The last few months and years have given us increasingly partisan and angry political rhetoric here in the US. It’s getting worse as the 2024 presidential election looms, including regular denunciations of our free and fair US elections and denigration of our world-class justice system. And now we’re moving into the assassination phase of our political unraveling. In today’s post, I’m not going to dwell on the political angle here. Instead, I’m going to review the April 2021 General Conference talk by Elder Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” In particular, his call for civility. Here are some quotes from that talk (in bold with italics) followed by my supporting commentary. Your take on his talk may differ. That’s what comments are for.
In these remarks I do not speak for any political party or other group. I speak for the United States Constitution, which I have studied for more than 60 years.
Oaks was a law professor and a judge on the Utah Supreme Court, so he knows what he is talking about on this topic. It’s nice when General Conference speakers expressly list their qualifications and experience so as to highlight those occasions when they do, in fact, know what they are talking about.
Oaks lists five “inspired principles” embodied in the Constitution. Here is the fifth one:
We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law. These principles block the autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracy in some countries.
This principle draws a line between authoritarian rulers, who expressly or implicitly require personal loyalty from the officers and aides who serve in government; and constitutional regimes where rule of law applies, as in the United States where officers swear loyalty to the Constitution, not to any individual. In theory, no one is above the law in a constitutional regime. You might recall that Hitler, after taking power in Germany, required German generals to swear personal oaths of loyalty to him, a departure from how the German military functioned in the past. A ruler or President who wants to fire any government officer or employee who won’t do what the President wants, regardless of the act’s legitimacy — or who somehow exercises this power, whether officially granted to him or not — is obviously operating under the personal loyalty paradigm, not the constitutional rule of law paradigm.
President Oaks is telling us not to support that kind of candidate (the authoritarian personal loyalty type) because they are transgressing inspired principles in the US Constitution. He seems pretty clear on this point.
Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution …. We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. … Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.
Civilly and peacefully. No running around trying to shoot former presidents or hang vice presidents or vandalize government offices or kidnap governors. We should seek to moderate and unify, not stir the political pot. A lot of political commentators and the whole algorithmic emphasis of social media works against this approach. They actively try to stir things up and amplify disagreements. If this “civilly and peacefully” directive applies to political discussion and general conversation of members of the Church, it applies even more forcefully to talks, conversations, lessons, and comments on Sunday in our chapels and classrooms.
I know, of course, that there are some LDS who have a tough time separating their politics from their religion. And some LDS leaders in years past have contributed to this problem. I think Pres. Oaks is pretty clearly against that sort of confusion, which, if aired on Sunday, can get people who *do* separate their politics and religion quite upset. Instead, try this: Peace. Civility. Moderation. Fellowship.
We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution. We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support those principles in their public actions.
A few years ago, LDS leadership took out the “good moral character” reference from the short statement often read over the pulpit during election years. Here, Pres. Oaks is sort of putting it back in. He is saying quite clearly that if there is a candidate who you can look at and say, “That is not a good person,” you should not support that candidate. Don’t vote for them. Electing nothing but “good persons” as elected representatives does not avoid disagreements and disputes over policies and programs. Reasonable people can honestly differ on those points. But that advice does go a long way towards avoiding what Oaks warned about, those “autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracies in some countries.”
And here is a final longish quotation to keep in mind as you trek off to church this coming Sunday.
Such independent actions [voting choices made by members] will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time. We also insist, and we ask our local leaders to insist, that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our Church meetings.
This is the important part for church meetings, “that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our Church meetings.” I know that happens more in some areas of the country than in others. I think it is related to the problem I noted earlier, in which some people conflate their politics and their religion when speaking or teaching or commenting in church. Pres. Oaks is saying don’t do that. He gives a specific charge to local leaders to make sure that doesn’t happen in church on Sunday.
I don’t think this talk by Oaks made much of a difference in how members thought, acted, or talked about politics. He should probably give it again. We should probably read it again. The next General Conference will be held October 5-6, just one month before what may be the most consequential presidential election in at least a century. I hope we hear some relevant counsel at this upcoming Conference, not just the usual list of recycled topics. I think we will need it.
So let’s hear from the crowd.
- Have you heard a member or leader preaching politics from an LDS pulpit since this Oaks talk in April 2021?
- Have you heard a teacher doing so in an LDS class? Did any local leaders ever step in?
- Have you lost an LDS friendship over political disagreements?
- Do you know of someone who left the Church over political disagreements, either a conservative who left because they Church was not radical enough for them, or a progressive who left because the Church was too conservative in their eyes?
- As a missionary, I served in an overseas ward where one of the solid and respected members of the congregation was a card-carrying socialist. So this toleration stuff isn’t so hard to figure out and practice. Why is it still such a problem in many LDS congregations in the US?
