Good News Everyone: Corporations Are Doing Great

The economic recovery isn't going so well for Americans.  The unemployment rate is still over nine percent and hiring is actually slowing down again.  Home foreclosures are still occurring at an alarmingly high rate.  Regular people are not doing well.  In short, as the Wall Street Journal notes: "Across a wide range of measures—employment growth, unemployment levels, bank lending, economic output, income growth, home prices and household expectations for financial well-being—the economy's improvement since the recession's end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II."

In contrast--stark, ugly contrast--corporations are doing great.  Corporate profits are at an all-time high.  Corporations are holding onto a record amount of cash, around $2 trillion.  The GDP is higher now than it was pre-recession, but virtually all increased income was captured as profits by corporations.  Stocks are the highest they've been since the recession began.  Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are at all-time lows.  The Wall Street Journal astutely noted that there is a "dichotomy between corporate performance and the overall health of the economy."

It is time to stop babying corporate America and the ultra-wealthy, and to stop pretending that their successes or failures equate to general success and failure of everyday Americans.  They are not in the business of creating jobs, protecting the environment, or generally improving economy and the lives of regular Americans.  They are in the business of making profits, and that does not necessarily, or even regularly, translate to better lives for regular people.  Our 30 year experiment in supply-side, trickle down economics should now come to an end.

So what sorts of things should we be doing to take our economy back from corporations?  The first is to skew the tension between the pure profit motive and social responsibility way towards the latter.

Greens believe the legal structure of the corporation is obsolete. At present, corporations are designed solely to generate profit. This legal imperative -- profit above all else -- is damaging our country and our planet in countless ways. We must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health, workers, or the communities in which the corporation operates.

The practical solution is "federal chartering of corporations that includes comprehensive, strict and enforceable social responsibility requirements."

Second is for our economy to focus more locally:  "Greens support decentralization, and call for a community-based economics whose aim is local prosperity and self-sufficiency."

The overall idea is to shift power from corporations to people, from national or international to local.  This is a more sustainable way to run an economy.  I also really appreciate the focus on self-sufficiency.  One of the important purposes of self-sufficiency is to be able to help other people.  In our civic lives, we are self-sufficient as individuals and families so that we are stable and comfortable, to be sure, but also so that we can help our neighbors and create a self-sufficient community.  Greens care about self-sufficiency and community welfare because they are tied together.  And large, unwieldy corporations play virtually no part in that scheme.

The current painfully slow recovery for average Americans while corporate America and the wealthiest thrive is further evidence that it is time to reevaluate our economic structure.  It is time to demand social responsibility from corporations and time to stop pretending that that "trickle-down" economics is sound policy.

What's Wrong With Us? Some ideas.

Perhaps I'm just in a bad mood, politically, but I made a list of what's wrong with America right now.  Enjoy:

1. Pointless, horrible wars that we won't end.
2. An assault on our civil liberties, mostly due to the Patriot Act.
3. A complete lack of initiative and desire to do something about climate change and out-of-control consumption of fossil fuels.
4. The deterioration of our public school system.
5. The ever-growing income disparity chasm between the rich and poor.
6. A broken health care system and no universal health care on the horizon to fix it.
7. Underregulated crony corporatism.
8. Insulated, unaccountable politicians.
9. Incivility and bigotry.
10. The New York Yankees.

To sum it up: we have a bipartisan assault on peace, liberty, niceness, the poor, and the environment.  Am I missing anything?

Liberal States' Rights

My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources.  First, I don't like the way my state generally does things.  Utah is a drag.  This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.

Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen.  I went into detail about this here.

Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below.  I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing.  As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.

Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom.  This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses.  Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.

Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring.  States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities.  The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian.  Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.

Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage).  There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
 
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels.  I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems.  But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.

For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation.  If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers.  So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things.  It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.

It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry.  Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside.  If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand.  The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform.  But otherwise they didn't.  But now they are.

Vermont is about to create a single-payer system.  California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents.  This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country.  The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better.  Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.

