Why are all Mormons Republicans?

First of all, they aren’t, just most of them, perhaps. James E. Faust was in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, which means he was in the top 3 as far as leaders are concerned, and he was a Democrat. Harry Reid is one of the most prominent Democrats at the moment, and he’s Mormon. But other than those two the rest are indeed Republicans. I’m kidding, of course, but there certainly are not many active Mormons who aren’t staunchly Republican. But there’s a fairly simple explanation for this. Democrats tend to be liberals, and Republicans tend to be conservatives, and conservatives ideals tend to match most closely the beliefs held by most Mormons, therefore most Mormons end up being Republicans.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Mormons are moving towards being independents these days. No, not because they’re mad at McCain for beating Romney, but because the Republican party seems to be trending more liberal lately, and McCain does happen to be a representation of that fact.

Comments

  1. The last portion of your post is incorrect. I am a Mormon that became a Democrat, not because Republicans were becoming too liberal but because they were becoming to conservative.

    I simply can’t understand how someone that believes in the LDS version of the gospel can support big business over the common laborer and war over peace. I don’t understand how Mormons that have a church welfare system and a system that promotes communal care for its members can oppose government programs designed to implement compassion, or how members of a church that strongly promotes education can be at odds with the public education system. I don’t understand how Mormons can ally themselves with evangelicals, who by and large despise Mormonism. I can’t understand how Mormons can work to implement moral laws and stand against the “agency” of others with alternative lifestyles, when the LDS Church itself argued for so many years in the latter half of the 19th Century to be left alone to live per their religious convictions while allowing all others the same privilege.

    True Mormonism is, indeed, quite a liberal religion.

    I suspect James E. Faust was one of many Democrats among the leaders of the church, but most simply choose to keep their mouths shut.

    • I understand where you're coming from although I think your conclusions are based on a misunderstanding of the motives of other Mormons.

      1. I'm probably one of those people you would perceive as supporting big business over the common laborer since I feel that placing less restrictions on business and more restrictions on unions is the way to go. But I think it's the way to go not because I think it's good for big business at the expense of the common laborer, but because I believe it's better for everyone, including the common laborer.

      2. Likewise, if you read some things I've written you might think I'm one of those Mormons who supports war over peace. But it's not that I'm in favor of war, heaven no. But I do believe that you cannot have peace without being willing to go to war. I believe that wicked men are kept in check only by threat of force, and that when wicked men know that you are not willing to use the weapons you have it increases the likelihood they will do things that will lead to war. Germany and Japan did not think the US would enter WWII, or that if we did we wouldn't have the stomach to see it through, and this led to the events that drew us into WWII. Sadaam did not think the US would attack him, and so he did not back down and his choices led to him being attacked. Iran and North Korea currently believe we will not attack them, which is why they are not stopping their nuclear programs which increases the likelihood that at some point we will attack them. If we were more willing to use military force and other countries believed it, there would be less incentive for evil men to do things that lead to us using it. That is, a stronger military and the will to use it means less war, not more.

      3. The church welfare system and the communal living taught by the church is different in a number of ways than what is practiced by our government:

      The church welfare system encourages self-respect, self-reliance, and provides incentives for the one being helped to get back on their feet. Government welfare as currently structured robs one of self-respect, creates dependence, and provides incentives to remain on welfare.
      Funding for the church welfare system comes from voluntary offerings by church members. Funding for government welfare comes from taxes that are mandatory, not voluntary.
      Those who run the church welfare system do so in order to help those in need. Those who promote the government welfare system do it to buy votes and increase their power.

      Ultimately you cannot force someone to be charitable. When the government forces us to give our money to the poor, this is not compassion nor does it teach compassion anymore than you would learn compassion if I came into your house uninvited and took all your food, your furniture, and your car and told you "Hey, I saw a guy who needs these more than you do so I'm going to take them from you and give them to him."

      4. I strongly support education, but I do not believe that the public education system is doing a very good job of it. I believe teacher's unions are more interested in power and money than educating children. I believe there are alternatives to the public education system as presently structured that would greatly improve the education of our children while dramatically cutting costs. I also believe the public education system is by and large administered by people who are indoctrinating children with incorrect information.

