At the Intersection of Theology and Ideology

[Five Solas]

Some of you are going to dislike this poll because your political inclinations aren’t represented in the choice above.   Some of you won’t like it because you’re uncomfortable with political discussion on the forum.  And a few of you won't like it because you live outside of the US and the American two-party system feels remote, if not irrelevant. 

I get all that – so I ask your forbearance and participation.

Each of the two main political parties in the US espouses values and priorities.  And I submit these are worth time and consideration. 

If you read the 2016 Republican Platform, you see phrases like “American exceptionalism,” “limited government,” “peace” through “strength” and concern for the “national debt.”

In the Democratic Platform, you’ll see a concern for “economic fairness,” “income and wealth inequality” and a focus on social justice, including “equal pay for women” and “LGBT rights.”

There’s more, of course, I’m just picking some of the highlights from the preamble of each. 

I’ll go first.  I’m a committed Christian, active in my local Church.  I tend to vote Democratic and support Democratic candidates (e.g., I contributed to Hillary’s election campaign last year—although perhaps not the best money I ever spent).  And the short explanation is I see the usefulness of collective action and the benefits therein (e.g., Seattle/King County’s publicly funded “Medic One” service has resulted in the best survival rate in the country in the event of cardiac arrest). 

But more than just the utility of collective action and public funding, to me the values of the Democratic Party are best aligned to answer an ancient question—“Am I my brother’s keeper?”       

Where do you stand, and why?

--Erik

Political threads have never ended well. We will give it a try  for as long as everyone is friendly.

[longview]

15 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Some of you are going to dislike this poll because your political inclinations aren’t represented in the choice above.

I'm LDS/repub but identify strongly with conservatism and Constitutionalism (Original Intent).  I am angry with Democrats for tolerating communism/socialism and being oblivious about "Big Government" drifting toward "Totalitarianism."  I distrust most of the Republican leadership for being "Establishment Elitist" and for supporting the "Globalist Conspiracy."

I actually believe that there is a secret cooperation between Democrats and Republicans to pretend to be opponents but soft pedaling issues to ultimately achieve their priorities (this is why they are called the "Uniparty").  The most egregious example was during the Obama presidency Repubs passed legislation to defund/destroy Obamacare with the "assurance" that Congress will NOT have the votes to override Obama's veto.  But when Trump was elected, Repub leadership was notoriously dragging its feet to put forth the same legislation because they did NOT want Trump to sign it!

47 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If you read the 2016 Republican Platform, you see phrases like “American exceptionalism,” “limited government,” “peace” through “strength” and concern for the “national debt.”

I support the platform but believe most of the Repub leadership only pay lip service to it.

49 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

In the Democratic Platform, you’ll see a concern for “economic fairness,” “income and wealth inequality” and a focus on social justice, including “equal pay for women” and “LGBT rights.”

Too many times Democrats use unconstitutional coercion to bring about their priorities.  Too bad there are so many gullible people, especially in "Deep Blue" states like CA, OR, WA, NY, etc.  Remember the saying about "Useful Idiots" that communists loved to have around?

[clarkgoble]

How about I'm Mormon and don't like either party right now?

[Oliblish]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How about I'm Mormon and don't like either party right now?

This would describe me as well.

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

How about I'm Mormon and don't like either party right now?

Right.  I saw this coming & did my best to preempt it in the OP. 

At the national level, we have a two-party system.  It may be far from perfect, but it's proved enduring.  And it's actually not hard to make the argument that it works pretty well. 

:0)

So please don't let your sense of perfection become the enemy of the good, clarkgoble.  So now tell us, which side best fits you?

--Erik

[clarkgoble]

No seriously, I actively despise what both sides have become. I voted for McMullin in the last election because I hated the very idea of Clinton and Trump as candidates. (Not that I think McMullin showed himself well in the period after the election) I think both parties have completely and utterly lost their moorings. I'd hoped that after the debacle of nominating Trump at least the Republicans would be humbled. But instead they've been cowered by Trump and the party is directionless. They're in the process of promoting a bill that seems written to have no chance of passing so that they don't have to actually take much of a stand on health care reform. They've not stood up to Trump. Indeed outside of tax cuts for the rich it's hard to say what they stand for. And the Democrats are little better. They're running against Trump but do so it such over the top fashions that they've almost become him. I guess they have the benefit of actually standing for something, but it's stuff that I don't think they really want to pass. They know that even increasing taxes on the 1% won't come close to providing enough money for the things they're promoting: free university, Canadian style single payer healthcare, extensive family leave for men and women for births. So they say these things to score hits on the GOP without much of an intent to actually pass them. And when they talk about them the costs are quite forgotten.

