The Rise of Mussolini--and what we can learn from it

In 1922 Italy was in crisis. Benito Mussolini--blunt, outspoken, someone who "got things done"--seemed to many a man who could help the country through the crisis. Mussolini himself was sure he could do more than that, that he could restore Italy to its former greatness.

Though he was an outsider, Mussolini came to power through what was considered a legitimate process, with the support of many--the King, the nation's conservative establishment, and eventually the Roman Catholic Church--who were suspicious of him but felt he was the best alternative. When King Victor Emmanuel III refused to declare martial law, liberal Prime Minister Luigi Facta resigned, and the King asked Mussolini to form a new government. According to Wikipedia, "the King and the conservative establishment were afraid of a possible civil war and ultimately thought they could use Mussolini to restore law and order in the country."

Later, Mussolini made concessions to the Roman Catholic Church and won the support and gratitude of many Catholics--this despite his multiple affairs and his history of antagonism to Christianity and to what Denis Mack Smith calls "the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity, and goodness" (Mussolini: A Biography [1982], p. 12). After gaining power, Mussolini claimed to be religious, recognized the independence of the Vatican, designated Catholicism as the state religion, gave the Church authority over marriage, exempted it from taxation, and banned birth control and freemasonry (see Wikipedia). The Pope praised Mussolini as "the Man of Providence," and "the official Catholic newspaper pronounced 'Italy has been given back to God and God to Italy'" (Wikipedia). Catholics were also inclined to support Mussolini because of his strong opposition to Communism.

Sadly, many Catholics came to regret their support of Mussolini. His claims to be religious turned out to be propaganda, and far from reverencing God, he aimed above all to promote himself, viewing himself as a great leader, a superman of the sort that, according to his understanding of the philosopher Nietzsche, was needed to accomplish great things. He was in short a "supreme egoist" (see Denis Mack Smith, p. 12).

Benito Mussolini

What can we learn from the rise of Mussolini? One lesson is that we should be especially careful at times of tension and crisis not to do foolish--potentially tragic--things that we will come to regret. Another is that we should be especially wary of "egoists" who seem to offer simple solutions to our problems, including concerns about "law and order." For me, one of the most important lessons is that we should respect our own suspicions. If we believe our country is in crisis--if we believe, for instance, that religious liberty is in danger or that morality or Constitutional government is at risk--we should think carefully before supporting someone who claims he will protect those things but whose statements and behavior do not in fact align with those values. If such a person claims he'll support our values but has demonstrated by his words and actions and personal style that these values are really not the ones at his core or the ones he lives by, we should beware.

I believe this is precisely the situation we face as we consider the possibility that Donald Trump could become President of the United States. Many Republicans and many conservatives (not to mention many other Americans) find Trump personally distasteful and are troubled by his racist and sexist statements, his profane and sometimes violent language, serious flaws in his personal character, and his lack of clear, consistent, and specific policy proposals. But some are nevertheless supporting Trump for one or both of the following reasons:

1. He has promised to present a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court.

2. He is (supposedly) better than Hillary Clinton.

I think I understand those who take this view. (On the other hand, to support Trump only because of "party loyalty" seems to be completely indefensible.) But I think the view is mistaken. Here's why.

First, I believe history shows (including the history of the rise of Fascism and Naziism in twentieth-century Europe) that is better to be governed by "a regular politician"--and that would include a liberal one--than by a charismatic, egotistical strongman who claims he'll solve our problems, even if it takes harsh measures.

Second (in specific response to item 2 above), I think it's completely false that Trump is better than Hillary Clinton. She is certainly flawed. But she is nothing like the monster that her opponents try to believe she is. Her errors as Secretary of State are perhaps of the magnitude of some of President Reagan's misdeeds and misstatements as president. (Look it up.) They are far less serious than the major errors committed by George W. Bush as president. In terms of personal character, my intuition is that (despite her flaws) she is in an entirely different league from Donald Trump.

I say "my intuition" because I have no way of truly knowing the hearts of either of them. But given that, as voters, we need to do our best to assess the characters of those we vote for, I have to do my best, based on Trump's statements and behavior, to get a sense of his mind, his temperament, his beliefs, and his moral character. Based on what I've seen, he is a "supreme egoist" who lacks genuine sensitivity and respect for others and who deals savagely with anyone he sees as an enemy. His apparent inability to apologize--and his statement that he has never asked God for forgiveness--suggests that he lacks the sort of humility that, besides being central to Christianity, is needed in any truly good leader.

Both Clinton and Trump have some difficulties being completely honest and straightforward. But again, they are in completely different leagues. Clinton tends to "adjust" the facts with what appears to be self-protective calculation. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care about facts at all. He has repeatedly made false claims, denying demonstrable facts, including about his own positions. It appears he has no shame, not even any sense of guilt about making false claims (or about much of his other misbehavior). Objective measures confirm this striking different between Clinton and Trump: as of early August, PolitiFact judged 27% of Clinton's statements as "mostly false or worse," compared to 70% of Trump's. Other fact checkers have shown similar results. (For an illuminating opinion piece on this subject, see "Clinton's fibs vs. Trump's huge lies" at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html).

Furthermore, I believe Clinton's Methodist faith is entirely sincere. She is not a conservative evangelical Christian, but she is a "do-gooding" mainstream Christian of the sort who lives by the motto attributed to John Wesley: "Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can." As for Trump, I can't quite fathom what his religious views might be, since neither his language nor his behavior reflect basic Christian morality and since his ideas have little in common with the Presbyterian faith he says he espouses.

How about the Supreme Court? For the sake of national unity and respect for the Supreme Court (and for the process mandated by the Constitution for selecting and confirming justices), I think the best choice would be to confirm Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee. At least one Senate Republican has suggested that, if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Senate should quickly do just that.

But some Republicans (and others) want a much more conservative Supreme Court nominee, mainly with the aim of protecting various freedoms (including religious liberty and gun rights) and even with the unlikely hope of overturning Roe vs. Wade and gay marriage. I think there's something to be said for a more moderate choice for the Supreme Court--not only to reduce the politicizing of the court and partisan rancor in the country, but to protect other freedoms and values, including the right to vote and freedom from the dominant role of money in politics (which might require overturning Citizens United). And some of us feel that sensible restrictions on gun sales and the availability of military style weapons can be harmonized with the constitutional protection of "the right to bear arms."

But let's assume that a severely conservative Supreme Court nominee would be preferable and that Trump would follow through on making such a nomination. Given the Senate's refusal to even consider President Obama's nomination, what might Democrats in the Senate do to block a Trump nomination, especially given the fact that the Senate is likely to be even more evenly divided along partisan lines after this fall's election? Senate Republicans have taken some liberty with precedent in refusing to consider President Obama's nominee. Could Democrats take similar liberties--perhaps with an unfortunate desire for revenge--and prevent consideration of Trump's nominee? I've read the Constitution carefully on this topic, and it appears that in theory the Senate could refuse to allow a president to replace vacancies in the Supreme Court indefinitely.