      5. We believe in allowing others to live their religious convictions as long as they don't interfere with our own in an onerous way. If I believed that gay marriage would have no negative impact on me, my family, or society at large then I wouldn't care about it. But I believe legalized gay marriage will have an enormously negative impact on society that will most certainly impact me and my family. What if someone said that murder was part of their religion? Should we say "Well, we don't want to stand against their agency, so maybe we should change the law to allow murder, as long as the person being murdered consents to it. After all, how does that affect me and my family?" The only difference between these examples is the seriousness of the offense, but the principle is the same. When a society officially accepts behavior that is wrong, then the behavior becomes perceived as being "not so bad". When this is done over and over again in many areas we end up with a general degradation of society, ultimately leading to increased levels of pain and suffering in the here and now, not to mention the hereafter.

      6. I agree, true Mormonism is a liberal religion in that it is willing to accept any and all truth, no matter what the source. But there is a big difference between "classical liberalism", which was the liberalism practiced by our Founding Fathers, and today's "Liberalism" which is actually quite similar to fascism. If you are willing to study history you'll find unnerving similarities between what is happening in our society and government today and those of Germany and Italy right before Hitler and Mussolini came to power. Unfortunately we've been led here by both Republicans and Democrats, the Democrats just happen to be moving us along the path faster.

  2. Look brother, as a member I would say hypocrisy, Latino church members are wondering why Republican politicians are addressing on our community are perhaps not realizing that with their cruelty, many families are hurting, disunited, many are used to mistreat not close your eyes is truth, and if you feel that they are well Forget it, everyone knows that the war in Iraq was a robbery, they kill lots of people, and did you know that those who supported it are called accomplices to murder begin to search your brain short justify these horrors, but no one ever knows except among you are going to justify what happens you are cruel to other races with the homeless, if they are ashamed to write to Republican leaders not continue to make more this type of crap, but we are Hispanic Mormons are not willing to bear its cheap excuses such as we obey the laws of men cruel, what happens is that there were no laws, but you, the evil they are doing, to hurt people, seriously it is annoying to see them in church proclaiming love for others but at the same time supporting evil people we are all Latinos know qu observed and although we are citizens of this country you are wrong, still think they are good with others, because they know one thing you will believe nothing but that vile lie. Do not try to justify the bad things anyway because they believe or not in the least, and for the good of the church say they are terrorists are not Mormons, because Mormon means being "very good and you are not

  3. It's been well over two years since this original post, and almost two years since I last commented on it, and during the past 1-2 years I've gone through a bit of a transformation politically. I still agree with much of what I said above, with some exceptions and/or clarifications:

    1. War. I no longer toe the Republican line when it comes to war. I think we were wrong to start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that we should bring all the troops home as quickly as possible, including those on other foreign bases around the world, of which we have close to 900.

    2. Gay marriage. I'm a bit torn on this matter. I'm inclined to believe we should get the government out of the marriage business entirely, but I'm still forming my opinions.

    3. Conservatism and Republicans. I no longer see the Republican party as being very conservative. I see both Democrats and Republicans as being fascists/tyrants in their own rights, in that they want to force their views on everyone else. I am in favor of individual liberty. That said, I think it will be an easier job to clean up the Republican party, although I am by no means assured of the success of that objective.

    As for immigration, which Francisco brings up but which I didn't address anywhere in this post to date, I agree that there is something wrong with the typical Republican position. I think there is much that needs to be remedied with the immigration situation, and I don't believe it starts with building a wall.

  4. FWIW, Francisco is correct about immigration.

    I don't view Republicans as inherently anti-immigrant. As a matter of fact, Eric's "big business" Republicans generally support easy access to the immigrant labor pool. This wing of the party sometimes clashes with the "law & order" Republicans, who are hawkish on immigration.

    Liberals also have to pull off an uncomfortable balancing act. They favor "the working man". Yet organized labor is directly undercut by cheap illegal immigrant labor. Still, I give organized labor credit for not resorting to xenophobia. Instead, they demonize the businesses that exploit cheap immigrant labor. But ultimately, unions just want 2nd class citizen guest workers to swell their ranks. They are also exploiting families.

