President Grant at the time was an ardent Democrat, as was his counselor and cousin, Anthony W. Ivins , and B. Each of these men told me at different times and separately that if I wanted to belong to a party that represented the common people I should become a Democrat but that if I wanted to be popular and have the adulation of others and be in touch with the wealth of the nation, I should become a Republican.
Nevertheless, there are valid aspects to the Republican argument for supporting capital—the argument that healthy business sector benefits the whole fabric of society, including poor and middle class, providing jobs, helping people help themselves, that healthy business keeps the economy running.
One can easily admit that many Democrats are wealthy, and that Democratic politicians also accept donations from corporate sponsors. In addition, rich and poor are relative terms compared with mountain peasants in the Andes, I am rich.
I also agree that money thrown at people in poorly administered programs can develop unhealthy dependence and stifle initiative. There are many wealthy people who have unselfishly used their resources to help others. Some of the finest people I know are wealthy. I recently read an autobiography by Zadok Knapp Judd, Jr. When the hard workers came home from the fields at night, they would find that the goods were already gone.
Though I still believe in the United Order ideal, in many ways it does not work with flawed humans. Granted all this, the scriptures are full of cautions about the dangers of being rich.
Scholars instead have indicated that this is a proverb for impossibility, like a similar proverb of a elephant going through the eye of a needle. Jesus made this statement after his interview with the wealthy young man, who asked Jesus what must he do to have eternal life, and Jesus questioned him about the ten commandments.
The young man said he had kept them from youth. Sometimes the rich need to give to the poor, and the poor need to receive. This concern for the poor and warning that the rich are often the unrighteous can be found in other teachings of Jesus: the parable of Lazarus and rich man Luke ff. Also, in the Lucan version of the Sermon on the Mount Luke , Jesus does not spiritualize the beatitude on poverty.
Yet in orthodox Republican philosophy, there is almost a tendency to view wealth as a moral good, while poverty is a result of lack of morality. For the Republicans, the rich can say, I earned this wealth through my efforts, my risks, my hard work, my moral worth; I deserve it; no one should take it away from me. Yet the emphasis in the beatitudes of Jesus was just the opposite of that. The doctrinaire Republican philosophy does not recognize that sometimes people gain wealth in ways that are unrelated to moral virtues.
Sometimes people inherit wealth. Sometimes people inherit the opportunity for wealth. Sometimes people gain wealth through luck, not through any great moral insight, or even through hard work. Sometimes people even gain wealth through unethical practices, by taking advantage of more ethical people. Often, the playing field is not level—in fact, there is never a completely level playing field, even in America. Republicans have a tendency to ignore that fact.
Theologically, the Bible often emphasizes that wealth is given to us from God, as a trust; we should not think that it is entirely due to our efforts.
The scriptures sometimes portray the wealthy as gaining riches by taking advantage of the poor. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. Behold the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
You have killed the righteous man. Financial selfishness is not just a private failing; it hurts others, and it corrupts the social fabric. This scripture speaks of the wealthy killing the poor, which may seem melodramatic.
But what if an employer withdraws health insurance from an employee? What if an insurance company denies coverage? What if the poor cannot turn to their government for insurance? A person without resources can die in misery. The employment. The common task was for the children to carry coal up shafts on their backs. Wealthy mine owners knew about the children workers, but looked the other way and pocketed their profits.
The extreme Republican argues: but these workers were getting paid. The wages were arranged beforehand. Their jobs were better than starving in unemployment. Yes, and the miners died young. Their growth was literally stunted, and their limbs became distorted and crippled.
But by the laws of God, these capitalists, who admittedly were helping the economy and providing jobs for those who were desperately poor, should have been in jail for multiple life sentences.
Moreover, the federal government is reined in by elective government, by voters, by a brilliant system of checks and balances, while mega- corporations have no such curbs unless they are curbed by the government itself; or by organized labor, which is generally opposed by Republicans. Nibley notes how some Republican economic theorists describe laissez faire economics as a sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest: let only the strongest survive, and whatever morality they use to survive is by definition right.
And the weak, the sick, the poor will be justifiably removed from the gene pool. Again, this is not a blanket denunciation of all rich, and many companies treat their employees fairly, curb pollutants responsibly, and avoid monopolistic practices. But wealth does lead to dangers. We remember the part riches play in the pride cycle in the Book of Mormon e. Republican principles and action often do not seem to recognize those dangers.
