Manifesto #3: Immigration

Some time ago I read a book by Hernando de Soto called "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West, and Fails Everywhere Else". It's a fascinating read, produced by the President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy headquartered in Lima, Peru. Reading this book is as close to cross-training reading you can find. The implications of his findings in analyzing the question in the title crosses over to any and every conceivable social question out on the market of ideas today.

A key matter he discusses is the tension between the laws passed by policy makers, and the reality of those laws on the ground. To illustrate what kind of chaos can take place when laws don't address the reality the people on the ground face, he conducted a little experiment:

"When I began studying the possibility of giving the poor access to formal property in Peru in the 1980s, every major law firm I consulted assured me that setting up a formal business to access capital would take only a few days. I knew this was true for me and my lawyers, but I had a hunch it was not true for the majority of Peruvians. So my colleagues and I decided to set up a two-sewing-machine garment factory in a Lima shantytown. To experience the process from the point of view of the poor, we used a stop watch to measure the amount of time a typical entrepreneur in Lima would have to spend to get through the red tape. We discovered that to become legal took more than three hundred days, working six hours a day. The cost: thirty-two times the monthly minimum wage."

He conducted other experiments with similar results: to obtain a legal title to a home in Lima, 728 steps; to formalize informal property (in other words, to go from illegal to legal) in the Philippines, 168 steps and between 13-25 years; procedure to gain access to desert land for construction purposes in Egypt, 77 steps, 31 agencies, and between 6-14 years; process to obtain a sales contract following the five-year lease contract in Haiti, 111 steps, 4,112 days.

The list goes on. Faced with such overwhelming odds and ridiculous amounts of red tape and expense, the poor enter into what de Soto calls the "extra-legal market." He goes on, describing how some of these extra-legal markets work, the rules established amongst the participants, etc. He also estimates the value of of the extra-legal market. "By our calculations, the total value of the real estate held but not legally owned by the poor of the Third World and former communist nations is at least $9.3 trillion. This is a number worth pondering: $9.3 trillion is about twice as much as the total circulating US money supply. It is very nearly as much as the total value of all the companies listed on the main stock exchanges of the world's twenty most developed countries...."

All of this value, however, is "dead capital" because the "owners" of it don't have a piece of paper (or, a title/deed) proving they own it, because the process to get that piece of paper is hopelessly out of reach (as demonstrated by the examples given above).

The United States, too, had this problem...back in the 1800's, and de Soto goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the US pulled together all of the varying "extra-legal" markets scattered across the country and developed a unified system of recognizing property. This system was based largely on the reality on the ground, on how things really worked out in the field where the extra-legal markets adapted their own systems to fit their situations.

So, let's bring this to our discussion on immigration. The parallel, here, is obviously the extra-legal practices of people in the market place and the illegal immigrants. The question is, are the current immigrations laws and processes in such a state as to vary greatly from the "reality on the ground"? And if so, then what?

Before we get to answering that, I'd like to frame the broader discussion on immigration, so that we all start on the same page. First, by my estimation, there are three central components or questions to the immigration debate as we know it. 1) how people come into and go out of this country. This, I call the fence on the border issue; 2) migrant labor. Is the work visa system reasonable and accessible?; and 3) what do we, as a nation, do with those who are already here illegally?

I think the maintaining of a secure border, regulating the in-flow and out-flow of people is an obvious need. Otherwise, why have nation states and borders? If you want to argue that there should be no borders anywhere, that's fine, but it doesn't deal with the reality of today, or the near future. Let's stick with the the world order as it is now constituted. And that world order has countries with definable borders. So, yeah, we should secure our borders.

Is the current migrant work visa system meeting our needs as a country, and, correspondingly, the needs of those who want to enter into it? I cannot think of one serious analyst who has looked at this question who thinks our migrant work visa program (especially seasonal migrant visas) is remotely reasonable. Back when I was working on Capitol Hill, my boss was tinkering with this issue, and had me track down a flow chart that represents the process by which a migrant worker could legally enter into the US and begin work. I found one, and as I looked at it (a college educated political scientist), I could not figure out how your average Jose would get from the first box to the last one marked "legal worker." The chart resembled a Rube Godlberg invention.

Now, it wasn't 728 steps of Lima, nor the 4,112 days of Haiti, but it was ridiculous. When I first saw that chart (and I really wish I had a copy for you all to see), I remember thinking, "no wonder so many of them don't even try to do it legally." So, in this second of the three fundamental immigration issues, we are caught in Hernando de Soto's "extra-legal market", where the poor and uneducated give up, and find their own way. Something badly needs to be done here.

