Of Demagogues and Big Problems

One of the common tricks of demagogues, as cheap as it is common, is to denounce in high dander something for being “Big,”—“bad” because it is “Big.” Some of the recent targets have been Big Banks, Big Pharma (the drug companies), Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Business in general.  The target is apparently chosen for its relation to the prescription that the demagogue already has in mind.  Invariably the prescription involves granting more power to the demagogue, sometimes ceded from the freedoms of the targeted Big, but not infrequently taken from the liberty of the people who are somehow harmed by the Big, who are to be somehow made better by being less free.

Obamacare is one example, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine all denounced to some degree in the effort to generate popular support to pass the legislation.  In the end, as more and more people are recognizing, it is individual choice that has been lost, personal freedoms to choose doctors, medical plans, and available treatments (along with substantial sums of money) that have been taken, passed on to big bureaucracies identified by the demagogues.

Demagogues on left and right and even in the middle resort to this device of denouncing Big Bad, because it resonates with many people who do not consider themselves “Big” anything.  We all can feel intimidated by something in our lives and experiences bigger than ourselves, making us all potentially susceptible to the demagogue’s pandering.  It is also a favorite device of demagogues, because it does not require much thought or creativity to make the anti-Big speech.  It seems almost required that the demagogue at some point refer to the Big Target as “Goliath” and modestly identify himself or herself with “David.”  That tired jape is now getting to be about 3,000 years old, but demagogues think that their audiences just cannot get enough of it.

To be sure, there are some cases where being big is a good thing and some things that can be too big to be good.  It all has to do with why they are big and perhaps how they got that way.  Big savings are usually good.  The Grand Canyon is big and magnificent, and I would say that the Empire State Building is, too, at least as I behold it.  On the other hand, big debts are to be avoided, big pits can be dangerous, and the L Tower in Toronto is an eyesore in my estimation (though I will acknowledge that others could be fond of it). 

Government can be too big or too small, depending on what it does with our rights and freedoms.  There are governments too small to promote and protect freedom, while there are many—most—that are too big, and ever increasing at the expense of individual rights, freedoms, and opportunities.  That includes governments that are big enough to help their cronies become bigger by robbing the competition and the public.  Businesses that are big because of government favor would be better for everyone if they lost the government favor and let competition, efficiency, and customer choices determine how big they should be. 

Some are just big because they grew that way.  Is Microsoft or Apple too big?  I do not know, and neither do you.  Exposed to the full discipline of the free market they will be the right size, and so will their competitors.  What is the right size for banks in the United States?  I do not know, and again neither do you nor does anyone else.  The more that they are exposed to market forces, the sooner we will get the best answer, which I expect will be along the lines of “many sizes and shapes” in order to match the many sizes and shapes and needs of businesses, families, and individuals who rely on banks for financial services.  Free competition in open markets has the power to right size commercial enterprises.    

A word of caution.  Part of the success of the war on Big consists in making the listeners feel small and helpless—unless rescued and led by the fearless demagogue.  Besides belittling most people, the demagogue’s device diverts attention from the fact that just about everyone is part of something Big, a Big that may eventually be the demagogue’s next target.  Maybe your church will one day be considered too “Big.”  Or maybe the industry in which you happen to work will become a “Big” target, the town or region where you live, your race or your ethnic group, your savings and investments, the cars or trucks that you drive, your appetite, your use of water, the size of the lot of your house, the wealth of your nation.  All of these, and many others, have already been used by demagogues in their Big harangues.  The demagogue’s insatiable appetite for power never has enough targets.  He or she is always looking for more.

Sometimes there is a kernel of something genuinely amiss in the demagogue’s Big complaint.  Often, when you boil down the genuine substance of any of the complaints to the hard facts, it is hard to discover what is the Big Deal—at least in the problem.  The Big Deal is to be found in the solution, which is what the demagogue is really after.  Were the Popes in Rome really controlling the lives and governments of England in the time of Henry VIII?  No, but the solution of confiscating Catholic Church properties and awarding them to the King’s cronies was a very Big Deal.  The Nazi demagogues in Germany played the same game with their own people, the German Jews, and with their property and possessions. 

The demagogue’s solutions, resting upon emotion and panic, seldom solve anything and often lead to more problems.  The Climate Wars—one year the coming ice age, the next year global warming, today just climate “change”—is an example we have all seen unfold, inflicting untold billions of dollars of costs while enriching favored cronies, but which in even the most enthusiastic promises of the demagogues will do little to affect the climate in reality in our lifetimes.

The next time you hear a public figure fume about something being Big, carefully inquire into and focus upon what he or she is after.  You may be a target just Big enough.

Of Abraham Lincoln and Another Birth of Freedom

On the 203^rd anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln—to our national embarrassment a day no longer celebrated as a national holiday—I once again picked up a copy of the compelling lecture by Walter Berns, commemorating the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth.  Delivered on February 9, 2009, at the American Enterprise Institute, Berns’ lecture concluded with these words:

We say that a man can be known by the company he keeps.  So I say that a nation, a people, can be known and be judged by its heroes, by whom it honors above all others.

We pay ourselves the greatest compliment when we say that Abraham Lincoln is that man for us. 

(Walter Berns, “Lincoln at Two Hundred:  Why We Still Read the Sixteenth President,” AEI Bradley Lecture, February 9, 2009)

Berns offers a compelling statistic as a measure of the nation’s recognition of Lincoln and his greatness:

            More has been written about Abraham Lincoln than about any other president or, for that matter, any other American.  The amount is prodigious:  no fewer than16,000 books and goodness knows how many journal articles.

Abraham Lincoln was president for slightly more than four years, assassinated one month after his second inauguration, when the Civil War was not quite over but its end was in clear sight, Robert E. Lee having surrendered the rebels’ largest and most successful army just a few days before.  Soon after his first inauguration the war began. 

What are the grounds for asserting and recognizing Lincoln’s heroism, having fought a war and not quite finished it?  Because he did fight the war and persevered and put in place what was needed for its inexorable conclusion in the victory of the United States.  I do not say victory of the North, but rather victory for the whole nation.  North, South, and all of the later states of the West and all of their people and their descendents were blessed by that victory.  So was the rest of the world, for that victory showed that a free people could triumph in self-government, having rejected the tyrannies of Europe and overcome the challenge of anarchy offered by the rebels of the old South.  The United States has done a lot of good for the world since then, all of which would have been impossible but for that victory.

Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, the Pennsylvania Democrat James Buchanan, opposed the rebellion of the South but refused to do anything about it.  He dithered and dallied as state after state fell into rebellion and even seized U.S. