I usually don’t comment much on politics. When I do, it seems that my political posts don’t do so well, but here goes anyway. A few months ago, I got an email from a friend asking me about how the church defines political extremism. She had some relatives that were concerned about government conspiracies for population control, the New World Order, and a few other things.
Then I was talking to my sister a few days ago. She asked me what I thought of the Tea Party movement. In brief, I’m not a big fan. Anyway, I thought it might be time to put together some of my political thoughts, and quotes from former apostle Hugh B. Brown into a post. I considered waiting until closer to the election, but decided to go ahead and put this out now, since I was just talking to my sister about this issue. I have combined a few emails into this post.
My sister’s email quoted a blogger complaining about President Obama. The first question from the blogger was terrible. “If Obama wanted to destroy the United States, what would he be doing differently?”
I don’t for a second think Obama is trying to destroy the United States. People are welcome to disagree with Obama–certainly I do on a fair number of issues. However, when we try to demonize people we disagree with, we have crossed the line into political extremism.
I had an email from a friend asking me about political extremism, and how the church defines it. Well, here are some thing I told her, and I think they apply to this blogger as well.
You may be interested in this letter that was read here in Utah on Mar 22, 2010. See http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-letter-on-utah-precinct-caucus-meetings
“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)
I usually lean republican, but I do like Jim Matheson (D-Congressman Utah) and Peter Caroon (D-SL County mayor.) I’m not real fond of Harry Reid, but it is cool to have such a high ranking Mormon. Matheson is a Mormon and crusades against wasteful government spending. He was one of the few guys who voted against the Bank Bailout (and caught a lot of heat when the bailout was popular), and voted against Health Care Reform. He’s a real fiscal conservative, opposes abortion, and I really like a lot of his stands. In states like NY, CA, or MA, he’d be a republican (more conservative than Guiliani, McCain, or even Mitt), but Utah is so ultra-conservative that he is really a very conservative democrat.
The following quote comes from Hugh B Brown’s famous speech “Profile of a Prophet.” This is the beginning of the commencement address he gave to BYU students in 1968. The first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then gets onto Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”
“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.
First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.
Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.
Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.
Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.
-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968
I’m sure he is referring to the Civil Rights, Vietnam, as well as the upcoming presidential election following Lyndon B Johnson’s announcement that he would step down. Of course Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. There were Vietnam demonstrations, and I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.
Here’s a different talk by Hugh B. Brown that gives some good advice too. http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/documents/brown.htm
[T]he possibility of coherent community action is diminished today by the deep mutual suspicions and antagonisms among various groups in our national life.
As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .
Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.3
I am a bit wary of the Tea Party Movement, as well as MoveOn.org. I view them both as unhealthy extremes. My opinion is that it is fine to disagree with Democrats or Republicans. But when we turn to decisiveness and refer to President George W Bush or President Barack Obama as “worse than Hitler”, we are guilty of political extremism. As Hugh B Brown said, “the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism.”
What say you?
Mormon Heretic 
There’s nothing obtuse here, BTC. An extremist is one who is far from the mean. A political extremist in modern America is one whose political views are far from those of the mean voter. Socialists fit that definition; the MAJORITY of American voters who view Obama as socialist, because they are a majority, by definition can not be called extremist on that basis.
You can decide whether a particular form of extremism is right or wrong for yourself. Jesus was certainly an extremist in Jewish society. Naziism wasn’t extreme in Germany, nor Stalinism in Russia, unfortunately.
But the tone deafness of both parties to the population screaming “no” over the last 18 months is starting to take on almost Marie Antoinette qualities.
Not sure I would call all these men “Men of Integrity” but, I don’t think any of them want to destroy the country. That notion is just foolishness.
Interesting that you define extremism in terms of a person’s tactics and rhetoric rather than his actual political position. It’s rare for me, as a voluntaryist, to encounter a description of political extremism that seems to exclude me.
In regards to the 1968 speech of Brother Brown, Ezra Taft Benson was seeking to be the Vice Presdiential Candidate of George Wallace who was running on a third party ticket opposed to recently passed civil rights law.
Fortuately President David O.Mckay would not give Brother Benson permission to do so. It would of been an absolute public relations disaster for the church if he would of run.(for documentation of this see Sheri Dew’s biography of President Benson and D. Michael Quinn’s article on President Bensons political activites in Dialogue published in the 1990’s)
Reread president Brown’s comments in the light of what was happening with Brother Benson. I think Brother Brown was thinking of this when he made the speech.
“If Obama wanted to destroy the United States, what would he be doing differently?”
That’s sounds like the statement of a political cynic rather than the statement of an extremist. It reminds me of the truism that “if you want to predict the behavior of any organization, simply assume it is secretly headed by a conspiracy of its worst enemies.” (We cynics understand that we are cynical.)
I can certainly think that someone can be utterly sincere in their political beliefs and also think that those beliefs are extreme within the American political spectrum. Good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good policy outcomes.
There is only one avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in either house of Congress. That suggests socialism is a pretty extreme position in the United States if you compare it to the number of — well — Mormons in Congress. Yet there is a major poll out this past week indicating something close to a MAJORITY of Americans now think “socialist” is an appropriate description of Obama’s policies.
It doesn’t even matter if that assessment is correct: can it be extremist to believe that Obama’s positions are extremist if that’s what the MAJORITY of the country now believes?
I wanted to add the link so people don’t think I’m making this up:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/poll-55-of-likely-voters-think-obama-is-a-socialist/59463/
Note that its Democratic pollster James Carville doing the poll and that its 55% who say Obama IS socialist and only 39% who say Obama is NOT socialist.
@John Willis – Quinn’s article only proves the truism that we generally see what we’re looking for in others. Prophets have critics, some more than others, but critics can’t diminish a Prophet’s authority. What Benson experienced in life shaped what he taught.
What Hugh B. Brown said about the integrity of political leaders may have been true in his day, although I think he may have been a bit overoptimistic in his assessment, given Watergate just four years later. I’m not so sure it is true now.
I have to agree with some of the comments here regarding the integrity of our political leaders. I think Pres. Brown was a bit too generous with that one. Maybe many politicians in his day were men of integrity, but today, that just simply isn’t the case, and it is all too obvious to see.
I too find it interesting that political extremism, here, is defined primarily in terms of one’s actions and rhetoric, rather than their political positions. Truly trying to understand what political extremism is has been very frustrating for me, because this type of definition leaves me with more questions than answers.
But let me just address a few of your points, MH. As for the tea parties, I personally think they are a good thing. This movement was started in response to over-taxation and wasteful and reckless government spending. Peaceful protests in response to the abuses of government power are a good thing, and this movement has inspired a lot of people to become more actively involved in politics. I don’t see how they are a bad thing at all. Apparently, you see them as an unhealthy extreme. I’m not seeing it. Perhaps you can explain exactly what is extreme about them.
As for Obama trying to destroy the country, well, I kind of have mixed feelings on that one. I don’t want to believe that that’s what he wants or is trying to do, but when I look at what he is doing, I can’t help but wonder.
He, himself, actually said at his inauguration, that he wants to “remake” America. At other times, he’s said he wants to “fundamentally transform” America. To me, that sounds like he wants to change the country into something it isn’t. That is a form of destruction. And when I hear people say that they believe that Obama wants to destroy the country, I don’t believe that they mean he wants to literally wipe it off the face of the earth as the term might suggest, but that he wants to fundamentally alter the country and perhaps destroy certain elements of it in order to bring about the change he seeks. The destruction I see him going for is the destruction of the constitution in order to institute a truly socialist/Marxist form of government.
He has essentially said that, by design, his cap and trade system will bankrupt the coal industry. If that’s not destruction, I don’t know what is.
Just this past Sunday, Erskine Bowles, co-chair of Obama’s debt and deficit commission, said, “If we don’t restore some fiscal sanity around here, as a nation we are going to go broke. I know that’s not a word people like to use, but it happens to be true. We face the most predictable economic crisis in history, and if we stay on automatic pilot, the debt we are accumulating will be like a cancer. It will definitely destroy this country from within.” So according to Erskine Bowles, the crisis we face is a very predictable one. If it is so predictable, I have to wonder how we got into this situation so carelessly. I think we need to assume that Obama and his administration are incompetent, or they don’t care, or they’ve done it intentionally.
There are other examples I can point to, but I don’t want to make this into a debate about Obama. I’m using Obama as an example, but this could be applied to any poitician.
Anyway, I’m not sure why it is a foolish notion to hold the belief that Obama may be trying to destroy the country. And, if by chance, it IS true, then is it considered demonizing, or is it merely pointing out the truth? Maybe it is demonization, but if it’s true, should we just keep our mouths closed and not say anything if we can’t say something nice? In Obama’s case, perhaps we shouldn’t read into his intentions, but I think we can certainly look at his policies and determine whether or not they are destructive to the country and speak specifically to that rather than judging his intentions. Would that be less politically extreme?
I think this has the potential to be my most popular political post ever. I’m already comment #9, and my record is 12! Thanks everyone–I think there are some great comments.
Several of you seem to have taken issue with Brown’s “men of integrity” comment. In 1968, let’s review the past few presidents: Kennedy and Johnson. There were rumors of Kennedy’s womanizing, and I don’t see him as materially different from President Clinton in that department. On the other hand, JFK, and RFK were very ambitious in tackling organized crime–specifically the mafia. JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you….”, his ambitious man on the moon goal, his civil rights stance, and many other positions are to be lauded.
LBJ actually signed the Civil Rights Bill into law, thus splitting the Democratic party into Dixiecrats. LBJ tried to stop the spread of Communism into Vietnam. Say what you will about his effectiveness, but I think the goal was a good goal.
Everyone is full of contradictions. Sometimes we are men of integrity and sometimes we are not. There is a line in the movie “Forrest Gump” where Jenny’s anti-war boyfriend refers to “that lying SOB LBJ”, (kind of reminds me of people referring to Clinton and Bush the liars) yet Brown refers to leaders of the parties as “men of integrity”. So what I get from Brown is that he was looking at the whole character of these men, rather than focusing on issues that he disagreed with. Surely we aren’t always men of integrity 100% of the time. Surely we make decisions that others question. Surely we can probably be referred to as “men of integrity.”
Thanks RWW for pointing out that my definition (and I think Brown’s) is that political extremism is based more on tactics than opinions. All of these Mormons that want to call Obama a socialist don’t seem to understand Mormon History very well. Brigham Young HATED republicans as I mentioned in this post. I don’t believe he would support the modern Republican party at all–this party is the same party that used the military to put down the “Mormon Rebellion” and eliminated polygamy. At the turn of the century, more Mormons in Utah voted for the Socialist Party than the Republican Party. Why? Because the Law of Consecration and United Order are more similar to socialist principles than either the Republican or Democratic parties. So I find such “Obama is a socialist” comments highly ironic coming from Mormon voters.
John Willis–that is fascinating information! I will have to look into this. While I am familiar with some of Pres Benson’s foray into politics as Sec of Agriculture, I had not heard of this offer as a VP candidate with Wallace. That is incredibly interesting, and I’ll have to look into those sources.
Tara, I don’t know much about Tea Parties. After I emailed my sister, she told me more about her group. They invited candidates to discuss issues, and it sounded a bit better than the news media makes it out to be. So, I guess the jury is out for me as to what I think of them. However, they do seem to be a one-issue coalition. While I do agree with them that we need to be more fiscally responsible, the government needs to worry about more than just one issue. I’m afraid looking at issues only thru the lens of fiscal responsibility (while a laudable goal) is a bit like looking at issues with blinders on.
Reagan tried to remake America, and destroyed some democratic sacred cows in the process. Is it appropriate to say Reagan was destroying America? I don’t think so. People elected Obama because they were tired of the Bush years, just as people elected Reagan because we were tired of the Carter years. I see some strong parallels there, and I think these “destroying” comments are harsh propaganda, rather than actual fact. Such language seems extremist to me.
I’m not a big fan of the coal industry. I don’t know if you remember the Crandall Coal Mine disaster here in Utah a year or so ago, but I think the industry needs to better protect workers, and I think coal pollutes too much too. I like Obama’s push for clean and renewable energy. Saving coal workers from dying in coal mine disasters and creating better sources of fuel is a benefit that outweighs the pollution and deaths of miners, IMO. I also think that Obama was pretty pragmatic in pushing for offshore drilling, and he doesn’t get any credit for Republicans for that position. Now that we have the Gulf Oil spill, I don’t think he’s going to get any traction for that position any more. I don’t think Obama deserves all the blame he’s getting in the Gulf oil leak either, just as I don’t think Bush deserved all the blame for Hurricane Katrina. It seems it is easy to point fingers at politicians for natural or man-made disasters for which they are not culpable.
TARA – GLAD YOUR BACK.
I personally like the idea of Tea Parties. My main issue is that they seem to be single-party parties.
