First, a note to the Governor: “Before you leave, Governor Huckabee, I’d like to thank you for coming—you’ve been a breath of fresh air, different than all the other guests and a reminder of how great our democratic process is. If you hadn’t shown up, I’d have been inclined to believe the guest list was by invitation only. But you’ve reminded me that often the best guests at the party were the least anticipated.”

As you might have guessed, I suspect that Governor Huckabee’s time as a Presidential candidate is running short. I could lament the pending loss of this true outsider, the loss of the one candidate that seemed to have a vision for America.  But this is not the day for that. Today is a day to note that despite Senator Obama’s tide of talk on hope and optimism it is really Mike Huckabee who is the symbol for hope in the American political process.

At this time last year, the onslaught of party-specific Presidential Forums began and Rudy McRomney was the talk of the nation (at least the part of the nation that cared a year ago).  Mike Huckabee was as much an after thought as Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore.  The stage was full of men seeking a platform to share their ideas and an opportunity to gain a foothold.  Only one of these relative unknowns was able to do so—Mike Huckabee.  And this fact is good for American democracy. 

The nation says it wants change.  The nation feels Washington DC is broken. The nation feels like it needs a new direction.  The perpetuation of the political paradigm personified by the front-runners is unlikely to alter those perceptions. If the nation feels cynical about the future, billionaires and establishment candidates are not sobering.  But Mike Huckabee came along and demonstrated first-hand that an individual with some experience, with a message, and with the ability to communicate that message can gain access to the presidential process. 

Moreover, his candidacy reminds us that we are important.  As much as he seized the opportunity afforded him, America responded.  The nation listened to the political conversations; the nation evaluated his message; the nation gave him a chance; and, in the end, many Americans in Wyoming, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida took time out of their personal lives to communicate to the rest of the nation that they believe in this guy.  Mike Huckabee’s candidacy should remind us all of the hugely important role each American voter plays in this process.  Individually, each of us can make a difference. 

It is somewhat interesting to me that despite the overwhelming belief that change is in order, America continues to select candidates who are not much different than the elected officials who preceded them.  But I also believe that this is a manifestation of our collective conservatism.  We understand that change is in order, but it also needs to be thoughtful and without whimsy. Incremental change is the national tradition, and rightfully so. As much as I enjoy rearranging the furniture in my living room, it’s easy to put back and it affects no one outside my home. But in Presidential politics, four years is a long time to live with a lamp that blocks the view of the television.  Thus, despite their appeal, people that are agents of too much change are not likely to fair well in the end. 

We are a nation that loves celebrity.  Whether in Hollywood or Washington DC, celebrity is the real currency of the powerful.  Look at the current field of realistic candidates and each of the four of them has achieved some level of national celebrity and/or is identified by something other than their ideas:  Barack Obama, the black candidate and famous for his speech at the 2004 DNC convention; Hillary Clinton, the woman candidate and former First Lady; Mitt Romney, the Mormon candidate and savior of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics; and John McCain, former POW and former Presidential candidate.  Even Rudy Giuliani’s initial success can be traced to his post 9/11 celebrity.  The number of appearances on  the cover of People magazine may be a better barometer for a Presidential bid than the cover of Time.

But I do not believe that celebrity is the best identifier of Presidential candidates, and so I look with great joy on the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, because he’s shown us all that when we participate we can increase the pool of viable candidates to include those who eschew the well-worn path of establishment politics and, rather, seek a new road to take this great nation down.  Governor Huckabee is the example all future unknowns need to feel like they have a chance. The more people who we have to choose from, the better off we are. These candidates may not win, but they expand the discussion and they invigorate the electorate.

Mike Huckabee’s time as a Presidential candidate may soon be over for the time being, but his candidacy is a testimony to the American democratic system, to our political processes (as convoluted as they sometimes seem) and to our citizens. He has shown us that our election process is an excellent means of selecting candidates.

Thanks again for coming, Governor.  We’ll look forward to seeing you again. And next time, maybe we’ll be ready for you.

