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 
The point I was making was that MH’s premise that MoveOn.org said anything like “George W. Bush is worse than Hitler” is a false one. I don’t think you’ve disagreed with that, but reitterated my statement that the videos were submitted by outside sources (not a MoveOn.org statement), were 2 of among more than 1500, were removed, and MoveOn issued a statement saying they did not agree with the content of the videos and that they would strengthen their internal controls to make sure this didn’t happen.
If indeed they do hold a secret belief that is contrary to their public statements, based on your 7 degrees exercise, I still don’t think harboring a secret and silent belief qualifies as “stating” that Bush is worse than Hitler.
Oh, and Soros didn’t really compare Bush to Hitler (and certainly didn’t say he was worse) rather indicated that the national supremecy statements from the government echoed those of the German govt. Hardly a rhetorical superlative designed to enflame.
MH, your list of successful 3rd party candidates is pretty lack luster. You can’t really count Washington. When he was elected president, there weren’t any parties (Federalist Party was created by Hamilton during his first term). Plus he didn’t even want the position, and didn’t want to run again for a second term. If you discount him, all you have is Lincoln. Lincoln was a great man, but his sole victory hardly supports how successful all the other losers were.
Tara, you should consider breaking up your comments so they are not so long. Everyone can be called a liar, including you and me. Joseph Smith lied about polygamy, and certainly concealed the truth on multiple occasions. Are you comfortable calling him a liar?
The whole liar thing seems a bit tit for tat. Republicans all said Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinsky. I agree that he did. So democrats in a tit for tat and called Bush a liar concerning the Iraq War. Now republicans are tit for tat with Obama. Really, I think the whole liar bit is political mudslinging. That’s why I’m tired of it. Everybody is a liar.
Chicken, I’m not sure who this comment is directed at, but I think it was me: “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.”
I don’t recall making an equivalence between them other than to say they are more extreme than i would like. I didn’t say anything about MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler–perhaps they did, perhaps they didn’t–whatever. Certainly there were lots of people comparing Bush’s invasion in Iraq as “Hitleresque” and I wasn’t pointing to any specific organization. Now the Republicans are comparing Obama to Hitler. It all seems tit for tat, and frankly seems adolescent. Can’t we grow up and discuss these issues without all the name calling and partisanship? It doesn’t appear so.
I’m tired of the tit for tat mudslinging. Let’s talk about issues. Is health care reform too expensive? Yes. Is it terrible that some people can’t get insurance? Yes. Let’s do something about both problems. Cut the socialist, liar, Hitler, communist crap and come up with a solution. This name calling is polarizing and unproductive. Give me health care. Make a good solution about immigration. Have good energy policy. Get rid of Al Quaida. Make America safe. Balance the Budget. This is what we should be talking about. Cut the rest of the BS. It doesn’t help.
It’s ok to disagree here. Frankly, I really enjoy FireTag, Tara, Chicken, Steve, and Bishop Rick’s presence here because you all don’t agree with everything I say. You make me think. You’re generally thoughtful in your disagreement. This is what the world needs–thoughtful discussion. It makes for better solutions.
But the partisanship liar, socialist stuff is ridiculous. Disagree with me on nuclear policy, that’s fine. Let me know there are better nuclear reactors. I’m glad to hear it. But don’t be surprised that I’m a bit skeptical. The Titanic was never supposed to sink either.
The World Trade Centers were built to withstand a small plane crash. Nobody imagined a jetliner would crash into them and bring them down. FireTag has often said that physicists have to think really radically, so if a volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain released radioactivity, then I think it’s great that people are thinking ahead. I guarantee that the new World Trade Centers will be built to withstand a jet crash now. I’m glad that these nuclear scientists are thinking outside the box now. Frankly, they’ve thought inside the box too much, and it has harmed public health.
For heavens sake, we can’t keep out Health Workers safe. Pharmacists mix radioactive medicines and end up getting cancer themselves. See this article from July 8: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38174717/ns/health-cancer/
And you want me to believe that bathtub nuclear reactors are as safe as a gasoline powered engine? I don’t think so. Yes I am skeptical of these claims, because we seem to continually underestimate radioactivity. The soviets have had 2 nuclear sub accidents. Harrison Ford starred in “The Widowmaker”, and in 2000, the Russian sub Kursk sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea, and leaked underwater radiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_K-141_Kursk
No, I’m not enamored with anybody’s safety record when it comes to nuclear safety.
