Pioneered in the nineteen eighties by a handful of people like Rush Limbaugh, talk radio has now grown to feature a broad range of personalities on multiple networks. Yet amid all this variety the truly successful, nationally syndicated talk shows continue to hold one thing in common – they are all conservative. Liberals have been unable to duplicate this phenomenal success. The mainstream news media may be slanted to the left, but the talk radio scene is unquestionably dominated by the right.

That does not mean that the left has not tried. The most recent attempt has proven to be a costly failure. On March 31, 2004 a new radio network was launched designed to carry liberal political opinion as an answer to the conservative talk radio juggernaut. Tens of millions of dollars were pumped into this new venture called Air America. For more than two years the struggling network limped along without turning a profit. People were just not tuning in and advertisers quickly pulled their endorsements. Liberal hosts like the nationally known comedian-turned-political-pundit Al Franken often worked without pay because the company was so strapped for cash. When Air America finally declared bankruptcy in October of 2006 Franken himself was owed more than $360,000 in back pay, while the company’s entire debt totaled more than $20 million. (Its assets equaled less than $4.5 million.) The network has recently been purchased and is still undergoing restructuring.

So where did Air America go wrong? Why do liberals fare so poorly in the talk radio format?

At least part of the answer lies in the structure of the format itself. To make these opinion shows work, to really give a dynamic energy to the show, the host must offer a solid position on specific issues. That position must be stated clearly, supported with sound reasoning and verifiable evidence, and then the floor can be opened for debate. Callers to the program can either challenge the host’s position or add a nuance to the argument by providing further evidence for the case. In other words, talk radio provides a platform for the open exchange of ideas. It works best when the people involved (the host as well as the listeners who call the show) are willing to challenge and be challenged on the merit of their reasoning. This provides an exercise in logic.

Liberals tend not to do well in this arena because the left bases many of its positions on emotion rather than logic. When challenged by the hard facts, their feelings-based arguments usually evaporate. Or as Howard Dean put it during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, “I sometimes say things that get me in trouble. In other words, I lead with my heart and not my head.” Dean is now chairman of the Democratic Party, the party of emotion and empty sentimentality.

Every self-described liberal I have ever known has at some point stated the following: “I personally don’t believe in [fill this space with some hotly debated issue], but far be it from me to tell someone else what to do.” And the ever-popular, “I can’t really say why I believe what I do; it just feels right.” When confronted with an opposing view or challenged to defend their position they inevitably fall back on, “Why don’t we just agree to disagree?”

This avoidance of honest debate is typical on the left, where noisy protest rallies or pies in the face of conservative lecturers substitute for “free speech.” Meanwhile conservatives are often called uncaring and coldhearted because we refuse to allow our emotions to highjack our political ideology. Talk radio remains a staunchly conservative medium because conservatives care most about sharing ideas rather than sharing an “I feel your pain” moment.

Now passion for a cause certainly has its place. Passion and gut emotion can serve to energize the populace, drive legislators into action, or highlight the importance of an historical debate. I feel very passionately about many issues, and that often serves as a motivation for me to write. But ultimately the “debate” must comprise an exchange of ideas, not a clash of emotions. A passionate believer of a particular cause might offer a heartfelt defense, but passion must be tempered by sound logic; and our system of laws must be based on logic not the emotion of the moment.

Originally published in The Capitol News, February 28, 2007

Have you noticed there have been a lot of ads lately for fish dinners? We have all received coupons in the mail and seen the commercials on television featuring fresh lobster, shrimp, and all-you-can-eat crab buffets – all the finest seafood delicacies for this special time of the year. So eat up, pig out, treat yourself to the best…or at least that seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Lent has arrived.

Lent consists of the roughly forty days on the Christian calendar preceding the celebration of Easter. It is a time of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Lent is a reflection of, and is prefigured by, the forty days of rain endured by Noah in his ark, the forty years during which Moses led the Jewish people through the desert, and most especially the forty days of fasting and prayer spent by Jesus in solitude before he began his public ministry. Lent concludes with Holy Week which commemorates the suffering and death of Jesus and his burial in the tomb. Easter then is the calm after the storm, the land flowing with milk and honey after a long and arduous journey, and above all it is the joy of the Resurrection after the pain of the Crucifixion.

The predominant theme of Lent is sacrifice, a giving up of earthly comforts and pleasures to mimic the trials that our religious forebears underwent, and to conform more closely our lives to that of Christ – the ultimate sacrificial victim. All of this should make it a little more difficult for Christians to swallow that second (or third) helping of shrimp scampi and lobster tail next Friday night.

But my point here is not entirely religious in nature. The Christian concept of sacrifice as desirable and even beneficial in our lives has far reaching implications even beyond a particular theology or faith tradition. An embrace of sacrifice speaks to the reality of our human condition. To sacrifice on behalf of others is the surest sign of love for fellow man. Strong religious faith, drawing from examples in scripture and religious disciplines, certainly helps to motivate the believer to give of oneself. This positive view of sacrifice is perhaps most fully developed in Christian theology, but it is not limited to Christianity alone. Sacrifice is important to even the nonbeliever.

