So... Eric Greitens resigned. Before I let loose a rant about how... displeased I am about this development, I trust that I don't need to say too much about how opposed I was to him in the race for governor of Missouri. But if that's not the case, you can get the gist of my opposition to his candidacy here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
But for myself and the many others who were trying so hard to make that argument during the campaign, our candidates lost that election, and for better or worse (or worser), the people of Missouri elected Eric Greitens as Governor. And as I've said before, elections have consequences... including having to deal with the results of such a serious question, taken far too lightly.
And so, with the election over, I prepared myself for what he might do in office, and I and so many others were unsurprised to hear how he was said to have made inappropriately belligerent comments to lawmakers in his office - after all, we'd listened to the details of his phone call with John Brunner during the primary campaign. How others didn't see how inappropriate he was to be governor, I don't know, but again, we lost, he won, and I was prepared for what might come.
But what I wasn't prepared for, was how lightly that election would be taken, by those elected officials who seemed to prefer having someone else in the governor's mansion, than who the people of Missouri had so recently put there themselves.
My State Representative, Kathie Conway, who I've met a few times, and like, together with five other elected officials, shocked me by coming out on the strength of what was at that time, nothing more than salacious charges being anonymously made by an unnamed ex-husband, on behalf of his unnamed ex-wife, who didn't even know that her secretly recorded 'charges' were being recorded, or that they were going to be made public, and yet within a few days of those nothings being made public, seemingly hitching a ride on the horrendous Roy Moore, #MeToo, fad, these lawmakers called for the Governor to resign. Rep. Conway said:
“As a former criminal investigator for a prosecuting attorney, I have an idea of what could unfold in the coming weeks. There would be a long process that will be humiliating to everyone involved,” Conway said. “There would be no privacy that can be realistically offered when the governor of a state is under investigation. All the while, our state will continue to be embarrassed on the national stage.”
Publicly asking a governor to resign, over nothing more than utterly unsubstantiated charges. As I said at the time, "...Much as I dislike Eric Greitens... I will not ignore the fact that unsubstantiated accusations and rumors against him, like any other form of 'sources say', is not a valid basis for my desiring that the will of the entire electorate, be reversed..." And yet that was what was being pursued. Mind boggling. Why?
For many, the only answer needed was because, as many spasmodic haters of Greitens (think NeverTrumpr's and their cultish 'cult!' charges) daily trumpeted, he was baaad, and there were 'secret finances' involved, and 'dark money', and he's a weasel, etc. Well... if those were the reasons, why didn't they build a case for impeachment on sound evidence for those reasons first, before taking the first convenient excuse for trying to force him from office?
And say, for you 'Conservative!'s out there, who were once so opposed to the corrupt motives behind 'Campaign Finance Reform' (which is a legislative means of abusing our rights to political free speech), are you now for that? 'Oh heavens no, just enjoying some schadenfreude!'. IOW, even though something they think is wrong on principle, and is a corrupt and corrupting 'reform', it's totes fine to promote such charges against someone you really, really, really dislike, as long as it serves your other agenda.
Way to 'Principle!' you guys! Can't you just feel the respect and credibility building for you!!!
I don't know about you, but, having been given no good reasons to believe in what appear to be a series of convenient pretexts, a great many unworthy motives come quickly unbidden to the minds of people all across the state: Greitens was for "Right to Work", and Conway wasn't; Greitens was supposedly for some 'tax cuts', that many in the establishment were not; Greitens was for cutting out 'tax credits' that were very popular with many wealthy GOP supporters. And of course Greitens was supposedly opposed to 'Planned Parenthood', which many like to publicly oppose, but surreptitiously give passes to.
Is any of that true? Who the hell knows?!
But what everyone can see is true, is that because our lawmakers didn't begin with solid charges to remove him from office, but instead sought to bums rush him out of town on the #MeToo bandwagon... and then when that failed to work they then began drumming up other charges, which months later facts were supposedly found to somewhat support, he's resigned, leaving absolutely not one single damn good reason for anyone to suspect that either my rep, or any of the others, sought his resignation for good grounds.
We might as well take a look at how that equation works out, because I guarandamntee you there are many in positions of power, or who want to be, that have been taken close notice of it:
"Unsubstantiated salacious charges + powerful unhappy politicians with axes to grind = demand for resignation.
*If this fails to produce immediate result, dig for more, more 'severe charges' will eventually pile up [Capt Jack Sparrow wink: "Politician"]).
If I'm a little off there, I've no doubt other more interested parties are fast at work on working the kinks out for the next time someone is elected that 'those who matter', dislike. For as my Rep later retweeted from ace-investigative reporter Ashley Zavala KRCG (@ZavalaA):
MO House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty on Governor's resignation:
"The brief and deeply troubled term of Eric Greitens is a case study for why Missouri's highest elected office is no place for beginners."
Yes indeedy, for all you schmo Missourians out there who haven't been blessed by either the media or the political establishment:
No Governor's Office for you!
And don't you forget it!
As one commenter on a thread noted:
"Kathie and any other Reps and Sens will have to just understand that right now the people who like you most are Democrats. The general conservative Republicans are just not buying it. That is just a fact."
Can't you just feel the 'Conservative!' brand building credibility with 'the folks'?!
I don't like the appearances of this, and I don't like the conclusions this makes it hard to avoid coming to, and I certainly don't like the way it makes my State Rep or a number of other 'good legislators' look, and I damn sure have not a damn bit of sympathy for Eric Greitens, but because they chose to follow what looked like the 'easy path' of charges that they thought would be hot with the public at that moment, and did so, so eagerly, and because no one bothered to wait to gather evidence first and then lead with fact based charges (aren't politicians supposed to be aware of appearances?!), there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that any other motives than pure opportunism and shady hidden agendas were involved, and it doesn't take a subscription to the Psychic Hotline! to see how this is going to play out in the future (a future where 'it's over' is highly unlikely to last).
Or IOW, for all my fellow Missourians out there: Show #MeToo! /rant
If there's one thing that the 21st Century has made abundantly clear, is that elections have consequences - not the least of which is our suffering to be governed by those we've elected into office. Simple buyers regret, however, is not in and of itself a valid basis for reversing the decision of the electorate, and the progressive normalization of such behavior as we've been witness to of late, is, IMHO, a growing threat to representative government.
Elections do have consequences, but there are even worse consequences to be had from overturning elections. It is irresponsible, and not a little dangerous, to demand that elected officials be forced from office over unsubstantiated charges, with no other basis than the fervent opinions of some. And please do not resort to claiming that
"I have a right to my opinion! it doesn't have to stand up to a court of law!'
, you do have a right to your opinion, but your opinion alone is not a justifiable cause for demanding that the opinions of an entire state's (or nation's) electorate, that were voiced, tallied, and duly recorded in an election, should be overturned. The 2016 election is done and over, and the 'will of the people' was made known, and short of a radical change in the nature of the charges against our sitting governor, that election must stand, and if you care about our form of government, you should not demand it be otherwise.
Much as I dislike Eric Greitens - and I wrote several posts explaining why - I will not ignore the fact that unsubstantiated accusations and rumors against him, like any other form of 'sources say', is not a valid basis for my desiring that the will of the entire electorate, be reversed.
Especially not when we have nothing more before us at this point in time, than anonymous accusations which have been made without a shred of proof (and no, an unnamed disgruntled husband, allegedly recording the tearful accusations of his unnamed wife/ex-wife without her knowledge of his doing so, does not qualify as a shred of proof). Short of Gov. Greitens being convicted of, or admitting to, having committed blackmail or some other serious crime, whether or not he stays in office is not a proper consideration or justifiable choice for you or me to call for, and frankly it's not even properly his choice anymore - unless he knows himself to be guilty of blackmail, he should not step down - he is in that office because the electorate duly elected him to be there, and outside of the established paths for recall or impeachment, that is where he should stay for the duration of his term.
