What Is The Meaning of Life?

Why are we here? What is the point of our existence? Upon a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article for this topic, one is bombarded with many different views. These are incredibly varied, from "To realize one's potential and dreams" to "To achieve biological perfection". On the surface, these seem like good things. After all, if one is born with amazing natural talent, shouldn't they work extremely hard to develop it and showcase it? If I cognitively realize how terrible the world is now, shouldn't I work extremely hard to make sure the next generation is better than this one?

What is the solution that each of these ideas reaches after? I believe it is ultimately the fulfillment of each individual. At the end of the day, if I can say I moved towards my meaning of life, and provided further reason for my continued existence, then I can look past all the bad that I have done, pat myself on the back, and try to do the same thing tomorrow. The only thing this really accomplishes is to release endorphins and make me happy. If all I try to do is realize my potential and dreams, I am solely working for me, making sure my priorities are above everyone else's. If all I try to do is achieve biological perfection, and try to make the next generation better, I know that everyone after me has me to thank for their great lives.

We can easily see that all of this is, in the end, amazingly self-centered. Everything we do, we do to get ourselves something. The problem is that we are inherently finite beings. We cannot know everything, do everything, see everything, feel everything, touch everything, or even live long enough to give ourselves the chance to try. Following any of Wikipedia's answers leads to ultimate failure.

What is the Christian's answer? What is the meaning of our lives?

 I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God's gift to man. - Ecclesiastes 3:10-13

Our meaning in life, the point of our existence is to be joyful and do good. Doing these two things puts us in direct contrast with the world. Being joyful does nothing to make people cater to your needs. Doing good and serving oneself cannot both be done. If a Christian does not do these things, he puts his meaning of life in something else, something other than what he is called to.

Author Stephen Covey in his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People writes that an effective person should begin with the end in mind. Basically, one should envision one's eulogy being read. What goes into it should determine what we do with our lives. If the Christian was to begin with the end in mind, he would center his life on being joyful and doing good. This is the only way to do what God has called us to do, and it also puts on a totally opposite path from the rest of the world.

Rick Santorum

The son of Italian immigrants, an in-your-face Catholic, and a staunch social conservative, Rick Santorum is certainly a unique candidate. While most of the field would rather not deal with social issues typically championed by the GOP, he embraces them and makes them the highlight of his campaign. Currently, he is battling with Romney for the lead in the primary race, while staving off renewed support for Gingrich. With that in mind, let's look at his stance on the issues.

#1: The Economy: He promises a lot. And it all makes good, old-fashioned business sense. He plans to cut the corporate tax rate in half to 17.5%. As I have asked of practically every other candidate, why? Where does the arbitrariness come from? Why not set it at 0%? The good thing about it is that he takes a cue from the best congressman in office, Paul Ryan, when he states that it will be a flat tax. No more loopholes for Big Business.

The best part of his plan is the budget cuts for the federal government:

I’ll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over 5 years, including spending cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I will propose budgets that spend less money each year than the year before, and I’ll reduce the non-defense related federal workforce at least 10 percent, without replacing with contractors. 

That is change we can all believe in, eh? I mean, it matches Ron Paul, the extreme fiscal conservative as far as spending cuts go.

One part that should be troubling to anyone paying attention, though, is his idea of making Social Security and Medicare so that they are "fiscally sustainable." In a country where children are making up a smaller and smaller portion of the population, this is pretty much impossible. I'll be interested to see just how exactly this comes about.

#2: Immigration: Santorum takes a tough-on-immigration stance. He proposes securing the border first, asking questions later. While this is a wonderful plan as far as national security is concerned, it sort of puts a damper on our relations with Mexico, whose government we should be wholeheartedly supporting. In addition to extending the border fence, he wants to implement an E-verify system, so that companies can make sure that they are not hiring illegals, and the government will have an easier job enforcing the law. Anytime the government says it wants to increase identification measures in the interest of enforcing the laws, run. Run far, far away. At least the E-verify system has little support in Congress, so it isn't realistically going to come into being. Other than this, he pretty much states the party line on other facets of immigration.

