The major news story of the week is the parliamentary elections in Iraq. Certainly any step toward the establishment of a democratic regime in what was previously a brutally oppressive country is to be celebrated by all people of goodwill, but even more so by people who accept the democratic political theology taught by the Book of Mormon.
At the same time that the events of this week are positive and deserve to be celebrated, the initial establishment of a democracy is in fact the easy part. Decades of social-scientific research, perhaps best represented in the book Democracy and Development by Adam Przeworski et al., has shown that democratic transitions like the one underway in Iraq occur at least occasionally in most countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, for many countries, such democratic transitions are routinely followed by authoritarian reversions.
Social scientists have identified several variables that do a fairly good job of predicting such authoritarian reversions. The major risk factors include deep ethnic division, heavy economic reliance on resource extraction, a limited history of democracy, poverty, poorly established political institutions, and location in a region of the world with few other democracies. As is evident, Iraq faces essentially all of the risk factors for authoritarian reversion. Indeed, I am unaware of even a single country in world history that has been able to maintain a democratic system in the face of such extreme obstacles. The nearest example would probably be India — but India in fact has had some advantages that Iraq lacks. India’s economy has always been less reliant on resource extraction than Iraq’s is, and may analysts argue that it departed the colonial period with much more developed political institutions than those that Iraq has today.
These differences notwithstanding, India’s example does suggest that there is a possibility that Iraq’s democracy will last. Unfortunately, there is a vast array of examples that show the very real probability that the institutions of freedom whose establishment the world celebrates this week will not survive long enough to really matter.
RT,
I share your pessimism.
Just wanted to highlight the fact that the healthiest democracies did not have this form of government imposed upon them, but it slowly arose through tumultuous process, rich resources, relative isolation, and a coming of age. Even a nation like India, where it could be argued that such government was imposed, was not “liberated” in the style of our approach in Iraq…but occupied and subdued on an empirical time scale and without the primary purpose of liberation and democratization.
Even more fascinating, I think, is our patronizing and chauvinistic approach to the Arab world…which was a place of enlightenment and cultural dominance while Europe was in its darkest youth…and for which culture the whole of western civilization owes a great debt for its own eventual sparks of enlightenment; but instead has played a major role in speeding the downfall, subjugating and crippling, and manipulating for its own purposes. Pax Syriana.
These brothers and sisters of ours may well regain their former glory, but it will likely be at the expense of the western world and due in part to our unwitting participation…even as we mask our true intentions with paternal rhetoric.
Time will tell.
PS. I thought one of the most striking quotes for the film “Syriana” was this: “a nation with 4% of the world’s population and 50% of the world’s military budget has lost its power to influence.” …or something like that…
I feel we are doing a good thing in Iraq, generally. But I also have some pessimism. I wonder if the rank-and-file citizen of Iraq truly wants demacracy enough to make it work. If you are not willing to fight and possibly die (as in the example of Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty) to defend your liberty then you may not have it for long.
I am certainly no expert on Islam or the middle east. Is it not part of their religion/culture that there is no law other the from Allah? (I sure hope I spelled that right). Every other source of law is evil? I just wonder if their religion and culture (including the extreemists withing) is compatible with democracy? Do they have their version of Captain Moroni or George Washington from within their own ranks? I hope for their sakes that they do.
RT:
I would draw your attention to the following quote by Larry Diamond, a preeminent scholar on all things regarding democratization:
Smith’s intellectual error – a common one in writing about democracy these days – is to dismiss the possibility for democracy in countries that do not meet the standard economic, social, and cultural preconditions. After 25 years of weighing the evidence and studying democratic development in more than two-dozen countries, I have concluded that there in fact are no preconditions for democracy other than a commitment by political elites to implement it (and, one hopes, broad popular support as well).
Larry Diamond, “Was Iraq a Fool’s Errand?” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004
Watt, there actually have been some prominent examples of successful democracy imposed from without. Think, for example, about Germany and Japan. So, imposition from without is, counterintutively enough, not a real risk factor for authoritarian reversion.
Eric, a lot of people certainly worry about the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Yet there are examples of the two coexisting reasonably well. Turkey’s a pretty decent one, and there are some others in Micronesia.
Davis, Larry Diamond is well known within the regime theory literature as an extreme voluntarist. That is to say, he has long been one of the most emphatic voices in dismissing the importance of other factors in accounting for democracy. Yet, even so, your quote doesn’t bother me; note the word “preconditions.” I don’t think there are necessarily absolutely unavoidable preconditions for democratic success, either; there are just risk factors for failure, and Iraq has basically all of them. This makes persistent democracy in Iraq unlikely, of course, but not impossible.
RT,
I agree with your analysis on Iraq. I think the idea of democracy in Iraq, or in most middle eastern countries (excluding Israel) is akin to the idea of putting lipstick on a pig. I would be pleased to see the Iraqi people make it work; however, I think you point out all the reasons why it won’t likely work.
I am curious, however, to your reference to “democratic political theology taught by the Book of Mormon.” I think Bushman in RSR seems to come to an opposite conclusion. See here
I’d be curious to hear your ideas.
There was a piece in Slate by Fred Kaplan a couple of days ago on this exact topic:
http://www.slate.com/id/2132506/
He discusses the book “Electing To Fight”, by Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder. Do you know anything about that book, RT?
One interesting thing about Indian democracy is that I believe that it had a fairly anti-western orientation during its first couple of decades. Perhaps the ties between the new Iraq regime and the American occupiers will be yet another obstacle to overcome.
“I don’t think there are necessarily absolutely unavoidable preconditions for democratic success, either; there are just risk factors for failure, and Iraq has basically all of them. This makes persistent democracy in Iraq unlikely, of course, but not impossible.”
RT, that seems to me to be splitting hairs. Preconditions must be present for success, and the presence of risk factors indicates probability of failure; seem like different sides of the same coin.
At any rate, I am aware that a quote from Diamond doesn’t settle the matter. But I think it’s important to note that there are other credible voices out there differing with Przeworski et al.
I think that Larry Diamond is right. Democracy can work anywhere for any people regardless how poor or educated they are. It is a matter of commitment and institutions that can sustain commitment.
However, if rulers can finance themselves by extracting resources rather than negotiating a compound with their people then it is difficult to see why it would be in the interests of the ruling elites to share power.
The argument that Roasted Tomatoes invokes about resource extraction is not about a precondition. It’s about political institutions. Norway is the only oil state that has a democray. It succeeded because the political order preceded oil wealth.
The only thing worse than taxes is no taxes.
