Getting Serious About Health Care Reform

I'm not a health insurance reform expert. Almost no one on earth is. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it. And I think that any discussion of insurance reform has to begin with the problems we are currently facing, because we can't find solutions to problems we only understand vaguely.

The biggest problem, of course, is that costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Premiums are rising at four times the rate of inflation and wages. National health expenditures are rising faster than GDP. Over the past ten years, premiums have more than doubled for the average family. Employers increasingly cannot afford adequate coverage, and the individual market for families is incredibly expensive.

There is also the problem of cherrypicking. The primary goal of the insurance companies is to make money. That is the nature of business in general. To maximize profits they only insure the healthiest people and they avoid paying for procedures, treatments, and medicine as much as is humanly possible. This means that those that need insurance most are least likely to get it, and those that have insurance are likely to be fought tooth and nail for using it. There are countless stories that illustrate this point.

There are nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, including nearly 10 million uninsured children.

So what we've got is a system that does not work. After decades of minimal regulation we are on the cusp of a system failure that would have serious consequences. Does this sound familiar? The difference between the insurance industry and the banking industry is that we allowed the banking system to basically fail, millions of people lost billions of dollars and retirement savings before we stepped in and put some serious regulation on the books. We simply cannot afford to let that happen in the insurance industry where more than just money is at stake.

From what I can glean from interwebs (and here are some articles I really like on more liberal side of things), Democratic health care reform has two main goals. The first is industry regulation. Here is where we address many of the problems that have slowly matriculated in the current system. Some examples are that insurance companies would not be able to deny consumers based on their medical history. Insurance companies would be required to set premiums based on community rating rather than experience rating. Under community rating, everyone would pay the same premiums, regardless of medical history, age, etc. Under experience rating, the current rating system, premiums are based on those and other factors. These reforms would create a much larger risk pool which would make health insurance affordable for many for whom it is not now.

The second part of health care reform seems to be a reform of the market itself. This is where the public option comes in. For all the new regulations that are being proposed, no one doubts that the incredibly rich and powerful and resourceful insurance industry will find ways to continue their current practices. Ambiguous language in the bill, bullying those without the means to fight back, delaying procedures for as long as possible, and the like are all ways that they can game the system. Regulation will be necessary and helpful, but it won't take us all the way. What's more, individual plans and small group plans will still cost more than large group plans because the administrative costs are higher and the risk is spread over a smaller group.

So a public option would combat those problems. It would provide a safety net for those that can't afford private insurance. It might resemble public/private choices like parcel service or education where there is a niche for both government run options and private options. If there were only ever private colleges and universities and suddenly the government decided to provide lower cost, competitive colleges and universities, would conservatives being calling it socialism? I kind of think they would. But no one is calling the current system socialist.

I don't think the public option for health insurance is all that different. The government subsidizes and runs education at all levels because we have deemed that education is so important that it should be provided to every citizen. In fact, education up to 12th grade is absolutely free for every citizen. Why is it so different for us, as Americans, to then say that adequate health care is so fundamentally important that we are going to make sure that every American has access to it? That is going to mean a market where there is competition between the government and private industry, but we are okay with that because it means that everyone has the peace of mind knowing that they have the means to deal with the sicknesses and injuries that their families will face.

I have said it before and I say it again now, this is a moral issue. I want to live in a nation where we make sure everyone, regardless of socio-economic situation, or any other factor, has access to adequate health care. Certainly it is better for our economy to have a more healthy, physically and mentally, workforce. But it is also good for our souls.

We are told again and again in the scriptures and through prophets to care for the sick and needy, the orphans and widows. In our modern world, health care is an essential part of that admonition. There is no way for us to individually make sure that the poor have health care, we have to do it as a group. I'm not saying that you have to support a public option to be a good Mormon or to keep the commandment to care for the poor, but it is a legitimate way to do so where no other viable option has been presented.

