Post by Joseph M -

We have about 2 weeks until the election, and the polls are up and down - hot and cold, like a middle school crush.  However, some interesting endorsements hit the internet this past week, and Obama is looking to regain some momentum in the Monday evening debate.

Joanna Brooks, author of Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of an American Faith, wrote an editorial piece for CNN's Belief Blog entitled, My Take: Hard truths matter; I’m Mormon, and I’m voting for Obama.  While Joanna Brooks has written about the election before on her website, Ask Mormon Girl, this endorsement lays out clear reasons for voting for President Obama in the light of being a mother, an educator, and a Mormon.  According to her article, she has been listening for the two candidates to speak to the "hard truths."

...as a Mormon, I grew up with a healthy sense of respect for worst-case scenarios. I was raised, after all, with a religious aversion to debt and a year’s supply of canned wheat, beans and powdered milk in the garage, as instructed by LDS Church leaders. The Mormon food storage tradition isn’t about end-times-paranoia: It’s a lesson passed down from our pioneer ancestors, who knew the importance of being prepared for difficult seasons so you can do right by your family and community.

Joanna Brooks reports that she has seen that truth-telling in President Obama: "I have seen Obama work steadily, patiently through a difficult season. I have seen him face some hard truths and accept that there are no easy fixes. And I will vote to give him a second term."

I would add that I found Joanna's book in Target on Friday; I have been planning on ordering it from Amazon for some time.  (So now for a different type of endorsement: I am only a couple dozen pages into it, and I am already mesmerized by her prose and her insight.)

Also, The Salt Lake Tribune shocked everyone (or confirmed everyone's suspicions, depending on who you ask,) with their endorsement of President Obama for a second term.  Admittedly, they posted the editorial with title, "Too Many Mitts," in bold letters, while "Obama has earned another term" was positioned limply in smaller type underneath.  This may imply that the piece is more of a rejection of Mitt Romney than a whole-hearted endorsement of the president, and that might be right.  Much of the endorsement shuffles around in the junk drawer of Romney missteps, false starts, reversed positions, and political "shape-shifting," while a shorter summary of Obama's accomplishments is enumerated towards the end.  The final paragraph is telling:

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

[caption id="attachment_2712" align="alignright" width="300"] This young man is an avid reader of the Tribune[/caption]

Regardless, this endorsement is a bold move for the Tribune, considering that Salt Lake City and its surrounding municipalities are comprised of more that a few Romney-leaning Mormons.  Although I guess we shouldn't be too surprised considering that The Salt Lake Tribune has always been kind of gangster in that it opts to retain its Old English tattoo-looking script for its logo while some newspapers create bland fonts like Escrow. 

On a side note, I am certain that the Tribune's endorsement won't stir up anger the way the Seattle Times has done here locally.  They are actually running a series of pro Rob McKenna ads for free.  McKenna is the Republican gubernatorial candidate - and you can read more about this on (where else?) the Seattle Times website.   People are not happy; I'm not happy.  I am concerned that my newspaper is sliding down the hill towards biased reporting, and I can't shake the feeling that little piece of Fox News is being delivered to my doorstep each morning.  In protest, I will cancel my subscription tomorrow.

I will end this post with one other endorsement: my own.  I received my ballot in the mail a few days ago, and I will send it in tomorrow.  This ballot was one of the easiest to complete - with only the King County Sheriff race not clear in my head.  I voted for President Obama first.  And I am excited for another four years with Obama as president.  Let's make this happen folks!

And well... if you're still undecided, just vote for somebody:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVkfNUxRh7g]

Guest post by Marianne Monson

Right now I cannot honestly say I am proud to be an American. This is an extreme statement, particularly from someone who always votes, pays taxes, and inevitably chokes up a bit during the national anthem. But after reading the online comments posted in response to a CNN article about the most recent Presidential debates, I was left with an intensely bitter taste in my mouth: I believe it is disgust.

The banter in the comments went back and forth, soon deteriorating into a mud slinging, name calling, swearing mess wherein attacks were launched at the other person’s: political party, intelligence, religion, state of origin, mother, or all of the above. The chanting, all caps, and exclamation marks recalled the songs of high school cheerleaders: “OBAMA OBAMA OooooooooBAMA!!!!!!”

Last night on national television I watched two grown men behaving like testosterone-saturated teens, circling each other as they sparred, contradicted, blamed, and condemned each other as liars. At several points I watched with the same sick sensation you feel during an episode of Jerry Springer, when you know it’s going to get a bit revolting, but you can’t quite drag your eyes away.

This debate followed last week’s vice-presidential debate where the best question of the whole election was tidily sidestepped and ignored. Moderator Martha Raddatz quoted a soldier who said this presidential campaign has focused on tearing the opponent down rather than building up the nation.  She asked: “At the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone?”

Biden responded marginally to the question, acknowledging that “some” sources in the election may have overstepped their bounds, before hastily reverting back to the topic of the economy, while Ryan blamed Obama for all the blaming that has gone on (ironic a tad?) and then promptly returned to slandering Obama’s economic policies to fill the remainder of his time.

But the ignored question is perhaps the most pertinent of all. Should we as Americans feel embarrassed by the tone of these elections? Is it possible, when so much power and money and prestige is on the line, to even entertain the idea that such a discussion could happen respectfully? Would it be inconceivable that we might have an honest conversation about the best course of action for our country, without turning the whole thing into a sporting event where the other “team” is characterized as ridiculous, malicious, and even evil?