#3: National Security: His views on national security are inextricably tied to American Exceptionalism. He takes a strong stance against the ideology of radical Islam, saying we should deal with it like we dealt with communism under Reagan, yet he acknowledges that it is perfectly acceptable to work with Muslim nations, as long as we point out their flaws.

He also takes a particularly strong position on Iran saying that if Israel doesn't remove their nuclear facilities, we'll do it ourselves. Obviously, the US hasn't been this belligerent toward a country since 2003, and this always means war. Whether or not we can launch a military strike against Iran without kicking off a  regional-, or maybe a global-war is for the experts to say, but everyone can agree it is risky at best.

There is nothing wrong with condemning war-mongering countries as long as we don't participate in it ourselves. If Iran continues on their collision course with world stability, those countries in a position to do something about it should. Until then, threats of military strikes should be left for pundits.

#4: The Constitution: While siding with the non-Paulites in the campaign by not making the Constitution an issue in his message, he has taken the wise road of encouraging a strong moral standard in culture. Too many times do politicians hem and haw over the question of morality, often taking a totally different ethical stance personally than they preach publicly (Enter Gingrich), Santorum is the exception to this rule. He bravely holds the social conservative line, defending traditional marriage and the dignity of all human life. When America's leaders are openly discussing these things, there is hope yet for the country. A belief system identical to the Founders' will mean a return to the pro-Constitution values that are desperately needed in this day and age.

In conclusion, Santorum is a candidate who easily wins the American heartland with his free-market economics and conservative ethics. The problem with this is that he can be a tad over-zealous when enforcing the law, which leads to the same thinking that lead to the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The trick for winning the nomination for him will be broadening his appeal by emphasizing his economic policy. All things considered, he probably makes the most ideal Republican candidate in the field.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has been the perpetual front-runner since... forever. Other candidates are judged not only on whether they can beat Obama, but also on whether they can beat Romney. Currently, despite commanding a luxurious lead over the rest of the field overall, he has come under fire for both his time at Bain Capital and the fact that he has hidden millions in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands. At a time when Americans just want to get back to work, his private sector experience shows resounding success at firing people. When Americans are looking for fairness, he gets away with paying only 15% of his income in taxes. But let's look at the issues.

#1: The Economy: His tax plans are interesting. On the individual level, he insists that America become fairer, while giving only those who make below $200,000 any kind of actual tax break. Perhaps this gives us a look inside of his ideology. Why keep the Status Quo in the area of taxes for those who make more than $200,000? Is it fair that they pay more taxes? Why punish those who can do the most good for the economy?

On the corporate tax level, he proposes reducing it to 25%. Where did he get this number? While it is below some of the more established world economies, it is at the same level or above countries considered "emerging markets." Is this really going to help us compete worldwide? Why not reduce it to some other round number like... 0%?

He has much more to say on the economy, in fact, one can get an e-book copy of his entire plan from his website. However, his tax stance was too good to pass up.

#2: Immigration: It is troubling that his campaign website does not include any links on the issue of immigration. Apparently making our borders secure is not one of his top priorities.

#3: National Security: This may be the area in which Romney gets the most support from the conservative Republicans. It is also, incidentally, one of the main areas that he is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul. Basically, he wants to bring defense back as the main sacred cow of the federal government, with enforced spending of at least 4% of GDP. In addition, he wants to dramatically increase the rate at which new ships are being built for the Navy from nine to fifteen per year. Interestingly, he is strong ballistic missile defense. This is not a main issue with most other Washingtonians, given that, though ballistic missiles have existed for about 50 years, the results of such defense initiatives thereof are still highly erratic, regardless of what you thought you knew about SDI.

Also, he supports continuing the military's role on the world stage as a "global force for good." This means more projection of power in the Pacific, to counter China, and more robust support of allies such as Israel, which means taking a strong anti-Iran stance.

#4: The Constitution: Given the strong influence of the Tea Party very recently in the GOP, one would think that Romney would have some things to say about the Constitution, at least a rebuke of some governmental policies as being unconstitutional. Yet he supports the NDAA, which gives the government the power to indefinitely arrest and detain perceived terrorists. He states in the video above that members of Al-Qaeda, whether or not they are citizens, do not have the right to due process. However, he does not give his definition of a terrorist, nor does he explain his rationale behind arbitrarily denying some US citizens the right to due process, upon which our government was founded. This is a signal of an obvious lack of respect for our nations founding document.