Roasted Tomatoes, democraticization in Germany and Japan worked for one reason: the occupiers and the occupied where much more afraid of the Soviets than of each other.
(We know how Europe and East Asia would have been treated in the absence of the Cold War if we look at parts of the world where United States hegemony was essentially unchallenged).
I don’t think that imposition is the problem, by the way. Most Iraqis would love to enjoy the benefits of democracy and the rule of law. The problem is the impotence of the occupier to establish order and security.
Davis, there are a wide range of other scholars who come to the same conclusions that Przeworski et al. reach. I cited them because they’re published in a book rather than a journal, and thus are perhaps more accessible for non-academics. It’s also noteworthy that Diamond hasn’t engaged with or refuted the statistical evidence that the risk factors I mention are associated with authoritarian reversion. I’ve had access to the data behind Przeworski el al.’s results, and while there can certainly be arguments about some specifics, many of the risk factors are robustly correlated with failed democracy.
Ed, thanks for the link. I am familiar with the Mansfield and Snyder book, which is clever. The central argument is that democratizing countries fight more wars than either dictatorships or democracies.
RT wrote: “Think, for example, about Germany and Japan.”
….
I think it’s a common misconception that democracy was imposed upon these two nations at the end of and as a primary result of WWII…a misconception that is often perpetuated by those who would have us believe that democracy can successfully and rightly be imposed by force of arms.
Germany had a long-standing history of democratic process along the lines of an increasingly influential king’s parliment…its history is much more similar to England than Iraq; Hitler, for example, was popularly elected. So I’d say democracy was actually restored rather than imposed, and that after a relatively short period of run-away abuse of power in the Chancellory or executive…something that all democracies have to worry about. I’m sure Helmutt Lotz could give more insight here.
As for Japan…this is arguably the closest we get to actually imposing democracy by force, yet to see it in those terms is to ignore a significant amount of history and circumstances. Tim Shorrock’s article A Skewed History of Asia points out the shortcomings in the use of Japan as the proto-imposed-democracy:
In other words, the price in time, money, and dumb luck is much too high to make imposing democracy on the world a viable if sane policy.
Democracy is a gift that people have to give themselves…and the way we help is outlined in Section 121, not in The Prince.
and there are some others in Micronesia
Huh?
RT:
I guess my point is this: from what I understand (and my understanding is admittedly very limited on this front) there are various competing schools of thought regarding vital preconditions for democracy (or, if you rather, the factors that cause a democracy to revert to an authoritarian regime). Do you disagree with this?
Furthermore, while I agree with you that Iraq is a long shot in terms of becoming a working democracy, I also think the nature and extent of US involvement may exempt it from laws and norms that apply to the democratization experience of other countries.
Davis, yes, I disagree somewhat with your characterization of the literature. There’s basically a one-man school of thought who muddies the water by failing to distinguish between the establishment of democracy (in the technical literature, this is transition to democracy) and the survival of democracy (consolidation of democracy). There’s fairly wide consensus that transition to democracy isn’t really conditioned by social or economic conditions — hence, no preconditions. However, there’s a near-unanimous consensus that survival of democracy is strongly conditioned on a variety of social and economic factors. Indeed, this is one of the most robust statistical facts in the social sciences. (Bibliography available upon request.) Hence, what Diamond says about preconditions is correct, but is nonetheless irrelevant to the question of whether Iraqi democracy will survive.
US involvement may well make a difference, although that’s an open question. It’s evidently true that different colonial experiences (which is, de facto, what the Iraq occupation is) affect the survival of democracy. However, it seems that the mechanism for these effects is via the creation of stable or less stable political institutions by the colonial power. To date, it would seem that the US occupation hasn’t created the kind of stable bureaucratic state structure that is favorable for democracy.
RT,
I think when discussing requisites of democracy, it is helpful to start with Lipset and his SOME SOCIAL REQUISITES OF DEMOCRACY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY. Lipset notes there are no real requirements for democracy (though there are variables with high correlation rates). The importance of this work is that it focuses not on the emergence or genesis of democracy, but with sustainability.
Perhaps the most important contribution in terms of this discussion is his views on intitutions as they relate to social cleavages. He noted that institutions must be in place to moderate large scale social cleavages. The three major cleavages are church/state relations, political enfranchisement, and the ability to have collective bargaining in the market. Lipset states that as long as each of the problems are addressed relatively early in the democracy’s development, the democracy would be stable. Only when the three problems were address at the same time would instability arise. This leads to groups that have cross cutting cleavages that help to mitigate instability.
Przeworski disagrees with Lipset’s study. “We believe that all of these studies employed a faulty methodology and drew invalid conclusions.” He does make some interesting conclusions: he rejects Huntington’s wave and counterwave theory. He notes the importance of the current internatinal political climate. He noted that facors correlated with genesis were different from those correlated with sustainability. To Przeworski, economics were paramount. He noted that, “…no democracy has ever been subverted…in a country with a per capita income higher than that of Argentina in 1975: $6,055”. There were other findings as well: Democracies are less stable in countries where there is a homogeneous religious tradition. Further, Confucianism and Islam have the most negative effect on democracy. Past instability of regimes in a country seems to have a large effect on the stability of regimes. Przeworski looks at institutions within regimes and finds that the type of regime has a significant impact on the survivability of the regime. Parliamentary democracies survive at a much higher rate than presidential democracies. This fact remains true when level of development is controlled for.
As for posts 4 and 10: I believe that Lakoff as well as O’Donnell and Schmitter looked specifically at imposed democracy. “The most frequent context within which a transition from authoritarian rule has begun in recent decades has been military defeat in an international conflict. Moreover, the factor which most probabilistically assured a democratic outcome to the transition was occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy.”
All in all an interesting discussion. Iraq has both positive and negative factors which will help determine whether democracy will survive. My hope is that it will…
By the way, just to be perfectly clear, I hope that democracy works in Iraq just as much as anyone else. I’m worried about the prospects, and see the project as still facing more serious obstacles than any successful, durable democracy in history. But I hope that a way can be found to circumvent those obstacles.
Sorry RT, you posted post 16 while I was writing post 17 or I wouldn’t have mentioned the genesis/survivability thing.
No, Roasted Tomatoes, your skepticism is much more benevolent. Wishful thinking is not a good foundation for policy. That has been the problem with this adventure all along.
To paraphrase Zbigniew Brzezinski’s analysis: We have expected the best and never planned for the worst.
