Ken Burns' "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History" Places Intimacy Over Objectivity

It can't be said that we weren't warned.  For those hoping for an objective presentation of the lives of the 3 Roosevelt's emphasized in this documentary (Teddy, Franklin, and Eleanor), they will come away sorely disappointed.  "An Intimate History" is just that--a history from the intimate perspective of an admirer with a great reverence for their subject, cognizant that opposing viewpoints may exist, but willing to ignore them altogether or merely acknowledge them briefly rather than discuss them with any meaning.

While the production itself is immaculate--from the wealth of photographs and early video clips rarely seen, to the location shots and voice acting--the presentation as an educational piece leaves one heavily biased towards a particular interpretation of the Roosevelt's contribution to American history. That narrow interpretation is reinforced by the historians invited to participate.  A study of those interviewed reveals that historians who have studied Teddy were more balanced in their approach, while the historians who discussed Franklin produced hagiography not historiography.  Theodore Roosevelt's overall treatment struggles to stand on its own as it is continuously emphasized how his turn on the stage was a mere warm-up, albeit with heavy influence, on the eventual emergence of the true giant of the Roosevelt clan, Franklin.

Nowhere is the bias more evident than in the treatment of the two men's deaths.  While Theodore's death encompassed 4 minutes of screen time, a minute of that time was spent on FDR and where he was when Theodore died.  Additionally, the emotional tone of the brief segment is somewhat subdued, as if one is searching for but can't quite find the emotion they know they should feel at his passing, but simply can't.  Contrarily, Franklin's death received a full 16 minute treatment, complete with quotations to emphasize his divine stature as an American God in a segment that could lead one to believe that the passing of the "American Savior," Franklin Roosevelt, was the most tragic death since the Son of Man nearly 2,000 years earlier.  If you feel this is hyperbole, simply watch the segment--listen to the swelling music, the fawning quotations, and the utter lack of any criticism. In discussing the final months of FDR's life, no mention is made of the criticism that existed even then that FDR failed miserably to prepare his vice-president, Truman, for the presidency, even when FDR had known for over a year he was near death.

Aspects of each man's presidency were addressed, though again, if you keep track of the negative treatments for each, those geared towards Teddy Roosevelt outnumber the negatives leveled to FDR nearly 3 to 1.  There are many legitimate questions which academics and historians are beginning to acknowledge are critical of FDR's presidency--namely, the prolonging of the Great Depression by his policies, and it is generally accepted that FDR did not end the Depression, although he did help Americans emotionally cope with it.  He may have given Americans hope, but his actionable results far from produced a measurable end to the Depression.  Many historians and academics have produced impeccable research to this end, but none were invited to participate in this documentary.

Ken Burns is an excellent documentary filmmaker.  He gave us "The Civil War," and even though it's been nearly 20 years since that was produced, it still stands as the finest documentary to address the Civil War and one of the most effective documentaries of all time.  His subsequent documentaries, such as "War" and "The National Parks," have both been commendable efforts, but "The Roosevelts" is anything but.  While effort was put forth, and resulted in a visually beautiful documentary, there was no beauty in the lack of academic honesty and intellectual objectivity, both of which were cast aside in the face of the popularly accepted notion that FDR is simply one of the greatest men to ever live in American history.  Ken Burns loves FDR, and so will the naive viewer at the conclusion of this hagiography.

Herbert Who-ver?

Who is Herbert Hoover?  Most people, if not showing outright ignorance by spouting off some remarks about vacuum cleaners, would likely share a few sentences about a failed presidency, a man callous towards the suffering of others, and the president responsible for the Great Depression.  Measured against his successor, as is his place often taught in classroom history lectures, he seems insignificant against the stature of his successor, FDR.  Perhaps I have given most people (at one point, myself included) too much credit.  A single sentence about ushering in the Great Depression and failing to do anything about it may be all that some people can confidently declare about one of the most villified, yet most accomplished, chief executives we have ever had as our president.

Self confessions should be offered right up front--I am not a Herbert Hoover expert, nor am I a Herbert Hoover apologist.  I am, however, an honest seeker of truth, and strive to understand historical figures within the context of their own times, viewed through contemporary rather than modern lenses, and to understand them by getting as close to their life and times as I can while avoiding strictly modern interpretations and analysis telling me what I should think about them.  And Herbert Hoover is a man whose history is dominated by the latter perspective and very rarely presented in the former.

My own efforts to understand Herbert Hoover began 6 years ago when my study of progressivism reached full throttle.  Hoover was a name I often heard thrown around as one of the progressive Republican presidents, and as such his name often produced an uncomfortable squirm.  After hearing him discussed and mentioned so many times in secondary sources, I decided it was time to dive in head first to gain my own understanding of this man, and it has now grown into an appreciation of him as well.  My efforts to do so quickly ballooned out of my initial expectations and my library now includes the complete 6 volume biography of Hoover begun in 1980 and finished only last year, his 3 volume memoirs, his newly discovered lost memoir of his fight against the New Deal, and his "magnum opus" called "Freedom Betrayed," his very prescient history of World War II.

One who truly studies the life of Herbert Hoover cannot help but come away from that study feeling like they had known a ghost all along, and have now been introduced to a new man.  This callous man who supposedly sat in the White House without a thought for the starving poor and destitute Americans during the Great Depression actually spearheaded the largest humanitarian efforts the world had ever seen to feed tens of millions of starting citizens in countries throughout the world after the ravages of both World Wars tore families and nations apart.  This man who left the White House in 1933 as a villified and defeated man had entered that residence 4 years earlier as one of the most popular men of the past 20 years, winning his presidency with an amazing landslide victory, securing 440 electoral votes but, even more tellingly, won the popular vote by nearly 20% (the same margin by which he would lose in 1932).  Here was a man that many wished forgotten after his presidency, yet he lived on for more than 30 years and became the most respected Elder Statesman of the 20th century, whose counsel was sought by even Democratic presidents following the end of FDR's presidency (who openly and publicly mocked Hoover and viciously derided and attacked him in private).  Often considered a progressive Republican (he claimed himself to be progressive), he relentlessly fought for conservative ideals in the face of growing government bureaucracy during the New Deal, and was credited for the massive resurgence of conservative sentiment that helped the Republicans resoundingly defeat the Roosevelt agenda in the 1938 mid-term elections.

To say that Herbert Hoover is a man of seeming contradictions is an understatement.  So who was he?  The answer to that question is one I will try to concisely address in coming days.

Wealth & Politics, Part I: Presidents & Net Worth

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, wealth was made a major issue.  You could publish a novel longer than "Les Miserables" by simply compiling all the articles addressing Mitt Romney's wealth, and could use all the articles addressing it in a positive light for a single chapter.  Unfortunately, very few questions were asked, and instead most people denigrated their intellectual honesty by simply shotgunning wild claims and hoping some of them would stick.  Through it all, it was implied that Mitt Romney's wealth was bad and should be a major consideration when evaluating his ability to be President.  But why?  Does wealth prevent one from effectively leading people from all walks of life?  Does wealth insulate a man from the privations and struggles of the average American?  Does wealth prevent a man from connecting to and understanding those around him?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then you'd be surprised who some of the absolute worst presidents are in our history--ones who supposedly didn't have a clue about the average American and apparently couldn't have cared less.  Beginning with our first president, George Washington, our nation was led by out of touch, arrogant men who couldn't have cared less about the plight of the average citizen until James Buchanan reached the White House, and ironically he is considered the worst president in history more than any other.  Prior to Buchanan, all 14 President's were millionaires with vast wealth.  George Washington, the father of our country and often considered one of the 3 greatest presidents, must not have been so great--he was our second wealthiest president worth well over $500 million.  Thomas Jefferson, the author of our nation's founding document was worth nearly $250 million.  Were those men out of touch?  Did they fail to connect to those in the poorer ranks of Americans?  Of course, the first few Presidents were known to be wealthy aristocrats, at least until that all changed with the arrival of Old Hickory, the first President believed to represent the common man and not come from the wealthy aristocratic class, Andrew Jackson.  But wait--worth $120 million, more than his 3 predecessors?  Indeed, and with over 300 slaves to boot.

As one moves to the 20th century, we find another slew of ineffective, greedy leaders who couldn't care less about the plight of us poor Americans.  Leading the charge is the wealthiest of all Presidents, born into a family worth twice as much as George Washington, and that was John F. Kennedy, whose family's estate was worth well over $1 billion (his daughter and only surviving immediate family member was recently revealed to be worth $500 million after keeping her wealth a secret her whole life, her wealth primarily coming from trust accounts from her father and grandfather).  Considering other out of touch Presidents, one would certainly have to add both Roosevelt's to the list, both Teddy and Franklin, who were worth $125 million and $65 million, respectively.  Looking to the same era, one can't help but remember Warren G. Harding, often portrayed as an elite, wealthy businessman who was out of touch with the American people--of course, his meager worth didn't even top a single million, nor did Calvin Coolidge, whose supposed antipathy towards wealth prevented him from reigning in the rising stock market during the '20s because of his comfort with wealth, which he ironically never had himself, as his worth was also less than a million and contained primarily in his single home.

So who was our last president that wasn't a millionaire?  You have to go back 60 years--to Harry S. Truman.  Yes, even the down to earth peanut farmer Jimmy Carter was worth a pretty penny, or more precisely, $7 million worth.  All told, only nine presidents have not had enough net worth to be considered millionaires, including Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Wilson, amongst the others already listed.  Perhaps the more important question then should not be about the wealth of a man, but how he uses his wealth.  Too bad the mainstream media wasn't smart enough to ask that question during the election and instead concocted negative stories where none existed.  Mitt Romney tax evader?  Mitt Romney illegal banking practices?  Mitt Romney caring more about his wealth than people?  Stories negatively answering those stories were blasted to the American people without any regard for the wealth of evidence to the contrary.  So called reporters instead chose to rely on here-say that proved the point they most agreed with rather than use the truth to prove they were wrong.  In part 2 of this article, I will talk about the ways in which wealth has affected and been used by some of our former Presidents.

Did Ronald Reagan End the Cold War?

This question has been asked countless times since the collapse of the Soviet Union a mere 2 years after Reagan's presidency, which was built on the crusade of peacefully destroying the evil empire, a purpose that Reagan had already devoted decades of his life to.  Historians and commentators of all persuasions have weighed in on this question for over 25 years.  With an increasingly amount of previously classified material coming to light, more evidence is available to weigh as one seeks the answer, and the documents are indeed quite pertinent to consider.  Most of them are minutes of top secret national security meetings where the weapons in Reagan's arsenal to undermine the Soviet system were articulated and put on record as top secret official administration policy.  Perhaps most telling, however, is that all of these documents, only available during the last several years, reinforce one of the best works about this topic, which was one of the first.  Written over 20 years ago, "Victory" by Peter Schweizer is an in-depth analysis of the Reagan administration's crusade to wipe Soviet communism from the earth, and in so doing free the tens of millions of people living in bondage behind the Iron Curtain.  Schweizer's book is based primarily on personal interviews with the individuals involved in this strategy.  While these individuals didn't directly release classified information, they released enough information to validate the thesis of Schweizer's book, and their information--offered in broad generalizations--have been validated and strengthened with the wealth of material becoming available confirming what they have said.

As I have sought to answer the original question regarding Reagan's role in ending the Cold War, I have analyzed dozens of published works regarding this topic, many of them unedited primary sources, and have come to the inescapable conclusion that Ronald Reagan did facilitate the end of the Cold War.  While arguments can be made that the Soviet Union would have collapsed eventually, the same argument could be made that they could have survived their economic setbacks without the pressure from Reagan and emerged even stronger (indeed, many of Reagan's opponents and leading academics were making these arguments in the late 1980s, claiming the Soviet Union was too large to collapse despite its economic setbacks and its size was a strength that would insulate and preserve it).  Whether it would have ended only 5 or 25 years later is beside the point--to me, the simple fact is that if Ronald Reagan had not been President, and aggressively pursued a crusade against communism, the Soviet Union would not have ended when it did.  My analysis of the various works have led me to that conclusion, and it was frankly an easy one to reach based on the vast amount of evidence.  In sum, Ronald Reagan's economic war (and it was all out war behind the scenes in the eyes of the administration) undercut the very foundation of the Soviet Union's ability to sustain itself.  Often leading alone, against the advice of advisers and world leaders, Reagan sought to economically devastate the Soviet economy and force the hand of its leaders.  Even Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, was only elevated to his position as a response to the aggressive new policies which had already been affecting the Soviet Union for years before his appointment that were pursued by Reagan during his first term in office before Gorbachev's appointment.

For those that argue Ronald Reagan was merely in the right place at the right time, or was simply lucky, they often claim that Gorbachev, not Reagan, deserves credit for the end of the Cold War.  Indeed, TIME magazine named Gorbachev--not Reagan--their Man of the Decade for bringing about such sweeping change to the Soviet Union.  What they fail to consider is the degree to which Reagan influenced the appointment of Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that Gorbachev's major reforms of Glasnost and Perestroika nothing more than economic programs aimed to counter the massively debilitating affects that Reagan's policies were having on the economic health of the Soviet Union.  Put bluntly, without Reagan there very likely would have been no Perestroika and no Glasnost, at least in the form that we know them.  It is even quite plausible that Gorbachev himself would have not been appointed General Secretary, and this much is admitted by the Soviets themselves who were part of the process of Gorbachev's appointment.  This is all fitting, of course, considering that a plaque sat on Reagan's Oval Office desk that read "There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."  Reagan's satisfaction at the collapse of the Soviet Union came from knowing that the opportunity now was the reward of the oppressed, that freedom could now be enjoyed by those who had been silenced, and people of all faiths could now freely worship.  He did not need to argue for the credit, and didn't.  Indeed, he would be the first to deflect that credit towards those around him, including Gorbachev, and their all having been blessed by a higher power that simply enabled them to be the instruments in carrying out a more divine purpose to which Reagan felt he had been called to fulfill years before his rise to the Presidency.

Critiquing Obamacare

The following article highlights how Obamacare should be critiqued--using direct links to the law itself.  It's one thing to say what's in the law, but actually showing us what's in the law to back it up goes a long way. 

The Affordable Care Act is Not Incomprehensible

JFK the Conservative?

With Ira Stoll's new book, "JFK Conservative," a new argument is being made that JFK isn't the true liberal icon that modern liberals herald him to be.  While I have yet to read Stoll's book, I think it is futile to argue that JFK had no conservative tendencies, though equally futile to claim he was completely conservative and a Republican in all but name.  The truth is that he was a moderate, and espoused tendencies that both sides could claim were in agreement with them.

Clouding our ability to objectively assess the veracity of the JFK conservative argument, and objectively consider the evidence, is our own political world that is not necessarily more charged than at times in the past, but is certainly filled with more venom, vitriol, polarization, and hate than is common.  More importantly, the Cold War is over--an event that defined the world in which JFK lived, and drove one of the primary platforms of his entire political career with his fervent and vocal anti-communism.  Indeed, he ran his presidential campaign on the idea that his predecessor, the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, had actually been too soft on the Soviet Union, and that a more aggressive, anti-communist foreign policy was needed, something that was just as alien an idea to liberals then as it is today.  Even former first lady and liberal icon Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against JFK, recognizing he was not "one of them."