In conclusion, Mitt Romney is a great American. He has done much to further good business initiatives that have strengthened our economy. However, his politics are centrist. While this may earn him a wider voting base, it abandons the core of his own party. While his national security policies are strong, everything else does little to inspire voters looking for a candidate who embraces the Constitution and conservatism.

Ron Paul

The fourth candidate to be reviewed is Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has had a long career in both medicine and government, becoming famous for his policy of never compromising on his interpretations of the Constitution. While his extreme libertarian views have gained him a cult following over the years, this is the first election cycle where he has garnered more general support. He has been speaking and writing a ton (side note: he is the only candidate who has written a book that I have read) on the main issues, so let's cut to the chase.

#1: The Economy: This is perhaps his most famous issue, and it has many facets. First, he wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, returning the power of the purse to Congress. Good so far. Then he wants to return the dollar to the gold standard. While this is the ideal state of any currency, the political feasibility of this action near nil. To be clear, his value is in the right place, but like so many of his views it has little support in Congress. In addition, it will be hard to convince an economically illiterate nation that we need a stronger dollar until they see effects like 1920's Germany. Truth is tough.

His tax policies are good, but have little chance of actually being put into place. I'm sure none of us would mind eliminating the income, death and capital gains tax. But the federal behemoth is not going to change overnight. The government is not going to take a 50% income reduction lying down, and we have to question the effects of a much smaller budget. When the sacred cows are lead to the slaughter house, will our aging, government-dependent population support defense spending or entitlement programs?

Finally, he refuses to allow Congress to pass an unbalanced budget. Given the mood Congress is currently in, playing chicken with their own policies, a super-majority would become a real threat. An irritable Executive combined with a pugnacious, stubborn Congress will not mix well. However noble the cause, compromise is almost universally necessary. A balanced budget is good, but not paying serviceman because of an impasse is immoral.

#2: Immigration: Here is where he will probably gain the most support. His tough no amnesty policy would deprive illegals of a way out while enforcing our laws. However, his plan to end birthright citizenship is odd, and wide open to corruption. Who will make the final decision on a child's citizenship? What criteria will be used? If two legal immigrants are in the country, does their child become a US citizen? It's pretty scary to think about the implications, when the government arbitrarily controls citizenship.

#3: National Security: Congressman Paul is often accused of having an isolationist defense policy. But the truth is that he has an isolationist defense policy. While approving a clear mission and definition of victory are key in any military campaign, so also is sending a clear message that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor our enemies. In addition, a policy of using force only when we have been attacked may be un-Constitutional. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says, "[Congress has the duty] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; "Therefore the United States has the duty to enforce international law, but don't depend on Paul to agree to that. As to the rest of his policies in this area, little argument can be made against them.


#4: The Constitution: Unlike most presidential candidates, Ron Paul has read the Constitution. He can quote it at will, typically within the correct context. However, when someone knows the most about an issue than anyone else in the room, it can be tempting to say that their opinion is final. So while it may appear that he supports the founders ideals, let us not forget a certain sentence in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The pro-life community has taken this as grounds to repeal Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul has stated that abortion is an issue that states should decide, neglecting to make governmental protection of its citizens a national issue. An inconsistent position at best, a cowardly one at worst.


In conclusion, it can be safely said that Ron Paul is as opposite to Newt Gingrich as one can get in this race. While Newt will probably pass every program he wants, at the high cost of compromise, Paul will doubtlessly pass few of his aspirations, at the high cost of no compromise. Paul knows how the game is played, but prefers to read the rule book.

Newt Gingrich

Continuing with our series on Republican presidential candidates, it is Gingrich's turn to come under the microscope. If anyone is more qualified for the job of actually running the country, he has not been found yet. Holding a doctorate in European History from Tulane, he has been inside the beltway since 1978. Most famously, he authored the "Contract with America" in 1994, which put in place the first Republican majority in Congress since the Eisenhower administration. But how does he deal with our top issues?