Democracy is Action

Reward Good Behavior

It's a shame that our current political system relies as much as it does on money. Thankfully, though, there are ways now to make your money talk much more than it could before sites like Act Blue (or Red) existed. This is one of those times when a bit of talking money could amount to a shout; as Nate Silver demonstrates, Insurance Company money can play a large role in influencing Senators from smaller states who may not have a large, independent donor base. Showing them (by contributing to the good guys) that there is money out there for people who behave well is one of the strongest signals we can send in this environment. In fact, I think the days of wholly-owned Senators may be drawing to a close due to these sorts of democratic ways to give money. We're not there yet, but the "people" already bought a President (he raised $342 million from donors who gave under $1000 total to the campaign).

Healthcare Debate in the Infortainment Age

I think I understand a little bit about political outrage. I lived through the Bush years where my opinion was that the Iraq War was unjustified, that the government illegally spied on its own citizens through warrantless wiretaps, that our government engaged in despicable torture, and on and on. So I have a pretty solid history, along with other liberals, of feelings of anger directed towards our government. The beauty of America is that we can disagree, feel outrage, and argue the merits, all while feeling safe from oppression and remaining friends with those with whom we disagree.

What I can't understand and accept are lies and intimidation. Those are anti-democratic. And those are now the preferred tactics of the right on the healthcare debate. Andrew posted a great link that gave a taste of the lies being spread by the anti-healthcare reform activists, and how easy they are to debunk. Some of the more prominent lies are that there will be a bureaucratic death panel which, I guess, decides who gets treatment and who dies, government-sponsored euthanasia, and bureaucratic boards which decide which kind of healthcare you will receive. These are all lies, and they are firing up the conservative base.

The lies alone are bad enough, but now conservatives are showing up at townhall meetings and being disruptive and intimidating. They are shouting down anyone that disagrees with them. Here are some examples:







There is also the great picture on the front page of the New York Times of the heckler right in Arlen Spector's face.

This is as distasteful as it is anti-democratic, and I think it is a product of two problems that we face that are interrelated. First, this is the inevitable byproduct of the Information Age: 24-hour news channels, internet, Twitter, etc. In the mad dash to compete in this new market, news outlets must fill hours and hours, and pages and pages, of open space with something, anything, that viewers and readers might find interesting. So what we get is hours and hours and pages and pages of excruciating minutia and over-analysis.

And because the news outlets simply can't fill up all that open space with actual news, in all its boring and staid glory, the line between news and entertainment is so blurred it doesn't even exist anymore. The Information Age is now the Entertainment Age. We have to be constantly entertained, outraged, moved to fear or tears, in order to be satisfied.

Which leads to the second big problem: a lack of critical thinking. We rarely have time to sit and reflect anymore, to think through issues on our own, to remove ourselves from the ever-present hum of infortainment and take an objective look. We are spoon-fed (actually shovel-fed) everything we need and we no longer take the time to prepare our own meals.

We are urged as a church to be self-sufficient in our temporal concerns. We should have food storage, money in savings, little or no debt, grow a garden. But are we also self-sufficient in our ability to analyze the world and inform our opinions? Would we really have the same opinions and passions if CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, all stopped broadcasting? Has the Infortainment Age created a world of extremism? I'm not smart enough to answer these questions.

King Mosiah in the Book of Mormon taught us:

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

The Lord in Doctrine and Covenants taught us: "yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

I think we would all do better to apply these scriptures to the Infortainment Age. To slow down the amount of input in our lives, but diligently seek truth through reading, study, and faith, as opposed to TV, internet, and radio. Maybe if we did we would find that we treasure our commonalities and kinship more than our differences. We would also likely all be liberals.

The healthcare debate is just one symptom of this problem. We are being fed gross lies and stirred up to anger and outrage by the infortainers who want nothing more than ratings and power. We certainly have disagreements, but these could be dealt with with respect and tact if we only took time to be a little more discerning in our personal filters.

The Mormon Left is as guilty as anyone, but this whole healthcare debate, with its screaming and lies and intimidation and overreactions, has opened my eyes a little bit. This is not healthy discussion and this is not democracy in action. This is kind of scary.

Snopes-ing Health Care Zombie Lies

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

Republican lies about health care don't just appear out of the ether (although it seems they do sometimes), they're often disseminated through various chain emails. Like Nigerian scams or online pharmacy ads. And they're about as useful, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if many of the recipients get added to junk-mail lists. If I harvested email addresses for a living this would be a great way to do it, since people mindlessly (or not) forward stuff like this to their friends all the time. So the next time you hear some crazy weird thing about the "Obama" (I put that in quotes, because the White House hasn't authored any of the current health care bills making the rounds in Congress) health care plan, you know where it comes from.

