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?

Average gasoline prices — U.S. and Utah
Source: AAA

Abraham Lincoln “regarded prudence in all respect as one of the cardinal virtues,” and he hoped, as President, that “it will appear that we have practiced prudence” in the management of public affairs.

What is prudence?
What does it mean to practice prudence in politics? Here’s one aspect of it: Thomas Aquinas believed that prudence is “right reason about things to be done” and that it acts to restrain “impulse or passion.” (read more) Impulse and passion abound in politics. Politicians and citizens seize any opportunity available to score political points. They do this often without knowing all the facts behind an issue and sometimes when it is not in the best interest of the people, and especially their long-term interest.

Prudence dictates that actions be measured, not hasty or impulsive. A prudent politician or citizen becomes as informed as possible about the facts and the options and potential consequences related to an issue before making assumptions, accusations, proposals, or decisions.

Recent examples of imprudence

1. Gas prices. Last summer, many Utahns complained for months that gas prices here were among the highest in the nation. They assumed that gas retailers were gouging them and demanded government investigation and intervention. In response, Gov. Huntsman promised he’d monitor gas retailers with a “laser-like” focus to make sure they weren’t taking advantage of consumers. Guess what?

Today, without government action, Utah’s gas prices are the second lowest in the nation, and nobody is complaining. As you can see in the image above, Utah’s gas prices simply lag behind the national average (adjust slower to changing market conditions), so a little patience is required when prices are higher. This imprudence could have been avoided if people had informed themselves about historical gas prices and basic economics of the energy industry.

2. AIG bonuses. There has been a lot of outrage over recent bonuses delivered to AIG executives, so much that the U.S. House passed a bill that would place a 90 percent tax on those bonuses. This action was imprudent. Why? It was based more on emotional reaction than reason. The bill taxes bonuses that Congress itself authorized in the first place, and it is likely unconstitutional.

The entire financial “crisis” illustrates imprudence. Many personal actions and decisions involved with the “stimulus” have been knee-jerk reactions. The stock market declines, so people panic and sell their investments. Banks have toxic assets, so the Feds buy them up. Automakers are going bankrupt, the Feds bail them out. Pres. Obama and his administration are taking unprecedented control over the U.S. economy, as if the entire economy is about to collapse. Taking such drastic steps in an attempt to solve a temporary problem is not prudent.

To be fair, many politicians and citizens do exercise prudence, but I won’t bore you with those details today. I recognize that I am imprudent sometimes. In fact, the claims made in this post might be imprudent. Then again, if they are, then I’ve proved my point.

What do you think?

Artist: Clay Bennett

Special interest groups and lobbyists often get a bad rap. For instance, Barack Obama stopped taking donations from them when he began his run for the presidency. He says we need to prevent our law-making process from being “hijacked by lobbyists and special interests.” He blamed them and “an ethic of irresponsibility” in Washington for the financial crisis. They are, according to Obama and other leaders, a mischievous group that needs to be reigned in. Who are these people? What do they do? Are they really that bad?

Who are they?
A special interest group is an organized group of people that seeks to influence the political process. Their “special interest” is whatever value, goal, or cause they support. For example, unions, corporations, and civil rights advocates are interest groups.

A lobbyist is a person from a special interest group that talks to legislators, government officials, and other people involved in the political decision-making process.

What do they do?
Special interest groups and their lobbyists represent people who support their cause through donations, membership, and their time. Corporations represent their shareholders and the people who support their products and services by purchasing them. Without the people’s support, these groups lose their influence and cease to exist.

Are they really that bad?
As Robert J. Samuelson has said, “Lobbying is an expression of democracy. We are a collection of special interests, and one person’s special interest is another’s job or moral crusade. If people can’t organize to influence government — to muzzle or shape its powers — then democracy is dead.” Special interest groups and lobbyists are simply messengers for people who want to educate lawmakers and influence legislation.