    Republicans should purge the racists & present a positive agenda. They are the natural advocates of legal immigrants. We want outsiders. Mitt Romney was great on this, BTW. I don't just mean H1-B types, either. There are immigrants who put their lives on the line in our armed forces. They deserve our utmost respect.

    Building a wall would be pointless in his digital age. Instead, let's crack down on the dishonest, unpatriotic exploiters of immigrant labor, both unions & businesses. Do this & illegal immigration will dry up. Businesses & labor will fight back by accusing us of racism. That's fine, we just need to be extra careful to expel xenophobes from our ranks & hit back by highlighting their systematic exploitation of cheap labor.

    It's true that the Mormon faith has some liberalism at its heart. Remember the 2nd Article of Faith.

    It's true that Mormons, like all Americans, can honestly disagree about how to best provide for the general welfare.

    Still, I would caution liberals to read Kierkegaard & consider his warning about conflating church with state.

    And socialists hate Mormons much more than any evangelical I've encountered.

    Finally, anyone referring to polygamy as an "alternative lifestyle" is dishonest. Doctrine matters. Without it, the Church is dead.

    "As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them." -Dallin H. Oaks

  5. I’m probably one of those people you would perceive as supporting big business over the common laborer since I feel that placing less restrictions on business and more restrictions on unions is the way to go. But I think it’s the way to go not because I think it’s good for big business at the expense of the common laborer, but because I believe it’s better for everyone, including the common laborer.

    – Joshua Steimle

    ——-

    How do employees benefit from weak unions? From 1980 to 2004 the percentage of the workforce in unions declined from 23.2 percent to 12.5 percent. Real after tax income for 80 percent of the United States declined, as real after tax income for the richest 20 percent increased, and real after tax income for the richest one percent increased dramatically.

    http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Union+Membership:…

    http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn

    The decline in union membership has not been the only reason for the growing income gap, but it has certainly contributed.

    Countries with stronger unions than the United States generally have lower unemployment rates. They have been less effected by the Great Recession, and they are recovering faster.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem

    http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_unemployment_rates_mo

  6. Before we get into this, let's see what we agree on. Can we agree that, generally speaking, the stated objective of unions is to maximize the level of compensation, through pay or benefits, of its individual members?

  7. Before we get into this, let’s see what we agree on. Can we agree that, generally speaking, the stated objective of unions is to maximize the level of compensation, through pay or benefits, of its individual members?

    – Joshua Steimle

    ———

    Yes, and the goal of management is to get as much work out of the work force for as little compensation as possible. Increasingly management has been more interested in reducing the number of employees than the number of customers, as you can see from this news story.

    ———

    The New York Times July 25, 2010

    By most measures, Harley-Davidson has been having a rough ride.

    Motorcycle sales are falling in 2010, as they have for each of the last three years. The company does not expect a turnaround anytime soon.

    But despite that drought, Harley’s profits are rising — soaring, in fact. Last week, Harley reported a $71 million profit in the second quarter, more than triple what it earned a year ago…

    Many companies are focusing on cost-cutting to keep profits growing, but the benefits are mostly going to shareholders instead of the broader economy, as management conserves cash rather than bolstering hiring and production. Harley, for example, has announced plans to cut 1,400 to 1,600 more jobs by the end of next year. That is on top of 2,000 job cuts last year — more than a fifth of its work force.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/business/econom

  8. "How do employees benefit from weak unions?"

    A few reasons:

    1. They get to keep their jobs. Unions make employees more expensive. All things being equal, companies that have more expensive employees are at a competitive disadvantage against companies that have less expensive employees, and ultimately will go out of business, hence part of the reason for the decline in the number of union employees.

    2. They are more mobile, and mobility = security. Union employees are shielded from the realities of free markets, to an extent. Whereas at a non-union company an employee in a certain situation might lose his job, an employee at union company might not. This seems like a good thing, in the short run, but what if the reason the non-union employee lost his job is because his job is becoming extinct? This means whoever gets out of that job first and moves on to something else wins, and whoever hangs on ends up being the last guy in line for the new job, the guy who has more years of now-obsolete experience, and is the last guy to develop new skills. This is especially harmful to employees who are over 50, because they often lack the time and foundational skills to make a move. If they had lost their job when they were 40, they would have been better off in the long run.