Third issue: what do we do with those who are already here? A group of federal government employees (GAO, I think it was) went, literally, out into the fields of labor and asked those working there to raise their hands if they were illegal. 13 million raised their hands and volunteered to a representative of the federal government that they were illegally in our country, working in the fields. Now, if 13 million were bold enough to volunteer that information, how many, do you suppose, didn't raise their hands.

Assuming there was a way to correctly identify all of the 13+ million illegals (huge assumption), do we send them back to their country of origin? Do you think they'll volunteer to go back? Would we have to resort to forced emigration? Does anyone remember the Elian Gonzalez episode? Are we prepared to do that 13+ million more times? And what about the kids with illegal parents who were born here and are, by force of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, citizens of this country. Like the Amendment or not, it is part of the Constitution (again, we can discuss the virtues of tossing that Amendment, but as it currently stands, the reality is that it is law). They are citizens of this country. Do we kick their parents out, but then take care of their kids? If we think paying for their education and health care is expensive, how about parenting them? So, again, what do we do with the 13+ million who are here illegally?

These are three issues that actually have relatively easy answers. The problem is that each of the three issues have their own cheerleaders who won't let any of the other ones get passed and resolved in Congress unless theirs get passed at the same time. That's why we hear the catch phrase "comprehensive immigration reform" so much. We actually weren't that far off from getting the trifecta back in 2008. I recall all of the hysteria about "amnesty/shamnesty". The bill: 1) acknowledged and proposed to devote additional resources to maintaining borders; 2) provided for an overhaul (and fairly simple resolution) to our ancient and cumbersome migrant worker visa bureaucracy; and 3) identified a means whereby our nation could reasonably deal with the 13+ million who are already here (or, at least, the vast majority of them).

Ask me if you want the mind-numbing details on the bill, as I read most of the bill, and actually understood it. The killer in the bill was something known as a "Z-Visa." To understand why the "Z-Visa" was death for the bill, we have to first examine (briefly) the 3rd component of the debate, and the bill's treatment of it. 13+ million illegally here. You can't realistically expect to round them up and send them all back, and the current law disincentives them from volunteering to go back. The folks moving the bill didn't want to grant amnesty in its purest terms (no penalty for being here illegally), because the bill wouldn't get enough votes. However, it had to somehow punish the illegals, while acknowledging the futility of sending them all back. It developed a tiered system of fines for those who would get into the process toward legal status (so, among other things, we'd know who is here, where they are, and what they are doing), and is reserved for those who had otherwise kept their noses clean (other than crossing the border illegally). The proposed fines were stiff for a migrant worker, but not insurmountable.

So, you would either have to jump out of the shadows, pay a fine, and enter into the legal system (beginning at the end of the line), or you'd have to continue dodging workplace immigration raids, deal with a hardened border when you try to sneak back in after deportation, etc. The incentives all pointed the illegal immigrant toward doing the right thing. Much of it assumed that, like de Soto's quandary of the average Jose in Lima, most folks want to do things the legal way if it is at all reasonable. This bill provided a reasonable approach (there are many, many more components to the bill that made me comfortable with it).

However, the Z-Visa was the problem. The Z-Visa allowed someone to acknowledge their illegality, but defer on deciding whether or not they'd pay the fine and get in line, or go home. The Z-Visa allowed someone (possessing this Visa) to legally stay here in perpetuity without having to face up to their crime (crossing the border illegally). That was, indeed, amnesty. That is what killed the bill, and that is why immigration is still a mess. Not sure who stuck that visa into the bill, or what their motivation was (other than to kill the bill), but that bill was solid, minus that Z-Visa.

If you elect me to be your fictional President of the United States in 2012, I will support Congress if they pass a bill similar to the one that died in 2008. It dealt with the border (there's never a permanent solution to this need, but the bill got us heading in the right direction), it modernized the visa system for migrant workers, and it found a pretty good balance between the demands of the rule of law (a penalty for committing a crime) while acknowledging Hernando de Soto's reality on the ground.

As de Soto pointed out, "Even the celebrated Homestead Act of 1862, which entitled settlers to 160 acres of free land simply for agreeing to live on it and develop it, was less an act of official generosity than the recognition of a fait accompli: Americans had been settling - and improving - the land extralegally [insert "illegally"] for decades."

