Review of the Mitt Romney Netflix Documentary

Last night I finally had the opportunity to take advantage of some of the insomnia that I've been experiencing as of late by watching the Netflix original documentary, "Mitt," which highlights the ups and downs of the Mitt Romney presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012.

The documentary, which chronicles the personal moments of the Romney circle, attempts to provide audiences with a "rare intimate look" into how Romney and his family balanced their political aspirations with their personal convictions.  We see Mitt and family kneeling together in prayer, thanking God for the blessings they have been given.  We see Mitt and family huddled together in various hotel rooms, critiquing speeches and preparing for debates.  We see Mitt and family dealing with the realities of lost campaigns.  In short, we see Mitt and family face the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

But the main point is this: we see MITT AND FAMILY!

If one thing is clear from this documentary, it is the fact that Mitt Romney is a family man.  For good or for bad, Mitt placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on what his family thought and felt about his running for president, along with their advise during the campaign.  There is a very real and genuine bond between family members that doesn't feel forced or simply for show.  The genuine love and devotion of the Romney family is, without question, the most striking aspect (at least for me) of this documentary.

Second only to his devotion to family, it is the authenticity of Mitt Romney the man that comes across most in this film.  The public image that is Mitt Romney is replete with examples of him as a "flip-flopper" and a "detached white man" who doesn't understand the needs of the masses. Whether or not you believe these stereotypes is irrelevant because what this documentary enforces is the fact that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  I was struck by the fact that Mitt's public character was, in many respects, identical to his private persona.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe what he said during his campaigns.  To some, this will serve as proof that Romney is a man of good character; for others it is another reason to be glad he lost the election.

And though Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe and stand by his moral and political opinions, he doesn't do so without a sense of reservation.  The documentary presents a number of occasions in which Mitt and family doubt their chances of winning, and even seem happy at the prospect of returning to "normal life."  On at least two occasions in the film, Mitt refers to himself as a "flawed candidate" who "cannot win."  In addition, Mitt and family seem to lack the killer mentality that is so necessary in a national campaign.  They do not support the "win at all costs" mentality and even seem mortified when they discover the back door dealings of other candidates (when former Florida Governor Charlie Crist breaks his word and endorses John McCain you see the Romney family's collective stomach begin to churn at the alleged betrayal).

The film also highlights the fact that Mitt Romney and family were both impressed and intimidated of Senator/President Barack Obama.  Time and time again, Romney comments on how Obama had "changed the game" and that he was "clearly a step ahead of everyone else."  When John McCain insists that the strategy to beating Obama would be to highlight his inexperience with foreign policy, Romney accurately decried such a strategy as a surefire way to lose.  During the 2012 campaign, Romney and family seem awestruck at the prospect of sharing the debate stage with the President, even though they sincerely believed that Obama's policies were bad for America.  

Through all of the campaigning, speeches, debates, etc., Mitt reveals a man who is torn between two worlds: his desire to serve his country in its highest office v. his desire to serve his family and his God. This introspective tug-o-war creates both confidence and hesitance for the Romney campaign. They detest Obama's politics but cannot help but admire and even be intimidated of the President. They see the problems within the GOP but cannot break free of them.  As a result, Mitt Romney finds himself in the middle of a war he cannot win.

The film concludes with the Romney family, huddled together in a hotel room, once again facing the realities of another lost campaign.  They do so with remarkable poise and even gratitude.  One can only wonder if a part of them was glad they had lost the election.  Mitt and Ann Romney then return home, together, refusing the aid of Secret Service agents.  The final scene also feels as though Mitt and Ann had never campaigned in the first place, as they sit next to one another in their living room, reflecting on what had transpired and on the uncertainty that lies ahead.

In short, the Netflix documentary, Mitt is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of the man.  If you loved him before, you will love him even more.  If you disliked Mitt during the campaign, you will probably find more reasons to continue disliking him.  But what the film does do is prove once and for all that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney is not a pretender.  He's a genuine family man who loves his God, his country, his heritage and his posterity.  Mitt Romney was probably right when he called himself a "flawed candidate" but I believe he is also an honorable man, and this is coming from somebody who wasn't a fan of the "flawed candidate."

My final grade for Netflix's Mitt: B+.  It is worth the time to watch it.

Presidential 2nd Terms: Why Are They Such a Mess?

The past few weeks have been a tough one for President Barack Obama.  Issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), particularly the inefficacy of the new website, coupled with the extremely low number of registrants, have created a perfect storm for what has been one of the President's primary achievements while in office.  The long fight to improve health care for American citizens has actually come back to bite the President in a very real and dramatic way.

Such is the case with two-term U.S. Presidents.  For whatever reason, history shows that most (though certainly not all) two-term presidents experience their greatest difficulties during the second half of their time in office.  In this respect, President Obama's struggles are hardly unique.  In fact, they are relatively mild in many respects.  Let's take a look at some of the struggles that have plagued many of our nation's presidents who have had the luxury of serving two terms:

George Washington: Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, even America's "indispensable man" as John Adams called him, faced difficulty and scorn during his second term.  As our nation's first president, if fell to Washington to set many of the precedents that the infant U.S. Republic would be required to adopt.  One of these precedents had to do with economic security and prosperity.  In the wake of the American Revolution, the U.S. faced an important crossroad: align its economic and trade interests with the French, who had, of course, been incredibly helpful during America's fight for independence, or, as crazy as it sounded to many, side with Great Britain, their former enemy and mother country.  Long story short, Washington, at the urging of Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to negotiate a deal that created an economic alliance between England and the United States.  What became known as the "Jay Treaty" proved to be an incredibly important and successful economic alliance that dramatically benefited both the United States and Great Britain.  As Historian Joseph Ellis points out in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Founding Brothers:

The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England instead of France...as being the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic (136-137).

And though it proved to be a long-term blessing, the Jay Treaty was not popular among the American populace.  Protests and rebellions broke out over what many saw as a "sell out" to their former enemy.  Even Thomas Jefferson called the Jay Treaty "the downfall of the American Republic."  For Washington, the criticism over the Jay Treaty was a low point that, in many respects, forced him out of politics once and for all. Even America's greatest hero, who repelled scorn like Teflon, was not above reproach.

Thomas Jefferson: In December, 1807, President Thomas Jefferson, who had enjoyed a relatively peaceful and prosperous first term in office, received news from his British and French ambassadors that troubled him greatly.  The on-again, off-again, on-again conflict between France and Britain had reached a boiling point, placing American trade interests at risk. Napoleon made it clear that he would stop any American merchant ship bound for British shores, and the British made the same threat for any ship bound for France.  This, of course, angered American merchants who stood to lose a great deal from this European conflict.

Instead of attempting to defend American shipping interests or trying to negotiate some sort of a deal with Britain and/or France, Jefferson (through Congress) passed the Embargo Act, which essentially grounded all American trading.  For President Jefferson, who saw the Embargo Act as "a means for keeping our ships and seamen out of harm's way," the move proved to be the greatest blunder of his presidency.  Jefferson believed that the Embargo Act would put pressure on both the French and British economy, who both benefited and enjoyed the goods that came from American commerce.  Jefferson was wrong.  British and French merchants simply went elsewhere throughout Europe to make up for the difference.  In the end, the only loser was the United States.  Needless to say, American merchants held Jefferson responsible for the blunder.

