Forced out of the closet by the unscripted remarks of Washington’s original gaffemeister, Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Obama has pledged his support for same-sex marriage.  Naturally, the President is being hailed for his bold stand by the liberal media, although everyone knows that he only went public because Biden’s comments on the subject left him no alternative.  Given his druthers, Obama would have maintained his coyness and not made his sentiments public until such time as he he felt he could maximize the political benefits of doing so (i.e., right after the November election).

For better or worse however, the cat is out of the bag and Mr. O is out of the closet, and the strategists behind the Republican electoral machine are wringing their hands now that the spotlight is focused elsewhere than on the economy.  If you are one of the few remaining conservatives who believes that the Republican Party represents traditional cultural values in addition to free market principles, you’ll be disappointed to know that the current Republican leadership has little interest in advocating for traditional marriage on the public stage.  This is why they were cringing in the corner when would-be presidential aspirants like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were stressing the importance of families headed by a mom and a dad.

For his part, Mr. Romney will find it difficult to navigate this issue because the perception is that he has been on both sides of the so-called fence at various points in his political career.  In the 90′s he pledged fealty to the radical gay agenda, promising to out-advocate his then opponent, Ted Kennedy, on all issues homosexual.  Today of course, he has a different opponent and is seeking to appeal to a different constituency, so he will try to portray himself as a consistent, lifelong supporter of traditional marriage.  Doing so without coming off as a flip-flopper will be difficult, and unfortunately he won’t find much help from Speaker Boehner or Republican leaders in the House or Senate, as they’ve made a policy of essentially ignoring all issues that are not economic.

Nevermind that marriage is an institution ordained by God that has served as the fundamental building block of human society since the beginning of time.  Nevermind that basic common sense (as well as several formal sociological studies) tells us that children need the influence of a mother and a father in shaping their understanding of the world, their sense of personal security and confidence, and their preparedness to function as healthy and productive members of society.  Nevermind that natural law, our anatomical appendages, and the reproduction of the human race all seem innately geared toward heterosexual unions.  Republican leaders in Washington today can’t be counted upon for anything more than a tip of the hat toward traditional marriage.  Such would be beneath the station of Washington elites and is dirty work better suited to the hoi poloi (those of us in fly-over country who cling to guns and religion).

But the American people understand the significance of the paradigm shift advocated by Mr. Biden and his Johnny-come-lately boss.  As recently as last week, 61% of North Carolinians voting cast their ballot in favor of traditional marriage and against extending the sanctity of this ancient institution to same-sex unions.  All in all, 35 states have come down on the side of traditional marriage when their citizens were given the opportunity to do so, indicating that while marriage is under assault from many quarters (high divorce rates and an increase in the rise of cohabitation), the American people intuitively understand that traditional marriage is nonetheless an institution not to be trifled with.

So social conservatives had better get ready to rumble.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, nor the impact of the outcome of the election greater.  It’s about more than the economy Messrs. Romney and Obama, and no, the American people are not stupid.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

There is some question about whether Tyler penned this, or if it should be attributed to another, much like the question, “Who wrote Shakespeare’s works?” But whoever wrote it seems to have had a good understanding of both history and human nature.

If this sequence is both correct and inevitable, we Americans have reason for grave concern, even with the fact that ours is not a pure democracy, but a representative republic. Still, we can identify with the sequence in which we are either between steps 6 and 7, or perhaps fully into step 7. Many of our founders questioned whether the American experiment could long survive. John Adams, on at least one occasion, said he did not think it could. Others who observed the birth of the United States opined that it would go the way of all other past attempts at democracy.

The following is an attempt to identify Tyler’s sequence in the context of American History. I have added one step that seems probable from observation of current world events. I call this step 8. What was step 8, above, becomes step 9.

From bondage to spiritual faith: The bondage of the 13 colonies under the rule of King George III and the British Parliament. Then came the Great Awakening; what we would call a spiritual revival in today’s terminology. This was a profound, widespread supernatural turning to faith in 1725. The effects of this event lasted by some accounts for over 40 years.

From spiritual faith to great courage: Great courage was demonstrated in the banding together of the colonies in declaring independence from Britain in 1776, knowing that the declaration would likely lead to war. Many historians assert that the Continental Congress would not have signed the Declaration of Independence had it not been for the Great Awakening. The signers clearly expressed their dependence on Divine Providence.