#1: The Economy: Gingrich, who has spent most of his professional life in Washington, to great success, would seem an obvious candidate for providing real, tangible ideas for fixing the U.S. economy. However, when given the opportunity, he resorts to high-sounding vagaries that remind us of the Obama campaign in '08. He does provide us with a good view of his tax policy, though. He wants to eliminate both the capital gains and death taxes, while lowering the corporate income tax to 12.5%, while allowing 100% expensing of new equipment. In addition, he would like to "move towards" a flat tax.

While his tax policy makes good, conservative, sense, the other areas of his economic plans beg for specifics. For example, he wants to:

"Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." 

Gee whiz, Newt, no one has ever thought of that. Bold leadership at its finest.

#2: Immigration: Gingrich has much to say on this issue, even going so far as to provide us with a ten step solution to solving our immigration problems. Most of these ideas are very good, and should prove beneficial, however, there is a level of arbitrariness given to some of these steps. For example, his sixth step states that the Department of Justice will start a 'citizen's review' to determine which illegals we should allow to stay and which should be deported. There are two problems with this: (1) He provides no system or policy that would determine who the illegals are. Does he recommend using his citizen's review on all 300 million residents of the US? (2) He provides no specific criteria to determine which illegals should stay. These issues, coupled with his ideal of solving the immigration problem at the personal level makes for a system that is ripe for corruption.

#3: National Security: His policies in this area promote a more unified approach to the War on Terror than has been put into action since 9/11. Most importantly, he has the guts to stand against the tide of political correctness that has impeded our security efforts. Just as Reagan realized that we must deal with Communism head on, Gingrich adopts this approach to radical Islam. For that we can praise him. However, America has many enemies, not the least of which is a large country between Russia and India. He basically ignores China's growing military capabilities, and therefore provides no solutions to confront them. If he truly believes that we should "know who we are as a country", perhaps he should spend more time explaining who we are as a country.

#4: The Constitution: While he supports many of the ideas of limited government, he has little to say about the actual founding document of our country. Like so many politicians of this day and age, he seems to purport the view that the Constitution is a tool to achieve his ideals, not something to think deeply about. Those who attach little significance to the ideas behind our country's founding are unlikely to employ those same ideas.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is defined by success. He is a Washington insider who knows how the game is played, and plays it well. There is no doubt that he will achieve many things if elected President. The problem conservative voters face is that of maintaining the principles behind his actions. While his bills may be passed, at what pragmatic cost will they come?

Herman Cain

The only minority candidate in the Republican field is Herman Cain. He rose from from humble beginnings, his father worked three jobs, to basically achieve the American Dream. He successfully climbed the corporate ladder, scuttled Hillarycare, and is now one of the front runners in the GOP primaries. But let's get to the issues:

#1: The Economy: This area of his campaign has attracted the most attention. With the 9-9-9 plan, a name obviously from the pizza industry, he plans on slaying the economic dragons that have plagued our country as of late. This plan would replace most taxes with a 9% business flat tax, a 9% individual flat tax, and a 9% national sales tax.

No plan this simple could possibly be without caveat, so he does us the favor of being honest about them. Around the country, Empowerment Zones would be set up. These would basically lower the tax rates for all involved. However, all of this smacks of an opportunity for favoritism. Nowhere does he commit to making these zones geographic. Since he was rather popular in the restaurant industry, being named CEO of the National Restaurant Association in 1996, we can assume a large amount of his financial support will come from that area. Could it be possibly conjectured that a Restaurant Empowerment Zone would be created?

#2: Immigration: It seems that the plan-maker in his staff worked overtime on economic issues, but forgot to give him anything specific to say on immigration. His main position seems to be enforcing current laws and securing our borders. And his commitment stops there. Does he support a border fence? Is he against the DREAM act? Does he even have a plan?

#3: National Security: While his website gives us little actual information, his remarks in several of the debates seem rather centrist. He is not inherently against Iran possessing a nuclear weapon, choosing rather to believe, in a rather Paul-esque fashion, that they would simply want it to matter on the international stage. Why should the opinions of a brutal police state matter at all? Does he recognize Iran's utter hypocrisy? Does he think that they would treat their nuclear weapons in a sane manner? Having a viable national defense institution can only go so far in a world with suitcase nukes.

