Rule by the Majority?

First off, the Constitution describes a Republic, i.e. a government made up of individuals that are chosen by majority vote to represent the voting population. And certainly majority vote is better than, say, minority vote. Isn’t it?

It depends on what your goals are. Is your goal GOOD government — efficient, powerful, and effective, for the greatest mutual gain? Or is your goal FAIR government — equal treatment before the law, enforcement of legal contracts? Or is your goal STABLE government — a minimum of revolutions and civil unrest? All of these are essential functions.

If you want GOOD government, majority rule is a rotten way to get it. Most people have no expertise in running countries (why should we? We’re working hard enough on their own lives, thank you very much!), and have no business choosing national leaders. I definitely include myself in that group. I have no idea how to pick someone who would really do a fantastic job running the United States. I have very little idea of what the job entails. I have no time to get degrees in government, economics, military strategy, and the rest, which is what you really need even to CHOOSE the president. If you want GOOD government, it should obviously be chosen by a team of experts.

Unfortunately, even if you assume you could assemble a team of experts that weren’t bribable, and really had the best interests of the country at heart, and were never, ever swayed by temptations of personal gain… even such a mythical team of experts wouldn’t really know who to choose. The US Government is so huge, so unwieldy, and so powerful, that no one could really run it well. Regardless of who’s in charge, it can be nothing better (and usually is much worse) than a machine that takes essentially random actions.

If you want FAIR government, majority rule is a rotten way to get it. Majorities will very, very rarely be fair to minorities. The framers of the Constitution tried to protect minorities by setting provisions in place that would paralyze the government if minorities were treated too harshly; but if the minority is too small to have a voice at all (as with Native Americans), or if the injustice is already entrenched (as with the drug war), it’s almost impossible to fix it. Also, of course, the US government is really controlled not by a majority of people, but by a majority of dollars; and this is exactly what the rich white male framers of the Constitution wanted.

If you want STABLE government, majority rule is a good way to get it. There will rarely be revolutions or civil war, because most people think that they control the government already. But what good is a stable government that isn’t good or fair? It’s simply a permanent, stable tyranny of idiocy.

Many people will agree with everything I’ve said, but still think that majority rule is really the only viable option. The alternatives of monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, dictatorship, etc., all seem much worse. Frankly, I’m not sure that’s the case — frequently these systems will lead to GOOD government that’s relatively STABLE, but UNFAIR. Two out of three may be better than one out of three. My personal preference would be for a government that scores highly on all three — or no government at all.

My John Hancock

Another problem I have with the Constitution is that no one ever asked me if I wanted to participate in the first place.

It says right in the Declaration of Independence: governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Well, no one asked ME. I hereby do not give my consent! The US government has no just powers over me! Can I keep my tax money now? I need it to educate my children.

Go ahead and laugh. This is a very serious point. By what right does the US government threaten me with force if I do not obey its laws? By what right does the Constitution have authority over not just me, but any citizen who disagrees with all or part of it?

Should I renounce my citizenship?  It wouldn’t help, of course.  First, the US government does not allow you to renounce your citizenship unless you’re already living outside the country.  Second, even if I could renounce my citizenship while living here, I would have to get a work visa, and I would still be required to pay income taxes.

And you’d better believe that I HAVE considered moving out of the country.  I may yet someday.  For now, it’s too expensive to move, and it would be too disruptive to the family.

If the Constitution provided a framework of good, fair government, you might argue that although it’s unjust, at least it’s for the practical good of everyone. But tell that to the Indians, the African Americans, the victims of the military draft…

It’s tyranny of the majority again.

Ain’t My Religion

It’s bad enough that the rule of the US government is unfair, unjust, and inept. It also contradicts fundamental tenets of my religion — in fact, of most human religions.

Personally, I believe very strongly in the right and duty of all of us to fully exercise our free will — and fully suffer the consequences of our actions. It’s the quickest and richest way for us to learn. A government that steps in by force and restricts our actions is one that stunts our growth as individuals and as a society.

The Constitution also violates the Wiccan Rede: “An ye harm none, do what ye will.” Of course, there are hundreds of federal and state laws that violate this (see: the drug “war”), but even levying taxes violates this code.

