I believe in equal opportunity.
I believe all kids-all of them-should have a fair shot at life. For me, that’s an American ideal. Everyone should get a fair shot, no matter how much money their parents make, or where they live, or whether they have two moms, two dads, just a grandma, or no parents at all.
I was raised Mormon, and right now the most Republican state in the U.S. is Utah. The state is 60% Mormon, and Mitt Romney leads Obama by nearly 50 points. People there are generally healthy, fairly well-educated, fairly prosperous, and they claim a sincere belief in God and in doing good. It is also a state, unfortunately, where otherwise intelligent people-people who are otherwise decent, caring, and competent-claim that “collective” efforts to create an economic system that provides equal opportunity for everyone not only isn’t good public policy, its actually “sinful” because is deprives individuals of the opportunity to engage in “voluntary” charity that would be more meaningful.
I suspect that a religion-induced case of groupthink prevents individuals in the state from thinking clearly.
First, we do not live in a barter economy. When Salt Lake builds a sport stadium, for example, it doesn’t invite the citizenry down to “volunteer” on the weekends to help build it. In an advanced economy with a high degree of specialization, there are all sorts of reasons we don’t have doctors, taxi drivers and public school teachers spending their weekends pouring concrete and setting structural beams at public work sites. The bottom line is that it doesn’t make sense to do so (for quite a few reasons).
Second, we do not fund public goods on a “voluntary” basis. Are we all less “free” because we are “forced” to contribute to our military. Why not turn our military over to the market? Defense contractors can go door to door explaining their proposed projects and asking people to subscribe. For example, if a contractor wants to build a new destroyer, it can solicit $100/month subscriptions until it has enough money to build it. If it can’t get enough subscriptions, then the market has spoken, right? I might actually support this approach, since it would almost certainly lead to 90%+ reduction in military spending, not because we don’t value our military, but because of basic incentive problems created when public goods are “voluntarily” funded (free-rider problems, etc.).
And third, it’s not about “forcing” anyone to do anything. It’s about designing a self-sustaining economy in which equal opportunity is baked in, so to speak, as a structural component of the system. Most people have played monopoly. Imagine rewriting the rules so that one lucky player would likely quickly dominate the game (and other
players, regardless of what they do, could not reasonably hope to win). Although these rule changes would make the game considerably less entertaining, that is exactly what we’ve done, over time, with our economic system. We’ve rewritten the rules and changed the character of the game. It isn’t about looking at the game and then deciding to redistribute the winnings once the game is over (although that would be one way, if it were done in a consistent and predictable way, of making the game more fair). I believe a better approach is to restructure the system so that the same systemic problems don’t occur the next time the game is played.
Unfortunately, these common sense arguments have no purchase in Utah. The state dominated by the religion in which I was raised honestly believes, when it mocks the poor and the needy as “dependent” and “unwilling to take responsibility,” that it is on God’s side. The state of Utah, somehow, perhaps because of an inability to comprehend the numbers involved, seems to believe that its dominant religious institution-the Mormon church-is an example of how collective (or government) charity should be managed. By it’s own admission, the Mormon church allocated a total of $30.7 million in cash to non-Mormon charity work from 1984 to 1997. Total Medicaid spending in Utah in 2011 was close to $2 billion. There is a reason why the Mormon church has a policy against paying for medical bills (and actively encourages members seeking financial assistance to first take advantage of all government programs, including Medicaid). If the Mormon church, as a global institution, were to attempt to pay for the medical expenses of just the poor in the state of Utah, it would quickly go bankrupt.
And so it goes in Utah. If the people of the good state need a bridge or a sports stadium, the typical political and economic channels are used. If the objective is to build an economic system in which there is equality of opportunity, then collective action-the same approach used to build highways and sports stadiums-is sinful because it violates God-given individual agency. Never mind that Joseph Smith openly taught (and enshrined in Mormon scripture) the responsibility to act through government for the collective good, and that King Benjamin, in addition to numerous other Mormon prophets and, of course, Christ himself, have (inconveniently, for Utah Mormons these days) outlined the responsibility of the capable to care for the poor, the weak, and the needy.
