Ponder this quote from Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind:
“Indignation is the soul’s defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause…Recognizing indignation for what it is constitutes knowledge of the soul.”
Example No.1 from SLCSpin: http://www.slcspin.com/?p=408.
Last week I was at an education conference in Orlando and heard some very interesting presentations on a wide range of education reforms. One of the most interesting sessions I attended featured the former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, Roy Romer (Romer is also a former Democratic governor of Colorado) and current NYC public schools chancellor, Joel Klein. (If Klein’s name rings a bell for you it may be because he was one of the lead attorneys that represented President Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings.)
Klein’s presentation centered on getting quality teachers into every classroom because that is where the most bang for the buck is in terms of improved student achievement. This is no surprise. What did surprise me, given Klein’s long-standing political affiliation, was his top three reasons (which Romer quickly seconded) why this isn’t happening, and they all point squarely to the union. Klein’s top three barriers to getting quality teachers:
While the teachers’ union consistently claims to be real pro-education advocate, it appears that the chorus on both sides of the isle is growing ever louder that they are actually becoming the biggest hurdle to bringing about the types of change needed to deliver a quality education to Utah’s (and the nation’s) children.
To no one’s surprise, the LDS church has come out in strong support of the passage of CA’s marriage amendment, which will be on the ballot in November. This open support for marriage puts the age old question back on the table for politicians and here in Utah for Mormons, “Which comes first: party/issue allegiance or personal faith and which one takes priority when they are in direct conflict?” It is not the first time this year this question has surfaced, it was an issue that prompted Mitt Romney to give a speech in TX regarding faith and politics.
So how does a Mormon (or a Catholic, Jew, etc.) resolve this political/faith dilemma? I know what it means for me and how the church’s statement informs my view on the CA amendment issue. What I still don’t know that I understand is the rationale of, “I’m Mormon and believe the church is true, that the prophet is called of God, and speaks his will, etc., but I just think the church/prophet is wrong on this issue.” (I am sure this post will prompt some interesting answers which I hope it does.)
For one reader of the DesNews, it was a pretty simple answer:
“Left-wing Mormons and gay/lesbian Mormons just need to recognize that the LDS Church is a right-wing organization with B.C. views on human sexuality.
“Now more than ever, I am glad to be among the growing number of intelligent, forward-looking people that consider ourselves ‘Post Mormons.’
“If your upset that the LDS church is taking this POLITICAL stand, remember that it’s First Presidency believes that it speaks the will of god. The LDS leadership’s view of this god’s will is what is perverse. And I stongly oppose this perverted view of history and humanity.”
Yet this seems overly simplistic and I know it doesn’t resonate with folks I have seen write about this topic, who I assume believe themselves to be faithful members of the Mormon religion. Perhaps my struggle is best summed up by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity where Lewis takes head on the argument/claim that Jesus may have been a great moral teacher but not the Savior of the world.
From Lewis:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.
I guess I see my belief system in the same light. If I believe President Thomas S. Monson to be who he says he is, then I’ve closed the door to picking and choosing what I wish to believe and support of his teachings as a prophet, a thought illustrated by these remarks from Henry B. Eyring (part of that “unintelligent, non-forward looking First Presidency”:
“Another fallacy is to believe that the choice to accept or not accept the counsel of prophets is no more than deciding whether to accept good advice and gain its benefits or to stay where we are. But the choice not to take prophetic counsel changes the very ground upon which we stand… Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception [or the political issue in this case], I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer [not blindly obeyed], and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety.”
So for Mormons what is the rationale for making an exception here when the instruction has been explicit?
New Yorkers have a reputation, NY cab drivers especially, of having a short fuse and for being fairly aggressive. Well I’ve finally figured it out why. Yesterday while enjoying my nice commute home, I heard a news clip stating that cigarettes in NYC are now $10 per pack.
So there you go: either the New Yorker, in whose crosshairs you just found yourself, is so addicted to smoking that their pulling out an Alexander Hamilton for a pack of cigarettes or they’re in the process of trying to quit. Either way you’d be pretty ticked off too.
Rep. Rob Bishop came to the Sutherland blogger briefing this morning and shared some thoughts on energy policy in the US and his proposal to affect compreshensive change versus the piecemeal approach we have seen over the last 20 or so years. Ethan Millard over at SLCSpin posed the question of why hasn’t Congress done anything substantive to mitigate the issues we are now facing, when they’ve been looking at this data for more than a decade. Bishop’s remark revealed human nature at work in DC. It just wasn’t painful enough for people to make real change.
I guess time will tell if the voters feeling the pain at the pump translates in to pain at the ballot box for incumbents not used to listening to the broader population.
————————————–
Bishop is part of a Western Republican Caucus that will be shortly announcing a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on THREE areas
Also in the plan are 12 Steps (reminds me of an AA meeting) to facilitating these strategies. The overall goal of their proposal is energy independence for the United States.
Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution has become one of my favorite books. It is no easy read. In fact parts of it read like Isaiah in the Bible. But like Isaiah, in the midst of all the mud [incomprehensible verse after verse] you find nuggets.
Here is a nugget about what I’d argue is the ‘call of the public servant or elected official.’
“It should never be forgotten, that in a republican government [quick aside here to reemphasize that we DO NOT live in a democracy but in a republic] offices are established, and are to be filled, not to gratify private interests and private attachments; not as a means of corrupt influence, or individual profit; not for cringing favourites, or court sycophants; but for purposes of the highest public good; to give dignity, strength, purity, and energy to the administration of the laws.”
I know we live in an imperfect world, but I believe that Story gives us the golden standard to which we should aspire individually in our personal lives and to which we should hold our public servants accountable.
———————————-
Given the following charge, where do our current set of federal officials and current governor stack up. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
In response to my post on Obama’s PAC pledge, Misty asked a question about what did I mean about “incentives.” It’s a fair question and one that is best answered by using a recent constituent letter I received from Senator Hatch’s office after I emailed his office asking him to oppose the farm bill.
In my view, Hatch’s letter perfectly illustrated both the pork spending problem and the incentives issue that drives decision making and $$ flow in DC. Hatch gave no principled justification as to why this farm bill was the right thing for government to do. Every rationale he used in his letter pointed to one overriding theme–bring home the bacon or in the case of this farm bill all the benefits, special programs, business perks.
So how does this answer the incentives question? Toward the end of his letter, he also mentioned that this bill was supported by “many agricultural groups in our state.” PACs (or in this case agricultural special interests groups) know that Sen. Hatch needs votes and that he needs money to run a campaign. PACs offer both to the elected official. PACs and special interested groups on the other hand need the people with the power of the purse (or the ability to take from one person and redistribute to another which would be illegal if PACs did it on their own) to do their bidding–they need their Sen. Hatch’s who have compromised to the point that all they have left to offer their constituents is BACON versus principled leadership.
So there you have the recipe for the continuation of the DC incentive love fest: [INCENTIVE for the Politician) votes which equal reelection and continued power and [INCENTIVE for the Special Interest] the growth of government programs or contracts or a general redistribution of wealth directly designed to benefit them. Of course all this is paid for by yours truly: you and me the taxpayer.
This lovefest is what Frederic Bastiat eloquently describes as “legal plunder.” And as it relates to our government today, we see a Bastiat’s Universal Legal Plunder played out over and over again and unfortunately not just by our own Sen. Hatch.
———————————-
Bastiat on Legal Plunder:
“See if the law (senators or congressmen/women) takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…
“The person (agricultural interest in the above example) who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state [or its citizens]…
“Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests.”
It’s almost like listening to the news every day.
I have to give props to Obama for his commitment [see Misty Fowler’s blog] to refusing PAC money. I hope more elected officials will take his lead, but I have my doubts and here’s why (from a Letter to Editor in WSJ–it just says it better than I could):
“The only reason lobbyists [PACs, special interest groups, etc.] appear as influential as they do is because of the power of the bodies they beseech. In other words, the power of lobbyists is directly proportional to the ability of the Senate and House of Representatives to give favors to the clients of lobbying firms. Rein in government [bridges to nowhere, boondoggle research projects in WV, a whole list of welfare programs, etc.] and you rein in lobbyists. Any attempt to weaken lobbyists without reforming government will do nothing more than violate the Constitution and ensure our politicians become less informed than they already are.”
Until we rein in government, I am afraid Obama’s commitment will be short lived because the incentives just don’t line up.
A side note warning to Obama on his commitment is to not pull a Bush Sr. “Read my lips no new taxes.” If Obama sticks to his commitment, the political shift that could occur could turn him into an FDR, Reagan type president and would be a tremendous legacy even if that was all he accomplished.
We’ve got a new guy at Sutherland. His name is Matt Piccolo. He just finished his Master’s of Public Policy at Pepperdine. Here’s his blog: http://justandholy.blogsome.com/. Enjoy.
The Texas courts are on a roll this week. This ruling strikes down a ban on renting to illegal immigrants where the judge found that immigration policy is strictly a federal function. Utah legislators would be wise to take a closer look and save Utah taxpayers the expense of litigating a case where their efforts to “curb” illegal immigration is unconstitutional.
Link: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080529/immigration_texas.html?.v=1