Nearly Half of Americans Aren't Paying Income Taxes: Bad But Maybe Not in the Way You Suppose

It has recently exploded all over the internet that nearly half of American households do not pay income taxes.  There are enough deductions and credits for families making around $50,000 and less to avoid the income tax completely, though they still are paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and others.

While some see this as a broken tax system, I see it as a broken economy.  While some gripe that half of Americans aren't pulling their weight, I see it as nearly half of Americans are not making enough money to pay income taxes.  They live below the line where we have decided that a person is only making enough to cover basic expenses and should not bear the weight of income taxes on top of it.  Instead of trying to figure out how to get those people to start paying income taxes at their current salary, lets instead focus on how to get these people making enough money to be able to afford taxes after their basic needs are met.

If we want to broaden the tax base, and I agree that that should be one of our goals, we need to narrow the gap of income inequality.  We are more free as a nation, and have increased agency as individuals, when the wealth and income gap is narrow.  That is perhaps part of why the Lord said, "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things."  Here is a site, called Business Insider, with all the charts you will ever need to help understand just how serious an issue this is.  Here is an example:

Progressive Taxation

A recent poll showed that over 60 percent of Americans think that the government should tax the rich in an effort to reduce the budget deficit.  Polls also consistently found that a majority of Americans wanted the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  Conservatives, inexplicably, won that battle in their larger war against progressive taxation.

So with all the recent talk about taxes, I wanted to try to explain why liberals, and a majority of Americans generally, support a progressive tax scheme.  A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with taxable income.  So a person making a smaller salary pays a smaller percentage in taxes than a person making a larger salary.  Currently in the US, we have a progressive federal income tax that ranges from 10% for the lowest income earners to 35% for the highest marginal rates.

Mainstream conservatives typically oppose a progressive tax for moral reasons.  They argue that it is unfair to tax the wealthy at higher rates just because they have a lot of money, that it is a form of class welfare, that the poor are getting off easy, and that it disincentivizes hard work.  These arguments miss the point.
As a starting point, let's look at tithing, which is a conservative's dream flat rate of 10% for all.  Tithing is nothing like taxation, of course, and an analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed for that reason.  Tithing is a spiritual commandment, and is a matter of faith, unlike taxes which are a matter of public policy.  But it provides a nice, simple example of what I want to talk about.

Lets say there are two people, Person X makes $1,000 per month and Person Y makes $10,000 per month.  If they both pay 10% tithing, X pays $100 and Y pays $1,000.  It is tempting to say that since X and Y pay the same rate it is equally difficult or easy for them to pay, that their burden is equal.  That, however, would be wrong.  X makes very little money and thus a higher percentage, probably approaching 100%, of her income goes towards needs like rent, food, clothing, utilities, etc.  X's tithing check comes at the expense of items she needs, but will sacrifice nonetheless.  Y's 10%, on the other hand, will come almost exclusively from money she was going to use for savings, luxuries, and non-necessities.  It is much harder for X to pay 10% than for Y.

Tithing, then, in my opinion, is disproportionally more beneficial to the poor who gain greater blessings because it is a greater sacrifice.  The wealthy, again in my opinion, had better seriously step up in fast offerings if they want similar blessings, because the more wealthy a person is the easier the law of tithing becomes to keep.  There are plenty of scriptures that warn the wealthy that their wealth is a hindrance to their righteousness, and I think tithing was specifically set up to test how generous the wealthy will be with their money beyond the strict minimum required by tithing.

So for taxation, you can see why a progressive scheme is favored by liberals.  For another example, say that the we all agree that a nation of three people, for simplicity, needs $10,000 for its government to function properly.  Three people, A, B, and C, make $10,000, $30,000, and $60,000 per month respectively.  How should the tax burden be divided?  If there was a flat rate of 10%, A would pay $1,000, B $3,000, and C $6,000 and they'd get there.  But, again, this is actually a disproportionate burden on A who makes less and has a much more difficult time making ends meet under this scheme than B or, especially, C.  In this situation A actually has a higher tax burden.  A progressive tax of 5%, 10%, and 11% evens out those burdens.  You'll see that A had her tax burden cut in half and to make up for it C only had an increase of one percent.  This is more fair to everyone.