At the end of the day, Utah is a state where, if you’re poor and stranded on the side of the road, someone will stop and give you $10 for gas, but then smugly vote straight-ticket Republican because they don’t want to encourage “dependency” or “force” others to engage in charity. Utah is a state where, if you’re poor, your neighbors will bake you cookies, and then cheerfully go to the ballot box and vote to take away any hope of your children having the same opportunities as their children. And they’ll do it because they think that’s what God wants. And they’ll feel self-righteous about it.
The blind spot that modern Mormonism creates in the minds of those that subscribe to it, apparently, is that equal opportunity for everyone doesn’t just happen. It’s doesn’t just pop up out of the ground like daisies. It takes work and sacrifice. It take collective action. It requires a careful and judicious government.
Selling the “market” as a way of providing equal opportunity, like so many Republicans do these days, is easy. It’s doesn’t require us to actually “do” anything. In fact, we can even “do” less than we’re doing now, and delude ourselves into thinking we’ve actually done something. The truth is that linking “market” solutions to the idea of equality opportunity is like selling more sex as a cure for gonorrhea.
For example, the kind of equal opportunity I support requires us to face up to the shameful (and it is truly shameful) differences in our schools. Right now, in the United States, if you are poor, there is a good chance you won’t get half the education that somehow lucky enough to be born to parents in a higher income bracket. How shameful are these differences? Watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpfMD9gWNf8.
Not only do we need to face to these disparities, we need to commit ourselves to fixing them. Abandoning schools to the “market” won’t do it. When have markets ever produced “equal” outcomes? Economic markets are wonderful things, and in the right context, they do a magical job of aligning incentives and creating economic wealth, but markets are fueled by self-interest and the possibility of reward based on individual contribution. Markets lead to differentiation. Markets give us $10 tennis shoes-and $200 tennis shoes. They give us $15,000 economy cars that can be leased for less $150 month-and $75,000 SUVs that use as much gas as school busses.
What is it about market outcomes–outcomes that we see every day in the market place–that gives people that idea that markets would produce equality of educational opportunity? We have a market for housing. It produces startling inequality (e.g. trailer parks and mansions). We have a market for automobiles ($500 clunkers and cars that cost as much as respectable homes). As a society, we accept these outcomes for various reasons (that’s a discussion for another day), but do we really want the same kind of outcomes for educational opportunity? Do we really want the circumstances in which someone is born to constrain their access to educational opportunities? Selling the “market” as a means of providing equal opportunity is, for many of the relatively well–off that support it, a self-serving delusion. For those stuck is failing schools who see the market as a form of rescue, it is a mirage.
K-12 schooling is just one piece of the puzzle. Healthcare is another. Kids-all kids-deserve access to basic medical care, to eye exams and glasses, if needed, to basic dentistry, and flu shots. Walk into a public school in a poor neighborhood and ask if there are any kids that need glasses but whose parents can’t afford them. You’ll be shocked-or you should be-at the response.
Education, healthcare, food, shelter-these are the building blocks of equal opportunity. The social programs designed to level the playing field in these areas aren’t a safety net-they are a leveling exercise. They are a way of making sure that everyone in the next generation lines up at the same starting line.
It took me years to recognize that when Republicans talk about equal opportunity, they don’t mean it. What they mean by equal opportunity is a kind of individualism that smells of Darwinism. What they mean is that they want those who have made it-who are able to fend for themselves, or who believe they are able to fend for themselves-to be free of the responsibility of making sure that the door stays open for those coming behind them.
When Utah Mormons-or at least the 90% of Utah Mormons voting Republican these days–talk about equal opportunity, they aren’t talking about the heavy lifting of actually creating opportunities for those that lack them, they’re talking about giving the fortunate the opportunity to abandon the less fortunate. In Republican hands, these words are in no way linked to a commitment to equal opportunity-just the opposite. For these Republicans, what they mean by “freedom” and opportunity” is that neither the freedoms nor the opportunities of the fortunate should be constrained in any way in order to expand opportunities for others.
This kind of thinking turns the ideal of equal opportunity into a zero-sum game, and Utah Republicans have clearly decided whose side they’re on. This kind of thinking is narrow, cynical, and based on an infantile and reductionistic view of the social contract. It is short-sighted and grounded in a naïve faith in the collective benefit of a slavish adherence to theory over practice. In short, it is wrongheaded. It is dangerous. And it is fundamentally un-American.