James Madison offered some insight into this. He worried that “factions,” or special interests, would gain too much power in the new United States government. However, Madison believed that faction is a necessary part of democracy because with liberty comes faction. He said, “the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”

To control its effects, Madison suggested that factions be many, small, and spread across many states. Should factions become large, then republican government, especially “extensive republics” (bigger is better) would help control majority faction. The body of representation (Congress, legislatures) should be large enough but not too large. Also, the Bill of Rights helps keep majority faction from usurping the rights of minority groups. In short, the American system of government is designed to prevent special interest groups from becoming too powerful.

What to do?
Certainly, some special interest groups and lobbyists are powerful today. But, in my opinion, that is because our government has departed from the limited government of Madison’s time. As Samuelson says, “The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be.” Government, and its influence, is growing uncontrollably (think bailouts, more regulation, and higher taxes). The more money government doles out and the more it regulates, the more people want a piece of the pie and their interests protected.

According to Madison, “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” So, if government stopped taking money from some citizens to give to others (e.g. welfare, Medicare, government contracts, and pork barrel projects), then lobbying would decrease substantially. People would lobby to influence basic policy decisions, but not to get money.

Rather than vilify special interest groups and lobbyists, public officials should limit the size and scope of government, which, in turn, will limit lobbying. Of course, the law should discourage bribes and corruption and encourage a high standard of conduct for lobbyists and public officials. In the end, though, the people have a right, and duty, to contact their representatives, whether as individuals or through interest groups, and representatives must decide to whom they will lend an ear.

What do you think?

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

The arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is only one of many criminal charges made recently against public officials. In the past few years, many politicians have been convicted of serious charges and sent to prison.

Distrust of public officials is rampant. Look no further than to common jokes about politicians. A very brief on-line search revealed the following:

The word ‘politics’ is derived from the word ‘poly’, meaning ‘many’, and the word ‘ticks’, meaning ‘blood sucking parasites’. (Larry Hardiman)

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. (Doug Larson)

Do public figures merit this criticism? Some, perhaps; most, no. In my opinion, the considerable majority of public officials are good, honest people who serve their constituents with integrity. Of course, there are exceptions, and many recently, but intense public scrutiny of public officials, which is often appropriate, can create a false perception that all politicians are crooks.

It is important to exhibit trust and confidence in public figures, even when a few bad apples surface. Dallin H. Oaks’s statement shortly following the 2004 elections rings true today:

So much of public discourse and media coverage and entertainment seems to consist of content that will destroy trust in those persons and offices that should function as moral guides for young and old in our society. Many of the messages of some recent candidates seem intended to discredit the character of another candidate rather than to promote a serious discussion of the important issues on which the electorate should register their choices. Similarly, in so-called entertainment shows we often see the authority figure portrayed as scheming, dishonest, and unworthy of trust.

Discredit authority figures—whether public officials, teachers, ministers, or others—and where will it lead? It will encourage doubts about the laws and rules and principles they administer, and it will lead to skepticism about or withdrawal from the ties that bind us together as a society, a family, or a private organization. I pray that this will not be so, and I pray for a return to public discourse that is less divisive and more supportive and respectful of authority figures and the values that have built our nation. (”Where Will It Lead?” Oaks, Dallin H., November 9, 2004)

The natural reaction to political scandal is to express concern about corruption and distrust in all politicians. We should be concerned about electing and upholding the most honest, wise, and good men and women possible, but constant demonstrations of distrust weaken the rule of law and fray “the ties that bind us together as a society.”

We should assume the best of public officials and convey confidence in their ability to lead with wisdom and integrity. Should they violate our trust, we should remove them from office. The best way to encourage superior performance from any child, employee, politician, or anybody is to communicate high expectations from the outset, confidence in the person’s ability to meet them, and disappointment when they are not met. To communicate low expectations and distrust continually is to ask for continual poor performance.

The U.S. Congress and many states, including Utah, are considering ethics reform. Ethics rules and laws should make public officials accountable to the people but also exhibit trust in their ability to lead with wisdom and integrity. A culture of distrust only inhibits honest men and women from seeking office, leaving the dishonest to govern.

What do you think?

Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. I congratulate him and all the other candidates who won yesterday. November 4, 2008 was a great day in the history of our nation.

Yesterday was not great because any particular candidate won. Yes, Obama’s victory is welcome evidence of the shrinking racial divide in our country, but more importantly, election day 2008 was one more testament to the world that liberty and democracy are essential pillars of good government. It was a testament that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is the best way for any people to secure for themselves the rights that are important to them and to expand or limit the influence of government in their lives to the degree they desire.

Some disgruntled Americans have already declared their plans to leave the U.S. for Canada before Inauguration Day, just as many did when George W. Bush won re-election in 2004. Others are prophesying the end of American civilization as we know it.

I call on every American, no matter your party, ideology, or creed, to unite in support of president-elect Barack Obama. He will be your president and mine, whether we voted for him or not. We should be grateful for the opportunity to have participated in the electoral process. We should affirm our collective choice by welcoming Mr. Obama to the Oval Office.

If you wish, disagree with his policy positions, battle against his proposals, work to replace him in four years, but whatever you do, honor and respect the office of the president and any man or woman who occupies it. Let no American spew out insults, false accusations, or hatred toward our commander-in-chief. Let us speak well of him, even as we challenge his ideas, decisions, and deeds. Let us engage in civil deliberation and debate to help create sound public policy for our nation.

The words of John McCain in his concession speech ring true:

“I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating [Barack Obama], but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.”

“Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.”

Welcome to the presidency, Mr. Obama. May you honor your office and duty to all Americans as we try to honor you.

What do you think?

The elections for the next president of the United States are tomorrow…finally. After two years of campaign ads, news reports, yard signs, and debates, either Barack Obama or John McCain will take office in January. The new president will be at the helm of the largest, most productive economy in the world. At least, that’s what many Americans think.

Many Americans seem to vote simply based on the state of the U.S. economy. George H.W. Bush lost his bid for re-election in 1992 largely because the U.S. economy was faltering. Now, it appears that John McCain will lose for the same reason. This graph compares stock market performance with John McCain’s approval rating during the market’s greatest recent decline:

Source: The Washington Independent

I guess people assume that the economy’s recent troubles are “a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush” and that McCain will continue the same policies. This may or may not be true, but I think it’s a huge mistake to vote for either candidate based solely on what’s happening to the U.S. economy today.

The president’s influence on the economy is minimal. Americans give the president way too much credit. The president proposes the annual budget but only Congress can approve it. The president can propose policies that affect the economy, but only Congress can enact them. Even when the president vetoes a bill, Congress can override his veto.

The president’s greatest influence on the economy comes through the regulatory power of government agencies in the executive branch, but the president must operate within the parameters that Congress outlines for those agencies. If any one person or government body can affect the economy, it’s Congress. The private sector — businesses and consumers — impact the economy on a much greater scale. Government is only one small actor among the trillions that affect the economy.

Certainly, a president does influence economic performance, especially when he has lots of power. Just look to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and, today, North Korea. But in our system of checks and balances his influence is minor. And if anything, he can do more to harm it than help it.

The problem is that the more government gets involved in the economy, the more influence the president does have on it and the more Americans will blame him for their economic woes and expect him to fix them, even though he helped create them.

In 1850, a wise Frenchman wrote of his country:

the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice — all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.

If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame.

(Frederic Bastiat, The Law)

For now, we cannot attribute the success or failure of our economy solely to the president. He has a part in it, but so do Congress, businesses, consumers, and anybody who makes any economic transaction within or with the United States. We should definitely examine each candidate’s economic proposals and vote based on what impact we think they’ll have on the economy, but we should remember that the president’s ideas and actions are only one small part of our massive economic system.

What do you think?

Here is a very interesting article on the relationship between political parties and the economy.

John McCain is no smooth talker. His talk, though straight, is a little dry. His temper is prone to flaring, and he seems to admit rarely when he’s wrong. No, McCain is no Jack Kennedy, no Ronald Reagan, and no Bill Clinton. And yet, he’s going to be the next president of the United States. Why? Because he’s more consistent than Obama, and consistency is everything in politics.