Ulysses S. Grant: Though President Grant suffered from the loss of some of his supporters, his quest for a second term proved to be relatively easy.  As the hero of the Civil War, Grant held tremendous appeal and despite some allegations of corruption within his cabinet, most Americans believed the President deserved a second term.  Once inaugurated for the second time, however, President Grant faced quite the storm.  The Panic 1873, which was sparked by the fall of the Northern Pacific Railway, sent ripples throughout the American economy.  Grant's ignorance of economic policy only exacerbated matters and led to a 5-year industrial depression.  In addition, the ongoing scandals and allegations of corruption within his cabinet grew to an unprecedented level. And though Grant was never implicated (and was likely never involved) in most of the corruption that plagued his cabinet, the brunt of the responsibility fell at his desk.  Grant's second term in office proved to be extremely problematic and highly ineffective.

Woodrow Wilson: At the conclusion of the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity to create an international coalition that could prevent the atrocities that had nearly crippled Europe from ever happening again.  The League of Nations, which Wilson vehemently believed was in America's best interests, became an important cause during his second term in office. The only problem is that Republicans in Congress opposed American membership in the LoN and favored neutrality.  Wilson campaigned passionately in favor of American involvement in the LoN. He tirelessly toured the country, giving speeches and working out compromises with members of Congress.  Wilson worked so hard that he eventually had a stroke in September of 1919, which dramatically limited his ability to defend his position on the LoN.  Unfortunately for Wilson, Congress voted against joining the League of Nations; a failure that Wilson believed would plunge Europe into war yet again.  He proved to be right.

Harry Truman: As the man who coined the phrase, "The Buck Stops Here," Truman was forced to swallow the very difficult pill that was the Korean War during his second term in office. The escalation of the conflict, which eventually led to nothing more than a glorified stalemate, was laid almost exclusively at Truman's feet.  Truman's passionate belief that the "world must be protected from the evils of Soviet communism" convinced the President that the cost of war was worth the price and loss of life.  Truman's decision to remove General Douglas MacArthur, a decision that was extremely unpopular with the American public, caused the President's approval ratings to plummet.  The frustrating stalemate in Korea, which led to the deaths of over 30,000 American troops, proved to be too much for Truman, who saw approval ratings as low as 22% during his second term in office.

Lyndon Johnson: It was on Johnson's watch that American involvement in the Vietnam War was escalated to an unprecedented level.  Johnson, who like many previous presidents, believed in the "Domino Theory" (the notion that if one nation fell to Communism others would as well), felt that American involvement in Vietnam was essential for the containment of Communism.  As the body count began piling up, Johnson eventually came to see his insistence on victory in Vietnam as an unavoidable curse that plagued his second term.  As he stated:

I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved...if I left that war and let the Communists take over, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser, and we would find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe. 

Richard Nixon: Watergate.  Need I say more?

Ronald Reagan: With his absolute annihilation of Walter Mondale in the Election of 1984, President Reagan appeared to be sailing calm seas during his second term in office.  In the summer of 1985 all of that would change.  The sale of illegal arms to Iran and the funding of Nicaraguan Contras became a scandal that Reagan was never able to shake.  The Iran-Contra Affair became a black stain on a presidency that had, for the most part, been seen as a success.  Reagan's second term also brought with it a $1 trillion dollar increase to the national debt.  This was an additional black eye for a president who had insisted that "Reaganomics" would reduce the national deficit.

Bill Clinton: As the first president in over 50 years to leave behind a debt surplus, most would think that Clinton's second term would be a celebrated success.  Only one problem: Monica Lewinsky.  As we all know, the President was ousted in front of the entire world for being a liar and a cheat.  The Lewinsky scandal eventually led to the Clinton Impeachment Hearings, which were a tremendous blemish and embarrassment on a presidency that had otherwise been successful.  As Clinton himself later stated: "I fought two battles during my presidency: a political and a personal.  I won the former but lost the latter."

George W. Bush: With his successful bid for a second term secure, President Bush believed that the success of the military surge in Iraq would prove to vindicate his decision to take the nation to war in that part of the world.  He was wrong.  In addition, federal response to Hurricane Katrina, which proved to be highly ineffective, fell at the feet of President W.  And if this wasn't enough, the financial collapse and subsequent bailout of 2008 let to George W. Bush receiving the lowest approval rating numbers of any standing president in American history.

Of course, not every two-term president faces difficulties.  And it is just as certain that one-term presidents face severe trials as well.  But for whatever reason, the "Second-term Curse" seems to be a real phenomenon.  One can only wonder what would be the legacy of Abraham Lincoln had he served a complete second term.  Perhaps he wouldn't be seen as the hero he is today.

In the end, the "Second-term Curse" proves that President James K. Polk (arguably the most successful one-term president ever) may have been right when he said: "If you cannot accomplish everything you want as president in one term, then perhaps you aren't fit for the job."

Final Predictions for Tuesday's Election

After months of campaigning and speculation, after millions of dollars spent, after all the debates, commercials and bickering of pundits on both ends, the Presidential Election of 2012 is about to come to an end (thankfully!).  It has been a close race.  At times, Obama looked like he would sail easily into a second term.  But just when the race looked over before it started, Mitt Romney made a game of it and began to contend (and even lead) in a number of important states.  Bottom line: this has been a close and entertaining race for quite some time.  Both candidates have a decent shot of walking away with this thing.

With that being said, all good things must come to an end.  Come Tuesday, America will either have a new President-Elect, or will be looking forward to another four years with Barack Obama at the helm.  So, without further delay, here is my FINAL PREDICTION for Tuesday's presidential election:

***This is an hour-by-hour breakdown of how I believe the night will go.  All times are Eastern Standard Time***

-------------------------------------------------

7:00 p.m.:
Polls close in six states (Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, and the first battleground state of the night: Virginia).  Five of the six states will be declared almost immediately, giving Romney the early lead.  Virginia will take a while before a winner is declared.  It will also be our earliest indication as to how the night might go.  In the end, I think Romney will win the state, but if he wins by more than a few percentage points it might be an indication that he could have a big night.  If, however, Obama wins Virginia, I think it might foreshadow bad news for the GOP. 

After the first hour, I have Romney leading 44-3, with Virginia still yet to be decided.  Too close to call.

7:30 p.m:
Polls close in three states (North Carolina, West Virginia, and the ALL IMPORTANT Ohio). West Virginia will be the only state to be called right after the polls close (for Romney).  North Carolina and Ohio will still be too close to call.  It will take a while before a winner is decided.

By 7:30, I still have Romney leading 49-3.  Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina still too close to call.

8:00 p.m.:
This is the hour when we will finally get a good idea of what things are going to look like.  Polls close in sixteen states, including the important swing states of Florida and New Hampshire, thereby giving us at least 1/3 of all the Electoral College map.  Romney will easily grab Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, while Obama finally takes his first "real" bite of the map, grabbing Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and (perhaps a bit late) Michigan.  Obviously, Florida and New Hampshire will be too close to call at this point.

