Newsflash people!
Elections are over! Would I be right to suppose that we have had enough of politics? I can only imagine how it is for you in the USA who have been more directly bombarded by the constant media reports of our nation’s political sitcom. That said, I promise that this will be the last column linking politics and religion for a while. Seriously, I promise.
Political Lessons from Grandma
Before the 2004 election, my (Mormon) Grandmother told me: “If John Kerry becomes president, it will only be prophecy coming to pass!” I wasn’t quite sure how to respond. Having read the scriptures, I could not recall ever reading the John Kerry Prophecy. Finally I asked her, “isn’t that kind of the point of prophecy?” Apparently, she read somewhere (probably in the Gospel of Rush) that a Democrat would arise to power and destroy all morality in the world.
Fast forward to 2008
Barack Obama is elected the new president. Proposition 8 passes in California. Sarah Palin is exiled to Alaska. Many new changes are taking effect. Some of you rejoice, some of you cry and curse the heavens, and some of you probably just don’t care. Whatever you feel following the elections, you are probably just glad it’s over.
What does this have to do with Mormons?
For the past several decades, Mormons have been among the most fervent supporters of the Republican Party. Take Utah for example (more than 70% Mormon), which, before 2008, was the most Republican state in the nation. In the past, Mormons were attracted to Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility, states rights, etc. They embraced Reaganism, and continually became redder. Even after President Clinton showed how Democrats could be fiscally responsible and limit government, and after George W. Bush showed that Republicans could do the opposite, many continued to support Republicans based on the new “social conservative” movement which resonated with religious voters throughout the country.
What has changed with this election?
It would seem that some of the Mormon ties to Republicanism have begun to burst. In Utah, Barack Obama took nearly 35% of the vote, while John McCain only received about 64%. Compare this with 2004, when nearly 72% of the people in Utah re-elected George W. Bush, while only 29% went for John Kerry. With this turn of events, Utah has toppled from its claim as the reddest state, bested by both Wyoming and Oklahoma. Could it be that Mormons have received the memo and realized that being a church member does not mean that one is required to vote straight-ticket Republican?
Now, I have nothing against Republicans at all. I am not registered as a Democrat or as a Republican. However, I feel political diversity is healthy for Mormons, and I hope to see more of it. Though it is certainly too early to say, maybe this election was a turning point for Mormons, who are beginning to realize that it is okay to be a Mormon and not be a Republican.
Moral of this story
At the end of any election, the candidates give speeches stressing the need for unity. This is standard procedure, designed to help calm the anger of all (like my Grandma) who feel that if “the other guy” gets elected it is a sure sign of the onset of Nazism (aka Republicans) or Communism (aka Democrats). Though we might see through this phony attempt at reconciliation, the message is a good one. We should unite and move forward. The country will move on just fine, no matter if there is a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office. The only thing that keeps us divided is our unwillingness to get along.
I hope that Mormons are becoming more politically diverse. Maybe even someday, Utah will become a true swing-state, where religious identity is far separated from affiliation with any political party. I feel this year’s election was a good sign. Of course, if Mitt Romney decides to run in 2012, my hopes and dreams of a politically diverse church might get blown back to the Stone Age.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Sorry I haven't kept up with your blog in awhile, Nils. Anyway, I am so glad you posted about this! I have thought a lot about this topic. Growing up, my parents didn't really talk about politics. I find out as an adult that my dad is unaffiliated (not Mormon) and my mom sounds a little like your grandma. (Mormon) So, I've had to really discover how I define my political standing on my own.
So this guy was running as a Libertarian in Utah and called himself "Super Dell". What the HECK? He really sounded psycho and was accusing everyone of socialism. And the constitutional party is a mystery to me. They want to return to the constitution as "the founding fathers envisioned it". Does that mean that women shouldn't have the right to vote and blacks should still be slaves?
Utah is a weird place for politics. It's like if you aren't a Republican or some extreme right party then you're on the devil's side, you know? Now, I do tend to agree with a lot of Republican views (but not the "let's ignore the whole idea of a budget and spend money like it's water!" plan).