Manifesto #2: The Powers of the Federal Government & the Responsibilities of the People

It could be argued that if any one person in the history of our nation truly understands what the words in the Constitution were intended to mean, empower, and otherwise allow, it would be James Madison. Indeed, Madison is to the Constitution what Thomas Jefferson is to the Declaration: the author.

Of course, he didn't write it in a vacuum. He sat and listened to "tedious and reiterated discussions" on every conceivable facet of governing philosophies, mechanisms, and strategies that was at the disposal of the great (and not so great) minds of the day. He pondered all of these points, took notes on the debates, and put together a summary, of sorts, of the generally agreed upon points - an organized summary otherwise known as the Constitution of the United States.

So, for those who feel that our nation really needs to look back to our roots, rediscover our soul, and cling to the pure principles espoused in our Constitution, one need look no further than the writings of James Madison to truly understand what the Founders had in mind.

But is that vision of the Founders realistic? Can we warp our government and the expectations and demands of our citizens back 200+ years to a time when government did a few things well instead of a lot of things poorly? This is a quest of many on my side of the aisle, and, indeed, the quest of many in the middle.

Back to Madison, for a moment. On March 3, 1817, a bill that had passed both the House and the Senate sat on President James Madison's desk awaiting his endorsing signature. It was "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvement" such as "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several states...."

To the House (from which the bill originated) Madison wrote the following to accompany his veto: "To refer power in question to the clause 'to provide for the common defense and general welfare' would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them."

In other words, Madison was telling Congress that as much as he supports the idea of improving infrastructure in the country, the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to legislate thusly. And without a specific enumerated power, President Madison wasn't going to go along with it.

Can you imagine what our nation would look like if the federal government did not establish the Interstate highway system, establish and maintain navigational channels in rivers, lakes, and ports up and down our coastlines? And if that picture you conjure up in your minds be somehow appealing, do you envision any possible means by which we return to that era of governance, where we dismantle the broad swaths of the federal government that deals with "interstate commerce"?

While we're at it - "it" being the restoration of the governance as the Constitution and its author originally intended it - how about we dissolve the US Marine Corps and US Air Force. I don't recall reading about those two organizations anywhere in the text of the Constitution, or any of its Amendments.

My point is, we have to deal with the government we have today, not the government we may have had 200 years ago. As the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Sure, as you enter into the metaphorical war you'll need to make adjustments, and the government you have will evolve to meet your needs as those needs evolve. So yes, progress can be made to evolve government to focus in on accomplishing a few core missions effectively - rather than running madly in every direction trying earnestly to do everything for everyone, and, in the end, not doing anything well for anyone. But let's not have any of this embarrassingly silly pap about the immediate dismantling of the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a host of other federal agencies who engage in work that you don't see specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's deal with what we can, and see if we can't refine these agency missions, get them to be successful at a few core missions, instead of everything.

But this is not something that I, as your fictional Presidential candidate for 2012, can do all by my lonesome by issuing a barrage of Executive Orders that would make President Clinton blush. Congress, the people you elect directly into office, has the power to legislate, and when they legislate, they tell the agencies to do certain things. I, as President, cannot tell my agencies not to do those things. So, as I sift through the thousands of federal programs that are currently underway, and identify those that are done according to law, and those that are undertaken by choice, I will pluck out those done by choice and determine if they are essential to our core goals. If not, I will toss them.

However, most of these programs spawn from your duly elected Members of Congress. So, I will seek to identify those programs that are not central to the federal government's mission, and refer these programs to you, The People. It will then be your responsibility to persuade your Members of Congress that you no longer wish for these services and programs.

Can I survey the federal government right now and tell you which programs I think can or should be eliminated? Yes. Will I? Maybe, maybe not. If I do, here's what will happen. All the groups (or, constituencies) to these programs will freak out, organize, and trash my good name. They will raise money amongst themselves, run commercial adds telling folks how much good their programs do for this person or that (by the way, I abhor governance by anecdote), and spend a good amount of time convincing you that I beat my wife, cuss at my neighbors, and listen to Cinderalla and Ratt on my Ipod - the Ipod I stole from my 8 year old neighbor.

So why expose myself to all of that when I can be vague and get away with it? Because that's not the kind of fictional campaign I want to run. I expect more out of the people who want to represent me, and I can expect no less than the same from myself.

So, as I ponder the tension between adhering to the Madisonian model of strict adherence to the narrowest of possible interpretations of the Constitution vs. the Rumsfeldian Realism, I will come to you next on a topic that will be sure to fire you up - because no matter who you are and what your beliefs are on this next topic, I have met only 2 or 3 people who have been able to muster the civility to remain...civil whilst talking about it.

