Just and Holy Principles

Rob Miller (D) and Dave Hansen (R)

Last night, I attended a very interesting forum for bloggers at the Sutherland Institute. The discussion was about civility in politics and included representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you might imagine, this debate on civility in politics was extremely civil, which was refreshing in contrast with recent overly-heated debates at town hall meetings and the incessant blabbering and bickering so common among cable and radio talk shows (is that comment uncivil? If so, then I apologize).

You likely encounter incivility in various places — political debate, the freeway, the grocery store check-out stand, sports events, and even in your own home. You and I may even be guilty of uttering uncivil words or performing uncivil actions from time to time.

I have found incivility to be most common and extreme when there is a barrier between two people and, especially, when one or both people’s identity is hidden. For example, put two people who disagree on an issue face-to-face and more than likely a relatively civil discussion will ensue. However, put those two people in two separate automobiles or in their own homes using the World Wide Web to communicate, and their tempers may flare, their word choice degenerate into insults, and their claims become stretched, exaggerated, or false.

I witness this almost daily on the road and on the comment boards of news sites and blogs, including on the articles I’ve written. I also witnessed it in anonymous student evaluations as a teacher at BYU. Anonymity shields us from the possible negative repercussions of our words and actions, which can bring out the worst in us.

How can we raise the level of discourse in our nation, communities, and families? The solutions are easy to identify but difficult to apply. I’ll offer six:

1. Remember that the worth of every soul is great in the eyes of God
2. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes to try to understand their point of view
3. Express disagreement in a way that respects other peoples’ opinions, values, and self-worth
4. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say to a person’s face
5. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say in your mother’s presence
6. Assume that all poor drivers are rushing a very pregnant woman to the hospital

Have any to add? I think that if we could all put these suggestions into practice, then the world would be a better place.

Finally, please consider these quotes on civility from Stephen L. Carter:

“Our duty to be civil towards others does not depend on whether we like them or not.”

“Civility requires that we listen to others with the knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.”

What do you think?

According to news reports, the next episode of HBO’s program “Big Love” will portray LDS temple clothing and ceremonies. This insensitive treatment of sacred practices will surely upset, and even infuriate, many Latter-day Saints. It should not.

This is not new. The aftermath of Proposition 8 is not new. Any person or group of people that stands firmly on eternal principles and divine doctrines in opposition to the world will be ridiculed, persecuted, and even murdered, as was Christ. But remember that we can choose how we respond to such treatment, and our response is likely a valid litmus test of our discipleship.

The mark of Christian courage
In the most recent General Conference, Elder Hales taught, appropriate to this occasion, that “Christian courage” is the “price of discipleship.” When accusations are made against true disciples who have Christian courage, they answer their accusers in the Savior’s way. Specifically, they

-”Love others in a tolerant and compassionate way”
-”Turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger”
-”See opportunity in the midst of opposition”
-Are meek and “speak with quiet confidence, not boastful pride”
-Are concerned with “others’ welfare, not personal vindication”
-”Avoid being unduly judgmental of others’ views”
-Sometimes say nothing at all, which is strength, not weakness

They do not

-”Retaliate or give in to hatred”
-Feel they are better than their accusers. “Rather, we desire with our love to show them a better way—the way of Jesus Christ.”

Elder Hales said, “More regrettable than the Church being accused of not being Christian is when Church members react to such accusations in an un-Christlike way!” A Christ-like response will be unique in every situation and requires great “faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”

In the case of “Big Love,” an official Church statement says that the Church “as an institution does not call for boycotts” but “individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.” Most importantly, “Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.”

Act for yourself
The statement also says that rather than allow “critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought…the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.”

In short, the Church, and we as individuals, should choose to act rather than be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13-14). As Elder Bednar has said, “To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.” We can choose how we respond to any accusation or persecution that arises. We can choose to act rather than be acted upon.

What do you think?

