Views

Election time: Knowing when to step down

7My father had been president of Davidson College for almost 10 years when at age 58 he learned that he was afflicted with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
He was popular with students, who often tossed frisbees with him as he walked across campus from his office to the president’s home. He was friendly, likable, and beloved by staff and townspeople.
Davidson’s campus escaped most of the turmoil that disrupted some other campuses. My father hired Lefty Driesell and Homer Smith who brought successful football and basketball teams to the campus.
The college continued to gain recognition as a premier liberal arts college.
There were problems, of course, but most people at Davidson looked forward to his service continuing for many years. The college’s trustees respected and supported him.
Some few noticed his forgetfulness about minor matters and a waning of his enthusiasm for new projects and new thinking. But he was widely popular and most assumed that they would not need a new president anytime soon.
But my mother noticed and insisted that he seek medical attention. At first, my father’s confidence in his own strengths kept him from believing he was compromised. But the doctors recognized early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
My mother pushed him to bring his illness to the attention of the chair of the college trustees who quickly and sensitively worked out my father’s retirement. Without her recognition of the seriousness of my father’s illness and her acceptance of her and my father’s duty to the college, my father’s departure would have been a serious problem for Davidson.
Ultimately, my father understood, accepted the necessity of his withdrawal, and enjoyed his friendship with the new president, Sam Spencer.
What does my family’s and Davidson’s situation with my compromised father have to do with President Joe Biden?
Of course, they are different situations.
My father, with prodding from my mother, accepted the need to step aside.
The Bidens resist any talk of change, notwithstanding the president’s poor showing in the June 27 debate with Donald Trump.
The Economist, a respected British magazine, commented, “The mission for Joe Biden in the presidential debate held in Atlanta on June 27th was clear: to prove his critics wrong, by showing that he was mentally fit and thereby reverse the polling deficit that makes Donald Trump the favourite to win the American election in 2024.
“Unfortunately, his performance was an unmitigated disaster—perhaps the worst of any presidential candidate in modern history. The president, who is 81 (and would be 86 by the end of a second term in office), stammered indecipherably, struggled to complete his lines of attack and proved his doubters completely correct.
“Although Mr Trump was in his typical form—meandering, mendacious, vindictive—he somehow appeared the more coherent and lucid of the pair. Mr Biden’s decision to seek re-election rather than standing aside for a younger standard-bearer now looks like a reckless endangerment of the democracy he claims to want to protect.
“Merely quoting Mr Biden’s rhetorical bumblings does not do them justice, but they do give a sense of the shambles.
“Consider one of his lines at the very start of the debate, the first indicator that the president was in poor form: ‘Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the…uh, covid…excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with… look, if we finally beat Medicare...’
“The moderator interrupted before further damage could be done, one of several coups de grâce graciously administered.”
Like my father, Joe Biden has served well. He should be recognized and remembered for what he accomplished for our country. He can serve best now by stepping aside and helping find and elect someone who can win and serve as president beginning January 20, 2025.