As I reflect on the personal characteristics which hasten to subvert my character and which I find unseemly in my children, the one trait I dislike the most is an attitude of entitlement. And as I look around I see my family is not its sole possessor. I lament that we seem to have become a nation of individuals who feel entitled to so much. Undoubtedly, a contributing factor is the attitude behind the old American adage, “I just want my child to have it better than I had it.”  So parents, wanting to provide for their children, give them things instead of teaching their children to earn them. But do we really want our children to have it better than we had it?  If you were to ask me this very question, I would tell you that what I really want is for my children to “be  better people” than I, not “have it better” than I. And yet, so often, I behave in accordance with the latter.
 
A sense of entitlement has permeated our attitude as Americans.  Even those of us who are small-government, conservative, Republican (labels, labels, labels) find ourselves addicted to government, and, like crack addicts, we can’t even begin to imagine weaning ourselves off of this addiction.
 
Take health care for example.  Many will tell you that we have a health care crisis in our country and that all citizens must have health insurance.  The preferred delivery method may differ based on who you talk to, but the premise is the same.  In fact, a recent advertisement in Newsweek for the AARP said, “Everybody has the right to affordable quality health care….” Is that true?  If so, why is it true? What part of our societal or governmental structure makes health care a right?  
 
We might visit the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Does THIS entitle us to health care?  This phrase, from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution, provides us with no legal basis for such an argument. Searching the Constitution itself we find it, too, void of such provisions.
 
So what is the source of our sense of entitlement to health insurance? Unfortunately, our sense of entitlement is a fabrication of the times.  We are frustrated that there isn’t universal health care, certainly, but let’s remember that frustration comes from unmet expectations.  When we expect something we begin to feel we have a right to it and when that right is denied we feel disappointment and frustration.  
 
Politicians have been creating this expectation for years by promising all Americans universal health care. These campaign promises have created a belief that we have a right to universal health care. But as much as I want it, I can’t find any inherent basis for that sense of entitlement.  The American way is democratic and market-driven. It is the exercise of liberty in pursuit of a way of life that pleases us—the pursuit of happiness.  In the current American market place, health care IS provided for most citizens.  Access to health care benefits is the result of market forces and people’s personal choices.  If health care benefits are a goal then people should choose to pursue careers that provide them.
 
Politicians who promise universal health care reinforce this paradigm of health care rights and create an electorate frustrated by unmet expectations. Addressing health care as a reward for achieving a certain professional or vocational benchmark would be a more realistic approach and more consistent with the American free market system. As much as a caring and compassionate people would like to view it otherwise, health care is simply another benefit provided to employees like a company car.
 
Even those with insurance are victims of our sense of entitlement because, first and foremost, insurance companies exist to make a profit.  There is no intrinsic attitude of benevolence, compassion or philanthropy. Insurance companies exist to receive our premiums, invest them and hold the profits, all while hoping that consumers don’t make claims against their policies.  It’s corporate gambling.  But because health insurance deals with life and death we expect that insurance companies will be sympathetic to our claims for benefits. But they simply live by the benefits handbook. If a certain level of benefits is paid for then (theoretically) the insurance companies pay out a certain level of benefits. The attitude of the insurance companies, and rightly so, is that if the consumer wants to change the conditions of the wager, that is, the insured wants the potential for a higher payoff on a bet with longer odds, then the insured must make a greater wager by paying more in health care premiums.  A small wager on the part of the consumer will never yield a large payout by the “house.” Low premiums simply cannot buy us access to treatment for every medical issue we will face in our lives.
 
Having a son with autism who is routinely denied benefits, I can, at times, find myself arguing for his benefits on the basis of compassion, beseeching the insurance company, “How can you deny my son access to the health care he needs to get better?” The real answer--that no insurance company will say publicly--is, “Mr. Kleber, you lost the bet. You didn’t wager enough to win the payout you’re looking for.”  My attitude, in these cases, reflects a sense of entitlement on my behalf. (Quite the quandary I find myself in now, isn’t it?)
 
