BIG Government

Well hello there! It's been a while since I blogged about politics, and in related news:

Hahahahaha, but seriously. I don't really feel like blogging about the dumpster fire that is the current administration. So this post is of a more general nature about the role of government.

In one episode of The West Wing, Toby Ziegler, President Bartlet's communications director and chief speechwriter, rages against a phrase that some people want to include in the State of the Union address: "The era of big government is over." He makes one of my favorite speech-lets of the series after President Barlet asks if he wants to cut the line:

I want to change the sentiment. We're running away from ourselves, and I know we can score points that way. I was the principle architect in that campaign strategy...But we're here now. Tomorrow night, we do an immense thing. We have to say what we feel. That government, no matter what its failures are in the past, and in times to come, for that matter, the government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one gets left behind, an instrument of good. I have no trouble understanding why the line tested well... but I don't think that means we should say it. I think that means we should change it. (From The West Wing, Season 1, Episode 12, "He Shall, From Time to Time")
One of the things that makes me a liberal is a belief in government. I really struggle when I see people posting on social media things like the Ronald Reagan quote "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." What they are really saying with that quote is that they don't trust themselves. In a democracy, "we the people" are the government. I believe that government can and should be a place for us as a people to come together - to "self-rule."

There is, of course, such a thing as too much government - I'm by no means suggesting that every aspect of government is perfect (or needed!). But I do think that a government that reflects the best of us, and our popular will, is an important part of society.

When he accepted the position to serve as Energy Secretary, Rick Perry took some ribbing, considering that he famously wanted to abolish the Energy Department but couldn't remember it during a Republican primary debate (okay, I guess this is a *little* bit about the current administration). But he came to see why it was an important government agency once he learned about what they do. I think there-in is a kernel of wisdom - everyone is against government until they learn about the important functions it serves.

I saw a bumper sticker today with a quote of PJ O'Rourke that said "Republicans say government doesn't work & then they get elected and prove it." Democrats can be just as bad at making government effective, but the special disdain Republicans have for government makes it more than a bit ironic that they continue to seek to run for office. So, yes, I am a fan of "big" government - a government big enough for all the people to come together and work towards making our society a better place.

It's Possible

Recently I re-read this classic devotional by Bruce Hafen about dealing with ambiguity, and this quote stood out:

Experiences...can produce confusion and uncertainty—in a word, ambiguity—and one may yearn with nostalgia for simpler, easier times when things seemed not only more clear but more under our control. Such experiences may bring about the beginnings of skepticism, of criticism, of unwillingness to respond to authority or to invitations to reach for ideals that now truly seem beyond one’s grasp. Not everybody will encounter what I have been describing, and I do not mean to suggest that everyone must encounter such experiences. 

Ambiguity has the potential to make our lives a lot harder. It forces us to acknowledge the limits of our certainty. It destroys the carefully crafted fortress of our own prejudices and preconceptions. I think ambiguity also gives us sympathy for those who disagree with us. It also gives us the ability to criticize those causes and people close to our heart.

Lately I've been thinking about how a lot of what I read or watch is devoid of ambiguity. People seem pretty certain they are right, and those who disagree with them are wrong (and in some cases, sub-human). A dose of ambiguity can help us sense what is possible. For example:

It's possible to acknowledge that not all Trump voters are motivated by racial animus, yet still be concerned about the racial subtext of some political speech by and surrounding Trump.

It's possible to look at the 2016 campaign and see many blatant examples of sexism's double standard, yet acknowledge that Hillary had flaws as a candidate and politician.

It's possible to be annoyed by James Comey's handling of the Clinton emails, yet also be appalled that he was fired for investigating the Trump team's ties to Russia.

It's possible to be upset by Trump's rhetoric on the press, yet acknowledge that there are errors and biases present in all media (indeed, in all endeavors created by humans).

It's possible to be a big fan of President Obama, yet see that he did not do the best job of reaching out and compromising with Republicans.

It's possible to see the flaws in Obamacare and the process that created it, yet wholeheartedly condemn the mockery that seeks to replace it by cutting funds for healthcare of the poor while giving the rich a huge tax cut (all the while not holding a single public hearing).

It's possible to be staunchly pro-choice, yet acknowledge that other Democrats have valid reasons for being pro-life.

It's possible to see the importance of national government involvement in education and social policy, yet accept that regional needs may require involvement at the state and local level.

It's possible to recognize the need for a strong national defense, but think that we spend far too much money on weapons of war.

It's possible to disagree strongly with someone, yet note that their life experiences and outlook are different than yours, and they come by their opinions honestly and without intent to do harm.

What other ambiguities do you see in today's world? We should talk about this more - I feel like if we did, we would have more space for common ground. With this acknowledgement of ambiguity can come space for criticism and growth.

Hope and Politics

Sigh. I really don't want to begin every blog post for the next three and a half years bemoaning the current state of politics, but right now it seems like that is a real possibility. My consolation (if you can call it that) is that right now President Trump's ineptitude is trumping his malevolence (see what I did there?). He hasn't really been able to accomplish a whole lot, but that doesn't mean that he won't accomplish some bad things in the next few years. He certainly wants to limit immigration, give tax cuts to the rich, and capitulate to Russia, but...maybe he won't be able to figure out how.

That's not to say there aren't bad things happening: re-igniting the war on drugs (which hasn't worked), rolling back environmental protections that ensure our air & water are clean, continuing efforts to roll back health care progress, etc. All of that is taking place in an environment of toxic partisanship that seems to suck the oxygen out of any healthy debate based on facts.

So it seems strange to be composing a blog post about Hope in light of the fact that our politics are pretty terrible right now. But I see signs that our system is fighting back against the worst excesses of Trumpism.* Murkowski, Collins, and McCain were able to stop a truly heinous health care bill, hopefully giving us an opportunity to reflect, consider, and fix the very real problems with Obamacare. Congress passed (and the President reluctantly signed) sanctions on Russia that send a signal we won't roll over when our democracy is attacked. The courts are a mixed bag, but they did strike down the first Muslim ban, and I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down the second, more limited ban. Even the Defense Department has pushed back against the President's ban on transgender service members. Robert Mueller seems to be conducting a thorough investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Journalists are working hard to ferret out truth, despite an administration determined to fame flames of falsehood.