I understand your displeasure over discovering that he admitted cheating on his wife prior to his election, but that is not a valid basis for demanding an election be overturned - if that truly displeases you, perhaps pay a little closer attention to details of character, and demand explanations for major changes in stated beliefs, in future elections. Neither is there any valid basis for demanding that he resign because he doesn't 'network' with lawmakers and grassroots activists, as some might have hoped he would have. But worse by far, is for elected representatives to council him to resign - not because they know him to be guilty, but because they fear that a trial would be painful and uncomfortable - that is truly craven, despicable advice, and is dangerous to the continued prospects of representative government.
You cannot credibly claim to be for representative government, while also demanding that elected representatives be turned out of office for unsubstantiated charges. You cannot credibly claim to be for representative government, while also demanding that elected representatives be turned out of office for no better reason than the disappointed mood of a vocal mob - and yes, if you value your emotional disappointment, over the results of an election, if you want to force an elected official from the office that the electorate put him in, by the force of the wailing and stomping feet of a vocal few, then you have joined yourself to a virtual mob.
Do you seriously want to make removing an elected official, something that can be overturned on the basis of allegations alone? Allegations that are made by unnamed individuals, based upon a 'crime' they were privately told about by someone else? A 'crime' that the supposed 'victim' has not even come forward theirself about? Let alone without having even pressed formal charges?!
WTH is passing for 'conscientious consideration' here?! What the hell is wrong with you people?! If you want him out of office, then at the very least have the stones to begin a recall campaign - but I'd recommend that you have something more that you can substantiate first. Like the 'victims' name. And actual charges filed by that victim. And maybe a trial. Or a confession. First.
Do I think that it's possible that he engaged in blackmail? Have you heard his threatening conversation with John Brunnerduring the election? Have you heard about his belittling conversations with 'beady eyed' lawmakers? Yeah, I would be entirely unsurprised to learn that he sought to intimidate someone into silence, for his own convenience. But guess what - my suspicions do not become worthy of overturning the results of a clear election, simply because I think that they're valid!
I do not like Eric Greitens. I wrote numerous posts (here, and here, and here, and here, and here) saying why I thought he was unworthy of being elected our governor. However my point of view did not win the election. Those who voted for him for Governor, did win. By virtue of our system of representative government, he was elected by We The People - it would be a gigantic mistake to now demand that he resign his office because of unnamed sources, on unsourced, unsubstantiated, and unproven, accusations.
It's worth remembering, however, when you are faced with a choice like this again, before an election for instance, that it's best to choose those who are the most unlikely to find themselves the butt of unsubstantiated charges. What you can do to avoid that in the future, is to learn that 'hope is not a strategy' - that hoping that the fellow who claims he's a conservative, with no further reason or explanation given for that claim than the thinnest of appearances, really is a conservative, is folly and negligence of the highest order. Learn from that. Help your neighbor to learn from that. Because discovering that the guy that you helped get elected, isn't who you'd hoped he was, isn't enough to 'fix' that election after the fact.
I'll close out by leaving this snippet here from my first post having to do with Eric Greitens, "Is being Great all that good?" post back in 2015,
"...I'm not saying that I suspect our latest crop of great candidates of intending to do harm, I'm saying that I suspect them of not knowing what will, and what won't, cause us harm.
I'm saying that it's not their great qualities that concern me, but the little knowledge, understanding and conviction they've yet to demonstrate having about the fundamentals of our laws and their underlying principles.
I'm saying that without that understanding, which are the qualities that make any person, great or not, fit for office, and the lack of which makes anyone, great or not, unfit for office, then unrestrained by those convictions, they are liable, with the very best of intentions, to bring great harm to this nation and/or to our state. and at this point I'm not sure how much more of that we can take. ..."
Take the time to know that a candidate is worthy of your vote, to a reasonable satisfaction, because, as we are all finding out, elections do have consequences.
Following my recent post recapping my dissatisfaction with Eric Greitens campaign's lack of information, Bill Hennessy responded with a post restating his support for Greitens. Bill made a number of comments that I want to address, including a few of which I assume were at least partially directed towards me, while also noting that:
"Some of my friends attack Mr. Greitens, even on the St. Louis Tea Party blog, which I operate and fund. I let their attacks go out, under my name, not because I agree, but because I trust the people.
We have a simple policy for the contributors to that blog: write what you believe. If other contributors disagree, they can write what they believe. The people will sort it out. So, now, it’s my turn."
, which was good to hear and much appreciated. With that in mind, I'll respond to the points he made in his post, and clarify why they don't inspire the same confidence in me, that they do for him.
The difficulty I have with Eric Greitens has less to do with what he once had believed or done, than with what he hasn't done: He still has yet to explain his understanding of the Conservative ideas he says he now believes, he hasn't said when he came to believe them or, to any depth, why, or how these new ideas compelled him to turn away from what he had believed and spent years working towards - and being a 'Tea Party' blogger in spirit, I think that's worth blogging about.
">>>The first time I heard about Eric Greitens was as he was announcing his intention to consider running for governor earlier this year. I read Bill's post on it, and the articles it linked to, and I too was much impressed, but unfortunately before that inspiration could take root, my next thoughts were:
"I wonder what his thoughts and positions on Individual Rights, Law & Govt policy are?"
, and the inspiration faltered in me as I tried hunting around on the web for specifics about his ideas on such things, and it withered away as I found nothing of the sort, only more and more instances of 'Happy Talk' about how really impressive a guy he is. He is impressive, that much is a given, no argument there at all, but that doesn't make the argument for electing him to office. Despite how impressive he is as a person, as a candidate, if your political positions, and your demonstrated understanding and commitment to the principles behind them, aren't impressive in themselves, then neither will you be, as a candidate for high office.<<<"
This lack of information is especially relevant, as he apparently made this political about-face within just the last five years - how deeply can a person come to understand a political philosophy that is diametrically opposed to what they had believed all their lives, in five years or less? Yes, it can be done, but as he's running for the highest office in the state, I think that deserves substantially more attention than what he essentially said in his 'coming out' column, that 'I saw that Democrat policies didn't work, so I became a Republican'. Not only has he not significantly elaborated on that in the last year, he has in fact made more of an effort to avoid, or even prevent, those questions from being asked of him.
I find it very concerning that he doesn't seem to think that the differences between the Left and the Right are big enough to warrant providing voters with more information to evaluate him by. After all, Eric Greitens is no laconic 'man of few words' - he's read and studied the philosophy and history that I'm always going on about, he was a Rhodes Scholar, he went to Oxford, he's written several books, and yet he is unable to explain what he believes and why? Something doesn't add up there.
And, as I pointed out in the previous post, his campaign website has devoted less than 800 words to describing his policies and reasoning for them, which for any politician who has recently changed parties, and specially one who was a Rhodes Scholar, that, IMHO, is bizarre.
Bill not only has no problem with that, but he has become if anything, even more enthusiastic in his support. which is something that I not only do not share, but I find his reasoning difficult to understand. For instance, in explaining why he is voting for Eric Greitens, Bill says,
"I believe the greatest threat to human freedom and thriving is the political class."
Is this not the same sort of spin that's used to tell us that the greatest threat to our inner cities is "gun violence"? But just as guns aren't the problem with 'gun violence', thugs and murders are; our problem is not with the political class itself - a political class could just as easily be filled with Thomas Jeffersons' as Hillary Clintons' - but with those politicians which We The People vote into that political class - why the distraction? The reality is that what makes the political class a problem, is the people who enable, support and vote politicians into it, without understanding their character, their convictions, and their willingness and ability to stand up for, argue for, and apply them, in our government.