The Constitution even violates basic Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist tenets, for, among many other things, it gives the president the right to call up troops to go and kill people. Last I checked, murder was still officially prohibited among all of these religions.

And oh yes, yes indeed: it is still murder if a government orders you to do it. If you kill someone, you are personally responsible, even if you’re acting under orders. Your nightmares and your tattered soul will tell you the very real spiritual price you’ve paid for that murder.

I refuse to be a party to that abomination.

And Therefore I Will Vote For…

No one. I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote at all. I can’t participate in a system that is so unfair, inept, and spiritually bankrupt and corrosive.

I’ll be showing up at the voting booth, but only because Massachusetts has a ballot initiative to abolish the state income tax. That’s worth voting for.

And so I’ll join the 60%+ of Americans who choose not to vote. These citizens rightly feel that there are better things they should be doing. After all, surely it is better to take time to go to your job, which provides for your family and society, or go to church, or even just go to the park and relax — better to actively provide for yourself and others, than to go into a voting booth and sign your name on wickedness, depravity, and injustice.

People say that these 60%+ nonvoters are apathetic. I’d say that they have their priorities in order.

But if voting is not the way to fix the government, what is? In the next post I’ll talk about that.

Landscape art & readings. Explore your inner landscape.
DJ Almanac 2008. Physical version now available at my printing cost: $7.29. Free download of complete PDF.

Name Analysis. Discover the history of your name, and its spiritual significance.

8 Meditations for deep peace.
Meet a Guide through meditation.
Release your fears.
Cultivate loving kindness.

Astrology and the Tarot

Since we already have a correspondence between Steve’s seven principles and astrology, perhaps it makes sense to start by looking for correspondences between astrology and the Tarot.  If there is a simple mapping, then the mapping from Steve’s principles through astrology to the Tarot should be just a short step.

Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted correspondence between astrology and the Tarot.  At first glance, it should be simplicity itself:  there are twenty-two trumps, and there are ten planets and twelve signs, and ten + twelve = twenty-two…  So surely there should be one card for each of the ten planets, and for each of the twelve signs.  However, getting the mapping right is problematic.

Here is one popular correspondence system:

0:  Fool:  Uranus
1:  Magician:  Mercury
2:  High Priestess:  Moon
3:  Empress:  Venus
4:  Emperor:  Aries
5:  Heirophant:  Taurus
6:  Lovers:  Gemini
7:  Chariot:  Cancer
8:  Strength:  Leo
9:  Hermit:  Virgo
10:  Fortune:  Jupiter
11:  Justice:  Libra
12:  Hanged Man:  Neptune
13:  Death:  Scorpio
14:  Temperance:  Sagittarius
15:  Devil:  Saturn
16:  Tower:  Mars
17:  Star:  Aquarius
18:  Moon:  Pisces
19:  Sun:  Sun
20:  Judgement:  Pluto
21:  World:  Capricorn

There are some parts of this system that are intuitively compelling (eg Magician - Mercury, Fortune - Jupiter, Justice - Libra, Star - Aquarius…), and it would seem that Waite had something like this in mind when he designed the Rider-Waite Tarot, because many of the images reflect this correspondence (note the ram’s heads on the Emperor’s throne, for example).

However, to my mind at least, there are at least as many parts of this system that are extremely questionable.  How is the Hermit to be paired with the Virgin?  Wouldn’t Saturn be a better fit?  The matching up of Leo with Strength initially looks nice, since there’s actually a lion right there on the card; but the lion is being restrained by a young woman — what does this have to do with Leo’s leadership and flamboyance?  The assignments of the three higher planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) seem particularly odd to me.  After all, when the Tarot was designed, these planets weren’t even discovered.  And if we’re going to include planetoids like Pluto, why don’t we include Chiron, Ceres, and Eris?  Do we need more Tarot cards?  Where do we stop?

At this point I think it would be helpful to look briefly at the history of the Tarot, and its internal structure, instead of trying to brute-force shoehorn it onto the sky.

The Triumphs

In Roman times, triumphant parades — especially military parades — were extremely popular.  When generals returned from winning campaigns, they would march down the streets of Rome.  First the trumpters would march, then the spoils of war in carts would come, then the conquered prisoners, then slaves and servants of the general, and finally the general himself and his soldiers.  The soldiers were placed behind the general as a sign of respect; for as is evident, the triumphant parade progressed in respect and power as it went on.

