Conservatives view liberals’ political proposals as outlandish and wonder how anyone with a true knowledge of history can support them. That’s why conservatives discount those liberal proposals and assume that all people of reason will do the same thing. However, conservatives do not take into account that liberals have taken over our educational systems and are giving the next generation of Americans a false sense of history and a false sense of right and wrong. As a result, conservatives’ solutions are successfully mischaracterized unless conservatives make a point to explain their solutions to America’s problems in the context of who America really is.

For example, liberals preach that conservatives don’t care about other people, that they are selfish and want to keep all their money for themselves. The facts do not support that notion, but conservatives have done a poor job of explaining both their long history of caring for those in need and the advantages of the means by which they do so.

“The New York Times” published a story last November highlighting a research study that shows that people in Republican-leaning counties give more to charity than do those in Democratic-leaning counties. The article notes that “this finding fell within the broad political tendencies of traditional Republicans who favor less government intervention and more donations from the private sector to make up for the lack of government assistance.” In reality conservatives back up their ideas with their money. Additionally, they believe that the poor can be better helped by private charities that must work efficiently and effectively to remain viable. Conservatives need to make a point of comparing their model to the wastefulness of a government monolith whose existence is guaranteed by self-serving politicians who want to swell the size of government in order to boost their own position, power, and prestige.

Conservatives know that private charitable organizations are more effective because they are much closer to those who receive the aide than are a bunch of bored bureaucrats in a marble office building in a high-cost-of-living city like Washington, D.C., who create one-size-fits-all rules that are easily scammed. For example, an unmarried couple with two children, if they play the game right, can get up to $72,000 per year in government aid while a married couple with two children not only gets nothing from the government, but actually has to pay taxes to support the give-away to the scammers. In addition to being wasteful of tax dollars, the bureaucratic rules that allow this are a significant financial attack against the institution of marriage, which has since the beginning of time been the glue that holds societies together. Conservatives aren’t against helping people. They are just in favor of small governments and the sanctity of marriage. Conservatives just need to do a better job of expressing those ideas.

Conservatives believe that instead of just “giving a man a fish” (to feed him for today as is done by welfare entitlement programs) one should “teach the man to fish” so that he can feed himself (and his family) every day without help from others. In other words, conservatives want to make the needy self-sufficient so that they no longer need to be dependent on someone else’s charity. That is why conservatives support “workfare.” Conservatives can – if they would – make a pretty convincing argument that people who refuse to use charity to get themselves into a position where they don’t need charity are not worthy of charity. Government programs on the other hand just keep doling out somebody else’s money (our taxes) with little regard to whether it is doing any long term good. After all, bureaucrats get paid regardless of how effective their work is.

This fits with the finding of the aforementioned study that “wealth redistribution is higher in Democratic-leaning counties.” Taxes are higher and entitlement payouts are likewise higher. One may claim this as a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor situation, but neither bureaucrats en massenor the government as a whole make a very good Robin Hood. Conservatives take the position that the people who earn the money deserve the right to distribute the money that they earn. And many conservatives distribute significant percentages of their money to help those who genuinely need help. Conservatives do NOT like to give money to those who make no effort to provide for themselves. Some people do need help. Conservatives have proven time and again that they will help those people. But conservatives deny that a bloated, disinterested, distant government is the best way to distribute that help.

Liberals want to make conservative ideals look bad because conservative ideals run counter to the liberals’ goals of remaking America. Conservatives must do a better job of presenting a credible picture of their superior solutions to America’s problems. Until they change that dynamic, their ideals will get short-changed in the arena of public perception. Conservatives don’t lose elections because there is anything wrong with their ideals; there isn’t. Conservatives lose elections because they do a poor job of articulating their ideals to the electorate.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Try to come up with a definition of “conservative” that satisfies everyone who considers him or herself to be a conservative and your brain will melt. That happens because conservatives don’t rally around a single cause. Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote a fairly deep article last year entitled “Fifty Shades of Red” that expounds on many of the differences in the “conservative movement.”

Progressives, Berkowitz opines, don’t have that problem. They unite in “the pursuit of an increasingly egalitarian society through ever more comprehensive government regulation and redistribution.” If you think about it, that’s the definition of socialism.

Conservatives on the other hand have splintered goals that can be loosely incorporated within two camps. One camp believes conservatism should focus on individual freedom. The other camp believes in conserving our traditions.