Consistency is key
Americans like consistency, predictability, and reliability. They have an innate desire to foresee what’s coming ahead. They crave security. They want to plan ahead, and it’s hard to plan things when examining the past does not help them predict the future. Consistency and predictability are vital to most aspects of our lives.

For instance, I used to ride public buses in Washington, D.C. and sometimes they would come on time, sometimes many minutes early, and sometimes as many as 40 minutes late. One day, I waited at a bus stop for 40 minutes with no bus in sight. Unfortunately, it was 10 degrees outside, windy, and humid. When the bus finally came, I was late for my appointment and frozen from head to toe.

Another time, while waiting for a bus scheduled to pass by every 7 minutes, a bus finally appeared on the horizon after 35 minutes, then another right behind it, and another, and another, and, yes, another. Five buses had all bunched together and arrived at the same time. This happened frequently. The problem was not as much that the bus was tardy but that I didn’t know when it would come. I would prefer that a bus come only once an hour and on time rather than wait for a few buses that come randomly throughout the hour.

Another example. Internet service can often be erratic. One minute it works, then it doesn’t. One minute you can download a 5 MB song in 20 seconds, then the next it takes 10 minutes to do the same. Sound familiar? When I can’t count on my Internet service, I go do something else until the Internet is consistent again. I enjoy consistency and predictability.

Back to the point
Consistent, predictable politicians tend to win. Like him or not, George W. Bush is both. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama are not. Their chameleon-like stances transform regularly for political expedience. Since the democratic primary elections, Obama’s positions have shifted noticeably on Iran, public financing, FISA, NAFTA, gun control, and even his reverend Jeremiah Wright (see here).

Obama’s march to the center is turning away voters who would love to believe in his ideas of “change” and “hope.” Voters are seeing through his capriciousness and believe that McCain is dedicated to his ideals. Certainly, McCain has wavered at times but not to the extent of Obama. In the end, McCain who is perceived to be more consistent, predictable, reliable (and dry) will win. No American wants to have to guess what the next president is going to do.

What do you think?

The Church’s recent letter on same-sex marriage in California has caused quite a stir. The typical gay rights supporters outside the Church oppose the Church’s position, but many latter-day saints have told me they don’t support the Church’s position and may even fight against it.

The conflict
These experiences raise an interesting, and very crucial, question: how should latter-day saints act when the Church’s policy positions conflict with their personal beliefs? This question is not a new one. Latter-day saints have posed it to themselves many times in the past.

For example, the Church supported laws prohibiting alcohol in the 1920’s and 30’s, but many latter-day saints opposed them. Utahns voted to ratify the 21st amendment in 1933 which repealed prohibition, despite Heber J. Grant’s plea to vote against it. During the 1970’s, the Brethren opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and though Utah did not ratify the amendment many latter-day saints still supported it.

For many years, the Brethren have supported federal and state marriage amendments that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in 2007 Church leaders counseled Utah legislators to use a more compassionate approach with illegal immigrants. People have reacted to these positions in many different ways .

Typical reactions
I think there are at least five typical ways that latter-day saints react to official church statements on public issues.

1. Do nothing. People who do nothing are apathetic or ignorant or both. They might not care to think about government issues at all or might not care when the Church makes official statements on public issues. They might hear or read the statement and realize they need more information or understanding to act on it but don’t care enough to learn more.
2. Blindly obey. People who blindly obey are like marionettes attached to strings controlled by the prophet. They do whatever he says without even asking themselves why the Church might voice an opinion on the issue at hand.
3. Obey to understand. People who obey to understand choose to obey the prophet immediately whether they understand the reasoning behind the Church’s position or not. If they don’t understand or don’t agree with it, then they seek knowledge to understand as they obey.
4. Understand then obey. People who understand then obey choose not to act on an official statement until they understand the reasoning behind it. If they never understand or agree with it, then they choose not to obey.
5. Resist. People who resist may or may not understand the Church’s official position but don’t agree with it and choose to oppose it actively.

