“Democratic” (Friday, 24 February 1984, Barometer)
Correspondent RA’s proposal to abolish the Electoral College would likely not come to fruition by November 6th. Nor do I think that it’s a very good idea.
RA’s objection is that the Electoral College is “undemocratic.” That is its purpose. The Electoral approach diffuses any concentrated popularity that candidates may possess in population centers or among special interests. This induces candidates to address issues of national scope and gives voice to the hinterlands.
North Dakota, with about a quarter per cent of the US population has 3 out of 538 electors or about a half per cent voice in the selection of a president. California, with ten per cent of the nation’s population only gets an eight per cent say. This is terrific for North Dakota and Alaska, and not too bad for California and New York.
The principle of democracy (“rule of the crowd” vs monarchy, “rule of the crown”) indicates that California should overwhelm North Dakota, as majorities are democratically “entitled” to impose their wills upon minorities. The function of a republic, however, is to insure the representation of all interests, even the unpopular and the unnoticed.
update 180109: I am still very much grateful for the protections of the Electoral system, as it has saved us twice since the above was written. First from HALGOR 9000 starring in 2001, then from President Pants-Suit today. Prior, it also favored Hayes over Tilden, and Harrison over Cleveland. I didn’t have a lot invested in Sam Tilden, but I am partial to Cleveland, and think that Benjy interrupted what should have been a glorious three terms!
“Do we want theism?” (Wednesday, 23 May 1984, Gazette-Times)
I appreciate that correspondent BH (of the Concerned Women for America) is dissatisfied with the government schools (“not neutral” May 17th). I support all parents’ rights to determine the philosophical content of their children’s education.
Toward that end, the state’s oligopoly on education must be broken through pro rated tax credits for private tuition, education vouchers, or any other step away from statism. As long as education is controlled by the state, the curricula will be determined by the democratic will of the zealous. It is tax-funded education which is the true danger, not some new dogma the School Board may be embracing.
However much I may otherwise agree with BH, I must differ with her assault on atheism. (“Secular humanists are open in their antagonism toward traditional family values and their use of the public school system to teach a new religion of atheistic humanism. Secular humanism is a religion and has been declared such by the Supreme Court. When you send your children to school they are being taught religious values, the values of atheistic humanism… Humanists have declared that America will be atheist by the year 2000… Do you really want to live under atheism? Let Marx and Stalin be your answer.”) As an atheist father of two, I care deeply about individual freedom for the present and for the future. There is no necessary alliance between atheism and socialism; rather the contrary. The bulk of my atheist acquaintances are avidly pro-market, pro-choice, and pro-life, with a profound distaste for socialism, Marxism, statism, or any other selfless scheme for the subordination of the ego to some amorphous “greater good.”
It is theism which teaches self-abnegation, that only through the surrender to gods can we have any value. Theism and statism both appeal to that selfless reflex which is characteristic of insects, but a discredit to man.
Do we really want to live under theism?
Let Torquemada and Khomeini be your answer.
update 180109: I’m not usually hostile toward religion. The fact is, I envy the faithful their belief in immortality, I suspect it’s an enormous comfort. I don’t go looking for fights with folk, but when they attack (“above and below us”) I get to strike back. Rabbi Yeshua may have been talking to me when he admonished us to “turn the other cheek”, but I wasn’t listening.
In my eagerness to defend my “faith,” I neglected to point out to BH the error of her argument (appeal to authority) wherein she cites the Supreme Court as the arbiter of what is or is not a “religion.” Seems to me they’ve also been cited in the matter of what is or is not a “person.” (When it comes to their moral authority, I say, “Tell it to Dred Scott.”) Trickster Penn Jillette pointed out years later that describing atheism as a religion was a lot like describing not collecting stamps as a hobby. Theism, archism, and hobbies are all affirmative positions. Not having them is simply not having them
Fortunately or otherwise, “humanists” seemed to have missed the mark in their projection of an “atheistic” twenty-first century. The “War on Christianity” goes on, and Christianity continues to keep pummeling us. General Lee‘s followers may have thought it ennobling to struggle so valiantly for their “Lost Cause,” but I just find it frustrating.
Yeah, and ennobling.. How great I art.