The solution is to vote for serious people of either party who actually care about policy in practical ways and who won't stand for the nonsense of either party. If push comes to shove I'd likely vote Republican but I can't say I'm terribly happy with most of them. At least my Senator, Lee called out the health bill quite adroitly. But I doubt his "solution" will really be a solution.

But I'd say the question is problematic. I always vote for the person, not the party.

Edited June 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Some of you are going to dislike this poll because your political inclinations aren’t represented in the choice above.   Some of you won’t like it because you’re uncomfortable with political discussion on the forum.  And a few of you won't like it because you live outside of the US and the American two-party system feels remote, if not irrelevant. 

..........................................................................  

I’ll go first.  I’m a committed Christian, active in my local Church.  I tend to vote Democratic and support Democratic candidates (e.g., I contributed to Hillary’s election campaign last year—although perhaps not the best money I ever spent).  And the short explanation is I see the usefulness of collective action and the benefits therein (e.g., Seattle/King County’s publicly funded “Medic One” service has resulted in the best survival rate in the country in the event of cardiac arrest). 

But more than just the utility of collective action and public funding, to me the values of the Democratic Party are best aligned to answer an ancient question—“Am I my brother’s keeper?”       

Where do you stand, and why?................................

The problem is that the two parties are not actually that different, even if they have differing party platforms -- which they do not follow.  Thus, we get Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee for our two political parties, both heavily beholden to crony capitalists from Wall Street.  Add to that the fact that most Americans adopt the political party of their parents or community (80% of American Mormons are Republican).  There is a deep emotional feeling about this in most homes, even though those having those feelings have no substantive idea what it might mean to vote this way or that -- aside from general ignorance on the structure and function of American government at all levels.  The American people are so poorly informed that it really makes no difference which political view they pretend to favor.  They will be poorly governed in any case, and it is only by bumbling efforts in one area that we make progress or regress in another area.  Any progress made is largely accidental -- a toss of the dice, as it were.  Of course Vlad Putin has been trying to help us make our decisions for us, which may get him some of what he wants (weakened NATO, weakened and chaotic USA, etc.).  But the law of unintended consequences may bring him results he definitely does not want.

[JLHPROF]

I went with the lesser of two evils (Republican) because the phrase used was one of comparing two choices, which was more acceptable.  But my choice is nowhere near something I would characterize as good.  It is just less bad.

[thesometimesaint]

You need some more categories. I'm a LDS Christian, and of no political party, but lean Green. 

[bluebell]

I had to answer that i was LDS and republican because that was the closest option, and i do usually vote republican, but to be honest, i don't really agree with their ideology much more than i agree with democratic ideology.  I'm sick of both of them and think both groups, in the government, are made up of idiots.

[MiserereNobis]

I think we should institute a good ol' style Catholic monarchy 

[USU78]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think we should institute a good ol' style Catholic monarchy 

It worked out so well in Mexico

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It worked out so well in Mexico

Actually, Mexico tried to secularize in the late 1920s and passed a bunch of anti-Catholic laws that led to the Cristero War. The Catholic Church canonized 25 martyrs as Saints from this time period. They were mainly priests who were executed by the government for offering the sacraments in defiance of the law.

It's an interesting study of religious liberty right on our border.

[Vance]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, Mexico tried to secularize in the late 1920s and passed a bunch of anti-Catholic laws that led to the Cristero War. The Catholic Church canonized 25 martyrs as Saints from this time period. They were mainly priests who were executed by the government for offering the sacraments in defiance of the law.

It's an interesting study of religious liberty right on our border.

What about from the early 1500's til just before then?  Was it working out better?

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 Where do you stand, and why?

--Erik

Political threads have never ended well. We will give it a try  for as long as everyone is friendly.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a rhetorical question formulated by Cain to support his lie. Thus were politics and partisanism born!

[BlueDreams]

I'm LDS Christian and tend to lean democrat the last 3 elections I've voted democrat. I'm deeply concerned with the growing partisanship and incapacity to work together to find solutions. I'm not that sold on ideology that I think one or the other is the bestest. I would prefer to see positive changes period. And I think that happens better when there's genuine bipartisanship. 

