Funny story, and a quasi rant that you've kind of heard before.So today we had a brunch between two very lovely sessions of Conference, and we sat out in the sun in the solarium and talked to some people in our ward. One of the guys was talking about being from Southern California and proceeded to go off about how people always ask if he's liberal because everyone from So Cal is liberal except him. And then he said, and I quote, "It makes me sick that there is a BYU Democrats club."
Now, normally I would be pretty royally offended by this comment. (I would be upset if someone said they were sick that there was a BYU Republicans club as well. We're all about choices here, and there's no need to jump all over people for making choices that are different than yours, regardless of what they are.) But I could tell that the poor kid had no idea what he was saying. He was just saying something, and somehow he thought that this was what was expected of him. So Whitney and I gently knocked him on his ear and then proceeded to explain to him why we are currently supporting the Democratic party. Then we asked him why he thought Democrats were such bad news. "Well," he said, "their stance on abortion."
Blink, blink.
So we explained to him our stance on that (definitely pro-life, but think that the Church's stance about the cases of rape and incest being possible exceptions is sound and reasonable, so having difficulty being okay with making it completely illegal under every circumstance, and also not able to choose my candidate on that issue alone), as well as our candidates' stance on gay marriage (from Joe Biden's own mouth - he's does not support it, but believes there should still be hospital visitation rights and so forth, which is fine with me because I believe in treating people like people even if I don't agree with their lifestyle choices), and we explained that we also thought that at this particular time, those issues were generally being handled on a state level or not really red flag issues at the moment, whereas issues about the economy and foreign policy and education and energy seemed to be more immediately pressing on a federal level, and we prefer the Democrats' stance on those things right now.
I think he was seriously considering voting Democrat by the end of our conversation. It was hilarious. He had no idea what he was talking about and we talk about this constantly, so he pretty much didn't stand a chance.
I have no problem with people whose opinions differ from mine. I just have issues with people who have opinions based solely on hearsay and smear campaigns. (At one point in the conversation he said, "But I heard Obama wasn't patriotic and doesn't salute the flag." Buddy, you may as well decide you're against him because he's a Muslim. Seriously. Do your research.) There may be a lot of Republicans in Utah, but that doesn't mean it's a sin to vote Democrat, especially when you've done your research and watched the debates and read the issues and feel really good about the candidate you've picked. I'm afraid that I've jumped on a couple of people this week who have pulled the "Well, Obama's talk is all rhetoric," card on me one too many times. Honestly, I'd be willing to bet money that I've spent more time researching the policies behind that rhetoric (which, by the way, is a political tool that has been used for centuries, so get used to it - McCain does it too for all of his "straight talk") than you have, and while I may not understand it completely, I bet I know what he's saying better than you do from your clips of watching an Obama rally on the news. And don't tell me that the research I've been doing is all liberal, because I read Drudge Report and Drudge Retort. I'm very balanced. :) But please, prove me wrong by explaining to me what exactly you don't like about him and the Democrats.
I very much appreciate people who want to argue with me for legitimate reasons. If they legitimately hate Obama's economic policies, I can understand that. If they really think McCain's foreign policy better, I can respect it. They can hate universal health care and are in favor of off-shore drilling over the search for alternate energy solutions and tell me why they think we should just chillax in Iraq until we're good and ready to get out, no matter how long it takes, and I'll be happy to listen to their informed, well-researched point of view and I'll be a better citizen because of it. But if they're voting Republican because it's "God's party" (sorry, but if apostles can be Democrats, so can I) and because Obama is a communist who going to legalize gay marriage (no, no he's not, and it's not under his jurisdiction anyway) and they think Sarah Palin is adorable (Say it ain't so, Joe! *winkie face*), they'd better not expect to make me see the error of my ways over brunch, because I will eat them with syrup, and they will be delicious.
That was longer and more telling than I planned for it to be. I think I'll post it anyway.
A FEW OTHER RELATED THINGS THAT I DON'T WANT TO PUT IN THEIR OWN POST: I want to add this BYU forum/devotional by Harry Reid.
