The wrong scorecards

Polls and the money chase; that's what our media give us. Who's ahead in which poll, the margin of error; who has raised the most money, from where, what effect, is it legal. A visitor from Mars would watch TV and assume the person with the most money raised wins the election - not the number of votes.

We have many complex and serious issues, and campaign finance may be one of them. But is it asking TOO much for our talking heads to cover and analyze actual issues? Are we off base in expecting the press and pundits to challenge candidates on their claims, in person and in campaign ads? Why can't our debates be more than a series of claims and counterclaims with no intercession or clarification by the reporters, moderators? FactCheck seems to be an underused resource.

Our nation needs a vigorous press to stand in our place and get the real story, to challenge the candidates who will represent us in OUR government. Instead, they either shout and interrupt or are wall flowers posing questions without good follow up. Folks, you stand in our place with our candidates. Do your job and behave in a way consistent with the founder's views on freedom of the press as essential to democracy. Right now, you have a long way to go to meet the test.

Fire Burns the Whole Community

Last night's story about the Tennessee family who lost their home to fire for not paying a $75 fee exposes a raw truth about some of the shouters. If you don't pay (they say) you shouldn't be carried by the rest of us. How much sympathy will there be for Mr. Cranik from the promoters of this radically individualistic idea.

Our republican experiment is at its essence communitarian. Hobbes and Locke laid down the foundation by observing that individuals give up some of their freedom to a government. In return, they get stability and safety. The government is limited and cannot infringe on natural rights and freedoms. But, a community is formed, a community of equals in essential rights if not equal in economic means.

So our neighbor's home is on fire. We put out the flames because (1) he is our neighbor and a member of the community, (2) his blazing home can ignite his paying neighbors, and (3) the fire department is a service all should be able to expect in a civilized society. We tried the fee for service fire service approach and it invited abuse (Crassus in ancient Rome) and whole sections of cities (London, New York, Chicago) burned as a result.

I wonder if Mr. Cranik tracks the use by others of services like the FAA, FDA, interstate highway system, public water supply, electric grid, etc etc which his taxes have gone to support. Our founders did not intend for us a society of isolated individuals living a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Thirteen disparate colonies had banded together to fight their way to independence. Separately, they would have failed. The Constitution was a communitarian exercise. By adding the Bill of Rights, our founders intended to keep government (Hobbes' Leviathan) from taking away natural liberties. The most essential are life, liberty and property - including Mr. Cranik's home.

Those who would create a nation of isolated, completely self-interested individuals do not want to reside in the nation our founders created, or intended. They must have some other country in mind.