"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." It's easy in a political campaign or a legislative session to focus on issues of the moment. But a statesman — one who is worthy of being lauded by future generations — will guard the foundation of freedom we inherited from those before us. He will not succumb to emotion or pressure to compromise that foundation in the name of short-term political gain. He will take seriously his responsibility as a steward of the foundation, carefully monitoring its stability and measuring its vulnerability to the proposals that come before him.

Such a statesman will lead, not follow. He will listen to his constituents, to be sure, but when they ask for something that would compromise the foundation, he will vote according to his responsibility as a steward, and he will explain to his constituents the long-term negative effect of their request. Similarly, a statesman will listen to the chosen leaders within his own political body (a committee chairman, presiding officer, etc.), but if they ask or pressure him to compromise the foundation, he will resist them as well. To do otherwise is to be a follower who is blown and tossed by the political winds, whichever direction they may blow.

Mississippi is in desperate need of leaders who will govern by principle. We need them now, and we need to cultivate more of them for our future. That's not to say there are none currently in office; but those who are already in office need allies who will fight the good fight alongside them, encourage them, and infuse them with a renewed passion for freedom. Together, they can explore principled ways to improve our state and serve their constituents—and do so in a manner that preserves the integrity of the foundation.

Our nation's Founders knew that the only way to form and maintain a stable nation was to build it on principles of freedom and to entrust it to men and women who would protect those principles from eroding over time. In 1776, when Thomas Jefferson, John Witherspoon, and others set their pen to the parchment that declared America's independence from Great Britain, they stood on principles about the nature of man, civil society, and government passed down from such minds as John Locke and Edmund Burke, and influenced by the precepts of the Bible. The result was a Declaration of Independence that is unrivaled in its timeless ability to inspire those who yearn for freedom.

Unfortunately, in recent generations, the ideas conveyed in that document have been largely forgotten or ignored—or, in some cases, treacherously abandoned. The freedom for which our Founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" is endangered by a growing misunderstanding of the proper role of government in the lives of its citizens—and the proper role of citizens in the exercise of governing. This loss of grounding in the citizenry is not only reflected in many of its elected officials, but in many cases, drives those officials to ignore timeless principles and follow the impulse to "do something—anything!" to solve a temporal problem. The result is further erosion of the freedom and the type of government our Founders sought for us.

It doesn't have to be this way. By returning to the principles that guided our Founders, we can restore their vision, even as we apply it in modern ways to our generation. That can happen only if we have leaders in our homes, communities, and elective offices who understand the principles and live by them. The goal of this primer is two-fold: first, to inspire leaders to govern by principle with integrity, honor, humility, and restraint; and second, to equip citizens with the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable to these timeless principles.

This is an excerpt from Governing By Principle, MCPP's ten principles to guide public policy. 

View the article

Many free-market think tanks believe it is counter-productive for think tanks to engage in the culture wars. They think our time should be focused exclusively on policy research, legislative outreach, and legal action. And while those activities are important for limiting government and encouraging individual flourishing, we should also be engaged in the war taking place in our culture.

The reason culture wars are important is, while policy, political, and legal actions tend to be lagging indicators of what is happening in our society, culture is a leading indicator. Culture signals what people believe and what they value. Want to know where our world is headed? Don't look to the halls of Congress or the Mississippi Legislature. Politicians follow the lead of the masses. Instead, look to the most popular TV shows, movies, and sports stars. They are shaping how people think about what is morally right and fair.

Presently, the progressives (opponents of free markets and limited government) dominate discussion in the culture wars. If conservatives and libertarians fail to engage on culture, we will lose when it comes to policymaking and litigation down the road. The fight begins in the culture.

Fighting progressives in the culture wars is akin to weeding your garden. If you want to grow a beautiful flower, you need to feed it sun, water, and nutrients, but you also need to remove weeds. If left unattended, invasive weeds can grow stronger. If not pulled early, they can take root in the soil and begin to compete with your flower. Over time, weeds can steal the water, sunlight, and nutrients. They can become bigger, taller, and stronger than your precious flower. While we focus on nurturing the fragile flower of liberty, we also must fight the weeds of collectivism, liberalism, and progressivism.

I'm encouraged by the culture debate that took place in NFL stadiums about national anthems last year. While progressives have infected the arts, higher education, Hollywood, and news, we still have a chance to keep sports inoculated from the disease. Until recently, sports have maintained their status as a great unifier of people from different backgrounds. No matter our race, color, sex, age, country of origin, or political interests, we share a love for our teams. As NFL owners, players, ESPN, and ESPN's parent company, Disney, learned the hard way, sports consumers want their sports delivered free of social commentary and political opinion. If a consumer wants political analysis, there are plenty of other channels.

