Incumbents Must Debate

This appeared in my local paper, the Lafayette Journal Courier, on Monday Sept 8.

Many thanks to the Journal & Courier for calling on Congressman Steve Buyer to participate in more debates with challenger Nels Ackerson.

It is easy to see why Buyer will duck these debates if voters let him. He believes he is entitled to the 4th District seat, one of the most securely Republican in America.

He assumes voters will not force him to defend his poor voting attendance record or his record on veterans' affairs against Ackerson's criticisms.

He surely does not want to defend his record of bringing federal funds into the district. Ackerson shows government statistics saying Indiana's 4th District is 434th out of 435. Buyer's counter-claim is that we are 380th.

Either way, he must be pretty sure voters will let him off the hook if he just lays low.

Anyone watching the first debate at jconline.com can see the biggest reason Buyer will avoid future debates if he can: Ackerson has a superior grasp of the issues and is better on his feet.

Buyer would prefer that his constituents not consider whether Ackerson could represent them more effectively in Washington.

Voters -- even voters who prefer Buyer -- should never give incumbents a free pass. Republican, Democrat or Independent -- liberal or conservative -- it is in everyone's best interest to get the issues out on the table for free and fair discussion. Any candidate who refuses to take part in simple, democratic procedures like debates should be given two years to sit home and reconsider.

Arthur E. Farnsley II

West Lafayette

Culture Wars in Perspective

Just read a great piece by Dick Meyer from the LA Times on Culture Wars.

Guiding Political Philosophy

It is fair to ask of the Democrats and Republicans: What is your guiding political philosophy? This is far different from accusing them of being ideological and closed to other points of view. The best way to be able to predict how a party would govern is to ask, "how would your point of view lead you to respond when X, Y, or Z happens?"

And here's the problem: the Democrats have set forth a point of view and the Republicans have not. McCain's choice of Governor Palin makes his campaign plan clear: he is running on the idea that he is a maverick and a reformer, a person who values character and integrity. When you think about it, he didn't have much choice but to play it like that. Running on the "4 more years of the same" platform was never going to work.

So he's a reformer and Gov. Palin is a reformer. But that's not good enough. We're in a deep economic trough and have lost a lot of our credibility overseas. I need to know the plan, the platform, the manifesto that will carry us through that. I need to know the guiding philosophy that will help right the ship in difficult times.

And here's the problem: I know the Democratic platform and don't care for it. It contains way, way more government intervention and control than I think is good for the country. But instead of a philosophical alternative, instead of a plan that shows a different model of public and private partnership, I am being offered integrity and political independence.

It's not enough. I thought McCain was going to try to make this election a referendum about Obama in which McCain was the safe choice and Obama the wildcard. Instead, it's turning into an election where Obama is the safe choice--I KNOW what he'd do--and McCain is the wildcard.

It's not enough. McCain had better have more by Thursday.

Privatizing Infrastructure

America's infrastructure is crumbling while China's--at least urban China's--is getting better and better. We need to look for solutions, including privatizing some of the rebuilding work.

In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels made an incredibly good deal for the state by leasing rights to our northern toll road for $3.8 billion for 75 years. Was he thanked? Hardly. He was vilified for giving away state property.

But here's the thing: people want the state to provide top-notch infrastructure but they do not want their taxes to go up. They want better schools, but lower taxes. Better roads, lower taxes. Better cops, lower taxes. How in God's name could it ever work like that? (And don't tell me we have to stop buying $500 hammers at the Defense Department--it's not that simple.)

When Indiana leases the road, Indiana still maintains overarching control, plus the contract has limits on what the new leaseholders can do. Indiana gets $3.8 billion. And the road will be well-maintained.

So what's the catch? People who use the road will actually have to PAY for it as they use it. They cannot insist that it be well-maintained and then complain when they get the bill in their annual taxes. Now, they'll pay on the spot.

This already happens in many other venues. People who can afford private schools buy them--or they move to expensive neighborhoods with good public schools. Malls and theme parks and gated communities hire private cops.

You want good roads? Your best bet is to privatize them and pay-per-use. You might argue that it is better to raise taxes and let government maintain control, but that is never really going to happen on roads, schools, or policing. It's time to chart a new way forward.

Democrat Delusion?

Is Obama just one more link in a long chain of failed Democratic presidential candidates loved by party elites but distrusted by middle America? Jonah Goldberg thinks so, and he might be right.

In 2004, President Bush's position was weak. The economy was slowing and we were bogged down in Iraq. What do the Democrats do? Nominate an east-coast, Boston-for-god's-sake, Harvard liberal. He lost Ohio.

In 2008, Republicans are as weak as they could possibly be. Economy is stopped. Iraq is better, but we have many international problems. What do the Democrats do? Nominate a 1-term, African-American Senator who is the most liberal member of the Senate.

Americans want change and who can blame them? Which helps explain perhaps why Democrats voted for Obama rather than 4 more years of a Clinton.

But was it smart for Democrats to say, "you want change? Then we'll try to jam through ALL the change we want all at once?" It's like saying, "our odds of winning are so good this time, let's go for broke rather than securing the win and then consolidating our gains later."

If Obama loses, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for not running toward the middle using a candidate with a "common touch." People want what they want, not what party leaders--whether liberal Democrat or morally conservative Republican--want them to want.

Obama VP

Great David Brooks piece in today's NYT. No wonder it's the most emailed.

I think Biden would be a strong choice for Obama. I have never voted Democrat for president, but I will seriously consider voting for Obama. He is a true civil libertarian and would be less of a polarizing figure globally. Yes, he's a huge social liberal and would tax me to pieces, but he won't get everything he wants on that score anyhow.

On the other hand, one of the things I think government should, indeed MUST, do is maintain America's global security, and like most Americans I would be more willing to trust McCain with that.

Lowering the Drinking Age

College presidents are calling for a new national conversation about lowering the drinking age? About time. "Underground" drinking at colleges and universities is ridiculous. Yes, drunk driving is a serious issue and we need serious ways to deal with it--including harsh penalties, even for stupid 18 year olds whom we stubbornly (and futilely) refuse to treat as full adults. But dealing with this problem by sporadically enforcing draconian laws makes no sense at all.