Until next time, I appreciate your support of my fictional candidacy!

Manifesto #1: A Return To Basics

Some of you who may follow my Facebook posts will recall that not too long ago, on my 35th birthday, I declared my fictional candidacy for the President of the United States in 2012. Since that time, some have expressed amusement, some horror, and some have quizzically asked what my positions are on various issues.

I have laid before you in this blog, what I believe to be a foundation, or, philosophy that guides me. It is more important, I believe, that you understand how I think, rather than knowing what my position is on specific issues. Because, as we all know, events are fluid, variables to specific events that demand attention and decision making are always ... varying, and it is generally unwise to predetermine what your exact response will be before it happens, and the details bear themselves out. As Ike once said: "Unless circumstances and responsibility demanded an instant judgment I learned to reserve mine until the last proper moment. This was not always popular."

However, I do feel it is altogether reasonable to provide a basic explanation of how I would approach the issues of the day, bearing in mind that I will only give the underlying philosophy that I will use to guide me through issues of general interest.

So, over the course of my fictional candidacy, I will endeavor to issue a number of Manifestos for your amusement and consumption.

*******************************

I begin with an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Quick, does anyone know off the top of their head which article of the Constitution of the United States enumerates the powers of Congress? Does anyone know if a President can author an Act of Congress? Who holds the power of the public treasury, anyway?

These are fundamental questions that very few people (in my estimation) know the answers to. And while I think there is some shame in that, I do not desire to chastise the people at large who can't find Texas on a map. It is my duty to remind the people of some of the basic concepts upon which our government and society functions.

Over the years, I think, it has become easy for elected officials to confuse some of these issues because then it is unclear who the people should blame if something goes wrong.

Who wrote the "No Child Left Behind Act?" Nope, not President Bush. No president can author an Act of Congress. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly leaves legislating to the legisla...tors. A president can propose, draft stuff up, but only a Member of Congress can present a bill before Congress for consideration, and that Member must have his/her name on it. So, who wrote the NCLB? Senator Ted Kennedy. Why all the confusion about President Bush? Because he supported the bill...strongly. He advocated for it, drafted portions of it, but ultimately, he had to hand it over to someone in Congress to author it and propose it. That person was Senator Kennedy. (Now, don't all you Democrats who castigated President Bush for NCLB feel a little sheepish?)

But that's an example of what I'm talking about. A simple principle clearly defined in the Constitution, so clearly fundamental to our form of governance, but somehow obfuscated over the years of muck and murk.

As President, I will seek every opportunity to remind the great citizens of our nation how our government is supposed to work. I will take the events of the day, make decisions, and explain the underlying philosophy motivating my decision, and how my decision is in concert with the fundamental truths of our Republic. That is my promise to you, my fellow Americans.

More to come.

Career Politicians and Bureaucrats

I was reading through the voters pamphlet here in Washington's primaries, and noted that one of the candidates from my side of the aisle wrote the following: "I am proud to say I have no elected experience! I do not believe in career politicians."

As I read that, I think I appreciated the sentiment. Y'know, it's nice to have fresh blood in there, fresh ideas, shake things up a bit, etc. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly a great deal of virtue that can come along with a new face.

That said, I couldn't help but wonder if this candidate would vote against Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, both of whom spent the greater part of their adult lives in elected office or serving as government officials?

Perhaps this rhetorical question is a bit self serving, as I have spent my entire adult career as a public servant. But I have noticed, during that time, that it does come in handy having a handful of legislators and policy makers who know where the washrooms are in the building, and have some institutional memory of what works, what doesn't, and the whys and hows of all of it.

Just a thought.

Author of the Declaration of Independence, and career politician.

Author of the Constitution of the United States, and career politician.




























Author of the Constitution of the United States, and career politician.

Will Conservativism or Liberalism Ever Work?

When pondering the absolute control the Democrats (liberals) had over national policy making (this took place during the period before the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy), I mused at all the different policies they could finally pass and implement since the Republicans (conservatives) didn't have enough votes in the Senate to filibuster, not enough votes in the House to get permission to use the washrooms, and, obviously, didn't have the veto pen.

Of course, that state of affairs (the liberals controlling everything), wouldn't (and didn't) last long, but I liked the academic exercise of considering the what if's: what if the D's not only passed and enacted all of their dream policies on domestic and international fronts, but held control long enough to see the programs fully implemented...and their results.

