It is once again time for our Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) data release. Much to my surprise, some people still look for the rankings of these assessment results for schools and school districts, which before the pandemic I posted annually as a personal project. As usual, I have listed the results for the state in 3rd through 8th grade English Language Arts by district/school and ranked them by percent scoring in the top two levels. Using the percent in the top two levels seems to be the preferred method of determining the percent scoring a “Proficient or above” type score, which is the goal score range for students to reach. This is far and away the primary data to be derived from this data release which influences school and school district accountability levels. This method is certainly preferable to using the average scale score or similar methods used in the past by some websites for reasons discussed in previous posts. If you are still curious about why average “scale score” or average “standardized scale score,” are not a legitimate means to examine MAAP performance by a group of students according to our accountability model, feel free to read a post on the subject from a few years ago, (Why Average Scale Scores Should Not Be Used for MAAP Performance Comparisons).
I feel pretty confident in the data at this point, but please let me know if you spot any errors. My goal for making this information available in this particular format is to aid in improved instruction for all of our students. I simply ask, if you make use of the data in this format, please pass along the word of where you obtained it, as all too often people do not. To paraphrase Crash Davis from Bull Durham, I hope when you speak of me, you speak well.
I do hope each of you have a wonderful school year and that it has gotten off to a good start. These past couple of years have been incredibly challenging ones for those working in education, and I commend you for what you do each and every day to make a difference in the lives of our young people to help build better communities and ultimately a better state, nation, and world!
Thanks,
Clint Stroupe
*These rankings are for informational purposes only. Growth is far more valuable information on determining whether learning took place and to what degree rather than end-of-year scores only, which only tell us where students at a school “ended up” without knowledge of where they “began.”
It is once again time for our Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) data release. Much to my surprise, some people still look for the rankings of these assessment results for schools and school districts, which before the pandemic I posted annually as a personal project. As usual, I have listed the results for the state in 5th Grade Science by district/school and ranked them by percent scoring in the top two levels. Using the percent in the top two levels seems to be the preferred method of determining the percent scoring a “Proficient or above” type score, which is the goal score range for students to reach. This is far and away the primary data to be derived from this data release which influences school and school district accountability levels. This method is certainly preferable to using the average scale score or similar methods used in the past by some websites for reasons discussed in previous posts. If you are still curious about why average “scale score” or average “standardized scale score,” are not a legitimate means to examine MAAP performance by a group of students according to our accountability model, feel free to read a post on the subject from a few years ago, (Why Average Scale Scores Should Not Be Used for MAAP Performance Comparisons).
I feel pretty confident in the data at this point, but please let me know if you spot any errors. My goal for making this information available in this particular format is to aid in improved instruction for all of our students. I simply ask, if you make use of the data in this format, please pass along the word of where you obtained it, as all too often people do not. To paraphrase Crash Davis from Bull Durham, I hope when you speak of me, you speak well.
I do hope each of you have a wonderful school year and that it has gotten off to a good start. These past couple of years have been incredibly challenging ones for those working in education, and I commend you for what you do each and every day to make a difference in the lives of our young people to help build better communities and ultimately a better state, nation, and world!
Thanks,
Clint Stroupe
*These rankings are for informational purposes only. Growth is far more valuable information on determining whether learning took place and to what degree rather than end-of-year scores only, which only tell us where students at a school “ended up” without knowledge of where they “began.”
**There was an error in the first posting of these Biology by School rankings with the document data in the original linked file actually reflecting 8th Grade Science by School Rankings. That issue has been corrected and the linked file now reflects Biology scores, as it should.
It is once again time for our Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) data release. Much to my surprise, some people still look for the rankings of these assessment results for schools and school districts, which before the pandemic I posted annually as a personal project. As usual, I have listed the results for the state in 5th Grade Science by district/school and ranked them by percent scoring in the top two levels. Using the percent in the top two levels seems to be the preferred method of determining the percent scoring a “Proficient or above” type score, which is the goal score range for students to reach. This is far and away the primary data to be derived from this data release which influences school and school district accountability levels. This method is certainly preferable to using the average scale score or similar methods used in the past by some websites for reasons discussed in previous posts. If you are still curious about why average “scale score” or average “standardized scale score,” are not a legitimate means to examine MAAP performance by a group of students according to our accountability model, feel free to read a post on the subject from a few years ago, (Why Average Scale Scores Should Not Be Used for MAAP Performance Comparisons).
I feel pretty confident in the data at this point, but please let me know if you spot any errors. My goal for making this information available in this particular format is to aid in improved instruction for all of our students. I simply ask, if you make use of the data in this format, please pass along the word of where you obtained it, as all too often people do not. To paraphrase Crash Davis from Bull Durham, I hope when you speak of me, you speak well.
I do hope each of you have a wonderful school year and that it has gotten off to a good start. These past couple of years have been incredibly challenging ones for those working in education, and I commend you for what you do each and every day to make a difference in the lives of our young people to help build better communities and ultimately a better state, nation, and world!
Thanks,
Clint Stroupe
*These rankings are for informational purposes only. Growth is far more valuable information on determining whether learning took place and to what degree rather than end-of-year scores only, which only tell us where students at a school “ended up” without knowledge of where they “began.”
Well, quite the week for Supreme Court decisions. My totally amateur take on them as a run of the mill citizen. Mostly on why I think the decisions are for the most part positive and not nearly as ground-breaking as the coverage might warrant.
Carson v. Makin – The short version is Maine had a law that allowed families to receive financial assistance if there was not a secondary school in their county to send students to in order to pay for local private school tuition, unless the private school was affiliated with a religion or run by a religious organization. The Court struck down the law as discriminatory.
My take:
A bad law that doesn’t sound as bad as it really was. Key point, these were not some sort of schools teaching people nothing, but religion all day. These were were fully accredited schools, approved by state and regional accrediting agencies to be teaching a general education, just had the religious teaching in addition to it.
Now imagine if Blue Mountain College, Freed-Hardeman University, or Belhaven University had suddenly had their students’ ability to qualify for Federal Pell Grants taken away, simply because they had a religious affiliation and taught religious concepts as part of their curriculum. Also imagine Baptist, Methodist, St. Dominic, or St. Francis hospital and healthcare systems suddenly were deemed to no longer qualify for Medicaid payments. Both examples are the same as the situation in this Maine law. Both examples would be blatant discrimination as long as the quality of the education being provided for non-religious studies and/or healthcare procedures being performed were truly as good as totally secular institutions. As long as a benefit is being provided by the government to a private entity, it should make no difference whether the private entity is religious in nature or affiliated with a religion. Overall, I agreed with the decision.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen – The short version is that New York has a state law on the books to allow concealed carrying of firearms, but only if a person who applied could show what the state deemed to be a “proper cause” that justified the need of the person to carry a gun. The Court struck down the law saying that requiring people to show a “proper cause” that the state of New York agreed with, above and beyond a general desire to protect oneself, was an undue burden on the part of the citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
My take:
A good decision for those who, as I do, believe in the Constitutional right of the individual to bear arms. Key points are that the Court did not say that having to get a concealed carry permit was unconstitutional. The Court did not say there could not be restrictions on certain public “sensitive locations” where the right could be restricted. The Court did not say that the state could not limit the right to own a firearm to those without certain mental illnesses or criminal records. What the Court did rightly say was that it is not up to any state to simply decide that my reasoning as a law-abiding citizen of sound mind for carrying a gun was somehow not “worthy” of the ability to exercise my constitutional right. The 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms to citizens. If you want to bear them to hunt, to protect yourself, to carry to sell to someone, or whatever otherwise legal reason you might wish to carry them, then the government should not interfere with that right. As a believer in the Constitution and all the rights in the Bill of Rights, I have to agree with this assessment.
I am a gun owner. I believe that the Founding Fathers knew full well what they were doing by creating the 2nd Amendment. It helps to insure the safety of the individual and their property, the individuals ability to provide food for their family in times of need, and the ability in the rarest of rare occasions to protect themselves from a government, such as the British monarchy’s colonialism, which is tyrannical and does not allow the individual any say in their own governing.
However, I would also add that it saddens me the loss of respect I see with many gun owners for the awesome responsibility that is gun ownership toward our fellow citizens. A gun is an item that easily can take away the lives of many other people in a relatively short amount of time. All my life, I was taught by virtually every adult to show respect for firearm safety and not view a gun as a toy or something to be flaunted like a teenager trying to assert his “manhood.” The adults in my family and community would have stood in line to give me the whipping I rightfully would have deserved, if I whipped out my gun in public and made the various women or other community members in my presence nervous or scared. Yet now, a certain subset of gun owners has decided it is so funny to strap a tactical looking gun on and waltz into a public place with people who are scared or made nervous. It is simply not right to do something that is immature like this and irresponsible. The gun owner should be a person whose judgement demonstrates to non-owners that they are of the most sound judgement and the most respectful of others. Such foolish behavior causes such non-owners to potentially become anti-gun ownership in general!
Likewise, when I was growing up, I would have been beaten by all responsible adults in my family and looked down upon in my community if I had a gun in a public place and purposefully displayed it until I had a reason and true intent to use it. The mantra I grew up with was “Never let them see it, unless you are going to use it.” I was brought up to believe that anyone other than a law enforcement officer or those engaged in security actions on a premises was being foolish and immature to simply display their weapon for all to see. I have been in so many public gatherings where there probably was not enough table space to hold all of the guns present on responsible, law-abiding individuals present. However, few if any, other than the one with the gun knew it was even present. Those type of men and women, who are responsible, mature, level-headed gun owners are the individuals you want to have a weapon in the case of some criminal activity. If you feel the need to flash your gun, then it is an indicator that you may not be the most level-headed individual present to calmly and purposefully do what needs to be done with that gun in the event of something criminal occurring. If you feel the need to display or wave around a gun to show your toughness or manhood, then you have issues with your toughness or manhood. As gun owners and carriers, we need to be of the Andy Griffith temperament and behavior, and not Barney Fife.
Lastly, I do not agree with and think it causes terrible problems among the non-gun owning public, who we want to support our rights, to purposefully take an infant or small child and show a picture of them with a gun. As responsible parents and adults who are aware of the amount of accidents which happen amongst children with firearms, there are few things more misguided than having your toddler continually posing with a gun or even a very small child handling a gun to pose in pictures and videos sent out to the public in a fashion like he is ready to hit the jungles of Vietnam. Responsible parents who own guns should show them and expose them to guns to take away the curiosity that drives children to seek out the “forbidden” and potentially harm themselves. Likewise, we should show them the deadly power of a firearm and that we have to respect it in our handling and use of it firsthand. As children age, we should show them how to use a gun safely and respectfully. However, when we plaster pictures of very small children dressed up in full tactical weapons, it does nothing but project some sort of odd need on our part to alarm those who do not own guns or simply those who might be the type who worry constantly about the safety of children, as many of the best mothers and parents do. They might fear for our children, since we are dressing them up as little soldiers of fortune and for some reason acting like it is a game to laugh about, then our children might have unsupervised access to such guns at other times and endanger themselves or others. Again, if we are mature parents and gun-owners, we want to display that we are sober people who do not intentionally try to provoke others into emotional responses and who teacher are children to be equally respectful, safe, and sober around the firearms we own as our Constitutional right. As the old saying goes, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Guns are powerful and there is a reason that they are and have been called “equalizers.” We have the right to possess that power, which can be deadly, but then we have an even greater responsibility to handle that power in a mature, safe, and sober fashion to protect others and to make sure that those who do not have a real opinion on gun ownership do not become “anti-gun” because of our recklessness.