That is an inexcusable attitude in matters of war and peace. The Bush administration is so soft hearted that there is no capacity of self-denial. Whatever they desire they will pursue regardless of reality.
**I posted this earlier but I think it’s lost in space**
Let me know if I misunderstand since I haven’t read the books listed above, but what’s the point in making the distinction between an unconditional likelihood of democracy and a highly conditional likelihood of a sustained democracy?
I mean, isn’t this similar to saying that anyone would desire and act upon getting a more democratic arrangement but few would ever achieve it…making whatever attempts made at democracy not much more than crushed popular uprising?
Personally, I don’t see value in a democracy that lacks longevity. It seems to me that the only type of democracy we should care about is the type that requires certain conditions…that we should then focus on fostering those conditions.
So yeah, I think the conversation should be about how best to achieve lasting democracy rather than how it gets used as a lame excuse for failed foreign policy…you know, the “aw, those folks just don’t want it bad enough or they’d make it our the the opportunity that they’re given” arguement. In my mind, that’s a non-starter.
Craig S., thanks for the discussion. I think we have to turn to different sources for different risk factors for authoritarian reversion; academics do tend to get bogged down with specific variables. There was a nice World Politics piece from about two or three years ago that did the evidence that oil dependency correlates with the failure of democracy. (Can’t remember the author.) Obviously, dozens of people have replicated the basic Przeworski finding that wealthy democracies survive while poorer ones tend not to. (Iraq is, of course, a poor country.) The ethnic division finding dates back a long time, of course. And a good deal of recent research, including a dissertation from about three years ago by Zachary Elkins, shows that the regime type of a country’s neighbors is quite relevant.
You’re right to point out that being invaded by a democratic country is a positive, at least in terms of the historical record of probability of having sustainable democracy. But as far as I can tell, that’s the only really positive factor Iraq’s got right now, no?
Hellmut, I agree that the war planning has been quite inadequate. Nonetheless, I see that as a side issue. At the current time, we’re already there and we have to face the consequences of whatever failures of planning have existed. I guess the question is what we think our short- and medium-term goals ought to be. On that front, I like what Watt has to say: we ought to look at whether we can do anything to reduce the risk factors that Iraq faces.
Guy Murray #5, sorry I missed your interesting comment earlier on. I’ve talked about the ambiguous democracy of the Book of Mormon narrative in a previous post. That said, the Book of Mormon does feature executive officials elected by popular vote and a theological justification for elected rather than hereditary rule on the basis of the corruptibility of man. While this doesn’t reach modern democratic theory by any means, it is still substantially more democratic than the Bible. (Note my favorite institutional feature of the Book of Mormon regimes: there was no legislative power whatsoever. The law came straight out of the commandments of God to ancestors, according to the text. Hence, if a new law needed to be made for some reason, it’s unclear whether anyone would have been justified in making it.) Anyway, summary statement: whether or not the book supports full democracy, it does endorse elected government–which is more than the Bible does.
Sunk costs of war planning are besides the point, Roasted Tomatoes.
The inadequate war planning is merely a symptom. It indicates that our leaders are guided by wishful thinking. Rather than conditions in Iraq, domestic political considerations determine the conduct of the war. These pathologies persist.
We deployed a force that would be unable to establish order. We still field a force that is impotent to maintain security in Iraq.
It is not enough to respond that we have virtuous war goals. Such words are merely paying lip service until the administration is willing to do what it takes to obtain its “goals.”
The responsible thing to do is to match our words with our actions. Since we are unwilling to deploy enough troops to hold territory, we might as well drop the illusion of democracy in Iraq.
One cannot conduct foreign policy like pre-schoolers assembling their Christmas wish list. Since the administration has proven unwilling to do what it takes, it is unfair to risk life and limb of our soldiers for an illusion.
We need to return to a foreign policy that is grounded in reality. Given the balance of power, the constraint is a lack of political will, not so much by the opponents of the war but by the spoiled brads and chicken hawks in the administration who want to be tough on anybody but themselves. That is the defining characteristic of this war, from the planning to this day.
Hellmut, I don’t disagree with you; that’s one of the reasons I wrote this post. We need to think seriously about what it would actually take to establish a viable democracy in Iraq, and we need to make a real decision about whether we are willing to make such an investment. For all the debate about the US role in (re)establishing democracy in Europe and in establishing democracy of a sort in Japan after WWII, these episodes do offer an important lesson. In addition to setting up political institutions, the US during that period spent an enormous amount of money on the economies of the countries in question. Would a similar investment in Iraq’s economy help stabilize democracy? I imagine it would. Is that politically viable given US domestic politics? Is it something we’re willing to do in order to spread democracy? These are questions we need to address.
I agree with your post, Roasted Tomatoes. I reacted to your declaration of allegiance to democracy. Not that there is anything wrong with democracy but the administration obfuscates the debate by confusing reasons, goals, and means.
We need to focus on Bush’s actions to identify his goals. The Bushies only pay lip service to democracy. If they were serious they would have to provide enough troops to control territory.
To date, we cannot even control the highway from Baghdad to the airport.
Unless we are willing and able to field much larger occupation forces, our efforts are in vain. Lofty goals only require more resources
It’s time to get out of the way. May be, the Iraqis can pull it off. Our role needs to match the price we are willing to pay. Anything else in unfair to those who do the dying.
You all need to read up on books/talks by W. Cleon Skousen, David O. McKay, Ezra Taft Benson, and other similar writings.
You will find that we are not a “Democracy” we are supposed to be a “Republic.” Democracy or rather mobocracy always leads to trouble, like we have now with the Secret Combination that has gradually been gaining influence in our own government.
The Book of Mormon does not teach “democratic political theology” if anything it teaches about a “Republican form of government”
You are all so happy about a Democracy in Iraq, though you don’t realize that this is not good. Also, the Book of Mormon teaches, never invade another country, only defend your liberty and freedom at home. Go back and read from the Saints I mentioned above and you might begin to understand.
Helmut:
Your postings are full of delaritive statements lacking any substance to back them up. If you would, please provide substantive evidence backing up any of the following:
“We have expected the best and never planned for the worst.”
“…inadequate war planning…”
“We deployed a force that would be unable to establish order. We still field a force that is impotent to maintain security in Iraq.”
“…we are unwilling to deploy enough troops to hold territory…”
All I’m hearing from you is the tired old trope that the mission was ilconceived because it is difficult and/or risky. In terms of risk it seems the idea is foreign to you that someone may have done a risk assessment and come to the conclusion that the potential rewards far exceeded the potential losses.
