Politics?

On Facebook I describe my political views as "Moderately liberal, mildly progressive, and somewhat conservative." But I wouldn't want even that eclectic mix to box me in.

I agree with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).

I discuss my "Political views" status on Facebook more at length at http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html

Making phone calls for Mark Peterson

I've spent some time over the past few days making phone calls for Mark Peterson, a friend who is running for Utah State House of Representatives, District 62.

Of the 100 or so names I've worked with so far, 28 don't have phone numbers listed, 25 are listed with numbers that are no longer working, a few who answered no longer live in the district, one hung up on me, and about 15 didn't pick up (I left messages when I could). That means I probably talked with about 30 directly, and I appear to have persuaded a few. I was surprised at how many actually wanted to listen to my brief case for why they should vote for Mark Peterson.

The time to vote approaches--tomorrow, November 2, 2010. Is there any chance Mark will win? I suppose so. But whether or not he wins, he is, in my opinion, clearly the better qualified of the candidates--a good two or three or four times better than his opponent.

Here's why I think so. (This is a copy of what I sent to family and friends living in District 62.)

Mark Peterson is an excellent candidate, smart, mature, and experienced. I’ve known him for many years as a colleague at BYU, where he teaches Korean, and am confident he will make a great state legislator. Besides his many years of experience as an educator, he also has experience in economic development, having helped set up an office in Korea to facilitate Korean investment in Utah and Utah exports to Korea.

Mark has sensible, pragmatic, moderate positions on various issues, including education, economic development, immigration, and air pollution. To help improve air quality in Utah and Salt Lake valleys (which have some of the worst air pollution in the country), Mark proposes specific ways of limiting range fires, among other things. He proposes humane and compassionate immigration reform, including going after exploitive employers, refining NAFTA so as to improve economic conditions in Mexico, and finding ways to help undocumented residents come out of the shadows without destroying their families. His main focus will be on education—an area of deep concern, since the scores of Utah students have been declining in recent years despite all the money Utah spends on education. Mark will seek to make education the legislature’s top priority so that the required time and effort can be put into finding a solution to Utah’s complex education problems. Improving education is the best thing we can do for economic development.

One reason I support Mark is that his opponent—Chris Herrod—is, in my opinion, one of the least capable legislators in recent memory. Herrod has taken extreme positions and supported off-the-wall bills. For instance, he has proposed doing away with the booster seat requirement for small children. There’s no question that booster seats improve safety for small children; I believe the requirement should stay. Herrod has also proposed spending $3 million for Utah to sue the federal government, in ways that legal experts say would have no standing and probably wouldn’t even get off the ground.

Herrod’s main qualification, for many, is that he is running as a Republican. But the past few years have made it clear that the extreme domination of Republicans in Utah state government has been bad for the state and bad for the Republican Party, as the party has run weak candidates who have not had to face real election challenges and as it has come to be dominated by its more extreme elements. Among the signs that more balance is needed is that wacky bills are regularly proposed and taken seriously—for instance, a bill proposing doing away with 12th grade, something that simply by being proposed brought Utah negative publicity (with economic consequences) that undid much of what our economic development efforts have tried to accomplish.

Mark Peterson is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including Karl Snow, a Republican and former Utah Senate Majority leader. Among others who support him are Susan Easton Black, Reese and Kathryn Hansen, Richard L. and Carma de Jong Anderson, Ned Hill, Thomas Alexander, Scott and Chris Cameron, Randy and Janet Jones, Jim Toronto, and of course many, many others.

Mark will help restore sanity to the Utah legislature. He will be a voice of reason and moderation.

For more details on his positions, go to http://www.electmarkpeterson.org/

And be sure to vote on Tuesday.

Best wishes,
Bruce Young

P.S.: This is a P.S. to the blog post, not something I put in the e-mail I sent to friends and family. Though I live in District 62, all the people on my phone list live in a different part of the district, away from my neighborhood. Because of my local church responsibilities, I feel I need to avoid getting associated with political labels. So I have no bumper stickers or yard signs and have held no neighborhood meetings with candidates. Nor have I knocked on doors or made phone calls in my neighborhood (for political purposes).

One of my neighbors asked me who I'd recommend voting for--but asked me while we were in the church building. I told him I'd feel more comfortable talking to him in another location and at another time--and maybe (it occurs to me now) after I took off my white shirt and tie. Maybe I'm going overboard, but I really do feel I need to separate the roles very clearly. Still, I feel torn at times--I'd love to tell everybody what I think about ballot issues. But there are far more important things I need to do as well. And I need to not get the two confused, or weaken the more important things by focusing too much on the less important ones.

MTC Reunion (French-speaking branches)

For more information see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152149834808962

I still haven't been able to contact the following:

Adam Michael Ross
Alexander Williams
Benjamin John Spence
Brady Nicholas Rust
Brett Jackson Riley
Brian Douglas Nelson
Brittany Call
Brock Dennis Rose
Catherine Luz Cerdhe
Christopher Joseph Perry
Christopher Allen Carlsen
Clifton Todd Crosland
Daniel Ray Porter
Daniel Jaymes Skeen
Daniel James Lee
Daniel Guillermo Antivilo
David Cahrles Phillips
David Wesley Olsen
Eric Wesley Wilcox
Geoffrey Tucker Lang
Gregory Alan Garrett
Gyson Delmar Gray
James Matthew Ritchie
James Aarl Sykes
Jason Stuart Walke
Jaysen Varselle Williams
John Aaron Sones
Jonathan Wesley Hales
Jordan Dale Harding
Joseph Brandt Jorgensen
Joshua Michael Barney
Kade Brett Hansen
Kevin Mtthew Dennis
Kyle McKay Poulsen
Laurence James Wynder
Luke Thomas Sherry
Marco Antonio De Leon Jr.
Mark Ryan Wight
Matthew Jay Stokes
Matthew Frank Maylett
Michael Recio
Michael Ray Christensen
Michael Pierce Johnson
Michael Alexander De La Torre
Michael Crosby Long
Miguel Moreira Da Mota
Nathan Samuel Gill
Ninoska Altamirano
Omar Doctolero Ramil
Paul Benjamin McConnell
Richard McKay Childs
Robert Isaac Andersen
Robert Scott Runyon
Ryan Scott Sorensen
Scott Robert McIntosh
Seth Neal Ellsworth
Stephanie Ann Smith
Stephen David Hunter
Stephen R. Crooks
Thomas Cameron Waller
Tonya Michelle Olsen
Tyler Kimble Jestet
Tyler David Kelley
William Thomas Garner
Zachary Mark Bowman

If you know any of those listed, please invite them.

My view of Mitt Romney

My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.

On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable.  I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics.  He did well as governor of Massachusetts.  I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.

On the negative side, I have a few concerns.  Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words.  I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness.  I don't feel like I really know his heart.  I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney.  He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.

A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor.  In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with.  During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions.  And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates.  There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.

Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith.  I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church.  I believe he's genuinely religious.  But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai.  (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)

I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney.  He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values."  And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate.  Plus Mitt is Mormon! 

Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://english.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance).  And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney.  It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.

Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences.  (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.)  And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values.  Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative."  But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values?  And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal."  And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility?  For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?

In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology.  For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense.  (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)

I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).

So where does that leave me with Mitt.  Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.

My view of Mitt Romney

My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.

On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable.  I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics.  He did well as governor of Massachusetts.  I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.

On the negative side, I have a few concerns.  Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words.  I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness.  I don't feel like I really know his heart.  I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney.  He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.

A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor.  In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with.  During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions.  And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates.  There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.

Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith.  I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church.  I believe he's genuinely religious.  But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai.  (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)

I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney.  He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values."  And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate.  Plus Mitt is Mormon! 

Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance).  And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney.  It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.

Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences.  (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.)  And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values.  Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative."  But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values?  And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal."  And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility?  For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?

In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology.  For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense.  (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)

I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).

So where does that leave me with Mitt.  Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.