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 
Bishop Rick–great minds think alike. I wrote myself as a write in candidate on the last couple of elections, but I don’t think I vote for myself as often as you vote for yourself.
Tara, I thought Chicken has some great comments and questions in his comments on page 2 #49 and #50 that I would like to hear your response to. Honestly, I don’t follow every word of Obama, MoveOn.org, or the Tea Party like you and Chicken. (I spend too much time preparing to write stuff on my blog.) If you said that Obama wanted to bankrupt the coal industry, I was taking your word for it. But Chicken seems to have provided a bit of context to the conversation, and it sounds much more reasonable to me than your initial quote.
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’m in full agreement.
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.
Here’s where we disagree. I am not here to psychoanalize Marx’s intentions, but I believe they were the same as Brigham Young’s. I think both were concerned with equality. Now Marxism, and Communism have been used by evil regimes and become cuss words, but I don’t view the goal of “pure” Marxism or “pure” Communism as having any different goals than Consecration. The devil is in the details in how to properly implement these utopian dreams.
Tara, I really wish you would review my consecration posts. I’m going to quote a story about the United Order, because (1) I think it shows how hard and coercive that Consecration could be, (2) it wasn’t completely voluntary, and (3) it is a humorous story. See the full post here.
Tara,
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.
Everything you said can be said about Orderville, Utah, home of the young man that couldn’t buy a pair of pants, but was forced to wear something cut from the same bolt of cloth. The fact of the matter is that Utahns were much worse off economically than the rest of the country. Brigham Young had destroyed capitalism in Utah. Sarah Baringer Gordon says that is part of the reason non-Mormons wanted the federal government to invade Utah: so they could trade with Utahns in a capitalistic society. Non-Mormons used polygamy as a weapon to incite the rest of the nation against Utah, but many of the motivations for federal intervention were more economic and governmental (control of courts and legislature) than religious. (It’s too bad you missed that post too.
“The devil is in the details in how to properly implement these utopian dreams.”
Two points about that sentence, one ironic.
I think it’s really about WHO, not HOW. And if you get the WHO wrong, you really do end up with the devil in charge of the “details”. Human beings get the WHO wrong a lot.
Tara: how do you define socialism?
BTC,
It is where the government either owns or controls (through regulation) all the means of production and distribution in a society. Its goal is to establish a “worker’s paradise”–an ideal state with perfect equality. There are many different levels and variances of socialism, the most extreme of which is communism.
What are some examples of trying socialism and failing?
Cuba, Eastern Europe, Russia, Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, Venezuela, to name a few.
What has Obama done/doing that is anywhere close to as socialistic as Canada and European countries?
–Health care is one thing.
–Expanding the takeover of major banks is another.
–The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government now owns almost half of all mortgages in the country.
–He’s taken over 60% of General Motors.
–Cap and Trade, which the president is trying to get passed, is socialist. It’s been tried in Europe by the signers of the Kyoto protocol. In spite of that, nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. In many of these nations, emissions are rising faster than in the US.
–Obama appointed an AVOWED COMMUNIST as his green jobs Czar. He resigned 6 months later due to controversy, but the appointment itself is rather telling. Oh, and while we’re at it, I think the fact that Obama has appointed so many Czars (32 from what I understand) may not be socialist, but it sure does seem like it.
Are these countries failures?
The funny thing is that while the U.S. is trying to become more Canadian, Canada has actually become less socialist of late. For example, Canadian politicians sold off the nationally owned oil company— right before the biggest run-up in oil prices in history. Similarly, they sold off the national gold reserve— at the time gold was reaching multi-decade lows. Ditto for many of the other provincially owned Crown Corporations. There is also a 20% lower standard of living in Canada than in the US. Apparently socialism isn’t working all that well for them. Although they are still clinging tightly to their national health care. Factor in also, Canada doesn’t pay nearly as much on defense, because they largely depend on the US to defend them. The fact is also, the US has a high level of ownership and control of the Canadian economy, which should be a factor in why they haven’t entirely failed. Give them time though, if they proceed down the path of socialism. If they continue the trend away from socialism, then their condition will likely improve.
The economies of Europe are in crisis. Here’s what the IMF has said of Europe: “The currency crisis results from unsustainable policies in some countries [can you say, welfare state?], delayed repair of the financial system, insufficient progress in establishing the discipline and flexibility needed for a smooth functioning of the monetary union, and deficient governance of the euro area.” Bank credit has dried up because the banks are undercapitalized and are far too dependent on government support (sound familiar?). We know that the economy of Greece has failed. They had to be bailed out by the EU and the US. Europe has a much bigger consumer base than the US and it should’ve been pulling ahead of us in productivity and prosperity. But it hasn’t. Why? Because socialism kills productivity and prosperity.
Oh “ and Obama never said that he would “bankrupt the coal industry”.
Oh, I’m sorry I wasn’t precise in my explanation of what Obama actually said. But okay, we’ll go with the fact that he ONLY said that coal-powered plants would go bankrupt under his cap and trade plan. How is that any better? In fact, that’s even worse, because if you follow it to its logical end, not only do coal-powered plants go bankrupt, but so do coal plants and the coal industry itself, because who else is going to buy the coal? That’s even more jobs lost than before. I’m glad we could make that distinction.
