Well, it’s time. I am not sure how to address this, or even start. I will just start thinking out loud and see where it all goes. Maybe I’ll take the editor pen to it later to make it “nicer” or more “reader friendly”…or, maybe not. But let’s take a stab at it…it’s been a long time coming.

Politics is temporary. Parties change. Candidates change. Coalitions change. A position Republicans defend today may be something they condemned twenty years ago, and Democrats do exactly the same thing. So I don’t consider a political party a reliable moral compass…at all.

A principle, on the other hand, has to survive changes in personalities and circumstances. My test is essentially:

“Would I still believe this was right if the other party was doing it?”

That’s a huge part of my thinking process.

If presidential power can be dangerous when a Democrat exercises it, it doesn’t suddenly become acceptable because a Republican exercises it. If deficit spending is irresponsible under one administration, changing the name on the Oval Office door doesn’t change the principle of it. If government surveillance violates an individual’s liberty, whether you like the people running the surveillance program is beside the point.

And underneath that is something even deeper.

My principles have two major foundations…

• One is the gospel of Jesus Christ: agency, accountability, truth, compassion, stewardship, individual worth, caring for the poor, and the idea that moral truth isn’t created by governments or political majorities.
• The other is the constitutional structure established by the Founders: divided power, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights, limited delegated authority, and a profound distrust of concentrated governmental power.

I don’t see those as unrelated systems. I see considerable harmony between them. I see them as hand-in-hand. The Founders were led by God to establish our Republic is a firm belief of mine.

Agency may be the connecting principle between my spiritual and temporal beliefs.

People have the right to choose. They also bear responsibility for their choices. Government shouldn’t unnecessarily remove a person’s agency, nor should powerful private institutions be casually allowed to do so. Rights don’t originate with politicians, so politicians don’t possess true authority to redefine or remove them.

That’s why a question I’ve returned to repeatedly is essentially:

“Who gave them the right?”

Not:

“Is this policy Republican or Democrat?”

That also explains something important about my politics. I can support a politician without surrendering my principles to that politician or blindly following them.

I’ve supported Trump politically in the past at times. I voted for him 3 times. But that doesn’t mean Trump becomes the standard by which I decide whether something is right or wrong. The principle remains the standard…and Trump gets measured against it just like Biden, Obama, Bush, Reagan, Congress, the courts, federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, corporations, or anybody else.

That distinction matters enormously to me.

It also explains why I sometimes end up in positions that don’t fit neatly into today’s left/right, Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative boxes. I can strongly defend private property and the free-market system while simultaneously being disturbed by crony capitalism and extreme economic inequality. I can oppose excessive government intervention while also asking whether a society that leaves enormous numbers of people struggling has lost sight of something morally important. I can believe strongly in national defense while questioning undeclared wars and the enormous power of a military-industrial complex.

Those aren’t necessarily contradictions if the measuring stick isn’t party doctrine. The measuring stick must be principle.

I don’t believe a good outcome automatically justifies abandoning a principle. I don’t accept consequentialist reasoning or situational ethics. I abhor Machiavellianism.

That’s where my interest in the Founders keeps taking my writing and the website’s direction. The Founders weren’t designing government merely around the assumption that good people would hold power. They were building restraints for the day when the wrong people obtained power.

So when somebody says, essentially, “Don’t worry, our guy won’t abuse that authority,” that doesn’t answer my concern. Because eventually someone I don’t trust will possess that same authority.

A legitimate principle has to work…always.

And that leads to what I think may be the shortest accurate description of my position:

• Politics is about people, parties and policies.
• Principles determine the boundaries within which all three should operate.

And when politics and principle collide, my position is that principle is supposed to win…even when doing so produces a political outcome I don’t want.

That’s also why I think I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with political tribalism. Once loyalty to a person or party becomes strong enough that someone will excuse/justify behavior from their own side that they would condemn from the opposition, principle has stopped governing.

At that point the question is no longer “Is this right?”

It has become “Did my side do it?”

And I think that, more than ordinary disagreement over taxes, immigration, Trump, Biden, wars, or spending, is what I now see as the real danger…politics is replacing principles.

I fear it isn’t coming…it’s already here…and it’s become the norm…politics has replaced principles.