Brian M,
I agree with the “never invade another country” and I’m just guessing that you hold the Iraq incursion and other such “pre-emptive” wars as unsupported by the BoM…that’s good.
The Democracy = mobocracy –> Secret Combinations thing is a litte out there. While I agree that the BoM seems to give an account of a type of government that is more Republic oriented, I’m not so sure that it “teaches” it as the true form of government or that Democracy/mobocracy (as you correlate it) leads to Secret Combinations…
You wouldn’t happen to be a Libertarian would you?
Right, the Book of Mormon doesn’t specifically teach about a Republic or a Democracy but when you analyze the system they had with the Judges appointed by the people and then the judges rule according to what is just in the eyes of God (of course there are those who were part of the Secret Combination following Satan) and you consider other principles of Freedom, like those taught by Captain Mormoni, it’s more in line with a Republic. Or you could think of it this way: The Founding Fathers knew about the best form of Government. And where did they find it? The Anglo-Saxons had been living it. And where did the Anglo-Saxons get their ideas? That came from the Law of Moses, or rather the Israelites. The Founding Fathers borrowed many ideas from the Bible and the law of moses. (see: The Majesty of God’s Law - by W. Cleon Skousen) Our Constitution setup a great Government, unfortunately the Constitution isn’t being followed anymore and we have degenerated into a Democracy. Democracy doesn’t have to be bad (though all of them have turned out that way) and doesn’t necessarily mean Secret Combinations… but, we do know, the prophets have told us, and I see it is true, that the Secret Combination spoken of in Ether 8 has much influence in our Government and others around the World. For many quotes in which the prophets have warned us of these Secret Combinations see my website: latterdayconservative.com
I am not Libertarian. I don’t subscribe to the left-right paradigm, but rather I consider myself a proponent of the “People’s Law” (or a Conservative Constitutionalist). Look at it this way: On one hand you have Anarchy (not enough government) on the other hand you have Tyranny (too much government) I sit in the middle, the People’s law (Just enough government). If I had to choose a Political Party it would be the Independent American Party / Constitution Party.
Brian, thanks for your interesting comments. The democracy/republic distinction is typically described by political philosophers as exactly equivalent to the modern-day distinction between direct democracy and representative democracy. The US national government is, of course, an instance of representative democracy — in other words, it is what was once described as a republic. Direct democracy in the US exists in the form of voter propositions in many states and town-meeting governments in some parts of New England.
For the most part in my posts, I’m using “democracy” in the way that it is usually used by journalists, people in government, and academics today: to refer to representative democracy or a “republican” system. This is, for instance, the kind of system that is being set up in Iraq.
I think there are a lot of secret combinations in the world. It’s evident that the tobacco companies were one. Some people feel that oil companies are operating one right now. Eisenhower believed that the private companies producing military equipment were a secret combination. Drug cartels clearly form several competing secret combinations. Are any of these the ones you have in mind, or do you see evidence of other secret combinations in the world?
So rather then the “left-right paradigm”, you subscribe to the anarchy-tyranny paradigm in which you are a centrist? I don’t know what that means any more than I know what it means to be a centrist in the left-right paradigm, but I think I can live with that.
As for your arguement that all democracies have turned out bad…well, I think you can make that arguement about every type of government that has been imposed on human social order…but that’s just the anarchist in me speaking.
RT knows something about trade-offs in political science so I’m sure he could give you good reasons why democracy, though perpetually in a state of failure, has some real advantages over forms of government that are further from the root.
What do you think RT? Does democracy get a thumbs up or thumbs down in the choice of people preferred governments category?
You mention Secret Combinations as being organizations outside of government (tobacco, oil, private companies producing military equipment, drug cartels), I don’t doubt that there are many Secret Combinations in the world today, but the one I am referring to is the One that “seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries” the one that President Benson said “is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world.” There is A Secret Combination within our own Government.
President Benson made it very clear that there truly is a Secret Combination within our own government [ http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=76 [ and it’s still there today.
As you may know, both Ezra Taft Benson and W. Cleon Skousen held somewhat high positions in the Federal Government and were first hand witnesses to the truth that a Secret Combination is in control of our Government. Just this year Dr. Skousen has been teaching me, and bringing to light the truth about these Secret Combinations.
Watt,
I don’t “subscribe to the anarchy-tyranny paradigm.” What I mean is that this left-right, liberal-conservative stuff is the wrong way to look at things.
I am saying that I don’t agree with Anarchy, and I don’t agree with Tyranny. I agree with the Founding Fathers, that we must have a constitutionally-limited government. Government should only exist to perform certain functions to protect our god-given rights, that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Like Christ said in D&C 98 regarding the Constitution, “whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”
Read Ezra Taft Benson’s “Proper Role of Government” and you will understand: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=1
I realize that ETB is a voice on the subject of government, and he had his opinions as did other ordained or eventually to be ordained prophets. This, however, is thankfully not the Gospel…just a more or less informed opinion.
Has it ever occured to you that the verse you quote, Section 98:7, may have a broader context when joined…as is should be…with verse 6, and the rest of the section…and the historic context?
Is is possible that verse 7 is meant to expand on the term “befriend” rather than “constitutional law of the land?”
I think it’s possible.
Brian, I think the history of the development of Benson’s views on this matter are interesting. Benson, as I understand, first came to speak about secret combinations in government a few years after having left office. This was a theme that he never discussed while in office nor in the two or three years immediately after he left. Instead, these themes emerged when Benson became interested in the John Birch Society’s crusade against communism. It’s my understanding that Benson saw the secret combination in government as being the communists. Is that your understanding, as well? Do you feel that there are still communists in our government?
Watt,
You said: “This, however, is thankfully not the Gospel…just a more or less informed opinion.”
President John Taylor informed us that the Elders of Israel should “…understand that they have something to do with the world politically as well as religiously, that it is as much their duty to study correct political principles as well as religious.” [journal of discourses, 9:340.]
“Besides the preaching of the gospel, we have another mission, namely, the perpetuation of the free agency of man and the maintenance of liberty, freedom, and the rights of man.” [Ibid., pp. 233-63.]
It’s actually more than just an informed opinion. These are things that have been taught for years by prophets, it is part of the GOSPEL, these things have are even taught in Elder’s Quorum today, don’t so easily discredit it as not being gospel. That is one of the problems with Church members today. True, not everything political that prophets have said is gospel, and members should be careful not to focus too much on the political side, but… be careful not to discredit this… The Church has released official statements that we are anti-communism, and pro-constitution:
“However, above all else, strive to support good and conscientious candidates, of either party, who are aware of the great dangers inherent in communism, and who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.
