Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

I make it a point to read different sources.  Some are from different viewpoints ideologically, some are from different nations, and some are just plain different.  But, I note a recurring theme in some quarters that questions how America can make decisions without regard for what the rest of the world (and by this, I really think this means more their governments than their people) think.  My answer is:  Easily.

I am someone who enjoys communicating and sharing ideas.  I think it is a great thing to work with others, to find common ground, and to realize that there is a shared investment in our future.  After all, we are one species, and our success will ultimately be measured by that same standard.  But for all that, it doesn't mean we should compromise core beliefs for the purposes of being agreeable.

You can either have a system rooted in principle or in consensus.  America, for better or worse, has stood strong based upon clear and easy to understand laws, designed to protect liberty, with respect for the individual, and that cherishes that.  In contrast, consensus seeks to deny the rights of the individual when they interfere with some social good.  They ask sacrifice, but I think we as a people, must choose individually where and when that is warranted.

If every nation on Earth wanted to come together, under no other protection that a well-intentioned bureaucracy, I would work more tirelessly to make sure America remained apart.  We must stand for beliefs, and stand for a simple and enduring hope:  that we are individuals, and will not be treated as anything else.

We will work with others.  We will lead.  Sometimes, we will follow.  But we will do so on our terms, not because we're better than anyone else, but because we believe that what you believe is always more important than who you partner with.  It is why we, as a nation, were first to help the nations rebuild that fought against us.  We are all people, but how we choose to live, that is what makes us American.

There are those who will never understand this and who will denounce us as simplistic and arrogant.  Let us hope we never count ourselves among them, or I fear no nation will stand up for the rights of the few against the dominance of the many or the powerful.

I haven't written in a few days.  I've been thinking more than talking.

You know, when I was a child, I was extremely quiet.  I felt like I shouldn't talk about anything unless I was sure of my answers.  Being a little older, and hopefully a little wiser, I've learned that you never really know anything for certain.  We all have beliefs that we cling to like rocks in an uncertain storm, and these are truth enough, but only for each of us.

In many ways, it is like that again.  I'm walking a path that no one else is seriously trying, and it is a challenging thing.  There is an intellectual honesty that is required in being both a political actor and an ethicist.  I'm proud of the latter, determined in the former, and come to realize there are many things that exist that don't make sense for more reasons than expediency.

I have commented on that often, and I'm sure I'll do again in the near future.  But it is Thanksgiving, and I want to share something for which I am grateful.  I'm glad that I have the ability to think, the opportunity to change my mind, and that each of us, ultimately has the choices to shape our world around us.

People convince themselves so readily of their own helplessness, and it simply isn't true.  We all make mistakes and find ourselves in situations that make us question how we got there, but there is always another tomorrow and a chance for redemption or renewal.  I believe that, and in spite of being sarcastic at times, I find I'm still strangely an optimist at heart.  It just doesn't show as easily as it once did.

I left the Republican Party.  I actually made the decision on my birthday, but I have been waiting for a few days to talk about why I have done this, and to better know how I feel about it.  Indulge me as I tell a story which might be a little long, but that I want to share.

One of the great blessings in my life are the many interesting conversations that I have with people on a regular basis.  I am not someone who chooses my friendships based on ideology, though I know many people who are of a certain mindset.  Through those discussions, I've learned that the things that bind us are far greater than those that separate us once we go beyond the labels.

Those who know me best would tell you that I am a person who is driven by ideas, and by helping others.  As I illustrate through this blog and the many other things I do, there is a constant battle to find the ground where the ideal and possible intersect, and that is where I stand.  After many weeks of thought, I realize where I wanted to be was no longer where I had been.

I became a Republican shortly after leaving college because I was disaffected with the way government operated.  Through firsthand knowledge, I know the inefficiency of bureaucracies, and why big government is a bad idea.  I joined the GOP hopeful that it would be a better approach, and respect the idea that freedom is better than security.

My experience has been mixed, and that surprised me.  I found people who would support having freedom for business, allowing money to be made in whatever way best possible, but that would seek to restrict how individuals would live their personal life.  It struck me as a calculating sort of path that neglected what I thought should be the guiding principle:  liberty.  Free people, left alone, do great things.