Prior to his presidency, JFK served in the Senate as a democrat after miraculously defeating the popular incumbent, and Republican from Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge.  During his time in the Senate, the liberal Democratic establishment never considered JFK a member of their caucus.  Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority leader during this time and JFK's eventual vice-president, was the face of the liberal establishment and he scoffed at the "upstart" Kennedy and paid him little attention.  When liberal democrats joined together in the controversial censure vote of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, Kennedy ducked the vote by being absent.  It was well known that the Kennedy family were supporters of the Republican Senator, with RFK having served as an aide to McCarthy and even naming McCarthy as the godfather of his child.  While JFK was never as close to McCarthy as RFK, he was an ardent anti-communist, as was McCarthy, though he likely would not have condoned the radical methods pursued by McCarthy.

As the 1960 presidential election neared, many liberal democrats considered JFK an "outsider" with only a long shot, at best, of capturing the nomination.  While Lyndon Johnson was the favorite, many also considered Hubert Humphrey the more likely choice for his more obvious liberal positions.  JFK had also distanced himself from the previous two time nominee, Adlai Stevenson, who was known for his more liberal policies.  JFK ran his campaign not on domestic issues, as liberals commonly do, but emphasized foreign policy, a typically conservative cause, and even did so on a platform of greater aggressiveness at rolling back communism, not merely containing it, a typically conservative approach to foreign policy.

Once elected, JFK began his presidency with a very powerful inaugural conveying American might and strength in the face of the Cold War.  Domestically, JFK spoke to Americans and issued perhaps his most famous challenge which cuts right to the heart of liberal domestic policy by urging Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you," but urged them to look inward and "ask what you can do for your country."  This led to the establishment of the bipartisan Peace Corps.  He further distanced himself from the liberal establishment by appointing a number of Republicans to his cabinet and other prominent positions, such as conservative businessman and Republican Douglas Dillon as Secretary of the Treasury and Republican Robert McMamara to Secretary of Defense (Kennedy initially offered McNamara the treasury post.  McNamara became one of Kennedy's most trusted cabinet members, whom Kennedy regarded as "one of the stars of his team" who became close to RFK as well, and even served as a pallbearer at his funeral in 1968).  Indeed, JFK's fiscal policies are nearly as conservative as was his foreign policy.  He supported across the board tax cuts and lowered the top income bracket by nearly 30%.  Of course he lowered the rate to 65%, still higher than the rates in our modern world, and as such open to the argument by modern liberals that JFK would support raising current rates, not lowering them.  It is on record, however, that JFK did believe that economic growth could be fueled by lowering taxes, and his policies proved correct.  He also, however, supported Keynesian economic policies favored by liberals.  As such, he considered deficit spending to foster economic growth but was extremely reluctant to pursue these policies, much to the displeasure of his more liberal advisers.  In the end, Kennedy believed that deficit spending should only be used to serve his ultimate foreign policy objectives in relation to the Cold War and ensuring our military capability in defending from a possible Russian attack.  Indeed, viewing Kennedy's decisions through the prism of the Cold War illuminate them with an understanding difficult for many in our modern world to grasp, again due to the end of the Cold War.  Kennedy believed the U.S. economy  needed to grow faster than the Russians, and viewed economic policy through this lens.  Spending on highways and schools was approved on the premise that improved our defense capability.

Regarding his foreign policy initiatives, Kennedy believed fervently in the very conservative policy of pushing back on communist expansion and established, with McNamara, that the primary mission of U.S. overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, would be "to prevent the steady erosion of the Free World through limited wars."  While we can never know how Vietnam would have unfolded with Kennedy at the helm, he did increase the number of U.S. advisers located in Vietnam from 900 to 16,000 during his short presidency.  When the Cuban Missile crisis occurred, Kennedy sought a moderate approach that ultimately preserved peace and defused the situation in perhaps the crowning diplomatic achievement of his presidency.

While assessing Kennedy's conservatism, it is appropriate and beneficial to compare him to what modern conservatives herald as their equivalent to Kennedy, their own principled hero, Ronald Reagan.  Both men were more pragmatic and principle oriented, who believed in compromise.  Both men were looked down upon by the entrenched politicians of their parties and were rejected by the establishment.  Both men focused their campaigns and presidencies on the people, not politicians, and they spoke directly to the people to drum up support for their policies.  Both men navigated a political middle ground.

In a 1962 commencement address at Yale, Kennedy spoke of his pragmatic commitment to principle over party when he declared "The central issues of our time are more subtle and less simple, they relate not to basic philosophy or ideology but to ways and means of reaching common goals...political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution."  Kennedy admitted to reluctantly bearing the label "liberal" because of his awareness that he needed liberal support to win the nomination, stating he would call himself whatever was needed.

In another address, in 1960, JFK spoke most pointedly about this very matter when defining what he believed liberalism to be and proclaiming himself a proud liberal, and setting forth the terms by which he claimed to be a liberal.  He stated, "If, by 'liberal,' [our opponents] mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrates that we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if, by a 'liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people….if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I’m proud to say that I’m a 'liberal.'"  (To read the entire address, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/)

In the end, I do not believe JFK was by any means a conservative icon, but I do believe he is not a liberal icon, at least in today's understanding of the word in political usage.  JFK did have many very conservative tendencies which cannot be overlooked as easily as many liberals try to do, but he also had liberal policies by today's definition that conservatives must remember.  Regarding his policies that could be considered liberal by today's standards, during his presidency "Social Security benefits and food distribution to poor Americans was increased; including free school lunches. In 1961, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required affirmative action by government contractors as to both applicants and employees. It also established the "President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity". Kennedy also established the "Presidential Commission on the Status of Women" which was an advisory commission to investigate: education, income and workplace issues of women. Thereafter, in June 1963, Kennedy signed the "Equal Pay Act" which was to close the so-called wage gap based on sex."

Could it be possible that the tendency from all citizens on different political sides of the aisle engage in a futile effort to reach for the legacy of JFK and stake a larger claim to his legacy than the other?  Could it be possible that the reason for JFK's enduring legacy is exactly the opposite of what we try to do--label him?  Could it be possible that JFK's legacy endures because he avoided labels and believed one shouldn't be beholden to them?  Could it be possible that JFK's presidency was driven more by his own ideological principles than those forced upon him by any political party establishment?  And could it be possible that his own ideological principles were not only born of his own unique life experiences and views, but that they were more pragmatic and wide ranging than many ideologues care to admit?  I think so.

Why I'm Conservative...

I am conservative because I believe freedom is meant to be given uniquely to each individually, not collectively to groups.  For that matter, I don't believe in "the masses," but I do believe in the uniqueness of each individual that makes up what others call "the masses."  I believe there is more unique than the same about the so-called "common man," and that the uniqueness of each individual is anything but common.

I am conservative because I believe people can take better care of each other than entities can.  While I recognize entities are a necessary evil, I believe that the farther from the people they are meant to serve they become (through regulations, bureaucracy, sheer size, and so forth) they become worse and worse at their job.  They become insulated from their own failures and fail to see them, and simply begin to perpetuate themselves rather than the cause for which they were begun.

I am conservative because I believe principle trumps party.

I am conservative because I believe in the goodness of mankind.

I am conservative because I believe in the innate potential of individuals.

I am conservative because I believe we should be given the chance to fail in order to learn how to grow.

