Voter Qualification and the First Epistle of John

Dear Chuck,

Thanks for your email.

With some regularity, I circulate a handful of quotations that strike me as particularly insightful or unusually confessional. (You may enjoy the following anthology: http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/04/contemporary-american-politics.html)

In his book "Where The Right Went Wrong," Pat Buchanan (who has spent more time as a White House counselor than any living American) observed: "The Republican philosophy might be summarized thus: To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not.” - http://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong-Neoconservatives/dp/0312341156

Wow.  It takes one to know one. 

Just now, while writing this, Carl Jung's observation came to mind: "Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other."

In recent years, I have been spellbound by Christianity's postulate that "God is love." 

We are so accustomed to repetition of this "foundational phrase" that it now comes across as mundane - smarmy even. In any event, like other hackneyed scripture verses, it has lost its balls.

Backing up a bit however we see that the early history of religion was dominated by (non-human) animal gods, or (in the salient case of Egypt) human figures with animal heads.

Then, "something happened" when ancient Israel posited stark contrast between Moses "descending Sinai, non-manifest Yahweh's commandments in hand" only to find his people worshiping The Golden Calf. (Bull worship was critically important throughout the Mediterranean basin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf)   

Moses' vision of a radically non-representational God was epochal. 

The full version of The First Commandment insures that God/Yahweh remains -- always and everywhere -- beyond representation. Even YHWH's "name" cannot be spoken. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205:6-9&version=TNIV

It is true that this disproportionate focus on divine transcendence exacerbated a split between humans and "the natural world," but this same split also enabled a kind of conscious individuation that can only occur through separation. 

Note that in Genesis, the seven days of creation are all acts of separation: separating original order from primeval chaos, light from darkness, night from day, water from land, "creatures that crawl" from those that stand, plant species from animal, etc.

Given the interminable range of "candidates for divinity," I am struck that "love" should have been singled out (especially since the love "in question" is not, primarily, sexual love, but disinterested agape).

Not surprisingly, "love" lacks traction since "power" preempts everything in its path.

Notably, these diverse Judeo-Christian/Conservative/Liberal "threads" knit themselves together in John's first epistle: ¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

American conservatives are enthralled by The Power-Fear Matrix. Then, re-making themselves in the image of their foundational beliefs, they became fear-mongering power grabbers. 

For them, the quest for Power at the cost of Voter Disenfranchisement is not even a moral question: it's a "moral" mandate, a "moral" obligation.

Which begs the question: "How do fair-minded liberals engage "conservatives" who - consciously or unconsciously - are devoted to injustice?"

Pax 

Alan

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, CH wrote:

I was surprised that there was such a clear Republican majority in absentee ballots, but it makes sense most of those would be deployed military.
Krugman states in his first book the problem is Democrats want fairness and Republicans want power.
So I was just thinking, here's an easy target for Democrats to reduce Republican turnout if they just wanted power.
Because of course there's no meaningful voter fraud, that's just a front for Republicans to reduce access to groups that vote Democratic.  Because they don't want fairness, they want power.
That's why they would never support the Mexican solution, they aren't trying to reduce voter fraud, they're trying to reduce votes for Democrats.
C

On Aug 6, 2012 4:40 PM, "Alan Archibald" <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote: 

Dear C,

Thanks for your emails.

Pleased to hear your repairs are proceeding apace.

And thanks for sending the insightful piece about voting eligibility.

I would rather not link citizens to the physicality of a voter identification card.

In Mexico, every polling place has a computer printout lisitng the name and address of every citizen in the district - complete with a small black and white photo. Just show a photo ID and you're "in." Works well there.

The unspoken element in voter eligibility is that Republicans don't want people to vote.

I think we should make voting mandatory (as in Australia) under penalty of modest fine.

Ballots would contain lists of candidates and "measures" along with corresponding "blanks" where voters can list write-in candidates or provide whatever commentary/curse they wish.

Pax

Alan

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM, CW wrote:

http://campaignstops.blogs.

nytimes.com/2012/08/05/a-
dtente-before-the-election/ So if Democrats were focused on winning (like Republicans) rather than fairness, they'd unleash an all-out attack on absentee ballots or at least a vigorous PR campaign on absentee ballot fraud.
C