I just endeavored to do something I've never done before: write a letter to myself. I have journaled for years, and in a certain sense it is like writing a letter to myself, but there is a difference. I have always written my journal entries in first person. "I this" and "I that," but I wrote this letter in second person (the only permissible time to write in second person). I found that I was quite harsh on myself, taking myself to task for all of my unmet expectations of 2006 and how I have reacted to my perceived failures.
It was one of the most fruitful and beneficial activities in which I have ever engaged. I gained more from that than hours of counseling sessions with an overpaid psychologist. It helped me crystalize in my own mind the things that have been troubling me for the past month or so, as I have approached my one year anniversary in Dallas, at my new company, in my new relationship, etc. There are a certain number of frustrations that accompany anniversaries of this sort, but I have a better idea about why I have had such a struggle in coping with this one year mile marker.
What I learned in the end was that I have much more to be thankful for than not, and I need to do less fixating on those things I wish were different and rather rejoicing for those things that are so wonderful. I'm pretty thick-headed, and this very thing has been suggested to me before, and I sadly dismissed it out of hand. I'm a fixater by nature. But no longer will that excuse suffice. Excuses in general do nobody any good.
"I'm like this" or "I'm like that and therefore that's why I engage in X stupid behavior" doesn't cut it. The status quo cannot be an acceptable choice for those who believe that progress is essential to fulfilled human existence. We cannot make excuses for the way we behave, whether it is in regard to things we do or in regard to things we don't do. I won't say I've learned my lesson, but I am making progress. That's something, at least. It means I'm still alive, which is better than nothing, eh?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Genuine Freedom
Having been involved in politics in the past, and being a rather avid spectator in the political arena, I have heard a lot of opinions about what constitutes freedom. Those on the Right have one view, those on the Left another. The religious sectarians have yet another view about freedom, and that differs from one faith to next, with almost no two demonination or religion having the same one.
For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.
The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.
The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.
I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.
Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.
For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.
The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.
For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.
The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.
The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.
I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.
Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.
For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.
The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.
Monday, December 04, 2006
A Reflection on the Unspoken
Thou goest and returnest to His leeps
Like lightning: thou dost ever brood above
The silence of all hearts, unutterable Love.
--Alfred Lord Tennyson
An important lesson in business as in life is recognizing the power of the things left unsaid and excluded. In a negotiation, it is more valuable to consider what has been left out of the deal than the jots and tittles that have been so meticulously written into it. I frequently hear people say "what is wrong with this picture?" and most often the answer to that question is that this or that thing is missing.
Yet, sometimes a thing needn't be uttered or written or illustrated in order for it to have an effect. Indeed, sometimes that which is left unsaid is the most powerful. I said to one of my business partners today "give me some credit," laughingly, to which he replied "I give you a lot more credit than you think, I just don't always tell you about it." It made me think seriously about this subject of the unuttered and unspoken.
Tennyson's term "unutterable love" takes the notion even further. Beyond just that which isn't spoken, it is that thing that cannot be spoken at all. The early 12th Century monk Bernard of Clairvaux wrote the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," in which he says this "What language can I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend, for this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end." Bernard illustrates the difficulty of finding words for those things one considers to be of the highest level of love or gratitude.
It can be easier if we are consantly affirmed and re-affirmed in ourselves through the verbal expressions of others. This is not only unnecessary, but sometimes even counterproductive. For we in certain cases cannot put accurately into words the way we feel about others. It is not so much a matter of magnitude, for we certainly have words to express magnitude. We have words like "tremendous" and "grand" and even "infinite." Instead, it is that there can be so much complexity and subtlety, that truly makes the emotion special and unique, that we do not have enough shades of words in which to formulate the fullest expression of how we feel.
I am personally a verbal person. The fact that I blog on a regular basis in large quantities is perhaps proof enough of this. I have always prided myself in my ability to provoke a range of emotional responses from people using both the written and spoken word. I am finding, however, as I mature, that this is not always sufficient or even preferrable.
There is something beyond the word, beyond even the thought, that only some intangible energy can communicate. It is something of the Spirit, something genuinely metaphysical. It is that feeling, the overwhelming touch that one gets when walking away from the kind words or the bright smile or the twinkle in the eye. Sometimes it is felt from across the room, or across the span of oceans.
This intangible expression flows from the most genuine of love, the most real emotion, and the most verifiable of compassions. I also desire most intensely to more joyfully recognize and receive this kind of affection, for it is that kind that is given without ill motive to manipulate or hurt or to achieve any other hidden agenda. Perhaps all of this is why H.L. Mencken so brilliantly quipped "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."
I am thankful for those in my life who communicate these things to me, and I hope I communicate them back.
Like lightning: thou dost ever brood above
The silence of all hearts, unutterable Love.
--Alfred Lord Tennyson
An important lesson in business as in life is recognizing the power of the things left unsaid and excluded. In a negotiation, it is more valuable to consider what has been left out of the deal than the jots and tittles that have been so meticulously written into it. I frequently hear people say "what is wrong with this picture?" and most often the answer to that question is that this or that thing is missing.
Yet, sometimes a thing needn't be uttered or written or illustrated in order for it to have an effect. Indeed, sometimes that which is left unsaid is the most powerful. I said to one of my business partners today "give me some credit," laughingly, to which he replied "I give you a lot more credit than you think, I just don't always tell you about it." It made me think seriously about this subject of the unuttered and unspoken.
Tennyson's term "unutterable love" takes the notion even further. Beyond just that which isn't spoken, it is that thing that cannot be spoken at all. The early 12th Century monk Bernard of Clairvaux wrote the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," in which he says this "What language can I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend, for this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end." Bernard illustrates the difficulty of finding words for those things one considers to be of the highest level of love or gratitude.
It can be easier if we are consantly affirmed and re-affirmed in ourselves through the verbal expressions of others. This is not only unnecessary, but sometimes even counterproductive. For we in certain cases cannot put accurately into words the way we feel about others. It is not so much a matter of magnitude, for we certainly have words to express magnitude. We have words like "tremendous" and "grand" and even "infinite." Instead, it is that there can be so much complexity and subtlety, that truly makes the emotion special and unique, that we do not have enough shades of words in which to formulate the fullest expression of how we feel.
I am personally a verbal person. The fact that I blog on a regular basis in large quantities is perhaps proof enough of this. I have always prided myself in my ability to provoke a range of emotional responses from people using both the written and spoken word. I am finding, however, as I mature, that this is not always sufficient or even preferrable.
There is something beyond the word, beyond even the thought, that only some intangible energy can communicate. It is something of the Spirit, something genuinely metaphysical. It is that feeling, the overwhelming touch that one gets when walking away from the kind words or the bright smile or the twinkle in the eye. Sometimes it is felt from across the room, or across the span of oceans.
This intangible expression flows from the most genuine of love, the most real emotion, and the most verifiable of compassions. I also desire most intensely to more joyfully recognize and receive this kind of affection, for it is that kind that is given without ill motive to manipulate or hurt or to achieve any other hidden agenda. Perhaps all of this is why H.L. Mencken so brilliantly quipped "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."
I am thankful for those in my life who communicate these things to me, and I hope I communicate them back.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Patience vs. Progress
It takes patience to appreciate domestic bliss; volatile spirits prefer unhappiness."
--George Santayana
I write a lot about the notion of patience. It is one of the virtues espoused by Paul when he talks of the fruit of the Spirit, "Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." Of those eight, I have problems with seven on an almost daily basis, but patience is by far my greatest difficulty.
I ran upon this quote by Santayana and it struck me. I recently had the displeasure of seeing an employee of my company self destruct, and I think Santayana's insight is quite applicable to that situation. I find a lot of people really do prefer unhappiness and drama. There have been people in my life over the last few weeks who are utterly miserable, and they are so because they want to be so. It's easy for me to fall into this trap too, because of my lack of patience. I'm impatient with so many things in my life.
Yet at the same time, patience is not a panacea, and frequently can merely be dressed up complacence. Thomas Edison, in fact, notes that "Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress." Patience, then, is not so much a contentedness with the way things are, but an acceptance that they will not instantly be as one desires. Consequently, the ideal environment for progress is one that balances discontent with the status quo with an understanding that there is a trail that must first be traversed before the finish line is reached.
There is a great danger, in the patience-pushers, that they are not properly motivated enough to change things that really aren't working. This could either be because they do not recognize that what they are doing isn't working, they ignore that fact, or they are just resigned to thinking that nothing can be done about it.
In the philosophical discipline, especially within the context of the field called "Practical Reason," two of the models of decision making are "utility maximizing" and "utility satisficing," where the latter represents those people who take things as being "good enough" rather than "optimal." There are many times and ways that we are benefited by going with what is "good enough." Choosing a toothbrush, picking something to eat, deciding on what to wear, etc. are times in which making the effort to maximize utility might be unnecessary.
But when it comes to important facets of life: spiritual issues, relationships, and career matters, it is imperative to maximize our utility, push the envelope, challenge ourselves, and in a sense "living beyond our means." Only when we actively step outside of our comfort zones will we ever grow, expand, and learn.
So few people are willing to live outside of their comfort zones, and so they will have intermittent spurts of progress. It is not that these people, ipso facto, cannot be or are not happy, for they certainly can be. In fact, people can be happy without ever experiencing progress. But happiness is not a light switch. It is not an on-off button. There are divergent gradations of happiness, and those higher gradations can only be achieved through the difficulties that accompany progress.
Perhaps this whole notion can be summed up with the last stanza of Longfellow's poem "A Psalm of Life,"
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate,
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.
--George Santayana
I write a lot about the notion of patience. It is one of the virtues espoused by Paul when he talks of the fruit of the Spirit, "Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." Of those eight, I have problems with seven on an almost daily basis, but patience is by far my greatest difficulty.
I ran upon this quote by Santayana and it struck me. I recently had the displeasure of seeing an employee of my company self destruct, and I think Santayana's insight is quite applicable to that situation. I find a lot of people really do prefer unhappiness and drama. There have been people in my life over the last few weeks who are utterly miserable, and they are so because they want to be so. It's easy for me to fall into this trap too, because of my lack of patience. I'm impatient with so many things in my life.
Yet at the same time, patience is not a panacea, and frequently can merely be dressed up complacence. Thomas Edison, in fact, notes that "Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress." Patience, then, is not so much a contentedness with the way things are, but an acceptance that they will not instantly be as one desires. Consequently, the ideal environment for progress is one that balances discontent with the status quo with an understanding that there is a trail that must first be traversed before the finish line is reached.
There is a great danger, in the patience-pushers, that they are not properly motivated enough to change things that really aren't working. This could either be because they do not recognize that what they are doing isn't working, they ignore that fact, or they are just resigned to thinking that nothing can be done about it.
In the philosophical discipline, especially within the context of the field called "Practical Reason," two of the models of decision making are "utility maximizing" and "utility satisficing," where the latter represents those people who take things as being "good enough" rather than "optimal." There are many times and ways that we are benefited by going with what is "good enough." Choosing a toothbrush, picking something to eat, deciding on what to wear, etc. are times in which making the effort to maximize utility might be unnecessary.
But when it comes to important facets of life: spiritual issues, relationships, and career matters, it is imperative to maximize our utility, push the envelope, challenge ourselves, and in a sense "living beyond our means." Only when we actively step outside of our comfort zones will we ever grow, expand, and learn.
So few people are willing to live outside of their comfort zones, and so they will have intermittent spurts of progress. It is not that these people, ipso facto, cannot be or are not happy, for they certainly can be. In fact, people can be happy without ever experiencing progress. But happiness is not a light switch. It is not an on-off button. There are divergent gradations of happiness, and those higher gradations can only be achieved through the difficulties that accompany progress.
Perhaps this whole notion can be summed up with the last stanza of Longfellow's poem "A Psalm of Life,"
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate,
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Agendas and Pride
Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. He said, 'Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is why he has not come to the king's table. Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him.
-1 Samuel 20:28-33
There is a problem that occurs amongst the Sons of Men when people take it upon themselves to extend their plans and agendas beyond the boundaries of their own self. It is one of the most tragic manifestations of human selfishness, and causes irrational, erratic, and sometimes psychotic behavior as the thwarting of a man's agenda is considered a personal affront. It is even worse when such an affront comes from the man's own son. After all, if anybody should pay homage and respect to an old man, shouldn't it be his son? That's at least what is often thought by those old men in those situations.
For Saul and Jonathan, it was a particular problem. Jonathan had developed a very close relationship with David, who was beginning to receive a lot of credit that Saul thought he himself deserved. Saul was jealous of the attention David was receiving from the Israelite people, and it enraged him that Jonathan too had formed a bond with the young and aspiring warrior. We are told elsewhere in the scriptures of the prophet Samuel that Jonathan and David loved each other, and when Jonathan was killed in battle, it is said that when David was told that Jonathan had died, he sang the following as part of his mourning song:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."
Such a bond between David and Jonathan was despicable to Saul, because Jonathan's bond with David seemed, in Saul's eyes to be a personal offense and betrayal. It went against Saul's plans for Jonathan--to succeed him on the throne (thought that was still less important to Saul than Saul's own glory and ego, as evidenced elsewhere).
The fact that Jonathan's loyalty to David would spark such rage in Saul is evidence of Saul's own narcissism and selfishness. It was tragic. Saul attempted to harm Jonathan's physical well-being...attempted to murder him even, all for what? Saul apparently did not have the wisdom Paul gave the Ephesian church "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, lest they become angry."
It is important that we never let such pride and our own agendas come in between people we love. We must elevate love above all perceived injuries and all perceived harms. Sometimes that means abiding by King Solomon's advice that "There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent," and we must recognize the importance of doing each when they are appropriate. We must organize our lives by the principle Paul set forth in his letter to the Galatian church "The fruit of the Spirit is first love, then peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such there is no law." Prior to that Paul advised that "For all of the law is fulfilled in one word, even this 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another."
The tip of the spear belongs in its sheath, and only then can the sword of Love manifest its Divine power.
-1 Samuel 20:28-33
There is a problem that occurs amongst the Sons of Men when people take it upon themselves to extend their plans and agendas beyond the boundaries of their own self. It is one of the most tragic manifestations of human selfishness, and causes irrational, erratic, and sometimes psychotic behavior as the thwarting of a man's agenda is considered a personal affront. It is even worse when such an affront comes from the man's own son. After all, if anybody should pay homage and respect to an old man, shouldn't it be his son? That's at least what is often thought by those old men in those situations.
For Saul and Jonathan, it was a particular problem. Jonathan had developed a very close relationship with David, who was beginning to receive a lot of credit that Saul thought he himself deserved. Saul was jealous of the attention David was receiving from the Israelite people, and it enraged him that Jonathan too had formed a bond with the young and aspiring warrior. We are told elsewhere in the scriptures of the prophet Samuel that Jonathan and David loved each other, and when Jonathan was killed in battle, it is said that when David was told that Jonathan had died, he sang the following as part of his mourning song:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."
Such a bond between David and Jonathan was despicable to Saul, because Jonathan's bond with David seemed, in Saul's eyes to be a personal offense and betrayal. It went against Saul's plans for Jonathan--to succeed him on the throne (thought that was still less important to Saul than Saul's own glory and ego, as evidenced elsewhere).
