OUR DEMOCRACY'S ELECTORAL DILEMMA

"OUR DEMOCRACY"

One of the common concerns in democratic countries today is whether democracy is sustainable.  In the United States, the concern most commonly referenced is in regard to"Our Democracy."  The term, "Our Democracy," is a bit confusing.  I'm not sure what that term actually is means.  Democracy is a tool used by governments to elect who is imbued with decision-making power and the responsibility for its use.  

Properly defined, the United States of America is a representative, federal republic.  The United States is not nor was it ever conceived to be a pure democracy where the majority rules.  Most of the founding fathers shuddered at the thought of majority rule and populism.  Their concern was not creating a pure democracy but rather a constitutional republic which utilized democratic processes. 

Another issue that many of the founding fathers lost sleep over was the notion of partisan politics.  Although impossible to avoid, they wished to limit its impact on the collegial decision-making within and between the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.  They attempted to do this by defining how members of the three coequal branches of the Federal Government would be chosen.  

At the time the Constitution was being framed, the states had larger role in choosing who would serve in Congress and who would be elected as the President of the United States.  The voters of each state elected who would serve in their state legislators and who would serve as their representatives in House of Representatives, but it was left up to state legislators to decide who would serve in the U.S. Senate. Although senators were  originally chosen by state legislatures, this changed in 1913 with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution  which changed the Constitutional language from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof.”  I consider this a grave political mistake that created a partisan dilemma with regard to how the Republic's constitutional processes were intended to work. 

AN ACHILLE'S HEEL

When it came to electing a president, each state would choose electors based on the number of its congressional members in the House and in the Senate. These electors would then cast their votes for the President.   Today most states have a winner-of-the-popular-vote takes all approach to casting its electoral votes.  Only Maine and Nebraska have a proportional electoral votes based on who wins congressional districts.  Electors in most states are chosen by a state's political parties. This is where the flaw in the electoral process regarding the Presidency resides because it renders choosing the person to the serve in most powerful office in the United States a partisan process which, in turn, is subject to majoritarianism and populism, the nightmare feared most by the founding fathers.  

Unfortunately, the electoral college concept was used as a pawn to entice states to ratify the Constitution who could determine how its electors were chosen.  As noted above, most states utilized the electoral college process as a winner take all concession to a state's popular vote outcome in a presidential election. This fact strikes me as incongruent with how members in the Senate were originally chosen and what the framers might have privately envisioned with regard to the role of the electors. 

More than any other national election, it is a presidential election that engages the majority of the voting public in the  United States, which has become an increasingly chaotic process for some time.  I understand that the framers of the Constitution wanted the state's to have a direct say in choosing the president because that was the only way for the states to buy into the Constitution.  Using the electoral college as a bargaining chip in amongst other only resulted in creating the Constitution's "Achille's Heel."  Presidential elections have driven the United States to extreme partisanship that led to a civil war and the extreme political divisiveness within the United States today.  

Extreme partisanship is once again ruining the United States, just as the framers of the Constitution feared it would.  What interests me about the Constitution is that the framers began by creating an electoral model that began by keeping the voting population engaged democratically at the local or state level, but at the federal level, the foot print of the voting populace became increasingly sparse.  As noted above, members of the House of Representative were the only federal officials elected by the voting public of their state.  Senators were originally elected by state legislators and  Supreme Court justices were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as were other officials within the federal government.

What is inconsistent with an attempt to avoid partisan politics, is that the highest office in the United States relies on state electoral votes determined by a state's popular vote.  Logically, based on how Senators and Supreme Court justices were chosen, the idea of an electoral college should not have been dependent on a state's popular vote. The electoral college should have served as a barrier to partisan politics, similar to what the Conclave does in choosing the Roman Catholic pope. 

DROPPING THE BALL

I am not sure what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they came up with the idea of an electoral college.  Was it always their intent to have the states choose who their electors would be?  If that was so, why didn't they let the states choose electors for the Supreme Court Justices also?   