I hate the idea of political parties. Wish people could run on their own platform. These Tea Parties seem to be against people that work across party lines. They are considered not conservative enough. That’s what got Bennett ousted. These Tea Parties seem to be creating an even more partisan government than we had before. Maybe I don’t have all the information, but that is my perception.
This thread had drawn some attention on another blog: http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2010/07/benson.html
Thanks for letting me know Steve! That’s cool.
Bishop Rick, I agree. I liked Bob Bennett (much better than Orrin Hatch). It is these Tea Party people that got him ousted at the party convention. That’s another reason I’m uncomfortable with them. Bennett was a guy who worked across party lines to get things accomplished. He had a great approval rating among voters in Utah, yet the party delegates are mad because he actually worked to get legistlation done??? It doesn’t make sense. We talk about a do-nothing Congress, and then get rid of the guy who got something done. Then we’re going to replace him with a more extreme person who vows not to work with Democrats. And you think he’s going to actually accomplish something??? No, his replacement is going to make the do-nothing Congress do even more of nothing beneficial to Utah. I don’t get it.
The Tea Parties are an effect of the extreme partisanship that already exists, rather than its cause. I got into something called the “spatial theory of voting” for some economics research I was doing around 1980. I had to understand a bit about the mathematics of how parties form and displace one another.
In a two party system like ours, it seems that parties exist to magnify the power of the extremes in deciding the candidates and policies from which society chooses. Otherwise, centrist get all the power, and that isn’t good for either extreme. (Parties in this case need not correspond to Republican or Democratic Parties; you can see the effect repeated within each “wing” of the individual party as well, and as the infighting gets more complex, the groups within a party may act like a multiparty system.)
The two party system is stable as long as both parties stay equally far from the median voters’ preferences and the voters’ distribution of preferences doesn’t disperse too far. If the voters themselves become very polarized, the activists will be able to push the parties to greater extremes. When that process goes too far, a third party will try to form in the center. If it draws enough support from both parties, you’d think it would thrive, but what usually happens is that it draws support from one party preferentially. The result then depends on whether the activists of that party are willing to embrace the movement and ride it back to the center; if they do they become the new majority. If they do not they cede power to the other side. However, in either case the centrist party is short-lived as a separate entity.
More rarely, a new issue becomes so salient that the whole political axis shifts (i.e., left and right become up and down). Republicans replace Whigs; Democrats become Dixiecrats become Republicans.
The issue giving rise to the tea parties IS fiscal responsibility, and yes, worrying more about risks than opportunities is a conservative personality trait, so conservatives are disproportionately represented. But remember the old joke: “if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you MAY not understand the nature of the problem”. And that is particularly true if you are drawing your media sources only from opponents and not actually listening to the tea party people themselves.
There is a political site I highly recommend, Real Clear Politics, because it pairs articles from the “left” with articles from the “right”, so that you can see both sides for yourself, and links to a wide variety of domestic and foreign English language news sources and broad polling data.
But to reemphasize my original point, the 55% of Americans who say in a Democratically sponsored poll that Obama’s positions are extreme cannot themselves be considered extreme for holding that view.
MH:
We were both writing at the same time, so I missed reading your last post. The opposition to Obama that has so hardened in the past year is not arguing that Congress does nothing. It is arguing that the country has lurched dramatically to the economic left despite huge opposition, focusing on acquiring government power and achieving an ideological wish list of long term impact without focusing on immediate concerns.
Believe me, the lives of both you, your children, and your grandchildren have been dramatically changed by the laws passed by this Congress. You have to decide whether those changes are likely to be good or bad and whether or not you want more of them. But in the next couple of years you only get to decide between the accelerator or the brake.
MH,
I would’ve thought that Brigham Young would hate the Democrats of today who portray themselves as the civil rights party. 😉 But anyway, the Democrat party of today is not the same Democrat party of the past. The Democrat party used to be much more conservative but has become almost entirely liberal. I would venture to guess that the Republican party has changed in some ways as well. Brigham Young may have hated the Republican party during his time, but I’m sure that most of the church members also did. But look at how things have changed since then. The majority of church members vote Republican. I think it is just as likely that Brigham Young would join the Republican party if he were alive today.
I’ve heard the argument before that socialism resembles the Law of Consecration, but church leaders have also disputed that notion. “Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel plan …. The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies ….” (“Message of the First Presidency,” 112th Annual Conference, April 6, 1942.) Perhaps many members at the turn of the century did view socialism as similar to the united order and felt that maybe it was right. I’m not sure what guidance the church offered at that time. Perhaps there was none.
The tea party movement is not a single-party movement, nor is it a single-issue movement. The tea party movement focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, and upholding the constitution. It has protested TARP, which was signed into law by Bush, so it will oppose Republicans as much as it does Democrats if Republicans go against conservative principles. The Republican party generally advocates for conservative principles, so naturally, the tea parties will tend to be more supportive of them. Just like I am a registered Republican, but I consider myself conservative first, Republican second, and I will oppose a Republican politician who isn’t conservative and support a Democrat who is. I think principles matter more than party.
I also think partisanship _can_ be a good thing. I like it when there is deadlock in congress. It means that fewer liberties are taken away. I love it when they are out of session. I wouldn’t mind tax dollars being used to give them most of the year off.
As for Reagan, I don’t think it’s the same as what Obama is doing. If anything, what Reagan did was to restore America to its founding principles rather than remake it. Obama doesn’t want to restore the country, he wants to move it in a new direction.
Regarding the coal industry, perhaps they do need to better protect their workers, but all that would require are regulations, not the destruction of the industry. And yeah, coal pollutes, but Utah has some of the cleanest burning coal in the world, and under Bill Clinton, that coal was made off-limits when he signed the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
It wouldn’t be such a big deal except for the fact that coal is a major source of energy in this country, and without it, our energy supply would be diminished. We could turn to nuclear power, if we had enough of it, but Democrats have blocked efforts to build additional nuclear power plants. Nothing else is a feasible alternative right now, so while Obama is busy bankrupting the coal industry, we, the individual citizens of this country, will suffer tremendously with skyrocketing energy bills as the search for an alternative energy source is pursued.
And Obama’s so called “push” for off-shore drilling was a ruse. He never intended to pursue it. He just wanted to look as though he was somewhat in favor of energy independence. And the oil spill provided the perfect opportunity for him to renege. Notice he didn’t waste any time imposing his unconstitutional moratorium which was, thankfully, overturned? And what did he do as soon as that moratorium was over-ruled? He shut down 33% of the nation’s oil refining capacity. I’d like to know what that is supposed to be helpful. It’s not. It was a threat to get Cap and Trade or he would shut down everything through the EPA. In the meantime, this will hurt the economy of Texas which is already being hurt by the oil spill itself.