Back to the Court’s decision. It was a good one. Our rights are not something that law-abiding citizens should have to demonstrate some government-decided “good enough reason” for us to exercise freely.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – The short version is that Roe v. Wade, which first declared a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which re-affirmed that right in 1992 were challenged based upon a Mississippi law heavily restricting abortion. Under those prior decisions, no state could pass a law interfering significantly with this “constitutional right” to have an abortion, though it was a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself, as several others are not. The Court overturned those rulings and deemed them in error by giving a Constitutional right to privacy as part of substantive due process where there was none implied in the Constitution.
My take: I am pro-life. I believe, based on biology and supported by my faith, that distinctive, individual life begins prior to a child physically leaving the mother’s body. Since, we all believe that the right to life of any individual is worthy of legal and moral protection, then I believe that the life of the unborn is legally and morally deserving of protection from harm or being ended. While this decision will generate much attention and is groundbreaking in terms of overturning precedent, it will not make abortion illegal across the country. Instead, it simply brings things back to how they were before the 1973 decision, where individual states had the freedom to make their own laws allowing or restricting when and if an abortion can be performed. For the vast, vast majority of our country’s existence this is how things functioned with many abortions being performed in many places across the country. I agree with the Court’s decision legally, as I believe it went too far in “inventing” from the judicial bench rights which are not actually part of the Constitution itself and interfered from the federal level with the powers given to the states to make laws in this area.
That being said, while I agree that life begins before physical birth and that baby is a real person, I have to recognize that when exactly this occurs is a bit gray for some people in terms of religion and biology. My opinion is that life is so valuable that I have to defer to the point that I know is safest to protect that unborn life, which is when the egg and sperm combine to form a new cell with distinct individual DNA. Thus, I defer to recognizing life begins at the moment of conception to be safe. Yet, there are and historically have been individuals, even those who fervently believe in Christ, who do not believe that the soul enters at that moment. There are others who for biological reasons and who may or may not even believe in a soul do not believe that an individual separate from the mother exists until the cells of the fetus are organized enough to form a heartbeat, form a brain that has conscious thought, develop enough to carry on life outside of the mother’s internal body, or other cutoffs. Now, I feel that I have to be respectful of these positions, as I cannot make a purely black and white, book, chapter, and verse argument that refutes them without proving it using indirect and inductive reasoning. These are not people who believe in taking unborn lives of innocents, but instead those described are people who do not agree with me on when that moment of distinct self or indwelling of spirit occurs. Far from the individuals who would gladly “abort” a child literally up until the moment of natural birth, whom I cannot comprehend.
Yet, even those who believe what I believe to be infanticide, the “aborting” of unborn children up until the point of natural birth, I recognize their right as citizens to believe whatever in the heck they want to believe and express it. No matter the fact that I believe logic, reason, and morality itself oppose their position. Even more so, I must respect that abortion does delve into many “gray areas” among those of us who consider ourselves “pro-life.” What of those who oppose abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother? Many of us fall into this category, whether we realize it or not. After all, it was the exact position of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, even. Before you say you oppose such things, think of an ectopic (tubular) pregnancy? Would we watch a woman and an unborn child both die, simply because we thought it always wrong to take an unborn life, as would be the case if an ectopic pregnancy, which can never make it to survivable term and will put the mother’s life in clear and present jeopardy? No, I would gladly tell the doctor to end the unborn life, which would only be hastening the inevitable, in order to protect my wife or any other female who I had input on the decision. What if the pregnant female were a child, even as young as five years old? Impossible, far from it. Abuse victims of molestation and incest can certainly get pregnant any time post-puberty with some younger than age twelve. Should they have a baby and carry it to term, with the potential for incestuous birth defects, psychological damage to a young mind already injured on the strain of carrying a child, and the health effects as an immature body attempts to provide nutrients and prepare for birth of a child, when they are literally a child themselves? Does such not place them in real danger of their life or at least their health? Again, though I believe that life begins at conception, I do not oppose an abortion at all when the life of the mother is in any sort of danger. That is her decision and the doctors. On a spiritual level, I know that the unborn child will have an eternal life in Heaven, and I would sadly support preserving the life of the woman carrying the child. Also, unless you thought my remark on a five-year old carrying a child was a typo, look up the case of Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado, probably repeated victim of incest by a family member who due to a rare biological condition was found to be pregnant and even gave birth, due to the fact no one suspected her condition was an actual pregnancy. God forbid my five year old had a man do to her what poor Lina had done to her and that her childlike body had to attempt to carry a child and her mind comprehend what occurred due to the evil action of some monstrous male in her life. Would I be prepared to tell such a family that they legally would be forced to carry that child to term? Even if I deemed it the choice that should be made, would I believe it something that others who disagreed with me should force their child to go through? Such questions need answers and should make us mindful when we decide what our state laws regulating abortion can and should look like.
