U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
I find this bit particularly interesting:
"This survey and previous Pew Forum studies have shown that Jews and atheists/agnostics have high levels of educational attainment on average, which partially explains their performance on the religious knowledge survey. However, even after controlling for levels of education and other key demographic traits (race, age, gender and region), significant differences in religious knowledge persist among adherents of various faith traditions. Atheists/agnostics, Jews and Mormons still have the highest levels of religious knowledge, followed by evangelical Protestants, then those whose religion is nothing in particular, mainline Protestants and Catholics. Atheists/agnostics and Jews stand out for high levels of knowledge about world religions other than Christianity, though they also score at or above the national average on questions about the Bible and Christianity. Holding demographic factors constant, evangelical Protestants outperform most groups (with the exceptions of Mormons and atheists/agnostics) on questions about the Bible and Christianity, but evangelicals fare less well compared with other groups on questions about world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Mormons are the highest-scoring group on questions about the Bible."
Rabu, 29 September 2010
Selasa, 28 September 2010
Early Mormon Cooperatives
Not long after the saints arrived in the Great Basin, "gentile" traders and merchants arrived and started making huge money off the saints. Brigham Young was against trading of any sort, but especially among the members. His thought was that a man should be making something, or producing something, and that work in shops was okay for women, but not for men. What's more, he was against the idea of a man gaining wealth at the expense of the producers.
Because members of the church were strongly discouraged from getting involved in trading, the gentile merchants had the market to themselves and became very rich at the expense of the saints. This became very alarming to many members, who petitioned Pres. Young to allow the members to get involved in trading at a cooperative level. At first he balked, but eventually relented. Here is how the authors of the book describe the evolution of his thought process:
Finally, it is important that Brigham Young believed strongly in social equality. Ideologically opposed to gradation of wealth and status among his people, he sought instinctively for a scheme that would prevent aggrandizement of a few at the expense of the many. His opposition to the first association of Mormon traders proposed to him in 1860 was based partly upon these grounds. He consistently encouraged the widest possible ownership of the new cooperatives, to prevent the establishment of a wealthy privileged class. The cooperative movement was, thus, wholly consistent with his own social philosophy.The cooperatives were set up to be community owned. Since the Brigham City cooperative was particularly successful and well-known, we'll use it as an example. At first the citizens of Brigham City would buy inexpensive stocks in the cooperative. The cooperative would then purchase goods from the east or, probably more likely, from the big Salt Lake cooperative which purchased goods from the east. The saints would buy exclusively from the cooperative, essentially running the gentiles out of business.
As the cooperative gained strength and money it would start getting involved in "home industries" such as tanneries, shoemaking, raising cattle, blacksmithing, and so on, until the community was entirely self-sufficient. Since it was community owned, the cooperative tended not to enrich any one person above any other, and Pres. Young's quest for self-sufficiency and social equality was met. At the end of the year big dividends were paid to members or reinvested in the cooperative.
In practice, however, there were some drawbacks. Some of the cooperatives were funded almost exclusively by two or three big spenders. And instead of voting by the one-man-one-vote model of some European cooperatives, they voted by one-share-one-vote, which meant that big shareholders were given big voting advantages. Also, while the initial stocks could only be purchased by tithe-paying members of the church, there was no such restriction on their subsequent transfers, which meant that shares ended up in the hands of those not exactly operating with the same basic assumptions as tithe-paying members.
Nevertheless, the cooperatives were generally very successful:
In 1875 there appeared an apostolic circular that summarized clearly considerations that led the church into cooperation and praised its progress. Cooperation, the leaders explained, had been a means of countering "a condition of affairs . . . which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many." Fearing that a wealthy class might arise with interests "diverse from those of the rest of the community," the church officials concluded that such an occurrence "was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical." The ZCMI had been opposed by the wealthy and the established, but since its founding had established a solid reputation while paying substantial dividends and paying a church tithe on all its profits.Practical considerations such as a world that is smaller and more interconnected than in the 1860s and 1870s, and members of the church being encouraged to stay where they are and build up the kingdom, make cooperatives essentially impossible. But more fundamentally, this is a mentality that simply doesn't exist in our society today, and I don't think it really exists in the church anymore, either. We are no longer interested in smoothing out wealth and power inequalities, and if the prophet and apostles made statement like those above today they would be branded as communists or socialists and threats to the Constitution.
