New Media Alliance - Robert E. Meyer

By Robert Meyer

Over the last several years, numerous editorial letters have been the subject of complaints that American politics do not reflect a true democracy. Many of them suggest that the current electoral system needs to go, and that the popular vote should be sole criterion in the election process, particularly as it pertains to presidential elections.

One writer, apparently blinded by ideology, suggested falsely, that the electoral winner of the 2004 presidential election didn’t win the popular vote. This false assumption was undoubtedly the result of the same presidential candidate who won in 2000, being reelected in 2004.

First of all, the country was never designed to be a true democracy, as our Founders frowned on that form of government, at least some of them thinking it to be tantamount to “mob rule.”

Those who insist upon the “popular vote” are often people still upset about the 2000 presidential election outcome, who have never considered the disadvantages of such a system, or how it ultimately undermines the rule of law.

The reason the Founders implemented the electoral system is to ensure wider demographic consensus, not mere a majority, but majorities across differing constituencies, thus avoiding “factionalism.” People who live in suburbia, rural areas, and small town U.S.A., obviously have different values and societal objectives than those of the teaming masses crowded in big cities. The U.S. is a representative republic, not a democracy, regardless of the frequency that certain politicians misspeak.

Without the electoral system, a politician could more easily win an election just by catering to the wants and demands of those in large metropolitan areas. That is done merely by promising to the disgruntled masses, a greater portion of the public treasury. Such a “vote for benefits” quid pro quo, could insure that those politicians playing the game have a virtually perpetual incumbency. That sort of politics are the perfect recipe for baking career politicians into the political cake.

The small metropolitan area where I live has seen vigorous campaign efforts from both parties over the past two presidential cycles. My state has voted blue by between 10,000 and 20,000 votes in the past two elections. My political district is a conservative stronghold, which has been drifting left of late, thus is deemed a targeted constituency by both major parties. Without the electoral college, that keen interest would quickly disappear.

The current electoral system landscape, actually has been greatly “democratized” since its original inception. One such change that few people are aware of, occurred early in the 20th century, when the Constitution was amended, so that popular vote, rather than the state legislature would determine the two senators from each state.

Personally, I favor a hybrid of the original electoral system in place before the 1840’s to determine presidential elections. Each candidate should get electoral votes for the congressional district he or she wins, rather than the “winner take all” state electoral system we have now. Two additional delegates at large, representing the Senators would be awarded for the winner of the popular vote within each state.

Such a system gives greater weight to the votes of each congressional district, while the two at large votes would give more political clout to less populated states.

Those who complain that the electoral college skews the majority opinion, should consider that in the state of Wisconsin, for example, the more liberal candidate consistently gets sent to Washington D.C. This happens despite the fact that the same candidate generally wins only two state congressional districts, out of the eight or nine represented in the last two presidential cycles.

By Robert Meyer

Ben Stein has a dangerous idea. His idea is that professors and teachers who express skepticism about Darwinism are likely to find themselves not granted tenure, castigated and ridiculed, and disqualified from the opportunity to have research papers published.

Stein documents this in his new movie “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.” As you would expect, it is drawing highly critical reviews from the usual suspects. One agitated reviewer on a blog said the movie was filled with half-truths and outright lies. It would be interesting to see what this same source had to say about the latest documentary movies promoted by Al Gore and Michael Moore.

Having reviewed the movie myself, it appeared that Stein was trying to make the case for academic freedom, not attempted to convert anyone to a particular ideological position. Stein, in fact, never makes it known what particular beliefs he holds personally, he merely makes it known that he is disgusted by the idea that someone could lose their job over honest doubts about Darwinism.

Critics will respond to all of this by saying that “Intelligent Design” is not science. Of course not, for to say so would be a semantic or categorical confusion. ID is “science” in the same way that a snowball is “weather.” The snow ball is a result of weather, but not weather itself. Intelligent Design is not science, but a conclusion inferred by applying the scientific method. Asking whether or not a particular object of study is too complex to have evolved by chance is a question germane to scientific examination. Such questions can be quantified by mathematical probabilities.

Any form of “science” that claims it is possible disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation. That is really what is so egregious.

The customary way of attacking “crackpots” who have doubts about Darwinism, is usually with appeals to expertise. We will be told that 99.9% of credible scientists believe in Darwinism. The problem is the word “credible.” Since one must believe in Darwinism to be considered credible in the first place, the only question is why the number isn’t 100%. We basically have a meaningless tautology of circular reasoning on our hands.