I don’t think Obama deserves any blame for the oil spill, but I do believe he deserves a lot of blame for the lack of leadership he has shown during the clean-up effort. He’s spent most of his time ambulance chasing BP and shaking them down behind closed doors instead of employing all of the country’s resources to help with the clean-up. And when the gulf states take measures to protect their shores from the spill, they are blocked at every turn. Even Democrats (some, at least) seem to agree that this disaster has been severely mismanaged.
But I’d still like to know:
Anyway, I’m not sure why it is a foolish notion to hold the belief that Obama may be trying to destroy the country. And, if by chance, it IS true, then is it considered demonizing, or is it merely pointing out the truth? Maybe it is demonization, but if [the accusation is] true, should we just keep our mouths closed and not say anything if we can’t say something nice? In Obama’s case, perhaps we shouldn’t read into his intentions, but I think we can certainly look at his policies and determine whether or not they are destructive to the country and speak specifically to that rather than judging his intentions. Would that be less politically extreme?
Thanks Bishop Rick. Glad to be back. I check in on occasion to see what’s up, but the topics almost always deal with things I know little to nothing about, so I haven’t found much opportunity to comment. And I don’t check in often enough, and when I do, I don’t have a lot of time to browse, so I probably miss some good topics. MH alerted me to this one, as he sometimes does, so that’s why I’m here.
I’d like to know what that is supposed to be helpful.
In this sentence, “what” should be “how”.
I have to second Fire Tag’s recommendation of Real Clear Politics. I don’t visit the site often enough, but I think it does present a more balanced approach than you’re likely to find anywhere else.
I also want to add something about energy policy. I came to Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in the Washington area fresh out of grad school years ago just in time for the gas lines from the Arab Oil Embargo during the ’73 Arab invasion of Israel. I was almost immediately assigned to help the Maryland Energy and Coastal Zone Administration implement policies toward siting power plants (whether coal, nuclear, or natural gas) within the state, and shortly thereafter I helped a special committee convened by the Speaker of the Maryland House to assess the environmental impacts of possible leasing for natural gas drilling off the Mid Atlantic Coast in a geologic area known as the Baltimore Canyon Trough. A year later I became a staff assistant for a blue ribbon panel appointed by the Governor to develop policy toward nuclear power in the state.
In these roles, I attended a lot of public hearings in every part of what is a gighly diverse (culturally) state. What struck me then was that people wanted ro be protected from harm, but not at the expense of being able to provide for their families. There was little patience even then with politicians (and academics) who promised to change a way of life they hadn’t bothered to understand.
I stayed involved in energy conservation and environmental remediation for almost two decades, usually at the Federal level. I saw the Federal government spend vast amounts of money on new energy technologies, but little of that money actually resulted in new energy savings or energy sources. I give you the Syn Fuels program as an example; the government chose winners and losers on bases that had more to do with buying votes than producing energy, and that was true regardless of whether the Administration was democratic or republican or who was the majority in Congress.
The push toward wind, solar, biofuels, etc. are all subject to the same political dynamic, and have been since the Ford and Carter administrations.
@FireTag
Everything you described about party politics and survival tactics is spot on. IMO this is part of the problem. Parties are more concerned with survival than accomplishment. If I were in charge, I would eliminate parties altogether. There are good and bad in all parties. Candidates should be free to stand on their own beliefs.
I also agree that the Tea Parties are a result of partisanship, but they do nothing to eleviate the problem, and only add gas to the flame. Someone should start a Tea Party against partisanship.
BR:
The Republican Party was formed to end partisanship. Unfortunately, it put its first person “in charge” in 1860, and we know how that turned out. What’s that scripture in the BofM about being hard to get unrighteous kings out of power because their friends will help them stay in?
Banning parties, in practice, is only done by dictators. In fact, it is done all too often by dictators, and in the 20th and 21st Centuries, that process can happen remarkably fast, particularly in times of economic crisis or wars of survival.
Mormon Heretic —
Gary on the No Death Before the Fall is being highly misleading. I have sent him several messages and he is censoring all of them because they should that Benson was seriously off-base in his 1960s political speeches.
First, he claimed you didn’t know what you were talking about when you said Benson opposed the civil rights movement. That is completely false.
Benson on December 14, 1963, in Logan at a John Birch Society meeting, according to the Desert News, claimed that the civil rights movement was “formatted almost entirely by the Communists”.
In October conference in 1967, he said: “First of all, we must not place blame on the Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans–black or white–really understands the full implications of today’s civil-rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.”
This, of course, was beyond ludicrous. Many other general authorities — President Hugh B. Brown and Joseph Fielding Smith, specifically — thought these claims were just wrong-headed.
Second, Gary is using Benson quotes backing the wacky John Birch Society. The Society, ironically, is a secret society organized (according to its founder John Welch) along the lines of a Communist infiltration group: secret membership and leadership (mostly), manipulating the public and public officials and press, etc.
Mainstream conservatives have denounced the John Birch Society as dangerous and outside the American mainstream. Some of the most prominent opponents were Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley.
National Review, the leading conservative magazine in the U.S., specifically read the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement in a pair of key articles in 1965:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=YzM0ODg0YTEyNzhkM2RjNGQzOTY5ODI5MWVkZjk3NWI=&w=MQ==
http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=NTllNmI2NTY1NWI4Y2YxYWQ5NmNhYThkN2Q0MzdiZTk=&w=Mw==
Mormon Heretic, as you stated on Gary’s blog, President Benson was pretty different than the wacky Benson of the 1960s who was opposed by his own brethren.
The sad thing is that the old, discredited Benson quotes are used today by political ultra-rightists. It is plain embarrassing.
Steve, my anonymous friend, at least you now have a name. I noticed you were quite a bit more civil in your comment on this blog than you were in the comment you submitted to me. Please refer to my comment above and substitute the words “Steve’s comment” in place of the words “Quinn’s article.” I became aware of the point of view you represent in 1971. I’ve researched it from every angle for nearly 40 years. Here is what I’ve decided.
The general officers of the Mormon Church do a lot of traveling. They regularly see much of the world as they meet with Church members around the globe.
But with Ezra Taft Benson there was an important difference; he did something most Mormon leaders do not do. He traveled the world as a political leader. From 1939 until 1960, he conducted official business with the kings and rulers of this world and worked closely with our own country’s leaders in Washington. All over the world, he knew them by name. And they knew him.
Any man with Ezra Taft Benson’s patriotism and experience, deserves our careful attention. Considering his stature as a statesman-Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson’s political viewpoint should be important to all of us.