From courage to liberty: The courage and persistence of the Continental Army combined with Divine Providence led to victory in the American Revolution in 1783 and the birth of the United States under the Constitution completed in 1787.

From liberty to abundance: The new-found liberty experienced by the American people produced booming prosperity despite significant struggles including the Civil War and two world wars.

From abundance to complacency: The abundance in the 20th century turned the interests of Americans from concerns about preserving the principles of liberty enshrined in our founding documents to comfort, ease and economic prosperity.

From complacency to apathy: This describes the transition to ignorance and apathy about the exceptional nature of the American system of government. John Steinbeck said, “I have named the destroyers of nations: comfort, plenty, and security – out of which grow a bored and slothful cynicism, in which rebellion against the world as it is, and myself as I am, are submerged in listless self-satisfaction.”

From apathy to dependence: Beginning in the 60′s, politicians foolishly gave birth to the welfare state. Many Americans became wards of the government as we moved ever closer to socialism. Some of these politicians were motivated by compassion. Others sought to ensure long careers in Washington, buying the votes of those who benefited from the public dole.

From dependence to anarchy: America may be on the verge of this stage as those who have been led to believe they have a right to being “taken care of by the government” learn that there is not enough wealth for the politicians to fulfill their welfare promises. Witness the riots in Europe as the proverbial well runs dry.

From dependence back into bondage: This is the step where despots emerge promising peace and prosperity if the people will trust ultimate authority to them. Alexis deToqueville said in Democracy in America (c1830) ” Despotism often presents itself as the remedy for all ills suffered in the past. It is the upholder of justice, the champion of the oppressed, and the founder of order. Nations are lulled to sleep by the temporary prosperity to which it gives rise, and when they awake, they are miserable.

This final step into bondage was illustrated in the Star Wars film, “Revenge of the Sith.” The Senate is meeting in the throes of a crisis, and being asked to confer dictatorial power to Chancellor Palpatine in exchange for his assurance he will lead them to security. His words are persuasive and the council agrees. After the vote is taken and the result announced, the council explodes with applause. Anakin’s wife, Padmé, observes and says, “So this is how liberty dies – with thunderous applause.”

Is America is running headlong down this path into bondage? I submit that, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew, our only hope lies in Divine Providence and the commitment of true American patriots.

Robert C. Wilson is a veteran of the U.S. Army with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a M.S. in Business. His writings are posted at www.BFranklinPost.com Please email your comments to forum@centerforajustsociety.org.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo

It’s a drama fit for reality television:  Larger than life characters, familial infighting, private jets, mansions, pink poodles, and of course contentious litigation.  Sadly, it’s not the Real Housewives of Orange County or the Shahs of Sunset at the center of this drama, but the first family of Trinity Broadcasting Network.  Brittany Koper, granddaughter of TBN founders Paul and Janice Crouch, alleges that her grandparents are scamming the public with their prosperity gospel message and using the contributions of their viewers to sustain a lavish lifestyle that would make a hip hop mogul blush.  Mama and Papa Crouch counter that granddaughter Brittany is merely attempting to distract attention from her own wrongdoing.  They’ve accused her of misappropriating ministry funds while she served as finance director for the organization.

While the truth of the various allegations is yet to be determined, one thing that’s indisputable is that the Crouches opulent living makes the extravagancies of our congressmen and women look like child’s play.  As advocates of the “prosperity gospel” the Couches teach that the more you give to God, the more you get.  And of course, since they are self-proclaimed agents of God’s kingdom they would suggest that the best way to “give to God” is to give to them.  According to a recent article in the New York Times this message is working quite out nicely for the pair, whose TBN brought in $93 million in donations in 2010.

A key question that the Times article doesn’t address is whether the so-called prosperity gospel (which is closely bound up with the gospel of “health and wealth” trumpeted by so many televangelists) bears any resemblance to the Gospel taught by Jesus Chris as recorded in the New Testament.  Jesus’ Gospel teaches that there is good news for sinners living under the weight of condemnation for their sins.  Through Jesus’ life of obedience to the Father and His sacrificial death on a Roman cross, the gap that exists between sinful man and the one holy God is bridged, and reconciliation is possible.  Faith in Christ and in his “finished” work is all that is required for eternal life.  And, lest we deceive ourselves, even that saving faith is a divine gift; it is not something we conjure up for ourselves.