    3. They have more dignity. What kind of self-respecting person wants to do a job they know someone else would be willing to do for half the price? Unions breed an attitude of entitlement, as though employees deserve their jobs. Nobody has a right to a job. Employees have no more right to a job than employers have a right to employees. The ideal is for employee and employer to negotiate until they both feel they are getting a good deal. This happens without unions. When unions get involved, both sides end up feeling screwed.

    4. They're more motivated to succeed. In a free market transaction between employer and employee, the employer is under pressure to give a good employee enough compensation to keep him from being hired by a competitor. The employee is under pressure to perform well enough so that he doesn't get replaced by a better employee. Both employee and employer benefit from this arrangement, as well as consumers. When a union is brought into the picture, the employee doesn't have to perform as well in order to maintain his compensation. Not only this, but in many cases if the employee performs beyond expectations, he gets in trouble, rather than being rewarded. He has less motivation to work harder and develop new skills, which hurt him in the long run.

    "Countries with stronger unions than the United States generally have lower unemployment rates."

    You say this as though unemployment were a bad thing. It's a great thing! Full employment is easy. Just start a war, or put give everyone government jobs digging ditches with spoons. This is what FDR did, and what do you know, the unemployment rate went way down. Of course people were being killed by the hundreds of thousands, and we had rationing and our standard of living was in the toilet, but hey, at least we had lowered the unemployment rate.

    200 years ago we had very low unemployment. Everyone from mom and dad to the kids worked 12 hour days just to survive. Today an average family can live at a standard unthinkable to anyone 200 years ago, and with only one adult in the household being employed. Because the kids are unemployed, they can become educated and lead more fulfilling lives. This is all due to increases in productivity, much of it thanks to industrial and technological progress. Who knows, maybe some day we'll all be able to live at a great standard without working at all. Of course the unemployment rate will be horrible, but who cares? The point is, if we focus on unemployment we've got the wrong goal in mind. We should be focusing on productivity, not unemployment.

    "Yes, and the goal of management is to get as much work out of the work force for as little compensation as possible."

    Again, you say this as though it's a bad thing. If you think this is a bad thing, but then go to buy a car and choose the one that seems like a better deal, then you're just as guilty as management. Companies that don't try to maximize profits aren't competitive and they go out of business. Who does that help?

    "Many companies are focusing on cost-cutting to keep profits growing, but the benefits are mostly going to shareholders instead of the broader economy, as management conserves cash rather than bolstering hiring and production."

    This part of that article entertains me. It shows a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to basic economics and business. Conserving cash doesn't provide benefits to shareholders, it merely protects them from losing the cash. Shareholders only derive a benefit when cash is invested and the return on the investment is positive. If the cash is not invested, there cannot be any positive return, and therefore there is no benefit.

    As for benefiting the broader economy, where does the author think that money goes? Under a mattress? When money gets saved, it's put in a bank account. Then that money can be loaned out. If Harley isn't using the money, then someone else is, as long as banks are making loans. If banks aren't making loans, then it's because either nobody wants one because they don't think they'll get a positive return, or because the banks don't believe they'll get a positive return on loaning the money out. Of course we can't predict the future all that well so mistakes are made, but by and large the right decisions get made, at least in a free market. Of course we don't have a free market in banking, so much of what I'm saying here is theoretical.

    By the way, here's a good video on the whole income gap, rich getting richer, poor getting poorer stuff:

    <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vDhcqua3_W8&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  9. You have not begun to explain why employees benefit from weak or non existent unions. You say they get to keep their jobs. Unionized workers have more job security. You say non union workers have more dignity. Unionized workers can stand up to their bosses and get away with it. That's dignity.

    Yes, unemployment is a terrible thing. Perhaps you should learn that on your own.

  10. "Unionized workers have more job security."

    Tell that to all the people who used to work in Detroit, or all the people who used to work in manufacturing. Anyway, that's great for workers if they have more job security, but if people are able to keep their jobs past the time when they would normally be let go, doesn't that mean our economy as a whole is wasting resources? Wouldn't it be better for those people to be employed somewhere that they're really needed?