I guess I should have split up my last comment–it’s too long. Oh well, I am a hypocrite, just like everyone else. 😉
MH —
I understand your skepticism on small nuclear reactors. My understanding is that the key is that the nuclear materials are embedded in the structure which means they can’t be accessed by terrorists nor can they meltdown. Basically, they are designed to shutdown if not running.
President Obama’s Secretary of Energy has spoken favorably of the concept in congressional testimony.
Here is a link to one of the key companies developing the technology: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
What intrigues me is that the modular nature means that it will be relatively easy to add capacity and cleanup means shipping the unit from its site.
Judging from the response to this post, maybe you should change your name to Political Heretic.
The Russians lost 2 nukes, and they leaked. The point is, so what? Again, you fail to appreciate how much radioactivity you are actually exposed to in daily life. You live in Utah at what elevation? You have exposure to gamma and beta radiation coming in from the sun. Do you plan to move to the southeast to get more shielding from the atmosphere? And you don’t want to be taking airline trips at 30,000 feet to go attend history conferences. Not at all worth the extra dose. The appropriate line may be from Men in Black: “Kid, there’s ALWAYS an Aurellian battle cruiser overhead. The only way people get on with their safe little lives is that they just don’t know.” 😀
I was handling radioactive sources when I was an undergrad, so I just don’t have the fear of them that many people do. I’m far more likely to get sick from carelessly taking my insulin twice without realizing it.
Steve, I forgot to comment about our friend R Gary. Wow, I can’t believe he censored my comment–there was only 1 sentence he deemed worthy to publish (and I ended my post praising Benson as a prophet, and discussing a really cool experience when I met Benson at the MTC.) Wow, I’ve never seen such a control freak on a blog. Whatever. I plan to review Greg Prince’s book on the David O McKay biography in a few months, and I am sure I will discuss President Benson’s political views in full–without censorship and without R Gary’s whitewashing. I’m sure R Gary isn’t going to like my well documented sources, but he can’t shut me down here. I plan to include well-documented General Conference talks, and I dare him to call me misinformed. I can’t believe how insecure he is that he censors so many comments–I’m stunned.
Bishop Rick, LOL. Don’t worry about me becoming Political Heretic. Honestly, I get a wild hair and write about politics very infrequently and it will stay that way. It is nice to come up with a post that resonates with people. I think you’ll enjoy my post tomorrow as a “fun” post, but I doubt it will get this many comments.
FireTag, I’ll try to stay away from Aurellian battle cruisers… It’s a good thing we have the Men in Black keeping us safe. 😀
BTC,
You can continue to believe what you’d like about MoveOn. I will certainly continue to be skeptical of them because of the people involved with them. The organization itself may not have made any comparison, but some, or perhaps many, of its people have. It doesn’t matter to me. They can make the comparison if they’d like. I’m not offended. It only makes it easier for me to know that they do not seek honestly for truth.
Also, I’m aware of what Soros said, and I only said that it was a comparison. MH’s characterization (although he didn’t directly link it to MoveOn) was about being worse than Hitler. But I would venture to say that he wasn’t trying to be precise about what how the comparison to Hitler was made. I did get the idea of what he was trying to say without making sure that he had his facts exact on that one. I’ll bet MoveOn, to MH, could’ve been any number of left political organizations which have used the comparison of Bush/Hitler, of which there are many, but MoveOn was probably the most prominent example in his mind. (Correct me if I’m wrong here, MH)
MH,
I agree that the whole lying thing can be a lot of tit for tat, and yeah, that can get old, especially when it’s done too often. The meaning and the impact of it gets watered down. But honestly, most politicians are liars. I guess most people are liars, truth be told. My point with you, though, was that if a person lies often and repeatedly, I think it’s important to know that. And if I’m going to have to choose between two liars, I want to know which one is the biggest liar so I can vote for the other guy.
