Rss

  • youtube

Talk, trust, and truth – Polarization of American society

Posted by :admin On : January 27, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Humanism

Mark Brewin is an associate professor and chairperson of the Department of Communications at the University of Tulsa. Mr. Brewin’s guest editorial for the Tulsa World’s Sunday Opinion section titled “Can we talk?” states that there are remarkably high levels of distrust in America which is creating an unhealthy nation. He says that, “We owe it to ourselves, and to each other to make a more conscious effort to listen to different voices, to forcibly and consciously move ourselves out of our networks.[1]

Brewin believes that the opposing ideological sides evident in 2016 presidential election have created this unhealthy situation. Brewin described the opponents.

At times over the course of the fall election period, it seemed as though half the country existed of mean-spirited racist and misogynistic troglodytes, who lacked either the ability or the inclination to use their reason; whereas the other half was composed of entitled elitists who drank craft beer, traveled to places like Paris or Ulan Bator for their summer vacations, and looked with utter contempt on God-fearing folk who fixed their plugged-up toilets and bagged their groceries.[2]

What Brewin is really describing is the centuries-long clash between conservatism and liberalism. With this understanding we can restate his caricatures of the two groups: The first group identified is the hateful, bigoted, women-hating, caveman conservatives who won’t use their reasoning ability (assuming they had the brains to do so which is doubtful). In the second group we have the snobbish liberals. Their great sin is not who they are or what they believe but merely looking down their noses and failing to appreciate the lower classes of society.

Brewin says that the inability of well-meaning people of all political and cultural persuasions is of recent origin. He states that only twenty years ago Americans could disagree without resorting to charges of moral corruption for merely supporting the other side. However, Brewin’s claim is clearly bogus with regard to the political spectrum. Even a cursory examination of American history (dating back to the Adams-Jefferson presidential campaign of 1800) will prove the fallacy of his statement. With regard to the cultural spectrum, the drift apart began occurring mid-way through the first half of the twentieth century beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s administration when he successfully purged the Democratic Party of its conservative voices. Thus, the cultural and political divide is not of recent origin and will not be bridged by conciliatory dialog and understanding of the other side’s point of view.

Brewin suggests that the path to a mutual disdain between the two sides of the culture wars is long and complicated. In that he is correct. This complexity arises because the nation’s problems flow from non-negotiable issues that have risen as a result of the liberal-conservative split and a consequent loss of a cohesive central cultural vision once held by Americans for over 150 years. Talk alone will not heal this loss of cohesion in the nation’s central cultural vision.

The networked society

Brewin says that we can begin to gain an understanding of the development of this divide by looking at the concept of “network.” Social scientists have theorized that modern culture has evolved into a “networked” society and that these changes came about because of the way Americans get their information. The “mass” media in the twentieth century tended to be large and centralized. Social scientists feared that it was possible for the mass media to dominate society by controlling what they saw and heard thereby create a “mass” society of apathetic clones that were easily manipulated.[3]

In the latter part of the twentieth century the power and domination of the mainstream media was supposedly replaced by the Internet and other alternative media sources which collectively became known as the “networked” media. Mass media’s so-called passive audience had become an active group of information seekers that turned to the networked media which was supposed to bring them freedom and variety. However, Brewin is concerned that information networks may only “provide a vision of the world that flatters our opinions rather than challenging them. We do not hear arguments from opposing sides that might work to change our minds, or at least modify our opinions into something less radical.” Put another way, he sees the new networked media as appealing to our worst instincts because we listen to only those things with which we agree.[4]

But who decides what is radical? Although Brewin admits that the mainstream media produced a lot of “bad cultural product,” it sounds like he longs for a return to the good old days when the secular mass media controlled content and presented its humanistic vision of society. Thus, the liberal elitists could once again protect the masses from their “worst instincts.”[5] He provides an example.

But some of the things [delivered by mass media] that we didn’t like and didn’t want to listen to were good for us anyhow. It was good for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be forced to listen to spokespeople for the other side every night on the evening news.[6]

Given the mainstream media’s decades-long support of abortion, when in the last forty-four years since Roe v. Wade have pro-choicers been forced to listen to spokespersons from the pro-life side every night in the mainstream media? Such would be a rare and brief occurrence comparable to an eclipse of the sun. Here Brewin reveals either his naiveté or duplicity. It is no secret that Christianity and its beliefs have been substantially evicted from the public square for decades.