Mormons : America :: Catholic Monks : Rome

Recently at Slate.com, there was a series of articles which played out the thought experiment of how America may come to end in the near or distant future. Towards the end of this series the author speculated on who or what would carry the spirit and ideals of America forward like Catholic monks did with Rome. His conclusion: the Mormons.

There were several reasons. First, Mormons might be more likely to survive the collapse of America because of our commitment to food storage and our actively watching for the apocalypse. Second, Mormons believe that America was divinely appointed and inspired, and are therefore more likely to carry on its ideals and traditions, maybe even revering the Constitution after America is no more. Third, Mormons represent American values because we have been forced to assimilate to American culture after years of being outcasts and persecuted. In other words, we have worked very hard to fit in and seem normal after a pretty rocky start. Fourth, Mormons have fully embraced capitalism. Fifth, Mormons are always looking to the past as a source of strength. Not being too caught up in the present or future is good for survival in harsh conditions. Finally, Americans represent good old fashioned American values like family, civic responsibility, and the like.

This makes me uncomfortable for several reasons. I think like most Mormons, I tend to discount the point of view that says that Mormonism is a uniquely American religion. Of course we believe that Gospel truths are universal and eternal, applying equally to all nations and people. I understand, however, where this point of view comes from. It is true that the church was founded (or restored) here in America, that the Book of Mormon goes out of its way to extol the virtues of America and its founding, that modern revelation has pinpointed the spot of the Garden of Eden and New Jerusalem here in America, and the headquarters are in America. That is fairly persuasive evidence that this is an American religion.

And it is true that the American culture that dominates Mormonism pervades congregations throughout the world. Non-English speakers use English words in regards to Mormonism (for instance, many French speakers use the word "garments" and "Elder" even though those words either don't exist or are not used in such a way in French) and foreign members of the church tend to exhibit America-philia in their desire to visit America or move here. I don't think the church explicitly encourages such America-centrism, but its hard to argue that it does not exist on some level.

But the main point of the article and what I was interested in, was the way in which Mormons have gone out of our way to assimilate into American society to the point that we are regarded as the best single example of the confluence of America and religion. Has it made a positive difference in our religion that we are trying very hard to fit it?

On the one hand state and federal governments have ceased sending armed mobs and militias to take our property and change our religious practices, but on the other hand Americans are still deeply suspicious of our religion and really don't trust us. Are we trying too hard to be seen as quintessentially "American" at the expense of some of our core ideals for very little in return?

It used to be that one of the distinguishing features of Mormonism was the emphasis on community. Of course there was the United Order, but there were also various other community activities and community pride. For a good look at this phenomenon read Wallace Stegner's Mormon Country. I think that has been completely lost. We pride ourselves in our big houses on our big lots and our capitalism and our Western-style individualism. I don't think there is anything wrong with those those, in moderation, but it feels like we've gone too far and maybe a lot of it has to do, ironically I guess, with our desire to assimilate and seem "normal."

Perhaps, as well, this has something to do with Mormon politics. This extreme identity with conservative politics which only loosely coincides with Mormon beliefs allows an outlet for the majority of Mormons to enter the national discourse via a mainstream political vehicle. What have they gotten in return? A Southern base that distrusts Mormons and would not consider nominating a Mormon for President.

I would hope that members of the church identify themselves as Mormons first and Americans, democrats, or republicans following after. Not because there is anything grossly wrong with America, but because a nation is manmade and transitory, whereas our religion is eternal. A nation, any nation, is inherently flawed and limited, which is not the case with the Gospel.

I would hope that we could find the beauty and wisdom in all cultures instead of puffing our American chests and sneering at what we see as inferior nations, especially knowing that members of the church come from nearly all cultures and nations (even Muslim nations).

So I don't feel bad admitting that the fact that people see us as the very epitome of American culture makes me uncomfortable.

