I know we’re all scratching our head as to why so many Americans have fallen under the Trump “spell.” Can that many people be duped? I think so, as I don’t believe he is a man of true character or integrity…but an opportunist driven by ego. Nonetheless a lot of Christians, including LDS, support him despite his antics.
One of our dear LDS friends, dating back to when we lived in Florida as newly weds, was a Trump supporter from the beginning of his campaign. I never challenged her, hoping his campaign would implode as a result of his absurd comments and offensive put-downs, and he would just go away. So when I received this broadcast email from her today, encouraging all her friends to see this video clip supposedly telling the “true story” behind Donald Trump, I simply wrote her back asking if Trumpet’s horrid treatment of others, i.e. name calling, put-downs, etc. didn’t bother her.
As you can see below, supporters quickly dismiss Trump's antics as mere “attention getters,” and not indicators of his character. I personally don’t agree with her, but I thought you might also find interesting how some fellow LDS, conservatives can actually think Trump is America’s salvation.
To this granddaughter Sydney asked "what's wrong with Trump?" and "what's wrong with Bernie Sanders' promise for free education"?
I’ll throw in my two cents on how to respond to Sydney’s questions, but hope others will chime in as well…
FREE EDUCATION: It’s important that we remember that WE the people are the government. It is reflects us. It only exists because of us. And, most importantly, it is supported by us through our taxes. With our money the government takes into itself the collective power of the people, including the power to have guns (police, military, FBI, etc.) which can be used to force its own people to obey the laws. So making laws becomes VERY important and our wise forefathers created a wonderful checks-and-balances system made up of three branches of government —legislative (Congress), executive (President) and judicial (Supreme Court)—so this massive power is spread out three ways in order to prevent government from enslaving its own people through a dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, etc.
So the underlying question of every government action: is this a good law for the people?...recognizing each law gives the government the power to force its citizens to obey it.
There is a litmus test each citizen can use (and sadly Congress and everyone else in government never uses) to answer that question. Simply apply the law to yourself and your neighbor.
For instance, we have all accepted that the government, in order to function, must tax its citizens. The litmus test: are you willing to go to your neighbor and, with a policeman standing beside you or even holding a gun in your own hand, ask your neighbor to pay their fair share of taxes? I think most of us recognize that it would be acceptable; not very nice, but acceptable because we all recognize that the duty of citizens is to pay our taxes to support the government to bring order and security in our society, among other benefits.
So, what about free education?
Use the litmus test: would Sydney feel OK going to each of your neighbors and, with a policeman by her side, demand or at least tell her neighbors that she expects them to pay for her education. That’s what Bernie Sanders is championing...that we use the police power, given to the government by its citizens, to force everyone to pay additional taxes so college now becomes free for Sydney and anyone else.
It’s a nice platitude or campaign pitch, but it’s totally unrealistic because of the undue burden it would place on taxpayers and eliminate any incentive for colleges to find ways to reduce costs (like BYU-Idaho) and for students to value their education by working and studying harder.
I’m certain those in academia, including those in our family, will have some strong feelings on this subject and hope they’ll jump in.
VOTE FOR TRUMP? This is going to be one of the toughest questions of all. It will be interesting to see how we all feel in six months. Will Trump’s campaign style change and will he bring forth viable plans for fixing America that will make him more acceptable? Or will we be so disturbed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign promises that we’ll vote for Trump out of fear of Hillary?
Right now, the reason I don’t favor Trump is because I don’t see him as a man of principles. The “whatever it takes” approach to get elected smacks of the “end justifies the means,” which translates into it’s OK to lie, cheat, demean others, offend, falsely accuse, etc. That was Richard Nixon’s downfall in the 1970s. He had convinced himself it was OK to lie and cheat as long as it was for the “good of the country.” That’s what I see in Trump, another Richard Nixon, but even more opportunistic and bombastic.
The Lord’s litmus test for candidates is found in a number of scriptures, including…
D&C 98:10 - “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.”
D&C 12:8 - "And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall beentrusted to his care.” Granted, this is in reference to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church, but America, as the cradle of the Restoration is, in my opinion, part of God’s work, and as a choice land, above all other lands, we must be a righteous and principled people, a people who must “serve God or (we) shall be swept off.” (Ether 2:10)
In my opinion, Donald Trump is neither a righteous or principled man. And, while he won’t bring down the wrath of God if elected, he (and Hillary, for that matter) will move our nation away from being a Godly people, which is the greatest protection we can provide for America…better than stealth bombers and intercontinental missiles.