I lean democrat. I assume my reasons are similar to others who conciesiously think about their political views and are religious. Some of it is thought and exposure to certain thoughts. Some of it is emphasized concern for me of social justice concerns. Some of it are based on my spiritual beliefs. I try not to assume my political beliefs are superior. There are a few things that I'm deeply concerned within the republican camp, such as what I see as being way to tied to businesses in making policy legislation, answering to lobbyists or groups like the NRA than their actual constituents, some forms of what I view as hypocritical stances, etc. in both parties I'm concerned about gerrymandering, over catering to powerful lobbyists period, excess partisanship, dishonesty, misplaced ethics, and the general degneratuon and ineffectiveness. 

 

But I am trying to stay informed and active in the political process. This has only grown after this last election.

 

With luv,

BD

[Honorentheos]

I answered the last option (not Mormon, Christian, favor Democrats). Like most, I don't feel a strong affinity to either party and am not registered as a Democrat. But I've voted for Obama and Clinton in the last two elections while the only Republicans I've voted for in the last 8 years were for local offices so it isn't fair to say I'm truly an Independent.

My primary motive for this is historical and economic. I believe the true virtue behind our system of government is the promise that no matter one's birth position, there is opportunity to realize one's potential. One need not be born into privilege to have access to the tools and opportunities that give one a ladder on which to climb or step down to one's measure. The reality of our history has not been true to that promise exactly, but if I am going to choose and ideology, it's to idealize the belief in meritocratic opportunity while protecting the weak and innocent. I view the Republican party as the party of protection of increasing income inequality, defending the lack of opportunities for the less fortunate, and fetishizing wealth without being honest about how it works to favor those who have it over those who lack it.

Both sides leave me behind in their choices to demonize others. Whether it's in opposing speech and making a false virtue of outrage on the side of the leftwing of the Democrat party or demonizing those who need help in the false narrative of one's rewards in life being a reliable measure of one's individual virtues neither side appeals to me when they do so.

As perhaps a token non-religionist in this discussion, I'd like to point out my own view is that virtue/ethical belief is not the property of belief in divine law but is, IMO, the result of collective evolutionary forces from which religion came and developed out of rather than the other way around. I think this TED talk from Jonathan Haidt about the various virtue-based beliefs that seem to define conservative leanings and liberal leanings across cultural boundaries is meaningful for that and other reasons -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

ETA: I'd put his book The Righteous Mind on a must read list for anyone who takes the subject of understanding the motives of both sides and the conflict between them that all sides may recognize themselves as being honestly represented.

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Honorentheos

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

My primary motive for this is historical and economic. I believe the true virtue behind our system of government is the promise that no matter one's birth position, there is opportunity to realize one's potential. One need not be born into privilege to have access to the tools and opportunities that give one a ladder on which to climb or step down to one's measure. The reality of our history has not been true to that promise exactly, but if I am going to choose and ideology, it's to idealize the belief in meritocratic opportunity while protecting the weak and innocent.

There’s an interesting historical and economic perspective to this in the book, “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenburg. No matter how noble our intent, the system helps us be our brother’s keeper by actually perpetuating the lowest class(es) for political (rather, economic) purposes in the name of helping the poor, which is code for keeping those at the highest classes in power and advantage. Both parties do this in their own way under their own platforms.

I think this is why Jesus taught that in the world and her secular systems we will have the poor with us always, and has an alternate solution (PEF for example), few of which can be administered properly by politicians. I think this is why religious and spiritual intent does not find authentic expression in worldly American political partisanships--the sincere will always need to compromise.

But speaking secularly, the poor in America have been used, and a low class actually cultivated and maintained since colonial times to further the aims of those who seek political power. Those who have escaped it and rose in class have in turn exploited their roots in the name of power and helping them also rise, knowing that the only ones who will lift themselves are those who bucked that very system.

And speaking both secularly and religiously, the inspiration (whether one wished to attribute it to human genius or divine guidance) attendant to the development of America’s Constitution promotes those  principle that are quite apart from the political system, and which the political system applies quite imperfectly.

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a rhetorical question formulated by Cain to support his lie. Thus were politics and partisanism born!

Oswald Chambers on the question - https://utmost.org/am-i-my-brother’s-keeper/

None of us lives to himself... --Romans 14:7

--Erik

 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Oswald Chambers on the question - https://utmost.org/am-i-my-brother’s-keeper/

None of us lives to himself... --Romans 14:7

--Erik

Of course there are many Christian sermons of the subject and i probably buy into any / all them in whole or in part. My remark is that the principle was used disingenuously in the birth of politics and partisanship. In my second post, I try to show that partisan democratic republican politics (a) corrupts the principle to keep the entitled in power (and keep your brother in his place in order to do that); (b) compromises the principle by the nature of the beast in the greater interest of "something is better than nothing"; and, (c) denies or cannot see that the system is doing both a and b.