This has been a unique election for me personally. I was raised Mormon in a politically conservative household and my father worked with Mitt Romney for several years. My father has tremendous respect for Romney both as a person and as a businessman and feels his financial expertise would serve our country well at this time. On the other hand, I remain undecided. I voted for Obama four years ago and feel that in many ways he has done a fantastic job. He is an inspiring, articulate leader who moves me deeply and represents us well on the international stage. For the first time since I have been able to vote, I feel both options have genuine advantages. I also have close friends and colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum, and I guess this is precisely why the bitter, accusatory tone of these elections has been so hard to swallow.

Years ago I spent six months living in east Jerusalem. As an American student, I was able to travel freely between Israel and occupied Palestine. I came to know and admire both cultures, forming meaningful friendships on both sides. And the thing that distressed me most, was that every time I travelled between the two areas I was warned by both: “Be careful over there. Those people are_____.” You can fill in the blank. “They are dangerous. They are evil. They are dirty. They are dishonest. They will steal from you. Hurt you. Take advantage of you. They are not good or kind or friendly. Like we are.”

What is it about human nature that must find someone else to categorize as “other?” –as separate and distinct from oneself and therefore less? I am sick of Republicans calling Democrats crazy liberals who care more about polar bears than babies. And I’m equally sick of Democrats calling Republicans deluded religious fanatics who want to abandon the poor.

The honest truth is that there are genuinely good people on every side of every line you can draw on this earth. And perhaps the most dangerous, divisive weapon humanity holds is an inclination to define a group of people as “other,” and thereby justify treating them as less. That spirit of divisiveness is almost always the true culprit behind war and poverty and genocide, wielded by dictators and bullies alike. It negatively impacts this nation by forcing us to choose between “camps” rather than among complex positions. If we have to define ourselves as either Democrats or Republicans, we collectively lose the opportunity to choose between the best of both political spheres, subjugating the moderate majority to more extreme elements.

Even more disturbingly, divisiveness renders problem solving impossible because issues become so polarizing that friends and family, who care deeply about each other, no longer feel they can actually talk about the most pressing issues with those whose opinions matter the most.

There are crucial difficulties facing this nation today. Resolving them is going to require immense effort from both sides of every line that divides us. If we can’t put party politics aside and come together as Americans at the coffee shops and kitchen tables and campuses of this country, then how can we possibly expect our politicians to do what we cannot?

If we really want a bi-partisan America, then let it begin in the streets and on the blogs, and let it begin with a desire to see “others” as part of the whole, part of humanity, and part of this country—deeply connected to ourselves and our future, and yes, perhaps worthy of a little respect.

Marianne Monson is a freelance writer and children's author and currently lives in Portland Oregon.   

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the U.S. economy was in free fall. During the preceding year and half, some of the nation’s largest and most important financial institutions went bankrupt, including Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and Lehman Brothers, as risky loans and other investments failed. Many other large banks were on the verge of collapse. The downfall of the financial sector had been preceded by a spectacular end to a massive speculative housing bubble that almost instantly wiped out trillions of dollars of Americans’ net worth. When Lehman Brothers and AIG went into bankruptcy during the same weekend in September 2008, panic ensued all across the economy. It felt like 1929 all over again. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and was implemented by President Obama, stopped the bleeding in the financial sector, but the damage to the broader economy had already been done as other sectors of the economy continued to rapidly deteriorate. The stock markets plummeted, losing more than half of their peak market capitalization just six weeks after Obama took office. Many retirees and workers nearing retirement saw their investment portfolio lose much of its value. Millions of people lost their jobs due to no fault of their own after the U.S. entered a recession in December 2007. Over 1.2 million Americans were laid off between the election and Obama’s inauguration. All told, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 8.7 million jobs were lost due to the Great Recession. No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has begun their tenure in the White House under such dire circumstances. An evaluation of each segment of the economy around the time Obama took office compared to now shows that we are definitely better off four years later.

Read more

Author: Crystal

In 2010 I was mad. Hopping mad, actually. The US Congress had just passed the landmark piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). I was ecstatic. Sure, it's not a perfect bill (what bill is) but it made some vital changes to healthcare in this country. Young adults are covered until they're 26. Insurance companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies have to issue refunds if 80% of our premiums aren't used for what they're supposed to be used for, health care instead of profits. Our vice-president infamously called it a "Big F'in Deal", and he was right, it is.

But there was some rain on this parade for Utah's progressive voters. Our sole representative in Washington, Congressman Jim Matheson, voted against the BFD. We were livid. We screamed. We cried all over Facebook and Twitter. Hundreds of democrats became delegates for the sole purpose of beating Jim at convention. We saw those "Matheson = Pelosi" signs and said, "we wish!"

I still disagree with Jim's vote, but I've sat with him on several occasions and I understand his reasons now. I respect the careful thought he put into it. I respect his considerations for his constituents, his frank look at the bill's imperfections, and what it might cost Utah to implement. It was a grudging respect, to be sure, but through that conversation I've learned that this is just one example of the millions of ways in which he puts Utah first. That may be his campaign slogan, but the truth is that that is his reality. When citizen groups meet with Utah's delegation, most of the time they're pushed to aids, yelled at, ignored, or the Congressperson falls asleep during the meeting. Not Jim Matheson. Even if he disagrees with you, he sits down with you for extended periods of time to have a conversation with you and to hear your side. He'll talk about all the boots he's worn out walking across Utah. I'm pretty sure he's got to hold some sort of record for visiting the most schools, the most community festivals, and talking to the most Utahns. I still didn't think I could support a moderate like Jim, but I respected where he comes from.

