DrewMcKissick.com

Mainstream extremism: dismantling our Constitution

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:39:15 -0400

As the final vote in the Senate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court draws near, there’s little doubt that she will be confirmed, given the Democrats large majority. But it will be a missed opportunity if Senate Republicans don’t use the debate to make some larger points about the judiciary and the size and scope of our government.

The problem is that when it comes to the American judiciary, what once was extreme has become mainstream, and the views of government held by those who wrote and ratified our Constitution are today considered extreme and out of date.

So how did this happen? It certainly wasn’t suddenly. Instead, it has been a long and insidious process, routed in the old “progressive” political movement whose adherents changed their names to “liberals” when progressive became a dirty word, and have now changed it back. But this weed by any other name would smell as bad.

It was the progressives who determined that our Constitution was a “living” document, (or that it needed to be), when it became obvious that much of the way in which they wished to change government’s relationship with the people would be opposed by those same people. In other words trying to change things via the amendment process wasn’t going to work. But with a “living” Constitution, its words could eventually be twisted to mean anything. And so they have.

But in order to make this happen, they needed judges as co-conspirators. And as more judges adopted the theory of the living constitution, what was once an extreme idea has taken over and become acceptable “mainstream” thought. Of course “mainstream” means our elite political leadership, the liberal media and academia.

This is the same mainstream that Elana Kagan adheres to.

In recent times, Presidents have gone out of their way to stress that they don’t have “litmus tests” for their judicial nominees, but in reality it’s high time that we indeed had some litmus tests. It’s time to toss the notion that nominees can’t answer serious questions about their views of the Constitution into the dustbin of history.

Do they believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can’t be altered without direct amendment? What do they think of the Tenth Amendment. What would they consider the limits of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause? No plea that they would be pre-judging cases if they answered such questions should be tolerated.

If we’re going to invest the Supreme Court with supreme power over what the Constitution means, a job description not given by our Founding Fathers, then it’s certainly in our best interest to know just what nominees to the court think about such issues.

Oddly enough, Elena Kagan herself endorsed such an idea just a dozen years ago. She commented that the Senate’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings were a farce that did little to offer the public a sense of what judges believed. She wrote that such hearings are “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”

Kagan advocated that senators insist “on seeing how theory works in practice by evoking a nominee’s comments on particular issues – involving privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth – that the Court regularly faces.”

Of course now that’s she’s a nominee, she’s fine with being opaque on such issues. And too many Senators (even some Republicans) are fine with it too. All part of one big, happy “mainstream”.

The fact is that the mainstream has brought us to where we are today. It has continuously pushed our living Constitution in a leftward direction, towards a bigger, more powerful central government with more control over the states and individual Americans.

Jefferson saw it coming. He wrote that, “the judiciary branch, is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass.”

The whole point of having a written Constitution was precisely so everyone would know exactly what the supreme law of the land was, and that it couldn’t be changed without positive action of the people. This, as opposed to wondering from day to day what sort of “living” version of the law might evolve outside of our control.

Can anyone of serious mind actually argue that ObamaCare would not have been deemed unconstitutional (much less passed) 200 years ago? So what changed? Put simply, the personnel; and as Ronald Reagan used to say “personnel is policy”. Until conservatives get serious about enforcing some standards on judicial personnel we will continue to be cursed with a living Constitution that constantly changes to suit liberal political ends.

All across America today there is a growing political movement that is dedicated to reducing the size, cost and scope of government by adhering to our Constitution’s original ideals. In other words, it’s an extremist movement by the standards of today’s mainstream.

If Republican leaders are serious about the GOP being the channel for this movement, then Republican Senators should use Kagan’s nomination as an opportunity to take a firm stand in favor of this “extreme” old view of government.

Reform you can believe in? (Obama's new strategy)

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:44:38 -0400

As the current election season begins to take shape, Obama and his political team are laying the groundwork for the next campaign. Not the midterms, but his 2012 re-election.

Given that increasing numbers of Americans don’t seem as fond of “hope and change” as they did two years ago, they’re crafting a new strategy. Change is out. Reform is in.

When Obama was running for President he was a blank slate. Potential supporters were able to see in him what they wished. But over the past year and half the public has received a pretty stark education in what “hope and change” really meant; hence Obama’s need for a new strategy.