The fact that Jonathan's loyalty to David would spark such rage in Saul is evidence of Saul's own narcissism and selfishness. It was tragic. Saul attempted to harm Jonathan's physical well-being...attempted to murder him even, all for what? Saul apparently did not have the wisdom Paul gave the Ephesian church "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, lest they become angry."
It is important that we never let such pride and our own agendas come in between people we love. We must elevate love above all perceived injuries and all perceived harms. Sometimes that means abiding by King Solomon's advice that "There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent," and we must recognize the importance of doing each when they are appropriate. We must organize our lives by the principle Paul set forth in his letter to the Galatian church "The fruit of the Spirit is first love, then peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such there is no law." Prior to that Paul advised that "For all of the law is fulfilled in one word, even this 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another."
The tip of the spear belongs in its sheath, and only then can the sword of Love manifest its Divine power.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Brief Thoughts Before Boarding an Airplane
I've spent the last week in New York on business, and I could not help but put my experiences in the perspective of the wisdom of King Solomon.
Let's keep our focus on Love, the greatest good, the manifestation of God in us, and when the luxuries of life follow (if indeed they do) then we can enjoy them with the proper perspective.
"He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. When goods increase, they increase who eat them, and what advantage has their owner but to see them with his eyes? Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.
There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand. This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go, and what gain is there to him who toils for the wind? Moreover, all his days he eats in darkness in much vexation and sickness and anger.
Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil--this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart."
--Ecclesiastes 5:10-20
It is easy to be pulled in certain directions by the promises of wealth and abundance, but it doesn't satisfy. John D. Rockefeller was asked how much money would be enough for him and he said "just another dollar." Houses and cars and clothes and jewelry are luxuries but they are potentially corrupting luxuries. The only way to approach them is to enjoy them but not cling to them. To recognize that they are not necessities. The real necessities in life are the people we love and who love us, and the impact we have in each other's lives. That is the meaning of genuine agape. All the rest is vanity, and striving after the wind. Instead, so often, these vain things drive wedges between us and our loved ones, they cause worry and strife. Why should we so strap ourselves to being beholden to possessions?Let's keep our focus on Love, the greatest good, the manifestation of God in us, and when the luxuries of life follow (if indeed they do) then we can enjoy them with the proper perspective.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Monday Montage
Hillary on Health Care: "I'm baaaack!"
It looks like our favorite Horror Flick of the '90s is back: Hillarycare. Yes, that's the womb to the tomb, unfettered, unmitigated, Socialist promise of the would-be President Clinton #2. She warns that it "might be a bad dream for some." I wonder if she needs to be reminded that it was a bad dream for the Democrats most of all. The people of the United States soundly rejected socialized medicine in 1994, and they will do it again. There is no question that massive reform is needed in the health care and insurance industries, but a government take-over of 1/7 of the United States Economy is not the answer. If Hillary wants to quickly undo the fragile Democrat majority in Congress, this is a good first step.
Rudy Runs for President
In the first of what is likely to a litany of announcements of "exploratory committees," America's Mayor has announced that he has formed his own. With no President or Vice President running for the White House for the first time in 80 years, this is going to shape up to be one of the most fascinating presidential elections in history. The initial Republican field will look something like this: Rudy, Sen. John McCain (AZ), Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), and Fmr. Gov. George Pataki. Not making my list of likelies are the following:
1) Condoleeza Rice. In spite of Dick Morris's almost orgasmic attitude over a Condi White House run, it just isn't going to happen, at least in 2008. Condi, like the entire Bush Administration, is damaged goods. She is too tied to the Neo-Cons and the Iraq War to have any credibility when the political winds are clearly blowing against the war. I'm not counting her out in the future. Churchill's political maxim is as prescient as ever "Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. For in war you can die only once, in politics, many times."
2) George Allen. One of the rising stars of the National Republican scene, the now former Senator and Governor of Virginia bungled one of the safest seats in the country and cost the Republicans control of the Senate. Not only would I be ashamed to run for President if I were him, he'd promptly be sent packing by several million Republicans who will not soon forget the loss of the Senate.
3) Jeb Bush. The third time isn't a charm when it comes to Bush Presidencies. The public isn't going to go for it, now or....well, people might forget a few years down the way, but I seriously doubt it. Hillary Clinton has proved that it is possible to distance from the family, but Bill Clinton was never as unpopular as Bush is now...oh wait, he was...a fact conveniently forgotten by the mainstream media. Nevertheless, I think 2 Bush Presidents are enough, and I think a lot of people agree with me on that.
4) Rick Santorum. Any distant hopes the former Pennsylvania Senator may have had to run for the Presidency were dashed by his utter trouncing at the hands of Bob Casey, Jr. (60%-40%). His brand of conservatism, while perhaps popular with a certain sect of the Republican base, has no broad appeal, as evidenced by his rout in his home state.
5) Haley Barbour. There have been rumors circulating for a while that the Mississippi Governor and former Republican National Committee Chairman might take a shot at the Presidency. He just doesn't have the name ID to stand up to a McCain or a Rudy, so I think he'll bide his time and wait for the phone call to serve in a cabinet post.
6) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately for the Governator and his supporters, the Constitution still won't let him be President. Maybe that will change, but I think for now he will focus on being Governor of Caleefornia and await the chance to run for an open seat in the Senate whenever Diane Feinstein retires.
7) David M.Walker. This one is my saddest entry. Most of you probably have no idea who David M. Walker is, but he is currently the U.S. Comptroller General, who heads up the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office). The GAO "has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced reviews of government programs and operations." Walker is one of those lucky people in Washington who has a lengthy appointment (15 years) and still has 7 years left on his term. He has recently been traveling the country warning us of the dangers of an insolvent Medicare and Social Security, and the disastrous economic effects that will have if we do not remedy it soon. I hope he keeps it up, and maybe one of these days, we'll have the benefit of seeing his name on a ballot.
Has the Power already gone to Nancy's Head?
Giddy with power, Nancy Pelosi dove head-first into the heated race for House Majority Leader between Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer (Maryland) a Rabid Anti-War John Murtha (Pennsylvania). In one of the worst political calculations in Congressional history, she has decided to fervently back Murtha, which will both confirm every Republican accusation that she is a dove and simultaneously alienate many in the Democratic Caucus who ardently support Hoyer (including all but about 10 of the 40 incoming Freshman Democrats). In another move that reeks of political payback and completely lacks prudence, Pelosi has decided that Jane Harman will not get to Chair, or even serve on, the House Intelligence Committee, despite being the most senior and tenured member of that committee, and by far the Democrat with the best Intelligence credentials. But, Harman has crossed Nancy the Knife in the past, and to the detriment of National Security, this very reasonable Moderate Democrat is going to be replaced by the radical leftist Alcee Hastings....an impeached federal judge. That's who I want running the House Intelligence Committee....
Iran an Agent of Peace, says Blair
Our good friend Tony Blair from across the pond is no doubt under substantial pressure by his foundering Labour Party to distance himself from President Bush and American Foreign Policy. What better way than to endorse Iran as an agent of peace. I happen to agree with part of Blair's argument, and that is that we need a new dialogue in the Middle East. The one we had during the Clinton years didn't work. The isolationism and hawkishness of the Bush years hasn't worked either. So maybe we need to talk, but talk tough. Something has got to be better than the way relations have been for he last 20 years. Better to fail at something new than at something old.
Dallas Fed President: They took our jobs? Puhhlease.
The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Richard Fisher publicly complained today about a labor shortage in the United States, and especially in Texas. That's right, a shortage. I thought Tom Tancredo and his band of xenophobes had been telling us for the last five years that we were going to lose all of our jobs to low-paid immigrants from Mexico if we didn't shoot them as they came across the border. But no, in fact, wage rates are skyrocketing in skilled and semi-skilled industries, and there is no end in sight. Unemployment in the United States has fallen to 4.4% which is better than "full employment." The Bush recession indeed.
It looks like our favorite Horror Flick of the '90s is back: Hillarycare. Yes, that's the womb to the tomb, unfettered, unmitigated, Socialist promise of the would-be President Clinton #2. She warns that it "might be a bad dream for some." I wonder if she needs to be reminded that it was a bad dream for the Democrats most of all. The people of the United States soundly rejected socialized medicine in 1994, and they will do it again. There is no question that massive reform is needed in the health care and insurance industries, but a government take-over of 1/7 of the United States Economy is not the answer. If Hillary wants to quickly undo the fragile Democrat majority in Congress, this is a good first step.
Rudy Runs for President
In the first of what is likely to a litany of announcements of "exploratory committees," America's Mayor has announced that he has formed his own. With no President or Vice President running for the White House for the first time in 80 years, this is going to shape up to be one of the most fascinating presidential elections in history. The initial Republican field will look something like this: Rudy, Sen. John McCain (AZ), Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), and Fmr. Gov. George Pataki. Not making my list of likelies are the following:
1) Condoleeza Rice. In spite of Dick Morris's almost orgasmic attitude over a Condi White House run, it just isn't going to happen, at least in 2008. Condi, like the entire Bush Administration, is damaged goods. She is too tied to the Neo-Cons and the Iraq War to have any credibility when the political winds are clearly blowing against the war. I'm not counting her out in the future. Churchill's political maxim is as prescient as ever "Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. For in war you can die only once, in politics, many times."
2) George Allen. One of the rising stars of the National Republican scene, the now former Senator and Governor of Virginia bungled one of the safest seats in the country and cost the Republicans control of the Senate. Not only would I be ashamed to run for President if I were him, he'd promptly be sent packing by several million Republicans who will not soon forget the loss of the Senate.
3) Jeb Bush. The third time isn't a charm when it comes to Bush Presidencies. The public isn't going to go for it, now or....well, people might forget a few years down the way, but I seriously doubt it. Hillary Clinton has proved that it is possible to distance from the family, but Bill Clinton was never as unpopular as Bush is now...oh wait, he was...a fact conveniently forgotten by the mainstream media. Nevertheless, I think 2 Bush Presidents are enough, and I think a lot of people agree with me on that.
4) Rick Santorum. Any distant hopes the former Pennsylvania Senator may have had to run for the Presidency were dashed by his utter trouncing at the hands of Bob Casey, Jr. (60%-40%). His brand of conservatism, while perhaps popular with a certain sect of the Republican base, has no broad appeal, as evidenced by his rout in his home state.
5) Haley Barbour. There have been rumors circulating for a while that the Mississippi Governor and former Republican National Committee Chairman might take a shot at the Presidency. He just doesn't have the name ID to stand up to a McCain or a Rudy, so I think he'll bide his time and wait for the phone call to serve in a cabinet post.
6) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately for the Governator and his supporters, the Constitution still won't let him be President. Maybe that will change, but I think for now he will focus on being Governor of Caleefornia and await the chance to run for an open seat in the Senate whenever Diane Feinstein retires.
7) David M.Walker. This one is my saddest entry. Most of you probably have no idea who David M. Walker is, but he is currently the U.S. Comptroller General, who heads up the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office). The GAO "has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced reviews of government programs and operations." Walker is one of those lucky people in Washington who has a lengthy appointment (15 years) and still has 7 years left on his term. He has recently been traveling the country warning us of the dangers of an insolvent Medicare and Social Security, and the disastrous economic effects that will have if we do not remedy it soon. I hope he keeps it up, and maybe one of these days, we'll have the benefit of seeing his name on a ballot.
Has the Power already gone to Nancy's Head?
Giddy with power, Nancy Pelosi dove head-first into the heated race for House Majority Leader between Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer (Maryland) a Rabid Anti-War John Murtha (Pennsylvania). In one of the worst political calculations in Congressional history, she has decided to fervently back Murtha, which will both confirm every Republican accusation that she is a dove and simultaneously alienate many in the Democratic Caucus who ardently support Hoyer (including all but about 10 of the 40 incoming Freshman Democrats). In another move that reeks of political payback and completely lacks prudence, Pelosi has decided that Jane Harman will not get to Chair, or even serve on, the House Intelligence Committee, despite being the most senior and tenured member of that committee, and by far the Democrat with the best Intelligence credentials. But, Harman has crossed Nancy the Knife in the past, and to the detriment of National Security, this very reasonable Moderate Democrat is going to be replaced by the radical leftist Alcee Hastings....an impeached federal judge. That's who I want running the House Intelligence Committee....
Iran an Agent of Peace, says Blair
Our good friend Tony Blair from across the pond is no doubt under substantial pressure by his foundering Labour Party to distance himself from President Bush and American Foreign Policy. What better way than to endorse Iran as an agent of peace. I happen to agree with part of Blair's argument, and that is that we need a new dialogue in the Middle East. The one we had during the Clinton years didn't work. The isolationism and hawkishness of the Bush years hasn't worked either. So maybe we need to talk, but talk tough. Something has got to be better than the way relations have been for he last 20 years. Better to fail at something new than at something old.
Dallas Fed President: They took our jobs? Puhhlease.
The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Richard Fisher publicly complained today about a labor shortage in the United States, and especially in Texas. That's right, a shortage. I thought Tom Tancredo and his band of xenophobes had been telling us for the last five years that we were going to lose all of our jobs to low-paid immigrants from Mexico if we didn't shoot them as they came across the border. But no, in fact, wage rates are skyrocketing in skilled and semi-skilled industries, and there is no end in sight. Unemployment in the United States has fallen to 4.4% which is better than "full employment." The Bush recession indeed.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Dangers of Drinking Your Own Kool-Aid
"Politicians are dealers in hope." --Napoleon Bonaparte
Since the beginning of time, Politicians have made their careers and their successes on selling their proverbial "kool-aid" to their constituencies and the masses at-large. There are two metrics for their success in these endeavors: 1) The amount of kool-aid sold, and 2) What they put in the kool-aid. Many politicians may be excellent salesmen, but not so good at mixing the kool-aid. Others have the reverse problem. But there is perhaps an even more dangerous trouble for politicians, and that is when they get tempted to start drinking the kool-aid themselves. During my campaign days, I always warned my colleagues (and candidates) against "believing our own spin." It can be disastrous; I've done it myself.
My guess is that Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, et al, have gotten out of detox this week and still have a kool-aid hangover from the last two years. Some would say the last six, but I would disagree. The Bush 43 Gang has been incredibly adept at taking another bit of Napoleon's advice, which is to control the scene of chaos on the battlefield. Taking advantage of the incompetence of Democrat leaders in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and maintaining an above 50% approval rating for the vast majority of that time (let's not forget that in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush's approval rating exceeded 80%), Bush and Rove had built what looked like an impenetrable Republican governing majority in the electorate. They were telling everybody about it. The trouble is they started believing it themselves. There's no such thing.