Again, I am overall glad of the decision. I believe it is Constitutionally correct. I believe many innocent lives will be saved due to it. However, I believe we need to be mindful, realistic, and extremely thoughtful as we regulate abortion on the state level, where I think it should be regulated. If we consider ourselves Christians, we should not somehow gloat or try to provoke others who might think differently than us on it. That is the opposite from any Christlike example in the Bible. Instead, we should thoughtfully seek to convince them of the reasoning behind our beliefs, feelings, and opinions in order to hopefully win them over to the merits of those ideas and ultimately perhaps even win them over to our belief in Christ as well. Shouting, yelling, gloating, and other behavior wins no one and leads the opposing side to believe the worst about all those who might wear our same label or share some of our ideas. On a related note, I also hope I do not see the emphasis among the faith community to support adoption and crisis pregnancy centers that present pro-life options for those who are pregnant fall off due to this change in law. We should still support those efforts even more so now, as some will need help to get proper prenatal care for children who might have otherwise been aborted, many times those with the fewest resources. Simply making abortion illegal is not the end of the pro-life duties of the Christian individually or as the Church, but only one aspect of it as we support those who are less fortunate than us and try to provide good, stable, healthy lives for all children both during their brief period developing inside the womb and their much longer period developing into the type of healthy and hopefully Christian adults we desire them to be. Now, is where we find out whether many people who might have proclaimed themselves loudly as pro-life for political gain are willing to do and support the real work of being pro-life, which is to be pro-child, when the political landscape has changed and their old rallying cry has to be revised.
So I turned 40, which I guess deserves a bit of reflection. All in all, it doesn’t seem so bad and, as they say, certainly better than the alternative. I will say that age has maybe taught me a bit about life and maybe happiness obtained from living it. If blessed with forty more years, I expect to revise and hopefully learn more lessons along the way. But, these are a few brief observations and conclusions I have reached at this point in my journey.
I have learned to be a little more comfortable with my own quirks over the years to be a bit more content to be myself with less worry about how things are perceived by everyone around me. There does seem to be a bit of truth to the saying that “those who matter don’t mind and those who mind don’t matter.” We are all works in progress. Hopefully, we are all trying to become the best versions of ourselves possible. With this imperfection being a universal truth, letting how others perceive you take up much of your attention is a poor use of time. It seems more important to be honest, as long as that honesty is not simply an effort to draw attention to yourself or obtain a reaction from others.
I have learned that human nature is such that all too many of the people we interact with on a daily basis are most interested in how any interaction with others can benefit themselves personally. Whether some direct benefit is on their mind or they are simply perceiving you might be able to help them in some way down the road, people who are truly your friends without this return on investment are few in number. However, you cannot let this prevent you from still trying to be kind to other people and to help them as best you can. Happiness in life seems to be being as good to others as you can in spite of the fact many will inevitably not remember it and/or will not readily return the favor. This is just human nature, and it seems to me that age teaches you that you cannot let it bother you in the least or be used as an excuse to quit treating people in general as you want to be treated. True friendships will be few in number, but you have to keep on trying to treat others as you would like to be treated with the understanding those few true friendships will be valuable diamonds discovered along the way and are definitely worth all of the effort.
