Twitter

Obviously we’ve been having a hard time keeping the posts up lately. Maybe Twitter can keep us more active. Follow us on Twitter @mormondemocrats

An Artful Recovery

A Mormon Democrat wrote in to share these thoughts in response to Jeffrey Miron’s comments on economic stimulus and cultural investment.

Jeffrey Miron may be a Harvard University economics lecturer, but his CNN commentary on economic stimulus is woefully under-informed about cultural investment.

He states: “Even if certain components of the nation’s spending are too low, nothing guarantees that new spending will be directed to these areas. Instead, experience suggests that much will be for repairing “bridges to nowhere,” especially those located in the districts of influential legislators. Yet the history of government spending indicates the stimulus package will include countless zoos, aquariums, museums, parks and other pork barrel projects for which the private demand does not come close to justifying the investment. In many cases, these projects will persist for decades.” Emphasis added.

Mr. Miron is right that there is no guarantee that resources will be perfectly allocated by either the government or private sector (think failing U.S. auto makers and a bitterly partisan U.S. legislature). But cultural investment yields excellent public returns and a corrupt senior statesmen siphoning public funds for “bridges to nowhere” is an indictment of legislative failure, not concrete manufacturing, cultural attractions, local investment of Federal dollars or anything else Mr. Miron seems eager to cram into a “pork barrel.”

Wardrobe War: Act 2

Obama campaigns in Jeans:

Michelle Obama Wears J. Crew

I don’t know if this was calculated or not, but if it was it was brilliant. She draws the distinction with Sarah Palin without rehashing the arguably unfair criticism of Palin’s $150K family wardrobe.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8kWtkBsg0O42cxqCxGIbqErDtPQD9436IF00

 

Palin’s Giv’n up Folks.

She’s see the writing on the wall and shifted her efforts in favor of protecting and building her own political future. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

Props to BYU Democrats

Things have come a long way since I was at BYU. Back then there were only a few dozen of us in the club and half of us just thought the girls would think we were different and cool if we told them we were Democrats (is that a confession?).

Friday Forum: Education

I read about a new study released yesterday noting that one in every four high school students fails to graduate on time in this country. For the first time in I don’t know how long, “the United States is the only country [among industrialized nations] in which today’s young people are less likely than their parents to have earned a high school diploma.” This is shocking. For all our pride in leading the world in innovation, science, business and everything else we can think of, we’re failing our children faster than any other industrialized nation.

I understand that education is largely a state issue, which I agree with. But the federal government does have an important role to play. If we’ve learned anything in the last eight years, it is that the federal government can screw up education nationally. As this study reports, we are leaving plenty of children behind.

How do we fix it, both at the state level and nationally?

A Must Read

This editorial about sums it up.

Friday Forum: The Environment

If any of you have missed the great discussions taking place in our comments sections you’re missing out. Some of these comment streams flush out some very interesting points. In an effort to keep that discussion going, and perhaps focused, we’re starting a new series call Friday Forum. Every Friday we will open up an issue for discussion in the comments.

Today’s topic: The Environment

Question: What is the government’s role in protecting the environment? Do your religious beliefs play any role in shaping your views on this issue?

First Shot: My views are described in more detail in a previous post, but here they are in a nutshell. I fear that many LDS conservatives are too quick to look to the eventual destruction of the Earth in the Millennium as reason to dismiss any nagging feelings of responsibility to protect the Earth. As this line of reason goes, “the Earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory in the end so why bother saving the whales and the landscape?” My view turns more on our stewardship over the Earth as directed to Adam in the Garden where he was given dominion over the whole Earth and commanded to take care of it. While the Earth and its bounties are here for our benefit and use, we should do so responsibly and carefully, leaving as little damage and impact as possible. As with any good intention, this too can be taken to extremes, impeding needed growth and development in the name of environmental protection, but a careful balance is needed and I think the presumption should be in favor of protection and conservation rather than in favor of growth and development.

Ok, your turn . . .

Is this how far politics has fallen?

I’m working on a post discussing the devolution of political discourse in this country, so stay tuned, but in the meantime, here’s a glimpse at how far we’ve fallen. This was, thankfully, removed today from the Sacramento GOP website:

Introducing Categories

For those of you that are relatively new to our site, you may have missed some of our earlier posts. While many of our recent posts relate to the coming election, some of our previous posts address broader issues of interest to Mormons and Democrats. I invite you to explore our previous posts using our new Categories feature located on the right-hand side of our homepage. Enjoy and, as always, we welcome your comments.