In the early years of the church, however, complete social equality was an express goal of the priesthood leaders and it could still be today if we had the same will. Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship was the first effort to make it happen but failed as the saints were driven from state to state. Cooperatives were the second effort and were successful enough to lead to the United Order, which will be the next installment.
Rabu, 22 September 2010
Millennial Positivism: An Introduction
People's ideas about of the "last days" and all the various events leading up to the Millenium inform their political views, both inside and outside of the Church. Up until now, I feel that the conversation about those events has been dominated by what I'll call the "doom and gloom" school of thought. This particular viewpoint is based on the idea that the majority of the world is wicked, a small minority is righteous, and even the righteous people will barely survive the spiritual and temporal onslaught until Christ appears to rescue them and usher in the Millennium.
My aim is to present a more "positive" version of the "last days" narrative to counter the "doom and gloom" viewpoint over a series of five posts. Since this is the introduction, here's an outline of what I plan on discussing:
1.) Jacob Chapter 5 -- Breeding Out the Bad Fruit.
2.) The Day Dawn is Breaking.
3.) A Positive Reading of the Book of Revelation.
4.) Circling the Wagons vs Lengthening the Cords.
5.) The Church, a Rough Stone Rolling.
My aim is to present a more "positive" version of the "last days" narrative to counter the "doom and gloom" viewpoint over a series of five posts. Since this is the introduction, here's an outline of what I plan on discussing:
1.) Jacob Chapter 5 -- Breeding Out the Bad Fruit.
2.) The Day Dawn is Breaking.
3.) A Positive Reading of the Book of Revelation.
4.) Circling the Wagons vs Lengthening the Cords.
5.) The Church, a Rough Stone Rolling.
Selasa, 21 September 2010
Primary Sources
I'll show my hand – I'm a scientist. That doesn't really mean anything special except that I play with chemicals and cells on a daily basis, pretending that I'm doing something worthwhile. It also means that I was trained to keep digging through exorbitant amounts of information out there, past the anecdotal evidence, and past the citations of citations, until the primary source is uncovered. Let me put it this way: although Wikipedia is a great initial source of information, if I was ever to cite that website as my primary reference in a scientific report I would be hung for heresy.
This training and my religion explain much of my aversion to rumors and hearsay, and likely underpins my suspicion of the media. Apparently, Mike Wise of the Washington Post shares these qualms enough that he tried to illustrate the lowered standards of the social media in checking the accuracy of information. After intentionally pumping false information into cyberspace, several reputable media outlets picked up, and published the "scoop". The irony in Mike's experiment is that he was criticizing people for not using reliable sources when he WAS their source. When it comes to news and current events, I admit that I am guilty of trusting my trusted (i.e. favorite) sources. However, I try to exercise due dilegence and check multiple outlets. There is so much peril in turning to a single source for the details of a story because the media is not objective. Jacob S. has posted several times on the monstrosity that is the Daily Herald, and demonstrated how creative biased journalists can be. Obviously the opposite end of the spectrum is just as guilty.
