Candidate Statement on Sitnews

This is a statement I wrote for the Candidate pages on Sitnews: 

Background information, experience and qualifications:

My name is Catherine Brown and I was born and raised in Ketchikan under my maiden name, Cathy Nell. I'm the third generation of my family that has lived here, beginning with my Grandmother, Margaret McCombs (103 years old this past Summer) who homesteaded with my Grandfather in Clover Pass starting in the early 1920's.  My husband, Britton, and I have chosen to also raise our five children in the community of Ketchikan, carrying on a wonderful tradition.

I am primarily a stay-at-home mother but I currently volunteer as a birth doula on the side.  The majority of my work experience has been in the medical field and I have also volunteered many hours as an EMT for the Pond Reef Fire Department, did a brief stint volunteering with the city department, and volunteered in the Ketchikan General Hospital ER.

I do not have any experience in government itself, aside from exercising my right to vote, and I do not believe that experience necessarily equates with correctness or wisdom.  I believe that we need more than experience when it comes to government officials, we need people who are honest and good, who are willing to learn and put forth the hard work required to make good decisions , who can base their decisions on principles of good government, and will act to protect the rights of all individuals in the borough even if to do so would be unpopular. That is the difference between a politician and a statesman and I consider myself the latter.

That said, I do have over a decade of leadership experience (at the age of 29) in various positions within my religion, both on the local and regional level, as well as experience as an online Administrator for the Preeclampsia Foundation.  I've learned a myriad of valuable lessons from each and every experience and always seek to apply learning to every aspect of my life.

I have applied myself to many different areas of study and thus consider myself a "jack of all trades; master of none."  I am an autodidact, always learning and studying new things of interest in-depth.  For approximately 5 years now both my husband and I have been studying freedom, government, and politics as seen by those who created the most free country known in the world to date.  These men, that we call the American Founding Fathers, were inspired, intelligent, good, and well-learned men who were themselves students of history, of government, and of human nature.  This gave them the unique ability to see what was done in the past, what worked and what didn't, and to be able to create a system by which both the frailties of government and of men could be checked and bound in such a way as to best preserve the freedom of all people within our country.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel, starting over or thinking of new ways to solve problems --the work has already been done for us.  Most every problem we have today can be solved by the principles of good government taught by these founders of our nation.  As we study their writings, debates, and the founding documents they created, we can identify key principles they considered truths.  And when understood, those principles can be applied to all levels of government. I believe good government is based upon good principles and seek to act accordingly.

Statement regarding important issues facing the community and what I'd like to achieve if elected:

I believe that there are two big issues facing our community at this time and they both are very interconnected.  The first is economic and the second relates to the proper role of government.  What I seek to achieve is based upon my view of the proper role of government but applies equally to the economic issues we face.

The economy is in a "recession" and communities, states, and the nation as a whole are feeling the effects of that. Ketchikan seems to be doing well compared to many, but we are by no means isolated from it.  We are at risk of losing some State and Federal funding that we rely upon, we carry a large debt, and our tax burden is already high.  Economists may now be saying that the recession has ended, but these were the very same economists who said that the housing market wouldn't crash and that there wouldn't be a recession to begin with. How much faith are we going to place in their judgement?  They may be right --I hope they are-- but I believe firmly that we need to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

What do I take that to mean?  I believe we need to cut the budget wherever possible now.  I do not believe that we should make sudden and drastic changes immediately since that tends to result in chaos and poor decisions, but we definitely need to limit new spending to actual needs and make the best of those dollars we are spending.  We then need to be methodical and deliberate as we move forward...making well-planned and prioritized changes slowly, ensuring we are always acting on principle and staying within the bounds of the government's appropriate role.

