Does your Christmas agenda sound at all like what a friend recently described to me? “We wrap until 1:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve and then the kids are up at five a.m. Then we have to open all the gifts as fast as the kids can get through the wrapping paper, then we have to eat breakfast; we have pack the car and then we have to head on over to the in-laws house for dinner.” That’s an awful lot of “have-tos” for the most magical day of the year.

No doubt the burdens of modern society have intruded on our enjoyment of the holiday and now distract us from slowing down long enough to enjoy and share the celebration with our loved ones. But one of my favorite things to do with my children leading up to Christmas is to watch the animated Christmas classics. I try to make a point of finding them on television and planning with them to watch the shows, rather than just popping in the DVDs we own of the same programs. I love these shows—The Year without a Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, and Santa Claus is Coming to Town. But two of them stand out in particular. A Charlie Brown Christmas stands out for its biblical authenticity (not to mention the timelessness of the Charles Schulz characters). I revel each year in the opportunity to share this show and the true Christmas message with my children. (Honestly, I wonder how long it will be before network television decides it can no longer handle the biblical account of the Christmas story and banishes A Charlie Brown Christmas to the ash heap of political incorrectness.)

And yet, for me, another is still more highly esteemed—Dr. Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Of all the Christmas stories, this one most prominently portrays two wonderful lessons to share with your children at Christmas. First, it’s not the presents and the “have-tos” that make Christmas wonderful. Oh, the presents are fun and one day children, when they are parents themselves, will really understand that it IS better to give than to receive. But spending time with your family is the real joy--gathering and sharing, eating and slowing down long enough to realize that the gifts are but a fresh coat of paint on what has always been a beautiful house. The Grinch said,

IT CAME WITHOUT RIBBONS, IT CAME WITHOUT TAGS
IT CAME WITHOUT PACKAGES, BOXES OR BAGS….
….MAYBE CHRISTMAS, HE THOUGHT, DOESN’T COME FROM A STORE.
MAYBE CHRISTMAS….PERHAPS…MEANS A LITTLE BIT MORE!

I have said for a while that at the core of most Americans is a belief system that is strongly conservative. Not Republican-conservative, but authentically conservative. Except for the fiscal issues, we find common ground in conservative beliefs: we love this country; we love our families; we acknowledge a Creator; we value our traditions; we honor the past by remembering the service of others.

When times are good, we tend act Libertarian. But when trouble comes (and you need only look to September 12, 2001, to verify this) we revert to our conservative roots. Dr. Seuss’s Whos, too, were struck by tragedy and they, too, sought the comfort of family and community. They didn’t look to the Mayor of Who-Ville to fix the problem, nor did they shut themselves off from the other Whos. Instead, they remembered the most important things—relationships—and they gathered to celebrate that.

One great benefit of Christmas, and the real genius of How the Grinch Stole Christmas, is in demonstrating the value of living out our conservative roots even when times are good. Dr. Seuss saved it for the very last page, almost an afterthought, and yet it’s the most important part of the story, which he elaborated in the television version. What the Grinch really wanted, what he’d really always longed for, was to be included. The Grinch wanted to feel like he belonged in Who-Ville and that the Whos cared for him. Isn’t that what we all want? Don’t we all just want a place where we can be ourselves and be loved?

When times are good it’s easy to forget the importance of engaging with our family and friends. We lose perspective of what’s really important and get distracted by the mundane things of our lives. But once a year, come the end of December, we are culturally forced to engage. We return to our families and our churches, we remember old holiday traditions and the people who started them. Christmas is, for most people, a good time of year (despite the self imposed stress) and yet we find ourselves drawn to our conservative roots.

As we think about who we are as Americans and as individuals it’s good to remember that at our core we are conservative, engaging, loving, caring people. We don’t really want to be left alone and we don’t really want to have to look to government to care for us. In good times or bad, we want to be a part of something, and families and neighborhoods at Christmas are great places to start.

The recent shooting in Omaha, like the school shooting in Cleveland in October, has the judgmental tongues of America wagging again. The talking heads, the pundits, the citizens—all quick to ascribe blame to everyone but themselves, quick to employ their hindsight to demonstrate their genius, and quick to reserve understanding for another day.