The parades lived on long past the end of the Empire.  For a thousand years and more, villages in Italy would hold triumphant parades, with representatives of each of the social classes — serfs, landholders, clergy, knights, and the local lord, all in order.

The first Tarot decks in Italy were evidently designed to replicate the idea behind these triumphant parades.  Generally speaking, each card of the Major Trumps “triumphs” over the one before:  the High Priestess trumps the Magician, the Empress trumps the Priestess, the Emperor trumps the Empress, the Heirophant trumps the Emperor…  and Love conquers them all.

Above and beyond earthly Love, the progression turns to virtues, spirits, and trials that test human souls; until the final Trump is the entire World.  The Fool does not appear in the progression; he is unordered relative to the others.

A fascinating feature of the early Tarot decks (pointed out by Robert Place in the Buddha Tarot) is that, while there was a lot of variation in the card orders, especially up among the virtues and spirits and trials, the variation was essentially limited by an implicit three-part structure.  The sequence of Trumps appears to have been subconsciously divided into three sections, and each card always appeared within one section, never in the others.  The three sections correspond well with Campbell’s three phases of the Hero’s Journey:  Departure, Initiation, and Return.

In Departure, the hero gradually leaves behind the physical everyday world; and this is shown in the Trumps by a progression of earthly power, which culminates in the greatest worldly power, Love.  In Initiation, the hero strips away illusions and reaches a greater perspective on the world; and this is shown in the Trumps by cards such as Justice, Death, and the Hermit, all representing the power of truth.  And in the Return, the hero reaps his reward — union with the universe — and brings his message back to humanity; and this is shown in the Trumps by cards such as the Sun and Moon, Judgement and the World.

The first thing that jumped to mind when I considered marrying Steve Pavlina’s seven principles with the Tarot was this three-part structure.  Steve’s three core principles, Power, Truth, and Love, correspond extremely well with this three part structure.  Power, the manipulation and control of the world, is exemplified by the first seven cards, with its progression of earthly power from the Magician up through the Lovers.  Truth, the reality of the universe, is exemplified by the next seven cards, with their progressive tearing down of illusion, delusion, fear, and other structures that have outlived their usefulness.  Love, the reunion with All, is exemplified by the last seven cards, with their archetypes of the great lights of the world, the reunion of earthly and divine, and the final card, the World itself.

The Spiral of the Hero’s Journey

So now we have twenty-one Trumps divided into three parts, one for each of the primary principles:  Power, Truth, and Love.  Each of the three sections has, of course, seven cards; and remarkably enough, Steve has seven principles.

A fascinating structure emerges — one in which each of the seven principles is repeated three times as the hero ascends through the three prisms of Power, Truth, and Love.  Within each of the three sections, it is straightforward to find a satisfying (to my mind) correspondence with each of Steve’s seven principles.  Here is my reading:

I:  POWER (Jupiter)
1:  Magician:  Intelligence (Mercury)
2:  High Priestess:  Truth (Sun)
3:  Empress:  Oneness (Venus)
4:  Emperor:  Power (Jupiter)
5:  Heirophant:  Authority (Saturn)
6:  Lovers:  Love (Moon)
7:  Chariot:  Courage (Mars)

II:  TRUTH (Sun)
8:  Strength:  Power (Jupiter)
9:  Hermit:  Truth (Sun)
10:  Fortune:  Love (Moon)
11:  Justice:  Authority (Saturn)
12:  Hanged Man:  Courage (Mars)
13:  Death:  Oneness (Venus)
14:  Temperance:  Intelligence (Mercury)

III:  LOVE
15:  Devil:  Authority (Saturn)
16:  Tower:  Courage (Mars)
17:  Star:  Oneness (Venus)
18:  Moon:  Love (Moon)
19:  Sun:  Truth (Sun)
20:  Judgement:  Power (Jupiter)
21:  World:  Intelligence (Mercury)

0:  Fool:  None (Earth?… )

Some of these may be rather surprising, especially where the traditional astrological correspondences are flouted.  Below I’ll discuss each card and why I think the symbolism matches up.