Furthermore, I refuse to accept the idea that choosing a Supreme Court justice with a particular ideology is the most important consideration. Yes, that choice will have a long lasting effect on the nation. But certainly in the short run, and maybe in the long run as well, the qualifications and character of the president will have a stronger impact. If we've learned one thing in the past year, it's that Trump will be Trump. The temperament (or lack of it) he's already demonstrated will almost certainly continue and will have a damaging effect on our relations with other countries, even if his bizarre proposals (such as refusing to defend some of our NATO allies or encouraging more nations to have nuclear weapons) don't become realities. He will almost certainly make a mess of some of the difficult situations that are likely to arise and could even turn a crisis into a disaster.

He has turned the Republican Party away from many of its central values (for that reason, I think the best thing for the health of the Republican Party would be a resounding Trump defeat), and especially since announcing his candidacy for president, he has done much to degrade the level of political discourse in our nation. I think it would take something of a miracle for him not to do much further damage as president. His personal style would damage our public life and serve as a poor example for our children. He would almost certainly exacerbate divisions and hostilities and make those who feel at risk, including Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims, feel further marginalized. On matters of policy, he is likely to slow progress toward solution of our immigration problems. His economic proposals, if taken seriously, would be disastrous. The only hope for any of us is that he could somehow be "managed" (not likely, given his campaign so far) or that he could be resisted by the other branches of government. But given all the other negatives, why would we want a president who would be kept from doing terribly damage only if he were managed or resisted?

One of the saddest things about a Trump presidency is that he would do damage to the very values espoused by many of those who are now reluctantly supporting him. Whatever he may say about religious liberty, morality, and the Constitution, his personal inclinations do not support those values. He has shown that he lacks respect for religious diversity and does not truly understand the Constitution or respect its provisions for religious liberty or for separation of powers, including an independent judiciary. His religiosity, such as it is, is superficial and not deeply informed. He has boasted of his sexual exploits. He also boasts of his "genius" and his success as a businessman, success that has come at the cost of many people he has exploited. His impulses are authoritarian (do what I say, or else) and destructive (I will destroy you if you oppose me). Perhaps he is learning to temper or suppress some of those impulses, but they keep returning. I don't see any hope that they wouldn't badly mar our public life if he were to become president.

Donald Trump

Having started this post with the story of Mussolini's rise to power, I don't want to leave the impression that I think a similar descent into totalitarianism would be likely under a Trump presidency. There are certainly some similarities between Mussolini and Trump, including their egoism and machismo and their authoritarian tendencies. (Trump has even retweeted a Mussolini quotation: "@ilduce2016: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” @realDonaldTrump #MakeAmericaGreatAgain" – --and then defended himself for having unknowingly disseminated the words of "Il Duce," as Mussolini was known when he ruled Italy.) But Trump doesn't have Mussolini's driving sense of mission nor does he have Mussolini's intellect. (However distorted Mussolini's intelligence might have been, he was well read and fancied himself something of an intellectual.) And he doesn't have a carefully crafted totalitarian ideology that he would seek to implement.

Though there are a few temperamental similarities, Trump is quite different from Mussolini in these and other ways. I look at him as something of a combination of Mussolini, Huey Long, P. T. Barnum, and George Wallace (prior to his repentance), with a dash of Richard Nixon and small dashes (very small dashes) of Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson thrown in for good measure. But that's just my attempt to make sense of him. As many people have said, Trump is simply Trump--and, as I've already said, is much less dangerous as a person than Mussolini was.

Furthermore, we live in a very different country and a very different world than Mussolini and his contemporaries. One of the wonders of American public life is that power is widely dispersed in various public and private entities as well as throughout "the people" as a whole. The separation of powers is a genuine protection. And, however much some may complain about the media, a robust media is also a great protection. So my concern about Trump is not that he would actually become a dictator but rather that he would degrade the quality of our public life.

On the other hand, in some ways our world is a more dangerous place than it was 90 years ago. Given the president's central role in foreign policy and his role as commander-in-chief, a reckless president could do much more harm now than a century ago. That's one reason I would rather go for "safe" than "risky."

One of my sons said months ago that, even if he agreed with Trump on every issue, he wouldn't support him, given his character and behavior. I feel much the same way. Even if I agreed with Trump on every issue (which would be hard to determine, given that his positions seem to be constantly in flux), I could not in good conscience support his persistent tendency to engage in divisive, antagonistic discourse and to treat others--individuals and groups--in demeaning and disrespectful ways.

It appears that some good people are working pretty hard at convincing themselves that Trump wouldn't be that bad. I think it's very clear they're wrong. I think the time will come that they will regret having exercised bad judgment on this matter and will realize that the hard work of persuading themselves required some serious twisting and suppressing or ignoring of things they were or should have been aware of all along.

But they do have a similar way of crossing their arms, don't they?

Plagiarism, part 2

I became involved in a discussion of plagiarism two days ago (http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2016/07/what-counts-as-plagiarism.html) when news broke about the unquestionable recycling of several sentences from a 2008 speech by Michelle Obama in a recent speech by Melania Trump. The news sparked memories of the many times I've worked with students who deliberately or ignorantly (maybe I should say "confusedly") violated accepted standards of integrity by plagiarizing some of the content in their papers.

In all of this I in no way intended to attack Melania Trump. I saw her as a victim in the scandal--though it turns out she may have more of a hand in writing her speech than I had assumed, but still with innocent intent. (See "Melania and the speech writer" below for more on this.)

I assumed that there would be reaction to my blog post. I posted a link on Facebook and was hoping for some reaction, since many of my posts get very little response. So I was pleased when I saw comments.

But I was surprised at the degree to which some comments were partisan, several of them echoing Fox News or online sources that viewed the controversy as a way of scoring political points, not of seeking for clarity and integrity on the important matter of how words are used in public discourse.

Many of the public responses listed instances of plagiarism by figures "on the other side" to show that the "accusers" were as guilty as the "accused." (I question the words "accuser" and "accused" because most reports I saw focused simply on the facts of the case, that is, the clear evidence that several sentences in Melania's speech were lifted from Michelle's. Those who were seeking for someone to blame focused on the then unknown speechwriter--even wondering if this were deliberate sabotage--or on the campaign for not vetting the speech more carefully. Melania was generally treated with sympathy.)

Some public responses, including from the Trump campaign, excused the plagiarism as insignificant because similar phrases can be found in My Little Pony or popular songs or because "Michelle Obama didn't invent the English language." (If this last rationale is taken seriously, then no one is ever guilty of plagiarism, at least as long as they use words found in the dictionary. On this view, we might as well throw the whole concept out of the window.) Others, including the Trump campaign chair, claimed that no plagiarism had taken place--that the offending sentences were not taken from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech, that any perceived similarities were an illusion. That, I can affirm with absolute confidence, is simply a denial of reality. It is like saying that the sun is black or that water is dry. [See footnote 1 below.] Such a claim represents a serious offense against either sanity or the moral responsibility to speak truly.

