The Great Awakening

The following is intended to be an analogy. While based on actual experiences, it is not a declaration of religious belief or manifestation. It is merely meant to draw connections between modern political parties and religious sectarian conflict. Readers are encouraged to take interpretive license.

"There was in the place where I lived an unusual excitement on the subject of politics. It commenced with the Democrats, but soon became general among all the parties in that region of country. Indeed, the whole country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different political parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Look, here!” and others, “See, there!” Some were contending for the Democrat party, some for the Republican, and some for the Libertarian.

For, notwithstanding the great love which the members of these different parties expressed at the time of their joining, and the great zeal manifested by the respective leadership, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of political feeling, in order to have everybody "converted," as they were pleased to call it, let them join what party they pleased; yet when the voters began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the leaders  and the voters were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—candidate contending against candidate, and voter against voter; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in the strife of words and a contest about opinions - all noise to my ears.

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Republican party, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different parties, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Democrats were most decided against the Republicans and Libertarians, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Republicans and Libertarians in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

I eventually came to the logical conclusion that I need not join any of the parties in order to obtain and hold to the truth. I promised myself to not join any of them; and many other things I thought to myself, which I cannot write at this time. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that partisan politics is not true.”

It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of this "kingdom of noise;" else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? Why should political parties, of all things, be a cause - even a tool to be used - for such division, persecution, and confusion?

Some few days after I came to this conclusion, I happened to be in company with one of the local party leaders, who was very active in the before mentioned political excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of politics, I took occasion to give him an account of the conclusion that I reached. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as moderate, open-minded statesmen or transformational leaders in these days; that all such things had ceased with the Founding Fathers, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among party leaders and advocates, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure young man, barely out of college, and my circumstances in life such as to make a man of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the parties—all united to persecute me.

I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the political world was concerned—that it was not my duty or obligation to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed."

Reference: Joseph Smith History

Marriage Equality

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. You might wonder then, how can these two statements be reconciled?

First, you can't change the definition of marriage any more than you can change the definition of other family relationships. For example, if I have a new nephew, can I refuse to be called his uncle and demand that society identify me as his aunt instead? Some may refute this by saying that there are no rights associated with being an uncle as there are with being a husband or wife.

My answer: my point exactly.

Why shouldn't other relationships have the same rights? If marriage is just a relationship of love and is about receiving benefits, why can't a father and daughter get married? Can two first cousins get married so they can visit each other in the hospital or receive other benefits as a husband and wife do? What about two siblings? Or can three women get married to each other?

If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy must be legalized; incest must be legalized. If marriage is a relationship of love - and I can love whomever I want - why can't I marry my sister or brother or marry more than one person?

Do I have the power to re-define "uncle"? No. And if I disagree with that definition, perhaps I should take up my cause with the dictionary, not the government.

The federal government should not be defining marriage one way or the other. It has no right to determine what the dictionary says. I am 100% supportive of guaranteeing gays and lesbians full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals under the law. But, whatever relationship two individuals of the same sex make with each other - whatever it may be - it should not be called marriage! We need to get government out of marriage in order to protect and preserve it.

Government should instead institute a program in which any two citizens can designate each other as their beneficiary. Such a designation would have no sexual connotations whatsoever - thus avoiding the issue of incest. Any TWO people would be able to designate each other (regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or age) as the recipient of their benefits - thus avoiding the issue of legalizing polygamy. It would purely be about who gets what benefits. Under this system, a traditionally married couple would still enjoy their benefits and the sanctity of their religious marriage. A same-sex couple would enjoy all the rights and benefits they demand that are currently enjoyed by married couples.

We do need to preserve marriage. Countless studies have been done in recent years that support the idea of traditional marriage as a societal good - economically, psychologically, and socially. We as a society are attempting an experiment with same-sex marriage and like any experiment, the results may not be what we expect; there will be disastrous consequences for a failed experiment such as this.

Right at the core of it all, the issue is not about same-sex marriage. Society has already re-defined marriage for us. We're just waiting for our government to catch up with "modern" society. Same-sex marriage is only the logical conclusion of society's view of marriage as a mere contract for adults and is a result of the overall decline and transformation of marriage over the past 50 years.

Parenthood - built on the foundation of traditional marriage - is the ultimate role of selflessness. Those "who have a value system that causes them to subordinate their own needs to those of others, especially to the welfare of children" should support traditional marriage...."We need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests" - Dallin H Oaks.

The Tipping Point

In 2013, the balance of power in our Federal government will stay the same. The House is controlled by the Republicans; the Senate controlled by the Democrats. The White House will be occupied by the same person for the next four years. Yet, the election of 2012 will go down in history as a tipping point. 

Does much change? No, not in the short term. President Obama will continue to support bailouts, unrestricted drone attacks, taxing the wealthy, and unlimited deficit spending - many things that have been happening the past four years, and even the eight years before that.

It's not necessarily what the American people have chosen - it's what they have not chosen - that makes the difference.

In order to know the long-term effects of this election, we must look at the changing demographics - specifically the rising generation. This new generation has soundly and silently rejected traditional marriage (and by extension children). They have done it in large measure by refusing to participate in this age-old institution we call the family, or by simply changing the definition of "family" to suit their personal preferences. But, this is not an opinion piece against gay marriage. The great travesty of our day is not necessarily the rise of gay marriage, but the decline of heterosexual marriage. This rejection of traditional marriage as a priority in society and in politics is reflected in the outcome of the 2012 election.

According to The Weekly Standard, the election of 2012 is quite possibly the most anti-family vote in US history. Single people went to the polls like never before and elected our current president and congress. The health care reform law discretely favors singles. Several states have legalized gay marriage and the use of addictive family-destroying drugs. The Democrats' fiscal cliff "compromise" contains a tax penalty for those filing jointly. In short, tell me your marital status and I'll tell you how you voted in 2012. 

The Democrats would be wise to stop their subsidization of singleness. Our public policies on the state and federal level are increasingly anti-family. (Ironically, it is the segments of our population with families and the highest birthrates - Hispanics, Mormons, and immigrants - that will reproduce new voters. In two generations, these groups could be in the majority.) But now, the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people single. Singles overwhelmingly vote for them for various reasons. But, Democrats are not dumb - they know that singles and gays don't reproduce. The only way to get more followers is to convert them by promising them benefits. They will not easily abandon such a large and loyal constituency. 

A pure democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the country collapses over loose fiscal policy. Singles are rapidly becoming that majority. 

Our public policies must be biased towards traditional families. It is the fundamental unit of our economy and the backbone of our education system. Marriage and family is the only way to preserve and improve our society. 

The Trouble with Representative Government

Representative government - is it of the people, by the people, or for the people?

One of the basic functions of a government official is to represent the views and opinions of the people. This includes officials on all levels - from city councils to school boards, and from state legislatures to Congress and the President.

But what exactly do we mean when we say a person 'represents' us? Is the President bound to follow the wishes of the majority? Literally speaking, the president is not a representative. His is an executive function. We hire him to carry out the laws. We hire actual 'representatives' to make our laws, as we would like them to be made.

So, is the government some alien body that rules over us? Or is it only an embodiment of the voice of the people?

These are two extremes. On the one hand you have representatives that will vote however and say whatever their constituents want them to. On the other hand, there are those representatives that do their own thing. They don't really care what people think- and if the people don't like the way they vote, they should vote them out. But, having been voted in, they take that as a license to do what ever they want.

Somewhere in between these two extremes we find most of our representatives. Many are willing to listen to the voters and at least consider their viewpoints. There is a wide range of approaches in representing a large body of people.

A representative is not a flip-flopper when they change their position with their constituents' disapproval. Neither are they a flip-flopper if they always vote how their constituents want. But, it can be difficult to listen to a silent majority. A representative can only listen to his voters as much as they are willing to speak up. "The squeaky hinge gets the grease" as they say.

So, if a representative is elected and makes it clear that she will listen to her constituents faithfully, which part of her constituents does she listen to? She can't take an accurate poll of every person on every single issue to get the majority's opinion. But, she can't ignore 49% of her voters either. A wise representative then, takes a wide range of viewpoints into consideration and uses their judgment to determine what is in the best interest of the most number of people. In short, an effective representative is a discerning judge of the public good.

Whose War on Women?

I'm a fairly laid-back guy. But, once and a while, something comes along that just gets me going. Sometimes, it comes from the Right. Most of the time, it comes from the Left. But, regardless of where it comes from, we must be willing to stand up and say good is good and bad is bad.

For those who have not heard or seen the latest ad from the Obama campaign, here is the Video.