And also this interview with Marlin K. Jensen
The most relevant part of the latter article (to my post, anyway) I'll put here also:
Tribune: Some LDS members subscribe to the notion that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be a faithful Mormon and a Democrat. People point to such things as the gay rights and pro-choice planks of the national Democratic Party. How do you respond?
Jensen: That’s true. And it is a challenge. And yet, you know, the Republicans came very close last time to bringing a pro-abortion plank into their platform. That was maybe the biggest battle of their convention. Which shows that if you’re a pure ideologue, eventually you’re going to have trouble in either party.
When people say to me, “How do you rationalize being a Democrat?” I just say I take everything that’s true and good and hang onto it. And the basic, historically the basic foundational principles of the Democratic Party have appealed to me more. But that’s a matter really of personal choice, it has nothing to do with our salvation.
I think everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they’re in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there’s room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude . . .
[I skip a couple of paragraphs here for the sake of space]
And I guess we would probably hope that they wouldn’t abandon a party necessarily because it has a philosophy or two that may not square with Mormonism. Because, as I say, they in their philosophies ebb and flow. I think the main thing is to stay involved and work within the existing framework, work for changes if they need to brought about.
And maybe, to succeed in Utah especially, a politician if he’s Democratic, is going to have to say, “I’m a Utah Democrat. I’m different than the national party in some important ways.”
It's a really excellent interview, and I highly recommend it.
28 comments:
I'm glad you posted this. . . I feel exactly the same way.
Also, Bart did the world's funniest impression of Sarah Palin this morning in the car, while we were listening to NPR. I'm still laughing about it.
This post made me glow with pride. It beggars the imagination that there are still people out there in such a crucial time who think the flag pin and a religious test is the most important thing in choosing a president. But McCain and his campaign are counting on people who refuse to inform themselves. I never thought I would say this, but I really hope that people who won't even take two hours out of their life to inform themselves on the candidates' positions before exercising one of the most important rights they have DON'T VOTE. For either candidate. Which just goes to show that we should all be talking about this because people ought to vote if this is to be a true democracy. I saw Bill Clinton speak on Saturday in New Haven and he continues to be impressive. One of the things he learned in law school are that facts, evidence and arguments matter. One of the reasons he has been so kind to McCain/Palin is because he wants the undecideds to listen to his arguments and thinking people shut the argument down when one simply simply starts with an ad hominem attack. McCain's campaign cynically counts on the American people being too stupid to listen to anything but sound bites about terrorists. Brilliantly done, Meg. Way to marshall reasoned arguments.
A couple of things you might find interesting. After Palin's gaffe about reading a "vast variety" of all media, she later told Fox commentators that she reads the Economist. Very funny, because a number of pundits had suggested (after airing the gaffe) that she should have at least claimed that she reads the Economist since every politician claims to read it even if they don't. I actually do read it and this is an interesting recent poll where they asked professional economists about McCain's and Obama's plans for the economy:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12342127
Also, if you are feeling really wonky, here is a great site that analyzes the electoral college:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Great post!
It was a good post. It was a smart post, conservative though I still am. :)
I happen to like Obama very much. Almost to the point of voting for him. I think the republican party is in a bad place at the moment, which is unfortunate. But for me, no matter how much I like Obama's stance on health care and education, abortion is a deal breaker. I can't support somebody who would choose supreme court justices who would support it. That sounds hollow, I know, but it feels so wrong to me that I simply can't do it.
As a non-related side note, I'm going to forward you something a friend sent me that you might find interesting. If I don't send it by this afternoon, remind me okay?
Haha wow Megan, I love you. That is an amazing post. Also, I would like to be invited to said brunch, because I'm about ready to eat some narrow-minded "Republicans" myself, with or without the syrup.
I'm going recommend the syrup, Miri. It's the only way you're going to able to get them down. I tried to eat one the other day sans syrup and it was impossible to suppress my gag reflex.
Then I checked the package and realized it was like eight years past the expiration date. I thought it smelled a little funny, but all the blue fuzzy stuff on it kind of made it look like Roquefort or a Smurf and you know how delicious cheese and Smurfs are.
I'll make sure to read the label next time and have a big bottle of Vermont syrup on hand.