As soon as they started believing it, they became intensely careless, and far less calculating. Bush began to suffer from the same problem his Father suffered from in the waning days of First Term leading up to the 1992 election: aloofness. There was a distinctive turning point, an event that shouldn't have had nearly the political implications that it did, and that was Katrina. I am not willing to say that Katrina caused the turning point, but that is the time in the history of the last several years I can examine and say that after that incident, everything went downhill for the Bush Administration. The War in Iraq finally became Vietnam, Afghanistan began to fail, the Economy went down the tank, etc. Well, not at all. Those things didn't actually happen, but the public began to believe it. Enter Kool-Aid Mixers Part 2.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel decided they had finally had it. Disgusted over the pathetic performance of the Democrats in 2004, and of John Kerry's laughable candidacy for the White House, they determined that they were going to get a coherent message and start pounding it. They remembered Clintonista Politics Rule #1: If you say something enough times, people will start to believe it. The Democrats, for the first time since Bill Clinton left office, got on the same page and said one thing with two parts: Bush is out of touch on 1) Iraq, 2) The Economy. They said other things too, about health care, and education, and so on, but it was irrelevant. What mattered was they kept a clear and consistent, though simplistic message on Iraq and the Economy.
Now that they've won, the Democrats better not make the mistake the Bush Administration made and start drinking their own kool-aid. The Democrat kool-aid tastes like this: Bush was a total failure on Iraq and the Economy and the Democrat plan is what everybody wants...after all, look at the election results, right? If they start drinking that kool-aid, they will suffer the same fate in 2008 as the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans suffered last Tuesday.
One final note on Kool-Aid Drinkers...I would be remiss in this particular blog if I did not make mention of the Election 2006 Kool-Aid Drinker of the Year, the man who should perhaps be poster-child of Kool-Aidaholics Anonymous, Virginia Senator George Allen. He made the worst mistake any politician can make: start running for President while trying to run for re-election to something else. Hillary Clinton hasn't been traveling to New Hampshire or Iowa, she solidified New York. After all, there's no way she would be elected President without New York. Bill Frist retired from the Senate, Mike Huckabee didn't run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and Mitt Romney didn't seek re-election to the Mass. Governorship. Allen took his home state for granted, and they showed him the door. Aloof doesn't cut it in politics, especially in this day and age. So here is my tribute to the Kool-Aid drinkers of 2006 with their new poster child...
Since the beginning of time, Politicians have made their careers and their successes on selling their proverbial "kool-aid" to their constituencies and the masses at-large. There are two metrics for their success in these endeavors: 1) The amount of kool-aid sold, and 2) What they put in the kool-aid. Many politicians may be excellent salesmen, but not so good at mixing the kool-aid. Others have the reverse problem. But there is perhaps an even more dangerous trouble for politicians, and that is when they get tempted to start drinking the kool-aid themselves. During my campaign days, I always warned my colleagues (and candidates) against "believing our own spin." It can be disastrous; I've done it myself.
My guess is that Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, et al, have gotten out of detox this week and still have a kool-aid hangover from the last two years. Some would say the last six, but I would disagree. The Bush 43 Gang has been incredibly adept at taking another bit of Napoleon's advice, which is to control the scene of chaos on the battlefield. Taking advantage of the incompetence of Democrat leaders in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and maintaining an above 50% approval rating for the vast majority of that time (let's not forget that in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush's approval rating exceeded 80%), Bush and Rove had built what looked like an impenetrable Republican governing majority in the electorate. They were telling everybody about it. The trouble is they started believing it themselves. There's no such thing.
As soon as they started believing it, they became intensely careless, and far less calculating. Bush began to suffer from the same problem his Father suffered from in the waning days of First Term leading up to the 1992 election: aloofness. There was a distinctive turning point, an event that shouldn't have had nearly the political implications that it did, and that was Katrina. I am not willing to say that Katrina caused the turning point, but that is the time in the history of the last several years I can examine and say that after that incident, everything went downhill for the Bush Administration. The War in Iraq finally became Vietnam, Afghanistan began to fail, the Economy went down the tank, etc. Well, not at all. Those things didn't actually happen, but the public began to believe it. Enter Kool-Aid Mixers Part 2.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel decided they had finally had it. Disgusted over the pathetic performance of the Democrats in 2004, and of John Kerry's laughable candidacy for the White House, they determined that they were going to get a coherent message and start pounding it. They remembered Clintonista Politics Rule #1: If you say something enough times, people will start to believe it. The Democrats, for the first time since Bill Clinton left office, got on the same page and said one thing with two parts: Bush is out of touch on 1) Iraq, 2) The Economy. They said other things too, about health care, and education, and so on, but it was irrelevant. What mattered was they kept a clear and consistent, though simplistic message on Iraq and the Economy.
Now that they've won, the Democrats better not make the mistake the Bush Administration made and start drinking their own kool-aid. The Democrat kool-aid tastes like this: Bush was a total failure on Iraq and the Economy and the Democrat plan is what everybody wants...after all, look at the election results, right? If they start drinking that kool-aid, they will suffer the same fate in 2008 as the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans suffered last Tuesday.
One final note on Kool-Aid Drinkers...I would be remiss in this particular blog if I did not make mention of the Election 2006 Kool-Aid Drinker of the Year, the man who should perhaps be poster-child of Kool-Aidaholics Anonymous, Virginia Senator George Allen. He made the worst mistake any politician can make: start running for President while trying to run for re-election to something else. Hillary Clinton hasn't been traveling to New Hampshire or Iowa, she solidified New York. After all, there's no way she would be elected President without New York. Bill Frist retired from the Senate, Mike Huckabee didn't run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and Mitt Romney didn't seek re-election to the Mass. Governorship. Allen took his home state for granted, and they showed him the door. Aloof doesn't cut it in politics, especially in this day and age. So here is my tribute to the Kool-Aid drinkers of 2006 with their new poster child...
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The War Within: The Critical Choices Republicans Must Make Before 2008
"The GOP must return to efficient government, to appropriate spending priorities that are not out of line, that don't create deficits, that speak to a strong national defense without failing to understand the need for diplomacy, and the things that will keep this country strong."
-Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland
I couldn't believe it when I read it, a Republican who actually gets it. Not just that, but a Republican who gets it who has the chance of becoming the next leader of the Republican National Committee. Lt. Governor Steele may have lost his race for the United States Senate, but it was not because of his lack of political acumen. After all, he was the first Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland for the first time in 36 years, and he narrowly lost his bid to become the Senate's first black Republican from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and in a political climate where the Republicans nationally were decimated by a wave of strong sentiment against the War in Iraq, the disastrous spending policies of the Republican Congress and President Bush, and overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Whether these problems were real or perceived, the reality is that the Steele should have lost his race 60-40 like Rick Santorum lost his, but instead, he only barely lost. Under any other circumstances, and in virtually any other state, Mr. Steele would have won his race rather easily.
Ken Mehlman revolutionized the way the Republican Party operated; Mr. Steele stands ready to revolutionize the way the Republican Party thinks. There will be two camps conducting post mortems of the 2006 elections within the GOP, those who believe the Republican Party failed because it didn't do enough, and those who believe the Republican Party failed because it did too much. Mr. Steele is in the latter camp. James Dobson is in the former. Which side wins this debate will determine the success of the Republican Party for the next decade. There are three questions the GOP must ask itself in the coming months as White House hopefuls begin to start their exploratory committees.
1. Is the GOP going to be a party that can appeal to independents and moderates or is it going to continue to rely on the massive turnout of its "base" while continuing to alienate supporters of the party in the moderate-wing?
2. Is the GOP going to lay out a platform in line with the one that won it control of Congress in 1994 or is it going to continue down the path of the Bush ideology?
3. Is the GOP going to try to exploit certain radical segments within the Conservative Movement to capitalize on issues of the day, or is it going to be a party with a long-term vision for the country that consistently pursues that vision?
Let's be quite clear, there are powerful forces within the Republican Party who want to answer those questions incorrectly, those in the Religious Right who believe the focus of policymaking should be on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They have charismatic leaders with massive followings: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tom Tancredo, Jerry Falwell, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and the leaders of countless fundamentalist churches and church associations across the country. In 2006, Evangelicals comprise 22% of all Americans, and 51% of them identify themselves as Republicans. There will be those who will argue that the Republicans cannot afford to drop 11% of the country who are a solid base of support. "Don't alienate your base," goes the mantra. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition predicated on the assumption that a party cannot shift its base.
If the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the radical socialism that now pervades the Howard Dean Democratic Party. If the 2006 elections are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the religious extremism and arrogant foreign policy of the George W. Bush Republican Party. Both parties should be focused on pursuing sustained, long-term, governing majorities both nationally and in each of the 50 states. The key to doing this is to have a minimalistic agenda that focuses on economic growth, balanced budgets, low taxes, lower government spending, better education, a clean environment, a strong military but with an equally strong diplomacy, and a belief that social issues have their place of discussion in the home and in the church but not in the halls of Congress.
I'm placing my bets, and my hopes, on a forward-thinking, sensible Republican named Michael Steele.
-Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland
I couldn't believe it when I read it, a Republican who actually gets it. Not just that, but a Republican who gets it who has the chance of becoming the next leader of the Republican National Committee. Lt. Governor Steele may have lost his race for the United States Senate, but it was not because of his lack of political acumen. After all, he was the first Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland for the first time in 36 years, and he narrowly lost his bid to become the Senate's first black Republican from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and in a political climate where the Republicans nationally were decimated by a wave of strong sentiment against the War in Iraq, the disastrous spending policies of the Republican Congress and President Bush, and overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Whether these problems were real or perceived, the reality is that the Steele should have lost his race 60-40 like Rick Santorum lost his, but instead, he only barely lost. Under any other circumstances, and in virtually any other state, Mr. Steele would have won his race rather easily.
Ken Mehlman revolutionized the way the Republican Party operated; Mr. Steele stands ready to revolutionize the way the Republican Party thinks. There will be two camps conducting post mortems of the 2006 elections within the GOP, those who believe the Republican Party failed because it didn't do enough, and those who believe the Republican Party failed because it did too much. Mr. Steele is in the latter camp. James Dobson is in the former. Which side wins this debate will determine the success of the Republican Party for the next decade. There are three questions the GOP must ask itself in the coming months as White House hopefuls begin to start their exploratory committees.
1. Is the GOP going to be a party that can appeal to independents and moderates or is it going to continue to rely on the massive turnout of its "base" while continuing to alienate supporters of the party in the moderate-wing?
2. Is the GOP going to lay out a platform in line with the one that won it control of Congress in 1994 or is it going to continue down the path of the Bush ideology?
3. Is the GOP going to try to exploit certain radical segments within the Conservative Movement to capitalize on issues of the day, or is it going to be a party with a long-term vision for the country that consistently pursues that vision?
Let's be quite clear, there are powerful forces within the Republican Party who want to answer those questions incorrectly, those in the Religious Right who believe the focus of policymaking should be on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They have charismatic leaders with massive followings: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tom Tancredo, Jerry Falwell, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and the leaders of countless fundamentalist churches and church associations across the country. In 2006, Evangelicals comprise 22% of all Americans, and 51% of them identify themselves as Republicans. There will be those who will argue that the Republicans cannot afford to drop 11% of the country who are a solid base of support. "Don't alienate your base," goes the mantra. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition predicated on the assumption that a party cannot shift its base.
If the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the radical socialism that now pervades the Howard Dean Democratic Party. If the 2006 elections are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the religious extremism and arrogant foreign policy of the George W. Bush Republican Party. Both parties should be focused on pursuing sustained, long-term, governing majorities both nationally and in each of the 50 states. The key to doing this is to have a minimalistic agenda that focuses on economic growth, balanced budgets, low taxes, lower government spending, better education, a clean environment, a strong military but with an equally strong diplomacy, and a belief that social issues have their place of discussion in the home and in the church but not in the halls of Congress.
I'm placing my bets, and my hopes, on a forward-thinking, sensible Republican named Michael Steele.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Water and Faith
I had the pleasure of reading Masuru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water on a flight yesterday from Dallas-Fort Worth to Fort Smith, Arkansas. I found the book moving, if not compelling, at least from the perspective of its underlying message promoting love and gratitude. Not being a physicist or a chemist myself, I cannot comment on the scientific validity or lack thereof of Dr. Emoto's more technical claims, specifically, if he conducted his experiments in accordance with the scientific method, etc. However, I don't even know that it's precisely relevant. The message of the book is that we shape our world and our reality by the words we speak, the noise we absorb, the attitudes we have, the way we treat our fellow human, the way we approach the natural world, etc. I not only wholly agree with and endorse this premise, but I believe that if we look, open-mindedly, at the world's major religions, we find that this is quite established over the course of thousands of years of faith and practice.
For example, Dr. Emoto argues about the energy transportation of water, the essential life force of water, and its vibrant ability to heal, cleanse, and empower. I do not think we should take lightly this claim, particularly those of us who adhere to the suppositions and tenets of one of the world's major religions. From the Christian perspective, it takes but a moment for me to reflect upon the thematic importance of water throughout the Old Testament Scriptures and the Gospels. A perfect illustration of this is that there are 620 different verses in the Bible that make reference to water. Beginning at the immediate opening of the Old Testament Creation Story we find Genesis 1:2 says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." What a magnificent bit of imagery that is. The Spirit of the Universe's creator was hovering over water, as if the water were his empty canvass on which he was about to paint. In fact, subsequent verses describe this precise action--"And God said 'let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water." Water, as the lifeblood of God's creation, though, would not produce life on its own. As one of the earliest paradoxes of the mythology of Man, there had to be an absence of lifeblood in order for there to be life. God enabled creation by limiting its inherent lifeblood. What a parallel to the Incarnation. In order for there to be Spiritual life, there had to be a limitation of God Himself--and that was manifested in the person of Christ, all man, all God, physically limited, just like the Water in the Beginning. God's first creation of life was in water, "Let the water teem with creatures..." And then, in order for there to be life in the Garden of Eden, it says that a stream flowed up, watering all of the Garden. It was only after this that God created man.
Yet, in spite of the more than 25 references to water in the creation story alone, the theme continues. The offering of water was a sign of love, compassion, and gratitude throughout the Old and New Testaments. We find that the scarcity of clean water in the early Middle East caused it to be one of the most valuable gifts one could offer another. Many of the Old Testament's most meaningful spiritual stories occur when somebody was "going out to draw water," either from a river or from a well. Moses, as a small boy, was saved by the flowing powers of the River, which carried him from his mother to safety and from whence he would gain his position of great power in the land of Egypt. One of the early signs God gave to Moses to help Moses prove that he was sent from God was to pour out water from the Nile on the ground and it would become blood, which eventually turned into one of the plagues God wrought upon Egypt, the turning of water to blood. How curious it is, that the blessings of water have the converse of the curse of its absence. Of the more famous stories of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea showed the tremendous power in he who is able to control the waters.
The importance of water throughout the Old Testament continues, with the centrality of the theme of the Jordan River, a parallel that is extended into the New Testament, as it relates to cleansing and healing. The ending of the droughts by the prophets, the story of Noah and the flood, and on and on indicate such importance in the scriptures of water. One of the more famous passages in the Prophetic Literature is Jeremiah 17:8 where it says that a man close to God is "like a tree planted by the water that sends its roots out to the stream, for it does not fear when heat comes, for it will always be green. It has no worries of a year of drought, and always bears fruit." Looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Zechariah writes that "on that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem."
In the New Testament, water is amongst the most central metaphors and themes. Its first mention in the Gospels is a quote by John the Baptizer who said "I baptize you with water for repentance." When Christ encountered the woman at the well, he promised her that if she partook of His "living water," that she would never again thirst. At Pentacost, the heavens opened when Christ came out of the water. The entire notion of Baptism itself is rooted, most literally, in water. Christ showed his power over the water when he walked on the Sea of Galilee, and at the Crucifixion, Christ's pierced side flowed with blood and water simultaneously.