It's probably just some default setting of my personality, but I feel like there are reasons for hope. Even if it's just hope that Trump's ignorance and ineptitude will continue to triumph over bad intentions, it's still hope. There are still good people in both parties, and currently only about a third of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, giving me hope that people are starting to see through the sham of Donald Trump. A weak and ineffective President can still do damage, but I'm hoping that the continued and sustained pressure of Americans will constrain the damage as much as possible.

The history of America is filled with terrible things happening, but I'm hopeful that it's an arc that bends towards justice and goodness, as long as WE bend it that way. HOPEfully, progress is still possible. I recently saw the Groundhog Day musical, and I liked one of the choruses, which is about how the sun will eventually come up, and spring will arrive:



* I refuse to conflate Trumpism with the Republican party. I may disagree with conservatives, but some principled conservatives spoke out and are speaking out about Trumpism. See Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Bill Kristol, and so many others. I strongly disagree with conservatives on many points, but it's sad that the Republican party has been taken over by spineless hacks of Trumpism. I hope their reign may be brief, and the right regains its sanity.

Forward

So, I'm not "at peace" with Trump's election, but I do see a way...well...forward (my fundamental Pollyanna-ish optimism has apparently re-asserted itself). One thing that helped was a thought experiment. 

Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 80,000 votes, he won Wisconsin by less than 30,000 votes, and he won Michigan by less than 20,000 votes (note that votes are still being counted, but these are margins as of this writing). If the tables were turned, and Clinton had won any two of those three states, she would be President-elect instead of Trump. Think about that - if only 50,000 people had changed their votes (out of 120 million votes cast!), the whole outcome of the election would change. But fundamentally, we would still be a very divided nation. Roughly half the people who voted would have voted for someone other than the President-elect. And some of those people would have been just as disappointed as I am now.

Somehow, that helps me. Despite the fact that I find Trump repugnant, it's incumbent upon me as a citizen to understand the hopes and fears of millions of my fellow citizens, and what motivated them to choose Trump. It's too easy to dismiss all Trump supporters, and I can't fall for the fallacy that they all are racist misogynists. I know good people, rational people, who voted for Trump. If I can't understand why they did that, I'm failing at empathy. That is hard for me.  

Here are a few things that have helped me over the past few days - I share them in the hope they will help you too. Except for the first one, they are in no particular order, and are interspersed with songs about moving forward. None of this changes the fact that I'm bummed out big time by this election, but it does help me move on a little bit.

If you don't read ANYTHING else, read this post at the Mormon blog By Common Consent: "Mystic Chords and Better Angels: Building Zion when we Disagree." Convince your friends at the other end of the political spectrum to read it too (and if you don't have any of those types of friends, make some).

Some wise counsel on being Instruments of the Lord's Peace in the world.

Stephen Colbert's end to his election special (also, check out additional comic takes on the election results by Seth Meyers and another great Stephen Colbert moment):

I don't think I can link to a friend's post on Facebook because it isn't public. But she shared some words of wisdom from a rhetoric teacher friend that touched my soul:

I teach an 8 am first-year rhetoric class. For most of my students, this is the first election they've been able to vote in. Our lesson? Not moving to Canada.

I mean this metaphorically, of course, because I don't think that many people are actually going to raise stakes, but "moving to Canada" is shorthand for disengaging and shutting up. "Moving to Canada" is about surrounding yourself with people who already agree with you and not taking seriously the concerns of people who have very different backgrounds, life experiences, and concerns. "Moving to Canada" is about saying, "Not my problem anymore." Don't move to Canada.

Our class is about civic dialogue, about employing a rhetoric that listens first, and about being unafraid and optimistic about speaking up. I hope my students engage in many conversations, even heated ones, with people who don't agree with them. I hope they open their mouths. I hope they stay here in America. We need them.

This podcast by Krista Tippet (who has one of the most soothing voices in radio). She interviews Eboo Patel, an interfaith activist, and he has some words of wisdom. If you don't have time to listen to the whole thing, here are my two favorite parts:

(Part 1)

So, if you add religion to a diverse democracy, and if you understand religion per Tillich as “ultimate concerns,” you have a society in which people are invited to make their personal convictions on matters of ultimate concern public, knowing that their neighbor has a different definition of “justice” than they do. Justice is another term that we assume everybody has the same definition of. My new line to 20-year-olds who look very chastised when I say this on campuses is, “If everybody in the room that you’re in has the same definition of ‘justice’ that you do — I don’t care how many colors, or genders, or sexual preferences, or religions are in that room — it’s not a diverse room.” Part of the definition of “diversity” is the recognition there are diverse understandings of justice.

So, in that situation, what does healthy look like? And my quick take on that is healthy is a society in which people who orient around religion differently can disagree on some fundamental things and work together on other fundamental things. And in my mind, the most dangerous trend in our society right now is what Andrew Sullivan calls the “scalping” trend, which is if you disagree with me on one fundamental thing — and I’m going to recognize that these things are fundamental — matters of the Middle East, same sex marriage, abortion — they are fundamental — let’s not say that they’re marginal at all — but if you disagree with me on that, I will neutralize our entire relationship, and I will take your scalp and hang it on my wall as a trophy to make sure that everybody else who has that opinion knows that I’m coming for them.

And I just — how do you have a society in which people who disagree on where to draw the line in the Middle East will perform heart surgery together, or serve on the PTA together? Isn’t that what a diverse democracy is? And it feels to me like the central thing that we do is nurture that ethic of a half-full cup of, “I will disagree with you on this set of things and continue to work with you on this other set of things.”