The problem is that people aren’t buying what he’s selling anymore. Even liberal icon Dan Rather pointed that out, telling Chris Matthews that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons by the side of the road if a state trooper was flagging down traffic, (no word on how many years Dan will do in liberal purgatory for that one).

So if you can’t get re-elected selling people what they don’t want, what do you do?

Obama’s not stupid. He knows people are angry. So how to prevent them from taking that anger out on him? Simple, try to confuse them about why they’re angry and make them think you’re going to fix the problem.

In other words, sell yourself as a reformer.

The new strategy is said to rely more on using Obama’s rhetoric and the backdrop of the White House, and less on a legislative agenda. In other words, more speeches with little specifics, hoping people will (once again) see what they want to see.

Indications are that he will focus on three general themes to support his new reformer image: campaign finance reform, American competitiveness and government transparency.

Regarding campaign finance, this year’s “Citizen’s United” decision by the Supreme Court found that Americans don’t lose their free speech rights when they speak collectively via a union or corporate entity. Obama and the Democrats have decided to try to overturn the decision via NY Senator Chuck Schumer’s “DISCLOSE” Act, but only re-imposing campaign restrictions on corporations, not unions.

In a nation with an economy in the tank, near double digit unemployment, record deficits and a ballooning national debt, THIS is what he sees as crying out for reform? But from the Democrat’s standpoint it has the benefit of being a political distraction, (look over here at these evil corporations, not over there at the economy!).

On the theme of American competitiveness, the idea seems to be to use it as a general banner under which to discuss his economic reforms. But the problem is that the course his economic policies have set us on so far is not a path to competitiveness, but decline.

How can we afford to be competitive (in the public or private sector) when our government spends almost two dollars for every one it takes in? As the President’s own economic advisor once asked, “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power”?

Then there’s the “transparency” theme. (Yes, really.) It is completely laughable coming from the leader of the party that developed its health care agenda in secret and took a full year to keep his pledge to discuss the bill in an open forum on CSPAN.

Hardly a week passes that we don’t learn of something new that ObamaCare does that he promised it wouldn’t do. The greatest example of which is that you won’t be able to keep your insurance plan, even if you like it, because most insurance companies won’t be able to sell it to you anymore once the new regulations kick in.

All of which spells trouble for Obama.

In order to make a reform strategy successful, you have to make voters who are opposed to the status quo think that you are too, and that you will help change it. But in order to do that you have to get them to agree with your definition of the problem as well as your solution. They also have to believe that you’re competent enough to pull it off.

Obama’s not doing so well in either department.

Given that polls show majorities of Americans as being opposed to restrictions on freedom of speech, opposed to his economic policies and opposed to ObamaCare, it’s safe to say that they don’t agree with his solutions. And the daily reminders courtesy of the live “spill cam” in the gulf has the public’s opinion of his competence approaching Jimmy Carter territory.

If things don’t change before 2012, getting re-elected as a reformer would be an illusion so great that it would make David Copperfield green with envy.

Grassroots lobbying methods (part 2): tips on personal letters

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:28:35 -0400

On our last look at the lobbying buffet I reviewed some tips on petitions and post cards. Next up?

Lobbying with personal letters

Personal letters rank higher on the scale when it comes to having an impact, but they’re harder to come by.

Letters can be very effective in helping you voice your concerns, as they let you get in more information than a post card. The printed word also enables the legislator to better understand their constituents’ opinions and to gauge passion. They flag important issues for the legislator in advance and provide a written record to review. However, most people don’t take the time to write them.

So in order to have the greatest impact, a personal letter project should begin early in the lobbying process.

If you use them, it’s best to provide people with a sample and/or fact sheet they can use as a guide, along with some basic instructions about “who” to send it to and “where”, (just remind them not to copy such information verbatim so everyone’s letter doesn’t look the same).

When writing letters to federal officials use the following guidelines:

Addressing correspondence to a Senator:
The Honorable (Name)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator:

Addressing correspondence to a U. S. Representative:
The Honorable (Name)
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative:

You can also address correspondence to their local offices in your area, or send it via fax. (Due to enhanced security at the US Capitol after 9/11, local letters will usually reach them the quickest.)