These attempts to rationalize or deny the obvious dragged the controversy out longer then necessary and I suspect subjected Melania and the speech writer (who has now revealed her identity) to extended pain.

I honestly had assumed the campaign would apologize for the mistake (or misdeed) within a few hours at most and that everyone could move on. Instead they created two days of unnecessary turmoil by trying to move on without an admission of error. I think there's a lesson here for all of us.

So what after all does count as plagiarism?

Back to the question of plagiarism. What bothered me most in all of this was that the various denials and rationalizations promoted twisted and confused ideas about what constitutes plagiarism. No, plagiarism does not consist in using an occasional common phrase, like "live your dream" or "your word is your bond" or "work hard." Nor does the appearance of such phrases in a clear case of plagiarism somehow mean that it is no longer a case of plagiarism.

Plagiarism consists either in using very distinctive phrasing (so distinctive that it is clearly associated with a particular source) without giving credit or in using whole sentences that have been taken from a source that is not credited. Even when the words and ideas are common, if someone has put them together in a certain order, especially in a passage that is several sentences in length, simply copying those sentences (even after making a few changes) is considered plagiarism if the source is not credited or if the words being quoted are not put in quotation marks. The odds against such copying being merely coincidental are global if not astronomical.

The many counter instances of supposed plagiarism that were offered during the two days of controversy include a range of cases from genuine plagiarism to completely acceptable practice. It's unfortunate that the distinctions among these cases were blurred because of the partisan passions or propaganda involved in presenting them.

Here are some cases that people brought up:

Joe Biden: The plagiarism of which he was guilty was revealed some 20 years ago and led him to drop out of a presidential race. Yes, what he did was plagiarism, and he acknowledged it.

Michelle Obama: Some have pointed out that Elizabeth Dole and Laura Bush also talked about hard work and integrity. Sorry, talking about the same topics and even using some of the same words does not constitute plagiarism. Someone also pointed out that, in a particular speech, Michelle Obama had used the words "military families," "love," and "an empty seat at the table," just as Laura Bush had (more or less). Sorry, that doesn't count either. The only distinctive phrase in the two passages is "an empty seat at the table," something commonly used when talking about military families--or any family with an absent member. Everything else in the two passages is worded very differently. Even if the echoing were deliberate, it would not be considered plagiarism.

More seriously, some have accused Michelle Obama of quoting from Saul Alinsky without giving credit. This is a more complicated but instructive case, partly because Michelle was quoting her husband (she put the phrases in question in quotation marks) and partly because Barack's use of the phrases probably derives from his work with community organizing and with the Black community, both places where the phrases are common.

What are the phrases? "The world as it is" and "the world as it should be." It's not exactly as if these aren't phrases that could occur to thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of people independently. The phrases are widely used, as Internet searches show. The fact that the phrases are widely used by community organizers and other activists is not surprising, given that their aim is to change things as they are. And it's possible that Saul Alinsky had something to do with the popularity of these phrases among such activists.

What's interesting, though, is that most people use these phrases to make a very different point than Alinsky was making. He was arguing basically that we need to deal with "the world as it is" and not with our fantasy of what we would like it to be ("The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be"). The Obamas, by contrast, have used the phrases to encourage positive change. What Michelle said was: "And Barack stood up that day, and he spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘the world as it is‘ and ‘the world as it should be.’" She was probably thinking of something similar to the idea expressed in a famous quotation from Robert F. Kennedy: "Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."

The reason some media outlets have been so eager to say that Michelle or Barack Obama were quoting Saul Alinsky is that Alinsky was a radical and in particular the kind of hard-nosed (and somewhat snarky and cynical) secular radical that some would like to believe the Obamas are, but that they are not. Besides using the phrases to make a point that is almost the opposite of Alinsky's, the Obamas' tone is much more positive and hopeful. And their point--even with some of the same wording--has been made by many others, including those speaking from a definitely religious viewpoint. In fact, I've found similar wording in Latter-day Saint publications. For details you'll need to check footnote 2 below.

To put this matter in a nutshell, Michelle Obama's use of the phrases "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be" is definitely NOT a case of plagiarism. Nor is it an indication of her malign intentions to turn America into a Soviet state.

Donald Trump, Jr.: This is another interesting case that probably passes fairly easily the bar of ethical acceptability. Someone (again probably with partisan motivations) discovered that part of the speech by Donald Trump, Jr. at the 2016 Republican Convention was copied very closely from an article by F. H. Buckley. Buckley wrote: "Our schools and universities are like the old Soviet department stores whose mission was to serve the interests of the sales clerks and not the customers." Donald Jr. said: "Our schools used to be an elevator to the middle class. Now . . . They're like Soviet-Era Department stores that are run for the benefit of the clerks and not the customers." (By the way, as a university teacher I have a problem with the idea of viewing myself as a sales clerk and students as customers to whom I am selling "stuff.")

The main reason this doesn't count as plagiarism is that Buckley helped write Donald's speech. In other words, Buckley was using his own previously published ideas and words (somewhat modified) in a speech he was working on for someone else. I think most people would see that as quite acceptable. There are cases when repeating something one has published elsewhere can get sticky and maybe inappropriate, especially if done at length--but it would have to be at much greater length than in Donald Jr.'s speech.

Barack Obama: This is another middling case--a case where Obama used the words and ideas of a friend, a friend who did not object to his using them, who in fact defended Obama's use of them. The difference from Donald Jr., though, is that Obama apparently didn't check in advance with his friend. And he could have saved himself a lot of grief if he had simply said, "As my friend Deval Patrick might put it, . . ."

Apparently what happened is that Obama went off script during a 2008 speech in Milwaukee, ad-libbing comments that were not in his prepared text and that clearly echoed ideas and phrasing he was familiar with from Deval Patrick. Obama said: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!”

In an earlier speech, Patrick, while running for governor of Massachusetts, had said: “But [my opponent's] dismissive point . . . is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!”

Discovering the similarities, Hillary Clinton's campaign accused Obama of plagiarism. And he was in fact echoing Patrick's words and ideas and should have given him credit.

I think it's good to hold public figures accountable on such matters, if only to maintain standards in our use of words. Clearly some cases are more serious than others, and some of what people have called "plagiarism" is definitely not plagiarism. It's also important to not let such false or exaggerated accusations pass unanswered for the same reason: to maintain clarity about what those accepted standards are.

Melania and the speech writer

As of midday yesterday, the Trump campaign has released a statement by the speech writer who worked with Melania Trump apologizing for the unacknowledged borrowing of passages from Michelle Obama. That clear (and contrite) confession brings a stream of fresh air to the situation, ending the denials and rationalizing.

