Caucusing: A Practice in Realism?

Maybe I'm young and idealistic. A romanticist.



I come from the fine state of Iowa, where we have the privilege of caucusing before any other state has their preliminary party elections. We gain a lot of media attention for this, and it leaves a lot of people wondering why it is such a small (lightly populated) state has the first say.

I think that is a fair question, and I'm of no expertise to fairly explain it, other than to say two things about it:

By guaranteeing that we are first, a state which otherwise would be ignored is placed foremost in the minds of the candidates. With three electoral votes, Iowa isn't worth the time of candidates, unless we set a precedent upon which other states may base their own decision.

Secondly, Iowa is generally known as being a litmus test of candidates. We have an incredible mix of voters here, with far left, far right, and everything in between seeing fairly even representation throughout the state. If a candidate does well here, it means many, if not all, major groups have at least some members who support him. (or this year, her.)


All this to say, I caucused this year-and it was an honor to be a part of the first stage in the selection of a candidate. I was amazed, however, by what I heard there.

"If anyone deserves a Presidency, it's John McCain. I was in the marines, and God knows what that man has been through. But I'm also 69, and I recognize that I would be too old to be president. Besides, McCain would never win. We need to stop throwing away our votes on men like Huckabee and McCain, men who may be nice to see but would never be elected. We have to unite behind an electable candidate, like Giuliani or Romney, or we'll be defeated in November. Stop wasting your votes, people!"

Maybe I'm young and idealistic.

See, I think we need to be dealing with a lot more than electability. We need to go deeper than issues. We should be selecting candidates based on their ideals and worldview- no one can know the issues in the future, but you can know how a candidate thinks, and whether they would react through a worldview pleasing and in accordance to yours.

I think we need to select a candidate who we really agree with, and shamelessly vote for their ideas, not their "electability". Has no one ever realized that we damn candidates or make them based on arbitrary, fear-based decision that someone else is 'electable'?

I cannot help but think that when we stand up for the things we each believe in, and we unabashedly put our ballots where out beliefs are, this country can begin to become great again. When every man has representation based on what he believes, not who was the most likely to be popular, we will have a government that can rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

Maybe I'm young and idealistic.

But maybe not. Maybe the world is jaded.

What about Creationism?

There's been a lot of buzz about Huckabee basing his run on religious "radicalism", and his apparent stubborn insistance on ID simply because Evolutionary theory conflicts with Biblical doctrine.

With the media and political left screaming that he'll indoctrinate our children and make Christianity a government-endorsed religion, this excerpt is one I thought might be nice to put out there for consideration.

Huckabee: 'I Feel Like Seabiscuit' -- 01/04/2008

What about creationism?

ABC's "Good Morning America" grilled Huckabee about his evangelical ties, making Creationism the issue.

ABC's Robin Roberts mentioned a new book from the National Academy of Sciences that says Creationism has no place in the classroom -- given the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.

"Do you agree with that -- that Creationism should be kept out of our classrooms," Roberts asked. "In ten-and-a-half years as a governor, I never touched it," Huckabee said. "It's not an issue for a president. It wasn't even an issue for me as a governor, and governors do deal with education - but not the curriculum." Huckabee said his focus as governor was on music and arts in education.

"Should creationism be banned from the classroom, yes or no?" Roberts persisted.

"Banned? Well, banning sounds like sort of a censorship," Huckabee said. "I don't think most people agree with censorship. Should we teach it as a doctrine? Of course not. Should we teach that some people believe it, some don't? I think that's academic freedom."

Errare humanum est

I'll admit right away, I tend to procrastinate. Even to the point of being flat-out lazy.

But I've done a little more to damn myself in this forum.
When I started this blog, I thought it would be a great way to air some ideas, and it is. The problem was that I approached it like a lecture series, and that just won't do. I'm neither able to easily continue talking in a direct line, nor will it produce material fast enough to satisfy whatever readers I might happen to acquire.

I'm also reluctant to post. I've had a lot of great ideas, quick thoughts, homilies and notes since the 19th, but most of them have landed in the circular file because my first thought is that I need to finish talking about absolutism first. Bad situation, that.

So here's the deal: I apologize for not promptly ending the absolutism issue. But I will get there soon, I promise. In between major points there will be reviews, ideas, unfinished thoughts. Major additions to a topic will be labeled with the topic and number in the series for fast use of the indices and search features.

My first new post first thing tomorrow: a few thoughts on idealism.