Beyond op-ed opinions sneaking into all aspects of reporting is the, arguably much more dangerous, selection of what is reported. Media is big business, and in our overtly capitalistic society, they are legally obligated to make the largest profit possible. As such, current events can be sifted and sorted until the most lucrative can be selected. Take Pastor Terry Jones of Gainsville Florida as a prime example. Here you have a backwater nobody, with a congregation of 50 nobodies that gains international recognition for wanting to burn a book he has ostensibly never read. Why do we care? Religious fanatics say and do crazy things all the time, so why was this one different? The only reason I can find is that the media picked up on the story and fed the flames. We care because all our sources told us to care. For the record, I think the right to burn books should be defended, but what's the impetus for all the commotion? How does some starved-for-attention small town pastor rise to the level of importance that requires correspondance from the nation's Seceratery of Defense Robert Gates?! Again, the only reason I can think of is that the media wanted to cash in (pun intended) on the hype around the two-blocks-away-from-ground-zero—ground-zero community-center/mosque.
The recent mobilization of the masses is interesting, noteworthy, and even exciting. My concern lies in their primary source for information and guidance. I overtly support public demonstrations, especially when enlisting the masses to question traditions of the parties, interests of the powerful, and failure to deal with discontent of the populace. We must be more diligent in verifying the information we are fed from primary sources. Too many lips talk-the-talk, but few feet walk-the-walk.
Jumat, 17 September 2010
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship
I am currently reading the excellent book Building the City of God, which is a study of early communitarian efforts by the saints. Though I'm obviously no historian, I thought it might be interesting to write a few posts about what I'm reading as I go along. I just finished the section on the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which was Joseph's early attempts in Kirtland and Missouri to get the saints to live a more perfect economic system.
The basic gist of the plan went something like this: First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop. In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property. Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations. Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs. Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired. Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed.
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor. This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.
The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:
I think it would have to look something like this: Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church. The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties. Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive. At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.
In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church. How many members would be willing to do that? I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.
But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions. Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church? It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies. It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.
The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative. If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try? Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor? Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end? Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?
The answer is faith, I think. Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom. It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed. Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church? Thoughts?
The basic gist of the plan went something like this: First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop. In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property. Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations. Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs. Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired. Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed.
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor. This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.
The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:
1) Most of the converts to the early church were poor and had nothing to consecrate. Yet inheritances had to be provided for them. 2) Most of the consecrations that were made were in kind, while most of the church's investments (in real estate and so on to provide stewardships for those who needed them) required liquid resources. Conversion of the former into the latter was difficult on the Missouri frontier. 3) Constant persecution made property accumulation almost impossible. 4) The opposition of the courts to the Mormons, and to cooperative (and communal) ventures generally, made it easy for apostates who had made gifts to the church to disrupt the financial affairs of the system by demanding and securing the return of all their consecrated properties. 5) The converts were not faithful in making their initial and annual consecrations.Those first four factors are no longer true, so the question I have is, could this system work today? If President Monson announced in General Conference that the church was reinstating the Law of Consecration and Stewardship as revealed to Joseph Smith would it 1) work and 2) be embraced?
I think it would have to look something like this: Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church. The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties. Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive. At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.
In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church. How many members would be willing to do that? I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.
But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions. Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church? It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies. It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.
The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative. If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try? Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor? Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end? Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?
The answer is faith, I think. Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom. It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed. Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church? Thoughts?
Rabu, 15 September 2010
Why I Can Kind of Sort of Support the Tea Party
First, in the ulterior motive category, they give Democrats a better shot at holding on to seats that the Democrats otherwise would have certainly lost. As a caveat let me just say that Democrats, as a party, are no great shakes. But they are closer to what I espouse in politics than Republicans, so that's where my tentative loyalty lies. So when I see races that should be Republican blowouts actually close and winnable for Democrats, I'm glad the Tea Party is doing well. Some examples of this are the Nevada senatorial race, the Kentucky senatorial race, the Delaware senatorial race, the Colorado gubernatorial race, and a slew of house races around the country. The primary voters are electing ultra-conservative candidates that moderate voters want no part of, and it's hurting their party. If the Republicans fail to win back the House and Senate, you can point to the Tea Party as the reason why.
