This will likely be more of a help than a hindrance in the coming mid-term elections, with regionalized conflicts being held together a general dislike for the current regime. The real question for the next presidential election will be just how well all those “cats” can come together and pull in at least the same general direction.

Of course the other major factor will be the level of disgust with Obama and his apparatchiks. If the country can be turned in a more conservative direction, will it create a repeat of the Clinton re-election scenario, where he was able to capitalize on the turnaround brought about by conservative policies?

What ever the case, it is unlikely to be boring.

For that matter, it is not clear how a Republican should view the Arizona statute and the immigration issue. If Republicans are supposed to support freedom of contract and freedom to choose where you want to work (as an employee) and who you want to hire (as an employer), why shouldn’t you be able to hire people from another country to work in your US facility. Surely you are free to hire the same people to do the same work in a factory in their own country, so why shouldn’t you be able to pay them to do the work in the US, where at least some of the money they are paid will stay in the local economy?

On the other hand, Republicans identify themselves as being concerned with maintaining America’s national identity and protecting national security against unrestricted entry by people that might include the occasional career criminal or terrorist. They are also concerned about an undue burden of public welfare services being placed on taxpayers.

During the last spasm of attempted immigration law reform under Bush and McCain, I think those leaders assumed that the pro-immigration interests among Republicans were the predomonant constituency for immigration reform, disregarding the strong grassroots concern about the negative impact that uncontrolled immigration has on communities and states. It is mainly because Republicans have lost power with the Obama ascendancy that Republicans can afford to adopt the persona of speaking for the “more control” wing of Republicans, since the Democrats have adopted the role of the “uncontrolled immigration” advocates.

I think a rational policy on illegal immigration would, first of all, recognize that (a) if the US Government does not control the borders and who crosses them, then the control is being given to the ruthless criminals who smuggle people, drugs and guns, and (b) there is nothing sacred, smart, or rational in the arbitrary limits in current immigration law on the number of legal immigrants, and they are clearly way too low to comport with the economic reality of the demand for unskilled labor. A rational immigration policy would establish real border control, while at the same time putting flexibility into the immigration law to allow the number of people allowed to come to the US to work to increase with actual observed demand.

As we face the difficult issue of what to do with existing illegal immigrants, we should take advantage of the information we have about each person because of his or her record of behavior within the US. That is more important than whether they can pony up $1,000 to pay a fine to get on a waiting list for permanent resident status. In fact, it is more likely that criminal illegal immigrants would be able to get that kind of funds together on short notice and fill up the queue before law-abiding immigrants. Why not give a person points for years of law-abiding work in the US, for fulfilling the duty to support spouse and children? Then deduct points for convictions of crimes and arrest for other crimes.

Asking the LDS Church or any other Church to weigh in on immigration policy is akin to asking it to opine on the income tax versus the flat tax.

And for that matter, many of the other issues currently before Congress and the president are in the same zone where you religion should not determine your position. That is one of the reasons why religious identity politics is pernicious and stupid. It tends to force churches and their members into taking positions on issues, when it should have nothing to do with religious beliefs, when a given church should be able to accommodate diversity on all sports of public policy.

It causes me to stop and reflect. Do I in any way think like the writers of the email? Would I be willing to participate in such an ugly protest against any group I disagree with? How far would I go to voice my opinion? Fortunately, my moral compass has been influenced by my church and has guided me, in as much as I have listened, to treat everyone with love unfeigned, understanding and kindness. It is always there, if I listen. It asks me the think about others. It asks me to consider what influenced the email writer’s moral compass. Where did they get their ideas? Who supplied the guidance on how to behave? Is their thinking just a holdover from a turbulent, violence filled youth where peers and mentors acted out, as I suspect, or is it something they came upon later in life? If they are active, church going people, what does their church teach them and are they listening?

My role as a change agent, through training and education, emphasized frequent re-examination of ourselves to correct behaviors that are self defeating. It is a difficult skill to master and requires the ability to see others and ourselves objectively. It takes practice and like every worthwhile skill, constant application. My personal and professional experience tells me it may be one of the most challenging things we will ever do. It is challenging because it requires us to drop our emotionalism and step out of who we think we are. That is no small thing. Doing it occasionally will seldom make permanent changes in us and may only teach us how to get out of a jamb without changing who were are fundamentally. We see that in people who are quick with a mea culpa to fit a public face and afterwards go back to old thinking habits. Successful people repent, make amends and then change the behavior. So it should be with our behavior towards those with whom we disagree. Ugly confrontation only makes enemies and enlists us an agent of darkness.

Moving on. A problem has erupted in Temecula, CA regarding a proposed Mosque near two churches, in the area. The locals also objected to the construction of an LDS church near a traditional Christian school in that city some years back too. The objections were all based on zoning , traffic and the usual things neighbors object to in such matters. However, one element in the community decided to take it one step further. According to the newspaper, the Valley News, an e-mail was sent to them which announced that a one-hour “singing – praying – patriotic rally” will begin at 12:30 p.m. July 30 at the Islamic Center’s existing facility. The advisory – sent by a leader of a conservative coalition that has been active with Republican and Tea Party functions – recommended participants “bring your Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voices.”
“We will not be submissive,” the notice proclaimed. “Our voices are going to be heard!” The alert went on to question what its authors described as Islamic beliefs. It suggested that participants sing during the rally because Muslim “women are forbidden to sing.” It suggested that rally participants bring dogs because Muslims “hate dogs.” The article is here.

Blanket statements about politicians are no better than blanket statements about persons affiliated with a specific religion. Yes, some politicians have been known to “speak half-truths, fail to follow basic manners and ignore context,” but many, even most, others are good people doing their very best to serve their constituencies and the nation.

Politics is not a game or a show – it is very real and very important. When we treat it like an ugly stepchild, that it what it will become and no one is well served by that.

It seems logical to me that when any religious groups seeks to exert political influence it takes on the trappings and manners of politicians. That means they speak half-truths, fail to follow basic manners and ignore context. Once they adopt those habits it becomes easy to make them part of their religious thinking and ecclesiastical behavior too. If God fearing people want to be involved in politics, they should insist that their leaders and institutions not be. They should stick with the moral and religious issues. Otherwise, they create more division than cohesion and that just doesn’t seem to be Christian. Or so it seems to me.

Mormons take a vow to sustain in all things high church leaders.

I must have missed that one. I do remember taking a vow not to speak evil of them, but that’s a very different thing.