The last two years have been brutal on all of us. Now that it’s all over but the shouting, I can get these thoughts down “on paper” (how long will that expression endure, now that we write with electrons?) so that they are no longer rattling around in my head.
It’s all rather counter-intuitive, you know. I’m a Mormon; Mr. Romney is a Mormon; Mormons are supposed to vote for Romney. Q.E.D.
But it wasn’t as simple as that. In fact, I was agonizing about my choice even as we drove to our polling station, as I had since both nominees were declared official, and didn’t make my decision until my finger was hovering over the choices.
I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 for one reason: the thought of Sarah Palin any closer to the White House than 3718 miles was absolutely petrifying. I still ask myself what the hqiz John McCain was thinking when he signed off on such an abysmal running mate. My two penn’orth is that he singlehandedly threw away the election with that one move.
But that was then, and this is now.
I volunteered during the 2002 Winter Olympics, and watched Mr. Romney turn the event from a scandal-plagued bid process into a public relations success, a brilliant sporting event (despite the Russian judge-buying debacle), and a money-maker, the latter quite a rarity as far as Olympic games go. There’s no question that he has business acumen, and from where I sit, someone with his kind of experience was just what our country needed to pull itself out of a frightening economy burdened by a massive debt load. Despite my own pain, I was all ready for some sorely-needed austerity measures to stop the tsunami of red ink gushing from the national ledgers. So I supported Mr. Romney’s campaign, contributed what few shekels I could, and hoped for the best… and then the campaign started in earnest.
Each election cycle, I think to myself that the politicking couldn’t possibly get any uglier. Each election cycle, I am wrong. The parties and the pundits and the talking heads savaged and gutted and demonized each other to an extent I would never have thought possible. The rumors, innuendo, outright lies and saber-rattling pronouncements about the character, parentage, habits, beliefs and intentions of both candidates made me wonder if old Solferino had come again.
Through it all, I tried to keep remembering that neither man is a saint nor a demon. Obama is a Chicago politician (a breed not known for high ethical standards), but seems to be a decent person as an individual; Romney is a member of my own faith and I trust that he is a good man at heart, but there are some things about his business dealings which give me pause. That said, I have no doubt in my mind that both men sincerely believe that they have the best interests of our nation at heart. Trim off the lunatic fringes of the bell curve, and I think most Americans want basically the same things, although there is no solid consensus about how to get there.
So once the irrational calumny is subtracted from the equation, I was left looking at overall philosophies and party platforms, and even that was not an easy call to make.
Our nation is struggling economically; our outgo far exceeds our income, and businesses and people are failing right and left. Republicans in general and Mr. Romney in particular are bullish on business, and one of the Republican candidate’s skills is knowing how to turn a failing corporation around. Unfortunately, if a corporation is to survive and become competitive and profitable, that usually involves layoffs; taken to a national scale, the idea is sound for the corporation but lousy for the employees. The other downside is that you favor business, you favor the wealthy, and engender abominations like Citizens United. As I mentioned here,
“This level of disparity [between the wealthy and the rest of us] is mind-boggling, and even moreso that it continues to be permitted. Demanding that corporations and the wealthy pay a fair share of taxes is not “forced redistribution” of wealth – it’s just plain old human decency and common sense. As I’ve said elsewhere, “trickle down” economics is insulting even at the semantic level. If our nation is going to regain any sense of the greatness it once had, and the equality of opportunity implied in “lifting a lamp beside the golden door,” the trickle must of necessity become a torrent.”
Then there’s the “morality” question. First, let’s put to rest the idea that we can’t legislate morality, because we regularly do. Rape is against the law, child abuse is against the law, stealing is against the law, murder is against the law, and people are afforded all sorts of legal protections that fall under the rubric of the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That said, the Republican party and the Tea Party (it’s extreme subset) have been co-opted by the religious right to an untenable extent. They seem bound by their covenants not only to live whatever religious laws they have accepted as right and good, but to impose those conditions on society in general. Some of the pronouncements about rape and abortion from right-wing candidates this cycle have been absolutely chilling, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
I have my own thoughts about these matters. I think the ideas outlined in the LDS Church’s Proclamation on the Family are sound. I wish every child could be born into a stable, loving, supportive family; I wish people would opt for adoption instead of abortion, which I consider the shedding of innocent blood. But those are my ideas, which cease to have any validity beyond the tip of my own nose. I can exhort, invite, and entice, but curtailing the agency of others is not a box I feel comfortable living in. The Church’s 12th Article of Faith states “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Last time I looked, Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, which as far as I’m concerned is the end of that debate.