It IS a shame that all people don’t have health insurance, but not because the government is remiss in its obligation to provide it, but because the lack thereof is reflective of the American emphasis on profit over people, lives, and relationships. Certainly, if employer-provided health insurance becomes universal the cost of consumer goods will rise to offset these corporate expenditures, but taxes might go down as federal, state and local governments became less responsible for the uninsured.  But this ought not be an economic discussion. It ought to be a discussion about an America that values life and puts its money where its mouth is.
 
As an authentically conservative, pro-life American, I would hold in great esteem a government that consistently values the protection of life.  Not because Americans are entitled to it, but because our collective moral compass compels us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
 
Until such time, however, we find that the determination of who has health insurance and who doesn’t is left to the individual.  Choices have consequences. Americans who eschew education will find themselves in jobs without health insurance. Americans who make poor choices will find themselves without health care. Some people say this isn’t fair.  But no one wants life to be fair. They want it to be unfair in their favor. It would be unfair if someone received a benefit without paying for it. It would be unfair for someone to take that which they haven’t earned.  What IS fair is that all Americans can have access to some level of health care benefits even today. They simply need to learn how to access it—through education, hard work, and character.
 
So therein lies our solution. Our goal should not be to reinforce the growing sense of entitlement by providing universal health care. It should be to teach values and morals; to teach the relationship between choices and consequences; to reinforce long-term thinking and planning; to teach personal responsibility and accountability. These are the premiums that must be paid to access health care in the United States.

Previously, I elaborated on my dismay over the automaticassociation between conservative people and the Republican Party.  With that in mind, I thought it mightbe helpful to outline ten specific points central to authentically conservative ideology so that wemight be better equipped to find candidates who also share our values.

 

1. At its very root, and at the risk of being too simplistic, conservative people desire to conserve—traditional values, the importance of family at home and in society, life, traditional institutions, religion, the environment, our collective and individual resources and identity, etc.  However, this doesn’t mean conservative people seek to maintain into perpetuity life as it was and has always been. Rather, conservative people understand that change is important and seek to manage that change in a conservative manner. This means, first, that change should occur slowly and regularly and with an eye to the health of society, like portions of a forest burned and subsequently reseeded, but re-established on the same foundation.  Change that occurs too rapidly and without regard to the continued health of society is like a cancerous growth—radical and dangerous--that eventually kills society. 

Additionally, one of the best waysto conserve something while simultaneously managing change is throughinvestment.  Individuals andsocieties only invest in those things that are valuable.  By its very nature investment impartsvalue to the thing being invested in and so investment reflects our personalvalues.  Like a loving parent whoinvests his time and money into his children in order to provide for theirfuture; or like an adult who invests in the stock market in order to providefor his financial security, investment takes something from us, adds value tosomething we think is important and increases the value of the principle.  Consequently, in the political realm,conservative people are ready to invest their resources in protecting things ofvalue—society’s infrastructure, the environment, schools, etc.  

2. Conservative people believe that government should occur at the lowest level possible.  Because the conservative person sees value in many things that are important to society, he also understands the useful role of government in collecting public funds and exercising economies of scale in order to investment in society’s valuable resources.  It has become part of Republicanism--in word if not practice--that Republicans want small government.  Conservative people don’t see small government as an end.  Rather, conservative people desire a small federal government that leads and shepherds state and local governments.  Regional and cultural differences that exist harmoniously within a society dictate different regional solutions for different regional situations.  Large, federal, one-size-fits-all programs are inherently inefficient and undesirable. But encouraging local governments to participate in solving national problems creates small, nimble, efficient and demographically appropriate systems that protect the resources deemed valuable by smaller communities.  These systems then achieve legitimacy within the community and create governments that are more accountable and responsible to the people they serve.  Conservative people want to see the majority of governing occur down the street from them—in the local city hall, where their voice can be heard. 

3. Conservative people believe that the words of society’s great thinkers, achievers and creators of the past are still important.  Conservative people know that how we got to where we are today is important.  Because change has occurred slowly and regularly to bring us the present, the processes and debates which have occurred are important to us.  It would be prideful of us to think that because what these people said and did took place long ago, that we cannot learn from them.  On the contrary, we would be acting against authentically conservative values if we looked with pride at ourselves as the sole holders of answers to today’s problems.  Conservative people know that good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Thus, the experiences of previous generations are instructional to us today for our continued improvement. 