And then, with the Tea Party revolution of 2010, Congress shut down. Everything was blocked, bills went nowhere, and it's been endless gridlock and continuing resolutions in the two years since. It has changed my entire political viewpoint. When we are so caught up in our perfect partisan ideals, we lose our ability to converse and we become uncivil and immature. We don't go forward, we go back.

The last two years has shown me that America and Utah need civil servants who work across the aisle and who put bipartisanship, civility, and the needs of America before their own partisan visions of utopia. No two Democrats are the same, no two Republicans are the same. When a candidate doesn't line up perfectly with our world vision, let's look past our handful of personally pivotal issues and look to the big picture. Demand civil servants who put bipartisanship and solutions before party platform.

Now, I am the chair of the LDS Dems Caucus. When I say I like the ACA, I am speaking for myself and not my caucus. We aspire to be a big tent, and we are proud that we continue to be a home for LDS Democrats and independents who are conservative, moderate, liberal, and progressive. We even have Republican members. There are LDS Democrats who love the ACA and LDS Democrats who hate it. We certainly all agree that the healthcare system can improve and that America can do a better job giving hand ups to the people who have a hard time getting insurance to avoid hand outs in the emergency room. As a big tent, we are a living example of the power that is achieved when bipartisanship and tolerance of ideas are put before limited, specific visions.

America needs more kindness and civility. Voters need to choose candidates based on positions and records instead of internet rumors and insults. We need more civil servants with records of bipartisanship and civility. Their multi-party endorsements (or lack thereof) will show their character. We need more people like Jim Matheson, Ben McAdams, and Jon Huntsman. We need less talking head politicians who say extreme, shocking things just to be heard by the media or to please their base.

To my fellow progressive Democrats, I urge you to speak up for bipartisanship as a value worth fighting for, not calling it "caving to the electorate." To Republicans, especially my fellow Latter-Day Saints, I say: cast your vote for the presidential candidate of your choice, but don't just blindly push that straight party R button. Research the candidates, look for the people who will be advocates for bipartisanship and working together instead of apart. By their fruits you'll know them, by their records you'll know them, and by their bipartisan endorsements, you'll know them.

 

I was impressed with the eloquence of Teresa A. Stillo Swenson's spirited takedown of Mia Love's attitude toward the poor in this letter to the Trib. One line of her letter especially caught my eye:

"Love’s proposals are not only radical but also unrealistic, uncompassionate and naïve. Perhaps (Mia) should recall the biblical verse John 12:8, which says that "you will always have the poor among you." The point of government programs is not to eliminate poverty but to show compassion for the poor. Poverty is perpetuated when we fail to take responsibility for helping the poor. Eliminating poverty is not the point."

Some might call this radical. Eliminating poverty is not the point? So, just for my own enlightenment, I did a little research to answer the question: How much of government help goes to folks who ought to get off their backsides and get to work? The source is here on the Federal Government's website. Here's what I discovered.

Let's start with Medicaid. Currently, 86% of Medicaid spending goes to the disabled, children, and the indigent elderly (for things like hospice and long-term care facilities).

Continuing on, here are some other places your tax dollars are being spent:

• Food stamps will cost the government $113 billion this year. Sounds like a lot - but it's 3.0% of the total budget.


• Unemployment is being attacked as a big budget buster, and it's gone up since the Great Recession. It's expected to drop by half by 2016 as Americans go back to work - but even today, it's only 2.9% of the total budget.


• The Earned Income Tax Credit, a Republican idea to help the working poor make ends meet, costs $52 billion a year, or 1.4% of the budget. Note these are folks who are, by definition, working.


• Housing assistance for needy families, by definition providing a place to live for children, costs $59 billion a year, or 1.6% of total spending.


• Hospital and medical care for veterans: $52.3 billion a year, or 1.4% of spending.

I could go on, but there are two points to be made: The assistance provided by the government goes to a lot of different things. Lump them all together, and it sounds like a lot of money, but when you break things down - it's hard to find areas where massive cuts will not result in massive suffering. Mia Love says the poor need to go to work and quit being dependent on the government. Which poor? The disabled vet who sacrificed a lifetime of health for their country? Are we to go back to sending our children into the coal mines to earn their bread? Should we kick the old folks in nursing homes out in the street and make them go work as greeters at Wal-Mart? Maybe Mia thinks we should force the unemployed to lose their homes and live with their families at the homeless shelter until they get a job?

Teresa's words were emotional on the subject of the poor, but the cold, hard data support her emotion. She is right. We obviously need to encourage self-sufficiency, and with Bill Clinton's welfare reforms, we do. But the poor who cannot fend for themselves will always be with us, and we will be judged by God as a society on how we care for the poor, just as the Nephites were.

[caption id="attachment_2643" align="alignright" width="350"] R-Money: Photoshopping Romney's Message[/caption]

Post by Joseph M -

President Obama finally did it: he ended Tuesday evening's debate by calling out Governor Romney (to his face!) over the 47% comment.  Romney set himself up for it; he answered the last question by declaring that he cares about 100% of America.  This proved a temptation too great to for even Obama to resist, and Obama responded by referencing the behind-closed-doors 47% comment.