1:  Magician:  Intelligence (Mercury)

Power of Intelligence. Here, my interpretation matches the standard.  Mercury, the patron of wizards and healers, is universally agreed to be the ruler of this card, and intelligence (both in its mundane and esoteric meanings) is inherent to its power.  This card is intelligence made manifest, the miracle worker active in the world.

2:  High Priestess:  Truth (Sun)

Power of Truth. Traditionally, the High Priestess is associated with the Moon, so originally I had this card assigned to Love.  But the deeper meanings of the card have always been associated with secrecy, revealing hidden teachings, and opening the doors to deeper mystery.  This card is power over the truth, and the power of truth.

3:  Empress:  Oneness (Venus)

Power of Oneness. This card is traditionally associated with Venus, perhaps the most powerful goddess in the Roman pantheon.  The Empress is the human embodiment of the unity between the people and the land.  In many traditional Indo-European cultures, the king is actually ritually married to the land itself.

4:  Emperor:  Power (Jupiter)

Pure Power. The Emperor exercises and embodies complete power in the physical realm.

5:  Heirophant:  Authority (Saturn)

Power of Authority. Authority mixes Power and Truth.  The Heirophant embodies the natural authority that spiritual truth exercises in the world.

6:  Lovers:  Love (Moon)

Power of Love. This is the power of love in the world; Love as an agent of control and of transformation.

7:  Chariot:  Courage (Mars)

Power of Courage. Sallying forth into the world, the power of courage is one of reaching out with love and for love.  I will always associate this card with the story of Siddhartha riding out in his chariot to see the world outside his father’s gardens for the first time, desiring to see the people over which he would rule, and seeing the Four Sights that would set him on the road to his destiny.

8:  Strength:  Power (Jupiter)

Truth and Power. Here, the power of the truth is made plain — more powerful than any merely physical thing.

9:  Hermit:  Truth (Sun)

Pure Truth. The Hermit is the seeker of the truth; he is the recluse that withdraws to find the deepest truth within.

10:  Fortune:  Love (Moon)

Truth and Love. Our emotional relationship to the truth is one of ups and downs.  When we are aligned with the truth, we rise high on the wheel; when we are opposed to it, we fall.  Love and Truth together are the great teachers.

11:  Justice:  Authority (Saturn)

Truth and Authority. When Truth is made manifest in the world, when true Authority is exercised, justice is done.

12:  Hanged Man:  Courage (Mars)

Truth and Courage. Like the Hermit, the Hanged Man is bound to the Truth.  I always think of Odin hanging from Yggdrasil, and of course Jesus from the cross.  These are spirits who showed courage in the name of truth.

13:  Death:  Oneness (Venus)

Truth and Oneness. Surprised?  The flip side of Oneness is the death of the individual self.  In order to experience oneness and unity, the self must grow and change, must experience things beyond itself.  This change, this transformation, is a very real death.

14:  Temperance:  Intelligence (Mercury)

Truth and Intelligence. Bringing our intelligence into alignment with Truth allows us to balance the forces at work — especially fitting here, since Intelligence is the balance of Truth, Love, and Power.

15:  Devil:  Authority (Saturn)

Love and Authority. A fascinating pairing — note the traditional two figures in the card, which echo the Lovers?  The card is also traditionally associated with Saturn and Capricorn.  The flip side of Love is fear, and this card is all about fear — especially fear of Authority, which is the principle diametrically opposite to Love in Steve’s system.

16:  Tower:  Courage (Mars)

Love and Courage. This card is about breaking down systems that are no longer useful.  Like the Hanged Man (also Courage), it is suffering endured for a higher good — in this case, Love.

17:  Star:  Oneness (Venus)

Love and Oneness. One of the best-loved cards in the deck, the Star is welcome in any reading.  It speaks of help on the way, and unity with the beyond.

18:  Moon:  Love (Moon)

Pure Love. What else could the Moon card be?

19:  Sun:  Truth (Sun)

Love and Truth. The Buddha Tarot’s version of the Sun card shows the male Buddha in a sexual embrace with the female aspect of Buddhahood.  This card is Truth, but specifically the truth of universal Love, and the ecstasy that flows from it.