“They should also pledge their sincere fealty to our way of liberty—a liberty which aims at the preservation of both personal and property rights.
Study the issues, analyze the candidates on these grounds, and then exercise your franchise as free men and women.” [James B. Allen, “The American Presidency and the Mormons,” Ensign, Oct. 1972, 47]
Numerous prophets have said that; even in the doctrine and convenants it says to uphold the Constitution. Thus, this is doctrine.
Also, Benson said:
“The last neutralizer that the devil uses most effectively is simply this: ‘Don’t do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution.’ This brings us right back to the scripture about the slothful servants who will not do anything until they are ‘compelled in all things’ (D&C 58:26). Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific Church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if He set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps He does not want that to happen yet, for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe (D&C 86:5-7).” — Ezra Taft Benson, LDS General Conference; April, 1965
and
Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it? As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816). [Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” General Conference, 3 October 1987]
and
We encourage Latter-day Saints throughout the nation to familiarize themselves with the Constitution. They should focus attention on it by reading and studying it. They should ponder the blessings that come through it. They should recommit themselves to its principles and be prepared to defend it and the freedom it provides. (D&C 109:54.) . . .
Because some Americans have not kept faith with our Founding Fathers, the Constitution faces severe challenges. Those who do not prize individual freedom are trying to erode its great principles. We believe the Constitution will stand, but it will take the efforts of patriotic and dedicated Americans to uphold it. . . . We, as Latter-day Saints, must be vigilant in doing our part to preserve the Constitution and safeguard the way of life it makes possible.
This bicentennial year affords us renewed opportunities to learn more about this divinely inspired charter of our liberty, to speak in its defense, and to preserve and protect it against evil or destruction. ( Ezra Taft Benson “First Presidency Urges Observance of Bicentennial of the Constitution” 11)
and
“We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts…
I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution.” (CHB 28-31 – Ezra Taft Benson)
and
We must study and learn for ourselves the principles laid down in the Constitution which have preserved our freedoms for the last two hundred years. If we do not understand the role of government and how our rights are protected by the Constitution, we may accept programs or organizations that help erode our freedoms. An informed citizenry is the first line of defense against anarchy and tyranny. (TETB 594; from an address given at the Provo Freedom Festival, Provo, UT, 29 Jun 1986)
and
Mckay said:
Latter-day Saints should have nothing to do with secret combinations and groups antagonistic to the Constitutional law of the land, which the Lord “suffered to be established,” and which “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; [David O. McKay]
and
I think we owe at least the consideration to be loyal to this country and to spurn with all the soul that is within us the scheming disloyal citizens who would undermine our Constitution, or who would deprive the individual of his liberty vouchsafed by that great document, and some of our men who have come up through the public schools are doing just that. Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution. (”Safeguard in Loyalty” 3) David O. McKay
and
Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!
May the appeal of our Lord in His intercessory prayer for unity be realized in our homes, our wards, and stakes, and in our support of the basic principles of our Republic. (”The Enemy Within” 34) David O. McKay
This is only a small portion of what has been said by the Lord, through His Prophets.
It saddens me that so many people brush it off as simply “not the Gospel…just a more or less informed opinion.”
RT,
Even while Benson was Secretary of Ag. he was talking much about the Proper Role of Government. he even informed President Dwight D. Eisenhower that he did not agree with everything currently being done in government and that in his position he would only do that which is right. I don’t know if he specifically spoke out about “secret combinations” but he for sure talked a lot about the proper role of government.
Regarding communism, yes Benson thought this was PART of the Secret Combination, but he also expressed strongly that it was the Socialists as well.
I don’t feel there are communists in government today, I know. There are communists in high places in our Government (W. Cleon Skousen knows this for a fact). He was one of the top FBI agents under J. Edgar Hoover and had access to hoover’s personal files. Also, it’s obvious that we are run by socialists.
Brian, I personally see little evidence that we’re run by socialists. Indeed, socialism has never gotten much of a toe-hold in the US, as evidenced by electoral returns and the fact that we have nearly the highest income inequality of all first-world countries.
I know that Benson used the term “socialism” very loosely, however. In his terminology every government since the Middle Ages has been socialist. But it’s worthwhile to note that another top church leader during Benson’s time as an apostle was in fact an honest-to-goodness socialist. I’m talking about N. Eldon Tanner, who was deeply involved with an avowedly socialist Canadian political party before he became a church leader. Hence, we can conclude that, just as conspiratorial visions of socialism have had some representation in the highest circles of church leadership, more positive visions of socialism have as well.
I don’t know that evidence from the Hoover period would be relevant today; most people who were communists back in the 1960s, say, no longer are. Communism, after all, didn’t work — and most people who fell for that totalitarian pipe dream seem to have since come to their senses. Furthermore, I’m always worried about claims of secret knowledge by people like Skousen; after all, he makes his living off of his reputation for knowing things like this, so he does have a motive for deception. Furthermore, he may well believe that it’s all for the best, since it’s in the service of freedom, so a little lie wouldn’t hurt, no? If there are published reports or other forms of public evidence that give us clear indications of a communist conspiracy in the government today, I’d be interested in seeing them. But I haven’t ever seen such evidence.
I bring all of this up not because I think I’ll change your opinion, but rather so that you can understand some of the reasons that some faithful Latter-day Saints have a different point of view.
RT,
It saddens me that you are so quick to judge W. Cleon Skousen. He has been given a special calling by the Prophet of the Lord, in fact both McKay and Benson asked him personally to do what he is doing. Also, many of his books (Making of America, The Majesty of God’s Law) were books he wrote at the request of these prophets. McKay in general conference even recommended the members read “The Naked Communist.” I have a testimony that Skousen doesn’t lie. He is truly fulfilling a special calling from the Lord.
I see that you, like many others have yet to “awake to a sense of your awful situation.” Just remember, when the time comes that you do wake up, “the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.”
Tell me - you don’t agree with what I am saying, so, in your opinion, what exactly is this secret Combination Moroni was referring to?
just look at welfare. That’s proof enough that we are run by socialists. Taking from one and giving to another is as socialistic as it gets.
One tricky thing is that the secret combination was said to be active at the time the Book of Mormon came forth. So we have to be looking for conspiracies that were around in America of the 19th century, don’t we? Several people have discussed Masonry as a possibility, while the slaveholding system seems like another, as does incipient global capitalism. But the Book of Mormon talks about secret combinations in an extremely general sense; anyone who murders to get gain is part of one and the same secret combination, whether they are in conspiracy together or not. So I’d say that the secret combination is in fact just evil.