(Part 2)

William Raspberry writes a column in which he says, “The smartest people I know secretly believe both sides of the issue.” And that was so striking to me. Because I was — the way I viewed the world at that point was, “I’m the smart one. You all are the dumb ones. My job is to figure out how to make you smart.” And the definition of “smart” was you thought like me....And this notion of William Raspberry, who was, generally speaking, a progressive columnist was like — look, the smartest people I know choose the pro-life side and understand that there’s something else at stake. The smartest people I know are against the death penalty and understand that people who might be in favor aren’t crazy, that there’s a set of values, something at stake there.

I wanted to say one thing very briefly on this matter of justice. And I actually — my sense is actually justice and empathy, they’re in the Venn diagram. There’s a shaded area. But the more empathy one has and the more diversity one is in, the more one recognizes different definitions of justice. So, here’s my moment to this. Eight or 10 years ago, I’m speaking on a college campus, and I happened to be speaking with a man named Nechervan Barzani, who was introduced to me as an Iraqi leader

And as a good multicultural against the Bush administration progressive, my first instinct was to apologize to him for, quote, “the unjust war in Iraq.” And he looks at me, and he kind of shakes his head. And I think his English isn’t great, and so I repeat what I said. And I said...[laughter] This is a great insight into the mind of the Manichean, right? You don’t understand me because your English isn’t great, not because you disagree with me. I said, “I want to apologize on behalf of the American people.” All 320 million — for the unjust war in Iraq. And he looked at me, and he said, “I’m a Kurd. The only unjust thing about the war in Iraq is you didn’t do it 20 years ago.” And I thought to myself, how ridiculous that I didn’t even imagine that. And I mean, of course, this is over the next several years that I kind of unpacked this in my head. But how narrow a world did I live in that I thought that this was — now, I still believe the Iraq war was unjust, but I do I think that Nechirvan Barzani’s position, after having tens, hundreds of thousands of his people killed by Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare, that his position is not a reasonable definition of justice?

And what strikes me in reflection is, how come I didn’t imagine that? How come I didn’t play with the figure of Nechirvan Barzani in my mind in the dialogue? How is it that I had such a black and white vision of justice in the world? And I find that — I think that that is a problem in the hyper-diverse, 325-million jazz of a nation in which we live.

In my mind, you don’t have a diverse democracy, you don’t have America, unless people are willing to say, “I am able to disagree with you on this set of things, and you will see me on the other side of the picket line on those things. And I will try to defeat your candidate at the polls. And we will find other things to do together.”

If you haven't read or watched Hillary Clinton's concession speech yet, you should - even if you didn't vote for her.

Of course, "Hillary Clinton" (aka comedienne Kate McKinnon) singing Hallelujah on Saturday Night Live:

Don't give up - I won't either!

Let's Get Mythical

If you're not Mormon or conservative and you don't live in Utah, you may never have heard of Evan McMullin, an independent who is running for President of the United States. He is a Mormon and (former?) Republican with an impressive set of policy proposals. From everything I've read about him, he seems like a decent guy. However, I've noticed a trend among McMullin voters, most of whom have a strong antipathy towards both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many McMullin voters say that it feels good to cast their vote for "someone of integrity" who they have faith in.

I don't want to disparage that, and I fully support your right to vote however you choose, but there's something of a "this candidate is perfect" flavor to some of the pro-McMullin comments this year (not all). The truth is, it's very easy for Evan McMullin to be a perfect conservative, because he's never held elective office and never had to compromise. He's never been part of the inevitable horse-trading that goes on among those *sordid* politicians with "records." That's not to say that he doesn't believe what he says - it's entirely possible that he is 100% sincere in his beliefs, but the truth is that those beliefs have never been tested by the crucible of actual responsibility.

All of this hoopla reminds me of the satirical news story about the Perfect Republican Candidate. The reason that's a joke: there is no perfect candidate because there are no perfect humans currently on the earth (other than my mom and dad, but they're not currently interested in running). There simply isn't a candidate who perfectly believes everything you believe unless YOU are running. Elections are about choices and they are about viable choices. The simple truth is that we in the U.S. have a winner take all system, and that means that there are only two viable candidates for president this year: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. 

One of these people has the experience and temperament to be president, and one clearly does not. Some (and only some) of the antipathy towards Clinton is that she is a typical politician. She changes her policy positions, cozies up to the rich and powerful, and is ambitious. But to suggest that Clinton and Trump are equally bad is to suggest a false equivalence that is staggering in its ignorance. Clinton is a politician, yes, and she has a penchant for secrecy and power (although I personally don't think she's any worse that any other politician in this respect). She was wrong to use a private email server, and has admitted that it was wrong. But she IS a typical politician with respect to the separation of powers and commitment to decency. She's worked to pass bills like the Children's Health Insurance Program and was a decent Senator for New York and worked hard as Secretary of State. 

Is Hillary perfect? No. Is she likely to do things you disagree with? Absolutely (and that's true for everyone). But she is NOT a narcissistic ignoramus who insults anyone who challenges her, which is a whole lot more than I can say for Trump. I can't imagine Trump as President - please please please please please don't let it happen. Don't let the mythical idea of a perfect candidate keep you from voting for flawed candidate who could win.

Here are some articles which make the anti-Trump case stronger than I can:

The Comprehensive Case Against Donald Trump

Speak Truth to Trump

Decency for President

And of course, John Oliver's epic take-down (definitely PG-13, with lots of language):

Of course, being Anti-Trump isn't enough for some people to vote for Hillary - I respect your right to vote for McMullin if that's the case. But please don't pretend that somehow makes you better than other people for choosing a mythic perfect candidate.

A Tale of Two Politicians

Let me introduce you to two politicians, and see who you would choose to represent you. Because this is 2016 and one of the major party candidates is a woman (!), I'm going to use non-gender specific pronouns.

