Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

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.

Speedy and Public Trial by Jury

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from The Economist

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."  -- 6th Amendment

This seems pretty straightforward, right?  I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power.  The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power.  I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that.

Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals.  Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as Glenn Greenwald outlined:

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system.  They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.  Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings.  The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.  Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.  India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.  In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

But not in America.  In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short.  So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters.  Instead, the administration has decided to hold military tribunals (straight news story here) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system.  Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.

We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations.  We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection.  All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama.  I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.

In Which I Whine About Our Political Parties

Pres. Obama is certainly a better president that Pres. W. Bush was, and is certainly better than Sen. McCain would have been, not to mention the mediocre crop of hopefuls lining up to challenge him next year.  He's done some good things such as at least making an effort to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting any new wars (. . . yet, but we're keeping our eyes on you, Libya), making an effort to reform the health care and financial systems, and, importantly, changing the tone of discourse in the White House.  But it hasn't really been that great, overall.  Where he has tried to make some progress in areas of war and regulation reform, they have been meager and more or less disappointing.  I went over some of the failures before here.

Now we learn that Pres. Obama will not be shutting down Guantanamo Bay any time soon, like he promised, will reinstate military tribunals and not use our world-class criminal justice system, and will continue indefinite detentions without hearings.  He also fired the State Dept. spokesperson for criticizing the brutal detention of Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks leaker.  His record on civil liberties is no better than Bush's, which make me sick.

As a result of this frustration, and general political malaise, I've felt like I've been wandering a political desert for a while.  I've spent some time looking at the Green Party, which has a lot to offer, especially for someone like me with strong environmental and pacifist leanings.  I feel pretty strongly about social democracy.  When it's really time to think outside the box there is nothing like libertarian socialism.

The point is, the basic political struggle we all have is reconciling that space between what we really believe and our choices in the ballot box.  Many people, most I suspect, instead of embracing this problem do their best erase the distinction and become party loyalists, buying the party line and giving up critical thought.  I admit to falling into this trap from time to time.  This is where you find absurd contradictions like states' rights conservatives being pro-federal government when it comes to abortion and marriage laws, or anti-death penalty and anti-war liberals being extremely pro-choice.  To paraphrase John Stewart's book, America, (because I don't have it in front of me right now):  You believe in protecting the environment?  Congratulations you are also anti-gun.  You oppose gay marriage?  Great, you are also anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The current political party system in America clearly doesn't add up to intellectual consistency.

Many other people simply choose to become one-issue voters, which is more dangerous than the party loyalists.  At least the party loyalists are vaguely aware of most of the issues that the candidates espouse, whereas a single-issue voter doesn't care.

So what is the correct response?  Continue to enable the bloated and intellectually dissonant existing political parties by choosing "the lesser of two evils"?  Reform from within?  Vote for the third party candidate and give the election to your ideological opposite instead of your ideological near miss?  Fight the beasts who will out-spend and out-everything you to try to create a multi-party system?  I feel like there aren't any good, practical solutions because of the power the two parties hold.

There is really no point here except to whine about how the two parties are failing us, which is a complaint as old as the nation, I presume.  But we worship in a religion that urges us to stay true to our convictions and zealously maintain and cherish our agency, and I feel like modern day American politics forces us, to some degree at least, to sacrifice both.

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.

Rant Time: Pres. Obama is No Liberal

And he's certainly no socialist, despite the popular conservative argument otherwise.  Here's what we have seen so far:

1. He gave away the public option before the debate even began.  Health care reform ended up being a huge win for the health care industry which will soon be flooded with new customers thanks to the mandate.
2. The stimulus was too small and included too many tax cuts for corporations at the Republicans' behest.
3. He has failed to follow up on, pursue, and prosecute Bush Administration illegal activities such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
4. The war in Afghanistan, which pretty much everyone agrees we can't "win" militarily, has been escalated instead of ended.
5. The financial reform bill was watered down in the face of the powerful financial lobby to the point of likely being completely ineffectual to prevent the sort of the economic meltdown we are currently working our way out of, over two years later and with no end in sight.
6. He is now backing down from his stance of letting the tax cuts for the super-wealthy expire and extending the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans permanently.
7. And now, reports are that the administration is stepping up covert attacks in Yemen.

