Demormocratting: Why I'm Liberal

A game where everyone guessed what political party the person that runs a blog called "Demormocrat" belongs to would not last very long. Whenever people find out I'm a registered Democrat they inevitably ask a certain question, regardless of their own views: "Are your parents Democrat?" Sometimes they ask a variant of it: "Were you raised a Democrat?"


I always answer something like this: "My parents and I often don't agree on politics--even though Dad is registered Democrat--but they raised me to think for myself. So I do. I research out the party platforms and candidates and issues and decide for myself. I just happen to most often agree Democrat." By the way, it's getting annoying how often people say something to effect of "I research the issues and make my own decisions" because it's usually used in the context of assuming that my ideas are dictated by my party instead of the other way around. It's condescending and moot.

One really bad thing we do in our society is we stereotype people based on their party affiliation. People assume that because you're a Republican that you must be totally anti-gun-control and we know that that's not true based on the recent votes on the failed gun legislation. They also assume that because you're a Democrat you must be pro-abortion when that is also untrue, as discussed later. I can't tell you how many times I've been told by people that my views are of the devil or otherwise wrong by people who didn't even ask me what my views are, only knew that I'm a registered Democrat.

In this essay-post-thing, I'm going to go issue by issue--at least most of the major divisional issues--and briefly explain my views in the nutshell--maybe nut-case--version. All of these could be entire books. All I'll include here is the very basic view and the fundamental philosophy behind it. If applicable, I've included scriptures or other references for those of you who might say that it's impossible to be practicing LDS and belief as I do. I try to not legitimize my politics with religion. But if someone comes at me with the religion offense, I will use the religion defense.

These are in no particular order.

Gun Control--Democrat

I recognize that the 2nd Amendment states a basic right for American citizens, specifically for the purpose that if the federal government ever invaded a state, the state would have the means to raise a militia to fight them off. I also recognize that--while I do not engage in it--hunting is an integral part of certain cultures.

However, I do not side with the NRA or the more conservative factions of the Republican party on this issue. Their arguments tend to be along the lines of "Don't take away my guns." No legislation is being pushed to take away all the guns of all the citizens except guns specifically designed for killing lots of people at once and if such legislation were to come up, I would not support it. The recent legislation has been for licensure--among other things--of firearm owners. Why not license guns? We license marriages, divorces, adoptions, businesses, banks, vendors, drivers, cars, protesters and a whole lot of other things, many of them specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. We license hunting. But we don't license guns.

Immigration--Democrat

I'm pro-immigration. There's no reason any group of people shouldn't be allowed to come here and become citizens. There's not a person in this country that isn't descended from immigrants. Well, maybe a few Native Americans. Sure there are problems in this country that get compounded by "undocumented residents" being here. But as it stands now, we claim to welcome the "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" except the ones from Mexico. We accept refugees from Africa and Asia and Europe with open arms. The immigrants from Cuba that actually make it here are given instant amnesty. This is all very good. But let's extend that to Mexicans, too. "But all the others are fleeing war, poverty and Communism!" And the Mexicans aren't fleeing anything?

As a side note, the Church has many members that are "illegal immigrants." I personally know some. Families are our focus. The Church supports any legislation that it feels will keep families as intact as possible.

Gay Marriage--Libertarian

I mentioned earlier that we license marriages. Why? I define a marriage as a relationship. I don't need the government giving their stamp of approval on my marriage. It shouldn't affect the taxes I pay or the benefits I receive. I'm not for the legalization of gay marriage. I'm for the delegalization of all marriage. By the way, the official LDS Church statement does say that they recognize that members will disagree with them on this issue and as long as it is a difference of perspective and not a difference of doctrine, it's okay. My activity in the Church will not be affected by it at all.

By the way, the church has always backed legislation that supports equal rights in housing, employment and health care and everything else--except marriage obviously--and is very much opposed to any bullying of any kind for any reason, contrary to popular belief. The rest of the country seems to think that we're all very anti-gay. No, we're not. The church is just opposed to legally--or morally--changing the definition of what marriage is.

Civil Rights--Democrat or Socialist

Nobody for any reason should be given different rights under the law from any other person. We're all Children of God, human beings with dignity, people, etc. I firmly believe that in the eyes of God--or evolution, whatever--"all [people] were created equal" and even if we weren't, we should be treated that way by the government, in the workplace and in our lives. This includes everyone: gays and straights, blacks and whites and browns, Christians and Muslims and Jews--or all three--and Hindus, children and adults, men and women, natural-born and immigrant, everyone. 2 Nephi 26:33

Abortion--Moderate

I value life. I value women's rights. These are not mutually exclusive.

