Cerebral vs. Practical; The Shootout at Saddleback

I was a bit skeptical about Rick Warren’s planned “Shoot-out at Saddleback” between Barack Obama and John McCain. I was even more surprised when Senator Obama agreed to show up. One on one discourses, as is generally acknowledged, are not his strong suit. Couple that with John McCain’s generally poor public performance since he clinched the nomination along with a dose of Pastor Warren’s religion, I had to debate myself whether I would bother to watch it. My attention span isn’t that long, and there are always highlights at eleven…with commentary!!! I was wrong. It was terrific.

America owes a debt of gratitude to Saddleback Church and Pastor Warren for providing one of the most innovative and informative political discussions I have seen in a long, long time. Both candidates did well. They highlighted their strengths while displaying their weaknesses. The side debate as to who knew the questions in advance is ridiculous. Both candidates showed hesitancy in answering some of Warren’s tough questions. Can you answer what has been your greatest moral failure? I almost felt sorry for these guys.

What it did show was two different approaches to issues, and it is not conservative vs. liberal. We all know who’s who on that scale. It is practical versus cerebral. This is the issue that is driving this campaign. It is John McCain’s greatest strength and Barack Obama’s greatest weakness.

Barack Obama went first and did a fine job. His approach was measured and thoughtful. His analysis of issues was based on internal philosophical intellectualism. You could actually see his Harvard Law education at work as he carefully thought the question or issue through. I am a lawyer, and he absolutely reflected the Socratic method of education that is used in our country’s law schools. He is Bill Clinton on steroids in determining what the definition of “is” is.

In a courtroom or debate, where the political fallout into the general public is minimal, this works. Here is the problem Obama is having: in politics, it doesn’t. His approach to issues often times may reach correct conclusions on some intellectual and esoteric level, but in real life may fly in the face of common sense and reality. The result is hesitation in reaction to fast moving events and implementation of policies that may turn out to be politically unpopular. This has already been seen in Obama’s response to the Jeremiah Wright issue and his tepid response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. This is why people are so passionate about the Supreme Court. Forced school bussing is an example of a conclusion reached by this kind of approach to issues.

McCain went second, and surprised many people by showing he is actually still alive. He also did a fine job. His background is military which is reflected in his no-nonsense approach to what he believes. His conclusions are rooted in a core set of beliefs. His life experience is the framework in which he operates. Although there is a place for some intellectual debate, you get 10 minutes then let’s get on with it. Any prolonged debate for him would be centered on implementation of his decisions rather than the decisions themselves.

If you think that this kind of analysis of the two candidates is a waste of time, look at the commentary relating to Bill Clinton’s chance to kill Osama bin Laden during Clinton’s presidency, and his penchant for letting lawyers decide what should happen. By the time you finish the legal debate, the opportunity is gone, or the danger has progressed so far you are in trouble.

The Saddleback debate brought these distinctions to the forefront. Barack Obama is a fine man. I would love to sit and talk to him or debate him or be in court with him. He would make a great domestic or foreign policy adviser. But his life experiences aren’t rooted in the reality of a dangerous world. He has yet to learn that there are times when you have to act and forget the debate in the United Nations. Hesitancy for intellectual analysis can cost lives.

Can he learn it? Maybe. But I am not willing to gamble with on the job training. He will be tested by the bad guys during the first year of his presidency. They will be betting that his intellectual debates will give them free rein. Jimmy Carter learned that the hard way.

Picture courtesy of Flickr Common Attribution; h pants explosion; Some Rights Reserved

O, Canada; O, Death of Free Speech

Over the past several months I have read numerous articles about Canadian censorship. This is interesting because certain factions in the United States have wanted us to be more like Canada or Europe. This year, the possibility exists that we may elect a filibuster proof Senate and Congress controlled by the Democrats with a Democratic President. Just in case you have forgotten the “political correctness” which is the hallmark of this crowd, I thought I would give you look-see across the border to see what Canada has wrought.

Canada has had several constitutions over the years as it attempted to perfect its multicultural view of life. The latest was enacted in 1982 entitled The Constitution Act in an effort to reconcile French interests in separatist minded, French speaking Quebec. Included in The Constitution Act is something called The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is this the equivilent of the American Bill of Rights? Not quite.While Canada does enumerate rights, including Freedom of Expression, within its “Constitution”, these rights are not absolute. That isn't new to us here. We know you can’t yell “Fire” in a theater, and we have libel and slander laws which are civil in nature.

Canada, on the other hand, is different. Embedded in its Constitution Act is another section called "the limitations clause," which states: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it 'subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' ”The Canadian Government and its provinces have used "the limitations clause" to go after “hate speech” through the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its enforcement of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It defines hate speech as a statement which “is likely to expose a person or persons to ‘hatred or contempt’ by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” We call them protected classes in the United States. The definition of these protected classes has been steadily expanded over the past several years, and the Canadian bureaucrats are loving it as they attempt to build utopian, multicultural society.

These “hate speech” crimes are enforced through extra-judicial tribunals and star chambers operated by political appointees. Hearings are not public. There are no rules of evidence. Any aggrieved member of a protected class can bring a complaint, thus causing newspaper and magazine publishers, broadcasters, authors, and those making political commentary to hire lawyers and incur legal costs over someone getting their feelings hurt. Punishments can include fines and cease and desist orders if the tribunals don’t like what you are saying. If you refuse, you will be jailed for contempt. The chilling effect alone is enough to put free speech in the deep freeze. THIS IS SCARY STUFF.

The issues surrounding this affront to civil liberties are pointedly on view in a case currently pending in the British Columbia hate speech tribunal. Mark Steyn, a conservative Canadian commentator, wrote an article for the Canadian Maclean’s Magazin entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” It was a spin off from a book entitled “America Alone”, the thesis of which is based in the demographic argument that Moslems are having children at a much higher rate than the rest of the Canadian population. Because they don’t reflect the host countries’ values, it is only a matter of time before Islam becomes the dominant ethnic group, particularly in countries with immigration policies which encouraged or are encouraging Muslim immigration.

While this argument may seem absurd in the United States where we actively try to assimilate all immigrant groups, that isn’t the case in Canada and Western Europe where huge Muslim populations, either through accident or design, have been isolated from mainstream society. The proof of the pudding is in Great Britain, where the Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Anglican Communion), as well as other high ranking government officials, are making the argument that Sharia law should be allowed in the Muslim communities located in Britain.

In Canada, which prides itself on its multiculturalism, the Muslims were upset by the Steyn article, and filed complaints in the hate speech tribunals. There are several different actions pending in various tribunals at the Federal and Provincial levels. The federal case against the magazine filed in Toronto was thrown out on a technicality. Notwithstanding, the federal tribunal could not stop itself from commenting that there needs to be limits on free speech if it offends groups in society and undermines freedon, whatever that means.

The case against the book is currently being decided in Vancouver. The holding should be released sometime this month.One theme I continually attempt to drive home is that our freedoms are precious. They are easily eaten away by those who have “a better way.” In Canada, hate speech has crossed the line into political discourse. The current Canadian Prime Minister is attempting to deal with the problem, but is running into difficulty. Is this what we want here?

So when you got to vote this fall, be wary of those running for office here in the United States who look to Canada or Europe as better examples for the United States. Be wary of those who sing the praises of multiculturalism instead of rapid assimilation. Be wary of those who say we have to understand strangers in our midst, and we should adapt to them instead of them adapting to us. It is folly, and can lead to our demise