Thanks for the warning. Shall we send out the invitations then? You bring the syrup. Megan, I think you should supply the Republicans. I'll bring the oven. A really big one.
Ha ha your amazing Megan!
May I be invited to this brunch? Let me know what I should bring.
I think we should make it a fondue night. And all that that entails.
We can still use syrup.
LOL. It's really good that this is happening before Halloween...
Well, Obama's talk is all rhetoric... ;)
And Sarah Palin IS adorable!
And yes, I legitimately hate Obama's politics. But you are allowed to like them.
My question is this, though: Which apostles are Democrats, and how could you have come to know this sort of personal information about them?
It's been some time since I kept up on such things, but you might find this old interview with Marlin Jensen interesting. I know he's not one of the Twelve, but they did ask him to do the interview for the Trib a decade ago. So far as I know he is still of the Seventy (1st Quorum):
http://www.kevinashworth.com/ldr/transcript-of-marlin-jensen-interview
Drew,
No it's not.
You can think so if you want to.
That's fine as long as you give me my right to choose.
Okay, here we go - a few general authorities who were/are democrats:
James E Faust (from Wikipedia, but it has references) - "Faust served in the House of Representatives for the 28th Utah State Legislature (1949) as a Democrat for Utah's eighth district. Faust also served as chairperson of the Utah State Democratic Party and helped manage a campaign for Senator Frank Moss.[2]"
Marlin K. Jensen: "On April 22, 1998, Jensen was sent by the First Presidency to give an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune in reaction to a recent First Presidency statement[20] and to explicitly state that someone could be a devout Mormon and a member of the Democratic Party.[10] He lamented Utah's Democratic Party decline, and regretted that the Republican Party might be seen as the "church party". In addition, he felt that good Latter-day Saints will have conflicts and must pick and choose from either party's philosophy.[10]"
From the Utah Democratic Party website: Wilford Woodruff, Heber Grant, B.H. Roberts, Hugh B. Brown, James Faust, Marlin Jensen and Hugh Nibley
Obviously they don't all wear their politics on their sleeve, so I'll have to do more research if you want more names. However, did you also know that our current Senate majority leader is a Mormon, a Democrat, and Pro Life? That's why I posted the talk by him on here - he talks about it, and I like him a lot.
It is sad to me that only republicans are being referred to as narrow-minded. Don't you think that in and of itself is narrow minded? All people are allowed to have their own opinions. If this poor kid is against abortion than that is a perfectly valid reason not to vote for someone. In voting for a candidate you vote for all of their issues. Maybe in his mind he will be voting for someone that most closely resembles his values. And if that is against his values than yes, he is perfectly justified in choosing the way he is. Yes people should be educated. They should be making informed decisions. But they all have their agency and should not be "attacked" for exercising it.
Sami - I apologize if that part of my story wasn't clear. The point was not that abortion was the only issue that he was against - you may have seen my friend Makayla's post up there, and that's kind of the way she's leaning, which is fine. You should vote with your conscience. The point is that
abortion was the only issue he knew anything at all about. And I'm not against Republicans - I'm against and uninformed electorate. That's why I said I love it when people can actually explain why their views are different than mine. I think Mark, for example, always seems to know what he's talking about even if we disagree. He isn't just throwing stuff out there because he thinks he's supposed to in order to be a good Mormon. Does that make sense?
So does anyone think that there are just as many uninformed voters that will vote for Senator Obama as Senator McCain? Not being informed is not something isolated to one party or the other. It is something that the apathetic and lazy people in this country do, regardless of party affiliation. The claim that "McCain's campaign cynically counts on the American people being too stupid to listen to anything but sound bites about terrorists." could just as easily be turned into "Obama's campaign cynically counts on the American people being too stupid to listen to anything but sound bites about the Bush Administration." Most of us live in Utah, and because of the political makeup of the state, there are more uninformed conservatives than liberals. Go to Massachusetts and you'll find more uninformed liberals than conservatives. Cut the crap.