I do believe that life begins before birth, but I don't necessarily believe that it begins at conception. So where does it become "murder?" I don't know. But I do know that we already have a legal standard for what "alive" means, though it's only employed at the other end of life. (If you didn't already know, when hearts are transplanted, they have to be pumping. You can imagine how somebody freaked out about that when it become common practice. Legislators were faced with an interesting question: how can we measure life?) Crazy as it sounds, we measure the "brain-waves" (I don't know the science of it) to determine when a person is "brain-dead" before we harvest their organs. Why don't we apply that to within the womb?

But I know it's not that simple. I do believe that basically a woman should have total control over her own body, including her reproductive system. However, even an unconscious decision is still a decision. A girl slips up and gets pregnant, she still chose that even if it wasn't sought out. A girl who was raped did not choose that. I also believe that women who go through abortions do not go through them easily or "for fun." I imagine that it's going to be hard, no matter the situation. Still--and I echo most Democrat leaders, Clinton and Obama included--adoption ought to be considered before abortion. This whole paragraph may have seemed very wishy-washy but I promise it's not. Or at least I don't think it is. I don't know.

One more thought: we can't make men biologically responsible for carrying children. But we can make them financially and legally responsible.

By the way, the Church's stance and Obama's are eerily similar (though the reasons and solutions vary slightly). Basically, the woman should seek the help of her spiritual leader before seeking an abortion.

So yes, I'm pro-life--just like LDS and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--but moderately so.

Death Penalty and Prisons--Democrat

I firmly believe that a person can change and--more than that--can become a benefit to society, no matter where they've been or what they've gone through. Prisons--and actually I echo Joseph Smith's presidential platform--really should be "correctional institutions" or schools for learning a trade and leadership and life skills, albeit with armed guards. If society locks away or kills a person, they eliminate the possibility of any good that that particular person could do. And never underestimate the power of a person who has come around halfway to hell and back.

There's a lot of scriptural backing for this one--as well as a lot pro-death penalty--so I'll just stick with my favorite one: John 8:7

Welfare and Universal Healthcare--Democrat

Yes, I believe in an individual's responsibility to be able to take care of themself. But I also know that sometimes that becomes impossible for any number of reasons. Don't say they bring it upon themselves. You can't know that. (Mosiah 4:17-18)


Also--for those of you Mormons reading this--how do you claim that all people can and should be able to sustain themselves and pull themselves up from the bootstraps from any place and belong to a Church with such an extensive welfare program and preaches welfare from the pulpit and whose holy writ makes a point of discussing class warfare throughout its text? That really is a curiosity question, not a sarcastic rhetorical one. Please answer.

Yes, of course the system isn't perfect. Yes, there are people that take advantage of it. Nobody disagrees that it needs fixing. But to claim that it needs to be gotten rid of completely is a bad idea. When people can't provide for themselves and the government can't or won't help, private helpers step in. Sometimes these are churches and I laud their efforts. Often these "private helpers" are cartels and gangs. That's why the gangs are so prevalent in poorer areas, that's why Pablo Escobar and the like were so loved in Medellin, that's why the Mafia became so powerful during the Depression, that's why that old lady after the economy collapsed was caught with literally a truckload of marijuana. Figure this one: society benefits from society benefiting.

Yes, having a well-paying job is the ideal. But the ideal isn't always achieved, despite our best efforts.

Domestic Violence--Democrat

No domestic violence should be legal. All of it should be illegal and punished. Period.

War and Militarization and Foreign Relations--Democrat or Green

I already said, I value all life. I value it a lot. I've never fought in a war and of the wars my country has been in, I've only seen bits and pieces that float through the news. I can't say that I know firsthand that war is a terrible thing and I can't say that I can imagine what it's like. But that doesn't illegitimize my beliefs. I'd rather just not find out at all.

The Book of Mormon talks a lot about war--the second half of the Book of Alma and just about all of the Book of Ether are both full of comic-book detail war stories--and not all of it is negative. Some of the greatest prophets were also military leaders and there's many great quotes that are pro-war ("The Title of Liberty"). I say this because this is one issue that I can see the other side of the argument and I know how an active member of the Church could be pro-war.

The scriptures talk about justified reasons for going to war and for a brief period, the Church sent soldiers instead of missionaries. But that does not mean I have to agree with the nation's opting for violence. Violence--obviously--leads to death and hurt, often of innocent people. Diplomacy should always be sought first.