But on one point, Romney is correct: the Obama campaign has painted a picture of Romney as out of touch with the poor and the middle-class.  But Romney has also done a lot of this to himself; when he attempts to be candid, he invariable says too much, and this ultimately signals open season on the fields of (class?) warfare.  Romney's wealth, elitism, and disconnect from ordinary Americans have become his most salient features, and therefore this image of privilege has supplanted the real man.

And it seems that conservatives are getting rather testy about all this negative talk of Governor Romney's wealth - and also of rich people in general.  This also is the case with some members of the church as well, and I'm not sure when the shift began; it used to be that we were concerned about not speaking ill of the poor, but now the super-wealthy seem to be deserving of our charity and sympathetic glances.

Two examples: some months back, our Elder's Quorum lesson devolved into the semi-annual discussion of how should we respond to "pan-handlers" on the street; one comment from the group asserted that we should be cautious because homeless people are often hyped-up on meth and might kill you.  And then the next Sunday, another good brother commented on how there's such hostility towards wealthy individuals these days, and that he was surprised by the poor opinions that many people have of the rich.  (Yes, he used "poor" and "rich" in the same sentence as if to say, "those poor rich people.")

In an extreme case of political-correctness-hijacking, the wealthy are no longer referred to as "the rich," but now they are part of the protected class of  "job creators," "entrepreneurs," and "innovators."  I'm guessing that congress might even enact laws shielding them from hate crimes.  This is necessary because all of them own small businesses and hire lots of people to do lots of things; money trickles down from these wealthy folks like water flowing towards a floor drain after a long shower at the gym.

In a recent column, David Brooks extolled the virtues of a wonderfully ambitious job creator, Elon Musk, one of the minds behind PayPal.  He writes, "Government can influence growth, but it's people like Musk who create it...A few ridiculously ambitious people can change an economy more than any president."  Romney reiterated this when he reverted to his high school cheerleading days and attempted to lead a chant towards the end of Tuesday's debate, "Government does not create jobs! Government does not create jobs!"

So if David Brooks is correct, we shouldn't be looking to tear down Romney and his financial success - even if he did eliminate jobs in order to make companies profitable and more efficient.  The goal of a business is to make money; when a company makes money, its workers will benefit - the company can hire more workers. (Wait, is that what Romney meant when he said 'corporations are people?')

So this just begs the question: why all of this class warfare anyway?  and when did this feeling of animosity towards the wealthy begin? and who decided that it was okay to criticize someone just because of their riches?

Well, let's start here:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.  (Matt. 19:23-24)"

Or Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."

And here:

"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days (James 5:1-3)."

The Book of Mormon is also rife with admonitions as well; I'll just give the first one I found:

"Wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world.  For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are set upon their treasures; wherefore , their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also (2 Nephi 9:30)."

So I guess when people ask where all this rich-bashing came from, I'll just say, "well, it's Biblical."

Of course, being "rich" is relative; with the advent of the middle class, most people would not think of themselves as "rich," but might feel like they're somewhere in the middle.  However, I wonder what wealth looked like during the time of Christ, a time when money changers were cast from the temple?  And for the young man who received Jesus' condemnation, what made him rich?  We are told that he had "great possessions," (but so do many of us, and we are clearly in the middle class.)

These questions are particularly hard for many of the super rich, who tend to view their "great possessions" with a sense of pride.  Chrystia Freeland, the author of Plutocrat: the Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Downfall of Everyone Else, said on NPR on Monday that "in America we have equated personal business success with public virtue. And to a certain extent, your moral and civic virtue could be measured by the size of your bank account."

Freeland goes on to say that the "super rich" are angry because President Obama is pushing the idea that "what is good for the guys at the very top is not necessarily good for the people in the middle."  They see this as an "existential threat,"  because people don't just want to be wealthy and successful, they want to be good.  Therefore, any suggestion from progressive thinkers, Obama, or Jesus to the contrary is met with disappointment: "Wow, I'm not as full of virtue and goodness as I thought I was?"

Freeland notes that the numbers of  plutocrats has increased, and the gap between them and everyone else is huge; ultimately, they can be expected to "rig the rules in their own favor," while convincing themselves that what is good for them is in the interest of everybody else, (i.e., cut entitlements and shrink the national debt, while reducing taxes for the wealthy.)

However, I am not interested in pointing fingers at Romney - or to imply that any church members with several fancy cars and a horse are not going to heaven until they learn to thread a needle.  I guess I am more interested in understanding America's relationship with money.  Capitalism has become our national pastime - and I am not sure what this says about us.  But alas, that is also another post.

I think our prophet Brigham Young's fears for the Church and the Saints is of particular note:

"The worst fear I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution and be true. But my greatest fear is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth."

What did President Young see of our future when he said this?  The implications for America (or even for me and my own life) will make my head hurt if I think on it too long.  Clearly this is a truth that is hard for all of us (including the rich) to take in.  The pursuit of wealth is truly a moral conundrum; for what is so powerfully connected with self-worth in the American context is defined as a burden that drags one to hell in the scriptural sphere.

So I will end this for now.  I have the new episode of The Walking Dead saved on my DVR, and I am really excited to watch it on my 48-inch flat-screen LED TV with my Bose speakers!  (And my TV is a Samsung, because everyone knows that is the brand second to none when it comes to flat-screens!)

The verse quoted at the top of in various places around this website is Alma 1:30. It is important to note, however, what we mean when we use the word "liberal." First, here's the complete text of the verse:

And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

This verse is describing the practical implementation of what is taught in many other places in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the need to take care of our brothers and sisters.