Politician #1 spent their pre-political career participating in non-profit work to aid children and rape victims and establish rural health clinics. They served on hospital boards and non-profits aiding children. They authored numerous scholarly articles about children's issues. Once in politics, Politician #1 pursued educational reforms to ensure teachers had necessary skills to teach and limit class sizes in public schools. They worked to expand children's access to health care with bi-partisan support. Politician #1 also worked to increase funding for immunization programs, asthma research, and cancer screenings. Additionally, they have experience in domestic and foreign affairs, and have developed personal relationships with national and international leaders. They've spoken many times about their faith in God and its influence on their life, and help in getting through tough times.

Politician #2 was an attorney who failed the bar exam the first time. Their first case involved getting a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl off the hook on lesser charges. Through work at their law firm, they mixed business and politics, and they were involved in dubious commercial transactions with people of questionable integrity. They served on corporate boards of companies accused of poor labor practices. Upon entering politics, numerous allegations were made of double-dealing, corruption, and fraud, and although nothing was ever proved, this Politician has been at the edges of numerous scandals throughout the years. They have used personal relationships for political gain.

Now, reading these descriptions, I think most of us would choose Politician #1, and would think that Politician #2 is an nonredeemable scumbag. Some of you may have already guessed this, but both politicians are Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the Presidential candidate that everyone knows about and has already decided how they feel about her. Most people have made up their mind that she is a shrewd and savvy advocate or a corrupt and conniving politician. We all then view her through our pre-conceived notions and aren't willing to admit that our view of her may be biased.

I'm just as guilty of this as everyone else - I tend to discount the accusations surrounding Whitewater, Benghazi, and the emails as Republican smear tactics, but there's no doubt that Hillary has been involved in a few questionable things.

Just like most career politicians (and Hillary has been in the public eye for over 35 years, so I think we can unquestionably call her a career politician), Hillary has done good things and bad things. She's a human being with faults and foibles. However, if we look at her career over the years, I think we can point to things that she has done well and faithfully. When I hear her speak, I honestly do believe she does care about our country and its direction.

If you've dismissed her in the past as a criminal or phony, I urge you to take a second look and read up on her. You may not agree with everything she says or has done, but at least do yourself the favor of being informed. Don't let your surface knowledge be a barrier to further investigation.

I'll try to blog in the next few months a few of the reasons "I'm With Her," but I urge you to consider her with fresh eyes, and be open to acknowledging both her faults and her accomplishments.

It's Important to Be [Kind]

While watching the recent movie adaptation of "Into the Woods" (which was AMAZING, by the way), two lines stood out to me and I have been thinking about them ever since. When Little Red Riding Hood is saved from the Wolf, she sings a song about what she's learned, stating: "Nice is different than good." Similarly, the Witch accuses some of the other characters when they try to save Jack from the Giant: "You're so nice, you're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice." We don't typically use "nice" in a pejorative sense, but the Witch and Little Red Riding Hood seem to. Being Mormon, "nice" is kind of ingrained in us. They got me while I was young with this MormonAd:

"It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice" (see footnote 1)

But do we really want people to be "nice"?  Nice is different than actual charity, kindness, or empathy. Nice is a thin veneer of an outward show of respect that may or may not be truly felt. Nice is basically politeness. As Little Red Riding Hood notes, NICE is different than GOOD.  This is expressed by Chieko Okazaki, one of my favorite LDS leaders:

When the apostle Paul says, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4), he’s not just talking about being nice and wearing smiley-face buttons. He’s talking about the core of the disciple’s life. Kindness without love is not kindness at all. It’s patronage, it’s condescension, it’s smugness and superiority. If you have been the recipient of this species of “kindness,” you know that you would much rather do without it. But with love, kindness is refreshment and rejoicing. It strengthens bonds and creates new ones. And it’s a tough, patient virtue, not a frilly, fluffy one. (Sanctuary, 75)

When we think about politics I think we sometimes want our politicians to be "nice" to each other. We want them to avoid yelling, to show that outward deference to another's point of view. But I think we may actually get condescension, smugness, or superiority to dominate our political discourse when we expect this type of behavior from our elected leaders. What we should be seeking is politicians and leaders who will risk empathy and true charity towards those who disagree with them. 

One of my friends worked for a Senator and I remember her telling me that they would get nasty phone calls from constituents when the Senator was simply talking to members of the opposite party on the Senate floor and it was on C-SPAN. She noted that it had a chilling effect on relationships between Senators. If we can't even deal with our elected officials being nice to each other, I don't know how we would handle them compromising and seeing things from the point of view of the "other"! 

Nick Kristof, a New York Times opinion columnist recently wrote about a high school friend of his who had died - I thought he made some good points about how we need empathy for those who suffer, instead of judging them. Unfortunately, reading through the comments just proved Mr. Kristof's point - many commenters did not stop to consider that they could have been in this man's place - they hadn't walked a mile in his shoes, but were perfectly willing to judge him (and by extension anyone receiving government help). Where is our empathy? Where is our compassion and kindness for those who struggle? Where is our understanding for those who disagree with our politics? I don't have answers to these questions, but I know that part of fixing our broken political system (and world) is breaking through niceness and getting to true charity for others. I just wish I knew how to do it.

Footnote 1: Note that I could go out on a whole different (feminist) rant about this MormonAd. I think it has a subtext that encourages us to be doormats and downplay our own importance. For another time...

Cooperation is the Dirtiest Word

As the title of my blog probably makes clear, I'm no supporter of Eric Cantor. He and I disagree about many, many things. Still, when I contemplate the fact that Representative Cantor lost his primary race to a little known Tea Party challenger, I'm reminded of a scene from "Remember the Titans:"

"Boy, You Must Be Outside Your Mind" - Denzel Washington

Republican primary voters, you must be outside your minds! Reading and listening to the news coverage this morning, it appears that Cantor didn't work hard enough to win hearts and minds in his district. However, it is MIND BOGGLING to me that one of the reasons he lost is that he contemplated a bi-partisan immigration solution. CONTEMPLATED, mind you. Note that he didn't even actually achieve anything, but the mere fact that he considered cooperating with Democrats to craft a national solution to immigration problems was a factor in his defeat.