What makes these items so infuriating for liberals is that public polling shows that Americans supported the liberal position in nearly ever single one of this issues.  Americans wanted a public option, at the time a big stimulus was popular to drag us out of the recession.  Americans hate torture and our Middle Eastern wars.  Americans wanted tough new regulations for Wall Street to avoid another economic meltdown.  Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  They want Pres. Obama to deliver on his promises, but he appears to be politically gutless.  I can't think of an issue where he has drawn a line in the sand and stood up for what he believes is best for America.

Compromise is inevitable, of course, and I'm glad we have a president who is willing to compromise to get things done.  The problem is he never seems to compromise from a position of strength and vigor.  When he was elected America had given Democrats complete control of the government because they didn't like where Republicans were taking them.  Instead of taking that mandate and arguing with strong voices for the policies that got them elected, Democrats capitulated and seems to retreat at every possible occasion.  As Pres. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party it was up to him to set the agenda and the tone.  He has so far failed.

I don't expect or even necessarily want a victory on every major point above, but certainly a few victories would be encouraging for liberals.  A few moments of inspiring leadership would be much appreciated.  A mere occasional reason to gloat wouldn't be the worst thing on earth.  If the President and Democrats had managed just a couple big wins in those issues they may have had a base that was more energized for the election and more willing to work hard to defeat the tea party surge.  But since there does not seem to be either 1) any real and deeply-held liberal convictions by Democrats or, worse, 2) any real difference between the two parties and thus no real choice, liberals largely stayed home on election day.

Pres. Obama has two more years to show some real leadership, but I'm not convinced he has it in him.  And I know Congressional Democrats don't.  The liberal renaissance we thought was coming in 2006 and 2008 has flatlined.

The Economy, Mitigated by the Tea Party

. . . unfortunately.

This was certainly a drubbing for Democrats, no doubt about it.  After making six years of gains they have lost the House in resounding fashion, lost a bunch of governorships, and lost a handful of Senate seats.  I have no problem with fluidity in political power, but when you take a look at the underlying factors in the Republican landslide last night, the picture isn't so neat and clear as it might seem.

Take a look at the polling that asks Americans which issues are most important to them.  The economy is always the most important by a wide margin.  In the most recent CNN poll 52% of respondents said it was the most important issue while only eight percent thought issues such as the deficit, health care, our lame wars, etc., respectively were the most important.  In a recent Pew poll 39% thought the economy was the most pressing issue, 25% said health care was, and 17% said the deficit was.  In a recent Bloomberg poll 49% listed the economy as problem number one, compared to 27% for the deficit and ten percent for health care.  In a recent CBS poll it was 57% for the economy, seven percent for health care, three percent for things like immigration and the deficit.  Exit polls from last night show the same thing.

When the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, the party in power loses.  When the economy is really bad, the party in power loses really badly (and when the American public gets upset . . . people DIE!).  It happens to both parties.  And since neither party is very adept at actually solving problems, voters are fluctuating randomly and widely, trying to find the right combination of people to get the country back on track.  I think we'll flop around between Democratic and Republican control of the various political institutions for a few years, to be honest.

But, in any case, the objective data show that this election had precious little to do with health care reform, or the budget deficit, or taxes, or anything else other than the health of the economy.  This was not a fundamental repudiation of liberalism or a fundamental acceptance of conservatism, just like the opposite wasn't true for the last few years.  This is an American public feeling lost and injured, trying to wend our way through the wilderness.  There are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and even more moderates and it will be that way for a long time.

The election was also colored by the Tea Party.  Last night MSNBC was running a graphic showing how Tea Party candidates fared.  The last one I saw showed that about 35 had won and about 60 had lost.  I can't find anything on this today, if you can please put it in the comments.  So while they generally raised Republican enthusiasm during the election, they were at best a mixed bag.  In the Senate, specifically, they might have cost Republicans control.  It looks like the new Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two independents that caucus with the Democrats (giving them essentially 53).  The Republicans threw away three seats because of the Tea Party: Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.  The thought is that if they had picked up those seats and brought the Senate to 50-50 they could have persuaded someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch and caucus with Republicans, giving them a majority.