MH,
As for the socialist label, I kind of feel the same about it as I do about lying. But I think that the socialist label is even more important if applied appropriately. It’s more than a difference of opinion. It’s a whole different form of governance than was invisioned by the founding fathers, and is completely unconstitutional. It’s complete institution of socialism in this country will mean the destruction of the constitution. If that’s what the majority want, then fine. But if not, then people need to be alerted to it. I think that we face the biggest socialist threat, right now, than we’ve ever had to face. And if there’s any time in our history that we need to use the term and know exactly what it means, it’s now. It’s not about fear-mongering or political revenge. It’s about the truth of what is going on in this country.
MH,
Okay, so what’s your solution for energy? Are you okay with the bankrupting of the coal industry? Are you okay with your energy bill doubling until a new solution is found?
BR,
The problem isn’t our 2 party system. The natural course of things is to go toward 2 party anyway. If you’ve ever watched Survivor, you know this. There is safety in numbers, and the fewer parties you have, the safer you and your political ideology is. The problem has to do with voters not being well-informed, the media who keeps them that way, and the corruption that exists in our political system. It’s nice to think of how we’d like things to be, but that doesn’t really accomplish anything. What we have to do is work with what we have. We have to get informed, help others get informed, and work within one of the two main parties to try to change hearts and minds. That’s not so easy to do, but it’s really all we can do.
That better, MH?
MH – perhaps I read you wrong. However, you seem to imply that “both sides” do it, and I just don’t see examples of Democratic or Progressive groups engaged in that sort of thing. And yet prominent members of the Tea Party are putting up bill boards with Hitler and Obama’s pictures on it. It denys the problem, in my opinion, to chalk it up to tit for tat.
BTC,
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2009/08/20/hitler-comparisons
@Mormon Heretic
See what he is up to today. He notes that Benson had critics but implies that they are nobodies — when it was actually the First Counselor in the First Presidency and the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.
His rationale for justifying Benson’s 1960s talks is that President McKay didn’t stop him (he was pretty infirm by this time — President McKay’s counselors certainly tried) and he later became prophet imply the Lord favored his actions (despite the fact that his time as prophet was focused on other themes).
Of course, he has totally ignored my attacks on the extremism of the John Birch Society. I really think the Society is utterly indefensible.
As I’ve said before, the ultra-rightists embrace the 1960s version of Benson because it meshes with their contemporary beliefs and they use it to blast anyone who disagrees with them. And, that is the danger.
Tara – not sure what I’m supposed to get from the link. It doesn’t refute any of my claims, as it doesn’t claim and Democratic or Progressive group engaged in Hitler comparisons. And the only example it tries to give is that of MoveOn.org “sponsoring” the Hitler ad. As you’ve yourself admitted, this is just false as the ad was put on the site by a third party, was not sponsored, and was promptly removed. If the blogger to whom you site has to resort to this “stretching of the truth” in order to make his point, I think it actually goes further in demonstrating mine.
It is fair to say, with respect to public discourse, that much of it is too harsh and too personal.
Is it fair to criticize the Obama Administration and its Democratic allies for their economic policies, ramped up government spending and willingness to tamper with the private economy? Absolutely!
But, is it appropriate to claim that Obama is engaged in a secret plot to implement his policies by stealth? No. He was a left-wing U.S. Senator and ran promises health care reform, ramped up spending, etc. That is where I have a problem with Glenn Beck and his ilk.
My personal take is that his policies are wrong, not conspiratorial.
The same applies to much of the public discourse on President Bush. His opponents claim that he invaded Iraq by lying, trashed the Constitution and the economy.
The reality (in my opinion) is that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed. The claims of lying are kind of silly.
As to the Constitution, the Patriot Act was a necessary step to deal with terrorist threats (I think many Americans still don’t get how much it takes to minimize the chances of successful attacks in the U.S.).
The economic collapse had many actors, including pressures that drove up the housing market (loose lending, excessive speculation, bad risk allotment in the secondary markets, etc.). The seeds were planted over a 20 year period. Blaming Bush for it all is really a narrow view (at least in my opinion).