I know there are many who share my same frustrations, both with a vision that is too narrow, and with a national party who doesn't follow that.  The Bush Administration grew government faster than any other prior to our current Presidency, encouraging a massive bailout to the worst offenders in clear contradiction of any reasonable capitalist view, and that same party seems destined to me to miss the point of what is happening here.

It is one of those commonly said things that we live in a two-party state and that is simply how it will be.  Maybe that it is true, but it shouldn't be.  We alternate between elections between increasingly radicalized liberal and conservative camps where the very stability of our state comes into question with each new election cycle.  Massive changes happen, and government piles atop government.  We refuse to talk to one another as we bunker down with our camp, and say we are right.

I don't know if I'm right.  I know I have important ideas though, and I want to talk to people who both agree with me and disagree with me.  I think I can convince others, but I am not coming with any label that I do not choose for myself.  I am coming with ideas that are both very old, and always new.  I want people to talk to one another, to choose for themselves, and to take power back.

The parties are corrupt, just as the process is corrupt.  The whole thing is so inundated with money that it would be a miracle for any citizen to find justice and fair representation.  I don't think you can fix that from the inside.  I respect those who work hard with the duct tape trying to make things better.  They are my friends and I will support them, but it is not the path that I choose to take.

You know, when I made the decision to become an independent, the thing that surprised me was how easy it became for me to laugh again.  When you're in a party, you adopt this mindset of defending your own, and sometimes you find the words coming from your mouth don't always match the ideas in your head.  You do what you think is necessary, as you try to defend your position, not allowing the other side to take what you have.

Not me.  I will walk back and forth, crazy though some will call it, and see if I can't talk common sense.  Some will listen, some will not.  I will support people who have good ideas, and oppose those who do not.  But, I will not do so because a group believes this, or I need votes from that.  That is what got us in this trouble, and it isn't what will get us out.

To my dear Republican friends, understand this:  Even if the best scenario, even if the best candidates controlled and represented the Republicans at every level of government, and even if there was no corruption, we would still only have half a nation.  In my county, we would represent only a quarter of the voters, and we cannot build something to last with that.  Us vs. them has to end if we are to reduce government.  My time is worth more to me than that, and so I begin to think differently.

Just because it is unlikely to succeed, as the pragmatist in me knows all too well, doesn't mean I am wrong.  I can live with that, and I feel renewed.

One thing I struggle with is in trying to keep a completely logical framework, but to also be realistic with what I support.  I think it is important to know why you believe what you believe, because it shows you stand for something.  As I often say, you can compromise on policy, but never on principle.

I've chosen to wrap myself in the banner of liberty because it seems just to me that each individual should make their own choices, should be free to receive the benefits or costs of those decisions, and that those should not be imposed on others.  Spoken that way, it's hard to oppose liberty, but it becomes more complex when you get into details.  I've been participating in an interesting conversation where we are asking whether liberty means having something or having access to something.

For many issues, it is a clear cut case about liberty.  Having access to a series of choices and having those choices are one and the same.  People are able to make decisions and see them actuated.  But there are times with specific issues where this becomes harder, and there are two specific issues that trouble me in this light:  healthcare and education.

As I articulated in my earlier article, I value life, liberty, and property in that order.  If we presume someone has a right to their own life, what does that oblige us?  I've heard a compelling argument that it means nothing more than the right to exist without threat of that being taken.  But, I wonder what does that mean in terms of health?  Should we have the capacity to sustain life be a logical consequence of supporting life.  My thought is that while it is perhaps not a right, it might be part of a social contract.

I also think education falls into the same situation.  What does liberty mean without the functional ability to understand the concepts?  Or even more fundamentally, the language being used?  Without education, we lose the ability to function as social actors, and I think in order to be realized as an individual, we need society, the awareness of people around us who are not us, to realize that we are distinct.

These may not be rights.  If you define liberty such that access to education and access to health care are guaranteed, but the provision for them is dependent upon any involuntary classification (which for children, wealth would be included), are you depriving people of a necessary item?  I think it isn't, strictly, a right, because you're compelling services.  But, this leads to my next evolution in thought.