I don’t think it’s necessarily true that Skousen had a call from either president of the church. By the time he became president, Benson had effectively left politics behind. And while McKay gave statements of support to Skousen and Benson, there is evidence from his diary and other statements of his that he knew little of the details of what they were doing and in fact only expressed support for their “efforts in favor of freedom.” That isn’t a specific or terribly compelling calling.
Furthermore, I would point out that no church leader of the past ten years has in any way that I am aware of emphasized the danger of secret combinations. Doesn’t that silence mean something?
Brian, economic redistribution by force of law was also practiced by ancient Israel and is in fact part of the Law of Moses. Was the Law of Moses socialist as well?
Actually Hinckley just spoke about Secret Combinations this year, in the August 2005 Ensign…
First Presidency Message
A Testimony Vibrant and True
By President Gordon B. Hinckley
…The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.
I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras….
“economic redistribution by force of law was also practiced by ancient Israel and is in fact part of the Law of Moses.”
I was unaware that by decree of the Law of Moses, the Israelites had their money/belongings taken from them and given to others. Please show me this in the Scriptures, what verse will I find this in? I am open minded and willing to learn.
Here’s an example: Israelites were forbidden to fully harvest their crops and were required to leave some of their possessions for the poor. See Leviticus 19:9-10, Leviticus 23:22, and Deuteronomy 24:21. The gleanings of the fields certainly were the property of the owners of the fields, and these scriptures transfer such property rights to the poor. This kind of economic redistribution was the law of the land in ancient Israel.
The point I’m making is that, while the policy instruments of redistribution have changed over time to better fit the structures of society, redistribution is a hallowed practice — both because it’s old indeed and because it’s commanded by the scriptures.
Brian, that Ensign article was in fact a reprint of a speech from the October 1979 general conference: see this link. October 1979 doesn’t sound recent at all to me, nor is the statement that you’ve quoted terribly specific. In fact, it doesn’t even mention secret combinations, although the 1970s certainly saw a major one in the White House (Nixon’s Watergate machinations).
Brian, how about the United Order…how is that different from the things you derogatively lump under the term “socialism”?
If not different, then do you have a problem with the doctrine and practice of consecration? What the church participating in Secret Combinations when it promoted the United Order and other such experimental forms of communal society?
Very interesting - Same talk, different title, and worded a bit differently:
and
Thus it is still recent.
The law of gleaning was only to be followed by observing Jews. Non-Jews inside of Israel were not required to follow the law and Jews living outside the bounds of Israel were also expected to live the law. That’s ample evidence that the law of gleaning (as well as other similar laws such as jubilee) was delivered as a spiritual law– not a political one. That’s an important distiction to be made if one wishes to use OT scripture to bolster ideas concerning the justification of forced distribution.
Ezra Taft Benson said:
“Moroni seemed greatly exercised lest in our day we might not be able to recognize the startling fact that the same secret societies which destroyed the Jaredites and decimated numerous kingdoms of both Nephites and Lamanites would be precisely the same form of criminal conspiracy which would rise up among the gentile nations in this day. . . .
“Moroni described how the secret combination would take over a country and then fight the work of God, persecute the righteous, and murder those who resisted. Moroni therefore proceeded to describe the workings of the ancient secret combinations so that modern man could recognize this great political conspiracy in the last days. (See Ether 8:23-25.) (Conference Report, Oct.. 1961, Improvement Era, Dec. 1961, p. 954; as quoted in God, Family, Country, p. 349.)
Just as the Secret Combination in the Book of Mormon was of a Political nature; within Government, so it is today. Even though he said that in 1961, Benson continued to support those claims even into the 1990’s while he was President of the Church.
Brian, you really ought to speak with Pres. Hinckley about your concerns….he seems to be much less alarmed about current socialism than you are, (despite an oblique reference to “burdensome taxes” from 26 years ago that was reprinted, perhaps without his input). I suspect you think he’s really dropped the ball on this one. Benson must be spinning in his grave!
You bring up a very important point!
I can’t wait to live under the United Order and Law of Consecration. I hope I am still alive when that day comes that the Church will be living the United Order and we will be a light unto other societies and nations who see how great it is. That is completely different from Socialism because of one important principle. The freedom to choose. Under socialism CHOICE is taken away, thus it is of the devil. Under the United Order/Law of Consecration a person has the choice to live it or not to live it; to be included or not to be included. Thus the United Order is good, and from God. Heavenly Father would love for everyone to give to the poor and needy, but he will not force it. I am not against voluntarily helping others, and giving of my time, strength and money to help those in need.
Remember, under Satan’s plan he wanted to take away CHOICE, but God wouldn’t have that so He sent his Son Jesus Christ, who laid out a plan and gave us the CHOICE to follow him, and a great reward for those who do.
Ed,
I completely support Gordon B. Hinckley, I know he is truly the Prophet of the Lord, and will never lead us astray.
I see that Hinckley has a different approach to things, which is not bad. Just because he doesn’t speak as much about socialism than other prophets have, doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem. It is better than people focus on being spiritually prepared, BUT we must also be prepared to defend our freedoms.
I have no disagreement with what President Hinckley is doing. He is very wise.
We had enough warning from previous Prophets, for Hinckley to come out strong on the subject would just bring the members under further condemnation.
It is not always wise to expose evil. As Joseph Smith said, “All we have said about them is truth, but it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so…”
Smith then went on and spoke in regards to government: “So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; we have the revelation of Jesus, and the knowledge within us is sufficient to organize a righteous government upon the earth, and to give universal peace to all mankind, if they would receive it, but we lack the physical strength, as did our Savior when a child, to defend our principles, and we have a necessity to be afflicted, persecuted and smitten, and to bear it patiently until Jacob is of age, then he will take care of himself.”
By “choice” you obviously mean that similar to the choice to pay tithing…where you can pay or not pay but you must also accept the consequences…not to far from socialism where people also have choice and consequences, various as they may be depending upon the nature of the administration.
I’m not as willing as you to lump all social-minded programs under the “bad” label…certainly bad can be traced to other things, like totalitarian administration of the social programs, etc.
If a person chooses not to pay tithing he/she loses rewards in heaven (plus blessings on earth) but those are of a spiritual nature. That is a commandment from God.
Government is not God. Government is merely our servent. Yet, I am forced to pay taxes which are used for welfare and other socialist programs, and if I don’t pay, I am put in jail! That is of the devil.
