Open Up the Debates!

David Broder proves more wise than the two major parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates in his column today, “Open Up the Debates.” The trouble is, he doesn’t go nearly far enough.

He is quite right in questioning, “But if the law allows (and in some ways encourages) both donors and grass-roots activists to go outside the two-party system to participate in the campaign, then what is the logic of restricting the debates to those who have passed through the major-party primaries and conventions?”

But why does he insist on such an institutional bias from the get-go against those who would challenge the established Republicrat oligarchy? He mentions “the two candidates who actually have a realistic prospect of winning the election,” but who determines what makes for “realistic prospects?” By what standard? And what or who gives them that right?

Most would answer that question by pointing to the polls, which show no third party or independent candidate pulling greater than one percent support. But is this not a creature of the media, which biases the system from start to finish by giving scant coverage, at best, to the challengers of the established oligarchy? If people don’t know you, how can they vote for you? So you see, the polls are largely self-perpetuating instruments that work against the challengers and only for the Republicans and Democrats.

Since it is not the pollsters who officially determine our next President, but the results of the actual voting on election day, the media-driven polls should be inadmissible for determining who has a “realistic prospect” of winning the election, and thus determining who should be included in the presidential debates.

In considering what the Constitution says on the issue (what a novel concept for a republic that is supposed to operate under the strictures imposed by the Constitution!), there is only one legitimate way to determine who has a “realistic prospect” at winning the election. According to the Constitution,

“The person having the greatest Number of [electoral] votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed…” Article II, Section I, Paragraph 3.

Therefore, any candidate who appears on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be able to win a majority of the available Electoral College votes should be included in the debates.

Broder, as many others have said before, suggests the imprudence of “cluttering the screen with a bunch of also-rans.” According to the Constitution, the only also-rans to be written off before the actual election are those who cannot possibly win the requisite number of votes from the Electoral College, for the simple fact that they do not appear on enough state ballots.

So, using this very reasonable and — lest we forgot — constitutional formula, let us indeed open up the debates!

Scalia Decries Judicial Activism in Harvard Talk

Another homerun hit by Justice Antonin Scalia:

Scalia decries judicial activism in Harvard talk

He is There, and He is Not Passive

RC Sproul, Jr. on the castrated God of the hyper-arminians (aka “open-theists”), the fatalism of an unbalanced Calvinism, and the great comfort and blessings of our ever immanent and still sovereign God.

Examining the Crisis in Civic Education: A Look at Student Ignorance and Apathy, and Their Underlying Causes

Last Wednesday, the Bill of Rights Institute, for whom I work as the Development Manager for Donor Relations, hosted breakfast and luncheon programs for over 70 of our donors and friends in celebration of our fifth anniversary. As part of the morning program, I delivered a 15 minutes address on the problem in civic education that America faces and, therefore, why our work is so vital to America’s future. What follows is my speech outline:

The Bill of Rights Institute’s Fifth Anniversary Celebration
The National Archives and Records Administration — Jefferson Room
Washington, DC
Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Outline of Remarks by Eric Langborgh

[To set in context the work of the Bill of Rights Institute -- why our work is so necessary and why it is that we so appreciate your partnering with us in that mission.]

A. Student Ignorance
Studies show that young people know very little about America’s Founders and the constitutional principles they established. American Council of Trustees and Alumni (2000) — Four out of five college seniors received a D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school curriculum:

• Only 34 percent can identify George Washington as an American general at Yorktown, the culminating battle of the American Revolution.
• 40 percent do not know that the Constitution divided power between the states and the federal government.
• Nearly one-half (47 percent) do not know the purpose of the Federalist Papers was to gain support for the ratification of the Constitution.

It is even worse in the high schools: A recent report from the U.S. Department of Education indicates that six in ten high school seniors lack basic knowledge of American history, and only twenty-five percent test at the “proficient” level for civic knowledge.