At the close of the second hour, Romney still leads 130-107, with Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Ohio all too close to call.   

8:30 p.m.:
Polls close in Arkansas, adding to Romney's lead.  136-107 Romney at this point.

9:00 p.m.:
Polls close in 14 more states, including swing states Colorado and Wisconsin.  Romney snags Kansas, North and South Dakota, Arizona, Louisiana, and Wyoming, while Obama closes the gap by winning Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin (which may be a bit late). Colorado is still too close to call. 

At the end of hour three we have a virtual tie, Romney leading 170-169. (Or Romney 170-159 if Wisconsin is still too close to call -- but will eventually go for Obama in my opinion).

10:00 p.m.:
Polls close in six more states, including swing states Iowa and Nevada.  Romney easily takes Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and Montana, while the President wins (albeit a little late) Nevada and Iowa (which also may be too close to call for at least a while). 

In addition, I believe that by 10:00 we will have Virginia and North Carolina declared for Mitt Romney, while Obama will claim New Hampshire.

We are late into the evening and Mitt Romney still leads 216-203.

11:00 p.m.:
The final states of the west close their polls, all going for Barack Obama.  California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii aren't even contests, and Barack Obama takes his first lead of the night, jumping ahead 263-216.

Key swing states: Florida, Ohio and Colorado are still too close to call, but it is getting close!

12:00 a.m.:
The final state (Alaska) closes its polls, giving Romney 3 more votes.  Obama still leads 263-219.

And finally, late into the evening, the three remaining and all-important swing states (Colorado, Florida and Ohio) are declared. Mitt Romney claims Florida, while Barack Obama takes Ohio and Colorado.  The night is over, and Barack Obama wins reelection, 290-248.

Interestingly enough, if we gave Mitt Romney Ohio, Barack Obama would still win (272-266).  In other words, if Mitt Romney is going to win, he better take some additional states earlier on in the evening (perhaps Wisconsin, Iowa or New Hampshire?).

There you have it.  It takes the whole night, but I am predicting that Barack Obama wins a second term in the White House.  He edges out Romney by 42 electoral votes (and an even closer popular vote).  It will be a close night, but unfortunately for Mitt, I don't see him coming out on top.  Maybe I will be wrong, but I think he has a tough road to the White House.  Close isn't enough.  But if he does win, it will be because Romney picks up a couple of additional key states.  Those key states, in order of importance (bold states I am predicting for Romney), are:

1.) Ohio
2.) Florida
3.) Colorado
4.) Virginia
5.) Wisconsin
6.) Iowa
7.) New Hampshire

Romney MUST pick up at least a couple of the states (not bolded) on this list. If he doesn't, Obama is virtually guaranteed the White House.  The easiest scenario: Romney wins Ohio and New Hampshire.  That would give him 270 exactly. 

In addition, I believe there are two states to watch that could serve as a "barometer" of sorts for how the night might go: Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  N.C. is likely to go for Romney (it is the most conservative of the swing states), but Obama carried it in 2008.  If Obama wins N.C., it could indicate that the night is likely to go his way big time.  Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could be a good indicator for Romney.  The state hasn't gone red in almost 25 years, but Romney has made things competitive there over the past couple of weeks.  If he were to somehow win (though unlikely) that would be a huge (death) blow to Obama.  But if he is even relatively close (within a couple of percentage points) it could mean that Romney will be a bigger competitor than previously thought.  Keep your eyes on those two states for sure.

So, with all of that said, enjoy election night!  There really is nothing like watching history unfold before your eyes!  And make no mistake, that is what Tuesday is all about.  Take it all in and enjoy it!   
And now...finally...NO MORE CAMPAIGN ADS!!!!!

At least for a little while.

50 days until CHRISTMAS!!!

A 269-269 Electoral Tie?!?

So ONCE AGAIN I have fallen off the blogging wagon and allowed yet another month to pass without posting any material.  To my millions (or perhaps 3-4) of readers I apologize.  Sometimes life gets a little busy.

With September's twilight and the dawn of Fall upon us, Americans all across this nation prepare for yet another election season that is sure to bring all of the drama, suspense and intrigue of elections past.  As predicted, we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and even my beloved homes state of Colorado are all still very much in the cross hairs of both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, who are making their final pleas to those few remaining undecided voters.  And since each of these states carry with them the few remaining and very precious Electoral College votes that may send their respective campaigns over the top, it is no wonder why both candidates are spending so much time and resources to win those votes.  Both parties know that each and every electoral vote counts, hence the haste in trying to acquire as many as possible in order to attain the magic number of 270.  The first one to the top of that mountain gets the White House!

But what happens if the election ends in an Electoral College tie? What happens if neither candidate reaches 270 but instead we have a 269-269 Electoral College tie?

Most Americans incorrectly assume that the popular vote would somehow determine the outcome, or that a second election would be held.  Makes sense, right?

WRONG!

The reality is that a 269-269 Electoral College tie could end up causing one helluva mess. 

It is the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides us with much of the script to this drama.  But instead of regurgitating the words of this amendment (which are somewhat confusing), let us instead take a look at the 2012 election and how a 269-269 tie might play out.

If on November 6th, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney end in an Electoral College stalemate, the first course of action will be to ensure the votes of the various state electorates.  This is a bit confusing so let me explain.  In the Electoral College system, each state is assigned a certain number of "electors" based on the state's population (Colorado, for example, has 9).  Each elector is essentially one vote out of a total possible 538.  In order to become president, a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes (the majority).  In most states, the winner of the popular vote wins the state's assigned electors.  So, if on November 6th Mitt Romney were to win Colorado's popular vote, he would be assigned all of Colorado's 9 Electoral College votes.  Seems simple enough, right?

Not quite.  The problem is that some states have laws that allow their electors to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.  Most states have created laws that prohibit an elector from changing his//her vote from the will of the people, but not all states.  In 1968, for example, one North Carolinian elector changed his vote from Richard Nixon to George Wallace, though the change had zero outcome on that election.  But if an election were to end in a tie (like we are assuming here with Obama and Romney) it is at least possible that one single electorate (one person) from a state without these laws could determine the presidency.  Crazy: yes.  Unlikely: yes.  Impossible: Nope.

With that said, it is highly doubtful that one elector would determine the outcome of the entire election.  What is more likely is that the 12th Amendment would come into play.  What the 12th Amendment states, in the event of an Electoral College tie, is that the new House of Representatives would convene on January 6th to cast their votes for the next President, while the Senate would determine the next vice President.  Now, most political analysts believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012, while the Democrats will maintain the Senate.  For the sake of argument I am going to assume that both of these outcomes will take place on election day.  In consequence, it is therefore likely for us to assume that the House of Representatives would elect Mitt Romney as the next President, while the Senate would elect Joe Biden as vice President.  Simple partisan politics would determine the election, and we would be left with a Romney/Biden White House.

