About time someone got backup right

Principles, Not Polls, Should Dictate Policy Debate

Posted by Kevin Price on Jan 14th, 2010 and filed under Feature, Headlines, Kevin Price. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Every day I see another poll stating support or opposition to policy positions. Some times they are being mentioned by major media — Fox News, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine — or other source. Other times they are being promoted by major organizations; groups who are for or against guns, groups that are for or opposed to socialized medicine, people who want tax increases and those who want to dump tea because of them. Today, polls dominate public policy debate. I believe that those who live by the polls — especially people who claim to support liberty — will die by the polls.

• If a majority of Americans support a massive increase in taxes, do tax increases become a good thing?
• If a majority of Americans want to severely limit access to firearms, is that a good thing?
• If a majority of American want to socialize medicine, should we be supportive of it?

Invariably, polls that do not support “our” position are dismissed as distorted, skewed towards certain population groups, or are simply wrong. It is not the numbers that are wrong, it is the idea of using polls to drive policy debates that is the problem.

Polls are the tools of demagogues and purveyors of mob rule. Polls are tools used by the majority and are designed to bring the minority, or the one, “in line.” One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from Ayn Rand who said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” The Founders attempted to make a country in which individuals ruled and the elected officials served to protect them (and not “provide” for them).

Our federal government was designed to do very little at all. Its primary objective was to protect individuals from other individuals and our nation from adversaries. Its seventeen enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, gave the federal government a very modest agenda, with the vast majority of power being deferred to the states and (more importantly) individuals. Furthermore, the Founders created a convoluted form of government that made change difficult to achieve. This was not by accident, but design. While the so-called “French Republic” started years after ours, it has had five different governments over the last two hundred years. The British boast of a “Constitution,” but that is simply the evolution of law over centuries. Our Constitution was intended to mean something. It was meant to make government small, but strong. It provided the separation of powers — the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches — for the primary objective of making it difficult for laws to pass. It was meant to hinder, not foster, change. Our office of the President differs greatly from the Prime Ministers of Europe. The latter are mere extensions of the legislative branches and are meant to facilitate change. The former is meant to represent the interests of all the people and often resist the legislative agenda.

Our Constitutional Amendment process is so daunting; we have only had 27 amendments approved since 1789. Since that time over 10,000 amendments have been introduced and any where from 100 to 200 have been offered annually for the last several years. Of those 27, ten of them were ratified with the Constitution (they are our Bill of Rights) and were a prerequisite for the document being approved. Seventeen amendments over 200 years demonstrate a government adverse to change.

The Founders were opposed to most “change” when it came to government, because such was virtually always done at the expense of individual freedoms. Those who do not share such values continually discount the delays in our founding documents and often try to legislate through courts and bureaucracy. I, for one, believe it is time to go back to the principles that have worked and are found in the Constitution and not public opinion polls.

Kevin Price is the host of “Price of Business”, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio and can be frequently found in the “Strategy Room” at FoxNews.com. A syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media, his BizPlusBlog.com is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati. His articles also appear regularly at AmericanDailyReview.com and RenewAmerica.com, Examiner.com, and others.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Other Articles of Interest:

Urgent:  Help Us Win in Massachusetts

Memo to Steele:  GOP Will Win

Bombshell:  Brown leads Coakley in MA Senate race; Globe Poll Shows Coaskly up 15

RINO-sore:  Crist Loses Home County Straw Poll to Rubio

 

1 Response for “Principles, Not Polls, Should Dictate Policy Debate”

  1. Kevin,

    Seriously: Best. article. yet.

    The history lesson on our Constitution is worth repeating, and I will, believe me.

Leave a Reply

Advertisement

Photo Gallery

Log in | © 2009 Political Integrity Now All Rights Reserved | Powered by Wordpress