This fall, citizens should clarify voting rights

6North Carolina voters will be asked this fall to remove a troubling ambiguity in the state constitution. An overwhelming, bipartisan majority of state legislators — 40 of 50 senators, 104 of 120 representatives — voted to place the amendment on the ballot.
Nevertheless, say some left-leaning critics, the measure is at best an unnecessary distraction — and at worst a conspiracy to get conservative North Carolinians to the polls.
It is neither. Voters should, and almost certainly will, ignore these objections and approve the amendment, which clarifies that “only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State.”
Resident aliens are not currently allowed to vote in North Carolina, that’s true. And minors can vote in primaries only if they turn 18 by the date of general election. But other jurisdictions allow noncitizens or minors to vote in local elections. And many activists explicitly advocate extending the franchise still further.
We can’t know what future lawmakers or even judges may attempt. Here’s what we do know: only adult citizens should be able to participate in elections. Drawing bright lines here is essential to preserving what it means to be a citizen of a republic.
Here’s what the North Carolina Constitution currently states, Article VI, Section 1: “Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.”
At first glance, that language may sound sufficient. It is not, however, as my John Locke Foundation colleague Andy Jackson argued in a recent paper.
The current provision (properly) requires equal treatment. If you are an adult citizen who is not currently serving out a sentence for a felony — that’s what the “except as herein otherwise provided” clause is about — you are guaranteed the right to vote. You can’t be excluded on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or other extraneous criteria.
Look more closely at the language, however. It states that every natural-born or naturalized citizen shall be entitled to vote, but it “is silent on whether noncitizens can vote,” Jackson pointed out. “That silence can be exploited by legislators or judges into allowing noncitizen voting.”
There’s another problem with the current provision: it specifies only natural-born and naturalized citizens. That leaves out a small but equally worthy class of citizens. If you are born overseas but your parents are American citizens, you are, generally speaking, a citizen yourself. As Jackson observed, the ranks of such foreign-born citizens include U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (born in Thailand), U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (born in Canada), and Raleigh Dreamville music festival organizer J. Cole (born in Germany).
No one has tried to exclude such citizens from voting in the past, but why should North Carolinians cross their fingers and ignore the ambiguity? The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate it. Rather than focusing only on who “shall be entitled to vote” — which doesn’t truly preclude additional grants of voting rights — the new language specifies that “only” adult citizens, regardless of how they became citizens, shall be entitled to vote.
We live in highly polarized times, to be sure. Trust, confidence, and mutual respect are diminishing. Too often, we assume that the ranks of the “other side” are populated by liars, ignoramuses, or villains rather than accepting the possibility of honest disagreement among people of good faith.
In that spirit, let me stipulate that I don’t think all critics of the citizen-voting amendment are secretly plotting to extend the franchise to noncitizens or minors. Some surely find the “belt and suspenders” argument I’m advancing here unpersuasive. They think revising the Constitution’s ambiguous language is a waste of time.
They are mistaken. An important principle is at stake. Let’s button those suspenders securely.

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Publisher's Pen: Profanity and vulgarity diminish the Hope Mills Commission's credibility

4I was shocked when I tuned in to Hope Mills Commissioner Joanne Scarola's Fireside Chat several weeks ago and listened to her senseless rant about what she did, what she didn't do, what she said, what she didn't say.
It was all about her and defining herself as a person. Her aggressive, vulgar diatribe told me exactly what Hope Mills Commissioner Joanne Scarola is about.
Not only was her 37-minute rant senseless and without merit, but it was laced with arrogance and profanity so vulgar that it would make a sailor blush. See for yourself. This posting is Rated R for Adults only: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1297476334546539
In just a few minutes, Scarola dropped the F bomb and a dozen other expletives to her viewing audience. Even worse, she justified her actions by declaring, "this is who she is" and states that she enjoys cursing, and when she gets angry, she likes cursing loudly.
Really?
Well, I have news for Hope Mills Commissioner Scarola. When you take an oath confirming your commitment and dedicated leadership as an elected official to a community, you have a responsibility to those you serve and those who elected you. In this case, it is not just the men, women, and children of the Town of Hope Mills but everyone who resides in Cumberland County. To the shock and disappointment of many, Scarola is not projecting the image of governmental leadership, nor is she abiding by the Code of Conduct and Ethics she swore to uphold.
During the past seven months, several concerned members of the Hope Mills community have brought her conduct to my attention. In response, I contacted Hope Mills Mayor Jesse Bellflowers. I shared my concerns with him and those of the Hope Mills residents.
To his credit, Bellflowers agreed that Commissioner Joanne Scarola's behavior has sometimes been inappropriate and not in the town's best interest, and he assured me that he would address the situation at the July 1st Hope Mills Commissioners meeting. I reminded the mayor that Scarola's interactions and programs on her social media platforms are viewed publicly by the citizens of Hope Mills and visitors and guests of Cumberland County.
It's unconscionable that Bellflowers and the other four elected HM Commissioners have remained silent, ignoring this demeaning and aggressive behavior without censoring Scarola for using excessive and hostile profanity and posting vulgar messages on her social media platforms. For years, the Town of Hope Mills has battled a squad of local disgruntled Hope Mills malcontents who weaponized social media against the town, like the trolls behind the infamous Hope Mills Chatter FaceBook site.
Ironically, until recently, Mayor Bellflowers was a participating squad member until the Chatter Trolls kicked him out for failing to goose-step to their dictates. This is the same group of social media trolls that tormented former Mayor Jackie Warner for years. The ousted Bellflowers admitted that he now knows what Warner went through in dealing with their mischievous, non-productive, malicious rumors and criticisms.
To Bellflowers' credit, he appreciated me bringing the citizens' concerns forward. He concurred that the situation must be addressed at the next Hope Mills Board of Commissioners meeting. Unfortunately, to my disappointment, it was not.
Bellflowers addressed the issue passively with no real sense of concern or urgency. He reminded the Board to constantly watch what they say and be on their best behavior. His own words, "…..be cautious of what we say and post, and be mindful of how that may be interpreted by someone watching us."
"Someone watching us?" Of course, someone is watching them. EVERYONE is watching them! Commissioner Scarola's behavior and actions are egregious and demand more attention than a general lukewarm warning.
I assumed the issue would be addressed as a personnel matter and dealt with in a closed board session. What should also concern Mayor Bellflowers and the citizens of Hope Mills is that no other town staff members or elected Commissioners who have witnessed her verbal abuse and unprofessional behavior have come forward to voice objections despite frequent complaints.
This indicates an unhealthy culture within all departments of the Hope Mills government. This type of leadership cannot move a progressive community like Hope Mills forward into the 21st century.
This situation is of grave concern to many. Everyone in Hope Mills expects professional conduct as clearly stated in the Hope Mills Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics statutes. It has nothing to do with inhibiting anyone's First Amendment Rights.
Hope Mills is a beautiful and delightful community. It deserves leadership that is committed to its vision of growth and prosperity.
This means leadership that guarantees good stewardship of its assets and reputation. It's here that robust and committed leadership needs to be applied. Tolerating poor judgment and bad behavior encourages pettiness and only inhibits progress.
Mayor Bellflowers needs to do better, and the Board of Commissioners needs to do better because the Town of Hope Mills deserves better.
Thank you for reading Up & Coming Weekly.