Second, *deep breath* I actually think they are good for democracy. Most or all of those Tea Party primary wins came against the party-backed, system-approved incumbent or insider. These are the type of candidates that expect to win because they are supported by the institution. Reelection rates in America are somewhere north of 90%. Politicians get comfy and complacent and power-hungry. As a result we get a political class whose main goal is to continue to get reelected, as opposed to doing the work of the People.
So when a movement comes along which starts booting some of them out and putting the fear of the People in their hearts, I'm kind of on board. I wish it was a movement of moderates or something more benign, and I hope they win as few general election contests as possible, but I see their intrinsic value nonetheless. So, rock on, anti-establishmentists, vote out the stupids, but remember that I have a very different idea of what is stupid than you.
Kamis, 09 September 2010
Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
A second area of disagreement also has to do with taxing the wealthy, this time in the form of capital gains, which are disproportionally slanted towards the rich. Those rates would go from 15% to 20%, and eventually to 23.8%.
Read up on the issues from both sides here, here, here, and here. Another excellent resource is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which lays out the argument for how letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy and extending them for everyone else will reduce the deficit ($300 billion per year), almost universally benefit small businesses, and spur the economy and job growth.
President Obama has come out forcefully with a plan to allow the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy and to extend them for the poor. Here is the best and simplest argument I've seen for his plan, from Salon:
Not only did the wealthiest Americans benefit the most from the anything goes Wall Street boom years, but they paid the smallest price for the economic collapse. While millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes, they sailed right through. By calling for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama is putting down a political marker, and declaring that the rich must pay their fair share of the burden. Here's a message anyone can understand: I'm going to raise taxes on the rich and spend money directly creating jobs through infrastructure investments.Remember, even with the expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy they will be paying a lower tax rate than during the Reagan years, so save the cries of socialism. This country became great because of the work of the lower and middle classes. If we want to regain some of that greatness we have to secure them first by creating jobs and opportunities for them, and this move is a way to do that. We've covered this issue a little bit before here.
Over the past 30 years, however, after decades of convergence in income distribution, the gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger. That means America is less free because those poor have fewer and fewer meaningful opportunities to make their lives, and the lives of their families, better. It also means America is much less righteous. That might seem like a statement out of crazy land, but look at these principles from the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 9:30 - But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.
2 Nephi 9:42 - And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.
Jacob 2:13-14 - And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.
Helaman 6:17 - For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.
3 Nephi 6:10-12 - But it came to pass in the twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boasting because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions; For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers. And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.
There are many, many others just like this. One of the overarching themes of the Book of Mormon is that when a society becomes stratified between the rich and the poor, the rich will become prideful and wicked and push the poor down further and further until they are ripe for destruction. This is where we are inevitably headed unless we make the decision, as a society collectively, to narrow that gap voluntarily. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the poor and letting them expire for the wealthy is a step in the right direction.
Rabu, 01 September 2010
Liberaltarianism: Might Mormons Embrace a Liberal-Libertarian Alliance?
I once foolishly asked if the liberal dominance of the immediate post-Bush era would have the effect of liberalizing Mormon voters. The answer came resoundingly recently with a Gallup poll that showed that Mormons give President Obama the lowest favorability marks of any group, 24%. Sigh.
So I started wondering if there is anything that could be done about this. In my mind Mormons should feel very comfortable leaning politically left on issues such as immigration (love thy neighbors, the special place of "Lamanites" in Book of Mormon prophecies), the environment (the sanctity of all God's creations), war (Gospel of peace), and poverty (BOM: no poor among you, all things in common, 4 Nephi), among others. But I am continually disappointed.
In my meanderings trying to figure all this out I came across my solution du jour: liberaltarianism. That's right, the fusing of libertarianism and liberalism. This newish brand of Western politics could be just the thing to shake Mormons out of our political heterodoxy. Or not, but let's take look.