And yes, the Bible does teach the “sowing and reaping” principle by way of encouraging generosity toward the poor and oppressed.  It suggests that Christians will be blessed by such giving and provided with more so that they will be able to give even more to those in need.  And yes, it also teaches that by the power of God and the sacrificial suffering of His son we can be healed from our infirmities.  However, the Gospel also teaches that we are to deny ourselves, that the meek will inherit the earth, and that the poor in spirit and the mournful are blessed by God.  In other words, the Bible tells us that there is a place for suffering in the universe and that God’s people are not immune from it.  No story illustrates this principle more than the story of Jesus’ own betrayal and execution at the hands of one of his own disciples, an establishment clergy threatened by the Messiah’s teaching, and an unruly mob.  Through faith in Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit however, Christians are equipped to deal with whatever comes their way, whether it be prosperity or poverty, blessing or suffering.

Just as important, the Bible also teaches that human beings are to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to us by our Maker, and that we will all be called to give an account for our use of His blessings here on earth.  This includes Paul and Janice Crouch, and while they would insist that their stewardship of TBN’s resources are honoring to God, they would likely benefit from some serious, Biblically-rooted soul-searching.  Do multiple mansions, luxury hotel suites for poodles and clothing, and $300k per year fine dining budgets illustrate a ministry geared towards service to others or one designed for self-gratification and self-glorification?  In the end, only God can answer that question.

CNN’s legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, just days prior to opening arguments, stated that it was a real possibility the Court would uphold Obamacare 8 to 1. After hearing Monday’s opening arguments, he declared the case “a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law, were wrong.”

At the end of the near unprecedented three days of oral arguments before the highest court in the land, most pundits still saw Obamacare as doomed. This also seemed to be the case with officials within the Obama administration, who, after hearing the powerful objections raised by many of the Supremes, then began referring to Obamacare’s most controversial and constitutionally weak concept, the “individual mandate,” as the “personal responsibility clause.”

Thus, in a strained attempt to save face, many liberals then began pontificating that the Court striking down Obamacare might actually provide Obama and his party with a political advantage. James Carville said that the Court striking down Obamcare “would be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party.”

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes rightly declared such nonsense “pure political hooey.” He concluded, “If Obama-care falls, it will be a devastating rebuke to the president. The crown jewel of his presidency will have been repudiated as unconstitutional. His pretensions of uniquely knowing how to get things done in Washington will be shattered. Obama will be a diminished political figure. He will become a lesser president, far from the top ranks where he has envisioned himself.”

Barnes also adds that, “The opposite is true if the Court upholds Obama-care. Obama will be able to crow that he has succeeded where presidents over the past century failed. He has brought about universal health care coverage. He has counseled hope and brought about change. Republicans will be demoralized.”

Though I agree with Barnes on the former, I think he is wrong to conclude that a Supreme Court victory (especially a 5 to 4 decision) is demoralizing for republicans. In fact, I think the republicans are in a no-lose situation here. Whatever the Supreme Court has decided on Obamacare, President Obama and the democrats will be the losers.

Not only would Obama be “diminished” if the Court strikes down his “crown jewel,” he would be a “diminished political figure” in ways that few politicians ever have been or ever will be. He will also be justifiably labeled as having been the architect of one of the greatest (if not the greatest) assaults on individual liberty in U.S. history, and his critics will have the U.S. Supreme Court decision to back that argument. The GOP nominee can then ask the American electorate if they would like to endure continued assaults on liberty that an Obama second term would almost certainly bring.

On the other hand, if Obamacare is upheld, conservatives will then turn to the electorate and say, “Again, the courts let us down!” From the decision day to Election Day the GOP will run ads declaring that the only way to reverse the wildly unpopular bill will be to elect republicans.

From its birth (pardon the pun), the unpopularity of Obamacare has proven politically poisonous for the democrats. After the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who made universal healthcare a major goal of his political career, Scott Brown ran for and won Kennedy’s very liberal seat largely by touting himself as the 41st (filibuster-proof) vote against Obamacare.

On March 19, exactly one week before the Supreme Court began hearing arguments on Obamacare, a Rasmussen poll showed that 56% of likely U.S. voters favored repealing the law. The number of voters who “strongly favor” repeal was at an eight-month high.