There are, of course, other reasons to support a progressive tax system.  The wealthy have increased access to influence and power, and thus more ability to shape public policy to their benefit at the expense of the poor.  Progressive taxation can even out that inequality.  There is also a persuasive argument that the wealthy receive greater benefits from the government, such as the protection of property rights, defense and security, infrastructure, and market regulation, than the poor and thus should shoulder a greater tax burden to support societal order.  Wikipedia has a nice rundown of the pro and con arguments.

What is overstated is the amount of animosity and hatred felt towards the wealthy, and the use of progressive taxation to punish them.  Some people no doubt feel this way, but the best and most useful arguments for progressive taxation do not rely on emotions or retribution.  Progressive taxation is a sound rational policy.

In fact, despite all of the hand-wringing about raising rates on the wealthy and the detrimental effect it will have on the economy, this is the least progressive tax system we've had since the Great Depression.  Throughout the steady economic growth of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s the marginal tax rates were typically in the 70-90% range, instead of the 35% we have now.  During the Reagan era the top marginal rates were around 50%.  Here's a chart I think I've probably posted before from that link above.

Pres. Obama and Congress were wrong, from a public policy standpoint, to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  In two years the best thing to do for the country would be to let them expire and properly redistribute the tax burden.  The tax system in America needs to be vastly simplified and more progressive.  I don't want to necessarily go back to a 90% marginal rate, but we've certainly gone too far in the other direction.

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 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.

Liberalism and Agency

Of all the reasons given for why a person can't be a good Mormon and liberal, the one used most often is that liberalism takes away free agency. This is the one conservative Mormon activists tend to favor. I attempted to refute this argument in my post "Agency and Democracy," wherein I argued that as long as we live in a democracy where we are allowed to vote, we retain our agency. I also pointed out that conservatives have taken a lot of my money and used it for things with which I disagreed, such as torture, the Iraq War, illegal wiretaps, and tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby highlighting the hypocrisy of this accusation.

I continue to encounter the liberals-as-anti-agency accusation, though, and so have thought a little more about it and want to take a different angle. The conservative Mormon activist argument, by the way, is that liberals want to take away our agency by raising taxes to pay for government programs. The person, then, has less agency because she has less money in the bank.

This argument says way more about the conservatives that put it forward than the liberals they are accusing. What it says is that they only think of agency in economic terms, whereas the idea of agency in scriptures and religion is in entirely clothed moral terms. Our eternal progress is dependent on our using our agency to make good decisions morally, not good decisions with our temporal wealth. Do we treat our families well? Do we honor our covenants? Do we live Christ-like lives? The use of our agency in these important areas has nothing to do with taxes, government regulation, or any other temporal, man-made, economic consideration.

Under a system where capitalism is regulated in order to level the playing field just enough to get people out of poverty and have health security, we are still able to exercise our agency completely, fully, unfettered. We are still able to make those most important decisions that will enable us to receive the gift of eternal life.

To suggest that liberals deprive individuals of the full range of their free agency based purely on economic motives reveals, in my mind, a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of agency and the very purpose of this life. It is time we (including myself, of course) spent less time worried about our money and temporal possessions and more time worried about living Christ-centered lives.

I have no problem with an argument about taxes, social programs, and government regulation in terms of public policy, there is legitimate room for debate there, but I cannot see merit in opposing liberal ideology in terms of deprivation of free agency.

The Size and Role of Governments

It should be clear by this point that the debate over health care reform is less a debate about health care reform than it is a debate about the role of government in America. I hope that it is not a surprise for me to reveal that most liberals do not affirmatively want a large government, nor do they enjoy paying higher taxes. What we want is social justice and we think that the government sometimes in the best position to offer it.