Mormons unquestioningly have a libertarian bent. Hostility to government has a solid foundation in extermination orders, declarations of war, military occupation, and opposition to the religious practice of polygamy. Whereas early members focused on communal living among saints at the exclusion of federal government meddling, modern-day members have taken those anti-federal government feelings and invested them in free-market capitalistic principles. Add that to the now cliche Western Individualism, wrought by eking out a living in a harsh land, and you have the perfect storm of libertarianism.
For many years libertarians found a natural relationship with conservatives. Both argued for small government, because big government led inevitably to a loss of individual freedom and liberty. They had basically every government ever as a precedent for this belief. But some funny things happened over the years. First, conservatives adopted a big government agenda just like liberals and Republican administrations increased the size of federal government and national debt exponentially more than Democratic Administrations who actually reduced the national debt. Second, corporations grew to be just as big or a bigger threat to individual freedoms and liberties as government.
The libertarian-conservative alliance has been weakening for years now. That has lead some political thinkers to wonder if there might be room for a new alliance between liberals and libertarians. The basic idea is expressed well from that first link in the previous sentence:
The hard part, of course, is economics. Where libertarians have a general distrust of government intrusion into free markets, liberals have a general distrust of free market forces and wish government to promote more fairness. The alliance, then, has to be framed in terms of creating more real choices and individual freedoms for Americans. The first easy one is cutting corporate welfare. Corporations in America receive billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks every year. By eliminating corporate welfare we would open up the markets for greater competition and choice, and protect Americans from corporate restriction of our freedoms. If we eliminated corporate welfare for traditional fossil fuel companies we would make it easier for alternative clean energy companies to compete. If we eliminated corporate welfare for big agriculture we'd encourage more local, sustainable family farming. If we eliminated corporate welfare for big banks we'd open up the market for smaller, community-based banking. These all create more choices for Americans and a healthier economy.
The government could help create more choices, freedom, and information by investment in roads, public transportation, and the internet. Infrastructure is key to promoting individual freedoms.
Next, a liberal-libertarian union would agree to dramatically reduce government over-regulation of small businesses. Some of these measures may be painful for liberals, but could really go a long way to forging that left-libertarian alliance and free small businesses to create more jobs.
Finally, left-libertarians would have to agree that some regulation is necessary to keep markets healthy by expanding choices and giving consumers more information. Regulating the worst health insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and refusing coverage based on technicalities gives consumers more and better health care choices. Regulating the food and drug industries allows consumers to have more information on which to base their choices.
One of the keys, here, is to remember that the modern-day libertarian really has little in common with the extreme version seen in some "Tea Party" candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. While those examples certainly verify that the extreme libertarian still exists in America today, most libertarians are more the Cato Institute ilk that understand that some regulation of markets is required to make them more efficient.
This obviously isn't going to be for every liberal or every libertarian. Both sides would have to give up a significant amount to make it work for the long-term. But the idea is to appeal to voters in the "Mormon Belt," where libertarianism is strong but liberal thought has a lot to offer. In places like Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada, a small-government liberal in the mold of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, Montana Senator Jon Tester or Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal can and has done very well.
So there's the idea for liberaltarianism. It is a focus on individual freedoms and choices and identifying places where the government can facilitate progress. It is about maintaining that core Western and Mormon belief in the power of the individual, while reminding us that if we work together we can achieve more. I think this has some potential, but I've been wrong before.
So I started wondering if there is anything that could be done about this. In my mind Mormons should feel very comfortable leaning politically left on issues such as immigration (love thy neighbors, the special place of "Lamanites" in Book of Mormon prophecies), the environment (the sanctity of all God's creations), war (Gospel of peace), and poverty (BOM: no poor among you, all things in common, 4 Nephi), among others. But I am continually disappointed.
In my meanderings trying to figure all this out I came across my solution du jour: liberaltarianism. That's right, the fusing of libertarianism and liberalism. This newish brand of Western politics could be just the thing to shake Mormons out of our political heterodoxy. Or not, but let's take look.