One thing we learn is that the plagiarism resulted from carelessness or clumsiness--lack of careful review and communication, which is often what happens in cases of unintentional plagiarism. A couple of professional political speech writers had prepared a speech for Melania which was largely discarded, though parts were used. Meredith McIver, an "in-house staff writer for the Trump Organization" who helped Trump write some of his books, took over to help Melania craft her speech. McIver says:

In working with Melania Trump on her recent First Lady speech, we discussed many people who inspired her and messages she wanted to share with the American people. A person she has always liked is Michelle Obama. Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches. This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.

So Melania read Michelle Obama's words to McIver over the phone; McIver wrote them down and then at some point either forgot their source or assumed they were not directly quoted and then inserted them into a draft of the speech. Melania Trump either forgot that the words were a direct quotation (which she had supplied to McIver) or was not aware of the problems that would be caused by using the quotation without crediting the source.

McIver apologized for not checking the language more carefully and even offered to resign (an offer that was rejected). In any case, the error was an innocent one in the sense that no one appears to have intended to deceive or wrongfully appropriate the words.

One thing that touches me in this story is Melania's admiration for Michelle Obama. She has many reasons to feel a connection to Mrs. Obama's personal story and many reasons to admire her ideals and her character. I am happy that Melania Trump has not fallen for (what I think there is good reason to call the genuinely evil) hatred of the Obamas that some in the country feel.

Melania's attitude points to the possibility of a much different public spirit than we have seen in recent years--one that would allow people to disagree and argue but still feel and express sympathy, gratitude, and respect for each other. Melania's attitude reminds me that most Americans have much more in common than they may realize, that the spirit of enmity (besides being evil) is based on illusions, illusions that are promoted by a relatively small group of people who thrive on drama and contention or who are caught up in an almost blood-thirsty craving for victory at any cost.

Which in turn reminds me of one of my favorite passages from Lincoln's first inaugural address: 

 We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. 

Is it too much to hope for that we can do better at living up to Lincoln's words? I don't think so. And you can quoted me on that.

******************************************

******************************************

Footnote 1: I've borrowed the images of a black sun and dry water from C. S. Lewis's book The Last Battle, though he uses them to make a somewhat different point.

Footnote 2: Passages resembling "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be" in LDS publications:

(a) In a speech in October 1971, John H. Vandenberg said: "In accepting life, we must relate to the world as it is—to the struggle between good and evil." The main thrust of his speech, though, was to "turn our eyes heavenward" and not be discouraged in dealing with the world as it is. (See https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/10/turn-heavenward-our-eyes?lang=eng.)

(b) A February 1971 article quotes Hari N. Dam, who summarizes one of the attitudes of Hinduism and its contrast with the Western approach as follows: "We accept the world as it is; you try to change it according to your blueprint." (See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/02/hinduism?lang=eng.)

(c) A June 1993 article by Joseph Walker on the distortions found in movies and TV presents wording very close to the Obamas' but with "life" instead of "world":

The thirteenth Article of Faith encourages us to seek out that which is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.” Such things may not always represent “life as it is.” But they certainly represent life as it should be. 

(d) The most interesting example is in an article by Neal A. Maxwell, a beloved leader and brilliant thinker. In "Spiritual Ecology," published in February 1975 (https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/02/spiritual-ecology?lang=eng), he wrote:

The rising generation within the Church become “idealists without illusions,” prepared to cope with the world as it is, prepared to bring the message of the Master to bear on the world’s problems, with the inner confidence that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to human problems, able to say this (not condescendingly or with false pride) but humbly and with a sense of certitude born of their own experience. 

His point is a somewhat like Alinsky's but more positive and certainly more spiritually grounded: we must deal with "the world as it is" (compare Alinsky's "The standards of judgment must be rooted in . . . the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be") but we must also have confidence that we can solve the world's problems--in effect, bring it closer to the way it "should be."

Notice that this passage from Elder Maxwell includes a quoted phrase: "idealists without illusions." He doesn't credit the phrase's source, probably because it was at this time a phrase in wide circulation. But it probably would have been wise (perhaps in a footnote) to credit John F. Kennedy, to whom the phrase is generally attributed. These sorts of phrases that get picked up and quoted by lots of people constitute a bit of a gray area. People tend to assume either that everyone knows who the source is or that the phrase has become so common as to enter into the public domain. But 40 years later, we may no longer recognize the source of the phrase, and it may no longer be so commonly used.

By the way, it's also interesting that many of these uses of "the world as it is" date from the 1970s. Saul Alinsky published his Rules for Radicals in 1971--which suggests either that he suddenly made the phrases "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be" popular or that these phrases were already in wide circulation. I think the latter is more likely.

For one thing, I doubt that LDS Church leaders were reading Alinsky, though Elder Maxwell may have been part of circles where such ideas were discussed. My guess is that the phrases became popular as a result of the idealism of the 1960s. I suspect that if someone searched carefully enough, they would find examples of this pairing of phrases during the decade preceding the publication of Alinsky's book.

What counts as plagiarism?

As a teacher at Brigham Young University--and as the English Department ombudsman, tasked with helping resolve conflicts between students and teachers--I've had many dealings with plagiarism. Students fall into plagiarism in a number of ways--because they genuinely don't understand the concept or, more often, because of laziness or out of desperation. In the old days, when students typed their papers, I could sometimes catch plagiarism because I recognized the content or because the style of a paper differed so much from a student's usual style--or from anything I would normally encounter in an undergraduate's authentic writing. Now we have programs to catch plagiarism--though it still requires judgment to determine what counts as plagiarism. A short phrase here and there could be a matter of coincidence or common phrasing. But a whole passage--with most of the words, or clumsy synonyms for the words, being the same, in the same order--clearly counts as plagiarism. It defies credibility that such clear copying and pasting, even with minor modifications, could be accidental.

Most students I've known have confessed to plagiarism when confronted. We've managed to turn the wrongdoing into a learning experience, not only about the technicalities of plagiarism but about the deeper question of integrity. And some students have found the experience cathartic and helpful in moving forward with a more clearly defined sense of personal responsibility and a determination to be as completely honest as they could be.

The hardest and saddest cases I've dealt with have been when a student denies plagiarism even when faced with obvious evidence. Some have apparently felt they could avoid consequences by maintaining a denial to the bitter end. I've worked with a few who suffered from what seemed to me serious pathologies.

One young woman claimed that the long passages she had plagiarized came from her "photographic memory" of passages she had read online and then forgotten she had seen there. These passages then, she argued, worked their way spontaneously into her writing with the exact wording AND punctuation of the original. I told her that if she really had that remarkable ability, it would be newsworthy and ought to be better known and even studied. But I had no evidence from her other work in the class that she really had such an ability--and that, coupled with learning she had faced accusations of plagiarism in previous classes, led me to plead with her to make a clean break with past patterns and to deal with the current situation honestly. When she still refused to admit any wrongdoing, I pleaded with her to consider the consequences for her character, even her soul. Because of the religious affiliation of the university where I teach, I tried to appeal to her sense of her eternal identity and possibilities. Nothing I said appeared to persuade her.

