

(4) http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Gun Control in America

Ever since the tragic events that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School the gun control debate has taken a prominent place in the news, social media, and in public policy debates.  Given what has transpired I think a healthy review of our national stance on gun control is warranted.  Now, don’t mistake this as a call to disarm America or create greater restrictions.  I’ve made this statement because I find it irresponsible to assume that policies don’t need review or amendment over time.  What worked twenty years ago probably isn’t as applicable today, and regardless of which direction we take it’s beneficial to have periodic debate on subjects such as this.

For any of you who have read my blog you know how I feel about the limitation of personal freedoms.  As I stated in my Prologue and Same Sex Marriage entries I don’t believe the government has any right to legislate how I live my life beyond its function to protect the safety and freedom of myself and the citizens of this great country.  What makes the gun control debate so tricky is that safety and personal freedoms come in direct conflict.  This becomes a discussion on the right balance of the two rather than a statement that both must be upheld.  As usual, I don’t believe the answer lies at either extreme, but rather at a reasonable middle ground.

First and foremost, let us all remember that the 2^nd amendment directly, through Supreme Court interpretation and further legislation upholds our right to bear arms with certain limitations.  Fundamentally, I agree that Americans should have the right to own firearms.  I believe in my right to choose to own a gun in order to protect myself, my family, and my property from those who wish to commit crimes against me.  I choose not to utilize that right as I do not own a gun; however, I do believe I should have the choice to make that decision.

In the pursuit of explaining this stance there are a couple key points of that I’d like to address:  why banning guns won’t work, that there should be a limit on how much gun a person should be allowed to own, and how I feel we could reasonably regulate my view of legal gun ownership.

I think a fundamentally flawed argument that many Americans make is that we should just ban guns, because if nobody has them then we’re all safer.  The reality that should be pretty obvious to everyone is that just because you make something illegal does not mean it goes away.  We’ve been fighting a war on drugs for decades, and after god knows how many billions of dollars spent and lives lost I’m confident that anyone reading this article could get their hands on an illegal narcotic simply by making a few phone calls.  As such, by banning guns I believe we’re likely going to accomplish little more than to increase the size of the black market.  Moving even more to the extreme the government could shut down every gun manufacturer in this country and I’d argue that we’ll just become an even bigger importer of illegal arms.  In short, guns are going to be available no matter what laws we pass. 

We also must keep in mind that criminals who would steal and murder aren’t going to give considerable though to whether or not the gun they need is legal or illegal.  Why? Well because they are criminals, and criminals commit crimes to further their own end.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet that most violence committed through the use of firearms is committed using a weapon that is illegally obtained.  So, by banning guns what have you accomplished?  You’ve disarmed those law abiding citizens who are the least likely to use their gun illegally, and furthermore you’ve left them defenseless against those who would.  Furthermore, can you imagine the gall of an armed thief who knew that he was walking into a store or a home where the owner had no means of defending himself?  In short, if you revoke the 2^nd amendment you’re likely doing little to limit the availability of weapons to would-be criminals, creating a larger and more lucrative black market, and leaving law abiding citizens more exposed to becoming victims.

With the afore stated points in mind I now need to take a step back towards center and state that I don’t believe the right to own guns is applicable to all types of firearms.  With that said there’s a very valid counter argument to my opinion.  The 2^nd amendment allows for gun ownership as part of a militia, and given the circumstances of the time it is certainly reasonable to assume that this would be in defense of individual liberties against a “tyrannical” government.  Reasonably speaking, what you would need to defend yourself against the state is the heavy stuff.  A pistol or a shotgun is not going to do a lot of good when the National Guard comes pounding on your door with M16’s.  However, this is where I think common sense needs to take hold.  There is a much greater risk to the general public of an ill-intentioned person legally stockpiling heavy weapons than of the federal government illegally invading your home to dispossess you of your property and liberty.  In the end, I do believe in this instance that the risk to society outweighs the right of the individual to defend himself. 

Finally, in order to have a legitimate discussion on gun control I believe we must discuss who should be allowed to possess firearms and how we regulate said ownership.  All the great philosophy in the world is pretty meaningless unless we can actually apply the logic in real life.  With regards to WHO should be allowed to own a gun I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony or a violent crime you should be on the outside looking in.  Referring back to prior points we want to avoid arming dangerous criminals.  Regarding age, and this is another topic for another day, if we feel that 18 is the age a person becomes and adult and can join the military and defend their country then I feel that they are mature enough to buy a hand gun.  Now of course the tricky part is the HOW.  I don’t think that guns of any sort should be sold without a cursory background check that should only take a day or two to complete.  If that means missing your hunting trip because Wal-Mart can’t sell you a deadly weapon right out of the case that seems like an acceptable trade-off to risking the arming of a criminal.  Furthermore, assuming semi-automatic or automatic weapons are legal in your state I believe that you should be required to undergo extensive background checks, psychological screenings, and training if you wish to own one. 

