Our bipartisan responsibility deficit

(Townhall.com 7/14 & Denver Post 7/15) It’s time for a new force in American politics. We don’t need another party, not yet anyway. But we need a responsibility movement to challenge both parties and reach beyond them. We’ll call it Element R and launch it today, right here in Colorado. Nationally this summer, things are out of joint. Low enthusiasm for the presidential contenders in both parties may lure one or all of Fred Thompson, Al Gore, and Michael Bloomberg into the race. Polls register widespread disapproval with Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic Congress, as well as with Bush and the Republican administration. Voters by a big margin say we’re on the wrong track.

Element R needn’t run candidates, draft a platform, or hold marches to start making a difference in this sour climate. All it will take is citizens one by one rededicating ourselves to the original American ideal of responsible persons and responsible communities. The responsibility deficit in high places (and low) can’t persist if an awakened silent majority says “enough.”

Don’t misunderstand; this born conservative and battle-scarred Republican isn’t about to change jerseys. I spurn the daydream that foresees some new entity swallowing the GOP as we once absorbed the Whigs. I reject the pundits who tag my party a sure loser for the White House and Congress next year. We’ll be back; you watch.

But in the simplistic polarization between Republicans and Democrats, I believe something is missing – the noble virtue called responsibility. We have a party of the right that prioritizes freedom and the individual viewpoint, competing against a party of the left that prioritizes equality and the communal viewpoint. Seldom asked amid the struggle is the question, “Why? Equality or freedom for what?”

America’s democratic conversation occurs in a moral vacuum as to the ultimate ends of human life, even when the air is thick with moral and spiritual rhetoric. Victory may seesaw between the two parties, yet duty steadily loses ground to selfishness, faith to skepticism, prudence to expediency, temperance to excess, higher to lower. The responsibility deficit worsens among us, no matter which side wins.

To be responsible, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is to be “morally accountable for one’s actions, capable of rational conduct.” A responsibility is “a charge, trust, or duty for which one is responsible.” Notice two things here: (1) the idea of an objective, knowable standard of what is moral or rational, and (2) the idea that we’re all bound in relationships of duty and trust; we’re not just atoms adrift.

This is heavy stuff in the Age of iPhone. When today’s spirit of autonomy and affluence combusts with the ancient fire of virtue, responsibility talk can become fighting words. Yet this is who we are and must be. This is what our founders encoded in America’s operating system, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We’re either a nation of responsible persons and responsible communities, or we’re nothing.

My July 1 fantasy column, satirizing Hillary and the relativist caucus in 1776 moving to purge all absolutes from Jefferson’s Declaration, no doubt chafed some Democrats. Sorry, it was just another approach to this same issue: responsibility. Lots of my fellow Republicans could be imagined in the same anti-responsible role.

But going into 2008, let’s hope the responsibility movement attracts many good Americans from all parties. It was responsibility, even more than freedom and equality, that saw our Republic through all the troubles of two centuries to its present enviable well-being. The bipartisan responsibility deficit now jeopardizes that.

A duty to do, a trust to keep, a moral standard to meet – for all of us red or blue, rich or poor, pigmented or pale – that’s the Element R vision. Join us?

Nightmare at Independence Hall

(Andrews in Denver Post 7/1 and on Townhall.com 6/30) The “Titanic” exhibit got me ready for time travel, and the big burrito did the rest. A chair at poolside, a snooze in the sun, and suddenly I was back at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. All eyes were on John Adams as he addressed the Continental Congress: “Fellow delegates, today our drafting committee submits the proposed Declaration of Independence. You have Mr. Jefferson’s text on your parchment laptops. Upon the motion of Lady Clinton from New York and Delegate Obama from the Illinois country, the draft underwent a political correctness audit by Bishop Bill Moyers of PBS Cathedral. Serious concerns arose.

“After consulting delegates Byrd of West Virginia, Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Gore of Tennessee, and with spiritual guidance from the Dixie Chicks, Moyers warned that the Declaration’s belief in natural law, self-evident truth, God-given rights, limited government, and separate nationhood is woefully unsuited to the brave new world of coming centuries.