Dictators like the current President of Iran, Castro in Cuba and the North Korean leader deserve to be actively denounced. But, it devalues the term when it is applied to leaders in the Western democracies. And, I personally believe it reflects a lack of respect for the true horror of people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
BTC,
Well, show me where the TEA parties themselves, not individual members, have supported, published, or endorsed Obama/Hitler comparisons.
Steve,
If you knew that Obama was presenting his health care plan as insurance, not a tax, to the American people, but then litigating its constitutionality by calling it a tax in order to keep it from coming under the commerce clause of the constitution, would you consider that an act of implementing policy by stealth?
BTW, that’s the exact same thing FDR did when social security was passed.
Tara — You will not find me supporting the Obama Administration. They think everything is public relations and they are certainly not above misleading the public. But, that tactic tendency is a bit different than the claim of some that they are actually part of a world-wide conspiracy.
My point was that — at the macro level — he promised health care reform. We got health care reform.
Now, what you are referring to is their claim during the legislative debate that the penalty for failing to buy an approved health care policy was a penalty and not a tax. Of course, now, they are admitting it is a tax. Of course it is. And, that element was not truthful.
But, I would differentiate this act of misleading from the claims of some that Obama is part of a secret plot. He is a liberal who ran to do liberal things. And, he is doing them. But, he doesn’t take orders from the CFR, Trilateralists, etc. Those claims are silly.
I’m not talking world-wide conspiracy, CFR, Trialateralists, or whatever else the conspiracy crowd is selling. I don’t buy into all of that. I’m just talking stealth, as you mentioned earlier. I think it could also meet a conspiratorial criteria as well. They are trying to force us to buy insurance, which goes against the commerce clause. The government cannot force us to buy anything. The original claim was that it was insurance, not a tax, so that he can keep his campaign promise of not raising taxes on the middle class. Now that the health care bill is facing an unconstitutionality claim, it shifts its argument to make it a tax, because the government has the right to tax citizens, although it doesn’t have the right to force us to buy anything. Do you not see that as stealth or conspiratorial?
Tara —
We aren’t that far apart.
I agree with you that the Obama Administration is pretty slippery in their efforts to enact their agenda. I also think Obama is a hard left liberal/squishy socialist. That makes his policies open to harsh criticism.
My point is that it is overreaching to claim some kind of conspiracy.
And, it sounds like you aren’t in that camp.
Steve:
“Conspiracy” implies a certain level of organization and coordination, but what that level is can certainly be debated. (Our church members used to jokingly refer to ourselves as the Disorganized Latter Day Saints.)
So let me posit a more general hypothesis which you might find more credible and a lot harder to refute in your own mind:
The Chicago political machine has been corrupt from at least the days of Prohibition, and has heavily corrupted Illinois politics as well, in both political parties. Its getting close to having to build a Governors’ Wing in the state penitentiary system.
That machine has always sought more wealth and power. Even in 1960, Daley (the father of the current mayor of Chicago) was so powerful in national politics that JFK dared not offend him by cancelling an appearance at a Daley-sponsored political event during the height of the Cuban missile crisis. After all, Kennedy owed his election to a closely divided Illinois going Democratic because of late votes turned out by the machine. (Some historians have suggested that Nixon’s later involvement in Watergate was justified in Nixon’s mind by his belief that Daley had actually rigged the vote in Chicago.)
After 1968, and the radical/marxist uprising against the machine at the Democratic Convention, the machine decided it was cheaper to bring the radicals inside the corruption tent and avoid the embarassment in favor of sharing the spoils. After all, there were always more spoils to be had by ripping off other people.
So what we have seen increasingly in the last generation is predators and parasites learning to feed on a common host. As globalization has proceeded, the predation has grown to national scales. It hardly matters how well the hyenas are communicating with the vultures until the meat starts to run out.
This isn’t unique to Chicago, obviously, but Chicago is an especially clear example in American history.
Obama establishes in his own autobiographical books that he grew up immersed in marxist teachings. He stated that he sought out marxists and revolutionaries in college. He then went to Chicago to work for components of the machine and rose rapidly to power within it. The rest, as they say, is history.