IMHO, the greatest threat to human freedom and thriving, are in fact those people of all classes who support and vote for politicians based upon their personal appeal, while knowing little or nothing about the ideas behind that politicians smiling face - they are the ones who are responsible for bringing such a plague of two-faced politicians upon us, and that is what is progressively transforming our precious liberty into servility.
Bottom line: If you don't like the class of people in the 'political class', while you as a voter are not demanding more than a smile and a promise from those you vote into that class, the fault is yours.
Continuing,
"...That smirking political class infects both Washington, DC, and Jefferson City, Missouri. And I believe only one candidate has the courage, the brains, and the commitment to destroy that political class in Missouri. That candidate is Eric Greitens."
Why does he believe that Greitens is that candidate? Why should anyone? Based upon what? Because he's done admirable things in his life? Many people have done admirable things, but those deeds don't necessarily provide them with the knowledge and relevant experience to suit them for the office of Governor of a state - especially my state. If Eric Greitens really is different from the two-faced 'political class', then Show Me!
And I'm sorry to say, but when I think of Eric Greitens, I find myself thinking of the only thing that he's provided me to think about him with - a picture of his toothy smile or a sly smirk, a slogan, and a politicians appeal to 'trust me!'. For instance, he claims his NRA endorsement of 'AQ' is the highest rating the NRA gives to candidates - it is not. The 'AQ' merely indicates that a candidate has provided good answers to questions on an NRA questionnaire.
The NRA's highest rating for a candidate is 'A+',
which, BTW, the NRA gave to Peter Kinder (which is who I'm most likely going to vote for), and is for candidates who not only answer questions well, but who also have a proven track record of consistently supporting the 2nd Amendment.
Eric Greitens' claim about his NRA rating is not true, while it is the highest rating that he can receive, as he has no track record, it is not the highest rating that the NRA gives, and yet he is continuing to make that claim. Eric Greitens seems to be comfortable with quite a bit of ambiguity, which is not a quality that I'm comfortable in giving political power to.
What makes a candidate different is the ideas they hold and their ability to stand up and argue for them, and if they won't demonstrate that, then I'm not going to pretend that I see this emperors clothes as having any more substance than that emperors clothes. If you dodge and avoid answering questions, if you avoid volunteering basic information for voters to make sound judgments upon, if you conduct your campaigns with catchy video clips, trite slogans and minimal information - just as the Political Class does - then I'm forced to assume that those slogans being shouted out about being a 'Different kind of Candidate!", represent a distinction without a difference.
Bill asks,
"Do you want to live as a slave to that smirking political class? Or do you want to live free and thrive?"
My answer is that I don't think a person can escape slavery without understanding what liberty is, means and depends upon, and what's more, I don't think they can be given power and avoid becoming tyrannical 'for a good cause!' without having that understanding either. Do you? It is of course for that very reason, that I don't recommend giving political power over our lives to someone who will not explain what their political principles are, who will not explain what they believe the limits of their powers are and should be, and who will not explain how those supposedly shared principles will guide their use of executive power in the highest office in the state. Until I hear Eric Greitens give some semblance of an explanation of his new understanding in that regards (again, we don't know how new), then I'm not going to just assume that he's found the answers that I'm looking for.
Bill says,
"Three Republican candidates for governor have crawled to the political class for help. One has not. That one is Eric Greitens."
Bill is a promo guy, he believes in moving people by triggering their emotions. Unfortunately the emotions which empty smears such as that triggers in me, are less than pleasant.
Bill continues:
"Many Tea Partiers want to remain political remnants. Political martyrs. Slaves to a self-imposed conformity. Self-righteous worshippers at the altar of the smirking political class. I know their feelings because I was a remnant for most of my life."
Speaking of smears. Is it just me, or is the key point buried in that slime fest, a recommendation that selling out your principles for political power, is a smart strategy that we should all get behind? Speaking for myself, I think that is... unwise.
Personally, I have no desire to be or to support political martyrs, and I don't conform to meaningless slogans. And there's nothing in that which excludes political leaders from making sensible compromises for legitimate political agreements - that is a necessity in governing people with differing views - so long as they are principled compromises. But, of course, if you don't know what a candidates principles are... then... you see the problem there for supporting Eric Greitens, yes? If I don't know what his political principles are, and the depth of his understanding of them, or his ability to argue for them, to bargain through them, then I don't see how I can count upon him making acceptable 'conservative' political agreements, as governor of our state. Do you?
Bill backs up that lovely sentiment above, with a quote from this source:
"The president of the American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Arthur C. Brooks, explained the phenomenon in his book The Conservative Heart":
"...Or can the Tea Party become something bigger— a transformational, majoritarian force in American politics that does not simply rebel against American decline, but reverses it? ..."
Excuse me, but I've had quite enough of people attempting to transform America, thank you very much.
IMHO Arthur 'Compassionate Conservative' Brooks represents a significant portion of what is wrong with the modern conservative movement, both in his enthusiastic support for the worst of William F. Buckley's ideas (which are very much in line with Bill Hennessy's thinking), and very few of his better ones. The contrived attempt to fashion a popular 'Message!', to 'win over key demographics' of the country via cheap PR gimmicks and platforms, are a significant reason behind the Right failing to expand its base. Despite the best efforts of many, myself included, the necessary ideas for a conservative take-over have not yet fully sunk in. We've made progress, but you can't short cut History through Marketing. Sorry, way it is.
If we want Conservative ideals to become a "...majoritarian force in American politics...", then we need those who understand those ideas, principles and history that America is formed from, to discuss them, live them, promote and spread them, without trying to pretend to be something they're not. Our ideas are the message, they apply to every person, every group, every ethnicity and every age group - don't throw them under the bus in a short sighted bid for winning over the latest demographic! The attempt to appear to be part of the 'In Crowd!' is doomed to failure.
Bill claims that,
"A vote for anyone other than Eric Greitens is a vote for permanent remnant status."
Which, especially in a Primary election, is an especially empty, meaningless statement to make, as in a Primary Election, you are supposed to be casting your vote for who you have the most confidence in, and who you believe in most; to vote otherwise is to be nothing but a pawn of cheap political gamesmenship. And as to the idea that having been a SEAL should seal the deal, I'm sorry, but if other members of the Navy SEAL's don't think that that's enough to qualify you as Governor, I'm not buying it either.
Bill again makes the pitch that the fact that Eric Greitens had been a Democrat, is no reaon for him to be rejected. And I agree. For the very examples and reasons he states - the fact that he once was a Democrat shouldn't change your mind, provided that the person in question has clearly explained and demonstrated why they were once a Democrat, and are no more:
"Yes, Eric Greitens began life as a Democrat, just like Ronald Reagan did. Yes, Eric Greitens applauded Democrats’ speeches, just like Ronald Reagan did. Yes, Eric Greitens wrote in support of big government programs, just like Ronald Reagan did."
I have zero problem with a democrat converting to the Right - Fantastic! But I do want to know WHY they converted, and especially in the case of a recent conversion (how recent? Eric's not saying), I want some proof that he understands what the difference is between the Left and the Right. Did he switch simply because of a pragmatic calculation of political numbers, or to make govt programs more effective and efficient, or from an understanding of the ideas which the Right is (supposed to be) rooted it?