Except there is one small wrench in this whole equation.  In a normal situation, voting in the House of Representatives is done by giving each state representative one vote.  In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie, however, the voting is not representative-based but state-based.  In other words, California (which has 55 electoral votes, meaning 53 seats in the House) would not have 53 votes for the next president but rather 1 vote.  Let's put this into a practical example so it makes more sense:

If Obama and Romney end in a tie and the House ends up voting for the new president, all of California's 53 representatives would vote on who the state of California would support for President.  And since most of California's representatives are Democrats, it is logical to conclude that California would go for Obama.  With that said, Wyoming, which only has 1 representative in the House (a Republican), would also vote (likely Republican) and would have just as much say as California.  The size and representation of a state means nothing in this process.  One state: one vote. 

But here's the REALLY messy part:

Let us assume that Iowa goes for Mitt Romney in the General Election.  Iowa's representation in the House consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  If Iowa's representatives had to vote in this scenario, would they go with the will of their people who had elected Romney?  Or would they stay loyal to their party and elect Obama, since they have the majority (3 Democrats)?  This type of scenario is present in at least 6 other states.

In addition, it is important to note here that if a state has an equal number of representatives, and their voting results in a tie, that state forfeits its vote on the next president.   

One more tidbit: if the vote in the House of Representatives ends in a tie (or gridlock), the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an interim, two-year president from their V.P. selection.  And since it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, we can logically say that in this scenario, Joe Biden would become the two-year interim President. 

But what if the Senate vote ended in a tie?  Well, as we all remember from Civics, 101, there is only one person who can cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senatorial tie: the vice President.  In other words, Joe Biden himself (the current V.P.) could, theoretically, vote for himself to become the next V.P. or (if it came to that) the next (and first) interim President of the United States.  That's right; Joe Biden (and an outside possibility of Paul Ryan) could, theoretically, become President of the United States if we have an Electoral College tie.  Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment, people.  Read it and weep. 

So how did we end up with a ridiculous system like this in the first place? We have our beloved Founding Fathers to thank for this nightmare. 

In the Presidential Election of 1800, incumbent John Adams squared off against his one-time friend turned foe, Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was able to barely edge out John Adams by winning 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  The problem, however, was that electors in those days had 2 votes instead of one.  As a result, the 73 electors for Jefferson also casted a second vote for party ally Aaron Burr, who also received 73 votes.  Originally Burr was propped up to become Jefferson's V.P. selection, and one of the electors was to withhold his vote from Burr, thereby giving Jefferson the win.  This did not happen, and Jefferson was forced into an unforeseen and uncomfortable standoff with his would-be vice President, Aaron Burr. 

Long story short, Jefferson's election to the presidency was eventually determined in the House but not without a long fight from Burr, who tried to take advantage of his accidental nomination.  It was only after months of  political negotiation that Jefferson supporters, championed by one Alexander Hamilton (who, strangely enough, disliked Jefferson but detested Burr even more), were able to garner enough votes to secure the nomination for Jefferson.  And to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, our wise Founding Fathers gave is the very messed up smorgasbord that is the 12th Amendment.  Hamilton and Burr went on to add further fuel to their already hot feud, which eventually culminated in their now infamous and, for Hamilton, deadly duel.  Jefferson went on to comple two terms and became immortalized as one of this nation's greatest presidents and statesmen. 

But none of that solves the current potential predicament that we face with each future presidential election.  The looming possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie brings with it the horrors of what would undoubtedly be the most bitter, divisive and ugly political dialogue since the Civil War.  Why we aren't proactive and choose to find a better solution is beyond me.  But, as a fan of uber-ridiculous political drama, I also must concede that a 269-269 tie would make for some great must see T.V.  The 12th Amendment helped to calm the political tensions of the late 18th/early 19th century.  Only time will tell if it ends up creating a new mess for us in the 21st century. 

My Take on Mitt Romney Choosing Paul Ryan for V.P.

This seemed like as good a time as any to get back into the blogging swing of things...

Today it appears that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney will proclaim to the world that Paul Ryan is his choice for vice President. Let me first say that I'm not the political junkie I once was. For me, American politics has lost a lot of its former luster and interest. I've simply grown tired of the predictable script that both Democrats and Republicans (and even Independents) act out, and the unavoidable doomsday rhetoric that both pundits and the populace seem to embrace without even attempting to engage in the smallest measure of communal discourse. This now boring apocalyptic tug-o-war has worn me out to the point that I am forced to agree with the words of Winston Churchill, who aptly stated:

The best argument against a democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Amen. To be honest, I don't care who wins the 2012 election. Honestly. It means very little to me. Of course, you may think to yourself that my view is jaded or downright cynical and that's fine. I have no need to explain myself. I feel the way I feel and I am comfortable with it. With that said, I do offer up the following critique of Mr. Romney's selection, if for nothing more than to get back into the blogging flow, spark a meaningful discussion and illustrate that my disgust with American politics isn't based in ignorance, but rather on a healthy aversion to the lazy, boring and oftentimes stupid manner in which Americans (both on the left and the right) conduct their political affairs.

So, without further delay, here are my Paul Ryan pro’s and con’s:

Pros:

1.) “It’s the economy, stupid.” Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals the fact that he has chosen to go all in with the message of austerity and deficit reduction. This is a strong message that does have large appeal with many voters, especially in the wake of America’s financial struggles. Ryan has been a passionate advocate for a dramatic reduction in spending, and his nomination to the V.P. signals that the Romney campaign intends to go full speed ahead with its message that President Obama’s economic policies have failed. This will be their singular message, and I believe they intend to ride this horse all the way to November.  All the eggs are officially in one basket.

2.) Paul Ryan will energize the conservative base. There is no doubt that the Tea Party crowd loves this guy. He’s a skilled hunter, a conservative “number cruncher,” a vocal opponent to all things Obama, a fitness buff and a die-hard Green Bay Paker’s fan. =)

3.) Paul Ryan could deliver some battleground states in the Great Lakes region. Aside from possibly swinging Wisconsin to the red, Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals that he has decided bank on the Great Lakes region as a plausible road to the White House.  Can Ryan help to deliver Michigan? How might this pick help to influence neighboring battleground states like Iowa and Ohio? Hard to say, but it is clear that this is the region of the country that will become most important to the Romney/Ryan ticket.

4.) Youth and Energy.  Paul Ryan’s youth and energy will reinvigorate a race that has been sinking. Let’s face it; the Romney campaign has been losing steam and taking on water all summer. Romney simply isn’t the most appealing guy to average American voters. The same cannot be said for his younger and more energetic running mate...at least not yet. Paul Ryan has been known for his competitive streak, his high level of energy and his lack of fear when squaring off with more seasoned political opponents. Ryan is a fitness buff.  He's a P90X, Crossfit junkie. His energy level alone will invigorate this campaign.  Might this be the shot in the arm that the Romney camp needs?

Cons:

1.) Goodbye Florida. Choosing Paul Ryan has made it increasingly unlikely that Mitt Romney will carry arguably the most important swing state of the past 40 years. Though Ryan’s message of deficit reduction is quite popular with conservative voters, his quest to transform and cut Medicare is going to anger older voters. This may very well be the single biggest negative that Paul Ryan will bring to the Romney ticket. How they will convince a large and very important voting block (especially in Florida) is going to be one hell of a challenge.

