The Republican Club of Sun City

N E W S L E T T E R

September 2015 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

rcsctx.com

(Subjects of Reports in This Issue: “Polling,” “Democrats Abandon Their Founders,” “Texas School Voucher System,” “Differences of Political Left and Right.”

MEMBER OF REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS CLUB

(Club’s September Meeting is Scheduled for a Wednesday Night!)

Toni Anne Dashiell, Republican National Committee woman representing Texas on the Republican National Committee (RNC) and long-time grassroots activist, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 2 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. (Note: Because of scheduling complications, the ballroom was not available for the usual Thursday night meeting)

Her address will focus on the role of the RNC as it relates to the GOP presidential and vice-presidential selection process and the adoption at the 2016 Republican National Convention of the Party platform.

The RNC is the official organization representing the Republican Party in American politics. It provides leadership for the Party, and is responsible for developing and promoting the Party platform, and for coordinating fund raising and election strategy.

It is also responsible for organizing and running the Republican National Convention, a gathering of elected GOP representatives – 1 Committeeman, 1 Committeewoman, and 1 Chairperson from each state – who meet every four years to discharge two principal responsibilities: (1) to officially nominate the Republican candidates for president and vice president, and (2) to adopt the Party’s political platform.

The 2016 convention will convene in Cleveland, Ohio on July 18-21, a date which is much earlier than previous conventions, and which, thereby, can enable GOP candidates to have to spend less money on primaries so they can have more funds available for the general election.

Our speaker has been active in politics, grassroots advocacy and leadership training for more than 30 years, compiling a record which enabled her to be elected president of the Texas Federation of Republican Women, and to be subsequently awarded the 2009 Ronald Reagan Leadership Award by the National Federation of Republican Women.

A resident of Boerne, she has been active in both city and county activities and organizations, and, with her husband, is currently a small business owner in both real estate and insurance.

BEGINNING TIMES: Social Hour – 6:00 PM; Dinner – 6:30 PM; Program – 7:00 PM (approx.)

MENU: Build-a-Burger-Bar: all beef patties, grilled chicken breasts, toasted buns, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, pickles, assorted cheese slices, condiments, french fries, sweet potato fries, baked beans, ceasar salad.

COST: Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to “The Republican Club of Sun City” should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Thursday, August 27. (Note the deadline is a day earlier than the usual Friday.)

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME! (Non-members may attend a maximum of two meetings per year – as attendees for the dinner or as observers – without having paid membership dues.)

OTHER CLUB NEWS

The next club meeting following the September meeting is scheduled for Sunday, October 11. Details will be provided in the October newsletter.

According to club bylaws, the club president (Robert Fears) is to appoint by September a Nominating Committee consisting of 3-5 members, including at least two of which are members of the Executive Committee. The Nominating Committee is to submit its recommendations for the slate of club officers (president, first vice president, second vice president, secretary, treasurer) for the year 2016 at the club’s October meeting. Election of next year’s officers will take place during the club’s November meeting when the club will vote on the submitted nominees plus any names submitted from the floor in accordance with Article VIII of the bylaws.

Vice president John Congdon reports the club membership is now 287; club treasurer Bill Harron reports 140 individuals attended the August 20 dinner meeting, plus 6 more attending as observers.

THE RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION DERIVED FROM POLLING

Foreword. Almost incessantly, it seems, the population has been bombarded by polling data on a variety of subjects ranging from candidate preferences to personal opinions by the news media. But virtually without exception, when reporting results of polling, the media do not reveal the wording of the questions utilized nor the mode of inquiry.

Those, however, are important matters. In view of that void, this report is to provide the reader with information as to how the wording of questions has been used in the past to affect polling results. In addition, there is a brief discussion on the evolution of the mode of inquiry and the emerging impatience of the public when they are contacted by a pollster.

Hopefully, the information presented will be useful to the reader.

The Cost Factor. Paul Peterson, in an op-ed piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal, comes directly to the point when he says in regard to school funding: “Its easy to see why candidates for public office promise more money for schools. As long as taxes are ignored and no mention is made of current levels of expenditures, calling for more spending is a political ‘no-brainer.'” But that is exactly the practice of politicians – and particularly Democrats – who assiduously avoid talking about the “cost” of a program, whether its schools, welfare, stimulus, or other matters which could provide them with votes.

Peterson’s point is confirmed by a study in which respondents were divided into 3 randomly, equally represented, groups:

• The first group was asked if they thought school funding “to fund public schools in your district should increase, decrease or stay the same.” [no mention was made of cost]
• The second group was asked the same question, but was first told the level of expenditure per pupil which, nation-wide, was $12,608 in 2011.
• The third group was given the same information as the second group, but was asked whether they thought taxes to fund public schools in your district should increase, decrease or stay the same.”