Going from horse and buggy to automobile, and analog to digital were not changes that were forced by government. The government didn’t intentionally bankrupt one industry to set up another. Those changes were market driven and were done voluntarily based on demand and the ability of consumers to pay for those advances themselves. Let’s look at some history, shall we? In Romania, during the forced industrialization that followed the Second World War, almost all the horses were killed because, after all, in a modern society no one would need them anymore; everyone would have a tractor. Well, the tractors were never produced, so people began to breed horses in secret. Today horses are the most common means of transportation in the countryside. So suppose we force coal-powered plants and the coal industry into bankruptcy in search of new technology, but the technology isn’t forthcoming before those industries are bankrupt? I suppose we shall have to bail them out with our tax dollars, after we’ve already used our tax dollars to bankrupt them. That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
Here is a portion of an article by Adam Shaw who is from Great Britain; someone who lives among avowed socialists and knows one when he sees one, even if that socialist won’t admit he’s a socialist:
Recently on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly seemed very concerned about President Obama being described as a socialist by members of the right such as Rush Limbaugh. O’Reilly has often dodged calling the president a socialist, as if doing so would condemn Obama as a tyrannical dictator. It was discussed throughout the show with various guests, and O’Reilly frequently stated that yes, Obama is a far-left guy, but he didn’t want to use the actual term “socialist.” It would be too much.
Here in Britain we look at the continuing battle as to whether Obama is a socialist or not as a rather odd American quibble. In Britain we have no problem defining people as socialists, nor do people on the left have a problem calling themselves socialists. It is not that those of us on the conservative right do not believe that socialism is a bad doctrine. We do, and we see evidence of its continual destruction of the country on a day-to-day basis, but we have always had socialism living quite openly amongst us. We are therefore able to see and recognize it quite calmly as a day-to-day occurrence in politics, just as one recognizes the flu. We wish it didn’t exist, but it does, and so we get on with our lives, trying to avoid catching it in the process.
There are as many exact definitions of socialism as there are socialists. Yet they do have common characteristics. Love of big government, nationalization of industry, massive taxation, wealth redistribution, etc. all point towards socialism. Someone like the president would not even have to say he was a socialist in Western Europe; it would be assumed quite normally, without any fuss or conspiracy.
I have a lot of respect for Bill O’Reilly, but to a Brit who has seen his fair share of socialists and lives in a socialist country run by a self-described socialist party by a self-described socialist prime minister who has taken over for another self-described socialist prime minister, it is puzzling why self-described independents like Mr O’Reilly are doing backflips in an attempt to avoid the obvious fact — President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.
All these verbal gymnastics that are used to avoid stating the obvious may be rather humorous for someone watching from over the Atlantic, but for Americans, such delusion is a very serious matter. It is important, not just for the American right, but for the American people as a whole, to realise just exactly who it is they have elected to office. With the approval numbers dropping almost daily for the president, it appears that it is sinking in for the generally center-right American public.
However, when people on the right start being “concerned” about describing Obama as what he clearly is, in part due to the hysteria that both sides of the political spectrum exhibit when the word “socialist” is used, then it damages the effectiveness of opposition to him. Instead of being able to define what Obama’s aims are in his presidency, those on the left and on the right keep pushing Obama into a slightly left-of-center, non-ideological fog. Such a political move is deceitful, and it does not allow the American public to get a clear perception of just what they have voted into the White House.
Those of us across the pond who analyze American politics know exactly who it is you have in the White House. Obama is not some new post-political entity. Nor is he some form of Stalinist that will set up a USSA. He is a normal, well-spoken, charismatic socialist who in Britain would sit quite happily towards the left of the Labour Party alongside figures such as Tony Benn, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, and Ed Balls. To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, and it is not fear-mongering; it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it — America has a socialist leading the country. Welcome to the club: It stinks!
Ah – that’s what I was afraid of – you have no real substantive points, but regurgitate half-truths, or blatant falsehoods that are spouted by right-wing sources.
By your definitino of socialism, the US is far more socialist than Iran, Iraq or many developing countries due to regulation of industry. This regulation started after the Industrial Revolution, where children were dying in coal mines. To expand the definition of socialism to include protecting our children from working in factories and making sure that our food is not full of pesticides, take it to a level I am very comfortable with. Sitting on the 7th floor of a building right now, I’m very happy that the socialist US government of the early 19th century decided it was a good idea to adopt building codes.
To say China and Canada, two countries with booming economies are failing socialist states seems just silly. To say that they do have is because they don’t have a huge military industrial complex (owned, controlled and managed by the socialist American governemnt) adds silly upon silly.
tara, I loved the quote from the british fellow. if we used the term socialist as a description rather than an insult, I have no problem with that. but if you try to say that obama is a socialist but brigham young wasn’t, you are not at all consistent. socialism in this context is used as an insult rather than a description. I have to agree with chicken’s last comment about the failed state of canada. it is rhetoric, not fact.
BTC:
I understand your argument for Canada, but China??? Its booming economy (still largely confined to the cities) is being achieved by moving toward the direction of free-markets from the extreme left of Maoism. It’s already killed millions, there are disasters weekly (this week’s is a 165 square mile oil spill from a pipeline rupture at a port on the Yellow Sea, or is it the hundreds killed in the flooding?), and parts of the country have to regularly be suppressed by the military. It may succeed despite its system, but not because of it.
MH:
I, for one, am glad I don’t have to defend either Young, Marx, or Obama. BTC and I have enough trouble sometimes accepting the actions of our own First Presidency without taking on defending or condemming yours.
