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.

Newsweek Changes its Image, But can it Change the Future of Magazines?

Newsweek is joining a list of other publications that are trying to reinvent themselves as it undergoes a major design and image change that includes a look that is similar to The Economist magazine. Many publications are making similar efforts, whether they will be successful in remaining economically viable is doubtful.

I love print publications. Any time I discuss the subject of the decline of magazines or newspapers, I always feel compelled to throw that in. I'm not exactly sure why I do it. Maybe it is to explain that I don't have an agenda against print publications, but I think it is to point out that I find its demise as sad as anyone else (with the exception of those who make a living from such).

I'm now largely old fashioned, I own a Blackberry, while my most of my friends are "clicking along" with their IPhones and GPhones. Yet my old Blackberry (which I am up grading in a few months) is more than adequate to find all the information I need on what is going on in the news and more opinion columns than I will ever use. Furthermore, the content I find is usually up to the minute. Weekly magazines, like Newsweek, are typically outdated before the ink even dries. I find it very funny that publications like this have a date from a week out on its cover. I know, it isn't saying that it covers what is going to happen (it covers how long it is suppose to be on the stands), but the whole thing seems ridiculous.

The New York Times recently wrote about the changes and noted that "a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content." In my opinion, it will be in this latter area if Newsweek makes a difference.

The Times also reports “There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’ ” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”' I like this. because we are so deluged with the exact same headlines and the exact same stories on a daily basis. Something has got to give. "Giving" us a unique perspective, something not being offered by other news publications, would be refreshing. I'm delighted to read about the commitment, but will be more exciting if they can translate that into a reality. Talk is cheap and there is plenty of that online, in print, on TV, etc.

Part of changing its editorial approach should mean a serious look at philosophy. Currently, Newsweek has a reputation of being among the most "radical" among mainstream news publications. Inviting writers from a different perspective certainly couldn't hurt.

It is funny, because as Newsweek visually strives to look like the Economist, it is also trying to be more like it in content. The Economist has long been one of the most current, creative, and serious contributors to original content. I actually think that, in spite of the fact it has struggled like other magazines, that it will remain relevant. I am not so confident about the future of Newsweek.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL 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. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The Message Behind New Yorker's Obama Cover

The recent cover of New Yorker Magazine, a publication noted for a liberal bent and elitist flare, shocked most readers this month with a satarical depiction of Mr. and Mrs. Obama celebrating their victory in the Oval Office of the White House. In the drawing, Barack Obama is wearing a turban and his wife is sporting an Afro and carrying a machine gun. Meanwhile, in the background you see an American flag burning in the fire place and a picture of Osama Bin Laden hanging on the wall.

Both the Obama and McCain campaignd have declared the cover "offensive" and there is an expectation of an apology. It was suppose to be funny, even outrageous, but for some reason it has struck a nerve. New Yorker Editor David Remnick told the Huffington Post that “Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics, I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed ‘lack of patriotism’ or his being ‘soft on terrorism’ or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.”

The same magazine has depicted Bush as a maid serving Dick Cheney (reported by Fox News) and even a "Brokeback Mountain" comparison between the President and Vice President. Bush and Cheney wisely ignored the comparisons because they are laughable. But Obama has been up in arms, almost as though the satire hits a little too close to home. Many are convinced that he is protesting too much for his own good.

Many Americans actually believe Obama is Muslim (12 percent according to Newsweek). Bloomberg was early in reporting Obama's relationship with "William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group."

"The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s — including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that 'I don’t regret setting bombs.'
Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said Ayers 'does not have a role on the campaign.' Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama." These are the type of stories that have over shadowed Obama for months and would have likely derailed his campaign if they came out early. I'm sure this will keep Hillary Clinton anxiously waiting in the wings.

Would you like to get a weekly email summarizing Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Newsweek Shamelessly Exploits Troops

While US forces continues to fight terrorism in the Middle East, Newsweek Magazine waged a war of exploitation on our troops. The above 12 American soldiers -- well trained volunteers who were defending our country in Iraq -- were killed when their helicopter was shot down in the conflict.

Without regard to the personal opinions of each of these people or their families, Newsweek has made them the poster children of the horrors of this war. The magazine explains the profound personal impact this lost has in its slow continuous drum beat against this war. This is just one more example of how irresponsible the media is and how consumers of the news needs to hold them accountable. In truth, people are doing just that by continuing to vote with their remotes for more conservative channels such as Fox News. Meanwhile, NBC, the recently deemed "most liberal" network by many conservative watch dog organizations, has seen a nose dive in its ratings with ABC's Charlie Gibson over taking the long popular Brian Williams of the Peacock Network in recent ratings.

I hope people keep taking a stand for our troops and against terror. I hope they are conscious about every media decision they make.