The U.S. now ranks lower than most European countries in terms of social mobility. A recent study found that the U.S. and the United Kingdom ranked at the bottom of nine developed countries in intergenerational vertical social mobility. Denmark, Norway, Finland Canada scored significantly higher. The American dream, it seems, is alive and well-in Denmark, Norway, and Finland. A good measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient (the CIA uses it). Based on this measure, we rank embarrassingly low. Our neighbors on the list: Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, and Uganda.
The real crisis in the U.S. isn’t debt. It’s a crisis of equal opportunity. The American dream isn’t a viable aspiration anymore. It’s become the equivalent of a lottery ticket. And when people realize that the odds are stacked against them-and that regardless of what they do, someone else wins-it undermines the confident hope that has made America great.
Listen closely to the Republican rhetoric of dependency. In the Republican mind, creating equal opportunity-i.e. funding the programs that level the playing field in terms of schooling, basic healthcare, nutrition, and shelter-fosters dependency because it removes incentives. In reality, just the opposite is true. Opportunity leads to hope, and it is hope that fuels the imagination. Getting everybody to the starting line-the same starting line-and making it clear that the same rules apply to everyone-is what motivates people to run the race. Making sure a 6-year old has glasses so that he can learn to read doesn’t create dependency, it creates opportunity.
In a thousand ways, our economic system is designed to perpetuate privilege and class. Investors can pool their money, for example, and join together in the creation of legal entities that are given life and protected by numerous normative, legal, and social institutions. Investors can then bargain collectively-through corporations-for the labor these entities need to function. There is no attempt to limit the size of corporations or call into question the collective nature of their participation in the labor market. Is the same normative, legal, and social deference given to employee efforts to ban together to counter the collective bargaining power of large corporations?
We need to apply the Republican rhetoric of dependency where it’s appropriate. We should be skeptical of the growing web of ownership claims and legal maneuvers that facilitate the intergenerational transfer of wealth. Passing wealth down from generation to generation has the potential to create impermeable social classes, and an economic aristocracy is incompatible with a commitment to equal opportunity. Using the same logic that the Republicans apply so easily to the poor, large inheritances create a powerful disincentive to work. They create dependency. An aggressive estate tax would free the next generation that burden. Might such a tax force a family to “sell the family farm” when parents go on to greener pastures? Absolutely. And that is precisely the point.
We should apply the Republican concept of responsibility where it needs to be applied. We all have a responsibility to work toward equal opportunity. To advocate for it, and to contribute to it. It is an investment in our future, as an economy and as a society. It isn’t about taking from one hard-working individual in order to give to someone else, it’s about designing an economic system in which the burden of perpetuating the system itself is, in a fair and transparent way, born by all. It is about building an economic system in which participants-particularly businesses-are expected to pay for the public inputs they use. If a business requires educated employees in order to function, for example, then the cost of a portion of that education must, according to basic economic theory, be priced into the product that that business produces. Roads, transportation infrastructure, courts, police and fire protection, a stable currency, and a thousand other inputs should be paid for by those who use them-and particularly-by the businesses that rely on them.
Consumers will pay for these inputs indirectly, of course, and that is how it should be. When taxpayers subsidize the wages of Wal-Mart employees with Medicaid dollars (and other safety net programs), for example, then the price that the company charges for it’s products and services doesn’t reflect their full cost. As beginning economics students learn, goods and services have to be properly priced if economic markets are to yield allocative and productive efficiency.
Businesses do not need more incentives. Neither do entrepreneurs. The last economic boom occurred under President Clinton and tax rates were significantly higher. Ten years of Bush tax cuts have yielded relatively little, on the other hand, in terms of economic growth. What we need is a commitment to equal opportunity. We need a commitment to the kind of equal opportunity that will restore the faith of many Americans that are wondering if the system really is fair, and if they really can make it if they work hard and play by the rules. The trend over the last thirty years towards greater wealth and income inequality has eroded the trust that fuels the desire of millions of Americans to work toward a better life. It has undermined the social mobility that anchors the American dream. A recommitment to equal opportunity can restore that trust-and bring back those incentives for millions.