As a result, conservative Americanpeople, valuing traditional thought and history, hold in great esteem theDeclaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  These documents represent the very bestthinking of our Founding Fathers. They succinctly state a collection of truths we hold dear and upon whichwe have and should continue to build our national culture.  

4. Conservative people value traditions and conventions as the links in society’s chain—holding generation to generation--tying 21^st century America to the Founding Fathers.  Holidays, times of remembrance, ceremony—all play a part in linking tomorrow to yesterday. Individuals who look to see our customs and traditions torn down, for whatever reason, treat the past liberally and wastefully. 

5. Conservative people possess a great social responsibility, not the forced collectivism of socialism or liberalism, but the voluntary sense of community that values and respects the community at large.  Conservative people, believing in the goodness of men to care for a society which they esteem, trust individuals to engage in voluntary community and avoid mandating social programs from the political pulpit and eschew mandated responsibility. 

Conservative people understand thatindividuals want responsibility and the freedom it entails, and any system thatseeks to deny responsibility to the individual by taking on that responsibilityitself is undesirable.  People wholack, or are denied responsibility, are no longer tied into the collectivesuccess of society.  They arespectators to the progress of the community.  The distribution of responsibility to the citizens is theprimary means of engaging individuals in the collective processes by which asociety seeks success. Conservative people want to avoid government that seeks to gatherresponsibility to itself.  Theconservative person knows that in the exercise of responsibility, the giving ofcharity and in social conformity the individual is most free.  Conservative people see that recipientsof charity run the risk of becoming enslaved to a life of looking for charityrather than being instruments of charity. Moreover, governments which encourage individuals to act solely fortheir own happiness and contrary to the good of the community further restrictthe individual to a life outside of the community at large.  The conservative knows that theultimate goal is not the exercise of as much personal liberty as possible, butrather to collectively create a climate in which life, liberty and the pursuitof happiness can be achieved for society as a whole.  This climate is achieved through teamwork and through thesacrifices of citizens committed to maintaining the highest values of asociety.  Consequently, authentic conservativestend to be very supportive of our troops, public servants, and missionaries—becausethese individuals represent the very best of sacrificial living andconservative values. 

6. Conservative people believe that there are absolute truths and that the concepts of “right” and “wrong” exist and are permanent. The manifestation of this belief is the exercise of self-control. The conservative believes in normative moral behavior and expects other members of society to believe likewise, which creates a society that lives peacefully with itself. Conservative people understand that if these permanent truths are absent individuals begin to make decisions with personal gratification as their highest goal. “I want” becomes the starting point of non-conservative decision-making and decisions are made selfishly, based on a sliding scale of moral truths.  The conservative person looks to do what’s right at all times even when it comes at the expense of his own personal liberty or satisfaction.  A life lived in accordance to these permanent moral truths is more satisfying than a life lived seeking personal satisfaction.  Thus, the authentic conservative must be wary of linking himself too closely to big business, the end goal of which is corporate satisfaction known as profit. While the capitalist system is inherently conservative, as I’ll discuss below, its participants are not always acting conservatively.  

7. The conservative person believes in appropriate natural consequences for an individual’s behavior.  Every behavior has some consequence and human beings learn from those consequences the validity and worth of their behavior.  This also means that the conservative expects and supports inequality.  In a society where behaviors have appropriate consequences, there must exist inequality in achievement and accomplishment.  This is not an inequality of the worth or value of individuals, but rather an inequality in reward, lifestyle and status.  Those society members who work hard, learn quickly and apply previously learned lessons will inherently be rewarded more than those members who behave counter to those values.  Some society members will choose sloth over hard work. Some will choose selfishness over teamwork. Some will choose crime over conformity.  Each of those choices has consequences: to the former we assign the word punishment and the latter reward. 

