Geoausch

Recently, I penned a piece exposing the Democrat’s faulty logic in continuing to press forward with health care reform in the face of widespread opposition. In that piece, I made it clear that Democratic politicians are not alone in their use of faulty logic to promote a personal agenda. Indeed, Republicans are just as guilty of the charge. Consider the faulty logic displayed by the Bush administration in the build-up for the invasion of Iraq. Even many “third party” and independent candidates build their political platform on a foundation of faulty logic. Perhaps that’s why so many rational people find the world of politics so disgusting; it’s a world void of logic.

It seems that some elected officials make the mistake of assuming that we live in a democracy, when in actuality the United State is a constitutional republic. Other politicians profess to understand the distinction, yet continue to govern as though in a simple democracy.  On Friday, Republican members of the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social studies and history curriculum that would, among other things, refer to the United States government as a “constitutional republic” instead of a “democracy”. Ironically, they relied solely on a democratic principle–the simple majority–to ram through the curriculum’s most controversial elements.

At the heart of the “Texas Textbook War,” is the attempt on the behalf of cultural conservatives to inject their beliefs into the textbooks. This includes their belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values,” studies of the role of conservative political action committees during the 20th Century, and an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. While there is definitely a time and place to debate these ideas in the classroom, they would be taught as fact if the current curriculum survives a final vote in May.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to radically alter the way history and social studies are taught in Texas’ classrooms has generated intense opposition from Democrats and many Republicans. Earlier this month, two of the board’s most outspoken cultural conservatives, most notably Dr. Don McLeroy, lost Republican primary elections to opponents who oppose this curriculum. McLaren remains defiant in the face of defeat, and vowed to push through the curriculum before relinquishing his seat, a maneuver that would make Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama smile.

The biggest difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is the allocation of protections of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution serves as the primary guarantor of the rights of the minority, but Republicans on the SBOE seem to reject that notion as well. On Thursday, they blocked a measure introduced by a Democrat that would have taught the importance of “separation of church and state” as contained in the First Amendment.  While Republicans claim to support the idea that we live in a constitutional republic, their actions indicate they favor a simple democracy when the results further their agenda.

Students should be taught the difference between a “democracy” and a “constitutional republic.” The nuances between the two forms of government seem to baffle even the most astute politicians. Elected officials have the responsibility to ensure balance exists between competing ideas in the classroom, but must understand that one extremist stance does not balance out another extremist stance. Perhaps educators can use the examples of Democrats on health care reform and Republicans on textbook adoptions as examples of the dangers of simple democracy and to teach the protections provided by a constitutional republic.   Until then, we the people must remain resolute in combating faulty logic wherever it may occur in the realm of politics. Our freedom and liberty, not to mention our children’s future, depend on it.

Just when you thought the Texas Textbook Wars could not get any more absurd,  Republicans on the SBOE blocked a measure yesterday that would have taught students the importance of the First Amendment. 

Really?

This proves my theory that these zealots are not interested in democracy, but rather in living in either a theocracy or an idiocracy.

Do evangelicals not realize that “separation of church and state” actually protects them? If there were no “separation of church and state,” and Christianity was allowed to be taught as truth in the classroom, there would be nothing in place to stop a more progressive brand of Christianity being taught–one that might challenge their kids to question their parent’s narrow interpretation of Christianity.

Also, not only does the First Amendment guarantee the ”separation of church and state”, but also the “separation of state and church.” In other words, it prevents the Federal government from coming into your church and telling you what you may preach and how you may preach it.

Many of the early immigrants to this country came escaping countries with state sponsored churches. Why would we want to revert to the practices of England?

You ask me, there is a lot of value for both conservatives and progressives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the “separation of church and state.”

I said it during the Bush years and I’ll say it again, Christian extremists are scared to death of the First Amendment, not only because of “separation of church and state”, but also because of the guarantee of “freedom of speech.” In the end, that is what this argument is about.