Donald Trump was elected in no small part by working class people who had given up on government because they felt that the government was contemptuous of their concern about the lack of good jobs, the influx of illegal immigrants, foolish wars, and an expanding culture of political correctness – all issues that damage their personal freedom. Thousands upon thousands of those people registered and voted for the first time because at last they had a candidate who actually listened to them and cared about what they cared about.

Never-Trumpers, on the other hand, didn’t like Trump because he was not a traditional candidate. He did not fit the traditional mold, and therefore they felt his commitment to American traditions was suspect.

Now here is where my brain starts to hurt. Those who are focused on their personal freedoms depend on our constitutional law and the traditions of our founding fathers to defend those freedoms. Traditionalists think that one can go too far with individual freedom by failing to honor the very traditions that preserve those freedoms. Traditionalists rail against the “radical remedies” employed by those in the “individual freedom camp” who are disgusted with the hidebound intransigence of the “traditionalist camp.”

Neither side thinks they are the bad guys. They often think the “other” side are the bad guys. And we have enough Individualist and Traditionalist conservative Republicans in Congress who are at odds with each other that even when Republicans are in the majority, they can’t get anything done. Democrats don’t have that problem. They are focused on a single goal, and they are united in reaching it. Recently, that unity seems to be splintering over methodology and tactics. But that’s been the problem with Republicans for more than 30 years. (Some Republicans are not conservative by any stretch, but this article is about conservatives not RINOs.)

Ronald Reagan was the last Republican leader to be able to pull conservatives together, Berkowitz says, “Ronald Reagan was an exception among spokesmen for conservatism; he disarmingly harmonized dedication to individual liberty and limited government with respect for traditional morality and biblical faith.” That statement requires some thought. Individual liberty and limited government are not antithetical to traditional morality and biblical faith. In fact, traditional morality and biblical faith are the solid ground upon which our individual liberty and limited government are founded. Either Berkowitz is wrong in how he characterizes conservatives, or he is saying something we aren’t hearing.

I don’t think he is wrong because later in the article he says, “To pursue happiness… individuals, families, and communities require a limited government capable of protecting a robust civil society and a broad private sphere where citizens are largely left alone to govern themselves and advance their material and moral interests as they define them.” Then he adds, “At the same time, democratic self-government and free markets rest on citizens well-endowed with self-restraint, industriousness, perseverance, tolerance, prudence, and a host of other virtues cultivated best by family, faith, and community.”

Here is the take-away: Individualists and Traditionalists need each other. We want much the same core things. Our problems come in the disagreements over how to go about reaching the goal of preserving our American way of life. Our real enemies, the progressives and socialists who aim to destroy the traditional freedoms we want to preserve, have no such handicap.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Christians have the greatest message in history, yet the vast majority of Christians fail to spread it. Christians founded the greatest, most powerful country in history, yet they fail to protect it. Christians have allowed themselves to be distracted from two hugely important aspects of what it means to be Christian.

Since this is a political blog, readers may wonder what Christianity has to do with politics. That’s the point. Secular voices have effectively marginalized the voice of the church by convincing Christians that their message of God’s redemption should be kept separate from everyday life. Americans by the millions are being taught that religion has nothing to do with reality. Granted that is a lie, but most people who claim to be Christians do precious little to counter the lie. Instead, our children in all grades of school and especially in college, which is infested with liberal professors, are indoctrinated with the lie that there are no absolutes, there is no God, and that even if He does exist, He has nothing to say about how we run our country. And in the face of those lies, Christians remain silent. And that is why so many millennials give credence to the idiocy of socialists such as Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They even vote many of them into office.

And let me clarify that Christians make up a huge percentage of the military. They serve diligently and often in life-threatening situations to protect our country from foreign enemies. But when domestic enemies attack our founding principles as well as the foundation of our laws – our Constitution – in every possible way, both overtly and covertly, the Christians at home seem to look the other way because Christians remain silent.

In biblical days, the elders of the cities would sit in the gate of the city, which was generally a gated passageway between two walls. As they sat, not only would they determine who was allowed to enter their city, but they would also serve as witnesses to business agreements and as arbiters of disagreements. They were the governing body and the justice system of their time. Today Christians, as “elders” of the country, have left the “gate” and allowed others – who do not possess the wisdom that comes from knowing God’s absolute truth – who because of their socialist education don’t even believe it exists – to make those decisions for them. Socialists are out to destroy the moral fiber of our country, and Christians remain silent.

Many Christians are distracted by the details of building their lives, and they assume that the foundation on which they build those lives is firm and can withstand any attack. That is not the case. The foundation of our liberties is undergoing massive attacks by those who don’t believe in what has made America great and/or don’t want us to be a great country due to their ignorance or malice. Many other Christians are aware of the problems, but they don’t know how to respond in a way that allows their voices to again be heard “in the gate.”