    "You say non union workers have more dignity. Unionized workers can stand up to their bosses and get away with it. That’s dignity."

    I don't see unions as "standing up" I see them as bullying. Standing up for yourself is when you say "Hey, if you don't appreciate me, I'm going somewhere else where they will." Unions seem to exist for employees who lack the skills and other traits necessary to keep a job under normal circumstances. Where's the dignity in forcing an employer to keep you around when they don't want to, or to pay you more than you're worth?

    "Yes, unemployment is a terrible thing. Perhaps you should learn that on your own."

    Ha, I've gone four years without a paycheck and racked up $500,000 in business debt. That was as a business owner while I was paying my employees $80K/year salaries plus full benefits. If I had ever treated an employee the way I treated myself I'd be in jail. What I experienced was, in many ways, much worse than mere unemployment.

  11. Union workers do have job security. Non union workers have little or none. The de industrialization of the United States began before NAFTA, but it was greatly exacerbated by NAFTA. When Ross Perot wrote about "a giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the United States, he was giving an accurate prediction.

    The only people who can stand up to bosses who are malevolent without strong unions are those who get job offers over the phone. That is true of very few Americans, and virtually no blue collar workers.

  12. The only true job security is being educated and skilled. This is what creates demand for an employee. As an employer, my problem is that my employees are always being taken from me by other employers who are offering more pay and more benefits. My employees have real job security, because they can always find a job. Employers are competing to get them. There is no reason for them to join a union. If all employees focused on becoming more valuable and mobile, rather than trying to get employers to pay them more than they're worth, then they wouldn't need unions either. It's a losing battle to try and defeat market forces, and the destiny of union workers is to constantly be frustrated, whereas if they changed their focus they could be doing something they find truly fulfilling and meaningful.

  13. There is no reason for people with professional degrees from elite universities to join unions. In order to get one of those one probably needs to be born with a genius level IQ. Parents rich enough to pay tuition at an elite university would help too.

    Claiming that anyone can become a skilled and marketable professional is simply nonsense. Charles Murray has acknowledged that people do not deserve their IQs. Labor unions are for people of average and below average intelligence. Those people will not master marketable professions no matter how hard they try. When labor unions were stronger in the United States they were better off.

    Because labor unions raise wages throughout an industry workers who do not belong to a union benefit from strong unions. Employers still have to pay more to be competitive. They also have an incentive to pay more to discourage union activity in their companies.

  14. "There is no reason for people with professional degrees from elite universities to join unions. "

    This does not describe any of my employees. Many of them do not have college degrees at all.

    "Labor unions are for people of average and below average intelligence. Those people will not master marketable professions no matter how hard they try."

    I guess this is where we may have a fundamental disagreement. Other than people with actual mental disorders or learning disabilities, I don't believe there are people who are incapable of mastering marketable professions. I think people are generally much smarter and much more able than we give them credit for, and where they don't live up to any sort of admirable standard, it's often the fault of environmental conditions, specifically a lack of being exposed to ideas that would inspire them to better their situations. I look at unionized workers in an auto plant and think "This is such a shame. This should be a temporary position for teenagers, or people hard-up or in transition. Not a permanent career. These people should be moving on to bigger and better things." But people get locked into the idea of staying with the same job for 40 years, they get the idea they can't do anything else, and when unions raise their wages above what the market justifies, they think "Hey, where else can I make this kind of money for work that demands so little of me?" So they don't look for anything better. They become slaves.

    BTW, I'm not against unions, per se. I'm more opposed to what I see as unjust labor regulations. I think if a bunch of workers want to form a union, that's fine, and they have that right. They also have the right to quit and go work somewhere else. But I also think the employer has the right to say they'll fire anyone who joins a union. Employment is a voluntary transaction, and the government shouldn't be involved.

  15. You still have not explained why employees benefit from weak labor unions. The notion that lower wages and less job security will encourage them to advance their careers is simply preposterous. Most people are doing the best they can. They will never get rich no matter how hard they try.

    Strong labor unions are in the interest of employees, and harm the interests of their employers. Now it is not always the case that employees and employers play a zero sum game. Nevertheless, in an economy of steadily diminishing resources and opportunities, this is becoming increasingly the case.