My understanding of the conservative counter-argument is that individuals are capable of regulating themselves and society through the free market without government intrusion. With less government intervention, that means more money in people's pockets and a higher standard of living for all.

I get the feeling that some conservatives believe that many, if not most, liberals actually enjoy the government taxing us, we want a huge government, and we'll use excuses like health care and poverty to give the government more power. The specific program doesn't really matter, what matters is that we find a way to give the government more power. To the extent that any conservatives believe this, it is a strawman argument. Government can be the means, but it is never the ends.

I'm not sure how you can believe that corporate America acts in our best interests and promotes justice, equality, and stability. Go ahead and click 'em all. And remember, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corporations are not in the game to help the consumer and society generally, they are in the game to make a profit. The side effects of corporate greed can be good for society and individuals, but not always. In fact, they do not have a track record that suggests we should trust them any more than the government, probably just the opposite.

Now, its widely accepted that greed is the engine driving capitalism. That greed, putting self-interest above all, spurs men and women to build up successful companies, innovate, and progress. Mainstream liberals agree with this notion and protect this way of life. Liberal has never meant anti-capitalist.

Liberals tend to see and emphasize, however, the inefficiencies of the free market. We see that the market does not always act rationally. We see that transactions are not always between parties of equal power who possess equal knowledge. We want to level the playing field for all participants, and this often means bringing down the rich and powerful a notch in order to raise up the poor and disenfranchised a notch. It means lower highs but higher lows. Its a trade-off that conservatives have a hard time accepting.

And I'll be honest, at times I have a hard time accepting it as well. In a parallel universe I could actually be a small-government-type. I'm not oblivious to the fact that taxes are getting higher, the government is getting bloated, and a small minority of people are leeches feeding on public welfare. I can see how a person would see this and want to reign it all in.

The problem is that we live in a world where people are filled with hate, greed, and prejudice. They will keep getting richer at the expense of the poor. They will pay women and minorities less because of they think they deserve less, and treat them worse because they think they deserve worse. Insurance companies, to use the example du jour, will deny coverage to those that need it most, delay coverage to those that require big expenses, and generally mess up the entire industry to make a buck.

I just don't think we live in a world where, if we want social justice, we can leave it all to private industry. The free market does not always act rationally, so we should foster and encourage industry and innovation, but we should be ready to step in and use the government where necessary. Does this mean socialism? No, of course not. Does it mean uncontrolled government spending? No. I hope Pres. Obama fulfills all of his campaign promises of health care reform, climate change legislation, and cutting out wasteful and inefficient government spending. That is exactly the type of agenda a liberal should endorse.

And I'm not exactly sure when the Mormon fixation on capitalism became so strong. For much of our early history capitalism was barely evident. From the law of consecration and the United Order, to Brigham Young's strongly pro-Mormon cooperative (to the exclusion of non-Mormon industry), ZCMI, the Church has a fairly deep history of non-capitalist economic institutions. Only when the members failed to live the higher law of collectivism, and with the increased contact and intermingling with non-Mormons, did capitalism become the de facto way of life.

Perhaps it was inevitable with an increasingly small world, and again I'm not saying we should be anti-capitalist, but so many Mormons are so staunchly free market that it makes me think we have forgotten our history altogether. I believe early Mormons balanced the competing ideals of the Individual and the Collective much better than we do today, with our laser-like focus on the Individual alone. Maybe I'm wrong.

Mormons : America :: Catholic Monks : Rome

Recently at Slate.com, there was a series of articles which played out the thought experiment of how America may come to end in the near or distant future. Towards the end of this series the author speculated on who or what would carry the spirit and ideals of America forward like Catholic monks did with Rome. His conclusion: the Mormons.