I'm getting asked continually what the Borough can do to encourage, promote, support or advance various local industries or businesses.   I do not think it is the proper role of government to support or fund business.  It is the proper role of government to get out of its way.  The appropriate government incentives are to deregulate and lower taxes.  What better incentive is there than to allow the industrious to keep the fruits of their labors?   This was a right safeguarded by our constitution's original intent as well as the constitution of the State of Alaska in very word.  If the people of Ketchikan can see and keep the rewards of their labors, they will work harder, produce more and/or a higher quality, then business owners will hire more staff, and all will spend more in turn.  That money will circulate through every level of Ketchikan's economy.  It is a stimulus from the bottom up and that is the kind of stimulus that will help our economy to not only survive but to thrive.

The reason I believe that the proper role of government is a second, but equal (if not greater) issue is that we are on the road to ever-increasing big government with the attendant increase in taxation and in loss of personal freedoms.  This country was founded on the principles of small government for and by the people whose main purpose is the protection of rights.  Big government and it's control upon the people was very much what the founding fathers were fighting against.  In fact, many of our well-known statesmen nearly voted down the constitution because they were worried the government it created was too big even at that time.  What would they say now that our government is trying to support us and even protect us from ourselves?  The more we stray fro m the correct principles of government the founders taught, the more we lose control of our rights and that is a dangerous, slippery slope.

One of the questions at the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce candidate forum was "What is the Borough's greatest asset?"  I had written down the same answer given by many others there, that it was "the people."  It is their drive, their labors, their ingenuity that is the driving force of Ketchikan and what makes Ketchikan unique.  In retrospect, I'm glad that question wasn't asked because while there is truth in that statement, the more I have thought about it, I've realized that the premise of the question is wrong when answered in that way.  The people aren't an asset that belongs to the government!  The government is (or should be) an asset of the people, protecting their rights so that they are able to focus on other means of productivity and daily life as we know it.  If we see ourselves as an asset to the government, it indicates that the balance of power has changed and should awaken us to a sense of how far it has strayed from its true purpose and what we risk in continuing down that path.

I realize that we see this as a problem mostly on a state and federal level, but it is creeping into all levels of government and thinking and exists within our community.  As we seek to protect ourselves from the economic crisis around us and move forward, where is that going to take our government?  I can see a real danger in front of us of following suit with higher levels of government if we aren't acting based upon principle.  I believe we are in a crossroads.  Do we follow the "new" changes being made at federal levels and do we subscribe to the beliefs implied therein?  Or are we going to follow the principles of government that safeguarded our freedoms from the beginning and do we share the beliefs of our Founding Fathers?  Now is a time to know not only how specific laws will affect us and future generations, but also what the principles and meanings behind them are and if we agree with them.  We must be educated and act wisely for our freedoms and our future hang in the balance.

Please join with me to protect what we have and regain what we've lost.  Freedom is our heritage and if we are to keep it, we must understand the principles upon which it was achieved.  It isn't enough simply to know them, we must also act upon them.

Catherine's Principles of Good Government

While I call this "Catherine's" list, I do not intend to imply that the principles were somehow my creation.  This is simply a compilation of the nuggets of truth I've been able to discover so far, as I've studied our founding documents and the words of our Founding Fathers.  When we know and understand true principles, we are better able to make correct choices and to act upon them with confidence.

• Rights are unalienable and given by our creator, not by the government.
• The people can delegate to government the protection of their rights (but the rights are still retained by the people)
• The main purpose of government is to protect the right to free exercise of conscience or liberty, the protection of the right and control of property, and to protect life.
• Government should have limited powers
• Government cannot be vested with authority that you, as an individual, do not have.
• The people are superior to the government they create.
• Individual rights do not overlap.
• The force of government should only be brought against someone to protect rights from imminent danger or to claim restitution for rights infringed.
• Punishments must be equal to the crime.
• The governmental powers were separated into three separate entities as a means to safeguard our rights.  The legislative, executive and judicial are all limited in power, each with the ability to check and balance the force of the others and all three being required for the government to operate effectively.
• Any governmental function going beyond those enumerated in the constitution is a form of tyranny and usurpation of power.
• The constitution is based on the principle of representation as a restraining force on "pure democracy".
• We are designed as a democratic-republic where the majority vote upon representatives and the representatives administer the law.
• The rights of the people are not to be subject to majority vote.
• Our government was designed to work only for a moral and religious people.
• Government owes us nothing but the protection of rights for which it was created.
• We cannot expect a higher level of morality from our representatives than we ourselves live.
• We are equal in our rights and before the law.
• Without the protection of property rights, all other rights are in jeapardy.
• No law should be passed unless designed to protect the freedom, liberty and wellbeing of the people.
• The level of government with the most power should be the closest to the people.
• The lowest level of government that can accomplish a given task should be responsible for doing so, meaning the majority of governance takes place on a local level.

