Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

United We Disagree

This election year? Anger and angst permeate the electorate.

We are united only in frustration. Which leads to some mutual distrust.

Not good.

Neither the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, nor the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, will receive my vote. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who will vote for one or the other.

My father, whom I respected more than anyone else — and who passed away months ago — was a big Trump enthusiast. Not that he liked Trump’s demeanor; he didn’t. But he believed Trump was the only person who would shake up a completely corrupt Washington.

Some friends and loved ones simply have different political views or a different perspective on Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ve got the fate of the U.S. in our hands,” wrote a longtime Common Sense email subscriber yesterday, irritated that I was treating Trump’s “sins” as on par with Hillary’s corruption. He asked to cancel his subscription.

What could I say? Well, that’s exactly what I said: “Sorry to see you go.” And I urged that we not “part ways.”

All’s well that ends well: He emailed back and “re-enlisted.” Not only did that make my day, but he illuminated the biggest danger in this crazy election: allowing ourselves to become divided.

Those of us who understand the gift of liberty, who demand honest government and free markets, must hang together or, as Ben Franklin quipped, “we will all hang separately.”

Disagree and debate, of course — but as friends and neighbors and fellow patriots we must realize that no matter who becomes the next president, the future of freedom in America will depend on us working together to hold them to account.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

 

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Petition Rights and Wrongs

Quite a theory: No law is unfair if only that law is being followed.

According to an election board attorney in Howard County, Maryland, tossing 80 percent of the signatures on a voters’ petition does not add up to a “right-to-vote case” at all. Gerald Richman says the board merely “[carried] out the dictates of the law.” He denies that “fundamental fairness is an issue.”

The proposed referendum aimed to stop a rezoning in Howard Country permitting the building of larger grocery stores. I’m skeptical of zoning as an instrument to protect citizens and their property, so if I resided in Howard County, I would not likely vote Yes.

But as things stand now, I also would not be allowed to vote No.

Two months after the election board okayed the first batch of signatures, the board turned on a dime and began massively nullifying signatures, essentially killing petition rights unless voters can win them back in court.

Were the tossed signatures deemed fraudulent? No. The only “problem” is trivial variations between how voters signed their names on the petition and how their names are registered. Things like omitting a middle initial. An attorney for the residents notes that under such restrictive requirements, the signatures of Ben Franklin and John Hancock on the Declaration of Independence could not have been counted.

That notion of fairness is one King George would’ve been mad for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.