Read more

Post by Rob T.

The townhall debate is tonight. I've been watching President Obama for eight years and Governor Romney for 10. I favored them for their respective parties' nominations back in early 2007. President Obama has exceeded my expectations; Governor Romney has consistently failed to meet them. If I had the chance to ask the Governor some questions tonight, here are five that are on my mind:

1) Your work on healthcare in Massachusetts was the first thing, after our shared faith, that attracted me to your candidacy. President Obama instituted a national version of this private-market based reform. You've repeatedly pledged to repeal Obamacare. If you become president, what happens to people who can't afford insurance coverage out-of-pocket but can't get it through their employers? What happens to people with pre-existing conditions? What happens to seniors who fall back into the Medicare prescription coverage "donut hole"? Why should we kick young adults who get married off of their parents' insurance, but let people who just "shack up" stay on?

2) You frequently discuss the need to balance the budget, but you're also pushing a tax proposal that completely eliminates the estate tax, lowers cap gain taxes, and cuts income tax rates by 20% across the board, while also continuing all of the Bush tax cuts and giving the Pentagon another $2 trillion over the next 10 years (which they say they don't need). Wouldn't this explode our deficit and make it impossible for you to balance the budget? Or would you soak the middle class to give a tax cut to the rich? Isn't that what we tried, without success, 10 years ago?

3) What will you do if the Supreme Courts strikes down the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the granting of federal benefits to couples who are legally married in their home state (including Massachusetts)? What is your stance on a federal law that prohibitions discrimination against LGBT in housing & employment, like the one the LDS Church supported for Salt Lake City? Speaking of human rights, if you're elected, what happens to the executive order that grants "deferred action" to people who were brought to this country without papers as children?

4) What will you do differently on Iran or for Israel? President Obama's already got strong sanctions in place that are causing the Iranian currency to collapse, and he's massively increased aid to Israel during his four years. What would you do differently? What happens to the executive order banning the use of torture in U.S.-run interrogations?

5) Your central claim is that you'll create 12 million jobs during your first term. Independent forecasters say that's already going to happen during President Obama's second term. When pressed, you gave a clarification that the Washington Post said "doesn't add up." So, why do we need to elect you?

Procter and Gamble is a great American company.  In 1837 two immigrant brother-in-laws combined their soap and candle business to start what would eventually become the largest consumer products company in the world.  Their early beginnings are a testament to American capitalism, and just as important, patriotism.  In 1860 on the brink of Civil War, William Procter and James Gamble were concerned about their supply of red oil critical for making soap and candles shipped from the South.  In a strategic move they sent their two sons to buy as many barrels of oil as they could and ship the supply back to Cincinnati.  Their sons bought hundreds of barrels even to the point that P&G became a laughing stock by the dock hands that were tasked with unloading supply from the Ohio River.

When the Civil War broke out the following year, the Southern oil supply was cut short for all competition and the initial $1 a barrel oil price skyrocketed to $16.  Due to the supply constraints P&G won the contract to supply the Union Army and did not raise prices a single penny.  The widespread use of their products by soldiers continued even after the war ended and was the foundation for the next 150 years of sustained company growth.  P&G continued this pricing behavior during WWI and WWII.  P&G held pricing power over competition, and remained faithful to the American consumer.

Fast forward to 2012 where we are facing a different kind of oil shortage.  With sanctions placed on Iran, OPEC is leveraging the gap in supply to drive prices up.  What most Americans fail to understand is only 10% of US consumed oil comes from OPEC and the Middle East.  Almost 50% of consumed oil is produced in the US and another 20-30% comes from Canada and Mexico.  OPEC is the largest producer in the world which allows for price control given the elasticity of oil.  Instead of Exxon and Chevron holding their prices steady and putting pressure on OPEC, they choose to follow the oil cartel   They understand that rising prices has minimal impact on demand so any increase positively impacts profit.  Just to add to shareholder’s delight, US tax payers are subsidizing Exxon’s fair share to Uncle Sam.

Here is my plea to American oil companies:

Show some respect to the country that provides you with a capitalistic market and protection to enable healthy long term business.  Do not look at Iran as your meal ticket for greater profits at the expense of American citizens.  Be a pricing leader, not a follower. Demonstrate to the American consumer that the conflict in the Middle East is not just a business strategy.  And finally, stop begging for tax handouts with one hand while gauging the US consumer with the other.  Doing so might help with the argument to increase domestic drilling, and would  follow the example of companies like P&G who take pride in making an honest profit and paying their fair share of tax.

[caption id="attachment_331" align="aligncenter" width="525"] Historical Oil Barrel Prices - Global[/caption]

Post by Randy Astle -

In my last post I tried to examine the personal standards set forth in scripture—and through common sense and decency—for all government leaders. My assertion was that we could safely approximate a politician’s moral mettle by looking specifically at his integrity, his honesty, a position I believe is upheld by Doctrine & Covenants 98:10: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently….” I tried to show how Mitt Romney’s actions for years now have led me to believe that he places very little value on his integrity compared to attaining office and how, therefore, Americans concerned with electing the most honest leaders could not conscientiously vote for him. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time or space to give the same amount of attention to President Obama, and though my intention was not to exclusively attack Governor Romney personally I admit it was difficult to discuss his record without impugning him as an individual. So it was an incomplete essay, but I want to reiterate the importance of the main point, which is that Mitt Romney has run a very dishonest campaign, with other examples of questionable ethics dating back years earlier, and therefore does not deserve our trust—and I wrote the piece two days before the release of the Mother Jones video. If it is impossible to divorce Romney’s public persona of dishonesty from his private character as a loving, caring individual, I think he has consistently shown us which way we have to cast the dye, even into last week’s debate. And if that’s the only thought from that essay that readers are able to present to their more right-leaning acquaintances, then I’m satisfied. Greg Prince came to a similar conclusion in his Huffington Post op-ed soon after the fundraising video emerged.