Wheat & Tares 
The Mormon Church has come a long way from Sidney Rigdon’s 1838 “War of Extermination” speech in Missouri.
>
Dear Brother B. I am a member of Community of Christ. I think your message here is an inspired one for all of us. I am going to post a link to Reddit at r/CommunityOfChrist.
I think all of us know that the savior loves ALL of Creation, no matter how much we may disagree on details. And knowing that the Savior loves and forgives my Brother, how can I not?
I do know that our nation has faced existential crisis in the past, and our citizens have always responded to preserve the Union. I have hope that we will again, and continue to celebrate our differences in a spirit of loving brotherhood and acceptance.
Thank you!
My ward in the UK had candidates for Green, Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. Covering the wide spectrum of politics in the UK. After the election there were congratulations given and we all got back on with living. I mean it wasn’t even until after the election that I knew they were standing (I live in a different political area to my ward). The thought that your political view would have any standing in your ward seems so very alien to my lived experience. However culturally in Britain, you are also unlikely to discuss politics or religion in polite company.
Here is a copy of the letter read over the pulpit 6/ 2023 encouraging members to vote. It discourages straight ticket voting and says we should vote for people with compassion and integrity Political Participation, Voting, and the Political Neutrality of the Church
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Citizens of the United States have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects their communities and nation today and in the future. We urge Latter-day Saints to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaging in civic affairs, always demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.
We urge you to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). Information on candidates is available through the internet, debates, and other sources.
While the Church affirms its institutional neutrality regarding political parties and issues, it may occasionally post information about particular issues that directly affect the mission, teachings, or operations of the Church or that Church leaders believe are essential to preserving democracy or the essential functioning of the United States Constitution.
Political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teaching or advocating in Church settings. Leaders ensure that Church meetings focus on our Heavenly Father, our Savior, and the gospel. For more information, see newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org and General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 38.8.30.
Sincerely yours,
The First Presidency
My tendency when I read or hear this wonderful talk from Oaks or this letter over the pulpit, is to believe it supports my personal point of view. Still, people with the opposite point of view hear it and walk away feeling supported in their own views.
That talk from Oaks didn’t get any time at the pulpit in my ward. A few months later I brought it with during fast and testimony meeting and read a few passages from it. I bore my testimony how important it is that we minister to each other and get to know each other and support each other regardless of political party. I remember the 1st counselor behind me (maga) clearing his throat while I spoke. I was afraid I would be asked to sit down. Didn’t happen that time. Thank you for the reminder. If I am asked to speak before the election, I am going to bring that talk.
To answer your questions, the only thing resembling politics I’ve heard preached from the pulpit the last few years here in northern Utah county are talks on the constitution. I felt they were reasonable and nobody stepped in.
I’ve not lost any friendships because of political differences. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative who has on sibling that is apolitical, and another who is moderate to liberal. We usually avoid talking politics anymore, and find that love of family, the Gospel, and science fiction can pretty well fill our time.
I rarely have acquaintances leave for both reasons. Always sad when it happens though.
As far as toleration goes, that’s a little trickier. I’m not even always sure how people define that anymore. I came to my political views after extensive research, pondering, logic, discussion, and a number of other methods, and although I try to keep an open mind, I’ve certainly invested a lot of myself into it. Although I may admittedly wonder if those who differ from me politically have done the same, I do not doubt their convictions, no matter how faulty I might find them. What does make me start to doubt their convictions is when they make absolutely no effort to share them with me or make a modest effort to win me over. I’m not annoyed by those efforts (at least most of the time), and frankly I find the conversations quite stimulating. I have noticed, however, that many times when I try to return the favor—no matter how civil my efforts—it quickly approaches “intolerance” in the eyes of others. I think it’s just as much of a problem as the lack of civility.
Off subject, in all sincerity Dave, I’m hoping for the best for you and your congregation with this week’s Come Follow Me lesson.
We are probably going to get four more years of Trump and all the Trump drama that so many folks have apparently forgotten. Not good. But what is also not good is that the drama didn’t really go down during the Biden years. Remember how Biden promised in 2020 that he was going to unify the country? That seems hilarious now.
Every day I’m reminded why I don’t intend to vote for either one of these guys. Neither one will unify us because neither one will even try. It’s all about playing to your base.
I’ve met ex-Mormons who have cited political affiliations as among the reasons that they won’t go back. But I’ve never met anyone who cites that exclusively as the reason they left the church.
josh h, Biden proposed a lofty admiral goal of unity that he tried to achieve by passing policies that were the most popular with American citizens. I don’t blame Biden or any Democrat for the lack of unity. I blame Trump, his supporters, and their repeatedly calls for violence. Trump sowed chaos throughout the country. I am not sure what exactly motivated the recent assassination attempt, but it certainly wasn’t Biden or liberal ideology. The assassin loved gun culture.
