This is the question that some in the Georgia legislature are attempting to put to a vote.  In private, the bill, SB 10, received wide support and it’s passage was considered a swift and certain outcome.

The bill, officially known as SB 10, does not in and of itself make alcohol sales from liquor, convenience and grocery stores legal on Sunday.  It legalizes a process that would allow local governments to determine if they wanted to put before their citizens a vote to determine if local community standards supported expanded alcohol sales.  Supporters have positioned the bill as a vote for local control.  Opponents have fought the bill as an abomination.

As the vote neared though, some of Georgia’s elected representatives got cold feet.  The thought of being put on the record is a scary proposition for some, and this is turning out to be an issue where principle is not as important as image.

Most Senators privately claim that they are for this bill, but they also fear a backlash of social conservative voters, who are believed to be more “single issue” in nature when arriving at the polls.  And thus, Senators this year seemed to devise a plan that would put the burden of passing this legislation on the record crop of freshmen legislators.

Is this the most pressing matter in the nation? Far from it.  But if we can’t convince our politicians to act with backbone and principle on smaller issues, can we expect them to do so on the really tough votes?

This is a seemingly minor, but frequent high-drama issue at the state level. If you’re in Georgia (I’m looking at you Erick), and feel like getting this off the perpetual argument list, call your state senator and let the know that the people are quite capable of deciding this issue for themselves.

I think it’s time for a shift in perspective.

Whenever we talk about the happenings in D.C., campaigns, debates, policy votes, selection of judges and other government matters, we think of those things in terms of politics.  That is, as a common people engaged in honest and frank discourse over a shared direction for our nation.  But I think we do so under some assumptions that no longer hold true.

First, I will assert that it is proper to consider that politics is a series of actions engaged in within a single boundary of sovereignty, or at least among a generally shared sovereignty.  In the latter case, within it’s own government, the movements of power of North Korea, as a holder of sole sovereignty under it’s system, are politics.  Within the U.S., theoretically at least, the movements of government power among the sovereign people individually is equally a form of politics.

Secondly, I will assert that we can not honestly consider ourselves to be a common people engaged in frank debate over our shared course. The nation is deeply divided along ideological lines that are irreconcilable.  Worse, one course has us handing over our sovereignty as individuals to another body, even if it is a body of our own making. Unless an agreement can be reached on where the seat of sovereignty will lie, there can be no common purpose.

Third, to be frank and honest discussion, we must be operating under the same set of rules. I need not recount here the number of ways that the left creates its own set of rules; rules that we are forbidden to also operate under, or that we honorably refuse to adopt. (Vassar has an in depth post on the subject anyway).

Fourth, the U.S. government and a significant number of those who operate within it are actively using the gained power to undermine, at the behest of the citizens who would have them do it, the sovereignty of those that insist on keeping it to themselves. This is at it’s core a clash of sovereigns.  One centralized, one spread across the nation, of distinctly different characters, but two sovereign none-the-less.

Fifth, the avoidance of violence requires one thing. Not politics. Diplomacy.  The negotiation among sovereigns of terms of coexistence.  It is important that our choice of representative, those we vote for, those we recruit, those already in office, go to Washington D.C. not to become part of this sovereign gargantuan and politic within it.

Instead, our representatives must be there to represent our sovereignty.  To demand, from a position of strength, that our boundaries and borders as individuals be respected and that this usurper sovereign maintain itself within the boundaries it’s creators negotiated for it. That all the weapons of the state, judges, politicians, bureaucrats, be appropriately restrained from even the briefest incursions.

Our choice is one as stark as that between Churchill and Chamberlain.  Individuals like Graham, Cornyn, McConnell and McCain pat themselves on the back for achieving peace in our time with the democrats, triumphantly waving their paper with its worthless promises.  History is littered with examples that show us where our current path will take us, if we will put our situation in it’s proper context.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

- Frederic Bastiat

I like this quote because it helps to explain the assumptions that the small government types have to battle when discussing ideas with lib/prog/social types without assuming that they are being disingenuous in their claims. Some may be, but I think most believe, incorrect as they may be, in the wisdom of their decisions.  Some will never be convinced, but there is a good portion of society, our friends and neighbors, that we have a chance at bringing back to the fold. We just need to dig at the roots, instead of focusing on the bits we can see.