Liberty is the inherent state of man.  Nations, states, socieities, and communities are all compromises derived for mutual benefit.  The social contract is the balance between the liberty that is inherent and the security we desire for our own physical and intellectual protection.  Most accept things like borders, Courts, and other arbiters as governmental agencies.  But what distinguishes civilizations is what functions we choose beyond those, and where that balance is struck.

I love liberty, and want the utmost of freedom.  I try to design the minimalist state that I think would be successful as the object that I work to create.  But, I wonder on health care and education, because before the ideas we have, we need the ability to be and function as physical and material beings, and to understand wonderful discussions like the ones we have here.  Note that I am not arguing for how these should be structured, as I believe choice should always be retained to the individual to select care or service, or to refuse that option.  My assertion is more basic:  that we cannot deprive people of these, at least at some fundamental level.

Even if it is an affront to absolute liberty, I think it is the minimal requirement for a successful society in this day.

I'm not a big fan of using my blog to take shots at individual politicians, because I think we spend plenty of time doing that and not nearly enough looking at why policy makers behave as they do.  That said, there are times where you can focus upon one person, one decision, and see clearly that it is wrong.

For all the hubbub about the health care debate and the inevitable fight coming in the Senate, we seem to have forgotten there is an ongoing war.  Thousands of American lives are at risk along with those of our allies up in the treacherous passes of Afghanistan.  Yet, what are we doing about this?

Barack Obama was elected with a strong mandate to end this war from his own supporters.  Instead of employing that, he has dithered, leaving people stranded in no man's land.  As his administration works out whatever political calculus they think best, people are dying in a war we aren't sure if we want to fight.  Seemingly content to neither pull the men out or put enough men in to do what would be required for  even a chance of success, this disappoints me far more than any other action he has taken.

You are many things when you are President, but foremost amongst those is Commander-in-Chief.  This means you must be the decisive voice that gives meaning to all those in the field and what they are doing.  The excuse that this is George W/ Bush's War means nothing anymore, because he has not sought to end it.  You are America to the world, and the world is listening.

I could respect him if he said, "This is a war that we should not be fighting, and having removed the regime that caused these attacks, we're coming home."  It would give honor to those who served, and remove us from the specter of tribal loyalties and corrupt regimes.  I could also respect him if he said, "This is a war we must win for our future security, and we will do whatever it takes to succeed."  I disagree heartily with the concept, but I honor the commitment and intentions.

What I cannot stomach is the current approach that says take a few months and then "We'll see."  Our servicemen deserve better than that; they deserve leadership.  If you want the big seat, then you must take the decision on your shoulders and right or wrong, act.

"He who does not remember his past is doomed to repeat it" said Santayana, and I find myself thinking that is happening again.

In 2007, we collected thousands of people across the nation in support of a candidate whose sole driving focus was the Constitution.  Although it was a campaign that was unprofessional in many ways, and fraught with what others would consider devastating political errors, the Ron Paul Campaign for President attracted more money and more new supporters into the political process than anyone, including those involved with it, ever dreamed possible.  It also failed to achieve its goals in the end, and now we can look at why this was.

I wrote a 180 page book about the campaign that I had once posted elsewhere, but it has taken me a few years of reflection to realize the problem.  If you're going to challenge the system, you need to understand all the obstacles to entry that serve to make it impossible for truly limited government views to succeed.  Government is just one part of this, even if it is the central location.  The parties themselves, through the funding process, serve the same purpose.

Operatives I respect tell me that you need to raise several million dollars just to compete for any Federal office.  Assuming the people who want to run for these positions are not selfless millionaires already (a rare breed), what trades do you think must be made to get this money?  Do you think that millions are given just to reduce government?  Or, alternatively, do you think those giving such large amounts expect some sort of return in Federal funding?  A project for the district?  Pork and influence?

Maybe it is the way it must be.  But, I choose not to believe that.  The grassroots is coming to a moment of reckoning where it must either pick the path that it has tread before, trying to work within a party for change, or find some new outlet for expression.

