1. SNL can go back to sucking and that will be one less thing for me to watch each week.
2. I'm wearing a cool sticker that proclaims me a voter.
3. We can start getting more puppies & kitties stories in the news. (Note: GH is not excited about this, since he's the one who has to find and write the puppies & kitties stories.)
4. It will possibly be another 4 years before I have to listen to people at church talk about how you can't be a good Mormon and a Democrat. And how this is no time for wishy-washiness, because if you dig deep you'll see that Obama is actually a communist and that's why you can't vote for him.
5. It will possibly be another 4 years before I have to listen to people assume that because I am a Utah resident and a Mormon that I automatically share their political views and will be therefore happy to listen to them spout off, uninvited, when I can't get away and don't want a fight.
My point is this. I'm tired of things being so imbalanced. I want balance, people. I think we need balance. Balance is the whole point of a 2-party system, with there being enough back and forth that you eventually find solutions that will benefit the largest number of people. And I am so, so, SO over the "if you don't vote for the same person I'm voting for then that means you don't actually love Jesus" refrain. Because hi, this is just one more example of SOMETHING THAT IS NO ONE ELSE'S D*MN BUSINESS being used as some sort of spirituality judgment tool, when we don't actually need to be judging each other in the first place. I've already been through that with the "Why are you still single?" and I'm sure I'll get it with the "Why don't you have (enough) kids yet?" and I don't actually need one more. And anyway, my response will always be the same:
SUCK.
IT.
But back on the issue of balance. A few days ago GH pointed out a very interesting article to me. You can read the entire thing at LDSLiving, but in 1998 Elder Marlin K. Jensen (then a member of the Church's Public Affairs Committee) was interviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune at the request of church official on "the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members."
Elder Jensen gave these as concerns the brethren have about the apparent demise of the 2-party system among United States Mormons.
-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.
-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.
-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."
-- Faithful LDS members have a moral obligation to actively participate in politics and civic affairs, a duty many have neglected.
So get this, how often do presidential candidates visit Utah? Pretty much never. Do they ever even mention Utah? No, because they don't have to. Utah is a done deal. Everyone knows UT will go Republican no matter what, and that it will continue to go Republican even if the candidates do a piss-poor job and don't live up to their promises. So they don't have to care about what we want or what our issues are or whether we're happy with their leadership. We don't actually matter.
And on the State level, there have been disadvantages to having Republican-only leadership, no matter how good that leadership may be. Elder Jensen gives a few examples of ways that "long-range planning issues" have suffered, like "open-space preservation and land-use planning," with a specific example being the crappy all-at-once construction on I-15. Jensen maintains that if there had been more balance in the state legislature, these issues would have been hashed out beforehand, "rather than being allowed to wait until we reached a crisis situation." Another example I think of is the educational system in the state. We hear teachers and parents moan about how under-funded the schools are and how poorly teachers are paid, but wouldn't it be Democrats who are more likely to push for funding increases?
Another quote from the article:
Jensen said concerns exist on two levels about the unofficial linkage of the Republican Party and Mormon Church.
One is the fear that by being closely identified with one political party, the church's national reputation and influence is subject to the roller-coaster turns and dips of that partisan organization. Also bothersome is that the uncontested dominance of the Republican Party in Utah deprives residents of the debate and competition of ideas that underlie good government.
"There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," Jensen said. "The national fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. Whereas the Republicans may clearly have the upper hand today, in another 10 years they may not."
I know many US Mormons don't consider the Democratic party because they don't feel it represents their values in areas like abortion or same-sex issues. Only here's the thing--no one party is going to fit everything that you believe. And it will definitely never represent your LDS values if there are no LDS people involved in it. I'm not saying this is about joining the enemy camp just because, but if you find that the Democratic Party or your local Democratic candidates match up with your views on education, taxation, energy, health care, the environment, and whatever else, then you may want to take a second look. For example, the Utah County Democrats are pro-life. Because you can be pro-life and a Democrat. You may also want to take a look at which issues are more likely to affect your life in the next 4-8 years. I doubt abortion is going to be tackled either way by either candidate. They have too many other things to deal with--I bet they're going to state their position and then leave it be. Because who wants to invite THAT crapstorm? I'm more concerned about things like what the NCLB-teach-to-the-test educational system is going to be like when my kids start school, and whether we're still going to be pouring troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, and if I'm going to be able to afford health care, or buy a house, or save for retirement. And I'll go with whichever party has a plan that aligns with my ideas of what should be done.
Please don't take this to mean that I think I have all the answers. I absolutely do not, and I've only started evaluating my own political views in the last couple of years. So clearly I have work to do. And this isn't really me trying to lecture so much as it is me working through some things I've been thinking about and discussing with friends in the last several months. And I'd like to hear what you're coming up with as well. I just think it's odd that a group of people (specifically Mormons) can disagree and have different viewpoints on so many things, but are somehow magically aligned (or are "supposed" to be) when it comes to politics. I also wonder why some of us are so threatened about the idea of political differences within the church. Are we the same ones who feel threatened if people don't make the same decisions we do about where to live, when to marry, and how to plan and raise our families? I think there are a lot of correct choices here, and they don't all have to be the same one.
Anyway, Happy Election Day!
0 comments:
Post a Comment