Adam Sharp (who does not work for Peter Kinder) is kicked out before asking a single question
I and others have asked that question of Eric Greitens, his people and his campaign, but aside from receiving mostly smirking political snarkasm in response, and an occasionally a shove or an escort out the door, we've learned nothing more than Bill's next point:
"But Eric Greitens has seen fit to move to the right because he’s seen the damage done by the policies he once endorsed."
John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, all make similar statements day in and day out, about how the policies of the left are damaging to America, but I don't believe that they understand why the democrat's policies fail. It's nice that they want to fix them, but wanting to help, without understanding how to help, isn't going to help! If you want me, to help you, to help us, you've first got to show me that you understand what the problem is, its causes, and how to fix them. If you cannot or will not explain that, then you aren't the one to help fix the problem - you'll just worsen the bad situation we've already got. We don't need any more help of that kind - we're drowning in it already.
Bill says that we should put away our concerns and rest assured that,
"Sensible people would help him make those corrections. Eric Greitens is fully equipped and prepared to fix Missouri."
Bill, and Eric's campaign, say that a lot. Words have meaning - how about sharing his understanding of them? Try explaining the what, how and why of the issues. Then I'll decide if he's worth supporting. Unfortunately he's not only not done that, but he's purposefully, and belligerently, avoided doing that. That isn't someone I'm going to support in a Primary Election that is supposed to be all about why I should vote for you.
"The more Eric sees government in action, the more he seeks to restrain government."
What has he said that shows how seriously he wants to restrain govt? I haven't seen it. The more I've seen of Eric's ideas, the more I've seen nothing more than sentiments ('we've got to reach out...we've got to provide support... we've got to do better...') that are sure to expand government powers and reach. I'm sorry, but I'll need to hear his explanations for what, how and why I should think that he understands the importance of restraining govt's power over us, rather than expanding it in another direction for a 'good cause'.
And Bill goes again for the warm fuzzy association:
"Just like Ronald Reagan."
The problem with that, is that unlike Eric Greitens, Ronald Reagan spent years and years explaining exactly why he joined the Republican Party, he explained exactly what he thought the problem was with Democrat policies, and why he thought they were wrong, and he explained the ideas he meant to campaign on and execute. Eric Greitens has smirked. And snarled. And repeated key events from his books in Townhall's (limited to three questions from the audience), but he has not explained what he will do, why he will do it, and how he will carry it out. Unfortunately, on the basis of Greitens statements and actions, I can find zero basis for comparing him with Ronald Reagan.
"And Greitens is the only Republican likely to beat the Democrat in November."
Coming from the man who supported Ed Martin in every election he lost - I must decline to put all that much stock in predictions such as that.
"As long as that smirking political class holds sway in Jefferson City, our limited-government movement will remain a remnant, a faction, of frustrated grassroots activists waving signs that no one else reads or understands.
That’s why I believe Americans have a duty to blow up the political class first."
Hint: The political class is currently made up of people who smirk, spout slogans, make promises and demand support, while providing little or no substance for anyone to understand or support them on, and assiduously avoid having to demonstrate that they can and will walk their talk. That's Eric Greitens' campaign to a "T". I'll leave it to the reader to decide the best response to that.
As to "... waving signs that no one else reads or understands...", if no one understands the signs people are waving, then as I see it, we have two options:
Demonstrate, communicate and teach what those signs mean.
Deceive, trick or otherwise sucker people into supporting you so you can get into office and double-cross them later with what you think is best for them.
One of those options I endorse, and one of those options I oppose. How about you?
"The smirking political class is a sucking chest wound on this country. It’s bleeding us dry. Until we stop that bleeding, nothing else helps."
Exactly. We need to stop accepting crisp suits stuffed with empty slogans which have no substance, and until we stop accepting such false solutions, there will be no progress made. I repeat: Stop Accepting A Smirking Slogan With Zero Substance.
Bill then makes a statement which has much appeal and little understanding:
"Crony capitalism sits on the chest of the American economy, suffocating growth. Until will corral crony capitalism, our solutions will fail."
The sad fact is that organizations such as The Aspen Institute, and its The Franklin Institute, and various unaccountable NGO's, etc., are the marketing arms of crony capitalism - they are the means of connecting the politically powerful to corporate interests - and Eric Greitens has been an enthusiastic supporter of them for years and years, effectively undermining everything that the conservative and Tea Party movements have been working for. If you want me to believe that he no longer is a member of the cronies - then please ask him to explain to Missouri Voters what he now believes, and how and why he came to believe it. If he can't start with that obvious first step, then I can't trust that he'll take the next step at all.
"If your priority is anything but blowing up that smirking political class, then you’re going to kill the patient. He’ll bleed to death."
If you attempt to replace the smirking political class, with another class of political smirkers, guess what: Nothing will change.
"Without reservation or purpose of evasion, I wholeheartedly and proudly repeat my endorsement of Eric Greitens for governor of Missouri. And I ask you to join me in saving our country."
Without reservation or purpose of evasion, I sadly can find no reasons whatsoever, despite searching and asking, for believing that Eric Greitens believes, or will do, anything differently from the political class he seeks to be elected the leader of. That doesn't win over my support.
This is Missouri - If he truly understands and believes and can argue for Conservative ideals: Show Me.
Why does Eric Greitens identify as a Conservative? Unfortunately we don't really know. Perhaps Eric Greitens figures that in an age where 'men' can identify as 'women', as one of his donors, Obama supporter and military-transgender activist James Pritzker identifies as Jennifer Pritzker, then surely he should be able to 'identify' as a 'Conservative'...? Well, what he does in the privacy of his own home is his business, but in public restrooms and Governor's Mansions, I'd prefer to have such serious identifications be made with a bit more credibility than just a guy's say-so - ya know what I mean?
But that's where Eric Greitens won't man-up.
Oh, he's more than happy to come out and identify as being a Conservative Republican, but will he reveal what his reasons for that massive change of heart were? Nope. Will he reveal when that transformation occurred? Nope. He simply expects us all to accept that he identifies that way.
Unfortunately, he doesn't have such a great history of having his words match up with actual facts.
For instance, he repeatedly declares "I'm not a politician - I'm an outsider!", and we're to take his word that he doesn't identify that way, but... tell me, how many non-politicians do you know who register a presidential campaign website in their names? And that was 8 years ago. Personally, when a person first begins to seriously consider a future political, to my mind, that's when he became an actual politician. What do you think?
And when one of the original Tea Party video bloggers, my friend Adam Sharp, tried to ask Eric Greitens what his reasons were for becoming a conservative, his staff blocked and shoved Adam aside for daring to ask Mr. Non-Politician questions about his positions - apparently he thinks that info is just a bit too personal for people in the Show Me state to be shown.
When Greitens first announced his intention to run for Missouri Governor, there were many rumors about his past Democrat leanings, but some, like Bill Hennessy, chose to get carried away in the wonder of his personal greatness, as others like myself were somewhat intrigued but still asking "What's so good about Great?"
"...With all the 'Great' candidates we have running for high office around the nation today, we seem to be forgetting an important rule for a self governing people:
'Greatness' doesn't make you fit for office; demonstrating an understanding of the nature and purpose of the office you're seeking to be elected to, does.
To advance someone for high office because of their great qualities alone, and in spite of knowing little or nothing about how well, if at all, they understand the purpose of, and the restraints upon the power of, that office which they are campaigning for, and without knowing how they intend to use its power, is dangerous to everyone that that elected office has power over. ..."
Bill Hennessey didn't appreciate such questioning of his 'transformational leader' and tried to write off such concerns about Greitens' conserva-cred as 'dirty tricks!' and 'whisper campaigns!'. So sure (on what basis?) that the rumors weren't true, he made the unfortunate statement about those less sold on him than he was, that:
"...If none of that works, they’ll just lie and claim he’s a Democrat."