Cantor supported a Republican version of the DREAM act, which allows children brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally to go to college and become citizens. This bill was never even brought for a vote, but Cantor's support for it seems to have contributed to his undoing.

Why does cooperation have to be a dirty word? We all have principles, but we live in a divided and pluralistic country, and we can't always get what we want. To think otherwise is to have the obstinate mindset of a 5 year old child who must always get what they want. Compromise and cooperation have served this country well for over 200, and I shudder to think what the future holds if we continue to paint the other side as demons with whom no compromise or cooperation can even be contemplated.

Play Nice

Recently I re-read a bunch of old posts (noted: I am not a good writer and I use too many parentheses). One of the themes that came through to me was that, as Democratic a partisan as I am, I root more for political niceties. Many of my posts plead with people from different sides to listen to one another and not insult one another just because they disagree.

"When it comes to our political views, let's blindly follow the lead of idiot celebrities and pop culture rather than think for ourselves."

As I am wont to do, I recently acquired a new Facebook friend. She* posts a lot of very one sided political things which drive me a little crazy. For purposes of this post it's not really important which side. But it reminded me that we are all view the world through our own partisan lens. When we read the news or learn about current events, we process it through the filter of our own experiences and expectations. I am very tempted to hide this friend's posts. But I have so far stopped myself, because I think it is a good reminder to me that I need to step outside myself and try to see things from others' perspectives.

It also got me thinking about the last time I really changed my mind about a political issue. For all that I claim to be so open minded, I couldn't remember the last time I really heard a good argument about a political issue. As a fallible human being, I know intellectually that not all my opinions are correct. Yet I cling to them - why?

Part of this is the lack of decent, thought provoking debate on the internet. Much of it descends into name calling, trolling, and ALL CAPS screaming matches. Whenever I do brave the political waters on the Facebook, it inevitably turns ugly - fast. Also, I am really bad at choosing a side in good debates because I think whoever is talking has some good points and I'm with them until the other side refutes it (indecisiveness!). But part of my lack of mind-changing-ness is undoubtedly the stubbornness factor. It is easier to stick with opinions on "my" side because it's safer. I have to use less brain power to reason out my arguments if my opponents are crazy people who kow-tow to the Koch Brothers or Nancy Pelosi or Communists (pick your favorite boogeyman, insert here).

So, yet again, this post comes down to the over-arching theme of being nice. Listen. I've found I learn a lot more when I shut my mouth. I'm going to try to re-examine some of my own opinions, and change them if I find them to be wrong. How do you find out you're wrong? What can we do to play nice and encourage genuine political debate in such forums as Facebook?

"The enemy is not Muslims or Christians or Judaism...The Real enemy is Extremism."

*Could be "he" or "she" - for purposes of this post I'm just using the female pronoun (I flipped a coin), and I didn't want to give away the friend's gender on the very remote chance that he/she reads this post.

Minority/Majority Report

Late this week, Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate Majority leader invoked what some have termed the "nuclear option." This means that instead of requiring 60 votes to confirm the President's nominees, the Senate will simply need a majority (51). Of course, Democrats currently think this is a great idea, as they hold a majority in the Senate, and President Obama is also a Democrat. As has been rightly pointed out, they will likely feel differently when Republicans control the Senate and there is a Republican president.  

In this situation I don't think there's an absolute moral right here, but it does put a spotlight on the inherent tension between majority and minority rights in our democracy. This conflict is all over our constitution. The Bill of Rights prevents majorities from controlling minorities. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press protects unpopular movements or sentiments - popular opinions don't really need protection. For all our extolling our constitutional forefathers, many of them used "mob rule" as a bogeyman, and feared rule by the uneducated "common man" majority. 

Tension between majority and minority rights is baked into the structure of our government. The House of Representatives, or lower house of Congress, represents the people while the Senate is supposed to be a step removed from the people. Even the President isn't directly elected, instead chosen by electors. The Supreme Court in its isolated perch is the farthest removed from public opinion, supposedly allowing it to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. 

I believe Mormons should be one of the biggest supporters of minority unpopular groups. Early in our history, members of our church were beaten, driven, and in some cases murdered for espousing unpopular opinions. This history should make us defenders of opinions we disagree with. At one time or another, each of us will be part of a minority group, so while we are part of a majority we must protect minority rights. The only way we can make sure our religious freedom is protected is to protect others' freedoms to believe (or not believe). 

The debate about the nuclear option shows the power of a minority. Democrats have pointed out that of all the filibusters of nominees in the history of America, over half of them have been on Obama's nominees. See the graph below showing the number of filibusters over time. Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the Senate, has really used the power of the filibuster to block Obama's choices to head agencies, or even delay confirming nominees (the statistics show that the average Obama nominee waits 100 days longer than George W. Bush's nominees). Democrats rightly argued that Republicans were using the filibuster and other delaying tactics to oppose even non-controversial nominees. Minorities can abuse their power just as much as majorities can.

I think both parties have used the filibuster to do stupid things. However, blaming the filibuster is blaming the symptom of the problem, not the actual problem. The actual problem is a refusal to compromise and work together. The dysfunction in our government is present because of stubborn pig-headed-ness on each side of the aisle. It's a refusal to work with or hear the other side's arguments. Democrats were driven to it by obstructionism on the other side, but I think they would have been just as obstructionist in the current climate if they had been in the minority. I think this needed to happen simply to get some of the machinery of government working again, but it's sad that it needed to happen.

You're So Right, You're Wrong

This was going to be a longer post, but it's already late.  So, the long and the short of it is, sometimes people who I agree with annoy the crap out of me.  Especially one liberal Mormon facebook group which shall not be named - they are such whiners and can't see the good in *any* Republicans.  Ugh, good night, nurse.

Anti-Anti

Poll - aways the same
Anti Anti Anti - no acclaim!
Now, who is to blame?

Every election season, I'm reminded of how singularly uninformative modern political campaigns are. Watching political ads provides me with no information to help me make a wise decision about for whom to vote.  This is nothing new, I'm sure there wasn't a whole lot of high-minded debate in the election days of Jefferson and Washington (there was, however, considerably more whiskey involved). Even if it's not a new phenomenon, it's an irksome one.

