In a recent well-written blog post, Mormon Republicans vs. Mormon Democrats, Kate Ensign-Lewis wrote a thoughtful analysis that concluded Mormons who highly value agency as a gospel principle tended to lean Republican and those who value love lean Democrat.

I don’t want to criticize Sister Lewis in any way; I think she was eloquent and concise in her analysis. And she has an obvious point. We LDS Democrats appreciate her standing up for our devotion to our faith. However, I’d like to propose another way of looking at the problem. (Disclaimer: The ideas presented here are certainly not original with me, but are based on the insights of others.)

One problem with the agency vs. love analysis is this: Except for the rare libertarian like Ron Paul, the stated ideal of conservatism for limited government conflicts with how conservatives actually govern. In Utah, we have “Zion Curtains” in restaurants to prevent the unwary soul from perhaps laying eyes on a bottle of booze. There’s the trampling of our constitutional right to privacy under the Patriot Act, and of course, the repeated attempts to legislate morality. I could go on, but you get the idea. The power and reach of the federal government, including spending, expanded at a greater rate under George W. Bush than any time since World War II.

The other problem is this: If the choice among Mormons was between love and agency, the Democrats would be in the majority. Christ said the first and greatest commandment was to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Call me an optimist, but unless it’s a deep, subconscious thing, I would argue most Mormon Republicans would not hesitate for a moment in proclaiming love as the first commandment.

So what’s the alternative? I think there is another way of characterizing the conservative mindset. Their core value is not limited government. Conservatives believe in authority. They value strong principles more than pragmatism. They’re the classic strict father type.

Ask a conservative what they admire about Ronald Reagan, and the gut reaction won’t be his policies. Instead, they will say he was a strong leader who stood up for his principles. Ask the same conservative why they dislike Jimmy Carter, and the gut reaction will be: He was a weak, vacillating leader. It will be a rare conservative who would be able to cite one thing about Carter’s actual policies that they disagreed with.

I think this mindset is behind the oft-repeated phrase by conservatives: America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic. Translation: The “mob” can’t be trusted to rule our country; we need to entrust the government to authoritarian figures. And I think we can understand the underlying attitude of conservatives towards the poor by picturing the strict, authoritarian father who boots his 25-year old son out of the house so he will learn responsibility. Listen closely and there is a paternalistic undercurrent behind proclamations by conservatives that unemployment insurance encourages laziness.

So, as a counterpoint, what are Democrats? Maybe the best analogy is the nurturing parent type, who works to give her children the life’s lessons they need and a firm foundation to stand on, but encourages them to think for themselves and choose their own path in life. She is the one who truly believes in free agency. The nurturing parent wouldn’t have a problem with that 25 year-old kid living at home, as long as they were working towards a goal they were passionate about. As much as this nurturing mom loves her own children, she would cringe at the idea that someone else’s child should suffer or not have a chance to grow up and achieve their dreams; hence, the nurturing mom’s passion for communitarian responsibility, or “the village”, as Hillary Clinton put it.

This model explains the difference between women and men in party affiliation; women tend more to the nurturing parent side. It also explains the greater tolerance of progressive parents toward children who perhaps don’t follow the exact path their parents wished them to follow.

Mainly, I think this explains the preference of active Latter-day Saints for the Republican Party. We’re conditioned to have respect for authority and to have strong beliefs in basic principles. The problem: This mindset is meant only to apply to the Gospel. We’re not supposed to give the same reverence to the philosophies of men that we give to the word of God. That’s idolatry. The Gospel provides a solid foundation for us to stand on while we think and act for ourselves on other issues. The Brethren could not have been more clear on this over the years, but the mindset of the average Latter-day Saint has a hard time dealing with the truth that the Lord actually wants us to think and act for ourselves on political issues.

Convincing good Latter-day Saints to give progressive politics a chance is a challenge; I’m hoping there are a few kernels of insight here that might help us in the battle.

 

 

Post by Rob T.

Mormons for Obama hosted a national conference call for LDS voters this past Tuesday evening. We heard some terrific reports, had a great conversation about the presidential race and key senate campaigns, and unveiled our plan of action for the final four weeks. Our greatest strength as "Mormons for Obama" comes from our ability to talk with fellow Latter-day Saints and others of strong religious belief about how President Obama represents our values in his policies and personal life. These neighbor-to-neighbor, friend-to-friend conversations are what really makes the difference, and are absolutely crucial to winning this election on the ground. For this reason, our three main initiatives for the final stretch are:

1. Flooding Nevada and Colorado with LDS volunteers. Folks in UT are getting in touch with the Utah Obama office for phonebanking & canvassing opportunities in NV & CO. People in Nevada, Colorado, (and "Little Provo" in VA) are picking out heavily LDS neighborhoods, finding a friend to canvass with them, and getting in touch with their local Obama office to get a list of targeted doors in those neighborhoods. (We are NOT using ward lists in any way, shape, or form.) If you want to participate or have questions, subscribe to our newsletter or ask in the comments. We also need a snazzy name for this initiative, akin to the "Great Schlep" from 2008, but Mormon-y.