Here are four tips for effective letter writing:

The main purpose should be in the first paragraph. If you’re concerned about a specific item, (such as a bill), mention it by name.
Keep it short. There is generally no reason to go beyond one page.
Keep it focused. The fewer topics the better. One is best. Be concise. Letters that ramble are discounted at best, (and thrown away at worst).
Be professional and courteous. Be passionate, but never angry. Include information that supports your position.

***

Related entries:

You can find more complete information on grassroots lobbying in my Grassroots Training Series!

Grassrooots lobbying methods (part 1): petitions and post cards

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:50:11 -0400

Following up on the last entry reviewing the items on the Grassroots lobbying Buffet, we'll start looking at each of the methods you can use to bring pressure on elected officials. Generally speaking, we'll start at the bottom in terms of impact and work our way up.

Petitions

Petitions have a one-time impact – when they are delivered. The number of signatures tends to be discounted as just a “thick enclosure” that accompanies the cover letter you present along with them. Petitions are generally better suited to building lists for your organization than for lobbying, (but list building is important too!).

This is not to say that you don’t use petitions, it's just that when it comes to lobbying elected officials they are much more effective when coupled with other lobbying techniques.

You can conduct petition drives “off-line” (in paper form), and/or online, (with services such as AktNow).

Pre-Printed Post Cards

The good thing about pre-printed post cards are that they're easy to get supporters to sign and mail in (since you've already printed a message to the elected official, and it's already addressed). Much easier than getting people to write and send in their own personal letters. Also, they're received over a period of time, which extends the effect.

The downside is that it's clear that it's an orchestrated effort, so it doesn't really give the official a good idea of whether the constituent is just casually interested in the issue or feels very passionately about it.

***
Related entries:

You can get more tips and details on these and other lobbying techniques in my Grassroots 101 series.

Reformers attempting to regulate free speech and bailout old media

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:40:03 -0400

The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.

From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”. How clever. And how disingenuous.

It’s being championed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in an attempt to get around this year’s Supreme Court decision which threw out restrictions on freedom of speech for unions and corporations in political campaigns.

The claim is that large amounts of money spent by corporations on political speech somehow corrupts the system, but it should be noted that Schumer’s bill would reinstate no restrictions on unions, just corporations and average citizens. In other words, he only seems to want to cast light on “some” spending.

Of course, as Democrats attempt to limit political activity by corporations they want to bring to mind visions of BP or mega-sized drug companies, but it would also apply to the corporation that you set up to run your family business.

In a world increasingly run by Washington, corporations need the ability to protect their interests and speak out effectively when necessary – and, as experience has taught us, size doesn’t matter when it comes to being at risk from government.

Then there are the non-profit corporations on all sides of the political spectrum that exist specifically so that Americans of like mind can join together and have an impact on the things they care about. This latest version of reform would force the public disclosure of their membership lists, which means that Democrats now support a right of privacy for abortion, but not for membership in political organizations.

Increased regulations and disclosures put a greater burden on small organizations and average citizens, not on multi-million dollar corporations with an army of lawyers. The net effect is to hamstring political speech by the little guy. Hardly what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

But what the Democrats have in mind is squelching the effective speech of those tthat hey disagree with, which is why their bill doesn’t touch the unions.

So what’s the real agenda here? Why restrict some groups’ activities and require regular Americans to jump through more hoops to impact their own government? Because when you force some players to play with one hand tied behind their backs, or make the rules so complicated that you scare people from even playing the game, it’s easier to win.

Does that sound like what the First Amendment means when it says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech”?

The fact is that the larger and more expensive that our government becomes, the more critical it is that average citizens have the means to impact what it does with our money and our liberties. Unfortunately, the “reformers” are working to make that harder to do. They want to protect Leviathan from average Americans.

So often today lawmakers and judges are ready to defend anything as free speech – no matter how vulgar or perverse – unless it is political speech, which is the very type of speech the Founders where concerned about protecting from government.

But the reformers are trying to manufacture a crisis and use the fear of corporations and big money to generate support (or at least indifference) for their reforms. However, the claim on which the crisis is based is completely bogus. The simple fact is that the power and influence of money in politics is diminishing with each passing day thanks to the internet.