I am conservative because I am not afraid of failure.

I am conservative because I believe the human spirit is more powerful than anything else.

I am conservative because I recognize that there is evil in this world that cannot be controlled through regulation or legislation.

I am conservative because I believe governments first role is to protect, not provide.

I am conservative because I believe the government is a servant of the people, not their master.

I am conservative because I believe everything that makes man good is not granted us by government, but by God.

I am conservative because I believe in the America that the founders gave us.

I am conservative because I believe that the weaknesses of the founders doesn't undercut their arguments regarding liberty--I believe it is wrong to believe only perfect people can be right.

I am conservative because I believe our country is a republic, as the Founding Fathers clarified it was, not a democracy, as they clarified it was not.

I am conservative because I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to work to make the most with their life, not the government's.

I am conservative because I believe that without inequality in all things, those at the bottom wouldn't know for which they could strive, of what they are capable, and how to help others once they get there, and that those at the top can feel the pride of having born the fruit of their own labors and not others, can better assist others in joining them, and that their aspirations cannot be fueled by regulations but can be dampened by them.  I believe we ARE all equal in our potential, for we all contain the same spark of divinity and goodness within us, but I do NOT believe we are all equal in our success and effort, and to require us to be, or even force us to be, is an affront on the beauty of the uniqueness of the individual and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy of calling evil good, and good evil.

I am conservative because I believe that we can never all be made to be equal, but that our ability to become uniquely who we need to be IS equal in that we all possess the ability.

I am conservative because I believe that principle comes before party and politician.

I am not conservative merely because I like leaders who claim to be conservative.

I am not conservative because I have been offended by the behavior or attitudes of someone who is not.  I believe in distinction between principles, which can be shared, and individual behavior, which cannot.

I am not conservative because I have been told to be, but because I can think for myself.

I am not a conservative because it's hip, popular, or what others around me choose to believe in as well.

I am a conservative because for me, it is right.

I am conservative because I recognize that for you, it may not be right.

I am conservative because I believe that to disagree with me does not mean you are wrong.

I am conservative because I believe our differences in principle are not a weapon in a war that must be won, but tools to be used to foster understanding and appreciation without requiring conversion or agreement.

I am a conservative because the principles of conservatism are the principles most dear to my heart and at the core of who I am.

I am not a conservative because of policies, programs, or politicians.

I am a conservative because of individuality, not commonality.

I am conservative because I believe we have more that unites us than divides us.

I am conservative because I believe what does unite us is more important than what divides us.

I am conservative because I believe the divide that society tells us divides us is a lot smaller than they say.

Obamacare and Vindication

While my animosity towards the monstrosity that is the deceitfully named "Affordable Care Act" has been constant since it was being crafted in secret and without bipartisan collaboration before its eventual passage in March 2010, it is nice to see vindication.  Over the past several weeks, the "extremists" who have been warning about the ticking time bomb hidden within the most convoluted, regulation creating, and abstract bill ever created, are finally being proven right.  The law that needed to be passed in rapid desperation with the promise of being accepted once it is understood, is becoming understood and increasingly rejected rather than accepted.  Passed behind closed doors, in a more hyper partisan manner than any major legislation in modern history, it was sold to the American people on promises being proven false.  Stated more succinctly--it was sold on lies.  The lies were unequivocal, on record, and repeated by not only numerous senators, but worse, on at least 36 occasions by the man holding the office once deserving of the highest degree of trust in the land. The American people haven't been lied to so bluntly since Clinton's perjury regarding his adultery or Nixon's denial of his involvement in Watergate.  While some lies are only so in degrees of variance, or interpretation, the lies in Obamacare couldn't be farther apart from one another in degrees.  The President's remarks were unusually clear as far as Washing political talk goes, leaving zero room for misinterpretation and down the road equivocating.  And yet we are now down that road, and awakening to a realization that the President was 100% wrong.  Promises of keeping things now being stripped away, affordability for services now increasing in price, and efficiency of service now marred by failure on a massive scale, were thrown at the American people with the confidence of an artist in the immortality of his work carved in granite, yet they now sit in more pieces than a Picasso puzzle.  Of course, the suffering of a people lied to by the leader they elected to support them is no laughing matter, but what is laughable though also utterly disturbing is the various media outlets rushing to defend the isolated President.  From the New York Times calling his lies "incorrect promises" to journalists on CNN, msnbc, and other networks simply throwing their arms in the air and blaming Republicans, apparently taking a page right from the Obama administration's playbook for the first 4 years of their Presidency during which time Bush was culpable for everything wrong with our country.  Unfortunately, they can no longer blame Bush, and blaming Republicans for a bill they literally had zero input on and were forcibly kept from contributing to is certifiably insane.

UPDATE: A couple of days after writing this, President Obama himself gave in to blaming Republicans for the failure of Obamacare's rollout even though, again, they had nothing to do with it.  He says that because they have been rooting for the law's failure, they are responsible, because they are "invested in defeat."  You can't make this stuff up.  WashPost Reports Obama Blames a GOP 'Invested in Failure' for Obamacare; Skips Any Republican Rebuttal

Why Only on the Front Porch?

It has often been said that there are three things you shouldn't talk about in polite company--religion, politics, and money (some lists include sex instead of money).  Who exactly wrote this rule has remained anonymous to the annals of history, though this saying is nearly elevated to equal prominence with the Ten Commandments.  One could easily wager it was someone who shunned disagreement, had a hard time explaining themselves or feeling understood, or maybe was just downright unsure themselves of where they stood on these issues.  This is all fine and dandy, but as I hope to argue in this article, not only are we all entitled to our opinions, but we shouldn't be afraid to share them openly, honestly, and respectfully with anyone we meet.

What happened over the course of time that relegated the most interesting things to talk about to the list of things not to talk about?  I'll tell you what happened (of course, I may be wrong)--rather than engage in a stimulating conversation with an open mind, people started preaching their views with a closed mind.  What's wrong if someone you are talking with disagrees with you?  A view different than your own isn't going to make your head explode; trust me, I disagree with my wife on things every day and she hasn't donated my headless body to science quite yet.

For the sake of this argument, I'm only referring to conversation you may have with a neighbor, friend, or someone you meet during the normal course of a day.  Obviously, certain business or professional environments adhere to a completely different set of social guidelines not applicable in average social situations. But when it comes to a casual encounter with a neighbor, family member, or even stranger, why must we dogmatically refuse to discuss anything of importance?  How does refusing to discuss anything of meaning with someone convey to them we value the meaning inherent in their uniqueness as an individual?  Does avoiding these matters of importance and replacing them with trite, trivial, and frankly boring and pointless small talk somehow convey to that individual that you care about them....just not enough to actually talk with them about anything that matters? 

Ultimately, self deception and doubt are one of the culprits of promoting the banal small talk that many are forced to engage in every day.  If only people could be more confident in their self identity, and more aware of their convictions, they would not only be able to more confidently, clearly, and respectfully discuss them with others, but they would not be so reticent to do so based on the fear that they may realize they don't know themselves and be thrown into a tail spin of self discovery forcing them to navigate the waters of self awareness in which they may not comfortably function.

As for me, I am ready and willing to discuss religion and politics any time, any day, so long as it is a conversation and not a debate.  Small talk and chit chat aren't my strong suit, and I hope they never are.

An Analytical Paradox...Or the Absurdity of Labels?