Interesting article, Treb/Trub. I like The Economist and enjoy reading their articles that are brought to my attention. The one you sited, however, didn't seem to have enough varied respondents to really give a good view of what most economists think. When 46% of the respondents are Democrats, and 10% Republicans, the response will typically show it. Even the remaining 44% unaffiliated respondents will probably be distributed like those who affiliate themselves, which makes the statistics they reveal in that article really meaningless. It was interesting to read, but not really a good indication of the strength of the economic policies of either candidate.
Megan, I had heard of the Drudge Report before, but I hadn't heard of Drudge Retort. I headed over there and really didn't see articles that would be balanced or balancing in any way. Do you read Fox News at all? They claim to be "Fair and Balanced" but it is more "Fair and Balancing" than anything. I'd suggest reading some articles from there to balance your news intake.
As for the General Authorities who have been Democrats, you've been able to cite a few. There is no good reason why someone who believes the Restored Gospel can't vote for a Democrat. In today's political climate, we don't have a perfect choice presented to us. The Church instructs us to get informed on the issues and choose the candidate that best represents our values. Barring a few things like abortion, there is no reason why a Democrat couldn't represent the values of a Church member.
However, the majority of church members do tend to vote conservative, and even some of the church leaders you mention as Democrats were not Democrats in today's sense. The Democratic Party didn't really emerge as what it is today until the 1930's under Roosevelt and the New Deal, and even then didn't stand for all the things is stands for now. Claiming President Woodruff as a Democrat doesn't mean he would be one today, seeing as how he passed away in 1898. Same with President Grant, who became the Prophet in 1918, and B.H. Roberts, who passed away in 1933. It is fairly rare to be a Democrat by today's meaning and a General Authority.
So what? Does it matter what party you affiliate with or if you describe yourself as conservative or liberal? Not really. Getting informed on the issues is something that everyone should do, as well as respecting everyone's opinion. Heck, you never know, they may just end up knowing more about it than you.
Mark, are you sure you read my post?
Three things:
1. I'm so glad you posted the link to Elder Jensen's interview. I thought it was interesting, fair, and I think he's right. I don't feel my conservatism has much at all to do with "The Church," but rather, IN GENERAL, the things the conservative party usually tends to represent views and policies that I agree with more than the Democratic position on those same issues. However, what I hate more than anything in politics, religion or education is "group think." When a whole bunch of people get together and pat themselves on the back for agreeing with each other and making sure they keep out dissenters. That annoys me so much I don't even have words to express it. So I was pleased not only with the calm way in which Elder Jensen responded (which is absolutely typical of his kind and generous nature), but the fact that he was able to point out why TWO parties are important. It wasn't just this big plug for democrats, but a plug for the entire system. I appreciated that. So thanks again - to you and Treb - for posting that.
2. I'm afraid, however, that I agree with Mark as to the general authorities you cited. I think the democratic party, even fifty years ago, is not the same as it is today. This is of course true of the republican party as well. So I think that citing general authorities who are long since dead and gone isn't quite fair. I'm absolutely sure that there are still plenty who are democrats, I'm not saying there aren't, just that Mark's point about how the parties have changed is true (whether he read your post or not ;) )
3. In my own efforts to be as fair as possible (and I'm admittedly not nearly as politically involved as you are) I read (and skim) several websites every day. Among them: CNN, USAToday, Fox News, Salon (super liberal) and National Review online (super conservative). You're probably familiar with all of these, but I thought I'd list them anyway.
And one more thing, when you get a moment, I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts on the email I sent you earlier today.
You are absolutely right about that. Elder Jensen and President Faust are the ones that I'm thinking of more than the others - the rest I just included for the sake of being comprehensive. I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, but I'm glad I did, because it led me to Elder Jensen's interview, which was choice. I certainly don't agree with everything the democrats say, but I like their general trends more, and I can choose which policies I am opposed to a la Harry Reid.
Explanation of Drudge Report/Drudge Retort, which was kind of a joke, but doesn't make sense if you don't read both. Drudge Report tends to be more conservative, and Drudge Retort is pretty far left. I also read CNN frequently, and Drudge Report takes me to articles on Fox News quite often. I'm not a huge fan of Fox, but I will consider what they have to say.