There is an inconsistency in what started out as political processes aimed at limiting the influence of partisan politics at the highest levels of government.  It is not that the voting public didn't have a role to play in electing federal officials, but rather that their role was reflected in those elected a state level and for the House of Representatives  Why would the office of the President, the single most powerful office in the United States, be subject to a direct popular vote when senators and justices of the Supreme Court were not?

I perceive that most voters in the United States today would prefer that the President be elected by the popular vote (depending on a given elections outcome).   I disagree.  The popular vote, I believe, was never intended to dictate who serves in the highest offices of the United States.  I believe the framers were very wise not to elect the President by a popular vote.  Where they dropped the ball was in letting the states choose who would be their electors, thus resulting in making it a partisan undertaking.  

The winner-takes-all concept sidesteps any practical role electors having in choosing the President.   Their role is largely ceremonial.   Technically speaking, an elector can choose to cast a vote against his or her party, but in some states they would face fines or be replaced. In seventeen states their votes would be voided.  Regardless of how a state would handle that situation,  such an elector would most likely be considered pariah by their party.   Very few have attempted to do so.

If the framers of the Constitution wanted to limit partisanship from dominating the Republic's political structure, the presidency, above all else should have been placed beyond the reach of partisanship.  Likewise, the Seventeenth Amendment should have never been enacted.   To be clear, I'm not amongst those who claim to be constitutional originalists.  What fascinates me about the Constitution's framers is that they did not, in my opinion, follow through on an electoral pattern they established when choosing senators and Supreme Court justices.  

In my next post, I will examine how some of the pitfalls of the electoral processes of today could have been avoided if the framers had not dropped the ball.  

Norm  

EQUANIMITY, KENOSIS, AND THE UNIVERSE

What interests me about equanimity and kenosis is that while they are largely associated with spirituality, it seems they have a basis in or a correlation to the physical forces found in the universe. I sense a correlation between equanimity with gravity and kenosis with the constructive and deconstructive forces within the universe.  I have talked about kenotic activity expressed in Christian literature where kenosis is talked about in terms of Jesus emptying himself of his divine nature in order to fully participate in our salvation as one of us.   In past posts, I have also associated kenosis with the creativity of God; of God expending self to expand self or, in other words, the creative forces of the universe expending energy in order to expand itself.  

What I have not talked much about is equanimity.  In retrospect, I believe I have implied it when defining the meaning of peace as the absence of that which disturbs and disrupts.  In terms of the physical forces in the universe, I would equate equanimity with gravity.  Scientifically, gravity is considered a weak force that keeps our solar systems and other systems in relative balance as the universe continues to expand, the result of a kenotic force which expends its unlimited energy in order to expand the universe.  

In ancient times, astrology provided a direct connection between human activity and the movements of the stars and planets, between time and space as it were.  In European culture, prior to Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno, astrology was  used a way to discern God's divine will.  Kings, bishops, and popes had their astrologers with the emergence of astronomy which began as a offshoot of astrology, the Renaissance, and the Reformation there was a disconnect between us and the forces of nature.  While I don't personally use astrology to help plot my life course, I believe that what happens in the universe both far and near has an effect on our lives the same way the gravitational pull of the moon causes ocean tides and changes in atmospheric pressure can effect one's moods.

Life on this planet is a direct result of the forces found throughout our universe.   Our awareness of these forces is the direct result of being a product of them.  As a result we can deduce, at the very least, an intelligent universe to the extent that we are intelligent, just as life on this planet suggests life on other planets.  

It is no wonder then that our sense of equanimity and kenosis proceeds from experiencing the forces at work in the universe.  As such, when it comes to equanimity and its correlation to gravity, equanimity might be considered a weak force that lightly holds our experiences and perceptions in balance.   An essential part of meditation also involves kenosis, letting go of that which can disturb and disrupt in order to expand one's sense of interconnection to the ALL. 

Equanimity and kenosis form a paradox; in that, while equanimity holds in balance, kenosis releases in order to expand.  There are many approaches to contemplation and meditation.  If the goal of such activities are to gain inner peace by attaining equanimity, then one must engage in a process of emptying oneself of thought by consciously attempting to silence and slow one's stream of thoughts by examining them and letting their influence on one's perception go in order to expand one's sense of equanimity thus lessening one's anxiety and preoccupation with the particular.

* * *

Given the tenuous times we are no living in today, I know how easy it is to get caught up in the particulars that disrupts and disturbs one's sense of inner peace.  The divisiveness caused by ideological certitude and the fear of the opinionated other has created a situation that can easily erupt in violence and war.  Getting caught up in the particulars is easy to do, as we are daily exposed to what feels unbalanced and unnecessary; the disruption of people's lives and the disturbing rhetoric that assigns blame without justification. There is much to be concerned about and it can take a toll on a person's mental and physical health.  The sense of urgency to do something about what one perceives as the causes of the times we find ourselves in adds the dimension of frustration regarding what one can or should do. 

The bellicose language by the strongly opinionated to "fight" the identified causes of that which is  perceived as disrupting and disturbing us is more than hyperbole; especially, when people are left to their own designs on how to do that without resorting to violent rhetoric or actions.  Personally, I can feel the tug to engage in such rhetoric and feel appalled when I succumb to using it, hence the need to write this post to remind myself of the futility of doing so as it only results in my becoming more anxious and frustrated.   I cannot speak for others what works for them, but I know that I feel compelled to step back and seek equanimity through kenosis, to embrace my infinitely small place in the universe and recognize that such times are the merest blip that will pass while seeking to embrace the ALL.   At this time, the best I can do is not add to this ages disruptive and disturbing particulars.

Norm

  

  

THE GOD PARADOX

There are many ways to describe God, none of which are in themselves adequate or come close to a definitive description.  Christians, for the most part, are all over the place when trying to define God.  I tend to equate the term God with the scientific Theory of Everything; as yet, an incomprehensible force  and process which resulted in us and the universe we live in.   In past posts, I have described God as a Verb, Light, and Love.  As such, these terms seem more comprehensible or at least relatable as some form of activity rather than a paradox. 

We humans have trouble relating to the concept of a paradox; that contradiction of terms or statements regarding their being simultaneously true.  As such, I understand God as the ultimate paradox.   Consider the following statement from Psalm 139:12,"Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee."   If darkness and light are alike, does that mean God doesn't care or is there something more mysterious going on?  

Consider the claim, "God is good."  The contradiction to God is good is that God is evil.  Consider how God comes across in dealing with Job or the Egyptians in Exodus and any number of small Canaanite kingdoms where God is depicted as demanding the Israelites to engage in complete genocidal warfare.      

Darkness and light in bible-talk are interchangeable with good and evil.  With that in mind Psalm 139:12 can be paraphrased as, "Yes, that which is evil cannot hide from you; evil is as illuminated as good to you; in that, evil and good are both counterparts of each other to you."   So much for the theodicy argument.  

Paradox as God's modis operandi can be unsettling to those who wish to see their idea of God as strictly being on the good/love side of the proverbial coin. The counterpart to love in scripture is fear which results in hate.  Love accepts and embraces, fear avoids or fights; as such, we can find both love and fear operative when it comes to depicting God's activity in scripture. 

The irony is that when God does something considered evil by us,  God's evil action is always considered good because God is not accountable to any higher power, as God is the highest power.  Should we commit an evil that God would entertain, we would not only be accountable to whatever justice system we live under but also to God.  The fear of God is not only the beginning of wisdom but also the bedrock of any justice system.  "May God have mercy on our souls."

* * *

Pushing moral arguments aside for the moment, good and evil are always at work when it comes to creative processes.  For example, there are many reasons that could be attributed to most humans being afraid of change.  Change always involves, at some level, a deconstructive process in order to create something new.  Sculptors chip away at stone or wood.  Food requires the destruction of animal or plant life.  For the human these are good things, but for the tree, the mountain, the animal and the plant, if they were cognizant in the way we are, such events would be considered evil.  

If one doesn't like change, the following line from Revelations 21:5 has to send shivers up one's spine, "Behold, I make all things new."  To make all things new means the destruction and elimination of all things old.  On the other hand, if one considers making all things new a good thing, it necessitates in engaging in what some would consider an evil; as in, the destruction of the comfortable or familiar.  This could explain why Episcopalians and other traditionalist denominations take issue with the Book of Revelation as they would prefer a God who "changes not" (Malachi 3:6), as opposed to a God who makes all things new.

* * *

If paradox is accepted as alike by God, is God capricious or hypocritical?    Thus we are back to entertaining the theodicy question.  Paradox does not involve capricious or hypocritical behavior.  God or the universe's approach to paradox is one of equanimity.  God is morally equanimous.  The difficulty for us mere mortals is that we are not.  We struggle with paradox, just as we struggle with morality because we not naturally equanimous beings; in that, we differentiate good from evil, this from that, and differentiation is the cause of much of our human suffering.

Take for instance, Jesus warning in Matthew 7:1-2, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged."  Judging is what we do.  We discriminate.  We discern.  We seek difference so that we can identify same until sameness bores us and we seek difference.  In this sense humans are not equanimous.  It is far easier to forgive than it is to avoid judging others.  Forgiveness is a response to judgment.   In fact, there are those who would withhold forgiveness unless one would except the judgement of whoever might offer such forgiveness. This is the human conundrum:  We are doomed to judge and, according to Jesus, in judging others we are doomed to be judged.   Thus, we become the arbiters of our fate.

* * *

Seeking equanimity is part of many contemplative and meditative practices.  Very few, if any, have ever reached the paradoxical equanimity by which the universe (God) operates.    There is much violence and creativity in the universe.  We can witness with our own eyes (via telescopes) the destruction and creation of stars, solar systems and galaxies, which often result in new forms of existence.  What we are will be no more.  What our death (destruction) will give birth to is consigned to God's, the universe's, creativity.  Death and life is a paradoxical construct. We begin dying the second we are born and it is possible that that in dying that which we were will give birth to new life.

Norm

 

IN A TIME OF REFLECTION

I am nearing four months since leaving church.  I would be less than honest in saying that I don't miss it at times.  What I miss most is the people in the congregation and, of course, playing the organ.  Some in the congregation know why my wife and I left but others do not or have not heard the full reason for leaving from me.   Few have directly asked for a reason which leads me to believe they have come to their own conclusions.  

My intent on not giving reasons was twofold.  The first was to avoid getting into a battle about or with the priest which would do a fragile congregation little good.  The second reason is related to the first reason, I no longer felt I could honestly worship in the prescribed manner of its liturgy, which I feel portrays Jesus wrongly and tries to define the indefinable creative force referred to as God in outdated language as many mainline denominations do.  

As some of you may have noticed, I have taken a break from posting.  I tried several times, but I found myself deleting what I wrote.  It didn't feel right, because I wasn't feeling right.  I admit that I struggle with having left a church I served as a lay preacher, worship leader, and organist for almost 30 years and no longer being a part of a congregation of peculiar people to which most Episcopal churches lay claim.  I liked its peculiarity because I felt at home with peculiarity but there was a part of me that urged me to let go and take time to reflect on my life and life in general.   

My wife and I still consider ourselves Episcopalian and we continue to attend services at home by watching the services at Washington National Cathedral on YouTube and occasionally I watch services at Trinity Wall Street in NYC.  I feel more at home within those contexts than I do in the local Episcopal church.  In those larger churches there is sense of open-mindedness with regard to scriptural interpretation, the use of liturgy,  and I feel they both exhibit a truer commitment to the teachings of Jesus than to a strict adherence to the apostolic teachings about Jesus that evolved after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.  

The local priest in my parish and the bishop of the diocese are both concerned about keeping strict adherence to the liturgical forms in the Prayer Book, the church's canons, and its doctrines than emphasizing the teachings of Jesus and their relevance in today's chaotic world   I see such a stringent  approach to doctrine as Christianity's Achille's Heel as they are more about control through indoctrination than taking an opportunity to explore a broader understanding of who we are, not only in the light of ancient scriptures, but more importantly in the light of our increasing knowledge of the universe and the role we humans play in creating the chaos that has the potential to destroy ourselves and the world we live in.  