Sadly for Bill, the concerns which many were having about Greitens, were not only worth whispering about, but even worth raising voices over, because, as it turned out, Greitens soon after disclosed that he was, in fact, until very recently (how recently, he won't say), a Democrat!
Eric Greitens: Why I am no longer a Democrat: "...I was raised as a Democrat....I registered to vote as a Democrat, and several years ago some Democrats even tried to recruit me to run for Congress..."
Hey Show Me State! What kind of leader do you think it is, that knowingly lets his supporters stick their necks out for him while knowing that they'll be sandbagged after a month or more of their denying what he knows to be true?. IMHO, Eric Greitens should have begun his campaign with that revelation right out of the box, and that looks to me like poor leadership on Greitens part, and extremely poor judgment on Bill's part, who's unfortunately developed a habit of putting his trust/mistrust with the wrong political operatives.
Greitens was not only a Democrat, and had been in discussions about running for office as a democrat, and supported democrats for office, went to the DNC Nomination of Obama, supported his Education plans, has supported the UN and using the United States Military for world Social Programs, radical transformative NGO's, and The Franklin Institutes "A 21st Century National Service System" for our youth... and then... all of a sudden... for some unknown reasons, he had a change of heart. When? We don't know.
But we should accept that he now identifies as a Conservative Republican? Seriously?
1 year later: What's changed?
Do we have anything more than Eric Greiten's word for being a 'conservative', than he let on a year ago? No. We don't. Not directly from him, at any rate. The sum total of Eric Greitens "I Believe" positions provided for Missourians to make up their minds about his actual political identify, by MS Word's count, is 789 words. Mr. Articulate book writing transformational leader, has managed to put fewer than 800 words together to help the voters of Missouri to make up their minds about electing him to the highest position of power in the state.
I think that sums up his style of 'leadership, his respect for the voter, and just how much more 'politics as usual' we might have in store for us, if he were to be elected.
Peter Kinder, on his "Statements" page alone, has 1,844, three times that. John Brunner's "Issues" page has 1,663 words. Catherine Hanaway packs in 3,612 words and action plans on her "Issues" page. But more than that, both Kinder, Hanaway and Brunner, especially Kinder, have years and years of statements, actions, and measurable performance that match their words to their actions and histories.
Greitens? He simply 'identifies' as 'conservative'. IMHO simply 'identifying' as being one thing or another, is not going to work any better in our Governor's office, than it does in Target changing-rooms.
It seems to me that the reasonable questions that should be pursued now, still, a year later, are how grounded and credible are Eric Greitens' claims to actually being a conservative Republican? Ironically, the only material we have to make that judgment from, is that same article that Greitens wrote to announce that he actually had, until recently (how recently he doesn't say), been a Democrat. And for me at least, his admission and conversion, although welcome, does very little to assure me of what his political principles are.
Recapping Greitens Identity
So with that being said, with nothing new about his personal ideas and thoughts on why he became a conservative, lets look again at the one definitive statement he has made about his beliefs, and I'll explain why it is that I personally find it to be far less than satisfying for me, as to what his Identity actually is.
"I am a conservative Republican, but I didn’t start out that way. "
While his article could lay a credible claim to his being a Republican, he didn't stop with claiming to be a Republican only, he claims to be a Conservative Republican, and that qualifier 'conservative' requires a bit more information from him than simply having announced that he'd joined the GOP. After all - Lindsay Graham is a Republican too, but you're not going to find a whole lot of Conservatives or Tea Party members that are going to be too impressed by that, right? To make a credible claim as to being a Conservative, he needs to show a solid level of understanding of the principles behind the constitution (U.S. and MO), as well as a regard for, and commitment to, the U.S. Constitution itself. What has he said to place himself squarely on the Conservative and Tea Party Right, as opposed to being in the middle of the road, or even over there on the side of the road with the RINOs?
"I am a conservative Republican, but I didn’t start out that way.
I was raised as a Democrat. I was taught that Harry Truman was the greatest president ever because he was strong, stood up to the communists, and most important, he was from Missouri. I was taught to stand up for the little guy, and that bigger government was the best way to do that. I registered to vote as a Democrat, and several years ago some Democrats even tried to recruit me to run for Congress.
There was one rather large problem. As I got older, I no longer believed in their ideas. Even worse, I had concluded that liberals aren’t just wrong. All too often they are world-class hypocrites. They talk a great game about helping the most vulnerable, with ideas that feel good and fashionable. The problem is their ideas don’t work, and often hurt the exact people they claim to help."
Which is all very welcome, well and good. I personally have no problem in welcoming someone who's realized their political errors and corrected them, or with believing in the depth of their conversion, but I do need to see evidence of their understanding the principles they claim to have converted to.
Some obvious examples of others who have given ample evidence of just that sort of thing, would be Ronald Reagan, who didn't just switch parties because one 'worked better' than the other, he solidly expressed his grasp of the principles which separated the philosophies of the Left from the Right, in his Goldwater announcement speech, "A Time for Choosing", and he spent years acting consistently with his words. David Horowitz is another excellent that comes to mind, as someone who was once a deeply entrenched and radical leftist, and he not only switched parties, but has gone to great lengths demonstrating very effectively his understanding of why leftist ideas are faulty and corrupt. A little closer to home in time and place would be Dana Loesch, who began as a democrat operative but soon realized her error, left the Left, and has since demonstrated very well, through actions with the Tea Party, on radio, TV and in print, her solid understanding of, and commitment to, the principles which our Individual Rights rest upon and require.
But being as I'm not, as Bill put it, 'lazy' enough to accept someone's assertions alone, I need evidence that such a person didn't simply change party affiliations to find a snazzier party. And I feel zero guilt whatsoever in having questions about their status, especially when I see that the reasons which they've given for their conversion, are far short of being deep enough reasons to explain the error they claim to have corrected.
For instance, it's good that he realized that the leftist approach was hypocritical, that it hurt those it claimed to want to help and simply didn't work. But while that may be enough to explain his becoming a Republican, it isn't enough to assure people, especially me, that he now has a conservative understanding and approach to political issues. After all, again, Lindsay Graham will tell you the very same thing about the democrats and their policies, but you'd have an easier time selling space heaters in hell, than convincing conservatives that Lindsay Graham was one of them.
So what else has Mr. Greitens given us to go on? What deeds or reasoned insights, rather than simply assertions and labels, has he given us? After reciting a valid list of leftist policies that don't work, he says:
"I became a conservative because I believe that caring for people means more than just spending taxpayer money; it means delivering results. It means respecting and challenging our citizens, telling them what they need to hear, not simply what they want to hear. "
The first sentence, especially it's ending, reminds me of earlier statements of 'smarter', kinder, gentler, government social programs, which is a big red flag to me, of a republican not being a Tea Party compatible, Free Market Conservative, dedicated to upholding Individual Rights through the Rule of Law under constitutionally limited government.
I don't think very much of the 'compassionate conservative' shtick. I found it appallingly bad when William F. Buckley Jr. pushed it back in the 1990's (we'll go into detail why in later posts), it was the reason why I didn't vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 primary, and I think it pretty much wore its welcome out with the rest of the nation with W's administration. Demonstrating that you understand the principles that conservatism is derived from requires much more than delivering 'results' and telling people what you think they need to hear, we need to hear you demonstrate a desire for the kind of results that are consistent with conservatism, worthwhile and proper to achieve. So far, I haven't seen that.
"So what would I do? I believe in limited but effective government."