In the end, Republicans can feel pretty good about this election, but they should stop with all the rhetoric about the American people finally waking up, repudiating Pres. Obama (who still has okay poll numbers, all things considered), or giving them some sweeping mandate.  We're actually totally depressed about our country and you are depressing, the Democrats are depressing, and we seem to be just randomly picking candidates at this point.

Between a Cult and a Hard Place

Here's a fun little question:  Which major American political party is friendlier to Mormons?  Just like the question I asked before about which party is more likely to nominate a presidential candidate, this one isn't as simple as it seems.

Now, we at the Mormon Left have spent a couple years showing that Mormonism and liberalism are just as compatible (more compatible, in my opinion, but that's just an opinion) as Mormonism and conservatism.  This post is not about which major ideology is most compatible with Mormonism.  It is about which party is more friendly to Mormons.  The simple answer is that the bases of parties both think we are a cult, but with their own twists.

Take the recent story about Sharon Angle.  Ms. Angle is the delightfully bizarre Republican running against Harry Reid.  She regularly immerses herself in overtly Christian memes as a way to appeal to her base (and also, presumably, because she has deep religious beliefs).  The pastor of her church recently went into some detail explaining that the LDS Church is a cult.  That link is to the liberal online magazine, Salon.com.  If you take a moment to peruse the comment section you will find that the most prevalent response from the liberal commenters is, "Yeah, so what?  All religions are cults."

The big difference, though, is how institutionalized the Mormons-are-a-cult meme is in each party.  I don't think I've ever heard someone considered a liberal leader single out Mormonism as being a cult (If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to admit it).  Such comments are made by many rank-and-file liberals, to be sure, but institutionally I don't think liberals have gone there.  On the other hand, influential conservative leaders say or imply it often.  For example, all of your run-of-the-mill extremely influential Christian Right leaders have made the case.  Mike Huckabee, former and future serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination, famously made it a part of his campaign against Mitt Romney.

So here you have the basic conundrum of being a Mormon trying to be actively engaged in partisan politics.  Would you rather be courted for your vote while snickered about behind your back and singled out among Christian religions as a cult, or openly sneered at as a cult and lumped in with all the other religions?  An appetizing decision to make, no?  Either way, you have a political party that doesn't respect your religion and discounts your role in public discourse automatically based on your religion.

In the end, Mormons in both political camps need to push back against those that consider us a cult.  We should absolute embrace and celebrate those doctrinal and practical differences that separate us from evangelicals and other religions, but the overt negativity from the political bases of both parties is harmful to our church.  We should be magnifying the call from Elder Cook in the latest General Conference: "In our increasingly unrighteous world, it is essential that values based on religious belief be part of the public discourse. Moral positions informed by a religious conscience must be accorded equal access to the public square. Under the constitutions of most countries, a religious conscience may not be given preference, but neither should it be disregarded."

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.

Don't Be Afraid of Different Political Ideas

I don't consider myself a socialist, though many of the modern far right might disagree with this self-assessment.  But I also don't consider socialism to be evil and parallel to the plan of Satan.  In my first substantive post on this blog I made the point, and I stick by it, that good  members of the church can be found in hundreds of nations around the world supporting many different types of governments, including many that consider themselves socialists.  I can understand some of the pull socialism exerts on people and I can understand some of the critiques.  I can't understand demonizing members and non-members alike that espouse it.

All of this brings me to the site called The Mormon Worker.  I became aware of this socialist Mormon blog during law school and I have read it off and on since.  I agree with a lot of what they have to say, and disagree a fair amount as well.  For quite a while I have wanted to put a link up to it on this blog because it offers a unique perspective that some members of the church may appreciate, but I am ashamed to say that for too long I have resisted providing a link because of the loud and intimidating cries from politically conservative members of the church about how evil socialism is.  I didn't agree with them, but I also didn't want to have to ever face them directly.

