Ideology and Action

I've been on quite an adventure over the past several years in trying to determine just what I believe in regards to political ideology. What are my core principles? What do I stand for? What label do I give myself?

A wise man once recalled:

When I was a teenager, I was an anarchist.

When I went to college, I became a liberal.

When I had a family, I became a conservative. 

This may be oversimplified, but it holds some truth. Our circumstances certainly influence the development of our political ideologies--our ideas of what is important in life, what we value and emphasize. My time in college has exposed me to hard-core Republicans, liberal Democrats, Libertarians, independents, and everything in between. I have come to respect these differing views, and even completely comprehend them almost as if I believed them myself. Of course, I can't believe all of them. Yet, I am surprised to find how much of what I was taught as a child still holds true when tested against these opposing and confusing views - as a diamond becomes clearer and more brilliant when placed against black velvet.

In my quest, I've become better able to look at others' viewpoints and understand them, without becoming angry or defensive, even if I find them utterly revolting or ridiculous. Putting yourself in others' shoes, and using that information to make an informed decision is one of the keys to help us act, and prevent us from reacting foolishly.

I see people in both major political parties, on all sides of the ideological spectrum that lie and cheat, and even do worse things once in a while. While I disapprove of this behavior and it turns me away, I try not to let it influence my own beliefs. If I see the Republican Party engage in these self-defeating behaviors, it makes me hesitate to call myself a Republican, but that does not mean I abandon my conservatism. As Ronald Reagan said after leaving the Democrat Party, "I did not leave the party, the party left me."

In my quest for principle, I have tried to not be reactive, but to act. Too many people are driven to extremes when reacting to things they oppose - extremes they normally would not have resorted to. Interpret this behavior how you will, but when we act, instead of react, we find our purpose becomes clearer, our friends and resources flow to us, and our enemies are defused and disarmed.

The polarization and hyper-partisanship of American politics has led me to strongly believe that the candidate matters more than their party in determining what they believe. You can't blame someone or accuse someone of believing something just because they associate with a particular party. Not all Democrats want high taxes and big government; and not all Republicans want unrestrained big business.

Polarization has also led me to focus more on the individual rather than on ideology. This might sound like I am abandoning my conservative principles, but I am not. There is much more to a candidate than where they fit on an ideological spectrum. Conservatives these days are more worried about how "conservative" a candidate is, rather than how well they can solve problems, as if they are simply weighing a piece of red Republican meat on a scale. (What does it mean to be "conservative" anyway?) One must consider character and decision-making skills in addition to ideology.

Our current politicians also have led me to disregard campaign promises - a break from traditional American voter behavior. (After all, don't we elect people to give us the things we want?) I've learned to not pay attention to what candidates say, but what they do and who they are.

"There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle."  ~Alexis de Tocqueville

School Choice? Thoughts on School Vouchers

Here's a quick summary of what a school voucher is, just to provide a bit of context for those who may not know.

From Wikipedia:

"A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government, which parents can apply toward tuition at a private school (or, by extension, to reimburse home schooling expenses), rather than at the state school to which their child is assigned.

Under non-voucher education systems, people who currently pay for private schooling are still taxed for public schools; therefore, they fund both public and private schools simultaneously. Via offsetting the cost of private school tuition, vouchers [or tax credits] are intended to allow students and families to choose the school that best fits their needs. Opponents of school vouchers say allowing families the option of both public and private schools undermines the public education system through threatening its funding and enrollment."

What are the basic assumptions for the concept of vouchers? Why was the concept developed? Its the idea that "I shouldn't pay taxes for something I don't use." One of the definitions of a tax is that it applies to everyone, not a select group of people; otherwise its just a fee. This certainly ought to be true with public education. Another assumption is that "I don't have the choice because I don't have the money."

First, as a side note, for those who want less government, it would seem vouchers is not the way to go. Why allow the government to pay for people to go to a non-public school? Its just more government involvement and spending in the private sector.

Secondly, the "choice" is a false dilemma. Parents already have the choice. There is no law saying they can't send their children to another school. No one is coercing them. One could then argue that in effect they don't have a choice because they can't afford to go to a private school. If that's the case, then I don't have the choice to buy a Ferrari. Instead, I'm stuck with public transportation! Well, I do have the choice. I have the liberty, but not the right. But voucher supporters are demanding choice, not rights. To make a more sound argument, I would suggest they modify their rhetoric.