* * *

I am sure that many of you have heard about or have listened to Bishop Mariann Budde's sermon at the National Cathedral during its National Prayer Service after President Trump's inauguration in which she directly addressed President Trump regarding the fears brought about by his administration's agenda regarding immigrants, LGBTQI individuals and asking that he show mercy on them and on all people feeling disenfranchised and fearful.   I was not surprised by her doing so and it gladdened my heart that she did.   The National Prayer service included clergy from Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, African Methodist Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Mormon, and Presbyterian religions and denominations.  

Bishop Budde was very pastoral in carrying out her prophetic duty in reminding the President of God's Executive Orders as in Rev. (Sen.) Rapheal Warnock put it in his sermon at the cathedral this past Sunday.  The National Prayer Service also served as a reminder of what this nation has long honored by placing  this diverse group of religious leaders on equal footing in an inclusive (DEI) setting which as Rev. Warnock also pointed out that Dei is Latin for God.  

* * *

I try not to watch too much TV.  The national news is depressing.  I do not understand what has happened to the citizens of this nation that has made them so cynical about our nation and the world as to entertain the thought of electing those who have dictatorial aspirations.  There are always things that need adjustment, but adjustments or realignments in a constitutional republic such as ours requires much thought and careful management.  Above all, the apparent reckless disregard for people's lives by the current administration seems to be a recipe for moral decay and disaster on a national and worldwide level.

Now that I'm in my seventies, it seems odd that I should leave things that have been part of my life for most of my life.  I have to confess I don't have a clue as to where this leaving is leading me, if anywhere.  Even my digital piano which I loved playing is not functioning well largely because I probably played it out.  Thus, I don't have that relief from the loss of playing a pipe organ.  It would appear that I need to let that go also.  

What I enjoy is reading and that is what I mostly do.  I am trying to get back into painting, but that is proving to be a slow process as my hands are not as steady as they used to be nor my eyesight as good as it was in my twenties. When the weather permits, I go for walks to get fresh air and take in the world around me. 

In past posts I have talked about the "pauses" in one's life.  I believe this is such a moment for me.  My past experiences with such pauses has taught me that a willingness to let go might result in finding a deeper meaning to life or even a new or a renewed sense of purpose to my life.

Norm

 

AT THE CUSP - A Poem

At The Cusp

                      At the cusp where endings and beginnings meet,

                      at the liminality of the present; where the past and 

                      the future pause ever so briefly, where time seemingly

                      stops at the pivotal point where the dusk of hopes not met

                      and the dawn of hopes yet to be converge, all is peace.

                      In that space look at the night sky between the last

                      minute of the old year and the first minute of the new year

                      to contemplate the absence of that which disturbs and 

                      ponder the absence of that which disrupts.  Consider the vastness                                                                of being before entertaining the anxiety of hope.

                      Norm Wright,

                      January 18, 2025

THE UNIVERSE AND US

The advantage of being an agnostic is that I can admit to not being certain about much of anything.  This is not to say that I don't have beliefs and opinions about things that are based on factual knowledge as we know it today, but facts are not immutable.  Facts are prone to change as new facts are established about our world, ourselves, and the universe we inhabit.  There is much that we humans have opinions about and believe that have no basis in fact apart from us having them.  Unfortunately, these are the types of opinions and beliefs that are often treated as concrete, absolute truths, which only serve to divert us from seeking the factual. 

Being at the debatable top of the food chain on the speck of cosmic dust we call our planet home has led us to become rather arrogant and self-possessed about our place in the universe.  After all, as far as we can tell we humans are the only life form that we actually and factually know to be cognitively aware of ourselves and our surroundings.  We are intellectually capable of creating diverse cultures and keeping a historical record of our activities unlike any other life forms on this planet (or so we believe at the moment). At presents, we can only speculate that if we exist there is a good chance that there are other intelligent life forms we share the universe with. 

That we humans are conscious beings is as much of a mystery as our existing at all.  Consciousness is a mystery to brain scientists and neurobiologist.   Where consciousness comes from remains unknown.  It's not traceable in the brain even though the brain is obviously involved.   It is not a sense like the other senses which can be traced to their geographic locations in the brain.  It is a phenomenon that simply is.  