    Currently most pay checks buy less than they did when Bill Clinton left office, but companies are more profitable than ever before. Strong labor unions supported by a large and powerful government would change both facts.

    • A strong and powerful government and strong labor unions would be the worst thing ever for our economy. These are both factors in why things are as bad as they are right now. But there is no way we're going to educate or convince each other with tiny snippets of conversation. But I'll make you a deal. If you'll read one of the books that has helped me form my opinions on this matter, I'll read any book you wish I would read. Deal?

  16. Joshua Steimle,

    Tell me the name of the book. I may have already read it. If I have not, tell me in your own words what it says. If you cannot do that I will suspect that you do not understand the book yourself, and agree with it because the policies it recommends would increase your standard of living, regardless of what they would do to the standard of living of the employees whom you said in the beginning of this thread benefit from government actions to weaken labor unions.

    I enjoy discussing controversial topics. I am often given reading material. When this happens I assume that I have won the argument. It is easy for someone to say, "Read this John. It proves that you're wrong." It is very difficult, however to actually prove that I am wrong.

    Rather than ask you to read a book, I would like for you to read two articles from Forbes, which as you must know calls itself, "the capitalist tool."

    The first article concerns "The Ten Happiest Countries." As you can see they are Scandinavian countries: "joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden."
    http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-f

    If you read the second article, also from Forbes, you will see that these "Scandinavian sisters," have much higher taxes than the United States. The second article, by the way, is by Bruce Bartlett. In addition to being a regular contributor to "the capitalist tool," he was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and he was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. After documenting that "the ten happiest countries" pay high taxes, Bartlett explains why high taxes contribute to national happiness.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-

    The following link demonstrates that the Scandinavian countries have powerful unions:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem

    And the last link demonstrates that countries with higher taxes than the United States and stronger unions have been less effected by the Great Recession, and they are recovering faster:

    http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_unemployment_rates_mo

    I hope you are willing to look at these websites. Reading them will take vastly less time than reading a book I might suggest. I use links to websites to substantiate factual assertions I make in arguments I compose myself. I do not say in effect, "Click on this. It proves I'm right." You can follow my argument without clicking on the websites, but the websites prove that I am right about the benefits of big government, high taxes, and strong labor unions.

    I discovered myself that the manuscript from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham was really The Book of the Dead. It was not until many years later that I discovered that competent scholars of the ancient Egyptian civilization had reached the same conclusion.

    • The book I would have you read may not even mention unions. I think our disagreements on this issue are rooted in fundamentally different views of human beings, the role of government, and individual liberty. I am merely curious to see how you would react to the contents of the book, which is called For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard.

      Regarding all those links, I had already seen the first one, and I took a look at the others, but I don't think they prove anything. Correlation is not causation, and as the first article points out, there are all sorts of potential reasons why those 10 countries experience the success they do, and besides, judging "happiness" is sticky business to start with.

      For me, the objective is not to get the US onto a "10 happiest countries list" but to allow people to make their own choices. The freedom to choose comes with consequences and the potential that people might choose to do things that don't bring them happiness. It's unfortunate that people make choices that don't bring them happiness, but I don't believe it's the role of the government to "help" people make better choices. If we need to have a federal government at all, it should be there to provide for the common defense. Otherwise, it should leave us alone. Every other service can easily be provided by the private sector at a much lower cost, and at much higher quality. Just look at the expense and low quality of almost all government run monopolies such as public schools, the post office, the banking system, etc..

      You may feel that the ends justify the means, that is, that forcing people to give up a portion of their income, provides greater happiness for society. Even if that could be proven to be true, I'd still be against it, because I think taxation is morally wrong. I see no difference between taxation and theft, except that thieves have the decency to not try and convince you that they're actually doing you a favor. Likewise with unions, for the sake of argument let's say they lead to a "happier" society. For me, that still doesn't justify the labor laws we have in our country. Do I believe workers should be free to organize? Absolutely. But I also believe companies should have the right to fire any worker they discover has joined a union. If a company thinks there's a way to work out a win-win situation such that the workers get their union and the company finds a way to work with the union in such a way that it's actually a benefit for the company too, then great. But for the government to step in and tell a company they can't fire a worker for joining a union, or to tell an employee that if 50% of his co-workers vote for a union then he has to join it too, even if he doesn't want to, is, in my opinion, a gross miscarriage of the role of government and interferes with the rights of the employer and employee to negotiate on their own terms, without interference, and I think that is morally wrong for our government to have and exercise such power.