2. Getting even more heavily involved in volunteering with the local Obama for America neighborhood teams. We're finding our local offices and participating in local volunteering opportunities. We're sporting any Mormons for Obama gear we own and otherwise letting our fellow Obama supporters know that at least some Mormons stand with them.

3. Talking to friends and family who live in swing states and are either on the fence or supporting President Obama. We're sharing the President's record with those who are on the fence. We're getting out the vote (early if at all possible) with those who know they want four more years of President Obama in the White House!

Two major themes that came out of Tuesday night's call were the importance of letting our views be known so other Latter-day Saints no longer feel like "the only LDS Democrat" or "the only LDS Obama supporter" and the terrific volunteer skills we already possess & our ability to have an outsized impact as we get to work. We can, and we will, make a crucial difference as we get President Obama elected for another four years!

We can, in short, be these elves.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl5tG3fRZhk]

Post by Rob T.

The website Mormon Dems has long piece laying out the reasons not to vote for Gov. Romney this November. I encourage you to read the whole thing here for the meat of the argument, but here are some key quotes:

"While I admire Romney’s dedicated unpaid service in my church as a bishop and stake president, believe that he is a good family man who also cares deeply about our country, and am thrilled by Romney’s ascension to the GOP nomination in this Mormon moment, I am confident that he is the wrong person for the job of President of the United States."

"I recognize that many politicians shift their positions from time to time, but cannot think of any politician as well-known as Governor Romney who has gone through such seismic political shifts. These shifts are disconcerting not only to me, but also to many GOP primary voters who wondered whether Romney was as “severely conservative” as he said he was. Governor Romney’s GOP Primary opponents were often frustrated by Romney’s flip-flops and had difficulty cornering him on any particular issue. How do we know how Romney would govern as President? While I suspect Governor Romney may not be as conservative as he appeared in order to clinch the nomination, no one really knows. This is why I do not find Romney to be trustworthy as a politician."

"While Governor Romney’s candidacy is exciting for Mormons and has done a tremendous service for our church by helping to bring it out of obscurity and to generate a national and global conversation about Mormonism, a Romney presidency would be wrong for our country in many ways. Even if Romney is more moderate than he seems, many of his party members in Congress are 'severely conservative' and would put tremendous pressure on him to pass right-wing legislation and appoint right-wing officials and judges. For these reasons and others, I cannot support Mitt Romney for President."

Mitt Romney’s nomination as the 2012 Republican candidate for President is an important and historical moment for me and many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints across the U.S. and the world. A thick glass ceiling was shattered when Romney, a prominent member of my faith, overcame anti-Mormon bigotry prevalent in parts of the Republican primary electorate to clinch the GOP nomination. During the past twelve years we have been witnesses to a triumph over a wide array of social prejudices in American politics with the nomination of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, as the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s historic run as the first serious female contender for the White House in 2008, and Barack Obama’s election as the country’s first African-American president. We may very well have a Mormon as our President starting next January. While I admire Romney’s dedicated unpaid service in my church as a bishop and stake president, believe that he is a good family man who also cares deeply about our country, and am thrilled by Romney’s ascension to the GOP nomination in this Mormon moment, I am confident that he is the wrong person for the job of President of the United States.

Read more

KSL News in Utah did an interview with BYU students Hannah Wheelwright and Ben Ader - once again making the point that many Mormons will vote for Obama in November.  And of course, Hannah is sporting some really nice bumper stickers on her computer.  This kind of publicity and dedication is encouraging and energizing - especially to find this reporting on a Utah news station that is operated by Bonneville Communications.  So let's make one final push for November!  See the article here on KSL.Com, and watch Hannah's interview at that link as well.  Additionally, refer to Hannah's article, "Anxiously Engaged" to learn how you can get involved!

The Book of Mormon teaches, in many places, the danger of contentions that are of the devil: the moment a political discussion gets angry or mean-spirited, that discussion is doing more harm than good. Not all contention is bad, though, at least according to the Book of Mormon. We read in Alma 2:5 that the righteous people of Alma engaged in passionate debate about their laws, debates described as "wonderful contentions." Talking politics, it seems, can and should be a positive experience.

The old adage "never talk politics or religion in polite company" is abysmally horrible advice. First off, the entire missionary program of the Church directly contradicts the latter half of that pithy phrase: we send our young people out with the express purpose of talking religion in polite company for 18-24 months. And then we ask them to continue doing it forever after--"every member a missionary." Apparently the Lord Himself would prefer we not follow that advice.