There were several reasons. First, Mormons might be more likely to survive the collapse of America because of our commitment to food storage and our actively watching for the apocalypse. Second, Mormons believe that America was divinely appointed and inspired, and are therefore more likely to carry on its ideals and traditions, maybe even revering the Constitution after America is no more. Third, Mormons represent American values because we have been forced to assimilate to American culture after years of being outcasts and persecuted. In other words, we have worked very hard to fit in and seem normal after a pretty rocky start. Fourth, Mormons have fully embraced capitalism. Fifth, Mormons are always looking to the past as a source of strength. Not being too caught up in the present or future is good for survival in harsh conditions. Finally, Americans represent good old fashioned American values like family, civic responsibility, and the like.

This makes me uncomfortable for several reasons. I think like most Mormons, I tend to discount the point of view that says that Mormonism is a uniquely American religion. Of course we believe that Gospel truths are universal and eternal, applying equally to all nations and people. I understand, however, where this point of view comes from. It is true that the church was founded (or restored) here in America, that the Book of Mormon goes out of its way to extol the virtues of America and its founding, that modern revelation has pinpointed the spot of the Garden of Eden and New Jerusalem here in America, and the headquarters are in America. That is fairly persuasive evidence that this is an American religion.

And it is true that the American culture that dominates Mormonism pervades congregations throughout the world. Non-English speakers use English words in regards to Mormonism (for instance, many French speakers use the word "garments" and "Elder" even though those words either don't exist or are not used in such a way in French) and foreign members of the church tend to exhibit America-philia in their desire to visit America or move here. I don't think the church explicitly encourages such America-centrism, but its hard to argue that it does not exist on some level.

But the main point of the article and what I was interested in, was the way in which Mormons have gone out of our way to assimilate into American society to the point that we are regarded as the best single example of the confluence of America and religion. Has it made a positive difference in our religion that we are trying very hard to fit it?

On the one hand state and federal governments have ceased sending armed mobs and militias to take our property and change our religious practices, but on the other hand Americans are still deeply suspicious of our religion and really don't trust us. Are we trying too hard to be seen as quintessentially "American" at the expense of some of our core ideals for very little in return?

It used to be that one of the distinguishing features of Mormonism was the emphasis on community. Of course there was the United Order, but there were also various other community activities and community pride. For a good look at this phenomenon read Wallace Stegner's Mormon Country. I think that has been completely lost. We pride ourselves in our big houses on our big lots and our capitalism and our Western-style individualism. I don't think there is anything wrong with those those, in moderation, but it feels like we've gone too far and maybe a lot of it has to do, ironically I guess, with our desire to assimilate and seem "normal."

Perhaps, as well, this has something to do with Mormon politics. This extreme identity with conservative politics which only loosely coincides with Mormon beliefs allows an outlet for the majority of Mormons to enter the national discourse via a mainstream political vehicle. What have they gotten in return? A Southern base that distrusts Mormons and would not consider nominating a Mormon for President.

I would hope that members of the church identify themselves as Mormons first and Americans, democrats, or republicans following after. Not because there is anything grossly wrong with America, but because a nation is manmade and transitory, whereas our religion is eternal. A nation, any nation, is inherently flawed and limited, which is not the case with the Gospel.

I would hope that we could find the beauty and wisdom in all cultures instead of puffing our American chests and sneering at what we see as inferior nations, especially knowing that members of the church come from nearly all cultures and nations (even Muslim nations).

So I don't feel bad admitting that the fact that people see us as the very epitome of American culture makes me uncomfortable.

Is President Obama a Socialist?

Shaking my head in despair.

I can't believe I have to right these words, but: Pres. Obama is not a socialist.

Go ahead and Google Obama + Socialist and you will come up with over 7.3 million hits. This is the duly elected POTUS, and we have to have a discussion about whether or not he is a socialist. The unfounded hysteria, I suppose, is based on the bank bailouts (TARP), the auto-industry bailout, and the stimulus bill.

Am I really writing this?

Socialism is state ownership and control over the means of production and distribution. Socialists, like the Socialist Party USA or the Socialist Party of America, call for nationalization of all or most of: the financial system, the health care system, the transportation system (including the production of cars, airplanes, and ships), factories, media, etc. They call for absolute income inequality and the abolition of classes. All of this to be achieved by militant action, if necessary, which they believe it almost always is.