I'm sorry, but that 'but' makes his But look really big to me. When he says 'but effective', he's saying that as a qualifier on 'limited government', which makes it seem to me that his goal is less about ensuring that government remains properly 'limited', than about making its ability to deliver 'results' more efficiently, to be more important than its being limited. Believing in limited government is highly desirable, but Why should it be limited? I'm not seeing any indication from him as to why government should be limited, and that, for me, has to come before anything else. His words indicate to me that he thinks that there are lots of limitations to those limits on government, especially if they might deliver 'effective government'. That sends a shudder down my spine.
"I believe in replacing ObamaCare with something that actually works."
I most emphatically do not. I do not believe that ObamaCare is bad because Obama and the Democrats proposed it, but because govt CANNOT provide any solutions that will not impair the quality and liberty of everyone involved in the area of health care, and so any GovtCare is doomed to failure, and as such we should not attempt to 'fix' it, or replace it, but to remove it. I don't want to replace the devil I know with one I don't know, I want to exorcise the damn thing, bell, book and candle! I believe in repealing ObamaCare, as well as repealing all the other operational healthcare and insurance industry regulations/corporate favors, and I believe in exterminating every other interference into the free market. That means eliminating all intrusive government 'solutions' that prevent people from making intelligent decisions and acting on them for their own reasons. Only by doing that, can a Free Market, which gave us modern health in the first place, be restored.
I'm unable and emphatically unwilling to see anything less than that as a 'conservative' solution, though I've no doubt you could get Lindsay Graham to go along with it.
"I believe in putting working families and job creation ahead of special interests."
That sounds, at best, like re-calibrating your spin cycle so as to swap one set of special interests for another, for political gain. Switching special big biz interests, for special little guy interests, ultimately means retaining one set of special interests to be doled out as privileges to some, at everyone else's expense. If you are a Free Market Conservative, dedicated to Individual Rights and the Rule of Law, then you will not seek or accept the swapping of one form of favoritism for another, but will instead desire to eliminate all such special privileges so that all are equal before the law. That would be acceptable. Anything less, and you might as well go talk to Lindsay Graham - I'm sure he's ready to listen.
"I believe that in a free society we have to defend religious liberties and the 2nd Amendment, and protect innocent life, so everyone has the freedom to pursue happiness."
This isn't too bad... but I'd be more comfortable hearing something like "Liberty requires that everyone's individual rights be respected, and those rights that are singled out in our Bill of Rights must be held like daggers in the faces of those who'd like to use power to help and improve our lives for us.", anything less, is... less.
"I believe in reforming welfare, so every person can have a chance at a life of dignity, purpose, and meaning."
I do not. I believe in eliminating it. Only then, can every person have a chance at living their own lives.
"And I believe America’s public schools should be the best in the world."
Yeah, well, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, Barrack Obama and Lindsay Graham all say the same things as well, but if you mean to use the centralized powers of the state or federal governments to accomplish that, then you will be saying nothing different than they would, which is nothing that I'd agree with or be willing to go along with.
"As Americans, we deserve much better than what we’re getting from our government. We don’t need more rhetoric. We want results."
Which of course is just more rhetoric. I don't want better results from our government, I want less of my government in my life so that I can get the results I deserve. As an American, I deserve to have my govt respect my right to live my own life, and anything more than that is, IMHO, significantly less.
"And that means changing politics as usual, which won’t be easy. But nothing worthwhile ever is. You have to fight for what you believe in, and I, for one, have never backed down from that kind of fight."
There are few things that sound more to me like politics as usual, than a politician saying 'that means changing politics as usual'; it's an easy thing to say, and it's a meaningless thing to say. Tell me something more meaningful, apply it to something more difficult, explain your principles and how you'd apply them to particular issues facing our state. Anything less than that is nothing more than politics as usual.
Summary
I've read his book "Heart and Fist", Eric Greitens has an impressive, record, and I wish that I could believe that he was on our side, but I see no reason to believe that that is the case. I've seen no effort on his part to demonstrate the depth of his principled understanding of what our side is. I've seen no credible assurances or answers from the candidate himself - and he is a writer! - that gives me reason to believe that the political principles that will drive his use of power in office, will be ones that'd make me comfortable with entrusting him with the power of that office.
Still, a year later and now nearly at the Primary, his comments have been shallow, trite, directed towards vague issues and gimmicks, with no substance to enable us to recognize what his principles are, and I'm not yet convinced that he even understands what our side is, let alone how to lead or fight for it.
The only effort he's made to connect with voters, where he might have been able to communicate how he will make political decisions, have been those Gubernatorial Debates he showed up for, and of course his great Missouri Listening Tour. I don't want to have a candidate listening to me when they're running for office - the only sound they need to hear from me would be my support or my vote - and the only way he's going to get that is by telling me what his ideas and beliefs and principles are, so that I can make up my mind about whether or not I want to entrust him with my vote. A candidate needs to speak, debate, publish and otherwise let We The People know what it is that he thinks, feels and is driven by. That's how you show the Show Me state that you're worthy to hold power as Governor of our state.
When I hear of his support for NGO's, his words that express little more than shallow associations with politically easy 'hot button' issues, I'm not learning anything about the political principles that he, particularly in a moment of crisis, or with a simply tough and unpopular decision, is going to be guided by in making his decision.
I know what he's thought to be right in the recent past, and that included supporting:
"President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, allocating almost $6 billion to new and existing service programs. Eric Greitens, a University of Missouri public affairs expert, says the bill is a call to service for all Americans."
, which means that I don't knowwhat he thinks Right is, but I've got a lot of clues about the far left positions that he very recently supported as being right!
That's a problem for me, and to secure my vote I require his explanations, and demonstrations, of understanding those issues, and NOT simply the assurances of a flak who thinks he can peddle PR messages in lieu of a glaring lack of substance.
I have a huge problem with his entering this race without bothering to begin from the beginning. He, as a candidate, has a responsibility to demonstrate his having at least a fundamental understanding of the nature and purpose of the office he's seeking to be elected to, and of what he will bring to that. It didn't need to be a detailed set of position papers (though that wouldn't hurt), but just some general statements of principle and intent; but for him to enter the race without even a general formulation of that, particularly with his knowing how his own political history would unavoidably raise questions and concerns amongst those he's aiming to have as supporters, is, to me, a major lapse of judgment. The failure to do that would almost certainly leave those who would support him, who would be inspired by him, in the position of having to substitute their own personal sense of inspiration for his 'great qualities', for that relevant substance which he failed to provide, to carry them through any attempts at supporting and defending him.
That, to me, is an egregious failure of leadership on a philosophical and political level, and it was a failure of leadership on a personal level, to put his potential supporters in such a position on his behalf, over basic info that should have been a no-brainer to provide. Without that substance and proof from him, in his own words, and his visible ability to defend them, there is in terms of his political judgment, nothing there for me to support, only 'inspired substitute substance' that is worth less than the HTML it's written on.
In short: Eric Greitens 'identifies' as a 'conservative', in much the same way that this fellow 'identified' as a women in Target's changing room. To my fellow residents of the Show Me state: Demand something more of the candidate you vote for, than their having simply 'identified' as a Conservative - demand proof - Show Me.
Speaking of Whispers
So Bill Hennessy opened his five part, thirty five page defense of Eric Greitens and 'Service', with a couple lines which nicely set the tone for the entire set of posts, and others as well:
"You know how to tell when a political camp has nothing on an opponent? It begins making stuff up. That “making stuff up” has become the chief form of amusement among those who oppose Eric Greitens for Governor."
And as I pointed out in the last post, he doesn't address these charges anywhere in those five posts, which brought to mind an old truism,
If you wish to be understood, first seek to understand.