Soldiers sacrifice their lives for our freedom and prosperity. Parents sacrifice time and money to raise their children. Volunteers in many diverse fields give selflessly so that others might have whatever is lacking in their lives. Any gesture of kindness we do for a stranger that requires effort on our part without seeking any compensation in return is a kind of sacrifice. This Christian concept, expressed in phrases like “love thy neighbor,” and “give one’s life for a friend,” are universal in their application. Christian sacrifice, indeed Christianity itself, is meant to be universal.

But it seems that sacrifice has lost its appeal in modern times. As every generation has made sacrifices on behalf of future generations there has arisen the notion that we must remove this burden from our children. “I will do without certain comforts so that my kids will not have to.” With each successive generation we further shield our children from the discomfort of self-sacrifice. Very soon we forget that sacrifice is a powerful tool in building a sense of responsibility, moral character, and love. By giving our children a life filled with comfort and ease and fulfillment of every desire, we fail to instill a proper appreciation for the truly good things they have. Sacrifice becomes an experience to avoid, a suffering without purpose. But sacrifice, properly directed and motivated by love, is essential to building a strong and nurturing community. Sacrifice does have a purpose.

Many non-Christians (and even quite a few Christians) might argue that sacrifice certainly contributes to a more compassionate society and fosters love of neighbor, but why does God care if I eat fish or steak on a particular day, or if I fast at certain times of the year? This certainly seems to be sacrifice without purpose. It is a pointless religious practice.

Perhaps the key to answering this charge is the word “practice.” The virtue of sacrifice can only be attained if we put it into practice. To give up something so small and insignificant such as meat on Friday or the quantity of food we consume does not benefit anyone directly. But it is an easy way for each of us to disciple ourselves to make larger sacrifices down the road. The point is not what we give up, but that a life of sacrifice is willingly embraced and actively incorporated into our very being.

In a nation that is so blessed with abundance and where poverty (I mean destitute poverty) is so rare, the need to make great sacrifice for those around us is not as tangible as it might be. In other places throughout the world human tragedy is a way of life, and in those places people must truly come to terms with sacrifice and search for its meaning every day. We would all do well to explore the depth of sacrifice in our own lives even if it means a little less on the plate this Lent.

On February 12 we celebrate the birth of our sixteenth President. Most Americans today regard Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not the) greatest President in our nation’s history. But great men like Lincoln are often misunderstood and even rejected by their contemporaries.

In the mid-1800s our nation was polarized over the issue of slavery. Abe Lincoln’s election to the Presidency did not heal these wounds or unite political factions, but instead triggered the South’s secession which eventually precipitated the Civil War. During his watch many thousands of American soldiers died in some of the bloodiest battles this nation has ever seen as families and communities took sides against one another, brother against brother - neighbor against neighbor. Even after the war, fierce divisions remained in a country torn and tattered from years of conflict.

We call Lincoln a great leader, yet whole states left the Union rather than be led where they did not wish to go. But Lincoln did not waver. Facing overwhelming odds, and even paying with his life at the hands of an assassin, Abraham Lincoln stood firm on principles not shared by a significant percentage of the population. With the passage of more than a century, we now admire and revere the man who, in his own time, caused violent division when elected to the highest office in the land. In his day he was a controversial figure; today he is a hero for the ages.

The way history remembers a President cannot be gauged in his own time. When our nation is at war, a war so divisive that people are torn over issues of freedom and justice and the power of a President to lead with strength through such a struggle, how can we be certain what outcome awaits.

The questions before Lincoln are not so far removed from those before us today. As did Lincoln, we must ask ourselves whether it is our country’s obligation to spread liberty where once liberty had no roots; whether the God-given rights proclaimed by our Constitution apply to all peoples or only a chosen few; and whether a denial of those rights anywhere is a challenge to those rights everywhere. Abraham Lincoln knew that freedom and democratic ideals cross boundaries of race and the color of our skin. We must decide whether these same ideals we hold so dear cross the boundaries of nations to reach a people of another culture an ocean away.

This becomes the work of generations. The Civil War did not fix all of the problems that slavery had created. It brought the Union back together and ended slavery as an institution. But throughout the South’s Reconstruction, followed by years of segregation, and eventually the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, racial tensions continued. Real freedom for all Americans took more than one man’s lifetime. Lincoln did not succeed in solving the issues of racism and oppression, but he did have the strength and courage to stand on the moral high ground and point us on the right course. And he did so in the face of criticism and the threat of war.

Our present endeavors cannot be finally judged in our own time. That will be determined by future generations. But when the history of our present is written in stone or commemorated in solemn ceremony, those Americans not yet born will know whether we stood with men like Lincoln who sided with freedom in the face of tyranny, or retreated from the task laid out before us allowing evil to flourish in our midst.