The Honor Code at Brigham Young University includes the following: "BYU students should seek to be totally honest in their dealings with others. They should complete their own work and be evaluated based upon that work. They should avoid academic dishonesty and misconduct in all its forms, including but not limited to plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, cheating, and other academic misconduct." (See the Appendix at the end of this article for BYU's complete "Academic Honesty Policy.")

Such standards are not limited to religiously affiliated universities. All universities--and I think it's fair to say, all institutions of learning in the United States--have essentially the same expectation: that students present as their work only work they have actually done. And that includes presenting as their own writing only what they have written (not just copied and pasted from elsewhere) and giving credit for words and significant ideas they have borrowed from elsewhere, with quoted words in quotation marks.

One of the things we especially warn students against is "half-baked paraphrase," where a source is quoted but with occasional substitution of similar words and minor omissions or additions. This is considered a very bad practice, even when credit is given to the source. Why? For one thing, the source is not accurately quoted (so the "paraphrase" should not be put in quotation marks) but the same material is presented, at essentially the same length, with modifications that either maintain or diminish the quality of the original. (In other words, it would make more sense to quote the original rather than make a few "half-baked" modifications.) Worst of all, because "half-baked paraphrase" is not put in quotation marks, it is presented deceptively as the student's own language when it is mostly echoing the source. The point is that genuine paraphrase needs to represent a more thorough digesting and recasting of the original--and usually that means the paraphrase will be much shorter than the original. (And the source still needs to be credited.)

Though cultural standards vary somewhat, the expectation that writing submitted as one's own actually be one's own is not just American, but for the most part is worldwide. And it is not limited to educational institutions. This expectation applies in all fields that involve words, including professional writing and publishing, speech making, public communication in general, and therefore many aspects of business, journalism, and politics.

In the world of business and politics, however, some allowance is made for assistance especially in speech writing. Speech writers--usually professionals paid to do such work--draft a speech for a business leader or a politician, who then modifies it (either superficially or profoundly) and approves what has been written and presents it in his or her own voice. Ideally, the speaker also has some input at the beginning of the process, and in some cases the speech writers know the speaker so well that they can convey not only the ideas but the personal style of the speaker. In any case, this is a widely accepted practice, and of course the speech writers allow the speaker to claim the words as his or her own because that is what the writers are paid to do.

Nevertheless, it is a commonly accepted moral and professional standard that such speeches must still avoid plagiarism. That is, any quotations from other sources--other speakers or writers or public figures--should be credited. Half-baked paraphrase would still be considered plagiarism, especially if the original source is not credited.

As I write this, a public controversy has erupted involving a speech given at the Republican National Convention. Last night (July 18, 2016), Melania Trump gave a speech--well delivered and well received, upbeat, and more positive and inclusive than most of the previous speeches of the day. This was her biggest public moment to this point in her life. That moment was soon marred by suggestions that parts of her speech were plagiarized--taken, almost word for word, from Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. (See below for a comparison of the speeches.)

Let me start by saying that, in at least one respect, this is an open and shut case. The passages in question were without doubt lifted from Michelle Obama's earlier speech. This is a clear case of plagiarism. It is as clear as any case I have encountered when dealing with students I have worked with as a teacher or as the English Department ombudsman. Teachers differ in the consequences they mete out for plagiarism. At the very least, almost any teacher would fail a paper with egregious plagiarism of this kind or would require the student to rewrite it. Some would give the student a failing grade for the course. I've known of one case where--even though the student may have simply been unable to wrap his mind around how to properly use sources in a paper--the student ended up leaving the university as a result of plagiarism.

 As of this morning, the Trump campaign chair has denied that any part of Melania Trump's speech was lifted from Michelle Obama's and has even called the accusation "just really absurd." (See http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html for an article about the controversy.) He further says that "These were common words and values. . . . To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy." Of course, plagiarism has to involve more than simply expressing common values in common words--it's a question of using essentially the same phrasing in the same order so that the passages are so recognizably similar that it defies belief to think the similarities are merely accidental. In this case, the campaign chair is trying to cover by denying the obvious.

In all of this I don't blame Melania Trump. For one thing, she is not an experienced politician. Though she said (before giving the speech), "I wrote it . . . with little help as possible," almost everyone assumes that the speech was written by a speech writer (who had consulted with her in some way) and that she then read over and approved what she was given, possibly making a few changes. I suspect she had no way of knowing that part of her speech was plagiarized. (If, on the other hand, she really did write the speech, she must have done some copying and pasting from the Internet and perhaps simply doesn't understand accepted standards concerning plagiarism.)

Almost certainly a speech writer knowingly lifted the passages from Michelle Obama's speech and made a few "half-baked" changes. And almost certainly that writer knew that such plagiarism would be considered unacceptable--unprofessional and morally wrong. Either that speech writer hoped no one would notice or, if he or she thought the plagiarism would be discovered, had some other, perhaps nefarious, agenda. It seems obvious that the speech writer in question should confess and probably resign.

I can understand the campaign chair wanting to give a positive spin to the whole episode. But I believe simply denying that the passages were plagiarized will have seriously negative consequences. People are used to politicians stretching the truth. But this is such a blatant denial of clear-cut reality that it is likely to lead to even deeper public cynicism or, for those who manage to persuade themselves to agree with the denial, a dangerous submission to willful self-deception. For many it may also lead to confusion. Some, including the very students we try so hard to educate about plagiarism, will wonder whether the accepted standards of integrity on such matters really apply in the "real world."  Some will be tempted to redefine plagiarism to mean something different from what it normally means. In any case, the lines of both moral and intellectual integrity will become fuzzier. This is not a good thing.

In case you haven't had a chance to compare the passages in question, here they are (I'll also supply a video version so you can hear them):

(From http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html)

This is a clear case of "half-baked paraphrase"--or more properly, of "barely warmed" paraphrase, since very few changes were made. The parallels--and in most cases straight copying--are clear:

Melania: "the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect."

Michelle: "the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, . . ."

Melania: "And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Michelle: ". . . and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children--and all children in this nation--to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

The first pair of passages are essentially the same except for Melania's addition of the phrase "and keep your promise" and omission of "you're going to do" and "dignity." The second pair are almost identical except that Melania's speech omits a few phrases ("and all children"; ""the height of") and provides substitutes for a couple of Michelle's words: "to follow" in place of "next" and "strength" in place of "reach." These are the standard ways that "half-baked" paraphrase works (also called "Plagiarism mosaic" in BYU's Academic Honesty Policy), but they are applied so lightly here that the passages are much closer to being the same than different.

I hope that the Trump campaign can stop denying that this is a case of plagiarism (and stop blaming anyone beyond their campaign for the problem). A clear admission, especially by the person responsible, would help reaffirm the standards of integrity that we should all want to be maintained in public life.

[NOTE: For a follow up to this blog post including a report of what ended up happening, see "Plagiarism, part 2"-- http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2016/07/plagiarism-part-2.html.]

APPENDIX: BYU's Academic Honesty Policy

The first injunction of the Honor Code is the call to "be honest." Students come to the university not only to improve their minds, gain knowledge, and develop skills that will assist them in their life's work, but also to build character. "President David O. McKay taught that character is the highest aim of education" (The Aims of a BYU Education, p. 6). It is the purpose of the BYU Academic Honesty Policy to assist in fulfilling that aim.

BYU students should seek to be totally honest in their dealings with others. They should complete their own work and be evaluated based upon that work. They should avoid academic dishonesty and misconduct in all its forms, including but not limited to plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, cheating, and other academic misconduct:

Plagiarism

Intentional plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft that violates widely recognized principles of academic integrity as well as the Honor Code. Such plagiarism may subject the student to appropriate disciplinary action administered through the university Honor Code Office, in addition to academic sanctions that may be applied by an instructor. Inadvertent plagiarism, whereas not in violation of the Honor Code, is nevertheless a form of intellectual carelessness that is unacceptable in the academic community. Plagiarism of any kind is completely contrary to the established practices of higher education, where all members of the university are expected to acknowledge the original intellectual work of others that is included in one's own work. In some cases, plagiarism may also involve violations of copyright law.

Intentional Plagiarism—Intentional plagiarism is the deliberate act of representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one's own without providing proper attribution to the author through quotation, reference, or footnote.

Inadvertent Plagiarism—Inadvertent plagiarism involves the inappropriate, but nondeliberate, use of another's words, ideas, or data without proper attribution. Inadvertent plagiarism usually results from an ignorant failure to follow established rules for documenting sources or from simply being insufficiently careful in research and writing. Although not a violation of the Honor Code, inadvertent plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct for which an instructor can impose appropriate academic sanctions. Students who are in doubt as to whether they are providing proper attribution have the responsibility to consult with their instructor and obtain guidance.

Examples of plagiarism include:

Direct Plagiarism—The verbatim copying of an original source without acknowledging the source.

Paraphrased Plagiarism—The paraphrasing, without acknowledgment, of ideas from another that the reader might mistake for your own.

Plagiarism Mosaic—The borrowing of words, ideas, or data from an original source and blending this original material with one's own without acknowledging the source.

Insufficient Acknowledgment—The partial or incomplete attribution of words, ideas, or data from an original source.

Plagiarism may occur with respect to unpublished as well as published material. Acts of copying another student's work and submitting it as one's own individual work without proper attribution is a serious form of plagiarism.

Fabrication or Falsification

Fabrication or falsification is a form of dishonesty where a student invents or distorts the origin or content of information used as authority. Examples include:

1.     Citing a source that does not exist.

2.     Attributing to a source ideas and information that are not included in the source.

3.     Citing a source for a proposition that it does not support.

4.     Citing a source in a bibliography when the source was neither consulted nor cited in the body of the paper.

5.     Intentionally distorting the meaning or applicability of data.

6.     Inventing data or statistical results to support conclusions.

Cheating

Cheating is a form of dishonesty where a student attempts to give the appearance of a level of knowledge or skill that the student has not obtained. Examples include:

1.     Copying from another person's work during an examination or while completing an assignment.

2.     Allowing someone to copy from you during an examination or while completing an assignment.

3.     Using unauthorized materials during an examination or while completing an assignment.

4.     Collaborating on an examination or assignment without authorization.

5.     Taking an examination or completing an assignment for another or permitting another to take an examination or to complete an assignment for you.

Other Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct includes other academically dishonest, deceitful, or inappropriate acts that are intentionally committed. Examples of such acts include but are not limited to:

1.     Inappropriately providing or receiving information or academic work so as to gain unfair advantage over others.

2.     Planning with another to commit any act of academic dishonesty.

3.     Attempting to gain an unfair academic advantage for oneself or another by bribery or by any act of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value to another for such purpose.

4.     Changing or altering grades or other official educational records.

5.     Obtaining or providing to another an unadministered test or answers to an unadministered test.

6.     Breaking and entering into a building or office for the purpose of obtaining an unauthorized test.

7.     Continuing work on an examination or assignment after the allocated time has elapsed.

8.     Submitting the same work for more than one class without disclosure and approval.

Procedures for Handling Incidents of Academic Dishonesty or Other Academic Misconduct

Faculty are responsible to establish and communicate to students their expectations of behavior with respect to academic honesty and the student's conduct in the course. Responsible instructors will investigate these incidents, determine the facts, and take appropriate action. Finally, the instructor must notify the Honor Code Office of the final disposition of the incident as a means of encouraging behavior change and discouraging repeat violations. If the incident of academic dishonesty involves the violation of a public law, e.g., breaking and entering into an office or stealing an examination, the act should also be reported to University Police. If an affected student disagrees with the determination or action and is unable to resolve the matter to the mutual satisfaction of the student and the instructor, the student may have the matter reviewed through the university's grievance process (Student Academic Grievance Procedure).

Applicable Actions

A wide range of possible actions exists for cases of academic dishonesty. Instructors should take actions that are fair and equitable under the circumstances and should attempt to reach an understanding with the affected student on the imposition of an appropriate action. In some cases, the department, the college, or the university may also take actions independent of the instructor. Examples of possible actions include but are not limited to the following:

For instructors, programs, departments, and colleges:

Reprimanding the student orally or in writing.

Requiring work affected by the academic dishonesty to be redone.

Administering a lower or failing grade on the affected assignment or test.

Administering a lower or failing grade for the course (even if the student withdraws from the course).

Removing the student from the course.

Dismissing the student from the program, department, or college.

Recommending probation, suspension, or dismissal.

For the university:

The university may elect to place an affected student on probation or to suspend or dismiss the student and to place a temporary or permanent notation on the student's permanent academic transcript that he or she was suspended or dismissed due to academic misconduct.

The university may report an incident of academic misconduct to appropriate law enforcement officials and may prosecute an affected student if the act in question involves the commission of a crime (e.g., breaking into an office or building, stealing an examination, etc.). 

Honor Code Office Involvement

The Honor Code Office will maintain a record of all violations of the Academic Honesty Policy reported to it by the faculty. If the occurrence is sufficiently egregious or if a pattern of dishonesty or misconduct is discovered, the Honor Code Office may take additional action on behalf of the university based upon the nature of the infraction(s). The Honor Code Office, in consultation with the involved academic personnel, including the associate academic vice president in charge of undergraduate studies as needed, may determine to place a student on probation or to recommend that a student be suspended or dismissed for academic dishonesty and other forms of academic misconduct.

Shared Responsibility Policy Statement

Students are responsible not only to adhere to the Honor Code requirement to be honest but also to assist other students in fulfilling their commitment to be honest.

Faculty Academic Integrity

The substantive standards of academic honesty stated in this policy apply a fortiori to faculty. Indeed, all members of the BYU community are expected to act according to the highest principles of academic integrity.

Sources

A large number of publications and policies of colleges and universities were reviewed in creating BYU's Academic Honesty Policy. Some of the content and structure of this policy were adapted from the following sources:

1.	“Academic Honesty,” a brochure produced by the Office of Judicial Affairs, University of Florida.
2.	“Academic Honesty and Dishonesty,” a brochure produced by the Office of the Dean of Students, University of Delaware.
3.	“Academic Honesty and Dishonesty,” a brochure produced by the Dean of Students Office, Louisiana State University.
4.	“A Statement on Plagiarism,” a committee report from the October 1994 Conference on the Center for Academic Integrity, Tom Langhorne, Binghamton University (chair).
5.	“Definition of Plagiarism,” by Harold C. Martin, taken from The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, by Harold C. Martin, Richard M. Ohmann, and James H. Wheatly, 3rd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
6.	Legal Aspects of Plagiarism, by Ralph D. Mawdsley (Topeka, Kansas: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1985).
7.	“Plagiarism—The Do’s and Don’ts,” a brochure produced by the Office of Student Judicial Affairs of the University of California—Davis.

More on filling vacancies in the Supreme Court

I've written elsewhere about the current controversy involving replacing Justice Antonin Scalia. In connection with that controversy, I have thought about several situations where the Constitution indicates that certain things "shall" happen but without giving an explicit time frame. I think there could be some benefit to the vagueness, to allow flexibility that might be needed in different circumstances. On the other hand, there's the potential for abuse of that vagueness, even the possibility such vagueness could lead to a constitutional crisis.

In particular, I have wondered whether a delay in filling a Supreme Court vacancy could theoretically be indefinite. That is, could a president indefinitely delay nominating a justice--including a chief justice--and could the Senate indefinitely delay giving consent, not to mention delay even considering the nominee? By "indefinitely" I mean (theoretically) forever. In practical terms, it might mean until the parties involved knew they could get what they wanted. For instance, a president could leave a vacancy open until he was sure there would be support in the Senate for his nominee. Or the Senate (meaning those holding power in the Senate) could delay until circumstances allowed them to entertain a nomination that pleased them. Suppose, for instance, that a Republican president served for two full terms and that during those terms the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. Suppose further that the chief justice of the Supreme Court died or resigned and that a number of associate justices died or resigned--theoretically, as many as the entire Supreme Court. Could the president constitutionally fail to nominate anyone (for fear that the Senate would reject his nominations), or--more likely--could the Senate refuse to approve or even to consider any of the president's nominations, leaving the court without a chief justice, perhaps without several justices, even (theoretically) with no one at all on the bench?

As I've suggested, such delays could lead to a constitutional crisis. The Constitution assigns important functions to the Supreme Court, so that the lack of a functioning court would make it impossible for some constitutionally mandated duties to be fulfilled--not to mention the general distress and confusion that would result.

I've wondered about similar problems that might arise in interpreting the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Section 2 of that amendment specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." Though I assume that the intent was that these actions should take place relatively quickly, there is no explicit reference to when the actions should be taken. The provisions of section 2 have been followed twice: first, when Gerald Ford was chosen two replace Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew; next, when Nelson Rockefeller was chosen to replace Ford as vice president when Ford succeeded to the presidency after Nixon's resignation.

In both cases, the process took place relatively quickly. Nixon nominated Ford as vice president two days after Agnew's resignation. Ford was approved by the Senate within about six weeks and by the House of Representatives about a week and a half after that. After becoming president, Ford took 11 days to nominate Rockefeller as vice president. It took about four months before congressional approval was completed and Rockefeller could be sworn in as vice president. In both cases, the process covered months--two months in the first case, a little over four months in the second.

But since the Constitution does not indicate a deadline for either nomination or approval, could either the president or Congress in these cases have delayed indefinitely--for instance, until new elections had taken place or even until a series of elections had taken place? Again, I don't think that is the intent of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. But since a deadline isn't specified, I imagine such delays might be possible, even if their effects might be disastrous.

I suppose parties who consider such indefinite delays to be unconstitutional might take the issue to the courts, and the issue might be decided by the Supreme Court (assuming there is a functioning court capable of making a majority decision). Someone has pointed out to me that--since elections are held every two years for the House of Representatives--the people could make their will known by electing representatives who could do something to end the crisis. But as long as he is in office, a president could continue to delay even in the face of congressional opposition (though Congress would have various ways to make life difficult for the president). And if Congress is the branch of government delaying, it could continue delaying for years if it had sufficient popular support--even if the delays effectively resulted in a failure to fulfill the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

The current controversy concerning filling a Supreme Court vacancy seems to me similar. The Constitution indicates who "shall" do what. Article 2, section 2, says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." But there is no explicit indication of how soon after a vacancy the President "shall" make his nomination and no explicit indication of how quickly the Senate should give its consent. So theoretically, again, either the President or the Senate could delay indefinitely--unless the issue, the issue, that is, of failure to fulfill constitutionally mandated duties, were brought to the courts and it were decided that delay constituted such a failure. Another way of resolving the issue would be through elections that changed presidents or changed who held power in the Senate. Yet another way out of the crisis might be impeachment of the president.

I've found one similar situation in the Constitution proper--in Article 1, section 2. There we read that "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." When a senator or representative from a state dies or resigns, such a vacancy should be filled in the manner indicated. But could the "Executive Authority" of the state delay taking action indefinitely? Again, no deadline is indicated. But I find it hard to imagine that the framers intended anything other than a timely fulfillment of the duties indicated. And again, deliberately extended delay could constitute an abuse of the process.

This--constitutional law--is in no way my area of expertise, and so I happily invite comments from anyone who knows more than I do. Has delay in fulfilling the provisions I've mentioned--or similar ones at various levels of government--ever been tested in the courts? Is there any sort of consensus about how quickly those assigned the duties noted in these provisions need to fulfill those duties? 

Mormons need more Democrats? and Democrats need more Mormons?

I'll start with a question that really shouldn't need to be asked—but that does get asked from time to time, sometimes with surprising degrees of underlying emotional intensity.

Can a good person—a good Latter-day Saint—be a Democrat? Of course. If common sense weren’t enough, the fact that Elder Marlin K. Jensen (among many faithful Latter-day Saints) identifies himself as a Democrat should make the answer obvious. And can a good person, and a good Latter-day Saint, be a Republican? Yes, of course. Again, common sense should make the answer obvious—as should the Republican affiliation of many faithful Latter-day Saints, including such prominent leaders as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell.

I mention Elder Maxwell because it was he who encouraged Elder Jensen to take part in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune many years ago on the very issue of whether the values of the Democratic Party are compatible with LDS values and beliefs. Elder Maxwell, like other leaders in the Church, was concerned about the public perception identifying the Church with the Republican Party and about the imbalance in Church members’ affiliation with the two major parties. Though unstated, at least one motivation behind that concern could be summed up in the words, “The Democratic Party needs more Mormons.”