In summary, Brewin believes that networked media makes it possible for information consumers to “bypass challenging but important views” which leads to ideological cocoons that foster distrust among the citizenry and produces an unhealthy nation. Brewin would have us break out of these cocoons by making a conscious effort to listen to different voices, to forcibly and consciously move ourselves out of our networks so that our radical ideas caused by our worst instincts can be moderated.

Clash of Worldviews

Here we arrive at the crux of the problem that Brewin misses. Brewin and the social scientists’ assume that people were weaned away from the mass media and now have developed an ideological cocoon in their brains because they have spent too much time imbibing their chosen narcotic provided by the networked media. But the mass media continues to have much greater power to manipulate and indoctrinate the populace than the networked media. Television was by far the dominate segment of mass media since the early 1950s and continues to do so today. In 1981, Richard Adler described the power of television in forming the worldviews of the nation’s citizenry.

The TV set has become the primary source of news and entertainment for most Americans and a major force in the acculturation of children…Television is not simply a medium of transmission, it is an active, pervasive force…a mediator between our individual lives and the larger life of the nation and the world; between fantasy and fact; between old values and new ideas; between our desire to seek escape and our need to confront reality.[7]

In his article “Television Shapes the Soul,” Michael Novak called television a

…molder of the soul’s geography. It builds up incrementally a psychic structure of expectations. It does so in much the same way that school lessons slowly, over the years, tutor the unformed mind and teach it “how to think.”[8]

To Novak, television is a “homogenizing medium” with an ideological tendency that is a “vague and misty liberalism” designed “however gently to undercut traditional institutions and to promote a restless, questioning attitude.”[9]

Therefore, we must ask the question with regard to Brewin’s conclusions. Have Americans in this polarized age retreated into information cocoons fed by like-minded media sources? This is the question asked by Brendan Nyhan when writing for The New York Times website in 2014. Nyhan’s answer was spelled out in the title of his article: “Americans Don’t Live in Informational Cocoons.”

In short, while it’s still possible to live in a political bubble [Brewin’s ideological cocoon] of your own choosing, the best evidence suggests that very few people are getting their news only from like-minded outlets. Why, then, do so many Americans seem to live in different political realities?

The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information — most notably, our partisan beliefs. In other words, Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.[10] [emphasis added]

If Nylan’s conclusions are correct, then Brewin’s contention that Americans have retreated into information cocoons fed by like-minded media sources appears to be erroneous. Additionally, the origins of this distrust and ideological differences are far older than suggested by Brewin and his social scientist theorists. This raises a second question. If the theory that the networked media causes an ideological cocoon is a fiction, then what is the source for the polarization of American life? It occurs because of the way the two sides see the world, that is, their worldviews are fundamentally different.

One’s worldview is built throughout life and reflects the picture of one’s understanding of reality (truth). From this understanding of truth we form our values, beliefs, and identities from which we attempt to answer the basic questions of life: who are and where did we come from, how did we get in the mess we are in, and how do we get out of it.

In a free society, the worldviews most commonly held generally form the central cultural vision that brings order to that society or nation. In a humanistic society order is achieved through socialism, and in a socialistic society it is the worldviews and philosophies of the state, as crafted and dictated by its ruling elites, which flow downward to the citizenry and are imposed on each sphere of society. As Western civilization moved away from the Judeo-Christian to a humanistic worldview over the last three hundred years, the pathologies in these societies have exploded because of the tyrannical demands of relativistic humanism contradicts the God-given innate nature of man that seeks objective truth and freedom.

Requirements for cultures to survive: Unity and Truth

The two essentials that any culture must have and without which it disintegrates over time are unity and truth. A society’s central cultural vision must command unity, and such unity must filter up from individuals, not be coerced or forced down on society by its elites. Also, a culture’s central cultural vision must be based on truth with regard to the nature of God, creation, and man. Without a central cultural vision that commands unity and is based on truth, there can be no order to the soul or society, and without order in both, society deteriorates over time and eventually disintegrates.

In America there are two worldviews competing for dominance in the nation’s central cultural vision—the Judeo-Christian worldview and the humanistic worldview (defined by its various components – liberalism, progressivism, relativism, and naturalism among others). For most of the nation’s history its central cultural vision has been built on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldviews of its citizens.