The NFL controversy was just a small skirmish in the larger culture war. There will continue to be social justice warriors who are constantly in search of a victim to protect. There will still be virtue signalers who want to show how compassionate they are but ignore the broader consequences of their actions. Folks will continue to do things like sit for a national anthem, for instance, even if it erodes a unifying, patriotic gesture that should be used to bring us together. But the NFL skirmish showed those with traditional values could win. There is a time and a place for rigorous debate about social policies. That time is not during the national anthem of our nation's sporting events. If nothing else, perhaps we preserved the joy of watching live sports delivered to our devices without political interruption. It remains to be seen how long the defense will hold, though. We must keep fighting.

(JACKSON) – The Board of Directors of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) has named Jon L. Pritchett as its new President and CEO. Pritchett is a native of North Carolina and comes to MCPP from the Tar Heel state’s John Locke Foundation, one of the nation’s oldest and most respected free-market, public policy think tanks, where he was Senior Vice President. Pritchett replaces MCPP's longtime president, Forest Thigpen. Before working in public policy, Pritchett spent nearly three decades in the private sector in a variety of leadership positions. Among other executive roles, which included investment banking, public relations, and sports marketing, Pritchett was CEO of AstroTurf USA. MCPP Board Chairman, Mike Dawkins said, “Jon Pritchett understands that the purpose of a free-market think tank is to guide policy, not based on political party affiliation, but based on principle. Jon will have a broad appeal to Mississippians across ideological lines. He communicates well with people with whom he may not agree because he respects their perspectives, while still holding to principles that will create a better place for all Mississippians. He challenges the mindset that a 'conservative' lacks compassion for the economically disadvantaged. Jon has succeeded as a business person and as an emerging leader in the free-market movement. Our board believes we have found an outstanding leader to guide MCPP.” “Jon Pritchett is the consummate professional,” remarked John Locke Foundation Board Member, Theodore Hicks. “He loves liberty and is willing to fight for her, but always as a well-articulated, gentleman. Our loss is Mississippi’s gain. With Jon at the helm of MCPP, there’s no doubt that freedom in Mississippi will expand,” added Hicks. When asked why she thought Pritchett was the right person to lead MCPP, MCPP Board Member, Gloria Walker responded, “We are beyond delighted that Jon and his family are moving to Jackson. We welcome the experience, passion, and energy that he brings to the position of President and CEO, because these skills are necessary for us to be successful in our mission to increase transparency at all levels of government. We look forward to working with Jon and are confident that he will bring a respect for traditional values that many Mississippians hold so dear. MCPP is very much alive and ready to start a new chapter.” Pritchett will join the organization at the beginning of April. According to Pritchett, his immediate goals are focused on communications and fundraising. “The excellent work of MCPP and its talented staff is not as well-known across the state of Mississippi as it should be. Mississippians need to know about the vital work MCPP and the Mississippi Justice Institute do to fight the enemies of liberty, to enhance freedom, to limit government, to ensure choice and competition, and to promote the foundational principles of a thriving society, including individual responsibility and strong traditional families. And this work cannot be done in a robust and meaningful way without raising funds from individuals, foundations, and businesses,” said Pritchett. Unlike most 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy takes no money from government sources at the local, state or federal level. Pritchett continued, “I’m honored to have the opportunity to work with our staff and board to build onto the substantial foundation developed over 25 years by Forest Thigpen." Jon is no stranger to Mississippi. When Jon was CEO of AstroTurf USA, Mississippi native Archie Manning served as AstroTurf''s spokesperson. Manning remarked, “I’ve known Jon since 2007, when I became involved with AstroTurf. He’s a strong leader, and I’m excited for Mississippi and for Jon.” In addition to his role as a leader, manager, and fundraiser, Pritchett also writes op-eds on a variety of public policy issues, including corporate social activism, business regulations, culture wars, the business of sports, and leadership. His work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Federalist, and Washington Examiner, among others. He has appeared on the Fox Business Network, the YES Network, and on the BBC. Pritchett also co-hosts a weekly podcast called Head Locke, which is a unique look at current news, culture, sports, business, and public policy. Read Jon Pritchett's Bio HERE Download Jon Pritchett's Head shot HERE #### The Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) is an independent, non-profit, public policy organization based in Jackson, MS. MCPP works to promote and protect the concepts of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families.

Ron Matis, Gov. Phil Bryant and MCPP VP for Policy Dr. Jameson Taylor

When government tries to keep people from failing, it actually can encourage people to take risks they are not equipped to handle. A government safety net changes the way industries behave, just as it changes the way individuals behave. If government is likely to bail them out, there is less need for responsible, efficient operations, or decisions based on market demand.