A quick assessment of Obama thus far

A few thoughts about how things are going so far:

1.) No foreign terrorist attacks yet on U.S. soil. Apparently they're not aware that even our President objectively supports their cause.

2.) I like having someone in charge who can speak in front of real people, instead of a hand-picked audience or a press pool whose questions are pre-approved.

3.) Birthers! You guys rock, keep the craziness coming.

4.) I am not surprised that politics continues to be messy.

5.) No effective Republican opposition in sight. Aside from the newsiness of the "protests" bought and paid for by various PACS (I'll definitely be attending my congressman's Health Care roundtable to show my support), there is no coherent message (unless "no" is a message) worth caring about.

6.) While I'm still wary of the stimulus package (a good bout of real reform would have been nice, Wall Street got off way too easy), I think most of its provisions will have a positive (or, at worst a neutral) impact on the economy. Way better than Bush's refusal to even acknowledge that we had a problem.

7.) I am quite pleased with how Obama has handled things internationally. While most domestic opposition has focused on the Health Care debate and the next Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, quietly in the background the Administration's been making all the right noises (even going so far as to actually apply pressure to Israel, instead of caving to every whim of Zionist craziness).

8.) We haven't bombed anyone who we weren't already bombing. IMHO that's great news; we were headed towards a possibly disastrous confrontation with Iran and who knows whom else.

9.) He's been extremely busy. No weekends at the ranch (Bush took more days off than any other President in history).

10.) I'm still very happy that I voted for him. He is, in retrospect, far better than either a.) any of the Republican candidates, or b.) any of his challengers in the Primaries (and I was a fairly dedicated Edwards man then). I don't expect perfection out of politicians, I'm just glad that this one functions mostly correctly.

Glenn Beck: Mormon, Sadly

There is really nothing more to say about Glenn Beck. He is soulless. His every word is carefully chosen to illicit astonished reactions. But I'll take the bait and we'll discuss him here because, sadly, he is "Mormon." His latest erudite and intelligent bit of commentary is that he thinks Pres. Obama is racist:



Pres. Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture. But he's not saying Pres. Obama doesn't like white people. But Pres. Obama is a racist. So it appears, in Glenn Beck's mind, that racism and hatred of white people and white culture are not the same thing as not liking white people. You can be one and not the other.

First, I'd love to know what white culture is. If anyone can define it, please step forward. But it sounds a little too much like white supremacy to me.

Second, Barack Obama is half-white. His mother is white. Half his family is white. His grandmother, who he talked about often, is white. As noted in the video, his presidential campaign was run by white people and his White House is run by a white man.

But Pres. Obama made a comment about a black man getting arrested in a white neighborhood, so Beck says Obama is a racist and has deep-seated hatred for white people. I don't know if Beck actually believes stuff like this that he says, I tend to think he does, but it doesn't matter. What Glenn Beck really thinks is that calling Pres. Obama a racist will be good for ratings. He knows he has a base of listeners who are ultra-conservative, angry, white, and easily agitated, and he plays to those people.

What Beck doesn't get, tragically, is that there are consequences to such hateful and vilifying speech. We live in a nation, fortunately, and I mean that, where you can call the President a racist. Plenty of people called Pres. Bush stupid, and as far as I know none of those people were waterboarded or tortured in any way. But its not as easy as just shouting "FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" anytime someone calls you out for your awful and offensive speech. We also live in a society where we try to be tolerant and peaceful and intelligent, and speech like Beck's only lowers our nation's level of discourse, breeds hate and intolerance, and can lead to real violence. Now, if Beck was just generally inane and insufferable but did not have a history of hate-filled and violent rhetoric, his Obama-racist comment would be forgotten and/or ignored. But that's not the case.

Glenn Beck said that stem cell research will lead to Eugenics and another holocaust. You don't think someone could hear that and decide to stop it at all costs? Glenn Beck espouses traitorous secession when you disagree with the President politically. You don't think someone could hear that and start something nasty? Glenn Beck said that his political opponents were vampires and that the only way to stop them is to drive a stake through their hearts. You don't think someone could hear that and react violently? Glenn Beck said he hates, "hates," the victims of Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Glenn Beck demanded that the first ever Muslin Congressman "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Glenn Beck accuses Pres. Obama of leading the nation to socialism. Glenn Beck called Pres. Obama a communist. Glenn Beck (this link is a doozy) called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat witch," called Hillary Clinton a "stereotypical bitch," called countries from where immigrants are coming to the United States "dirtbag countr[ies]," made fun of Braille, said that we need to be "in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head," called Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who became an anti-war protester, "a pretty big prostitute," and on and on and on and on.