B. Student Apathy — Why should this ignorance matter? The answer is that it leads to other, more significant problems.

This ignorance leads to a lack of appreciation for America’s heritage and all that we stand for:

• Less than 20 percent of 18-29 year olds say they are “very proud of how democracy works in the U.S.”
• Only 27 percent of today’s college freshmen think “keeping up with public affairs” is very important, compared with 59 percent in 1966.
  (Source: Michael Delli Carpini 2000 study, “Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment.”)

A recent study out of Stanford — conducted by Dr. William Damon, an academic advisor to the Bill of Rights Institute, measured the civic attitudes of high schoolers. Typical responses to his questions were similar to that of one Midwestern boy, who claimed, “Being American is not very special.” Said another: “I don’t find being an American citizen very important.”

Why is apathy important? The answer is that ignorance and apathy have very real — and dangerous — long-term consequences. Freedom itself is at stake.

C. Very Real — and Dangerous — Long-Term Consequences
Surveys show that one in four American s would reject the Constitution. And more than 60 percent of Americans have no problem with Congress willfully violating this grandest of governing documents. (Source: 2000 Portrait of America poll)

Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, reporters for the Alameda Times-Star in Oakland, California discovered the disturbing sentiments among local high schoolers:

• “It didn’t happen in Oakland, it could have but it didn’t, so I don’t feel scared or nothing. Why should I go fight in a war and die for nothing.”
• “I think the United States deserves it.”

You see, it is only a few logical leaps from ignorance — to apathy — to disgust — to hatred.

Our Founding Fathers certainly knew of the consequences of a citizenry lacking historic knowledge. John Adams, America’s second president, wrote: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” And Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

So, how did this crisis come to pass? The answer is multifaceted, and encompasses teacher preparation and the content of established curricula:

D. Teachers Lack Necessary Knowledge:

• Less than 20 percent of high school American History and Civics teachers have even an undergraduate degree in History.
• Many teachers hold degrees in Secondary Education with a concentration in Social Studies — an interdisciplinary study of history, economics, geography, political science, and sociology that leaves teachers with knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep.
• Other teachers are teaching entirely outside their field — perhaps holding a degree in Physical Education, since approximately 25 percent of high school Social Studies teachers are coaches.

Research tells us that teacher knowledge of subject content is the most important factor affecting student learning. Common sense tells us that you cannot teach what you do not know.

Another reason for the crisis in civic ed is:

E. Poor Textbooks — see Fact Sheet

“In summary, textbooks used in America’s History and Civics classes have been found to be only 69 percent accurate overall. They failed a bias test with a 60 percent mark, and received a “D” in historical soundness. Most notably, the texts featured very little discussion of the Western intellectual and political traditions that informed the Founders and that served as precedence to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Further, many of the books substituted their own interpretations of passages of the Constitution with little or no reference to what the Founders, especially The Federalist, had to say on the issue.”

• The 624-page American Government by Houghton Mifflin Company spends only 1 page on the Bill of Rights, 32 on the Constitution at large, and 24 pages on federalism — the bedrock principle of American government.
• The American Republic to 1877 by Glencoe claims the “general welfare” clause in the Preamble of the Constitution authorized the national government to ensure “as much as possible that citizens will be free from poverty, hunger, and disease.”
• American Government by Prentice Hall makes the ludicrous declaration that “The American people have generally agreed with a liberal interpretation of the Constitution.”
• Call to Freedom by Holt limits the Second Amendment to militias, and teaches against an individual’s right to bear arms.

As bad as these examples are, the most serious problem may be that the textbooks are simply boring. They fail to tell the powerful and exciting story of our American experiment; they have become a hodge-podge of topics that do not connect. They miss the point.

Infecting both teacher preparation and textbook content are multiculturalism and American De-Exceptionalism:

F. Multiculturalism

• Multiculturalism has seeped into the middle and high school classroom. Students are taught to “understand” terrorists who attacked the world trade center; students are taught not to be judgmental of oppressive foreign governments that brutalize their citizens. Students are taught to be “citizens of the world” rather than American citizens.
• Multiculturalism has therefore been embraced as the highest value. Meanwhile, schools are ignoring the common principles that bind us together as Americans.