The Rasmussen poll immediately prior to the 2010 midterms showed that 58% of likely U.S. voters favored repealing Obamacare. Furthermore, exit polls for the 2010 midterms revealed that 59% of those who voted favored repeal. (This includes a plurality or an outright majority in every battleground state.) Among other things, the GOP’s landslide in 2010 was a result of the public’s disdain for Obamacare. There is little reason to think things would be any different come this November if Obamacare is still on the books.

In other words, a victory at the Supreme Court should yield political results that are no different than the results the democrats got after the slick manner (remember the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the Stupak Executive Order, reconciliation, and so on) in which the bill was passed.

The bottom line: on this matter the democrats cannot win.

Trevor Thomas resides in Gainesville, GA with his wife and four small children. He has a bachelor’s degree in physics and two graduate degrees in mathematics education. He has taught high school mathematics in public and private schools for the last 17 years and has written opinion columns for the last nine years. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo

Whenever he is challenged the President tries to ignore or discredit his opposition, and if this proves unsuccessful, he attempts to placate his foes with meaningless “compromises.”  In the case of the birth control mandate, the President claimed to put the concerns of religious employers to rest by shifting the burden to their insurance companies.  Never fear, he assured the religion-clinging, gun-toting opponents of his progressive insurance mandate, if you are a religious employer and oppose covering birth control costs for your employees, we’ll just make your insurance provider pay for it.  Problem solved and conscience clear.  Never mind that anyone with an iota of common sense can see this phony compromise for the rhetorical bait-and-switch that it is.  At the end of the day, religious employers will still be required to offer health insurance policies that cover contraception, and they will still be footing the bill for said contraception in the form of higher premiums that are sure to result from insurance companies passing along the cost of the President’s mandate.

This week, another of the President’s infamous “compromises” is in the spotlight, namely his executive order expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).  Stymied by existing law limiting the government’s involvement in this ethically troubling area of “scientific” work, the President crafted a workaround based on rhetorical hair-splitting, issued his order, and the dollars began flowing.  The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit to enjoin the funding and in 2010 a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the executive order.  Judge Royce Lambert saw the President’s policy for what it was: a complete disregard for the law based on a distinction without a difference:

“The judge ruled that the Obama administration’s policy was illegal because the administration’s distinction between work that leads to the destruction of embryos – which cannot be financed by the federal government under the current policy – and the financing of work using stem cells created through embryonic destruction was meaningless. . . .  In other words, the neat lines that the government had drawn between the process of embryonic destruction and the results of that destruction are not valid, the judge ruled.”

As with so many other issues, the President’s actions on ESCR illustrate his inability to identify with the moral and ethical concerns of anyone whose worldview differs from his own.
As incomprehensible as it may seem to President Obama, many Americans, myself included, view ESCR as morally repugnant and ethically flawed because it involves the destruction of human embryos.  Tiny though they may be, each embryo possesses all the genetic material necessary to mature into a distinct human being.  To take nascent life and destroy it for the sake of “scientific research” is to fly in the face of the self-evident truths articulated in our Declaration of Independence.  As Americans, we claim to believe that all humans are endowed with an inalienable right to life.  Those of us that embrace this principle to its full extent believe that no human being should be the subject of such experimentation.  We believe that human rights and human dignity are not diminished by the size of human subject.  In other words, big people don’t have more rights than small ones.  Neither should age be a factor, or cognitive sophistication.  An embryo’s age and early stage of development doesn’t vitiate its humanity.   Likewise, the circumstances of conception (in vitro vs. in utero, planned vs. unplanned, voluntary vs. involuntary) do not diminish our humanity.  Once a human being is in existence, he or she has a right to the same constitutional protections as other human beings.

President Obama’s insistence on pushing this issue – despite the demonstrated success of non-controversial alternatives like adult stem cell research – reveals that he values advancing ideology over seeking unity through common ground.  His administration advocates one point of view with regard to human embryos and their instrumental value to the scientific community, and from that point of view the Administration is unwilling to depart.  Why else would they remove funding from a program that allows the adoption of surplus embryos, and why would they end funding for non-controversial alternatives to ESCR?  As I’ve said before, if you want to know what a President values, just look at how he spends your money.

The fate of President Obama’s executive order now rests with a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit.  Hopefully, in this venue, the law will prevail over ideology.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

Picture above licensed from Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike via user TalkRadioNewsService

For several months after winning a $1 million state lottery jackpot, 25-year-old Michigan resident, Amanda Clayton, collected thousands of dollars in state assistance. Clayton reportedly received approximately $5,500 in food stamps and public medical benefits. She was exposed by a Detroit news station, WDIV-TV4, in March and has since been arrested for welfare fraud.