Edited June 25, 2017 by CV75

[bsjkki]

I vote Republican but have just changed my registration to Independent. The Republican Party has disappointed me this election cycle and also in the aftermath of the election. 

[Honorentheos]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There’s an interesting historical and economic perspective to this in the book, “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenburg. No matter how noble our intent, the system helps us be our brother’s keeper by actually perpetuating the lowest class(es) for political (rather, economic) purposes in the name of helping the poor, which is code for keeping those at the highest classes in power and advantage. Both parties do this in their own way under their own platforms.

I think this is why Jesus taught that in the world and her secular systems we will have the poor with us always, and has an alternate solution (PEF for example), few of which can be administered properly by politicians. I think this is why religious and spiritual intent does not find authentic expression in worldly American political partisanships--the sincere will always need to compromise.

But speaking secularly, the poor in America have been used, and a low class actually cultivated and maintained since colonial times to further the aims of those who seek political power. Those who have escaped it and rose in class have in turn exploited their roots in the name of power and helping them also rise, knowing that the only ones who will lift themselves are those who bucked that very system.

And speaking both secularly and religiously, the inspiration (whether one wished to attribute it to human genius or divine guidance) attendant to the development of America’s Constitution promotes those  principle that are quite apart from the political system, and which the political system applies quite imperfectly.

This is an example of how I think the debate gets hijacked into a direction that favors those currently privileged. The question isn't can we eliminate poverty, even if Johnson stated this as a goal. I think this reframing causes us to overlook the real issue behind how being born into certain circumstances means a person will go to better schools, meet the right people, learn the ropes so to speak, and given every advantage to succeed and perpetuate their inherited success. While even the most capable born into the wrong circumstances may not be able to rise above them. That's anti-democratic in the small "d" sense and directly against what I believe American at least ought to hold up as the goal if we still fall short. Narrative after narrative is put forward saying that this isn't true, the worthy will rise and there is nothing we can do about the poor so tell the government to stay out of our lives. As I noted in the thread about cynale critics, the tragedy of the commons can only be remedied by some form of regulation. As noted in the Haidt TED talk I linked to, there have to be consequences for taking advantage of the system. I don't believe this means government is the answer to all problems and am in agreement that it can be the main problem in many cases. But the inevitable move of wealth is in the direction of the few. We choose the nation we are with every election, every generation. The US isn't a static thing. And I'd argue that the greatest wisdom of the founders lay in their acknowledging the flaws in human nature and building the system to pit these failings against one another in way that led to better results. The need to continue to adapt the system to our challenges, our conditions. But the weak point is still people. If power resides in the hands of the few, be it government or those with wealth and power, and this is not able to be challenged or questioned I'd argue we've lost the path.

Personal opinion, but there is irony in Mormonism in that it's theology is inherently meritocratic, but the reality seems to favor authoritarianism over individual development and merit. One is safest staying closest to the thinking of the leadership when it comes to meaningful issues from ethics to doctrine. I think it's not without parallel with the state of the Jewish establishment at the time of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. I think this gets reflected in the culture in many ways, including politically. I think this has to do with the culture developing a strong belief in respect for those in authority that can also have a weeding out effect on those who do not inherently feel this is a virtue.

Along these lines, I am recycling something I mentioned before -

Quote

If a person believes in evolutionary theory, especially as an atheist, one has to believe that whatever biological organisms that are alive today represent winning strategies and methods for survival over the ones that didn't make it and we don't see.

If one extends this theory in the same way as Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson has done, one also has to acknowledge that – independent of right or wrong – encoded in the prevailing social orders of societies are successful strategies that were the winners over losing social organizing structures. For better or worse, one has to be conscientious of this fact when criticizing the institutions of societies. I would argue that general religious order is very much part of this encoded evolutionary success story.

So, what does this have to do with the OP?

Part of the success of human culture includes the way societies cohere to outperform individual or other group achievement. Inherent in our biological evolution are the same reward and punishment mechanisms tied to social behaviors as are tied to individual behaviors. We don’t like freeloaders and react negatively to cheaters. We tend to want to punish them and feel this is moral action. Just as an example.