Although I am less familiar with the sacred texts of the world's other major faiths, I somehow imagine that they too are replete with hydro-metaphors, water references, and intensely meaningful utilizations of water for spiritual and physical salvation. Dr. Emoto's experiments, if they are to be believed, illustrate the universality of positive and negative energy when directed toward water. "You Fool" spoken to water in English had the same essential effect as when spoken in Japanese. What an interesting connection, since in the New Testament writings, it is said that "he who says to his brother Raca, Raca, will be in danger of council, but he who says to his brother 'thou fool,' shall be in danger of hellfire." Perhaps the unifying theme of Dr. Emoto's work, however, is my longheld conception of Sin as being its own inherent judgment. If our attitudes lead us to be unloving towards our neighbor, that unlovingness is itself a punishment. The behavior's internal consequences are sufficient effect, and no "outside" punishment is really necessary. When I am hateful, it has a deteriorating effect internally. When I have a negative attitude, it affects myself and everybody around me. When I do not take the time to reflect and have gratitude, that is, when I am driving myself so hard to reach some sort of material end or goal, I am guilty of a sin of omission, rather than of comission. When I do not take the time to be grateful to those who I love the most, who contribute so much to my health and well-being, I have sinned against them, and consequently, against God.
I tend to endorse Dr. Emoto's belief in faith healing and homeopathy as a viable, and even preferrable alternative to modern Western medicine. A sick body and sick soul are inextricably linked. I have been most ill, physically, when I am most ill spiritually. When I am at enmity with my fellow humans, I am, ipso facto at enmity with myself, since we are all connected by unifying life forces and by our eternal relationship to God. The saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is parallel to this. We frequently, in order to spite our fellow human, do something to harm him. But what we don't always recognize is that action hurts ourself as much if not more than it hurts the one for whom the spite was intended. This happens when we try to manipulate those around us to get what we want, when we engage in backstabbing and other ill behaviors.
So let us keep all of this in mind, and pursue love and gratitude. Let us keep our attitudes pure, our intentions clean, and we shall all be healthier for it, both physically and spiritually. Our metaphysical selves will thank us.
For example, Dr. Emoto argues about the energy transportation of water, the essential life force of water, and its vibrant ability to heal, cleanse, and empower. I do not think we should take lightly this claim, particularly those of us who adhere to the suppositions and tenets of one of the world's major religions. From the Christian perspective, it takes but a moment for me to reflect upon the thematic importance of water throughout the Old Testament Scriptures and the Gospels. A perfect illustration of this is that there are 620 different verses in the Bible that make reference to water. Beginning at the immediate opening of the Old Testament Creation Story we find Genesis 1:2 says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." What a magnificent bit of imagery that is. The Spirit of the Universe's creator was hovering over water, as if the water were his empty canvass on which he was about to paint. In fact, subsequent verses describe this precise action--"And God said 'let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water." Water, as the lifeblood of God's creation, though, would not produce life on its own. As one of the earliest paradoxes of the mythology of Man, there had to be an absence of lifeblood in order for there to be life. God enabled creation by limiting its inherent lifeblood. What a parallel to the Incarnation. In order for there to be Spiritual life, there had to be a limitation of God Himself--and that was manifested in the person of Christ, all man, all God, physically limited, just like the Water in the Beginning. God's first creation of life was in water, "Let the water teem with creatures..." And then, in order for there to be life in the Garden of Eden, it says that a stream flowed up, watering all of the Garden. It was only after this that God created man.
Yet, in spite of the more than 25 references to water in the creation story alone, the theme continues. The offering of water was a sign of love, compassion, and gratitude throughout the Old and New Testaments. We find that the scarcity of clean water in the early Middle East caused it to be one of the most valuable gifts one could offer another. Many of the Old Testament's most meaningful spiritual stories occur when somebody was "going out to draw water," either from a river or from a well. Moses, as a small boy, was saved by the flowing powers of the River, which carried him from his mother to safety and from whence he would gain his position of great power in the land of Egypt. One of the early signs God gave to Moses to help Moses prove that he was sent from God was to pour out water from the Nile on the ground and it would become blood, which eventually turned into one of the plagues God wrought upon Egypt, the turning of water to blood. How curious it is, that the blessings of water have the converse of the curse of its absence. Of the more famous stories of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea showed the tremendous power in he who is able to control the waters.
The importance of water throughout the Old Testament continues, with the centrality of the theme of the Jordan River, a parallel that is extended into the New Testament, as it relates to cleansing and healing. The ending of the droughts by the prophets, the story of Noah and the flood, and on and on indicate such importance in the scriptures of water. One of the more famous passages in the Prophetic Literature is Jeremiah 17:8 where it says that a man close to God is "like a tree planted by the water that sends its roots out to the stream, for it does not fear when heat comes, for it will always be green. It has no worries of a year of drought, and always bears fruit." Looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Zechariah writes that "on that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem."
In the New Testament, water is amongst the most central metaphors and themes. Its first mention in the Gospels is a quote by John the Baptizer who said "I baptize you with water for repentance." When Christ encountered the woman at the well, he promised her that if she partook of His "living water," that she would never again thirst. At Pentacost, the heavens opened when Christ came out of the water. The entire notion of Baptism itself is rooted, most literally, in water. Christ showed his power over the water when he walked on the Sea of Galilee, and at the Crucifixion, Christ's pierced side flowed with blood and water simultaneously.
Although I am less familiar with the sacred texts of the world's other major faiths, I somehow imagine that they too are replete with hydro-metaphors, water references, and intensely meaningful utilizations of water for spiritual and physical salvation. Dr. Emoto's experiments, if they are to be believed, illustrate the universality of positive and negative energy when directed toward water. "You Fool" spoken to water in English had the same essential effect as when spoken in Japanese. What an interesting connection, since in the New Testament writings, it is said that "he who says to his brother Raca, Raca, will be in danger of council, but he who says to his brother 'thou fool,' shall be in danger of hellfire." Perhaps the unifying theme of Dr. Emoto's work, however, is my longheld conception of Sin as being its own inherent judgment. If our attitudes lead us to be unloving towards our neighbor, that unlovingness is itself a punishment. The behavior's internal consequences are sufficient effect, and no "outside" punishment is really necessary. When I am hateful, it has a deteriorating effect internally. When I have a negative attitude, it affects myself and everybody around me. When I do not take the time to reflect and have gratitude, that is, when I am driving myself so hard to reach some sort of material end or goal, I am guilty of a sin of omission, rather than of comission. When I do not take the time to be grateful to those who I love the most, who contribute so much to my health and well-being, I have sinned against them, and consequently, against God.
I tend to endorse Dr. Emoto's belief in faith healing and homeopathy as a viable, and even preferrable alternative to modern Western medicine. A sick body and sick soul are inextricably linked. I have been most ill, physically, when I am most ill spiritually. When I am at enmity with my fellow humans, I am, ipso facto at enmity with myself, since we are all connected by unifying life forces and by our eternal relationship to God. The saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is parallel to this. We frequently, in order to spite our fellow human, do something to harm him. But what we don't always recognize is that action hurts ourself as much if not more than it hurts the one for whom the spite was intended. This happens when we try to manipulate those around us to get what we want, when we engage in backstabbing and other ill behaviors.
So let us keep all of this in mind, and pursue love and gratitude. Let us keep our attitudes pure, our intentions clean, and we shall all be healthier for it, both physically and spiritually. Our metaphysical selves will thank us.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Politics 2.0
In the aftermath of the expected, but nevertheless brutal defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections, I predict we are turning the corner in American politics, a trend that may influence the way campaigns are run, candidates are selected, policy is made, etc. for the next generation. In order to properly understand these changes, it is vital to have a bit of context on the 2006 race. It is my supposition that November 7 was not the endorsement of the Democrat agenda, Nancy Pelosi's leadership, or anything of that sort, but purely a rejection of the Bush administration and the ineptitude of the Republican Congress over the last 8 years (I trace it back to Dennis Hastert's ascension to Speaker).
The country is still split in half. The United States Senate will be 49-49-2 (with independent Joe Lieberman and socialist independent Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats). It is hard to imagine a scenario more divided than that. The Democrats will hold a razor thin majority of fewer than 20 seats. Rigid party discipline will be required for the Democrats to accomplish anything in either House, and chances are, the Democratic leadership in both houses will find difficulty in maintaining such discipline in the wake of the Democrats' success. That is the funny thing about politics in its older iteration, though. Majority parties have much greater difficulty with party discipline than do minority parties. Minority parties understand that only by being the united Loyal Opposition can they have any influence over the making of policy. Members of Majority parties, on the other hand, know that they can play kingmaker, especially when things are close. It is nothing less than extortion. It is the kind of behavior pulled by the moderate Republicans in the Senate on a frequent basis in order to gain increased influence, committee chairmanships, etc. This is not likely to be any different for the Democrats.
So here we are, in the new era of Politics. I will be uninventive and call it Politics 2.0. Perhaps it should be called Democracy 1.0--because that is where we are headed: the first true manifestation of genuine participatory democracy in the United States from campaigns to policy. This progression will be uniquely enabled by the advent of new technologies on the web, shifting attitudes toward traditional media, and a shift of paradigm in the hearts and minds of Generation Y, who are coming of age and taking their stands. There is an unseen buildup of pressure under the surface of American politics that is about to blow its lid. Perhaps it will be in 2008, or perhaps later than that. This remarkable shift towards a more genuine democracy, a more pure ideal of governance will be predicated primarily upon two tipping points, and I believe the first will lead to the second: 1) The grassroots seize upon the advent of Web 2.0 technologies to create a new political dialogue and dynamic across the country and 2) The recognition by politicians and policymakers that they must embrace technology to better enact the principles of democracy.
I am going to be starting a spinoff blog just about Politics 2.0. It is time for the people of this country to fundamentally change the way the government is run, rather than swinging the pendulum constantly between two equally undesirable options. Gen Y and Web 2.0 will make this happen.
The country is still split in half. The United States Senate will be 49-49-2 (with independent Joe Lieberman and socialist independent Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats). It is hard to imagine a scenario more divided than that. The Democrats will hold a razor thin majority of fewer than 20 seats. Rigid party discipline will be required for the Democrats to accomplish anything in either House, and chances are, the Democratic leadership in both houses will find difficulty in maintaining such discipline in the wake of the Democrats' success. That is the funny thing about politics in its older iteration, though. Majority parties have much greater difficulty with party discipline than do minority parties. Minority parties understand that only by being the united Loyal Opposition can they have any influence over the making of policy. Members of Majority parties, on the other hand, know that they can play kingmaker, especially when things are close. It is nothing less than extortion. It is the kind of behavior pulled by the moderate Republicans in the Senate on a frequent basis in order to gain increased influence, committee chairmanships, etc. This is not likely to be any different for the Democrats.
So here we are, in the new era of Politics. I will be uninventive and call it Politics 2.0. Perhaps it should be called Democracy 1.0--because that is where we are headed: the first true manifestation of genuine participatory democracy in the United States from campaigns to policy. This progression will be uniquely enabled by the advent of new technologies on the web, shifting attitudes toward traditional media, and a shift of paradigm in the hearts and minds of Generation Y, who are coming of age and taking their stands. There is an unseen buildup of pressure under the surface of American politics that is about to blow its lid. Perhaps it will be in 2008, or perhaps later than that. This remarkable shift towards a more genuine democracy, a more pure ideal of governance will be predicated primarily upon two tipping points, and I believe the first will lead to the second: 1) The grassroots seize upon the advent of Web 2.0 technologies to create a new political dialogue and dynamic across the country and 2) The recognition by politicians and policymakers that they must embrace technology to better enact the principles of democracy.
I am going to be starting a spinoff blog just about Politics 2.0. It is time for the people of this country to fundamentally change the way the government is run, rather than swinging the pendulum constantly between two equally undesirable options. Gen Y and Web 2.0 will make this happen.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The Re-Emergence of City States
There is a great pendulum in world history, that swings to and fro between the extremes of centralization and decentralization. The cycle started in the ancient times, when local potentates fought regional wars to consolidate their power. Regardless of one's opinion on the veracity of the Old Testament historical narrative, we at least see that the writers of the time witnessed something to this effect: tribes being conquered by their neighbors, who eventually expanded into Empires. Sometimes consolidation in history occurred by treaty or mutual protection pact that ultimately gave way to greater centralization.
Then came the United States. The normal method of expansionism for would-be superpowers didn't quite work for the newly minted American Empire in-progress. Reeling from what the Revolutionaries considered overbearing Imperial oversight, the early Americans eschewed traditional consolidation of power, and birthed a new style of federalism. Because early America was overwhelmingly rural, and cities played a much reduced role in American social, political, and economic life, compared to Europe, the city-state model was incongruent, and so it was the arbitrary political sub-unit of the "states" that gained primacy. Furthermore, America expanded its borders not by conquering established cities, but by taking land from the semi-nomadic natives and claiming unoccupied lands.
Because of the geographical vastness of the what would eventually be the Manifest Destiny of the United States, and the complete lack of transportation and communication infrastructure of the time, decentralized power was thede facto political reality of the day. The Wild West could be Wild because it was nearly impossible to govern. Washington not only couldn't control the events on the frontier, but most of the time, they had little interest in doing so, until there was an economically substantive reason to be interested.
After the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, a century and a half of political centralization began in the United States. The de jurecentralization inherent in Reconstruction, the invention of the telegraph, the railroad, World War I, the economic centralization of the Depression and World War II, the popularization of radio and telephones, the advent of air travel, television, the Interstate Highway system, and ultimately the Internet were the series of technologically ground-breaking innovations and social circumstances that brought about our current state of affairs. Washington-centric governance became a logistical reality, but almost as soon as it had reached its paramount level of importance, things began to deteriorate. It is not that Washington became more corrupt, but that because it had more power (and money), its level of corruption began to have greater impact, and because of the greater influence of broadcast media, the corruption became more apparent.
Watergate seemed to have been the final blow against Washington, but almost as soon as it had happened, Ronald Reagan came along and began pushing the restoration of federalism. This was combined with the devolutionary decisions of the Rehnquist Court, and the Contract with America. For a short time, it appeared that the federal government was voluntarily abdicating part of its power. Few could have predicted the imapct, however, of the George Bush administration. Abandoning devolutionary federalism, embarking on imperialistic wars, and embracing more centralized entitlement and discretionary spending, George W. Bush wrecked the Reagan Revolution of decentralization. I do not want to make any normative claims about the Bush policies or the Reagan Revolution, but it is quite apparent that Bush has not been a Reagan-proponent in actual fact.
The national rebellion against the Imperial model will, in my view, lead to the re-emergence of the city-state. Federalism is a dying mode of governance, because of its basis in arbitrary geographic boundaries. These arbitrary boundaries will give way to more logical and flexible forms of governance, and diplomacy will take place between major cities and metropolitan areas rather than between nation-states and imperial states. New York could conduct much more appropriate diplomacy with Shanghai than the State Department can with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The scope of international relations is too complex on the nation-state level, and certainly too monolithic. Consequently, the city-state model provides for the opportunity for regions to capitalize on what unites them than what divides them.
