At least they really debated

When or if the McCain-Obama debate takes place on Sept. 26, and ditto for the Palin-Biden faceoff on Oct. 2, little of the fulsome rhetoric will resemble the statesmanlike duels classically understood as debating. What we call "debates" today are nothing but joint press conferences, with journalists asking the questions and virtually no direct cross-examination or swordplay between the candidates themselves. Lincoln and Douglas would laugh these guys to Springfield and back.

Kudos, therefore, to a radio listeners' club called the Colorado Prager Fans, aided by DU Prof. Corey Ciocchetti as moderator, for staging a real debate Monday night at South High in Denver between talk show host Dennis Prager of Los Angeles and local lefty writer David Sirota, Philly boy turned Coloradan by way of Montana.

"What's Better for America: Liberal or Conservative Ideas?" was the topic, and the protagonists with Cocchetti's help kept it lively, meaty, and mostly civil for two hours before a packed hall of over 1200. While the central issue wasn't in keeping with strict debate procedure, which poses a proposition to be affirmed by one side and negated by the other, what I liked was the relentless slugging match between Sirota on the left and Prager on the right, with plenty of thrust and parry, jabs and counterpunches. It was utterly unlike the stiff and sterile yawners we'll get this fall from the Presidential Debate Commission.

The organizers were also imaginative, and the two principals admirably resourceful, in reducing their vast topic to six big areas with an eight-point buffet under each of them, from which each debater could graze at will during his 2x4 minutes of remarks. Do the math and you'll see that meant the audience -- a thousand-plus conservatives versus Ken Gordon, Wade Buchanan, and a few dozen other liberals, to judge from applause -- heard 16 glorious minutes of intense crossfire under each of the main areas.

Those were, if you're wondering... racial issues and policies... the economy... freedom of speech... culture issues... foreign policy and defense... and America's reputation in the world.

Who won? That probably depended on who you asked. In the post just below this, Ken Davenport writes up the affair as if Prager had mopped the floor with Sirota, but I didn't see it that way. Though David was bobbing and weaving and using the ropes much of the time like an overmatched boxer, he fought gamely, showed remarkable spirit and stage presence, seemed unfazed by the lopsided crowd reaction, and landed his share of punches. When I saw Gordon next day and asked how he though his guy had done, the Senate leader and seasoned courtroom attorney didn't say "Ouch" as one might do after a wipeout. He said good show, and I agree.

Substantively, of course, I agree with most of Ken Davenport's observations about the superiority of Prager's arguments at the debate, and about the formulaic hollowness we perceived in many of Sirota's lines -- but I allow that some of this may be perception alone on our part as conservatives. Talk to someone from the other side and you might get the opposite verdict.

"Where are all the conservatives, anyway?" asked David Sirota at one point -- in relation to spending, or the bailout, or civil liberties, or intervention abroad, I forget which -- and it was a telling shot. Prager actually got his bell rung at that moment, though the big guy (big physically and with outsize self-confidence to match) didn't realize it at all. He just went happily along, as befits radio's leading happiness maven.

David also scored, I thought, with his comment that liberal-conservative does not always align these days with Democrat-Republican, but here too Prager declined to engage. Each man mentioned the neo-conservatives once or twice, and it would have been illuminating -- if no great crowd-pleaser -- to hear them thoughtfully discuss that over-demonized but under-analyzed aspect of today's ideological landscape. David hewed closely all evening to his self-description as a progressive, not a liberal, but the onrushing format distracted him from explaining what the difference is, as he promised to do at the outset. I'd really like to know.

Bottom line, it was an edifying as well as entertaining occasion no matter which side you were pulling for, and I again congratulate the sponsors as well as the protagonists. At least they really debated.