Speech is becoming more democratized in a world where anyone can create a website or social network and push their own agenda. The voices of individuals are collectively becoming louder and more effective.

That might explain why the government is also fighting to protect the mainstream media from the rise of the internet. The Federal Trade Commission is looking to promote regulations that will impose a new tax in order to fund a perpetual bailout of old (read: liberal) media outlets like the New York Times. The proposed tax targets? Cell phone bills, electronic gadgets and even websites themselves.

It’s a corrupt attempt by government to protect itself in the long run by protecting its friends in the liberal media from the free market.

In short, the reformers oppose a free market for journalism, as well as for political speech – which tells you all you need to know about their reforms.

What our country needs is more political speech, with fewer regulations. Not the other way around.

This is, after all, supposedly a free country; and free political speech is what keeps it that way.

Someone should tell Chuck Schumer.

Picking the right methods from the grassroots lobbying buffet

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:21:34 -0400

There are lots of ways to try and influence your government on issues you care about, but there are tradeoffs between different techniques that you should be aware of.

Generally, the more personal and spontaneous the lobbying, the harder it can be to to generate big numbers. For example, it's easier to get 30 people to sign a preprinted postcard than it is to get them to write their own letters.

The lobbying method you should choose depends on your own situation

Before deciding which methods you’ll use in your efforts, give some thought to the resources (current and likely) that you, your group or your cause can bring to bear. Choose those that you’re best equipped for and that everyone is most comfortable with. Don’t try to do everything. Focus. It's better to do a few things really well, than attempt a lot that you only mange to do half-way.

Again, remember that you can use online “groups” from services such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook or Ning to coordinate your activities, and/or create an online campaign around your issue with a service like AktNow.

As a guideline, here is a list of lobbying techniques in ascending order of effectiveness.

Petitions
Pre-printed post cards
Personal letters
Phone calls
Townhall meetings
Personal meetings
"Lobby day" at the legislature
"Grasstops" lobbying

Also, don't forget one of the most often overlooked lobbying techniques: saying "thank-you".

All of these are important items on the lobbying buffet, and I'll give some details and tips on each of them next soon.

***

Related entries:

(You can find more tips and help with effective lobbying in the Intermediate Guide to Grassroots Politics)

Effective contact with elected officials

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:30:49 -0400

Our form of government relies heavily on the feedback and involvement of its citizens in order to operate effectively, or least for the people it's meant to govern.

That means you help government operate more effectively by contacting elected officials on a regular basis. - whether they like it or not. But just remember that the old adage that “it’s not what you say, but how you say it” applies.

How you say something can be just as important as what you say. As Senator Hubert Humphrey once said, “The right to be speak does not necessarily include the right to be taken seriously”. If you have something important to say about your government, take the time to say it in the most effective way possible.

How elected officials think

To understand how to lobby effectively, it helps to get inside the mind of an elected official, (despite how scary that may seem with some politicians). Generally they’re overly concerned with their next election, which means they’re constantly trying to get a handle on what voters think. That’s where you come in.

The Tip of the Iceberg

Many legislators get a sense of their district through what could be called the “iceberg phenomenon”.

Legislators represent thousands of people and, since they can’t get to know them all, they tend to look at everyone they come in contact with as representing “the tip of the iceberg” – and they don’t want to be the Titanic. For example, if 20 people write their office asking them to vote against a particular bill, they then think that there must be hundreds more who feel the same way but just didn’t write.

As a grassroots activist, this gives you a tremendous opportunity. By joining together with others in a combined effort, you can have impact that far exceeds your numbers.

Spontaneity Counts

A natural consequence of the iceberg phenomenon is that the more spontaneous the contact, the greater the impact.

If a grassroots campaign looks orches¬trated, (such as a petition drive), it may tend to be discounted. The town hall meeting and the grocery store illustrate the point. If three people ask a question about tax increases during the open-ended question and answer time at a town hall meeting, a legislator will think that a lot of people are concerned. But if three people stop them in the grocery store to ask about tax increases, they think “everyone” must be talking about it.

Personal is Better

The more personal the contact is, the more effective it will be. For example, a stack of thirty postcards can be viewed as just “pieces of paper’, but thirty people at a meeting, (or showing up at their office), creates a more vivid and lasting impression. Make it personal, but be polite.