Resources:
The Publicity Dilemma, Church Public Affairs, March 9, 2009
Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship, Robert D. Hales, 2008
The Truth of God Shall Go Forth, M. Russell Ballard, 2008
And Nothing Shall Offend Them, David A. Bednar, 2006

I just finished writing a policy report that addresses the conflict between Utah’s laws regarding enrollment in public high schools and rules that govern the transfers and eligibility of student-athletes. You can click on the link below to read it:

Policies in Conflict: Open Enrollment and Student Athletes

Here’s the situation: Utah’s open enrollment law allows parents to transfer their children to any high school that isn’t full. The Utah High School Activities Association (UHSAA), a private organization that governs high school sports, has a transfer rule that removes a student’s eligibility to participate in athletics when the student transfers for “athletic motives.” To determine the motives behind a transfer, the UHSAA questions parents, coaches, and school administrators, and holds a hearing to determine the student’s eligibility.

Here’s the question: Should high school students who transfer from one high school to another have to sit out a year before playing sports at their new school?

What if they transfer for academic reasons? What if they transfer for athletic reasons? What if they transfer for a combination of academic and athletic reasons?

Should a private organization like the UHSAA have the authority to decide whether or not students can participate in athletics in public high schools? Are high school extra-curricular activities an integral part of the overall high school experience or just an option to pursue if time and means permit?

You can read my answers (and Sutherland’s) to these questions in the report. We recommend that every student be able to transfer during the summer to any high school they can get into without losing athletic eligibility. Student-athletes who transfer during the school year could participate only in sub-varsity athletics for one year. Students who have to transfer during the school year because of “exigent circumstances” can obtain an exception to the rule and maintain eligibility.

What do you think?

The Church just released a statement on Utah’s liquor laws. Both the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune are reporting that Gov. Huntsman’s office and others that back reforming Utah’s liquor laws find the Church’s statement to be supportive of reform. I’m not sure I agree.

To me, the Church’s statement says that liquor laws should limit the bad effects of alcohol consumption and that Utah’s current laws are doing a good job of that.

The statement says that “While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to avoid alcohol altogether, it acknowledges that alcoholic beverages are available to the public. The Church has always called for reasonable regulations to (1) limit overconsumption, (2) reduce impaired driving and (3) work to eliminate underage drinking. The Church will continue to focus on these public health and safety requirements.”

To me, this says that the Church’s general opinion on liquor laws is the same as it always has been. It seems that club laws and state regulation of liquor distribution could fall under this list of “reasonable regulations.” It goes on to highlight that “The positive consequences of Utah’s current regulations on alcohol consumption are readily apparent” by citing statistics that Utah has “the lowest percentage of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths in America” and “the lowest per-capita alcohol consumption.”

Sounds to me like the Church favors the current laws if the “positive consequences…are readily apparent.” Likely, most people are focusing on the part that says that the Church “believes that Utahns, including those who work in the hospitality industry, can come together as citizens, regardless of religion or politics, to support laws and regulations that allow individual freedom of choice while preserving Utah’s proven positive health and safety record on limiting the tragic consequences of overconsumption of alcohol.”

To me, this says that the Church is willing to take part in a dialogue about reforming the laws but that it wants to preserve the current laws that are “limiting the tragic consequences of overconsumption of alcohol.” It’s like they’re saying, “sure, we’re willing to talk about reform with you because we think public debate is great, but it’s clear that the current laws are doing what we want them to do.”

I could be wrong. It’s possible that I’m misinterpreting the Church’s statement. But it seems to me that Gov. Huntsman and other reform supporters are reading a little too far into this statement. Perhaps the laws can be reformed to allow more individual freedom of choice and still regulate alcohol in a way that protects people’s lives. It just seems to me that the Church is pretty satisfied with the laws on the books.

What do you think?