Following are some of the results: (1) When respondents were given information on current amounts of spending (group #2), support for more spending fell from 60% to 44%; and (2) If asked if they favored tax increases – a factor not previously mentioned – to fund higher spending, support fell further, to 26%.

The Mode of the Interview. Author Kirby Anderson reports that Pew Research did a study titled, “From Telephone to the Web: The Challenge of Mode of Interview Effects Public Opinion Polls,” which helps explain why many poll results do not match the final result in various elections. Anderson explains that Americans “adapt” their answers based on the mode of contact. For example:

• They found telephone respondents were more likely than online respondents “to say that gays and lesbians, Hispanics and blacks face a lot of discrimination.” They also found that people answering online were more likely to voice a negative opinion of a political candidate.
• The responses make sense in light of what experts refer to as a “social desirability bias.” In other words, respondents often give pollsters the answer they think they want to hear. They are less likely to say they support traditional marriage or a marriage amendment to their state constitution. They also are less likely to say something negative about a candidate, but feel much freer to express such an opinion online.

Robert Wuthnow, a professor at Princeton University, wrote a comprehensive report appearing in First Things about the history, influence and limits of polling. Following are excerpts from that report:

The Growth of the Polling Industry. Steadily, coverage [from the 1950s] expanded as leading firms employed hundreds of full-time staff to conduct in-person interviews in selected locations across the nation. Then in the 1990s they shifted to cheaper telephone interviews based on random sampling.

Polling is now a billion-dollar-a-year industry. Currently, there are more than 1,200 polling firms in the U. S. During the 2012 presidential election, these firms conducted more than 37,000 polls. In total, these polls involved more than three billion phone calls. A typical phone in a typical household was machine-dialed twenty to thirty times.

The Drop in Public Confidence. People have grown tired of its ceaseless rollouts, especially during election season. Fewer and fewer of us answer the phone when pollsters call. Response rates have fallen so low that it is impossible to know what exactly polls represent. Even in predicting elections, polls have been missing the mark so badly that poll watchers voice growing suspicion about erroneous methods and potential biases.

When pollsters asked respondents in the 1980s what they thought of polls, nearly 80 percent expressed confidence that polling was beneficial, that pollsters’ methods were basically sound,and that people responding to polls were truthful. But over the next two decades those proportions plummeted. In a 2006 study, only 34 percent thought pollsters could be trusted, about the same as the result for Congress).

Willingness of the Public to Participate in Polling. As public confidence in polls has tanked, so has the public’s willingness to participate in polls. Response rates have declined precipitously. In the 1980s, the typical response rate was in the 65 to 75 percent range. By the late 1990s, response rates had fallen to 30 to 35 percent. Currently, the typical response rate is 9 or 10 percent, and rates rarely exceed 15 percent. In other words, upwards of 90 percent of the people who should have been included in a poll for it to be nationally representative are missing. They were either unreachable or refused to participate.

DEMOCRATS DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR FOUNDERS

Non-Recognition of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson Indicate Party Cleansing

A Tradition Begins to End. For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The honor has been carried out throughout the nation for nearly a century via annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners when speeches about the virtues of the Democrat party were made and money collected.

But now, according to New York Times writer Jonathan Martin, those time-honored rituals are colliding with the modern Democrat party which is now more energized by a racial and gender inclusion than a reverence for history. This collision has been so intense that already the Democrat parties of several states have removed the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, primarily because they were slave holders. Those states include Iowa, Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri, with at least 5 more states likely to do the same.

A New Identity Begins to Emerge. What is the significance of those actions? Martin contends, “moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of U. S. politics: “Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organization primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.”

But this change follows other changes already made from the identity promoted by the party’s two founders. For example, it was Jefferson who stated, “The government is best which governs least,” a thought which doesn’t square with the present promotion of big – if not gargantuan – government by the Democrats. Also, it was Jefferson who led the Anti-Federalist movement against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared those elected to office would become the pawns for specials interests, using those constituencies to perpetuate their offices. But now, Democrats, for all to see, engage in emotional – often demagogic – appeals to minorities, women, LGBT groups, open-border groups and the like.

And in 2012, a New York Times writer, Thomas Edsall, stunned his readers by reporting, “preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.”

The California Experience as Prologue to Coming National Politics. Since 1990, California has, in demographic terms, become transformed. In 1990, California was 57% white, 26% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 7% black. In 2013, estimates are that California was 39% white (previously 57%), 38.4 Hispanic (previously 26%), 14.1% Asian (previously 9%), and 6.6% black (previously 7%).