Don’t make it easy for them to ignore or discount your views.

***

Related entries:

Check out The Intermediate Guide to Grassroots Politics for more lobbying tips

Basic grassroots lobbying

Drew Mckissick — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:10:13 -0400

No matter how involved you may become in the political process, every citizen (in the serious sense of the word) should know how to lobby their government.

Knowing how to effectively lobby – and doing so – is what gives conservatives a voice in the development of public policy. It’s not enough to show up at the ballot box every few years and elect some people to office. You’ve got to keep an eye on them once they get in, (even the one’s you may be friends with). Then let them hear from you when necessary. That’s the essence of grassroots lobbying.

But how to be more effective in the process?

Lobbying as a team sport

There are some fundamentals when it comes to being effective in politics. And on of them is to multiply and organize your efforts. In other words, join a team, or start your own.

In any team sport, the players are supposed to work according to their individual responsibilities for the overall benefit of the team. The better they work together, the more likely they are to reach their goal – winning. And just as in any sport, you have to know the rules, the positions, and the key players.

At the same time, a winning team needs to be strategic in its overall game plan and consider the strengths and weaknesses of the other team as well as their own. The “game” of politics and lobbying is much the same.

More than ever before, it is important that conservatives build winning teams of players at the local level to offer “ground support” to government officials in advancing public policy.

***

Related entries:

(You can find more tips on grassroots lobbying in the Intermediate Guide to Grassroots Politics)

Lobbying at the local level (fighting city hall)

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:16:18 -0400

When it comes to local lobbying, the process is a little different because the local legislative process is different.

The biggest difference between local and state (or federal) lobbying is that there is usually just one chamber to deal with, (a council or a board), rather than two. The following is a brief description of one example for a city council.

In many cases, petitions or proposals are brought before the local council and members vote on the proposal based on its viability. If the council approves the viability of the proposal, it is assigned a “proposal number” and then referred to the city attorney’s office. Here it is assigned a city “ordinance number”, and the city attorney initiates a study of the ordinance and evaluates the effects it will have on the city in light of existing state and federal laws, city codes, and other ordinances.

After the city attorney finalizes an evaluation, the ordinance is sent back to the council where it will usually be scheduled for public hearings, debate and then a vote. This is the point where you have an opportunity to have the public weigh in an lobbying their representatives on the council.

Depending on the structure and rules of the government you're lobbying, the executive (such as a mayor) may have veto power.

There are wide variances in the process (from cities, to counties, to school boards). To research how the process works in your area, contact your local council member and ask for information.

The more you know about the process in your area, the more effective you will be.

***

Related entries:

(Get more lobbying tips and information in the Grassroots Training Series!)

Tips on lobbying at the state level

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:59:19 -0400

Previously we took a look at the steps of the legislative process, revolving mostly around Congress and opportunities for lobbying at the federal level. Although the state legislative processes and procedures are very similar to the federal level, there are differences between the two levels of government that you need to be aware of.

Generally, state legislatures have shorter legislative sessions that run from January through April. There are some states, such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and California that have “full time” legislatures that run from January to December, with recesses only in the spring and fall. With the exception of Nebraska, every state has a “bicameral” legislature which has upper and lower chambers, (usually called the Senate and the House of Representatives). Most state legislative officials have llittle to no staff at all, unlike U.S. Senators who have dozens of staff members.

A better chance for grassroots influence

The fact that these bodies are smaller and closer to home presents organized conservatives with enhanced opportunities for activism and influence. Knowing how, when, and where to initiate action is vital to influencing public policy at any level of government. If you understand the process and know how to efficiently and effectively communicate your concerns and suggestions to state lawmakers, your chances of success are much higher.

Another nuance to keep in mind at the state level is that legislators often do not have a well-rounded expertise on every issue. Many legislators are working full-time at other jobs and legislating on the side.

In other words, your state representative may be a banker and know a great deal about the economy, but know very little whatsoever about education. This is a grassroots lobbying opportunity.

As a member of a team that might have an extensive knowledge of certain issues, you can be a tremendous asset to your locally elected officials.

Get to know them and then offer your help.

***

Related entries:

(Get more "how to" tips and techniques in my "Beginner's Guide to Grassroots Politics"!)