I have hopefully learned that simply being around and influencing your children, spouse, and other family is much more fulfilling that I ever imagined when I was young. You start out in early adulthood wanting to change the world. But, that drive is thinking of big things or events that you can accomplish and often considers little about how family can fit into this equation. Only with a little age do you begin to realize that the single largest impact any of us can hope to leave to influence the world positively will be in our children and other family members. I am still enough of an idealist that I have not lost my desire to have a positive impact on things through my career path and in other areas. But, you will have struck a poor bargain, if you trade the pursuit of these things for the chance to be an active part of the lives of your own family. As in all of these regards, I am not perfect, but I shudder to think of the joy and fulfillment I would have missed by not taking the time to have a good conversation with my own children and trying to experience them as they are developing. None of the barns, buildings, or other things built by those who came before me are standing for long, but the ideas and lessons they left behind are still influencing the world through me and those other family members who knew those great individuals. This is really the only lasting legacy most of us has any hope of leaving behind that might make the world a better place.
The world we live in can be a tough place. It is even tougher on you, if you try to be different in any way from the status quo. This is something I think one learns too, along the way. No matter how pure your motivations and no matter the positive results, there is always a reason that some things are the way they are, and there will be a push back when that existing order is changed in any way. Being a rebel for the thrill and rush of rebellion is worth little in life. It will only hurt you and increase this type of push back. But, something real and positive that stands to benefit those around you can and is sometimes worth the push back. Age just teaches you that this is natural and inevitable, and, while not something that should be sought out, has to be worth it on its on merits, because the effort may have costs. Doing what you think is for the good and treating others fairly as best you can determine, without regard to how it may affect you, has to be something you can look back upon with fondness and is worth the cost, if you truly believed in what you were doing was good and right. Sometimes your judgements about these things will be faulty, but a mistaken belief like this with a pure motivation is still something you can feel good about. Being able to look at yourself in the morning in the mirror without shying away is worth a lot, but rest assured their will be costs, even when your efforts were not on a grand scale.
So, I guess that is about it. These are my big reflections on turning 40. Why share them? Well, perhaps, they will benefit someone else as they encounter the bumps of life and attempt to find their place in this world. I hope that anyone who reads these descriptions realizes that I am not describing my perfect efforts or my perfect understanding of the lessons of life. No, the point is that my actions more often than not fell quite short of perfection. Some times my motivations were not what they should have been. Yet, it is the mistakes then, the mistakes now, and the mistakes that you and I will inevitably make in the future that hopefully will allow us to continually get better. Getting better, bit by bit, is the best we can hope for and something we can never afford to give up upon, if we are to stay motivated to live the type of life we need to live in whatever time the good Lord decides we have to live it.
The following are the district, elementary & middle schools (700 point schools), and attendance centers & high schools (1,000 point schools) breakdowns from the media file released by the Mississippi Department of Education today after being approved by the Mississippi Board of Education. I thought it might be beneficial to have them in an easy to view PDF, especially for viewing on tablets and other devices.
I have listed the Mississippi Assessment Program (MAP) results for the state in Language Arts and Mathematics for grades 3rd – 8th by district and ranked them by percent scoring in the top two levels. Using the percent in the top two levels seems to be the preferred method of determining the percent scoring a “Proficient-type” score, which is the goal score range. I feel pretty confident in the data at this point, but please let me know if you spot any errors.
Simply click the link below to access the ranking report:
*These rankings are for informational purposes only. True growth information is not available due to the fact this was the first time the MAP assessments were given. Growth is far more valuable information on determining whether learning took place and to what degree rather than end-of-year scores only, which only tell us where students in a district “ended up” without knowledge of where they “began.” The state has attempted to equate the 2014-2015 Mississippi PARCC assessment scores with the 2015-2016 MAP assessment scores in order to determine growth for accountability model purposes. However, the accuracy of such a comparison with only one year’s worth of data on either assessment is questionable to say the least.
Excellent point about the dangers of misusing data, especially in pursuit of a sensational headline or to support a particular argument. Correlations are interesting for us to speculate about, but correlation never proves or implies causation.
