faith

Getting It Right At 250

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We always get to see numerous replays of the New Year’s Eve Times Square Ball drop, but this year was different. Instead of the Ball staying grounded, it went right back up, proclaiming the U.S.’s impending 250th birthday, to drop again on July 3. This coming event can’t help but shine a bright light on one of history’s most extraordinary groups-our founding fathers.

Sadly, the people with the loudest megaphones on both the right and the left have chosen to present a distorted view of these remarkable people. The New York Times’ much-debunked 1619 Project portrayed the Founding Fathers as pro-slavery and the Revolution fought to preserve it. While historians and economists pointed out the project’s numerous errors, it lives on in progressive circles along with the nonsensical idea “Slavery is America’s original sin.”

The only thing original about slavery in colonial America was the Quakers, along with their co-religionists in England, calling for the abolition of the eons-old practice. Before Quakers, no religion, not the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion considered slavery a sin. From the Quakers’ shared spaces with other congregationalist Protestants, the idea that slavery is an abomination spread. Slavery was hardly original here, but the abolitionist cause was.

In a world of hereditary caste systems, with people as chattels at the bottom, whether we called them slaves, serfs, coolies, or untouchables, their lives were controlled by those above them. Challenging this system was genuinely original.

It is telling that for all his achievements, Ben Franklin could never sit in the House of Lords. No wonder self-made Americans weren’t keen on the British class system.

It is, therefore, discouraging to see what many consider the beginning of the impending birthday celebration: Ken Burns’ six-part PBS series “The American Revolution” repeats the popular messaging in progressive circles that the founding fathers were pro-slavery.

Continue reading →

Don’t Call This Administration Conservative

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Core principles of conservatism

While the specifics of conservative beliefs can vary, common principles include:

  • Tradition: A preference for long-standing institutions and practices over sudden or radical change.
  • Limited Government: A belief that governmental power and scope should be restricted to protect individual liberty and free markets.
  • Fiscal responsibility: A focus on low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimal debt.
  • Strong national defense: Support for a powerful military to ensure national security and project power abroad.
  • Social conservatism: Emphasis on traditional morality, often rooted in religious beliefs, including support for the traditional family structure and opposition to abortion and certain LGBTQ+ rights.
  • Individualism: A belief in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and individual achievement, viewing society as composed of individuals rather than collective groups. 

When I Googled “Conservative,” these are the principles the AI generated. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would find them compatible with their philosophies. The former is the first conservative I was able to vote for. The latter governed as best he could as a conservative. Those of us who supported the Conservative movement of the era have trouble with what the administration is passing off as conservative, when in many cases, they’re the opposite.

When Trump first ran for President, he made certain moves to demonstrate to conservatives that he was one of them. He promised to appoint judges from the Federalist Society’s list. Old Reagan hand Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore were enlisted to deliver an economic program of tax cuts and regulatory reduction. Much to my dismay and that of others, he delivered.

Meanwhile, most of Trump’s first term suffered under the cloud of “Russiagate,” a totally fabricated Russian Collusion charge that depended on a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Even with some tariffs levied on Steel, Aluminum, and Chinese imports, and the initiation of misguided COVID lockdowns, conservatives were mainly satisfied with Trump’s performance. Increased defence spending and robust actions against ISIS and Syria meant little aggression abroad.

Even though many conservatives were appalled by Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and his action or lack of action on January 6th, the Hunter Biden Laptop cover-up balanced their ire.

Going on to the 2024 election, the ex-president was swamped in lawsuits seemingly designed only to entrap one person: Donald Trump. To conservatives, using the Government’s legal systems to go after a single individual for political reasons looked like banana republic tactics. Putin keeps his opponents off the ballot by invoking bogus laws, but Americans don’t.  

Continue reading →

Death and Ideas

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Three things that came to the fore recently: the Charlie Kirk assassination, the miserable test scores of our high school seniors, and a poll showing almost forty percent of Americans prefer Socialism over Capitalism. Linking the three might not seem obvious, but hear me out.

Politics and economics, like nature, abhor a vacuum. If something important is lacking, someone will fill it. College campuses were once devoted to open debate of virtually everything. Adherence to the Socratic Method underlay the great universities of the world. Yet when Charlie Kirk came on the scene, he found that many of the great questions of the day, some of which were deciding our elections, were no longer discussed on campuses. Immigration, economics, abortion, law and order, equality vs. equity, whatever was no longer up for discussion.

Ruling out challenges to the prevailing consensus in our great institutions of learning resulted in faculties and administrations, especially in the humanities, of a single persuasion. This situation prevailed when Kirk tried to fill this void. Willing to debate the issues of the day on any campus, he faced threats, derision, and being shouted down when he tried to ask and answer questions.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t some rabble-rouser; he was just the opposite. He listened and tried to answer each question. As one can gather from this blog, I had many disagreements with Kirk’s positions, but I still wanted to hear what he had to say. At another time, this interaction was the way we progressed. Free exchange broadened our knowledge and understanding.

So, how is it in a land that supposedly values free speech, Charlie Kirk was a novelty who paid for his ideas with his life? Is our educational system at all levels designed to mold young minds or help them reach their full potential?

After spending ever more money and setting up the Department of Education at the natioal level, 45% of our seniors fail to meet the basic math standard. A third can’t read at the standard level. In a world where change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace, how are we preparing our children for a life of learning?

Continue reading →