This central cultural vision has been under attack since the late nineteenth century. Beginning in the 1960s, the humanistic worldview gained momentum and by the end of the century the predominate leadership in the spheres of American life held a humanistic worldview (in politics, government, the sciences, economy, education, law, media, entertainment, popular culture, and much of the church). As these leaders consolidated their power, they began to fashion and impose a network of humanistic laws, policies, rules, and regulations on a society that is still predominately of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Each side holds diametrically opposed views of reality (truth) with regard to God, nature, the origins and purpose of man, and a host of other flashpoints in the culture wars. These differences are immutable and irreconcilable which no amount of discussion and negotiation will bridge. This is the reason for America’s polarization.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mark Brewin, “Can we talk?” Tulsa World, January 22, 2017, G1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Richard P. Adler, Understanding Television – Essays on Television as a Social and Cultural Force, ed. Richard P. Adler (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981), p. xi-xii.
[8] Michael Novak, “Television Shapes the Soul,” Understanding Television – Essays on Television as a Social and Cultural Force, ed. Richard P. Adler, pp. 20.
[9] Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[10]Brendan Nyhan, “Americans Don’t Live in Informational Cocoons,” New York Times.com, October 24, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/upshot/americans-dont-live-in-information-cocoons.html (accessed January 25, 2017).

The failure of Western liberal ideology

Posted by :admin On : January 20, 2017
0

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars, Humanism, Progressivism

Nothing has exposed the falsity of the reigning humanist-progressivist worldview and its tenets of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in Western civilization as has the massive flood of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. The same is occurring to a lesser extent along America’s porous southern border. Floods are destructive, but a steady flow of unpolluted water is crucial to sustain a beautiful and bountiful land. Is the analogy of the hydrology of water and the occurrence, flow, movement, and distribution of immigrants into a country not accurate?

One is not anti-immigrant to want an orderly, lawfully conducted immigration process that respects the existing citizens of a nation whether they were natural born or properly immigrated and assimilated. Progressivist policies that fail to stem the continuing surge of large numbers of illegal immigrants were one of the greatest flashpoints of conflict in the campaigns of the two aspirants for the presidency in 2016. These progressivist policies undermine American society because they reflect a failure to understand the true meaning and importance of culture.

There is a ceaseless struggle between a culture’s will to survive and the agitant of modernist pluralism. Pluralism, rightly defined, is “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.”[1] [emphasis added] But modern progressive definitions of pluralism have attempted to displace the general synthesis of values in America, that is, its central cultural vision. Humanistic forms of pluralism attempt to supersede and thereby shatter the confines of a common civilization through imposition of perverse definitions of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in all spheres of American life.

Progressivist tolerance

Progressivism’s idea of tolerance is a consequence of the humanistic doctrine of cultural relativism. But how does one order a society if it is culturally relativistic, that is, what anchors its beliefs and welds together a cohesive society? Humanists claim that order is achieved by a tolerance that requires a suspension of judgment as to matters of truth and beliefs with regard to moral judgements of right and wrong since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all the truth. In such a progressivist view, a strong belief in anything becomes a desire to impose those beliefs on other people which translate into loss of freedom. It is humanism’s values-free approach which must ultimately deny any absolutes. Through the humanist understanding of toleration comes liberty by preventing the development and promotion of strong beliefs.[2]

One dictionary’s definition of tolerance is “…the allowed deviation from a standard.”[3] This definition implies a standard by which to measure the value of other cultures as well as a limit to the extent to which deviation from the prevailing culture’s standard will be allowed. However, this definition violates the humanistic understanding of tolerance which suspends all judgement as to standards of truth and morality.

Progressivist multiculturalism

Progressivist ideas of multiculturalism closely mirror its rationale for tolerance which is based on a relativistic, values-free society and a denial of absolutes. Multiculturalism is a humanist doctrine that came into vogue during the late twentieth century. As humanists see it, morality shouldn’t be imposed by religions or legislated by governments. Rather, the alternative is to develop civic and moral virtues in accordance with humanist doctrine by means of moral education.[4] As a result the humanists’ doctrine of multiculturalism has spread throughout the educational system in America. Humanist educational elites believe that America has been too immersed in Western “Eurocentric” teachings to the detriment of other cultures. It has been their goal to redirect the education curriculum toward various counterculture teachings (i.e., Afrocentrism, humanistically defined feminism, legitimization of homosexuality, and radical doctrines such as neo-Marxism) that challenge the “white, male-dominated European studies.” But a closer examination of the humanist agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity.[5]

Progressivist diversity

Humanism’s diversity is a close kin of multiculturalism and focuses on the differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and humanism’s perverted concept of equality.[6]

The meaning and defense of culture

Once again we must turn to Richard Weaver for his brilliant insights into the meaning of culture and its defense against becoming syncretistic (a culture that attempts to mix or combine different forms of belief or practices).