While the scriptures emphasize how we often need to protect the poor from the oppression of the rich, extreme Republican principles tend to protect the rich from any danger to their riches. There has been a recent tendency in America for the gap between rich and poor to widen, especially as a result of classic Republican policies, according to Republican analyst Kevin Phillips in his book The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath.
Scriptures offer an ideal of a perfect society in which there is no class warfare, no rich and no poor. Acts ; 4 Nephi 3. The Mormon tradition especially has this ideal, in its attempts to implement the United Order in pioneer Utah.
It is one of the great ironies of Mormon political history that a church which has such a strong tradition of seeking financial equality—in the United Order movement [14] —should politically become so opposed to solving the social problems of rich v.
So you can see that the Republican traditionally siding with management against workers, Republicans fighting against campaign finance reform, with the rich instead of the poor—if taken to extremes—can put the Republican party on the wrong side of this gospel principle.
In the area of civil rights, the minorities are usually not found in the upper class, but they are often poor. In the area of the environment, since Republicans favor management, they often would remove environmental regulations that require corporate entities to regulate pollutants.
Here again, we see the Democratic party typically working for health care reform, to help the insured; while Republicans typically want to protect the employer and insurance company. Naturally, they give ostensibly practical reasons for protecting the insurance company such as predicting that insurance will not be affordable if reforms are instituted. But they often do not combine these ostensibly practical reasons with a passion to help the insureds in constructive, innovative ways.
Here is another example: in periodic efforts to raise the minimum wage, often simply to parallel the rate of inflation, typically Democrats support the change and Republicans oppose it. Note that in this instance, Democrats are supporting the poorest element of society, and they are supporting people who work.
And these poorest workers are often not given health coverage by their employers, so would have to provide it for themselves if they are to have it at all. Wealth does not automatically corrupt; I would like to pause and honor many wealthy people who use their financial resources to help the poor, to contribute to worthy causes, to education, to training programs, to libraries, to hospitals, to medical research, to help artists, musicians, and writers practice their arts.
I think it is a burden to be wealthy, and many people have carried that burden honorably, intelligently and morally. Some have argued that taxing Americans to further social programs is an attack on free agency.
Instead, we should give money individually, of our own free will, and at our own discretion, to charities of our choice.
This argument shows a basic misunderstanding of representative, democratic government - - it is almost a rejection of the idea of representative government.
We express a desire for more or less taxes, and our preferences for how those taxes will be used, when we vote and are otherwise involved in representative government. We practice our free agency when we step into a voting booth. We may not agree with how our fellow Americans have voted, but we have agreed to live with the politicians, the executive, legislative, and judicial, that have been legally elected and appointed. This works both ways: Republicans need to live with Democratic expenditures on education, increasing the minimum wage, helping the oppressed in our society, while Democrats need to live with Republican leaders who cut taxes in ways that Democrats believe benefit the wealthy, not the common man.
By the argument that taxes take away our free agency, taxes would have to be abolished completely, with the abolishment of the United States military, the central government, the interstate highway system, and national parks included. No responsible Republican that I know of advocates that. So the question is not whether taxes are justified, but how tax money should be used—and what balance there should be in how the taxes are appropriated.
Both Republicans and Democrats usually think that tax money should be devoted to education and the military. But Republicans will lean more toward the military and Democrats will place more emphasis on education.
Bush—a certain anti-government rhetoric that undermines key American ideals. While I agree that any human organization should be watched carefully and sceptically , and that power can corrupt, there also can be a great power in community. And the community of the United States can be a powerful force for good.
If we are authentically a Christian community, on a nationwide level, we should be willing and happy to show Christian compassion and generosity on a collective level. By doing so, by voting for politicans who are concerned about helping those less fortunate in our society, we exercise our moral agency in the most pure and rewarding way possible. I give two examples from recent politics, that I choose intentionally to show the dangers of the Republican point of view taken to extremes.
As a result, here in California, federal funding for social programs helping the mentally ill and those who were homeless because they were not mentally competent, was instantly cut off, and the mentally incompetent were unceremoniously turned out into the streets. These were not freeloaders who did not want to work; they were people who could not cope with normal living—sometimes because of schizophrenic mental tendencies, sometimes because they were veterans who had broken down mentally after the war, sometimes combinations of these and other reasons.