This list isn't meant to be exhaustive.  I am sure there are more principles of good government that I have yet to learn.  As the Founding Father's were constant students of history, law, government, and human nature, I too seek to continually increase my learning and knowledge of true principles and their application.

The Origin of Rights

The first question I was asked as I started collecting signatures to run for borough assembly was "What is your platform?"  I didn't quite know how to answer the question and started fumbling over my words talking about smaller government and lower taxes.  It became very clear that I had to think through my answer to that question!

See, I'm not a politician and I didn't come into this election with specific agendas and issues I'm seeking to debate in the way we are used to the political arena working.  Rather, I see myself as a statesman seeking good government based on principled action and the protection of rights envisioned by our American Founding Fathers.  When understood, those principles can be applied to any issue.  I don't think assembly members need to find issues to debate; I think they need to apply correct principles to solving issues that arise.  Principled government is my platform.

One of the most basic principles we can understand is that of the origin of our rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:

"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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

I could write post after post discussing all the principles and meanings behind this one partial paragraph, but we're going to focus on a specific section and save the rest for later: 

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."  

I think we have a fair understanding of what the language used means, but do we understand how to apply that knowledge?  Sometimes, it seems we become confused or forget the application of that simple phrase.  It states that our rights were given to us by our Creator and that they are "unalienable" (inalienable) which Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary says means:

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

That one phrase actually says quite a bit!  Our rights were given to us by our Creator and they cannot be transferred or surrendered.  Let me break that down into two basic principles.

First, the rights belong to the people themselves and were given by our Creator.  We may have different views of our Creator, but it is clear here that they are NOT saying our rights were given to us by Government.  This belief of Governemnt-granted rights has been seen throughout history and, though perhaps not immediately recognized, is permiating law-making at present.  Why is this distinction so important?  Because if you permit that rights are granted by government, then you must also permit that government can then take away those rights.  In such an instance we are as slaves, left to do the bidding of our master in hopes of gaining greater favor. 

Second, the people can choose to vest the government with the protection of these rights, but not surrender or transfer them.  At first glance that may seem contradictory, but the word "vest" does not mean "to give away" or "cede" our rights.  When we vest our rights upon another person or entity, we still have ownership and authority, we are simply delegating some of our authority to be used in our behalf by someone else...in this case, government.  Here is an analogy I've heard that clarifies the distiction between vesting and ceding rights:

Imagine you own a store and as owner, you have the right to sell goods for money.  But you're a busy person so you hire a cashier to man the till.  You have now vested your right or authority of accepting money in exchange for your goods to this cashier.  You could still work the till yourself, you haven't given that right away, but you've allowed someone else to act on your behalf.   Much like this example, we authorize our government to act upon our authority (to protect our lives, property, etc), but that does not mean they can take home the cash register!

The cash register, the rights, are ours.  We've vested them to government, and as the above quote from the Declaration of Independence states,

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

The wise, inspired men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America knew and understood these principles. They sought to protect our rights. As we see a need for change in our government we don't have to start over and we don't need to figure out something new --the work has already been done for us. We simply must return to the principles of good governement these valliant men fought for. The more we stray from the correct principles of government that they taught, the more we lose control of our rights and that is a dangerous, slippery slope.
Freedom is our heritage and if we are to keep it, we must understand the principles upon which it was achieved.  It isn't enough to know; we must act.