Secondly, if we can't discuss the most important issues (politics and religion) among polite company, we avoid practicing the very skill that is required to bring people closer to Christ. In addition, we neglect our responsibility to become the type of citizenry that is able to discuss and decide and debate. We will never be that people until we start trying to become that people: through deliberation we become better able to deliberate. Finally, when we ban politics and religion from polite company, we we are overtly relegating them to impolite company.

And then we wonder why politics is sometimes so nasty.

A democracy is only functional if We the People make it so. And, if we ignore the better Picards of our nature and decline to "make it so," then we're leaving the biggest decisions of our country in the hands of folks who are more interested in turning a profit, winning an advancement, or earning a raise.

And we can't blame them: we've handed them the keys to the country and tuned out.

Read more

Author: Terrianne Webster, from her blog:

A friend recently asked me to explain my political ideology to her. She said that try though she may, she cannot understand liberalism or why anyone would support President Obama. I have the utmost respect for this particular friend; I believe her request was absolutely genuine. So I tried my best to explain my beliefs to her. Here is what I wrote:

Hello,

Sorry it has taken me a few days to reply to this. I wanted to have a decent block of time to to attempt to answer your question. First, I don't consider myself the spokesperson for liberalism or for the Democratic Party or for Obama supporters, although I'm proud to be part of all three groups. I am not well enough informed on ALL the issues to be the voice of our ideology. Gerald is far more knowledgeable than I am because he is a self-professed "political junkie." However, you did not ask him; you asked me. So I'll try my best to tell you what I know and believe, because you asked. I should also say that as baffled as you are by liberalism, I am equally baffled by conservatism. I truly don't understand how regular people (normal middle class Americans) could possibly support the proposed policies of Governor Romney. So you and I have that in common. We are both mystified by the other's beliefs.

When I think about politics, I tend to separate issues into four main groups: domestic issues, foreign policy, economic issues, and social concerns. These overlap, of course, but my brain does better when I consider them individually. Regarding domestic policies, unlike conservatives, I believe government should have a role. While it would be great if all people had family members and churches to help them, that is not the case. It is our responsibility to help the needy and the underprivileged. In a country as prosperous as ours, it is an atrocity for anyone ever to go to bed hungry or without adequate shelter. We are the only developed nation in the world where people have to be frightened of their medical bills. That is not okay with me. Healthcare is a basic human right, just like food and shelter. Conservatives like to use the buzzword "entitlements," as though it is a terrible thing. It isn't. As Heavenly Father's children, we are indeed entitled to food, shelter, and healthcare.

This crosses over into social issues. Conservatives often have disdain for welfare abuse and, therefore, oppose welfare and all social programs. As long as there is aid for the needy, some WILL abuse the system. That's because people have their agency. And that's between them and God. It's not my issue. But to throw out welfare (and other social programs that aid the poor) because some people abuse it is beyond ridiculous. Pure love demands that we take care of our citizens. It is an embarrassment to our great nation when we let its citizens (and their children) starve. As for other social issues, there are many. I will address some of the most commonly disputed.

The right of women to make their own healthcare choices, including safe abortion, is always a huge issue. For sure, I'm no fan of abortion. It is the saddest thing. I can't think of a circumstance other than to save my own life (so I may continue to be a mother to my already-born children) that would cause me to choose to have an abortion. However, it is not my right to force my viewpoint upon all women. Instead, I would fund programs to educate women about effective contraception and make it available to all. I would make sex education more comprehensive in schools, rather than abstinence-only curricula, which is both naive and ineffective. I would continue to fund programs for single mothers, so they have a chance for a strong education, giving them the opportunity to provide a decent life for their children. I would fund solid, professional counseling for young pregnant women, so they might choose to continue their pregnancies and give life to their babies, without it defeating them and ruining their own lives. But in the end, I am still pro-choice. The right to safe, legal abortion in the first trimester must be protected.

Gun control and capital punishment are other topics of interest that tend to divide liberals from conservatives. I favor the strictest gun control laws possible under the U.S. Constitution. Allowing folks to go out and buy a hand gun that is designed with the single purpose to kill people, and to do so without proper documentation and without any wait time, is possibly the most irresponsible act I can imagine. Capital punishment, though not currently in the forefront of political discussion, is my personal "soap box" issue, so I won't leave it out. We are the only developed nation in the world that still kills its own citizens. How very sad. There is no place for this barbaric practice, which dehumanizes society and disregards and disrespects us like nothing else.