      I also believe that in the long-run freedom produces the best results, but that is a difficult thing to prove. Despite the contrast between the results of the Soviet and American experiments there are people who still think socialism is the way to go, and that the only reason it didn't work in the USSR is because the wrong people were in charge. I think that's ridiculous, and that socialism has failed and will ultimately fail everywhere it's tried, but intelligent people can be found on both sides of this issue, and likely always will be found on either side.

      Why did you put that bit about the Book of Abraham in there?

  17. "Correlation is not causation" is an argument often directed against my fact based, logical arguments.

    All you have proven with your arguments is that a government that strengthens management while weakening labor unions benefits those in management. I agree and do not care.

    I put the bit ab out the Book of Abraham in my previous post to illustrate that I do my own thinking.

    • I don't want government that strengthens management either, I want a government that leaves everyone alone. Ever read the book Animal Farm?

  18. Joshua Steimle,

    You will probably agree with me that Democratic presidents are prone to side with labor unions against management. According to the following article from The Wall Street Journal, from the administrations of Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush there has always been more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on

    This is one more reason for doubting your assertion that labor unions damage the interests of employees.

    • The consequences of an administration's policies aren't always felt within the confines of their administration. That said, I'm not much of a fan of any president that we've had within the past 150 years. I think Bush was horrible and that Obama is merely more of the same policies.

  19. Joshua,

    I admire Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt – of course- Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.

    Lyndon Johnson was a tragic failure whose intentions were honorable. He said of himself, "I'm going to out Lincoln and out Roosevelt. He lost his wars on poverty and in Vietnam. The Democrat Party has never recovered.

    I think Adlai Stevenson, Bobby Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey may have been good presidents. Even Richard Nixon might have done some good if he had not had to contend with the War in Vietnam. I think that war was immoral. Nevertheless, the domino theory resonated with the American people. In Vietnam the only choices were to keep fighting or admit defeat. If Nixon had admitted defeat in 1969 he may have faced impeachment earlier than he did.

    If Stevenson had been elected in 1952 the War in Vietnam and the Iran Revolution never would have happened.

    Because the marketplace favors employers I want the government to favor employees. A government that tries to act as a neutral arbiter between employers and employees behaves like a referee in a boxing match between a heavy weight professional and a light weight amateur who enforces the Queensbury Rules equally to both.

  20. Woodrow Wilson was also a tragic failure. If the Treaty of Versailles had been less punitive toward Germany, as he wanted it to be, and if the United States had joined the League of Nations that he planned, the Second World War probably would not have happened. At most it would have been limited to Japanese aggression in the Far East. It would have been easier for China, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States to deal with Japan.

    I admire Thomas Jefferson.

    I appreciate George Washington not because of what he did, but because of what he could have done and did not. He was not a great military leader. He lost more battles than he won. Without French help he would have lost the American Revolution. He left nothing in writing that is worth reading. Nevertheless, he could have created a military dictatorship, or even an absolute monarchy with himself in charge, and he did not.

  21. Calvin Coolidge was for the most part a nonentity whose inattention lead to the Great Depression. However he did leave one sentence that justified his existence, "No man ever listened himself out of a job."

    Harry Truman overestimated the danger of Communism and bears much responsibility for the Cold War. Dwight Eisenhower caused the War in Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution. John Kennedy nearly ended the world during the Cuban Missile Crises.

    Ronald Reagan deserves a special place in Hell. More than any other person he convinced most whites that we can have the government we want without paying for it.

    The War in the Gulf had to be won. George H.W. Bush was the only man who could have won it.

    Joshua, I do not expect you to agree, and I respect your disagreements.

    • John I feel sorry for you. You are a lost soul here on earth but Jesus may take a shot at saving your sorry butt.

      • Joshua don't waste your time on him. He is too far gone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>