I was wrong, of course.  We can only gain by having open and civil discourse about different forms of government and different ideas for how to improve the human experience.  There is nothing in the Mormon Ethic of Civility that would prohibit or discourage members of the church from discussing and espousing socialism as a political point of view.  As members of the church we should look for good ideas everywhere, including political opinions that we find foreign or, initially, antithetical to our strongly held opinions or the traditions of our immediate culture.

Along these lines, a good first look from The Mormon Worker might be three posts from them:  A Cancer Has Infected the Church, Social Justice Study Guide for Glenn Beck, and Can Mormons Be Socialists? The Case of El Salvador.  The point is not to get Mormons to become socialist, but that there are valid political beliefs beyond current-day American conservatism, or current-day American liberalism, or any American political party at all, and that we shouldn't be afraid to accept some of those ideas and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be intimidated into certain political beliefs.  Too many Americans and members of the church are afraid to step outside of their political comfort zones because of the systematic demonization of the "other" that is taking place right now, and our ideas and solutions to problems are becoming stagnant and bogged down as a result.

So there is a link up now to The Mormon Worker and it's no big deal.

Glenn Beck v. The Mormon Ethic of Civility

Can you guess which is which?

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times?

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending money on embryonic stem cell research. . .  Eugenics.  In case you don't know what eugencis led to; the Final Solution.  A master race!  A perfect person. . .  the stuff we are facing is absolutely frightening.
 
During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying."

You self-centered, self-righteous, socialist, out-of-control, dangerous, man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore. You need to start making sense.

Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

Speaking to a Muslim Congressman:  "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies". . .  And I know you're not.  I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans feel that way.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible.

Mary Landrieu is "a high-class prostitute".

The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.
 
A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people.

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution, to progress past the Constitution.

Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.”

[Hilliary Clinton] is the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?

Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.”

Person 1:  I don't hate women, they're very convenient to have around.
Person 2:  They just shouldn't be voting.
Person 1:  Of course not.

Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute" and a "tragedy pimp".

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible.

I think she is a racist.  I think she decided things based on race.  I think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic woman, can make decisions that a white man can't make.  I can't imagine saying that.  That's like saying Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews.
 
Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public.

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. . .  If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.

Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

These vampires are not going to be satisfied by just sucking the blood of GM's top guy, the AIG executives or any other business or businessperson. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.

Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]" (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.

The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be "What the hell do you mean we're out of missiles?"
 
The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.


I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. . .  No, I think I could.  I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.  Is this wrong?

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism.  Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. 

There are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night:  One, they're terrorists.  Two, they're escaping the law.  Or, three, they're hungry -- they can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible.

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . .  I'm not saying he doesn't like white peopel, I'm saying he has a problem.  This guy is, I believe, a racist.
 
Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting.

You got to have an enemy to fight.  And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power.  That was Hitler's plan.  His enemy: the Jew.  Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming.  Then you get the scientists -- eugenics.  You the scientists: global warming.  then you have to discredit the scientists who say, "That's not right."  And you must silence all dissenting voices.  That's what Hitler did.

The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.

There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.  We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the  head.
 
In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up."  I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.

The Immigration List, Continued

An investigation into the now infamous immigration list has revealed that two state workers compiled the information illegally from state databases.  I wrote a little about it a few days ago here.  This entire episode has ratcheted up the level of intensity surrounding the immigration issue here in Utah and also nationwide.  Amidst all of this the Church's position is to approach immigration with a spirit of compassion, "careful reflection and civil discourse," and "the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

After skimming the Deseret News comment sections to some relevant articles and doing a little "web surfing" I'm finding that a lot of politically conservative members of the church aren't so thrilled with the vibe they are getting from the church on this issue.  They find themselves in a somewhat unfamiliar position of not being exactly on-board with a political issue into which the church has inserted itself.  The word you are looking for is: schadenfreude.