These rewards often come in theform of personal property. Consequently, conservative people have a high regard for property rightsbecause the possession of property is the result of their toil.  Property is the natural consequence ofappropriate behavior. Furthermore, any diminishment of property rights isn’tjust that, but it is also a devaluation of the conduct that made propertypossession possible. 

Any system that pursues equality asa goal is inherently non-conservative. By design, such an equality-seekingsystem must force favorable consequences on individuals who have actedundesirably and it must force unfavorable consequences on those who have acteddesirably.  This type of systemrespects neither the individuals it seeks to make equal nor the culturalcustoms that have come before it. 

8. Conservative people believe that individuals must be accountable and responsible for their own behavior. The conservative seeks a system in which each member must answer for his choices and conduct.  Without accountability there is a disconnect between behavior and consequence.  Unchecked society members are free to behave unconstrained by societal norms and to take advantage of other people for their own gain.  A society that fails to hold people accountable disrespects them by sending the signal that society doesn’t care about their behavior or their future.  A society that cares confronts people and holds its members accountable. 

9. Conservative people know that a perfect world does not exist.  While conservative people value the tenets I’ve laid out so far, they also acknowledge that every member of society does not.  Some individuals will choose selfishness. Some will choose to look for short cuts to circumvent the personal investment required to achieve success.  Evil exists in the world.  There will always be an element of society that does not value what society values.  Even if a society could reach a point of near utopianism, first complacency within the society would set in and then opportunities would be created for the power hungry and greedy.  The very efficacy of any moral system automatically creates its own parallel system of immorality.  As such, the conservative person doesn’t seek to create a perfect system—a utopian world without evil.  Rather, the conservative person desires a system that keeps evil to a minimum and yet is prepared to deal with its manifestations when they occur. 

10. Lastly, conservative people value capitalism. Capitalism is the least imperfect system that allows for these conservative tenets to operate.  Capitalism is accountable in that companies that do not provide a valuable resource whither.  Capitalism generally provides appropriate consequences.  Individuals who work hard, learn from the past, and invest are rewarded.  Conservative people believe that capitalism is the best agent of change because the profit motive itself is inherently efficient and pragmatic.  Whereas governmental programs created out of political debate are new creations, and thus lack institutional memory and corporate intelligence, they are inherently doomed to repeat mistakes as they evolve.  Capitalism doesn’t create inequality but it does allow for it.  However, it is also the vehicle by which have-nots can shrink the gap with the haves.   

I believe it is true that no onewants life to be fair; they want it to be unfair in their favor.  Fairness has been tried in manysocialist and communist systems across history and it has failed societies and individuals.Capitalism is the most equitable system available precisely because it isconsistent with these conservative values.

 

So, where is the authentically conservative candidate for2008?  Fortunately, we still haveseveral months to search.

 

 

 

I’d like to thank Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke and Rod Dreherfor their writings on authentic conservatism.

Maybe it’s the overall, general sense of dissatisfaction with the current President that brought out so many candidates so early in the 2008 campaign.  Whatever the reason, with so many choices and so much time, I’ve been taking more interest than ever in trying to evaluate the candidates currently in the competition.  But something interesting is happening on my way to November 4, 2008—I’m evaluating myself more intensely than the candidates.  In looking for a candidate who I believe can best lead our great nation I am finding that I really must begin with “what do I believe?”

I’m conservative. But does being “conservative” make me “a conservative?” I think not, given the current useage of the term, and herein lies my problem.  Since the advent of the color television and the computer, we’ve all been reduced to labels -- “Blue States,” “Red States,” “liberals,” “conservatives,” “democrats,” and “republicans,” as if each of these could be used interchangeably, so that today “a conservative” equals “a republican.”  But is “a conservative” necessarily “conservative?

The distinction becomes increasingly important when the Republican front-runners, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, have some very non-conservative values.  Can I—will I--support a candidate whose values differ so greatly from my own?  