I was sitting in my kitchen Friday night having a beer with a friend who asked me, “What is it we always hear from the media about these shootings?” After three guesses that disappointed my guest he told me, “The media always blames bullying.” “Drex,” he continued, “I don’t think bullying makes these kids fruitcakes. I think they were fruitcakes long before they were bullied. The media always wants to apologize for these kids saying bullying caused this, but these kids were going to blow either way.”

Uh huh.

Joe Pags, a talk radio host in south Texas who frequently fills in for Glen Beck, took time to belittle Robert Hawkins and  Michael Medved, on his show after the Cleveland incident, referred to Asa Coon as a “loser.” He repeatedly used this term to let the listeners know that he KNEW the cause for this tragedy. What a welcome use of intellect and insight to pinpoint the cause of this event—Asa Coon was a “looooser.” Sure, that’s why we listen.

I suspect the hosts’ comments would have come as nothing new to young Robert Hawkins or Asa Coons. They’d probably been called worse by better in their past.

I lived right next to Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. One of the shooters lived in my neighborhood. I have mourned with a community over the senselessness of these types of tragedies. And I have a son with a mental illness.

When I hear of these events anymore, my heart goes out first to the parents of the shooters. Usually grieving over the death of one of their children, they must also carry the guilt and shame of not having done more to prevent the tragedy their child committed. No matter how much they did, they must feel they could have done more.

I am certain that my kitchen-friend was right about some shooters. Sometimes these kids ARE just fruitcakes that lack the character and moral compass to appropriately deal with life’s ups and downs. The Talk Show Hosts are probably right, too. Sometimes these kids are just “losers.” Sometimes the blame-casters are right that lazy, selfish parenting contributed to out of control kids, abused kids, unloved kids. Sometimes the parents are just irresponsible, like the mother in Philadelphia who recently bought her 14 year old, home-schooled son, a 9mm assault rifle.

But we abdicate our own moral authority to comment when we don’t first assume that parents may have tried everything, that the child might have carried some handicap for which the parents and the system had no answer.

It is with no pride and considerable pain that I admit that my 16 year old son could one day travel a similar road. He has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of Autism that severely curtails an individual’s social capacities, and bi-polar disorder. Asperger’s kids do not understand social cues and frequently find themselves in awkward, sometimes violent, situations. Rebekah Heinrichs wrote a book entitled PERFECT TARGETS chronicling how Asperger’s kids are often the targets of bullying. These kids usually look normal—to the uninformed or casual observer there is nothing unusual about these kids. So when they behave strangely there are no visual indications that the individual is handicapped in any way and, thus, off limits.

In today’s schools and communities teachers and parents have done a good job of teaching children not to pick on handicapped kids. The days of making fun of “speds” seem mostly behind us. But kids who are in wheelchairs, who have Down’s Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy are easy to pick out. Kids with Asperger’s appear perfectly normal.

Let me share a personal example of how these kids can get themselves in trouble. On the first day of school of 7th grade at a new school a few years back my son with Asperger's was on his way to an assembly. He wanted to make friends (Asperger’s kids usually don’t have many, but they know they want them). So as he walked into the gym he saw another student sitting alone in bleachers. He wanted to say “hi” so he asked the student behind him in line if he knew the bleacher-kid’s name. The student behind my son, seeing the kid in the bleachers who, as chance would have it, was black, told my son that his name was “Chocolate.” My son, lacking the social capacity to see through this ruse, walked up to the kid in the bleachers, extended his hand and said, “Hi Chocolate, I’m new. Want to be friends?” Needless to say, something of a riot broke out.

My son has been the victim of bullying in the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, on many occasions, mostly because he behaves differently and other kids don’t know how to respond to him. His problems are further complicated because students with medical issues, like Asperger’s, are frequently placed in classes with kids who are simply behavioral problems. These kids often have a history of responding violently to situations. Unfortunately, this places the Perfect Target in close proximity to the Perfect Predator.

In every instance in which my son has be assaulted, we have pressed criminal charges and won our case and yet the persistent bullying has continued.