Does that opening sound to you like someone who's trying particularly hard to understand the views of those who don't share their own sense of inspiration? Does it even sound like he's interested in being understood by them? IMHO: Nope. So something else is going on here - but what? I'm going to get to what that what is, but, sorry, I'm going to have to go the long way round for getting there (shocker).
To start with, whatever differences I have with Bill & his latest political tastes, I have a hard time believing he's consciously and deliberately being either this sloppy or this misleading... but... seriously... what the heck?! To charge that those who don't favor your candidate are people who just 'make stuff up,' without addressing exactly what it is you are charging them with making up, that's dismissivness on steroids. Just to recap a few of the issues being dismissed as 'making stuff up', among the concerns which 'Facebook warriors' raised about Eric Greitens, have been:
...his involvement in and promotion of NGO's (which can be used to effectively steer private and govt money and policy towards private endeavors (some of which are laudable), without public legislative oversight (none of which is laudable))?,
Whether or not these concerns can, or cannot, be answered satisfactorily is not the issue I'm interested in here, that they are reasonable concerns based upon what his candidate has, or hasn't, made known, and are not simply 'made up', is a concern, and as such they can and should be addressed. But to dismiss reasonable concerns out of hand as fantasy, is itself an exercise in fantasy, a case of wishing away the real and valid concerns of a large number of people.
How do you do that with a straight face? As it turns out, it's easier than you might think.
I know that, because I noticed that the first thing that came to my mind on reading those charges, was a biting retort with a garnish of insult and a counter charge (or two...) of peddling lies, etc. But in between deleting those rebuttal posts in the midst of writing them, one after the other, I noticed something interesting in what I was replying with - or, more accurately, without. Without bothering to begin with a set of facts presented in a reasonable manner, I too was making
Into the void
In my last post, 'Is being Great all that good?', I pointed to the dangers inherent in promoting or electing candidates for their great qualities alone, rather than for what makes them fit for office, which I think has to begin with demonstrating an understanding of the nature and purpose of the office they're seeking to be elected to. In this post I'll take a high level view, through one local example, at the sort of arguments that follow when a candidacy does not begin from the beginning, leaving its supporters to substitute the personal inspiration they feel for their candidate's 'great qualities', for the relevant substance which the candidates have not provided themselves. Over the next couple posts we'll look in more detail at the patterns which the inspired defender will often fall into, in order to defend what isn't there - an absence of substance which itself inspires a particular pattern of defense.
"I want a transformational leader who inspires common people like me to become better versions of ourselves. And the only candidate in the race who can inspire greatness in the people he touches is Eric Grietens."[BTW Bill, the candidate's name is misspelled]
That was not some MSNBC host frothing on about the thrill running up his leg, this statement came from Bill Hennessy, one of the original founders and instigators of the St. Louis Tea Party, the grassroots organization which formed around the popular demand that congress "Read the Bill!" rather than mindlessly peddle absurdities such as "You have to pass it to find out what's in it". The St. Louis Tea Party Coalition was one of the most effective Tea Party's in the nation at raising issues of limited government and individual rights to the national attention, which I had the honor to play a small part in, and whose theme, at that time anyway, could easily have been expressed as constitutionally limited govt over swallowing sight unseen the solutions being peddled by transformational leaders of the left or the right.
That Bill Hennessy was someone I never expected to see saying such things. This post is one I'm not enjoying writing, but that quote above is representative of the tenor of what he's been posting since Eric Greitens announced his interest in running for the Governor of Missouri, and Bill, as we'll see in a moment, has taken the rhetoric beyond what I can simply ignore.
The Inspiration
When you hear about Eric Greitens, you can't help but be impressed, he's a former Navy SEAL, a Rhodes Scholar, he has a deep interest in, and familiarity with, classics of history and philosophy (you know that pegged my interest meter), a self made man, philanthropist, successful author (I just finished reading his "Heart and Fist" - I recommend it), college professor, motivational speaker, and the list goes on. The first time I heard about Eric Greitens was as he was announcing his intention to consider running for governor earlier this year. I read Bill's post on it, and the articles it linked to, and I too was much impressed, but unfortunately before that inspiration could take root, my next thoughts were:
"I wonder what his thoughts and positions on Individual Rights, Law & Govt policy are?"
, and the inspiration faltered in me as I tried hunting around on the web for specifics about his ideas on such things, and it withered away as I found nothing of the sort, only more and more instances of 'Happy Talk' about how really impressive a guy he is. He is impressive, that much is a given, no argument there at all, but that doesn't make the argument for electing him to office. Despite how impressive he is as a person, as a candidate, if your political positions, and your demonstrated understanding and commitment to the principles behind them, aren't impressive in themselves, then neither will you be, as a candidate for high office.
If you care about what's true, about first principles, that's the way it has to work. And what's even harder, and I've really experienced just how much harder in working on these posts, is how hard it is not to fall into the same patterns in your responses to the faults you've found in others. And it's also difficult, particularly in personal and political issues, to not see that person you've found fault in as having base and dishonest motives for the wrong things you've found them saying. As you'll see in a moment, one of Bill's posts set me off, pegged my fury meter, and my responses to it have got me watching myself more closely. My first response I deleted. The second one too. This post I've revised several times, trying to take that non-objective edge out of it and focus more on what is universal in the danger of being led by 'greatness', than the particulars of the faults I see here (how successfully remains to be seen... your mileage may vary).
I haven't been 'toning it down' out of some silly 'must be nice' mockery of manners, but because I think you really do miss out on the more significant points, when you assume the worst (and that 'assuming' is part of the pattern). Far tougher, and frankly far scarier, is what you see when you presume that those who've drawn your ire, have done so with the very best of intentions. And your response to them, IMH (and heavily revised)O, is improved and clarified by approaching it from that perspective.
Not that that perspective will make me pull my punches, it's just that I see the value in throwing them at my own points too, before they get a chance to make it to print.
The lack of political substance which Eric Greitens has made available regarding the political office he's seeking, is concerning to me. Why? Because as media savvy as this fellow is, as experienced a leader as he is, as seemingly centered around empowering people as he is, he has somehow lacked the foresight to assemble and make available even an overview of the policies he intends to implement, or of the political principles that will guide his use of power once in office, etc. Nothing. Nada.
Why? I don't know, and that's the problem, for the fact that he chose not to do the obvious, I find concerning.
There were rumors from the start about his democrat leanings, which at that time were still only rumors (though he later confirmed them), and there were still other troubling issues left to be discovered by those, like me, who should have been his base, such as his endorsement of President Obama's "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act" (which fits in with conservative ideas... how?), as well as other issues and unknowns about information that was known to the candidate. Information which he had to know would cause confusion and dissension amongst those whose support he'd want and need, and yet he chose to do nothing to proactively manage it. Is that an example of the exemplary political leadership that I should be inspired by? Or evidence of a blind spot the candidate doesn't realize he has?
There were (and still are) lots of questions unanswered, but
Is being Great all that good?
With all the 'Great' candidates we have running for high office around the nation today, we seem to be forgetting an important rule for a self governing people:
'Greatness' doesn't make you fit for office; demonstrating an understanding of the nature and purpose of the office you're seeking to be elected to, does.
To advance someone for high office because of their great qualities alone, and in spite of knowing little or nothing about how well, if at all, they understand the purpose of, and the restraints upon the power of, that office which they are campaigning for, and without knowing how they intend to use its power, is dangerous to everyone that that elected office has power over.