Then call me a dictator, because that would be my first act. Second would be term limits.
BR:
And after your wonderfully enlightened dictatorship, what happens? The Romans set up the dictatorship to solve crises that required exempting the normal partisan checks and balances; the Romans even had duplicate office holders who both had to agree to any course of action.
The first dictator gave back the power and retired to resume farming. The second turned the Republic into a hereditary Empire that built its glory on even greater brutality toward non-Roman citizens.
I’ll back you on term limits, though. The military works well on an up-or-out officer corps, but you have to remember that such actions transfer power to faceless and unaccountable bureaucratic staff as well.
Gary,
Benson was asked by President Eisenhower to be Secretary of Agriculture. His role was to reinsert market forces in agriculture after the New Deal’s heavy hand. In that, I think he did a fine job.
But, after leaving Washington, D.C., he took a dark turn and embraced the John Birch Society, a pretty bizarre secret society. And, that upset many of the brethren.
Once he returned from Europe, his tone was different. And, as prophet, it is hard to fault his devotion to the Book of Mormon.
But, you and others use his 1960s material to justify your own support of ultra-right politics. And, that is open to harsh, direct criticism.
Let’s lay out a few of the items that the John Birch Society advocated and Benson gave support to during that period:
* Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, wrote a book called The Politician where he claimed Eisenhower was a communist supporter/agent. Benson spoke in favor of the book. That claim was absolutely disgusting. President Eisenhower had led Allied forces against Hitler and played a key role in standing up to the Soviets. He was a fierce advocate for freedom. This crazy charge really hurt Eisenhower personally. He once asked the President of BYU: “What happened to Ezra?”
* The John Birch Society and Benson advocated, as you noted earlier, the book by Gary Allen called None Dare Call It Conspiracy. It claimed the world was secretly controlled by a group of insiders, mostly Jewish bankers. It was based on another book that made no such claim. The author of the source book was furious for this misrepresentation and actively denounced the claims of Allen.
* The John Birch Society/Benson pushed another book by Cleon Skousen called the Naked Capitalist which was just as flimsy. Again, it was based on a total distortion of the material of the book used as a primary source. It wasn’t a forgery but was as false as one.
* The John Birch Society smeared the entire civil rights movement claiming it was a communist front. Benson repeated that theme several times. It was an utter lie and an affront to all those who fought to expand opportunities for those of color.
* The John Birch Society/Benson both spoke highly of both George Wallace, the Alabama segregationist, and Strom Thurmond, his South Carolina counterpart. Both “gentlemen” were dark stains on our country’s history.
* The John Birch Society/Benson claimed that the U.S. government and state & local government were heavily infiltrated by and controlled by the communists and other conspiratorial elements. That was an insult to many good men and women and is what provoked President Hugh B. Brown’s direct rebuttal.
The reason I am being so direct and harsh is that the John Birch Society and Benson’s 1960s embrace were deeply flawed. I think Benson got beyond that diversion on his part. But, many ultra-rightists (and, I believe you are one of him) still use the statements of this period to justify your support for extremism today. And, that, is worthy of direct, forceful confrontation.
Steve and R Gary, I appreciate your comments. However, since R Gary’s post deals more with President Benson’s remarks specifically, let’s all continue that conversation over there. I have a few things to add, but I don’t want to detract from the point of the post here about political extremism. I’ll be over shortly to add my 2 cents to Pres Benson and Civil Rights.
Wow, this has been a fast moving conversation for a guy who has limited time to check his own blog. There are so many excellent comments. This is definitely my best political discussion ever! It’s hard to reply to all the comments, but let me address Tara first.
Anyway, I’m not sure why it is a foolish notion to hold the belief that Obama may be trying to destroy the country. And, if by chance, it IS true, then is it considered demonizing, or is it merely pointing out the truth?
Tara, once again it seems we have a different idea of what “destroy the country” means. My idea of destroy the country has to do with dismantling the military, or attacking the citizens. Clearly Obama is not doing that.
Now, Obama is trying to turn America in the direction he thinks it should go. You are free to disagree. If you think health care reform is making our country less secure, by all means you should say that. Frankly, I am greatly worried about the cost of the health care plan, and it is important to consider. Obama’s plan is VERY similar to Mitt Romney’s health care plan. In Utah, 90% of Republicans (that’s a good majority of Mormons) voted for Romney in the Utah primary.
For Utahns to call Obama a socialist (in derision) and yet proclaim how they love Mitt Romney seems a bit of a partisan attack, rather than one based on facts. As I’ve mentioned this to my Tea Party inlaws, they now seem to distance themselves from Romney, but 2 years ago, they were falling over themselves in support of Romney. It seems extremely hypocritical to me. I’ve never heard anyone refer to Romney as a socialist, but it sure seems in vogue to call Obama a socialist. Something doesn’t smell right here. When I mentioned this to my inlaws, they denied voting for Romney, which is completely ridiculous.
Maybe it is demonization, but if [the accusation is] true, should we just keep our mouths closed and not say anything if we can’t say something nice?
Are you willing to say that Romney is destroying the country? Did Romney destroy Massachusetts? If you’re not willing to make those remarks about Romney, then I don’t think the remarks about Obama are fair either. I think there is much partisan hypocrisy on this issue. But to answer your question, nobody should keep their mouths shut, but sometimes their mouths are so wide open that they can’t keep their eyes open to the facts. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” I think many of the partisan rhetoric could follow that advice much better.
In Obama’s case, perhaps we shouldn’t read into his intentions, but I think we can certainly look at his policies and determine whether or not they are destructive to the country and speak specifically to that rather than judging his intentions. Would that be less politically extreme?
Yes, I have absolutely no problem with thoughtful disagreement. It’s the name calling “socialist”, “liar” rhetoric that I have a problem with. Make no mistake–I am concerned about health care reform. However President Bush signed the biggest budget breaker with the Prescription Drug care program, but nobody is calling him a socialist. I see some hypocrisy going on here.
As for nuclear power, I have a big bone to pick with that. Here’s the big problem with nuclear power: the waste is toxic. Where does everyone want to send the waste? To Utah and Nevada. Yes I have a big problem with that.
