The importance of community
I just finished an interesting read: “Our Divided Political Heart” by E.J. Dionne. I would like to share one of the more enlightening insights from his book.
When one asks the question, “Why did Latter-day Saints in the western United States turn towards conservatism in large numbers after 1970?”, there are many answers. I grew up in the Sixties and Seventies, and remember well one of the answers to this. The more extreme version of liberalism in the Sixties was very self-centered. “Do your own thing” was the motto. The growing counter-culture movement, combined with the anti-war protests, made people feel as if their communities were under attack. (Forgotten is the fact that one of the main targets of the radical liberals was the mainstream Democratic Party: reference Chicago 1968.)
The appeal of Nixon was chiefly that he promised to restore a sense of security and cohesion to our communities. This has been a traditional role for conservatism. As Robert Nisbet wrote, “Conservatism, as a distinguishable social philosophy, arose in direct response to the French Revolution. Standing in reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment, conservatives stressed the small social groups of society.” Conservatism’s foundation was built on the idea that these small social groups – and not individuals –was society’s “irreducible unit”.
That balance of community and individualism continued in conservatism until recently. Certainly Ronald Reagan had a strong sense of community in his philosophy. George H.W. Bush talked about the “thousand points of light” and his son, George W. Bush, ran on “compassionate conservatism”, which despite criticism was more than empty promises, as evidenced by his faith-based initiatives, expansion of Medicaid to include prescription drugs, and his heroic support of the battle against AIDS in Africa.
As E.J. Dionne points out, all of that changed with the Tea Party. The balance in conservatism between individualism and community was lost. In a curious way, the Republican Party is the modern heir of the Sixties liberal radicals; they are the ones preaching extreme individualism today. Where is their talk about community and common responsibility, concepts we heard so often from Reagan and his predecessors? One can argue about the definition of community; conservatives have in the past championed the “smaller social groups” referenced above by Nisbet. But today, we’re not even hearing that. It’s every man for himself, with nary a word about common responsibilities.
This is not an ideology Brother Brigham would have been comfortable with. One wonders if the Latter-day Saints will wake up to their heritage of concern for community and reject extreme individualism, whatever the source.
When one asks the question, “Why did Latter-day Saints in the western United States turn towards conservatism in large numbers after 1970?”, there are many answers. I grew up in the Sixties and Seventies, and remember well one of the answers to this. The more extreme version of liberalism in the Sixties was very self-centered. “Do your own thing” was the motto. The growing counter-culture movement, combined with the anti-war protests, made people feel as if their communities were under attack. (Forgotten is the fact that one of the main targets of the radical liberals was the mainstream Democratic Party: reference Chicago 1968.)
The appeal of Nixon was chiefly that he promised to restore a sense of security and cohesion to our communities. This has been a traditional role for conservatism. As Robert Nisbet wrote, “Conservatism, as a distinguishable social philosophy, arose in direct response to the French Revolution. Standing in reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment, conservatives stressed the small social groups of society.” Conservatism’s foundation was built on the idea that these small social groups – and not individuals –was society’s “irreducible unit”.
That balance of community and individualism continued in conservatism until recently. Certainly Ronald Reagan had a strong sense of community in his philosophy. George H.W. Bush talked about the “thousand points of light” and his son, George W. Bush, ran on “compassionate conservatism”, which despite criticism was more than empty promises, as evidenced by his faith-based initiatives, expansion of Medicaid to include prescription drugs, and his heroic support of the battle against AIDS in Africa.
As E.J. Dionne points out, all of that changed with the Tea Party. The balance in conservatism between individualism and community was lost. In a curious way, the Republican Party is the modern heir of the Sixties liberal radicals; they are the ones preaching extreme individualism today. Where is their talk about community and common responsibility, concepts we heard so often from Reagan and his predecessors? One can argue about the definition of community; conservatives have in the past championed the “smaller social groups” referenced above by Nisbet. But today, we’re not even hearing that. It’s every man for himself, with nary a word about common responsibilities.
This is not an ideology Brother Brigham would have been comfortable with. One wonders if the Latter-day Saints will wake up to their heritage of concern for community and reject extreme individualism, whatever the source.
Should Mormons hate Bill Clinton?
Steve Olsen
It seems odd that after all these years, and after most of America has gotten over it , lots of Latter-day Saints seem to have a dark spot in their hearts for President Clinton.
Part of this is partisanship. It's also true that we never really bought into the story that his personal weaknesses were irrelevant. The man undeniably has his faults. But is the continued hatred justified?
I could talk here about forgiveness. He wronged his wife, and she has apparently forgiven him. But here's the more important point:
If Mitt Romney were presented in my next sacrament meeting as my new bishop, I'd enthusiastically raise my hand in affirmation. He appears to be a good family man and a faithful Latter-day Saint. But we are not electing a bishop. We're electing a President.