We need a president that is committed to delivering that opportunity-at least symbolically-to the next generation. It has to be somebody with a guarded optimism in our ability to act collectively, through government, to make the system more fair, and more transparent. It won’t happen by abandoning public responsibility to the “markets” or by advocating for more “freedom” from our mutual social obligations. The only way to get there is to commit-truly commit-to creating equal opportunity for all. Not the Republican kind. Not the kind preached from the pulpit in Utah. The real kind.
[Prior MCS Post: 43 Why the Church Changed the Missionary Age]
Wow. You are the leftie version of Sean Hannity, Brent. You are perfecting the art of the shrill partisan rant. I got an especially good laugh when you called Utah republicans self-righteous. Good heavens, talk about irony.
You might have made a good case had you backed up your argument with some hard data. Not cherry-picked data, but a broad sampling of basic facts. Where does Utah rate on poverty, health care, crime, quality of life, education, fiscal responsibility, business climate, transportation, infrastructure, etc.? If Utah is anywhere near as horrible as you are arguing, we should be scraping the bottom of the barrel on most of these issues.
As for equal opportunity, which state do you think has the lowest unemployment and the best job growth right now: Utah or heavily democratic states like California or Illinois? In which state would a low income person be most likely to find employment right now? Which state has a revenue surplus and which states are massively in debt?
You’re right, it is a partisan rant (and probably too long of one at almost 3000 words). My point is that the 30+ year trend in the U.S. of increasing inequality in income and wealth distribution is a problem–and at the root of that problem, I believe, is a lack of commitment to the ideal of equal opportunity. Unfortunately, Utah is the most “Republican” state in the country at the moment (which is, of itself, interesting), and the politics reflected in the state, I believe, will only make things worse. What does Utah spend, per capita, on education? Are the people of Utah committed to safety net social programs that create a level playing field for everyone (or have they jumped on the “government is evil” bandwagon)? If Medicaid were put to a popular vote in Utah, would it pass? Where does Utah stand on an estate tax that might curb some of the intergenerational transfer (and concentration) of wealth? Etc.
I don’t believe in government welfare, and I’m not a republican–
I don’t like Romney; I more than dislike him; I find him to be repugnant.
I believe that most of the poverty most of those in the U.S. today face is because of the government, not because of social programs, but because huge corporations have received too much welfare from the U.S. government and taxpayers.
Yes, I believe most Mormons in Utah are blind to this knowledge.
The problem I find with the thinking of the OP is the idea that government welfare really helps those who are poor; I don’t believe it does. I know too many poor people who have used some of these programs who remain entrenched in deep poverty–
while those in the middle class are sliding into poverty, and while people like Mitt Romney become more wealthy. Something is terribly wrong here, and it goes beyond party lines–
Obama has done no better. He certainly has not stopped illegal/immoral wars, and there are plenty of poverty-stricken people in the middle east. Another thing most Mormons in Utah don’t believe in is the real intent of the Book of Mormon: No pre-emptive war–
And yet most supported Bush (even according to some of the interpretations of his talk, President Hinckley) in his pre-emptive strikes against innocent civilians!
It’s obvious Mormons don’t understand their religion, but the answer is not government welfare–it’s not working; there is still too much poverty–
Plus . . . most of those on government programs only get the very worst kind of everything: food, health care, etc.–and a lot of loss of dignity–
There must be a better way; I believe there is, but I don’t know what it will take to get to it. Certainly 90% of Utahns will have to have their hearts changed about war first; then, perhaps, there can be a change of heart about the poor among *us*–
@marginalizedmormon, for me it’s about opportunity. . . it’s about creating space for people to shape their own lives. And like I said, it’s not something that just “happens”–it requires collective effort. Its requires access to education, healthcare, etc.
We had visitors who now live in Utah a few months ago and during the couple of hours we spent with them they brought up the election, and the hatred and unthinking fear, and lies they spewed was amazing. We in Australia don’t usually get quite as extreme in our political reactions.
I read somewhere of a person who had a democrat flag/poster on their front lawn among Republican posters. We don’t usually do that. A very few who know the candidate or are in the party might but very rare.
Because of the bitterness and fear, it will be dificult for any president to unite the country behind the result whatever it is.
How will the loosers react? Will the winners be gracious and inclusive? Will the loosers allow themselves to be inluded?