Children who are bullied routinely are often capable of holding themselves together for long periods of time. Our society is good at teaching kids not to cry, to learn to deal with it, to try to fend for themselves. And so the resentment and anger build up. Most students in today’s schools are able to navigate the difficult middle school and high school years effectively. They learn the lessons these trying times teach about life and they move on. I did. Didn’t you? But how does a student with a social disability do what even you and I struggled with?

School districts are unprepared to deal with many of these kids. They are encouraged to keep the kids in mainstream classes, to provide the least restrictive environment and to avoid spending money on extra services. Mental Health services in many states, certainly here in Texas, are not staffed, funded or designed to be helpful. My family heard on several occasions that if we wanted to get our son help, we should move to New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

My wife and I have exhausted our financial resources. We have private insurance, the policy says my son should be covered and yet the insurance company refuses to cover our son’s treatment because they have deemed it “not medically necessary.” We have desperately tried to tap into state resources. In fact in a conversation with Texas State Senator Florence Shapiro on my radio program, she stated quite candidly that the people of Texas have simply not voted to fund the types of programs that are needed to help these kids and keep the communities they live in safe.

Even as an authentic conservative, I believe there are times when it is appropriate to ask for more government. This is one of those times. It is appropriate for government to provide for the safety of those it governs. It is appropriate to establish mechanisms that help families help their communities as opposed to abandoning families to try to deal with these difficult and potentially dangerous situations on their own.

I would have hoped that a market-based solution, like insurance, would have been sufficient to help us. But I understand that insurance companies are not established to help. They are established to make money. They are “for-profit” companies. I have written before that we should expect insurance companies to always act in a manner that most benefits their bottom line. Every claim paid is a reduction of profits.

It is so easy, in hindsight, to see a situation clearly, to see the pattern of warning signs in a chain of events. And it is easy to see where the chain might have been broken. But we have to take responsibility, after events like this, for not being proactive.

My family has tried to influence the system. We have tried to point out deficiencies, we have recommended changes and we have made suggestions for our son’s placement compatible with public safety. But the North East Independent School District wants my son back in school. They are so determined not to pay for services that they will provide for nothing other than a return to his public high school. Who’s making your children unsafe now? The parents (us, in this case) who know our son and wish to protect your child or the school who wishes to sit your child next to mine in class? Will your child bully my kid? Probably not. Will my son shoot your child? Probably not. But the system is failing to provide for everyone’s safety and the system is designed to only acknowledge these truths AFTER a tragedy occurs.

We want our freedoms here in America. We vote for our freedoms over safety every day. Even today, we could be wearing helmets in our cars or we could be writing our legislators demanding more homeland security, but we don’t because we don’t want to spend the money and we don’t want to be burdened with new limits on our liberties. So be it. But after the next attack, we must then accept our role in facilitating the tragedy. When government jams a program down our throat, we object. When tragedy happens because no program existed to prevent it, we blame bureaucrats for not acting.

I don’t seek to absolve anyone from blame or responsibility. Rather I want us all to share in the responsibility. We need to acknowledge our own failings in helping our neighbors, in supporting our schools, in funding programs and in taking a moment to imagine the best in people. I want us to imagine for a minute that the parents might have done everything they could; that they might be loving parents who have sought help and received none.

I’ve never met the Hawkins or the Coons. I have no idea what they’ve been through or how hard they tried to help Robert and Asa. I only know that there is scant help to even the most caring, resourceful and loving parents. I know that some parents see the warning signs but no one will listen. I know that schools encourage outdated paradigms that serve their own fiscal self-interest and not the interest of the family in need.

Can we DO better? Of course we can, but it’ll take time and money. In the meantime, can we BE better? Can we be better at accepting responsibility? Can we be better at trying to understand how families get to where they are and how difficult it might be to do what it is hindsight tells us they should have done? Of course we can and it’ll take no money and no time, just a change in attitude.

Everywhere I turn a politician is promising to bring change to Washington. Apparently the system is broken—very, very broken. But I think we should kick the anthill of conventional thinking on that paradigm.

