Towards a Fairer Primary Process

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

Iowa has taken on a disproportionate power in American politics. It could be argued with some measure of persuasion that Barack Obama would not now be President of the United States if the primaries were held in a different way, or started in more than one state simultaneously. We all recall that Hillary Clinton had a huge lead in all the national polls entering the Iowa Caucus. And then there was the Democratic debacle that resulted when Michigan and Florida attempted to move up their primary dates to gain more influence in the process.Consider also how ethanol has unduly affected candidates and thus has resulted in farmers growing corn for inefficient fuel use at the expense of the world food supply. This is just one example of how one state can have a disproportionate influence on policy. No one state should have such power. It is unseemly and unfair. Additionally, Iowa is a caucus state whereas the majority of states use a popular vote – a process more closely in line with how the Presidential election actually takes place.

The Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

Perhaps no phrase so succinctly, and so famously encapsulates Darwin’s theory as the phrase “survival of the fittest”. And yet, in that small phrase lies not only the birth of Progressivism in America, but also it’s greatest paradox. Progressivism grew out of the Darwinian model. It sought to replace the theocentric view espoused by most Americans.

This trend continues in full force with the so-called “new Progressives”, who many times pay lip-service to the idea of “God”, but are in the main Darwinian, Nietzschean atheists. Man, they would tell us, would have to fix his own ills and so it would take the best and the brightest (i.e. scientists, enlightened and brilliant political and entertainment figures) to right the ship. An oligarchy of  the intelligentsia if you will.

However, there is a problem with the very core of this theory. It conflicts wildly with the Marxist foundation upon which it rests. For if we are to truly believe Darwin, we are compelled to believe that it is through the unique individual that all evolution takes place. Transmutations in nature do not occur, according to Darwinian teaching, en masse, but rather with unique creatures who somehow mutate in ways that end up being beneficial, and result in genes that serve to self-perpetuate a superior creature capable of survival beyond the level of its predecessors.

So how does this create a paradox for Progressives? Simply put, Progressives wish to espouse Marxist or, at least quasi-Marxist, positions that require the superiority of the collective over the individual. Progressives, in Marxist fashion, are constantly promoting the concept of the collective good over the individual.

It then becomes completely inconsistent to claim you espouse “the scientific” approach as opposed to the “hocus pocus” of religion, while simultaneously promoting the collective above the individual. For if you believe the science you claim to believe, it is the individual that leads to the evolution of the species and not some communal arrangement.

So then I leave you with the Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism. Either you believe in science and exalt it above religion or you believe in any form of Progressive collectivism. You cannot, with any logical consistency, embrace both.

Alinsky – Recommended Reading by the National Education Association

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

The other day, this page on the NEA website was brought to my attention by @jefe_viejo on twitter.  At first, I thought it might be some sort of dummy site or something until I backtracked through the NEA site and found that the links did indeed lead to that page.It is troubling that the NEA believes that the writings of Saul Alinsky are not only acceptable, but are in fact worthy of their recommendation. I won’t rehash here why Alinsky is so inappropriate for teachers and students alike, except to point out a few obvious issues. Otherwise, reading my blog should make it very clear that Alinsky’s teachings are not appropriate in an educational setting.Let me just give you a few quotes from the NEA webpage on Alinsky, and you can make up your own mind if this is the type of material teachers should be studying and imparting to your children.

First, from the site,

“Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.”

And again,

“He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.”