So, my question is this: how exactly did Obama rise in that system WITHOUT embracing that corruption? Did he have some “road to Damascus” experience where he became a truly altruistic opponent of the machine? When and why did this prospective Alma break from the court of King Noah? AND WHY HAS HE NEVER PUBLICALLY DISCUSSED HIS EVOLUTION AWAY FROM THOSE EARLIER BELIEF SYSTEMS?
If I ever show up in the local ward and ask for baptism in the LDS, I’ll certainly be able to tell you a reason why.
Tara – I was rebutting the assumption that MoveOn made such statements. I don’t see why I have to prove the Tea Party did in order to show that this is a false equivalence.
My understanding of the Tea Party is that its not a universally organized group, rather than several local organizations. I know the one in Iowa recently posted a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler, but again, I’m not trying to prove a point, merely disprove an assumption.
Steve,
To what camp are you referring?
You may have a difficult time embracing the idea of conspiracy because it’s easy to equate political conspiracy to the world government-type conspiracies. But conspiracies come in many different forms, not just the tin foil hat kind. In its simplest terms, it’s a plot or an unlawful action by two or more people.
Excellent input, FireTag. So we can see how Obama pretty much admits to being a Marxist without actually admitting that he is.
firetag and steve, what ever happened with cold fusion. I haven’t heard anything from pons and fleishman for years. (that would be a great answer for energy.)
BTC,
I only asked for proof because you said prominent members of the TEA party have put up a billboard with Hitler and Obama. You were trying to disprove a point by making a point that no democrat organization has made any Bush/Hitler comparisons, but that the tea party had, as though the tea party was a national organization like MoveOn. You seem to be saying that MoveOn is above reproach here, but the the tea party isn’t. If that’s what you are saying, I just disagree.
Tara, I have to disagree with your statements about the 2 party system. I believe it is the problem. I don’t want to work within the confines of a party I don’t agree with. There are too many things in both major parties that I disagree with, but I HAVE to work within that system. In Utah, I have to be a registered Republican if I want to have a vote in the primaries. Why not Democrat you say? Because in Utah there are an incredible number of races where Democrats don’t even enter.
It sounds like you are resigned to the fact that you can’t change anything…can’t beat em, join em. I am not to that point yet, and I hope I never am.
BR,
Well, I understand what you are saying, but unless our voting system is changed, then what else can you do? We know that the Democrats and Republicans are not going to give up their power. That’s why I say we have to work with what we have.
I suppose in a way, I have resigned myself to how things are, but I wouldn’t characterize it as ‘if you can’t beat em, join em’. I genuinely agree with most of the Republican party platform. The problem I have is with corruption and with Republicans who hold the title and act conservative to get elected, but then act anything but display very little conservatism once elected. I think if we had term limits, that would go a long way to solving a lot of the problems we face with corruption.
Whoa, I really screwed up that sentence. It should read, “…and then act anything but conservative once elected.”
BR:
I know the feeling; I’m in a blue state and congressional district (Stenie Hoyer’s) where conservatives haven’t been competitive for decades. It is a measure of how bad off the Democrats are this year that the race for Governor this year is very competitive. State and local government employees who never thought they were at economic risk are discovering that they are very much at risk, and that has gotten people out of the hypothetical even here.
MH: Cold fusion is still considered fringe science. Most people don’t think the effect is real, and those who do are only interested in understanding the phenomena, not in expecting it to scale up to anything practical as an energy source.
It’s a bit wierd, like my interest in the spiritual implications of parallel universes, or in the minds of many Christians, interest in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. (see, I’m doubly wierd.)
Isn’t cold fusion the process that fuels the Sun?
I am reluctantly submitting this before researching it myself.
Steve, I think you and I have very similar views on politics. I don’t know if you have followed my blog before or not. I appreciate you letting me know about R Gary’s post; I was a bit surprised that you seemed to know my opinion on President Benson’s quotes from the 60’s.
