politicalcivility.com Blog

According to Mayor Joe Thomas, most mayors in Utah are there for ribbon cuttings and to talk up the city, but they lack any real authority to make meaningful change.  One of the major eye openers for Thomas was coming to the quick realization that what most citizens don’t realize is that their local city is really (first and foremost) controlled and run by city employees and secondly (but here again city employees have an undue ability to control) city councils and that the mayor has little ability to be a true executive. 

Thomas did not recommend anything specific, but generally felt that reforming the system to put more control in the hands of the mayor, especially as it pertains to city appointments, could provide a significant check to overzealous city councils and city employees.  He noted upwards of 15 separate conversations with city employees who in Joe’s first couple of weeks each pulled him aside to “remind” him that his role was to be above all else the lead advocate for the folks on the city’s payroll.  Thomas remarked that he made 15 enemies in those first few weeks when his response was that he was the advocate of the citizens first.

I don’t know that I agree with all Mayor Thomas feels should change, but he provided some great food for thought during our monthly Sutherland Blogger Briefing.  I’m interested to see on the Bloghive other reaction to Joe’s comments.

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?

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

1. Incentivizing New and Current Forms of Conservation
2. Boosting Production of ALL Energy Forms from Wind to Coal and Everything in Between
3. Innovation in Energy Solutions from Energy Sources to Energy Delivery Systems

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’ve been busy this week with EarthWeek at Sutherland which has kept me from posting more, but I wanted to throw out this question posed by Roy Innis during the first day. 

What’s the balance?  What’s the right balance between development and conservation?  What’s the balance between the principles of stewardship and economic progress?  What’s the balance between the development of ‘alternative’ fuel sources and asking consumers to pay significantly more for life’s basic necessities (food, shelter, warmth/cooling)?

This balance question forces us to start making clear what is the principle and priority framework we are coming from rather than relying on the rhetoric or emotional hysteria that can accompany both sides of the issue.

As I look at the issue of climate change/global warming here are a few of principles/priority frameworks that guide how I look at this debate.

1. Stewardship: As I have stated on this blog before I am a firm believer in being a wise steward of the earth’s resources, but inherent in that belief system is the idea that the resources should be used. 
2. Cost: For me the balance question has to look at cost with a heavy bias toward human cost (this goes back to my post about conservationalist philosophy versus a preservationist worldview).  Human life takes highest priority.  So when millions begin to starve or die because of “green” policy then those policies must change.
3. Government Expansion: This goes back to my belief that any “war” so called on an issue (environmentalism, poverty, terrorism, you fill in the blank) leads to significant government intervention (which leads to greater inefficiency and subsuquent increase use of resources) and loss of freedom.  Also if you want to see how well the a government controlled economy handles the environment look no further than the former USSR and China.  Both stellar examples of clean air and water.
4. Cause & Effect: One of the most glaring issues of the IPCC report is the misuse or lack of use of appropriate cause and effect analysis.  Much of what the IPCC calls “cause” is actually just correlation.  There is a huge difference. So getting this right is critical if we want to really make a difference or know if we really can make a difference.
5. Everything on the Table: If we are to have a serious discussion about environmental problem solving, we must stop arbitrarily removing proven solutions and dismissing legitimate scientific research and inquiry.  Let’s put everything on the table: wind, solar, nuclear, manmade versus natural warming effects and see what is real according to the science and economics and then balance that with the cost to the environment and cost to society to see what makes the most sense.  Then we need to step back and let the market work. 

Just a few of my thoughts.  The floor is now yours.

A good reminder from a former president.

There are no adequate substitute for father, mother, and children bound together in a loving commitment to nurture and protect.  No government, no matter how well-intentioned, can take the place of the family in the scheme of things.  (President Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States)

This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog.  Her comment:

“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”

My first response to this question is a question.  How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth?  This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming. 

I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace.  Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.

I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world.  I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view.  This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation. 

This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly.  The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever.  It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.

As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty.  With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything.  This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment.  It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward. 

My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior.  This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty.  So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes.  Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not.  Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no. 

Paul Johnson’s Modern Times makes a clear connection between relativism, nihilism, and Naziism.  Clarence Thomas builds on Johnson’s assertion by saying:

The common idea that you can do whatever you want to do, because truth and morality are relative, leads to the idea that if you are powerful enough you can kill people because of their race or faith.

Thomas then asks the question:

So ask your relativist friends sometime: What is to keep me from getting a gang of people together and beating the hell out of you because I think you deserve to be beaten?  Too many people think that life and liberty are about their frivolous pleasures.  There is more to life.  And again, largely what relativism reflects is simply a lack of learning.

Why is this idea important to me as a conservative, because as a conservative, I believe that not all ideas are created equally, not all “ways” of life are correct and moral.  There does exist a higher moral order, which cannot be violated without grave consequence for mankind.  I do not determine that moral order, God does.  Thus only an order which is not one man’s preference versus another has the chance to be truly just, moral, and equitable.  Relativism in practice leads to the worst forms of tyranny and inequity.

I think Clarence Thomas (Imprimis, October 2007) hit the nail on the head with this quote:

“There may be a disconnect between my world and yours, because when my grandfather was raising me, people didn’t talk about their rights so much.  They talked about civil rights, yes, but they didn’t simply talk about rights and freedom.  They talked more about the responsibility that came with freedom–about the fact that if you were to have freedom, you had to be responsible for it. 

Then..

“What my grandfather believed was that people have their responsibilities, and that if they are left alont to fulfill their responsibilities, that is freedom.”

We’d all be better of and more free if this is how we legislated and this is how we lived!