In 2007, I remember advocating that we work within the party.  We had hundreds of members, a shown willingness to donate both time and money, and a desire to effectuate change more conservative than any Republican could dream.  We were laughed at, dismissed, and those who got involved either ended up leaving in disgust or simply gave in with the hope of accomplishing anything.

People don't understand that joining a party is like joining the military.  If you become a committeeperson, your responsibility and your commitment is to helping whomever the party decides is the person, putting your interests behind theirs for the perceived greater good.  Candidates and officeholders ignore this freely, but party people cannot and find themselves in an increasingly awkward position.  What do you do when your party calls on you to support someone who isn't bad, but who stands for something you would simply not consider supporting?  Do you give that up?

We all make compromises, but how far can you go before you lose what motivated you in the first place?  How many of us know people in either party who simply have winning as their justification, where the initial causes that motivated them have long since vanished in the strict demand of expediency?  Do you think people will continue to follow you, the same people who acted on principle, when you have to make these arguments?

It is not for me to say what any person does for themselves, but I've learned a lesson.  I know what I believe, I know what I have to support, what I cannot compromise, and that the only way I can feel like I am saying what makes all the time and effort worth it to me is to remain true to my beliefs at all times.  I cannot make that compromise anymore, and I won't.  For my friends who find themselves in a similar position, I ask that you think what you would do for yourselves.

I don't have a perfect answer or alternative.  There isn't one.  But I know that you can't get to the right place if you're heading in the wrong direction.

You can't be a political strategist without being at least an armchair psychologist.  As such, I find I have many opinions, some of which are surely wrong, but a few interesting observations.  Tonight, I will share one thing about which I am certain, and this is the hardest battle anyone faces in motivating either others or themselves:  belief in the possible.

I cannot tell you how many times I've talked to people where the conversation goes "I would love to see this happen Tom, but you know it never will."  With a sigh of resignation and the belief that it is good sense, the person goes off to make a decision they don't like, but think is necessary.  Desire is replaced by duty, satisfaction with resignation, and we call this maturity.  I call it folly.

I've learned there is a power in life that comes only from those who are able to live according to their own beliefs.  It took me many years to realize that it is a bad bargain to support something that is not what you, especially if you do so because it is not bad as something else you don't want.  Each of us has the amazing potential to reshape our future and the world around us simply through standing up for our beliefs.

So, this is my challenge to everyone reading this:  put down the twelve step program, and be the person you want to be, create the world around you that you want, and refuse to accept anything as impossible.  I guarantee you will feel a million times better failing in what you care about than you will succeeding where you don't.

Having been to more than my fair share of political gatherings over the year, I've heard the lament:  "If only people made decisions based on ideas, the world would be a better place" at least a thousand times.  But it made me wonder...

Throughout history, people have defined themselves in many ways.  The most basic unit is the family, and then the town, and then eventually the nation, but it was always grounded in some concrete relationship.  Whether the binds be the red of blood or the green of the earth, there was something physical that transcended all people and was all inclusive (or at least, had the potential to be such).  Tribal identity, if you want to call it that, was predictable in that it brought people together to some social norm and some set of common expectations.

Functionally, it is hard to imagine there was a previous alternative as people needed to work together for their survival, against the elements, against other predators, and against one another.  Specialization of labor results, but people still bought into the idea of a shared identity, based on location and need.  While there were communities based on ideas (the most prominent of which were religious), these were largely isolated and existed outside the state, and found themselves being integrated more often than not.  Also worth noting is that these were often as compulsory as the state itself.

Today, we have something different happening.  Thanks to technology and the advent of the internet, our social groups are changing.  We now can build communities based on ideas and identities we choose that transcend borders.  Our physical needs being met much more easily, I wonder what it means for civilization when we can so easily choose just to associate with those who share something in common with us.

Can you imagine a new future where classes aren't economic, but simply societal?  The nerds, geeks, jocks, drama people, and all the groups that exist in high school never having to blend, never having to find some center.  Imagine politically, a nation divided house by house into two worlds with different ends and in contempt of one another.  Not knowing each other, not caring, and feeling justified in their righteousness.  And in absolute freedom, could there be absolute chaos?