The go-to authority for most of these people is the Twelfth Article of Faith, which of course states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  This says it all for them, that the law says deport illegals so we have to support it.  Let's set aside for now that these same people have done anything but honor and sustain laws with which they disagree, such as health care reform, and would gladly accept the government failing to enforce that one.  We all have convenient little mental gymnastics we can perform to bend logic to fit our preconceived ideas.

Setting that argument aside, what many of these politically conservative outspoken members fail to remember, also from the scriptures, are stories such as these:

1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea 

11 ¶ And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

It was illegal for Christ to do these things on the sabbath, and yet He did anyway.  So, what is more important, a Christlike compassion and willingness to serve and strengthen those in need, or obeying, honoring, and sustaining the letter of the law?  What is more important, Matthew 22:36-40 or the Twelfth Article of Faith?

I don't think we should simply ignore the 12th, but let's at least put it in perspective.  It doesn't trump the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.  These illegal immigrants are our neighbors, they are good people, and the fact that they are here illegally doesn't allow us to just blindly demand that the full weight of the law be executed.  Instead, it actually gives us a chance to exercise some charity and do something might be uncomfortable doing: forgiving and reaching out in compassion to illegal immigrants.

The Right Kind of Justice For Illegal Immigration

We've entered a new era of creepy in the Utah immigration debates.  A group of "Concerned Citizens," who cowardly chose to remain anonymous, quietly spied on Hispanics and compiled a list of 1,300 names of people they claim are illegal immigrants.  They listed names, birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, Social Security Numbers, and due dates of women who are pregnant.  There is good evidence that the group had illegal access to private information through government databases.  Besides being creepy and despicable, and this should come as no surprise, the list is also inaccurate.

The most common trope about illegal immigration is that it is just that, illegal, and that we shouldn't allow any illegal activity in America to go unpunished.  Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, cheapens our legal system, and threatens our security.  These conservatives want the illegals rounded up and shipped off.  Their rhetoric, unfortunately, usually goes beyond simply wanting the immigration laws enforced, it usually contains a level of vindictiveness and anger that is easily associated with racism and xenophobia.  It is unChristlike and unbecoming of members of our faith.  They want justice through punishment.

What they are less interested in, however, justice through mercy, which is just as valid.  It is equally as just for me to forgive a neighbor of his trespasses against me as for me to prosecute my neighbor and demand the full weight of the law be brought down on him.  Of course, different crimes require different demands of justice.  We don't simply forgive a murderer, that is too heinous to apply easy mercy.  But we don't typically require speeders to be fully fined and prosecuted.  We have to use some judgment about where it is humane and reasonable to demand full justice through punishment or full justice through mercy.

So the question is where does illegal immigration fall in our sense of justice.  The facts are that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life.  There are more jobs, security, and opportunities in America than nearly anywhere else on Earth.  We are a nation built upon the very idea immigration, most of it illegal or at least unethical, and that is not lost on those coming today.  They would likely go through the legal process of immigration if it were reasonably available to them, which it is not.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding, intelligent, and hard working.  And Hispanic, which makes it easy for some to delineate differences from themselves and single them out.  It makes it easier to hate them.

My idea of justice is that it is not morally sound to harbor such hatred-filled feelings towards Hispanic illegal immigrants and demand full justice by punishment.  I don't think it fits the crime.  The crime is that they are simply here, they haven't infringed on any of my rights and haven't hurt me in any way.  The jobs argument is slippery at best.  They are simply generally good people trying to make their lives better in the only way they know how.  They have families and are trying to give their families the best life and most opportunities that they can.  Then some racist and McCarthy-istic group comes along and spies on them and feeds on their fears and threatens to bring down full punishment on them.

Justice through mercy is much more fitting.  If we identified them, gave them a path towards citizenship, enforced some penalty such as a fine or a loss of some social benefits until they become citizens, and dealt with them humanely and morally, we'd be much better off and justice would be much better served.

I would hope that Americans, and members of the Church in particular, learn to treat illegal immigration differently that other sorts of crime.  I would hope that we see them as children of God and try to help them instead of punish them.  I hope we enact the right kind of justice, and not the ugly kind that these "Concerned Citizen" predators are demanding.