According to writer Troy Senik, the basic dynamics are as follows: Whites and African Americans are both on the decline as a percentage of the state population, but both punch above their weight withing the the Democratic party. By contrast, Hispanics and Asian Americans (the latter of whom constitute the state’s fastest growing demographic group) are ascendant, but both struggle to get their voters to the polls (in the case of Hispanics, dramatically so).

The Coming Test of the “Diversity is Our Strength” Slogan. Senik contends this demographic revolution theoretically ought to be a boon for the “diversity is our strength ” Democratic party. In reality, however, the party’s emphasis on identity politics – the notion that these blocs (excepting whites) should self-consciously identify on the basis of race – is making the big tent feel a bit cramped.” These groups are learning that the logic of identity politics is “zero-sum:” For one group to win, another has to lose.

Replacing the State’s Top Three Office Holders – Whites. Currently, the three highest ranking political office holders are retiring Senator Barbara, Senator Diane Feinstein (age 82) and Gov. Jerry Brown (age 77), all of whom are white. Senik projects “The odds that three more white candidates will win those offices approach zero.”

And while, on the one hand, the element of “diversity” can be noted, there is, on the other hand, noted tension between the two leading candidates who wish to fill the seat of retiring Senator Barbara Boxer. One is Loretta Sanchez, who is Hispanic; the other is Kamala Harris, who is half black and half Tamil Indian, and the

current Attorney General. The present non-support of Sanchez by the party elite is reportedly causing tension in the Hispanic community.

Senik therefore raises the question: “Is it a mistake [for the Democrats] to take the loyalty of Asian Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans for granted?” Maybe California will tell us!

TEXAS’ EXPERIENCE WITH A VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PARENTS

Foreword. As was pointed out in the August newsletter, there has long been a desire on the part of a large number of Texans to have a system of school choice which would include vouchers to help parents defray the cost of tuition non-government school now assess. That desire has recently become urgent with the surfacing of some of the ancillary effects of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. Some of those effects could include – and already have included – restroom and locker room usage by “transgendered” faculty and students, textbooks which promote interchange of the sexes, undermining of Biblical and traditional family values, and other matters yet to surface.

Unlike other states which have forged ahead with voucher systems, the Texas legislature has resisted doing so. Fortunately, Texas, when it reconsiders a voucher system, can profit from an examination of a privately funded voucher system Texas has had for a 10 year period.

That system, called the Horizon program, was a large-scale, 52 million dollar experiment in the Edgewood School District (located near San Antonio) providing parents with vouchers which enabled them to send their children to any secular or religious private school. While funds for the vouchers came from private sources, the experience of that Horizon program should prove invaluable to Texas as it considers once more a tax-funded voucher system.

A report describing the Horizon program and its effectiveness written by Amy McCullough appeared in the September 2014 issue of World, excerpts of which follow:

The Horizon experiment was and is nationally significant because it was the first program to be “universal,” offering vouchers to all public-school students residing within a particular school district. Edgewood district families were eligible for vouchers they could use at any secular or religious private school, or at a public school outside the district.

At the height of the program (that tapered in its last years due to funding limitations) more than 2,000 students – 16 percent of district enrollment – used vouchers, and almost all did so at private schools. The state spent $8,600 for each Edgewood public-school student, but Horizon elementary-school participants received vouchers of $3,600 for private schools located within the district, and high-school students received vouchers of $4,000.

The academic effects were notable: The college attendance rate of Horizon graduates was 91 percent in 2005 and 93 percent in 2006. One hundred percent of Horizon parents said the program had “positively impacted the development of their voucher-using children a lot (emphasis added because if they were only mildly impressed they could have checked off “a little”). In addition, the community gained economically: People moved into the school district, property values went up, and new businesses opened.

Horizon also led to the opening of new schools, including the voucher-using Christian Academy of San Antonio.

Discipline in the Public Schools. A report published in 2012 revealed these shocking statistics regarding discipline in public schools: (1) . . . school administrators are exercising their discretion to suspend or expel 60 percent of Texas students – including a shocking 84 percent of male African-American students – at least once between the 7th and 12th grades, and (2) . . . about 15 percent of the students studies were suspended or expelled 11 times or more – and more than half of those students had been on probation or had been incarcerated by juvenile authorities.

Stunned by those statistics, the Texas legislature subsequently added a section on classroom disruption to the Texas Education Code. It is wordy, legalistic and bureaucratic and, according to a Texas Teacher Legal Protection publication, places on the teacher the burden of having to show that a misbehaving student’s actions have “interfered with the educational process.” It requires the teacher to appear on a committee with one of the parents, and of having the teacher’s decision to decline to readmit a student subject to the review of another committee, a Placement Review Committee. That requirement means that teachers may resent the undermining of their authority by such bureaucratic regulations which do not address a major cause of behavior problems: the breakdown of the family.