I also want to say again that I really was trying to talk about my being a democrat without calling all Republicans narrow-minded and uninformed. Uninformed people of any affiliation tend to be narrow-minded. I just think that it's silly for someone's reason to vote with the conservatives to be because "the majority of church members do tend to vote conservative," and that majority certainly shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of that party.
I'm going to stop commenting on this now, because I still think that is what I said, and if people want to take offense over the way I said it, I'm sorry.
I'll get back to you on the rest soon, Makayla. I started writing something earlier and then decided to mull more before I answered.
Sounds good.
By the way, just because you're my friend, and I know what a good person you are, and I don't want you to feel like you have to be on the defensive - I'm rarely "offended" in a serious way by anything you say. I'm glad you bring things up. They need to be talked about, and if people get mad, that's really dumb. It happens, but it isn't necessary. In the end, the Lord really will take care of everything, but in the mean time we have an obligation to do the best we can to make things better with the most integrity possible. I think you legitimately do that.
No need to repeat what's been said already, but I just have to say that what kills me about this guy is not that he identifies himself as a conservative or that abortion is a deal breaker for him--that's all fine. It's that "it makes [him] sick that there is a BYU Democrats club." I don't think anywhere here would argue that there aren't narrow-minded people in every political faction, but that comment--clearly a knee-jerk response based on unexamined opinions--is nothing if not narrow, and it's unfortunately a pretty common sentiment in good ol' Provo. That's all.
Sorry, that's supposed to be *anyone*, not *anywhere*.
Also, for what it's worth, I just moved to a quite liberal town to attend a very liberal institution. Aside from it being disconcerting to be part of the political majority after many years in Utah, it's apparent here that there are plenty of uninformed Democrats as well--it goes both ways.
Mark, in all fairness, I think you largely missed the point of Meg’s entire post as well as my comment on it. The key sentence of my post after I said I hope you don’t vote if you’re not going to be informed was “FOR EITHER PARTY”. I respect anyone and their vote if they have made a reasonable effort to be informed. Of course there are people on both sides of the aisle who are going to do a knee-jerk vote based on their family’s or their church’s or some other affiliation. What Meg and I were talking about (and you acknowledged) are people who jump in with strong opinions that they have been told to have and have never questioned or examined personally. I found myself in the odd position a few days before the conventions of arguing on the side of a former Republican congressman with someone who held what are basically the views of the Libertarian party, but didn’t have a clue where they came from. He was disillusioned with both main parties, but had never heard of Ron Paul or Bob Barr. We told him he ought to get involved by learning about their platforms and getting involved in their campaigns – and stop whining baselessly about how the two major parties lock out third party candidates – or at least explain how they do it. Believe me, I live in a solidly blue state and I still hear uninformed blather from all sides. I cringe more at the idiots who root for Obama without having any idea what they’re talking about.
My comment about McCain’s cynicism is heartfelt because I used to believe the guy was respectable. I am referring specifically to the political tactics that his campaign explicitly decided to turn to today: i.e. in a time when the big issues facing the country have never been more important or serious, they have decided they will lose on all the real issues and so they are going to go back to the same old, tired discredited smears for the remainder of their campaign. They’re going back to the “Lipstick” campaign. His own advisors said it today - to the press. I used to admire the guy – I even voted for him once. But his campaign is a mess and I think even that says something very telling about his leadership potential. Never have I seen a more disappointing descent into mudslinging politics.
As for the Economist article, I agree with you as to its general value, but all I said was that it was interesting, not that it was valuable. The journalist made very clear what the limitations of the information were. I find it interesting for two reasons: 1) that out of 683 polled only 142 responded and only 10% identified as Republicans. He gave two possible reasons for this but didn’t include a third possibility – that more Republicans didn’t respond because they would be embarrassed by their answer. I also found it interesting that the Economist, a traditionally conservative publication (at least when it comes to economic and financial issues) would publish an article of limited statistical value. I think it says something about what they think of the “conservative” candidate’s grasp of the issues. The rest of their reporting in the issue is more fair and balanced than most I have seen even when I don’t agree with many of their assertions.