As for foreign policy, I believe that war must always be our very last resort. Neither war that was instigated during the Bush years (and that we are still trying to escape but paying for nonetheless) was justified. Republicans complain about the deficit. I have little sympathy when it's clear that by far the greatest majority of that debt was used to fund two ridiculous wars that we never belonged in. I'm not a pure pacifist. If someone comes through my door and tries to hurt my babies, I'm pretty sure I'll do anything to protect them. But fighting a war in Iraq over oil was both unjustified and immoral. We need to coexist peacefully with other countries, not present a "tough guy" attitude that repulses people. Arrogance never accomplishes anything.

Regarding economics, I don't claim to be an expert. However, I know for sure that everyone needs to pay his or her fair share of taxes to fund the programs I discussed above and also so we may have fire and police protection, quality education, good roads, etc. Governor Romney has been slow to produce his tax returns, but if I remember correctly, he finally released 2011, which showed he paid around 14% in income tax and Social Security. Gerald and I, who earn far less, paid a higher percentage. This is NOT okay with me. Not at all. Tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% only help the wealthiest 1%. The burden is repeatedly placed on the middle class. The only way to economic stability and prosperity is to build a strong middle class. And that's what the President is trying to do, though he finds himself blocked by the GOP Congress over and over. I don't agree with every policy of President Obama, but I'm proud of what he has accomplished. He was left with a giant mess after eight years of the Bush administration. My hope is that he will be reelected and that congress will be willing to work with him toward economic recovery. When he was elected in 2008, many Republicans in congress said it was their #1 goal to make him a one-term president. If that was their #1 goal, no wonder they refused to unite with him to solve problems. Once he is reelected, that can no longer be their #1 goal, obviously. So perhaps they will be able to put the needs of the county ahead of their hatred for the President and get down to work.

I really hope this was helpful to you. For what it's worth, I love you and care about you as a friend, and differing politics could never change that. So many of my best friends are conservatives. I think it's a demonstration of grace and maturity when people with different views can respect each other and appreciate each other for the intelligent, worthy individuals they are. Those who can't do that truly miss out.

For those of you who read my posts on a regular basis you know I have a deep respect for President Reagan.  Not the Reagan fantasized by the Tea Party today but the real Reagan that negotiated with the left instead of holding them hostage, was liberal on social platforms, and used religion only as a tool in the Cold War.  Last night I was taking my wife through 30 years of unemployment (yes, I am a boring husband) and was startled by a very remarkable similarity.  With yesterday's unemployment rate announcement, President Obama's and President Reagan's first term curves are basically identical.

Both presidents inherited skyrocketing unemployment rates and both, through different measures, were able to start moving the economy again and experienced significant job gains the back half of their first terms.  Both presidents inherited 8% employment rates, watched them climb to 10%+, and then fall again to high 7%. Reagan's dramatic direction change came behind Paul Volcker's handling of the Federal Funds Rate, which dropped from 19% in 1981 to 8.5% in 1982 freeing up cash and driving significant capital investment.  President Obama also has help from the Fed through quantitative easing and driving demand through deficit spending.

What shouldn't be overlooked, is with the national unemployment rate falling below 8%, almost every economic metric is now better than when President Obama took office.  GDP is growing again after watching significant drop in production.  The Dow is back to pre-bubble levels and has climbed dramatically in the last three years largely due to record corporate profits.  Now the only argument the right has is the skyrocketing national debt, but as I demonstrated here this has very little to do with President Obama's legislation.

If some of your older Republican friends have a problem with the unemployment curve under President Obama, ask them if they voted for Reagan in 1984.  If any of your friends ask if we are better off now than four years ago, feel free to engage in that conversation.

The Dow, which is a good measure of corporate profits and productivity, has climbed back to it's pre-bubble level. This increased productivity frees up capital which allows companies to expand their workforce. Jobs are a lagging economic indicator, and are being driven by the returns from private industry we are seeing today.

 

The dramatic decline in GDP productivity came the final year of President Bush's second term. The GDP decline bottomed out halfway into President Obama's first year and has experienced positive growth since.  Although they are not quite to the growth levels of the mid 2000's, we are also not leveraging our home equity to pay for big screen TVs.

 

 

We are pleased to announce that Mormons for Obama is hosting a national call for LDS voters this Tuesday, October 9th, at 8:30 PM Eastern/5:30 Pacific. It will feature presentations by Scott Howell, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Utah, Rev. Derrick Harkins, head of faith outreach for the Democratic National Committee, and Robert Taber, national director of Mormons for Obama. The call is expected to be about 45 minutes in length. RSVP details will be available in the next edition of the Mormons for Obama weekly newsletter.

Note: this is an off-the-record call and not open to the media.

Tonight is the "domestic issues" debate of 2012. Two of the 6 major candidates for President of the United States of America will face off in a debate. Here are five of the questions I'm pretty sure I won't get answers to from either man:

 

Read more