It comes down to an interpretation of the role of public agencies. If I don't like my city's police department, can I get a voucher to help me offset the cost of hiring a personal body guard? I can hire a body guard, but I can't expect the government to foot the bill for me. Again, I have the liberty to do so, but not the right to expect the government to help.

I'm part of a community, and that community has a shared interest in the police force as well as the public schools, whether I use these services directly or not. We can take our kids out of public schools, but we can't exempt ourselves from the community we live in.

Marriage

Marriage has been on my mind a lot lately. First of all, of course, because I myself was recently married. My sister also was married. Three of my close friends are engaged to be married. Many of my neighbors in our apartment complex are newly-weds.

Specifically, I have contemplated a lot on how we as human beings choose our life partners. What strange forces of nature conspired to construct a marriage by bringing two seemingly random individuals together at the right place and at the right time? How do these people find each other? If given the chance to meet everyone in the world, would they still choose each other?

More importantly, I have wondered why we choose to stay with them or choose to leave them.  Divorce rates have increased dramatically in the past 40 years. This certainly draws attention to questions such as these.

Today, it seems that marriage is only about "love". It is approached as a temporary contract between two individuals and is good for as long as conditions are favorable. When two people "fall in love" they can also "grow" out of love too. They say, 'Well, we weren't right for each other. Maybe we were at the time we got married, but one of us changed; things changed'.

Many in our society have come to the point where they no longer even bother with marriage. They are worried the life-long commitment would be too hard and will result in undue hardship and heartache. It will only make it harder to separate if things don't work out.

Is marriage an outdated social construct? Has our modern, progressive society we moved on? Why is it so hard for our young people to find companions, and even harder for them to maintain such a vital relationship?

I'll let you in on a little secret: its no different outside of marriage; in any relationship for that matter. Even people who avoid marriage and "co-habituate" will still run into this problem. Avoiding marriage will not avoid the heartache and frustration of human relationships, as long as we ourselves are human. But avoiding marriage will avoid the satisfaction and fulfillment one can have in a real marriage.

We never meet everyone in the world. Yet, out of the statistically small percentage of people we come in contact with in the short span of time we have to look for a companion (less than 1/4 of our life), how can we find and choose a suitable companion? And when we do find someone, how do we know he/she is the right one for us when we have never even met .001% of all humans on the planet? What guarantee do I have that he/she will be right for me? This seems impossible to answer.

Our modern society has the wrong paradigm about marriage relationships. When it comes to our wayward children, we don't say, 'Well, I just had the wrong kid. That's why it didn't work out. My kids weren't right for me'.

No!

Its about being the right parent for your kids. Not about having the right kids. We need to ask, what can I do to be a better parent for my kids? So it is with marriage; its about being the right spouse, not just finding the right spouse. Because we do change; that fact of life doesn't have to end a relationship.

A real marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant.  It is a man and a woman who commit to each other forever. No matter what. Happiness in marriage is not to be found only in an absence of hardship, but in working together through those problems. The success of a marriage is measured by a couple's commitment towards one another.

Habits of the Heart

Some of you may wonder at the title of this blog. What does it have to do with family, education, or community? I have chosen this title because it has everything to do with them.

The phrase has its origins in the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat who was one of the first European observers of the American political system.

He introduced the idea of "habits of the heart" as he observed the role of religion, morality and individualism in American politics. Tocqueville may have had his own meaning for the phrase, but here is how I see it:

We all have habits. While some can be good; most of them are bad. Some of us sleep too much. Some of us eat too much. Some of us may be late to everything. These habits develop over time as a result of self-indulgence, pride, ignorance, or despair among other things.

In addition to these physical habits, we also have habits of the heart. These habits develop just as physical habits do. We may fall into the habit of apathy; the habit of fear; of doubt; of pride; or the habit of  isolation.

But just as we can develop good physical habits, we can also develop good heart habits. We can cultivate habits of caring, of conversation, of teaching, of character. A habit of associating with others can be a very healthy habit.

Communities (and the individuals in them) need to develop and promote good habits of the heart. Some communities can collectively fall into habits of  materialism, isolationism, or excessive individualism.These are destructive habits, as addictive and devastating as the physical habits of drug or alcohol abuse. They must be curbed and overcome.

What habits of the heart are you developing?