Read the Church’s statement

According to the old adage, two heads are better than one. It turns out that in most cases the more heads the better. As intelligent and wise as one person can be, the more people involved in making a decision, generating an idea, or predicting an outcome the more likely they’ll produce better results than can one person. This principle is evident in business, government, athletics, and most aspects of life.

Wisdom of Crowds
In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki provides numerous examples of how masses of people each person doing his or her own part can produce amazing results. Here are just a few:

1) On the TV game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, if a contestant doesn’t know the answer to a trivia question he or she can eliminate two of the answer options, phone a friend, or ask the audience for help. The phoned friend gets the answer correct 65 percent of the time (not bad), but the audience chooses the correct answer 91 percent of the time.
2) The day of the space shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986, stock traders quickly sold off the stock of four major contracting companies that helped with the launch. However, the stock of Thiokol dropped nearly 12 percent whereas the others dropped only about 3 percent. Six months later, the government determined that Thiokol, who had made the Challenger’s O-ring seals, was responsible for the tragedy. Somehow, traders had predicted almost instantly that Thiokol was responsible.
3) Google, the most popular search engine, uses the masses to determine (often in .08 seconds) which web page a person is trying to find. It does this by ranking pages based on the number of other pages linked to a specific page and the relative importance of those pages linked to it. In other words, Google knows which pages will most likely help you find the information you need by analyzing how important other people think each page is.

So what?
What does all this have to do with government and politics? Well, since more heads are almost always better than one, government should use as many heads as possible to make the best decisions possible. Instead of a king, monarch, or small group of rulers, the U.S. has a body of 435 representatives who make decisions on our behalf. We hope their collective wisdom is great enough to produce good results, but if not, there are 300 million Americans using their heads (hopefully) to help Congress get back on track and vote them out of office if they don’t. The executive and judicial branches also serve to check Congress when they seemingly go astray.

Certainly, Congress doesn’t always make the best decisions possible, but overall I think our government is probably more on course than most others because there are more heads involved in making decisions here.

In general, masses of people making collective decisions are not always wise. Sometimes people follow the crowd just because the crowd is doing something, even when the crowd is going in the wrong direction. Sometimes crowds riot damaging people and property; they harass a referee for making a call against their team even when the call was correct; or they elect a politician who ends up being corrupt or lazy. Crowds are not always wise. The depth of their wisdom depends on certain factors.

How to make a crowd wise
Surowiecki says that crowds are wise only if each person has a diverse opinion based on his or her own information and makes decisions independent of others. In other words, we shouldn’t act like lemmings, but we should contribute our individual knowledge and experience to the group.

J. Reuben Clark said, “I have complete trust in the overall wisdom of people provided that they are brought to the knowledge of the facts and put in a position to understand them…In the long run…the wisdom of the mass is always greater than the wisdom of the individual or the group.” The trick is getting the facts to people and helping them get in a position to understand them. We also need to be patient.

Note that crowds are wise “in the long run.” In the short run, each individual decision may not be best, but over time as many minor decisions and course corrections are made crowds tend to go in the best direction by using the collective knowledge, wisdom, experience, and influence of each individual.

What if they don’t?
Mosiah has an answer:
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law–to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” (Mosiah 29:26-27)

I believe America is great. Overall, it is headed in a good direction, but if we don’t make some course corrections we may soon find ourselves in a heap of trouble. Let’s do our best to put ourselves in a position to understand the facts and help others do the same; otherwise, we may face great destruction.

Is America on course? If not, where have we gone wrong and how can we get back on track? Are crowds really wise? What do you think?

Growing up in Utah was good. I enjoyed the small-town (but not too small) atmosphere in Provo. I also enjoyed taking trips to the big city–Salt Lake City. I’ve always been fond of big cities filled with skyscrapers, bridges, interesting people, and cultural activities.

Now that I’ve been to big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston…ok, I think you get the idea…I realize that Salt Lake City, and especially Provo, are rather small. However, rapid growth and ongoing projects of massive proportions seem to indicate that the Wasatch Front, particularly the Salt Lake and Utah valleys, may become the next Los Angeles.