Tara, I know you don’t live in Utah, so you’re probably not familiar with the atomic bomb tests of the 1940’s and 50’s in southern Nevada. The government lied and said the tests were completely safe. Radiation fell over southern Utah, and many people have been afflicted with cancer. Now the federal government wants to send radioactive waste to Utah and Nevada. If you want nuclear power, you take care of your own waste. Don’t send it to Utah. We’ve dealt with radioactive fall out, and I don’t want it here. Let’s not forget Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island: I would say the health effects are probably worse than this oil gusher in the gulf (but perhaps not.) Suffice it to say, I’ve got some issues with nuclear energy, but my point is this. If you want to have nuclear power in your state, fine. But don’t send your garbage to Utah. We’re not America’s dumping ground. Jim Matheson fully represents my position on this issue, (better than any Republican in the state), and he also has the highest approval rating here. Coincidence? I think not.
Tara, Consecration and United Order weren’t completely voluntary. Click this link: the bottom 2 posts deal with some of the tougher parts of Consecration. I admire the early saints committment to Consecration, but frankly the United Order IS socialism, and much worse than anything we’ve seen from Obama. There was coercion. (See the pants episode.) Finally, your comment about Obama’s offshore drilling “ruse” illustrates my point nicely–no Republican gives him any credit.
Bishop Rick and FireTag, excellent comments. I feel like I agree with both of you. Yes partisanship sucks, but I don’t want BR as a dictator. 🙂 FireTag illustrates the problems well. I am in total agreement about term limits. I almost feel like we need a citizen initiative to pass this, because Congress will never impose it on itself. We need to have no more Robert Byrds, Ted Kennedys, Strom Thurmonds, or Orrin Hatchs in congress. Let some new blood in.
FT, the current party system makes it impossible for someone to run as an independent. On the extremely rare occasion where someone is successful, it is because they were a known commodity in one of the major parties for years. A newcomer would not have a chance. All of your Dictator/Roman rhetoric does not sway my deeply rooted opinions regarding our failed, biased, partisan party system. Besides, eliminating a failed system is hardly the act of a dictator.
My third move would be to eliminate lobbyists with a beltway background. Our government is rife with corruption. These 3 moves would go a long way to righting that sinking ship.
I would also eliminate the ability to place non-related pork-barrel projects onto bills. Some people think re-instituting the line item veto gives too much power to the president. Ok, fine, then eliminate the need for a line item veto.
These are the types of issues that should be addressed by Tea Parties…not whether someone’s voting record was conservative enough.
A point to consider . .
Many are frustrated with our political system.
But, is it possible that the Founders designed it to do pretty much what we have?
Their primary fear was too-powerful government. So, they designed a system that made it hard to accomplish virtually anything. It is meant to create gridlock. It is meant to do little. It is meant to dissolve into disputes that clog the system up.
The ability of the Obama Administration to move legislation it wants of the scope it has proposed is pretty rare. It requires a President of the same part as that controlling both houses. And, the numbers in the House & Senate have to both be significant.
What we have seen the past year plus is rare. And, the system will probably compensate by giving the Republicans many victories in November.
My bottom line is that the Founders really didn’t care about efficient government. They wanted it to be frustrating, slow and easy to bog down.
I think the goal of the founding fathers was to create 3 branches with equal power. If they had to give up efficient government to achieve that, they were willing. Doesn’t mean that was the original desire. Government was much simpler then. It has bloated out of control since. I can’t imagine the founders had that in mind.
BR:
“…the current party system makes it impossible for someone to run as an independent.”
I pretty much agree, subject to the kind of party replacement scenarios I outlined in an earlier comment. But I think that’s my point as well. We can’t get to that ideal outcome from here, so it is wothwhile trying to focus on the actual choices we can make right now. That’s “brakes” or “accelerator”, because it will currently take 290 house votes and 60 votes held by Republicans in the Senate to reverse the policies Democrats have already forced into place in the last 18 months. So no reversal is going to happen while Obama holds office.
Bush may have driven the economy into a ditch, but the guy we hired to replace him has just driven the tow truck of government into the ditch as well. This story may have a happy ending, but the middle is going to hurt a lot.
Correction, 67 votes in the Senate (to override vetoes).
Steve, I think you’re right on the money. The founders purposely made changes to the Constitution difficult, they didn’t want a strong central authority, but preferred that government be controlled primarily by the states. It worked pretty well until the Civil War, when the federal government stepped in to solve the slavery issue. Sarah Baringer Gordon discussed these changes in ‘The Mormon Question’, and I think you’re spot on. The government took further power over states in regulating polygamy, and they have been gaining more and more power ever since. Teddy Roosevelt was the first trust buster, and Eisenhower gave us our interstate highways, so government can have a positive role in shaping America, but it’s not always positive.
I agree with Bishop Rick that the founding fathers were willing to give up efficient government to achieve balance between the 3 branches of government.
Regarding 3rd party candidates, I think Ross Perot was pretty successful in 1992. Were it not for some real mismanagement on his part, I think he could have potentially won the election.
In the history of 3rd parties, there have been quite some successes. Let’s not forget that George Washington was a Federalist. Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd party candidate Republican (which replaced the Whig party), so our country has a history of 3rd party successes. Teddy Roosevelt was pretty successful with his Bull Moose party (though he ended up giving Wilson the election by splitting the Republican vote.) The Dixiecrat party was pretty successful. Strom Thurmond won 2.4% of the vote and 4 states in 1948 (Perot won 18% in 1992, and skunked Pres Clinton in Utah) so I think a 3rd party could be a viable option, but it will take a skilled politician such as Lincoln to pull it off.
MH:
You made several comments about Utahans and Mormons calling Obama socialist as a form of demonization. I don’t understand the point. If every Mormon in the country disagreed with the contention that Obama was a socialist, it would only change the poll data I noted above from 55-39 calling him socialist to about 53-41 at most. So you really need to ask yourself who are the other 53%. You might even find that there are more than a trivial number of people on both coasts who think “socialist” is a badge of honor, which is why Mao and Che T-shirts are considered avant garde without understanding the association with mass murder those garments imply.
Fair point FireTag. I guess I find the “socialist” label coming from Mormons especially upsetting, but the socialist label bothers me period. If we ignore the Mormons for a moment on this issue, I think the vast majority of people that call Obama a socialist are Republican, yet they don’t call Bush a socialist for his Prescription drug plan, and they don’t call Romney a socialist for his Universal Health plan in Massachusetts. It seems like a bit of a double standard to me. Frankly, if we’re going to call anyone that expanded the federal government as a socialist, then I guess Ronald Reagan must be a socialist too. He spent money like crazy too (but blamed it on the Democrats.)
Republicans have been working on Health Care reform too, but it seems like the socialist label is more sour grapes because they didn’t accomplish Health Care Reform on their terms. We all know we need health care reform–the real question is how to pay for it and keep costs down. Pres Bush expanded the Prescription drug plan and ballooned the deficit. He deserves the socialist label too.