When confronted by the Detroit station and asked if she felt that she had a right to the money, Clayton replied, “I mean I kinda do.” She further added, “I feel that it’s okay because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.” Clayton then declared that she intended to continue to use her benefits until she was cut off.

Perhaps Ms. Clayton learned her trade from 60-year-old Leroy Hick. In June of 2010 Hick won $2 million in a Michigan state lottery TV show. In May of 2011, the Detroit News noted that, according to Hick’s attorney, Michigan’s state “Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps.”

The News also noted that, “Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don’t count as income. As long as Fick’s gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.”

Fick declared, “If you’re going to try to make me feel bad, you’re not going to do it.” His attorney added, “I am not going to sit and debate the ethics of this…from his standpoint, he did what he was supposed to do — he informed the state, and the state said he could keep using the card. The problem is with the state.”

No doubt that “the state” has its problems. Among them is the fact that it has created generations of entitlement leeches who are so embedded that, even when they come into a fortune, they are loathe to be removed from their bloated (yet bankrupt) host.

Not only are Mr. Fick and Ms. Clayton guilty of defrauding the taxpayer, they are an example of the worst kind of greed. Other than get “lucky,” neither of them did a thing to accumulate their wealth. Yet they continued unapologetically to seek more through other means that would again require them to do almost nothing. They are the poster children for an entitlement society.

Certainly not everyone who receives government assistance turns out like these two. How could they? I mean, the number of million dollar lottery winners is, by definition, quite small. Thus, very few would ever even have the opportunity to be as lecherous as Fick and Clayton. Sadly, however, I’m afraid that there are far too many who would choose the same path.

Also, note the logic of an entitlement-driven government. Michigan has since changed its law, but how ridiculous is it that, after winning his millions, Mr. Fick was still eligible for government assistance?! I suppose that if he won $10 million he would have immediately been eligible for his Social Security benefits and private lessons from the Secret Service on how to obtain the best available local prostitutes!

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just published some interesting data and graphics. It reveals that in fiscal year 2011, the U.S. federal government spent $3.6 trillion while taking in $2.3 trillion. Of the $3.6 trillion spent, $2 trillion was “mandatory” spending that includes entitlements. In fact, the vast majority of the “mandatory” spending was for Social Security ($725 billion), and healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid $856 billion).

Also, the CBO estimated that one in seven Americans received food stamps last year (and one in ten said they would give them up if they won the lottery!). The CBO concluded that the number of Americans receiving food stamps would continue to grow until 2014.

The reason that automobile giants GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in 2009 is that they had, for the most part, ceased to become car companies and had instead become pension and healthcare providers for millions of Americans. (See my column here.) The U.S. federal government is not only a pension and healthcare provider, but it also has massive housing, food, and child-care programs as well.

What’s more, most of these programs are quite popular. Too many Americans love their entitlements and have a difficult time giving them up (see Fink and Clayton), or even accepting the slightest reforms. This is one reason many liberals want to see Obamacare implemented. Once an entitlement begins, ending it is harder than keeping Keith Olbermann happy.

Thus, not only do conservatives have the task of reigning in current entitlement programs and preventing new ones, but also of changing our very culture. The U.S. literally can afford nothing less.

Trevor Thomas resides in Gainesville, GA with his wife and four small children. He has a bachelor’s degree in physics and two graduate degrees in mathematics education. He has taught high school mathematics in public and private schools for the last 17 years and has written opinion columns for the last nine years. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

The growing trend of state-level legislation aimed at addressing key social issues like abortion, gun control, working rights, and education reflects a deep concern among traditional conservatives that the country is on the wrong track.  A Republican Party that chooses to tiptoe around the systemic corrosion of vital cultural institutions like marriage and family, that elects to ignore the devaluation of the sanctity of life and liberty of all for the sake of one election cycle is a party suffering from the worst kind of political myopathy – a willingness to trade the long term health of the country for short term electoral gain.  This brand of “pragmatism” has never carried much weight with social conservatives, who believe that certain foundational principles should be defended regardless of the political consequences.  For them the political process is merely one vehicle by which individuals come together in pursuit of greater ends, not – as many Beltway careerists view it – as an end it itself.  Republican king-makers and policy strategists who fail to appreciate the values and vision that motivate the traditional base of the GOP will find that base more than willing to look elsewhere for representation.