Private schools are not subject to this kind of bureaucratic regulation and, consequently, may use techniques in dealing with misbehaving students which can maintain the all-important teacher-pupil relationship.

Columnist Walter Williams offer some words of wisdom for both parent and teacher in training the young when he contends:

I think that a society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. These

behavioral norms – transmitted by example, word of mouth, religious teachings, rules of etiquette and manners –

represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important

legal thou-shalt-nots – such as shalt not murder, steal, lie or cheat – but they also include all those civilities one might

call ladylike or gentlemanly behavior. Police officers and courts can never replace these social restraints on personal

conduct. At best, laws, police and the criminal justice system are a society’s last desperate line of defense.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE POLITICAL LEFT AND RIGHT

America is no longer the homogeneous nation it was at the time of its founding when virtually all of its population was of European heritage, when there was a common culture, and when there was a dominant Judeo-Christian religious influence. Today, while America is becoming increasingly fractional, columnist Dennis Prager is nevertheless able to conceptualize America in terms of a political left and a political right, and then show their differences in a series of 6 op-ed pieces which appeared in various publications over a period of weeks.

Following are excerpts from those op-ed pieces, excerpted and stated in two columns identified as “left” and “right” for comparative purposes:

Difference #1: Is Man Basically Good?

LEFT RIGHT

*People are basically good. *Man is born morally flawed – not necessarily born evil,

but surely not born good. The root system of the West (Christian

& Jewish beliefs) never held that we are naturally good.

*Liberals argue that poverty, despair, and hopelessness *Conservatives blame those who engage in violent behavior

cause poor people to riot and commit violent crime. more than liberals do.

*Since people are basically good, their acts of evil must be *People who do evil are to be blamed because they made bad

explained by factors beyond their control. Their behavior is choices – and they did so because they either have little

is not really their fault. self-control or a dysfunctional conscience.

Difference #2: What Are Ways to Improve Society?

LEFT RIGHT

*The way to a better world is almost always through doing battle *The way to better world is through moral improvement of

with society’s moral defects – sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. the individual, by each person doing battle with his own defects.

*Liberals are more preoccupied with politics *Conservatives are less involved with politics.

*Does not focus on individual character development. Rather, *No interest in fundamentally transforming America; passionately

it has always and everywhere focused on social revolution. opposed to doing so. Character development was at the core

of both child rearing and education at school.

*Children are taught to focus on social issues; when they get to *Freedom requires self control.

College, they will be taught about need to fight “white privilege”

and “rape culture.”

*The result is they become passionate about carbon emissions,

sexism and “white privilege,” but they cheat on tests at

unprecedentedly high levels.

Difference #3: What is the Role of Government?

LEFT RIGHT

*By focusing on conservatives as being “sexist,””bigoted,” *Without the left’s attacks on the character of conservatives,

“racist” etc., they deflect attention from their positions. Americans would not vote Democrat in the numbers they do.

*Without the belief in an ever-expanding state, there is no left. *Without a belief in limited government, there is no conservatism.

*The state should be the most powerful force in society – in *The individual is the essential component of a good society.

Education, health care and other areas without competition. Government’s role should be limited to absolute necessities

like national defense, help for citizens who cannot be helped by

other citizens.

Difference # 4: How Does One Know What’s Right and What’s Wrong?

LEFT RIGHT

*There is no transcendent source of morality. Man is God, and *There are moral truths, objective moral standards, to which

therefore each human being is the author of his or her own every person is accountable. In America, this refers to God

moral standards. of the Bible, and to Judeo-Christian values.

*Feelings often supplant reason, not just moral truths. Feelings *As important as feelings may be, feeling are just not as

for the poor, minorities, downtrodden, gays and others are important as standards in making social policy.

frequently all that is necessary to formulate policy.

Prager has come to the conclusion that these divisions in American cannot be reconciled. He believed at one time that, although the left and right had serious policy differences, they each had the same vision for America. But no more. He now believes “right and left do not want the same America.” He offers the following in support of his beliefs:

• The left want America to look as much like Western European countries as possible. The left want Europe’s quasi-pacifism, cradle-to-grave socialism, egalitarianism and secularization. The right wants none of those values.
• The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been – a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government that is not indifferent to religion.
• The left prefers to identify as citizens of the world. The left fear nationalism. The right identifies first as citizens of America.
• The left therefore regards the notion of American exceptionalism as chauvinism; the United Nations and world opinion are regarded as better arbiters of what is good than is America. The right has a low opinion of the U.N.’s moral compass and of world opinion.
• The left subscribes to the French Revolution whose guiding principles were “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The right subscribes to the American formula, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (equality is not mentioned) The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a mode.
• The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. The right values equality of opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal.