Political Perplexity

Craving Comments

I began to despair. According to google metrics, around 1 in 20 people actually post comments on my blog.

Then I had a Brilliant Idea.

I have decided to write provocative, controversial things and see if they elicit more response.

I have also decided to churn out more posts, worrying more about quantity than quality. And to highlight certain phrases for emphasis.

Let’s see what happens. 

Mister Mitt Mormon

I’d like Mitt Romney a lot better if either he weren’t Mormon, or I weren’t.

Five years and a few months ago, towards the beginning of the primary season for the 2008 election, a nice LDS lady met me and automatically assumed I was a Mitt fan.  I’m afraid I made a face.  When asked about my views, I explained, politely, “I like how he turned the Salt Lake City Olympics around. And I like how he opposed gay marriage as governor of Massachusetts. I really thought he tried hard and demonstrated political courage in that situation. I don’t like how he has changed so many of his positions (like on immigration and gun control and the environment) in an opportunistic way. And I’m not happy that he was ever pro-abortion, even if he claims to be pro-life now.”

I know Mormons want to assume that other Mormons are automatically nice, honest, and holy. In general that’s true. But I have known some crazy, abusive, or dishonest LDS people.

A few months after the incident above, as the primary season was starting to heat up,  I told a lay Catholic minister that I wouldn’t judge all Catholics by Rudy Giuliani if he wouldn’t judge all Mormons by Mitt Romney. We struck the deal.

Now, because I’m churning this post out, I’m not going to worry too much about niceties like research and documentation. Instead, I’ll just write down my opinion in a somewhat haphazard way.

In the years since then, I have further been unhappy by his carpet-bombing of negative ads in the primaries (both 2008 and 2012), his hypocrisy on Obamacare, and his pandering.

Apparently he showed remarkable leadership as a young missionary in France, stepping up and running the entire mission while his mission president was incapacitated. A very impressive feat for a young twenty-one-year-old kid.

I have some relatives, on both sides of my family, who lived in Boston back when Romney was the stake president there. I accept that he was a good stake president. Effective, charitable, even spiritual.  He does seem to have fantastic organizational management skills. In 2008, I emailed his PAC and suggested that he take over the post-earthquake disaster response in Haiti. Never heard back. Ah well.

All of that doesn’t necessarily translate to being a good president, though.

For one thing, as the CEO of Bain, or as a stake president, he would have faced a lot less argument then he’d get in the oval office. Members of the stake, in particular, might whine a little or ignore his requests, but they would be unlikely to go around actively subverting his initiatives, criticizing his character, organizing protests, issuing press releases calling him nasty names, and stalling his policy initiatives with dirty political tactics. That’s called “steadying the ark,” and it is NOT encouraged in Mormon culture. That’s also called “business as usual” in D.C. and is assumed to be fair game.

My sister Cheryl, who has a M.A. in political science and has specialized in Supreme Court and election issues, says that the skill set required to get someone elected does not overlap very well with actual governance. That’s why a new president tends to make his campaign manager chief of staff, only to fire the guy one to two years later.

I have seen a similar issue with Mr. Obama, who ran a superbly-executed 2008 campaign. Like him, love him, or loathe him, everyone agrees his team was extraordinarily disciplined and professional. He was less effective as president, though, because he had a wider scope and less control.

Another concern about a Romney presidency involves his shifting positions. I am annoyed that he pandered to the Republican base, then tried to reset the “etch-a-sketch” for the general election, then acts poised to “reset” again if he hits office.

My best guess is that, once he got into politics, it eroded his moral center. I can understand why it seems so easy to compromise—just a little bit—to win this one election. Because, once elected, the candidate can do so much more good…

The differences between principled compromise (which is necessary), and unyielding stubbornness (which is generally not helpful), and being tossed about by every wind of political opinion (which is morally empty and also destructive to everyone involved)—those are topics for a different blog post.

For now, let’s just say that since he has pandered shamelessly to the rabid right, I don’t see how he can expect to govern from the center. It’s ever so much easier to start a mob than to direct, or, especially, quell one. 

Plus, I keep asking myself, “If he’s the kind of guy who will say anything, tack anywhere, or embrace any position to get elected, what makes anyone think he will suddenly discover his spine in office? And if he did, which set of positions would he use?”

My final objection is much more personal: I don’t want Mitt Romney becoming the worldwide face of my faith. 

I used to love it when President Hinckley went on national TV. He acted genuine, and his personality just came through for everyone to enjoy. I was proud to point him out to friends and say “That’s my prophet!”

I feel a strong responsibility to act as an ambassador for my religion. That doesn’t mean I need to pretend to be perfect, which is hypocritical. It’s okay to admit human frailties and failures. But, yes, people are watching, and it’s important to set a good example.

As a teen-ager, I tried especially hard to live the standards taught by my family and my faith. After all my efforts, I got very frustrated at the frequent variations of the following conversation:

Classmate: Gail, why don’t you lie/cheat/date/curse/smoke/drink/gossip/dress immodestly?

Gail: [sensing a great missionary opportunity] Oh, well, I’m a Mormon, and—

Classmate: [interrupting] –but Jack is a Mormon, and HE does it.
Gail: [cringing internally] Well, I can’t speak for his choices, but as for myself…

Now imagine having that conversation with a co-worker or neighbor about the first Mormon president.

Neighbor: So, I’ve noticed you’re really honest and never engage in nasty gossip.

Gail: Well, I'm far from perfect about it, but I do try hard to be uplifting. You see, I’m a Mormon, and—

Neighbor: [interrupting] But President Romney is a Mormon, and he flip-flops all the time. And he covered up a major scandal. And he smeared his opposition unfairly. In fact, he comes across as a cynical, dishonest jerk.

Gail: [cringing visibly] Yes. I know. And I’m really unhappy about that. [We then spend time in further apologetics, discussing how Nixon was raised Quaker, and the Quakers are awesome but Nixon certainly wasn’t. Or how Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, and Paul Ryan are all Catholics of very different stripes. And how you can’t judge an entire religion by one person, even if that person is one of the most powerful and famous men in the world….]

In a situation like that, I would want to be able to tell my neighbor, honestly, “I didn’t vote for him.”

See? I would like Mr. Romney a whole lot more if one of us weren’t LDS.

That’s funny, since very few people actually like him, and those who do are often Mormon. I am struck at how many people say “Well…he’s better than the other guy,” or “I don’t believe he’s Christian, but I mostly agree with his current set of moral positions” or “I don’t entirely trust him to stay true to his current set of moral positions, but we have strong watchdog groups who will lean on him to stay honest.” I paraphrase something Jon Stewart said earlier in this cycle’s primaries. “If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, Evangelicals will vote for him, but with the same level of enthusiasm with which you’d take your cousin to the Prom. They’ll do it, but they’ll be really unhappy about it.”

President Obama

I don’t intend to vote for Mr. Obama, either, though for different reasons. I rather like President Obama. He’s not perfect, but he has tried hard. He has been fairly consistent in his policy positions. I felt like he really made good faith efforts to work in a bipartisan way, only to be swamped by a highly obstructionist congress. Mitch McConnell stated his #1 priority was to deny the president a second term. Facing a fiscal cliff and rabid Republicans foaming at the mouth, Obama blinked. I was disappointed, but I was also not the person on the ground. I can imagine it looks a lot different when you’re sitting in The Chair.

Many people are much more disappointed in Mr. Obama, but that’s primarily because they had such unreasonably high expectations. I was skeptical of his campaign promises, simply because I knew that a president can’t, single-handedly, reform my local school district or change the culture in Washington D.C. or write and pass comprehensive immigration reform. All candidates promise major changes, and it annoys me, because either they’re pandering or they have no concept of how the system works. Well, the system doesn’t work all that well. Let’s say they have no concept of how Washington operates.

The next time a politician, at any level, makes a “pie in the sky” promise, ask yourself, “He's either dishonest or incompetent. Or maybe crazy. Which is it?”

I’m not voting for Mr. Obama because I can’t bring myself to support someone who favors broad abortion rights and same-sex marriage. But, despite our honest difference of opinion, I respect the man.

Libertarian Loonies!

I’m voting for Gary Johnson, the libertarian party candidate. The libertarian party is awesome on most issues and insane on others, but that’s okay. I don’t actually want him to get elected.

Every election cycle, we hear “A vote for a third-party candidate is a spoiler. Go with the lesser of two evils and don’t waste your vote. Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, and then look what happened with President Bush.” Or "Ross Perot cost George H. W. Bush the election in 1992, and then look what happened with Bill Clinton."

I see that argument. The problem is that “the lesser of two evils” choice perpetuates the pathetic paradigm.

Thinking only in the immediate term, thinking only as far as the next four years, is what got America into a huge mess. Budget issues (like states deciding whether or not to implement health care exchanges) or diplomatic issues (as in our current holding pattern regarding Iran) keep getting booted down the road, until after the next election. We’re lucky to get 18 months of actual governance these days.

If more people decided to ignore the immediate “lesser of two evils” crisis and focus on a long-term agenda, it would take a generation, but we could see a more robust, multi-party system. The Republican party really ought to be three different organizations, anyway.

In a more diversified, multi-party system, maybe we would have genuine policy debates and less pandering. The third-party candidates debate last week was awesome. Crazy, but awesome. They discussed issues that neither Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney wanted to touch with someone else’s twenty-foot pole.

Granted, stronger third and fourth parties might lead to even more gridlock. But given our current situation, I doubt it could get much worse. Let’s give it a try. Third party revolution!

Given the options “A or B,” I generally write an essay and end up choosing G. (Not C, which is still too cliché.) Go gamma girls!

This year, I’m choosing G again, for Gary Johnson.

Controversial Comments

If you disagree with me, that’s fine. The comments section is below. Be passionate, but be polite. Preferably with punctuation. No cursing and no vilifying. 

 
Allowed: "No offense, Gail, but I think you're crazy. Here's why..."

Frowned upon: "I'm not voting for a Obama. He's Muslim!" [I frown upon it because it's not true and because it implies that being a Muslim is inherently bad.]

Definitely not allowed: "obama is a *#&%* terorist muslim commie come on guys seriously who would vote for such an evel person romney isn't grate but hes better than the other guy at least hes american your a traitor for even saying he has any good qualities"

Let's see what happens.