Kerby Anderson
This week is the Democratic Convention, and more Americans will be paying attention to the upcoming elections. The Olympics are over, and that means that many will be tuning in to learn more about the candidates. So far, the press hasn’t been asking many questions of substance or even been allowed to ask many questions. Here are three principles for you that all start with the letter P.
The first P is personality. In an ideal world, we would love to have a governor or a member of Congress or a president who is warm, humble, and likeable. Some are, but most aren’t. Ambitious and driven people are the people most likely to win elective office.
That is why we need to focus on the second P that is policy. What policies will this candidate promote and implement? This is what will ultimately affect your family, your church, and society. Fortunately, there are voter guides and party platforms you can and should consult.
Yes, political platforms often have vague language and platitudes. But there are also dozens and dozens of specific policy recommendations. Does the candidate agree with those policies? If not, why not? In the case of the presidential candidates, both campaigns this year have been quite involved in crafting the party platforms.
A third P is personnel. If you are voting for a candidate in an executive position, you should also evaluate who they will appoint to help them achieve their agenda. The president, for example, can appoint 3,000-5,000 personnel in the executive branch. Each of the presidential candidates has picked a vice-presidential running mate. Who he or she picks provides a window to the type of person who will be in their administration. As the adage goes, personnel are policy.
Although there is lots of talk about personalities right now, policy and personnel are more important in choosing a candidate.

Penna Dexter
Last year, to coincide with Labor Day, Senator Marco Rubio’s office issued a report entitled, “The State of the Working (and Non-Working) Man.” Labor Day 2024 comes amidst presidential campaigns in which the American working class is a key constituency.
Senator Rubio’s report lays some groundwork by stating that “prime age men who are not in the labor force report feeling sad and purposeless at much higher rates than men with jobs.” These men spend more time alone than those who are working. More than two thirds of these non-working men “have never married” and nearly “a third live with their parents.” Almost half of them take painkillers daily. “And they are more likely to take their own lives.”
The report points out that “working men face a crisis of their own: their outcomes and prospects in work, education and family life are dimmer than their fathers” because “they face an economy and society that no longer rewards their efforts the way they once did.”
The report cites several contributing factors: One is “mass immigration.” Another is  deindustrialization with manufacturing being replaced by a “service economy.” Writer and consultant Aaron Renn publishes a Substack newsletter which tackles challenges unique to men in our society. Mr. Renn says that although Senator Rubio supports working to reindustrialize America, it’s not a panacea. He says this report wisely avoids overpromising what can be accomplished by reindustrialization.
We need more men in what the report calls “protector” professions like policing, border patrol, and the military — areas where, arguably, expansion is needed anyway.
The report recommends eliminating the marriage penalty in federal assistance programs.  And it wisely recommends making it mandatory that able-bodied men be actively looking for work in order to receive any public benefits.
Some of the report’s recommendations unwisely expand government. We must  adopt common-sense policies that encourage men to work — and to become independent, marry, and form families.

Kerby Anderson
Professor Paul Kengor argues that “You Can Never Have Enough Kids.” He was on my radio program last week to talk about his article.
He confronts what he calls the mindless cliché of our culture: Wait until you have enough money to have kids. He hears it regurgitated by young couples all the time. He then takes the time to calmly ask them a few questions.
“How many kids did your grandparents have? How about your great-grandparents when they came to America dirt poor on packed ships headed to Ellis Island?” When they acknowledge that those ancestors had a bunch of kids, he then asks them: “How much money did they have?”
He has found that the young man or woman is usually taken aback. They haven’t heard that from the culture. They know their ancestors had no money but raised large, intact families and stayed married. In fact, they wouldn’t be alive today without those ancestors bestowing the gifts of life.
He also asks a follow-up question: “How much money will be enough before having that kid? How much cash should be shoveled into this child’s materialistically ideal existence?” People who focus on having enough money will find they will never have enough.
On the radio program, Paul Kengor also reminded us that the greatest gift you can give your child is a sibling. When people find out how many kids his wife and he have, they say, “One kid has been hard enough for us!” His response is that one kid is harder, but two kids are easier. The one child gets a playmate other than you. He explained that when he had only one child, he had to come home and play Legos for several hours. When the second boy came along, he had boundless energy and was all in.
We need messages like this in a culture that doesn’t seem to value children anymore.