This topic warrants further consideration, but is a viable point of discussion for now.
Then came the United States. The normal method of expansionism for would-be superpowers didn't quite work for the newly minted American Empire in-progress. Reeling from what the Revolutionaries considered overbearing Imperial oversight, the early Americans eschewed traditional consolidation of power, and birthed a new style of federalism. Because early America was overwhelmingly rural, and cities played a much reduced role in American social, political, and economic life, compared to Europe, the city-state model was incongruent, and so it was the arbitrary political sub-unit of the "states" that gained primacy. Furthermore, America expanded its borders not by conquering established cities, but by taking land from the semi-nomadic natives and claiming unoccupied lands.
Because of the geographical vastness of the what would eventually be the Manifest Destiny of the United States, and the complete lack of transportation and communication infrastructure of the time, decentralized power was thede facto political reality of the day. The Wild West could be Wild because it was nearly impossible to govern. Washington not only couldn't control the events on the frontier, but most of the time, they had little interest in doing so, until there was an economically substantive reason to be interested.
After the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, a century and a half of political centralization began in the United States. The de jurecentralization inherent in Reconstruction, the invention of the telegraph, the railroad, World War I, the economic centralization of the Depression and World War II, the popularization of radio and telephones, the advent of air travel, television, the Interstate Highway system, and ultimately the Internet were the series of technologically ground-breaking innovations and social circumstances that brought about our current state of affairs. Washington-centric governance became a logistical reality, but almost as soon as it had reached its paramount level of importance, things began to deteriorate. It is not that Washington became more corrupt, but that because it had more power (and money), its level of corruption began to have greater impact, and because of the greater influence of broadcast media, the corruption became more apparent.
Watergate seemed to have been the final blow against Washington, but almost as soon as it had happened, Ronald Reagan came along and began pushing the restoration of federalism. This was combined with the devolutionary decisions of the Rehnquist Court, and the Contract with America. For a short time, it appeared that the federal government was voluntarily abdicating part of its power. Few could have predicted the imapct, however, of the George Bush administration. Abandoning devolutionary federalism, embarking on imperialistic wars, and embracing more centralized entitlement and discretionary spending, George W. Bush wrecked the Reagan Revolution of decentralization. I do not want to make any normative claims about the Bush policies or the Reagan Revolution, but it is quite apparent that Bush has not been a Reagan-proponent in actual fact.
The national rebellion against the Imperial model will, in my view, lead to the re-emergence of the city-state. Federalism is a dying mode of governance, because of its basis in arbitrary geographic boundaries. These arbitrary boundaries will give way to more logical and flexible forms of governance, and diplomacy will take place between major cities and metropolitan areas rather than between nation-states and imperial states. New York could conduct much more appropriate diplomacy with Shanghai than the State Department can with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The scope of international relations is too complex on the nation-state level, and certainly too monolithic. Consequently, the city-state model provides for the opportunity for regions to capitalize on what unites them than what divides them.
This topic warrants further consideration, but is a viable point of discussion for now.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wisdom and Power
by Skinner Layne
Clamor for power, divine little youth,
Struggle for the precipice of Iv’ry air
Make your name amongst the Kings of earth,
And claim the Triumphant Golden Chair.
Whether by dagger or the sharpened sword,
Or through some darksome crevasse schemes
Embrace your destiny to rule and to reign
Lest ever it continue to haunt your dreams.
But beware of the snares of both friend and foe
Who gather in quiet to plot your demise,
To expose your secrets and midnight plans,
Insidiously awaiting to thieve your prize.
For though the sword-tip can pierce the flesh,
And all the swords be under your control,
The weapon of choice of all against you,
Is the Truth that lies deep within your soul.
Let not pretense be your companion,
Nor fear of the Truth accompany your quest,
But meet the wounding word with valor,
To secure for yourself the Regent Crest.
Yet when you reach that Pinnacle of hist’ry
Know that its achievement is not the end,
For power alone is but a wisp of cloud-strand
And such Mortal Accolade you must transcend.
Power is fleeting without wisdom,
Clasp not the Cloud, nor grasp after the wind,
Give strength to your heart with wealth and courage
Rememb’ring the lesson that all have sinned.
Then when you rest amongst the White Lillies,
And soar to your fathers who live in the sky
The masses will celebrate your life and your reign,
Yet mourn your departure in the place that you lie.
Clamor for power, divine little youth,
Refuse only those who deny your fate,
Engrave your name in the Granite of Time,
Ascend this day to your destined Estate.
Clamor for power, divine little youth,
Struggle for the precipice of Iv’ry air
Make your name amongst the Kings of earth,
And claim the Triumphant Golden Chair.
Whether by dagger or the sharpened sword,
Or through some darksome crevasse schemes
Embrace your destiny to rule and to reign
Lest ever it continue to haunt your dreams.
But beware of the snares of both friend and foe
Who gather in quiet to plot your demise,
To expose your secrets and midnight plans,
Insidiously awaiting to thieve your prize.
For though the sword-tip can pierce the flesh,
And all the swords be under your control,
The weapon of choice of all against you,
Is the Truth that lies deep within your soul.
Let not pretense be your companion,
Nor fear of the Truth accompany your quest,
But meet the wounding word with valor,
To secure for yourself the Regent Crest.
Yet when you reach that Pinnacle of hist’ry
Know that its achievement is not the end,
For power alone is but a wisp of cloud-strand
And such Mortal Accolade you must transcend.
Power is fleeting without wisdom,
Clasp not the Cloud, nor grasp after the wind,
Give strength to your heart with wealth and courage
Rememb’ring the lesson that all have sinned.
Then when you rest amongst the White Lillies,
And soar to your fathers who live in the sky
The masses will celebrate your life and your reign,
Yet mourn your departure in the place that you lie.
Clamor for power, divine little youth,
Refuse only those who deny your fate,
Engrave your name in the Granite of Time,
Ascend this day to your destined Estate.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Remiss in My Blogging
I feel that my blogging is in arrears. I suppose we are all allowed an infrequent lapse in our blogosphere presence. But I shall remedy it here and now.
It has been a while since my last political post, and while I am fleshing out an in-depth theological post for later, the status of the mid-term congressional elections and gubernatorial races warrants my immediate attention.
It appears that after a decade of close calls, nail biters, and hail marys, the Republicans are finally going to lose control of the House. I intensely fear the ascension of Nancy Pelosi to the speakership, and were it not for that dreadful reality, I would say the Republicans are finally getting what they need...a reality check. I am reminded of Orwell's poignant little allegory Animal Farm, where the Animals take over the farm and throw out everything human and vow never to run the farm like Farmer Jones. But, by the end of the story, the pigs (the ruling animal class on the farm) are sleeping in human beds and changing the rules to suit themselves. The Republican Revolution of 1994 held so much potential. Valiantly fighting for welfare reform, balanced budget policies, tax reform, ethics reform, and other small government causes, and it was thought that only if they had a Republican on the White House to help them, that the era of less government would be in its Golden Age.
Alas, though, the lure and temptation of pork projects and the idyllic promise of placating the masses just this once with a social program or two so that they could accomplish the.*real* agenda in their next term, was just too much, and the pigs started sleeping in the beds. For those of us who came of age in the glory days of 1994, we watched our hopes shattered by the Farm Bill, McCain-Feingold, the Prescription Drug Bill, No Child Left Behind, and the most bloated age of discretionary spending in American history. And those of us who had hoped that the heirs of Reagan could continue even stronger on the watch of a self-proclaimed Reagan Conservative had our hopes dashes as the socialism of so-called compassionate conservatism hijacked the Republican Party.
There is never a more angry and vindictive person than the spouse of an adulterer, and the rank and file of the Republican Party have a right to feel outraged at the utter betrayal of the last 6 years. Congressional Republicans have proven themselves either incapable or unwilling to stand up to this President on entitlement programs, and the President has refused to hold Congress accountable on pork spending. Though I think the President is contemptible, Congressional Republicans deserve what is coming to them--though America doesn't deserve the side effects.
At the same time, however, the country will be better off if the Republicans are forced to do a post mortem on the 2006 elections and regroup prior to 2008. Since the Democrats have no real policy agenda, they will not be difficult to unseat. The party needs visionaries, not hacks like John Boehner. I am looking forward to the debate within the party after the miserable showing it is going to make in November.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Great Expectations
My friend Andy http://tornvertical.blogspot.com posted on an interesting topic this week: expectations. He says he wishes he didn’t have any expectations, because then he couldn’t be disappointed. Disappointment is a significant part of the human existence, and it stems from the reality that we live in a world the conforms to the following conditions:
Our expectations always get a little skewed when we think we can (or have already) overcome these conditions. If, for example, we just had enough money to get rid of supply limitations—we could satiate our unlimited demand (well, come close at least). There are simply never enough resources, and we always want more (#1 & #2), and it seems that even in the face of a ridiculous amount of money, we could always find a way to spend more. As King Solomon reminded us “The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing.” Hearkening back to the Genesis narrative, Man was given the so-called curse of the ground, that is the necessity of laboring. It seems that in life many of our expectations surround the acquisition (and subsequent liquidation) of wealth. And almost every time, whatever it is that we acquire with our wealth doesn’t measure up to what we thought it would be. There are always exceptions, and I can think of a couple in my life, but it still doesn’t make one fulfilled.
We also live in a world of self-interest. I am motivated by self-interest, and that causes me to be disappointed when I do not get what I want. Furthermore, everybody else is motivated by self-interest, so whenever there are conflicting self-interested motivations, then there will be a disappointment on one end or the other, or both. In business transactions, for example, the art of compromise has become vital to conducting business explicitly because of a divergence of self-interested motivations and desires. This inevitably leads to disappointment.
Additionally, in the human condition there are epistemic gaps, that is, limitation to our knowledge. Not only do we not have a comprehensive understanding of our past and present, we have virtually no idea about the future. We operate purely on limited information, the biased accounts of others, our own finite faculties, etc. to make conclusions about our past and present, and when it comes to the future, it would seem we are armed only with the dubious double-edged sword of probability, influenced on the one side by pessimism and the other by optimism. We do not know how other people will behave, in most instances because we do not know how we ourselves will behave. Consequently, when we make conclusions based upon probability to gauge future events, we are often disappointed because we simply estimated the outcomes incorrectly.
Given all of this, it seems that we ought to come up with a way to take into account these expectations and then change our behavior accordingly. Entire economic models are based upon factoring in expectations (for example, in the calculation of currency futures, interest rates, etc.). Or perhaps, we should go another route—recognize the fact that there will be disappointment in life, and operate in the midst of it in such a way as to minimize its disutility.
Returning to Solomon, “Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor.” I am learning that one of the most rewarding parts of life is to be thankful for the good things one already has. It does not mean that one cannot strive for an improved condition, or that one even ought not strive for an improved condition—the entirety of the notion of Western Progress in the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment Eras is predicated on improving both local and universal conditions of the world. But these two concepts, striving to improve one’s condition and being thankful for what one already has, are not mutually exclusive.
If you have even a single person in your life who loves you, then you have something to hold on to. If you have a single person in your life who you love in return, then you are doubly fortunate. If there are more, then you are a blessed person indeed. Because in the final analysis, at the end of one’s days, little will matter except the people, both living and dead, who you have touched and who have touched you. People are not commodities, to be bought or sold or traded. One cannot approach the people in his/her life with the attitude that when they have outlasted their purpose than can be traded in—for the notion of “outlasted their purpose” does not apply to people. Living in the consumerist, commoditized culture of our post-modern world, we try to assign an economic value to anything and everything. In doing so, we degrade the real, unquantifiable value of other people, especially those we love.
Instead, we ought to approach every person in our life with the attitude of “what can I contribute to them to enrich and fulfill their life,” rather than trying to quantify the value they give to us. The greater our capacity to give, the greater our capacity to live—because life is about people. Everything else is irrelevant. We all need to do our part to live that out more consistently than we do. We will all be happier for it.
- Limited Supply
- Unlimited Demand
- Self-interest
- Epistemic Gaps
Our expectations always get a little skewed when we think we can (or have already) overcome these conditions. If, for example, we just had enough money to get rid of supply limitations—we could satiate our unlimited demand (well, come close at least). There are simply never enough resources, and we always want more (#1 & #2), and it seems that even in the face of a ridiculous amount of money, we could always find a way to spend more. As King Solomon reminded us “The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing.” Hearkening back to the Genesis narrative, Man was given the so-called curse of the ground, that is the necessity of laboring. It seems that in life many of our expectations surround the acquisition (and subsequent liquidation) of wealth. And almost every time, whatever it is that we acquire with our wealth doesn’t measure up to what we thought it would be. There are always exceptions, and I can think of a couple in my life, but it still doesn’t make one fulfilled.
We also live in a world of self-interest. I am motivated by self-interest, and that causes me to be disappointed when I do not get what I want. Furthermore, everybody else is motivated by self-interest, so whenever there are conflicting self-interested motivations, then there will be a disappointment on one end or the other, or both. In business transactions, for example, the art of compromise has become vital to conducting business explicitly because of a divergence of self-interested motivations and desires. This inevitably leads to disappointment.
Additionally, in the human condition there are epistemic gaps, that is, limitation to our knowledge. Not only do we not have a comprehensive understanding of our past and present, we have virtually no idea about the future. We operate purely on limited information, the biased accounts of others, our own finite faculties, etc. to make conclusions about our past and present, and when it comes to the future, it would seem we are armed only with the dubious double-edged sword of probability, influenced on the one side by pessimism and the other by optimism. We do not know how other people will behave, in most instances because we do not know how we ourselves will behave. Consequently, when we make conclusions based upon probability to gauge future events, we are often disappointed because we simply estimated the outcomes incorrectly.
Given all of this, it seems that we ought to come up with a way to take into account these expectations and then change our behavior accordingly. Entire economic models are based upon factoring in expectations (for example, in the calculation of currency futures, interest rates, etc.). Or perhaps, we should go another route—recognize the fact that there will be disappointment in life, and operate in the midst of it in such a way as to minimize its disutility.
Returning to Solomon, “Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor.” I am learning that one of the most rewarding parts of life is to be thankful for the good things one already has. It does not mean that one cannot strive for an improved condition, or that one even ought not strive for an improved condition—the entirety of the notion of Western Progress in the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment Eras is predicated on improving both local and universal conditions of the world. But these two concepts, striving to improve one’s condition and being thankful for what one already has, are not mutually exclusive.
If you have even a single person in your life who loves you, then you have something to hold on to. If you have a single person in your life who you love in return, then you are doubly fortunate. If there are more, then you are a blessed person indeed. Because in the final analysis, at the end of one’s days, little will matter except the people, both living and dead, who you have touched and who have touched you. People are not commodities, to be bought or sold or traded. One cannot approach the people in his/her life with the attitude that when they have outlasted their purpose than can be traded in—for the notion of “outlasted their purpose” does not apply to people. Living in the consumerist, commoditized culture of our post-modern world, we try to assign an economic value to anything and everything. In doing so, we degrade the real, unquantifiable value of other people, especially those we love.
