In Which I Whine About Our Political Parties

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

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

Religious Freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque

The Eleventh Article of Faith states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I stated in my last post that my evolving three pillars of Things I Care About The Most In Politics are peace, a healthy sustainable environment, and moral/religious agency.  I think if we safeguard these three things we can live in a pretty great world for a long time.  Of course the three are intimately intertwined.  War is usually based on scarcity of resources (the environmental aspect) or religious conflict.  If we could focus on cleaning up our religious conflicts and our environment, sustainable peace would surely follow.

Unfortunately, there are many right here in America who want to restrict the religious freedom of anyone that worships different than they do, thus creating more conflict and less peace.  The latest and most public incarnation of this bigotry is the uproar over the plans to build a mosque and Muslim information center a few blocks from ground zero.

The opponents of this mosque truly believe that those who died on 9/11 would be dishonored by the mere fact that Muslims would have a place of worship so near ground zero.  The only way this thinking makes sense is if you believe that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of al Qaeda and the extremist factions that want to harm the United States.  This is, of course, absurd and bigoted.

It's Probably Time For A Little More Optimism Around Here

In the latest iteration of how we treat our planet, we have now released probably between 50 to 100 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and we're probably only about halfway through the the release.

It is the sort of disaster that just makes you sick.  Birds and dolphins and fish are dying and people are losing their livelihoods.  We care so much about cheap energy that we are willing to downplay or ignore even the most heinous risks to get it.  Doing the hard things and making the hard decisions for our long-term good is not a particularly strong attribute for us, and the gulf oil spill is the perfect reminder of that fact.

And this applies to more than just the environment.  Israel and Palestine won't make the hard decisions in order to come to peace.  The same goes for many other nations, including America, which value short-term benefits and military force over long-term solutions and true and lasting peace. 

Liberalism and Agency

Of all the reasons given for why a person can't be a good Mormon and liberal, the one used most often is that liberalism takes away free agency. This is the one conservative Mormon activists tend to favor. I attempted to refute this argument in my post "Agency and Democracy," wherein I argued that as long as we live in a democracy where we are allowed to vote, we retain our agency. I also pointed out that conservatives have taken a lot of my money and used it for things with which I disagreed, such as torture, the Iraq War, illegal wiretaps, and tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby highlighting the hypocrisy of this accusation.

I continue to encounter the liberals-as-anti-agency accusation, though, and so have thought a little more about it and want to take a different angle. The conservative Mormon activist argument, by the way, is that liberals want to take away our agency by raising taxes to pay for government programs. The person, then, has less agency because she has less money in the bank.

This argument says way more about the conservatives that put it forward than the liberals they are accusing. What it says is that they only think of agency in economic terms, whereas the idea of agency in scriptures and religion is in entirely clothed moral terms. Our eternal progress is dependent on our using our agency to make good decisions morally, not good decisions with our temporal wealth. Do we treat our families well? Do we honor our covenants? Do we live Christ-like lives? The use of our agency in these important areas has nothing to do with taxes, government regulation, or any other temporal, man-made, economic consideration.

Under a system where capitalism is regulated in order to level the playing field just enough to get people out of poverty and have health security, we are still able to exercise our agency completely, fully, unfettered. We are still able to make those most important decisions that will enable us to receive the gift of eternal life.

To suggest that liberals deprive individuals of the full range of their free agency based purely on economic motives reveals, in my mind, a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of agency and the very purpose of this life. It is time we (including myself, of course) spent less time worried about our money and temporal possessions and more time worried about living Christ-centered lives.

I have no problem with an argument about taxes, social programs, and government regulation in terms of public policy, there is legitimate room for debate there, but I cannot see merit in opposing liberal ideology in terms of deprivation of free agency.

Agency and Democracy

I would like to get back to the issue of whether you can be a good Mormon and a Democrat. I've already written about some current political issues, such as torture, war, and spying on Americans here, which seems to indicate that the Republican party has some pretty serious issues that Mormon Republicans need to reconcile, much like Mormon Democrats need to deal with issues such as abortion and gay rights. Again, no political party is perfect and you absolutely should never completely agree with any one party or you are probably not thinking critically.

But putting specific issues aside, most complaints I hear or read about the compatibility of Mormons and Democrats focus on the issue of choice. The argument goes something like this: In the war in heaven Satan was cast out because he wanted to take away our agency. Democrats and Socialists (usually lumped together without any explanation) similarly want to take agency away by creating a welfare state and creating too much government interference in our lives. Democrats = Satanists.

This represents some of the worst logic I have ever encountered (even omitting my last little flourish there which I have honestly never seen). And this is not a straw man, this the argument I've encountered many times. This is what people think, and it is wrong, and I'd like to tell you why.

As long as you have the ability to vote for whomever you want, you have a choice. Democrats are fully open about what they would like to accomplish. We would like health care for every person, with a priority for children. We would like to assist the poor and give them the same opportunities as the wealthy. We would like workers to have as much negotiating power as management. We would like our environment preserved. We want true equality across the board. We think the government is in as good or better position to make these happen as any other source.

I guess it is true that government takes away some choice at the back end of the process by, for instance, spending your tax dollars. We do not get to choose where every dollar we pay in taxes is spent. But this is the case no matter which party is in control. Even then we can influence our representatives and leaders through emails, phone calls, and community organizing. Our most influential choice, however, comes at the front end of the process when we vote. There is no restriction of choice at the polls. Choices regarding how the government is run occur in the voting booth, and you can choose Republican or Democrat or any other person or party you want.

We are a government run by the majority which respects the right of the minority. The hallmark of democracy is that we choose the government that best reflects our values. If the majority of people in America vote for Democrats, which is the case right now, then we are a liberal country and the liberal agenda is implemented. If a majority of people in America vote for Republicans, which more or less happened the last twenty years, then we are a conservative country and the conservative agenda is implemented. It is never the case that Democrats take control of the government and suppress choice.

We, the majority, chose the Democratic politicians and ideas and we want them to lead. If they dissatisfy us then the choice still remains to choose someone different. With a nation in economic crisis and our stature in foreign policy diminished, the majority chose President Obama and the Democrats, knowing it meant an implementation of the Democratic ideals. If it fails, the majority will choose something new (unless the year is 2004).

A conservative Republican may disagree with the amount of money spend on welfare programs. She does not want her money spent in that way, but when a majority of the nation votes for Democrats she will have to abide by that law, even though she disagrees. This is the nature of a democracy. When Republicans were in charge of the nation I did not want my tax dollars and military lives spent on the Iraq war, and I did not want our government to torture. I disagreed vehemently. But I did not complain that the Republicans were taking away my agency. I became informed, argued, and voted, along with millions of others, and things have changed.

If in our democracy a majority of Americans want to take away your handguns and assault weapons, we'll do it. If a majority wants universal health care, we'll do it. If a majority wants complete government de-regulation of the financial system, we'll do it. If a majority wants to privatize the national parks and public lands, we'll do it. These are not changes that happen overnight, of course, but with sufficient momentum Americans can do anything, good or bad. But the choice is always ours, it is never taken away no matter which party is in control.

So we, as American Mormons, value our agency and our democracy. We study the issues, debate them, and vote according to our conscience. If we disagree with the majority, then we are given rights as minorities to assemble and peacefully protest and vote the bums out. Which we did on November 4, 2008, and it felt great.