We, the public, interview our politicians for their jobs.   “How would you handle this problem? Or, what would you do to resolve that crisis?” We ask for solutions to issues we believe they will face during their terms of office. We ask question, after question, after question. I ask you, “Is this the most effective way to chose a politician?”

The world changes unpredictably. We have very little knowledge of which issues will be in play when the politician is in office. So how can we question him? We really don’t know what questions to ask. And who’s keeping track of the answers? Any politician worth his salt can spin an answer that sounds really good, but is so amorphous as to be meaningless. Keep in mind; the pre-election objective is to get a firm commitment of performance from our politicians. But what we get is a noncommittal answer to an issue that may never arise. And we leave the big, unforeseeable issues, like 911, completely unaddressed. Have you ever considered using principles instead of issues?

A Principle is a verifiable, invariantly true, dynamic relationship that describes what happens when one entity comes under the influence of another. It’s a statement of cause and effect. This word needs strict definition to make it insusceptible to political manipulation

Here is a new approach. Don’t ask politicians about issues; question them first about their principles. Ask for a written list of principles that are consistent with each other. Then insist that he always address issues  in the context of their governing principles. This approach will do two things.

First, each principle covers millions and millions of issues. When the principle-set is properly constructed, it is closed; that is, there is one principle for every possible issue. And so we don’t have to guess what issues will be arising in the future – through the use of principles, we’ve covered them all. Secondly, since principles are verifiable, they establish an enforceable contract between the politician and the citizenry. It becomes obvious and indisputable when the politician fails to live up to his promises.  

This is one of the best political ideas in a long time. There is a movement afoot to force politicians to maintain personal principle-sets.   The strategy is simple. The politician is asked this straight-forward question “If you consider yourself a principled person, will you provide to me a list of your principles.”    Once the principles are provided and published, the politician is no longer known by his fleeting issue-by-issue positions but by his considered, written principles. He is free to amend and modify his principle-set as he sees fit. But excessive changes identify him as unprincipled.

There is a website dedicated to pushing the concept of the principled politician. Visit GoldenCharacter.org and follow the progress of producing politicians of principle. 

A government that promotes the principle of freedom must be about more then just acquiring the power to enforce the ideas of individuals or even of the society as a whole.  It must also be about people: their virtue and their independence.  A society populated by thieves, liars, and reprobates, requires a strong government hand to keep order. To prevent the citizens of this society from feeding upon each other, government must institute laws that control people and degrade freedom.

Therefore, the freedom in a society can be no greater then the virtue of its citizenry will allow.  And “conformal religions”; that is, religions that seriously practice and endorse the concept of reciprocity (as in the Golden Rule), are the foremost promoters of virtue; seen now to be an essential ingredient of freedom.

Since force destroys freedom, force and freedom are completely incompatible. The only power unique to government is the legal use of freedom-destroying force. Therefore, government cannot produce freedom without at the same time destroying that which it is trying to produce. Only the principle of reciprocity (Treating others as you would like to be treated) can create true freedom.

When reciprocity is practiced in great measure, people attend to each other, obviating the need for government, and optimizing freedom and the welfare of the people. The principles of freedom and reciprocity are inseparable and essential for the welfare of the citizenry.  (see the web site goldencharacter.org)

A political party not able or not willing to enumerate a closed set of principles and follow them unswervingly is a party not worth attending to.

When the provisions of government allow the citizenry to vote themselves prosperity, the once noble purpose of the vote will degrade to self-enrichment, and the Country will feed upon itself unto complete destruction. 

Torture (“waterboarding”) and terrorism, evoke two mutually exclusive provisions of the Constitution.  You cannot comply with one without violating the other. Violation of the Constitution is unavoidable.  I'll explain.

What if 53 terrorists covertly invade our country and plant atomic bombs in 13 of our largest cities, set to detonate in 24 hours? Let’s further suppose that one of the terrorists has been captured and that he knows where the bombs are and how to disarm them.  But he is not talking.  Although he is susceptible to waterboarding, he is aware that our 8^th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”, will rescue him from our using any substantive measures to make him talk. 

And so we cannot waterboard the captured terrorist.  But we still have a responsibility to “protect each of the states against [both overt and covert] invasion” as required by Article IV of the Constitution.  We’re in a lose/lose situation.  Whether we waterboard, do not waterboard, or do nothing, we will have violated the law.  Violation of the Constitution is unavoidable.   The question is not whether or not to violate the Constitution, but rather, “In what manner shall it be violated?”

This is only one of the many contradictions inherent in our law.  The inconsistencies stem from our addressing issues without regard to a set of unifying principles.  Visit the website GoldenCharacter.org.   It takes an interesting approach to this question and proposes an innovative solution.  Our government should also be working to resolve the general question of principles, along with the specific problem of waterboarding. 

The president, who is the Executive, and a coequal (not subordinate) branch of government, should stand and forcefully affirm: “The protection of the lives and property of the citizens of this Country is the Constitutional imperative!”  But instead he sits, and says nothing.  While our pinheaded legislatures, who should know better, press the Attorney General Nominee for a pledge to abandon his constitutional mandate to protect the people … this, along with the absolute and complete prohibition of waterboarding.  And the people of the United States watch idly, not seeming to understand that their representatives are trading away their property and their very lives, for the fleeting comfort of a flipping terrorist.