As I was browsing the net the other night, I came across an article entitled “Mississippi Republican Party’s Law Firm Comes to the Rescue of LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!” (http://mississippiconservativedaily.com/2015/11/09/mississippi-republican-partys-law-firm-comes-to-the-rescue-of-liberal-democrat/). I am definitely not endorsing or opposing the content of the article or the blog where it appeared, which I know little about. However, I did think it was spot on in the way it contrasts “establishment” forces within the Republican Party with truly “conservative” elements (for the purposes of the article it is speaking more of economic conservatives). I certainly do think it is worth a read. The article offers a preview of what our state politics in the near future may resemble as Republicans have now become the dominant party in Mississippi state level government.
I consider myself a “social conservative,” which I contend most Mississippians are naturally inclined to be. Second to that, I do lean conservative economically. Yet, I have discussed in detail how the issues that concern me about the future of our nation are not financial ones as much as moral/social ones. In regards to my personal economic conservative leanings, they are far more concerned with our national debt and operating within our means than anything else. My political concern is whether money is being spent wisely and whether our government is going further into debt. Simply slashing taxes right and left while digging a deeper debt hole is, I believe, absolutely the worst economic policy our government can pursue. However, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with me about any point of my political beliefs, I still respect thinking, principled, individuals who are guided by their beliefs and act accordingly for the best interest of our country and state. This is in contrast to those who blindly follow a political “group” or party line without really considering what the issues actually are. It also is in contrast to those who wear the name of Republican which they try to pass of a synonym for “conservative” while having no real conservative principles (either economic or social). These pretend “conservatives” are Republicans simply to have power for their own interests. They are political animals without true principles other than expanding the power and financial interests of themselves and their allies. For the blind followers and the “false conservatives” in government only for their self interests, I have no respect.
Thus, we find ourselves in 2015 Mississippi where the state Republican Party has successfully secured a supermajority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, a Republican Lt. Governor, and a Republican Governor. With these supermajorities and a hold on the executive branch, the Mississippi Republican Party can pass ANYTHING they want. If you are conservative (either economically, socially, or a combination of both), just imagine whatever changes you have only dreamed of for Mississippi and would most like to see passed in our state. Well, those conservative dreams can be a reality now. All that has to happen is for the Republicans in charge to introduce them, push them, and have the Republicans in the legislature vote together to pass them. There is no so-called Mississippi “liberal Democrat” wing to point at as blocking any such legislation. The Mississippi Republican Party holds all the cards and can play the hand as they see fit.
However, what I think this change in our state government is very likely to expose and what I believe the article mentioned above demonstrates is that many in the state are Republicans, but the number of “conservatives” is far less. Much like those who suddenly materialize with caps, shirts, and tags for whatever sports team is currently dominating, many of these politicians are Republicans simply because Republicans have been winning. These “bandwagon Republicans” simply see it as beneficial for themselves at present to wear the “Republican” name. For many of these “bandwagon Republicans” their self-interests and the interests of their supporters are the only principle which guides them into the Republican Party. This type of political self-interested motivation is what had these politicians wearing the Democrat name in years past and beliefs, ideology, or principles are the absolute last thing the bandwagon jumpers ever think about before making a political move.
Besides the “bandwagon Republicans,” you also have the “establishment Republicans” who I define as Republicans who are simply out to benefit specific business or industry interests. The “establishment Republican” has been able for several years to convince people they are some form of “conservative,” although they are not. They have no real social conservative convictions and economically they favor a larger spending role for government to favor their supporters. By putting on an economic or social conservative mask, these establishment Republican politicians have been able for several years to direct principled economic or social conservative voters into supporting their candidates and voting their way by painting every vote as a conservative stance (which happens to be whatever candidate or bill they support) vs a liberal stance (which happens to be whatever candidate or bill they oppose). However, if you could see into their mind, they are actually just painting “conservative” on anything which benefits them or those with contribution money who have given to their campaigns. The “establishment Republicans” appear conservative by advocating tax cuts or wanting to cut spending on government programs which benefit individuals. However, the tax cuts they push are mainly geared toward corporations, and the government benefits they cut from individuals are simply replaced with new spending programs offering government financial benefits to businesses. The establishment Republican is against “welfare” only when individual people are the recipients, but it is a different matter entirely when corporations (their donors) are the recipients of “corporate welfare” financial payouts. An odd benefit to these Republican supermajorities in both Mississippi legislative houses is that many of these “establishment Republicans” may now have a hard time keeping their “real faces” completely obscured behind their masks.