On the other side, the Democratic platform has some planks in it that disturb me. I’m all for providing equal opportunity for all, and a safety net so that no citizen of our country is deprived of basic necessities, but I’m not sure where the money is going to come from, and I’m diametrically opposed to adding to the national debt. I think we need a more rigorous approach to the issue of immigration, and I’m opposed to blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, which is unfair to all those who came to our country through the front doors, in the duly appointed way. There are other party positions that I don’t agree with as well, so my vote for Mr. Obama should not be construed as a blanket approval of all the party stands for.
But in the end, as my finger hovered over that screen, I asked myself one question: “Which candidate will work to build a world that works for everyone, with no one left out?” That is my goal, my reason for living, my passion. Today’s Republican party strikes me as essentially elitist and exclusionary, and the Democratic party continues to be more egalitarian and inclusive.
If I was to vote my conscience, I had no other choice.
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Playing in the World Game 
Roe v. Wade is the established precedent—but does that mean that it is right? We are not talking about something that affects only the people who do it. Those who are aborted are also involved.
Abolitionists helped to get rid of slavery. Civil-rights protesters helped to give rights to all citizens, regardless of color. This kind of work goes on in the name of the voiceless and vulnerable. Should we draw the line at unborn fetuses? If so, where do we draw that line? 40 weeks of gestation? Viability, which gets pushed back all the time? Second trimester? At what point does a person become a person? When is it okay to legislate morality? Only when most people agree with it? Did most people agree in other cases?
Mind you, I am not at all sure that changing the law to prohibit all abortions is a good idea. I think that we will do better by making it easier for those with problem pregnancies to deal with those problems.
But this issue is very personal for me, because—well, I’ve probably told you before. I’m pretty sure that if abortion had been legal and respectable in 1955, I would not have been born in 1956. And yes, I had a troubled childhood, and I was abused, and I may never fully recover from that, but I’m so glad that I’m here and have a chance to remake my own life!
I strongly believe in civil discussion, so if you feel that I’m stepping on your toes, please excuse me. I just want to see how this works for you.
Well, I’ve pretty much dealt with the issue above. I support adoption over abortion, but I support choice. In addition to the 12th Article of Faith I quoted, there’s also this: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.”
I consider the destruction of God-given life a terrible thing, but all definitions of life that include the concept of a soul are metaphysical in nature, and there are so, so many people in the world who walk by secular laws, science, and reason. I can’t justify for myself saying to all those people, “*I* believe what’s written in the Bible, and therefore *you* must act according to *my* beliefs. You have no choice.” And that’s effectively what the religious community is doing. Souls will not be won not by legislation, but one by one: by pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned.
Where the legal line is at any given time will depend on the overall mores of society. There are still people out there who want to legitimize the abuse of children, and I thank God that people of all stripes, religious and secular, continue to push back against such travesties. We will be judged, as far as I can see, by how well we adhered to the laws which we accepted, and how valiant we were in the support of those laws; but that support must be in the form of exhortation and not coercion – otherwise we fall squarely into the camp of the Adversary, whose sole purpose is to destroy all agency.
I should have made myself clear. I’m not sure that I support making all abortion illegal. But I definitely think it’s a civil rights issue.
And I don’t think that destroying life is a religious problem. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have pro-life atheists—and they do exist.
You’ve heard this argument, I know, but I’ve never heard a rebuttal that made sense. A fertilized cow’s egg is a baby cow. A fertilized dog’s egg is a baby dog. Why is a fertilized human’s egg not a baby human? And if it is, why is it okay to kill it?
Oh, heck, I’m tired of this issue, and we really do agree on about 95% of it. I know we both want to make it easier for women and men with crisis pregnancies. That’s really at the heart of it.
Excellent and focused thought process.
Mazel Tov!!
Todah chaverah! 😀
I disagree with the thought that there would be more layoffs to downsize companies in order to work a national budget. There have been more layoffs in the past few days because of Obama’s tax laws. In order for a business to thrive, it has to put out a good product or service and grow– growth means hiring more people, not laying them off.
I commend that you believe that you gave a black vote to the country. It however creates a world that leaves me left without a job that gets me above poverty level, even though I have a Master’s Degree, and leaves my family without health and dental insurance that will allow us to pursue life and happiness (I still hope I have liberty, but I’m not convinced of it knowing there is an anti-colonial president in the White House.) Your vote was clearly to increase the national debt, as that is where the money for minimal health care for all is coming from.