When Prager & Sirota faced off

Monday at South High in Denver, a big crowd came out to see the noted conservative writer and radio host Dennis Prager debate Denver-based "progressive" writer David Sirota. The debate centered on a fundamental question that should be of interest to everyone in this election season: Whether liberal or conservatives ideas and ideals are better for our country. It covered a host of issues, including foreign policy, race, media, economics, and domestic social policy. I went into the evening knowing pretty much what Dennis would say, because I am a fan and avid listener of his show. But I was curious as to what the liberal Sirota would say -- how strong his arguments would be about what the left believes about America and how if views the major issues that face us. It was hardly a fair fight. Sirota seems like a bright fellow, but he's 33 years old and typical of the "children's wing" of the Democrat Party -- the one which can follow a script, but has little practical life experience. After listening to the talking points he gave last night I have one overriding question: Does David Sirota actually know any conservatives? From his answers last night I find it hard to believe that he does.

Against Prager he was clearly overmatched. For a well-known progressive writer and "thinker", Sirota sure didn't offer much insight that you can't find at the HuffingtonPost or at MoveOn.org. Sirota trotted out all the well-worn canards about Republicans in painting a very simplistic view of what conservatives think. He accused conservatives of not recognizing race in this country, of not wanting to help the poor and the needy, and of living in a "fantasy" world that ignores the cold hard realities of life in America.

In making his arguments, Sirota cherry-picked points of data from various polls and studies which he claimed made his views "irrefutable fact" -- but that were clearly taken either out of context or were spun in such a way as to be maximally damaging to conservative positions. It came off transparent and was in no way convincing. He repeated the claims of the Bush tax cuts being "for the rich", that America under a Republican administration has been "stomping around the world" with "hubris", that we were lied into a war in Iraq (that he claims was really about oil), and that we would do well to care about the fact that the rest of the world dislikes us. "It's a national security issue" that we aren't popular -- as if it were any less dangerous when Bill Clinton was traveling around the world feeling everyone's pain.

For Prager it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel. In his typically clear style, he offered a powerful counter punch to Sirota's liberal doom-and-gloom. He unapologetically told the audience -- a largely pro-Prager crowd -- that America is the greatest force for good in the world. He said that the problem for blacks in America is largely one of their own making, and that he doesn't care whether the rest of the world loves us, only that they respect us. He painted a picture of an opposite world view from that of Sirota: where America is a principled force for good in the world. It was standing ovation material.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the evening was being able to see into the narrative that the "progressive" movement is pushing about America. It represents a window into the socialist-driven policies that Barack Obama will pursue as president -- and it isn't pretty. Sirota painted a picture of what he calls "corporate socialism" -- which he argues already exists in this country. It comes in the form of the $700 billion bailout for the "fat cats on Wall Street". Or the $120/barrel price of oil that represents a windfall profit to "big oil". Or the tax breaks for corporations that then "ship jobs overseas". In Sirota's mind, America is run by a cabal of corporate chieftans who pull the levers for government -- all at the expense of the "little guy".

Prager last night called this for what it is -- the kind of Marxian materialism that underscores how the left looks at the world. I couldn't agree more. I studied Marx under some very accomplished socialists at the London School of Economics and I can tell you that socialists live in a secular world that views things purely in terms of material gains and losses. In this paradigm, the only motivation for anything is the material world -- whether it be land, money or oil. It is impossible that the United States would enter Iraq to make the world more secure and free the Iraqi people from tyranny. It just has to be about Halliburton and oil.

This, then, is the world view that the progressives hold. And it explains some of the more outlandish claims against corporate America, which must be structured to exploit the world in an evil search of more material gains. That's why Sirota and progressives like him believe that collectivist solutions are the answer; only government can ensure that society's goods are distributed fairly. It starts out by raising taxes and then leads to the redistribution of wealth -- all on a model that will engineer society down to the lowest common denominator.

If Sirota represents what America will be like with an Obama presidency, we should all be afraid. Be very afraid.