If he had said just one of these things, and somebody internalized it and did something violent, we certainly couldn't look back at Beck and accuse him of having blood on his hands. But when he spews hate speech as consistently and radically as he does, when the time comes, which is inevitable, that one or more of his listeners acts on these hateful feelings and ideas, Beck will be guilty. He can say whatever he wants, but when the words turn to actual violence, he'll be guilty.

The big problem, though, and what this blog is particularly concerned about, is that Glenn Beck is Mormon. Do you suppose that Beck could go from his radio show where he calls Hilary Clinton a stereotypical bitch, or a grieving mother/anti-war activist a big prostitute, directly to the temple and feel good about that? Do you suppose he could be in the foyer after sacrament meeting and call the nations directly to the south of America, where the church is growing exponentially, dirtbags as a Honduran walks by, and feel good about that?

And it's not like I'm trying to divine the intent of his heart, he purposefully and publicly made these and many other statements just like them for all to hear.

But because he is "Mormon" and conservative, he is treated like a General Authority. Check out the comments section to the Deseret News article, "Question: Is Glenn Beck a Mormon?" Members of the church revere him. They will defend him at all costs. They take his word as gospel, all because he is a prominent "Mormon" conservative commentator/entertainer. It sickens me. He is a terrible, terrible, example of Mormonism. He is affirmatively bad for our church, and I don't want his crying, hateful face associated with my religion.

The Constitution Hanging By A Thread

Ever since Mitt Romney came onto the political scene as a serious (ahem) presidential candidate it seems like we've heard a lot more talk about the famous White Horse prophesy of Joseph Smith. There is no exact quote from the Prophet, but the jist of it is that one day the Constitution will hang by a thread, and the nation itself will be in peril, and will be saved by the elders of the church.

With Pres. Obama now in charge of the nation there has been no shortage of idle chatter that the Constitution will soon, if not already, be hanging by the thread and need saving by someone like brave Mitt Romney. I enjoy the mental picture of hero-esque Mitt Romney on a valiant white steed, hair perfectly coiffed, sword in hand, riding in from the East to save the Constitution.

But I don't want to make the impression that it is a silly prophesy, or that there is no need to be vigilant in protecting the Constitution. In fact, these last few years we've come closer than ever before. We just learned that in 2002 the Bush administration, at the urging of (surprise!) Dick Cheney, considered sending the military to Buffalo, New York to make domestic arrests of suspected terrorists.

The Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures," which has been universally interpreted to ban the use of military for domestic purposes, like making arrests. There is also the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement. There is also the very spirit of Democracy and Freedom itself which informs normal Americans' fear of tyranny and unrestrained executive power.

Now, I've been to Buffalo and I consider it to be part of America. I also think that if the military showed up in my neighborhood to arrest a neighbor I might have some serious doubts about the health of our Constitution and our nation. For once we can praise the good sense of Pres. Bush who nixed the idea and sent the FBI.

As far as recent Constitutional thread-hanging, lets not forget the holding of American citizens in Guantanamo without charges or trial (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), or Richard Cheney claiming that the vice president is not part of the executive branch (Article II) or really the legislative branch (Article I) with the implication that the Constitution does not apply to him (seriously, gasp), or warrantless wiretaps (Fourth Amendment), or any of a number of other offenses against our core document.

Bush's snippings of the proverbial fibers from which the Constitution is suspended are just the latest in a long line of anti-Constitutional laws passed in times of war from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the suspension of habeus corpus; from the oppression of freedom of speech to the internment of Japanese Americans.

Here is the difference I see, though. In the previous cases (we're talking the War of 1812, the Civil War, the World Wars) the wars were discrete engagements with clear goals and obvious starting and ending points. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, was open-ended and poorly defined. Bush was not the political equivalent of the Anti-Christ, intent on destroying America, but he, and more overtly Cheney, laid the blueprint for how it could be done.