My purpose for these six posts is not to draw conservative Mormons over to the left, really, but merely to explain how my religious beliefs as a Latter-day Saint influence my political convictions as, generally, a progressive. I was therefore intrigued by Patrick Mason’s closing argument in the Mormon Matters podcast on Mormonism and Politics, in which he claims that Mormonism has never really established a political theology, a philosophy of how its tenets should affect political belief regardless of partisanship. That’s essentially the process I’ve been trying to go through on my own—mentally, informally—for many years, and it has landed me primarily, though not exclusively, in the Democratic camp (sometimes I’m to the left, sometimes to the right). So while I don’t have the ability to fully expound a political theology of Mormonism here, I’d like to take some initial steps by looking at how my Mormonism influences my beliefs about foreign policy. Subsequent posts will attempt the same thing for different issues, but with foreign policy the focus of Governor Romney’s recent comments and the next two debates I thought I’d begin here. These are just initial thoughts, of course, rough drafts really, but hopefully they’ll be helpful as Mormons with differing political philosophies discuss their views.

So how does foreign policy situate in Mormon theology? The Book of Mormon has a wealth of information by way of example; it’s almost entirely a history of different nations negotiating an often hostile relationship, after all. I’ll come back to that occasionally, but I think we can find some even more fundamental principles in scripture. In fact, this little dialectic guides virtually all my political philosophy—including my thoughts about foreign policy:

1) We are all children of God, equally valued and equally valuable. His desire is to bless everyone on the earth equally.

2) People around the earth are not physically and temporally blessed equally; there is great inequality.

3) Therefore, it is incumbent on those who have been blessed abundantly to use the resources God has given them to bless others as much as possible.

At first blush this may seem rather naïve, and maybe it is, but I prefer to think it’s just plain and simple. It’s completely possible, in other words, that nearly all political matters can be boiled down to essentially these three points and that the plainness and simplicity of them, which might prove a stumbling block to some, is precisely their strength. Nephi obviously gloried in what was plain and simple, and even said that the Lord “doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Ne. 26:33; I also appreciate how he uses plain and simple in 2 Ne. 25:4,20; 32:7; and 33:6).

I like his international and egalitarian language in that verse, as it directly connects the simplicity of many doctrinal matters with their global universality. And although he’s emphasizing the accessibility of the core gospel invitation to come unto Christ and receive eternal salvation, I think language like “all are alike unto God” strongly states that all should receive equal temporal blessings—food, water, medical care, education, protection from violence and poverty—as well as spiritual blessings—revelation, scriptures, a knowledge of the gospel, the opportunity to receive its ordinances and hold the priesthood, companionship of the Holy Ghost, etc. How could it be otherwise with a just and merciful God? Besides, it also seems that the Lord would not distinguish between temporal and spiritual blessings, and that if it is incumbent on us to share our knowledge of the gospel it is equally required to provide educational opportunities, vaccinations, and any other “temporal” goods to those who need them:

“Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.” (D&C 29:34-35)

Thus this principle—that when we’ve been blessed we should use every means to equally bless others—has no division between temporal and spiritual dimensions. It is a spiritual commandment when the Lord tells us to care for the poor, which I suspect is also one of the most repeated commandments in scripture. King Benjamin makes explicit the connection between our state as beggars for spiritual mercy and others’ state as beggars for physical relief in Mosiah 4:15-27, which includes statements like this, from verse 26:

“And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.”

Brigham Young taught this in his typically salty style: “Prayer is good, but when baked potatoes and milk are needed, prayer will not supply their place.”

Thus far, of course, this sounds like essentially an economic argument. I admit that’s true and I’ll return to domestic economics in my next post, but how does this apply to international affairs? To me it means that given limited time and resources our primary focus for foreign policy should be relief: the global eradication of violence (i.e. war), disease, poverty, ignorance, and discrimination. Disagreements over trade, like the U.S. and China both complained about with the WTO recently, are secondary and, really, rather petty when compared with these larger issues. Yes, issues like trade imbalances are important in their sphere, but my point is that ending war and suffering is a greater and globally more beneficial goal—which will help things like trade disputes more easily fall into place.

So let’s look at war. Perhaps Christ’s blessing upon the peacemakers has no greater relevance than in the sphere of national conflict, where the stakes are highest. In Doctrine & Covenants 98:16 the Lord commands us to “renounce war and proclaim peace,” in what is probably the single most important scriptural pronouncement on large-scale violence. He goes on for essentially the rest of the revelation to explain to the Saints, beleaguered by the initial persecutions in Missouri in 1833, when to justify themselves in self-defense, and there are explicitly instances when they are justified (v. 33). But throughout the section He values peace, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek as much more moral and revered than self-defense: “And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold” (v. 25); “And then if thou wilt spare [thine enemy], thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness” (v. 30); “And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue...” (v. 33-34).