G. De-Exceptionalism

• National De-Exceptionalism is the other side of the multiculturalism coin. It is an approach to teaching American History and Civics that is based on the premise that the United States is “just another country,” no better than any other.
• Since the 1970s, American History and Government curricula have put an unhealthy degree of focus on our country’s failures. We thus see lessons that over-emphasize shameful chapters of American history. In comparison, America’s many successes and Founding principles are largely ignored.

H. Conclusion:

Before I open it up to any questions you have, I think it worth noting that not only are we celebrating the Bill of Rights Institute’s Fifth Anniversary today — but today also is the birthday of one of America’s first and greatest patriots, Samuel Adams. Samuel Adams was born on this date in 1722, and was an early and fierce advocate in the independence movement and also signed the Declaration of Independence. In honor of his birthday, then, allow me to conclude this examination with a quote of his that I found quite timely — even 200-plus years after he penned it:

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

If this was true in Samuel Adams’ day — and it most certainly was — than it is just as true in our day.

I want to thank you for your support of the Bill of Rights Institute, and our mission to replace ignorance and apathy among our young people with a great love for the principles on which this great nation was founded.

When the Right’s Wrong, What’s Left? — #1: The Case Against the GOP

A year and a half ago, I debated with many of my dear friends the pros and cons of voting for Bush Republicans and supporting his policies. With the presidential election just around the corner, I thought it worthwhile to post many of my contributions (slightly edited to protect the identities of other participants in those debates and to correct for the resulting lost context) to those debates here.
As there are many entries, I anticipate posting these one at a time, every other day or so. Here is post #1:

The following article is right on: the Grand Old Party as a whole ain’t so grand anymore. In addition to the Libertarian Party, other valid voting options include the Constitution Party, numerous independent candidates, and still a few individual Republican candidates who buck the neo-conservative and liberal tides sweeping the GOP. It is truly liberating to vote your conscience! (and not simply for the lesser of two evils –which, after all, is still evil). -EL

When the Right’s Wrong, What’s Left?
By Gary Nolan
CNSNews.com Commentary
June 10, 2003

When I changed parties a few years ago, many of my Republican friends couldn’t believe it. After all, I’d been a Republican since my first vote.

I had long dreamt of the day when the Republicans would win control of the House and Senate. In 1994 I got my wish. I was certain the policies Ronald Reagan espoused would soon become a reality.

Spending and taxes would fall faster than sweat from a fat man’s brow on a hot day in Juarez. Freedom from government regulation would reign across the land. Political expedience in the legislature would come to a screeching halt.

I’m not sure when I realized I’d been hoodwinked. Maybe it was the passage of one of those expensive Bud Schuster highway bills, or the failure to get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts. It could have been the failure to cut corporate welfare, or the constant caving by the Republican leadership.

It might have been seeing prominent Republicans fighting for more gun control, tobacco legislation and “campaign finance de-form.” The neo-cons had taken over the party and I was through. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the party left me.

I joined the Libertarians, the party with principle. Some of my friends have come to agree with me. Others cling to the faint hope that Republicans will someday live up to their small-government rhetoric. But personally, I feel you’d be safer trusting a rabbit to deliver a carrot than to trust the new Republican Party to stand by the Constitution.

Think I’m being too harsh? Here’s the neo-Republican record.

The much-hated Clinton “Americorps” program has received hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding.

The Department of Education, once a target for elimination by Republicans has a new benefactor, the Republicans. In his first budget, President Bush asked for a 72% increase for primary, secondary and vocational education. With the passage of the “No Child Left Behind Act,” the federal government is more involved in local education than ever before.

How about the despised “Gore Tax” — the hidden tax the phone companies are to list on your bill? The tax Republicans once called “unconstitutional.” It’s still on the books.

Did the tobacco lawsuits end? Actually, the Republican attorney general has pursued this extortion plan just like his Democrat predecessor, Janet Reno.

Think Republicans oppose federal interference in state and local affairs? Think again. Federal officials, paid for with your tax dollars, have been actively campaigning against state and local medical marijuana initiatives.

