Notes on Politics, or Why I'm Currently Unaffiliated
A while ago I removed my name from the rolls of the Utah Republican Party, of which I'd been a member since I became of voting age. It isn't that my values have changed that much, or that I don't want to take a stand on certain issues. I do. But running for office is not in my future plans and I want to feel free. The party is not the organizational manifestation of a movement to enshrine family values in public life while protecting the free exercise of religious (and other) rights and limiting the scope of government. It is, or has become, an exclusive club riddled with soundbyte-based groupthink and structured to hold off change - even positive change - for as long as possible.
Now, that's not entirely fair of me because most of the people in the GOP don't intend it to be that way, and individually they are not that way. But that is often the result I see. The politics are driven by fear. Fear of change, fear of being perceived as unorthodox, fear of the unknown.
It's not so much a problem with Republicans as with what the two-party system had morphed into.
In this large, diverse, confused, amazing country of ours, it's impossible for two parties to accurately represent everyone. Yet generations of belief in good versus evil means we are programmed for a bi-polar way of thinking. It is yes or no. Right or wrong. This or that. The only time we want more than two choices is when we are shopping.
Actually, I think that can be a good thing. We are in a struggle between good and evil. There are only two folds, two masters, two churches.
But they are not the Republican and Democratic parties.
Hugh Nibley said "Satan's masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction." He then pointed to the lack of regret among the early Saints at not having institutionally taken sides during the Civil War. The choice between North and South and no other option was a false one.
Similarly, the idea that the American future depends on the outcome of a battle between Republicans and Democrats is false. So is the idea that we have to join with one or the other or become irrelevant.
The party system has its uses, the most important of which is empowering people to stand together on issues they see as important in an organized, and therefore more effective, way. But our two major parties have evolved from bandings together of like-minded individuals into powerhouse political machines without which election is all but impossible. The agendas are not controlled by the general membership, but by committee, and the goal is not the best possible outcome for the country, but keeping the party in power.
It is very convenient that we only have two major parties. That way we can use derision and sweeping generalization to nebulously define a very unappealing "them," while employing the guilt at being associated with "them" to recruit followers of the always unimpeachably virtuous "us." This, my friends, is the essence of American politics today, as well as other forms of public discourse, to a disturbingly large extent. The only thing more damaging than the "them vs. us" mentality is the "them vs. me" version that is striving for domination of popular culture.
So how would I like to see it? In the Book of Mormon, when the King Men (a power seeking, fear driven organization) made a move to change the laws to allow a king, the Free Men banded together to preserve their freedom. They also fought together later when the King Men joined forces with the Lamanites. Why? Because there was a critical issue at stake, and there was an organized party seeking what was clearly evil. It was a legitimately bi-polar situation. The Free Men's agenda was not to enforce any specific action on the part of the chief judge. It was simply to preserve the political system under which the people had a voice. The formation of a second party was required to counter the uprising of the first.
The rest of the time, as far as I can tell, issues were simply left to "the voice of the people," which usually chose right, we are told.
That's the key: the people. The individuals making united or disparate votes as the occasion called for. Not divided by imaginary party lines. One people, choosing individually, and free.
Now, that's not entirely fair of me because most of the people in the GOP don't intend it to be that way, and individually they are not that way. But that is often the result I see. The politics are driven by fear. Fear of change, fear of being perceived as unorthodox, fear of the unknown.
It's not so much a problem with Republicans as with what the two-party system had morphed into.
In this large, diverse, confused, amazing country of ours, it's impossible for two parties to accurately represent everyone. Yet generations of belief in good versus evil means we are programmed for a bi-polar way of thinking. It is yes or no. Right or wrong. This or that. The only time we want more than two choices is when we are shopping.
Actually, I think that can be a good thing. We are in a struggle between good and evil. There are only two folds, two masters, two churches.
But they are not the Republican and Democratic parties.
Hugh Nibley said "Satan's masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction." He then pointed to the lack of regret among the early Saints at not having institutionally taken sides during the Civil War. The choice between North and South and no other option was a false one.
Similarly, the idea that the American future depends on the outcome of a battle between Republicans and Democrats is false. So is the idea that we have to join with one or the other or become irrelevant.
The party system has its uses, the most important of which is empowering people to stand together on issues they see as important in an organized, and therefore more effective, way. But our two major parties have evolved from bandings together of like-minded individuals into powerhouse political machines without which election is all but impossible. The agendas are not controlled by the general membership, but by committee, and the goal is not the best possible outcome for the country, but keeping the party in power.
It is very convenient that we only have two major parties. That way we can use derision and sweeping generalization to nebulously define a very unappealing "them," while employing the guilt at being associated with "them" to recruit followers of the always unimpeachably virtuous "us." This, my friends, is the essence of American politics today, as well as other forms of public discourse, to a disturbingly large extent. The only thing more damaging than the "them vs. us" mentality is the "them vs. me" version that is striving for domination of popular culture.
So how would I like to see it? In the Book of Mormon, when the King Men (a power seeking, fear driven organization) made a move to change the laws to allow a king, the Free Men banded together to preserve their freedom. They also fought together later when the King Men joined forces with the Lamanites. Why? Because there was a critical issue at stake, and there was an organized party seeking what was clearly evil. It was a legitimately bi-polar situation. The Free Men's agenda was not to enforce any specific action on the part of the chief judge. It was simply to preserve the political system under which the people had a voice. The formation of a second party was required to counter the uprising of the first.
The rest of the time, as far as I can tell, issues were simply left to "the voice of the people," which usually chose right, we are told.
That's the key: the people. The individuals making united or disparate votes as the occasion called for. Not divided by imaginary party lines. One people, choosing individually, and free.
Comments
Well said, both of you.