Are liberals who are worried about maintaining their ideology without allowing it to evolve or change really conservative?  Are conservatives who wish others would be more open and liberal towards their ideas really, well, liberal?  Could it be possible that ALL of us (gasp), are both conservative and liberal at the same time?  Or could it be possible that labels serve more to distract than to delineate?  Do letters after names really illuminate the vastness of the complex and unique character of the individual whose name precedes that R or D?  Republicans, democrats...liberals, conservatives....  A classical liberal is really, in today's political world, a conservative.  In other countries, the liberal named or classified parties mirror the American Republican platform.  So isn't it more productive and worthwhile when judging an individual to approach our understanding to them as we would a complete stranger recently moved into the neighborhood?  Assessing the qualities and character of an individual should be based on their own actions and words, not those of others we would naively and ignorantly lump into the same category as them simply because the label we give them happens to be shared by someone else.

President Obama's 180 Undermines Entire Campaign Strategy

During his press conference this afternoon, President Obama actually offered praise for Governor Romney, softening his tone even further than during his acceptance speech on election night when he made overtures to working with Romney in the future.  "There are certain aspects of Governor Romney's record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful," said Obama. "Well, and to give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics."  Obama added, "He presented some ideas in the course of the campaign that I actually agree with."

Kind words, and perhaps spoken to compensate for a complete lack of kind words the President and his campaign had to offer concerning Romney over the past 6 months.  Now that the President has secured his re-election and can switch out of campaign mode, is he undermining his entire campaign strategy of "kill Romney" by suddenly speaking about him in much more positive light?  Unequivocally--yes.  The President decided early on that his campaign would be built not on his record, but on destroying his opponents; not on the division of our ideas, but the division of our characters.  In sum, President Obama sought to present Mitt Romney as a liar and even felon who was untrustworthy and the complete epitome of everything against which the President so nobly fought in his crusade to save the Middle Class.  Mitt Romney was portrayed as the callous, greedy, out-of-touch, rich white guy who could never lead America because he could never understand America; prevented from understanding the country because of who he is at his core, who he has been bred to be, and because of character flaws so great and so prevalent that he would be precluded from accomplishing any good because he was, at his heart, everything opposed to that good.  So far from being qualified to lead our country in any capacity, the President even felt it necessary to lecture Governor Romney on the nature of aircraft carriers, battleships, and the changes in our Navy over 100 years.  Condescending and playing merely for a political zinger, the President nonetheless used this tactic to further widen the chasm he would have us believe separated him from the Governor.  On one hand was the man we could relate to, on the other was the one who didn't have a clue.

Despite his efforts to convince us that Mitt Romney was not capable of serving his country because his flaws went right to the core of who he is, and his character was unworthy of such a pursuit, the President immediately reversed course, even in his acceptance speech, and now reverses course even further by offering some praise on the man he so recently reviled.  Can it be that the President is conceding that Mitt Romney actually does have at least half a heart after all, and really isn't that bad of a guy?  Is the President himself actually considering working with this man he just spent months convincing the American people isn't even worthy of the chance he is now himself offering?  Work with us to serve the American people, the President says, mere days after telling the American people, there's no way he could work for you.  President Obama has essentially clarified that his campaign tactics were nothing more than that, tactics, and not an accurate reflection on the character of the man who was more than worthy and qualified to lead the American people.  Of course, with no record to run on, the President's campaign strategy is understandable, though still inexcusable.  While dirt is often dug up concerning one's political opponents, and commercials are often aired with a negative connotation, they typically focus on policy divisions and not pure character flaws, and never before has an entire Presidential campaign been built on that strategy alone.  And in 2012, just enough people bought into the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the President's campaign as they sold to the American people a fictitious man that many equated with Mitt Romney.  The President's campaign team created Myth Romney and sold him to just enough people to lie their way to another 4 years in the White House, once the office of the most trusted and presumably upright leader in the world.

Dr. Jekyll & Harry Reid

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has a wildly colorful history during his recent years in the Senate.  Guided by his mantra of political expediency, people are left to wonder what he'll say next that completely undermines something he said yesterday, last week, or last year.  Throughout 2005 and 2006, his political rantings against out of control spending while Republicans controlled the Senate under President Bush's tenure reached a fever pitch with accusations of insanity, recklessness, and other colorful metaphors to describe his political opponents.  Of course, his tune changed once his own party took control of the country's purse in 2006 and, eventually the Presidency, in 2008.  Since that time, deficits have tripled, the national debt has skyrocketed faster and higher than under any other U.S. President, and a budget hasn't been passed in 3 years.

More recently, Senator Reid opened his political heart once again and allowed us a glimpse into the amazing speed with which his political philosophy can so rapidly reverse course and completely change within a matter of days.  He recently belittled and even mocked Governor Romney's overtures of bipartisan cooperation during the closing days of the Presidential election.  Governor Romney consistently spoke about reaching across the aisle and bringing both sides together to find common ground.  Responding to Governor Romney's message of bipartisanship, Harry Reid didn't merely downplay the possible effectiveness of any strategy Romney may pursue, Reid went even further by mocking such a thought as a "fantasy" and that the notion that the Senate would approve his conservative agenda as "laughable."  When faced with the possibility of working with a new executive, Reid folded his arms, pursed his lips, and reacted in much the same manner a school yard bully would when faced with the possibility of not getting his way.   Bipartisan cooperation would be, according to Harry Reid's words, not possible and something he would prevent from happening if Romney won.  Of course, once President Obama won re-election only a few days after his comments, Senator Reid remarkably changed his tone, softened his stance, and now expected Republicans to do the very thing he refused to do only days before.

In recent statements, Senator Reid urged Republicans to "turn away from divisions of the past & join us in cooperation & compromise."  Going even further, Senator Reid acknowledged that "Americans need more jobs, economic certainty, opportunity & fairness. It is within our power as a Congress to quickly address these needs."  Acting quickly as a Congress seems to have eluded Senator Reid, however, on adopting a budget--something they have failed to do for 1300 days.  Economic certainty and jobs have also been something that have plagued us for the past 3 years, as jobs continue to be lost at rates faster than they can be replaced while tepid and declining economic growth in the face of a fiscal cliff has brought about a first ever forecast of a potential recession in 2013 if fiscal problems can't be addressed.  Of course, as Senator Reid has shown us through his recent remarks, compromise is much easier when you're the one wielding the power and giving up what you want is much harder than asking the other party to give up what they want.  In any case, it's even easier when you have a media condoned fall back plan of blaming Bush and branding those as obstructionists who aren't willing to kowtow to your unmitigated demands. Thank you, Senator Reid, for making our job much easier of knowing who to brand as an obstructionist when nothing gets done in Washington.

How to Judge the Character of a Man

It has often been said that "you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."  Unfortunately, in politics, everyone has the potential to do something for a figure running for office.  Running for public office is perhaps the best cure for amnesia conceivable--everything from the past is brought to light, the good and the bad is thrown into the spotlight, and experiences you may have forgotten, or never engaged in to begin with, are suddenly brought back to your remembrance.  The barrage of character evidence can often be overwhelming, and downright confusing, for those of us who make up the voting bloc.  Coupled with the fact that 95% of the country subscribes to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Judge not that ye be not judged," we have the additional challenge of balancing what we hope is a fair and charitable judgment with having to sift through the evidence before us, which has often already passed through several other unique layers of various individual's own judgments.

