A Cantankerous Myth

May 31, 2010

Coming from an upbringing that insists constantly to be the custodian of truth, I find it interesting that some in my religious heritage do not even seem to begin understanding the erroneous nature of some of their most basic beliefs.

While my church purports to be politically neutral, it is often difficult to disconnect religion from politics completely. Sometimes the two are one and the same. In this context, one of the ideas that has affected me most negatively is simply this: you can't be Mormon and a democrat.

Just for the record, I am not a part of any political party. But while some might point out the simply benign nature of the above statement, it is obvious that among many of your average mainstream LDS people, this is basically a play off of a statement made by one of Mormon conservatives most beloved disciple, Ezra Taft Benson: "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction." Today we could just insert the word "democrat" for "socialist."

Many conservatives want to use words like those of Benson to contend that being a so-called liberal means you are not worthy, not faithful, not patriotic. It seems that such individuals are unaware of the history of the church, yet they sometimes take this idea to such an extreme that they cannot tolerate anyone who has a distinct point of view. Progressives/liberals are enemies to the causes of God and country. They are a cancer that undermines the foundation of our constitutional government. I have personally experienced this lack of understanding and tolerance from people, some of them very close to me.

While I am despised by some for just acknowledging that it is okay for people to have different points of view, whatever the religious background, the viewpoint that a Mormon has to be connected with republicanism/conservatism is simply false.

Take this opinion from Hugh B. Brown, at the time a member of the church's First Presidency:

"Every person is entitled to his or her opinion, which will be respected as long as he or she respects the opinions of others. Individual General Authorities have the right and privilege to express their own opinions, which, when expressed, represent their opinions only. There may be different opinions among the General Authorities, but we are united on the basic principles of the gospel. When it comes to expressing an opinion on some other organization or some political or quasi-political question, one hopes that the authorities of the church will have the good grace not to be extreme, to keep near the center of the road. All my life I have advocated that people in and out of the church should think through every proposition presented to them. Positions may be modified as time passes by discussing them with others, but there should be no question that both liberals and conservatives in the church are free to express their opinions."
** from "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown," p. 131.**

More recently it is well known that the late James E. Faust, also an Apostle and member of the First Presidency, was a Utah democrat.

I was especially miffed to just recently find an article from 1998 of an interview with Marlin K. Jensen, another democrat, and current church historian:

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

How is it that I could be taught for years that being a democrat was akin to being an apostate when this is simply not true? Did most of the individuals from whom I heard this idea even know any democrats personally? Even if they feel strongly about their conservative views, are they justified in ostracizing and rejecting those of different opinions? Is their behavior in any way Christlike? Coming from a tradition of being cruelly persecuted as Mormons, it is jaw-dropping to see Mormons do an about-face and persecute others just because they have differing political views.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I do not really think that differing opinions are really justification for classifying people as enemies. We should be able to appreciate and respect one another. We should be glad that not everyone has the same point of view. We should expect that even with the most righteous of motivations, different people will see the world in opposing ways. As President Brown said, as long as we are respectful, we deserve others' respect.

I am convinced that the conservatives I know have good intentions. Their reasoning is generally sound for believing the things they do. But there is no justification for judgments of large segments of society because of their politics. Defending the indefensible in this way makes their position appear tenuous and weak, for they refuse to even engage in discussion of anything but that which merely goes along with what they already believe. Such an attitude has the potential to be just as damaging to the country as any supposed progressive cancer.

On a day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives and families for our freedoms, it would be good to remember that those heroes died in defense of the rights we all enjoy to think and believe as we choose, black and white, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, christian and atheist.

The World Turned Upside Down

March 12, 2009

I have been cognizant of the workings of politics for a relatively short amount of time. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for one to figure out that politics is very easy to predict, since the topic is very cyclical in nature (some might replace the word cyclical with "hypocritical").

With this in mind, I wondered for several years before the last election, what would happen if a democrat were elected president? For nearly two years, conservatives complained and complained about an evil media machine that would bend over backwards to get Barack Obama elected; the same media were a huge enemy to President George W. Bush for eight years.