Meanwhile, under Reagan, not surprisingly, as we have seen, while the economy was not especially good, the gulf between wealthy and poor became wider and wider.
Among the programs that Reagan slashed—along with a customary Republican target, education—was job-training programs. In other words, these were programs to help people qualify to support themselves and contribute to the community.
These programs were not handouts given to freeloaders—once again, we see that extreme Republican values do not even help people help themselves. Another example. I was surprised to find that in the state of Texas, until recently, teachers were not given health benefits. Bush was in office, during which he helped pass a series of tax cuts, he did not make insurance for teachers a goal. Here was one of the wealthiest states in the nation, but their commitment to education was so low that teachers were treated as third or fourth-class citizens.
Not surprisingly, Texans found that many of the better teachers left the state. In summary, I emphasize that some concerns of Republicans are valid—there is nothing wrong with a healthy economy, helping industry. And there are many Republicans who are authentically concerned about helping their fellow man. But it is possible to stimulate growth in the economy and be concerned about helping the less fortunate in our society at the same time— rather than presenting a false choice between a healthy economy and compassion.
Some Republicans on the far right have almost demonized compassion, and have made a virtue of selfishness. Given this fact, it is extremely paradoxical that many conservative Christians are such passionate Republicans. I have Republican friends whom I admire, who are genuinely concerned about helping their fellow man. I would applaud them if they could get a majority of Republicans to authentically infuse those values into their party.
However, the Republicans, of late, have veered to the right. George W. The continued Republican shift to the far right, toward wealthy lobbying interests, under this administration made one socially conscious Republican no longer able to act even as a nominal Republican—Jim Jeffords.
While Republicans since his departure from the Republican party have often treated him as simply a Benedict Arnold, he is a vivid example of how the Republican party has retreated from its center. As we consider how the Democratic party has championed the financially disadvantaged, has been wary of concentrations of wealth, has realized the practical necessity of scrutinizing the management of companies, we can conclude that the Democratic party is closer to the gospel on this issue than is the Republican party.
On September 22, , Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in America and abolished the institution of slavery. After the Civil War, Southern Democrats were often passionately racist and did all they could to keep blacks from having voting rights.
Blacks, understandably, typically voted straight Republican when they were allowed to vote. All of this changed in our century. Policies of segregated schools and buses and denying blacks the vote were discontinued as a result of the intervention of the federal government.
Many southern Democrats, who formerly supported racist programs such as segregation, have turned Republican Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are examples. In the last election, the South voted overwhelmingly for Bush. But nine out of ten blacks voted against Bush. Generally speaking; you can always find minority Republican blacks, such as Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas, a confirmed opponent of civil rights legislation. And unless we have a paternalistic idea that minorities simply do not know what is best for them, we ought to take their choices seriously.
What does this have to do with the gospel? Everything, I believe. As I have mentioned in the preceding section, it is often those who are of a different race, or culture, or religion, who are the most oppressed and disadvantaged, who do not have a level playing field. Race is also a central theme in the the New Testament. Thus Jesus was confronting a Jewish taboo in telling this parable. We also remember Jesus preaching to the village of Samaritans early in his ministry, which amazed his disciples.
John 4. The Jews often were strictly separatist; they did not eat with Gentiles; they did not even like to tread the same ground as Gentiles, and the ritual of dusting off your feet came from the idea that you should get rid of the earth on your clothes, shoes, or feet that was shared with Gentiles. As a result, in the early Christian church, when Paul brought the gospel to many Gentile cities, it was a major challenge to convince Jewish Christians to eat with Gentile Christians.
Paul fought long and at great length to integrate the two racial communities into one church. Jews had to learn to authentically love Gentiles. So civil rights is a religious issue, one of the core issues of early Christianity.
First, we can look briefly at one issue involving minorities: Affirmative Action as it is applied to education. The Republican argument against Affirmative Action, I think, is that it is unjust. In giving a scholarship to a member of a minority who has lower grades than, say, a white male, you are doing an injustice to the white male—he has worked hard, he deserves the scholarship.
And the argument is that Affirmative Action does a disservice to the minority, because if he or she does not work with the high standards and requirements generally required, he or she will not become authentically competitive, and will be content with mediocre effort and accomplishment. The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that there is a level playing field for everyone.