When it comes to the race for President, I'm willing to wager that 99% of the people voting have never personally met either of the candidates, let alone had any meaningful interaction with them on a personal level that would enable us to observe them sufficiently to pass what we feel is an accurate and confident judgment of their character.  As such, we're left to hear judgments passed by their opponents, news outlets, people from their past, and a myriad of other sources.  Of course, we are further challenged in these situations because we must ask ourself if we are really passing judgment on the candidate, or someone else's judgment of that candidate.  A judgment on a judgement of another judgment from a different judgment is hardly the formula for accuracy.  What we believe is truth is often a carefully crafted hodgepodge of evidence to support or perpetuate a preconceived notion of what the candidate truly stands for and what they represent.  While we may acknowledge this influence on the evidence presented to us, we often overlook it in ourselves as we fail to consider how our worldview paradigm and own life experiences in turn exert an influence on how we pass judgment on others.  Too often, we don't ask why they behaved the way they did, but how WE would have behaved or what we would have done in the same situation.  While that may enable empathy, it does not accurately reflect the measure of the candidate's character, though it may illuminate some light on our own.

How does this come into play regarding the 2012 Presidential election?  By way of full disclosure, let me state that I intend to vote for Mitt Romney.  Let me also say that I believe both candidates are good men, who both possess their own variety of character strengths and weaknesses.  I believe both men love America and want what's best for our future, but disagree significantly on how this is to be achieved.  In a race that seems to be focused more on character than policy, how do we know who to trust or how to judge?  To be sure, there are a number of people coming out of the woodwork regarding past events in the lives of both candidates.  For good or ill, each candidate has their share of supporters and detractors who have no shortage of desire to make their voice heard in touting their evidence of the TRUE character of the man.  Each one has various motivations, which sometimes may be the same, but what is different to each one is the perspective they possess about the event they share, the influence that time has had on their memory of the event, and what effect their current motivation may have on their perception of that event viewed through a new and different paradigm than the one they originally viewed the experience when it occurred years or even decades ago.

For the examples I share I will focus on Mitt Romney, primarily because the 3 specific episodes I will share are contemporary to each other, all occurring approximately 25-30 years ago, they all involve families during a time of extreme emotional turmoil as they struggle with major health issues, and they have all come to light during the Presidential campaign.  First, the negative example.  Over the past few months, a story has spread like wildfire through liberal blogs and left leaning news outlets.  The story revolves around a Carrel Hilton Sheldon who was in Mitt's ward when he served as a Bishop.  In 1983, Carrel was pregnant but her pregnancy took a turn for the worst and doctor's believed her life was in jeopardy.  Her Stake President, a Harvard doctor, assured her that an abortion was appropriate in this situation.  Carrel was shocked, however, when her Bishop showed up--Mitt Romney--and did not believe her comments concerning the Stake President, and did not show any concern or empathy for her but only for her unborn fetus which he counseled her not to abort.  The experience was a primary factor in Carrel's decision to move across the country and to leave the Church soon thereafter.  What cannot be argued is that this was a traumatic and tragic episode in the life of Carrel and her family and friends.

During this same period in Mitt's early life, he also had experiences with two other families in his ward who, like Carrel, were dealt a cruel hand by unexpected and tragic circumstances that arose in the form of health complications.  The first is the experience of Pat and Ted Oparowski, whose teenage son was diagnosed with cancer in the 1970s and was befriended by Mitt Romney (it is worth noting this experience occurred several years prior to Mitt's calling as a Bishop).  During the course of their 14 year old son's decline, Mitt frequently visited the family in the hospital due to a friendship that was struck with the boy.  After learning about Mitt's background in law, their son asked Mitt to help him develop a will and get his affairs in order so he could ensure his toys and possessions were given to the proper individuals upon his death.  Mitt helped the boy settle his affairs using a legal pad and pen.  When the boy succumbed to his illness several months later, Mitt gave the eulogy at the funeral at the boy's own request.  The other experience occurred a few years later, when Mitt was newly called as a Bishop.  A member of his ward, Pam Finlayson, gave birth to a baby girl with severe birth defects and health complications.  She describes Mitt's constant presence and expressions of comfort to her and her family over the course of several months, even preparing Thanksgiving dinner for her family and cooking the food himself and delivering it with his boys to her home, unexpected and unannounced.  While her daughter survived, she eventually succumbed to her health complications during the Republican primaries in 2011.  Pam received a personal call and an expression of sympathy from Mitt, who learned of her daughter's passing, and offered to assist in any way he could.

I believe all 3 of these episodes are true.  I also believe all 3 of these families are confident in their assertion that they know the real Mitt Romney, that their experience is the true proof of the measure of his character.  So how do you reconcile the seemingly contradictory responses of the various experiences?  How can such a cold, and unsympathetic Bishop in Carrel Sheldon's hospital room be the same man described as warm and genuine by others?  Can both perceptions be true, and all 3 experiences have occurred?  Yes, and yes.  I am not going to try to explain or defend Carrel's remembrance of her tragedy, nor will I make a case that any one of these 3 experiences somehow speaks louder than another.  As an observer, I can consider all three and accept that the experience occurred just as reported, but as an observer, I must do just that--take them all at face value without ignoring the ones that may refute the conclusions I seek to prove that also bolster the image of a man I want strengthened, not questioned.  Similarly, when considering the character of our President, we cannot be selective in believing everything we read on conservative leaning websites but ignore the positive experiences touted by those of opposing political leanings.  The only truth is that once a debate is begun about what experiences speak louder or are more important, it will never end or be settled.  The only truth that will emerge is that no saint was ever President, and no candidate is the devil.  Can it be that we are all equally saint as we are sinner?  How then, to truly judge the character of the man we hope will lead us?  The answer is different for all of us.  No one else has lived the life we have, and in turn developed the paradigm we each uniquely possess that determines the perspective with which we judge the life and actions of others.  So long as we are all open-minded, understanding, and respectful, we can at least have confidence that truth will speak louder than bias, though not eliminating it, and respect will be more mutually unifying than politically divisive.

Latter-day Lincoln: A Mormon Defense of Our 16th President

 
Please leave a comment if you read this article.  It has had MANY page views but no comments and I am wondering if real people are reading it.  Please let me know if this is being read by actual people.  Also, an update is forthcoming.  I have been conducting more research in Church archives and will report on it soon.

While I often strive to produce scholarship that is purely academic without any religious undertones, as I am currently doing with my work analyzing the tension between libertarians and Abraham Lincoln, I am at my core a full fledged, dedicated, and committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, my thoughts, motivations, and actions are driven by my faith.  Although I often produce work which does not overtly state or indicate my religious beliefs, those beliefs nonetheless influence my work--both in the approach I take in my research as I try to be honest, open, and fair, as well as in the final result that hopefully presents my conclusions and views with respect, dignity, and objectivity.

During my time researching Abraham Lincoln these past few months, I have taken some time to engage in a religious study of the man even though that research will not be utilized in my final academic paper.  Over the course of my studies, I have focused on the words of living prophets and any time they have referenced Lincoln.  During my life alone, there have been nearly 200 references to Abraham Lincoln by Church leaders and in Church publications.  Despite an enormous amount of references, I have only found positive things concerning Abraham Lincoln's life, accomplishments, and mission.  Of particular interest were any references from Ezra Taft Benson, the most politically astute prophet of our dispensation.  In addition to President Benson, three other prophets have spoken out substantially concerning political and Constitutional issues.  Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay were also very vocal in their support of our Constitution and Republican form of government.  As such, they all had some very pointed things to say concerning Abraham Lincoln as well.

Before addressing the references made by President Benson, however, I will briefly present some of the teachings from other Latter-day prophets in regard to our nation's 16th president.  Beginning with President McKay, he expressed a sentiment that is reiterated by other prophets in grouping Lincoln with the inspired and elite class of men who were the Founders of this nation.  Expressing this sentiment, McKay stated "We should be grateful for our Founding Fathers, for Washington and Lincoln, and for our boys and other great men who have fought and died for our freedom" (Source: Man May Know for Himself 387-88).  President McKay was not the first prophet to speak of Lincoln in such glowing terms.

George Albert Smith, McKay's predecessor, declared that Abraham Lincoln "gave his life because of his desire for the perpetuation of the liberty that was guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States."  This single statement seems a direct contradiction to the views many Latter-day Saints subscribe to which have been perpetuated by modern libertarian thinkers who advocate that Lincoln was a tyrant who ignored the Constitution.  President Smith further described Lincoln's dedication to the Constitution by stating that "when the duty was placed upon him to battle for the liberties of mankind, he dedicated his life to this purpose, and in due time, our Father in heaven accepted his offering, and his name is emblazoned upon the pages of history as a great and noble man who dared to do right, and his praises will be sung and his virtues extolled throughout all time" (emphasis added, "Lincoln and This Land," 77).  Despite serving as a prophet for only a brief time, George Albert Smith was an ardent patriot and vocal supporter of the Constitution.  For a collection of his many teachings in regards to the inspired document, our need to defend it, and the attacks it will face, see http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day-prophets-and-united-states-constitution/8-george-albert-smith.  Unfortunately, President Smith would seem to differ in sentiment with several modern Latter-day Saints in his assessment that praises would be sung to Lincoln and his "virtues extolled throughout all time."  There are many today who subscribe to the revisionist interpretations of Lincoln's legacy and character, interpretations put forth by progressives, libertarians, and liberals alike.

It is not surprising that Lincoln was regarded so highly and referenced so frequently during the administrations of those two prophets, as well as Heber J. Grant.  These three men served as President of the Church for more than half of the entire 20th century--a century where agency, freedom, and liberty came under attack like no other time in history.  From 1918 to 1970, when Presidents Grant, Smith, and McKay led the Church, the world endured two World Wars, the rise of fascist, socialist, and communist governments, the aggression of those governments in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and a destruction of freedom and liberty for millions upon millions of civilians throughout the world.  Even at home, in the land of promise and the divinely inspired country of America, we were warned about the intrusion of these pervasive influences that could erode our liberties enshrined in our country's founding documents.  President Grant declared FDR's policies as nothing more than "neo-socialism" and lamented the Saints support of the U.S. President despite his efforts to warn them of extremist tendencies. President Grant had himself been a Democrat until the rise of FDR, at which point he was driven from the party.

During his time as President, as he saw the greatest and most rapid rise of these elements opposed to individual liberty and agency--even within his own government and country--President Grant offered one of the most direct defenses of Abraham Lincoln which, again, stands in direct opposition to the rapidly rising discontent in the modern world concerning our 16th President.  In the words of President Grant:

 "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union" (”Lincoln and Law” 73, 127). 

Again, there cannot be any doubt from this statement that Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant bent on the destruction of rights while turning his back on the Constitution (Ironically, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, which is the clarion piece of evidence used by libertarians in proving Lincoln's disdain for the Constitution and his tyrannical nature, is a right itself granted by the Constitution in time of war or crisis.  Although there can be debate about his performing this action that is given to congress, not the President, by the Constitution, is beside the point--in essence, this is an administrative debate, not one of the destruction of rights.  Whether done by Congress or the President, there is nonetheless granted by the Constitution itself the ability to suspend habeus corpus.  Ironically, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention themselves couldn't agree on whether this right should remain with the Congress or President, and only settled when they didn't care to debate it any further).

These three men all spoke out clearly, consistently, and repeatedly about the Constitution's prominence and the threats it would face.  These three men also all spoke out in defense of Abraham Lincoln as a man raised up by God to defend that Constitution and save the United States of America.  Following the period of time when these three men served, which ended with President McKay's death in 1970, Abraham Lincoln has continued to feature prominently in the teachings and remarks of the leaders of the Church.  There have been 56 references to Abraham Lincoln in General Conference alone since 1971.  During that same span, he has been referenced 173 times in Church magazines and 6 times in official Church manuals.  Of these 235 references, none are critical of the man, his mission, or accomplishments.  Perhaps the most glowing reference to Lincoln during this time was an address given during General Conference in October 1976.  Elder Mark E. Peterson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and, like President Benson, one of the most politically astute Church leaders of our time, devoted an entire sermon to the inspired life of Abraham Lincoln.  Entitled "The Savor of Men," Elder Peterson's talk opened with a succinct summation of what he would address.  His purpose was declared immediately as he opened with the words, 

"I would like to talk with you about Abraham Lincoln, man of God.  President Lincoln was one of the great men of all time, and the reason for his greatness was his willingness to acknowledge and obey the Lord.  He believed in God; he lived near to God; he prayed most earnestly and knew for a fact that he was guided by divine inspiration in his important work."

Although Elder Peterson was learned in the history of our nation and in political matters, he was simply a student of the man who is arguably the most politically astute, aware, and inspired man to ever serve in the leadership of the Church--Ezra Taft Benson.  President Benson was given a blessing early in his Church service by David O. McKay, who was then serving as President of the Church.  This blessing bestowed upon Ezra Taft Benson the ability to be perceptive of threats to the Constitution and a deep commitment to the founding principles of the United States of America, principles enshrined by our Founders, principles of individual liberty and agency.  Throughout President Benson's vociferous writings of warning to members of the Church, he never spoke critically of Abraham Lincoln nor held him up as an example of one who weakened the Constitution.  On the contrary, President Benson positively referenced Abraham Lincoln in such landmark speeches as "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner", "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation," and "Americans are Destroying America."

In the first of these addresses, "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner," President Benson spoke in his capacity as Prophet while addressing the students of BYU in a devotional on 16 September 1986.  President Benson's entire address was dedicated to the Constitution, and he outlined several principles clarifying its divine origins, the threats it will face in our day, and our responsibility to defend and uphold its principles.  Perhaps in the most glancing blow to libertarians who vilify Lincoln as one who deplored rather than defended the Constitution, President Benson stated the exact opposite.  In his remarks, President Benson actually enlisted Lincoln as a member of his team comprised of those who defend and support the Constitution.  In his second point of his address, President Benson implored us to "learn the Constitution and abide by its precepts."  He even asks us, as Latter-day Saints, if we "are aware of its principles?  Could we defend it?  Can we recognize when a law is unconstitutionally sound?"  He then clarifies that "The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it."  And who does he immediately quote, immediately after asking these questions,  in order to help us know how to do this--how to defend the Constitution--Abraham Lincoln.  President Benson then quoted the following words of Lincoln, "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."

Elsewhere in his teachings, President Benson heralded the example of Abraham Lincoln as a man who was dependent on the Lord, and as one who belonged in the same class as George Washington in this shared trait.  From his chapter Righteousness Exalteth a Nation from his book "God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties," President Benson echoed the sentiments of President McKay that Lincoln belonged in the same group as the Founders by linking him to Washington as a man of God:

"I recalled the terrible winter at Valley Forge and Washington on his knees in the snow, praying for divine aid. I thought of the words of Abraham Lincoln during another time of crisis as he said humbly: 'I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.'  Washington acknowledged God’s direction and stated, 'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.' (Farewell address.)  Lincoln knew that God rules in the affairs of men and nations. He solemnly declared: “God rules this world. It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow . . . and to recognize the sublime truth that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord” (p. 399).