First, identify a legitimate threat of terror or some other nefarious non-state actor. Second, exploit Americans' fear of this threat. Third, declare a war against it with poorly defined boundaries, goals, and strategies. Fourth, enact tyrannical anti-Constitutional laws in the name of protecting Americans from this threat. Fifth, pour a martini, sit back, and enjoy the fruits of unfettered power.

We are still at a point where we see unconsitutionality and call it out and fix it. We are still vigilant. I have no doubt that the day will come when the Constitution and the nation are threatened from within, but we are nowhere near that point now, we are further away from that point than we were in the previous eight years, and Mitt Romney will not be riding in on a White Horse any time soon.

The Summer of Blah

I'm not sure if I've said everything I want to say as a Mormon liberal, but I do have to admit that I am completely uninspired by politics and politicians right now. Maybe it is the vacations and scout camp and personal issues, but this has been a summer of blah, as far as politics go.

We are a nation of people that want the military out of the Middle East, and yet we can't get out. There seem to be no new ideas about how to "win" or even "make progress." At least before we knew what the goal was, make a democracy in Iraq and get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were sloppy goals, to be sure, but we did them -- kind of. Now our military is stuck in a no man's land having achieved those goals by the letter of the law, but not by the spirit of the law. And so, blah.

We are a nation of people that want health care reform and a public option, and yet nothing is being done about it. Despite all the rhetoric and vitriol saying it wouldn't be this way anymore, we are a nation still run by special interests and neat little political one-liners of dubious veracity. Opposing political parties are more interested in torpedoing good ideas for political wins than listening to the American people and getting results.

Tens of millions of Americans, including millions of American children, are without basic health coverage. Millions are forced into bankruptcy as a result of catastrophic illnesses and injuries. Premiums are rising three times faster than wages. The system is broken. It doesn't work. But the insurance companies, those very faces of evil itself, are so rich and powerful nothing is getting done. All we talk about is how socialist health care reform would be, which of course is code for "don't you dare hurt the insurance companies!" I find it all despicable.

Plus I went from the Oregon coast (temperatures: 60s and beautiful) back to Salt Lake (temperature: 350 degrees).

So its the summer of blah. The American people appear to be completely powerless to ensure that the programs and goals they want accomplished are actually realized. Is there enough frustration out there to make a difference? Is Obama the president that can shake us from our funk? I thought the answer to both questions was yes a few months ago, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.

Will moving to the Right work for Republicans?

The Republican party appears to have doubled-down on the idea that ideological purity is far more important than poll numbers. With congressional Republicans polling as low as 12 percent (as of July 9), one has to wonder if the strategy will work. I've read elsewhere that this is based on "lessons learned" from Democrats during Bush's presidency; that sticking to their ideological guns was the saving grace that finally got Democrats into their current electoral position of strength. Certainly the culturally relevant voices in the Republican party are enforcing a sort of discipline, such as is happening in Florida with moderate Charlie Crist facing a primary challenge from Marco Rubio.

I picked that article about Rubio because it highlights some of the challenges facing Republicans. With approval numbers as low as they are, fundraising will be a problem. More importantly, I think fundraising for primary elections will be particularly tough for challengers without a strong base of financial support. It's an interesting conundrum; on the one hand Rubio has lots of "grass roots" support and very vocal support from the cultural Conservatives. On the other, that support isn't translating into real dollars. Ultimately, I think, one of the great successes of the Democratic "surge" is the mobilization of small-dollar donations. Not just offering that option, but actually getting large numbers of people to donate money. This is the kind of thing a "populist" campaign like Rubio's could take advantage of, but people don't seem to be talking with their money (or at least not yet). I've seen it happen over and over again, anecdotally, all around the Internet. Generally speaking, Conservatives haven't been able to really draw the small-dollar donors in large numbers. Now, it's true that campaigns aren't all about money -- after all, McCain won the Republican nomination even though his campaign was pretty much bankrupt. But if the lack of small-dollar donations continues, then I suspect the war within the Republican party will not be won by the ideologues unless the corporate Conservatives suddenly change sides (they seem to support the established party leadership, which means Crist in this particular election).

