American liberalism and the Church

[Vort]

Every time someone uses the term "liberal", lots of people poke their heads up, Whack-A-Mole style, to cry indignantly, "What do you mean by 'liberal'? Why, it's a noble and beautiful term! The scriptures use it! It's a compliment!" Let us quit being disingenuous. Most on this list are Americans, that is, citizens of the USA. And in America, the term "liberal" has been hijacked for two generations. Its current meaning is clear: "Liberal" means politically and socially leftist.

 

Many (not all, and I'm not speaking directly of anyone on this list) of those who complain about the denigration of the noble term "liberal" are clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they want to preserve the definition of "liberal" as meaning "open-minded" and "generous". On the other hand, they want to name themselves and their Democrat- and socialist-leaning compatriots as "liberal" and condemn the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who disagree with them as "conservatives".

 

Note that, since pretty much everyone knows that an American "liberal" is not in fact liberal, in the last decade or so the left has co-opted the term "progressive". Hey, who is not in favor of PROGRESS? Ergo, "progressives" are always, always good. And, of course, "progressives" are Democrats and their ilk. This sort of word gaming has probably been going on as long as humans have spoken in a language. Witness the term "gay", which even three generations ago was commonly understood to mean "happy". As a child, even I sang Primary songs extolling "gay"ness. But now the word refers almost entirely to sexual perversion. I am sure we could think of hundreds of other examples, if we cared to.

 

When President Lee and other Church leaders said (decades ago) that a "liberal Mormon" was one without a testimony, they clearly were not using the meaning of classic liberalism. That is even more true today. I personally try to avoid using the term "liberal" at all, exactly because of all this dishonesty attached to the term. But when someone says that the "liberal" agenda does not coincide well with the gospel, the meaning is obvious to all American Saints who have ears to hear. The "liberal" agenda is well-known: Unfettered access to abortion on demand, higher taxes to fund social entitlement programs and redistribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers, legislation to force "inclusion" of various sexual and other perversions coupled with social and even legislative pressure to disallow dissent, marginalization of norms that mere decades ago were considered common decency, destruction of defensible borders, normalization of previously criminal activity and lifestyles that pervert and destroy people (think drugs), and so forth.

 

The Church has taken a neutral stand* on all political parties and issues. I am glad for it. The Church should do just that. But I do not take a neutral stand. The Republican Party is a bunch of hypocrites and money graspers, and I think they're pretty despicable. But honestly, they look downright virtuous compared to the loathsome Democrats. I last voted for a Democrat candidate more than 20 years ago in Pennsylvania. I do not see any realistic possibility I will ever do so again. Moreover, I do not believe that any honest, informed, rational Latter-day Saint can honestly accept the precepts of the gospel and still support the Democratic Party or a Democrat (at least one running at a national level). So those honest Saints that do so are either uninformed or irrational. The third possibility, that I am misunderstanding the virtues of the Democrats and casting them as vices, may well be true, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate that fact in any convincing way.

 

The point of my rant is not to win any converts. I am quite sure I won't. My point is to quit complaining when some American poster to this list talks disparagingly about "liberals" or "liberalism" -- or, if you insist on complaining, then make darn sure you complain equally loudly whenever someone misuses the term "gay" to mean "homosexual".

 

*And by the way, the Church, as the vehicle of the gospel, is neutral. But I will bet you anything -- ANYTHING -- that God is not neutral. I will bet you anything you want that God has an opinion regarding the morality of abortion on demand, the legalization of street drugs, the normalization of homosexuality in our communities and in our legal system, the use and abuse of our natural environment vs. the worship of it, and every other topic we have under consideration in our society today. And I feel quite sure that, however far God's opinions on those matters are from the stinking Republicans, they are in general a very great deal further from what the loathsome Democrats proclaim.

[Jedi_Nephite]

[Jamie123]

My wife (who is American) thinks it very strange that British people don't fly the Union Jack* outside their houses the way Americans fly "Ol' Glory". The reason is of course that our national flag has been hijacked by far right: anyone who flaunts it in public is presumed to be a racist skinhead only one step away from wearing a white conical hood with eye-holes.

 

Another two words that have been hijacked are "hacker" and "troll". A hacker used to be a person who was uncannily good at computer programming. Such people would get top marks in computing assignments but struggle to pass any of their other exams (mostly from sitting up all night playing D&D), get their degrees with the lowest possible grades and go on to get highly paid jobs in the software industry. Nowadays though, a "hacker" is someone who attempts to breach firewall security to get their hands on vital financial information.

 

And a "troll" was originally someone who posted silly messages on bulletin boards in order to enjoy the angry responses of people clueless enough to take them seriously: a somewhat naughty but generally harmless activity. Nowadays a "troll" is someone who defaces obituary websites with obscenities and otherwise engages in "cyber bullying".