Accordingly, the ancient Nephites averred they were justified in defending their families and religion from foreign aggression (Alma 43:46-47) but held the pacifist Anti-Nephi-Lehies up as having a much higher standard: “For behold, they had rather sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy . . . And now behold I say unto you, has there been so great love in all the land? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, there has not, even among the Nephites. For behold, they would take up arms against their brethren; they would not suffer themselves to be slain” (Alma 26:32-34). The Nephites never lived this higher law, but when righteous they strove to suffer multiple offenses before retaliating, as Hugh Nibley explained about Captain Moroni and the futility of preemptive war. And, finally, whenever the Nephites ignored even the lower law of not giving the first offense they were swept before their enemies (as in Morm. 4:4).

I’ve thought about all of this often since September 2001. My belief in scriptures like these made me initially wary of and eventually completely opposed to invading Iraq specifically and the Bush doctrine in general. The potential threat from Iraq did not warrant the level of violence and disruption we inflicted upon that nation, and thus I have for years seen ending the Iraq War and beginning to make restitution for our national sin as one of our country’s highest moral imperatives. Ending the Iraq War and shifting the tenor of international diplomacy from one threatening violence to one eschewing it as much as possible is the President's greatest foreign affairs victory, and one that has made him worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize that so many thought premature; the point was that the shift in global feeling between Bush and Obama was palpable, and had a real ripple effect that's still going. On the other hand, Governor Romney’s comments that Guantánamo ought to be doubled and, later, that the rapid drawdown in Iraq was tragic, even when taken in context, are lamentable and seem to place his worldview on the morality of war completely outside my own.

Even in October 2001, when the U.S. launched the first missile strikes into Afghanistan during an LDS general conference, my first thought was not about al-Qaeda but about Lachoneus. As the news was breaking, President Hinckley stood at the pulpit, explicitly comparing the September 11^th terrorists with the Gadianton robbers. Lachoneus and his people faced a force of robbers that threatened to completely annihilate them—more than al-Qaeda or the Taliban could ever plausibly threaten the U.S. with. Yet when the people prodded his chief general Gidgiddoni to “pray unto the Lord” for his blessing and go attack the robbers in their mountain strongholds, he responded, “The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands” (3 Ne. 3:20-21). Thus I wondered if the complete overthrow of the Taliban and long-term nation building in the mountains of Afghanistan was really the right choice. During that address President Hinckley said that “the terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions,” but he also warned that “now we are off on another dangerous undertaking, the unfolding of which and the end thereof we do not know.” Overthrowing the Taliban in order to scramble al-Qaeda in Asia seemed a justifiable mission, but I wondered even then if the same results couldn’t have been achieved with a much smaller hammer. Unfortunately I feel my misgivings have played out as Afghanistan has become the longest war in American history—one Governor Romney wants to continue indefinitely. President Obama, unlike Bush and Romney, conceived a much more nimble strategy and eventually killed bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders throughout the region while reducing troop numbers; we can judge the scope of this accomplishment by remembering that Gadianton himself was never caught.

So, to summarize so far, my religion causes me to believe that pacifism is better than belligerence, and that when we do fight it should only be after several offenses and only in self-defense. But to renounce war and proclaim peace means, I think, something even more than that: that we should seek to be our brothers’ keeper and strive for the end of all violence throughout the world.

How do we do it? As far as our Church and other churches are concerned it means working to spread the gospel throughout the world: when the Nephites were faced with a dangerous border community that might incite the Lamanites to violence, their record states: “And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God” (Alma 31:5). Roughly fifty years later, the righteous Lamanites were faced with the growth of the Gadianton robbers among them and responded with a mixed campaign of military strikes and proselytizing: “And they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites” (Hel. 6:37). So much fighting has been carried out in the name of religion, it’s good to remember that religion can also be the primary cure.

As far as our government and other governments are concerned it means robust diplomacy aimed primarily to curb tyranny, violence between states and communities, violation of international law, and human rights abuses. It means we have a responsibility to stand up for those who are most defenseless—like the Nephites who suffered Lamanite aggression for protecting the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 28:2 calls it the most “tremendous battle” in their entire history)—and intervene as much as our resources permit in cases of genocide or large-scale oppression—including, at present, possibly Syria and certainly Palestine, where the United States’ opposition to recognizing Palestinian statehood in the UN is one of the low points of the Obama administration’s foreign policy record. I feel it is our duty to pay the most attention to those who are most defenseless, and any nation, like Palestine, without a state certainly falls in that category. This, by the way, is an example of where my Mormon beliefs cause me to take a position—that the United States needs to support a measured but determined process for Palestinian statehood—that neither American political party has ever really embraced.

But I’m not suggesting America needs to invade every country with a popular insurrection or throw its military might around unnecessarily. The responsibility, real or imagined, to be the world’s policeman can overstretch even the world’s largest military, and one often makes the mistake of sending forces into areas where our intervention isn’t necessary, the largest recent examples being Vietnam and, as mentioned, Iraq. Any Commander-in-Chief this soon after Bush will be wary of that, and President Obama’s response to Libya seemed measured but effective, using technology to assist rebels fighting a superiorly armed despot without endangering the lives of American ground forces. Of course, it can be argued that this assistance came only after Gaddafi’s position became untenable and that U.S. support for the dictators in Egypt and Tunisia (and Syria) lasted far too long—and should never have existed in the first place; supporting a regime that does not have its people’s best interest at heart just because it supports American economic interests is not a tenable position: we should be just as concerned for each and every citizen of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iraq as of the United States.