Often minorities go to schools which are understaffed, underfunded, with substandard teachers—is that fair or just for the children? In addition, there are special problems in minority neighborhoods that middle class families never have to worry about, such as social networks pushing children toward gangs, toward crime, toward drugs.
Because the playing field is not level, minorities deserve help. Some show extraordinary character in their progress and efforts, which cannot be adequately measured by quantitative, mathematical tests. While the California Affirmative Action decision was being debated, I remember an interview with a white student who had been denied a scholarship, and was angry because minorities with not quite his stellar record had received scholarships.
It seemed to me to be a selfish anger. Was he angry about poor schools in minority neighborhoods? Was he angry about children who had to walk to school through crime-torn neighborhoods? Was he angry about children who did not have easy access to good libraries?
Who did not have parents who were willing or capable of helping them with their homework? In the University of California system, a conservative Board of Regents, appointees of a Republican governor, struck down Affirmative Action in , over the bitter protests of many students and minorities. In my opinion, it was not a wise or far-seeing or compassionate action.
Affirmative Action helps the disadvantaged in constructive ways, with education, leading to productive work. In recent months, the Bush administration has not had a good record on civil rights. Blacks felt they were disenfranchised during the Florida election, as Bush fought hard to prevent manual recounts in counties with numerous black voters.
Bush chose John Ashcroft for a key cabinet seat, attorney general. The members of the conservative movement led by William F. Buckley, Jr. The National Review conservatives were too genteel, of course, to indulge in blatant racism.
Having done everything they could to prevent black Americans from voting, the conservatives regrouped in the s and s to form a new nationwide Republican coalition of whites voting against black Americans, using issues like welfare, busing, and racial preferences to inflame passions.
Though I hasten to emphasize that there are many individual Republicans who have good records on civil rights, the present day Democratic party has a much better record on civil rights than do the Republicans.
I agree with Michael. There are many political philosophies that I reject as being contrary to gospel principles. We need to be Christ-like and more inclusive. Like you, I wish we had no political labels. But it does seem to be how humans work. We divide up to conquer and we accept as conquering anything that gives us more power than the other guy. As to your last question about my thoughts regarding why things have shaken out politically for the larger body of Mormons, I do, indeed, have thoughts.
Things I wonder about. But that will need to be another post. And its a tad condescending, but I hate pointing that out. Its probably not a fair criticism the majority of the time its leveled at someone. People explaining their way of thinking is nothing more or less than that and we take offense too quickly when none is meant or understood to be present. Its very difficult to represent an opposing view in the way that will make them happy. This is exhausting. Do you have any tips for novice blog writers?
I feel like a novice myself. Put what you want out there and let people converse. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Here we are, August 29, Our only hope is to show strength as is shown to us clearly by Captain Moroni. Yet, our President is more comfortable out on the golf course or campaign trail than to strategize any plan that will keep America safe. In addition, yesterday, he announces his weakness to the world, emboldening our enemies further.
As Brother Peterson breathes his sigh of relief at the time of his writing, the evidence of this ill-thought out plan has now come home. First, I apologize for the late reply. Second, I not only understand, but share your frustrations over the current state of turmoil in the middle east.
However, the message of this post was most assuredly not that one side is more right than the other, or that both sides are equally correct in all political situations. This is something both liberal and conservative Mormons tend to do, and, when we do this, we alienate ourselves from an entire set of wonderful, inspired people. Religion requires us to trump political division.
Our Christian faith elevates the individual, not the faction, and this suggests to me that my job is to learn to see a person wholly. You are commenting using your WordPress.
You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Skip to content. Share this:. Like this: Like Loading April 29, at pm Reply. April 30, at pm Reply. May 1, at am Reply. May 6, at am Reply. Fascinating post, and I look forward to poking around a few more soon. May 7, at pm Reply. Poke around to your hearts content. Welcome aboard. June 7, at pm Reply. Article Continued On Next Page. Page: 1 of 2.
Tagged with:. Every Moment Is An Opportunity. Henry Karlson. The Titanic Women of Llewellyn. US Muslims say 'don't compare Texas' abortion ban to sharia law'. Barry Duke. Jason Elam. Get Patheos Newsletters. Best of Patheos. Sharing the Gospel. Christians For a Better Christianity. From time to time you will also receive Special Offers from our partners that help us make this content free for you.
0コメント