We ask a number of questions of our prospective candidates to determine who we would prefer as a possible elected official. The questions usually deal with moral attitudes concerning a particular social problem. The problem with that approach to deciding the value of a person’s character is that it is woefully inadequate for the task that they will assume.
Many electors are satisfied with the vetting process currently used. What we have is a pay for privilege faction which closely conforms for the most part to an ideological platform where one side wins and the opposing side loses.
I propose that you, as the end consumer of this individual's work, will find yourself constantly disappointed in the performance of the person you preferred, as well as the individual presented and possibly elected by people of the opposing view. It has become apparent that these individuals will respond with complete honesty or the necessity of achieving a personal objective by parroting the party line which speaks strongly to the base group of supporting people without antagonizing the people of moderate opinions. The problem at this juncture is that an honest and morally compatible person or a self-serving egotist will still be ill-equipped to perform the necessary work of governance.
Our country is based on the concept of personal freedom. The Bill of Rights spells out those rights in detail. Given the importance of this basic maxim, our elected representatives are mandated to find a path forward through law that allows for opposing views and ideologies to exist together in a social tribe. If we wish to hire a person capable of producing such delicate and elegant law, our questions should require responses that indicate their ability to understand the basic premises of our constitution and mental acuity to determine a balanced approach that aids in governing society’s interactions. This type of questioning, with forethought, should expose individuals who deem an elected position to be one of personal exercise of power and a dictatorial mode of rule along the lines of their worldview and morality.
If we are to be truly free as members of the United States of America, our choices of work, play, social acquaintance, persons we love, financial spending, and moral code must be reserved unto ourselves and not dictated by any elected or appointed individual in the federal, state, or local governments.
If we are to be free, I cannot dictate to another sovereign person how to live their life and, they cannot dictate to me how to live mine. As long as the life choices do not cause physical or financial harm to any other person, it is not society's place to interfere.
ABOUT CONVENTION OF STATES ACTION
Convention of States Action is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization founded for the purpose of stopping the runaway power of the federal government. Our mission is to inspire a spiritual and political awakening in America and build an engaged army of self-governing grassroots activists that support a Convention of States. Learn more at conventionofstates.com/michigan-home.
