Principles, Not Polls, Should Dictate Policy Debate

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 demonstrates 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 a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Fox Nation: Needed Change in Media or a Compromise in Objectivity?

Today Fox News announced its long awaited and new "TheFoxNation.com." With a great deal of fanfare the network has had a huge advertising campaign and has all of its network personalities referring to it at every opportunity.

On the surface, TheFoxNation.com looks like many other websites. I do like how it fuses Fox News with its Fox Business site and there is no question that such will help to bolster the visibility of the latter. Also, I love how it has articles from various news sources, rather than just content produced by Fox directly. (However, some of the affiliated media is from companies owned or closely linked to Fox parent company, News Corp, such as the New York Post). Visually this news portal is very easy to read, navigate, and to find content. Furthermore it is exhaustive in its reach covering virtually every area of news, business and lifestyle.

However, TheFoxNation.com is designed to be more than just another TV network website. According to its purpose statement, much more. The site states that the "Fox Nation was created for people who believe in the United States of America and its ideals, as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation.
It is a community that believes in the American Dream: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One that believes being an American is an honor, as well as a great responsibility—and a wonderful adventure." It always amazes me that the most pro-American major news network is owned by a person born in another country (Rupert Murdoch is from Australia). This statement goes beyond the typical scope of a news network.

The site goes on to say that "this is a place for people who believe we live in a great country, a welcoming refuge for legal immigrants who want to contribute their talent and abilities to make our way of life even greater. We believe we should enjoy the company and support of each other, delighting in the creativity, ingenuity, and work ethic of one and all, while observing the basic rules of civility and mutual respect and, most importantly, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity." This sounds more like a conservative social networking site, than the content of a news media. This is the kind of statement that will attract criticism from those in the mainstream media. We are told that "taking sides" may be patriotic, but it may compromise objectivity.

Finally the site states that "the Fox Nation is for those committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse--and fair and balanced coverage of the news. It is for those opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship. We invite all Americans who share these values to join us here at Fox Nation." Again, not what you expect to find from a media website. But, then again, maybe it should be.

Currently the mainstream media behaves as though it hates this country. It seems far more fond of models being promoted by Europe and other parts of the world than that of the US. Many traditional media sites claim objectivity, while plowing us over with agendas and hostility towards the values that have made this nation the most prosperous and free in the history of the world. A great example was the recent election for President in which the media didn't merely witness history, but created it.

I have been involved in journalism since the 80s, working with both publications and as a radio personality, so this approach to broadcast journalism even makes me a little uncomfortable. However, Fox Nation is being refreshingly honest. That network is made up of people that make a living conveying news and information. They want to continue to do that without government interference. Fox is a business, not just a news sources, and it wants to be able to stay profitable and not be crushed by a government out of control. Fox is made up of individuals who have families and they want to make sure that their spouses and children live in a country that is continually improving. The bottom line is that Fox Nation recognizes, above all things, they are Americans first and journalists second. That may be the perfect role of media in a time such as this.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.