Prayer and Politics

Before every election in my memory, somebody read a letter in church encouraging everybody to be involved in the political process, get informed, and vote. The most recent letter is available to read at mormonnewsroom.org. I have always thought it important to do as the letters advise.

I have also always thought that the results of the elections were important enough that I should make my decisions about how to vote a matter of prayer, but exactly how I pray about my decisions has changed somewhat since I was 18. As I remember, back then I studied the candidates and issues, made choices that seemed logical to me, and then asked if my choices were good or right in a very straightforward, literal following of Doctrine and Covenants 9:8

 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But after some more experience with seeking help from Heavenly Father in other matters, I've started praying a bit more comprehensively about my decisions. First comes more praying before my studying for discernment and insight. As I study, I tell Him what aspects of the candidates or propositions I think matter most. I tell Him what I'm unsure about. When I start to lean a certain way, I tell Him why, point by point. Because one thing I have noticed is that the more I tell Heavenly Father of my thought process, the more I get out of the prayer. Maybe it's because I'm spending more time praying, giving me more time dedicated to each question for impressions; maybe it's because by actively telling what I am thinking, I am improving my connections with the Father; maybe my this process I am able to solidify my own thoughts. I think it is likely a combination of these factors. So far, I'm feeling pretty good about how my methods have been influencing my decisions.

And while I'm on the topic of politics, here are a couple modern scriptural references about how our government should be:
Doctrine and Covenants 98:4-10
Doctrine and Covenants 134

Picking Presidents

Several weeks ago I saw a message board thread titled Americans, who are you voted for President? I debated about whether to read it, as online conflict and vitriol tends to affect my mood in the real world, but for some reason decided to go ahead with it. Luckily it stayed civil throughout. But, anyway, the original poster asked whether Americans chose their president based on who would be best for the country or who would be best for the world. One of the posters responded by saying, "Time and again, people here in the U.S. of A. vote against their own interests, never mind the rest of the world."

Now, that could be a very insightful and accurate comment - after all, it can be hard enough to know what is best for yourself sometimes, let alone the whole nation. But that sort of comment is usually followed by an example - as I think it was in this case - of "After all, we elected Obama" or "We re-elected Bush". Implying, of course, that the commenter does know what would have been best for the nation.

A few years ago I mentioned social scientist John Gottman and his book 7 Principle for Making Marriage Work. At one point in Gottman's book he quotes another book, After the Honeymoon by Dane Wile.

Paul married Alice and Alice gets loud at parties and Paul, who is shy, hates that. But if Paul had married Susan, he and Susan would have gotten into a fight before they even got to the party. That's because Paul is always late and Susan hates to be kept waiting. She would feel taken for granted, which she is very sensitive about. Paul would see her complaining about this as her attempt to dominate him, which he is sensitive about. If Paul had married Gail, they wouldn't have even gone to the party because they would still be upset about an argument they had the day before about Paul's not helping with the housework. To Gail, when Paul does not help, she feels abandoned, which she is sensitive about, and to Paul, Gail's complaining is an attempt at domination, which he is sensitive about.

So, basically what this passage is showing is that whoever you choose to marry, there will be problems. The same with presidents - nobody could be perfect at every aspect of running a country. We see what's wrong with the country now, but how do we know what things would be like if we'd elected Gore or McCain? Of course, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter who we marry or elect. We do need to think carefully about those decisions. But once we make our choice, it's made and for now are stuck with it. If things are really bad we can change, but good reasons for divorce and for ousting a president are not incredibly common.

But electing presidents is very different than choosing who to marry in many ways, one of which is that we have a scheduled time to choose a president again. If did that all the time with marriage it could lead to stress and unhappiness for just about everybody who mattered in our lives. So now we are making the president decision again. And I think that for this election you don't need to think about who we should have picked 4 or 8 or 12 years ago- think in the situation we are in now, and with the knowledge we have now, who do I think is the best choice for the next 4 years?

Distraction vs. Discrimination

I just read that Santorum opposes legislation that is about to pass allowing women to serve on the military front lines. He claims that because men tend to be protective of women, they would worry about the women and be distracted from doing their own jobs. This made sense to me.

Then I read the handful of comments that were showing at the bottom of the page. One of them mentioned that soldiers are already concerned about the men they serve with and manage to get their jobs done, so why should adding women change that? This also made sense.

So, in a very dangerous situation, would a man be significantly more concerned about the welfare of a woman than he would that of a man in the same situation, assuming both to be strong, healthy, fit, and competent? Having never been (a) male or (b) working with others to accomplish an important goal in life-threatening conditions, I find this impossible to answer.

Why I Don't Like Politics

I often feel like in order to be a truly informed voter, I should have advanced degrees in economics and in history with emphases in the United States, the current most volatile areas of the world, and the major ancient civilizations. Rome at the very least. I can listen to two very different plans for fixing the economy and see sense in both of them. If I really know the history of the ancient civilizations, I have a better chance of noticing if we're in danger of making the mistakes that lead to their falls. And when I was in high school, a big topic of debate was whether we should go into Iraq. I heard my peers talk about it, but I always felt like I didn't understand the background well enough to form an opinion. If I don't fully understand the cultural mindset of the other side and what they want, what our interactions with them were like in the past, and how we got to this situation in the first place, how in the world am I supposed to figure out what to do now?

And that is a very typical feeling for me. No matter how much I've read about the various candidates and issues, when political topics come up, I usually just listen because I feel like everybody else knows and understands the issues way more than I ever could.

There are a handful of issues that I feel like I have an adequate understanding of and have come up with some firm opinions. But even there I have problems. For example, suppose I agree with Candidate A on one issue, but like Candidate B better on another of equal importance to me. Both are serious problems at this point in time. How do I choose between them? Or maybe I like Candidate A on the big issue of the time which I care deeply about, but I like Candidate B better on most of the issues receiving less press right now but that could become very important later on in the term.

Then there are the more personal details about the candidates. Say Candidate A and Candidate B look very similar on most issues. Candidate A originally ran against Incumbent C because he had been in for a long time and A said the congress needed new blood. Now A has been in longer than C had been at the time, which makes A seem hypocritical. But there is one major issue that could go my way - if I vote in A.

And of course there's looking at the candidate records and deciding if Candidate A changes his voting patterns to reflect the wishes of his constituency, to gain the favor of future voters, or because something in the intervening years really changed his mind. Or maybe his actions seem inconsistent because of different limits in his powers and influence or because of changes in the world around him or because he is working for leverage on something that seems more important at the time. And did Candidate B really know what his campaign worker said, and did he agree?

Then there's all the interest in the candidates' personal lives. As a general rule, if I don't care about you as a person, I don't much care what you wear or where you go on vacation or what clubs you belong to. I really do not want to know details about your romantic life. But during political campaigns, all this stuff gets dragged out. And honestly, I do want to elect officials with integrity, which should be there in all areas of their lives. But sometimes it seems to go a bit far. It seems to me that the details of college indiscretions shouldn't have a large impact in their careers 50 years later unless there is significant evidence that the problem is still there. And I suppose it doesn't happen all the time. But I have seen things dragged up that look to me like ancient history.

When I reffed soccer, my job was usually to run lines and watch for out-of-bound balls and offside violations. These responsibilities required me to stay exactly even with the second to last defender (or, occasionally, the ball), while keeping track of who had possession of the ball at all times, what attackers were between me and the goal, and when the ball was kicked. When I decided to stop reffing, it was largely because having to watch all that at once seemed impossible - I can only really look in one direction at a time. And it stressed me out.

When it comes to politics, I feel like I have even more to watch. And that can be for just one race.