 

And another thing (this rant is getting as long as Vort's) The word "Cyber" comes from the Greek "Kybernisi" which means controlling/guiding/governing. It's where we get "cybernetics" - which is the science of control systems (natural and artificial). It has nothing inherently to do with the Internet. Nowadays "cyber" has become a synonym for "electronic" or "computer-related" - usually in relation to crime or crime prevention (e.g. "cyber terrorism", "cyber security" etc.) I think this may be partly down to the "Cyber Men" in Doctor Who.

 

*Well OK then the Union "Flag" you annoying pedant!

Edited November 16, 2015 by Jamie123

[Guest]

Let me just put it this way... my family is in the Liberal Party in the Philippines.  But, living in America, it was DOUBLY... no... INFINITELY satisfying to have Rhonda Rousey's Liberal butt convincingly handed to her last Saturday by a Conservative preacher's daughter.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

"And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils..."

 

I believe this is an apt description of Latter-day Saints who embrace and sustain modern day liberalism.

But I think the key words in that sentence are "seduced" and "righteous".

Based upon those two words I don't believe these Nephites were evil people despite the fact that their actions had evil consequences.  I believe they were good members of the Church who loved God and were striving to keep His commandments. However, they were "seduced" into believing that it was okay to "partake of their [government's] spoils" (accept money or goods forcibly taken from someone else) in order to satisfy their needs or the needs of another person.

Members of the Church who advocate many "Liberal" programs and principles seem to have forgotten the command, "thou shalt not steal". There was never any qualifier (unless it's for a good cause) attached.

[Guest]

Introducing... the modern American Liberal.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by anatess

[Anddenex]

Introducing future PC (not to be confused with Prison Chaplain):

http://buzzpo.com/amazing-comedian-hilariously-sums-up-how-political-correctness-is-strangling-our-country/?utm_content=bufferaf41c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

Edited November 17, 2015 by Anddenex

[Gunner]

Does your No True Scotsman apply to Pres. Faust? He was a staunch Democrat.

[David13]

Anatess

Thanks for your video there.

Modern American Liberal = Modern American Airhead.

dc

[JojoBag]

Couldn't have said it any better, Vort.  Conservatives are far from angels, but liberals slink along with the Devil.

[Guest MormonGator]

Hugh Nibley was an arch liberal his entire life. You can easily be a liberal and a faithful, good standing member of the church.  I'm in a prominent civil liberties group. Should I be kicked out? 

Edited November 17, 2015 by MormonGator

[Jamie123]

Introducing... the modern American Liberal.

 

 

I find it difficult to make sense of this argument because they both seem to be talking about wealth owned (capital) rather than wealth produced (profit). The young lady says that 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth. (I don't know whether this is true or not, but no one seems to object to the figure.) Cavuto retorts that the entire 50% wealth of the 1% would not pay for Medicaid for 3 years, which is clearly not sustainable. But this would mean that if the entire country's wealth were put into Medicaid, it would only last 6 years - which is not sustainable either!

 

In Britain we have had the National Health Service since 1948. I grew up with it, and I've always considered the NHS as much a part of the state apparatus as the army or the police*. That is 67 years, which was not funded by a single mass confiscation of wealth from the rich, but by taxation of wealth produced during that period. Produced by rich and poor alike - but yes, mostly by the rich because (let's face it) they have more to spare!

 

Cavuto may have come over as having aced the argument, and the girl may have come over as an "airhead", but as neither has really considered the relevant facts, neither has made a valid point.

 

P.S. OK I take that back - he does make one valid point which is that the rich, if taxed too much for their liking will either leave the country or else squirrel their money somewhere were the IRS can't touch it. A lot of this "tax avoidance" goes on here in the UK.

 

* And if you're about to knock me in the dirt and stamp on my head for daring to think that, I'd suggest this has less to do with the superiority of your own arguments than the fact that you grew up with a different set of assumptions.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Jamie123

[JojoBag]

"I mean, yeah...." In the words of my favorite cartoon. "Duh, which way did he go? Which way did he go?" "I'm bringing home a baby bumble bee; won't my mommy be so proud of me."

[JojoBag]

Like, totally. 2015 valley girl.

Edited November 17, 2015 by JojoBag

[Traveler]

Not so many years ago the LDS church experimented with missionaries in the USA with the costs of bicycles.  Understand we are talking about young men and women dedicating 1 and a half to 2 years of their lives to G-d.  Many paying for their missions themselves - and all at some level paying for their mission with personal funds, family funds or ward friend funds.  The Church decided to concentrate and centralize the costs of bicycle maintenance.  The idea was that by lumping all the missionary bicycle maintenance together - better service could be negotiated for a lower cost.  Sound reasonable?

 

Within 3 months of the initiating of the program the costs of bicycle maintenance had increased over 1,000%.  The church had to abandon the program because of the rapidly increasing costs and turn all bicycle maintenance back to the individual missionaries.  