Memo to Dems: We're not subjects

We Americans generally understand and appreciate the value of our citizenship. We know that we are fortunate to be living in the freest, most prosperous and most powerful country on earth. We thank our lucky stars that we were born in the United States rather than in Russia, China or Zimbabwe, and welcome new citizens from abroad to our shores. However, not enough of us understand that our citizenship is a boon not only, or even primarily, because it is American citizenship, but because of what our citizenship actually entails. The United States Constitution secures the “privileges” and “immunities” of American citizenship. These ultimately derive from the natural rights affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, and are referred to as the “blessings of liberty” in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Our natural right to liberty is secured, not granted, by the government. So our rights can, under that protection, be called “privileges and immunities” because they belong solely to American citizens.

When the Constitution refers to “privileges and immunities,” it is securing rights which are  enjoyed equally by all citizens. In other words, no citizen legitimately enjoys a right at someone else’s expense, either monetarily or in some other way. This confusion between rights and what has been called entitlements is at the heart of the difference between citizens and subjects.

Of course, our citizens are subject to the authority of the Constitution and the laws, but they are certainly not subjects of the president, Congress or the Supreme Court, nor of state and local governments. The people are, in fact, the ultimate sovereign, having agreed to establish a government in the first place by their uncoerced consent, giving it their continued support through periodic free elections.

Subjects, on the other hand, enjoy only those rights which have been conferred on them by whatever government happens to exist, and by whatever means it was established and has been maintained — including force or fraud.

Unfortunately, one of the most powerful temptations of free citizens is to seek privileges for themselves at the expense of others. There are, truth to tell, enabling politicians who are more than happy to appeal to, if not to stir up, this sentiment, by means of which they can assemble majorities that elevate them to office, and provide support for the passage of confiscatory legislation that redistributes the wealth of one class of citizens to another.

This is also a fundamental difference between our two major political parties. Democrats emphatically favor treating their fellow citizens as mere subjects to be manipulated and looted in order to secure their own political power, although they will do all that they can to mislead people who stand to be looted or others who do not approve of the forced redistribution of wealth.

Republicans have always been opposed to redistributionist schemes in principle, but some of them have felt compelled not to oppose those programs when they are popular with the citizens. Frequently, their strategy is to advocate less expensive or oppressive programs than the Democrats.

It is a testament to the lasting legacy of Ronald Reagan that he managed to place Democrats on the defensive. They stopped calling themselves liberals because Reagan had convinced millions that liberals stand for precisely the wealth redistribution programs that responsible and self-supporting Americans oppose. They now prefer the label "progressive," which is no better but less odious to the public.

More specifically, Democrats misrepresent the various government programs that they favor by trying to pass them off as “investments,” rather than forced transfers or drains on the public treasury. Somehow, by Democrat logic, investments made by Americans who are enterprising enough to persuade others to stake their money in corporations and businesses are not legitimate investors, even though no one was, or could be, forced to fork over their money to them.

Today, Democrats want to seize the profits of American oil companies to finance so-called “soft energy” alternatives to fossil fuels, as if the former were bleeding the country and the latter were forcibly held back by the power of the oil companies. In fact, it is much cheaper and more efficient to pump oil and natural gas than to rely on ethanol or windmills, notwithstanding anyone’s contrary wishes.

We are bombarded with never-ending streams of government programs to solve every purported problem. It is up to our citizens to remember that they are not obliged to accept politicians’ claims at face value and to take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not converted into mere subjects of powerful politicians or interest groups that see their fellow citizens as fair game for their schemes.

Constitution Day event for teens

This Saturday, Sept. 20, the Liberty Day organization invites teenagers to its 2008 Constitution Celebration at CU-Denver. A nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating youth about the contents of the U.S. Constitution, Liberty Day held its very first high school “Constitution Celebration” at same location one year ago. The conference was both a success and an enjoyable experience for all involved.

Information and registration for this year's event are at CelebrationAmerica.org.

"As a parent I am always looking for ways to increase my daughter's knowledge of our country, its history and form of government. This conference was a great way to expose her to many important issues without boring her!" praised Mary Ehlers, a 2007 participant’s parent.