A note about nuclear waste. A few years ago I was called in to help with technical editing for environmental and safety documents for the Nevada burial site for power reactor waste. (I was given the task because of my earlier experience with the Maryland Governors’ Policy Panel and years of working on remediation of the nuclear weapons complex.) My job was to trace back every technical requirement in the design to specific regulations imposed by the government at the insistance of safety and environmental stakeholders. So I had to read hundreds of pages of design details and applicable regulations.
I had a unique experience of finding myself ROFLOL! The regulations were so excessive that requiring all cars to be able to protect humans from sabre tooth tiger attack would have been more sensible by comparison. I am not kidding: they were requiring that the containers be safe even if the mountain became an erupting volcano, or if, long after the collapse of human civilization, some new species managed to drill into the exact spot hundreds of meters underground. As Butch said to Sundance, “You idiot, the fall will probably kill you.”
Radiation would be a better argument against coal mining than the waste site. Mountain building brings up radioactive materials from the deep earth, which then washes down in all sediments and gets buried in the coal deposits (and everything else). That’s why many parts of the country have to test for radon gas building up in their basements.
There are many important environmental issues we need to deal with. Disposal of reactor waste shouldn’t need to be one of them. Politics again.
FireTag, you’re definitely more of an expert on nuclear energy than me, but I emphatically state again. Those that want nuclear power should take care of their own waste. Don’t send it to Utah or Nevada! You made it, you clean it up.
Your point about Bush would be correct, except that Fascism also involves expanding government control of the economy, and Bush’s opponents preferred to call him that label. Nobody cares about extremists that don’t seek power; they can do harm only in their immediate circles — which is why problems of domestic abuse, for example, don’t get more consideration at the societal level. The extremists from either side of the political spectrum DO seek political power, and that is what makes their extremism dangerous.
The political elites have created a situation like an old Far Side cartoon. There’s a family on a beach with bears in the woods and sharks in the water. The sharks are telling the family to run away from the bears and come into the water; the bears are telling the family to run away from the sharks and come into the woods. If the family doesn’t want to be eaten, they’d better close up ranks together and move sideways along that beach until they get far away from both bears and sharks.
If the nuclear waste stays out of Utah and Nevada, should the electricity being generated stay out of Utah, too. In other words, do you want Utah to cut itself off from the national grid? How about independence from oil and petrochemicals like plastics, or do you want Utah to make that out of coal? I don’t think you’re being logical here because you are assigning unrealistically high risks to nuclear power compared to the risks of other energy sources, and do not know how much radiation you are exposed to through everyday activities.
FireTag, there are some real battles out here about water and Hydroelectric power. Much of the power that California gets comes from Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona. So they take our water and our power, and want to give us nuclear waste in return? Sounds like a bad trade to me–no thanks.
And another thing–how many people have received cancer from electricity? How many from atomic bomb blasts?
Just a sidenote — there is a sea change happening in the area of nuclear energy.
In the past, U.S. nuclear reactors were very large units and the storage has been a real struggle.
But, that may be about to change.
The real area of innovation is now small nuclear reactors. Some are about the size of a hot tub, have no moving parts and can’t melt down or be used by terrorists for nefarious purposes. These units are estimates to cost about $25 million and provide power for about 20,000 homes. Safer, smaller and more economical. Pretty cool. One of the leaders is Hyperion out of New Mexico but many other players are developing similar products.
Best of all, the U.S. is about to embrace reprocessing. That is when spent nuclear fuel is stripped of the usable fuel (which is recycled into new fuel) and the remnants are smaller in volume and easier to deal with responsibly. That is the same approach that the French and most other countries use.
MH — I noticed that Gary shut you down . . join the club. Like all ultras, he doesn’t want any discussion of the 1960s Benson statements. Because that would undermine their justification for their own beliefs. I still think it is very important to make it clear how out of the mainstream those statements were to prevent other members from innocently following them.
Ah. You connect nuclear power with bomb blasts. ARMOSPHERIC TESTING of nuclear weapons did produce cancer cases, which is why it was banned by treaty. That’s what the huge mushroom clouds you see in all of the movies come from. Underground testing hasn’t had that record.
I don’t know how many people have received cancer from electricity, but I certainly know that large numbers of people have died producing electricity — regardless of source. There were on the order of 100 deaths during the construction of Hoover dam itself. (Workers dais many more.)
California is likely to be asking for your Federal tax dollars in a Federal bailout before too long as well as your water, if Illinois or New York don’t get to the money first.
On the matter of Romney-care’s actual impacts, Robert Samuelson has a relevant article in today’s Washington Post reprinted here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/19/obamacares_future_foretold_106358.html
I think you draw a false equivalence between the Tea Party and MoveOn based on a false premise. MoveOn never referred to Bush, or anyone else, as being worse than Hitler.
My idea of destroy the country has to do with dismantling the military, or attacking the citizens. Clearly Obama is not doing that.
Actually, Obama’s stated goal is to dimantle the military. An article in this link gives an analysis of Obama’s goal.
But I agree that our definitions of destroying the country are probably different. And that’s okay, as long as we know that up front.
As for Mitt Romney, he didn’t make it to the NC primary election, but I would’ve voted for him if he had. Not because he was my first choice, but because he was the best choice of all the candidates left in the race. I didn’t then, nor do I now, care much for Mitt’s health care program in Massachussetts. But that’s something we could’ve dealt with, and I think enough of the Republican party wouldn’t have been supportive of it when the issue came up in congress.
But with regard to the label of socialist as applied to Obama, yeah, maybe Romney’s health care program could be labeled as socialist. However, Obama’s goal is to get to single-payer. That would be truly socialist. That wasn’t Romney’s goal. In addition, I don’t think that Romney tried to gain state control of industry and banking in Massachussetts as Obama has done with the auto industry and banking in the US. That is truly socialist.
I am certainly willing to say that Romney is NOT destroying the country. He isn’t president, nor is he an elected US official, so he really can’t do anything to destroy the country. Did he destroy Massachusetts? Well, I believe that his health care program has turned out to be detrimental to the fiscal health of Massachusetts, but I don’t know how much of that has been Romney’s actual doing, or if the program has been mismanaged since his departure from office there. I’ve heard statements from him to that effect, but I don’t know enough about it to make a decision either way. I do know though, that the Massachusetts legislature ammended Romney’s plan. But I will say that I am less likely to be supportive of him as a presidential candidate because of this and because of some other things he’s done since his first presidential bid. But to call him socialist simply because of his health care program is not fair, just as it would not be fair to judge someone as being without integrity because of one mistake or misdeed in their life. There just isn’t enough in Romney’s record to judge him as a socialist. Obama, on the other hand, has the socialist credentials, and he has surrounded himself with socialists all his life, so I think it is fair to call him a socialist.