Moderation In A Crowded World

In 1800 just after the United States was formed and the Constitution ratified, the world population was about 978 million, just under 1 billion.  North America had about 7 million people.  If you had suggested to them at the time that they really should consider moderating consumption and conserving natural ecosystems, they probably would have laughed you to scorn.  "The world has more natural resources and available land than we ever could possibly develop," they would say to you with a condescending chuckle.  "Why on Earth should moderate anything?"

Today the world population is approaching 7 billion and North America has about 340 million people.  In a hundred years we'll be pushing 10 billion people.  It is a crowded world we live in now and it is not difficult to imagine running out of oil, chopping down the Amazon rain forest, and polluting our entire atmosphere and oceans to near sterility.  For thousands of years leading up to now humans have never had to moderate because the world was so big and we were so small.  So it is not altogether surprising, then, when so many people today, Americans in particular, continue to scoff at the idea of moderation, at the idea that we have to pull back in order to preserve what we have.

The oil gushing into the Gulf Coast at a rate of 210,000 gallons a day, which we are apparently powerless to stop any time soon, is a fitting example of how we are failing to be proper stewards of the Earth because we are not willing to moderate our thirst for oil.

But the idea of moderation in an ever more crowded world doesn't just pertain to the environment and consumption of goods.

As world population increases so does our proximity to other people.  As infrastructure increases and improves information is more easily shared, goods are more easily shipped around the globe, people travel more easily and are not confined to their ancestral land, and divisions based on ideology, race, national origin, habits, ways of life, and religions are no longer easily maintained.  We are forced to live and interact with people and ideas that before were easy to avoid.

It was easier to take more extreme positions because we could easily insulate ourselves from the consequences, but that is no longer the case.  In order to survive we have to find common ground.  We can't elevate the rhetoric against immigrants like we used to because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demand that our government be Christian because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demonize people of other political ideologies because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We are crowded together on the same subway train now and it does no use yelling at the person standing next to you to make more room because more room doesn't exist anymore.

Which brings us to two things:  Pres. Obama and the Gospel.  As for the president, he has been a liberal disappointment.  The far-right wing wants to paint him as a dangerous liberal, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, extreme in every way.  The reality is much different.

His newest nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a safe choice meant to avoid any sort of conflict or strong statement about what liberals believe.  Liberals wanted a single-payer health system, or a strong public option at the very least.  Universal health care was never on the table and the public option was bargained away before the bargaining even started.  Instead we got a bill that amounts to a give-away to private health insurance companies.  Liberals wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down, full light shed on the torture issue, the Bush Administration torturers prosecuted, and the end of executive power overreaching.  Instead Guantanamo remains open, torture was swept under the rug, and the president is not letting go of unconstitutional executive powers like the right to indefinitely detain terror "suspects" without any evidence.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell has not been repealed.  The energy bill is going to be another give-away to private industry instead of hard choices in reducing climate change.  And I could go on.

I let this bother me for quite a while, but I'm starting to come around.  It's okay to hold liberal and conservative views, but it's not okay, in my opinion, to hold them at the exclusion of compromise and mutual respect.  Our nation is simply too big and diverse to cling to extreme ideas.  Partisanship is good and healthy, America needs to debate the different positions and fully explore all good ideas, but in the end we have to move towards each other and work together.  Despite what the anti-government movement and other far-righties might try to tell us, I think Pres. Obama is doing a good job trying to bridge differences and moderate.  He'll never hear that from those groups or Washington politicians, but it's true and I think America sees that.

And I think the Gospel is the perfect vehicle for this sort of moderation and is more and more relevant as the world grows more and more crowded.  It teaches us that all people are children of God and have a common divine heritage.  It teaches us to love and respect everyone, regardless of race, politics, age, sex, religion, or any other Earthly distinction.  And when we are able to love and respect anyone, looking beyond arbitrary differences, we are able to find common ground and moderate our more extreme impulses.  I think members of the church need to employ the Gospel to bridge differences instead of widen them and to promote peace instead of conflict.  I don't think polarization, whether it be my country against yours, my politics against yours, or my religion against yours, is in line with what the Savior taught.