Bishop Rick, I guess you could say I don’t always vote for the winner, so I have a different take on what a successful 3rd party candidate is. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about who is in office. Well, if I don’t like the Republican or Democratic candidates, I will vote for a 3rd party candidate, even though s/he may not have a chance to win. I feel it gives me a legit right to complain. 🙂 I also vote 3rd party because I think it would be great to offer another voice. If too many people think like you and vote only for the winners, then 3rd party candidates won’t win. However, if you and I (and a whole bunch of other people) vote 3rd party, there is a chance to break the R and D stranglehold on elections.
I wish Bob Bennett would run a write-in candidacy. I think he could win, and I would vote for him. It’s too bad he is bowing to the republican party. I’m pretty certain he could have done the same thing as Joe Lieberman in CT. (I’m a Lieberman fan too.)
FireTag, I figured cold fusion was fringe science, but when Pons and Flieschman made that big announcement, I believe it made the cover of Time magazine and seemed pretty promising. At first other scientists replicated it, and then they decided it was just some strange phenomenon, but I never really found out why they beleived they discovered it in the first place.
Tara, I’m a bit of a pragmatist on energy, and I do like Obama’s pragmatism. Despite what he says about bankrupting the coal industry, I don’t think it’s going to happen, and I don’t think he really meant it. We need to look at all energy sources. I think corn fuel is a terrible idea, and I think the corn subsidies for ethanol should be eliminated. I think coal, nuclear, off shore drilling, etc should all be looked at, but I have serious reservations about all of them, and I don’t want us to put all our eggs in one basket.
I think if we could really put some effort into clean fuels like we did in the 1960’s to get man on the moon, we could really make some headway and get off foreign oil. I view our dependence on foreign oil as a national security threat, and we’ve got to look at alternatives. But coal, nuclear, and off shore drilling are not without hazards either. I hope we can mitigate some of the hazards associated with these other energy sources, but in the short term, we may have to deal with these hazards.
MH, I honestly can’t believe that you are just going to trust that Obama didn’t mean what he said. Why would he even say such a thing if he didn’t intend to do it? I can understand campaign promises that are made to convince people to vote for him, but why make such a statement that will not be popular with most of the country if it isn’t something he has in his heart to do? And if you don’t believe he really meant it when he said his cap and trade would bankrupt the coal industry, then why do you believe him when he said he would expand offshore drilling? By what method do you choose what to believe and not believe from Obama?
Pragmatist? Marx, too, was a pragmatist.
BR: Fusion is the process that fires the sun (and ignites hydrogen bombs). It takes incredibly high temperatures and pressures to force nuclei to merge into one and release energy. The energy department has had a research process into fusion for several decades, but the progress will probably take decades more: Keeping a potential industrial scale star under control is harder than exploding a bomb, so you know how popular that prospect is going to be.
Cold fusion is the notion that some disputed chemistry results that showed the appearance of extra heat in a lab set up was due to bubble popping briefly producing shock pressures high enough to produce fusion reactions on microscopic scales, without high temperatures.
tara, the president only has so much power. he may have a strong dislike for coal, but that doesn’t mean he has the ability to bankrupt the industry. I would like to bankrupt the illegal drug industry, but that’s just not going to happen.
brigham young was also a pragmatist, and easily meets your definition of ‘destroying the utah economy.’ his push to have utah live the united order pushed utah away from the banking system and back to prehistoric bartering system. if you are such a fan of consecration and united order, and you want to live it as a celestial law, then you are going to destroy the economy. to say that consecration is not a form os socialism is just plain wrong. brigham young did more to wreck the banking system in utah than any other politician in america. to deny that is ridiculous. however, there are some wonderful theological goals he accomplished. there were no poor AND no rich among them. if you want to live consecration as a celestial law, you have to become a pragmatist like obama, marx, and young. it will be less efficient-that’s a fact. but your capitalist ‘destroy the country’ rhetoric seems to fly in the face of united order and consecration principles.
That’s not what I’m saying. All I said was that it seemed MH was drawing an equivalence between the Tea Party and MoveOn.org and that equivalence was based on both org’s using Hitler comparisons. I merely pointed out that MoveOn.org had not, and moreover, had denounced such comparisons when third parties put videos on their site doing so.