2.) Women Voters. One of Romney’s biggest hurdles has been the gender gap. Simply put, Obama is destroying him when it comes to the ladies. And though picking Paul Ryan is going to please most conservative men, this doesn’t help him in any way with the growing divide he has with women.  Most "experts" were expecting Romney to pick somebody that would help in this area.  Paul Ryan doesn't seem to fit that bill.

3.) Lack of Experience. This almost always seems to be an issue with at least one of the vice Presidential candidates.  It is certainly true that Paul Ryan has emerged as a shining star for fiscal conservatives, but this is pretty much all Ryan can list on his resume. Paul Ryan has no experience outside of representing his district and has received few accolades for anything outside of the financial arena (and on this he is not popular with moderates and liberals). While Romney and Ryan will likely be very strong on issues relating to the economy, it is also just as likely that Obama and Biden will be dominant on any issues relating to foreign policy, defense, social issues, etc.

4.) A Mormon, a Catholic and Image Issues. Maybe I am making more of this than I should, but are Evangelical voters really going to get excited about a Mormon/Catholic ticket? I realize that Evangelical voters loved Rick Santorum (a Catholic as well) but there is a different feel when it comes to Ryan. Of course, Ryan isn't the religious zealot that Santorum is, and maybe this is a positive for Romney.  But are people going to worry about Roman popes and Utah prophets secretly getting involved with Washington politics? It’s not that crazy of a suggestion, as many voters have posed these concerns in the past. I’m not saying I share them, only that some voters do. In addition, I think that the Romney/Ryan ticket may have some image problems. Are voters really going to respond to a couple of private sector, business-loving White guys in expensive suits talking about money all day? Only time will tell.

Either way this plays out, I am intrigued by Romney’s choice. Paul Ryan is a bold selection, and for a man who has been anything but bold throughout his campaign, maybe the change will be good medicine for the Romney ticket. Most were expecting Romney to pick an “established” candidate; somebody who could possibly deliver Ohio (Rob Portman) or Florida (Marco Rubio), or even help bridge the gender gap (Condoleezza Rice), but Romney went another direction. As a result, this election is going to be about one big thing: THE ECONOMY!  The political battle lines have been very clearly drawn.  Romney/Ryan will be a ticket that presents itself as the embodiment of fiscal conservatism and smaller deficit spending that opposes all things Obama. Will the message resonate? Can Romney win without Florida? Can he overcome the gender gap?  I don’t know but I do think that 2012 will be closer than 2008.

As far as a V.P. pick goes, I have to tip my hat to Mitt Romney.  I think this was a smart political move. Sure, he could have picked a woman or somebody who could help with an important battleground state, but when you think of what you want from a vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan delivers.  Energize the base: check.  Capacity to deliver strong speeches on key divisive issues: check.  Ability to stand up against political opponents: check.  Help to make clear distinctions and alternatives to those of your opponent: check.  This was a smart move politically for Mitt Romney.  Paul Ryan is not the high risk, high reward pick...er...DEBACLE that Sarah Palin was for John McCain.  Does he have what it takes to step into the big, national arena? We're all about to find out.  Ryan is a smart and very politically savvy individual who has shown in the past that he has no fear of going toe-to-toe with Obama.  Paul Ryan is also a self-made, hard working figure with blue collar roots, who will help to alleviate at least some of the attention directed at Mitt Romney for being just another out of touch rich guy.   

But in the end, I still have to give the edge to President Barack Obama. Mitt Romney's general lack of appeal, coupled with his reputation as a flip-flopper, are major hurdles facing his campaign.  And a V.P. candidate, no matter how solid, can only do so much.  Romney still faces an uphill road.  Incumbents are, historically, hard to beat.  My prediction: Obama wins reelection by an Electoral College score of 298-240.

But hey, I’m still holding out hope for that elusive 269-269 tie, which would be an AWESOME mess! Oh, and it’s a future blog post that is coming up in a few weeks. What would happen in the event of a 269-269 tie?

Stay tuned.

Jon McNaughton: Bringing Hate to a Canvas Near You

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are probably well aware of just how polarized American politics has become. It seems that you can't look anywhere these days without seeing some sort of a political spin applied to even the most mundane of daily activities. Everything from Dr. Seuss movies to Christmas trees has become fodder in the never-ending, supercharged, back-and-forth drama that is American politics. The 24/7 media blitz of talk radio and cable news seems to have only exacerbated the problem, as pundits spew hateful rhetoric that depends less on journalistic integrity and more on sensationalized entertainment and doomsday predictions. We have become a society where we prefer to listen to the man/woman yelling at us the loudest through their microphone instead of considering the quiet, steady reflections of level-headed and thorough thinkers.

But this rhetoric isn't limited exclusively to the spoken word. Though political rhetoric does depend greatly on the vocalization of a particular viewpoint, artwork too has an important seat at the table. Whether taking the form of cartoons, posters or campaign ads, the visual image is arguably the most effective and important arrow in the quiver of both partisan and politician. An inspiring painting, a poignant photo, a stirring motif, all have the ability to rouse the soul to higher (or lower) levels of thinking than almost any discourse or poem could hope to accomplish. As the saying goes, a picture really is worth a thousand words!

And sadly, some “artists” have embraced this reality to the point of virtual insanity. Case in point: Jon McNaughton. My Mormon friends are probably more familiar with McNaughton's ilk...er..."art" than are others. As a devout Mormon, his "art" is often a feature in stores like Deseret Book and (until recently) the BYU Bookstore (that is, until BYU became too "liberal" for the uber-sophisticated McNaughton and banned his crap). To put things as simple as I possibly can, Jon McNaughton is a troubled individual. He has taken what I would consider to be a truly remarkable gift (painting) and used it for nothing more than to make a series of cheap, lame, classless, tasteless, mindless, heartless, pointless, idiotic, rude, obscene, hateful and downright pathetic pieces of political propaganda. See for yourself:


Of course, for some, this "art" probably seems like an appropriate summation of "reality." To those of such sentiment I will simply say this: I don't begrudge you your right to your own political views, nor to I deny the fact that Mr. McNaughton has some real talent, but please, for the love of Karl Marx, QUIT BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE DAMN RADIO!!! For once in your life, set your political beliefs aside and consider the following: 1.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" uplifting in any way, shape or form? 2.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" the type of stuff that invokes peace and harmony? Or does it breed anger and contention? 3.) Would Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi, Mother Theresa or any other remarkable person of great character choose to hang Jon McNaughton's "art" in their home? Or would they not even give it the time of day? If you can answer "yes" to any of these three questions, then chances are you probably hate my humble little blog for its "socialist" leanings and have already de-friended me from Facebook for being an evil fascist. That's ok, no hard feelings. Chances are you haven't even read this far into my post anyway, so you won't have the chance to hear me say, "I just won the Mega Millions jackpot and want to buy you a new car!"