If there was nothing wrong with Government welfare, the Church would have no need for their own welfare program, and they would not teach us to first strive to be independent, then go to family/friends for help, then the Church. They do this to avoid the socialistic programs of the Government. (but don’t go telling me stories of bishops who tell people to go straight to the government, i’ve heard that argument.)
Seriously, read The Proper Role of Government, and learn what a Prophet had to say about Welfare and how evil it is. Don’t take my advice, listen to a Prophets words…
The Proper Role of Government
Brian, does it make a difference to you that people have the choice to vote out any given government and elect a different one that (for instance) won’t charge any taxes if they actually want to? To me, this is a major difference between democratic governments (socialist or not) and totalitarian ones like the communist regimes of the last century.
That’s the worst part, is that the people have allowed our Government to become what it is today. If people weren’t so ignorant and uninformed we would still have the same great Republic that the Fouding Fathers established.
The people could, through voting, cause a total change of regime of Federal and local governments, and vote in only people that will uphold Constitutional principles.
Sadly, this doesn’t happen… people just keep voting in terrible people into office… The honest and good statesmen just can’t win anymore , for lack of money and lack of support (with rare exception like Ron Paul of Texas.)
If we would vote in more Ron Paul’s we could turn away from our Socialistic-Democracy and become a great Republic.
Brian, I agree that we could vote in anyone we wanted. Hence, your concerns about coercion seem a bit exaggerated to me; we as a society have exactly the level of coercion that we want. Which means that, in the end, we’ve got no coercion because we can always eliminate it when we don’t want it anymore. (Recent revelations about spying on US citizens with no warrant make me wish the US people wanted somewhat less coercion in at least some regards, but that’s another topic.)
P.S. Brian, to reiterate, I don’t expect that I’ll convince you of anything in this discussion. But what would be helpful is if you used this as an opportunity for coming to understand how faithful Latter-day Saints who have thought a lot about this problem could come to different conclusions than you have.
I understand that other Latter-day Saints may come to different conclusions than I, but that won’t stop me from teaching what I know to be true, and important.
I know this scripture is a out of context but this is how I feel on the “God, Family, Country” (rather than calling it politics) subject: “And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance (or crying FREEDOM) unto this people, and bring, save it be one asoul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!”
and here’s one that has to do with the government spying on US citizens; that RT mentioned. (It wasn’t a recent revelation to me though, about 4 months ago I watched a History Channel Documentary about this. It’s called: Echelon - The most secret spy system)
“God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they shall be. Under His plan the only allegiance we owe as citizens..of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up.
…This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.
“I wish to say with all the earnestness I possess that when you youth and maidens see any curtailment of these liberties I have named, when you see government invading any of these realms of freedom which we have under our Constitution [i.e. The Patriot Act], you will know that they are putting shackles on your liberty, and that tyranny is creeping upon you, no matter who curtails these liberties or who invades these realms, and no matter what the reason and excuse therefore may be.”
—J. Reuben Clark Jr.
Brian wrote: It saddens me that so many people brush it off as simply “not the Gospel…just a more or less informed opinion.”
….
…and Brian, it saddens me that you’re saddened
…and to see such distortion and misapportionment of a relatively small sample of ideas as you have presented…and have apparently been consumed by. It’s clear that you don’t see your lack of balance. You might consider broadening your base of ideas or, at least as RT suggests, find some way to see the value of other’s ideas…which I doubt will be easy as long as you’re cso onvinced of your absolute correctness on these topics.
“consumed”? “lack of balance”? that’s funny. The article I have responded to is regarding Democracy in Iraq. I started out by pointing out that Democracy is not good… blah blah… and now we have arrived here… The topic is obviously government and politics. If the topic were faith, repentance and baptism, I would not talk about government. Your accusation of me being unbalanced is completely inaccurate. Now you might say, well, you have a website full of political sayings, etc… Yes, because I wanted to put something on the internet that doesn’t exist. I am adding balance to the internet by providing information about the LDS Church’s ideas on Government. I am not making a website about faith, repentance and baptism because there are already so many in existence. and no I don’t spend all day, everyday thinking and talking politics. I make sure I stay balanced. I go to Church, I have a calling, I do my home teaching, I read the scriptures, I read books such as “Jesus the Christ,” and “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” “History of the Church” etc. etc. etc. Maybe you should try reading something like “God, Family, Country” or “The Majesty of God’s Law” (which McKay asked Skousen to write.)
Brian, you should double-check claims that President McKay personally asked Skousen to write anything in particular. There is historical evidence that McKay, for example, never even knew what Elder Benson was teaching about politics at non-conference events. Instead, it would seem, McKay simply knew that Benson was speaking about “freedom,” without knowing how Benson interpreted the term. Endorsement by McKay, if there was any in Skousen’s case, can obviously be overinterpreted.
You haven’t responded to my comments from earlier, pointing out that most people see the modern usage of “democracy” (i.e., representative democracy) as synonymous with the older term “republic.” How do you think about these arguments?
I’d like to see the “historical evidence” you are referring to about Benson and McKay.
You can read about some of the details of the relation Cleon Skousen had with David O. McKay here: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar01nl.html
also here:
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/jun99nl.html
Some clips from some writings of Skousens:
President McKay was very sensitive to the fact that here at Brigham Young University we had no courses on subversion. We were not keeping up with our responsibility of protecting and preserving the Constitution.
So while I was here in 1953, President McKay, down through the Board of Trustees, requested that the school set up a committee to write a textbook on subversion.
I was made the chairman of it, and had the heads of the departments of Economics, History, Political Science, and two or three others were on the committee with me. So we started to write a textbook on subversion. To my amazement, I discovered that not one of them had ever had a course on subversion. They knew all about the theory of Communism, economically and politically. They knew quite a bit of history, but if I asked them, “How did we lose China?” they knew nothing about it. They had never read the congressional hearings. They had not read anything but the textbooks that were intended to obscure how we lost China. They knew nothing about the Congressional Reports of 1952. (They’re still not in our library. I have a set that I have been able to obtain which I will donate to the library shortly.) So we were turning out students who didn’t really know the story because their professors had never been exposed to it either. And they were good men, just uninformed.
When President McKay finished reading it [The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen], he went up before the conference of the Church [1959], and said, “Now I want everyone to read this, and let us commence to get informed on what is happening to our country.” You see, practically everyone was being given a misinterpretation of world events. Things like this were being absolutely ignored. And President McKay said, “This is the number one responsibility of the Latter-day Saints — to get in the struggle to preserve freedom.”