Tara:
Excellent quote from Britain.
ok firetag. let’s not forget that consecration originated with joseph smith, so he is the original mormon socialist. brigham young was a more effective socialist than joseph smith was. other mormon groups have tried their hand with the united order order and socialism, notably the flds. we look on them with disdain, but they are following joseph smith’s revelations closer than anybody else.
FT: Is the argument for Canada not enough? As for China, regardless of the direction it is moving – are you suggesting that at this point in time China is less socialistic than the US? If not, if China is more socialistic than the US (and more so than Canada) then I think that refutes the notion that socialism, in and of itself, has failed. Clearly, whatever the reasons the US economy is currently in the toilet and economies such as Canada and China are doing great, one cannot say definitively that socialst states are failures relative to the US.
As for the killing – this is not a result of an economic system.
As for the oil spill – according to Tara – this is not a result of socialism, because a good socialist country would have better regulations and controls to prevent this from happening.
BTC,
Blooming economy? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Chinese economy looks like it may be nothing more than a paper dragon. Last year they undertook massive stimulus spending. Even the Obama administration believes that they manipulate the value of the yuan in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage. But even if we ignore the paper dragon, there is still the issue of the human rights. They have a terrible record of human rights violations, consistent with all communist regimes, and I don’t think that’s a fair trade-off. Do you? Do you honestly consider China a model of the successes of socialism? If so, maybe you should try it out first-hand before recommending it to our country.
Now what did I tell you about Canada? I told you that they’ve made a bit of a capitalist turn around? Apparently capitalism suits them better than socialism. Could that have anything to do with why their economy is “booming”? Or is it that their economy is suffering and they had to sell off assets to make up for the loss? Either situation doesn’t speak well for socialism. Additionally, their health care system is apparently in crisis, according to “the father of Quebec medicare”, Claude Castonguay, who initially recommended government run health care for the country. He’s now saying that services need to be contracted out to the private sector, and is now calling for the legalization of private health insurance. Legalization of private health insurance? I can’t imagine private insurance being illegal. Another beacon of socialism’s success?
Now is the US more socialist than Iran or Iraq? I’m not sure how that can be accurately quantified, considering all the factors that I would be highly unqualified to factor in. I do know that we are over-regulated. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to all regulation. I do believe that there is a need for common sense regulations. But I believe that many of our problems stem from over-regulation. Case in point: the sub-prime mortgage crisis caused by the government mandate that housing loans be given out to more and more people who were unqualified to buyers. That is a big reason why we are in the financial mess that we are in right now. It doesn’t make sense to demand that banks loan money to people who can’t afford to pay it back. That’s a socialist scheme of wealth redistribution and the disaster it has resulted in will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. That’s just wrong.
But does that mean we are entirely socialist? No. We are still primarily a capitalist country, although that seems to be quickly changing as our debt nears the nation’s GDP, and as the deficit grows to 1.4 trillion dollars.
So, do you have any “substantive” evidence of the virtues of socialism and its success stories?
MH,
That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. If the label fits…..remember? I’m not using the name as a means to slander. Only to define.
But I still deny that Brigham Young was a socialist. There are close parallels between consecration and socialism, yes. However, church leaders have made a clear distinction between consecration and socialism, in that socialism is a counterfeit of Satan. I believe I posted that quote by the First Presidency in one of my earlier comments. Do you dispute that statement? I disagree that I am being consistent here. I am just going by what the church has said regarding socialism and its relationship the consecration or the united order. You can try to show me where I’m wrong here.
Rhetoric? Perhaps some, but I do have references for my information about Canada if you’d like them. The Canadian Encyclopedia is one. The Winnipeg Free Press is another.
should be “inconsistent” not “consistent”.
I just realized that I linked to the second page of the Politico article about China. You’ll need to go to the first page to read from the beginning.
BTC,
I don’t recall speaking to the topic of the oil spill. Oh, and BTC, if you can point out any half-truths or blatant falsehoods that I’ve spouted off here, please point them out with proof that they are false.
tara, please explain why brigham young and joseph smith are not socialists. I think you are conflating human rights abuses with socialism. human rights abuses are not native to socialism (or capitalism for that matter.) as you can see from the bush administration, capitalism can embrace torture. racism and bigotry are not part of capitalism natively either, yet can be found here as well. let’s not confuse the issues here.
Tara – you arguments are internally inconsistent to the point that I don’t feel piling on by pointing out all the flaws and falsehoods would be productive.
As I said to FireTag – Canada, most European countries, and China are far more socialistic than the US, regardless of the “direction” they are moving. Canada and European countries do not have the human rights violations China has – so this clearly is not a result of a socialistic economic system. This argument is just meritless on its face.
If I can show you countries that are indisputably more socialistic than the US and have not “failed” and indeed are flourishing, then I think I have refuted your premise that socialism = bad; capitalism = good.
When one uses rhetorical arguments and name calling: (“he’s a socialist, communist, marxist!”) rather than actual substantive arguments to demonstrate their point, there is generally very little room for constructive dialogue.
The position that we are “over-regulated” is a specious one, in my opinion. It falls in with the class of “over-taxed.” It is easy to get behind such an argument, but they have no meaning on their own. As Tara points out – zero regulation is not good, just as zero taxes would be a disaster. But to argue against a politician because they want to “raise taxes” or “regulate industry” or “increase spendign” is just an unhelpful argument. Coincidentally, those making these arguments never seem to have compaints when Republicans raise taxes or regulate industry or spend money.