In response to that need, a group of individuals have come together to form the Statesman Project with the goal of helping Christians once again take their rightful place in the fabric of our country. They are hosting an “Elders at the Gates” seminar on Saturday, July 27^th. And this is not a bunch of crusty, old, white, conservative men. The featured speakers are Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dennis Peacocke.

Dr. King is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, a former senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank), and a Fox News contributor. She became a Christian in 1983 and is a pro-life activist. She considers abortion to be a form of racial discrimination. She is one of the most prominent black figures in the American religious right.

Dennis Peacocke was involved in the civil rights and free speech movements during the 1960s while he earned a Political Science degree from the University of California – Berkley. Then in 1968, he became a Christian. He combined his concerns for social justice with the Bible and is internationally respected for his unique way of applying biblical solutions to the many challenges facing families, churches, business, and government.

The seminar begins promptly at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 3:00 p.m. The meeting is hosted at Victory Worship Center, 200 Hammond Lane in Staunton. Further information can be obtained from Travis Witt at traviswitt@usa.com.

Christians have for too long “dropped the ball” when it comes to Christ’s impact on our country. It’s long past time for Christians to pick it up again.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The General Assembly met in special session on Tuesday, July 9, at the Governor’s request so that they would – he hoped – pass a whole bunch of gun control bills for him to sign into law. And our representatives came loaded with bills and resolutions. Delegates filed 31 bills for laws, three joint resolutions, and 46 House resolutions. State senators filed 32 bills, two joint resolutions, and 20 Senate resolutions. The resolutions were basically to celebrate the lives of named individuals or to commend individuals and organizations. Nothing sinister there.

The Senate’s two joint resolutions would establish two study commissions on violence. The House joint resolutions would determine the rules of the special session (HJ 4003) and recognize the Virginia Beach Tragedy Fund as a good thing (HJ 4002). Then there was HJ 4001 sponsored by Kaye Kory (D-Falls Church) which would have established an annual “Gun Violence Awareness Day” so liberals could demonize gun owners.

Of the 63 actual bills introduced, six were good and nine were harmless. The other 48 were trouble from the git-go.

All of the good bills were offered by Republicans. Delegate Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg) introduced HB 4001 that would have codified into Virginia law the US Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v Heller decision that clarifies the right of individual Virginians to keep and bear arms. Delegate Cole also introduced HB 4002 that would require state and local government entities to allow their employees who have concealed handgun permits (CHPs) to carry concealed in their workplace unless the government provides armed security on site. And Delegate David Yancey (R-Newport News) offered HB 4014 that would allow persons convicted of stealing firearms to get a reduced sentence if they provided substantial help to authorities in apprehending other persons involved in the crime.

In the Senate, Bill Stanley (R-Moneta) introduced SB 4011 to allow public and private schools to have “volunteer school security” officers (retired law enforcement officers not paid by the school) who can be armed on school property. Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg) introduced SB 4015 which would require schools to teach firearm safety at all grades. The courses would be taught by law-enforcement officers and would not use actual firearms. Dick Black (R-Leesburg) introduced SB 4016, which would allow local government employees with CHPs to carry or possess a firearm at their workplace whether armed security is provided or not.

All of the bad bills were introduced by Democrats with a few notable exceptions. Former Lieutenant Governor candidate Glenn Davis (R-Virginia Beach) introduced HB 4007 which would allow localities to ban guns in their government buildings. This would infringe on the rights of gun owners to protect themselves both in the buildings and going from and to their vehicles. Davis also introduced HB 4008 which would reduce options for CHP applicants to get the training that our laws require. I can understand Democrats introducing bad bills, but I don’t understand Republicans trying to limit our constitutional rights.

And although Senator Norment introduced one good bill, he introduced a bad one. SB 4013 would ban firearms for anyone other than a certain privileged few in any government building and would change violations from misdemeanors to felonies. Then he turned around and asked that the bill be stricken. Not sure what he’s thinking.

With all those bills, one would think that the special session would last for days. Instead it lasted 90 minutes before it was recessed until November 18^th. In the meantime the bipartisan Virginia State Crime Commission led by its chairman Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) and vice-chairman Delegate Rob Bell (R-Albemarle) are directed to “undertake a systematic review of the events that occurred in Virginia Beach and propose legislative changes to Virginia’s laws concerning firearms and public safety.” In the letter to the Crime Commission, House Speaker Kirk Cox and Senate Majority Leader Norment noted that they “have asked the committees of the House and Senate to refer all legislation introduced during the Special Session to the Crime Commission for review,” including any additional legislation filed before July 19.