A Tea Party group in Iowa did post a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin, but, as I said, the Tea Party is not a national organization with which you can smear with this brush. To the contrary, the national org, to the extent there is one, acutally responded negatively to the Iowa group that posted the sign.
At the end of the day, a discussion on political extremeism needs to start with a clear definition of “extremeism”. MH seemed to be pegging it as extreme rhetoric, which is a perfectly acceptable definition, and it was to this apparent definition I was commenting. Firetag had commented that it’s difficult to peg extreme policies based on public support, as this fluctuates over time.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/iowa-tea-party-billboard-compares-obama-hitler/
BTC,
Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for being difficult.
MH,
I know that Obama can’t single-handedly bankrupt the coal industry. He’s got to have congressional support to do it, and I think there’s a good chance he will get it (meaning cap and trade), even if it takes a lame-duck congress in November to do it.
But in your original statement, you said that Obama didn’t mean what he said. Now you are saying that he doesn’t have the ability to do it, even if he wanted to. Which is it?
By stating that Marx was also a pragmatist, I was not saying that all pragmatism is a bad thing. It is to say that pragmatism can be used towards evil ends. Pragmatism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a good thing. I think that Brigham Young’s intentions and Marx’s intentions were far different from each other. I don’t think it’s fair to make an equivalence there.
I have no problem with consecration, as it is a God-given law, and it is administered by the Lord’s servants. Perhaps it would not be administered perfectly, but it would be administered in a more perfect manner than would socialism. We have the benefit of history to see how well socialism works and how much death and misery it has resulted in. Everywhere it has been tried, it has failed, and we are somehow supposed to believe that we can make it work? That is a dangerous path to go down considering the odds are against us.
Capitalism may be contrary to the gospel and no, it isn’t perfect. But this is not a religious state. And as long as it isn’t, capitalism is the most perfect system available to us. It’s great advantage is that it can work successfully with imperfect people. Historically, no other system has been provided the framework for the phenomenal level of productivity and creativity that capitalism provides. It is the system that the Lord gave to our country’s founders, and I trust the Lord knew what he was doing.
The sheer fact that we can’t manage to engage perfectly within a capitalist system, you can be sure that we would be even worse off within a socialist system where we are forced to live perfectly. That is contrary to God’s plan of agency. It is not in our nature to be forced into doing good. Good is something that must come from the heart. Socialism completely overlooks man’s nature in search of some unobtainable Utopian dream, and that’s why it will not work.
Tara: how do you define socialism? What are some examples of trying socialism and failing? What has Obama done/doing that is anywhere close to as socialistic as Canada and European countries? Are these countries failures? If so, in what way?
I’m just trying to understand your actual complaints beyond the rhetoric.
Oh – and Obama never said that he would “bankrupt the coal industry”. In an inteview in November 2008, he was discussing his cap and trade plan (which was identical to McCain’s) and he said he would charge for carbon emissions in order to encourage emissions friendly plants and industries. He noted that if someone wanted to “build a coal-powered plant” they could, but they’d go bankrupt. He wasn’t referring to the coal industry or even a coal plant – but an industrial plant powered by coal.
By necessity, and definition, if we replace one industry with another (horse and buggy to automobile, blimps to airplanes, analogue to digital) we are “bankrupting” the old industry. If Obama gives tax breaks to develop broadband internet access – is he “bankrupting” the dial-up industry? What do we mean when we say we want to get rid of our dependence on oil if not that we want to bankrupt the oil industry? Aren’t these all good things?
Obama’s ability to pursue cap and trade through other means already exists. Obama appointed the EPA Administrator who WAS confirmed and HAS declared CO2 to be a pollutant subject to regulation on the basis of various environmental laws already on the books. For more than a year, the talk in the climate change community advocating cap and trade has been pass a cap and trade act in Congress that the Administration likes, or the Administration will pass regulations you don’t like. It will take a while to work its way through the court challenges, but ultimately, it will be a political calculation made by the political elites.
MH, If I don’t like the Dem or Rep candidate, I vote for a 3rd party as well. If I don’t like the 3rd party candidate or one does not exist (quite often in UT), then I cast a write-in vote for myself.
There are very few offices, State and Federal, where I have not received a few votes.