Instead, we ought to approach every person in our life with the attitude of “what can I contribute to them to enrich and fulfill their life,” rather than trying to quantify the value they give to us. The greater our capacity to give, the greater our capacity to live—because life is about people. Everything else is irrelevant. We all need to do our part to live that out more consistently than we do. We will all be happier for it.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Gratuitous Love
{A Necessary Aside: There was an epoch in human existence when the great minds of the world argued with one another through letters to the editor, personal letters to one another, dueling books, chamber debates, and the like. The distinct limitations upon those great minds with respect to their publication means perhaps deprived the world of countless volumes of thought. Can we imagine if the Ontological Argument had first been posted to http://stanselm.blogspot.com (that is a working page, by the way, but obviously not one run by St. Anselm himself :-) ), and imagine if Gaunilo responded with a trackback at http://MonkOfMarmoutiers.blog-city.com. David Hume and John Locke could have battled it out on a Webcast Debate at www.SkepticsVSEmpiricists.org....
It is my hope that such great minds will emerge on the Web one day, as I would love to watch intellectual history being made before my eyes. For now, however, I must content myself with my own ramblings...}
The trouble with philosophy is that it always seems like whatever one thinks has already been said at least a hundred times before. For whatever reason, this does not diminish my love of philosophical inquiry, but perhaps further enhances it, since the reality that such questions are still asked means that what has been said before has been insufficient to settle the debate. Perhaps through some synthesis of previously-made arguments, or even (though less likely) through the concoction of a genuinely new argument we might find ourselves closer to an answer than before—and merely to be closer is a noble thing indeed.
That brings me to the topic of this post. It is in response to Jody’s blogpost entitled “God: A kind-of, sort-of, in a couple of ways...overall nice guy” to be found at http://www.jdyates.net. I shall proceed not on a point by point basis per se, but rather by building my response categorically through the major premises of the post, which are as follows: Gratuitous Evil, The Notion of the Greater Good, Fate, and finally, Gratuitous Love.
Gratuitous Evil
I tend to like Jody’s definition “violence and pain for the sake of violence and pain,” in the sense that it communicates the gravity of what gratuitous evil really is. “Gratuitous” itself is defined by Random House Dictionary as “being without apparent reason, cause, or justification.” If we match that word with “evil” then we get something akin to, say, the Holocaust, 9/11, etc. Other things could be gratuitous evil on a smaller magnitude quantitatively but still significant from a qualitative perspective, so perhaps a child with cancer or AIDS would qualify.
So, when approaching the thesis “Does the existence of gratuitous evil in the world disprove the existence of a benevolent God?” one must take one of two directions. The first would be to challenge the first premise of the question, that is, does gratuitous evil exist? This seems to be a rather difficult proposition, considering that I have already given a couple of examples that most people would consider to fit the bill. However, it is important to note that given the foregoing definition of “gratuitous,” then many of the traditional Theodicies ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theodicy&x=0&y=0) that have pervaded Christian Theology over the years would actual be considered to take that very approach. I shall first give an example of this Theodicy before proceeding to my own, which directly tackles the question about gratuitous evil and the existence of a benevolent God.
Traditional Christian Theology (dating back to St. Augustine and then developing into Reformation Theology a la John Calvin and Martin Luther, and subsequently into Fundamentalist theology, which is less coherent on the subject) has approached the question of Theodicy by justifying the presence of Evil in the world based upon Man’s inherent Sinfulness, which is of course predicated upon the Fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden. As the argument goes, God put Adam into the Garden of Eden, where there was a single rule, that of not partaking of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which was in the midst of the garden. By defying God, Adam propagated the Fall of the entire human race, theoretically because he served as some sort of covenantal head of humanity. Consequently, he imputed his Sin to all future generations, and as a result, Man is deserving of whatever ill or evil befalls him in his lifetime. This also works with universal instantiation, that is, what applies to the individual man applies to humanity in general—natural disasters, disease, famine, war, are all just the collective versions of lost jobs, illness, loss of a family member, and so on. Since what man did through Adam was so incredibly offensive to God, anything that happened after the Fall was perfectly justified—in fact, man deserved a lot worse. That’s the argument at least.
This one still strains the credibility metric, though, since in order for it to be valid one must, by fiat, accept that Adam’s action was that offensive to God that it makes the Holocaust at least not unjustified. It also presupposes the validity of a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis—again, a stretch of the credibility metric.
Now that we have examined briefly the notion of “gratuitous evil” and a Traditional Theodicy to explain it, I’d now like to move to another possible explanation.
The Greater Good
The theory of The Greater Good is that God allows certain actions that, in the long run, are beneficial to us in spite of their painful interim consequences. For example, a lost job might ultimately prove to be a blessing as a much better job comes along a month later. Or, perhaps, somebody contracting cancer that is then cured provides a new perspective and outlook on life that one would have been incapable of gaining any other way. This seems to make sense in the context of smaller evils and pains, but I am not certain that we can extrapolate a justification for the Holocaust. In order for the Greater Good theory to function properly, we would have to come up with something that was gained from the Holocaust that would explain its necessity—that is, what overarching good came from the vicious slaughter of 11 Million people? Furthermore, whatever that hypothetical good is would have to, ipso facto outweigh the evil of the Holocaust itself. It’s not enough for some good to come from the Holocaust (for example, it could be said that we now have a stronger awareness of genocide when it is occurring and consequently desire to stop it when we see it), but overall, is the world, or even a segment of the world, that much better as a result of that gratuitous event?
Fate
Fate is one of those curious concepts of the human mind. From whence came this notion of fate originally? The dictionary gives various interesting definitions of the term. “Something that unavoidably befalls a person,” describes a specific event. “The universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed,” names fate as a personal entity. And then there is the verb form, “to predetermine, as by the decree of fate; destine.” In the Calvinistic tradition, there is the notion of “predestination” as decreed by God. Many (if not most) Fundamentalist Christians take an odd approach to the subject. While pronouncing that we have Free Will to do what we choose, we are told that God is sovereign over all of the universe and orders everything from beginning to end. I’m not precisely sure how Free Will is compatible with that view, unless we take the bent of pure “freedom of agency” where one is merely able to do what one chooses and one only chooses what God has already predestined.
So the question is, where does God really play into this fate concept, and how does that relate to the notion of God’s benevolence. Let me first by pitching an argument that I will soon refute, but it provides a point of reference for the next couple of paragraphs. (Note: the P’s below stand for “premise” and the C’s stand for “conclusion”)
P1. God is Omnipotent (that is, He has all power).
P2. God is Omniscient (that is, He has all knowledge)
P3. God is Omnibenevolent
C1. If a malicious event is going to occur, God knows that it will happen (Reference P2)
C2. If a malicious event is going to occur, God has the power to stop it (Reference P1)
C3. If a malicious event is going to occur, God has the will to stop it (Reference P3)
C4. Therefore, God will stop the malicious event.
This is where the concept of Fate becomes so prescient in the discussion of the Goodness of God. The foregoing argument is only sound if you grant P1-P3. If any of them is proven untrue, then you have an unsound argument.
Consequently, following in the philosophy of the Open Theists, I shall redefine “omniscience” from P2, and proceed with why I too, like Jody, reject the concept of what I shall term Brute Fate. If Omniscience is defined as “all knowledge” we must first know what “knowledge” is. Essentially we are looking at Divine Epistemology. If God can know everything that is knowable, is there anything that isn’t knowable? I would contend, along with the Open Theists, that future events are not knowable, as they have not happened—and therefore are indeterminate. Otherwise, future actions are not free actions. If they are already fixed, then it could not be otherwise, and therefore it is not free. Let us take this example.
P1. God knows that Bob will get out of bed at 6am tomorrow morning.
P2. If Bob chooses to get out of bed at 7am, God’s knowledge was wrong.
P3. If Bob chooses to get out of bed at 6am, God’s knowledge was right.
P4. God is Omniscient of all events past, present, and future.
C1. Therefore, God cannot be wrong.
C2. Therefore, Bob cannot do otherwise than get out of bed tomorrow morning at 6am.
C3. Therefore, Bob does not have Free Will with respect to getting out of bed tomorrow morning at 6am.
When extrapolated out beyond this single hypothetical example, we find that literally no action would be free. Why would a benevolent God create puppets? Of course, the Dogmatist might say “Who can know the mind of God?” and think they have just made an argument. But rhetorical questions do not an argument make.
Philosophy must always be reconciled with practice, and in practice, it at least seems that I am free to do otherwise in many circumstances. In fact, there have been times when I was about to do one thing, and then did otherwise. Perhaps, one might argue, God merely gives us an illusion of Free Will, though in reality we are bound to His constant controlling authority. If God is benevolent, then God does not deceive, and therefore, he would not deceive us with an illusion of Free Will. Now, one might argue that God is being benevolent by deceiving us with the illusion of Free Will, since if we realized that we weren’t Free, then we would behave fatalistically. But then we would be in a double bind. Let me illustrate below:
P1. God is benevolent.
P2. Man does not have Free Will, but is rather bound by the Will of God.
P3. Free Will is defined as “being able to have done otherwise.”
P3. God gives us an illusion of Free Will.
P4. If we did not have the illusion of Free Will, then we would act fatalistically.
P5. Fatalistic behavior diverges from what would otherwise be normal behavior.
C. Therefore, Man would act differently if he did not have the illusion of Free Will.
The conclusion of that argument leads to a contradiction, like so:
Man would act differently (that is “do otherwise”) knowing he could not do otherwise. Inherent in this is that man actually could do otherwise, which we have just presumed (under P2) that he could not.
The ultimate conclusion, therefore, is that if God is benevolent, then Man must have Free Will, since we experience situations where it appears that we could do otherwise.
Now that we have gotten to the affirmation of Free Will, we can now look at the ultimate question that we set out to answer herein.
Gratuitous Love
Thus far, I have shown that 1.) Man has Free Will, 2.) God does not have knowledge of the indeterminate future (though that does not necessarily mean He is clueless about the future, for example, He likely knows the future with a high order of probability given the behavior of man and individual people in the past), and 3.) There is, in fact, gratuitous evil in the world (the Holocaust, 9/11, Natural Disasters, War, Disease, etc.).
This is where I would like to introduce the concept of Gratuitous Love, which I would define in the following way: “unmerited affection and compassion coupled with corresponding action.” In the context of Christianity, the closest synonym I can think of is “grace,” but I think it is too weak a term, and so I shall employ “gratuitous love” instead.
Existing amongst all of the ills of the world are such wonderful examples of human compassion. Human compassion was ultimately typified by Christ. Conservative Christians would point to Christ’s death as the example of this—I would point to His life. Here we truly see Gratuitous Love: The healing of the blind, the compassion towards the prostitutes, the lepers, the cripples and outcasts of society, the rejection of the selfish acquisition of power (when Satan offered Christ an earthly kingdom while Christ was fasting in the wilderness), money (he lived a life of poverty), and pride (dying a death of shame on the Cross). He performed miracles to save people from their physical ailments, but He was also concerned with the spiritual—he forgave the lame man of his sins before giving him the power to walk again. He offered the woman at the well “living water.” The two-dimensional view Conservative Christians take of these stories is almost incredulous. A Christian life is the life of the Beatitudes, the Fruit of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 13’s discussion of love.
Wherever we find these attributes, whether in Christians or Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims, Agnostics or Atheists or anything in between, these attributes of love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control, and we do find them in all corners of the world, amongst all peoples...this is where we find the presence of Gratuitous Love. The origin of the teaching is less relevant than the outcome. There is existential Good in the world, unmerited, in many cases unjustified. We see it most pronounced in times of crisis and disaster. But that’s only because those are the times when it is big enough to come into the media’s attention. Mother Theresa happened to have been publicized to the world by Malcom Muggeridge. Imagine if Muggeridge had never visited India—it would have deprived the world of the knowledge of a shining example of Gratuitous Love, but it would have deprived the world of the Love itself. How many similar examples go unnoticed everyday? The cold cup of water given to a stranger, providing directions to a desperate and lost out of towner, forgiving a loved one of a transgression. These things happen everyday, and when Mankind is so capable of gratuitous evil, and when it would so benefit him in many circumstances, but he refrains, and gives the cup of water instead of the sword, we see that this exemplifies how a Benevolent God can co-exist with gratuitous evil, for as the Proverb declares “love covers all sin.”
If we lived in a world where there was only Gratuitous Evil that was not contra-posed with Gratuitous Love, then it would seem that a Benevolent God could not exist in such a world. But because the power of love is greater than the power of hate and evil, because a gentle word can overcome a harsh one, we find that Gratuitous Love then overcomes all. The reality is that we each can find that kind of love in our own lives, but it must start from within. We must first give that kind of love, and show its power. The more we give it, the more we will want to give it, too. It is an intoxicating concept, and even more intoxicating in practice.
Francis of Assissi understood this well, and explicates it perhaps better than any other I have read:
“Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is sadness, joy; where there is darkness, light. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; not so much to be understood, as to understand; not so much to be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born against to eternal life.”
Gratuitous Love at its finest. Now go and do likewise.
It is my hope that such great minds will emerge on the Web one day, as I would love to watch intellectual history being made before my eyes. For now, however, I must content myself with my own ramblings...}
The trouble with philosophy is that it always seems like whatever one thinks has already been said at least a hundred times before. For whatever reason, this does not diminish my love of philosophical inquiry, but perhaps further enhances it, since the reality that such questions are still asked means that what has been said before has been insufficient to settle the debate. Perhaps through some synthesis of previously-made arguments, or even (though less likely) through the concoction of a genuinely new argument we might find ourselves closer to an answer than before—and merely to be closer is a noble thing indeed.
That brings me to the topic of this post. It is in response to Jody’s blogpost entitled “God: A kind-of, sort-of, in a couple of ways...overall nice guy” to be found at http://www.jdyates.net. I shall proceed not on a point by point basis per se, but rather by building my response categorically through the major premises of the post, which are as follows: Gratuitous Evil, The Notion of the Greater Good, Fate, and finally, Gratuitous Love.
Gratuitous Evil
I tend to like Jody’s definition “violence and pain for the sake of violence and pain,” in the sense that it communicates the gravity of what gratuitous evil really is. “Gratuitous” itself is defined by Random House Dictionary as “being without apparent reason, cause, or justification.” If we match that word with “evil” then we get something akin to, say, the Holocaust, 9/11, etc. Other things could be gratuitous evil on a smaller magnitude quantitatively but still significant from a qualitative perspective, so perhaps a child with cancer or AIDS would qualify.
So, when approaching the thesis “Does the existence of gratuitous evil in the world disprove the existence of a benevolent God?” one must take one of two directions. The first would be to challenge the first premise of the question, that is, does gratuitous evil exist? This seems to be a rather difficult proposition, considering that I have already given a couple of examples that most people would consider to fit the bill. However, it is important to note that given the foregoing definition of “gratuitous,” then many of the traditional Theodicies ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theodicy&x=0&y=0) that have pervaded Christian Theology over the years would actual be considered to take that very approach. I shall first give an example of this Theodicy before proceeding to my own, which directly tackles the question about gratuitous evil and the existence of a benevolent God.