The Unhealthy Mingling of Politics in Mormonism

I received the below email today from a person I don't know.  It seems to be making the rounds:

Dear friends,

In light of the recent Gallop Poll which calculates that 60% of active Mormons self-identify as Conservative or Republican and that over 60% of inactive Mormons who still consider themselves Mormonism [sic] are self-identified "Liberals or Moderates" suggesting that the more liberal you are the more likely you are to go inactive; in light of Glenn Beck's recent public comments where the prominent Mormon declared that social justice was a code word for Communism and Nazism; and in light of the recent invitation by a Nevada Stake to Democratic Senator Harry Reid to speak at a fireside which was met by threats of violence and cancelled [sic]. 

As moderate, liberal or radical Mormons, it is time to make our voices heard WITHIN Mormonism. I for one am weary of hearing Republican talking points pass for Gospel truths. The Gospel is for everyone, not just Republicans; guided by the spirit, liberal and radical interpretations of the Gospel and scriptures are just as valid as those made by Conservatives.

The Idea:

• On May 1st 2010, International Workers’ Day, or May Day, we will participate in local May Day festivities and organize 'Social Justice and the Gospel' Teach-ins/Firesides all across the country. 

• On Sunday May 2nd, during Fast and Testimony Meeting, we will hold a special fast for those who are working all over the world to advance the causes of the Gospel, social justice, environmental sustainability and fighting the root causes of poverty. Then, we will attend our local Wards and, guided by the spirit, bare strong, sincere and non-confrontational testimonies on these themes.

  

Please pass the word along and start organizing events. Respond with ideas and comments.

Will you help me make the Mormon Church hospitable for all of God's Children? Even Liberals and Radicals?

In Solidarity,

Jason M. Brown
 
Master of Forestry (M.F.), Master of Art and Religion (M.A.R.), 2011
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies & Yale Divinity School
  
(714) 261-5616
Jason.brown@yale.edu

If anyone out there wants to participate, feel free, but I think this is a problem and a mistake.  One of the main goals we were trying to achieve with this blog was to show that Mormonism and liberalism are compatible, just like Mormonism and conservatism are compatible.  The implication is that there is no inherent political bias in our religion.  The doctrines, principles, and ordinances are pure, they are Truth.  They are not created by man.  Politics and government, on the other hand, are man-made institutions and deeply flawed.  The two should not be conflated.

In one of the first posts I wrote I made a point of showing that there are good and faithful Latter-day Saints in hundreds of nations on the Earth, each with a slightly different government and political scheme.  A good member of the church is encouraged in the twelfth Article of Faith to support the government and laws of their respective nations.  In that sense, I agree with the letter writer that the Gospel is for all.

Where I hated the letter is the implication that liberals and conservatives can have different interpretations of the Gospel and scriptures, and that they are all valid.  The implication here is that the Gospel and scriptures should be interpreted through your political perspective.  Some Mormon conservatives see the Gospel as an arm of their politics, and apparently some Mormon liberals do as well, and this is a big, big problem.  It means that we are placing our politics in first position and our Gospel in second position.  It reminds me of this scripture from Nephi:

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

In this contentious political environment, I fear that people are putting their trust in the arm of flesh, or man-made political institutions.  I love politics, I like talking about it, but the moment I realize that my politics are coloring my religion, I am out.  The moment I start judging a person's spirituality or relationship of God through a political perspective, I am out.  The moment I start thinking that I have a different interpretation of the Gospel and scriptures than someone with a different political point of view, I am out.

They are not the same thing, they are not equal, and they should not be mingled.  We shouldn't bring politics into a fast and testimony meeting, as this letter suggests.  If anyone did that from any political perspective I think I'd walk out of the meeting.  In fact, we shouldn't bring dirty, short-sided, flesh-created politics into our pure, eternal, God-given Gospel at all.  We should live our religion fully and be free to have differing opinions on government and politics.  I hate that some Mormons think they have to justify their politics through their religion.  It is an indication that politics are becoming too important and I think it portends a serious problem in the church.  I hope the ideas in this letter don't gain any traction.