The “Republican equals conservative” paradigm is giving authentic conservatism a bad name.  David Greenberg wrote in the NY Times (How Bush Stayed True to Conservatism, May 15) “….so few were the obstacles that conservatism was able to run amok. The result—in the assessment of not just liberals but also other observers—has been disaster: a mess of a war, the failure to plan for Hurricane Katrina, the erosion of the church-state wall, widening inequality, the loss of civil liberties including habeas corpus, and scores of other ills…This was the fruit of modern American conservatism.”  Notwithstanding Mr. Greenberg’s faulty logic (that’s an issue for another article), he pins the problem on “conservatism” not Republicans.  

Additionally, David Brooks writing in the New York Times (April 29, Grim Old Party) about the stagnation of the GOP says, “As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown into a collection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility.”  While this may well true of the Republican Party, it is not true of conservatism.  In fact, authentic conservatives simply make up one of many groups that today find a home in the Republican Party. But the collective movement of these special interest groups does not define conservatism.

This very close identity makes it difficult for authentic conservatives to disagree with Republican politics. We might be aligned with the Republicans on a great many things, but the current usage of the word puts authentic conservatives in the uncomfortable position of feeling like traitors if we stand opposed to Republican policies.  A recent Newsweek article profiled the descendents of Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt--presidents more in touch with authentic conservatism than any we’ve had since Ike left office--noting their dismay with the Republican Party and their willingness to consider not supporting a Republican in 2008.  Are these people traitors to “modern American conservatism” or Republicanism or are they steadfast adherents to authentic conservatism?

Another dynamic at work is the name calling talk radio.  Many who generally agree with Republican politics often find themselves in general agreement with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and other hosts of “conservative” talk radio (or shall we call it Republican Talk Radio?).  Moreover, as frequent listeners, they hear the way the hated Democrats are belittled whenever they dare to call and voice an opinion.  I believe many Republicans have come to fear being identified with Democratic politics in any way, lest they should find themselves scorned by Republican talk radio listeners who are parroting the entertainment they hear on the airwaves.  Talk radio, in this way, has served to further polarize America by devaluing opinions that are not the deepest shade of red.

Mr. Greenberg’s dismay over conservatism is a theft and abuse of truly conservative ideals.  However, being conservative myself, I must acknowledge my tacit facilitation of the theft since I have not defended the word “conservative” with the proper vehemence.  I have allowed differing factions to borrow this term in order to promote themselves only to discover that their use of the word has worn it out and rendered it meaningless.  So the time has come for authentic conservatives to take our adjective back and restore the word to its previous luster.

Consequently, conservative people must ask some hard questions such as: “Being conservative, must I support the Republican-led conflict in Iraq?” If I decide that I am a conservative or a Republican, almost certainly.  (Just ask Senator Hagel how Republicans against the conflict are received.) But if I conclude that I am authentically conservative, my options open up.  In 1800 John Adams angered his Federalist Party leadership by not supporting a war with France.  The Federalists saw to his ouster but President Adams knew that he had done the right thing by avoiding a disastrous war.  Upon his return home to Massachusetts he stated, “Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.”

Conservative people generally eschew war as wasteful—a liberal use of our most valuable resources, mainly our citizens.  But conservative people also know that in order to conserve the higher values in a community sometimes an investment of blood is required, and this may be just such a time (this is my position on this particular conflict in the Middle East).  However, conservative people also understand that discretion is often the better part of valor and conservatism, resting confidently on the successes of the past and learning from previous failures, has nothing to prove by wanton displays of strength and power.  It is liberalism, not authentic conservatism, which uses resources today, in order to protect today, without regard to the future.  

Even intelligent, authentically conservative thinkers will disagree on the necessity of the conflict in Iraq.  My point today is not to answer that question, but this one: are you conservative or are you a conservative?  If the former, then I contend you have significantly more latitude in the expression of your conservative views than the Republican Party’s three leading candidates provide you.  Thoroughly evaluating the many Republican candidates for the Presidency in 2008 may help you discover an authentically conservative candidate outside of Mr. Giuliani, Governor Romney or Senator McCain.  Furthermore, I think it’s time that authentically conservative people pay attention to what’s going on in the Democratic Party as well.  If someone as traditionally non-conservative as Mr. Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, we may be forced to look for authentically conservative credentials of the Democratic candidates in order to find the least objectionable candidate.