Government-designed advantages, such as subsidies or tax preferences for one or a few businesses, is sometimes known as “corporate welfare,” and it can have just as detrimental an impact on the free market as government regulation. Some companies or individuals, or perhaps a particular industry might benefit, but competition is hindered, and the taxpayers are left footing the bill. History has shown that government usually does not do well in predicting successful ventures. More importantly, it should not use taxpayers’ money to speculate on business ventures.

It might be appropriate to provide roads, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure for a project that shows promise, as measured (among other things) by the private capital which has been invested or committed to it.

But money should not be taken from taxpayers and given to a private company to subsidize its business. To do so forces a taxpayer to invest in a company involuntarily, which violates the foundation of a free market - a voluntary exchange. It also distorts the market, because economic investment is based on the power of government, not on the demand of the market. Competitors cannot compete fairly with government-subsidized companies.

The power of eminent domain should not be used by the government to take property from one individual or company and give it to another private entity. To do so violates the right to sell private property without coercion. This particular use of eminent domain has the effect of making government the ultimate owner of all property, as it can take a person's land simply because those in power want someone else to have it.

Abraham Lincoln said, “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer…You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.”

Simply put, markets work better than mandates and corporate welfare. Government officials who realize the need to let the free market work will govern with humility and restraint.

This is an excerpt from Governing By Principle, MCPP's ten principles to guide public policy.

Individual initiative is an infinitely more powerful economic force than government action. Wealth is generated when individuals risk their own resources in hopes of meeting a need in the lives of other people or businesses, and do so in a manner that earns them a profit. That need might be a hammer or food, or it could be capital needed by a business to start or expand its operations.

The government doesn’t have anything to give that it didn’t take from someone else. In other words, government cannot create wealth; it can only take wealth from people and redistribute it to others. This redistribution of wealth might be to an individual through a welfare-type program, or to a business with which the government has a contract, or to government employees. That’s not to say people can’t get wealthy from government programs, but it is not new wealth; it is wealth that was generated by someone else, and the government took it from them. This is not a negativestatement, implying that it is never appropriate for government to tax the people; it is simply a statement of fact. How much wealth the government should take and how it uses that wealth are subject to debate, but the simple fact is that government does not create wealth.

In some ways, it is understandable that people would think first how the government would be a good source for building wealth in a community or state. It’s easier to grasp the concept of expanding a government service or agency than it is to comprehend how the private sector could piece together a cohesive economy. And yet, it’s that wonderful mystery of private sector initiative that has made ours the most productive and resilient economy the world has ever known!

With few exceptions, the areas of our state and country where government has spent trillions (yes, with a T) to “help” the poor by transferring wealth to them from other people, are still mired in poverty. For the good those programs might do in helping with short-term needs, they have helped create a pattern of generational poverty, where creativity is stifled and hopelessness prevails.

Instead of transferring wealth, government’s role in the economy should be to protect the freedom of individuals to generate wealth for themselves.

Numerous examples throughout history can be cited of nations that attempted to force equality of wealth through government efforts. The former Soviet Union is one of the most notable, a nation with vast resources, an enormous population, yet a failed economy because it was directed by the government. Current-day Russia has experienced economic problems, not because it moved to a supposedly “free” market system, but primarily because it did not provide the property rights protections necessary for a truly free market. This kept the power in the hands of officials with strong connections to the government, allowing them to take advantage of the people just as they had under Communist rule. (Related to that, the Russian people were not sufficiently informed how a free market system is supposed to work and how they could apply their new-found freedom.)

In contrast, the former Soviet bloc nations that have been most successful economically since the fall of the Soviet Union are those that have provided a dependable system of justice, a low (usually flat) tax on its citizens, and a limited regulatory system. This allows entrepreneurs to know the rules of the game and explore their opportunities with relative certainty that their rights will be
protected, and that they will have few unnecessary burdens placed on them by the government.

Financially speaking, free people are not equal, and equal people are not free. If 100 people were made equally wealthy today, they would no longer be equal by tomorrow. Some would spend, some would give, and some would save, making their wealth “unequal” once again.

The greatness of the free-enterprise system is found in the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Why should anyone strive for excellence when there is no incentive to produce a better product or offer a better service? Economic opportunity—the chance to make a profit and build wealth—encourages innovation and competition. This, in turn, benefits the whole economy, not just the entrepreneur, because it results in improved products and services. As one entrepreneur gains success, others might be drawn to compete, resulting in even better products and services, or equal quality at a lower price. In the end, consumers benefit from a healthy, competitive free-market system—where true wealth is created.

Government officials who understand that government cannot create wealth but can clear the way entrepreneurs to do so will govern with humility and restraint.