#4: The Constitution: While those on top usually do their best to identify with their party, Cain has had little to say about the renewed interest in our nation's founding document. It is rather odd that a growing section of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is completely ignored by him. Does he think that a long, hard look should be taken at the constitutionality of the federal government? Does he have any opinions on the ideas that went into creating it? We are quite simply left in the dark.

In conclusion, Herman Cain is an odd, but very smart candidate. While he can't seem to be bothered by most issues, he has taken one of them and made it his defining idea. He is your typical mainline conservative, but we are left to wonder if he has fully thought through what that means.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a fairly unique GOP presidential candidate, in that she is obviously a woman. Other than that, she seems to want to conform to the new wave in the Republican Party. She is an ardent Tea Party supporter, perhaps the most dedicated out of the entire field. President Obama must have been thinking specifically about her when he quipped that middle Americans just "cling to their guns and religion." On that note, she seems to be the only truly evangelical Christian among the candidates.


Her Tea Party roots run deep. In high school she dated Thomas Jefferson AND John Adams. In college she was roommates with Sarah Palin. She drinks only Earl Grey. However, while claiming to really, really support the Founding Fathers, she has apparently found it necessary to add to their number when it is convenient per her "misspeaking" about to which generation John Quincy Adams belonged to. But let's get to the issues.


#1: The Economy:  From her website:


"I will lead the way in cutting spending, reducing taxes and deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code so companies can invest again. As a first order of business, I will direct the elimination of counterproductive regulations, repeal Obamacare and stop cap-and-trade in its tracks so companies can operate again. And a Bachmann Administration will create the climate of sound currency and certainty employers needed to start hiring again."


In keeping with the Tea Party NUMBER ONE MAIN GOAL, she wants to repeal Obamacare first. In addition, she supports a down-sizing regulation and creating the "climate of sound currency". 


Sound currency is not a 'climate'. Speaking that way dangerously continues the philosophy that removed the gold and silver standards. To say that it is a climate implies that the government must constantly tinker with the economy, making sure everyone behaves. She includes another vaguely put point: "deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code". That could mean almost anything.


#2: Immigration Reform: From the Orlando debate: 


"The federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that Pres. Obama has sued Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That's wrong. As president, I would do what my job would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America. To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security. And here's the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. That's a madness. End the madness for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America."


Apparently, she has not considered that approximately one half of our border with Mexico is along the Rio Grande. Building a fence here would be a foolish waist of funds, and it shows how little thought she has put into this issue.


In her defense, she does support upholding current immigration laws and not allowing taxpayer-funded benefits for illegals. Thus she basically supports what every other candidate except Rick Perry supports.


#3: National Security:


Her website's section on national security is mainly an attack on the current president. However, at the end of the section, she makes several claims that give us a picture of how she would run things. The point that jumps out the most is her last one, that she "will not rest until the war on terror is won." Unless she wants to go many, many years without sleep, she must come up with a more realistic, and specific solution. Does she support continuing the unpopular and expensive war in Afghanistan? Does she support expanding operations into Pakistan? Does she support increased military involvement in the Horn of Africa?


She also states that she will make sure America remains second-to-none in the military theater, while judiciously applying our forces. This is a noble goal, and she deserves to be praised for it. However, America is in a gigantic debt crisis. To do what sounds like increasing military spending is a dangerous thing thing, and not exactly something that Democrats will support.


#4: The Constitution:


No one has such a purported love for the Constitution than Bachmann. One is led to think that if the Constitution had not been written, she would just lay down and die. Which leads to a question: Does she fully understand the driving principles behind the Constitution? It is one thing to fully agree with every word in it, but yet another to know that it was, in fact, a compromise. While saying that she has a 'titanium spine', her claim to credibility is her undying support for one of history's most successful compromises.


It would be better if she spoke more about her position on the ideas from the opposing sides that built the document. Does she support a strong federal government? Or does she support strong state's rights?


In conclusion, Michele Bachmann seems to be a strong Tea Party favorite, but don't expect her to have broad appeal beyond that movement. She can't seem to come up with anything original to say, so we don't have many reasons to vote specifically for her.