“The bishop said these rigid dogmas would keep Democrats from ever fulfilling their destiny. Their party would be at a permanent disadvantage as the advocate of slavery and secession in the 1800s, the engine of omnipotent government and a planned economy in the 1900s, and the vanguard of global ecology and transnational utopia after the millennium. ‘Conservatism on steroids,’ was the verdict on our draft in a week-old New York Times editorial just received by post rider.”

John Adams paused and sighed. Red-haired Tom Jefferson was pacing in the back. On the left where the relativist caucus sat, I saw Clinton and Obama exchange smirks. “No absolutes, Mr. Adams,” Hillary prompted in a stage whisper. The future Vice President glared at her, raised an eyebrow at Dr. Franklin, his fellow drafter, and resumed.

“Keep your knickers on, milady,” Adams hissed with Yankee sarcasm. “Madam Rodham refers to the amicus brief from ACLU, the Atheist Colonial Liberals Union, indicting the Declaration’s brazen use of such value-laden terms as ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘savage’ and ‘civilized,’ ‘manly’ and ‘wholesome,’ as well as the atheophobic term ‘absolute’ applied to His Majesty King George.

“Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have also criticized what they call the Declaration’s blueprint for theocracy. The document refers ominously to God as lawgiver, Judge, Providence, and Creator. ‘That’s too much holy talk for any sermon by us or Dr. King, let alone any government paper,’ said the reverends. Bigotry on such issues as prayer, marriage, and unborn life is sure to follow, added spokespersons for NEA, NARAL, and NAMBLA.”

“You’re pathetic, Adams,” exploded Delegate Murtha from Pennsylvania. “The Marines would court-martial you for mutiny. Independence is out of the question. You neocons started this war with lies, and we deserve to lose. We rob the red man, brutalize the black man, and oppress our women. General Washington is incompetent and a war criminal. Jefferson combs the Koran for an excuse to attack Tripoli’s Muslims. ‘Sacred honor’ indeed. For shame!”

The relativist caucus rose as one. “Negotiate!” “Withdraw!” “Apologize!” “Close Newark prison!” “Amnesty for Benedict Arnold!” “No blood for tea!” Above the din Murtha still bellowed: “Peace now, before more thousands die and more wetlands degrade. Redeploy to Iceland and spare the poor redcoats. Every day of war means worse carbon emissions and fewer earmarks.”

Delegate Kerry strode over and laid a patronizing hand on his fellow Bostonian’s shoulder. “Europe knows best, mon ami. We are the world’s pariah, the new Genghis Khan. We’ve not met the global test. Independence is so arrogant, so Republican. Mr. Adams, tear up this draft.”

Then I woke, and the shouting was Colorado kids, not dour defeatists. Our ship of state didn’t sink at launching after all. She sails on, proud and strong. Happy Independence Day, America.

Can Muhammad and Jefferson coexist?

(Andrews in the Denver Post and on Townhall.com) Can a good Muslim be a good American? Brian, a constitutional scholar, put the question to Michael, a national security expert, as we passed the Washington office of Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim to serve there. Ellison’s decision to be sworn in on the Quran still echoes controversially. Holy war proclaimed against the United States in the name of Islam by Osama bin Laden in 1996 was not taken seriously until his terrorists struck here in 2001, shouting Allah’s name as they died. Even since then, President Bush has insisted Islam is a religion of peace and the global jihad is a perversion. But is it? Coloradans need to ask ourselves.

Almost one percent of our US population are now Muslims, about 2.35 million in all. Most people know some, and we find them decent folks, pleasant to be with, no less than any other religious group. Unfortunately, that’s beside the point for Brian’s question to Michael.

Muslims can obviously be Americans. More and more are, by birth, immigration, or conversion. The qualifier “good” is where it gets uncertain. If a good American is one who lives in fidelity to our nation’s founding principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and a good Muslim is one who lives in fidelity to his God-given scripture, the Quran, the concern is whether you can do both.