So what does all this stuff have to do with the Mormonism or politics? Well, at some point in time a new Republican leadership will emerge from the ashes of these battles. And, at the moment, moderate (relatively speaking) Mormon Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are looking very attractive in comparison to their potential competition (i.e. Ensign, Palin, Sanford, Jindal, etc). More importantly, they seem to have the support of some large-dollar donors, or a large fortune of their own, or both. Is it possible that a moderate Mormon Republican leadership could be the end result? As I contemplate the current political playing field that seems to be much more likely.

Ugly Cap-and-Trade Logic

I think the worst argument against a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gas emissions is the China-India argument. It goes like this: Since China and India are not going to do anything in the near term to reduce their GHG emissions, it would be a waste of time for us to do anything. Unless everyone does, nobody should do it.

Think if we used this (non) logic in other areas of our lives. Unless everyone at my place of employment starts working hard all day long, I'm going to slack because my effort is worthless on its own. Until every other nation on earth ends human rights violations, we are going to keep oppressing our citizens because we are just a drop in the bucket. Unless all the other people around this child at the ballpark stop swearing and cussing, I'm going to keep on doing it because it won't really make a difference if I stop.

I find it absurd. We don't do the right thing only when it is popular or common, we do the right thing because it is intrinsically good. And yet conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism.

Conservatives want the U.S. to be the shining beacon of democracy and justice and fairness, to lead the way in creating democracies. I and other liberals agree with them. But they don't want to be the leaders global warming reduction and other environmental causes which are just as important, or maybe more important, than democracy building. In that case they want to be the followers, the last person through the door after everyone else ensures it is safe. I say we should lead out on the issue and, if so, China and India will come along too.

And we shouldn't be deluding ourselves that our emissions are just a drop in the bucket, or that our reduction of GHG emissions alone is too small to make a difference. The US emits more GHG by total emissions and per capita than any other nation in the world. We account for almost one-fourth of the total GHG emissions worldwide. We are the big fish.

Lets not wait around for everyone else to do the right thing before we act, lets be the world leaders that we are expected to be.

The Effect of Liberal Dominance on Mormon Voters

Liberals and progressives have a lot on their plate right now. The House just passed a cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases, which now moves on to the Senate. The Senate is debating a health care bill and whether or not it should include a public option. Al Franken just became the 60th Democrat in the Senate making Democratic bills, in theory, filibuster-proof. And Pres. Obama has begun drawing down troops in Iraq, much to the pleasure of Iraqis.

With firm majorities in both the Senate and House, a popular president, and strong public support for its policies on everything from the environment to health care to immigration, Democrats appear to be heading for something of a modern golden age of liberalism. The question I'm asking myself, though, is if this will have an effect on Mormon politics.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s when Republicans were dominating national politics, Democrats took several steps toward the center. They abandoned gun-control as a major issue, they moved toward fiscal responsibility, they became more hawkish in foreign policy, and the like. As they made this move Republicans also shifted towards the right on foreign policy, morality politics, and tax policy. Because of this, and the morality politics in particular, Mormon conservatives were able to re-entrench and solidify the base.

But Republicans seemed to have gone too far to the right and then, as all politicians are liable to do, became drunk with power, embroiled in scandals, and rank with hypocrisy. They also were in power when the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression punched the nation in the stomach. The natural result was big Democratic gains in both elected leaders and public support of policy. The big showdown in Republican circles now is whether to reinvest in pure conservatism or to moderate and become a big-tent party. The latter worked for Democrats until public opinion swung to the left in the past five years, the former appears to be winning out for now, as the dominant conservative voices are Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity, Beck, and Cheney.

Will all of this shake Mormon voters loose from the firm grasp of ultra-conservatism and allow them to morph into a more moderate and diverse demographic? I think the current political climate is almost guaranteed to have such an effect. Polls show that young people and minorities are identifying overwhelmingly with Democrats, and that is also exactly where the growth of the church is coming from.

So while this may be the beginning of a fairly lengthy run of liberal domination like the Republicans enjoyed recently, it might also be a time of significant shifts in Mormon political demographics. Time will tell.