The truth of the matter is this: Jon McNaughton is not the problem, but is the SYMPTOM of the problem. McNut...er...McNaughton is the end result of a society that has diluted its political discourse to little more than short, apocalyptic soundbites bent on spreading fear and hate for the "other guy." McNaughton's "art" is essentially a fancy political bumper sticker that tells the world, "My political views are better than yours. Na-na nana boo-boo" Simple-minded men like McNaughton are easy prey for all of the Limbaugh's Hannity's and Beck's of the world. They feel the "call" and begin their "quest" to "save" America from all that is evil in society, which, coincidentally, just happens to be everything found on the other side of the political isle. This is how they can justify creating "scary" pictures of evil, liberal Black presidents burning the Constitution, destroying our freedoms, and receiving the heavenly rebukings of Jesus Christ and our Founding Fathers (while, of course, those of conservative leanings are showered with the gifts of eternal life and always being right). American politics at its best!

We live in a world where religious fervor and political passion are virtually synonymous, so much so that it can be difficult work to separate the partisan politicians, priestly pastors, and philosophical professors from one another. And this convoluted mess has created a labyrinth of confusion that makes almost any sincere political discourse virtually impossible. Any rational or thoughtful inquiry is rendered completely helpless to the impenetrable wall of the prideful partisan mob mentality. This is precisely where Jon McNaughton resides. He is not a critical thinker. He is not a valiant voice crying in the wilderness. He is a bitter, hateful, silly little man. This may sound too harsh or hard but that's ok. I'm sure that Mr. McNaughton is familiar with the verse from the Book of Mormon which states: "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." Besides, most hate-mongers rarely if ever realize that they are hate-mongers. They see themselves as brave voices of change who are misunderstood by the "evil" majority of their day. In addition, they usually rationalize their hate by appealing to religion as a justification for their actions (i.e. the KKK, Civil Rights opponents, etc.) But these weak appeals to religion serve as nothing more than temporary salves for their cankered souls. Hate, no matter how it is camouflaged, will always be hate.

In conclusion, if given the chance to meet him face-to-face, I would simply say to Jon McNaughton's the following: Don't give up on your passion for politics. Don't give up your religion. Don't give up on your amazing artistic talent. But please...PLEASE spare us this pointless nonsense. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain with the "art" you have produced as of late. As a professional artist, I am guessing that you are probably familiar with the RIDICULOUS work of one Andres Serrano. If not, let me introduce you to him. He is the IDIOT "artist" who created the "Piss Christ." The "Piss Christ" is a picture of a crucifix that was submersed in the artist's urine. According to Serrano, the purpose of the "Piss Christ" was to "get people thinking" and to "question what we believe." Shockingly, this pile of nonsense was even sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. Not shockingly, the public saw the "Piss Christ" for what it really was: cheap shock value nonsense masquerading as sophisticated "art."

And though you haven't urinated in any of your own art (more like vomit than urine), isn't your political "art" essentially the same thing, Mr. McNaughton? Like Serrano, didn't you also say that the purpose of your "art" was to "get people thinking." Aren't you just wielding your brush as a weapon of mass DISTRACTION that does nothing but piss people off? You may have avoided urinating on your art itself, but you have certainly pissed all over President Obama. Again, I don't begrudge you the right to your political views. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But is that really what you want to call the fruits of your amazing talent? If so, I pity you. But, if not, I look forward to your other art...your REAL art. The good stuff that I would be more than happy to display in my home:


“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” -Thomas Jefferson

Tea-Bagging Stupidity at its Best

Conservatism is fracturing between two opposing forces: rationalism and stupidity. On the one side, you have the intelligent voices of reason from people like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and the Late Milton Friedman, while on the other you have the ignorance, hype and downright stupidity of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and 99.9% of the tea-bagging, Paul Revere wannabe, Gadsden Flag-waving idiots of the "Tea Party."

Case in point: Therese Cooper, an eighth-generation descendant of Revolutionary War leader and orator Patrick Henry and devout Tea Party activist. She is "100% certain" that her ancestor would be leading a tea party demonstration if he was alive today:

If Patrick Henry were alive, he would be coordinating a Tea Party today...I remember my great-grandmother talking about our family history. I am very proud. Patrick Henry gave everything to fight for his freedom. Why should it be any different now? We all need to be willing to give everything for the country we love.

Yes, Ms. Cooper's chest-thumping, tear-jerking sense of devotion to her country is inspiring but sadly, her history and understanding of her ancestor's heritage has much to be desired. As Ed Brayton points out on his blog:

[Cooper] apparently suffers from irony deficiency. With all the grandiose talk from the tea baggers about upholding the constitution, does it not occur to them -- or to those descendants themselves -- that it's a bit strange to be claiming the legacy and mantle of a man who refused an invitation to attend the Constitutional Convention and then vociferously opposed the passage of the constitution?

Patrick Henry is the one who said of the passage of the constitution, "I conceive the republic to be in extreme danger." The new constitution, he said, would mean the "utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the States." If Henry had had his way, Virginia would not have ratified the constitution and it would likely have failed.

And if that's not enough, take the case of Mr. Bill Whittle who believes that modern day tea nuts are the "direct heirs to the founding generation" and that the Founding Fathers would "all be marching with us." Mr Whittle goes on to suggest that George Washington would have declared war on Barack Obama for his economic bailout and that Jefferson would have joined him, based on Thomas Jefferson's infamous quote that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."(A quote, incidentally, that inspired the likes of Timothy McVeigh)

Well, sadly Mr. Whittle's history is every bit as lacking as Ms. Cooper's. First off, it's unlikely that Washington would "declare war" on Obama for the bailout since he himself allowed his Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton to do something similar. And as for Jefferson's infamous "Tree of Liberty" quote that Whittle tosses around, well, he forgot to mention this part:

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

Gee, what a novel concept. Set people right as to the facts. Sounds like something the tea freaks are desperately lacking.

And while skeptics will point out that these are just two random examples of stupidity that hardly represent the "mainstream" Tea Party movement, I would remind you of the COUNTLESS number of examples of misspelled signs, ignorant protests, misguided ideas and demonstrations of pretended patriotism that permeate the movement at its core. Besides, one really cannot call himself/herself a patriot without a basic understanding of this country's history and heritage. Like the fanatical religious zealot who is so certain of his/her church's validity without having ever read or understood the church's basic doctrine, these Tea Party fanatics insist that they are the sole guardians of America's history and the heritage of the Founding Fathers by simply throwing out obscure quotes and dressing up in old colonial robes. But sadly, their patriotism is hollow and shallow.

As Martin Luther King once stated, "There is nothing more dangerous to the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

The Founders Would Be Spinning in Their Graves Over Healthcare...Right?

Ahhh...the crazy, convoluted and downright bizarre world that is American politics! These days I am beginning to feel more and more that George Washington's prophetic message regarding political parties is coming true:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Yes, patriotism, nationalism and even God's "will" are now wrapped up in a political party's stupid partisan doctrine!

And as is common with these political parties, both sides are engaged in a continual tug-o-war over the legacy of our founding fathers. After all, if they can prove that the founders were on their side, everything else is colored bubbles. As a result, you see Democrats and Republicans try to articulate how the founders favored their brand of partisan despotism. Both sides grab a handful of quotes, often out of context, which they feel is adequate support for whatever cause they have taken up.