First Presidency Letter on Political Neutrality

I assume many of you heard the letter from the First Presidency on Sunday regarding political involvement. I believe we have received a similar letter each Fall around election time since 2006. When the letter was first sent in 2006, it created a bit of a stir, causing Democrats to see it has a welcome validation we are not persona non grata in the Church.

But did anyone notice the change in wording this year? Forgive me for parsing words, but that’s sort of my thing. For the past two years the letter has stated that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.” This year’s letter, however, states that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.” Usually the First Presidency picks their words very carefully. I can see Republicans latching onto this change in wording as a sign that one or more of the major parties no longer espouse principles of the gospel and I can imagine the democrats would be on their list of targets. I think this is probably either a mere style change or perhaps a recognition that there are fringe parties that may not be compatible with the gospel. I suspect that if the First Presidency suddenly found the Democratic Party to be inconsistent with gospel principles that they would have felt compelled to say so.

Any thoughts?

Obama’s Creativity

I love Obama’s creativity. http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html

Standing for Something

I was enjoying a rather light-hearted exchange about politics the other day with some friends from grad school. In response to an Obama-friendly email, one of my friends issued the following challenge: “When you guys figure out what Obama stands for, let me know.”  A recurring retort from Republicans. Another friend responded with helpful links to both campaign websites, pointing out the abundance of specificty on the Obama site and the lack thereof on McCain’s. But the initial comment got me thinking about why we support certain candidates over others. Do we really create a ledger of issues and proposals and weigh the pros against the cons and vote for the candidate with the highest balance? Perhaps that is the description of that truly independent voter I never seem to come across. On the other hand, there are certainly voters that latch onto a particular policy position or proposal put forth by candidate and base their vote on that issue alone. I can see the single mother of three voting for Obama purely because of his income tax proposal, or a small business owner voting for Obama based on his health care plan alone. But I think for most of us it’s deeper than that – and I think it helps me understand why I believe my LDS-based worldview fits better with the views and policies of the Democratic Party. 

Let me explain . . .

Supreme Inadequacy

Sarah Palin’s most significant gaffe of the campaign so far came in yesterday’s installment of the Katie Couric interview. And no, I’m not referring to her inability to name a single Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade that she disagreed with. While mildly disturbing, I can give her a pass on that point. It was a pressure moment and she’s not exactly a constitutional scholar. I am certain Obama, McCain or Biden would have been able to rattle off a few, but it’s not the end of the world. No, the part that disturbed me was more subtle. It was her unhesitating agreement that the Constitution includes a right to privacy. Even ignoring the fact that the right to privacy is the primary basis on which the Roe decision was based, she appears to have no understanding of the heated debate between liberals and conservatives over the right of privacy. The Federalist Society (the leading organization of conservative lawyers, judges and legal scholars) and conservative commentators and pundits have spent most of the last three decades fighting viciously against the recognition of the right of privacy. Rejection of the right of privacy has become a litmus test of sorts for Republican judicial nominees. From Griswold, to Roe, to Casey, to Carhart, to Lawrence, the Court has applied the right of privacy to protect abortion rights, contraception and gay rights, much to the ire of the Conservative legal community. The right of privacy has become Example #1 of judicial activism in the Court.

So what’s the big deal? The problem is that either Palin simply disagrees with the vast majority of her party, despite her strident positions against abortion and gay rights, or she’s simply unaware of this controversial issue. If it is the former, which I highly doubt, then she’s going to lose serious support from her base once this position settles in. If it is the latter, which is much more likely, then she is clearly showing the shallowness of her understanding of the issues of our day.

I can hear the counterpoint already, “why should we expect her to have a detailed understanding of complex constitutional academics?” That’s not what this is. The privacy debate is not confined to the shadowy halls of Ivy League law schools. This is first year law school stuff. Anyone who has listened to a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing has heard of it, and I would expect anyone involved in selecting Justices to have a solid understanding of it.

My Thoughts (on Palin) Exactly . . .

Palin is utterly unqualified and McCain’s judgment is suspect for picking her with so little inquiry: “She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start.”

Zakaria on Palin

Today’s Reading

Here are a couple of good reads from today: 

McCain’s Cars

Obama and The West Wing

Freedom of Choice

The Church’s official statement this week about the pending changes to Utah’s liquor laws makes a point that I would have thought was more obvious than it apparently is: our religious beliefs don’t require us to impose them on others through legislation.

Interesting Take on McCain

Interesting Column on McCain

Biden on Abortion

I watched this last week while I was on vacation and am just now getting around to posting it, but this is a must see for any Mormon Democrat. On Meet the Press last week Tom Brokaw grilled Sen. Biden about his views on abortion and, specifically, his view on the moment of conception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2hcz-xbZ3w