Campaigns from both sides race all over themselves to be against the other side. I wouldn't be surprised to turn on the TV and see "Candidate A wants to kill puppies, but Candidate B supports those loyal, true, middle-class American canines.  Elect Candidate B to keep America's kennels safe and secure! (Followed by, "I'm Candidate B, and I approve this message because I love Dogs. And America)"

The positive ads are no better at providing useful information.  "I'm Candidate A, and I'll work with both parties to create jobs and grow our economy." (Roll footage of Candidate A and a very telegenic family walking down a typical American street, and/or footage of Candidate A talking with furrowed brow to a multi-racial group of Ordinary Americans).

I think it's easy to blame the candidates, but really they are just doing what works. Negative advertising is used every election cycle, and the positive pablum that is served up is easily condensed into thirty second sound bites.  It's easy to blame voters, but who else are we to vote for?  If every candidate is using the same techniques, we can't really vote for the substantive candidate.  I can easily choose to blame the media, but they are just providing what the public wants.  Who can we blame?  But more importantly, how do we fix it? There's always this suggestion:

One thing I'm sometimes in favor of at this time of year is a shorter election season. If we can't fix the tone of the debate, maybe we can shorten it?  On the other hand, that favors those who already have name recognition rather than ordinary Joes. All I know is that I am anti-anti - I'm against all the negative campaign ads.  I don't know how to get rid of them, other than to never watch TV or listen to the radio while there's an election going on.

Short and Sour

It's time for one mo' NaBloPoMo (National Blog Posting Month). Basically it's an excuse to blog every day. This year I think I'm going to blog on a different political topic every day. I'll try to pick topics I haven't covered (or covered in depth), but if you have any ideas, that would be great - I daresay I will run out of ideas before the month ends!

In the spirit of keeping the posts short(er), I am going to attempt to do some of the posts as haiku, and maybe throw in a limerick here or there. The first one is about money and politics.

Unlimited money!
Boo Citizens United.
Bribe - not so funny.

I think there should be limits on money in politics - it's basically legalized bribery and ensures that those with money have more say in elections than the underprivileged. In short, it sours the whole political process with inequality.

Happy NaBloPoMo!  If you are participating, let me know, I'd love to follow your blog.

Has It Come To This?

You know, I really like America.  It's not a perfect country, by any means, but it strives towards glorious ideals of equality and freedom.  I think most Americans realize that shutting down the government during a fragile economic recovery is a bad idea.  At least, I hope they realize it.  It is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Many people are blaming the Republicans for this imminent shutdown of the government, and I agree with them.  Republicans, you know that Obama is not going to let you defund his signature legislative achievement.  I understand you think it's a bad bill.  So why not make it better instead of repealing it?  Do you have any constructive ideas about health care?  I haven't heard anything except "Repeal Obamacare."  If I'm missing something, let me know.  Right now many people in this country don't have health coverage, and if they have a medical emergency, the rest of us pay for it.  What do you propose to do about it?  If you have no better solution than the Affordable Care Act, why do you even think you deserve to be in Congress?  How about coming up with an alternative instead of bashing those who are trying to solve a problem?

However, I'm also annoyed with, and fully willing to blame Democrats too.  Democrats, Obama-care isn't perfect, and a refusal to delay or amend it is just as pig-headed and stupid as the Republicans' refusal to fund the entire government without removing Obamacare.  There is no law so perfect that it can't be improved - maybe you can come up with some way to compromise with Republicans?

Unfortunately both sides are convinced that they are utterly right that I don't think a compromise is anywhere in our future.  Will we ever be able to get our country working again?  I'm just so frustrated with both sides right now that I can not even express it in words!

Maybe Jed Bartlet can express it best:


"Then Shut it Down," Jed Barlet, The West Wing

Envy

One of my biggest sins is envy.  I envy other people's lives, possessions, looks, careers, ability to successfully apply eye make up, and pretty much anything there is to envy (someday I'll do a post about how Facebook exacerbates this problem, but that day is not today).  Likewise, I think that one of our biggest political sins is envy. 

We envy our political opponent when he/she wins, and thus do everything we can to convince ourselves that they are evil or voters just didn't really understand what that person stood for.  We are convinced that somewhere, someone is gaming the system and getting more than their "fair share," and that thought convinces us that all people accepting any form of assistance from the government are reprobate bums.  We tell ourselves that rich people are tax cheats and exploiters of the middle class, and justify raising their taxes while keeping our own low. 

We envy success or passion or any number of admirable qualities, forgetting that the envy just makes us less likely to achieve things we want.  Envy can be debilitating because it causes us to waste time and energy worrying about other people.  I don't really have a solution to all this (if I did it wouldn't be one of my biggest sins), but just thought it worth discussing.

Do you agree or disagree?  How does envy manifest itself in politics or your life today?

Faith

Recently I've been thinking about faith.  What does it mean to have faith?  A lot of it, in both a religious and political context, has to do with hoping for things that we can't see.  It takes faith in the system to cast a ballot and trust it will be counted.  It takes faith to believe in a God you can't see.  Faith is a prerequisite to both democracy and religion, but it seems to be undermined by a lot of forces in our society. 

Faith in the media is undermined when pundits on the left and right shout at each other instead of focusing on the truly important stories.  Trust in our elected leaders is undermined when we can't let them operate in broad daylight because then they won't be able to talk freely.  When people we have judged to be guilty walk free, we lose a little faith in the impartiality of our justice system. 

This isn't to say that bind faith is needed.  I believe God gave us brains and rationality so we could use them, and of course a healthy dose of skepticism is, well, healthy.  Political tyrants and religious cult leaders alike feed off the passive believers.  But the opposite of blind faith is equally as dangerous, it's a stubborn refusal to trust others, to trust God (and His timing), or to hope.  That kind of cynicism is a cancer on the body politic.