President Bush announced on January 10, in a primetime television address, that troop levels in Iraq will be increased by more than twenty thousand. This increase in our military commitment there was met with disapproval from those on the left who feel we should instead cut our losses and leave Iraq as soon as possible. These critics of the war fail to appreciate the importance of our success in that region and have never understood the importance of Iraq in our global mission in the so-called “War on Terror.”

In Part I of this series I explained, as the President pointed out in his speech, that security in Iraq is now our top priority. Those favoring withdraw argue that our main objective had always been to topple Saddam Hussein and search for weapons of mass destruction. With Saddam now dead and the WMD missing and assumed destroyed, these war opponents now suggest we make a hasty retreat and claim that we did what we came to do, even absent any real semblance of stability. They wish to make Iraq another Vietnam, where we “won the war but lost the peace.”

But peace and security must be our long-term objective in Iraq. Toppling a single dictator and clearing one nation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons does not neutralize the entire threat posed by the radical elements throughout the Middle East. Iraq is only one front in a much larger war, and that is a point that is seldom given play in the mainstream media even though President Bush clearly reiterates it, as he did again in January.

“…victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.”

Leaving Iraq now will not achieve this broader objective. Success in Iraq is important not only in and of itself, but more importantly because it sends a signal to the rest of the Middle East and to the world that freedom is on the march. We cannot cut ourselves loose from Iraq and risk a failure that is larger than any one nation. “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.”

Iraq is only one battle in a much larger war. Even if we withdrew all forces immediately from Iraq this larger war would continue, on other fronts throughout the Middle East and throughout the world. The obsessive focus by the media and many Democrats on the Iraqi theatre obscures that fact that the real war (of which Iraq is only a part) is not just about military engagements and troop deployments, as important as things are. “The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.” We cannot separate Iraq from this larger global struggle, the struggle of freedom against tyranny.

To win the larger war we must certainly redouble our efforts in the battle for Iraq. We must send more troops; we must fight more effectively. But beyond that, beyond the day-to-day news coverage of victories and lives, won and lost, we must not forget that “… America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.”

Originally published in The Capitol News, February 7, 2007

President Bush’s January 10 address to the nation lacked linguistic pizzazz, but made up for it in content and straightforward, matter-of-fact simplicity of message. How much clearer can it be stated? “Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” This was not the time for a speech filled with lofty phrases and sweeping rhetoric. The President’s main objective was to explain what changes would be made to our Iraq strategy, and he did so effectively, without fanfare.

As we now watch the implementation of his stated goals, it is important to realize that these strategic adjustments do not represent any real change in our overall policy. It is in fact a bolstering, not an alteration, of what the President has envisioned for the Middle East all along. If the speech had a subtle and understated style it was only because its purpose was to present an unwavering determination to finish our already established objectives. In other words, it was not a flowery exposition on the brotherhood of mankind and our duty to posterity; rather it was a nose-to-the-grindstone, pull-up-your-shirtsleeves appeal to the nation.

Such bland speeches, as necessary as they are, are also soon forgotten. So I would like to revisit this January address to make the most of what it has to offer. In it President Bush tackled the problem of the ongoing violence in Iraq and the call from some that the U. S. should leave sooner rather than later.

In answer to the “pullout now”/Cindy Sheehan Democrats, Bush points out that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal.”

And of course he is right. And the Democrats, deep down inside, know that he is right. Which is why, now that the Dems hold the Congressional purse strings, they will continue to fund our operations in Iraq even while they voice opposition. Calling for redeployment (codeword for “withdraw”) might sound good to liberal constituents back home, but in the long run they all know, as well as the President, that such a move would cause more violence and death not less, for our troops as well as the Iraqi people. Withdraw is not a solution; it is a deepening of the problem.

We will therefore stay in Iraq, and we will win the peace. That has been our policy and it remains so. The addition of more than twenty thousand troops will only increase our chance of success. With that in mind Bush also called for a lessoning of restrictions on our troops so that they can operate more freely on the ground; and imbedding our troops within Iraqi units; and a ramping up of Iraqi military and police training. What we have here is the formation of a real plan for success (something Democrats have yet to put forward).

The President understands that “[t]he most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security.” And “security” in that volatile region does not come about by finding the quickest exit strategy, abandoning a fledgling democracy, and leaving the door open for the next tyrant or radical regime. Peace and security in Iraq will require much work yet before us. As President Bush grimly warned us “The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.” And the enemy will not rest. “[T]hey will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.”

The January 10 speech reminds us that nothing in Iraq has changed except a strengthening of American resolve in the face of an evil threat. It was a necessary reminder to us all that we have only begun our task, a task that extends beyond our own boarders and even beyond the boarders of Iraq itself. We face a broader struggle still, according to the President, a struggle I will discuss in Part II of this series.

Originally published in the January 31, 2007 issue of The Capitol News