I try to be honest with myself while musing about this possibility, and was reminded of the following Eisenhower statement: "I have so often been through these periods of strain that I have become accustomed to the fact that most of the calamities that we anticipate really never occur."

With that in mind, I wondered if calamity would really befall our nation if the liberal policies were fully implemented. Then I flipped that question, and inverted it: Would everything be fixed if we passed and implemented conservative policies.

And I must admit, no.

"Why", you may gasp, as you question my conservative street cred under your breath?

Because, while I firmly believe conservative governance is more effective than liberal, and therefor would do a better job governing our nation, I think governance models and structures aren't the root problem.

I believe our root problem is a spiritual one. If the people aren't good (in the simplist terms), perfect laws and programs won't work.

Perhaps a few examples to illustrate my point:

Regulatory (criminal laws): cheating on taxes, assaulting other people (physically or otherwise), steeling or breaking into cars, and violating copyright laws (cds, movies, etc), are all, sadly, common crimes in our society. It would not be a stretch to estimate that if you haven't knowlingly broken common sense laws on mutiple occasions, the person living to the right or left of you has - whether or not they've been caught.

Do we intuitively know that cheating, stealing, and killing (etc.) are wrong? Of course we do. If we adhered to that intuitive (or, spiritual) inclination, we wouldn't need those laws, wouldn't need the cops, judges and lawyers, jails, nor would we need to levy taxes to support all of those institutions.

Administrative (government programs): Primarily targeted at "helping" the people who need help. Medicaid, Social Security, and Head Start (early childhood education), are all examples of programs that succeed or fail in varying degrees. They are all designed to help the needy (needy for health care, needy for financial support in old age, needy for extra help in education).

All of which could be taken care of by the assistance, charity, and generosity of family, friends, and neighbors. But do we take care of our brother's health care needs (that he can't manage himself); do we make room in our homes for our old parents and grandparents; do we invite our struggling neighbor's kids over to our home to do homework with our kids? If we were a spiritually strong, we wouldn't need government programs to take care of needs that can otherwise be taken care of by our individual sacrifice and charity.

I do accept that no matter how spiritually strong a society is, there will probably always be at least some need in that society that requires a collective (government) effort to resolve. But, in general, I would suggest that a spiritually strong society would only have a minimal need for government laws and programs.

Both regulatory (law enforcement) and administrative (programs) efforts in our nation are all put in place in varying degrees to fill needs that arise out of a spiritual deficit. The more government laws and programs we have the more spiritually ill we are. In the absolute sense, the necessity for a government to fill all of these needs equates to the end of days because it represents that the people aren't good, and the spiritual death of the people in that society has already occurred.

(Some would suggest that government or collective efforts to help those in need are not a sign of spiritual failure, but simply another way to meet needs. I would respond that by removing the need for individual acts of charity and involvement, one further erodes the spiritual character of the people in that society.)

Why, then, do I staunchly defend and promote the conservative approach to governance, in contrast to the liberal approach? The answer is clear: because it does not hasten our way to the end of days as described above? It seeks to address the needs of laws and programs to fill needs that arise out of the obvious spiritual deficit that our society is plagued with, but does so...conservatively. It seeks to do it as little as can be judged necessary, seeking purposely to avoid hastening the end of days.

That is why I'm conservative. I acknowledge that conservative laws and programs are ultimately lacking when the people aren't "good." But it is the better alternative to accelerating ourselves to the end (government doing everything) that acknowledges our collective spiritual death.

***************************

7/27/2010

I just spotted this statement by Abraham Lincoln: "From this appears that if all men were just, there still would be need for some, but not much, government." So, at least in one respect, I am in concurrence with someone smart.

The Forest For The Trees

So I read something by the beloved Peggy Noonan that speaks to how the federal government (state governments, and any organization, really) works. Now, I've spent many years working in the federal government, and I think I have an appreciation for its strengths and weaknesses. And Peggy just nailed it.

She said: "But in Washington, agency analysts and experts don't have answers, really. They have product. They have factoids. They have free-floating data. They have dots in a pointillist picture, but they're not artists, they're dot-makers."

For those of you who aren't too familiar with pointillist art, please take a look at this familiar piece of art.

This is "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatte" of Ferris Bueller's Day Off fame. John Hughes (Director of Ferris Bueller) commented on the "Bueller Bueller" edition of the DVD that when Cameron was looking at this painting, with each zoom in, Cameron realized he didn't know what he was looking at (meaning for Cameron = he didn't know himself).

Pointillism is a form of painting where the picture is made of by a bunch of individual dots. If you see a high resolution image of this photo (or watch Ferris Bueller again), you'll see that there are a bunch of dots that make up this wonderful work of art.

