A handful of Republican
governors—including Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mark Sanford of South
Carolina—have been doing what they can to take a courageous stand against the
stimulus package passed in February.
Time has gone by, but as the funding is now being dispersed and more
legislation is being considered, that we bear in mind the valiant efforts of
these leaders given the stakes.

Pressed with the threat of
amending welfare laws in their states for years to come and violating the principles
of good governance that made this nation great, these governors are refusing to
accept funding for new unemployment benefits, much to the chagrin of their
Democratic counterparts.

“This to me is not
about philosophical theory, [but] about real people who through no fault of
their own, are laid off because of a recession,” argued Michigan Governor
Jennifer Granhold in February.

Apparently Republican
stances, based largely on core beliefs but transcending into the realm of good
governance, are inappropriate in a time of “crisis.”

But this isn’t just about
philosophical theory, though that is certainly a component. It is also about the people—“real people.”
Consider: Three years from now, when federal funding dries up and the
states are stuck with these laws, how are higher taxes to make up the
difference going to help the people?
When Dick and Jane decide to stay on welfare for five years instead of
two, how is that helping to get them moving and making better lives for
themselves, their family and their community?

The answer is, it’s
not. Principles may be driving these
stands, but underlying that is justified concern for the future. These governors are doing what leaders should
be doing: looking toward the impact of their present decisions on the future,
not just the effect of those decisions on the now.

Of course, while America’s
greatest national interest has been at stake—its security—the Democrats had no
problem crying “principle,” putting “philosophical theory” over effective
interrogation procedures. But when their
own political interests in appearing to be strong, firm leaders are being
threatened, and their own agendas to expand government in unprecedented ways are
on the line, they have no problem throwing principle out the window.

Terrorism is a different
issue; most of the actions that were taken on the part of U.S. interrogators
were not, in actuality, torture. And contrary
to popular misconception, waterboarding has only been used three times—and in
each of those three times it worked, and innumerable lives were saved. Early on some cases were questionable, such
as Abu Graihb and early Guantanamo Bay practices, but by and large principle did guide the nation’s interrogation
policy.

On warrantless
wiretapping, the government was not wiretapping every phone in America without
a warrant, converse to ACLU misinformation.
Rather, if Abdul’s conversations are being monitored in Pakistan and he
calls Ahmed in the United States, is the government supposed to put down the
phone and say, “Oops, American citizen?”
Of course not, and that’s what the policy ensured. Yet the Democrats made a big fuss about how
this violated the “rights of the citizen.” They cried “principle,” yet none were actually
violated.

But now the tide has
turned and the Democrats are the one whose policies are being challenged. Their reckless willingness to throw up their
hands and truly abandon our ideals is troublesome at best. If we can just casually say, whenever a new
crisis arises, that principle is irrelevant, what will we have left? Can we pick and choose when to let core beliefs
be our guide and when to ignore them?

Far too many leaders have
given the same argument—we’re in a crisis, so let’s set aside our core beliefs. Such is the true test of leadership. Will our leaders stand by those convictions
in troubled times, or will they set them aside because of the perceived ease in
doing so?

If we refuse to allow our
conscience of principle to be our guide in crisis, instead only permitting its
surface in pleasant times, our ideals are rendered meaningless.

“The spirit of resistance
to government,” Jefferson once said, “is so valuable on certain occasions that
I wish it to be always kept alive.”

One can only hope that
more governors, and other politicians at every level, will have the courage to
stand up and resist the temptation to cede more power and authority to
government. The future of this country
may depend on it.

Comments are more than welcome! E-mail Jimmy at Jimmy@SengCenter.com or post on the site! As always, please be respectful in your remarks.

-->