While living in L.A. recently, I could drive on its packed, deteriorating freeways from downtown Los Angeles to the next downtown in Westwood, then another in Torrance, then Long Beach, Santa Ana, and on and on, all within the same metro area. Today, Los Angeles County, with a population of 10 million, is a sea of never-ending homes, businesses, parks, roads, and other infrastructure. The borders between cities are blurred so that you hardly know when you’re in a different place. L.A. County is even physically connected to Orange County.

Downtown Los Angeles is very small for a city of 4 million people, I think because things there used to be all spread out, just like the Wasatch Front still is in some places. But over time all of the Los Angeles suburbs have become interconnected and space is lacking. Rather than everyone congregating in downtown L.A., each big city surrounding L.A. has its own downtown each with a unique role and setting. Many other large urban areas follow this same pattern.

The Utah Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget (GOPB) projects that by 2050 Utah’s current population of 2.6 million will be almost 6 million; Salt Lake County will have 1.8 million people and Utah County 1.2 million.

On the Wasatch Front, borders between cities are becoming blurred, traffic is increasing, and other downtowns are rising from the dust. For example, Sandy is about to begin building three towers that are 30-40 stories tall (up to 550 ft). And in Lehi, a developer is planning a 450 ft tall hotel along with a lake, sports arena, shopping, and residencies. Downtown Salt Lake may soon not be the only big city downtown, though it will gain more attention when the City Creek Project is completed around 2012.

It appears that someday in the future, and not too distant, the Wasatch Front will be one great interconnected megalopolis, just like Los Angeles. It may not have Hollywood, but it will have the challenges and benefits that come with growth. Utahns will have more to do and see but also more challenges with transportation, water, energy, crime, and so on. Overall, I’m excited for this growth. I picture Utah in 40 years as a vibrant state that will gain increasing national and international attention. I just hope that as it grows Utahns face the challenges that come with that growth with urgency, wisdom, and care.

What do you think?

The other day, I watched Amazing Grace, the movie. Several people had recommended it to me, and I highly recommend it to you. The movie tells the story of William Wilberforce (1759-1833) who was a member of the British Parliament. During his career, he converted to Christianity and wondered if becoming a monk or minister would be better for him than continuing in politics.

In the movie, Wilberforce meets some anti-slave trade activists. One of them, a man, says, “Mr. Wilberforce, we understand you’re having problems choosing whether to do the work of God or the work of a political activist.” After a dramatic pause, a woman quietly but confidently continues, “We humbly suggest that you can do both.”

For the rest of his life, Wilberforce fought valiantly to abolish slavery in the British Empire. He gathered evidence, held meetings, sought to persuade other members of parliament, and introduced an anti-slave bill each year. Year after year, his colleagues ridiculed him, his plans were frustrated, and he became very ill. But he did not give up.

Finally, just three days before his death, Wilberforce heard that the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery was guaranteed to pass, which it did one month later on August 28, 1833. William Wilberforce was a man who observed the horrific practice of slavery, believed he could do something to stop it, and sacrificed his life to do so.

Are we willing to fight for such a cause? When we observe suffering, injustice, immorality, corruption or anything that causes tearful eyes or anxious hearts do we act to make it cease? Do we dedicate enough time to solving problems around us to help improve our families, communities, and our nation?

Are we even aware of the critical issues of our day? Do we inform ourselves about them and seek to understand and undertake the best steps to resolve them? Or do we rest apathetically in our comfortable La-Z-Boys of life choosing to ignore the perilous storms that swirl around us? Do we hope or assume that someone else–someone more determined, educated, or eloquent will protect us?

I believe that ordinary people like Mr. Wilberforce, you, and me can accomplish extraordinary things. To do so requires courage, persistence, and knowledge, but we can do it. I hope that each of us will identify just one truth we can defend, one injustice we can remedy, or one cause we deem worthy–whatever it is–that we can fervently support.