Though it is easy to overlook given the overwhelming focus on Washington, D.C., it is important to remember that the solution to our country’s problems is not found exclusively within the political arena.  While both sides of the aisle have become more and more inclined to look to government for solutions, many Americans recognize that politicians on Capitol Hill and bureaucrats in committee meetings are unwilling to address – much less solve – the many vital issues facing our nation.  Real solutions and real change are often to be found in the social, cultural, and spiritual arenas.  Strengthen families and communities, foster a culture of life and faith, and the results will provide the foundation necessary for America to thrive.  Economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility will be the natural by-products of an America that embraces its founding ideals and values.

For GOP political operatives to suggest that “social issue” conservatives mute their voices indicates a complete lack of understanding of what animates their involvement in the party, not to mention a lack of appreciation for the vital contributions this wing of the Party has made to past electoral successes.  Social conservatives want to use the microphone available in the political arena in this election to express their concerns about issues that transcend economics.  If that venue is shut out to them as a vehicle for expression, they will find another one.  If the Republican Party has become merely a shill for special interest politics as usual and no longer represents foundational principles of conservatism, then social conservatives will move their allegiance elsewhere.  And if a party does not exist that will advocate their cause, they will create their own.  If this means defeat for Republican candidates, so be it.

This is the new reality facing the GOP.  The Republican leadership in Washington is being presented with a choice.  If they wish to advance a responsible fiscal agenda and put America back on the right economic track, they should be willing to lend an ear and a voice to those in the Party who wish to address social and cultural concerns.  Failure to so will not only ensure President Obama’s reelection, it will likely to spell the beginning of the end for the Grand Old Party.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

The most important (and biggest) change of all must come from insurers. Medical insurers need to move back to the model of other insurance agencies. You don’t pay a copay to your car insurance company when you get an oil change, and you don’t expect your homeowner’s insurance to cover your new ceiling paint, so why do you expect your medical insurance to cover your basic doctor’s visit or prescription for antibiotics? Medical insurance companies have embedded themselves in to every health care transaction – they have established a strange symbiotic relationship. This symbiosis has massively increased costs, as there is an additional layer built in to every transaction. Two simple examples might illuminate the problem:

First, when an insurance company is involved in every medical transaction, additional time and paperwork is added to every transaction. The insurance employee must be paid, the doctor’s office worker must be paid extra for the extra paperwork he or she has to fill out, additional letters must be printed and mailed, etc. Instead of simply handing over cash to pay for my treatment, I have added a layer of significant additional costs.

Second, this layer of insurance hides the real costs of my medical care. If a visit with a primary care doctor or specialist costs me only a $20 copay, I am likely to go more frequently than if it costs me $100. I am even incentivized to take advantage of this “cheap care,” because I feel like I am “getting my money’s worth” from the high premiums I pay my insurance company each month. The incentives become perverted quickly – particularly when insurance plays a role in every transaction.

Medical insurance must return to its original form. It ought to be insurance against catastrophe. Then each consumer would pay a much smaller premium to insure themselves against a crippling catastrophe that would cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. For typical, recurring visits, you pay out of pocket. This approach shows the wisdom of health savings accounts – an innovative approach that is, unfortunately, likely to slowly disappear under a brave new world of government-mandated “standards” for health insurance plans.

Furthermore, imagine if cash-transactions became the norm in the drug industry. The costs for new name-brand drugs are often astronomical if you pay out of pocket, but that same drug can be bought for a $40 copay if you have a group insurance plan. This dichotomy exists because insurance companies are able to bargain with the pharmacy for a “negotiated rate” for drugs. This gives them a steep discount inaccessible to the average cash-paying consumer. If everyone was paying cash for most of their medicines, the costs to the uninsured would drop significantly. Drug companies would have to overhaul their way of doing business if this cash system took hold. Drug prices may go up a bit for the insured, but the uninsured or underinsured could afford to buy drugs with cash.

If cash transactions can again become the basis for most health care purchases, we will see prices drop dramatically. The decreased paperwork and rates game-playing alone will massively reduce costs, and the pricing transparency will open the doors for much-needed competition among pharmaceutical companies.