I speculate that consciousness is foundational to the "I" capabilities all life forms possess:  Instinct, Intuition, and Intelligence.  I have no doubt that some readers will argue that plants and some animals do not possess any of these capabilities; that only higher forms of animal life may possess them.  While these particular "I" capabilities are unique to Homo sapiens, other life forms have similar or like capabilities unique to them.  

Plants behave in conscious ways.  They possess an awareness of their surroundings even though they are largely immobile and having nothing that represents a central nervous system, yet they are capable of  responding to their environment and sending messages to members of their species when endangered.  Even single cell life-form is reactive to its environment and behaves in conscious ways via the impulsive nature of DNA.  If that were not the case, evolution could not have occurred and I wouldn't be writing this post.  

What does this say about the universe we live in?

* * *

Before answering that question, it is best to spend some time examining us human beings.  Perhaps the most conscious and cognizant creatures on our planet (at least in our collective opinions), the mystery that is us conscious beings points to the greater mystery of a conscious universe.  This simple correlation is based on the fact that we have evolved from the universe itself; that there is something about and within the universe that gives rise to consciousness and suggests that the universe is conscious in a way completely unknown to us.  

The universe appears to have an awareness of itself as demonstrated by the laws by which it operates and can be deciphered by conscious beings like us.  We know things about the universe because it is knowable and because the universe is a reactive entity imbued with the knowable which it emits to conscious receptors like us who seek to understand it. You might ask how the universe communicates as sense of  consciousness.  

The observable universe communicates through chemical means, light, and colors.  It pulsates and emits sounds that can be heard.  It has a gravitational pull on us both literally and figuratively. We sentient creatures must remember we do not stand above or below nature; we are merely part of it.  Our purpose may simply consist in our being the sensors that makes the Universe conscious.  We could be part of an extensive neural (organic transmitting) system made up of other sentient and conscious beings that are located throughout its vast expanse.  Within the scope of the universe, we are no more than a spark of a consciousness transmitter by which a possible eternal universe experiences itself.  

Everything in the universe is derived from the constancy of its mass and energy, including us.  That the universe expands or contracts neither adds or subtracts from this constancy.   In other words, we consist of recycled atoms that are likewise an eternal factor that comprises the universe.  No matter how much we make or destroy on this speck of dust, it has no effect on the weight of universe's mass and energy.  The only thing new about us or about anything in the universe is the particular arrangement of its atoms and their particles that currently take our form.  

Interestingly enough, this reality was intuited by writer of the Ecclesiastes 1:9, who said, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." That is certainly true at the atomic level of existence.  In this sense, reincarnation seems a bit more likely than resurrection, but one must keep an open mind about this because the universe likely has its own methods when it comes to such processes.  

What seems to be factual is that the sum of our parts consists of recycled particles rearranged as us.  The you and me that exist now may be a one time life form that will never exist again, in the dimensional sense we exist now.  What we leave behind in the macrocosm is our atomic particles that may or may not be used with other atomic particles found in the universe to create newer life forms sometime in the distant future.

* * *

Early on in my posts I mentioned that I did not like to use the word mystery.  My reticence in using that word within a theistic context was that mystery serves as a locked door to keep questioning minds out; as in, "It's a mystery.  You can't understand it.  Just believe it."  In the realm of science, however, mysteries are the things that stimulate a need to seek an explanation, to explore and to establish facts and theories that deepen our understanding.  In the scientific world mysteries abound regarding the universe and  life on our planet home.  There is a great deal that we do not know but that does not mean we won't increasingly discover the universe's secrets and solve its mysteries.  

Norm

  

HOW DID WE COME THIS WAY? - A Poem

 

                                        How Did We Come This Way?

                             How did we come this way?

                              Did we miss a fork in the road?

                              Did we ignore a sign?

                             Was this path meant to be?

                                                                                               * * *

     

                                Stony the road ahead we tread,

                                Watching one’s step along the way.

                                The thoughtful mind filled with dread,

                               Its thoughts shall never say.

                                                                                              

                                                                                               * * *

                                 The careful do not speak,

                                The complacent do not hear,

                               The compliant do not see,

                              The arrival of their fear.

                                                           Norm Wright

                                                           December 1, 2024