I hope that just as our founding fathers did in support of the Declaration of Independence, we can “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” for a cause that we believe to be just.

What do you think?

Pepperdine University–Malibu, CA

During the second year of my graduate program, I helped start up the Pepperdine Policy Review and served as its first editor-in-chief. This academic journal includes articles–long and short–on various public policy topics. If you’d like to take a look at the finished product go here. Given that it was our first year publishing the journal, I think it turned out very well. I’d love to hear any comments you have about it.

Also, you can read a story here that the Pepperdine PR department wrote about me and the journal.

I now have a Master of Public Policy degree and start a new job in June. I’ll be a policy analyst at the Sutherland Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sutherland is a public policy think tank that focuses on Utah issues. I believe strongly in its conservative governing principles and am excited to support them. I may address Utah issues more often now but most will be applicable to other states and the federal government.

More compassion for immigrants
For instance, the Sutherland Institute recently published a unique conservative position on immigration. Most self-proclaimed conservatives support a no-nonsense, punitive approach to illegal immigration. They demand that government officials find, arrest, and deport all illegal immigrants. This position rightly supports upholding the rule of law but is unrealistic. It is logistically impossible to deport millions of immigrants from the U.S. to their native countries, and it is also very harsh.

States are in a difficult situation. The federal government makes and is supposed to enforce immigration laws. But since the feds do not properly enforce immigration laws, states must decide how to treat illegal immigrants residing in their jurisdiction. Since Utah can do little to enforce federal laws, Sutherland advocates treating illegal immigrants already living in Utah with more compassion than is typical.

The Sutherland approach
Most illegal immigrants are good people who come to the U.S. to help their families survive poverty. Most make positive contributions to society. We should help these people integrate themselves into our communities as we would a legal immigrant.

It is important to understand that some laws seek to prevent actions that are wrong in themselves (E.g. theft, assault, fraud), whereas other laws prevent actions that are wrong only because the law prohibits them (E.g. speeding, paying taxes) (see difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se). For example, theft is wrong whether or not the law prohibits it, whereas failing to pay taxes is not wrong unless government prohibits it. Immigration laws fall into the second category.

Crossing the U.S. border is not inherently wrong. It is wrong to do so if U.S. law prohibits it, but disobeying an immigration law to help your family survive is far less severe than, say, robbing a bank for survival. Illegal immigrants who break more serious laws should be prosecuted and deported, but we should treat those who are otherwise law-abiding citizens with more compassion.

I agree with Sutherland’s position, and not just because I’ll be working there. It’s hard to imagine deporting my neighbor or someone I home teach for illegally crossing the border, especially when they do so only hoping for a brighter future. They should probably make some sort of retribution for not honoring federal immigration laws, but it should be minor.

For practical reasons, the feds might want to stem the heavy flow of illegal immigration through better border control, but when any good person arrives among us and is an otherwise law abiding citizen, we should open our arms to them and help them integrate into our communities. Please go to the links below to learn more.

Sutherland Position Statement
Sutherland Executive Summary
Sutherland Full Essay
LDS Church urges more compassion for immigrants

What do you think?

I recently wrote a piece for the Pacific Research Institute about California’s public pension program for state employees. Pension reform, though mind numbing to some, has been a huge topic of discussion among the Legislature, Gov. Schwarzenegger, the unions, and California taxpayers. Following is the first paragraph and you can continue by clicking on the link below.

How to Clean Up California’s Pension Mess
Capital Ideas
By: Matthew C. Piccolo
8.8.2007

SACRAMENTO – A Sacramento Superior Court judge recently ruled that California must pay a lucrative $6.4 million pension to the heirs of a former state employee who made $22,000 a year. This shocking tale, though unique, is only one part of a complex public pension mess that needs cleaning up.

read more