Statesmen and Politicians

We have enough politicians --we need statesmen! 

As I've found out recently, not everyone knows the difference between statesmen and politicians...and, oh what a difference there is!  People make the assumption that I'm a politician now that I'm running for Borough Assembly and I need to refute that idea.  If I ever become a politician in the most commonly thought-of use of the term, I now give you my express permission to VOTE ME OUT OF OFFICE!  Wow, has any politician ever said that before?  Doubtful.  It is said that a politician runs for the next election, but a statesman runs for the next generation.

So, to begin the clarification process, let us turn to the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary.  We'll start with the word "Politician." It is my observation that we all get a fairly accurate picture in our minds when we hear or read that word.  Here's what Merriam-Webster's says:

pol·i·ti·cian\ˌpä-lə-ˈti-shən\ noun


Definition of POLITICIAN

1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession

b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

Now, for the most part I believe we think of the last definition --definition 2b-- when we picture politicians in our head and I definately don't accept that definition of myself.  I am not running for a selfish reason, aside from wanting good government.  If that is selfish then so be it, but I believe it benefits all of Ketchikan and not just myself.  I'm not in "party politics" as I currently choose to vote for whatever laws and people I consider correct, regardless of party opinion.  I am neither experienced in the art or science of government, nor have I been active in conducting the business of government.  I'm just a "regular Joe" who has been learning about government and the original intent of the constitution.  So while parts of this definition may arguable apply if I get elected (I'll be actively involved in government), it is for the above reasons I do not call myself a politician. 

So what is a statesman then, if I'm not a politician?  Again, let us go to Mirriam Webster for our definition:

states·man\ˈstāts-mən\ noun


Definition of STATESMAN

1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies

2: one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship

WOW!  Did you catch that difference?  A statesman is someone who is versed in the principles of government (and thus makes principled decisions), someone actively engaged in shaping policies, and someone who exercises political leadership with wisdom and without making choices simply to promote a party or it's laws and policies.  I would be honored to be called a statesman!  That is exactly what I seek to be. 

I think many of us believe in the principles of government when discussed specifically, but I think often we don't recognize what principle is being acted upon or apply all principles correctly.  I think if we return to those principles set forth by our Founding Fathers, it will solve many of the problems we are dealing with as a nation (and Borough!) today. 

So as I said in the beginning, should I change from acting based on principles to acting for my own gain or that of a political party, fire me!  If we disagree on what are good government principles, please email me and we can discuss them --maybe I still need to learn something or can clarify myself.  If we disagree on the application of a principle, again, email me! 

I seek your input and think that once we know and act upon good principles of government, we can together shape its policies in wisdom.


I received an email and will edit the post to add this response for clarification purposes (8-25-10):
I am not saying that the election is about political party; I am aware that political parties don't join in the borough assembly races.  I do, however, believe that people choose a political party because of the beliefs they have in common regarding government action and that those same beliefs are often applied at all levels of government, whether local or in DC.  Perhaps I should clarify that posts on this blog are attempting to explain my beliefs on government in general and in specific.   I don't believe a "party" will act on the assembly level.  I do believe, however, that subscribers to specific political parties often act following party norms and I have stated that I will not do so, but base my actions upon set principles of good government whether popular or not.  Those principles can be applied to specific issues and when the principles are correct, can be applied across the board to big or small government.  Principled government brought us the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights.  All you have to do is read the newspaper to see where voting by popularity has taken us.  What is popular comes and goes and basing decisions on what is popular is often not the same as basing a decision on what is right and what is wrong.  Sounds much like something we drill into the minds of our children...

Welcome to Catherine's new blog!

The main goal in creating this website was to make it possible for me to share my views, mainly political, with the people of Ketchikan.  I will add new posts and responses to comments as I have time.  Please feel free to share your views, but I ask that it be done in a respectful way.