Emily Dickinson wrote that "hope is a thing with feathers," and our society needs more of that flight-enabling quality.  I need more of it, too.

On Angst

This post will probably offend people on both sides of the gay marriage debate.  Ye have been warned, all ye who enter here.

Don't judge me, but I don't have a position on gay marriage.  I am torn by several factors, and also find myself lacking analogies to explain my thoughts - in short, I have angst on this subject.  Naturally I have no desire to think of myself as a bigot, but I find myself uncomfortable in the pro gay marriage camp.  In case you missed it, the word "bigot" got thrown around a lot on Facebook this week in this debate.  The whole issue has lead me to ask myself this question: "is it possible to be against gay marriage and not be a bigot?"  Some of the commentary implied that the only non-bigoted option was to support gay marriage.

I decided to look it up, and found that dictionary.com defines "bigot" as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."  Many of my friends don't support gay marriage, but I would not use these terms to describe them.  Yet it seems that, for many supporters of gay marriage, to be against gay marriage is to be an intolerant slimeball.

Many of the slogans or pictures implicitly or explicitly classed gay marriage opponents in the same category as those who opposed interracial marriage several decades ago.  Several openly mocked religious people who opposed gay marriage.  I found both of these types of comments offensive.*  To me, the two issues are qualitatively different.  Biracial marriage had existed at other times and in other cultures.  However, as far as I am aware, no culture in the past has recognized a relationship between two people of the same gender as a marriage.**  Gay marriage is a fundamental redefinition of "marriage" - it may be a redefinition that you agree with, but a marriage relationship has (for centuries and millennia) been only between people of opposite genders.  I realize that "it's always been this way" may not be sufficient justification to keep something intact, but...something holds me back from fulling endorsing gay marriage.  I don't know whether it's conscience or culture.

I feel like I lack a good comparison for explaining gay marriage.***  Here's the closest I came up with, and I realize it has many limitations and imperfections.  Mormons believe that God cares about who we have sex with.  To the modern world, that seems crazy - why would God care if we have sex?  I believe it's because he loves us, and chastity is an eternal principle.  The sacred powers of procreation are to be used only in a marriage relationship.  In other words, Mormons don't believe in premarital sex.  The sexual revolution, birth control, and other modern conventions have so permeated our society that premarital sex is pretty much a given for most people, but for me, it is not something I choose to do.  Now, that DOES NOT mean that I shun people who live with their boyfriend or girlfriend, or that I get to force other people to live my beliefs - we live in a pluralistic society and everyone should be able to do what they want.  But what if there was some sort of government endorsement for premarital sex?  Would I want to allow that?  No, because I believe it is a sin.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is what I believe.  Again, that doesn't mean I can pass laws endorsing my view of sin, but neither does it mean that you get to pass a law that would force me to accept premarital sex as okay.  Gay marriage strikes me as somewhat analogous to this situation.  I believe gay people should be free to have gay relationships, but I don't know if I can sign on to the idea that the government (of which I am a part) should endorse their union as a "marriage."  I've read several posts by other Mormon liberals who feel that eventually the church will accept gay marriage.  Why do they think this? It's not like the sexual revolution happened and then Mormons said: "oh yeah, premarital sex?  Totally okay."  I don't think the standards of God change based on our cultural norms.

Now, I have to say that when this issue came up in my home state several years ago, I voted against the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment because I felt it was overly broad and harsh.  I can understand gay people wanting the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital or commit to a relationship.  I can only imagine how hard it is to be gay and Mormon, and my heart hurts for those who feel they have to choose between their religion and their sexuality.  I just don't know if I support gay marriage.  I don't know what I believe and I am admitting that.

Here's what I do believe, in no particular order:
- "Gay" should never be used as a derogatory term or insult.  When used this way in high school it always made me cringe.
- Being gay is not a choice.  Same-sex attraction is not something an individual can choose.
- Employers shouldn't be able to fire you because you are gay, or harass people because of their sexual orientation.
- Gay marriage will not affect my future heterosexual marriage - that will be between me and my husband in our eternal covenant relationship with God.  Gay marriage is not going to destroy marriage.
- Eventually I think gay marriage will happen - the social change has already happened to a large degree.

The thing is, a bigot never realizes they're a bigot.  I could be a bigot, and I could be wrong about any or all of this.  If so, I apologize in advance.

* Note: there are plenty of offensive things said by the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am in no way equating my pain to the pain of discrimination and offensiveness that gay people have faced and continue to face in many cases.
** This is not to suggest that there have not been gay people throughout history - there certainly have been.
*** Another analogy would be polygamy - but the irony of a Mormon relying on cultural definitions of marriage as between two people is self-evident.

Wisdom From 1950

One of my political heroines is a Republican (well, several are Republicans, but I'm talking about one of them today).  You may never have heard of her.  It's Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman to serve in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

She represented the state of Maine in Congress for over 30 years.  For her many "firsts," she is, of course, a heroine.  One of her best remembered speeches (which is in a book I own called "In Our Own Words" - an interesting collection of speeches by Americans) was given in 1950, just as Joseph McCarthy was beginning his reign of fear and intimidation.  It's become known as the "Declaration of Conscience," and you can read the whole speech online here.  I think it's very relevant in today's political world where it seems that politicians of both sides resort to smear tactics and innuendo to vilify their opponents.  Some of my favorite excerpts are below:

I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.
...
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism --

The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know some one who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn't? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

...

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don't like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide and conquer." As an American, I don't want a Democratic Administration "white wash" or "cover up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican "Fascist" just as much as I condemn a Democrat "Communist." I condemn a Democrat "fascist" just as much as I condemn a Republican "Communist." They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

Unfortunately it would take another three years for McCarthy to be brought low.  He was excoriated by Joseph Welch in 1953 for his lack of decency, and he was censured by the Senate in 1954.