But since these initiatives keep winning by 2:1 margins, a “conservative” Republican has now introduced legislation that would allow federal agencies to spend your taxpayer dollars on advertising to influence the outcome of such initiatives.

The nose of the camel is already inside the tent and we’ll soon be seeing the camel’s other end.

The list goes on and on. More money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, steel tariffs, and billions of dollars from hard working Americans sent to Africa to fight AIDS.

It’s not too difficult to understand where the Republicans went wrong. They were taught by the Democrats that getting elected is a simple matter of buying the vote. What better incentive to gain votes than promising free health care, job training, education and cheese?

The neo-cons have compromised a once-great vision of small government — a government not involved in nation building; a government that respects the rights of individuals; a government that is fiscally sound, with low taxes and even lower spending. The Republicans are now the party of neo-tax cuts, no spending cuts and deficits.

Now we have a larger government than even Bill Clinton asked for, the “Patriot Act”, and more debt than you can shake a bankruptcy file at. I do know what’s right and I do know who’s left. Libertarian thinkers, they’re right and they’re all that’s left.

(Gary Nolan is a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination for president)

The Christology of Wine

I first emailed this article to many friends a year or so ago. It still is an excellent one:

“The Christology of Wine” by Jim West

Here is a little teaser:

Jesus calls the drink of the Lord’s Supper the “fruit of the vine.”

It is sometimes asserted that the “fruit of the vine” could include something like Welch’s grape juice. The important thing, it is claimed, is that the juice is the “fruit of the vine,” which grape juice certainly is. This argument is silly. No attempt is made to actually exegete Matthew 26:28-29, or to discover the historical significance of the phrase. In biblical days, the fruit of the vine had a singular definition:

fermented grapes - therefore, wine.

It was a conventional expression describing fermented wine.

Ergo, when our Lord chose an appropriate figure to represent his blood at Calvary, he used wine — the “fruit of the vine.” If the Lord chose wine to represent his shed blood, then wine must be good. And wine must be enjoyed!

Wishing I Could Vote for Bush

A well thought-out article by Doug Wilson on the choices facing Christians in the coming presidential election: “Wishing I Could Vote for Bush.”

I think I agree with just about everything said here, except that Wilson is actually much more favorable about the Iraq War, and the (potential) consequences of it, than I am. And he doesn’t mention the huge spike in government spending — in all areas — and the growth of the entitlement state under Bush.

So, in other words, there aren’t many beads of sweat on my brow.

While I’m at it, I might as well forward this great article written recently by George Will: “Contemptuous Collaboration.”

That’s the nail in the coffin, as far as I’m concerned. Yeah, not voting for Bush is a pretty easy one for me.

I know, I know — everyone is asking, “what’s the choice, then?” Well for me, it is simple: Peroutka for President.

~ Eric

John MacArthur on the Folly of “Seeker-Friendly” Churches

A fantastic quote of John MacArthur’s on the sheer idiocy of seeker-friendly churches and church services was used in a sermon on Matthew 13:24-43 I heard this past Sunday. I thought it well worth sharing:

Churching the unchurched is an absolute fallacy — it is like proposing to let the tares in. It is absolutely bizarre to want to make unsaved people feel comfortable in a church. The church is not a building — the church is a group of worshipping, redeemed, and sanctified people among whom an unbeliever should feel either miserable, convicted and drawn to Christ, or else alienated and isolated. Only if the church hides its message and ceases to be what God designed the church to be, can it make an unbeliever comfortable.

Powerfully sad, yet woefully true. Too many “evangelical” churches have ceased being what God designed them to be in exactly this way.

I am reminded of a powerful presentation of this very phenomenon — and the biblical corrective — that I stumbled upon a while back. This is well worth your three minutes, here: The Church Growth Movie.

For more great articles and resources against the “seeker-friendly” movement — including an expose of the related folly of Rick Warren — click here.

The Relationship of Freedom and Virtue

The Relationship of Freedom and Virtue — John H. Armstrong on an important lesson from Lord Acton