In the last defense of Abraham Lincoln that I will offer from President Benson, the topic of America being destroyed by Americans is the topic which Ezra Taft Benson was discussing.  These remarks come from a General Conference address he delivered in April 1968 when he was serving as an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve.  It seems that, of all places to implicate Lincoln as an anti-Founder who did more to destroy their work rather than support it, this would be the talk where that would happen.  Elder Benson was not speaking of foreign influences, but rather of the cancer that would grow from within.  Yet he still enlists Lincoln as a supporter of his argument rather than an example of that which he was warning us from.  The following are excerpts from that talk:

"If American freedom is lost, if America is destroyed, if our blood-bought freedom is surrendered, it will be because of Americans. What’s more, it will probably not be only the work of subversive and criminal Americans.  The Benedict Arnolds will not be the only ones to forfeit our freedom.

'At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?' asked Abraham Lincoln, and he answered, 'If it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher; as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.' (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837.)

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers–normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free – Americans who have been lulled away into a false security."

President Benson again clarifies that there have been and will continue to be dire and immediate threats to our Constitution, but he also clarifies that none was posed by our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln.  On the contrary, it is clear from President Benson's writings that Abraham Lincoln was a man who not only relied on the Lord, but on whom the Lord relied as well.  He was a man of God, who did right according to the times and circumstances in which he lived.  These sentiments have been reiterated by dozens of other Church leaders and prophets over the past 100 years.  Abraham Lincoln lived during the greatest crisis this nation has ever faced.  He led this nation at a time when no one could who didn't fully and wholeheartedly rely on the divine arm of Providence.  It is no surprise that heated debate continues to surround his legacy today, as it does for anyone who stands up for what is right, proclaims what is unpopular, and acts in harmony with a divine will that is right despite what worldly opinion may claim.

And so I close as I began, with the words of President David O. McKay concerning this great land of liberty and the role Lincoln played in preserving it:

"To live in a land in which each individual has the right to life and liberty is a glorious privilege.  If any man in this country prefers a government ruled by a dictator, he should go where the dictator rules; but here in the United States of America the people believe in a government as Abraham Lincoln declared, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'"(General Conference, April 1940, CR p. 118).

**UPDATE**  After writing my first draft of “Latter-day Lincoln,” I discovered an online archive of all General Conference addresses since 1851, thus enabling me to search for Lincoln references prior to the year 1971.  Not surprisingly, I discovered that Abraham Lincoln has been the most referenced, discussed, and quoted individual in General Conference who was not, during their lifetime, a member of the Church.  There have been 490 references to or quotations from Abraham Lincoln in General Conference since 1860.  Lincoln has been referenced more than any other Founding Father, including George Washington.  In fact, if you combine ALL references to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, you actually arrive at the total number of references to one man--Abraham Lincoln.  On 6 occasions, Washington and Lincoln are mentioned as a pair, a pair which on all occasions was heralded as an example of righteousness and faithful devotion to the Almighty. (See end of article for exact reference numbers of various phrases and individuals)

Of the contemporary references to Lincoln during the 1860s, none are critical, though all are passing references and offer little either way in terms of commentary on the man himself.  For the next several decades, Lincoln references are few and far between.  In the 1920s, however, Lincoln references skyrocketed and he remained very much a part of General Conference through the 1970s.  While I cannot prove this definitively, I would postulate that there is some connection between this dramatic spike in Lincoln references and the rise of Progressivism during the same time period, a period during which Lincoln’s legacy was being hijacked by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and other Progressive leaders.  This was also a period where the Constitution came under attack more than any other time in history save the Civil War, and a period of time during which dictators and tyrants around the world rose to positions of power on a scale never before seen in the history of the world.  Freedoms were being destroyed for millions of God’s children throughout the world, and philosophies directly opposed to those of the Gospel were being promulgated on a large scale; philosophies such as socialism, communism, and fascism.  During the decades where those philosophies were strongest and freedom was under the most vehement attacks, Lincoln references in General Conference were greater than any other time in history.  I do not feel that this was a coincidence, and I do not feel that a man NOT called and raised up of God would be referred to so frequently by men who are also called and raised up by God.  Lincoln was not a member during his lifetime, though the Church felt so strongly about his righteousness before the Lord that they performed all his vicarious ordinances on the 100th anniversary of his birth, and sealed him to his wife as well as to the sweetheart of his youth, Anne Rutledge, who died young and forced Lincoln into a long period of despondency.

A few of the interesting references to Lincoln follow.  The first mention that Lincoln was a man of God, raised up by God, and acted in harmony with God’s will, was made by apostle Hyrum W. Smith in 1905.  In 1930, apostle Richard Lyman talked about the current trend to disregard the Constitution and actually addressed people who also ridiculed Lincoln.  Elder Lyman believed that to attack the Constitution was equal to attacking Lincoln, and pined about why he felt both were under attack by progressives and other emerging political ideologies.  Shortly after Elder Lyman’s remarks, in 1934, J. Reuben Clark spoke as a member of the First Presidency.  In his remarks, President Clark elaborated on the character of Abraham Lincoln and expressed his belief that the only person alive at that time who possessed so noble and honest a character was Heber J. Grant, who was then serving as President of the Church.  It would be Heber J. Grant himself who, only 6 years later, would write:  "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, February 1940).  

In regards to the quote from President Grant, I wanted to see the actual source.  I have read it many times, and while I did not doubt the cited reference, I wanted to see the original statement for myself.  The Church provided me with a copy of the article President Grant wrote for the “Improvement Era” in February 1940.  The article, titled “Lincoln and Law,” was not penned as an opinion or editorial by President Grant, but was written as a declaration by the prophet with his title attached as President of the Church.  The majority of the article is actually quoted scripture, taken primarily from Doctrine and Covenants.  The article was actually written much as a “First Presidency Message” would be in our modern day “Ensign.”  It was an official statement from the President of the Church, presented to the entire body of the Church via an established channel of communication to all members of the Church.

I have also encountered several articles written by Latter-day Saints who, just like me, have endeavored to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln.  Sadly, I have read some that demonize and vilify our 16th President.  The most vehement oddly ignore the words of Church leaders and are littered with quotations from ultra-libertarian scholars and other historians who have sought to vilify Lincoln.  If they wish to bring religion into the debate about Lincoln, than they need to do just that--bring religion into it.  You cannot claim to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln and ignore the massive amount of teachings from several Church leaders which directly and succinctly discuss Lincoln.  Further, one author included some remarks from Brigham Young’s diaries and personal writings that were critical of Lincoln and attempted to elevate Brigham’s private ruminations to the status of revealed truth, an exercise of futility, to be sure.  Additionally, Brigham’s opinion of Lincoln actually changed and it became one of mutual respect.  This LDS author’s article is also, sadly, filled with outright lies.  Perhaps the most apparent is his claim that Lincoln intentionally appointed anti-Mormon governors to the Utah territory.  The truth of Lincoln’s appointments, is the polar opposite of that claim.  Lincoln actually removed an anti-Mormon territorial governor, at the request of the Mormons themselves, and replaced him with a governor of more respect and one who shared Lincoln’s view towards Mormons to simply “leave them alone” and let them be.

There will be more updates to this article, I am sure, and I will post them as they are written.  Please leave a comment if you read this so that I am aware of whether this is being read by real people are being viewed by automated programs.  Also, see below for the list of General Conference references and the specific number of times each phrase in quotations has been mentioned in General Conference since 1851.

General Conference References:
“Lincoln” - 512 (22 were non-Abraham Lincoln references; 490 were referencing Abraham Lincoln the man)
“President Lincoln” - 30
“President Washington” - 2
“Abraham Lincoln” - 230
“George Washington” - 133
“Benjamin Franklin” - 62
“Thomas Jefferson” - 43
“John Adams” - 23
“Founding Fathers” - 85
“Washington and Lincoln” - 6