Both and Neither

If I had to bet on the most prevalent reason that Mormons are Republicans instead of Democrats, my wager could be summed up in one word: Abortion.  It's a lightening rod, black and white issue for most Mormons.  On this matter, Mormons may think that Democrats are the evil party of "abortions on demand," while Republicans virtuously defend the rights of the unborn.  Some Democrats, on the other hand, vilify those who are pro-life as forcing women to endure the psychological torture of carrying a baby which is the product of rape or incest.
For that reason, I've never done a post on abortion before. The extremists on both sides are wrong in many ways.   My brothers have a tried and true rhetorical technique which I'm going to use in this situation.  If someone asks me "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?"  I will respond with "yes."  The black and white categories don't adequately capture my views.  I am both and neither at the same time.

I am pro-life because I believe that we should value life, and the unborn should have advocates because they cannot speak for themselves.  I am pro-choice because I don't think the government should invade my body, or the body of any woman, like that.  And yes, I am not pro-life because I believe that a cluster of cells is different than a human being (I acknowledge this leaves me vulnerable to slippery slope arguments).  I am not pro-choice because I think that abortion should be regulated and restricted in some ways.

My 8th grade science teacher (who tried, bless him, to make health class for teenagers less awkward), had some wise words that I'm hoping we can all get behind.  Speaking about abortion, he said "the one thing both sides can agree on is that there should be fewer abortions."  Basically this captures my position.  Abortion should be legal, and rare.  We should create a world where women don't feel they have to get an abortion, but if they do, it should be done safely instead of in a back alley by a black market doctor.

Ironically enough, it's the position of 1994 Mitt Romney.  Then-candidate Romney discussed how someone he knew had died from an illegal botched abortion in the 1960's before Roe v. Wade.  More recently, Savita Halappanavar, a woman who was allegedly denied an abortion under Ireland's very strict anti-abortion laws, may have died as a result (the case is still being investigated).  The Mormon church's statement is that abortion is only allowed in cases of rape, incest, when the mother's life is at stake, or when the baby has severe mental defects which would not allow it to live beyond birth.  That is my own personal position, but...I still think abortion should be legal in this country.

Suppose in 2016 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, or another pro-life Republican is elected and manages to stack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges.  Suppose further that in a few years after that, the court gets an abortion case and overturns Roe v. Wade so that abortion is illegal again in this country.  To me, the result of this would be that rich women go to other countries and get abortions anyway, and poor women die as a result of illegal abortions.  This does not actually reduce the number of abortions, but just compounds the misery by resulting in needless deaths of women.  What will reduce the number of abortions?  This is the subject of another post.  For now, I am both and neither in the abortion debate.  I want a better and less extreme position.

Here are some better written posts on this subject that have got me thinking about this topic:
- By a former supporter of abortion who is now pro-life
- By a former pro-lifer who is now pro-choice (sorta?)

I encourage you to read *both* pieces no matter where you have a position on abortion.  They are both thoughtful explanations of a topic that for too long has been reduced to shouted slogans and nasty exchanges.

Susan and the Gals

Well, I'm almost ready to blog about politics again.  I think the election was a bit much - I got really stressed out about it, especially in the apocalyptic aftermath of the political commentary.

Every time I vote, I always think about the Feminists (some might say FemiNazis) who have moved this country forward.  They are responsible for giving me the right to vote, for blazing new career trails, for making more equitable laws, and so many other gains for the rights of women.

Fearless, indomitable - these are the adjectives I would apply to Feminists!

Feminism is a word freighted with all kinds of connotations in Mormon culture.  A Feminist can be viewed as someone who "hates men" or is a strident voice of discord in a society that values unity.  Several years ago, a woman made a comment in church that "Ugh, I'm not a Feminist."  Her tone made clear that Feminism was something dirty and terrible.  I'm not an instigator, and I have no backbone so I didn't respond.  But, of course, this comment hurt me - I don't think that my brand of feminism is everyone's cup of hot chocolate, but I do think that EVERY woman is a feminist (every man should be too, but that's another post).

Susan B. Anthony and Mormon Suffragettes

While driving someone to a far-away airport tonight, I got to hang out with a friend I haven't talked to in a while.  She and I are polar opposites on the political spectrum, yet we both self describe as Feminists.  Knowing this, I asked her to describe Feminism.  She described a very different thing than my Feminism, but there was still the common thread that unites all of Feminism - the belief that women are equal to men in every respect.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, two of my heroes

Equality is the heart of Feminism!  As a Feminist once said, "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people too."  Oftentimes we forget how RADICAL Susan B. Anthony and the early suffragettes were.  Or how RADICAL it was to argue for women's education and employment.  Or how property laws used to designate women as chattel.  Feminism was a radical proposition when first introduced - almost laughable in its principles.  Yet a group of very dedicated women fought long and hard to change unfair divorce and child custody laws, to remove barriers to women in college, and to establish my right to vote.  Susan B. Anthony was even arrested for attempting to vote!  In America!

She was convicted, too!

These lovely ladies were awesome!  I am so grateful for them.  While I don't think we're perfect in our equality of opportunity yet, we have come a long way, so I'm thankful for Susan and the girls who worked so hard for the generations to follow.  We should be proud to take up their banner and advance the cause of women's rights into this 21st century.  Susan's motto for "The Revolution," her weekly suffragette newsletter was "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less."

I'm also going to add the words to a rousing Mormon Suffragette hymn (someday I'm going to make the sisters sing this in church.  Also, why is there not a YouTube video of this?):

Freedom's Daughter rouse from slumber,
See the curtains are withdrawn,
Which so long thy mind has shrouded,
Lo! Thy day begins to dawn.

Chorus:
Woman, rise, thy penance o'er,
Sit thou in the dust no more,
Seize the scepter, hold the van,
Equal with thy brother, man.

Truth and virtue be thy motto,
Temp'rance, liberty, and peace.
Light shall shine and darkness vanish.
Love shall rein, oppression cease.

(Chorus)

First the fall 'mid Eden's bowers,
Through long suff'ring worthy proved.
With the foremost claim thy pardon,
When earth's curse shall be removed.

(Chorus)