I don't know.  It frightens me.  Without a sense of social responsibility (which I freely admit is cultivated), I could imagine that.  The sort of elitism that pervades groups set apart (which I know too well from my own education and some of the people I met) could easily become a dividing trait hidden beneath the veneer of an all-encompassing individualist ethic.

I don't have an answer for this, but I have a suggestion.  Read something that you disagree with, not to change your mind, but so that you can understand a more basic truth:  what unites us is greater than what divides us.

This is a little premature, but I will be celebrating my 29th birthday on Monday.  With each year, I always sit back and reflect upon what I have learned and how I have grown in the past year.  There always seems to be something new.

This has been a productive year and I find things are moving in the direction I want in all areas in my life.  I find that being stubborn and determined is a big part of making that possible, but I've learned something even more important:  You can't sacrifice who you are for what you want to be.

Smart people sometimes find their lives going astray because they make bad bargains with themselves.  We sell ourselves into believing that if we don't do things a certain way, they cannot be done.  It's a very easy argument to make that the ends justify the means, and it is usually wrong.  How you do things determines who you are as a person, and if there is one thing I'm learning, it is that how you arrive somewhere is usually more vital than where you are going.

I worry less because of this.  It is okay if not everything succeeds if you did what mattered to you.  In politics, in life, and in anything else, I think this rings true.  This above all else:  to thine ownself be true.

I went to a tea party event today here in Pittsburgh.  It was scheduled for 2 pm on a day the Steelers weren't playing, and with beautiful sunny fall weather.  By my best estimate, there may have been a grand total of 200 people there, and that might be generous.  It leads me to wonder what has happened.  I've seen times where many hundreds or even thousands have gathered, but the steam seems to be burning elsewhere.

With the utmost of sympathies to the people who are conducting these events, many of whom I know and work with personally, I think they're making a few critical errors in presentation that is hurting the movement.  So, here are a few lumps of sugar that might help to sweeten their cups:

1) Clearly Describe One Thing You Are Against and Want to Change

Going to these various events, I've noticed that there are often three interlocking, sometimes contradictory appeals being made.  The first is ideological, against people who think government should have a larger role in our lives.  The second is partisan, as there are often attacks launched against the administration and the Democrats (and a critique of a Republican, when made, is that they're really acting like a Democrat).  The third is systemic, in that there are institutions that are structured in such a way to disempower the electorate.

While there is merit in each of these claims individually, I think that combining all three makes the tea parties more diffuse than they could be.  It is a relatively small group who believes these ideas in conjunction precisely (the libertarians know this all too well!), and it alienates people from what could be a powerful movement.  I look at what is the largest problem, and what is most likely to attract the fullest support when I say that I think the systemic appeal would be best.

There is a compelling argument to be made that the system is broken, that neither party represents the interests of the people, and that representatives are too far removed from their bases.  It is something that appeals to political and apolitical types, and sets up a situation where you can work to support policies that give authority to the people by limiting the various governmental authorities.  Functionally, I think it would also help reduce government because people would not be as likely to vote for any cost increases as their elected officials have been.

2) Have Achievable Goals and Ambitions

In Pennsylvania, the gold standard was the "Clean Sweep" campaign that was run as a response to the legislature which voted itself a pay increase in the middle of the night.  Many people lost their jobs because it sparked a common and popular outrage, had a clearly focused goal, and focused on a single point.  That's how you unite people, and why issue groups are generally more successful than movements.

The tea party is a strong protest movement, but it lacks either a political solution or any other clear direction for what it wants to achieve.  It would appear the most likely result is that those Republican politicians who have been agitating at the edges of these events will simply use this as a recruiting tool, with history writing a story that they concocted these movements from the beginning.  I know that isn't the truth, but it seems to be becoming political reality because no clear alternative is emerging as yet.

My hope is that the leadership in our area does not allow that to become the case.  The successful groups in this region are those that are rooted in principles, and they should figure out what it is they are asking from the people in political space, ask publicly for the changes they desire, and seek to influence the process by shifting the agenda.  Although difficult, this can be done, and taking an approach based upon the ideas and ideals spawned by these movements is the best way to demonstrate there is independence and integrity within the tea parties.