I think you're right. A little diversity is a good thing for Utah. I think Obama has the potential to be a good president. I really like his views on unity and reaching across the aisle to compromise. As for Utah, if you saw the election map, SLC was blue. But please. Please don't tell me that people actually expect Obama to fix their lives. That he'll fix the economy (the economy can fix itself without meddling), and that he will be the middle-class salvation. I'm sure he'll do a lot of good, but we are the best ones to affect change in our own lives and we don't need a president to do it. (Just look at the current Pres.)
Utah is far more politically diverse than many seem to think or realize. It's just that most of the diversity is found in the primary elections and Republican party workings at the state and county level. Since most people are not all that politically active and don't pay much attention to primaries, many just assume that Utah is not politically diverse. I was very active in the Republican party when I lived in Utah and saw great diversity in opinion. If Utah is not politically diverse because most people vote Republican, does that mean Massachusetts is not politically diverse either? I'm sure you will find plenty of political diversity in Massachusetts if you get involved in the Democrat party primary debates and elections. Some of the most heated debates I have witnessed have been among Republicans at primary debates and at county party events.
Personally, I am a libertarian with a little "l" and a Republican with a big "R". Although I must admit that I have basically stopped my involvement in the Republican party after I worked on the campaign for someone who ran against Tom Delay in the primary for the 2006 election cycle and lost, only to have Delay resign and completely screw things up for conservatives in his district. Too much trashiness going on within the party at the time for my taste.
Just because a lot of Mormons fall under the Republican label in and out of Utah doesn't mean there is no political diversity among them. Republicans are Republicans for a variety of reasons, even if they are Mormon. Many are libertarians who wish to work within a major party to have some influence. Many are more conservative on social issues but are also big government "compassionate conservatives". Others are economic conservatives who don't care about social issues at all. There's lots of diversity there. And the Democrats are the same. They have lots of political diversity within the party that doesn't always come out in the general election when most people actually pay attention.
There are plenty of Democrats in Utah. You just have to get outside of Salt Lake and Utah valleys to find them. You can find lots of Democrats in mining communities, but they may or may not vote Democrat at the national level. I'm from Texas and the South and, trust me, there are lots of "Democrats" who haven't actually voted for a Democrat in years, especially in national elections. But they would never admit it because it is still heresy in many places. And in those places, Democrats are far more conservative in their ideology than Republicans in the northeast.
I am sure lots of your blog readers don't appreciate a lot of the generalizations made about them because they happen to fall under the "Mormon" label because they are not all the same. Same thing applies for those Mormons who fall under the "Republican" label too. Scratch the surface, and you will find plenty of diversity.
I think Tara has some excellent points. I wasn't excited at all about W. in the 2000 election; I really only voted for him because Al Gore was even less exciting for me (not just talking about his personality here :).
This year, even: when it came Primary time for me, a registered Republican, I wouldn't have classified myself as being a true fan of any of the candidates- I definitely wasn't a Huckabee camper, a McCain fanatic, or even a Romney nut. I ended up going for Romney because I thought he could help do wonders for the economy, he wasn't as old and crotchety as McCain, and was far more interesting than Huckabee (Chuck Norris aside).
I admit I started off as a Republican largely because of my parents, but have since stayed Republican of my own accord. The issues that interest me are largely the social/moral issues, mainly because I don't understand the economy or health care. But I'm working on it.
Sarah -
Great to have you back! I appreciate your points. I am glad you brought up the fact that Obama isn't the savior of the country as many people are claiming/thinking. Sure, he will have some influence of nation-level policies, but real change takes more than one person.
Conversely, he isn't the demise of everything good as we know it. People give a lot of credit to the President, and act as if he (or she) has the power to ultimately dictate the level of morality for everyone in the country. Even in the last week since Obama got elected, I have received forward e-mails comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and others, as well as reading a number of posts people have made (including from friends) on other blogs suggesting that Barack Obama's election is a sure sign of the Second Coming. While people are free to have such extreme (and ridiculous) beliefs, it mostly just makes me laugh at how much credit and power some are willing to offer the President of the United States. I think there are far more diverse powers at work which dictate the overall moral fiber of a nation, not to mention individual free agency.