We are naturally drawn to those who demonstrate great qualities such as courage, honesty, integrity and intelligence, and one of the common responses which those who live in a republic often have to people who show that 'right stuff', is "You should run for office!". Nothing wrong with that at all. But once that person has made their decision to run for high office, no matter who they are, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Eric Greitens, then they should do what would be expected of anyone else to do, that person should be actively demonstrating their understanding of the nature, purpose, laws, powers and principles of that office, which the proper and just execution of that office depend upon.
These great men brought great change - was it all good?
But there is an additional responsibility which those with such unique and outstanding qualities have, as it is doubly important for them, particularly when they have no history or track record demonstrating their convictions and political intentions, they then have the responsibility to proactively make their own understanding of the nature and purpose of that office clear to the electorate, laying out the key policies they intend to advance while in office, along with some indication of how they intend to do so.
For such 'great' candidates to not do everything they can to make their positions and convictions known, or even to actively avoid doing so, means that they've chosen to rely upon their own personal qualities to win them support, rather than risk their popularity with the public on information about how they actually intend to use their power over them while in office. Such a scenario is suspicious at best, but if We The People do not insist that they explain themselves, or worse, join in on promoting them for office because of their great qualities alone, that's a recipe for disaster.
The Great Why ask why?
Most people realize that good intentions alone can cause disastrous results, correct? Those disasters occur not because the well intentioned person meant to cause harm, but because they didn't understand what was important to understand, didn't understand what actions should or shouldn't be taken, and so they take actions without being aware of the pitfalls and unintended consequences that are sure to follow from such actions, and so disaster follows, right?
Well what do you suppose happens when you couple well intentioned ignorance with the great and dynamic qualities of 'the Great Man', fueled with the power of high office? Far and away the greatest restraint we have upon the abuses of power by those in power, is their own understanding of the proper purposes and limits of their powers, and their knowledge that those who elected them know it as well. Without that understanding on both sides, the subsequent errors and abuses are going to multiply, intensify and magnify the disasters that are sure to follow.
Mistaking Greatness of character with Fitness for office can be the greatest of dangers to a nation and its people; History is rife with examples as to why that should scare the hell out of you, and we don't need to reach very far back in time or place for examples of this, one of our own national monuments, Mt. Rushmore, being far enough. Those four Presidents that are carved upon its face, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt, were all great men who left their mark upon our nation by bringing about revolutionary changes.
But were those great changes all for the good? Did they lead us to make Progress in regards to realizing America's founding principles? If you understand and revere those principles, I don't think you can say that they all were. For instance:
George Washington, with his outstanding qualities of courage and integrity played a pivotal, indispensable role in our founding; as the father of our nation he led the battle in our revolutionary break from England, he helped to create and implement our Constitution and was elected to be the first president under it, and in so doing he helped bring about a revolution like none other in history - I'd call that progress for the good.
Thomas Jefferson, with his powerful intellect and passion for liberty, not only put America's ideals into the words of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, but he also later led one of the most remarkable of revolutions, the "Revolution of 1800", the first peaceable overthrow of one political power in favor of another, by ballots, not bullets - I'd absolutely call that progress for the good.
Abraham Lincoln, who had the depth of character and wisdom to hold our nation together through the darkest times of civil war, helped to give this nation "...a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" - I'd definitely call that progress for the good.
Teddy Roosevelt utilized his undeniably great qualities of energy and intellect to turn us away from what his fellows on Mt. Rushmore strove for, and he called that progress. Personally, I call that Pro-Regress, not progress, and I most definitely don't call it good; do you?
What did he do differently? It might be useful to first ask what he did differently than the mostly unremarkable presidents who came between Lincoln and TR - how many of those president's names do you recall? Probably not many, and for good reason - facing no great crises they didn't try to bring about any great changes to our nation, they only tried to do the job of President of the United States, as defined by the Constitution, while operating within the powers it defined for their office. Some did it better than others, but for the most part they all entered office under those terms, and were willingly bound by them.
TR was full of energy, intelligence, courage and valor; he was remarkably widely read, a man who felt sure that he knew what was best for the nation and was devastatingly capable of putting his ideas into action. But to those great qualities he added a markedly shallow understanding of, and disdain for, the constitutional restrictions that the Founders, through our Constitution, put upon the office of President and by which they limited the powers of the government of the United States. It was his fellow Mt. Rushmorean, Thomas Jefferson, who said:
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
But TR would have none of that.
When he found himself in office upon the assassination of President McKinley, unlike his predecessors, TR explicitly refused to allow his powers to be bound by the office of President, and possessing those qualities of greatness that won him admiration and popularity around the world, he used them to resist and burst free of those restrictions, and in so doing he most definitely brought revolutionary change to the office of the President, and to the nature of the government he held such great power over, and those powers of office which he was instrumental is loosing upon the land, have been a plague upon us ever since.
It was Teddy Roosevelt, a republican by the way, who:
first proposed a national income tax to 'do good' with,
first proposed imposing American might upon the world stage,
first proposed a national health care system,
was the first president to consistently exercise his executive powers outside the defined powers of the office of the President of The United States,
first proposed, and began to implement, the administrative state, and all the alphabet agencies we contend with today, followed from his innovations with what became the FDA.
He didn't accomplish all of those tasks himself, but by setting them in motion, together with what he did accomplish,Teddy Roosevelt proved that you don't have to be a bad man to do great damage; a great man with little understanding of his true purpose and place in office, can do enormous damage to even the greatest of nations, and Teddy Roosevelt did just that. Barack Obama, LBJ, FDR, Woodrow Wilson were only able to succeed in putting into practice what they have, because Teddy Roosevelt first introduced, legitimized and got the ProRegressive ball rolling for them - without him, they might have remained frustrated, small minded nobodies, harming no one's lives but their own.
TR's unbound greatness and lack of understanding and even disregard for the nature of the office he held, made his time in office, IMHO, the most truly disastrous presidency in all of American history. Not because he was a bad man, or a corrupt one, but because he was a truly Great man, invested with the great power of high office, who used his greatness to turn us away from our Founding ideals.
But of course Teddy Roosevelt didn't 'accomplish' what he did alone, he had the uninformed enthusiasm of the nation, won over by his greatness, who let him do and get away with what should never have been permitted.
Those who don't learn from history....
Am I saying that any of those today, such as Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Eric Greitens, who are being touted for their great qualities, are, or will be, as bad for this nation as I believe Teddy Roosevelt was? No. I'm saying that seeking after great men to 'fix' our problems on the basis of their greatness alone, when we've been given little or no substantive reasons for having confidence that they even understand the nature and intended limitations of their office, is a reckless and foolish thing for us to do.
I'm saying that when we don't know know anything substantial about a candidate's convictions or plans, because of what they have so far been content to not say, then we cannot have any idea what they will do with the power of their office, once it has been combined with their own great abilities, to exert those powers over us.
I'm not saying that I suspect our latest crop of great candidates of intending to do harm, I'm saying that I suspect them of not knowing what will, and what won't, cause us harm.
I'm saying that it's not their great qualities that concern me, but the little knowledge, understanding and conviction they've yet to demonstrate having about the fundamentals of our laws and their underlying principles.
I'm saying that without that understanding, which are the qualities that make any person, great or not, fit for office, and the lack of which makes anyone, great or not, unfit for office, then unrestrained by those convictions, they are liable, with the very best of intentions, to bring great harm to this nation and/or to our state. and at this point I'm not sure how much more of that we can take.
I'm going to take the next few posts to examine some of the arguments of those who knowingly promote such great candidates, without even themselves knowing or understanding what they will do with those qualities of greatness that they have. I'll also take a look at what some of those candidates have told us about what they believe, in their own words. And at that point, given that that is all we can know about them and their plans, you can decide how great an idea electing them might actually be.
