When we vote, we each vote for our own reasons. However, to create a functioning society, we must have shared values. Why is that the case? Consider what a society does. Doesn’t a healthy society:
Create order so that people can work together in harmony?
Provide an environment safe for child rearing?
Enable its members to create, enjoy, protect, and transmit a healthy culture?
Commonsense would suggest the answer to each of these questions is yes. Yet why are shared values necessary?
How do we distinguish order from disorder? Don’t we all have to share a similar notion of the purpose of our society? Otherwise, how will we define the rights and the responsibility of the members of our society? Are those our rights God-given and inalienable, or does government define people’s rights. Are we each responsible for our own behavior? If not, who is? Are we responsible for our own behavior and self-directed, or does someone need to be in charge of each of us?
Who is responsible for child rearing? Doesn’t someone have to have authority over each child and be responsible for each child’s upbringing?
What distinguishes good from bad? As each generation of children grows and reaches maturity, what do we teach these children? Who is responsible for what they learn and how well they learn?
We have a Christian heritage. Christian teaching has defined our nation’s shared values for generations. Now that heritage is being threaten, and what is being offered as a replacement? Nothing. We are replacing Christianity with the empty void that is multiculturalism, the teaching that all Truths are equally valid. That is why people such as Ryan Anderson must testify in defense of something that our forebears once took for granted. The fundamental building block of our society is a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony.
To give you an idea how partisan the news media can be, consider John Whitbeck wins Republican nomination for Herring’s senate seat. What’s the story about? Half of it is about a supposedly anti-Semitic joke. Of course, The Washington Post has the video. They made use of this “anti-Semitic joke” to attack Ken Cuccinelli during his gubernatorial campaign.
Is the joke anti-Semitic? No, at worst it was just stupid, but by focusing on such nonsense the corporate news media seeks to distract us from far more substantive issues. So let’s focus on something more meaningful. Let’s take the time to check out John Whitbeck‘s Issues Page and his Education Plan.
Whose Candidate is John Whitbeck?
When we elect someone to public office, don’t we want him or her to represent us? What is a good indication of who the candidate will represent? As it happens vpap.org gives us a clue. Check out who is backing John Whitbeck and his two opponents.
Joe May: See Money In – List Donors — Although Jennifer Wexton has the most money, Joe May comes in a close second. While serving as a member of the House of Delegates, May apparently managed to establish numerous “business relationships.” That probably explains why Republicans do not want him in the House of Delegates (see In decisive fashion, LaRock ousts May in GOP primary). One other unsurprising fact is that Speaker Bill Howell is one of May’s donors. Howell is a Republican, but like May, Howell cannot be trusted to resist tax increases. What’s puzzling about May’s VPAP page is that it doesn’t show an “alert” for May’s large contributors.
Jennifer Wexton: See Money In – List Donors — In addition to funds from unions and environmental lobbies, Wexton got huge donations from interests in the Democratic Party. Oddly, however, it is Whitbeck who set off an “alert” for the much smaller donation he received from the Republican Senate Caucus. I suppose I will have to research how these VPAP “alerts” work.
John Whitbeck: See Money In – List Donors — Of the three candidates in the race, Whitbeck has the least amount of money. Contrary to the conventional wisdom promoted by the corporate news media and the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is the party of the rich.Who are Whitbeck’s donors? In addition to the Republican Party of Virginia, most are Conservative Republicans or Conservative organizations.
What Are Others Saying About John Whitbeck?
What are others saying about John Whitbeck? Most people are so disgusted with his opponents they are saying relative little about him. Instead, they are complaining about his oponents. I suppose that’s a good thing for Whitbeck’s candidacy. I also suppose that is why Virginia Virtucon (here), BearingDrift (here), and The Bull Elephant (here) like Whitbeck’s TV ad.
Here is an important leftover from Virginia’s 2013 General Election. On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, the folks living in Virginia’s 33rd Senate District will have a special election. Here is how LoudounTimes.com portrays the race.
Republican candidate John Whitbeck called the Virginia Senate 33rd District special election one of the most pivotal races in Virginia in years.
Considering the stakes, few can argue that claim.
The Jan. 21 contest to fill Attorney General Mark Herring’s seat has monumental implications for the commonwealth and its new slate of Democratic leaders – Herring, Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam. If Whitbeck or independent Joe May – likely to caucus with Republicans – wins the seat, the Democrats will be forced to reckon with a Republican-controlled House and Senate. (continued here)
Would Joe May caucus with the Republicans? Does Joe May have a serious chance of winning or is he more likely to split the Republican vote? Do you have a vote? If these questions are important to you, then you should probably consider the last question first.
Where is Virginia’s 33rd Senate District? Both Fairfax County and Loudoun County have voting precincts that are part of the 33rd Senate District. If the candidates have been sending you or your neighbors advertisements and you not certain whether you are in the 33rd Senate District, there is an easy way to check.
Click on What’s on my ballot? and fill out the form. Make certain you include your voting precinct. If you are in precinct other than one that includes the 33rd Senate District, the option to select that district will not come up. If you are in the 33rd Senate District here is what you might see.
Click on the link for “2014 January Special – SOV 33” and you will see the name of the candidates on the ballot.
Who is running? Here is a list of the candidates and their web sites.
Elections aren’t won or lost by the means of nomination but rather by the quality of the candidate, their campaigns, and the mood of the electorate. Whether its 15,000 activists are a paltry 1% of the electorate in a primary, there is no guarantee one way or another. Let me go back to 2001 and work our way forward:
In one respect, the The Mason Conservative is spot on. That is, if the argument is solely about selecting which Republican nominee can win, then it makes sense to look at the statistics and see what works. However, it is not the viewpoint of the Republican Party that matters. When we speak about politics and the political process, we need to first look at which processes best protect the liberty of our people. Which method of nomination comports best with a constitutional republic and best protects our rights?
Why do Establishment Republicans like primary elections? Primary elections favor the status quo, the people already in power. Effectively, when we have primary elections, we put The Establishment in charge of how political parties select their nominees.
Consider that Democrats and Republican politicians control the government. Establishment Democrats and Republicans like primary elections because they help to ensure their reelection and make third party movements next to impossible. Thus, primary elections help to make it difficult to throw the bums out, and that makes primary elections decidedly unhealthy for a constitutional republic.
On the other hand, when we have a convention, political activists retain full control of the process, and that is the way it should be. Why? Anybody can be a political activist. If we don’t like what the political activists in one political party are doing, we can always join a different party — so long as the government permits it.
Political parties exist to implement this part of the First Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s why government should have no say in how a political party selects its nominees. To protect those in power — if allowed to interfere — government can and will only corrupt the process.
Instead of holding primaries, we should allow for the possibility of at least two rounds in the general election. Why two rounds? Consider what can happen in an election with more than two candidates on the ballot. What if no candidate gets 50 percent or more of the vote? Do we actually know which candidate is the most popular? No. However, if we have a runoff between the two top vote getters, we can solve that problem.
With a runoff election, we could have avoided the mess we had in Virginia’s last gubernatorial election. Without a third party candidate in this race, the Republican candidate may have won, but without a runoff election we have no certain way of knowing. We just know that many Republicans feel cheated because they believe that the third party candidate, Robert Sarvis, pealed off votes that might have gone to Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate.
In addition, with the possibility of a runoff election, more people would risk giving third party candidates a second look. Thus, the Republicans and the Democrats might have to pay more serious attention to voters and party activists and less attention to their campaign donors.