Authentic conservatism is bridge building and desirable in both blue and red communities. A candidate who understands this and builds his or her vision for America in 2016 (when two terms would be concluded) on these authentically conservative values stands a good chance of healing perceived, polarizing differences in our country and restoring America to its esteemed position as the legitimate leader of the global community.

Change: it’s the talk of the nation.  I haven’t heard this much discussion on needing change since we last cleaned under the sofa cushions or since my kids were two.

Two Presidential candidates, in particular, are ringing the bell of change in hopes of calling voters to their camps—Barrack Obama and Ron Paul.  And, honestly, despite the campaign trail rhetoric, other than the obvious aesthetic characteristics and the fact that he’s NOT a Republican I don’t see that Senator Obama’s campaign is really representative of change in this election.  Ron Paul, is another story.

Ron Paul’s candidacy represents change from beginning to end and he is attracting attention from many people, particularly young voters, who no longer trust their government and feel “Washington must be changed.”

The foundation of Congressman Paul’s ideology is his Libertarian background. Once a Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party (1988) he is looking to change the system by working within the system, now running as a Republican (good choice).   The appeal of Ron Paul to the “I don’t trust government” crowd is clear on the surface, but looking beneath the surface the waters get murky.

A Libertarian should not be President unless there is great TRUST of government, not DISTRUST.  The fundamental premise of Libertarians is that government should stay out of the lives of citizens. Thomas Paine could well have provided the party’s motto when he said, “Government is best which governs least.”  The end game for the Libertarian is to be left alone by government, to have the least intrusion possible into his life by government.  

However, one must anticipate that removing government from the people would likewise remove people from the government.  Four years of a Libertarian president, erasing and removing government from the lives of people would also remove the influence of the individual on the government that would remain. Out of sight, out of mind.  The government which is left to govern, would (probably rightly) assume that the people would rather not be bothered with the details of government’s inner workings.  Government would begin to feel itself unfettered by public opinion.

Additionally, this newfound separation of the government from the people would only serve to make an already apathetic electorate more apathetic. It is already hard work to communicate our wishes with our elected officials.  Doing so becomes a way of life.  Maintaining those lines of communication is already difficult.  However, if those lines were to be broken by a retreat of the people into a Libertarian induced sense of non-government inebriation, how much more difficult would it be to reopen those lines?  Once the people fill the time they used to spend thinking about their government with thinking about themselves, it will be a hard chore indeed to reclaim that time from their day-timers.  No habit is harder to break than selfishness.

The net effect of this is that if you do not trust your government then the last thing you should want is a Libertarian running it.  A Libertarian in charge will remove your distrust, cynicism and questions from the people most in need of accountability--politicians.  The American system of government, as fashioned by our Founding Fathers 220 years ago continues to endure no matter how often we claim the system is broken.  The misuse of the system, both by politicians and an electorate which generally believes itself impotent, certainly needs our attention, but the system itself provides a means for doing just that—individual participation.  

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is an old adage that applies here as well.  If you do not trust your government, all the more reason for you to stay close to it and remain involved.  If, rather, we were in the middle of an extended period of trust and good will with our government, that might be a great time to reap a trust-dividend and begin to allow ourselves some separation from our elected officials.  But this is certainly no time for that.  This is no time to give ourselves reason to be MORE apathetic, to be LESS involved, to be MORE selfish.  On the contrary, we need the societal bonds that tie us together. Not the mandated bonds of liberalism but the voluntary bonds of conservatism which itself encompasses words like compassion and duty.

Let us not forget human nature as we coyly wink at the flirtatious Libertarian.  It is our human condition that when encouraged to think of ourselves first we do just that.  If you don’t trust your government, Ron Paul is not the answer.  Certainly, a change is in order, but the change is not in creating distance between ourselves and government, but rather in decreasing it; and we can best decrease that distance by actually utilizing the great American political system given to us at our country’s inception.  Assuredly, it is not more government that is needed. But nor is it necessarily less. It is more of us that is needed.