Tara-
You make a good point about the diversity of political viewpoints among Mormons, and indeed among Mormon Republicans. I do not intend to make generalizations about all of them, but I am speaking from personal experience what I have heard coming from many Mormons, including good friends, who religiously adhere to voting Republican. I lived in Utah for most of my life and have been involved in politics there on both local and statewide levels. I have supported both Republicans and Democrats, due in fact to the point you made, i.e. not all Republicans (or Democrats) are the same.
Despite the fact that many of the Republicans have different views as to what is most important (for example, a cousin of mine is a devout Republican, while at the same time a vocal environmentalist), there is still a strong tendency among Utahns to vote straight-ticket (and not just among the Republicans).
One thing I do like about the Utah Democrat Party is that they are fairly conservative as far as Democrats go (Salt Lake City aside). I like moderation in all things, especially politics. I also appreciate the fact that Utah Republicans are not your typical Republicans that you might find in other parts of the country. Despite a few fringe vocalists, I have found most of them to be very moderately-minded. Utahns also show a strong tendency to vote for 3rd Party Candidates (and not just right-wing candidates, over 6% voted for Ralph Nader in 2000).
My concern is that I still hear too many times people making the ridiculous claim that "You cannot be a good Mormon and a Democrat." I am sure Harry Reid and Jim Matheson, among many others, would beg to differ.
Steven-
You mention a very important point. Many people end up supporting one political party or another based on the preferences of their parents. When I was 6 years old, I remember making a "Vote For Dukakis" pin in kindergarten, and wore it around to show my support for the Democratic presidential candidate that my parents were supporting. Looking back in time as a more informed voter (at least more informed than I was as a six-year-old) I most certainly would have supported President Bush (the older one) over Dukakis in the election, and would have gladly worked for his campaign.
I have found that much of the way I vote depends on where I live. When living in Utah, I tended to lean Democrat because I felt that it would be good to build up more than one powerful political party in that state. However, living in California and Maryland, I was more impressed by many Republican candidates than I had been in a largely Republican state. The underdog usually has to think their position through a little better and ends up being more moderate.
Since you are in a very close swing state, I think it is great that you are a registered Republican. Your state needs both parties. You also state in an excellent way the fact that being a registered voter in one party doesn't mean you have to vote for that party in the national election. Just ask Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, or Joe Lieberman.
As for being interested in moral issues, I think that is fine. However, I wonder if those views are best reflected by simply supporting candidates who claim similar moral views on social issues, but can't do that much about them, or rather by supporting civil society organizations which help to really solve some of the social problems which people complain about. For example (and I am not saying this is your most important issue), a person who would like to see abortions severely diminished or done away with in the United States could either spend their time voting for candidates who say they are also against abortion, protesting with groups or trying to lobby for anti-abortion legislation, or they could spend their time volunteering with non-profit organizations which help encourage adopting, help young mothers, etc. Which one of these options do you think would have the most concrete and long-term influence on discouraging abortions? Just my thoughts...
Sarah! Way to represent! And Tara! It's nice to have female voices go first! Good comment too Steve :)
I wanted to make a note on the Republican party and how many other Christian religions widely give support. I noticed it for the first time in this election (probably because for the first time I was far more aware than I have been in previous elections). I think Nils mentioned this, but when I started showing hints of "Democrat" support, a lot of my non-Mormon Christian relatives started bombarding me with anti-Demo/Obama e-mails. By the way, most of the e-mails that circulate during a campaign are nonsense and very annoying. I noticed a common thread that holds Christians to the Republican Party is the party's stance on abortion. Often I would be asked how could I morally justify voting for a baby killer.
I think that after moral questions were raised during the Clinton Administration, Republican Party strategy shifted to being the "Morally Correct" Party. Though I would like to note that Clinton and the Democratic Party were widely un-liked by my family prior to any Monica scandal. If anything, the whole adultery thing seemed to prove the correctness of being Republican.
As I watched the debates and discussed politics with Nils, I realized that the fundamentals of each party have come closer and closer together. I even took a quiz one day out of curiosity where masked quotes by either McCain or Obama were given and I was supposed to pick which statement I supported. At the end the results would magically show to whom I owed my support based on the quotes I picked. The funny thing was, often the quotes were essentially the same, with slight word variations. It was interesting to read, rather than hear, the quotes said by the candidates.
Perhaps it's the board generalizations made from one party to another that keep us clinging to one over the other. The demographics or lifestyles of party followers...? Example, not all Democrats are poor people who want government to take care of their needs. And not all Republicans are rich people who have the "every man/woman for him/herself" attitude.
From this election I came out feeling more free and flexible to make political decisions not based on party. Definitely a new thing for me... ;)
Sidetrack warning!!!
Nils- off-hand, I want to comment on your comment on Sarah's comment about the president: I know I'm going to be heckled and ridiculed and booed at for this, but I want to use your well-put point that a single president can't make or break a nation. I want to use it to say that people place too much of the blame on where our country is today on President Bush. I hear people blame Bush for our standing in the international community, for the economy, and a whole slew of other things. It kills me, because Bush doesn't nor has ever had that much power. He could send us to Iraq, but he couldn't keep us there. Congress did that part, and has continued doing that part for a long time.
People place far too much on the office of the President, when in reality, he doesn't have that much power. It may start with an idea or action, but it takes Congress and the rest of the government to get behind him and support it.
I make no claims that Bush will stand among the pantheon of great American presidents, but like or hate the man, he's not to blame for the country's problems.
Okay, sidetrack over. Apologies.
Emily-
Thanks for your comments. I am so impressed how steep your political learning curve has been. If you don't mind me publicly praising you, just a little over a year ago you had about 0 interest in politics, and now you are an intelligent and informed voter. I am so proud! Some people work on it their entire lives and don't even get close to where you have gotten in your understanding of the role of politics in the life of people.
However, I hope you are prepared to continue to receive anti-Obama literature from your relatives for the next 8 years...
Steven-
Thanks for the warning and sidetrack accepted.
You make a very fair point concerning the fact that President Bush shouldn't take all the blame for the nations problems. I agree completely. Like I stated earlier, the President is just one person and isn't solely responsible for the prosperity or demise of the country.
However, it doesn't mean that a President also has zero influence. Depending on what you define as the problems of the country, a President (or any individual, to a lesser extent) also plays a role in the situation.
You mentioned our standing in the world community and economy as two examples. Here's how I see how a President, in this case George W. Bush, can influence the situation.
The one area of policy where the office of the President has full control over is foreign policy. During his first term, George W. Bush made a number of foreign policy decisions and implemented these policies. Many of these policies just didn't make sense, and the global community called the USA out on these issues. Speaking as one whose #1 issue is foreign policy, I personally felt that these decisions did not make sense either.
Many Americans realized this, which led to a rapid reduction in President Bush's approval ratings. However, despite his free-fall from more than 90% approval ratings following 9/11, Americans re-elected George W. Bush to a second term. The international community went from thinking "can't say I like your President's policy making, but American people are still cool," "how could 50 million Americans be so stupid to re-elect this guy?" In this case, I think that the American voters are just as much to blame for our poor image around the world. However, I must add that as of last Wednesday this viewpoint turned 180 degrees, and people started congratulating me everywhere I go on electing a good President. I guess the global community is quick to forgive and forget when it comes to America.
For the economy, I don't these problems can in any case be placed on George W. Bush solely. The American consumers are those who I feel are most responsible for the mess. Running high debts, rampant bankruptcy, and living outside of one's means...the list goes on.
The only thing that George W. Bush shares some of the blame for is promoting deficit spending and running up huge costs for war in a time which was not economically prudent for the United States. Basically, it was just doing the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. But, like you said, he isn't the cause of the bad situation, he just wasn't the solution either.
Anyway, I fear I may have said too much concerning this sidetrack. Hopefully this discussion doesn't turn into an analysis of Bush's legacy...
I can appreciate Tara's comment, but only to a certain degree. I guess it's just a difference of what we mean by diversity. Is BYU a racially diverse campus? There are people on campus from almost every country. I think by most people's standards it is far from diverse. I'll buy the point that Utah has people from all over the political spectrum, but it's not the diversity that I think Nils was speaking of. I agree with him, it would be fantastic to have Utah become a swing state.
I liked this article by Elder Jensen on this very topic: http://ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=79643
If by hoping that Mormons become more politically diverse you are hoping that Mormons disagree on the issues, wouldn't the result be that Mormons become at arms length from one another, rather than refuge to one another, in a world where morals cannot but crumple under the sheer weight of godless sophists?
You calling me fat?
geoffsn-
Thanks for the link! For those of you who don't know or want to take the time to read the article, Elder Marlin K. Jensen is an active member of the Democrat party as well as a General Authority. He has often been the spokesperson for the Church in terms of what the Church's stance on politics is.
Tobyo-
I don't think at all that political diversity means disagreeing on the issues. I think fundamentally you will find that the interests of most politicians (personal interests aside, assuming there is anything left) and political activists are the same. However, they fight over the positions they take relating to how to obtain those interests.
I think the mere fact that we (those who are Mormons) belong to a Church which is very centralized and collectivist in nature, it is easier for us to recognize that our interests are the same, and we (most of the time) are most likely to recognize our shared interests.
As for being crumpled under the weight of godless sophists, I think diversity can lead to a more widespread support system than putting all of our eggs in one basket.
Godless Sophist-
I had hoped your weight problem wouldn't become a public issue on this blog. My sincerest apologies to you.
Nils, I am Emilie's mom and Eric's wife. I stumbled across your great blog while I was looking at Emilie's. I am going to forward your blog to some of my friends.
I grew up in a household of Democrats and a father who taught education classes and political science at the University. When my parents built a beautiful courtyard in their front yard 35-40years ago, my dad jokingly said it was to "keep the Republicans out." He was vocal about his beliefs and still managed to be a community leader in very conservative South Davis County.
Fast forward all these years. In my mid-east bench neighborhood, two fine, young, educated families moved in a few years ago. They are active in our LDS ward. They each placed Obama signs in their front yard; only to have to replace them because of theft at least once.
I admire them for their courage, but I feel for them as they are continually chided at church functions. It borders persecution.
I don't know if some people did not hear the letter from the first presidency that "there is good in both parties" or that we are neutral in respect to parties, but it gets old sometimes.
At church the week after the election, you would have thought that Armigeddon was next week. A relief society lesson was changed to talk about secret combinations and the 'government hanging by a thread.' Of course, Eric feels that it has hung by a thread these past eight years with much abuse of Executive Power. The same happened in the high priest lesson to the extent that finally a former bishop stood and told the teacher that he was "using the lesson to further his [the teacher's] political agenda."
I am hoping that we, as a people, can grow enough to take each idea independently of the party it originates from, and examine it.
I will let you know if I see any reason for hope in my area.
Heidi-
Thanks for contributing! I am sorry to hear that there still seems to be a lot of change yet to take place in your area. I especially find it discouraging when people begin to mix political beliefs into their church lessons. I think people hear the political neutrality letters that are sent out and read in front of every congregation during each election year, but, it is much easier to ignore than other things for many.
I do find it interesting that your relief society was assigned to talk about "the government hanging by a thread." This is a saying that has been attributed to Joseph Smith, though for years it has been viewed by Mormon historians and even by Church authorities as likely something that Joseph Smith never said. Though I do agree with you, if there ever was a reason for this actually happening, I have seen more of it occur during the past 8 years as the office of the executive has greatly expanded power without much consequence.
Keep being a good influence in your area!
Post a Comment