How can democracy work if the looser in effect does not accep the result? Can those bitter republicans in Utah unite behind Obama whatever he does or visa versa? Can democracy work if the looser does not respect the winner enough to work together for the futire of the country?
Partly because of the reduction in equality/opportunity your country is becoming less democratic. How far away is it that one side refuses to accept the result of the election like some African or Asian contries do? Would your Generals side with Republians, who want to increase the military spending, if the Republicans refused to accept the result, you could then have a military coup like Burma?
I am very concerned for the future of America as a democracy? I do not see how you can become a united country from here!
Brent, the simplest way to test what you are saying is to look at the facts. Here is what I found with a quick google search.
– Yes, Utah has the lowest per pupil spending in education. Large families are partially to blame, but definitely not something to be proud of. On the other hand, Utah ranks 13th best in the nation on ACT/SAT scores, and 20th in the nation on educational attainment in the work force.
– #9 best state for business. Mass, Illinois, NY, and Cali are dead last. Texas #1.
– #6 lowest unemployment”. Illinois, NY, Cali in bottom 10. (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)
– #10 in CNBC for top quality of life. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48058146/America_s_Best_States_to_Live_in_2012?slide=2)
– #1 Best overall state to live/quality of life. Gallup/Healthways survey. (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/united-states-healthy-lifestyle-health-healthy-living.html)
– #11 in the nation in overall child well-being.
– #13 in the nation in fewest kids in poverty.
So going back to your original premise, you have declared that as the most Republican state, Utah is the least committed to the ideal of equal opportunity. Hogwash.
@Norm Jones, yes, Utah is a pretty good place to live for a lot of reasons, but here’s my argument in a nutshell: a) Utah, right now, is the most Republican state in the country (based on polling data for the presidential electon), and b) Republicans, right now, are particularly hostile to policies that I believe are essential to maintaining equal opportunity , and c) Therefore, Utah, as a state, is the most hostile to policies that promote equal opportunity.
I suspect that one of the reasons why the folks in Utah can so easily dismiss these programs is because they don’t see an immediate need for them (and many of these programs are driven by federal policy).
Again, my argument is about the current political climate in Utah. If there were a state referendum on Medicaid, for example, would it pass? And if it were voted down, who would pick up the $2 billion tab for providing basic medical care for the poor in the state? I suspect that many Utah Mormons would relish the chance to vote it down, thinking, somehow, that they could hold a ward bake sale and everything would be okay. I would hope this wouldn’t be the case, but I’ve talked to too many Utah Mormons, unfortunately, that just don’t get it. The poor mom across the street with three kids that was just diagnosed with breast cancer who works 50 hours a week at Wal-Mart and doesn’t have medical insurance and needs $150,000 for treatment? No problem, her bishop will write her a check, or her neighbors will bring over some cookies (as part of their “voluntary” charity).
I’d be careful with business “climate” rankings. Texas has the most uninsured (on a % basis) in the country and is notorious for low paying jobs. . . (and I notice that California doesn’t have any problems with a lack of business activity).
@Brent, it was kind of you to respond–
You are an optimist–
and I hope that you see your dream achieved–:)
It seems your entire argument is based on cynical hypotheticals (fear-mongering 101). Again, show me the hard data.
Here is an example for you: A few years ago the Utah state legislature passed a school voucher bill, in spite of only tenuous public support. A citizen’s initiative movement was formed, signatures were gathered, and the issue was placed on the ballot. Massive amounts of money were spent on ads (for and against). The referendum carried and the vouchers were defeated by a 60-40 vote. Be careful with your assumptions.
And I can’t imagine why you would say that California doesn’t have any problems with business activity. Yes, they have a huge economy but they are hemorrhaging jobs and businesses:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031312-604210-california-drives-out-more-businesses.htm?p=full
http://www.nctimes.com/top-ten-reasons-why-companies-are-leaving-california/article_be130984-2fe2-52f1-b49e-3cc2e28fbe70.html
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/companies-leaving-california-in-record.html
And the California state debt is a looming disaster. Large cities in California are declaring bankruptcy. Borrowing your kids’ money to buy extra state services and massive public employee pensions is immoral. Contrast that with Utah where we never have a budget deficit and we maintain a $200M rainy day fund.