This raises a second point that has dogged the U.S. since at least the Mexican-American War: that our own foreign policy should not have a direct negative impact—such as when our unmanned drones kill civilians then name them posthumously as “enemy combatants”—or, as much as possible, any negative externalities. This is most obvious with military interventions but can come from other sources: NAFTA, for instance, was intended to increase efficiency in North America by reducing trade barriers—Economics 101—but it had the negative affect of underselling many Mexican farmers, especially corn farmers, putting them out of work, and forcing many of them to come, undocumented, to America to work in our farms, causing personal strain on them and their families specifically and also on Mexico’s economy as a whole. Latin America unfortunately has many other examples, as the conservative regimes the U.S. and the CIA propped up during the Cold War often turned out to be some of the worst human rights violators in the world, decimating populations and economies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and other countries. Other instances—such as arming the anti-Soviet rebels who became the Afghan Taliban—have come back to haunt us as well.

War is arguably the greatest evil that man can perpetrate on man. A true statesman will do everything in his power to avoid it—including communicating with his enemies (as Captain Moroni did)—and would never delegate that authority to even his allies. Thus the friction between the Obama administration and Hamid Karzai or Nouri al-Maliki is actually encouraging, while Governor Romney’s close personal relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu is, more than anything, troubling. In his speech on foreign policy Monday Romney said that “the world must never see any daylight between” the U.S. and Israel. Romney can’t seriously expect to defer to Netanyahu on Middle East policy—particularly not after the latter’s performance at the United Nations. There must be daylight there, and I think most Republicans would agree with that.

More importantly—because it’s more possible, if not practical—someone who wants to renounce war and proclaim peace should not attempt to enlarge what is already by far the largest military force in the history of the world. Romney has consistently vowed to enlarge the military, but it seems more in deference to his financial backers than to wise national policy. In Monday’s speech Romney said, “I’ll roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military.” As David Ignatius wrote, “that’s pure demagogy. One of Obama’s more thoughtful efforts was the defense budget guidance announced last January in which all the service chiefs agreed to balanced reductions in forces—including agreement by the Army and Marine Corps to significant cuts in ground forces on the understanding that we won’t be fighting more wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in the near future. Romney should credit that kind of careful, consensus planning rather than trashing it.” Similarly, Romney's aggression toward Russia and opposition to nuclear draw-down--a major theme of Obama's Russian relations--seems geared toward increasing the possibility of war rather than decreasing it--and was cited by Putin as strengthening his resolve against NATO's European missile network (and possibly its announced withdrawal from Nunn-Lugar).

Indeed, in foreign policy as in everything else, the current President is nothing if not a careful, thoughtful pragmatist. His evolving firmness with China evinces this, and it is evident through his and Secretary Clinton’s dealings throughout the world, even up to the lifting of international banking restrictions on Myanmar a few days ago. (Hillary Clinton, in fact, has been a stellar Secretary of State, actually reminding me of President Hinckley in her vivacity and record-breaking travels; she'll be missed next year no matter who wins the election.) I quite appreciate Jamie Zvirzdin’s evaluation of the President’s foreign policy successes and failures that was reposted on Mormons for Obama in August: “Even [Obama’s] supposed failures in foreign policy reflect good thinking in my mind.”

I’ve basically talked about war and not even touched on aid, which is actually just as big an issue, if not bigger; many more people live in poverty than in conflict zones, after all. I might get back into my beliefs here next time as I discuss how Mormonism influences my beliefs about economics, but suffice it now to quote Doctrine & Covenants 104:17-18:

“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.”

“For of him unto whom much is given much is required” (D&C 82:3), something as true of nations as of individuals. If the Americas are truly a promised land that have been blessed beyond proportion, then we must use that blessing to eradicate poverty throughout the Americas and the rest of the world. It’s a process that might not be complete until the end of the millennium, but all the more reason for starting now. And it will take a mixture of individuals, organizations, and governments to accomplish it; without any one of these three it will be impossible. (One notable example of these coming together is the Half the Sky movement to empower women and girls in developing nations.)

So that’s roughly how my Mormonism influences my thoughts on how nations and states should interact, and the United States’ specific responsibilities. By and large my understanding of these doctrines causes me to support the Democratic party in foreign policy matters: even before getting down to brass tacks, Republicans often seem to place too much emphasis on American exceptionalism over global equality, which is where I feel the scriptures’ emphasis lies (as in 1 Ne. 17:32-36, 2 Ne. 29:7, and 2 Ne. 30:8), and hence feel justified in throwing our country’s weight around more broadly and dangerously than appropriate (and, Republican readers, I’m here thinking of Bush, Cheney, Romney, and Rice—not you). In contrast, the scriptures cause me to believe that completely unfettered self-interest is damaging for society at any level. Ayn Rand, Machiavelli, and Korihor all stand, each in their way, equally in stark contrast to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Zion has always been about all of society, not just the individual, about putting the interests of others above your own. Foreign policy reflects how nations of individuals navigate this on a global scale. At its heart, every decision should ask if this choice, this policy is as beneficial for the whole global community as it is for our own self-interest (speaking of national self-interest, let alone individual politicians’ self-interest). And if not, perhaps it’s time to rethink that policy and what it means to be sent by God to this earth, which is everyone’s second estate, at this time, with these blessings and these responsibilities that God has given us today.