If you can’t, American liberty might wither in a world where Islamic dynamism is high, Western self-confidence is low, borders are porous, and multicultural tolerance reigns supreme. We’d face a nervous future where individuals must choose between being loyal citizens or Quranic literalists. Nobody wants that, but wishing it away won’t do. We must look at the evidence and have the conversation.

Researchers William J. Federer and Robert Spencer are troubled by the evidence they’ve found. Federer’s well-documented book, “What Every American Needs to Know about the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States” (Amerisearch, 2007), questions the compatibility of the two belief systems. How can Muhammad’s teaching that women and unbelievers, especially Jews, are inferior square with Jefferson’s “all created equal”? Spencer raises similar concerns in “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” (Regnery, 2005).

By some interpretations, the Quran forbids a good Muslim from giving any allegiance whatsoever to the nation-state, and hence from obeying civil laws made by any secular government. Sharia, the religious laws proceeding from Allah’s books and clergy, alone warrant obedience according to this strain of Islam.

No problem, says the optimist, we’ll simply encourage the less absolute and more democratically-minded strain of Islam here in the good old USA. We’ll do as Australian premier John Howard did and tell the extremists to embrace our values or leave. Only we won’t; all our secularized instincts forbid dictating to any group that way.

We’re stuck with the hard reality that “good Muslim” isn’t something externally defined, it is fought out among the faithful themselves. And recent history, from the persecution of Salmaan Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the cartoon riots to bin Laden’s attacks on his own Saudi homeland, shows how ruthlessly the Quranic literalists are determined to crush the moderates.

Last week I was with Muhammad Ali Hasan, the Coloradan who founded Muslims for America. His organization, according its website, “has zero tolerance for any kind of terrorism, in following the example left by Prophet Muhammad.” Hear, hear.

Clearly this young businessman and patriot is a good American. But is he also a good Muslim? Of that we unbelievers cannot judge. Some of his fellow believers would say that unless he embraces jihad and seeks the restored caliphate, he is not. They might even threaten his life to make their point – and therein lies the great challenge of this century.

When I make a mistake, it's a beaut

Update, June 16: My letter to the Rocky refuting Salzman's slur was published today. The bottom line is that Dems raised taxes and we Republicans never did, in fact we cut them. That's the inconvenient truth which Salzman and his allies fear in next year's campaign.

Liberal media hitman Jason Salzman used his Rocky Mountain News column on May 12 to call me a hypocrite and a flip-flopper for opposing Bill Ritter's $1.8 billion property tax increase this year, after being on record with a yes vote for a similar proposal in the Senate in 2004. In today's column he ups the ante by suggesting the whole affair proves me a liar. Jason, Jason -- are you and the Dems really that panicked about the damage this huge, unconstitutional tax hike may do with voters in the 2008 election? Apparently so.

The most anyone is going to "prove" here about former Sen. Andrews is how consistently imperfect and frequently inattentive I was in public office -- and am in daily life, for that matter.

Salzman in his June 9 piece ignores my quote in his own earlier column: "I voted for it without having had the tax-increase feature of it brought to my attention. I plead guilty to casting an ill-informed vote. But I have to plead not guilty to the idea that I was an active proponent or advocate for this approach." Instead he dwells on my comment that Sen. Norma Anderson, sponsor of the 2004 tax hike, used "sleight of hand" to temporarily pass it through the Senate -- before House Republicans called the mistake to our attention and we, Senate Republicans, ultimately OK'd a school finance bill minus the Anderson poison pill.

On his blog he gives the transcript of a five-minute floor debate between a single Republican senator, Andy McElhany, who argues this is a tax increase and three senators (Anderson, Republican Ron Teck and Democrat Ron Tupa) who say it's not, or who say pass it anyway. Tupa's remark that Norma was doing "vintage dragon lady" with bluster against McElhany -- which Salzman actually cites in his column today -- is but another way of saying what I've said repeatedly: this woman was a master at railroading anything and anyone. Hence the ill-informed, ill-considered vote cast by me and most of the GOP caucus on that occasion, prior to Rep. Keith King and his House colleagues straightening us out.