How do you react? Which reaction is best?

Is it official?
Many latter-day saints question whether the Church’s official statements are doctrine or just suggestions to follow. Even more people wonder what to do about counsel given in a conference talk or other speech that doesn’t explicitly present the Church’s official position but could seem to imply it. For example, the Church teaches us to incur as little debt as possible in our personal lives, and in 1993 Elder Maxwell said in a speech at BYU that through the national debt “we are robbing our children and grandchildren, however silently, of their economic freedom and future.” Does this mean it’s wrong for governments to incur debt? Are these teachings and statements official church positions on government policy or just counsel or personal opinions?

What do you think? Please comment.

Resources:
Church official statements on public issues
Sutherland essay on how LDS legislators use personal beliefs in politics
Another blog’s perspective on this issue

We Latter-day Saints need to be more active in public dialogue and debate. We need to vote more often and inform ourselves better as we do. We need to study the issues and voice our opinions to government officials, private institutions, friends, family, and neighbors. We need to stand for truth, righteousness, decency, honesty, freedom, and the family. If we don’t, then who will?

Elder Ballard said in 2003 that “we need to raise our voices with other concerned citizens throughout the world in opposition to current trends. We need to tell the sponsors of offensive media that we have had enough. We need to support programs and products that are positive and uplifting. Joining together with neighbors and friends who share our concerns, we can send a clear message to those responsible.”

Elder Ballard also recently said, “May I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration … you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true. You can download videos from Church and other appropriate sites, including newsroom.lds.org, and send them to your friends. You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports. This, of course, requires that you understand the basic principles of the gospel. It is essential that you are able to offer a clear and correct witness of gospel truths. It is also important that you and the people to whom you testify understand that you do not speak for the Church as a whole. You speak as one member–but you testify of the truths you have come to know.”

“Far too many people have a poor understanding of the Church because most of the information they hear about us is from news media reports that are often driven by controversies. Too much attention to controversy has a negative impact on peoples’ perceptions of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is.”

I know a lot of people who are heeding Elder Ballard’s counsel. They have blogs (my brother has about 7), avoid bad media, write letters, and do many other good things to spread the Gospel and defend truth. I think we can do much more. I know it’s difficult to find time to do these things. I have a hard time sometimes even though I’m very involved in government and politics and blogging. But we can’t sit idle while other interest groups shape the debate and public policy. We must let our voices be heard!

What do you think? Please submit comments about personal stories when you’ve let your voice be heard and made a positive difference. They will inspire us and give us ideas of what we can do to help.

Economic freedom and economic development are essential for a prosperous society, but they aren’t everything. Some things are more important. Sometimes as a society we must choose to restrict economic freedom in order to create or preserve a prosperous, moral, and civil society.

More economic development and tourism
Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. is trying to loosen Utah’s liquor laws. The state’s liquor laws are very restrictive compared with other states. For instance, Utah currently has a private club system that requires people who want to drink to purchase a club membership, unless they also purchase a meal with their drink. Huntsman argues that Utah should loosen this restriction to create “greater normalcy” in the state’s liquor laws. He says that doing so would attract more new companies to Utah and increase tourism.

Safety, morality, and healthy society
Loosening liquor laws may improve Utah’s economy but not the safety, moral fiber, and health of its society. The effects of alcohol use can harm individual health, terminate innocent people’s lives (drunk driving), and disintegrate good families. The people should grant themselves as much liberty as possible through the political decision-making process, but in some cases it is worth sacrificing some liberty to promote a safe, moral, and prosperous society. Not everyone who drinks liquor misuses it, but the law should keep it out of the hands of people who do.

Economic freedom is not the end we seek but a means to developing a free and prosperous society. We should not sacrifice health, safety, and strong families for a little more economic development. Beginning to put economics above morality is dangerous, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:21). Little by little we may find our hearts set on economic treasure rather than on more important things. Rather than trying to be “normal,” we should seek to become the best we can be, regardless of what the rest of the world does or thinks.

What do you think?