Last of all, I believe some acknowledgement that there’s inherent context in this discussion with regards to Sandy Hook is important.  Beyond the incredible tragedy of twenty-seven killed, twenty of whom were children, this disaster has made for a very unique circumstance in the gun control debate.  The reason why is that no amount of traditional gun control would likely have changed the outcome in any meaningful way.  The reality is that whether he was using a M16, AR15, or 9mm hand gun the extent of the damage would have almost certainly been the same.  I think that’s why revocation of 2^nd amendment rights has jumped to the forefront of this debate.   The argument is that the only way we could have avoided this tragedy is if there weren’t any guns whatsoever.  However, referring back to my prior points I don’t believe any measure of gun control would have stopped this horrible person from doing what he did.  He was sick and motivated, and even if it wouldn’t have been as simple he would have found the means to commit these awful murders.  Therein lies an important point that I believe should be considered as the left and right alike engage in this debate:  sometimes there isn’t a way of preventing once in a lifetime tragedies.  As such, I would urge any and all to approach this discussion as a means to try and find the best outcome for this country, not to try and find the solution for what happened at Sandy Hook.

In the end, it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and we need to ensure we balance the right of Americans to defend themselves while ensuring that those who mean to do us harm cannot easily use guns as a means of harming the innocent.

Right to Work and Why Unions are Declining

First and foremost, kudos to the state of Michigan for being the 24th state to pass Right to Work legislation. I suppose someone will flip this as a victory for "big business and "evil corporations", but I really have a hard time seeing it that way.  Unions used to make sense and they used to be an important tool for equality, but as a developed nation the model has outlived its usefulness.  In the past unions were needed to ensure workers were compensated fairly, in the present businesses need to be allowed to pay fair compensation.  The system moved past equality and now needs to have the freedom to move back to center.  Everyone shouts and screams about outsourcing of labor, but nobody is willing to own the fact that it's not just high priced labor, it's unfairly priced labor that motivates companies to look internationally.  In this economy and with the globalization of industry (and competition) American companies cannot afford to be forced to overpay or retain incompetent employees.  There are more jobs and more pay when companies can make a profit, reinvest, and compete.  That's better for everyone.

Also, lest us not forget that Right to Work gives workers the OPTION to join a union.  When you put this entire thing in that context it seems all the more off kilter.  If you're a organization that benefits your members and ensures better wages then is this really threatening?  Union dues are what, 1%-2%, do you really need a mandate to compel membership if you're in any way beneficial?  I've already posted about dangers of clinging to old traditions, so I won't rehash that, but this feels more like fear of change than anything else.

Finally, it's hard to discuss this topic without touching on the tactics employed by some of these union members.  There was a lot of banter on twitter today about "there will be blood" and the unfair treatment of groups like the tea party, and while I certainly don't disagree I'd rather not dive deeper into that spin zone.  The fact is that the actions of those individuals today was appalling and speaks volumes of how ignorant so many of these people must be.  Violence is the tool of the weak-minded, and was in full display by fools that were so incapable of expressing and defending their views that they had to resort to throwing punches and ripping down a tent.  I mean seriously, that display reeked of 13 year old bullies running a muck on the playground.  Here's a little advice to union leadership: build a solid product, use ethical tactics, and create enough value that members want to be a part of your organization.  That's what the economy you want to be a part of was built on.

Legislating Morality - Same Sex Marriage

As introduced by my prior post, the Prologue, I take real issue with the voting majority using the political process and legislative branch to limit individual freedoms.  Fundamentally, I believe this is what makes me a Conservative more than a Republican.  In short, I believe the government exists to perform necessary tasks that cannot be efficiently or effectively carried out by the private sector, to maintain our safety and freedoms, and otherwise has no place limiting John Q. Citizens right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This view of government underscores my distaste for inviting big brother to play an oversized role in many areas:  Economics, Foreign Policy, etc.  However, I find the most offensive example of the big government problem in the same sex marriage debate.  I feel this way not because same-sex marriage, SSM, impacts the literal size of the government, but because the opposing side is trying to expand the role of government to legislate their view or morality.

As we discuss the issue, I believe there are two key points that need to be addressed:

The first point is that we as humans are very slow to willingly accept changes to our fundamental views (how marriage is defined).  As such many traditionalists will say that homosexuals can’t wed because marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  Many will cite historical precedent that because it’s always been it needs to continue to be; however, I have a very hard time stomaching that centuries of oppression are grounds for a solid argument.   I don’t understand how this is any different than saying “women don’t deserve equal rights because for centuries (millennia?) they couldn't vote, own property, and didn't have access to higher education.”  Despite the logical fallacies we all know that many times our nation has had to overcome hypocrisy of this sort in seeking equal rights for our citizens.  So now, after we've been here so many times before why is same sex marriage such a challenging national debate? 