20:  Judgement:  Power (Jupiter)

Love and Power. From the standpoint of the Hero’s Journey, this is the Hero returned and bringing his message of Power, Truth and Love to the world.  This is an act of Love on the Hero’s part, an exercise of Power for the sake of Love (quite different from the Power of Love, as we saw in the Lovers).

21:  World:  Intelligence (Mercury)

Love and Intelligence. Here are the principles integrated in Love; all brought together and commingled with compassion.  And so we return to Intelligence again, as we began.

And Last

Working with these principles has been a great exercise for me, and has transformed my understanding of these ancient symbols.  To draw new connections, for example, between the places where Oneness emerges in the symbols — Venus, Libra, Taurus; the Empress, the Star, and Death — is to understand each symbol more deeply and viscerally, and to clarify where they fit into the larger schemes.  I hope this has been similarly illuminating for you as well.

May you wield the power of Jupiter’s thunder, may you walk in Apollo’s light of truth, and may your heart glow with the wild love of Artemis; and may Power, Truth, and Love accompany you always.

Landscape art & readings. Explore your inner landscape.
DJ Almanac 2008. Physical version now available at my printing cost: $7.29. Free download of complete PDF.

Name Analysis. Discover the history of your name, and its spiritual significance.

8 Meditations for deep peace.
Meet a Guide through meditation.
Release your fears.
Cultivate loving kindness.

Who should you vote for?

Well, the original field of 10,000 candidates has been winnowed down to just two that have any realistic hope of winning:  Barack Obama and John McCain.  Since one of the two will win, it should be simple enough to figure out which one would be better.

But in fact it’s not that simple.

Jack McBama or Baron O’Cain?

So that this three-part article doesn’t grow into 100 parts, let’s take just one measure — foreign policy — and compare the two candidates on it.  Foreign policy is the most important part of their platforms, because (a) as president, this is where they wield the most official power, and are most likely to get their own way, and (b) it’s what most affects the world overall — which, let’s face it, is much more important than what happens just here at home.  If the US were a rational country like New Zealand or Jamaica, we would mind our own business, and we could put our own interests first when we elect our leaders.  But since we have troops stationed in nearly every country in the world, are fighting multiple wars and police actions, and are pouring money into various factions and governments everywhere in order to influence policy and public opinion, we have a moral obligation to consider the interest of the rest of the world first.

Let me just be clear:  there are other essential issues at stake here.  Our choice of president influences how our children will be educated, the reproductive rights of women, our freedom of religion and assembly, where and how we’ll be under NSA surveillance, and so forth.  The choice of president should NOT influence these things — none of these matters are enumerated in the Constitution’s list of presidential powers — but the executive branch has been on a major power grab since the days of the Roosevelts, and now its fingers are everywhere.  Nevertheless, for the sake of the main body of humanity, foriegn policy must come first.

Speaking of troops everywhere, and multiple wars, and money used to influence foreign nations — is any of this wise policy?  It’s idiotic.

• It’s expensive — and we’re deep in debt and can’t afford it.
• Stationing troops in other nations, even with the blessing of that nation’s government, frequently creates resentment and a sense of occupation among the population.  90% of Osama Bin Laden’s beef with the US was the fact that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.  What on earth were we doing there in the first place?
• The major war in Iraq was a huge mistake.  If you don’t agree with that, you’re probably not reading this blog, so I won’t belabor the point.
• The major war in Afghanistan was a huge mistake.  Yes, Bin Laden was probably there when we first invaded, but I’m sorry, it’s just stupid to invade a whole country just to get one man, or even one man and his 100 best friends.  If the US were to do anything offensive at all, it should have been a precision tactical strike.  Even better, we should have used a carrot instead of a stick:  offer a tremendous award for Bin Laden’s head — say, one billion dollars.  That would have been a whole lot of money, but considerably cheaper than the hundreds of billions that the war has cost us so far.
• We send a lot of money to foreign governments so that they will be friends with us.  Unfortunately, far, far too much of this money is used by these governments to buy weapons and influence their internal politicians.  Not enough of this money is used to actually help the people of these nations; instead, it serves simply to prop up corrupt regimes.  Even the money that does reach common people hurts them as much as it helps them.  Given the choice, would you rather be handed a free fish, or be taught to fish for yourself?  In the same way, most disadvantaged people would rather be given a job than a handout.  There are fantastic charities and companies that do exactly that, but the US government is not among them.