Listen, I don’t want to imply that Utah is some kind of utopia. There are a lot of things that we could do better (gay rights, for example). I like to gripe about how the state deals with quite a few issues, but the reality is that this is a very well-managed state overall, filled with great people. If you want to use Utah as a model for the failure of Republican policies, you are going to have a tough time making a convincing case.
And finally, your sarcastic jabs at the LDS tradition of volunteerism and charity are offensive and unnecessary for your argument. My son is currently on a service mission at the local Bishop’s Warehouse. He works 40 hours per week helping struggling families get groceries and other necessities. We are very proud of him. Regardless of how one feels about the role of government, this is something to celebrate, not mock.
The school example is great. Utah, arguably, gets more bang for its K-12 education buck than any other state. Utah voted down a “market” approach in favor of a more collectivist (i.e. “socialist”) approach–that’s great (and I suspect that a committment to equal opportunity was part of it).
Here’s what’s interesting though about our exchange. I agree that at an individual level the people of Utah are generally great (and that there are good things about the state, etc.). What I think is interesting (and what I tried to go after in my “rant”) is that these well-meaning individuals have swallowed some pretty serious anit-government, anti-Obama rhetoric that leads them to demonize things like Medicaid and other programs that are essential to maintaining equal opportunity (and contribute significantly to making Utah the good place to live that it is). Medicaid expenses in Utah were $2 billion last year, for example (probably 10x what the LDS church contributed to charity worldwide). What is ironic, from my perspective, is that the same people who are committed to volunteering, helping their neighbor, etc. then go into the voting booth and vote to take away10x times what “volunteer” efforts add to the opportunity equation. And Utah, right now, seems to be taking the lead in this kind of extreme anti-government, anti-social-safety-net, rhetoric (for whatever reason). Right now, Utah is the most “Republican” state in the country (based on presidential polling).
What your son is doing is great, by the way. . . What I’m criticizing is the idea that “individual” (and voluntary”) charitable efforts are a replacement for larger “collective” efforts. . .
Brent
Nice post, as a liberal Mormon I agree with a lot of what you have to say. One question though, where did you get your information for this statement:
“There is a reason why the Mormon church has a policy against paying for medical bills (and actively encourages members seeking financial assistance to first take advantage of all government programs, including Medicaid).”
The Handbook of Instructions (Book 1), Section 5.1.2, tells Bishops that “The Church’s General Welfare Committee” guidelines allow a bishop to approve up to 5,000 dollars and a Stake President to approve up to 10,000 dollars for “medical expenses, including mental health care, without additional authorization” for needy members. With approval of an Area President even more can be spent. Sound medical advice is to be sought, and it should be determined if other funding is available, but the Church can and does occasionally pay for peoples medical procedures.
@andrew h, good point. On pg. 19 of the 2006 handbook, it suggests states that “The bishop and the ward welfare committee should become familiar with the resources that are available in the community. Members should be reminded to maintain gospel standards while using such services.” A couple sentences down on the same page, it reads “Bishops should be careful not to duplicate welfare assistance.” Although there is often quite a bit of variation in how different bishops handle welfare needs, there seems to be a fairly uniform norm in the U.S. that needy individuals should take advantage of “resources that are available in the community” first, and in most cases, the Bishop and the welfare committee will help them do so (by directing them to these resources, etc.).
In the case of medical expenses, you are correct. The church will, at times, pay some medical expenses, but as you indicate, these expenditures are limited. In the case of any type of serious situation, $5k or 10k won’t last long (and the bishop and the welfare committee will almost always immediately direct the individual to seek government aid, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.). In all the cases I’ve been aware of, the chuch has actively sought to either avoid medical expenses all together (I’ve been aware of several bishops that have told members they have a “policy” against paying medical expenses, for example, even though it may not be an official church policy) to minimize payment as much as possible by pushing responsiblity as quickly as possible onto government programs. I don’t blame the church for this. Medicaid and Medicare are set up to handle these expenses–and the LDS church isn’t (and like I said, the numbers are so big here, $2 billion in 2011 JUST in the state of Utah, for example, that even if the LDS church tried to cover these costs JUST IN UTAH out of his global donations, it would quickly go bankrupt).
Well Obama won, how is the feeling in Utah? Have we all rallied behind the President?
I like your rant, Brent.