But most of the time they are just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Take, for instance, the healthcare debate. If you have even listened to 5 minutes of talk radio, you probably have heard pundits ranting and raving about how "unconstitutional" and "immoral" Obama's plan is. And certainly our founding fathers would be appalled at the President for creating such a massive program...right?

Well, certainly some founders would be upset. Thomas Jefferson, the quintessential small government/low taxes guy, would probably make Obama his new project of disdain and ridicule that only Jefferson could deliver. Other founders, however, might not feel the same.

In 1798, for example, Congress passed a law "for the relief of sick and disabled seamen." Under this law, tax funds were used to establish several hospitals where sick and injured seamen were able to receive government-funded healthcare. Eventually this program grew to include other groups of American workers, most notably members of the Merchant Marines. For many of our founders (most notably J. Adams, A. Hamilton and even G. Washington) the health of America's workforce was of paramount importance and was, at least in some form, even a responsibility of the federal government to safeguard. Historian Gautham Rao further explains why this issue was of importance to the founding generation:

That the federal government created this health care system for merchant mariners in the early American republic will surprise many. This is due in no small measure to the tenor of political debate about health care in American society. Advocates of government structured, universal health care plans claim that the times are too fast and costs too high to return to the old days of "pay-as-you-go" care. Deregulationists counter that only by removing the stamp of government from health care can society relive the great success of decades and centuries past. Both sides presuppose that government regulation and provision of health care is a new development. But the story of the marine hospitals in the early American republic suggests that the United States has a long history of using institutions to manage public health. Through the marine hospitals, the federal government used health care to regulate a crucial labor force in an age of maritime commerce. Treating sick and disabled merchant mariners helped stabilize the maritime labor force. More broadly, through the marine hospitals, we witness the actual points of interaction between government, community, and individuals. A glimpse within hospital walls reveals the rich, diverse personal experiences of working in, or being treated in, an early federal marine hospital. To be sure the marine hospitals were effective instruments of politics and policy. But within the marine hospitals, medical practice and administration was far more than an abstract tool of political economy. Rather, the stories of sickness, injury, admission, treatment, resistance, and regulation that characterized life within the marine hospitals reveal how the federal government shaped the social, economic, and political order of the early republic to a degree scholars have only just now begun to appreciate.

In fairness, it's important to note that while some of the founders did support at least a small type of national healthcare, this doesn't necessarily mean they would agree with something on the scope of Obama's plan. Perhaps they would, perhaps not. One could easily see somebody like Hamilton or Adams, who advocated for a strong national government, possibly being in favor, while men like Jefferson and Madison would most likely be beside themselves with anger over such a plan. In the end we'll never really know. I suppose that ascertaining the founders' position on national healthcare would be akin to uncovering their opinion on atomic energy. Different times have different problems.

And it is for this reason that appealing to the founders isn't always the best idea. Or as Jefferson put it, "The earth belongs to the living, not the dead."

"So Help Me God"

Here's another fun question: Did George Washington add the words, "So help me God" to the conclusion of his Oath of Office? Pop culture and legend say yes. Bud did he? After all, no president is on record having said those words until Rutherford B. Hayes took the oath and insisted on adding, "So Help Me God" in 1876.

Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers did not put "So help me God" in the Constitution. In fact, here's what the Constitution says the president is supposed to say:

"I (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing more is required.

So where does this legend come from? Hard to say. There are no historical records affirming OR denying that Washington added, "So help me God" to his oath of office. Despite the lack of "smoking gun" evidence on the matter, Washington's alleged "So help me God" remark has caused quite a stir in recent years. Both secular and religious groups continue to lock horns on this issue hoping to convince others of the validity of their case. In fact, this issue was THE biggest source of conflict during the filming of the HBO John Adams miniseries that recently aired. Here's HBO's depiction of Washington's inauguration and oath of office. It was one of the more stirring scened of the whole miniseries. Place your bets now on Who won: the secularists or the religious? Let's find out:



Very stirring recreation! For the most part, it was pretty accurate. However, Washington did not raise his right hand. Instead, he placed it over his heart. It is true that the crowd was unable to hear him. Washington had a cold at the time and couldn't speak very loudly. And yes, he did kiss the Bible. Even the outfit is accurate, along with all the people on the podium. Robert Livingston, however, did not say, "God Bless George Washington" at the conclusion of the oath. Instead, he said, "Long live George Washington."

Now, here's the secularist interpretation of Washington's oath of office:



And then of course there is Chief Justice John Roberts completely and totally messing up the Oath of Office for Barack Obama. In fact, they had to redo it later that night:



Way to screw it up Roberts! You can see Obama's face thinking, "this guy is the CHIEF Justice???" Perhaps Justice Roberts was busy thinking, "hey, this is the guy who so vehemently opposed my nomination to the Supreme Court."

Either way, you gotta love presidential inaugurations!

Founding Religion in Modern Politics: Why Conservatives and Liberals Get it so Very Wrong

Will all of the political talk surrounding Obama's religion, along with the role of faith in the halls of government that seems to be infesting the "blogosphere," I thought it might be fun to look at how the religion of our Founding Fathers has become a political platform of sorts. No matter where you turn these days, it is virtually impossible to avoid the onslaught of Democrat and Republican politics. Both parties are fully invested in respective camps as they jockey for the "souls" of American voters. Political rhetoric from both parties seems to saturate the airwaves with promises of reform and change if you will but only elect their brand of nonsense.

Of all the arguments that seem to complicate this cornucopia of watered-down political hogwash, the legacy of the founding fathers (particularly on the issue of religion) seems to creep up with more and more frequency. Both the Democrats and Republicans have chosen to passionately invoke the memory of our Founding Fathers to bolster support for their respective causes. From Mike Huckabee's assertion that the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were "clergymen," to Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech; from Glenn Beck's bizarre Thomas Paine rants to Bill Maher's declaration that the founders were atheists, this decade's crop of politicians, and pundits have fully embraced the time-honored tradition of "piggybacking" the memory of the Founding Fathers with their individual political agendas.

This is, of course, nothing new to the world of politics. Over the centuries virtually every politician has appealed to the legacy of the Founding Fathers to rally support. What has changed, however, is the fanatical desire to polarize the religious sentiments of the Founding Fathers. These extremist views between the secularism of many liberals and the Christian zeal of most conservatives, has created opposing doctrines on how religion influenced America's founding. As Steven Waldman points out in his new book Founding Faith:

In battles over prayer in school, courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments, and other emotional issues, both sides follow a well-worn script: The "religious" side wants less separation of church and state, and the "secularists" want more...For starters, many conservatives believe that if they can show that the Founding Fathers were very religious, they thereby also prove that the Founders abhorred separation of church and state...Some liberals, meanwhile, feel the need to prove the Founders were irreligious or secular and therefore, of course, in favor of separation...But in the heat of this custody battle over the spiritual lives of the Founding Fathers, BOTH SIDES DISTORT HISTORY...In fact, the culture wars have so warped our sense of history that we typically have a very limited understanding of how we came to have religious liberty.