It is the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth…Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight or authentic history behind them. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness…There is at the heart of every culture a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive…it must insist on a pattern of inclusion and exclusion…[It is] inward facing toward some high representation…Culture is by nature aristocratic, for it is a means of discriminating between what counts for much and what counts for little…For this reason it is the very nature of culture to be exclusive…There can be no such thing as a “democratic” culture in the sense of one open to everybody at all times on equal terms…For once the inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost, disruption must ensue.”[7]

The essence of a culture may be described as a general synthesis of values common to a group’s vision of the world, that is, the way things ought to work. Every culture has a center which commands all things. Weaver called this center imaginative rather than logical and “…a focus of value, a law of relationships, an inspiring vision…to which the group is oriented.” The foundation of the cultural concept is unity that assumes a general commonality of thought and action. A unified culture requires a center of cultural authority from which radiates a subtle and pervasive pressure to conform. The pressures to conform may range from cultural peer pressure to moral and legal restraints. Those that do not conform are repelled of necessity. Thus, in any culture there are patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Without such patterns, the culture is unprotected and disintegrates over time.[8]

There is an inherent tension between the exclusivity demanded by culture and progressivism’s doctrines of tolerance and its corollaries of multiculturalism and diversity. Tolerance suggests acceptance and inclusiveness while exclusivity implies segregation and denial. By segregation is not meant segregation within a culture but between cultures. The culture that values its central vision welcomes integration of diverse groups that share or at least respects that culture’s common central vision. Because of such diversity, a culture becomes a stronger.[9] It is in the humanistic definition of pluralism in which cultures are prone to failure because the central cultural vision becomes fragmented as the values-free central cultural vision does not provide the cohesion necessary for survival.

By its very essence, culture must discriminate against those outside its boundaries that do not share or respect its central vision. A culture must believe in its uniqueness, worth, and the superiority of its worldview. To attempt to meld together or comingle multiple cultures into one culture with multiple centers of vision is to create a powerless culture with little influence and place it on the road to disintegration. By definition, culture must be an inward-looking vision and resist the alien. Without such is a loss of wholeness, and a culture’s cohesiveness dissolves into chaos as its various parts drift into orbits around parochial interests and egocentrism.[10]

Failure of Western liberal ideology

There is hope that Western civilization is awakening to the real and looming dissolution of its respective cultures because of decades of dominance by liberal elitists who promote a humanistic culture and impose policies in support of that worldview.

In the evening of December 19th, a terrorist hijacked a truck and ran over and killed twelve people and injured forty-eight more at a Christmas market in Berlin. Patrick Buchanan wrote of this tragedy and points out that it was merely the latest of a decade of similar attacks in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, and Berlin. Buchanan wrote that the responsibility for the attacks can be laid at the door of Western liberal ideology which is says is the ideology of Western suicide.[11]

…the peoples of Europe seem less interested in hearing recitals of liberal values than in learning what their governments are going to do to keep the Islamist killers out and make them safe…Liberals may admonish us that all races, creeds, cultures are equal, that anyone from any continent, country, or civilization can come to the West and assimilate…But people don’t believe that. Europe and America have moved beyond the verities of 20th century liberalism…Only liberal ideology calls for America and Europe to bring into their home countries endless numbers of migrants, without being overly concerned about who they are, whence they come or what they believe.[12] [emphasis added]

Buchanan rightly identifies the first duty of government is to protect the safety and security of the people. But the responsibility for our present peril in the West goes beyond a failure of government to protect its people. It is the failure of the peoples of Western civilization to defend their respective cultures from the false claims of those holding and promoting a humanistic view of the world. The rapidly approaching demise of the Western ethic can be stopped and reversed. It will not be quick, easy, or painless, but we have no choice other than to battle this menace if we care about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “pluralism,” Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism (accessed December 29, 2016).
[2] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom – Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), pp. 40-42.
[3] “tolerance,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publisher, 1963), p. 930.
[4] Paul Kurtz, Toward a New Enlightenment – The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994, p. 101.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity –The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, LLC, 2011), pp. 188-189.
[6] Ibid., p. 398.
[7] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 10-12. Originally published by Louisiana State University Press, 1964.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., pp. 11-13.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Patrick J. Buchanan, Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website, December 22, 2016.
http://buchanan.org/blog/europes-future-merkel-le-pen-126291 (accessed January 4, 2017).
[12] Ibid.