Salzman's breathless speculation in the lead of today's column that "Andrews is lying" relies on his own ill-informed, subjective, naive, and credulous interpretation of how the legislative process works and who the personalities involved were. It is a reckless innuendo resting on zero hard evidence, and as such, journalistically irresponsible in the extreme -- nice work for a self-proclaimed guardian of ethical journalism.

Jason isn't even that sharp as a copy editor, as we see in this careless but revealing error on his blog: "Andrews says that, thanks to Andrews, he cast an ill-informed vote for the freeze." The second name in that sentence was obviously meant to be ANDERSON -- but I will accept the sentence as written, since I have already owned my bad vote and stated "I plead guilty." We've met the enemy, in Pogo's famous phrase, and he is us.

I must thank the Rocky for that nice photo of me, which will make a fleeting positive impression with ten times as a many readers as the number that plow through the text below where my character is negatively portrayed. And by way of explaining the title of this post, I cite the cheerful mea culpa once offered by New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia: "When I make a mistake, it's a beaut." Yours truly says amen to that.

But the far bigger mistake here is that of Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democrat-led legislature in passing into law in 2007 (not just temporarily accepting, then ultimately rejecting, as we did in 2004) a huge bump in taxes on homeowners just at the time when assessments across the state are going UP and resale values are going DOWN. That one is a beaut indeed, and no amount of spinning and "everyone does it" subject-changing can erase the grave political vulnerability it creates for Dems next year.

---------------------------------------

Mea Culpa PS: Also in the May 12 Rocky, two pages from my owning-up with Salzman, I owned up with columnist Mike Littwin, who wrote: "'It was an ill-informed vote - one I wish I could have back,' Andrews says. 'You don't serve down there without making some dumb votes. That was one.'" My friend, Sen. Steve Johnson (R-Loveland), went on to compliment me for that self-criticism. I in turn must compliment the only two GOP senators to vote right on the 2004 Anderson tax hike, McElhany and Lamborn. Fittingly, their fidelity to fiscal conservatism is now rewarded by Andy being Senate Republican leader and Doug being elevated to the US Congress by his grateful El Paso County constituents. As for retired Sen. Norma Anderson, she is on record as regretting her support for Lamborn and me in the redistricting bill of 2003, while I'm on record regretting my support for her little school finance maneuver of 2004. So I guess we can call it even -- though she still has some 'splainin' to do about being a token Republican on Gov. Ritter's transition team.

'You write for who?' asked Hugh

Yep, it's true, I told Hugh Hewitt during the 5 o'clock hour on his national radio show today: I write a Sunday column for the liberal Denver Post, and now I'll be doing political commentary for denverpost.com as 2008 approaches. We conservatives are out to reclaim the Post little by little, I added. Hewitt had said on the air that if John from Backbone Radio was listening, I should call in with comments about last night's Republican debate -- which I immediately did. My comments were at the ready as a result of having live-blogged the debate with four other Post pundits.

Here's a McCain soundbite from the debate that may have been a Freudian slip, said Hugh, and I knew what was coming since I had headlined that very quote in a post near the very end of the two hours, as follows:

"Not gonna erect barriers & fences" (Posted by John Andrews @ 6:56 pm) So says McCain about immigration. Maybe he’s speaking figuratively, in the "golden door" mode, or maybe he’s admitting the border security provisions of his own bill are as phony as all the conservatives have been claiming. I’m betting it’s the latter.

David Harsanyi and I offered our debate analysis as Republican well-wishers (I hope without too much cheerleading), while columnists Jim Spencer and Diane Carman plus Montana blogger David Sirota wrote from the Dem (or left of Dem) perspective. Here's the link for all of our comments on the 6/5 GOP debate in New Hampshire. Scroll further down on the same thread to read mine & Spencer's duel over the 6/3 NH Dem debate.