Waldman's bold statements are virtually echoed by those of author John Meacham, who writes in his book American Gospel the following:

Both sides feel they are fighting for the survival of what's best for America: liberals for openness and expanding rights, conservatives for a God-fearing, morally coherent culture...The conservative right's contention that we are a "Christian nation" that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument...the secularist arrogance that religion played no role in America's founding is equally ridiculous.

So where does this leave us? Despite all of the "historical" arguments of the Democrats and Republicans, we can conclude three truths about the role of religion in the lives of the Founding Fathers, and its influence on America's founding:

1.) The Founding Fathers were religious individuals, in the sense that they believed in a "divine Providence," which oversaw and assisted in the efforts of mankind. Very few can or should be classified as Atheist. In one form or another, the overwhelming majority believed in a higher power.

2.) The "Major" Founders (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton) had a strong distrust of organized religion. The Founders were more than aware of the religious atrocities that had occurred in the colonies (the Salem Witch Trials and English Civil War were still fresh in the minds of almost everyone). The ideology and doctrine of the Enlightenment, though not opposed to religion, did convince many within colonial society that an individual did not need organized religion to commune with deity. Thus the birth of Unitarianism became the premiere mode of worship and belief for these founders.

3.) The United States of America was NOT created as a CHRISTIAN nation. Though this is often an offensive statement to many Christians, I would remind them that virtually every major founder supported religious pluralism in the early years of the republic. Though the Founders embraced Christian ideals, this does not suggest that they created a Christian nation. As John Adams himself stated, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Though this argument is likely to continue for many years to come, perhaps some sense of it could be made by merely taking a trip to Washington D.C. There you will find the Washington Monument (built in the style of the Egyptian Obelisk). Egypt, as we all know was hardly a Christian nation. Then there is the United States Supreme Court building, which is build after the manner of the Greek Parthenon (Greece, as we all know, was a deeply pagan society at the time of the Parthenon). The Supreme Court building is also adorned with an elegant statue of Moses (which, of course, has angered many secularists). Perhaps the secularists should give the statue a further examination, for they will find that Moses is accompanied by a statue of Confucius (the great Chinese philosopher) and Solon (the great Athenian poet, statesman and leader in early Greece). Inside the Supreme Court building you are also likely to see the pagan statues of Britannia and Mars. Again, the Founding Fathers sought to create a nation where we would embrace and accept ALL beliefs, which is a perfect example of their Unitarian leanings.


This "Temple of Justice" as it was called, has become a symbol of America's religious diversity, which is one of its greatest strengths. It would do both the conservatives and liberals a great deal of good to remember these truths before making their partisan claims. After all, only damage can come from distorting history to fit one's agenda. As John Meacham states, "If totalitarianism was the great problem of the twentieth century, then extremism is, so far, the great problem of the twenty-first."

Newt Gingrich on the Founding Fathers: Ugh...Here We Go Again!

Over at one of my favorite blogs, Historiann comments on the ongoing (and never ending) "custody battle" over the legacy of the founding fathers. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's comments that the founders of this nation "would all be appalled" by the Obama Administration's spending spree has caused some historians and fans of early America to cry, "foul!"



Yes, these two intellectual "heavy hitters" (Hannity and Gingrich) have succumbed to that ageless American tradition of proclaiming to one and all that early America was a perfect Utopian world free from political strife, where all Americans embraced political unity and shared in the superior intellect and understanding that was exclusively unique to only that generation of Americans.

Only one problem: early America wasn't all a "happy, happy, joy joy" time. As Historiann points out:

Let’s not romanticize the early Republic, m’kay? This is a period in which the modest revolutionary promise of the 1770s was thoroughly and utterly strangled. Maybe this is why I’ve never been drawn to do research in this period: I find it to be an utterly depressing and demoralizing period in American history, but many people like to pretend it was totally awesome for every American, when clearly, it wasn’t: there’s ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the Northwest Territory and later in Cherokee country, Anglo-American women are being told to shut up and sing louder about how awesome things are, and get this: slavery is going to become even more dehumanizing and unendurable! More African American families will be further destabilized because of the invention of the Cotton Gin and the expansion of cotton culture into the Old Southwest. States like Maryland and Virginia that have been aggressively farmed since the seventeenth century discovered that their most profitable export crop would be slaves.

And though I certainly do not share her utterly depressing view of early America (I am probably biased...it's my favorite era of history to study) I do agree that the founding era of this country is often misrepresented in our current pop-culture. Life wasn't pure bliss for many women, poor families, Native Americans, Blacks (free and slave), immigrants, etc. Now, with that said I also agree with historian Gordon Wood who states in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, that of all the places to live on planet earth in the 18th century, the American colonies/early America was probably at or near the top of the list. Let's just be careful with assuming that it was a PERFECT society, shall we!

And then of course there is Newt's "brilliant" statement that ALL the founding fathers would be united in their disgust for the current Obama Administration. Now, perhaps Newt is right in part. The founders would be utterly shocked to see a Black man as president. After all, they lived in an era where African Americans had zero say in government affairs, so I guess Newt is right in a roundabout way. However, if we put the racism of early America aside, I think Newt gets this one wrong.

Sure, several of the founders would be appalled at the current economic plan of the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration before him). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison certainly come to mind. Jefferson was, among other things, passionately against government involvement in almost every facet of life. He strongly believed that government intervention in the affairs of man could be equated to slavery. In essence, Jefferson was very much a Libertarian. However, there are others who would be extremely happy with America's massive bureaucracy and federal involvement with the economy. To be certain, Alexander Hamilton is probably not be rolling over in his grave with anger but is instead smiling with glee. After all, this is the man who essentially proposed America's first ever "bail out" (a topic I have written on before and which you can read by clicking here). In addition, most of the Federalists would probably be close to as happy with things as Hamilton.

And this brings me to an important point: this whole argument over government intervention v. individual autonomy is far from new in the American experience. In fact, it's as old as is the nation itself. It was this debate which caused Vice President Jefferson to openly attack his "superior," President John Adams, who in return passed the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts which he hoped would squash any and all of his critics. It was this basic issue that caused Jefferson to dramatically reduce federal spending in virtually all arenas during his presidency, and which caused his successor, James Madison, to confront the British in the War of 1812 with almost zero military of any kind. It is this basic issue that even caused the "father" of our nation, George Washington, to create the unpopular but economically driven Jay Treaty with Britain; a treaty that cost Washington a great deal of political support as his critics (again, led by Jefferson) openly questioned the president's bold decision.

In conclusion, I have no problem with Gingrich's questioning of Obama. I myself am against massive government spending. With that said, whenever I hear someone exclaim "What would our founding fathers do if..." or "I'm sure the founding fathers would be flipping in their graves over..." it tends to get my blood boiling. Like today, there was no consensus in early America over these and other issues. In reality, early America was arguably one of the most contentious eras we have ever seen (with an obvious exception being made for the Civil War of course).

So, let's quit "hijacking" the legacy of the founders just to make us feel better or to garner support for our respective positions. Chances are, no matter what you believe, that there are SEVERAL founders out there who would disagree.