As for your comment about the Drudge Retort vs. Drudge Report, and Fox vs. what I can only imply by your use of the word “Balancing” you think is the entire rest of the mainstream media (in good Republican martyr fashion – blame it all on the media when you’re losing on the facts), Megan’s point is that she reads both sides and trusts herself to figure out what is what. Anyone who has read either the Drudge Report or watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that far less news reporting goes on there than propagandizing for the Republican Party – just as watching Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is often propagandizing for the Democrats. We already had some discussion about the general degradation of the quality and objectivity of media reporting. The informed citizen will do what you and Makayla suggested (and Ms. Palin unconvincingly suggested that she does to that master of “Gotcha” journalism, Katie Couric) and read a variety of media on both sides and try to cull out the facts, or the better arguments. Read the candidates (and parties’) platforms and look at their records and advisors. On that we are agreed.
Finally, your point about historical Mormon Democrats is one you might want to share with McCain, who never seems to tire of proclaiming that he is of the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Not really much resemblance left from that historical Republican party either. I must say that despite the fact that I no longer share your religious views, I am pretty surprised at how flippantly you dismissed the likes of contemporaries like Faust and Jensen as if it kind of irked you that even if some existed they would openly admit it: “You’ve been able to cite a few.” I predict that it won’t continue to be the church of Ezra Taft Benson forever.
Sorry if I didn't notice the "For either candidate." you wrote between your expressions of unhappiness for the McCain campaign. It seemed your comment had a bit of an attacking edge to it, even if your point was something we can all agree on: Uninformed voters frustrate the heck out of us, especially if they feel the need to proclaim their baseless opinions.
The comment about Fox News being "Balancing" rather than their claim of being balanced actually comes from one of my journalism professors. I'm not going to whine about the liberal media ruining everything, because that's not the case. I don't think the media in general is out to get the Republican party, but I do think there is a slant and a bias in a lot of the media coverage we see. Fox News is definitely slanted the other way, but I think taking in news from a variety of sources to determine what is true and what is partisan BS is a good idea. Heck, even better would be to cut out the media completely and just read the candidates' platforms, and look at their records and advisors and come up with an informed opinion, like you said.
Heh, anyone touting to be from the same party as someone who lived 100+ years ago is pretty laughable, I totally agree.
I never flippantly dismissed President Faust and Elder Jensen in my comment, I only said that some of the names that the Utah Democratic Party claims as former members are as laughable as Senator McCain claiming he is from the same party as Abraham Lincoln. My only point was to say that the Democratic Party has adopted more stances over time that don't appeal to the majority of Mormons. I said many times that there is nothing wrong with being a Mormon and siding with the Democrats on a number of issues. I'd wager that there are more General Authorities who the basic principles of the Democratic Party appeal to than just President Faust and Elder Jensen, but those are the only two recently who have been involved in politics as Democrats. It's not wrong or impossible, just rare.
President Benson was a staunch Republican and often veered into politics from the pulpit, but that stopped abruptly when he became the Prophet. And besides, it was never his church. It has been and will continue to be the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of which political party most of its members agree with.
For those of you looking for an interesting take on at least one side of this issue, you should check out MormonDemocrats.com. They have some good discussions there of this issue.
Wow, Megan. I'm beginning to think you couldn't avoid a BW if you tried. 20 comments since mine yesterday! It took me like half an hour to read them all.
The interesting thing I felt while reading that Elder Marlin article was that he seemed almost apologetic and had to justify his stance as a Democrat. He basically said both sides are flawed, so just pick whichever one has parts you like best and stick with it. Meh.
That wasn't at all what he was doing. He wasn't apologizing or justifying. He was pointing out the reality that regardless of how flawed the system is (or the fact that there are going to be things in ANY party we are affiliated with that we aren't comfortable with) we need a two party system. I can't remember if he mentioned this specifically, but our entire existence hinges on the reality that there is opposition in all things, and without it progress could not be made. I thought his discussion of the ways Utah has suffered because of a lack of such opposition was very wise. I think if you asked him, he'd be equally eager to say that Massachusetts needs republicans as badly as Utah needs democrats.
Post a Comment