This brings us to the second key point; unlike many past equal rights battles religion plays a key role in the same-sex marriage issue.   Embracing civil rights and women’s suffrage at least had the benefit of the moral high ground.  Their effort was to overcome generations of prejudice, racism, and oppression, which are all generally viewed as “bad” things.  However, religion is generally viewed as a “good” thing, and this is where it gets messy.  Advocating for same-sex marriage means you’re not just fighting the inertia of time and tradition, but you’re contesting the will of God, and let’s face it; working against a dogmatic religious following with the reassurance of moral certitude is a mountain exponentially more difficult to climb.  This religious zeal and “moral high ground” have provided SSM opponents with a political platform and a resulting voice in law making they should not have.  We cannot allow gay rights to be ignored because there’s a unique religious enthusiasm to the opposing view.  Doing so is an affront to the basic civil liberties this government is supposed to uphold.    

In the end, this debate will rage on with the same push and pull of prior equal rights battles; however, the religious element must be kept in check.  We as a country must resist the temptation to vote for the legislation of our personal morality.  We must remember that our nation was founded on the premise of equal opportunity for all.  It will be hard as we ask detractors to not only overcome a stereotype, but practice tolerance in the face of what they will view as a sin against their god.  And, in doing so we must put aside out own political biases and do what’s right for our nation.  In the end, I’m not here to tell anyone that they should be in favor of same-sex marriage, but more-so to advocate for the support of individual freedoms.  Many of us reading this blog need to acknowledge that we cannot pick and choose when we wish to apply our advocacy of small government.  This is no time for hypocrisy. 

Quick note on Fiscal Cliff - We Need Solutions, Not Politics

It's is more a plea than a post. Could everyone please take five minutes to understand the key points of the fiscal cliff discussion:

1. Higher revenue through higher tax rates on the rich (Rich defined as individual over $200K and households over $250K)
2. Preventing the reinstatement of higher payroll taxes (the supposed middle class tax cuts)
3. Allowing the President unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling (our credit limit)
4. Promised spending cuts to existing government programs (I.e. - social security, Medicaid, SNAP, and various entitlements)
5. Whether more stimulus money should be invested

This is important because the Left is playing off voters' ignorance. You're going to keep reading and hearing about how Republicans refuse to keep us from going off the fiscal cliff by voting against middle class tax cuts (#2). This is like saying your boss is a tyrant because he won't give you a 3% raise, and forgetting to tell everyone you also asked for 3 more weeks of paid vacation.

When everyone refuses to question what they hear and just wants to be right about the team they support (see polarization from prologue post) this is what you get. This is how we the voters allow politicians to make their jobs an exercise in game theory rather than problem solving. Whatever your opinion make sure you know exactly what you support and what your side is voting for. We don't all have to agree on the issue, but we all should agree that the running of our country she be treated like a job and not a game.

Legislating Morality - Prologue

This is a hot topic with me on twitter, so I figured I'd start with the government's (mostly the right's) obsession with legislating morality.  I think this is a good issue because across various subtopics there's anywhere from a stark divide to near universal agreement.  Now of course, one can certainly argue that nearly all laws are a means of legislating morality; however, that's not what I want to get at.  For the purpose of this thread I plan to discuss morality that is specific to certain groups like religions, and how & when those issues affect the political and legislative process.

Using the ten commandment as an example, there are plenty of religious moral codes that are perfectly applicable as part of social morality and law:  don't kill, lie, and steal, then there are a few in-between that are more like moral guidelines:  don't covet, don't commit adultery, honor father/mother, and then there's the rest that fall into the "believe what you want to believe" category:  don't create false idols, observe the Sabbath, don't take the lord's name in vain, etc.  With this in mind, far too few people forget the fact, and this is where the trouble starts, that the government is here to protect religious freedom, not to ensure it's more popular principles are upheld as a matter of law.  Each of us would do well to remember that one of the things that make this country great is our ability to worship as we please, which is maintained in-part through a stark division of church and state.  Pivoting to the legislative and judicial processes, the founders, among many things they did very well, structured the system so the wants of the many would not trump the rights of the few.  So, when you get a large group together who think "separate but equal" is a good idea, there is a system in place, the Judicial Branch, to make sure laws passed by simple majority can be struck down.

Is the system perfect, no.  Are there examples of failures in the system, yes.  However, overall I think it's fair to say the notion of how things are supposed to work is solid and generally effective.  Now, to what I actually plan to discuss in upcoming posts: examples of where major political issues would attempt to fly in the face of individual freedoms, and where voters expect elected officials to impose their personal moral compass as part of the legislative process despite, what I will argue, are violations of someone else's fundamental rights.  In essence, keep your god away from my laws.

Please tune in for my next post:  Legislating Morality - Same Sex Marriage