 

The truth is that no company or organization can offer any service unchecked for free without the costs getting completely out of control.  Our government cannot even have an army without the costs getting out of control and end up paying like $3,000 for a hammer.   If there is no shortage of cash in any program - regardless of the need for the service - the costs will bankrupt the program.  It is the trend and the way to know if a government program is failing - is when a politician says we need to increase our spending for the program - especially if there is no competing program so if someone wants - we could opt out for.

[LeSellers]

Does your No True Scotsman apply to Pres. Faust? He was a staunch Democrat.

"Staunch Democrat" does not mean "addicted to other people's money".

Democrats once formed a patriotic party. That time is long passed.

For the record, I am not a Republican (at least only registered as one, but I rarely vote GOP). Going with the name of this topic, I am a libertarian (please note the lower-case "L").

Lehi

[Vort]

Does your No True Scotsman apply to Pres. Faust? He was a staunch Democrat.

 

Not as an apostle, he wasn't. The Democrat party of 40 years ago did not champion the ugly causes they do today. This is an apples-to-Buicks comparison, and I suspect you are well aware of that.

[Guest MormonGator]

Not as an apostle, he wasn't. The Democrat party of 40 years ago did not champion the ugly causes they do today. This is an apples-to-Buicks comparison, and I suspect you are well aware of that.

 You are right about this one Vort. The democrats have drastically changed.  JFK is a hero to me, and he'd be a republican today, for sure. 

In my view only, I ask you two things. Do you think Joseph Smith Jr was a prophet? Yes? Do you know the Book of Mormon is true? Yes? Ok, you are a Mormon. That's all that matters to me. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

Some examples; just from my own experience.  As one of two principle engineers in a major engineering company; my responsibilities was to bid engineering work on most contracts and oversee development on 1/3 of new product development.  The company owned 90% of the market share and we made profits of about 100 million a year.  There was a slight downturn in the economy but with already funded new development and current projects all our engineers were more than busy for the next 5 years.

 

An emergency all hands meeting was called and our company president announced we were in financial difficulty and that we would have to lay off 20% of our engineers.  The remaining engineers would have to take a 10% cut in pay (not including 401K contributions that were being suspended indefinitely.   Management would take a 25% cut in pay.  The reason for all this was that during the next quarter the company would have to declare a 680 million dollar loss.   

 

I asked to be recognized and pointed out that there was not a single contract in the last 5 years that lost money – all the engineers were doing their job?  The only possible way the company could have a lost was if management in their efforts to expand had acquired debt from companies purchased.  I suggested that since management cause the problem in the first place that all bonuses be forfeited until the company was back on sure financial footing.  I pointed out that a sacrifice of $75,000 from a single upper management salary may seem like a great sacrifice but if the same individual took a 5 million dollar bonus – it did not seem right to do so at the expense of all the engineers.

 

Here is a regulation that neither the Democrats or Republicans will consider in the USA but it is law in Japan.  In a year that a company has a layoff there can be no corporate bonuses for management and no dividends for stockholders – those that take bonuses also get stiff fines in excess of any bonus with additional prison time.   

 

BTW the company I use to work for???  Now has less than 10% market share and has been sold twice – but the top management that ruined the company???? – They are all multi-millionaires from bonuses despite utter failure to do their job.

 

Here is another one from my personal experience.  DuPont developed polyester based x-ray film that they had a patent on.  All companies (3M, Kodiak, Agfa and others) distributed film from DuPont under their name.  I worked with DuPont automating their manufacturing process.  The profits were in excess of 2 million a day.  But digital imaging was being developed and DuPont decided to sell off their patents and operations for 600 million – that is less than a single year of profits.  Several investors wanted to by the operations for obvious reasons but among the buyers was an employee buyout offer for the full 600 million.

 

The federal trade commission denied all buyouts from any US based company because any US company would have a monopoly on the x-ray film industry – despite the fact that DuPont already had a monopoly.  Federal regulations required that if the operation was sold to a US company that it could not buy more than 49% of the operation.  But since all the manufacturing was in a single facility it was impossible to split up. 

 

The x-ray film facility ended up being sold to Agfa (a German company) that closed the facility two months after the sell and put 150 employees out of work.  Agfa bought the division for the dwindling market share – which is still profitable to this day.  The profits would have been divided between the 150 employees and since that was about 20 years ago the profits would have been over a billion dollars.

 

I do not care if you are a Democrat or Republican – the results are that workers get screwed despite all the political (liberal or conservative) rhetoric.

[Traveler]

Here is another thought for regulation of large companies (over 50 employees).  That 25% of the company has to be held by the employees and cannot be sold as long as the company is viable.  This also holds for mergers and buyouts - the resulting structure must provide for a minimum of 25% employee ownership.  And in this 25% block no employee can hold more shares than any other employee.  This prevents management from dominating this block.  Also the block ownership is not just in stock but is 25% of gross assets of the company.

 

One thing I have learned in life - owners view the world differently than those hired to do a job.  Even Jesus taught this principle.  I believe it to be the very principle that G-d employs - to make those that believe in him vested partners in eternal benefits (all that he has).