This anthill of national angst about our federal government has been manufactured and forged across the country by a wave of public pessimism on the direction of our country and our hopes for the future. Certainly the Presidential candidates, group-think weather vanes that they are, believe there’s a problem in Washington. Barack Obama says, “…the problem is the system in Washington isn’t working for us, and it hasn’t for a very long time.” And John Edwards told U.S. News and World Report, “Washington is severely broken. And I think the system is rigged, and I think it is rigged against the American people and it’s rigged by powerful interests and their lobbyists in Washington.” And not a week goes by that Hillary Clinton doesn’t tout herself as an agent of change in Washington. Even the Republicans agree. Mitt Romney has been running a TV ad saying, “It’s time for change.”

What is going on that so many people feel the system is broken? Of course, people are frustrated that very little legislation is being passed by our federal government to address the major issues of the day--health care, a mortgage crisis, immigration, the war in Iraq. But does a lack of legislation indicate a broken system? The mandate to Washington is not to create legislation but to legislate consistent with the will of the people. In which case, the system in Washington is working perfectly. We have a divided Congress because we have a divided nation. The stalemates in Washington, which are occurring because of partisan politics, directly reflect the national composition. We have elected a narrow Democrat majority. It will be difficult for the Democrats to push through legislation because the Republicans equally oppose them.

As an authentic conservative, I don’t want changes pouring out of Washington like water over the falls. Change, while necessary, inevitable and stimulating, should occur thoughtfully and without haste. The national mood that nothing is happening in Washington is inaccurate. Nothing is happening quickly, that is true. But our pessimistic mood reflects America’s ongoing transformation into an instant gratification society. We want what we want and we want it now. We don’t like waiting.

“Because the two parties are so evenly balanced,” says conservative strategist Grover Norquist, “it’s not possible for one party to pass its own agenda.” Is that a bad thing? Particularly at the national level, legislation ought to be well reasoned and cautious. It does, by nature, tend towards “one size fits all” which seldom works. Before Congress chooses to treat us all the same by creating national legislation, I think it is good and proper that two balanced parties hash out the needs of the constituents and come to a compromise that bears the marks of public opinion.

The media continues to relay to us how desperate we are for change. Yet, we see through those who say they are change agents but are not—Senator Clinton? Governor Romney? We’re not buying it. But our behavior would indicate we don’t want as much change as we say we do. If we really wanted change, GOP candidate John Cox would be getting significantly more attention. Here is a genuine outsider. But he can barely get a whiff of the media’s attention. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might represent change but they’re change to the political extremes that don’t accurately reflect the national sentiment and they are still Washington insiders.

The larger the governmental body the less I trust it. I expect little from Washington but I want little from Washington. Government operating closer to home is always more effective and responsive. In the absence of vibrant leadership out of Washington, the Republican Governor’s Association, currently chaired by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, has been more active in trying to create legislation that works. State governments can be and should be policy laboratories for the federal government to observe, contends the RGA and authentic conservatives should agree.

Additionally, California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a popular and effective governor in a state with a majority of Democrats in the state legislature because he has chosen compromise over conflict. Compromise may seem like a dirty word to many but it is the engine of efficacy in government. When we are talking about state governments, as well, it would serve us to remember that a Republican in Texas probably has more in common with a Democrat in Texas than he does with a Republican in New Hampshire. Thus, those legislative compromises at the state level are seldom as hard to swallow as one might think.

We must always remember that if we want change, it starts with us. Who we elect is our most important method of communication with Congress. We can’t keep electing cheap station wagons and then expect them to act like Ferrari’s. The only way to speed up the rate of legislation out of Washington would be a viable third party, beholden to neither of the two existing parties. It wouldn’t even take a significant number; 10%-15% in both houses who were independent would be sufficient to force through legislation at an alarming rate. However, I don't believe that's what we really want. And perhaps the fact that we don’t have a viable third party is ample evidence of that fact.

The system isn’t broken. In fact, the perception that a problem exists at all may be because the system is working TOO well. At the very least, it’s working just as it was designed to and we should be thankful for that. Democrats should be thankful that in President Bush’s first term he and the Republican Congress didn’t pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage; and Republicans should be thankful that this Congress with its Democrat majority didn’t force US troops home immediately.

If your complaint is governmental inaction, I ask you, “What action have you taken to change your

government?” The fastest way to create change is to be a vocal participant in your local government.

In the meantime, be glad that once again, the American system of government, as created over 200

years ago by our Founding Fathers, is up to any challenge we throw at it, including our own 

misperceptions.