ThisIsCommonSense.org

The election is weeks away, but a new report from the non-​partisan Center for Voting & Democracy picks the winners in every congressional race. In the past, their accuracy has been astounding.

In 1997, 18 months prior to the ’98 elections, leaders of the Center predicted 340 congressional races with incumbents and 21 open seats where there was no incumbent. The results? They were right in 339 out of the 340 incumbent races, or 99.7 percent. In open seats it wasn’t quite as easy, but they were right in 19 out of 21, or 90 percent.

How do they do it? They look at the breakdown of voters by party affiliation. You see, one of the most serious problems we face in creating a competitive electoral system is gerrymandering. This is the process whereby state legislatures draw the political boundaries. It allows politicians to pick their voters before voters can choose them. Add to that the awesome power of incumbency, which scares off competition, and you can see this is not exactly crystal-​ball gazing.

The courts have struck down districts drawn to get a certain racial outcome, but have turned a blind eye to districts that arbitrarily favor one party over another. The solution to incumbents monopolizing our elections is term limits. But another key factor in promoting democracy is to stop the politicians from drawing rigged districts that squelch competition.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Washington, DC is blessed with an abundance of highly educated mouthpieces, who for the right price will eloquently defend the indefensible. But don’t try this at home.

The indefensible is Congressmen George Nethercutt’s decision to break his word to the voters to step down after three terms in office. His pledge won him his congressional seat, but now Nethercutt is willing to cast aside his integrity to hold on to power. In the recent primary, Nethercutt and his cronies splurged big-​time, spending half a million dollars on a massive TV ad barrage in the last three weeks. His opponents did not have the money to air even a single TV commercial. Still, most voters cast their ballots against Nethercutt.

In the last ten years, seven of eight Washington State incumbents who got less 50 percent in the primary were defeated in November. The good news is that Nethercutt is in big trouble. The bad news is that his remaining supporters are still trying to defend the indefensible.

One recent letter to the editor called his 1994 pledge a “gimmick” and suggested we should “accept gimmicks as one price of democracy and move on.” Then there was the letter was from Randall Jones of Newman Lake, Washington. Mr. Jones writes, “I will hold my nose and vote for [Nethercutt.]” My goodness, is this really what our elections have become?! Should you vote for a guy if you can’t do so without holding your nose?

This is Common Sense. Let’s use some. I’m Paul Jacob.

Republicans poke fun at Vice President Al Gore for claiming to have invented the Internet. But political braggadocio isn’t unique to Democrats.

Representative George Nethercutt of Washington State says he must break his word to the voters to step down after three terms because he is so close to finding a cure for diabetes. He’s there in his office right now poring over a microscope. How can Nethercutt still do his congressional work while also doing the biochemistry, you ask? Well, this is Washington. And the cure here, for everything, is to throw other people’s money at it.

What Nethercutt is really looking for isn’t a cure not that he’s against one but votes. But how sad that politicians are so desperate to look good that they pretend they are wonderful for being in favor of what everyone else is in favor of, too. I’m not against a cure for diabetes…are you? Yet I hate to think that all medical research decisions will become political decisions, with everyone suffering from one disease trying to grab dollars away from everyone suffering from another disease.

And I just don’t buy that career politicians are medical wizards for handing out our money. Normal people like you and me take it for granted that folks won’t see us as ax-​murdering creeps even if we don’t constantly insist we’re in favor of education, health, and sunshine. For some reason, politicians feel the need to shore themselves up here. Hmmmm. If the shoe fits.…

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This may shock you. Al Gore opposes school choice for kids trapped in failing schools. Instead he supports the same old throw-​more-​money-​at-​it, keep-​the-​bureaucrats-​in-​charge “solutions” that haven’t worked for decades.

But after choosing a former school choice advocate to be his running mate, Mr. Gore made a remarkable concession. Here is what he said: “If I was the parent of a child who went to an inner-​city school that was failing … I might be for vouchers too.”

Huh? I am shocked. A career politician, who knows the right thing to do, but lets politics get in the way? Shocking. Al Gore has dug in his heels in defense of the public school monopoly and has no solution to offer parents at all. Though as a politician he opposes school choice for others, he sends his own kids to private schools. He is not alone.

A Heritage Foundation survey of Congress found that many of the same Congressmen who send their kids to private schools also oppose vouchers. A 1999 education bill would have allowed children in dangerous schools to choose another school using vouchers. Fifty-​seven members who believe in school choice for their own kids, cast a no vote. Had they all voted yes, the measure would have passed.

The pattern has been repeated many times. We get political lip service on how much politicians care about education. But they don’t have the guts to fight for what they know is right if it means losing support from special interests. That’s our most serious educational failure.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Listener Horace Solliday writes: “Dear Paul, I am distressed every time you tell us of the good politicians who are fighting for term limits and then restrict their own terms while none of the career politicians have. Is that common sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stay there until they get term limits?”

Thanks Horace; it’s a fair question. But here’s the thing. No constitutional amendment for term limits is going to pass in a Congress dominated by career politicians. We’ve learned that the hard way. So we must change the Congress. That means real leadership, by example. Citizen legislators who walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Experience hath shown that if our best representatives don’t term-​limit themselves, as the years pass they tend to become co-​opted by the system and play politics as usual. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, in his sixth and final year in Congress, still sleeps on a futon in his office and showers at the House gym, unwilling to become a native of Washington, DC. Says Sanford, “Some people tell me, ‘You know, Mark, you are a lame duck before you’ve even started.’ I respond, ‘You’re wrong. I’m a free duck, and there’s a big difference.’ … Term limits force you to maintain perspective. It’s an anchor.”

Sanford is right. It’s no coincidence that the best people in Congress have term-​limited themselves. The challenge for our free society is to elect more representatives who will be “free ducks.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The government has issued a big report saying that the entertainment industry is marketing sexually explicit and violent programs to our kids. As a parent, I only wish I could muster up some shock at this revelation. Our culture is often unhealthy. And that makes it tough on parents trying to rear healthy kids.

But the problem won’t be solved in Washington. What can politicians do in a free society? Censorship isn’t the answer. Nor will election year lectures from politicians change the industry. Are we going to ban all violence in the media? Some of us liked Saving Private Ryan , which portrayed the horrible violence of war. It’s anti-​violence. What about Hamlet or Gone With the Wind ? We all have different values. One person’s “excessive violence” is another’s “object moral lesson.”

The V‑chip or other technology can help but it certainly won’t create a world where anyone’s morality agrees 100 percent with what’s produced as entertainment. That’s why the real answer is parents relying on their own sense of right and wrong and exercising moral judgment in their own households. It’s up to us as individuals to reward entertainment that is life affirming and to punish the rot that degrades our society. That may mean boycotts, talking with neighbors and other things that government can’t do. But you and I can.

In the free marketplace of ideas, we have that power not in Washington but in our wallets and in the hearts of our kids.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.