To those Latter-day Saints who are still feeling depressed about Brother Romney's loss, here's some food for thought:

One thing all of us know: if something bad happens and a Mormon is involved, you will see that plastered all over the news reports. Murderers, thieves and spies of other religions - you will never know what their faith is. Not so with Mormons. That's usually the lead sentence in the story.

With that thought in mind, consider the following: Think back during the worst days of the Iraq War, when America was pretty much despised around the world, even among our usual allies. Now ask yourself: What if George W. Bush had been a Mormon? You know the answer to that: all the negative stuff being said around the world would have applied to the Church, not just America. What kind of an effect do you think that would have had on the missionary work?

Most Latter-day Saints have only thought of the upside of having a Mormon in the Oval Office; they haven't thought of the negative ramifications. Let me put it this way: the folks who work at 50 E. South Temple are wise men of the world. Given the possible negative effects of an unpopular Mormon American president on the Church's image, something tells me they probably weren't participating in the fast and prayer thing to have Romney elected. Their letter congratulating President Obama actually sounded pretty sincere. Maybe this is part of the reason.

One thing I try to do is read posts occasionally from a few intelligent conservative voices. I think everyone needs to keep an open mind, and this helps. For me, one of those voices is former George W. Bush Special Assistant David Frum, and he penned some of the wisest words I've ever read in his CNN post, "Let's Get Real About Abortion." I would encourage you to study this and pass along to family and friends.

I have always felt that 80% of Americans were about in the same place on this issue; namely, that high abortion rates are bad, but that outlawing all abortions no matter what is not the answer. I don't question the sincerity of those who believe life begins at conception; if that's truly your belief, it's obvious you will be passionate on the subject.

However, there is a difference between respecting someone's religious beliefs and allowing those beliefs to dominate the conversation for the rest of us. I've always felt if the middle 80% got together, we could agree upon a common-sense approach to minimize the number of abortions performed, while not imposing an undue burden on those rare situations where the vast majority of Americans believe the mother, her family and her clergy should decide. One rule we must abide by: a society must not criminalize something unless there is virtual consensus among all members of society that the activity is criminal. The few who believe all abortion should be criminalized, regardless of circumstances, need to remember that fact.

Another thing we must recognize: prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the most effective way to protect unborn life. Given this fact, Planned Parenthood is the most pro-life organization in America. I don't agree with all their policies, but there is no question they prevent more unwanted pregnancies than any other organization. It is folly of the worst order when some Republican politicians talk of ending Planned Parenthood to score political points. Such an act, if successful, would result in a huge increase in the number of abortions.

Hopefully, there will be more voices of moderation and reason on the abortion issue like David Frum, so Americans can put this divisive issue behind us and really work together to make Jimmy Carter's dream come true: "Every baby conceived deserves to be a wanted child".

Author: Kim Burningham

Dear Friends,

The election has nearly arrived. Thank heavens!

I suspect that you and I are alike--glad the election season is coming to a conclusion. Some parts of our election process are very helpful. Focus is placed on issues which need to be debated. The spotlight is aimed on our leaders and potential leaders; we get to know them better. Most importantly, we are able to express our feelings when we vote!

Other aspects of this “silly season” are distressing: the abundant negative television ads, the distortion of positions, the obfuscation. I am most troubled, however, by the hostility exhibited in the 2012 election, and believe some of us need to grow up: respect and seek to understand differences, not belittle and demean.

Some extremes are horrifying: the real Halloween nightmare. In my own community, some folks were informally chatting at a church meeting. The conversation—as is often the case—drifted to politics. “I am so proud of my grandchildren,” beamed one. “They wrote a letter to Obama and told them that they hated him.” Another responded, “I wish he’d die.”

It is hard for me to believe such an event actually took place; civilized people reacting in this way and encouraging it in their progeny!

Another example: in an eastern Utah town, anonymous pranksters created a mock hanging: “A dummy of Romney [was] sitting in a chair by a tree holding onto a red rope that goes over a tree branch and forms a noose around the neck of a dummy Obama.” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 28, 2012) Thank heavens some observers, including the mayor of the Orangeville town, was appalled. But some of these Utahns were apparently laughing. I hope you are as appalled as I am.