People said, “Well, isn’t genealogy our number one responsibility?” “Isn’t missionary work our number one responsibility?” President McKay said, “Everywhere that Communism succeeds, missionary work, temple work, everything the Church does, dies. Your number one responsibility is to preserve freedom.”
The Church ignored the mandate in the aggregate. The mutual classes studied Communism for two years, 1960-1961. Then certain liberal elements in the Church made it so controversial for the bishops that the program was phased out. It was finally decided not to discuss the subject too much in church. It just divided everybody up. In 1966, President McKay came back and in the General Priesthood Conference asked the saints to please, as citizens this time, as citizens, get involved in the freedom fight so that you will know what is happening and what to do about it.
The actual claim that McKay asked Skousen to write the Majesty of God’s Law came directly from W. Cleon Skousen. I don’t know that it would be documented anywhere because it was during a private meeting that the request was made. But it is most definitely true, ask McKay (perhaps later on in the spirit world
)
Brian, thanks for your remarks. I’ll write a comment explaining the evidence suggesting that McKay was somewhat less engaged in these issues than he publicly appeared.
In either case, it seems to me that we can perhaps breath a sigh of relief, no? Totalitarian communism seems to have lost all momentum, whether or not the church did enough to oppose it.
My concerns about Skousen’s possible self-promotion arise from the public and private remarks of several of the apostles in the 1960s about how the John Birch Society and other related groups were made up of people motivated more by the goal of making money than by anything else. This, obviously, was a view that Benson did not share — but it’s one with a genuine Mormon pedigree. Again, I’ll provide the details later… Gotta run sleep now.
Thanks, once again, for the interesting and cordial discussion! These kinds of conversations can often become quite tense, and I’m happy that we’ve been able to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
RT says: “we as a society have exactly the level of coercion that we want.”
Please, RT! I don’t agree with Brian, but this seems awfully simplistic or even naive statement coming from a political scientist. First of all, I’m not even sure that the concept “what society wants” has any meaning (see the Arrow imposibility theorem, or read “Liberalism Against Populism” by William Riker). And as you well know, even democratic political institutions, can be over influenced by interest groups and other minorities in various complicated ways. And of course majorities can coerce minorities…that’s why we have a constitution and bill of rights. Society is obviously not choosing the level of coercion that Brian wants, but we’re coercing Brian to go along with the program.
Ed, I agree with you that there’s an immense amount of nuance at stake that I didn’t capture. I was trying to get across the simple point that democratic decisions to impose taxation are fundamentally different from authoritarian ones. In the process, I did oversell the idea. But you’re overselling the opposite notion. For instance, Arrow’s impossibility theorem doesn’t hold for (roughly) unidimensional political spaces, and most party systems construct roughly unidimensional political spaces — incorporating disparate issues into a single package. Hence, Arrow’s impossibility theorem becomes of little practical importance.
Nonetheless, you’re certainly correct that no society can ever give each individual exactly what she wants. If it did, it would no longer function as a society at all. Furthermore, it’s clearly true that democracies can do moral wrong. But with respect to redistributive politics, it seems to me that there’s a vast difference between the kind of authoritarian redistribution run by Stalin or Mao and the popular and freely selected redistribution run by Western European welfare states. The latter is freely chosen and can be freely rescinded via elections. Hence, it isn’t unduly coercive — although it certainly is as coercive as any other law.
Well, then I basically agree with you, RT. I still have some questions about your interpretation of Arrow’s theorem, but this isn’t the time or the place…maybe I’ll ask you about it next time I’m out in Berkeley.
you said:
well, you didn’t say all of that
but your little html tags don’t work as they are given. But I am sure you understand what I meant above.
Brian, I’ve actually seen evidence that seems to me to tend toward contradicting your interpretation of McKay’s involvement. The best source here is the chapter in Quinn’s Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power on Elder Benson’s political activities. As that historical analysis makes clear, there is ample evidence that apostles and members of the First Presidency rejected and opposed the activities of Benson and Skousen.
This obviously doesn’t mean you will need to change your views, but it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is an equal general authority tradition of opposition to the ideas you’re quoting.
I’ll see if I can get a hold of the book, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, to see about Benson and McKay. But about Skousen and McKay, I know I am 100% correct. I’ve read the evidence and talked directly to one of the sources involved (Skousen), as well as other secondary sources.
About apostles rejecting Benson and McKay talking about politics, Skousen told me all about that. But from what he said, they weren’t necessarily disagreeing with what they were saying, just disagreeing with the fact that they were saying it, because they preferred to remain more neutral… But I don’t doubt some of the apostles have been liberal/socialists. Some apostles have even been apostate and been excommunicated; there not infallible. But the Lord has promised that The Prophet (President of the Church) will never lead us astray (and he’s not.)
Okay, but N. Eldon Tanner died in full fellowship and was a publicly-known socialist when he was called. Your own logic about presidents of the church not leading us astray means that his call authorizes us to consider socialism as a political and economic alternative if we so choose, no?
No. N. Eldon Tanner was never THE PRESIDENT of the Church.
N. Eldon Tanner was never the Prophet, and he even acknowledged that “When THE PROPHET speaks the debate is over.” [N. Eldon Tanner, “The Debate Is Over,” Ensign, Aug. 1979, 2]
Thus, President McKay, Benson and other Presidents of the Church have spoken, unless you can find evidence that Hunter or Hinckley contradicted them, the debate is over.
Brian, the president of the church spoke when Tanner was called.
Also, Benson basically never mentioned politics when president, did he?
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson
Actually Benson spoke MORE about freedom, the constitution, government and related topics while he was the President than before. The only difference is that while you wouldn’t have heard it so much in General Conference when he was President, he continued talking on the political subjects, while President of the Church, in firesides, lectures and other meetings. Dr. Glen Kimber has done the research on this and compiled a book of talks which documents and proves what I am saying.
Brian, thank you for an interesting discussion. I’m going to check out of this thread, since I’m not sure how much we can really add to each others’ perceptions of the world. But thanks again for a cordial conversation.
It has been nice. (Usually by this point in the discussion people become savage beasts, breaking dishes all over the floor, and things get ugly)
now I am gonna see if I can get a hold of Quinn’s “Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.”
order glucophage…
order glucophage…
buy tramadol…
Buy tramadol Buy cheap tramadol online. Buy cheap tramadol online. Generic tramadol…
buy zoloft…
Buy zoloft Buy cheap zoloft online. Buy cheap zoloft online. Generic zoloft…