(Photo: Hope Mills Commissioner Joanne Scarola. Photos courtesy of Town of Hope Mills webpage)

Ding! Dong! School is in Session—or Maybe Not

5The idea of public education has been around about as long as our nation has, but it really took root around the 1830s. That education might be good for most people and that an educated workforce is a plus for everyone prompted the North Carolina General Assembly to begin funding public schools with tax dollars in 1901. The rest, as the cliché goes, is history.
Our traditional school calendar, generally thought of as 9 months on and 3 months off, also dates from the early days of public education. Children, even little ones, were needed to work on America’s farms, so schools operated fall, winter, and spring, with summers off for tending fields and harvesting crops. Other nations use similar schedules for the same reason.
But how many kiddos do you know who work the fields in this era of computer driven tractors? I cannot think of a single one.
That reality, however, has not deterred the tourism industry in North Carolina. Two decades ago, tourism interests including various summer camps, strong-armed the General Assembly into codifying the public school year to start no earlier than the Monday closest to August 26th and end no later than the Friday closest to June 11th.
Tourism officials understandably wanted as much family vacation time as possible. They got legislators to buy into the notion that a long summer without school trumps the need for North Carolina’s public school students to have more classroom time to be competitive with students from other nations, many of them up and coming and outpacing the United States’ educational achievement levels.
The legislatively mandated school calendar has not worked.
One size fits all remains a failure as more and more school districts opt out, largely because they cannot make its constraints work for their systems. Year round schools, charters, early colleges, and private institutions are exempt from the calendar law, but traditional public schools, the majority of schools in our state, have struggled to schedule classes, work days, holidays, and other educational obligations within the narrow time frame imposed by the General Assembly.
Now, one quarter of our state’s 115 public school systems are in open revolt. A Superior Court Judge has weighed in, saying that Carteret County has illegally set its own calendar. It remains to be seen how Carteret or the other 28 systems that have set their own schedules will react.
Thus far Cumberland County Schools have maintained the traditional, legislatively mandated calendar with some schedule juggling, but some of our neighbors no longer comply. Harnett, Lee and Sampson County schools have adopted their own calendars, as have Clinton City Schools.
The General Assembly is nearing adjournment, at least theoretically, and will return to Raleigh early next year for its long session, which will take up much new legislation. Near the top of the list should be the failed and “bailed” school calendar bill. It has not worked for many counties.
The rationale for it, child labor, is no longer operative, and it is not a good look for a growing percentage of the state’s school systems to flaunt state law openly.
As Don Phipps, Superintendent of the Caldwell County Schools recently told the State Board of Education, “Local boards of education should be allowed to choose the best start dates for the school systems they represent.”
Hear! Hear!

Republicans, GOP, still ahead on key issues

7A little over a year ago, I penned a column using polling data to explore why North Carolinians appeared to favor Republicans over Democrats in generic-ballot tests.
“No, it isn’t just because of unfair redistricting,” I wrote. “Nor is it a lack of resources. North Carolina Democrats have raised and spent lots of money on races they still ended up losing. What I mean is that, on many of the public’s top concerns, Democrats lack credibility with the swing voters they need to prevail.”
That is, of the 10 issues ranked most important in a March 2023 survey by High Point University, North Carolinians preferred Republican positions for six of them. On three, voters had no clear preference. On only one highly-rated issue, healthcare, did Democrats enjoy an edge.
Well, HPU’s polling unit recently issued a comparable survey of 829 North Carolina voters. It still shows GOP with a modest lead on the generic ballot. And it still identifies issue saliency as a potential explanation.
The survey listed 20 policy topics, then asked voters to rate their importance. Here are the top 10, ranked according to how many respondents called them “very important”: inflation, national security, school safety, health care, supporting veterans, protecting democracy, gas prices, taxes, education, and immigration.
Voters were then asked which party they thought would do a better job dealing with each issue. A sizable share of respondents, exceeding a third in some cases, expressed no preference between the parties. And for three of the 20, the differences in party preference were too small to be of consequence.
On the rest of the issues, however, one party enjoyed a clear advantage. Forty-three percent of North Carolina voters said Democrats would do a better job on climate change, for example, while just 23% said the Republicans would. On the flipside, 42% picked Republicans to tackle gas prices, with 29% picking Democrats.
As before, the latter’s challenge is that voters in the 2024 survey give the GOP the edge on six of the top-10 issues: gas prices, national security, inflation, supporting veterans, immigration, and taxes. Indeed, Republicans have double-digit leads on all but taxes. Voters prefer Democrats on health care, education, and protecting democracy — salient issues, to be sure, though the party’ advantages aren’t particularly large (8%, 5%, and 4%, respectively). On the final issue, school safety, there was no partisan lean.
Now, to say that Republicans are better positioned on highly-ranked issues is not to say they are destined to prevail. Other factors matter as least as much, including the quality of candidates, the financial and other resources available to the two parties, and how effectively they’re deployed.
More to the point, some of the salient issues in question are more applicable to federal races than state ones. For the relatively small group of swing voters likely to determine the outcome of tight legislative or Council of State races, general partisan leanings on, say, national security or immigration may not seem relevant.
So far, as usual, Democratic candidates for state-level offices are faring better than their federal counterparts. That HPU poll had Trump leading Biden for president and Democratic Josh Stein leading Republican Mark Robinson for governor, although neither difference lay outside the credibility interval of 3.4 points.
A Carolina Journal poll conducted last month put Trump five points ahead of Biden in our state, even as Stein and Robinson were tied at 39% each. An East Carolina University poll taken a couple of weeks ago also had Trump ahead by five, with Stein and Robinson tied. Recent surveys for Cook Political Report, The Hill, and other outlets show similar dynamics.
Standard disclaimers apply. Polls are snapshots in time, and data this early in the cycle aren’t necessarily predictive of what will happen after months of news events and campaign ads. Nevertheless, Democrats will enter the homestretch of the 2024 cycle with at least one disadvantage: their best issues aren’t top-of-mind for most voters.

Editor’s note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Latest Articles

  • Tax reform returns to center stage
  • Kevorka Air: The lure of the cheap airline
  • Experience The Snowman with FSO
  • Gilbert Theater launches Second Stage in 2025
  • Fleet Feet Fayetteville hosts Santa Shuffle 5k, mile walk
  • 4th Phreedom Seminar to be held at Prima Elements
Up & Coming Weekly Calendar
  

Advertise Your Event:

Login/Subscribe