MH,
I don’t know how else to put it. I feel like I’m going around and around with you on this issue, so you can read for yourself from the Institute manual of the church and if that doesn’t clarify for you, I’m not sure what will. I have a sinking suspicion, however, that this is all about semantics, and if it is, what a waste of energy:
Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine” ( History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:
“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.
“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.
“. . . Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
“(3) . . . The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
“(4) The United Order is non-political.
“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.
“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.
“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
“The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [ Moroni 7:47 .]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)
President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. . . . [It] was not a communal system. . . . The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)
President Marion G. Romney warned about the continuing imitations of the adversary: “In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [ Moroni 7:47 .]” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 98 .)
President Romney noted:
“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to . . . government welfare services. . . .
“The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery. . . .
“When we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength, we will love our brothers as ourselves, and we will voluntarily, in the exercise of our free agency, impart of our substance for their support. . . .
“President [J. Reuben] Clark, . . . referring to government gratuities, said:
“‘The dispensing of these great quantities of gratuities has produced in the minds of hundreds of thousands— if not millions— of people . . . a love for idleness, a feeling that the world owes them a living. It has made a breeding ground for some of the most destructive political doctrines that have ever found any hold, . . . and I think it may lead us into serious political trouble. . . .
“‘. . . Society owes to no man a life of idleness, no matter what his age. I have never seen one line in Holy Writ that calls for, or even sanctions this. In the past no free society has been able to support great groups in idleness and live free.’ ( CR, Apr. 1938, pp. 106-7.) . . .
“. . . Both history and prophecy— and I may add, common sense— bear witness to the fact that no civilization can long endure which follows the course charted by bemused manipulators and now being implemented as government welfare programs all around the world.
“Babylon shall be destroyed, and great shall be the fall thereof. (See D&C 1:16 .)
“But do not be discouraged. Zion will not go down with her, because Zion shall be built on the principles of love of God and fellowman, work, and earnest labor, as God has directed.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, pp. 164-66, 169; or Ensign, May 1976, pp. 120-21, 123 .)
BTC,
What do you not understand about reasonable taxes and reasonable regulation? Too hard to understand? Okay, well why don’t we just tax everyone 100%? And why don’t we just regulate everything to the nth degree? Maybe the government should regulate our flatulence because of the risk of global warming from the CO2 we emit? Or would that be a little overboard?
It’s not that I don’t understand it – it’s that it’s meaningless. What’s reasonable to one is unreasonable to another. Arguing that we tax everyone 100% is as ludicrous as arguing that we tax at 0%. Moreover, it’s a lazy argument. If you think a particular tax is unreasonable, then say why, not just “it’s unreasonable” – that is not an argument.
You say Obama is a socialist. You define socialism as increased regulation. But GWB and the Republican Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which implemented huge regulations on the financial industry, requiring large compliance costs. You also site the growing ownership in the auto industry, but it was Bush that provided the loans to GM and Chrysler and took ownership interests in exchange. Was he a socialist? If not, then how is Obama different? If so, then what makes Obama’s socialism so scary?
To the contrary, I have a HUGE problem when Republicans raise taxes or increase regulations unnecessarily, or spend money, as in TARP, signed into law by Bush and supported by a large number of Republicans. I despise a number of Republicans, whom I prefer to call RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).
I never said that some Republicans do not also engage in socialist policies, but I wouldn’t characterize them all as socialists, just as all Democrats are not socialists. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not indiscriminate in my use of the socialist label.
Ok, so let me rephrase my question – you seem to be arguing that Obama is a socialist and is therefore bad. But considering, by your definition, Republicans are also socialists, why any more anymosity toward Obama than Bush, or Reagan?
The reasona I ask is, many who make the arguments you are making, are trying to get Republicans back in power and use specious arguments to do that, by trying to demonize Democrats as “socialist” or “tax and spend” when, in reality, they are no more socialist or tax and spend than Republicans.
Oh, and Bush admitted in Nov. 2009, that the 2008 bailout was a mistake.
So he’s not a RINO?
Because I believe Obama’s agenda is socialist and that socialism is in his heart. I strongly believe that he is a pure ideologue. I believe that in the case of most Republicans, although there may be some exceptions, most are just trying to save their own political a**es and are just doing what they think they need to do to get reelected, or they are moderates who think that some sort of middle ground between socialism and capitalism is the way to go. Plus, there’s always just plain, old corruption.
Was that an attempt to answer any of my questions? It didn’t seem to be. It again seemed to rely on name-calling and rhetoric. Now we’ve added “ideologue.”
If Obama’s policies and agenda are no more socialistic than Bush’s, or Palin’s or any other Republican, then what difference does it make what’s in his heart? Why oppose his socialistic agenda more than Bush’s? Or Ron Paul’s?
If you think Obama’s policies or agenda ARE more socialistic – in what way? Which policies? What about his agenda?
I wouldn’t characterize him as a RINO. I think his admission that he was wrong went a long way toward making me feel a little more comfortable with him. But I still have differences with him and some of his policies, and I’m not sure what the motivation was behind his admission. I hope his intentions were pure and that it was his way of apologizing, but the jury is still out on that one. To me, a RINO is someone who consistently undermines conservative principles. Overall, I agree with Bush’s policies, so that’s why I wouldn’t call him a RINO. John McCain, however, is one of the biggest RINOs and I hope he’s defeated. And I don’t care if it’s by a Republican or a Democrat.
I believe Obama’s policies ARE more socialistic. But I’ll have to get back to you later on the details. I’ve got to go for now. Dinner and all.
Again – without even an attempt at details you are using only name-calling and empty rhetoric like “overall” and “RINO” and “more”. These are meaningless without any detail.
Conservative principles are similarly meaningless. They are repleat with “less taxes” “smaller government” “free markets” – these are not policies, they are slogans.
@mh Yeah, but I don’t HAVE to defend JS much past the coming of the Book of Mormon. If David can mess up, so can JS. As in much of life, even prophets could be one-hit-wonders.
If NEITHER the Spirit nor my intellect bears witness to the truth of a teaching, I’d rather answer to God for my unbelief than for blindly following orders that violate EITHER my sense of the Spirit or my intellect.
BTC:
We’ve had this discussion before; you see the world in left vs right and cannot see an argument in terms of the original post. It is EXTREMISM versus the center, and both left and rights have extremes. Even “up” and “down” have extremes. (I’m not sure how one tells a left-wing theocrat from a right-wing theocrat or why the concept is even relevant in a place like Iran.)And all extremes seek power. It is the concentration of power in the hands of individuals who use it for their own ends that is a danger.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it doesn’t matter whether the power is acquired by swords and muscles, or control of economic resources, or hereditary connections, or academic degrees, or — as you’ve demonstrated in many of the posts (which I highly recommend) on your own blog, by priesthood office.
We are all sinners, and we are more easily corrupted than enlightened.
BTC,
What do you want me to do? Write an essay? It seems so.
When I say “lower taxes” that means lower than what they currently are. I think the Bush tax cuts were a good start, but they could’ve gone further. The way I see it, if 10% is good enough for the Lord, it should be good enough for the government. Let the government make do with what they get just like the rest of us.
When I say “over-regulation,” that means we need to reduce net regulation. I can’t say what all regulations I think need to be removed, or what regulations need to be put in place. But when problems arise, as in the health care debate, I think we need to look at regulation and what role that may play in driving up the cost of health care. It has been estimated that health services regulation costs $169 billion, and that it outweighs benefits by 2 to 1, and costs the average household $1,500 a year. Let’s look at tort reform and FDA reform to try to reduce costs to consumers. We could also look at health insurance regulation and reduce costs even more, making insurance even more affordable for consumers when combined with a reduction in overall health care costs. These are the kinds of things that I hoped would be on the table for a solution during the health care debate, but they weren’t given the least bit of consideration when brought up by some Republicans.
Free market to me means that business should be as free from government regulation as possible to be able to allow market forces to work and create the level of prosperity that this country is capable of producing. This country, for most of its existence, has enjoyed the greatest amount of market freedom and has created the greatest level of prosperity the world has ever known. Why do we want to go messing with what works? Even the poor among us live at a higher standard of living than the poor in other countries. But please don’t construe that to mean that I think some degree of poverty is okay. There are other solutions to poverty than the cradle to grave welfare state (since last year’s stimulus plan scrapped the hugely successful welfare reform program passed under Clinton–another HUGE check mark in the socialist column for Obama).
Smaller government means reducing government spending. I mean cutting actual spending. Significantly. I can’t tell you by exactly how much, but it needs to be cut at least to the point where we don’t run a deficit, all without raising taxes. Has any Republican president done that? I don’t think so, at least not since Coolidge, so I hear.
Tara, I guess I should have invited you to my United Order vs Consecration post last September. I always thought they were the same thing, but they’re not, and it seems to me that Elder Marion G Romney has some misconceptions about the United Order, and is mixing some political rhetoric in with his speech.
Former church historian Leonard Arrington described the differences. (Sorry to trump the Institute manual with other church leaders.)
Tara – I don’t want an essay – I want a substantive answer to my question. If all you can do is spout platitudes it really gets us nowhere.
FT: I don’t see the world as left vs. right at all. That’s what I’m trying to express to Tara. If Obama and Bush do the same things – who cares whether one is a Dem and the other a Repub. If we’re not talking issues and instead talking silly partisan babble, what’s the point.
I’m happy to talk about extremism, but you have to tell me what you mean. Is extreme merely based on public opinion as you’ve suggested? In that case the health care public option was extremely centrist as it was favored by large majorities. In the media, those who wanted it (the majority of the public and the majority of the Senate) were called “far-left” and the one or two Democrats that didn’t were called “moderates” and “centrists.” Everyone in this country seems obsessed with labels and disinterested in actually discussing the issues the leables actually refer to.
Now to address the Institute manual,
“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God.
Well, he’s right that socialism is of men and not of God, but “wholly materialistic”??? That’s political rhetoric, and Elder Romney is either not understanding socialism, or (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting it.
“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.
It isn’t only voluntary. A guy can’t even buy a pair of pants without approval of the United Order. Once again, refer to the pants episode.
“. . . Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
This is another mischaracterization. He seems to be addressing Soviet Communism, not ideal socialism. Certainly the capitalists here in the US used external force and the power of the state to keep the slaves from being free, so this external force is not really associated with only socialism or only capitalism. It is corrupt leaders that resort to external force.
“(3) . . . The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.”
That’s not really true. Types 1 and 4 which I referenced earlier had members donate all their possessions to the church, so there isn’t private ownership. If you’ve followed the FLDS cases, all members turned their possessions over to the church trust, and now they’re trying to get it back. It’s a huge mess, but they’re following these examples of Brigham Young pretty closely.