So clearly, when choosing between Obama and McCain, we should choose the candidate that will bring ALL our troops home and end our bribery of foreign regimes.  Which one will do that?

Neither one, of course.  As far as I can tell, the only real difference between them on foreign policy is that McCain will continue both stupid wars indefinitely, and Obama will end one war “responsibly” and ratchet up the other one indefinitely.  Everything else will remain status quo.

So this apparent “choice” between them boils down to this:  would you rather we unjustly kill more Iraqis, or unjustly kill more Afghanis?  It’s not much better than a choice between Stalin and Hitler.  Technically I guess Hitler killed fewer people than Stalin, but that doesn’t mean I’d jump up and vote for him.  There’s GOT to be a better choice.

On the Fringe:  Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin

There ARE viable candidates running for president, though at this point they only appear in the media under headings like “Style”, “Living”, and “News of the Weird”.  And largely because of this media blackout, plus the draconian ballot laws put in place by the two major parties, none of them will actually win.  Voting for one of them can only serve to be a “protest” vote, or a principled vote in order to educate the rest of the public about the causes pushed by the candidate, or to increase the ballot access of the party.  In all cases, one has to wonder whether there aren’t better ways to promote these causes.  When the Greens or Libertarians run candidates again and again, and always, always lose, the main message that sends to the electorate is that Green and Libertarian ideas aren’t popular (which isn’t really the case, but that’s a topic for another post).

But for a moment, set aside the fact that voting for a third party candidate is probably a waste of time.  After all, one should vote for the person most in line with your beliefs, right?  It’s the principle of the thing.  And most of these candidates have very reasonable positions on the wars and foreign entanglements of the United States.

Voting Your Conscience

What would happen if everyone voted for their REAL candidate of choice?  The candidate that they really agreed with the most?  This is what the framers of our Constitution expected you to do, after all.  They figured that if you thought that your Aunt Mabel would be the best doggone president this country has ever seen, you would write her in.

The framers expected there to be wildly divergent opinions about who should be president.  They figured that folks in New York would probably vote for a New Yorker, and folks in South Carolina would probably vote for a South Carolinian…  They apparently did not anticipate the rise of political parties at all — at least, not parties that crossed state lines.  Their expectation was that only very, very rarely would any individual ever get enough electoral votes to become president.

And this is what would happen if everyone voted with their true conscience.  There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs, and they’d probably be pretty evenly split between the six candidates who are on the ballot in most of the fifty states.  Maybe McCain and Obama would get more than the others, but certainly no one would pass the magical number 270 and get a majority.

Now, according to the Constitution, if no one gets the necessary number of electoral votes, the election gets tossed to the House of Representatives.  The framers figured that the House would wrangle and fight for a while, and then probably choose one of their own.  That way, the president would always be a political insider (which was an important point to the framers, who were, of course, all political insiders).  In other words, the president would be a lot more like a Prime Minister (who is chosen by the leading party in Parliament).  The president would be little more than a tool of the legislative branch.

The upshot is that if everyone voted for whoever they REALLY thought should be president, then most likely Nancy Pelosi, or Bob Hastert, or someone very much like them, would be president today.  Gods bless Nancy, but she’s not who I want in the White House.

And this goes to a much more fundamental point.  The Constitution is a seriously flawed document.  The system it describes is a thousand times better than what’s actually operating in Washington, but it still has a number of things about it that bother me on a very deep level.  The political cronyism I just mentioned is just one issue, and a relatively minor one.

In the next post in this series I’ll lay out my problems with the US Constitution, and explain how those problems inform the way I plan to vote.

(By the way, if you enjoy thinking about politics and history, and considering alternatives to war, you might enjoy my short story, Virginia Dare, available for free download here.)

Landscape art & readings. Explore your inner landscape.
DJ Almanac 2008. Physical version now available at my printing cost: $7.29. Free download of complete PDF.

Name Analysis. Discover the history of your name, and its spiritual significance.

8 Meditations for deep peace.
Meet a Guide through meditation.
Release your fears.
Cultivate loving kindness.