Opposition to some measure of Social Security is answered with “why do you hate poor people?” Objections to a particular federal education law are met with “what do you have against children?” It is nearly impossible to convince the questioner that we would just prefer to manage these things a different way. Unfortunately, to the socialist there is no other way that they are willing to consider. To them if we wanted to do something, then instituting a government program is the first, last, best and only option.

Dissuading them from this concept/confusion is the essential first step in getting through.

I find myself and others too often arguing against the policies from a point that is predicated on shared assumptions that ultimately don’t exist. This is about keeping in mind that we don’t just differ on which solution we prefer, but how, at the most basic level, we see the world.

The saying, when all you have is hammer, the world looks like nails, comes to mind. Those of us that see some options in our toolbox need to convince the socialist types not just that another tool might work, but that they actually have other tools. So long as they believe that they only have a hammer, no amount of preaching and screaming about saws, screwdrivers and wrenches will matter to them, except for making us seem crazy.

I admit I’m having a hard time following the intricacies of racial politics here….

So Al Qaeda is officially a racist organization that oppresses Africans and murders them.  Al Qaeda is headed by Osama Bin Laden.  Osama Bin Laden was praised (we’ve all seen the video) by that Shabaz guy from the New Black Panther Party.  Does that mean the NBPP is racist for supporting (loudly, with lots of audience cheering, clapping, and joy) a guy that heads an organization that oppresses and murders under racist motives?

Can someone help me out, because I think my head is exploding?

In fact the declaration is revealing of Obama’s thinking (for those that hadn’t caught on) about race, and I can think of no alternative explanation that fits the facts. In reality, Al Qaeda’s tactics in Africa, and motives, are no different than anywhere else in the world. They seek to force non-muslims into converting to Islam, and for non-Muslim societies and cultures to adopt Islamic law. In Obama’s eyes though, it isn’t the motivation that determines if the organization is racist. The determining factor is the target. The reason, argument, logic, purpose, motivation or state-of-mind are irrelevant.  It is all about skin color.

In Uganda, Al Qaeda did what Al Qaeda does. They did it for the same reasons they have done it elsewhere, against other people.  But the Ugandans are African, and in Obama’s eyes what they did must be linked to skin pigment.  There is no other way.

I think, sadly, that this view insults the loss that others have suffered at the hands of Al Qaeda.  By Obama’s reasoning it makes them less noteworthy, less important, different. Mere accidents of circumstance not related to what Al Qaeda is really about: Oppressing African.

At this point, everyone has seen at least seven articles describing, bemoaning or celebrating the Democrat’s plan for ending America. The plan was drawn up in retaliation for what we are all hoping to be the ultimate electoral backhand from the voters. But can they pull it off?

In general terms, I have noticed an appalling lack of understanding about constitutional practices when headlines shout “OBAMA APPROVES XXXXX TREATY LANGUAGE”, or “HOUSE APPROVES XXXXX”  The discussion that inevitably follows contains no reference to the necessary approval steps that all this legislation actually has to go through.

So the dems want card check, atm taxes, cap and trade….  I know little of the particulars of congressional procedures, but I expect that Nancy Pelosi can get most of that done in the House. I have little doubt that Barack Obama would happily put his name at the bottom. The Senate I am not so sure about.

The picture doesn’t improve (much) after the election heading into the lame duck session.  Assuming Manchin wins the special election to fill Byrd’s seat, the dems will pick up one vote, but it won’t be enough to overcome a filibuster. The members will also have to act in the face of some pretty intense voter turn-around.  That’s probably no obstacle for many, but even one or two that are swayed by voter anger would make Reid’s job more difficult. In the lame duck session, I think getting to 60 will be even harder than it was in February, March or April.

The real question is: Can the GOP stick together to make the terrain work to their advantage? Even the squishies, the statist-lites and the RINO’s will have a significant election season to reflect on.  Will that be enough to stiffen their spines? Will they see the advantage in forcing a stalemate until January? Do we feel safe knowing our fate rests upon the political courage of the Republican Party? …