If one maps certain moral thinking onto this, one potentially finds that those who self-identify as conservative also have certain moral values that favor strong small-group ties over expansive inclusiveness, fairness and openness oriented values. While those who tend to self-identify as liberal tend to the opposite, favoring fairness and openness over loyalty to group identity and authority structures.

One of the real challenges I think modern liberal movements face is that evolution doesn’t seem to provide many examples of success stories built around the values they embrace. It’s very true that much of what we see as the advancement of civilization over the last couple of centuries is built on liberal (referencing a commitment to individual rights) democratic societies rising to dominance along with rapid technological achievement and wealth generation that is unprecedented in human history. But that isn’t to say the story of humanity has closed on what made it successful in the past.

Liberal democratic values may be facing an existential crisis now precisely because it conflicts with the biological success stories of our ancestors, and Hume had a bit to say about what happens when we confuse our actions as being rational rather than emotional.

We had a bit of a debate here on the board some time back about how liberalism is failing because it relies too much on rational argument. Fair points were made, and I think Hume decided me that there is real concern over the obvious appeal of certain conservative views when presented in ways that appeal to one’s non-conscious brain. The real question to me becomes how liberal ideals remain true to their virtue-based roots while finding pathways of appeal to people’s emotions that don’t backfire.

For example, the debate over identify politics in the US seems to be one place that the liberal side of the spectrum attempts to appeal to peoples emotional sense of what is fair. But all too often the underlying principles of fairness which would probably find more wide-spread agreement get overshadowed by the techniques used to sell them. Or force them as the case may be.

So, when we look to the religious right in America, I think we see a very deeply emotion-based reaction to politics that doesn’t necessarily reflect how the average Christian would behave in a one-on-one interaction. Why? Because at the scale being discussed it isn’t about charity, it’s about group success and fairness principles that don’t see individuals as being unfairly treated. Rather, they are cheater looking to freeload on society. And there is a very, very strong biological impulse to punish when that is the case. That impulse is there because societies that consisted of meaningful cohorts of individuals with that biological impulse were the winners over whatever other societies were out there. Tea Party politics have a voting block that is represented in Washington now. Occupy Wall Street didn’t want leaders, demands, or coherent organization so everyone could have an equal voice. They got fire-hosed and tear gassed until they dissolved and went home. Tea Party v OWS seems to be one modern micro-example of why liberal values are challenged by their own inherent nature it seems.

I don't think the ideological divide is working in our favor currently. I suspect it's because much of the fissure is defined by the culture wars rather than economics, personally. I think that would make a meaningful difference if we could step back and reframe the discussion accordingly. But I also don't think either side can without waking the middle class to it's precarious condition.
 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Because at the scale being discussed it isn’t about charity, it’s about group success and fairness principles that don’t see individuals as being unfairly treated.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. By its very nature, partisanism is a class mentality and so seems to be the wrong tool for the job Christ gave us to do. Adopting a group and theoretical orientation overlooks the individuals in need and their awkward problems, substituting fair political principle and delegation to government for reaching out to individuals trapped in the less powerful social classes.

I think the OP is polling opinions as to which partisan approach best corrects the problem of poverty as an acute or chronic condition or as a class. You added the wrinkles of conservative and liberal, and social and economic orientation to party affiliation. In answering the poll, it is easy to forget that there remain overlooked, unaddressed or compromised needs by holding up one party, view or relationship over the other as the solution.

Because of the Christian reference, I think the question in the OP has more to do with religious freedom than caring for one another. To me, the question comes across as, “Which party supports Jesus’ value in caring for the poor the most?” The context makes the question about religious freedom, or the relationship between group and individual religious freedom and caring for the poor irrespective of notions of class.

Edited June 26, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I think we should institute a good ol' style Catholic monarchy 

Oh we will.

King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I'd put his book The Righteous Mind on a must read list for anyone who takes the subject of understanding the motives of both sides and the conflict between them that all sides may recognize themselves as being honestly represented.

I think Haidt's thoughts on psychology and politics are very important. Although I think things are a bit more complex than a facile left/right dichotomy. We tend to do that in the US due to the way our two party system pushes dualism. Yet it's not hard to find groups on the left who fit Haidt's characteristics of a conservative mind - especially relative to morality and disgust. Likewise prior to the 80's when the great polarization started you had a much bigger mix of views between the parties. Thus you had fairly liberal Rockerfeller republicans and southern democrats who were in many ways quite conservative. When the polarization really got going in the 90's you started to have more sorting - especially by geography. While there's still a surprising amount of diversity in each party there's also a lot less overlap. But I think we err if we treat all that polarization to Haidt's observations.