What I always tell these people is that I don’t care to hear about an appeal to expertise, I want a methodology. Even those who are not scientifically astute should want to philosophically cross examine the cogency Darwinist assertions for themselves.

The are three false assumptions here. First, an implication that expertise equals perfect objectivity. No agenda or orthodox dogma is seen as responsible for the virtually unanimous compliance. Secondly, that all scientists who are cited began with no preconceived biases, and came to their conclusions by following the evidence wherever it led them. Finally, coercion and intimidation have no influence or effects in maintaining the monolithic consensus.

One quickly realizes that both Darwinists and Intelligent Design theorists, use the same scientific methodology in their investigations. What differentiates them is the interpretation of the evidence, the ultimate conclusions, and the presuppositions each group have going into their endeavors.

A belief in either Darwinism or ID is a metaphysical (philosophical or religious) preference, not a scientifically demonstrable fact. As far back as 1874, John Tyndall, in his famous Belfast Address, stated…

“The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.”

In the 20th century, Aldous Huxley commented about the implications of accepting Darwinism in his treatise Ends and Means…

“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

In Nancy Pearcey’s essay from a few years back, “You Guys Lost, Is Design a Closed Issue?” she states…

“If it can be shown that historically the primary motivation for advancing Darwin’s cause was not so much scientific as philosophical, then the theory loses much of its persuasive force. For scientists have authority to tell us how the natural world functions, but they have no comparable authority to tell us what philosophy we ought to hold. If the motivation for accepting Darwinism was primarily philosophical, then we in the twentieth century are justified in calling for a resurrection of the old debate.”

If we had no other reason for believing that Darwinism was not merely a scientific explanation of origins, but something far more encompassing, any doubts would quickly be dispelled by observing the fervor by which this piece will be rebutted. Had I claimed that gravity was not a physical law, nobody would bother which angry responses. Question Darwinism and you arose passion reserved for those who wantonly desecrate a sacred shrine.

So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina. One seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the other, but one idea is taught in public education, the other is taboo.

That circles us back to Ben Stein. Stein’s motivation may have been merely to blow the whistle against threats to academic freedom. Maybe the genie that Stein is trying to let out of the bottle is even bigger than he thought.

By Robert Meyer

You can tell something troubling is afoot in the political landscape when all someone has to do is say they stand for “change,” and they have the devotions of swooning throngs.

I can’t think of a past election when candidates for the opposition haven’t promised change as a populist mantra. That is probably why we seldom accomplish much of anything politically, put move from pillar to post, then digress back to pillar again.

For my part, I really don’t care much for change, I want better execution of the fundamentals instead. Suppose you are the coach of a football team. Your players aren’t blocking and tackling, they fumble the ball and drop passes, and call plays that are too predictable to the defenses they face. Should you bring the players off the field and into the arena, suggesting that they might perform better playing basketball? Or do you hone the skills that are creating the inept performances?

I think that epitomizes the differences between the conservative and liberal philosophies and platforms in the upcoming elections. Any analysis of the worthiness of a particular candidate or political party, must first endure the gauntlet principle, “what ought the government do?”
The general population has totally disregarded that question to their own detriment, and instead keeps asking what can the government do for them. It is an exercise of giveaway programs for votes to insure electability or perpetual incumbency.

Using my football illustration, let’s look at the present administration. Am I upset that Bush went into Iraq or that he was tough on terrorism? No, but he should have done been better in managing a strategy for less long term entanglement.

Was I against Bush’s plans to personalize Social Security? No, but I can admit he did a poor job of selling the concept.
I favor tax reduction for all who pay taxes, not just those who need it. Need fulfillment is a job for church organizations and charities. My complaint is that we didn’t tighten the belt of spending at the same time, and that the tax reduction is too small and not permanent.

These issues are not problems with direction, but with weakness of execution in promoting, establishing and articulating the these various policies.

The pro-life arguments on issues such as abortions, stem-cell applications, euthanasia and others are “slam dunks” if we have leadership capable of articulating them, so it isn’t direction that is the general problem.

I haven’t made any voting commitment beyond my state’s primary on Tuesday, but I can guarantee that I won’t vote for a democrat, be it Hillary or Barack Obama. As I’ve stated before, it’s a simple issue of platform. I don’t want the changes they are promising, even if they could bring about the changes they want to make. Their proposals are changes for the worse if we use our original grid that we must first determine what government ought to do. I am not inspired by socialism-light, regardless of the pretty box it is packaged with.