The Founders’ limitation on direct democracy – Part II – Checks and balances

Posted by :admin On : January 13, 2017
1

Category: Archives, Constitution, Government

As discussed in Part I, the Founders wished to establish a form of government that would address the abuses inherent in various other forms of government. They chose a democratic republic which they believed would insure the continuing preservation of the new nation. The first great challenge in writing a Constitution for the democratic republic was to create a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, between the large and small states, and between the national government and the states. In the legislative arena this was accomplished by establishing a bicameral legislature to insure that individual state voices and diverse regional interests would not be overwhelmed, ignored, or trampled upon by larger states and/or coalitions of states. The Founders believed that it was necessary to balance the will of the majority of the population (guarded by the House) with the will of the majority as determined by the states (guarded by the Senate).[1] The creation of a bicameral legislature was an overt action of the Founders to impose a Constitutional limitation on direct democracy. Without such a balancing of power it is doubtful that the Convention would have produced a document acceptable to the representatives of the former colonies. A second overt action of the Founders to impose a Constitutional limitation on democracy was establishment of the Electoral College. The remainder of this article will address this subject.

Why did the Founders establish the Electoral College?

The concern for a system of checks and balances in electing the head of the executive branch of government was also on the minds of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. When debating the procedure for selecting the president, three methods were proposed and subsequently rejected.

1. Congress would select the President – This proposal was rejected for three reasons. First, it was felt that this method would engender rancorous partisanship that would inhibit future legislative efforts. Second, because Congress was such a small body, there was concern that foreign governments could more easily influence the outcome of an election through bribery and corruption. Lastly, the election of the head of the executive branch of government by the legislative branch would compromise the president’s independence from the legislative branch.
2. State legislatures would select the President – This proposal was rejected because of the fear that the federal republic would be undermined through erosion of federal authority by a president that was too indebted to the states.
3. The President would be elected by a popular national vote – This was rejected “not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous states would have much greater influence than the smaller states and therefore the interests of those smaller states could be disregarded or trampled.” A further concern was that a national popular election would encourage regionalism through creation of coalitions among the more populous states which would damage lasting national unity.[2]

To solve the dilemma, the Convention delegates appointed a “Committee of Eleven” to study the problem and propose a viable alternative which resulted in establishment of the Electoral College.[3] Again, this action was the Founders’ second explicit action to impose a Constitutional limitation on direct democracy.

James Madison, a signor of the Constitution and often referred to as its father, wrote:

The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretenses that may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.[4] [emphasis added]

In the election of a president under the Electoral College system, the smaller states receive a slightly greater voice, proportionally speaking, than the larger states. In other words, the Electoral College system tends to slightly over-represent voters in the smaller states, but at the same time adds a measure of protection to those states without the clout to defend their interests from those of much larger states.

How the Electoral College Works

The Electoral College is a process whereby once each four years Americans voting in the Presidential election cast ballots to select which persons that will serve as electors to select the President of the United States. In each state, a candidate for the Presidency has his or her own set of electors that appear on the ballot. These electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party within that state. Even though a candidate’s name appears above the list of his or her electors on the election ballot, the voter is actually voting for those electors. The candidate whose electors receive the most votes in a state receive all of that state’s electoral votes except for Nebraska and Maine which award an electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district within those states.[5]

The number of electoral votes each state has is determined by the number of senators and members of the House Representatives in that state. For example, Oklahoma has seven electors because it has two senators and five representatives. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators which total 535 electors. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution gave three electoral votes to the District of Columbia, an amount equal to the least number of electors a state may have. Thus, there are 538 electors. To become the President, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the electoral votes which is 270.[6] If there is a tie of 269 votes for each candidate, the House of Representatives selects the President from among the top three candidates.[7]

Subsequent to the casting of votes by each state’s electors in December following the election, the governor of each state submits a Certificate of Ascertainment which declares the winning presidential candidate based on the electors’ votes. That Certificate along with each elector’s Certificate of Vote is forwarded to Congress and the National Archives. Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January.[8] The newly elected president is sworn in and takes office on January 20.

2016 Presidential Election and the Electoral College

Columnist E. J. Dionne, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group, believes the majority of Americans will be disempowered in 2017 because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by approximate 2.6 million. However, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by a relatively wide margin of 306 to 232 and became the President-Elect. Dionne writes:

The inherent illogic of our practices, and the fact that they have nothing to do with the Founders’ intentions, is underscored by this contradiction: We are supposed to ignore the national popular vote, but deeply respect Trump’s narrow 77,000 popular-vote advantage in three states that will tip the Electoral College his way.[9]

But Dionne is wrong on all three counts. The practices of the Electoral College are very logical when considering that the Founder’s reasons behind it are based on the principles of a republican form of government. Those practices have everything to do with the Founders’ intentions for they specifically rejected the election of the president by popular vote. And we must respect the outworking of the Electoral College, even when it contradicts the popular vote because it balances the federative and popular principles of a republican form of government about which Madison spoke.

Dionne calls the workings of the Electoral College an “outdated system” which will allow the current government to pursue “quite radical policies destined to arouse considerable resistance from the disempowered majority.”[10] But disempowerment has been the protocol of liberals for decades through wrongful interpretation of the Constitution in ways contrary to its plain language and intent of the Founders, through decisions of unelected judges that effectively legislate through their decrees, and a federal bureaucracy that misinterprets and corrupts the laws passed by Congress and thereby undermines the will of the people while pursuing the liberal agenda. Two major examples of this judicial and bureaucratic over-reach are the so-called public “bathroom policies” pushed by the LGBT lobby and the pro-abortion policies of the left which the majority of Americans oppose.

So are both the supposed unfairness of the Electoral College and the wrongdoings of the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy morally equivalent? Absolutely not! The Electoral College is working as the Founders intended. Without the restraining force of the Electoral College, the heavily populated liberal strongholds clinging to the east and west coasts would steamroll the interests of the citizens of a vast majority of states which eventually will become little more than administrative districts used by the federal government to impose the will of the concentrated majority on a powerless minority located in what many consider to be merely “fly over” country. The potential power of these concentrated and growing majorities without the restraining influence of the Electoral College becomes alarmingly clear when examining the following statistics.

• In 2015, nine states accounted for over half the population of the United States (meaning that the remaining forty-one states accounted for the other half).[11] Six of these nine states border the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean. The remaining three border the Great Lakes.
• California is the most populous state with slightly over 39,000,000 residents. It requires the populations of twenty-two states having the lowest populations plus the District of Columbia to equal or slightly exceed the population of California.[12]
• The eleven most populous states have 270 electoral votes, enough to elect the president without the need for even one vote from the remaining thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia.[13]
• In the 2016 presidential election, 2,622 counties with mostly smaller populations voted for the Republican nominee while 490 counties with mostly larger populations voted for the Democratic nominee.[14] This large-versus-small county voting split is apparent even in those Democratic states with large population counties that vote Democratic and counties with relatively small populations that vote Republican.

Dionne’s principal argument against the Electoral College process is that it is unfair and inherently antidemocratic because some votes do not have the same proportional impact as other votes which violates the so-called “one-man-one vote” proposition. They contend that one man ought to have one vote proportional to all other votes. But proportional equality in the vote of each citizen was not the intent of the Founders for reasons which we have previously discussed, i.e., balancing both federative and popular principles as opposed to a direct democracy in electing the president which was specifically rejected by the Founders.

Should the nation abandon the Electoral College process for electing the president in favor of a popular vote, several undesirable consequences will occur. Campaigns would tend to ignore individual voters and the important interests of their state and region. Rather, the candidates would conduct an almost continual media campaign aimed at voters in the most populous regions of the country (e.g., the nine states comprising over half the population of the United States). Candidates would heavily invest in electronic media advertising and have little interest in mobilizing constituencies, addressing the interests of specific groups, or voter registration and education. Since the population centers are largely urban which tend to be more liberal, presidential campaigns would focus on and become substantially beholden to liberal interests and brush aside the beliefs and interests of the remainder of the country. Rather than being an illogical, outdated practice as claimed by Dionne, the Electoral College in light of the growing power of the more populous states is more than ever a critical component in preserving the republican form of government and balancing federative and popular principles by which it operates.

Kathleen Parker is also a member of the Washington Post Writers Group. Unlike Dionne who wishes to scrap the Electoral College altogether, Parker wanted to use the Electoral College to deprive Donald Trump of the presidency. In a recent editorial column, Parker encouraged Republican electors to ignore the rules and wishes of the voters in their respective states and not cast their 306 Electoral vote for Donald Trump. Parker hoped that a defection of 37 electors will reduce Trump’s electoral votes to 269, deprive him of the presidency, and send someone else to the Oval Office.[15] Parker wrote:

If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written. Please be brave.[16]

In an attempt to support her case, Parker quoted Alexander Hamilton who wrote that the Electoral College

“…affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Electors would prevent the “tumult and disorder” that would result from the candidate’s exploiting “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.”[17]

It’s interesting to note that Parker’s own low intrigue readily ignores over sixty-one million voters who judged Donald Trump as having been endowed with the requisite qualifications for the presidency (at least when compared with Clinton) in favor of a few “brave” Electoral voters who must “perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president elect.”