In addition to these changes by insurers, government must also shift to doing its real job. Stop regulating what basic services must be included in a health care plan or setting up exchanges. Instead, allow the new cash-transaction era to do its work and focus on the things you should be worrying about: stealing and abuse. Punish companies for price collusion or post-claims underwriting. Hit hospitals for medical errors that lead to complications and repeat visits. Focusing on actual injustices will give government plenty to do while also reducing costs and improving our collective health.

So how do we really reform health care? These reforms can, to some extent, be aided or recommended by the government, but ultimately government action is not the answer. Change will take the collaborative effort of consumers, hospitals, doctors, churches, charities, drug companies and insurers to enact lasting reforms. Consumers need to be more informed – they must demand answers, transparency, and, above all, options and clear pricing. Doctors, laboratories, and hospitals need to incentivize cash transactions – offering much better rates and openly encouraging patients to get away from their constant reliance on insurance. Churches and charities need to work to provide support and options for those who genuinely cannot pay their bills. Insurers and drug companies need to wake up to the unsustainable nature of our current system and adjust their business models.

Unfortunately, America has currently decided that it wants government to fix the problem. It won’t, because it can’t force these kinds of reforms through. And why would politicians want to? Politicians are receiving all manner of contributions and pressure from many, many different players in our complex health care and health insurance industries. These players have the money and influence to get what they want from our elected officials. Who will eat the costs if we rely on government? Uninformed consumers and unrepresented local doctors. We must act now or dread the future.

Zachary Gappa is a Consultant for the Center for a Just Society and Operations Manager at Gappa Security Solutions.  Some of his other articles have been published in various places online, including Town Hall, Crosswalk, and The Christian Post.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

While most feminists would insist that they support any and all life choices for women, Hillary Rosen’s comments reveal a certain hypocrisy when it comes to a woman’s “right to choose.”  Her dismissive comments about Mrs. Romney indicate that the only value she assigns to women’s work is the dollar value determined by the marketplace.  No credit or value is awarded for the care and nurture of children or the support of a husband who is laboring away in the workforce.  It’s almost as if women who embrace these traditional domestic vocations are viewed as second class citizens by their “enlightened” feminist counterparts.

Rosen’s comments also ignore the enormous difficulty of the homemaker’s work.  Unlike the average professional environment, which is fairly predictable, orderly, and easily navigable, the typical American home today is a case study in barely controlled chaos.  Cooking meals, cleaning house, changing diapers, giving baths, ironing clothes, gardening, helping with homework, and maintaining the family’s schedule is exhausting work.  So exhausting in fact, that many women prefer the professional working world, where they receive financial compensation and formal recognition over and above the merely psychological and emotional rewards of homemaking.  It is precisely because housework and raising children is so hard that many prefer to work outside the home and subcontract their domestic responsibilities, including the raising of their children, to others.  Of course, many women (both married and single) are forced to juggle both domestic and professional responsibilities with little to no outside help or assistance, a Herculean feat to say the least.

Another element at play is the popular feminist assumption that homemaking can never truly fulfill a woman at the deepest level.  Sure, motherhood is a wonderful thing, and there can be enjoyable aspects to presiding over the home (especially if you happen to occupy a high rung on the socioeconomic ladder).  At the end of the day, however, the truly empowered woman – the feminist who recognizes the overwhelming challenges that women have overcome in pursuit of equality – recognizes that a life devoted to serving others can never achieve the kind of personal actualization so critical in today’s self-centered culture.  Today’s feminist rejects the notion that the preservation and advancement of society depends largely on the contributions that women make to their families.  She ignores the overwhelming evidence that women’s mass exodus from the home and the denial of their unique gender differences have helped contribute to the disintegration of the family and the breakdown of our culture.

The Biblical view of the woman who devotes herself to the welfare of her husband and children is very different from Rosen’s and the feminists’ view.  Proverbs 31:10-31 reflects a profoundly high view of a woman’s care for her household and family.  Where Rosen and her feminist cohorts might see a naïve, subjugated Stepford Wife or the kind of spoiled, self-indulgent diva popularized by the “Real Housewives” reality series, the Proverbs woman’s children and her husband rise up and call her blessed.  Thank God for women who are willing to bear the burdens of the household and who recognize the inestimable value of the contributions they are making, even if the marketplace and doyens of mainstream feminism don’t.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

As it now stands, both major parties seem committed to governing within the existing framework and culture of Washington, DC, rather than effecting fundamental restoration of the principles that made the United States unique and exceptional.