What is so troubling is that some articulate guy like Obama, can attract so much fawning and enthusiasm just by continuing to repeat the magic C-word. What are the three most important traits in winning elections to the U.S. presidency: say we need change, say we need change, say we need change. It makes a thinking person sick to his or her stomach to see the legions of populist rats follow in unison to the three-chord diddy.

Can anybody tell me what qualifies Hillary Clinton to be president? Maybe she will get all the votes of disgruntled women with chips on their shoulders, who think her election will usher in a new Karma? Another great reason to vote for someone in as president.

In either case, the democratic nominee breaks a cultural barrier here in America. Either the first black person or the first woman to be nominated by a major political party.

Perhaps that is a laudable milestone, but neither will be the first quasi-socialist, just the leader who takes us further left then this country has ever been. Even France recognized “change” has its useful and progressive limitations.

Nope, I don’t want change.

McCain and a convoluted primary
By Robert E. Meyer

My own thoughts on the primary election season are a mixed bag to say the least.
 
Most pundits have acknowledged from the beginning that there is no true Reagan-like candidate running under the Republican banner, though many attempt to affirm that mantle.
 
I suppose that shouldn’t be too surprising, since political icons like Reagan come along only about once in a generation. Perhaps it is a disservice to hold anyone to that standard, and express profound dissatisfaction when they fall short of it.
 
Former Gov. Mitt Romney was the candidate anointed by many influential conservatives as the closest thing to the desired nominee, but now that he is out of the race, many are left with the February blues.
 
John McCain came out of nowhere to become the front runner and has a virtual lock on this campaign. That in spite of the fact that only a few months ago, his campaign appeared dead in the water, and that he has been staunchly opposed by many popular conservative media figures. They have pointed out that McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax reductions, his stance of campaign finance reform, and his immigration policy, place him politically and ideologically closer to Ted Kennedy then the Republican platform.
 
All the talking down of McCain presents some real problems for conservatives. What exactly do right-wingers who oppose McCain do now that he has virtually sewn up the nomination?
 
Probably some will sit the election out, reasoning that a Democrat will be elected to the presidency, and Democrats will gain a large congressional majority. They are counting on the belief that the state of the union will become so bad that people will vote for a diametrical change in 2012. They are the people who say “We had to have Jimmy Carter in ‘76 to get Ronald Reagan in ‘80.” I think that is dangerous thinking. Many thought Bill Clinton would be a one-term president and look what happened. The past 15 years of governing have made some people believe that the Democrats are the new party of fiscal responsibility.

Some conservatives will say that McCain with all his shortcoming is better than any Democrat trying to move forward with a quasi-socialist agenda. They might also decide that McCain has never wavered on terrorism or the war, and ultimately, all the other issues are subordinate to and contingent upon, a free America.
 
Finally, there is a camp that believes fidelity to principle at all costs is nothing short of a requirement. These people are highly principled and loath compromise of any sort. This faction will likely vote for a minor party candidate. I believe that Ron Paul may head in this direction in the next several months, and he may bring a sizeable minority with him. So again, there is a great dilemma for conservatives, to say the least.
 
John McCain can probably withstand a partial fracture of the conservative base, since he runs toward the middle he can get the votes of moderates, the perpetually undecided, and even a score of cross-over voters. Basically, he is far from a conservative dream, but might be the only “Republican” candidate who can win, for what it’s worth.
 
Obviously, the surprise on the primary season is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. A month ago, I thought McCain might choose someone like Joe Lieberman as running mate, were he to become the nominee of the party. Now I have to wonder if Huckabee might be a better ticket, because he can offer support of constituencies where McCain runs weak, particularly among evangelicals and southern social conservatives. Of course Huckabee downplays this possibility, saying he’s not interested, but considering McCain’s age, the vice-presidential selection would be in a good position to take the reins in 2012. Huckaby should wind up with a place at the table in surviving in the race for so long.
 
In the Democratic party, you have more of a contest. This may be partially due to the proportional allocation of delegates, and the people who are negative on another Clinton, regardless of all else.
 