I prayed that the country would not be lulled by flattery and led with flaxen cords, but in the end that the Lord’s will would be done. I am absolutely positive that Armageddon is nearer because the president got to be elected again, which is a good thing for those of us longing for the Second Coming to be Yesterday. So thinking out loud here: To think that a fellow Mormon helped keep Obama in the presidency is abominable to me, but I also know that Judas Iscariot had to do what he had to do–no one thinks about this but, he, also, was chosen and he had to be strong and focused in deeply committed to the plan (beyond my human capacity to understand) in order for all righteousness to be fulfilled. I mean, someone had to do it, and it had to be a man who was a Marine at heart, with a “Carry out the Mission” attitude. I do not think him evil and unforgivable (although many LDS and other Christians do.) I actually am grateful for the part he was willing to play in bringing to pass the atonement, that you and I benefit from.
So, while I think that the US has been robbed of a chance to financially heal and regain her reputation as the Greatest Country on Earth (Did you even consider that Romney would call upon God to guide him?), and I dearly wanted four or eight years of recovery, and Iran to not have nuclear weapons, I have no other choice but to submit to a world that doesn’t work for me and others who feel the same, and leaves us out of what might actually have been a better choice for our economy, military and emigration, and, most importantly, the opportunity for our country to be led by the priesthood that foreordained it. I think that that will have to wait until Christ reigns personally upon the earth. My belief is that the timing of Christ will happen no matter who is president, and it would have been nice to have some relief before that happens and having Romney in office would do that. But I think it is possible that having this president could be the best way to create a world in crisis enough that only Christ will be able to save it, so maybe we needed your “Iscariot vote,” although, at this point I’m too disheartened to say thank you.
While I appreciate your expressing your feelings – and civilized debate is critical if we are going to move forward on any issue – I think likening my vote for Obama to Judas’ betrayal of Christ is reaching a bit. There are a lot of LDS democrats out there, and they are not of the Devil, although many mistakenly believe that such is the case. James E. Faust, one of the kindest and gentlest men I’ve ever been privileged to meet, was a staunch Democrat; the point being that men and women of good conscience should be able to support differing political philosophies without being demonized.
Of course I considered that Romney would invoke divine favor and guidance in his administration; but I’m pretty sure that President Obama does the same. God doesn’t listen to Mormon prayers and tune everyone else out; the power of faith does not reside in one community but is a universal principle.
We need to continue the national dialog. If you follow the news, you may have seen that the list of the 10 most prosperous countries no longer includes the good ol’ US of A, but rather Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland. Many of these countries are sneered at by American conservatives for being “socialist,” but based on results, they’re doing a lot better than we are. It’s time we moved past the old and hackneyed concept that America and Americans are better than everyone and move toward taking our place as a strong and contributing member of a global community.
I definitely do not want to increase our national debt, but presidents from both parties have been doing that all by themselves for the last 30 years, witness this chart of debt-to-GDP ratio which doesn’t even include President Obama (http://floodingupeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/us-gross-public-debt-as-a-percentage-of-gdp.png).
The debate goes far beyond “Romney is a Mormon so he’s righteous and Obama is not so he’s evil (and so is everyone who supports him.)” There is absolutely no guarantee that Mitt Romney would have been the King Benjamin that you so ardently hope for, his Church membership notwithstanding. Using the Priesthood when administering a Stake is a far cry from being a President who administers an entire nation. I don’t know if you remember what went down when Ezra Taft Benson became president of the Church. People were saying that because he was such a fiery John Bircher that he would lead the Church into a new era of radical patriotism – but that never happened. He spent most of his time exhorting people to read the scriptures and lead good, honest, productive lives. What a man is as a person is often far different from what he becomes when he assumes the mantle of authority.
I wanted dearly to give Romney a shot, which is why I contributed to his campaign. But as the politicking went on, I realized that we were not just electing a man, we were electing a party – one which, in recent times, has been hijacked by a contingent of disturbingly narrow, bigoted, and decidedly pharisaic people, hardly the kinds of individuals that I would trust to have a say in determining national policy.
Like I say, I appreciate your honest expression of thoughts, which is why I approved your comment – but if you;re open to feedback, be careful slinging around those sanctimonious Judas metaphors – it damages your credibility.
I feel an urge to point out that one of the things that worry me most in the world is countries whose leaders fancy quoting their favourite religious literature, and claim that their religion makes them better than others. George W. Bush did that too often for my taste, and Mitt Romney seemed hardly different to me in that respect. So far I haven’t seen or heard President Barack Obama do it. As a foreigner, I feel pretty good about Obama winning his second term.