It has been my observation that bureaucrats (or, worker bees) in federal agencies are highly dedicated and very skilled at creating their assigned dot. They are (in most cases) absolutely dedicated to making the best darned dot possible. And, they often do. Periodically, you will find some folks who can do their dot, and have the ability to look at all the others and see what's going on (you'd hope that the higher you go up in the organizational flow chart, the higher percentage of these types will be found).

But, as Ms. Noonan points out, at some point, the leader (or, folks at the top) can look at all the dots and understand what they really mean.

Herein we find the flaw of relying on reports put together by special commissions, blue ribbon panels, and agency experts. They gather the dots, put them on the canvas, then leave it up to the folks who appointed them to interpret them. If the appointers are hoping the experts will come up with answers, the war is lost before the experts are able to undertake their assignment.

The appointers (our metaphorical artists) are the leaders. They must look, study, and lead.

Is The Other Side Really Evil?

Buried within an article on the tussle in DC over the looming financial regulatory legislation is the following quote: “It's obvious that the Republicans are saying 'no' again to progress for America,” Reid said.

Really?!?

Now, setting aside, for a moment, the source of the quote and the target of the criticism, does anyone (other than party hacks who see horns protruding from the foreheads of folks in the other party) really believe that the Republicans are against “progress for America”? Do those of us on the R side of the aisle really think that the D’s are against progress for America? Are we stuck in that childish mindset that everyone who disagrees with us (on financial regulatory frameworks, for example) must be a 1-deminsional evil troll?

I would suggest that, no, in fact, most folks who reside on one side or the other of the political spectrum do not believe that the other side is rooting for the demise of America. Now, we may believe that the policies and methods embraced by the other side may inadvertently lead to the demise of America and the end of the world as we know it, but I don’t think many of us believe that the end of the world is the goal of most folks on the other side.

So, then, who the heck does Mr. Reid think he is fooling when he makes such a statement? Do they really think that the people who take the time to read their quotes in The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. are dumb enough to believe that their Republican neighbor (the same one you have neighborhood BBQs with, your children go to Cub Scouts together, you hold lengthy conversations on the merits of a push mower versus a riding mower); do you really think that your Republican neighbor (or your D neighbor, if you’re an R) is doing everything in his power to destroy our nation? ...On purpose? You don’t think Steve, with whom you carpool up to the mountain for a weekend ski trip, is that evil, do you?

No? Then why do we speak in such terms? Why do we put up with our political leaders when they do so? Why can’t we insist that Harry Reid (and others) say something like this instead: “We believe our policy initiatives will lead to greater prosperity for our good country, and respectfully disagree with our colleagues who have different ideas on how to accomplish this goal.”

I suppose it’d be difficult to expect our elected representatives to use such congenial language if we, ourselves, don’t bother to do the same.

If we peer across the fence line at the neighbor with that yard sign and those bumper stickers, consider the swirling talk of conspiracy taking place in his den; wondering if the Jell-O mold brought in by their friends for the pot luck isn’t hiding secret documents about how to spread disinformation and discontent throughout the neighborhood; if all of that is going through our heads when our neighbors of different political parties walk by, and we vocalize these deep-seeded suspicions over the dinner tables with our families, or grumble about those denizens from Hades on the nightly news - how is it, then, that we can expect our elected leaders to do any less than the same?

It all makes me tired when I hear remarks like those of Senator Reid’s, today.

Is it possible that the folks in the other party aren’t evil incarnate? Is it possible that perhaps, just perhaps, they really are trying to do something good? Yeah, yeah, they’re going about it all wrong, and if they’re successful in implementing their ill-conceived plans the nation might actually suffer from it. But is it possible that they are simply mistaken, rather than pure evil? Because, let’s be honest, if you’re an American and you hope, plot, and seek for the end of America, you are evil. There’s not a whole lot of middle ground, there.

But I don’t suspect these folks are evil. I think they’re wrong, misguided, perhaps even stupid, but not evil. Of the 535 member of Congress, probably 3 or 4 are truly evil (I’m basing this on the law of averages, not on any Member in particular. I think it a mighty risky business judging another person’s soul). The others are either dumb, wrong, or just misguided.

But rather than giving the souls of the opposition the benefit of the doubt and delicately (or bluntly) stating that the R’s are incorrect in their policy positions, Harry Reid cast the wide net and called them all evil.

Thank you, Mr. Senator. Takes one to know one.