You have principle in Obama, versus the pragmatism of Hillary Clinton, who will say or do whatever it takes to win. In either case, you take a giant leap toward socialism. Obama is an articulate, passionate candidate, who has captured the imagination of many. I have no beef against him personally, my problem is that I just can’t vote for the democratic platform. The ideology and not the personality is the problem. While many Republicans have been corrupt or major disappointments to conservatism, I generally have no problem with the platform, if only someone will stand on it. I think many Democrats have a favorite, but are more likely than Republicans to be happy with either of their candidates.
 
I should mention that up until 2000, I usually voted for a minor party candidate. Ron Paul is right on many issues, but I don’t think he takes the terrorism issue seriously enough. We can’t simply be an isolationist country, ignoring the rest of the world in the wake of contemporary events. Paul has attracted a wide range of supporters, some very principled and articulate, but some who behave boorishly. It is that segment often put on display by the media.
 
From a standpoint of personality, I like Mike Huckabee, though he probably lacks in foreign policy experience. Many conservatives say that Huckabee, like McCain has too many strains of liberalism to be seriously supported by conservatives, but I like most of the positions he himself has affinity with.
 
So what will I do? Will it be principle at all costs, or the choice among the least of evils? Ultimately I don’t know yet. The rest of the primary process might settle the question for me.

By Robert E. Meyer

Numerous skeptics and modern historians raise an interesting question that has been hotly disputed in recent years; whether or not America was founded as a “Christian Nation.”

Generally, secular humanists have tried to refute this claim by contending that certain key Founders believed merely in a deistic God which didn’t intervene in human affairs.

They would be on safer ground if they had instead said that there were strains of religious unorthodoxy in the thinking of certain key Framers. The problem is that when those who claim the Founders were deists, define deism, they can’t make that definition fit the concept of God expressed by the Framers themselves. It is clear that there was a solid belief in a God who actively manages and intervenes in human affairs.

Thomas Jefferson reflecting of the injustice of slavery stated…

“Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

This indicates a God who judges the deeds of humanity.

Benjamin Franklin, considered one of the least religious Founders, made this observation during the constitutional convention…

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor… Have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs his affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Notice here that as Franklin approached the end of his life he found convincing proof that God was actively involved in human interventions.

George Washington acknowledged the same intervention…

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

Patrick Henry asserted a view in his time not much different from what those on the Religious Right claim to be historical…

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of faiths have been afforded asylum, and freedom of worship here.”

Often quotes are given to show that the Founders had a disdain for Christianity, which was notably communicated in their private writings. One quickly discovers upon careful examination that the context of many of these sentiments are a criticism against “Erastianism,” namely, the atrocities committed because of regulation and domination of religion by the state.

As one might expect, the views of certain key Framers often changed over the course of their lives. A young John Adams stated in his diary…

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there contained! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality and industry: to justice, kindness and charity towards his fellow men: and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God….What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.” John Adams diary entry Feb. 22., 1756.

While this may not have been his exact sentiments late in life, it is interesting to note that when Thomas Paine published his treatise against Christianity, “The Age of Reason,” many distinguished Americans voiced outrage. That included this denunciation…

“The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to man.” John Adams retorting to Thomas Paine in his diary, July 26, 1796.

The atheist historian Perry Miller questions the claims of deistic foundations presented by modern historians…

” Actually, European Deism was an exotic plant in America, which never struck roots in the soil. ‘Rationalism’ was never so widespread as liberal historians, or those fascinated by Jefferson, have imagined.” Nature’s Nation pp.110 (1967).

I believe that while some of America’s Founders were unorthodox in their religious opinions, yet their basic world view was bathed heavily in a populist Christian Zeitgeist. Things really aren’t much different today. A recent Barna survey shows that less than 10% of those identifying themselves as Christians, can answer in the affirmative to all seven questions that the survey used to delineate Christian orthodoxy. A lack of fidelity to biblical doctrine is the staple of main line Christian denominations.

There is more than one meaning to the idea that America was founded as a “Christian Nation.” Simply quoting selected citations from certain key Founders tells us little about the social undercurrents of the time.

It is interesting that more than a full century after the Constitution was drafted, this is what the Supreme Court concluded about the matter…

“Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true.” -The Supreme Court Decision 1892 -Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States.

But having said all this, we must ask if the only thing that gives us direction for the future is to mimic where we have been in the past? If I had thought that America had been founded on the principles of secular humanism, I would not for a moment suggest that we maintain that hideous course. Whether or nor America was founded as a Christian nation, has nothing to do with it proceeding as a godless union today and in the future.