Nearly sixty high school students from across the state were in attendance. Several presenters, including Secretary of State Mike Coffman, Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon and former Senate President John Andrews, spoke, debated or led breakout sessions at this event, which was generally hailed as “a great way to learn about our government and meet new people.”

"Attending the event gave me my first real taste of American democracy,” said Matt Baatz, a 2007 participant who is now a freshman at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs. “The speakers were people I had seen before either on television or working at the Capitol. The fact that they were there and speaking on such a personal level made the government and Constitution very real.”

Liberty Day has since launched its successor program, Celebration America, as a premier program for high school and college students with the express purpose of informing students about the Constitution, inspiring them to action and involving them in the political process in a fun, interactive and engaging manner.

Saturday's event will feature two exciting debates showing how the Constitution is applied in day-to-day life. Students will participate in engaging breakout sessions with people who are involved in government and politics. Prominent presenters like outgoing Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and Solicitor General Dan Domenico will be in attendance.

“This is a great opportunity to work with local high school students in advancing their understanding and appreciation of the U.S. Constitution,” said Dr. Frank Sanchez, UCD Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

The conference begins at 10:15 a.m. and will end at approximately 4:00 p.m. Lunch is provided free of charge at the Celebration America “Constitution Lunch Party.” Participants will get the chance to visit and eat lunch with elected officials of all stripes. They will also test out actual voting machines and learn about different political organizations in the state.

Jimmy Sengenberger is the National Director for Liberty Day’s Celebration America program. A 2008 honors graduate of Grandview High School in Centennial, Colorado, he is now a freshman at Regis University.

Diversity for its own sake? Why?

With a woman on one ticket and a black on the other, let's not forget that the popular slogan that "diversity is our strength” rests on a historically and empirically unwarranted premise. The notion was started by the Marxist in the 1950’s as a divide and conquer strategy, no more no less. I remember going into the Communist Party bookstore in San Francisco as a college junior to load up on stuff for a class I was taking at Berkeley. (In those days it wasn’t completely taken over by the Marxists as it is now.) I remember seeing the “Hero Negro” comic books they’d pass out to blacks. If the Feds photographed everyone who went in and out, I’m probably on the list.

Ever since then, the Marxists have successfully pitted various groups against each other: ethnic groups, young against old, poor against the rich, gay against straight, town vs. country, anything they can find and exploit. They get all these groups discontented and clamoring for their entitlements, creating disunity. Sound familiar, say in the Obama campaign? This Marxist premise has been virtually unchallenged over this ensuing generation.

Remember Rep. Pat Schroeder’s pressure on the armed services to insert women into positions of authority in the early 1980s, just for the sake of it? This notion has spread up the chain until we see what we have today even at the presidential level.

So in the present situation, if we’re going to assert that this notion “diversity is our strength” is detrimental to the country, we will have to start at a much more foundational level than McCain’s choice for VP.

Ask any woman what she thinks of the Sarah Palin VP choice. I would wager she has a positive feeling about it. I know my wife was in tears of joy when Palin gave her acceptance speech. McCain’s political calculation is to capitalize on the discontented Hillary voters. We will see quickly what the progressives do to counteract this. You can bet they will marshal great resources to quash this threat: ** Dig dirt ** Strategic disinformation ** Put the word out to Al Qaeda in Iraq to capture or kill Palin’s son to grieve and destabilize Palin emotionally. Doing this before November 4th would be the most effective. ** Do something to destabilize her marriage, such as siren seductresses targeting her husband, lonely with the Mrs. away for weeks at a time, complete with hotel rooms with hidden video cameras to record the proceedings.

In the long run, if we have a President whose response to a crisis is to burst into tears and cease to function, then the Marxists have succeeded, and we’re fornicated. But we’ll see. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier were pretty good leaders, so I am cautiously hopeful.