Bill Clinton had his faults, but he was undeniably an effective steward of the nation during his eight years. America prospered under his leadership. He was an effective President, and so has some authority on the best course for America's future.
He is also one of the smartest, well informed Americans of our generation, and is without peer in his ability to understand wonkish, complicated policy issues and explain it to the rest of us in plain English. He used that skill Thursday night as he made a devastating critique of Republican economic policy, showing it to be an empty shell supported by rhetoric and ideology but with no substance.
The man has important things to say about the future of our country. I think it is very short sighted when we ignore voices of reason just because we dislike someone. The rest of the nation has moved on; Clinton has the highest approval rating of any living former President. Even Paul Ryan is saying kind things about him and his time in office. Let's get over it, people.
It seems odd that after all these years, and after most of America has gotten over it , lots of Latter-day Saints seem to have a dark spot in their hearts for President Clinton.
Part of this is partisanship. It's also true that we never really bought into the story that his personal weaknesses were irrelevant. The man undeniably has his faults. But is the continued hatred justified?
I could talk here about forgiveness. He wronged his wife, and she has apparently forgiven him. But here's the more important point:
If Mitt Romney were presented in my next sacrament meeting as my new bishop, I'd enthusiastically raise my hand in affirmation. He appears to be a good family man and a faithful Latter-day Saint. But we are not electing a bishop. We're electing a President.
Bill Clinton had his faults, but he was undeniably an effective steward of the nation during his eight years. America prospered under his leadership. He was an effective President, and so has some authority on the best course for America's future.
He is also one of the smartest, well informed Americans of our generation, and is without peer in his ability to understand wonkish, complicated policy issues and explain it to the rest of us in plain English. He used that skill Thursday night as he made a devastating critique of Republican economic policy, showing it to be an empty shell supported by rhetoric and ideology but with no substance.
The man has important things to say about the future of our country. I think it is very short sighted when we ignore voices of reason just because we dislike someone. The rest of the nation has moved on; Clinton has the highest approval rating of any living former President. Even Paul Ryan is saying kind things about him and his time in office. Let's get over it, people.
2016: Obama's America?
No doubt you've heard about the new anti-Obama infomercial in theaters. A letter to the editor in Ogden's Standard Examiner gushed about the movie, stating the packed house gave it a round of applause at the end.
Given the folks who would pay eight bucks to attend this movie, I don't doubt the reaction. Like the Michael Moore movies on the other side of the political spectrum, only the true believers (in this case those who already hate the President) will go, the producers will make a gruntload of money - and it will have not one iota of an effect on the election. Thankfully.
However, we need to speak up about the real message behind this film, a follow-up to the failed birther movement that attempted to portray Obama as "not really American". Despite the fact that the filmmaker is an immigrant, here's the underlying message of the film: You are only a real American if you grew up in a white, middle-class Republican home with both parents. All others need not apply as Americans, because the un-American influences you will have to endure will make you un-American too. If the Right can make the claim about the President, it applies to all other citizens raised by single mothers, or of mixed race, or who spent part of their childhood living outside the United States, or whose parents expressed non-Republican political views sometime in their lives.
Latter-day Saints ought to know better. Our ancestors suffered persecution for being a "peculiar people" and were accused of treason, so we ought to have empathy with those from more diverse backgrounds.
One thing is cool about this movie, however. It gives us a solid date for checking its predictions. I'm already thinking about the blog post for the first quarter of 2016, in the middle of Obama's second term, where I'll be able to debunk the claims made by this movie. (While I'm at it, I'll point out a few other things, like how Obama didn't take away your guns or turn General Motors into a model of socialism.) Stay tuned.
Given the folks who would pay eight bucks to attend this movie, I don't doubt the reaction. Like the Michael Moore movies on the other side of the political spectrum, only the true believers (in this case those who already hate the President) will go, the producers will make a gruntload of money - and it will have not one iota of an effect on the election. Thankfully.
However, we need to speak up about the real message behind this film, a follow-up to the failed birther movement that attempted to portray Obama as "not really American". Despite the fact that the filmmaker is an immigrant, here's the underlying message of the film: You are only a real American if you grew up in a white, middle-class Republican home with both parents. All others need not apply as Americans, because the un-American influences you will have to endure will make you un-American too. If the Right can make the claim about the President, it applies to all other citizens raised by single mothers, or of mixed race, or who spent part of their childhood living outside the United States, or whose parents expressed non-Republican political views sometime in their lives.
Latter-day Saints ought to know better. Our ancestors suffered persecution for being a "peculiar people" and were accused of treason, so we ought to have empathy with those from more diverse backgrounds.
One thing is cool about this movie, however. It gives us a solid date for checking its predictions. I'm already thinking about the blog post for the first quarter of 2016, in the middle of Obama's second term, where I'll be able to debunk the claims made by this movie. (While I'm at it, I'll point out a few other things, like how Obama didn't take away your guns or turn General Motors into a model of socialism.) Stay tuned.