The Importance of Being Honest

Let me first start by saying, hello, good reader.  Yes, it has been a while since I have written here.  Life in Morgantown is a bit more hectic than I would have expected and it is taking some time to adjust to my workload in my Ph.D. program.  Nevertheless, I wanted to take a bit of time to discuss a matter which has troubled me about politics, a matter I’ve entitled “the importance of being honest”.

Presumably everyone appreciates honesty to some extent.  With a few, rare exceptions, no one appreciates being lied to or being lied about.  And yet, in our political world, lies are not only abundant, but often considered expected, part of the natural process.

Of course, we all have different opinions regarding political philosophy, the desire for power to implement certain policies (and/or enrich ourselves and our allies), which candidates and politicians are good, which are bad, and what political party we belong to, if any.  Differences in these regards are common and certainly colour of view of the political world around us.

However, there are people, and I’m sure you know of quite a few, who are quite willing to lie to achieve their political aims.  They lie about policies and bills, they lie about politicians both to aid the ones they like and tear down the ones that they don’t. They lie about the state of public opinion as it relates to polls and other such methods.

In previous articles, I’ve written about politicians who lie to promote themselves in the hopes of achieving higher office or to degrade those who would oppose them and their ambitions.  Unfortunately though, rather than call out this behavior, too many of us shrug our shoulders and think little off it, declaring that everyone in politics lies.  Although it is true that all of us can and have made honest mistakes, reporting something that later turns out as false, or sharing statistics that aren’t accurate, it is quite another to willfully and deliberately spread information that you know is dishonest or to fabricate data which upholds your position.  As previously stated, we all have differences of opinions, of course, but when we distort the truth to fit with our agenda we became agents of propaganda.  Once we resort to these tactics, everything we say and do ought to become suspect.

Yes, we all have politicians that we like and those who we don’t.  Some people base this distinction entirely upon partisan labels.  However, differing partisan labels or not, it is not somehow acceptable to spread lies about one’s opponents in an attempt to undermine those who we disagree with, no matter the reason.

In academia, if a political scientist were to fabricate data to promote some theory, then he or she would be discredited and any future work by this individual would likely be considered rubbish until such a time as he or she has certifiably demonstrated a renewed commitment to honesty.  Why then, should campaigns, opinions, and political activism be treated differently?

There is a Russian proverb which says “Доверяй, но проверяй” or “trust but verify”.  When presented with information, especially political information, it would be useful to keep this proverb in mind.

When it is proven that a politician, activist, or writer spreads lies, we shouldn’t take the attitude that it is somehow okay depending on if whether he or she shares our political ideology, partisan affiliation, or even our point of view.  Whether we declare something honest or false shouldn’t depend on whether the person in question is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or independent. Race shouldn’t play a factor either, nor should religion, gender, or a myriad of other factors.  We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to lies simply because they are being used against politicians or political causes that we happen to oppose.  In fact, I would argue that we ought to be more critical of those who are dishonest who also share our political leanings because ultimately these lies come back to reflect on us and our movement as a whole.

Therefore, it is our duty as an informed electorate to call out these lies and those who spread them.  We should never support politicians who are proven liars, nor should we support anyone else in politics who intentionally spreads misinformation.  We should strive for honesty in our own dealings and demand no less from anyone else.

The Schmookler & Huffman Show (Episode XLIX)

Although originally scheduled to air today, August 16th, WSVA moved our radio hour to Monday, August 14th, due to pressing events at the time.  And despite Andy Schmookler being in Shenandoah County and my recent move to Morgantown, WV, the show will go on!

For our 49th episode, the issues centered around the rally and violence in Charlottesville over the weekend as well as a possible military strike against North Korea due to threats against Guam.  We also touched on the failure of Obamacare repeal and the feud between Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump.  We would have also spoken about Elizabeth Warren and the fight for ideological control of the Democratic Party, but we ran out of time.

If you missed the show live, you can can listen to it here (once they have finished processing it).  Thanks for listening!

The Equality of Opportunity Myth

Growing up, I was often told that Republicans believed in the idea of equality of opportunity, that everyone, regardless of his or her beliefs, ethnicity, or circumstances ought to have the same chance for opportunity and success.  Unlike the socialists, who I was told promote equality of results, Republicans desire a fair and level playing field.

I first began to question Republican support for equality of opportunity during the 2013 general elections in Virginia.  During that election, we had three choices for governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis. In case you didn’t know, making the ballot in Virginia isn’t an easy task.  Two of the three candidates for governor had to collect the signatures of 10,000 registered voters across the state.  Terry McAuliffe needed to do so to be in the Democratic primary and Robert Sarvis needed to do so in order to make the general election ballot.  However, Ken Cuccinelli didn’t need to meet this signature requirement because he was nominated in the Republican convention.

