By Dr. Harold Pease

Media accounts of candidate activities and/or their public statements by them­selves rarely give enough information to vote intelligently, and candidate debates, at least on the state, county, and city level, are poorly attended. One wonders if candidate charisma along with color, size, and number of signs displayed are not the most significant factors for most voters in making a selection.

However, many do wish to vote intelligently but may not know how to proceed. They first need to formulate a philosophical base that should go far deeper than the rhetoric of a political party. If I may be so bold to cite a personal example, my own base begins with my solid Christian background. Regardless of party or ideology, I want my public servants to emulate such solid values as honesty, integrity, morality, etc. I also would like to believe that when confronted with tough decisions they, like Washington and Lincoln, would not hesitate to ask God to illuminate their understanding.

Next, my ideological base rests solidly in the writings of the Founding Fathers, and theirs was based upon human nature and natural law that does not change.  My years of study of the Constitution has convinced me that individual liberty cannot be maintained by straying too far from it or from the collective philosophi­cal base of that group of early patriots. I have made their collective ideological base my own.

Their philosophical base consisted of many elements. Space permits my covering only a few. They believed that govern­ment should be limited, its powers strictly defined, and that these powers should be listed specifically in a contract with the people.  On the federal level those limits are outlined in the U.S. Constitution. (Art. I, Sec. 8 limits the Legislative Branch; Art II, Secs. 2-3 limits the Executive Branch; and Art. III, Sec. 2 limits the Judicial Branch.) Hence, I cannot support a candidate who works to increase government influence over the individual—whether at the city, county, state, or federal level—and/or who believes in fudging or moving outside those specifically listed grants of power, and you can’t either if you wish to remain Constitutionally grounded.

Another basic premise of the Founding Fathers crucial to the preservation of liberty is that we should never elevate to a higher level of government that which could be resolved at a lesser level. In other words, the county should never assume as part of its governance load that which the city could and should do. Nor should the state assume the prerogatives of the county, or the Federal Government those of the state, county, or city.

When this happens, power flows upward and away from the people and is seldom returned. Those who make the decisions are less accessible, thus less susceptible, to local influence; and the program, now managed from hundreds or thousands of miles away, usually costs more because of less efficient management.

Often the enticement of money is used to facilitate the transfer of power. States have a tough time saying no to federal grants; and when state governments offer inducement moneys to cities and/or counties for some project or program, rare is the councilman or supervisor with the courage to say no. Initially the money is free, then with a few strings attached, finally with conditions mandated; and thus the autonomous independent nature of cities and counties is compromised. I knew a city councilman some years ago who complained that his city was virtually controlled by the state in that at least half of what was placed before him for his vote was already mandated by some higher governing entity.

Hence, a major concern in my voting practices rests with this question: Could this function be handled at a lesser level of government? If yes, then it should be. When considering candidates for public office, does this person actively work to keep decision-making power as close to the people as possible—even if it is unpopular to do so—or is his usual answer to every governmental dilemma more government and more money to fund more programs? The latter candidate is sure to leave us with less freedom and less money as well.