Certainly, we differ. Some of us support Governor Romney; others advocate for President Obama. I celebrate the fact that we can disagree, examine, and express our reasons. But when that disagreement takes the form of demeaning, hate, and lack of respect, I am embarrassed.
I am convinced, though I disagree on some points with both presidential candidates, both men seek to serve our country for its good. One is our current leader; the other could be a future leader. Both deserve our honest and kindly attention. Neither deserves vindictive responses. I am embarrassed by those who take the lower road.

They do, indeed, turn our election months into the silly season—more than silly, their actions are deplorable.

Happy, although somewhat disappointed, Halloween
Kim R. Burningham

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.

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.

 

 

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.

During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, a highly respected, soft-spoken Republican congressional staffer, Mike Lofgren, abruptly ended his 30-year career in government. To the surprise of everyone who knew him, in September of that year he authored an explosive Internet post titled Goodbye to all that: Reflections of a GOP operative who left the cult, which exposed the dysfunction of Congress from the point of view of the ultimate insider. The post received over a million views.

Like fellow Republican apostates David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett, Lofgren has plenty of criticism for both parties, but saves the most devastating denunciation for the GOP. Lofgren has authored a best-selling book expanding on the theme of his original piece. The title is a pretty good summary of the book: The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted.

Similar to several recent authors, Lofgren places blame for the sad state of our politics on two things: the capitulation of the GOP to extreme right wing reactionaries, and more importantly, the influence of big money, for which he blasts both Republicans and Democrats, although not equally. He documents the corruption and craziness of our elected officials in language that is both eloquent and devastating; not the kind of prose you would expect from someone with the reputation of being mild-mannered. Lofgren has obviously long been internalizing his frustration with the government he served so faithfully, and when the frustration broke, it came out with a bang.

These books usually contain suggestions for how Americans can rescue our nation from the influence of big money power brokers and give it back to the citizens. I found the ideas proposed by Lofgren extraordinarily intriguing; enough so that I’m listing an abbreviated summary (you should read the book for more detail). Some are familiar, some are unique.

• Get all private money out of our elections. All Congressional and Presidential elections must be publically funded, no private donations or self-funding allowed. Here’s a quote, typical of the language he uses in the book: “A politician is a hog that is grateful to whoever is rattling the stick inside the swill bucket. It is time to take that swill bucket away from corporations and plutocrats.”
  


• The above process must allow for independent/third party candidates, with a carefully designed qualification process to weed out the kooks but not be too onerous for legitimate candidates.


• Campaign season limited to 60 days before the election.


• Eliminate tax-exempt status for political advocacy organizations and think tanks.


• The law should oblige television broadcasters to offer a reasonable but limited amount of free political advertising during the campaign period. “The broadcasters’ permission from the Federal Communications Commission to use the public airwaves gives them a virtual license to print money – should they not give something back to the public for that privilege?”
  


• If media outlets choose to accept paid commercials for so-called “independent” issue ads, they must offer equivalent time to the opposing view for free. That’s what happened to cigarette ads on TV; they weren’t directly outlawed, but the requirement to give anti-smoking messages equal time killed them.


• Primaries should be open and non-partisan with the top two finishers contesting the general election, regardless of party, thus doing away with the hyper-partisan convention/closed primary process.


• Voting districts should be drawn by non-partisan commissions.

Most reading this would likely agree with many, if not all of the above recommendations – but are saying, “So what – there’s no chance any of this can happen!”

I don’t know. Here’s a thought: It’s too early to know how the election will turn out, but let’s assume for a moment the Democrats win (defined as a victory for President Obama, Democrats retaining control of the Senate, and cutting significantly into the Republican majority in the House). If that happens, what should we rank-and-file Democrats do?

I say we should pressure the President and congressional Democrats to take a page out of the playbook of obstructionist Republicans the last two years. The pattern was given by Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic Lost from last year. Here’s how it would work: The President would refuse to sign any bill from Congress until they place on his desk acceptable legislation to take big money out of politics. If that legislation needs to be a constitutional amendment, so be it. The above suggestions could serve as a pattern. Maybe there are better ideas. But here’s the deal: Barack Obama was right in 2008; our problems will not be solved until the broken system is fixed. Unfortunately (and I say this as an Obama supporter), he tried to fix the problems before fixing the system. My opinion is that his main priority his second term should be fixing the system. Once we get our legislators away from spending half their time dialing for dollars and take away the swill bucket, the system will start working again as intended and we can get America back on track.

Graph 2.

Current per-pupil expenditures for elementary and secondary education in the United States: 2008–09