@Geoff. I hear that expression (“rallied behind the president”) a lot, but what does it even mean? Drop political opposition to policies you may not agree with?
@Brent. Your argument seems to be two-fold:
1) Utah voters see the church welfare system as a capable substitute for the social safety net.
2) If given the chance, Utah voters would completely dismantle the social safety net.
Both of these assertions are straw men and are demonstrably false. Look solely at what happens at the state level: Utah has not dismantled the safety net in terms of services provided by the state government, even though the Utah legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. There is zero chance they would vote to completely dismantle it at the national level, in spite of whatever anecdotal evidence you may find from your personal conversations.
@Norm, you’re right, of course, reality is more complex than I’ve represented it in my “rant.” Utah politics, however, at least from the outside looking in, looks like a parallel universe. The level of support for the Republican party is jaw-dropping (it is the most Republican state in the country at the moment), the level of open hostility towards the “government,” the poor, etc. has gotten out of hand. And yes, I’m amazed every time somebody starts talking about how “forced” charity is a sin and that we need to completely dismantle our social safety net because that’s what Jesus would do. The last time I heard from Mike Lee, he was explaining to the country that federal child labor laws were unconstitutional. . . I honestly don’t understand what it is about Mormonism that is driving all this. . .
Mike Lee is a nutjob. The only reason he was elected was because the Tea Party successfully manipulated the Utah neighborhood caucus system to hijack the state convention with hand-picked delegates and voted Mike in with a strong enough majority (>60%) that they were able to oust Bob Bennett and avoid a primary runoff election. Bob Bennett was a good senator with a relatively moderate track record. Polls showed that he would have overwhelmingly defeated Lee had the public actually been able to vote. I am still angry about that one.
I enjoyed your “rant” Brent. I think the real issue with Utah is that it is an idealist state. In an ideal world, we would naturally take care of the poor and needy. We would willingly give of our goods to another. We would willingly let a homeless family move into our home until such time as they could make it on their own. And maybe in Utah this actually works because it is so heavily Mormon.
However, outside of Utah the world is a completely different beast. People are not so eager to give their stuff to someone else. They earned that stuff and they have a right to that stuff. It would be unimaginable for a family to be willing to share their home with a bunch of strangers, to provide food and shelter, clothes and transportation to a family in need without a thought to the amount of money it was costing them to do so.
I have a good example. My visiting teacher partner and I have an individual who is struggling financially. Her car broke down and she was having trouble with transportation issues (getting to and from work) as the bus did not come very often and riding a bike was not safe. As she was describing the situation, I thought to myself that we needed to provide her with transportation. But I waited to see what my partner would say. Instead of my partner suggesting we help her, she danced around the subject, talked about being independent, and essentially sucking it up and doing what needed to be done.
I eventually got irritated by the conversation and asked the sister if she would like a ride home from work at minimum. My how that sisters eyes lite up at the suggestion. My visiting teacher agreed she could help in this area as well, but tried to back-pedal out of it by coming up with solutions that did not involve her having to serve this sister.
Already irritated by the whole exchange and service avoidance, I told her I will come and get her every night she works if need be. I understood that once the transportation issue was resolved, she would be independent again. I did not find that getting her from work was somehow eliminating her ability to chose something different. I saw it as an opportunity to provide a service to someone and actually increasing her ability to chose as she was no longer burdened with how she was going to get about. Once her mind was free to explore options, she was able to come up with plausible solutions that worked for her. But she was only able to do this because her mind was at ease and she was no longer desperate.
This is what the so-called safety nets are supposed to do. It is supposed to ease the burden of trying to take care of the most basic needs so that an individual has the freedom and independence to lift themselves up. It is hard to improve one’s life when all you are focused on is having some food on the table and paying the rent. If an individual is provided temporary help with these two main needs, they have an increase level of freedom and independence to be more hopeful and seek out opportunities to improve their situation.
Thus, to me personally, this idea of complete independence is hogwash. We are here to help each other. We pay taxes and that money should be made available to help those who need the help. Our current system is severely flawed, but we cannot afford to not take care of our brothers and sisters who are struggling in this life. Nor should we desire to become like third world countries who do not care for their needy, sick, or poor. Because if we do not care for these individuals at a governmental level-that is exactly will happen.