Even though we had three candidates on the ballot for governor, as the election went on the debate organizers consistently excluded  Robert Sarvis.  Whether you liked Sarvis or not, given the efforts he had to make, he had as much a right to be on the debate stage as McAuliffe and Cuccinelli did.  If one believed in liberty and equality of opportunity, then he or she would fight to allow all voices to be heard, not merely the candidate he or she preferred.  Clearly, Ken Cuccinelli would agree, right?

Well, in October of 2013 I had the opportunity to find out in person as Ken Cuccinelli invited a handful of activists, including myself, to speak with him in Lynchburg.  I should add that at this time I liked Ken Cuccinelli as a person and supported much of what he did when he was in the Virginia Senate and as attorney general.  Heck, I still like Mr. Cuccinelli and believe he is still a positive force in Virginia politics though, of course, I don’t agree with everything he does (such as his efforts at the 2016 Virginia Convention), and I’m sure there is quite a bit I have done that he has disagreed with.  I didn’t think that the Cuccinelli for Governor campaign had been going that well as it had been horribly nasty and negative and, by speaking personally to Mr. Cuccinelli, he might be able to reverse course.

However, when we sat down in Lynchburg, it became obvious that the Cuccinelli campaign would not change its direction.  One of the attendees suggested that Mr. Cuccinelli should welcome Mr. Sarvis to the debates, but that idea was rejected.  As such, when I returned to Harrisonburg, I wrote a piece in my local paper encouraging folks in the Shenandoah Valley to support Robert Sarvis due to Ken Cuccinelli’s apparent rejection of the idea of equality of opportunity for Mr. Sarvis.

After about a year of refusal for contact, in late 2014 or early 2015, I spoke to my state senator, Mark Obenshain, about this same matter and about crafting legislation to make ballot access fair and equal for all candidates regardless of party affiliation.  As Senator Obenshain ran on his father’s slogan that “The most important goal in my life is to have some significant impact in preserving and expanding the realm of personal freedom in the life of this country,” surely you would think he would support the equality of opportunity for all political candidates regardless of political party.

As many of you already know, instead he told me that he thought no one should be on the ballot except for Republicans and Democrats.  Having just finished running for local office as an independent, I took that news as a personal affront and particularly hypocritical especially given that he sent me a letter right after the election time thanking me for running.  Sometime before this incident, someone who knows my state senator far better than I ever will told me that he wasn’t much of a conservative, he just pretended to be one.  I didn’t believe it at the time though looking back I think it was because I didn’t want to believe it.  But, in that moment, I remembered those words and realized my state senator wasn’t an ally in the fight for liberty, limited government, and equality of opportunity, but rather an adversary.  I felt as if I had been lied to and, unwittingly through my actions, I had helped promote that lie to others.

This year, much like 2013, Virginians will see three candidates on the ballot for governor in November:  Democrat Ralph Northam, Republican Ed Gillespie, and Libertarian Cliff Hyra.  And, like 2013, one candidate, the Libertarian, has been excluded from the debates.  Ralph Northam states he favors allowing all candidates on the stage.  So far, Ed Gillespie refuses to comment on the matter, though in 2014 when he ran for U.S. Senate, I received word that his campaign would not participate in a debate that included the Libertarian nominee.  At this point, as far as I can tell, he still maintains a similar viewpoint.

What if Ed Gillespie weren’t allowed to participate in the debates because he is a Catholic.  Certainly, many people would denounce such a move as being against religious freedom.  What if Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax weren’t allowed to participate in a debate because he is black?  Wouldn’t that rightly generate outrage and cries of racism?  Or what if Jill Vogel, the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, were discriminated against simply because she is a woman?  Would you remain silent in the face of sexism?  Aren’t these all wrong?  I am neither Catholic, nor black, nor a woman, but I would be upset at these policies even though as a white, Protestant male I would personally benefit from this kind of discrimination.  Why then should political affiliation be any different?  Why should Cliff Hyra be excluded simply because he isn’t part of one of only two legally recognized political parties in Virginia?   Whether a candidate runs as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, independent, or something else,  if he or she jumps through the necessary hoops to make the ballot, shouldn’t he or she be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other?  When we support discrimination when it benefits us, then we have surrendered the moral argument and it becomes logically inconsistent if we later declare discrimination unfair when groups of what were formerly minorities seize the majority and decide to return the favor by treating us unjustly.  Although we may not look the same and we think differently, aren’t we all made in the image of the same God?

Although Republicans claim that they promote the idea of equality of opportunity, it is clear that some of them don’t really adhere to these principles.  They seek to maintain a monopoly on power and political access at the expense of freedom, healthy competition, and the rights of the average citizen.   However, it is important to remember that there are some good and principled Republicans and Democrats who do.  If people don’t enjoy political freedom, then, over time, using the lesser of two evils conundrum, it is much easier to chip away at their economic, personal, and religious liberties as well.

Adhering to the principles I was taught, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed in all areas of life, including the political realm, regardless of age, sex, religion, race, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.  If any candidate, politician, judge, or bureaucrat opposes this equality of opportunity and seeks to use the law to bully or discriminate against one of these groups, not only should they be defeated, but for the sake of liberty and a free society, they must be defeated.