Personal Absolutism II: Knowing Your Bounds

One of the greatest challenges to anyone entering in to a discussion is learning to firmly defend one's own view while not overpowering or overwhelming the other participants. Discourse is, as one might imagine, rarely if ever improved by the giving of offense: As such, we must strive to know the limits within which we may exert our influence. That is to say: We must be meek.

Meekness is a trait we rarely value in our society; it is also one we do not understand. Similar to tolerance, meekness is in serious need of redefinition.

"...for the meek shall inherit the Earth..."

What do you think of when you read this familiar Biblical reference? Strength? Power? Might? Probably not. Rather, you imagine a weak child who is beaten by bullies. You see this as a consolation-the powerless will one day rule the earth.

Powerless?

Au contraire! Although it may rhyme, meek does not mean weak. Meekness is, rather, power under control.

Look at a farmer working with a Clydesdale: The horse is tremendous, many times the size of the farmer. If untamed, it could run wild and do great damage. The stamina of the beast is incredible, it could run for many many miles without stopping. Should it desire, it could crush the farmer like an irritating gnat.

Does it?

No. In fact, this majestic beast is so perfectly content and understanding of its limits that the mere pull of a hand on the bit will direct its full power, with no bucking or fighting from the horse. Because of this, that great power does not do harm nor expend itself in aimless running; the horse can move great loads from place to place, food, water, machinery. It has the power under control, leading to great outcomes. This horse is meek.



Similar to that horse, when we allow the power of our minds, our emotions, or our beliefs to run uncontrolled we cause damage; we hurt others, we hurt ourselves. We block our ability to learn. We spend great energies to run our reason ragged, arriving at no destination but that whence we started.

If, however, we humble ourselves to learn our limits- to harness the power of our thoughts and words- then we may progress with great speed through discussion; neither offending the others nor spending our time in mental narcissism.

Lesson number two: Humble yourself: Place your power under control.





And tomorrow, we'll go over just where that control might come from.

Personal Absolutism I: Tolerance vs. Acceptance

The struggle to define who oneself is while subject to change and interaction with the world around you is universally recognized as one of the greatest challenges in any life. While I will not claim to have all the answers, my hope is that we might discuss some core ideas relating to how one must do this: A philosophy of worldview foundations, so to speak.

Before we can address the subject as a whole, however, it is important to cement certain ideas and definitions before we continue. Lesson one: always define common terms in discussion.

Something we hear talked about often in today's world is tolerance. It is a word we are all familiar with, and many people use casually. We need to be more tolerant of this or that, someone seems intolerant, we need to show tolerance, etc. It is used so often we can almost ignore it, it has lost all practical meaning for having been used so much.


In fact, it has a new meaning.

I'm going to use a pretty controversial topic here, but let's try not to get our feathers too ruffled, okay? Example being this: We are commonly told by interest groups, politicians, and (in some states and coutries) the government that we need to be tolerant of a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not sure how many people are told this to their face, but it has been made clear that people who don't think homosexuality is okay are intolerant, homophobic bigots, right?

Wrong.

See, this is where we mess up tolerance. You see, tolerance is (and I still can't believe how many people don't get this) the infinitive from which we derive things like tolerate. How many of us tolerated a younger sibling growing up? What did that look like?

Isn't it usually somewhat exasperated? You bet! Now, I'm not saying we all should be exasperated with the gay community. Let's all detach ourselves from that example now, for the sake of clarity.

See, to tolerate something is a kind way of saying you "put up with it". You may not agree with it, and you may speak out against it, but you won't harm it or infringe upon it. You'll abide while it happens, even if you think or know it is wrong.

In that way, tolerance can be good or bad. We tolerate people with beliefs different from our own-this is good. We might try to change their minds, but we don't axe our neighbor because they're a practicing Jew and our house is part of the Church of Bob and the Sub-Genius. That is tolerance.

On the other hand, a lot of Austrians tolerated Hitler's treatment of the Jews after the Anschlüss, figuring that even if they didn't agree with it they wouldn't act against it. It landed a lot of people in Eichmann's office. That is also tolerance.


What we are asked to do today, however, is not tolerance.

We are asked to accept. We are supposed to agree that everything is okay, and that there is nothing we should ever disagree with or believe is wrong. We are taught now that meta-ethical moral relativism and post-modern ethics are tolerance. That to tolerate is to condone.

Bull.

And so the point of this first part is to teach a first step in identifying a truth-oriented worldview : Relearn what it is to tolerate, and always know what things you tolerate, and which you condone. You must be ready to separate the two.


If tolerance is really to accept all things, be intolerant. Some things are just stupid.


More soon.