“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
Tell that to the guy who wanted a new pair of pants. He wasn’t free to go out and buy them.
I’ll continue in a moment.
“(4) The United Order is non-political.
“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.
I’ll give him that the United Order is non-political, but that is because it is hierarchical. The president of the order makes the decisions, cutting out the politics. If you don’t agree, like the young man, you have to go to extreme measures to over-rule the president.
The United Order as practiced by the church was subject to people who didn’t work as hard and received the same wages, just like socialism. Cutting out corruption is a nice theory, but extremely difficult to implement. I greatly admire the early saints for their devotion–they are a tremendous example of piety and success. But there were unavoidable problems that they struggled to deal with too.
“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.
“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
Both require a righteous people to work effectively. Both have a difficult time because people just aren’t righteous enough.
“The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [ Moroni 7:47 .]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)
I don’t have strong disagreements with this statement, but during the winter of 1855, many of the saints wanted to horde their food for themselves to stave off starvation. Brigham Young browbeat them to share, and in the process, nobody died that winter. It’s an amazing feat, and Brigham deserves credit for keeping his people alive. However, the willingness to share was a bit lacking when saints weren’t sure if they were going to survive either.
More in a moment.
President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. . . . [It] was not a communal system. . . .
That’s not true. Type 4 was basically a communal system, and when Joseph tried to implement Consecration in Ohio and Missouri, it resembled a communal system.
The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)
It seems to me that Clark is talking about Soviet Communism. No they’re not synonymous. But the Gospel Plan (type 4) was a type of commune. I think brother Clark is conflating Soviet Communism with ideal Communism. I think he has failed to understand, but I don’t think he is willfully misrepresenting.
I’ve said enough. I could continue, but I bet there will be some skipping over what I’ve said already.
Now, I agree with the church, and conservatives about the problems with welfare, the dole, and idleness. They are problems. We shouldn’t depend on the government to hand out welfare, and I don’t want a welfare state. But I don’t see the goals of communism, socialism, or consecration as different. They all have problems. No I don’t want Soviet or Cuban or Chinese Communism. No I’m not in favor of British or Canadian socialism either. But let’s separate the rhetoric from the facts. Let’s not call the suppression in Tiannamann Square socialism, or North Korean Communism–it’s brutal dictatorial power that’s the problem here, not the economic policies.
Lest I be misunderstood, I like the capitalist system. I’m not really in favor of high taxes and big government. But I’m also not in favor of inaccurate rhetoric, and trying to somehow say that Consecration is not socialism. It is socialism–the pure form of socialism. It is helping our neighbors, and I think these principles should be principles that govern us. But we also must keep our government fiscally responsible, and I don’t want it to collapse under the weight of unsustainable government bureaucracy.
BTC:
Defining “extremism” according to the way the majority views it is as good a definition as any other. Has it not occurred to you that defining it the way academics insist on defining it and further insisting that academics HAVE THE UNQUESTIONABLE RIGHT to define it simply means you define by CLASS? The over-educated will manage the affairs of the moderately educated and the undereducated — for their own good, of course — because they are better-suited to lead.
In different places and cultures throughout human history, you can substitute “warrior”, “male”, “race X”, “tribe Y”, “king”, “matriarch”, “merchant” or “shaman” for “educated” and run EXACTLY THE SAME RISK.
Isn’t the Scripture something like “can the eye say to the hand ‘I have no need of thee?'”
MH,
Well, he’s right that socialism is of men and not of God, but “wholly materialistic”??? That’s political rhetoric, and Elder Romney is either not understanding socialism, or misrepresenting it.
Have you ever heard of Marxian dialectical materialism? It is an evolutionary philosophy. It is the belief that everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. Everything is a product of accumulated accident. There is no design. There is no law. There is no God. There is only matter and force in nature. Marx’s object in life he said, was “To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!” Marxist philosophy teaches that man is the epitome of perfection among nature’s achievements and therefore the center of the universe. As such, it is his manifest duty to remake the world (sound familiar?). Naturally, Marx believed this task was the responsibility of the Communist leaders since they are the only ones who have a truly scientific understanding of social and economic progress. It was accepted that the remaking of the world would have to be a cruel and ruthless task and that it would involve the destruction of all who stand in the way, and a necessary step to wipe out all the social and economic sins of human imperfection in one clean sweep and then gradually introduce a society of perfect harmony which will allow all humanity to live scientifically, securely and happily. However, the founders of communism realized that they would need to develop a whole new approach to morals and ethics for their followers. Lenin summarized it as follows: “We say that our morality is wholly subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.” In other words, whatever tends to bring about the communist concept of material betterment is morally good, whatever does not is bad. It can be summed up in the phrase, “the ends justifies the means.” It is not wrong to cheat, lie, violate oaths or even destroy human life if it is for a good cause. This accounts for the sometimes incomprehensible amoral behavior on the part of communists. It was the goal of communism’s founders to permeate every aspect of human existence with the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism. Therefore, they promoted a new approach to history, economics, politics, ethics, social planning and even science. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels admitted that critics could say that it “abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
Marx and Engels believed that religion was an outgrowth of early man trying to explain the forces of nature. When private property emerged as the foundation of society, they believed religion was seized upon as a device to put down the rebellion of the exploited class. They believed it was the property class who wanted their workers to be taught humility, patience and long-suffering; to endure the wrongs heaped upon them with the hope that justice would be meted out “in the next life.” It was made to serve as an opiate for the oppressed. They attached the same explanation to morals. Lenin summarized when he said: “In what sense do we deny ethics, morals? In the sense which they are preached by the bourgeoisie, which deduces these morals from God’s commandments. Of course, we say that we do not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claimed to speak in the name of God, in order to protect their own interests as exploiters. We deny all morality taken from super-human or non-class concepts. We say that this is a deception, a swindle, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists.” Marxists believe that “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet” are examples of the dominant class trying to impose respect for property on the exploited masses who cannot help but covet the wealth and property of their masters.