I hope this is helpful. I don’t pretend to be the expert or final say on the matter. This is just my opinion.
We love you and are so grateful you want to study these things out and seek guidance from the Lord on these matters, especially at a time where we’re watching foundational freedoms, including religion, attacked from many sides.
Son Dallin then responded:
I can't speak much on higher education economics anymore than a doctor could speak to healthcare economics. I'm inclined to agree with Dad that universal higher education is neither realistic nor a good idea on its own merits. But I do think that public higher education is a cause with supporting, and yes, with tax dollars. As someone who came from a background where college was a given, I agree that asking others to pay for my higher ed isn't justifiable, but there are many I've seen in my teaching for whom college is a real stretch--it's not part of their heritage, they're not familiar with it, they're not plugged in to a legacy system. And debt is not something they are familiar with either, and without viable alternatives, they can easily be taken advantage of (for-profit schools, e.g.). So I do wish states would invest in their colleges more than they are doing. I think part of the reason we've gone away from that is that our political thinking has become much shorter--we think in short election cycles, not in the long term, and it's easy to overlook the economic benefit of subsidizing education early to improve human capital and improve a state's tax base in the very long run.
Ironically, there is one large university who is still committed to this model of public higher ed--where they subsidize the cost of tuition to attract quality students with the expectation that those students will develop their human capital and payback that subsidy tenfold down the road. That's of course BYU.
On Trump, I'd like to hear more from Dad and others on the question of judging a candidate's character. While I'm also sympathetic to the model in D&C 98, in practice such judgments seem very difficult. I think Dad's friend is an example of how easy it is to filter information so that we see a candidate we're already inclined to agree with as more righteous than others. And how do we really know who the virtuous and honest are? Ben Carson, for example, appeared to be the model candidate of moral character--then he endorses Trump and admits he did so for purely political reasons. His campaign kept chugging along long after his chances were nil because, it seems, he kept raking in donations. Then there are really effective, great leaders who are not models of rectitude. Let's be honest: Brigham Young is one of the great leaders of the church who managed the Saints transition to Deseret incredibly--but he was coarse, prone to violent rhetoric, hard on his wives, and just not the kind of guy we'd be inclined to vote for if he was on the ticket today. MLK is another example of a great leader whose private morality was lacking.
In fact, if the model is principles and morals, the candidate we should be supporting here is not Clinton or Trump or Cruz (who is always seeking opportunities to leverage his principles for political gain)...it's Bernie Sanders! Disagree with him as I do on policy, there's no question that he is the most honest, consistent, upstanding candidate in this race.
So I guess my questions are: can we really trust our judgment of a political figure's character? And at what point does our judgment in moral character override our policy preferences? (I'm not a BernieBro, just for the record)
Here's my response:
Thanks to Dallin’s good comments. Let me add what I should have shared in the original email…
Dallin is right that Bernie Sanders may be the candidate among those still standing (or standing within the last two weeks) who lives by principles in his personal life, though I suspect Kasich was equally principled in his life. I really don’t know.
But integrity, humility and respect for God is only half the equation, when we’re trying to choose good leaders. We must also judge candidates by their understanding of, respect for and alignment with the Constitution. That will be a subjective judgment that can only be made properly when each one of us conducts or our own study of the Constitution. In fact, God holds us accountable to know and understand the Constitution…and to judge righteously, which means we must be living a principled life ourselves (based on God’s laws) and studying the Constitution.
D&C 134:1 - "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."
D&C 98:4-9 -
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
So while Bernie Sanders may be a man of principle in his personal conduct, in my opinion he is campaigning to ignore the Constitution. I doubt you’ll hear him quote the Constitution very often, if ever. There are many areas that, in my opinion, he undermines the Constitution, but the most significant one is that the Constitution was established to keep government reigned in because our Founding Fathers knew that its easy for government to get out of control and enslave its own people (i.e. burden with taxes, restrict rights, meddle in personal lives, etc.) all in the name of what’s “good for the country.”
D&C 121:39 comes to mind. Governments are made up of people. If people have a nature and disposition to exercise unrighteous dominion when they get “a little authority,” then we should not be surprised when governments act the same way. Governments are naturally inclined to do that.
In my opinion, one of the litmus tests of candidates is do they want to limit or expand government? Just about all candidates today, regardless of party, want to expand government. Sanders is the biggest offender of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment