For want of a few good men

The Founding Fathers clearly understood that liberty cannot exist without morality and responsibility. It is not my intent to justify this statement - it has been done by more educated writers than I. Read, for example, The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. The absence of these qualities necessitates the growth of government, at all levels, to protect the law abiding from the unscrupulous.

I had a brief conversation yesterday with a moderately left-leaning friend who recently returned from a trip to Great Britain. He noted that the police there do not carry guns - and that the murder rate is very low. He said that he had heard of only one murder during the entire two weeks he was there, but that he hears of shootings in the Kansas City area almost every day. The unspoken implication, of course, was that guns cause murders. I suggested to him that immorality coupled with freedom was the more likely cause.

Several months ago, Glenn Beck put out a call for what he termed "Refounders." He sought members of Congress who would put principle ahead of party and speak out against the corruption and graft that is eating away at our nation. Drawing on the number of signatories to the Declaration of Independence, he sought 56 such leaders - just 56, out of 535, barely more than 10% - who would take a stand for all that is good and just about America, and help root out the corrupt and unscrupulous. After several months, he has found eleven. Only eleven!

A little over a year ago, when I first stood in a field at Johnson County Community College, shoulder to shoulder with 10,000 of my city's finest, most concerned and informed citizens, I believed that we were different. There were many little signs: the absolute void of trash left behind indicated responsibility; the warmth and welcoming nature of everyone I met indicated morality, trust and respect.

When I stood with 1.7 million such people on Capitol Hill on September 12th, 2009, the feeling was greatly intensified. I spent much of that day in tears - so great was my delight at being reminded that good people do still exist. Again, it was little things. Despite the fact that the wait to use one of the hundreds of Porta-Potties was around a half an hour, all day long, the elderly, disabled and pregnant women were immediately moved to the front of the line, with unanimous consent of all they bypassed. There was no access to food or drink to speak of, but there were no complaints. The trains were jammed beyond belief, but everyone did their best to allow more to board, and seats were gladly given up for those more in need of them. Yes, these are all small things, but they were small things which, in aggregate, indicated character. They were things which were noticeable because of their absence at most other large gatherings I have attended, where people jockey for position in queues, look with suspicion on the person next to them, expect the worst from their fellow man and frequently receive it. I couldn't help thinking of our Tea Partiers as "throwbacks" to a kinder, gentler, simpler time. A time of ice cream socials and town squares. A time when no one felt a need to lock their door at night. A time when being an American was something special, because we shared the common bond of liberty cherished. These feelings gave me hope, and a belief that, as long as these people still exist, there is still potential for real greatness in our country.

The last couple of weeks have shaken that faith. I have found far too many signs that the rot that is permeating our society has taken hold within those I thought to be untouched by the greed and corruption. Individuals I know personally and previously respected have revealed themselves to be little better than those we seek to subdue.

I am part of an organization called the Independence Caucus. It's sole mission is to "take back politics from 'Big Money' interest groups." In theory, this goal is to be accomplished by a rigorous vetting process of candidates for public office and an endorsement vote by principled, informed members. An eighty question questionnaire is the first step of the process - and they are not softball questions. They deal with complex Constitutional issues, objectionable Supreme Court precedents and a broad spectrum of other topics. Only if a candidate receives a score of at least 70% can they proceed to the next step of the process, the interview. Our interview panel in Kansas is pretty tough. They invest two hours in each candidate, probing deeper than even the questionnaire, making every effort to expose weaknesses and hypocrisy. In the Kansas 3rd Congressional District race, they did an excellent job, producing four recorded interviews for the members to review.

The responsibilities of the members are quite simple and straightforward: agree to remain uncommitted until after all interviews have been heard. Any other vetting that a member is able to do on their own is, of course, fine, and should be taken into account. But there are two points from which members should never stray - neutrality, and giving all candidates a full hearing.

After all interviews for a given race are released, there is a one week discussion period, during which all members are welcome to state their case for, or against, each candidate. This discussion is to be conducted in a respectful manner, toward candidates and fellow members alike. At the conclusion of the discussion period, the members vote on their preferred candidate. If one candidate receives 60% of the vote, they receive the endorsement. If more than two candidates are running, and none receives the required 60%, there is a runoff vote between the top two. It's a fairly simple process, and one which gives the voter a great deal more information about each candidate than has been available during previous elections, where TV commercials were the primary source of information. Never underestimate the value of hearing a candidate put on the spot by a tough question! Their demeanor under pressure speaks volumes.

The discussion period for our 3rd Congressional District race began on April 18th. My own endorsement of Craig McPherson was the opening salvo in this discussion. It has been spirited, to say the least. Sadly, the process as a whole has not been principled.

Since April 18th, I have read dozens of arguments for and against the various candidates. Very few have mentioned objective qualifications for serving as a representative of the people - nearly all have focused on subjective measurements of the candidates. Some have tried to convince others that their chosen candidate will be the best choice for the job because of their "real world" experiences, building relationships and winning people over. I do not seek another "good ole boy" in Congress who will win the Miss Congeniality award! It is a corrupt institution - I seek a candidate whose alliance is with the Constitution and the Founders! I have heard arguments about honesty, compassion, parenthood, and "Mom moments," in which, apparently, maternal instinct reveals the true nature of a candidate's soul. I thought the Tea Partiers were different! I thought we were going to choose our candidates on principles, not a popularity contest or "gut instinct."

Many have argued for a certain candidate based on "electability" aspects - their belief that the candidate has better fundraising abilities, or superior name recognition. No one has better fundraising abilities or name recognition than Barack Obama - would they support him, too? The Republican party and the media have united behind a former Democrat, turned Republican, whose fundraising and name recognition, by comparison to any of our four Tea Party candidates, seem insurmountable. If those factors are to be our standard, we should abandon principle now and throw our support to the frontrunner.

Worse still, I have learned of many instances of gaming the process. I have been told that the interviews and discussions were irrelevant, and that members did not need to listen to them to make up their minds. I have heard of members who joined iCaucus with no intention of listening to the interviews or wasting their time debating - they knew who they supported when they joined, and are only there to support their candidate. I know of people who have donated hundreds of dollars to a particular campaign, prior to the completion of the vetting process, who cast their vote for that candidate with flagrant disregard for the intended process.

I have been deeply disappointed by my fellow Tea Partiers during this ordeal. I thought they were different, I thought they stood for principle and would resist, to the end, the old ways of choosing our representatives. I have been proven wrong.

Are there no people of character left in this country? Has our indoctrination been so complete that we are unable to break free from its grip? Is America doomed to failure for want of a few good men?