Well, I suppose I went a little beyond just explaining dialectical materialism, but I felt it was important to understand the philosophy and where it leads in communist philosophy. Maybe you are already aware of these things. But it appeared from your comment that maybe you didn’t.
It isn’t only voluntary. A guy can’t even buy a pair of pants without approval of the United Order. Once again, refer to the pants episode.
In a couple excerpts from some of the quotes you give, one says “saints could choose to consecrate all their possessions. Another stated, “However, in most of these communities a few residents failed to join…”. There didn’t appear to be any consequences for their failure to join according to the rest of the quote. A third states, “All ward members were asked to participate in financing it.” “Asked” being the operative word there. Seems pretty voluntary to me. Were there rules attached after volunteering to join the order? Well, yeah. That would make sense.
Anyway, you seem to like to bring the pants episode into the discussion, so I will engage. First of all, it sounds as though the kid didn’t buy the pants with his own money, but rather confiscated community property in order to use as an exchange for the pants. What if everyone did that? Rules are established for a reason, and it sounds like the situation was handled well. He was commended for his enterprise and he eventually got his pants back. It didn’t sound like he was fined, or imprisoned, or abused in any way. But those are possible consequences for failure to comply with socialism.
What you seem to be nit-picking is that, once committed to the rules of the order, people were not free to break the rules. But I think the bigger picture of what is trying to be conveyed about the voluntary nature of the order is that people entered into it freely. They were not forced to enter into it. They were free to even live among the community and not practice it, as one quote seems to suggest. But the same cannot be said of socialism. All who live within a socialist society are required to participate.
This is another mischaracterization. He seems to be addressing Soviet Communism, not ideal socialism….It is corrupt leaders that resort to external force.
You may be missing the point here. Elder Romney is not referring to a revolutionary-type situation where all of a sudden a country is forced into socialism, although that may also apply to what he was saying. I believe he is saying that people are forced to turn over their property, even against their will, to the state. Even in a country where socialism is achieved through democratic means, there is still some level of force involved, and to one degree or another, it will be involuntary. Individuals who disagree with socialism cannot just choose to exempt themselves from the laws of their country.
That’s not really true. Types 1 and 4 which I referenced earlier had members donate all their possessions to the church, so there isn’t private ownership.
Perhaps so. Maybe the experiment of communalism is the basis for the church’s teaching that private property must be an essential part of the Law of Consecration/United Order.
Both require a righteous people to work effectively. Both have a difficult time because people just aren’t righteous enough.
But socialism doesn’t require a righteous people. It thinks that because people are greedy and selfish that socialism is needed as a solution to combat man’s nature. However, it works in direct contrast to man’s nature, and it is a Godless philosophy. That is why the Lord’s plan is the correct plan. He allows for the weakness of man and permits man his agency to decide when he is ready to live the higher law.
It seems to me that Clark is talking about Soviet Communism. No they’re not synonymous. But the Gospel Plan (type 4) was a type of commune. I think brother Clark is conflating Soviet Communism with ideal Communism. I think he has failed to understand, but I don’t think he is willfully misrepresenting.
The terms communism and socialism have undergone some changes over the years, so I will try to explain what I understand of their meanings and usages. Capital C Communism and lower-case c communism are different. Communism (lower-case) and socialism are essentially the same thing. Communism (capital) differs only in that it is a movement intended to overthrow capitalism by revolutionary means. But President Clark referenced communism, not Communism, but both are pretty much synonymous with socialism anyway, so I’m not sure it really matters. The term socialism was what Stalin used to refer to the “early phase” of communism. He reserved the term communism only for what Marx called the “higher phase” of communism. In any event, the church has denounced any form of “ism”, be it communism, Communism, or socialism.
Here’s a link which helps explain the terminology and gives some interesting history, if you’re interested.
Here’s another link to an article which does a good job of outlining socialism/communism and relating it to our current political situation.
But I’m also not in favor of inaccurate rhetoric, and trying to somehow say that Consecration is not socialism. It is socialism–the pure form of socialism.
I am not in favor of inaccurate rhetoric either. But I must disagree with you on what rhetoric you consider to be inaccurate. Consecration is not the pure form of socialism. Socialism is the impure form of consecration. The brethren have felt to draw a distinction there, and so will I. I think that to do any different only leads to confusion. Anyway, it makes no sense to me why you feel the need to equate the two. It seems like nothing more than an insult and a mockery to what is Godly and pure.
BTC,
Well then, was my last answer substantive enough so that you can understand my political beliefs?
Tara – I do understand your politial beliefs and they are typical of American conservatives. Whatever Democrats do is horrible and destroying th country, notwithstanding what they actually do. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but they are not something upon which substantive discussion can be had. They are slogans devoid of any real meaning.
FT – I have no idea what the majority views as “extremism” nor what academia views as extremism, so I guess I can say that I have not given your examples much thought. Since I’ve been in the States, my understanding of the venacular “extreme political view” is merely a political view with which I disagree. This is not “extreme” in my view. It is also not a point of constructive dialogue. If something can be criticized merely for being “extreme” and the word has no agreed upon definition, then what’s the point?
The point is – a rational discussion on politics, should be about issues and, to a lesser degree, philosophy. But in the States I have found it is about winning and losing and scoring points. So there is no discussion about whether the Health Care bill is good or bad, but is it “socialist” or “extreme” or “pushing a liberal agenda.” The news doesn’t discuss benefits and drawbacks of the economic reform bill, but rather how it will “play out in November.”
And due to this, polls aren’t much help. A majority disapprove of the Health Care Bill. What does that mean? Do they dissapprove of it because its a “government takeover” or do they dissapprove because it doesn’t include a public option – or isn’t single-payer? Polls mean nothing in many circumstances because the polls are not trying to determine positions, but who will win elections.
Sarah Palin believes that the only exception for abortion should be if the mother would die from birth. This is an incredibly extreme view. The vast majority (80%) of Americans think rape and incest are acceptable reasons for abortion, whereas a full 37% believe abortion should be available for any reason. But that doesn’t matter – because she’s “pro-life” and “pro-life” is mainstream and not extreme. How does one get one’s head around this ridiculous logic?
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, would likely be labeled as “extreme” because he’s a “socialist.” But I challenge you to find any one issue upon which he is outstide the mainstream of opinion.
So if we want to discuss “extremeism” we first have to agree what that means, and start from there.
First of all, you apparently missed the fact that I have given credit to a Democrat. Second, how is your perception that Republicans view everything Democrats do as horrible and destructive any different than my perception that Democrats view everything Republicans do as hateful, greedy, imperialistic, and racist? In other words, how are your perceptions any better than mine? Third, how about Democrat slogans? Explain to me the substance behind “hope and change” or “change we can believe in?” Or how about “spread the wealth?” And just what does “fundamentally transform the United States of America” mean? Oh, and I’ve never quite understood the slogan, “cutting taxes on the backs of the poor.”
But I do agree with you, BTC, that it is difficult to determine what extremism is, and I don’t think that defining it by what the majority defines as extreme is reliable. Even our perceptions of what society defines as extreme can be reliable. Plus, it doesn’t take into account such things as religious views of morality. Those, at least for the LDS, are unchanging. However, the morality of society changes over time.
I didn’t say Republicans view everything Dems do as horrible and destructive. I said your views are typical of American conservatives in that they don’t focus on issues or policies, but merely condemn Democrats irregardless of what their issues and policies are. My “perceptions” are “better” than yours in that I focus on issues and substance and not slogans. You’ll note that the slogans you are reffering to are not any I have said and have not been used by me to justify any policy or position – so I’m not sure of your point. Several of them I have never heard of and the ones I have actually ARE political slogans used during a political campaign.
When I asked you why you preferred Bush policies over Obama policies even though they were identical policies, you spouted your slogans rather than addressing issues. Outside of campaigning for President, I haven’t heard one Dem use any of those phrases you quote, and I certainly know I haven’t – so I don’t see the equivalence here.
I don’t think it’s difficult to define extremism at all. I think it’s very easy. But you can’t have a discussion on extremism prior to defining it.
You said, your politial beliefs…are typical of American conservatives. Whatever Democrats do is horrible and destroying th country notwithstanding what they actually do.
Then you said, I didn’t say Republicans view everything Dems do as horrible and destructive.
How have I misrepresented what you said, other than use the word Republican rather than conservative, which for the sake of this discussion shouldn’t really matter?
My “perceptions” are “better” than yours in that I focus on issues and substance and not slogans.
I resent that fact that you say that I focus on slogans rather than issues and substance. In this discussion, I didn’t even mention most of the “slogans” you accuse me of focusing on. I did mention over-regulation. You were the one who introduced slogans into the discussion, asking me to provide substance to them. When I did provide substance, you criticize me for not focusing on issues or policies. You accuse me of condemning Democrats irregardless of what their issues and policies are. Uh, well, yeah, because I happen to disagree with their issues and policies. I don’t find fault with Democrat policies for the sake of finding fault. Your incoherence here is quite frustrating.
You accuse me of not providing substance to my “slogans,” which is anything but true, and if anyone here is lacking substance in this discussion, it is you. You say that conservative belief is nothing more than “slogans devoid of any real meaning,” yet you do not back up that assertion with substance. It is empty rhetoric.
You’ll note that the slogans you are reffering to are not any I have said and have not been used by me to justify any policy or position
Exactly. You haven’t stated any policy or position other than to complain about how conservatism is devoid of meaning and that my only focus is on slogans.
Several of them I have never heard of and the ones I have actually ARE political slogans used during a political campaign.
Yes, I gave you actual political slogans. The slogans you accuse conservatives of using are not slogans, but are actual political positions.
I also gave you some Democrat political positions. One was a phrase used to demonize the tax-cutting position of Republicans and both are Democrat/Socialist philosophy. I thought it would be interesting to know what they mean to you. But since you haven’t heard them before, perhaps you should learn what they mean, because that’s what most modern Democrats stand for: class warfare and the redistribution of wealth.
When I asked you why you preferred Bush policies over Obama policies even though they were identical policies
They are not identical policies, as I have explained, but you have failed to understand.