Take the situation in the article, the author is attempting to create a narrative that describes this “establishment Republican” branch which he is casting as “false conservatives” taking the side of a “liberal Democrat.” The author presents the motivation of these “establishment Republicans” being the quid pro quo of the Democratic candidate swapping parties after the election win that their lawyers will help to secure. Also, by supporting the Democrat candidate, the “establishment Republicans” and their lawyers get the added benefit of keeping a more ideologically principled Republican out of office. You see the establishment has power and wants more power for its own benefit. Should a Democrat (even a so-called “liberal Democrat”) agree to swap parties and presumably then vote with the party establishment to repay the favor, the outcome would be much more desirable than even gaining a lifelong Republican candidate whose principles might cause him to go his own way, rather than following the herd as directed by the party establishment. Yes, in the post-2015 Mississippi political world, we are sure to see such odd occurrences as principled conservative candidates are seen as enemies of the “establishment” who only wants people who will vote with, listen to, and follow the party establishment’s marching orders. Less desirable to this establishment is anyone with true conservative beliefs and the willingness to follow those beliefs even if they are in conflict with the establishment. “Establishment Republicans” are Republicans first and conservatives a (perhaps very distant) second. “Principled Republicans” are conservatives first (either economic, social, or a combination) and Republicans second.
For example, the “establishment Republican” leadership might decide they want a bill pushed through to help a major business donor by giving a tax break to their particular industry or giving some form of direct subsidy (corporate welfare) which the company would qualify to get. In supporting such a bill, the “establishment” wing is very much going against “economic conservative” principles of limited government involvement in the economy, tight government spending, and preserving an equal playing field for all businesses to compete in the free market without favoritism from the state. This type of situation is where the conservative “mask comes off” of the establishment exposing them as simply another political faction seeking to grant special benefits to its particular constituency. The principled conservative (economic or social) is here a huge liability to the establishment as they look to their principles to decide how to vote instead of just to the establishment leadership’s direction. As stated before, while Democrats were still a force to be reckoned with in the legislature, the establishment Republicans could use them to rally all troops to support any particular bill by pointing to the fact that Democrats=liberals are against this bill and Republicans=conservatives are supporting it, so the bill itself must be conservative and there was no need to scrutinize it too closely. Thus, Democrats served as the boogey man in these cases to unify all Republicans behind particular actions, bills, or causes by giving the impression the cause itself was conservative, even if it was not. In the present political climate, lacking this Democratic boogey man, the Republican establishment had much rather have an ex-Democrat who owes the establishment his political life and is willing to vote with the establishment on most anything rather than the principled conservative Republicans who are not nearly as dependable for such unquestioned support and voting.
As bad as such a situation might seem, I actually look forward to this type of fracturing. I see it as some good which might come out of this election with its monolithic Republican hold upon state government. You see I favor debate of the issues and on the surface a total Republican monopoly on state power would seem to stifle such debate as Republicans act in lock-step on every political action and vote which arises. Yet by achieving such total dominance, I believe it is inevitable that such debate may become more prominent within the Republican Party itself. As a person who supports ideas and individuals over simply following a party line, this would be the best possible situation. I could care less whether Democrats hold 100% of the elected positions in the state. I could also care less if Republicans hold 100% of those elected positions. As long as there is freedom of thought and debate of ideas, I could care little about which party is in power. In my opinion, competition and the free market are necessary to weed out the bad ideas and hopefully bolster the better ones. I am optimistic that by gaining this blanket absolute political dominance in the state, the Republican Party itself will now be forced to allow such debate and competition within its own ranks and the false conservative establishment will be forced to reveal its true nature.
The Thinking Conservative Blog 