I'm dreaming, aren't I? This can't be real.

The first piece of evidence that Pres. Obama is not a socialist, and I'd say its the biggie, is that socialists disavow and want nothing to do with Pres. Obama. They don't think he is a socialist. And they are not an especially humble or an easily embarrassed crowd. Nor are they the types to shun the spotlight. They appear to be absolutely giddy with all the new-found publicity they are receiving, but still don't accept the president as one of their own.

Now why is that?

As for TARP, a socialist would have used the financial crisis caused in large part by a lack of personal responsibility and regulation, coupled with immense greed and pride, to completely restructure the financial system and put government in permanent control. This is clearly not the case. The banks came asking to be bailed out, the government did so. The reason was because businesses and banks rely on short-term loans that are borrowed and paid back nearly daily, day in and day out. Because the banks had gambled and lost on the mortgage bubble, they had no money for these short-term loans which businesses need, as in have to have, in order to function. The government stepped in and guaranteed the loans and got credit flowing again.

Hey, that sounds like the capitalism! It is. There are basic regulations and oversight which dictate how the banks can use that bailout money, but there is no complete government control and the whole system is temporary until the economy turns around. Socialists would like to see complete control of the banking system, or something akin to the public utility system. This ain't that.

Every word I have to waste on this subject kills a puppy.

As for the auto bailout, I don't know what to say. They received an infusion of cash, again with them on their knees begging, to avoid catastrophic collapse that would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. It is not just the workers for the Big 3, but the workers of every industry that is supported by the Big 3, such as all the parts manufacturers. The government, again, has no real control of the companies and no permanent control whatsoever. Again, the government propping up capitalism until the economy recovers.

Is this what hell is like?

The stimulus gives the government control of nothing. It was federal money, mostly to states, for things like infrastructure and schools. It was a lot of money, and it is still unclear how effective it will be, but no threat of socialism. In fact, just about every Congressperson, Democrat and Republican alike, put pork in that bill. No one has clean hands on that one.

So what we see so far is that the federal government has just transferred millions of dollars into private hands. They took money from the masses and transferred it to the select few bankers, mostly. Does that sound like socialism? Sounds a little like bizzaro-socialism to me.

Please someone kill me.

That leaves us with health care. In that I want universal health care, which I laid out ad naseum on this site previously, to the degree that I want that certain industry universal-ized, I guess I am a health care socialist. Pres. Obama's plan is not a call for universal health care. It is not complete government control of the health care apparatus. That is what is needed, frankly, but he isn't willing to go that far yet.

So does anyone who wants government control of an industry a socialist? What about the police force? The fire department? Schools? Public transportation? Public utilities? TV and radio airwaves? The military? Does the public control of these industries stifle capitalism? Is anyone that supports government interference in these services a dreaded socialist?

We make decisions all the time that the government is best suited to control certain services and industries. Is health care so different from schooling and public safety?

Merciful, this is almost over.

I will say this again: Pres. Obama is not a socialist. He's not even close.

Suggestions to the contrary are conservative fear-mongering at its worst. Republicans have been out of office for a little over 100 days now and they are already acting like the ruin of America is upon us. They think that Americans are so dumb that they can't even see a socialist Manchurian candidate staring them right in the eyes.

They remind me of a Simpson's episode (Steve M. can help me out on this) where Marge kicks Homer out of the house for some indiscretion. Homer is forced to live in the kids' treehouse. Within less than a day, when he and Marge reconcile, his clothes are in tatters, the beard is full grown and unkempt, and he basically is a hysterical homeless man. He can't live without Marge for even a few hours. Republicans had unchecked power in Washington for such a long time that they are now not able to live without it for even just a few months, let alone years, and have turned to the sensational to help reclaim that power. Americans just are not buying it.

* Know that when I am talking about Republicans, here, I am mostly referring to the Washington and media elite like Boehner, Cantor, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. I understand the average Republican still has his or her head on straight.