Traditional Christian Theology (dating back to St. Augustine and then developing into Reformation Theology a la John Calvin and Martin Luther, and subsequently into Fundamentalist theology, which is less coherent on the subject) has approached the question of Theodicy by justifying the presence of Evil in the world based upon Man’s inherent Sinfulness, which is of course predicated upon the Fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden. As the argument goes, God put Adam into the Garden of Eden, where there was a single rule, that of not partaking of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which was in the midst of the garden. By defying God, Adam propagated the Fall of the entire human race, theoretically because he served as some sort of covenantal head of humanity. Consequently, he imputed his Sin to all future generations, and as a result, Man is deserving of whatever ill or evil befalls him in his lifetime. This also works with universal instantiation, that is, what applies to the individual man applies to humanity in general—natural disasters, disease, famine, war, are all just the collective versions of lost jobs, illness, loss of a family member, and so on. Since what man did through Adam was so incredibly offensive to God, anything that happened after the Fall was perfectly justified—in fact, man deserved a lot worse. That’s the argument at least.
This one still strains the credibility metric, though, since in order for it to be valid one must, by fiat, accept that Adam’s action was that offensive to God that it makes the Holocaust at least not unjustified. It also presupposes the validity of a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis—again, a stretch of the credibility metric.
Now that we have examined briefly the notion of “gratuitous evil” and a Traditional Theodicy to explain it, I’d now like to move to another possible explanation.
The Greater Good
The theory of The Greater Good is that God allows certain actions that, in the long run, are beneficial to us in spite of their painful interim consequences. For example, a lost job might ultimately prove to be a blessing as a much better job comes along a month later. Or, perhaps, somebody contracting cancer that is then cured provides a new perspective and outlook on life that one would have been incapable of gaining any other way. This seems to make sense in the context of smaller evils and pains, but I am not certain that we can extrapolate a justification for the Holocaust. In order for the Greater Good theory to function properly, we would have to come up with something that was gained from the Holocaust that would explain its necessity—that is, what overarching good came from the vicious slaughter of 11 Million people? Furthermore, whatever that hypothetical good is would have to, ipso facto outweigh the evil of the Holocaust itself. It’s not enough for some good to come from the Holocaust (for example, it could be said that we now have a stronger awareness of genocide when it is occurring and consequently desire to stop it when we see it), but overall, is the world, or even a segment of the world, that much better as a result of that gratuitous event?
Fate
Fate is one of those curious concepts of the human mind. From whence came this notion of fate originally? The dictionary gives various interesting definitions of the term. “Something that unavoidably befalls a person,” describes a specific event. “The universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed,” names fate as a personal entity. And then there is the verb form, “to predetermine, as by the decree of fate; destine.” In the Calvinistic tradition, there is the notion of “predestination” as decreed by God. Many (if not most) Fundamentalist Christians take an odd approach to the subject. While pronouncing that we have Free Will to do what we choose, we are told that God is sovereign over all of the universe and orders everything from beginning to end. I’m not precisely sure how Free Will is compatible with that view, unless we take the bent of pure “freedom of agency” where one is merely able to do what one chooses and one only chooses what God has already predestined.
So the question is, where does God really play into this fate concept, and how does that relate to the notion of God’s benevolence. Let me first by pitching an argument that I will soon refute, but it provides a point of reference for the next couple of paragraphs. (Note: the P’s below stand for “premise” and the C’s stand for “conclusion”)
P1. God is Omnipotent (that is, He has all power).
P2. God is Omniscient (that is, He has all knowledge)
P3. God is Omnibenevolent
C1. If a malicious event is going to occur, God knows that it will happen (Reference P2)
C2. If a malicious event is going to occur, God has the power to stop it (Reference P1)
C3. If a malicious event is going to occur, God has the will to stop it (Reference P3)
C4. Therefore, God will stop the malicious event.
This is where the concept of Fate becomes so prescient in the discussion of the Goodness of God. The foregoing argument is only sound if you grant P1-P3. If any of them is proven untrue, then you have an unsound argument.
Consequently, following in the philosophy of the Open Theists, I shall redefine “omniscience” from P2, and proceed with why I too, like Jody, reject the concept of what I shall term Brute Fate. If Omniscience is defined as “all knowledge” we must first know what “knowledge” is. Essentially we are looking at Divine Epistemology. If God can know everything that is knowable, is there anything that isn’t knowable? I would contend, along with the Open Theists, that future events are not knowable, as they have not happened—and therefore are indeterminate. Otherwise, future actions are not free actions. If they are already fixed, then it could not be otherwise, and therefore it is not free. Let us take this example.
P1. God knows that Bob will get out of bed at 6am tomorrow morning.
P2. If Bob chooses to get out of bed at 7am, God’s knowledge was wrong.
P3. If Bob chooses to get out of bed at 6am, God’s knowledge was right.
P4. God is Omniscient of all events past, present, and future.
C1. Therefore, God cannot be wrong.
C2. Therefore, Bob cannot do otherwise than get out of bed tomorrow morning at 6am.
C3. Therefore, Bob does not have Free Will with respect to getting out of bed tomorrow morning at 6am.
When extrapolated out beyond this single hypothetical example, we find that literally no action would be free. Why would a benevolent God create puppets? Of course, the Dogmatist might say “Who can know the mind of God?” and think they have just made an argument. But rhetorical questions do not an argument make.
Philosophy must always be reconciled with practice, and in practice, it at least seems that I am free to do otherwise in many circumstances. In fact, there have been times when I was about to do one thing, and then did otherwise. Perhaps, one might argue, God merely gives us an illusion of Free Will, though in reality we are bound to His constant controlling authority. If God is benevolent, then God does not deceive, and therefore, he would not deceive us with an illusion of Free Will. Now, one might argue that God is being benevolent by deceiving us with the illusion of Free Will, since if we realized that we weren’t Free, then we would behave fatalistically. But then we would be in a double bind. Let me illustrate below:
P1. God is benevolent.
P2. Man does not have Free Will, but is rather bound by the Will of God.
P3. Free Will is defined as “being able to have done otherwise.”
P3. God gives us an illusion of Free Will.
P4. If we did not have the illusion of Free Will, then we would act fatalistically.
P5. Fatalistic behavior diverges from what would otherwise be normal behavior.
C. Therefore, Man would act differently if he did not have the illusion of Free Will.
The conclusion of that argument leads to a contradiction, like so:
Man would act differently (that is “do otherwise”) knowing he could not do otherwise. Inherent in this is that man actually could do otherwise, which we have just presumed (under P2) that he could not.
The ultimate conclusion, therefore, is that if God is benevolent, then Man must have Free Will, since we experience situations where it appears that we could do otherwise.
Now that we have gotten to the affirmation of Free Will, we can now look at the ultimate question that we set out to answer herein.
Gratuitous Love
Thus far, I have shown that 1.) Man has Free Will, 2.) God does not have knowledge of the indeterminate future (though that does not necessarily mean He is clueless about the future, for example, He likely knows the future with a high order of probability given the behavior of man and individual people in the past), and 3.) There is, in fact, gratuitous evil in the world (the Holocaust, 9/11, Natural Disasters, War, Disease, etc.).
This is where I would like to introduce the concept of Gratuitous Love, which I would define in the following way: “unmerited affection and compassion coupled with corresponding action.” In the context of Christianity, the closest synonym I can think of is “grace,” but I think it is too weak a term, and so I shall employ “gratuitous love” instead.
Existing amongst all of the ills of the world are such wonderful examples of human compassion. Human compassion was ultimately typified by Christ. Conservative Christians would point to Christ’s death as the example of this—I would point to His life. Here we truly see Gratuitous Love: The healing of the blind, the compassion towards the prostitutes, the lepers, the cripples and outcasts of society, the rejection of the selfish acquisition of power (when Satan offered Christ an earthly kingdom while Christ was fasting in the wilderness), money (he lived a life of poverty), and pride (dying a death of shame on the Cross). He performed miracles to save people from their physical ailments, but He was also concerned with the spiritual—he forgave the lame man of his sins before giving him the power to walk again. He offered the woman at the well “living water.” The two-dimensional view Conservative Christians take of these stories is almost incredulous. A Christian life is the life of the Beatitudes, the Fruit of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 13’s discussion of love.
Wherever we find these attributes, whether in Christians or Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims, Agnostics or Atheists or anything in between, these attributes of love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control, and we do find them in all corners of the world, amongst all peoples...this is where we find the presence of Gratuitous Love. The origin of the teaching is less relevant than the outcome. There is existential Good in the world, unmerited, in many cases unjustified. We see it most pronounced in times of crisis and disaster. But that’s only because those are the times when it is big enough to come into the media’s attention. Mother Theresa happened to have been publicized to the world by Malcom Muggeridge. Imagine if Muggeridge had never visited India—it would have deprived the world of the knowledge of a shining example of Gratuitous Love, but it would have deprived the world of the Love itself. How many similar examples go unnoticed everyday? The cold cup of water given to a stranger, providing directions to a desperate and lost out of towner, forgiving a loved one of a transgression. These things happen everyday, and when Mankind is so capable of gratuitous evil, and when it would so benefit him in many circumstances, but he refrains, and gives the cup of water instead of the sword, we see that this exemplifies how a Benevolent God can co-exist with gratuitous evil, for as the Proverb declares “love covers all sin.”
If we lived in a world where there was only Gratuitous Evil that was not contra-posed with Gratuitous Love, then it would seem that a Benevolent God could not exist in such a world. But because the power of love is greater than the power of hate and evil, because a gentle word can overcome a harsh one, we find that Gratuitous Love then overcomes all. The reality is that we each can find that kind of love in our own lives, but it must start from within. We must first give that kind of love, and show its power. The more we give it, the more we will want to give it, too. It is an intoxicating concept, and even more intoxicating in practice.
Francis of Assissi understood this well, and explicates it perhaps better than any other I have read:
“Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is sadness, joy; where there is darkness, light. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; not so much to be understood, as to understand; not so much to be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, it is in dying that we are born against to eternal life.”
Gratuitous Love at its finest. Now go and do likewise.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
On the Utility and Social Change of Technological Innovation
"It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being."
John Stuart Mill
--
I must always muse at comments like Mill's quote above. He makes a fairly accurate point--the average American works just as much now (if not more) than he did prior to many of the inventions that have come to integrate themselves into the fabric of our lives. Their improvement on our productivity is tremendous. We may spend the same (or more) hours of our day toiling, but the end-product is much greater, and the utility we gain from that product (in monetary terms) is perhaps exponentially greater. It is interesting how most people examine technology from a purely utilitarian perspective, though (which is, I suppose, why I chose a Mill quote for the irony). The social changes, when examined, are generally done so in employing normative criteria, and people frequently lament technology's destruction of "traditional this or that."
Just as the invention of the devices that created commercial agriculture were chastised as destroying the traditional farming family and the nostalgia of rural America, the advent of Social Computing is now being described in heinous terms by those same-styled traditionalists who can hardly see past the end of their own noses. Indeed, Social Computing (a term meant to include such things as Social Networking, like MySpace) is beginning to transform the way people interact and even transact. It was said that the fax machine and e-mail would never replace "real mail." It hasn't, yet. But with legislation legitimizing electronically authorized contracts, the coming of age of digital fingerprint technology (and other verification methods), it seems that technology has created even more viable ways of transacting authentic business than before. Social Computing is the next logical step in this transformation.
From a purely business perspective, imagine a day when a person can log-on to a Social Computing platform on the web, meet a potential client or customer, hire a lawyer to draft a contract, execute it electronically, and then immediately store the contract and all of the accounting information involved in the financial transaction to a database that is browsable and searchable. This is the future of business, and life itself. Why go through the hassle of even using an online phonebook to find a technology consultant for my (hypothetical) business in California? I can not only meet him online, but read the reviews of people who have used his services and endorsed him professionally, hire him online, and give him electronic access to my database so he can tell me what's going wrong with my system. He can fix it (remotely), issue me a bill, and I can have it automatically paid. That just eliminated 4 hours of my day, my problem is fixed, and I didn't need an administrative assistant to FedEx a check to the guy. I could continue for pages with the possibilities--nay, the eventualities of this market, but I think I have given a good idea of what is coming.
All of this, however, is criticized by those traditionalists lamenting the loss of social interaction. The claim is that Social Networking, and by extrapolation, Social Computing diminishes human interaction. It is this normative claim that I will discuss in a subsequent post.
John Stuart Mill
--
I must always muse at comments like Mill's quote above. He makes a fairly accurate point--the average American works just as much now (if not more) than he did prior to many of the inventions that have come to integrate themselves into the fabric of our lives. Their improvement on our productivity is tremendous. We may spend the same (or more) hours of our day toiling, but the end-product is much greater, and the utility we gain from that product (in monetary terms) is perhaps exponentially greater. It is interesting how most people examine technology from a purely utilitarian perspective, though (which is, I suppose, why I chose a Mill quote for the irony). The social changes, when examined, are generally done so in employing normative criteria, and people frequently lament technology's destruction of "traditional this or that."
Just as the invention of the devices that created commercial agriculture were chastised as destroying the traditional farming family and the nostalgia of rural America, the advent of Social Computing is now being described in heinous terms by those same-styled traditionalists who can hardly see past the end of their own noses. Indeed, Social Computing (a term meant to include such things as Social Networking, like MySpace) is beginning to transform the way people interact and even transact. It was said that the fax machine and e-mail would never replace "real mail." It hasn't, yet. But with legislation legitimizing electronically authorized contracts, the coming of age of digital fingerprint technology (and other verification methods), it seems that technology has created even more viable ways of transacting authentic business than before. Social Computing is the next logical step in this transformation.
From a purely business perspective, imagine a day when a person can log-on to a Social Computing platform on the web, meet a potential client or customer, hire a lawyer to draft a contract, execute it electronically, and then immediately store the contract and all of the accounting information involved in the financial transaction to a database that is browsable and searchable. This is the future of business, and life itself. Why go through the hassle of even using an online phonebook to find a technology consultant for my (hypothetical) business in California? I can not only meet him online, but read the reviews of people who have used his services and endorsed him professionally, hire him online, and give him electronic access to my database so he can tell me what's going wrong with my system. He can fix it (remotely), issue me a bill, and I can have it automatically paid. That just eliminated 4 hours of my day, my problem is fixed, and I didn't need an administrative assistant to FedEx a check to the guy. I could continue for pages with the possibilities--nay, the eventualities of this market, but I think I have given a good idea of what is coming.