This is a win for common sense, but several perils remain. The General Assembly reconvenes after the November election, which means legislators cannot be held accountable at the polls this year for their votes when the special session reconvenes. Also, people lose interest too easily, which means our legislators can act in November without the scrutiny that they are currently facing. If we are to protect our constitutional freedoms, we must stay on top of this. We must remind our representatives that we are watching them because their actions profoundly affect us.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has “summoned” the General Assembly to a special session beginning on Tuesday, July 9, “for the purpose of consideration of legislation related to the emergency of gun violence in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” They will stay in session until the General Assembly decides they are done.

Northam commented, “Let Virginia show the nation that we can respond to tragedy with decisive action.” Unfortunately, Socialist gun-grabbers, like Northam, have the wrong idea of “decisive action.” They will be promoting laws that require universal background checks for all gun transfers public and private, one-handgun-per-month purchase restrictions, “assault weapon” bans, and “Red Flag” laws. All of these laws are an attempt to circumvent our Constitutional protections, and not one of them would have prevented the shootings in Virginia Beach this past May. Northam tried to claim the high road with this statement, “I will be asking for votes and laws, not thoughts and prayers.” However, if our country did more praying and less legislating, then perhaps God would heal the people of our land. No law ever passed by a legislature can change the heart of a murderer.

One of the misguided laws that Northam wants is the universal background check (UBC). It isn’t a background check as much as it is gun registration. Once the state has a gun registry, the state can come in and confiscate privately owned guns. Ask the people of California how that is working out. Adults ages 18 to 20 would no longer be able to own handguns. Frankly, if they are old enough to vote and enlist in the military then they are old enough to own a gun. Gun owners would not be able to loan a gun to a friend or family member without going through a gun dealer for a background check. And the owner would have to undergo a check to get his own weapon back. A gun owner would become a criminal if s/he made a private sale (even though sale of one’s own property is protected by the Constitution); all sales would have to go through a dealer. UBCs do NOT deter crime, nor is the real intent of UBCs to deter crime. Illinois has had UBCs for years, but 97% of Illinois convicts got their guns on the street or through “strawman” purchases. The real goal is to deter law abiding citizens from legally owning a gun at all.

Another insidious law to be introduced is the so-called “Red Flag” law. If someone (even a vengeful ex or a hateful neighbor) files a notice that someone is dangerous to others or to himself, then the police can show up at the individual’s door with no warning and confiscate that person’s guns. There is no due process, no right to confront the accuser (or even to know who it is), no protection to keep the confiscated guns from being damaged or destroyed, no protection from repeated false claims, and no refund of exorbitant legal fees to gain back your legal property. Again, if this was truly about crime prevention then the “dangerous person” would be taken into custody, not the weapons. If someone is truly dangerous why are they left on the street unsupervised? There are any number of ways to harm others or oneself without a gun. This isn’t about safety, it’s about gun confiscation.

Thankfully, as Speaker of the House of Delegates Kirk Cox says, “While the governor can call a special session, he cannot specify what the General Assembly chooses to consider or how we do our work.” Cox plans to address gun violence by providing tougher sentences – including mandatory minimum sentences – for criminals who use a gun in the commission of a felony. Northam, of course, opposes mandatory sentences. My only reservation about that approach is that criminals don’t think they will get caught. They always think that they are smarter than the cons who do get caught, so the threat of a longer sentence will not be a deterrent to criminals except that it will keep convicted felons off the streets and in jail for a longer period of time (during which they can learn better crime methods from more experienced criminals who are in prison with them). But it is a more reasonable approach than what Northam and the socialists want to use. At least it’s directed at criminals rather than at law abiding citizens.

Do not despair. The General Assembly can make Virginia safer. State Senator Dick Black (R-13) will introduce a bill during the special session that will allow local government employees to carry a concealed handgun at work if they have a concealed handgun permit (CHP). Several of the victims and other employees in Building #2 in Virginia Beach have CHPs, but current law does not allow them to carry in the building. Had they been able to do so, one or more of them would have been able to stop the shooting much sooner because they could shoot back. That would have saved some of the twelve lives lost that day – if in fact, the shooter had even dared to attack the people at all. There is a definite deterrence factor in knowing that the potential victims can shoot back. Contact your delegate and state senator to make certain that they support Senator Black’s bill. Allowing citizens to protect themselves is the most effective gun-safety law we can pass.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.