And yet after the shooting, Pres. Biden apologized for his earlier comment about the need for Democrats to put Trump in the bullseye. Why did he apologize, if his words were not appropriate? Why were his words not appropriate? Perhaps because they refer to violence, and may even encourage or incite it. I don’t like the language coming from the diehard Trumpists, but I do not see the diehard Bidenists as without flaw. Some people see nothing but purity and goodness on one side, and nothing but evil and wickedness on the other side. I respectfully think there’s some gray on both side, so we everyone should rachet down the rhetoric.
Thank you Dave for writing about this talk by Elder Oaks. It teaches very good principles. I am particularly glad you highlighted this particular quote: “Such independent actions [voting choices made by members] will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters“
I’m not sure how it is in the rest of the world, but American politics seem to have become especially emotional. This is greatly unfortunate. One should be able to be concerned about policy and about political outcomes without making the conflict personal. Sadly, we have the example of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr to show us that making politics personal seems to be the American tradition.
I 100% agree that church should be a “safe space” from politics and politicking. At church there should be no absolutely no advocacy or defense of politicians and parties. There should be no promotion of policy issues save those voiced by leadership (who themselves should exercise restraint). There is opportunity to mention social concerns but it should be done apolitically and with prudence and adhere to Gospel Teachings.
Lastly, you write: “I don’t think this talk by Oaks made much of a difference in how members thought, acted, or talked about politics.” Here is reality. The LDS church program does not take teaching seriously. The church is very good about going through the motions, but the program and curriculum fail to instill knowledge in the membership. There are reasons for this. One is that the church is too scattered in what it teaches. The curriculum is a potpourri of scripture, talks and topics taught across the years in an extremely reduced teaching schedule.
Consider that LDS have roughly12 hours a year of EQ / RS instruction and 12 hours a year of Gospel Doctrine+. Not only is this very limited time but it is even more restrictive when one considers that each EQ / RS lesson is a different conference talk usually on a completely different topic from the prior lesson. Fundamentally, there are no “themes” in what is taught in church. It is whack-a-mole instruction. The consequence is that nothing sticks. Whatever is emphasized one week is swapped out for a new emphasis two weeks later. And, as a result, a fantastic talk by Elder Oaks is largely ignored and forgotten and the principles never revisited.
+ Footnote to point out that between General Conference and Ward Conference it is not uncommon in my ward for the month of April to pass without there being any Sunday School. As I wrote above, this is a church that does not take seriously the responsibility of teaching the Gospel at church. A consequence of this is members do not have sufficient opportunity to learn from each other and develop trust in each other. Instead, they see and watch what members post on social media and this leads to judgments and stereotyping that divide rather than unify the members.
I personally do not feel that my loyalty is to the constitution, and I do not enjoy church talks on the Constitution. The constitution has become scripture, and therefore has been weaponized to justify bad behavior.
Apparently it’s still a thing where I live that the pledge of allegiance is said in schools, at least it was said at the various graduations/promotions I attended in May/June. I don’t like saying it. I tell myself that what I’m really pledging allegiance to is not in fact the flag, or the Republic, but to liberty and justice for all. Perhaps some feel this is a distinction without a difference but to me it’s everything. I realize it wouldn’t solve everything wrong with the world, but I think it could be a start.
@Georgis, good for Biden apologizing. I’m still waiting for an apology from Holland for using a musket metaphor aimed directly at people I love.
To answer the questions,
No, I haven’t heard anything political at church in the last 15 years, because I have only been inside an LDS chapel maybe four times. But then part of why I quit going was because of feminist and LGBT issues, and although the church considers them “moral” issues and therefore not political, I feel differently. When people start passing laws about denying medical treatment, or restricting restroom use, then it is political. One party has discrimination against LGTB as part of their political platform. The same party is looking at rolling women’s rights black to 1960. And the church from the pulpit of general conference preaches against LGBT, and is just plain way behind on women’s equality.
So, yes, I know progressives who left because of political issues. My daughters and daughter in laws are out (3) or hovering on the fringe (1) because of LGBT and feminist issues.
I have lost friends over political issues, specifically women’s issues and women’s ability to get inspiration for their own life instead on just obeying their priesthood leadership. She wasn’t willing to be friends with someone so “uppity” as to think I could pray and get my own answers straight from God. The other friend I lost was because I openly love and support my lesbian daughter and her wife. So, yes, I have lost friends over political issues. I noticed after losing these two friends that I was not trusting Mormon women as far as I could throw them. I no longer even talked to women at church, because I didn’t want to get hurt again. It was not long after that when I decided that I was getting nothing out of church but hurt and shame, and that the constant “not good enough” was emotionally abusive and repeated the childhood emotional abuse, and no wonder I could not heal from my abusive childhood, and with the way women are second class, I cannot heal from my childhood sexual abuse. So, I quit going.