Mormons unquestioningly have a libertarian bent. Hostility to government has a solid foundation in extermination orders, declarations of war, military occupation, and opposition to the religious practice of polygamy. Whereas early members focused on communal living among saints at the exclusion of federal government meddling, modern-day members have taken those anti-federal government feelings and invested them in free-market capitalistic principles. Add that to the now cliche Western Individualism, wrought by eking out a living in a harsh land, and you have the perfect storm of libertarianism.
For many years libertarians found a natural relationship with conservatives. Both argued for small government, because big government led inevitably to a loss of individual freedom and liberty. They had basically every government ever as a precedent for this belief. But some funny things happened over the years. First, conservatives adopted a big government agenda just like liberals and Republican administrations increased the size of federal government and national debt exponentially more than Democratic Administrations who actually reduced the national debt. Second, corporations grew to be just as big or a bigger threat to individual freedoms and liberties as government.
The libertarian-conservative alliance has been weakening for years now. That has lead some political thinkers to wonder if there might be room for a new alliance between liberals and libertarians. The basic idea is expressed well from that first link in the previous sentence:
The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.Such an alliance would be based on some mutually agreeable principles. The low-hanging fruit where there is some obvious common ground includes opposition to government intrusion into Americans' family decisions and churches; opposition to government's weakening of civil liberties in the name of self-defense like NSA's spying program, warrantless wiretapping, and police brutality; opposition to war and entangling foreign policy; strong support for protecting the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment - I know I wrote this and I'm grudgingly willing to start perhaps maybe rethinking it if it means edging some Mormons' minds to the left a bit); support for a more open immigration policy; and rethinking our approach to the drug problem. So there are certainly some significant areas of agreement between liberals and libertarians.
The hard part, of course, is economics. Where libertarians have a general distrust of government intrusion into free markets, liberals have a general distrust of free market forces and wish government to promote more fairness. The alliance, then, has to be framed in terms of creating more real choices and individual freedoms for Americans. The first easy one is cutting corporate welfare. Corporations in America receive billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks every year. By eliminating corporate welfare we would open up the markets for greater competition and choice, and protect Americans from corporate restriction of our freedoms. If we eliminated corporate welfare for traditional fossil fuel companies we would make it easier for alternative clean energy companies to compete. If we eliminated corporate welfare for big agriculture we'd encourage more local, sustainable family farming. If we eliminated corporate welfare for big banks we'd open up the market for smaller, community-based banking. These all create more choices for Americans and a healthier economy.
The government could help create more choices, freedom, and information by investment in roads, public transportation, and the internet. Infrastructure is key to promoting individual freedoms.
Next, a liberal-libertarian union would agree to dramatically reduce government over-regulation of small businesses. Some of these measures may be painful for liberals, but could really go a long way to forging that left-libertarian alliance and free small businesses to create more jobs.
Finally, left-libertarians would have to agree that some regulation is necessary to keep markets healthy by expanding choices and giving consumers more information. Regulating the worst health insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and refusing coverage based on technicalities gives consumers more and better health care choices. Regulating the food and drug industries allows consumers to have more information on which to base their choices.
One of the keys, here, is to remember that the modern-day libertarian really has little in common with the extreme version seen in some "Tea Party" candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. While those examples certainly verify that the extreme libertarian still exists in America today, most libertarians are more the Cato Institute ilk that understand that some regulation of markets is required to make them more efficient.
This obviously isn't going to be for every liberal or every libertarian. Both sides would have to give up a significant amount to make it work for the long-term. But the idea is to appeal to voters in the "Mormon Belt," where libertarianism is strong but liberal thought has a lot to offer. In places like Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada, a small-government liberal in the mold of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, Montana Senator Jon Tester or Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal can and has done very well.
So there's the idea for liberaltarianism. It is a focus on individual freedoms and choices and identifying places where the government can facilitate progress. It is about maintaining that core Western and Mormon belief in the power of the individual, while reminding us that if we work together we can achieve more. I think this has some potential, but I've been wrong before.