We should not be surprised at Ms. Parker’s audacity for this is the typical mindset of our liberal betters. In their minds they think they know what’s good for the country far better than the voters, and if they could just get rid of that pesky Electoral College thing they would really show the electorate what’s best for them.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Barton, “Electoral College: Preserve or Abolish?” Wallbuilder.com. January 2001,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=95 (accessed December 12, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html (accessed December 12, 2016).
[6] Ibid.
[7] David Barton, “Electoral College: Preserve or Abolish?” Wallbuilder.com, January 2001.
[8] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration.
[9] E. J. Dionne, “The disempowered majority of 2017,” Tulsa World, December 9, 2016, A-10,
[10] Ibid.
[11] State Population by Rank, 2015, Infoplease.com. http://www.infoplease.com/us/states/population-by-rank.html (accessed December 13, 2016).
[12] Ibid.
[13] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration.
[14] Zeke J. Miller and Chris Wilson, “See a Map That Shows Exactly How Donald Trump Won,” Time, December 1, 2016. http://time.com/4587866/donald-trump-election-map/ (accessed December 13, 2016).
[15] Kathleen Parker, “Or will the electors revolt?” Tulsa World, December 10, 2016. A-15
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.

The Founders’ limitation on direct democracy – Part I – Republicanism

Posted by :admin On : January 6, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, Government

Republicanism refers to the principles or theory of the republican form of government. It can also mean the principles, practices, or policies of the Republican Party of the United States, but that is not the meaning which will be discussed herein.

When American colonists won independence from the British, the Founding leaders deliberately set about to establish a form of government that would address the deficiencies found in other forms of government and to curb the excesses thereof. After considerable thought, debate, and deliberation, they chose to become a democratic republic. “Republic” refers to public concerns, that is, the general welfare of the public expressed in political terms. A democratic republic is not a totalitarian democracy controlled by one or a few or a direct democracy which is absolutely controlled by the populace.[1] Because the Founders had experienced the excesses of a capricious and excessive use of power by their former rulers, they were particularly interested in a form of government that would limit the use of power by its various components. This limitation was accomplished by a relatively complex system of checks and balances on each component of government at the federal level (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary) and balancing the needs of a national government with the rights of its member states in their areas of self-governance.

The America form of government was to be a constitutional democracy based on laws as opposed to an absolute democracy based on the direct will of the people. The intricacies and workings of the Americans’ republican form of government are spelled out in the Constitution and Amendments thereto. Russell Kirk in his brilliant description of the American Republic wrote that the Constitution guiding the American political state is but an expression of the “…laws, customs, habits, and popular beliefs that existed before the Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia.” These laws, customs, habits, and beliefs were derived from and molded by their political experience under colonial rule, the legacy of English law, efforts at governance under the Articles of Confederation, and perhaps most important the general consensus regarding certain moral and social concerns.[2] These moral and social concerns were substantially formed by a Judeo-Christian view of the world and how it worked.

In every age and people group men desire two things: freedom and order. These are inherently conflicting needs which are found within the operation of governments as well as in the personal affairs of men. The task of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention was to create a government which would harness these conflicting needs.

The Convention delegates had a great aversion to direct democracies which they saw as resting on the shifting sands of feelings and passions of the moment. Instead they chose the firm foundation of a democratic republic built upon laws created by elected representatives.

With unambiguous language, the Convention delegates and other Founders expressed their deep distrust of direct democracy. The following examples were assembled by David Barton in “Republic v. Democracy.”[3]

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [James Madison]

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. [John Adams]

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way…The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness (excessive license) which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. [Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment]

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism…Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. [Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution]

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. [John Quincy Adams]

A simple democracy…is one of the greatest of evils. [Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration]

In democracy…there are commonly tumults and disorders…Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. [Noah Webster]

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state; it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. [John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration]

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion. [Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text]

Unfortunately, many Americans today seem to be unable to distinguish the significant differences between a republic and a democracy. The principal difference is found in the source of authority to which each defers. A pure democracy operates by a majority vote and reflects the immediate will of the majority whereas a republic operates under the rule of law. The first reflects the majority of popular feelings of the moment (sometimes called a “mobocracy” by the Founders) and the second rests on the laws discussed and passed after thoughtful deliberation by the elected representatives of the people. In a republic, a constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government even it was elected by a majority of voters. In a direct or pure or direct democracy, the majority is not restrained and can force its will on the minority.