And the final question, about why can’t people separate their politics from other aspects of life? I could give some nasty reasons like because they are bigoted, sexist, a**holes, but that isn’t productive but angry and contributes to the problem, so….. I think part of it is because people get focused on one issue, and then fail to look beyond that to the bigger picture.
Let me give a local example. My husband and I belong to an ATVing club, here in Trump country. Well, ATVing is a legitimate thing to talk about at club. And there is a political issue. ATV, jeep, and other off road trails being closed for two reasons #1 the BLM land is sold to developers for housing, mining, or oil wells, or #2 the land gets closed for conservation, National Monuments, or rehabilitation after too much use. Well, the Republicans love closing/selling BLM land to housing developers or mineral development, coal mining or oil wells. While the Democrats love closing the land for National Monuments or saving desert tortoises, or rehabilitation after over use. But at club, we only hear from one political side. We hear all about how the evil Democrats want to close BLM land for conservation or National Monuments. Evil horrible National Monuments that preserve land sacred to the people who were here before us white idiots. But we never never hear about how Mike Lee is for selling to this coal company or that oil company, and we have not heard one peep about how Project 25 by the Republicans will sell BLM land to the highest bidder, and you think the ATV Club can out bid big oil for control of the land?
But people have been focused on one thing for so long that they cannot see the whole picture let alone both sides. Me, I would rather have the land preserved as National Monument or tortoise preserve than have it destroyed by coal mining and oil wells. And most of our friends have already been so offended by the political crap at club and have left, and hubby and I are close to being pushed out.
And I agree with lsw329 about how people hear the church statement and think that it supports their side. I have seen people come right out and say how this statement by the church proves that church leaders “really support Trump, but they just can’t say so because of tax laws.” No, if you actually read the statement, then look at Trump’s lies, his sexual …ahem…exploits, and his actions that show he puts his own power ahead of the constitution, they would know that Trump is not a person they should vote for.
Chadwick, concur with Pres. Biden’s show of grace in apologizing. Would that his opponent could find and express a little humility.
@Eli I, too, thought and ‘logic’ed my way to a conservative leaning, libertarian viewpoint many years ago. Over the years since then, many things happened that have now shifted my thinking to a much more liberal standpoint. Some of those things include:
I feel fairly familiar with the conservative viewpoint. I lived it, after all, and have been surrounded by it since birth. Maybe (probably) there are things I’m missing. Maybe, eventually, life will lead me back that way. I don’t think so, but I guess you never really know. For now, I’m committed to vote in ways that provide more freedom and more hope, and I see most of that on the left in the US.
Charles,
Please note “logic” was just one aspect of the formation of my views, which I continue to find reasonable for now. Social views are also just one aspect. I don’t claim to have all the answers there, but I think there are a lot of questions no one is thinking to ask, or are afraid to.
If you and I know less about the struggles and needs of the family down the street than SNAP does, we’re both failing as Christians (and as humans for that matter), regardless of our politics. Too many of us have been incentivized not to care as much with these programs. Nothing in my traversal of libertarian-leaning conservatism so far has convinced me that I’m under no obligation to help others. Quite the opposite actually. I would like the freedom help meet the needs of others the best I see fit, however, after accessing freely available information on making the best decision possible. I like to align myself with private organizations that routinely demonstrate doing better than any government program can, with more accountability.
I recognize there are reasons many of these programs sprung up in the first place. I haven’t been convinced there weren’t other viable ways.
I hear political opinions all the time at church. My fellow ward members completely disagree, believing that their political opinions are church doctrine. As an example, many of our beliefs about end times leading to the millennium are actually more tied to our political opinions than to actual known doctrine. Do you think that the Second Coming is near because the world is so wicked? You can support that from selective scriptures, but it reflects conservative political talking points at least as much as it reflects doctrine. For many members, it’s easier to recognize when looking at liberal/progressive priorities. Taking care of the poor is both a liberal political priority and a scriptural commandment.
Politics and doctrine are much too intertwined to be easily separated. For a long time, it has been liberals and progressives who have left because the majority of members focused on conservative perspectives. I think many very conservative members are now starting to feel as unwelcome at church as the more liberal members have often felt. I know my neighbor who is one of the leading MAGA Republicans in Utah has commented that she has never gotten along with her fellow members in any of her wards. Her comments in church (e.g. she’s being persecuted for being a Christian) are often met with a moment of awkward silence, and then a change of subject.
I am genuinely sorry about this. I miss the days when I felt real connection with my fellow members. I try to at least not make things worse, but I’m pretty sure I’m not helping.
@Eli I appreciate the response. Mostly, I agree with you. I think most people would mostly agree with this:
However, I think most of us *do* fail at this, most of the time. I think a society that relies primarily on neighbors helping neighbors will ultimately lead to more misery than one that does not. (Do you know this much about the needs of your neighbors? If so, I applaud you! I do not.) If I know myself, and humanity, well enough to know that we’re collectively not going to voluntarily take care of each other as well as we need, so instead we design a system that allows for the poor to be taken care of even while we fail individually as humans, are we still failing? I would argue that we are not.
In general, the ideal that we should help our neighbors rather than relying on our government to do so is, I think, a good one, but I do think it fails in a few important ways. When everyone in the neighborhood is struggling, for example, there’s no help to give. But when this happens in the most wealthy nation on the planet (and arguably, in history) then there *should* be help to give, even if it’s not coming from your neighbor.
There are also some ways that a person might struggle but they don’t really want their neighbor to know about, especially in an insular community, but that they really need help with. A young girl may not realistically be able to share with her neighbors that she needs help with an unplanned pregnancy, but if she doesn’t get help it could literally ruin her life (and often does.) Sometimes, an impassive and anonymous government agency really is better at giving help in a fair way than a neighbor is.
I would certainly not argue that everything is perfect as is or couldn’t have been done any other way. While libertarian ideas are useful and instructive, I don’t think they lead directly to a better world.
Charles,
I, admittedly, have a lot of room for improvement. In all humility, I do think I’m making steady strides in those regards. I imagine you and I could probably both benefit from going a little further from our comfort zones.
Ultimately, my neighbor is every person on planet earth. I’ve always felt that charity begins in the home, but that doesn’t preclude helping the neighbor I’ve never met now and again.
“Sometimes, an impassive and anonymous government agency really is better at giving help in a fair way than a neighbor is.”
I get this, I really do. It made sense to me for a long time. Now, however, I feel that an impassive, anonymous government agency can also be used to inflict a great deal of damage, and with much less accountability. I’m no longer convinced the benefits of such a setup outweigh the costs. I understand others would disagree.
Wow. It’s so interesting to read the views of members in the U.S as a U.K. citizen. Even the most centrist views here feel very right wing and individualistic. I can see that the gospel has the potential to create community and thereby compassion. It’s an eye opener.
I love state sponsored health care, it has saved our lives every year. Many of us know that everyone hits hard times and need care, it’s a small country and we often know our neighbours. it seems obvious to me that we need each other’s care and that we need the welfare state to help us organise to do this, that the private philanthropic sector is too unpredictable.
Not that we find this easy, but the individualism shown in response to this post is only the preserve of the very rich here.
Georgis, you’re overreacting to Biden’s use of “bullseye,” a common metaphor not usually understood to be calling for violence. And the scant descriptions of the shooter, he appears to have more of a conservative background. Biden apologized because he’s a sensible person and a good president. Trump made fun of Paul Pelosi almost getting killed by an assassin. He has never apologized for the many many times he has invoked violence.
Bothsidesists, such as yourself, often seem to be easily duped by right-wing propaganda and are prone to false equivalence fallacies. Your narratives often struggle to identify extremism and extreme ideas or they label mainstream sound ideas as extreme, for you’re obsessed with finding some equivalent on the other side. If someone says that the earth is flat and the mainstream says it’s round, you guys always come in chiming that it’s probably oval and that there are problems on both sides. It’s a sort of militant centrism that is extremely contrarian and always accuses someone of blindness to the same sort of flaw happening on their side that they accuse the other side of. Democrats have never tried to rally together an angry mob to overturn the results of an election they don’t like. Democrats don’t support criminals for political office. Bob Menendez was just convicted and Schumer told him to leave. Schumer didn’t try to say that the conviction was bogus and that he was some sort of demigod. Sorry, no equivalency.
“If you and I know less about the struggles and needs of the family down the street than SNAP does, we’re both failing as Christians (and as humans for that matter), regardless of our politics.”
“Ultimately, my neighbor is every person on planet earth.”
Curious how to square these two comments from the same commenter. How can I know every person on the planet better than a program serving them?
“Now, however, I feel that an impassive, anonymous government agency can also be used to inflict a great deal of damage, and with much less accountability.”
I guess if we really knew all our neighbors then government wouldn’t be so faceless or accountable, would it? To give you faces to the faceless, both of my parents, my brother, and two brothers-in-law work for the government. They are not impassive in their jobs and show up every day intending to excel at their jobs. They have no issue being held accountable when they fall short. Not every government employee is like the sloth at the Zootopia DMV.
BradD, I am not going to join you in your hate mongering. I see good in conservatives and in liberals, I see positions on both sides that I like, and some that I don’t like. You have never seen me praise Trump, and you want me to praise Biden and to curse Trump. I won’t. Both have good and both have bad. There are good Democrats and there are good Republicans. There are decent people who support Biden and there are decent people who support Trump. I can’t be what you want me to be and be true to myself. I choose to look for good and for what might unite. Best wishes for the future to you. Out here.
Chadwick,
I never said all agencies had to go. If I can recall, you have a family member in highway patrol, correct? Very necessary. My dad was a social worker. His job would have been a lot easier if individuals stood up for the weaker a little more.
It’s really not hard to square both statements away. Non-profits, missions, foreign exchange programs. Libertarianism does not mean staying in a shell. There’s nothing stopping charity from moving from the home, neighborhood, and onto the town, state, and country across the world.
“I guess if we really knew all our neighbors then government wouldn’t be so faceless or accountable, would it?”
Nope, and little of it would be all that necessary any more either. Hopefully we can at least agree that getting to know our neighbors is important.
We could learn much from the examples made by the Black Robed Regiment before and during the Revolutionary War. America likely would not exist without them.
Wheat and Tares – the place which I deliberately seek out for witty, nuanced, insightful and extraordinarily helpful political dialogue and opinion. No, Not Really. ….Rather, Not At All.
Georgis, nice indirect and passive-aggressive way of calling me a hateful person. If hating hateful people who use violent rhetoric is hatemongering, then so be it. I stand for truth and justice. That means when pathological liars who are serial criminals take over an entire political party, I call out their lies and demand that they be held accountable for crimes. You, on the other hand, have no backbone, and will let liars and criminals walk all over you, our democracy, and our constitution all in the name of some sort of false sense of civility. Refuting lies is not incivility. It is a moral duty. Defending democracy from violent thugs is not incivility, it too is a moral duty. Bothsidesism is the refuge of cowards.
Josh H, As you seem to think each candidate is equally undeserving of your vote, would you consider voting on my behalf as I can’t. I would not vote for Biden because of his condition, but the policies he says he will implement are so much more acceptable than trumps. Please vote democrat for stability, and democracy.
Australia has a defence treaty with America…. doubt trump will honour it.
Australia has an agreement to buy nuclear submarines from America….similar
Australia is part of un agreement on climate change as is America… Trump is against climate change and the world is at a tipping point 13 months each the hottest on record. Heat waves throughout the northern hemisphere at present. Imagine 120 degrees in India without air conditioning, and water infrastructure failing. Or the hage in Saudi Arabia in similar temps.
Australia is a trading nation…. trump will damage world trade.
Trump threatens democracy in America. If America is no longer the leader of the free world, the ballance between the free world, and the autocrats changes, the autocrats become more aggressive. No one is safe.
Eli,
Liberitarians believe government is less capable than private individuals, and private enterprise. So small government is preferable.
I have just had a moderate stroke followed by another. I spent a week in hospital, where I was treated for my symptoms but also provided with all sort of advice to help me improve all aspects of my overall health to prevent my returning to hospital. Heart health, diet, exercise etc. During and after the hospital visit I recieved physiotherapy including two of them visiting me at home every second day to continue treatment, and then I visited them at the hospital, and am now almost recover except I am still wearing a heart monitor. The service was incredible and aimed at helping me not return to hospital. Prevention. At no point was I asked for money.
Now Australia has universal healthcare provided by the federal government, and it costs half per person the American free enterprise system. https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=tablet-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=cost+of+australian+healthcare+v+american%2Fperson
One other example of small government, meaning the wealthy get better treatment. In Australia all beaches are freely available to all, in fact local government provide showers, bathrooms, and picnic areas behind the beaches often with free electric BBQS. Hotels and houses are a block back. A few years ago we were in Florida and thought we’d see the famous beaches. We couldn’t see them so went to a tourist information place, where we were told there was a public beach 20 miles down the road. The public beach was 100 yards long bit of sand crowded with people and with a fence going into the sea at each end. All the other beaches are owned by those who can afford beach front land.
Small government leaves the wealthy to get wealthier while the rest get left out.
Geoff-Aus,
I’ll spare you being dragged into another one of these debates we’ve had multiple times before. I do want you to know I am genuinely happy you are on the mend.
Thanks Eli, I should let you know there are also areas for service, my wife delivers meals on wheels, and a daughter is a volunteer rural fire officer. She has just run a training course for remote area fire fighters (called smoke jumpers in calfornia).
Good post, Dave B, both timely and calm.
I’m a Democrat, and recently I attended a lecture by my state’s Republican governor. He shared something very interesting about the furor on social media. Not surprisingly, there are bots used by (I forget exactly; foreign govts who want to stir up problems in America? something like that) and those bots are programmed to use inflammatory language on both sides. The goal is to divide Americans. They’ll post whatever reaches that goal, whether it’s on the right or the left. Some of the craziest accusations you see going around the Internet aren’t from real people; they’re bots.
I believe that most of the country is united in many of our values. However, the rhetoric skews the ability to discuss our common values. Smear campaigns against entire populations are destructive; there is no reason to believe that public school teachers are teaching your kids to be gay. But you can’t even talk about that because the topic is radioactive due to lies and smears.
And on the topic of either libertarianism or government agencies, I am strongly in favor of govt agencies. For example, there is serious mental illness in my family. Someone’s neighbor isn’t going to be able to give the level of help necessary. And when the mental illness is serious enough, the person afflicted can’t work and get health insurance. Family members have burned out and set boundaries. Private charity can help in smaller and easier situations, like someone breaks a leg and needs meals brought in and their lawn mowed for a few weeks. But many challenges are too big for the neighbor approach. I wish medical care wasn’t tied to being healthy enough to work full time.
I don’t know much about what my neighbors need. I’ve helped out here and there. But I had a bad experience with visiting teaching a high needs individual that burned me out big time. She didn’t need a visiting teacher; she needed a home health aide. A home health aide should be paid. Caregiving is an exhausting job.
Yes, there are good people who vote for Trump and Biden.
There were also enough good people who supported Hitler because he was making Germany great again after their decline with WWI.
People are the same people.There are always good people everywhere in every generation who vote differently. But sometimes it really matters.
My dad served in WWII. He always told me never vote for a leader who lacks compassion. Amen ,dad.
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Well, I went to the market last week and bought 32 rolls of toilet paper…The price of gasoline? Channeling Father Guido Sarducci: supply and demand.
As for calls for peace and statements from pols that violence, particularly gun violence,”is not who we are” it’s exactly who we are. USA is easily one of the top most violent countries if death by guns is surveyed.
BTW the trope of “good Germans” is ironic. The good German says, “I don’t know where my Jewish neighbor went. And I didn’t ask. But I was happy to buy the grand piano he left behind at a very good price.”
I was thinking further about the important principles of democracy, and the structure of the government established by the Constitution.
Democracy and freedom are based on separation of powers. No one entity/person gets to have too much power. Govt is separated into executive, judicial, and legislative branches. We need elected officials who respect that separation of power.
As for methods, I think term limits and age restrictions would help a lot. Again, the goal is to keep power from accumulating in one person/office in a way that unbalances other persons/offices.
Age restriction: No one can hold an elected office past their 72nd birthday. The oldest presidential candidate would thus be 68 or younger. Candidates for Senate would be no older than 66. This would break up the personality cults and entrenched baggage of someone who has held the same political office for 45 years (looking at you, Strom Thurmond).
Term limits. After Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to President for four terms, the USA passed a constitutional amendment limiting Presidents to two terms. Yes, great idea. Let’s broaden that to other offices. Limit the 6-year Senators to two terms. The 2-year terms for Congressmen are short enough that maybe we allow several terms. Or just put a limit like this: No individual can hold elected office for more than twenty years. That would get rid of career politicians.
Again — the goal is to break up power. The Constitution separates powers. Let’s do that.
Incidentally, Biden released a statement that he supports imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. That’s a great idea. Appoint a Justice for a 25 year term. That way, everyone knows when a new Sup Ct Justice is being appointed. Lifetime appointments may have been fine back when people lived on average to about 50 or 60, but now that people can live 30 years longer than that, we need another limit besides death.
vagra, you are wrong about the German people. There were good people mixed in with the bad people just exactly like now in the US. Sure, *some* of them were “happy to buy the piano” and others were hiding Jews in their attics and basements, others knew that their neighbor was hiding Jews and didn’t report it. Others helped smuggle out Jewish children, others simply watched helplessly as it all unfolded. Some fled Germany because they saw what was coming.
And Hitler did a FAR better job of running Germany as far as “making it Great again” but he was also a monster. Germans had FAR more reason to vote for Hitler when he first ran for office than Americans did voting for Trump. At least they didn’t KNOW he was a monster out to destroy their country. We knew that Trump was a rapist and a con man before he got elected the first time. Then he gave us four years of chaos, and set things up for runaway inflation by putting tariffs on foreign goods and the way he handled Covid. Then he tried to overthrow the election, and now some people think it is a good idea to elect him again.
I lived in Germany when there were still a lot of Germans who had been through the war. Including one Jew who survived by his neighbors hiding him. And some who had been POWs taken to the US and kept in POW camps. Some who voted for Hitler and then were horrified. They *wanted* to tell us how to stop a monster before he had complete control. They wanted the mistake they made to never happen again. That is why they preserved a few of the concentration camps, with the sign outside that says “Never Again”. The whole point is to *remember* how a monster came to have so much power that he could not be stopped.
And now I am helplessly watching it happen in my own country. I am NOT saying Trump is as bad as Hitler. But I AM pointing out that he wants to be dictator. He has said that he wants to be dictator. So, just how stupid can people be to vote in a man who *says* he wants to be dictator? But seriously, my husband and I are talking about fleeing America because we can see what is coming. We have checked into migrating to Australia or New Zealand…or even Germany.
Janey is correct that our government needs term limits, age restrictions, and tougher laws against bribes and corruption.
We also need to figure out how to restrict internet bots from other countries that keep our political discussions inflamed. Learn about this if you don’t know.
And make some laws against the kind of violent language the far right is making common. A politician who says that he has a list of enemies and some people need killing should be restricted from office.
And the Dems need a bill to try to pass in Congress named the “Save Trump from assignation” bill, making machine guns and anything resembling them illegal and subject to heavy fines. Then watch as Republican dare oppose something called the “Save Trump from Assination” bill, as they giggle over the irony.
Anna,
I want you to know I don’t think you are over reacting. All over America transgender people and their families are moving from more MAGA areas to the relative safety of blue states. Some are making efforts to get their passports together so they can leave the country. They are watching the elections closely, avoiding coming out or making moves that will get them on official lists of people who change their names, until after they see how the elections turn out.
I know this because I have participated in LGBTQ and allies FB support groups. Trump’s lack of compassion for those who are different is terrifying. We don’t get to choose if we are different, and sometimes for the disabled, for people of different races and ethnicities, there is simply nowhere to hide.
Brad D: in my opinion – you’re incredibly immature and overly emotional; and yes you do “sound” hateful and angry. Might be time to grow up a bit, Mate; and understand that not everyone views the World the way you do – and probably never well. (Despite how angrily you try to shove it down everyone’s throat.)
About the time this talk came out, I stopped going to church because if I talked about loving my daughter, who is gay, it was criticized as political. If I talked about equality or justice, or even forgiveness, it was condemned as political. I think it was because I’d quote a scripture and then try to apply it to today’s news. The scripture was ignored and talking about it’s application was political.
That being said, I was shocked to hear about the assassination attempt on former president Trump but what went through my mind first was how glad I was that I didn’t have to have a huge anxiety attack about going to church the next day and listening to anything to everything that was either said our unsaid about God’s intervention.
Sure, religion is important but I don’t really see religion separate from politics, why? Because politics is the embodiment of how we put religion into practice. Even if the church were ruling the world, there would be politics involved in its administration of policies.
Instereo,
I can’t sort out and compartmentalize politics from religion either. They are very connected. When I discovered I could no longer vote Republican, I had to sort through all my religious convictions in order to determine how I felt about voting Democrat. They were extremely connected for me.
However, I understand how important it is to make everyone welcome at church, regardless of politics. This is a complex proposition. Politics are part of everything, from assigning chores at home, to managing things at work, to managing church callings and friendships. While I cannot compartmentalize, I can try to love others even when I disagree with them.
lws329,
You hit it on the head. It can be all political and we still have to practice our religion and love one another. As an aside to further complicate the issue;
I wonder why there’s such a push to post the 10 Commandments and not the Beatitudes. Where does compassion come from? Do we follow Moses or Christ?
@Janey – I love your ideas for govt. reform. One that I would add is that I would like to see congressional representatives have a 4-year term instead of 2. Also, why have we not expanded the count of congressional representatives tremendously as the US population has grown? This would dilute the impact of money in politics. Also, 2 years is too short and I feel like this just leads to fundraising instead of developing technocratic competency to pass good legislation. Also, the Economist had a great issue about ways to reform the supreme court. I think an idea that appealed to me is to have judges rotate from the district courts or circuit courts. Another idea was to have an panel of judges nominate a slate of potential judges that could be appointed by a president to give the court some vetting authority. Maybe also give every president 1 automatic appointment or something so you don’t have the situation where we have 1 president exerting such a dramatic shift in the court ideology. Lots of ideas…
@Instereo & @lws329 – Wanted to second the notion that the church is inherently political. This is what Stanley Hauerwas argues. How could it be otherwise? The church structure itself and its governence leads spills over and influences the politics of its members, as does the types of teachings, scriptures, and principles that are emphasized by its sermons, leaders, sunday school classes, etc.