It’s the name calling “socialist”, “liar” rhetoric that I have a problem with.
Why do you have trouble calling someone a socialist? If you know enough about what a socialist is, and you see that someone’s policies are primarily socialist policies, why not call a spade a spade? And if someone tells lies repeatedly, why is it wrong to deem that person a liar? I wouldn’t call someone a liar just because I didn’t like their policies. I would call someone a liar because the repeatedly lie and I see nothing wrong with that. And Obama has lied repeatedly.
In his campaign, he said he had never heard Rev. Wright’s controversial remarks. Yet in his own book, Obama quotes some of Rev. Wright’s controversial remarks. LIE! In a 2008 presidential debate, Obama said, “I do provide a mandate for children, because we have created programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. BUT WE DON’T WANT TO PUT ADULTS IN A SITUATION IN WHICH, ON THE FRONT END, WE ARE MANDATING THEM, WE ARE FORCING THEM TO PURCHASE INSURANCE, AND IF THE SUBSIDIES ARE INADEQUATE, THE BURDEN IS ON THEM, AND THEY WILL BE PENALIZED. And that is what Sen. Clinton’s plan does.” Well, obviously, his current plan does mandate adult coverage. LIE! He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on people making under $250,000 a year. Yet he has signed the tobacco tax into law, as well as the tanning bed tax. Most people who smoke or use tanning beds make under $250,000 a year. Plus, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire this year, and Obama has not done anything to extend them. That is essentially a tax increase. LIE! For the record, here is what Obama said to the American people at a town hall in New Hampshire on Tuesday, August 11, 2009. “I have not said that I was a single payer supporter.” Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, Aug 11, 2009. Compare that to what he said while campaigning for the Senate to his union supporters, and was cheered while so doing:”I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.” – Barack Hussein Obama, June 30, 2003 to AFL-CIO. More evidence of this lieLIE! Obama promised to give American’s 5 days to look at the health care bill before signing it. Unless Sunday – Tuesday is somehow 5 days, I call that another LIE! He also promised to televise the health care debate on C-SPAN. That didn’t happen, and the president of C-SPAN said he would’ve gladly put it on C-SPAN, but he was never invited to. LIE! Obama said that his uncle was in Auschwitz to liberate the concentration camp. That was blatantly false, since it was Russian forces who liberated Auschwitz, and he never even had an uncle serve in the Army. LIE! During Obama’s presidential campaign, he said the only involvement he had with ACORN was some legal work in the justice department. But during his Senate term, he said he’s always been a partner with ACORN. LIE! Even Democrats are calling Obama a liar. But they are nice and call him a “charming liar” at least. Here are a few more LIES just for fun.
President Bush signed the biggest budget breaker with the Prescription Drug care program, but nobody is calling him a socialist. I see some hypocrisy going on here.
I don’t like a lot of things Bush did domestically. He certainly wasn’t very conservative on some issues. But I wouldn’t call him a socialist. I think the more easily the term is applied, the less meaning it actually has. If we called everyone who created a government program a socialist, then I suppose most politicians would be considered socialists. Some of Bush’s policies could be considered socialist, but he didn’t try to nationalize the economy and industry as Obama has. Nor did he state as a goal, the destruction of any industry in order to achieve his political ends.
As for nuclear power, I have a big bone to pick with that. Here’s the big problem with nuclear power: the waste is toxic. Where does everyone want to send the waste? To Utah and Nevada. Yes I have a big problem with that.
That’s fine. I’m not necessarily advocating for nuclear power. I only said that that’s one of the few sources of “real” energy that we have available to us. New nuclear is banned, and fossil fuels are the target for destruction. So when Obama does what he plans and bankrupts the coal industry, it is the individual citizens who will pay the price. This is just another way to tax us (because the costs will most certainly be passed to the consumer) and it will make the coal industry look like the bad guy. And I predict that when or if this happens, the coal industry will be made into a villain by the political left for their “massive profits” on the backs of the poor.
Tara, Consecration and United Order weren’t completely voluntary.
I don’t recall saying that it was completely voluntary. But anyway, I do believe that it is. It is a requirement of a faithful Saint. But no one is forced to live it. Can we say the same of socialist government? Certainly not. Unless one is able to leave the country for another country not under socialist rule, then one must live by the laws of socialism.
Finally, your comment about Obama’s offshore drilling “ruse” illustrates my point nicely–no Republican gives him any credit.
I’ll give him credit on offshore drilling when he actually does what he says he will do. I just don’t see how we can give a politician credit for words that aren’t turned into actions. The truth is, Obama’s supposed support for offshore drilling was a political tactic to mollify swing voters into supporting a cap and trade bill. “The Los Angeles Times, citing administration officials, summed up the four biggest elements of the plan: Eventually open two-thirds of the eastern Gulf’s oil and gas resources for drilling. Proceed with drilling off Virginia, provided the project clears environmental and military reviews. Study the viability of drilling off the mid- and southern Atlantic coasts. Study the viability of drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas — areas hotly defended by environmentalists.” It’s convenient that all of these provisions has an out.
Sure, but MoveOn didn’t make them, it was a public contest with more than 1500 videos submitted. And they didn’t just remove them, they repudiated them and made public statements denouncing that view and declared they would increase their screening efforts to make sure that it didn’t happen again – and it hasn’t. That reaction seems like a legitmate response to an isolated incident, doesn’t it?
You seem to be saying that this was not an honest mistake, but, if it was, how could they have reacted differently to convince you?
I know that MoveOn didn’t make them, but they allowed them to be posted. They informed potential ad makers that “we’re not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television.” So apparently there was a screening process invovled. Unless they didn’t screen any videos, we have to assume that they didn’t see a problem with the videos. And apparently there were two “isolated” incidences, because there were 2 bush/hitler videos that made it into the contest, which lessens the likelihood that it was just an isolated incident. The comparisons were quite obvious in the video, so I’m not sure how they made it through the screening process.
In addition, George Soros, who is MoveOn’s primary donor, compared Bush to Hitler in a Washington Post interview. Also, one of the finalists of the contest also created a video which compares Bush to Hitler. Plus, two of the judges selected by MoveOn to choose the video winners have also made Bush/Hitler comparisons.
In light of all this, I think it is fair to assume that the two Bush/Hitler ads are a fairly accurate representation of the MoveOn view of Bush.