My first thought was "No, this couldn't be an official Obama ad, right? Its got to be from one of his extremist surrogates." Nope. Only the video itself was able to prove me wrong. 

I've been thinking about this a lot, and it just blows me away. I'm shocked. I have no words for it. I'm also disappointed by the way the media has handled it. Why aren't more women - conservatives and liberals alike - crying foul over this? This is far worse than Mitt Romney's 47% remark or even Todd Akin's rape comment. Obama owes America an apology for this offensive video.

If the fact that it is gross and vulgar isn't enough, the ad doesn't even address the important issues of the election (like the economy or unemployment). Its just a crude attempt to sensationalize the election in its last moments (an election that Obama seems to be losing more and more as each day passes).

The ad also implies - no, outright states - that voting is a right of passage to become a woman - just like the loss of one's virginity. (Of course! Why didn't I think of it like that? I guess I must have missed something when I turned 18.) Nothing could be further from the truth! The ad also perpetuates the false notion that women are overtly sexual creatures and that they think of little else but who they want to lose their virginity with. As if voting for Obama (instead of another candidate) is some erotic act that turns women on?

Finally, the ad is short sighted. It acts as though the next 'four years' are all that matter. Getting birth control right NOW is important (oh yeah, and let's not forget about that war over in Afghanistan or Iraq, er- where is it again?)

No Budget, No Pay

At my place of work, if I don't do my job, I don't get paid. I may even get fired. Our elected leaders in Congress should be treated the same way. They need to know what its really like for us hard-working citizens who only get paid for a job well done. If they can't do their job then they should not get paid, or they will be called home!

Currently, a bill - No Budget, No Pay Act (H.R. 3643 & S. 1981) - is being sponsored to the effect that if the congressional spending process is not completed by the start of the government's fiscal year on October 1, congressional pay ceases.

Join me in emailing your representatives to urge them to pass the No Budget, No Pay Act.

Or, click here to sign the petition.

A World Turned Upside Down

A Conservative Manifesto

I am a conservative. But, I believe in progress. I believe in change.

I believe in compassion and charity.

I don't like greed; but neither do I admire envy.

I believe men and women are basically good, and are capable of making good choices.

I believe government exists for the benefit of mankind. Without government, our society would fall into violence and chaos.

I believe in freedom. But, I don't think that one's freedom goes beyond infringing on others' freedoms or violating basic moral laws.

I believe all men and women should be treated equally, regardless of race, sex, national origin, or language. 

I believe it is absolutely imperative to help the poor, disadvantaged people in our community and nation.

I believe we need to accept others' differences and tolerate the diversity in our society.

I believe in preserving our environment, for the benefit and enjoyment of mankind, and our posterity.

All this might sounds like it should make me a liberal.  But this is where your world might turn upside down. Where I differ from liberals is how these things should be accomplished. Not in what or why I believe them.

I believe there is a better way than government. I believe in an individual's ability and willingness to help his neighbor, just for the sake of helping another human being and without thought of reward. Helping the poor is a moral absolute, although it is not the only moral absolute that I believe in. However, we should not be compelled by the government to be charitable. No good government ever said to its citizens: "You're going to be compassionate, and you're going to like it!"

The bulk of community service, charity and welfare initiatives ought to rest with religious organizations, churches, non-profit organizations, and with ordinary individuals who reach out to their neighbors. One of the freedoms in the First Amendment we often neglect is the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. Private citizens can of their own free will and choice organize themselves to promote a particular cause, without waiting for the government. Government is only necessary as a means of enforcing laws established by the voice of the people. We cannot be forced to be free, or to be equal.

I believe people are equal at birth, and not just when the government chooses to step in to give them equality.  And, we shouldn't have to choose between equality and freedom. When we are equally free in our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, then we are equal and free.

I don't believe in keeping score when it comes to our contributions to society. So, I don't track who's giving their "fair share" or not. Everyone is expected to contribute in their own way no matter how small that may be; at the same time, each of us are doing what we can to the best of our ability. No one deserves to be vilified because they don't measure up to our personal standards of morality.

We conservatives are not cold, heartless, or egotistical by nature. Our agenda is not to oppress others, but to allow them to take responsibility for their actions. We recognize and value tradition, especially when those traditions are grounded in our religious and moral beliefs. We don't seek to take the world back to 1776;  we seek to take what is good in the world and make it better, and to take what is best in the world and preserve it.