I also firmly believe that we can and should create a Global Community. I don't think it will happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Environmentalism--Democrat or Green

We could get into Mormon cosmology about the Earth--note the capitalization--and Creation, but some things are too sacred to be shared in such a public forum where they could easily be accessed and ridiculed. Basically, we believe we--humans, Adam's descendents--are charged by God to take care of the earth because it would be really awkward in heaven if we didn't. Just kidding, that's not why.

I believe we need to take care of the earth for many reasons and the government should be hard on corporations that pollute and should support measures to make energy more eco-friendly and affordable, but the one that I would use in an argument is that we should take care of our planet because it's the only one we have right now. If we're going to breathe this air, let's not put obscene amounts of COx in it. If we're going to drink this water, let's not dump sewage and industrial crap in it.

As far as species diversity goes, I'm not in favor of saving the seal pups because they're "cute." I'm in favor of saving them because it's the right thing to do. So what if they don't serve any purpose to humans now? That doesn't mean they're not going to in the future and that's a bad qualification for letting something live.

Global warming: why does it matter? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. That's what everybody has been saying since the beginning. Whether or not it's real, we still ought to take care of our earth.

Marijuana--Democrat or Libertarian

Why not have pot legal? I'm not going to smoke it, any more than I'm going to drink legal alcohol or smoke legal tobacco. In fact, let's tax it and make some money off of it. Heaven knows our government can use some more of that.

But this doesn't mean that we should lower our standards for drug abuse and driving while intoxicated or that companies shouldn't be allowed to drug-check. Actually, the opposite. Let's raise the punishments for violations while gaining revenue off of legal usage. That isn't dishonest. It's smart.

I had a friend once tell me that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because it takes away people's agency and the availability to think for themselves. The obvious counterargument was that so does alcohol, tobacco, over-the-counter drugs, coffee, etc.--basically the whole Word of Wisdom--to which she said we ought to outlaw all of those, too. And I just couldn't argue with that. I'd never met anyone that wanted the Prohibition back. I've since thought it through and decided that next time--isn't that how it goes?--I'll say: "So you want to limit someone's agency to choose to limit their own agency?" And that'll get 'em.

For the record, I am not in favor of legalizing meth or other such "scary" drugs. Call me a child of the media, but those "not even once" ads scare the living daylights out of me. Those drugs create violence. Marijuana usually mellows the user out.

Education--Not Sure

I'm not sure any party really has a good answer to education. I would say Socialist but then somebody would start ranting about how socialist education brainwashes children, as if they themselves weren't educated by free, socialized education. So this is what I believe, you tell me what party you think my views best match. I will not touch on Luna Laws or any other policy because--as I try to always say before an argument--I cannot argue policy, only ideology. Good policy will mirror and try to bring about ideology.

Education is something that the Church really stresses. A well-educated person will be a better father or mother than they would otherwise be and can better be an influence for good in the world. Wouldn't it be great if our government and society viewed it the same way?

Education is how culture permeate itself. A culture can be defined--not created or influenced by those these do do that too--by five basic and interwoven things: language, social events, philosophies, arts and sciences. Language and arts and sciences should be taught by experienced and high-performing teachers. Religion and philosophy--including and especially government--should not be preached in a public school but should be presented in an open and honest way, explaining the basics of ideologies and giving students the opportunity to discover more for themselves. Schools should put on social events and opportunities for students to mingle and get to know each other. Knowing social skills is important to becoming a functioning member of society. And this is coming from the nerdy band kid who didn't go to his senior prom. Administration and teachers' unions shouldn't fight but should work together to accomplish what is best for the students.

And education ought to be available to everyone. Tax-supported schools and scholarships are a good way to go. Every member of society benefits from having an educated populace so all of society ought to contribute to educating that populace.

As far as merit-based pay, requiring online classes and the like, all I can say is "I don't know." I can see the pros and cons of both sides of the issues. I'm not sure there is a one-size fits all answer. But I can say this, that nothing can replace a healthy teacher-student relationship for creating an atmosphere for effective learning and taking money away from teachers' salaries for having the newest and shiniest toys and technology is not a good idea.

Well, I'm done with my rant for now. I know I only touched on a relatively small amount of issues. Tell me if anything seems in opposition to what my religion teaches. I'd love to hear it and debate it. 

 

Shameless plug: like Demormocrat's page on the facebook!