I literally had conversations with people who told me with the utmost conviction that if Obama got elected, we would be screwed, but that the media would actually make us think everything was wonderful, being the democratic whipping children that the media were.

So, given the premise that the media are hopelessly biased, it was no surprise how Obama practically cleaned John McCain's clock in the election. There then followed the transition period, after which Barack actually became President Obama.

Not much later, I was absolutely astounded to see storys about layoffs, crashing stock markets, forclosures, and all other sorts of economic turmoil. I was surprised to see actual criticisms of President Obama - his stimulus plan, his failure to forge bipartisan inroads, not vetoing the $410 billion spending bill, failing to bring ALL troops home from Iraq like he said he would, etc. Not only was I surprised, I was incredibly dumbfounded to see that such criticisms came from conservative AND liberal writers.

And now, conservatives who spouted off for at least the last eight years that a person was unpatriotic to criticize the president, have gotten out the clubs, and are going to town, now that the president isn't a republican anymore.

While everything has changed - the Democrats have considerable majorities in both houses of Congress, and control the presidency - nothing has really changed. Liberals who bashed Bush incessantly are now critical of people who can't stand Obama, and conservatives who justified every move President Bush (because you have to respect him, he's our president for crying out loud) made, are now venomously on the prowl to attack Obama.

And the biased, far-left media machine have disappointed me tremendously. An obviously biased media would not allow so many conservatives to publish disparaging opinions toward Obama. They reported job losses and facts about a faltering economy to make Bush look bad, because they simply hated the man. So why would they report negative press about the economy now that Bush is gone? How are Rush Limbaugh and his conservative clones on the radio not being silenced?

Of course, the only answer I seem to get from conservatives is a fake, theoretical argument: sure, the press still report the negative things, but if John McCain (or any other republican name) were in charge, the press would be out for blood, blaming everything on him, and calling for his impeachment, yada, yada.

My favorite response: theoretically, pigs could fly, but I'm not sure what point that proves.

I guess the most predictable fact about politics: those ideologues on both sides will continue to see what they want to see, and turn a blind eye to anything else, all the while decrying the biases of others, remaining hopelessly entrenched in their own biased worldview.

If nothing else, I suppose it gives me the right to call myself a prophet. And that ain't so bad.

Ugly Times for Republicans

This morning I watched Meet the Press on NBC. Tom Brokaw interviewed Senator John McCain, and I thought I could listen and try to see if McCain had anything different or worthwhile to bring to the table that I haven't already heard.

Turns out, he didn't. He was as evasive as ever. He kept repeating the same senseless jabber about Joe the Plumber and Socialism; which polls he believes, and which he disagrees with. He talked about bucking the party, and going against the president. Whenever Brokaw brought up a tough question, McCain evaded. And, of course, he was in attack mode most of the rest of the time.

The issue that I don't understand is this (and if you can lay it out for me, it would be appreciated): first, Barack Obama is a Socialist because he says we need to "spread the wealth around."
Okay, we get it, senator.

So when questioned about tax policy, McCain says the LAST thing you want to do during tough economic times is raise taxes. But McCain is for the $700 billion bailout, he will certainly be for subsequent bailouts, which in no uncertain terms, could be described as Socialism. His explanation? It is government's job to step in during tough times and intervene to help the American people.

Okay, stay with me here. John McCain - against wasteful spending, lambasts Bush every day on the national deficit size, says the government should intervene in unprecedented ways because the times are hard, yet says the worst thing you can do is raise taxes. How does it make sense? And if you can make it make sense, how does McCain pay for it? If you believe he will actually impose the spending freeze he's been talking about, you are, as Bill O'Reilly is oft heard saying, "living in the land of Oz."

Here's the hard reality. McCain is going to lose. He is getting farther and farther behind. But it is not just the presidential race that republicans stand to lose. In an opinion piece, David Frum talks about how McCain is sinking not only himself, but other republicans as well. Democrats only need a net gain of 15 seats in the House to have a majority, and it they can pick off a few Senate seats, they could even get to 60 senators, something that it almost unheard of. But thanks to McCain, it may happen.