However, it would be wrong to suppose that all laws passed by a republican form of government are just. There is one additional requirement necessary to create an enduring republic attentive to the general welfare of the people. The laws passed by a republic’s elected representatives are only as good as the sources upon which they based the laws. Here we transcend into the realm of truth, and it is the conflict about what constitutes truth that we find the root cause of the culture wars in modern America. The importance of this issue is of the first magnitude for laws based on untruths and false views of the world and the nature of man will eventually cause any system of government to fail including both republics and democracies.

John Adams was just one of many Founders and first generation of Americans who identified the singular source of truth for the principles of civil government.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity…From the day of the Declaration…they (the American people), were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of their Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of conduct.[4] [emphasis added]

Likewise, Noah Webster unequivocally identified the source of truth for the republican principles upon which the nation was founded.

The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.[5] [emphasis added]

However, the acid of Enlightenment egalitarianism promoted by a liberal, progressive, relativistic, materialist society is ever eating away Adams’ indissoluble bond between the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.

One such acid promoted by the liberals is the notion that the Constitution is a “living document.” Beginning in the early twentieth century, liberals contended that the Constitution must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. If, as liberals believe, the Constitution is a living document, then its meaning and intent is pliable which allows it to become an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour.

A second liberal acid that threatens republican principles is decades of significant judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature by making law as opposed to a thoughtful judicial interpretation of the law in light of the plain language of the Constitution. Such judicial law making tosses aside republican principles of creating law by elected representatives in favor of laws made by unelected and unaccountable judges to further the goals of an elite cadre of social engineers who “know best” what’s good for America.

A third acid that undermines republican principles is an abusive and adversarial bureaucracy largely insulated and unaccountable to the legislative bodies. Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning in 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.[6]

In summary, republican principles of government as implanted in the Constitution by the Founders have been muted, ignored, or misinterpreted by liberal maneuverings and intrigues. We have become a nation guided by feelings relative only to the moment. Therefore, human nature, through its passions, appetites, and desires of the moment, is released from the prescriptions of history, custom, convention, and tradition. This was not the intent of the Founders. Their true intent mirrored the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson who Sherwood Eddy described as being one who “… stood for a strict interpretation of the conservative Constitution to prevent ever-threatened encroachments upon the rights of the people, the legislature, and the states.”[7] In other words, Jefferson was an “originalist” and would have only contempt for the concept of a “living Constitution.”

Because of the unrelenting assault on the biblical worldview for three generations and a lack of truthful teaching in our schools about America’s founding republican principles, America is seeing a shift by a growing segment of its citizens to a humanistic worldview devoid of belief in a transcendent God, objective truth, and the fallen nature of man. The consequences of such a shift in the America cultural vision were foreseen by our Founding fathers.

The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.[8] [Benjamin Rush – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, attendee at the Continental Congress, physician and first Surgeon General]

Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.[9] [Charles Carroll – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, lawyer, member of the Continental Congress and first U.S. Senate]

We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[10] [John Adams – One of the drafters and a signor of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the United States]

In summary, the Constitution won’t save America if its citizens abandon republican principles of government which must be inseparably entwined with virtue, morality, and Christian principles. Such abandonment leaves the Constitution powerless to guide the nation as it enters the turbulent waters of the humanistic moral relativism of Enlightenment egalitarianism. And the ultimate consequence of this abandonment is a loss of liberty.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 415.
[2] Ibid., p. 416.
[3] David Barton, “Republic v. Democracy,” Wallbuilders.com. January 2001.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=111 (accessed December 13, 2016).
[4] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996, 1994), p. 18.
[5] Ibid., p. 678.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, “The fragility of free speech in America,” culturewarrior.net, March 21, 2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/03/21/the-fragility-of-free-speech-in-america/
[7] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), p. 124
[8] Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical, (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 93. Online source: http://fromthisconservativesviewpoint.blogspot.Com /2013/01/the-only-foundation-for-republic.html (accessed May 9, 2013).
[9] “Letter of Charles Carroll to James McHenry,” dated November 4, 1800. Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907, 475.
Online source: Quoted by Dave Miller, Ph.D., Apologetics Press. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1508 (accessed May 9, 2013).
[10] Federer, America’s God and Country, pp. 10-11.