Actually, the Church has been concerned that many Church members, busy with Church, family, and other responsibilities, have been relatively uninvolved in the activities of either major party. Why the concern? Besides our belief that we have a responsibility to be involved in our communities, the concern comes from evidence that both parties become more extreme and unrepresentative when only zealots are involved. If mainstream members of the LDS Church don’t attend party caucuses, where delegates and other leaders are chosen, then especially in Utah, a very large portion of the electoral—and a relatively moderate portion—goes unrepresented. In recent years, the LDS Church has strongly re-emphasized its political neutrality and has encouraged members to participate in the party of their personal preference. The Church has also set rules for local Church units intended to avoid holding activities that would interfere with attending party caucuses. As a result, both Republican and Democratic meetings have been flooded with far more participants than used to attend. For me, it was exciting to see people I knew as neighbors, local Church leaders, and temple ordinance workers at the meetings I attended.

I would reaffirm my view that the Democratic Party needs more Mormons and Mormons need more Democrats. Why? I hold with some but not all of the values of the Democratic Party. In general, I like the Democratic approach to international relations, the environment, immigration, racial tolerance and equality, concern with the poor and needy, and the dangers of increasing income inequality. I do not share the predominant Democratic Party position on abortion and same-sex marriage. On some of the issues I've listed, the Democratic and Republican positions are not really polar opposites; it's more a matter of emphasis and approach. And there are other issues on which both Democrats and Republicans agree (more or less), some of which I think Democrats have a better handle on, others of which I think Republicans would be better at dealing with. Depending on the day, I think I might be found to be about 60-80% in agreement with Democratic Party positions and 20-40% in favor on Republican Party positions. In any case, I think having more faithful Mormons involved in the Democratic Party would help that party be more moderate, more diverse, more genuinely tolerant, and more pragmatic.

I think Mormons need more Democrats for a number of reasons. One is to improve the image of the Church. I know some good people who have had a very distorted image of the Church in part because they associated it with the most extreme elements in the Republican Party. What changed their view of the Church was partly coming to know real Mormons and learning that, for the most part, we are kind, respectful, and sane, even reasonably intelligent, people. Something else that changed their view was learning that we share many of their concerns and attitudes—that many Latter-day Saints have a genuine appreciation of racial and cultural diversity, that we not only have compassion for but work actively to help those in need, that we favor peace over war, that we care for the environment and are well-informed on scientific issues. You don’t have to be a Democrat to make a good impression on such people. But it can be helpful if the Church is not so strongly identified with one party as it is often perceived to be.

Also, I think it would help many Church members to have a deeper and more balanced understanding of the gospel if they didn’t confuse it so much with political conservatism or the current attitudes of the Republican Party. There are some social issues where that confusion is understandable. But some views held by many members of the Church seem to me incompatible with, or at least in some degree of discord with, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m thinking of issues having to do with war and peace, race, and the environment, among others. And while many of these are complex issues to which the gospel doesn’t offer a simplistic solutions, to identify the gospel with the predominant Republic view on these issues (or the predominant Democratic view, for that matter) seems to me to prevent a deeper, truer understanding of the gospel.

Among these complex issues is the role of the community in caring for the poor and needy. The Church teaches that we need to seek to apply principles of work and self-reliance in our own lives, help others learn and practice those principles, and also care for those in need. Those principles, used with intelligence, discernment, and compassion, could lead to a variety of practical solutions on such matters as health care, education, and tax policy. The complaint that government programs are imperfect and sometimes ineffective is probably valid. But that doesn’t mean government has no role to play in these matters. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves, that people bring their financial difficulties on themselves, or that people deserve the wealth and privileges they have because they have “earned” everything they have—and therefore should have complete freedom in doing whatever they want with what belongs to them—seems to me clearly antithetical to gospel teachings. (I've written elsewhere on these issues.)

I have heard Latter-day Saints say things that sounded to me troublingly like the teachings of Korihor, an “anti-Christ,” whose teaching are condemned in the Book of Mormon: that “every man fare[s] in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prosper[s] according to his genius, and that every man conquer[s] according to his strength” (Alma 30:17). In contrast, the gospel teaches that we are interdependent and that nothing we have really belongs to us—we are stewards with a responsibility to use what we have to serve God and to benefit those around us. Failure to care for those in need is one of the most serious sins we can commit—and even attributing their problems to their inferiority or lack of effort puts us seriously out of harmony with God. (See Mosiah chapters 2 and 4, among other sources.)

As a side note: At a practical level, it seems obvious to me that there is no clear correlation between how hard a person works and how much money they make. Family background, location, timing, and chance have a lot to do with success (as Malcolm Gladwell has beautifully illustrated). Even if intelligence and talents play a role, as they certainly do, those gifts are in fact gifts—they may be developed or neglected, but they were never in a fundamental sense earned. They were given, and along with their being given came the responsibility to use them to benefit others.

Having said all of that, I should add that, while identifying as a Democrat, I do not see being a Democratic as part of my essential identity. I identify as a Democrat partly because I live in Utah and feel that somebody needs to belong to the minority party and that that somebody should include faithful Latter-day Saints. Excessive political imbalance is not good for a community. It is not good even for the majority party. I also identify as a Democrat because I’m more comfortable with the Democratic Party’s positions on many issues that matter to me, and in general I prefer the tone and attitude of the Democratic Party, especially the very moderate Democratic Party of Utah.

But I know and respect many, many Republicans and know that for the most part we value the same things. I even love and respect some people whose views I find appalling—because their views have little (I’m happy to say) with the goodness of their characters and lives. I am as unhappy with the intolerance and disrespect shown by some Democrats and liberals as I am with that shown by some Republicans and conservatives. Republicans and conservatives too often demonize their opponents; Democrats and liberals often do the same to their opponents and perhaps more often engage in condescending mockery and misrepresentation. None of that, on either side, is good.

I’ve mentioned liberal and conservative. I like to think of myself as moderately liberal. That self-perception would probably be borne out by a survey of my opinions on most current political issues. But I recognize that liberalism and conservatism are slippery and unstable concepts. Different people have different views of what they mean. They have certainly changed over time and will continue to do so. If I were to leave my feelings aside and look at them objectively, I would have to say that both encompass positive values and principles that I would endorse. An ideal understanding of life and an ideal program for practical governance would have to include elements of both. One of the oddest realities of our political life is that the constant combat between liberal and conservative ideologies seems to prevent the combining of elements from both that might offer the best solution to many problems.

In any case, my deepest sense of who I am and what life is all about has very little to do with political ideology or party affiliation. I agree with something Elder Dallin H. Oaks said many years ago: “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.). If I am sure of anything, it is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is far more profound, more intellectually satisfying, and more transcendently true and truly empowering than any human ideology.