As a five year old kid, I remember riding around in the family station wagon, listening to Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA. Along with Michael Jackson’s Thriller and Culture Club’s Colour By Numbers, Springsteen’s landmark album was one of the first I remember listening to, beginning to end, over and over again.  As a child, I thought of Springsteen as some American super hero, a contemporary to Ronald Reagan, fighting the Cold War with his music. “Born in the USA” meant nothing more than those words. It wasn’t until I reexamined that song in college that I discovered the song’s true meaning. At that point, a thought came to me, a true patriot may not necessarily agree with Springsteen’s political message, but at least recognizes the song represented a reality for many American heroes.

Many conservatives approach American history in similarly naive fashion that I approached Born in the USA as child, hearing only “USA! USA! USA!”–refusing to dig deeper into the legends surrounding our nation and its founding. No where has this been more evident than in Texas’ State Board of Education’s recent hearings on selecting new textbooks. Due to Texas’ large size, decisions made by our SBOE play a large role in determining textbooks used in classrooms across the United States and the story has captured the nation’s attention, with cable networks devoting entire shows, spreading misinformation and depicting Texas as a state held hostage by religious radicals.

Sadly, this narrow mindset is not limited to politicians. Indeed, this disease has spread to the administrators in school districts throughout the state. In college, a friend of mine applied for job as a history teacher at a school district in rural East Texas. During the interview, the principal told my friend that, if hired, he was to teach “…the United States has never been wrong in any armed conflict” and “…that the United States has made no mistakes as a nation.”

I love this country and I vote Republican more often than I do Democrat, but the audacity of these religious zealots and cultural conservatives who have hijacked the Republican Party sickens me. We can only hope that voters sent a message to some of these ideologues in the recent primaries when they sent Dr. Don McLeroy, the Rapture Right’s vocal leader on the SBOE, packing, choosing instead Thomas Ratliff, a man with a strong pedigree in the traditional wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, McLeroy has promised to not go quietly into that good night, choosing instead to take an approach not too different from the Congressional Democrats’ approach on health care reform, attempting to jam an unpopular agenda down the throat of the people.

While I firmly believe the United Sates is the “greatest” nation in the world, we are not without faults. In order to learn from our nation’s mistakes–and as a nation we have plenty–we must study those mistakes. In addition to ignoring causes cultural conservatives find repulsive, the SBOE seems to gloss over many of the dark shadows creeping in our nation’s and state’s past, unlike Mr. Springsteen.

Is there bias involved with the publishing of a textbook? Yes, there is no such thing as unbiased writing.  Every author, no matter how good their intentions, has a belief system and this belief system will seep through their writing.  In order to ensure balance, more power should be placed in the hands of local schools districts, administrators and teachers to supplement textbooks with ancillary materials. In this age of hyper technology, where schools are wired for Internet access, it’s easier than ever to find scholarly material to serve as a counterpoint to any material presented in a textbook.

One final observation, I’ve read a lot of quotes from the extreme right-wingers on the SBOE stating their desire to see an emphasis on this nation’s “Judeo-Christian values” in social studies textbooks. Let’s be clear, what these people really mean to say is that they want an emphasis on the values of the evangelical Christian church.  These people think they can just capriciously add the term “Judeo” in front of Christian and be considered progressive. Don’t be fooled, these people are not friends to the Jewish community. They only use the term “Judeo” to seem open to other faiths. In reality, their world is big enough for only one faith road, a road they seek to force us all travel, whether we want to or not.

In addition to being Texas Independence Day, Tuesday was also Election Day in the great state of Texas. While you can go to any website and get an in depth analysis into what Rick Perry’s victory may mean in the world of American politics, I thought I would share my unique perspective on some numbers that jumped out at me from Tuesday’s election.

• 10 – Number of years since I voted in the Republican Primary. I last voted in the Republican Primary during the 2000 Presidential Election. No, I did not vote for George W. Bush.

• 362 – Number of people who voted in the Republican Primary in my precinct. Living in a heavily Republican neighborhood, I imagine the numbers in the Democratic primary were much lower. It really is disappointing that so many people refuse to exercise their right to vote, especially on a day with such significance as Texas Independence Day.

• 50 – There’s a 50% chance that I’ll cross the aisle in the general election and vote for Bill White, the Democratic nominee for governor.

• 62 – The number of races on my precincts ballot, one of the most expansive ballots in my memory.

• 7 – Number of contested races on the ballot.

• .74% – Margin separating Geraldine “Tincy” Miller and George M. Clayton for the District 12 Representative on the State Board of Education, one of several pivotal races for the State Board of Education.  Clayton represents a change from the Taliban like forces that have made a mockery of our education system.

• 5 – Proposition 5 on the Republican Primary ballot asked whether the Republican Party should adopt a position favoring legislation requiring a doctor to show a patient a sonogram prior to performing a “medically unnecessary abortion.” I’ve remained consistent in my opinion that there is too much government in health care. I have been a vocal opponent of health care reform and have attacked all efforts to inject government in areas best served and controlled by private enterprise. I’m amazed at the hypocrisy of members the Republican Party–the party of limited government–who attacked Democratic attempts at  health care reform as an example of an overreaching government, yet feel we need legislation forcing doctors to perform a sonogram on a woman seeking an abortion. This proposition violates the two principles I hold dear–free enterprise & privacy.

The candidates involved in the Republican primary for the Texas governor’s race met last night for their second debate. Nationally, this race has garnered attention for the showdown between incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Locally, the libertarian-minded Debra Medina has captured headlines for her ability to campaign with the two behemoths with a fraction of their budget and media exposure. As an independent voter, I’m still not convinced that I will vote in the Republican primary, but I decided to watch the debate nonetheless.

Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.

Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident.  Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.

Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately.  The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.

Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.

I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.

All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.

Faulty logic abounds in the world of politics.  Almost every political campaign features candidates attacking each other with countless ad hominem attacks and campaign speeches filled with straw man arguments. Unfortunately, the faulty logic does not end there and often extends into the formation of a politician or a political party’s agenda, as evidenced by the Democrat Party’s response to Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts.

Even though Brown ran his campaign as a referendum on the pending health care legislation and won, Democratic leaders insist they will continue to push for reconciliation of the House and Senate bills, claiming it’s the “will of the people”. Normally, when a politician uses a generic qualifier like “will of the people,” he or she implies they have a mandate to fulfill.

But how does a politician determine a mandate?

Most pundits agree that a third of this country leans to the right, a third to the left and the other third somewhere down the middle. Regardless of the candidates, you know that the right leaning group will vote for the Republican candidates and the left leaning group will vote for the Democratic candidates, which means whichever candidate can win over the largest chunk of the final third of the voting block will win the election. This group of voters have been labeled “moderates,” “independents,” and perhaps most eloquently, the “silent majority.” In most elections, candidates attempt to identify an issue where their position will appeal to a much broader segment of this voting demographic and political pundits will label their obligation to follow through on this campaign promise as their “mandate.”

There is no empirical evidence that a majority of this key voting population referred to in the statement, “the will of the people”, supports the Democratic plan for health care reform. I have friends in every range of the political spectrum–from the Right of Rush Limbaugh to the Left of Vermont’s self-described “socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders, and everywhere in between. Of these people, the only ones I know who support the Democratic plan are people who would have voted for Barack Obama, or other Democratic candidates, regardless of their opponents, based solely on the (D) behind their names. In fact, all the empirical evidence (i.e. polling data, town hall meetings, etc.) I have seen shows a majority of the independent voting population strongly disagrees with the Democratic health care agenda

The Democratic Party’s decision to stubbornly push an obviously unpopular health care bill, in spite of mounting political casualties, hinges on the logically flawed argument that this legislation is the “will of the people.” In the absence of clear empirical evidence, this argument assumes that more of the independent voters voted for Barack Obama, and Democrats in Congressional races in both 2006 & 2008, based on their positions on health care reform. The argument does not account for the number of independent voters who voted Democratic in the races simply out disappointment with Republican majority rule, the number of Obama voters simply caught up in the cult of personality surrounding the figure or any independent voter who cast a Democratic vote in 2006 or 2008, without once considering the candidates position on health care.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the real concerns of this silent majority, they have gradually raised their voices in opposition, but their screams appear to have landed on deaf ears. Perhaps the Democratic Party should try a more honest approach and describe their attempt at health care reform as the “will of the Democratic Party.” At least then they would begin to acknowledge that it is a majority of their Party, and not a majority of the American population, that desires to see their attempt to nationalize health care in the United States succeed.