"There is more of a link than is thought between the improvement of the soul and the betterment of the welfare of the body. Man is able to keep these two things apart and consider each of them in turn but he would not know how to separate them entirely without losing sight of both of them in the end."- Alexis de Tocqueville

Proper Political Discourse

I found the following editor's note on one of my favorite blogs:

"We encourage our writers & readers to focus their comments on principles & issues (pro and con) rather than on personal character attacks or party against party politics; and to point to solutions where possible. Ugly, emotional comments (especially profanity) are discouraged, will be edited or removed, and may lead to the permanent removal of its author from our community of friends. As a private enterprise we claim the right of offering something unique in politics. Please help us keep it that way. If you feel any writer or community member is consistently violating this standard, please let me know." (The Moral Liberal)

This short paragraph holds a few very crucial keys to effective political discourse.

First, we should place emphasis on concepts and issues, not people. How unnecessary is it when a candidate is more intent on bashing their opponent than on promoting their own ideas or agenda? More important than attacking what you are against is promoting what you are for.

Second, we need solutions. We already know there are problems; and these problems will not go away by talking them to death (well, maybe some of them will). Problems are resolved when people, often those who are in disagreement, come together to propose, discuss, and enact solutions. Politics is not about slamming the other party, or attacking an opponent. Its about solving problems. We don't "win" in politics by being more rude than the other guy. We win when we show true leadership.

Third, comments that serve no purpose other than to elicit an emotional response, induce fear, anger, or shame only exacerbate our society's problems and do not contribute to the progression of political discourse; in fact, these things turn people away from politics. Profanity,  name-calling, generalizations, and degrading remarks are unbecoming of participating citizens in any democratic system.

Lastly, (and this one is implied in the quote) is credibility. If we want to be heard, recognized and persuasive, we need credibility. We lose credibility when we make personal character attacks, show no interest in possible solutions, or resort to name-calling and vague generalizations in order to prove our point. 

Unity is Power

"Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power."

This was written a long time ago. But its message could never be more urgent or applicable to our country's present circumstances. How is this? Let's break this quote down.

What is unity? Unity is power. Unity does not require that all of us be clones. Unity is simply two or more individuals working towards a common goal. It means that there are no artificial barriers between ourselves and someone else. There is nothing mankind cannot do through the combined action of free individuals. When a people are unified, they are powerful. Governments are most stable when the people it governs are unified; and government and politics is all about power.

"Silly moves of persons and parties"

People do the darn-est things. It is a true test of character to see how far we will go in order to obtain power or popularity. It usually starts with a desire for people to like us. This causes us to do anything to get their attention or approval. In the process we forget those who don't have our attention but need it, and we despise those who do not approve of us. We find ourselves doing things we normally wouldn't do. Years later, we might look back at our actions and see how misguided and "silly" our actions were. How childish we can be!

"Foment discord"

Words can be divisive. If we're not careful, we can alienate those we love, hurt a good friend, or prevent a potentially wholesome relationship from developing. Our actions can also be divisive. This can happen intentionally or not. The greatest tragedy is when discord is intentional. We put an impassable wall between us and them. We deny any similarities or affiliation with them. Our need to look good requires that they look bad.

"In order to ride into power"

Pay attention to the imagery here. Individuals do not "rise to power" as is often said. They ride into it. How does one "ride" into power? They must be carried by someone else. Individuals in positions of power get there only with the help of others who carry them to that position. This denotes some type of conspiracy or organization. It can be friends, family, or fellow conspirators seeking power as well. As the quote says, this can be an individual or a party. Political parties are most likely the ones to be guilty of such a scheme. It is the nature of a political party to foment discord in order to ride into power.

Now the key here is that people foment discord in order to ride into power. That is their purpose - to get power. Most people are not sadistic or violent. Most people enjoy the relationships they have and don't actively try to push others away or make enemies. But when tempted by the allure of power and popularity, they will betray any friend, hurt any innocent person, or tell any lie.

If someone was genuinely interested in obtaining power or influence, they would seek it through the building up of unity; because unity is power. Don't be fooled by those who would tell you that power is only obtained through enmity. This is self-defeating. Real power and influence is obtained by bringing people together toward a common goal.

Our politicians and political parties have focused more on obtaining or preserving their power than on achieving our common goals. This will only lead to instability and more discord.

"Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power."

      - Joseph Smith, Jr. (History of the Church, 6:198)