Says Frum: McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

On Meet the Press, Brokaw pointed out that in 2004, 37% of voters considered themselves Republican, and 37% considered themselves Democrats. Now, the numbers are 37% Democrat, 29% Republican.

Things could get ugly for the Republicans. But they are in denial. If they are not in denial, then they probably just don't care much. As long as Sarah Palin can go around firing people up over Obama being a terrorist socialist, I guess they will be content. It's just too bad that Republicans may lose the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate, all at a time when the Congress' approval rating is even more dismal than that of the president. I guess that is what it will take to jolt the Republicans to the idea that they might need to change their policies up; do things differently in the future.

If not, the Democrats could be in power for a long, long time.

Some Clarifications

I don't know why I'm doing this. I have no evidence people even read this blog, and I have no basis on which to suppose that anyone who cares will read this post.

However, some conversations I've had with different individuals concerned, have encouraged me to make some clarifications. I was, in fact, going to refrain from anything political until after the elections. But strangely, with the encouragement of my best friend, I feel I shouldn't have to worry about simply giving my opinion on politics.

First of all, I still have not decided for whom to vote. I got my early ballot today. I am not voting for John McCain, but I am still trying to decide if I should actually vote for Barack Obama, or for one of the third party candidates. I originally intended to go third-party no matter what, but lately I am feeling like that strategy would have little point.

That's my way of saying: understand when you read posts on this particular blog, you are reading words from a very conflicted individual. The presidential race has been going on for nearly two years, and yet I cannot make up my mind. If Ron Paul was still in the race, I would have voted for him without question.

My posts have been particularly accusatory toward McCain and Sarah Palin. I have posted many clips from The Daily Show, which is a very vulgar, and offensive show. In my mind, these actions are perfectly justified, as they help explain why I hold certain political positions.

Those who read the blog rarely, if ever, will not understand these nuances. They do not understand me, nor my points of view. Sometimes they don't understand my viewpoints, because they refuse to acknowledge that my opinions have any validity. They want to call names and point fingers, rather than discuss differences.

It should be understood that my opinions, which differ greatly from those you may have heard me state in the past, are not meant to be directed at individuals, but are a way of describing what I have come to believe, and why I think in such a manner. In my humble opinion, there are those out there who dislike my vocal nature because they do not want to deal with opinions contrary to their own. They avoid doing so because they think considering other viewpoints is somehow a repudiation, or at least a demonstration of doubt, of their deeply held views.

Then, they change the subject, saying what I say is mean-spirited, negative, or offensive. I've gone back and read many of my posts, and I have been hard pressed to find anywhere where I have crossed whatever imaginary moral line one might think exists in discussing politics.

I've thought it curious that in college, as a strong conservative, I was afraid to speak out because I thought I would be ridiculed by my more liberal professors (and sometimes I was ridiculed). Now, I have looked at some of those opposing opinions, so much so, that I have even come to agree with some of them. Now, I am afraid to speak out, because I might be ridiculed by my republican associations.

I talk way too much. There is no doubt about it. But my object in speaking my mind has been rather simple: I have come to reject some of the lessons that were taught to me as infallible in my youth. Again, if people disagree, or still believe what I am about to denounce, it is simply my opinion. But have no doubt, I am sometimes passionate about these opinions, because I feel I have been denied a full understanding of how the world works, because for quite awhile, I was given the false impression that I really only had one choice to follow in politics.

So here goes - here are some of the ideas I had years ago, that I have fully come to reject (and yes, I feel strongly about them, and others probably feel just as strongly the opposite view):

- You can't be Mormon and a democrat.

- The Republican Party is more religious, more righteous, than the Democratic Party.

- The media have a liberal bias.

- The poor (those who rely on government aid to subsist) are poor because they are lazy. Democrats are the party of the "lazy" and believe in "spreading the wealth socialism."

- I should vote for someone I don't support, just because the opposing party is more scary.

- If you feel strongly about something, there are no other points of view that are as valid as yours. It is okay to make fun of others' view points, if they oppose yours, but it is not fair for them to insult yours.

I think most of what I've been saying can be found under the umbrella of those six topics. I find some of the above ideas rather disturbing. But I understand that some people believe them firmly, and I respect them for it. I do not find the individual people themselves disturbing. Rather, I would like to be able to have a discussion with any of them, so we could come to a better understanding.

Unfortunately, today's culture is extremely enveloped in the mentality that if you disagree with someone, you can expect to be judged by your views, often before anyone on the opposing side has tried to understand them.

Since I haven't had much success in other forums discussing these viewpoints, I have chosen to post them on a blog, a blog that is rarely read by anyone, at least that I am aware.

I am not going to stop giving my opinion. I am not going to change how I feel, even if it is not acceptable to some of my associates. And I am not going to post feel-good "we went to the zoo today" entries on my blog because I just don't have any interest in doing that kind of stuff. If my significant other wants to, she can do it. If you're interested in knowing a little more about the Cherry family, they have started a blog.

And just for the future, if you plan on telling me how offensive my views are to you, I am going to ask you if you've read this 23 Oct. post, and if you've read carefully, and if you've tried to come to an understanding before you got offended. If you haven't, I am not going to take your complaint too seriously. We all need to listen to and consider other points of view. I believe it makes us better people. We can't just get offended and go off and pout. In the end, we can respect each other more, once we come to understand our disagreements. If you don't have time to gain understanding, or read carefully, then let's just leave it alone. Just walk away from the blog, and we'll discuss something else.

P.S. I've decided to stop posting clips from The Daily Show. I did so before, because Jon Stewart is one of the only people out there who actually makes excellent political points, and he does so in a hilarious way. However, I think a lot of the material is unsuitable for what I would like to consider a "safe" blog site. But I will still comment on my views, and I will bring it fiercely every day.

Republicans Blame, McCain Attacks

Some curious observations: the Republican Party, the party of responsibility, and self-reliance, seems to always pay lip service to its creeds, until it is not advantageous to do so.

Then they start blaming everyone else. John McCain is already acknowledging that if the debate centers on the economy, he will lose the election.

So he's starting to attack. Keep in mind, his personal attacks will be cloaked in broad, fuzzy terms, to make them sound less malicious. Meanwhile, his surrogates will call Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, the n-word, or make up whatever false claims necessary to scare the American people.

Notice how McCain's big line is, "We don't know enough about Obama." Nevermind Obama has answered any and all the questions we supposedly don't know about him, and if you have an Internet connection, and a pulse, you can find them. Regardless, people will say they are not prejudiced, they are only voting for McCain because Obama has a scary name. Nope, no prejudice there.

Then there's the Ayers connection. For that, I turn to Media Matters, one of my favorite sites, because Bill O'Reilly hates them so much.

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character."

However, I've learned long ago, that if you're a terrorist, that's all there is to it. If you're NOT a terrorist, as I'm sure Liddy is NOT in the mind of conservatives, because they agree with his views, then you can plot to kill people, bomb things, and imply shooting a president and his wife (if they are democrats). That still doesn't make you a terrorist.

On the other hand, if you ARE a terrorist, then no matter what you say or do, you ARE a terrorist. That labeling reflex in conservatives is just so powerful and strong.

Finally, there's the Keating scandal, which we will need to examine more in the coming days.

Meanwhile, be wary. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, your mom, they're all going to be making greater and greater fabrications about Obama.

I will never be able to make this point the way I would like: is it about Obama? Or is it about, how can I trust someone who lies about another candidate just to win an election. I am almost certainly not voting for Obama. I'm just trying to show how hypocritical the far-right are in their characterizations. They'll vote for McCain because he's the "lesser of two evils." Meanwhile, they swallow all kinds of garbage just to be able to do so. First and foremost, they've elected a dishonest person.

But Republicons will respond, Obama is dishonest, too, and I'm sure he is. Then the party of responsibility will blame having to vote for McCain on Obama. The party of responsibility will blame the bad economy on the democrats. The party of responsibility will blame Bush's low approval ratings on the biased left-wing media. How responsible of them. Vote for a liar, support a liar (Bush), but always put the blame elsewhere.

The party of responsibility can't even defend McCain. All they can say is, his policies are better than Obama's. Well, let me tell you, I suck at basketball, but I am WAY better than my two-year old. So I guess I'm pretty dang awesome.