All of this, however, is criticized by those traditionalists lamenting the loss of social interaction. The claim is that Social Networking, and by extrapolation, Social Computing diminishes human interaction. It is this normative claim that I will discuss in a subsequent post.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
YouTube's Mishap
If you navigate right now at the time of this posting to the popular video download site YouTube http://www.youtube.com you will find that your tube isn’t there. A few weeks ago, MySpace went down (and lost more profiles than it’s willing to admit) because it didn’t have sufficient server redundancy and backup, and so when the power went out and killed their servers because the outside temperature was a little too warm for the West Coast power grid, users got to play PacMan. Now, YouTube is out, though not for weather, I wouldn’t imagine. My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that YouTube is having a slight bit of trouble with its database. That is one of the troubles with a lot of the overnight wonders on the Internet that occurred purely by accident (rather than through thoughtful planning and engineering): They simply can’t scale. If Starbucks only had one location in every city, chances are they wouldn’t have the volume of traffic they get every day. The lines would be too long, and people would go somewhere else for their coffee. The net is no different. So these new hot sites better get their scaling act together if they want to stick around. The key demographic of Internet user is 15-30, and they are fickle. If you can’t deliver quickly, they are instantly attracted by the next shiny little coin they see on the road.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Re-Democratizating the House Part II
As I further entrench myself into the blogosphere, I am enjoying reading other people’s blogs, which is something I suppose I ought to do more of, since I hope that people will read mine. I have been reading comments others have had about the democratic (or non-democratic) nature of the U.S. Congress, and read this left-wing rant during my search.
http://joshuacolwell.com/blog/index.php/2006/disproportionate-representation/
One of the serious problems with the reform movements in America today is that they are almost all ideologically driven, and as a result, they will never gain traction. Mr. Colwell’s comments, for example, specifically cite Michael Moore as a reliable source. Worse, his argument is that the United States Senate is not democratic enough. The trouble, of course, for that perspective, is not only that the Founders intended for the Senate to not be democratic, but also that it makes good sense that it continue to be that way.
From the beginning, the idea of the Senate was that it was to be comprised of senior statesmen who were elected by the state legislatures to represent the interests of the states as a whole, rather than some dubious majority of the people of a state. It was further to be responsible for maintaining a balance of power between the states and the federal government (for those not studied in the political science literature, it is what is known as “federalism”). Since the Senators were elected by the legislatures of the states, their interest (assuming they wanted to get re-elected) was to preserve the power and authority of the states. With the Progressive Era and the advent of direct elections, we have seen a constant decline over the course of the last century of state authority, with the only protections and reversals coming from rulings handed down by the Rehnquist Court.
For example, Mr. Colwell, in his blog, says “So, while a solid majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the Senate, the Senate became strongly Republican...The ratio of voters gives Wyoming almost 67 times as much representation in the Senate as the California voter.” He then notes that the Senate was intended to be non-representational. That, of course, is not quite accurate. It was intended to be representative of the States, not of the overall population. He confuses his terminology, assuming that if the Senate is not representative of the people of the country as a whole, then it is not a representative body.
I am, however, sympathetic with his concerns. He, too, recognizes that the fact that well over 90% of the House is re-elected every two years evidences that the House is not ideologically representative of America as a whole. I think many people, both Right and Left, from Michael Moore to Pat Robertson, would agree that there is not enough representation of their views in Congress. The people in the middle often complain of that as well. Changing the House of Representatives is the best way to remedy this problem.
Imagine that the House of Representatives, hypothetically, has a membership of 10,000. In this scenario, there would likely be a growth in the number of third party and independent members of the House, for a couple of reasons. First, the average cost of campaigns for Congress would diminish immensely. If each Congressman represented 30,000 constituents on average, a person could get elected to Congress without even running a significant media campaign, and could theoretically survive on door-to-door campaigning and a limited direct mail effort. Simultaneously, though, the national parties would have to spread their resources extremely thinly across the 10,000 races, and as a result, create a more level playing field for third party and independent candidates.
Second, because the constituencies will be markedly smaller, there is an increased likelihood that voters will have had personal contact with the candidates in the race. Statistics have shown that voter contact with a candidate from another party substantially increases the probability that the voter will be willing to abandon their normal party identification when they vote.
Now, one of the general arguments against SMDP (Single Member District Plurality) systems is that minority ideologies are generally not congregated in heavy concentrations geographically, and that consequently those ideological minorities are not represented in Congress. The same could be said of several racial and ethnic minorities that are spread out across the country. The solution to this, in my view, is to appropriate 9,000 of the 10,000 members to be represented by SMDP and the remaining 1,000 to be elected by Proportional Representation, where voters are able to cast a vote for the party of their choice and the parties receive membership in the House based on the percentage of the vote they receive. For example, if the Republicans received 32% of the vote, the Democrats 28%, the Libertarians 13%, the Greens 12%, the Constitution Party 7%, and the Communist Party 5%, and Reform Party 3% then for the 1,000 seats elected by Proportional Representation, the House’s breakdown would be as follows:
Republican: 320 Seats
Democrat: 280 Seats
Libertarians: 130 Seats
Greens: 120 Seats
Constitution: 70 Seats
Communist: 50 Seats
Reform: 30 Seats
This, combined with whatever the parties receive in the SMDP elections, would result in a far more ideologically, sociologically, and racially representative membership of the House of Representatives. It would further bring national focus to Congressional elections, and there would be increasing incentives (especially for those elected by the Proportional Representation method) to represent the entire country rather than paying so much attention to pork barrel spending for one’s district. It would bolster the position of the smaller parties on the national stage, give the opportunity to be competitive in meaningful local elections, and overall make the political process more competitive.
Subsequent blogs will outline how I think this would all work logistically.
http://joshuacolwell.com/blog/index.php/2006/disproportionate-representation/
One of the serious problems with the reform movements in America today is that they are almost all ideologically driven, and as a result, they will never gain traction. Mr. Colwell’s comments, for example, specifically cite Michael Moore as a reliable source. Worse, his argument is that the United States Senate is not democratic enough. The trouble, of course, for that perspective, is not only that the Founders intended for the Senate to not be democratic, but also that it makes good sense that it continue to be that way.
From the beginning, the idea of the Senate was that it was to be comprised of senior statesmen who were elected by the state legislatures to represent the interests of the states as a whole, rather than some dubious majority of the people of a state. It was further to be responsible for maintaining a balance of power between the states and the federal government (for those not studied in the political science literature, it is what is known as “federalism”). Since the Senators were elected by the legislatures of the states, their interest (assuming they wanted to get re-elected) was to preserve the power and authority of the states. With the Progressive Era and the advent of direct elections, we have seen a constant decline over the course of the last century of state authority, with the only protections and reversals coming from rulings handed down by the Rehnquist Court.
For example, Mr. Colwell, in his blog, says “So, while a solid majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the Senate, the Senate became strongly Republican...The ratio of voters gives Wyoming almost 67 times as much representation in the Senate as the California voter.” He then notes that the Senate was intended to be non-representational. That, of course, is not quite accurate. It was intended to be representative of the States, not of the overall population. He confuses his terminology, assuming that if the Senate is not representative of the people of the country as a whole, then it is not a representative body.
I am, however, sympathetic with his concerns. He, too, recognizes that the fact that well over 90% of the House is re-elected every two years evidences that the House is not ideologically representative of America as a whole. I think many people, both Right and Left, from Michael Moore to Pat Robertson, would agree that there is not enough representation of their views in Congress. The people in the middle often complain of that as well. Changing the House of Representatives is the best way to remedy this problem.
Imagine that the House of Representatives, hypothetically, has a membership of 10,000. In this scenario, there would likely be a growth in the number of third party and independent members of the House, for a couple of reasons. First, the average cost of campaigns for Congress would diminish immensely. If each Congressman represented 30,000 constituents on average, a person could get elected to Congress without even running a significant media campaign, and could theoretically survive on door-to-door campaigning and a limited direct mail effort. Simultaneously, though, the national parties would have to spread their resources extremely thinly across the 10,000 races, and as a result, create a more level playing field for third party and independent candidates.
Second, because the constituencies will be markedly smaller, there is an increased likelihood that voters will have had personal contact with the candidates in the race. Statistics have shown that voter contact with a candidate from another party substantially increases the probability that the voter will be willing to abandon their normal party identification when they vote.
Now, one of the general arguments against SMDP (Single Member District Plurality) systems is that minority ideologies are generally not congregated in heavy concentrations geographically, and that consequently those ideological minorities are not represented in Congress. The same could be said of several racial and ethnic minorities that are spread out across the country. The solution to this, in my view, is to appropriate 9,000 of the 10,000 members to be represented by SMDP and the remaining 1,000 to be elected by Proportional Representation, where voters are able to cast a vote for the party of their choice and the parties receive membership in the House based on the percentage of the vote they receive. For example, if the Republicans received 32% of the vote, the Democrats 28%, the Libertarians 13%, the Greens 12%, the Constitution Party 7%, and the Communist Party 5%, and Reform Party 3% then for the 1,000 seats elected by Proportional Representation, the House’s breakdown would be as follows:
Republican: 320 Seats
Democrat: 280 Seats
Libertarians: 130 Seats
Greens: 120 Seats
Constitution: 70 Seats
Communist: 50 Seats
Reform: 30 Seats
This, combined with whatever the parties receive in the SMDP elections, would result in a far more ideologically, sociologically, and racially representative membership of the House of Representatives. It would further bring national focus to Congressional elections, and there would be increasing incentives (especially for those elected by the Proportional Representation method) to represent the entire country rather than paying so much attention to pork barrel spending for one’s district. It would bolster the position of the smaller parties on the national stage, give the opportunity to be competitive in meaningful local elections, and overall make the political process more competitive.
Subsequent blogs will outline how I think this would all work logistically.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Re-Democratizing the House of Representatives
When the U.S. Constitution was originally ratified, it provided that the House of Representatives should be comprised of one representative elected for every 30,000 people in each state. After the first census provided for the enumeration of the House under this provision, there were 106 members of the United States House. The population according to the 1790 census was approximately 3.9 Million. Today, the U.S. Population stands at 299 Million and the U.S. House’s membership has been frozen at 435 since the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That is approximately one representative per 688,000 people.
The intention of the Founders with respect to the House of Representatives was that it was to be “The People’s House.” Instead, over the course of the last century, it has increasingly become “The Special Interest’s House” and “The Lobbyists’ House,” but it has most certainly lost its status (real or imagined) of The People’s House. If the original ratio had been maintained, there would be almost 10,000 members of the U.S. House. At first consideration, this might seem unwieldy and virtually impossible to organize, but that presupposes a traditional parliamentary body’s operations and the way the House has historically operated. 435 members was almost unwieldy prior to the advent of electronic voting. The House was extraordinarily inefficient in the days when all 435 members voted during voice-prompted roll call votes. Now, roll call votes take place via electronic voting device. Democracy was always a difficult prospect from an implementation point of view, but thanks to technology, both in communication and travel, it has become easier and easier since Independence.
Most people cannot name their Congressman, much less have they ever met him or her. They likely don’t care to, either. The reality is that Congressmen are safe in their seats approximately 97% of the time (those are the actual statistics). Most House seats remain in the same party’s hands for decades at a time, and so Congressmen have little incentive to be terribly close or responsive to their constituency. The districts are also engineered to protect incumbents census after census. This, combined with the increasing cost of elections, makes Congressional races extremely uncompetitive unless it is an open seat, and even then it is at best a competitive primary between two almost indistinguishable members of the same party.
The complete lack of ideological diversity in Congress and representativeness of the American public must be remedied, and through advances in communication and transportation technology, we can make these changes, but the political will must be present in order for it to occur.
The intention of the Founders with respect to the House of Representatives was that it was to be “The People’s House.” Instead, over the course of the last century, it has increasingly become “The Special Interest’s House” and “The Lobbyists’ House,” but it has most certainly lost its status (real or imagined) of The People’s House. If the original ratio had been maintained, there would be almost 10,000 members of the U.S. House. At first consideration, this might seem unwieldy and virtually impossible to organize, but that presupposes a traditional parliamentary body’s operations and the way the House has historically operated. 435 members was almost unwieldy prior to the advent of electronic voting. The House was extraordinarily inefficient in the days when all 435 members voted during voice-prompted roll call votes. Now, roll call votes take place via electronic voting device. Democracy was always a difficult prospect from an implementation point of view, but thanks to technology, both in communication and travel, it has become easier and easier since Independence.
Most people cannot name their Congressman, much less have they ever met him or her. They likely don’t care to, either. The reality is that Congressmen are safe in their seats approximately 97% of the time (those are the actual statistics). Most House seats remain in the same party’s hands for decades at a time, and so Congressmen have little incentive to be terribly close or responsive to their constituency. The districts are also engineered to protect incumbents census after census. This, combined with the increasing cost of elections, makes Congressional races extremely uncompetitive unless it is an open seat, and even then it is at best a competitive primary between two almost indistinguishable members of the same party.
The complete lack of ideological diversity in Congress and representativeness of the American public must be remedied, and through advances in communication and transportation technology, we can make these changes, but the political will must be present in order for it to occur.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Thoughts While Watching a Baseball Game
I only infrequently have multi-topic blog posts, but I probably ought to do it more often. What better opportunity, though, to post such a sporatic bit of nonsense than a baseball game. Right now the Rangers lead the Mariners 13-7.
Israel continues its warpath in the Middle East, with no end in sight. Hezbollah, too, shows no signs of settlement. I have been reluctant to comment on the situation up to this point primarily because it is an issue of almost infinite complexity and an historical record stretching back millennia. I also think giving it attention only further entrenches its permanence. Hezbollah and their brother terrorist organizations engage in terrorist acts in order to get noticed. They know that it is a statement of their perceived subservience so the rest of the world will be sympathetic to their plight. Israel, too, knows that they can make grandiose claims about being the victims of Islamofacist terror, and brutalize their cultural enemy without serious recourse (at least nothing more than being the most hated country in the world).
The reality is that the world never cares or involves itself in the countless cultural genocides and religious wars that rage daily in Africa. The world hardly bats an eye at the brutality of the communist dictatorships in Cuba, Venezuela, or religious persecution in China and the Middle East. Why did the Darfur crisis (which continues, unmitigated) receive 15 seconds of the world's attention? Robert Mugabe is ruling Zimbabwe with the iron fist of economic oppression with catastrophic consequences, AIDS is ravaging all of Sub-Saharan Africa, and yet the world is concerned with a small ethnic conflict that has been around almost as long as time itself. The news agencies want each flare up between Israel and the terrorists to be the tipping point that drags Iran into open war. The likelihood of this is minute, but it sells.
We need to stop giving the terrorists and the bullies our attention, and maybe they'll stop craving it. At the very least, we could focus on somebody who might be at least remotely interested in our advice.
Next topic...interest rates. For the first time in two years, the Federal Reserve decided not to raise interest rates. I have opposed about the last three rate hikes. Interest rate stability is important to a number of sectors of the economy, not least of which is the consumer debt market, the fundamental underlying support of the U.S. Economy. The ability to leverage income at reasonable rates of interest sustains demand levels for consumer and durable goods, as well as luxury items. The home mortgage market is additionally vital to long-term wealth creation, since one of the few ways Americans save money and build equity. Forcing more individuals into rental markets for housing will significantly diminish individual net worths. We'll see where the Fed goes from here, but if they do not maintain rate stability in the coming months, we will see stagnation in those key markets as well as the US stock exchanges, which have always been leading economic indicators.
7th Inning, Rangers still lead the Mariners 13-7.
This is a totally random comment, but I am finding in my life that the more I complain about a particular woe or dislike, the more aware I am of it and its negative effects. That in turn causes me to complain more. Vicious cycle. I need to utilize the lessons of the contemplative lives led by the likes of Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton to empty myself of those wants and desires so I can be free to offer myself and my love to others. Complaining never remedies the situation anyway.
Typing from my blackberry....my thumbs are sore, so that is all for today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