The leaders of the Republican Party might ask themselves if it is possible to once again become a potent voice in national politics. The relatively even poll numbers between parties, and the lack of a clear and forceful conservative message raises doubts.

Some conservative voices decry the party courting votes of independents and not-so-liberal Democrats by softening conservative message to a more “moderate position.” Many conservatives feel they have been abandoned by a party that gives lip service to their principles but acts like the Washington establishment that created the mess and only seems to get worse. Perhaps it is time for the emergence of a new political party.

The concept of a new political party strikes fear in the hearts of conservatives. If a third party were to emerge as during this election year it would likely divide the conservative vote and ensure a liberal victory in the next election. It is widely agreed that Ross Perot’s Reform Party delivered the 1996 election to the Democrats.

Initially the two party system was born with the division between the Federalist Party which favored a strong central government, and the Democratic-Republican Party that advocated minimum centralization with strong grass roots authority. By the time James Madison took office the Federalist Party had faded into obscurity and soon disbanded. Thereafter the Democratic-Republican Party divided into Democratic and Republican parties, and with a few notable hiccups became the two party system we know today.

Throughout American history, many new political parties have appeared. Most of them were small splinter parties that had little affect on national elections. There have been at least 67 political parties that no longer exist. But those with staying power either absorbed, or were absorbed by, one of the two major parties, and the two-party system survived, albeit with one embracing a new direction.

If a new conservative political party were to emerge, it could succeed only if it were to replace or take control of the Republican Party rather than competing with it. But such a new party during this election year would spell disaster for both it and Republicans. But if a well funded new party with effective leadership were to emerge in 2013 it could serve conservatives well by encompassing grass roots movements like the Tea Party, and many dissident Republicans would flock to it.

The Republican Party has much lost ground to regain before it can once again become a strong political force. A new party would have nothing to undo in its quest for a following.

There are some things contributing to the Republican dilemma that seem obvious to a grass roots conservative.

• Washington Republicans talked like conservatives and acted like something else – for a long time. Expanding the Federal government was as much their doing as it was their opponents’.
• The Republican base was once those who wanted limited government and preservation (or restoration) of individual liberty, but these folks abandoned the party when it no longer acted on their behalf.
• Even when elected Republicans had a good message they were not proactive in delivering it to the people. They were constantly in a reactive mode, defending themselves against mean-spirited people who accused them of being mean-spirited, and trying to be all things to all people.
• In trying to appeal to “moderates” and “liberals” they lost both their message and their appeal even to their base.
• All of these things together resulted in the Republican leadership losing the trust of the American people on a grand scale.

The question remains if the GOP is able to recover from the lack of trust of the American people, most of whom I contend, are conservative in that they want government to shrink and get out of the business of telling the American people what is best for them. And they want a legislative agenda that is based on principle, not pragmatism. Gaining trust is a long process that involves keeping commitments and being true to your word. It only takes one incident to lose all the trust gained over a long time, and that is precisely where the GOP is today – at the bottom of the slope. There is reason to doubt whether the party leadership can make adequately profound changes in time to stem the tide of socialistic change.

It is possible some principled leaders will emerge to galvanize the efforts of a restless “tea party” public into a new political party under a libertarian or conservative banner in less time than required to revitalize the GOP.

But if the Republican Party is to survive and realize a significant resurgence it will have to act quickly and commit to specific behaviors, such as:

• Stop trying to embrace liberals or independents who do not agree with your principles. State your principles clearly and unequivocally and let your base gather to your leadership. You can live with a base that is not unanimous on every policy detail, but don’t compromise your fundamental conservative beliefs.
• Stop apologizing for your principles. If the opposition is insecure enough to call you mean-spirited, racist or greedy, you know it is not true, so stand your ground. Don’t let them control your message such that you are constantly denying their accusations and explaining yourself. They are the ones who are mean-spirited and intolerant.
• Don’t lie about your principles and beliefs to get elected.
• Make a permanent commitment to governing on founding principles, not political power or pragmatism. Resist the temptation to put aside principle and act on emotion.

Will the GOP step up to the challenge and do it quickly, or is it time for a new dynamic, principled conservative political party to emerge?

Robert C. Wilson is a veteran of the U.S. Army with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a M.S. in Business. His writings are posted at www.BFranklinPost.com Please email your comments to forum@centerforajustsociety.org.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo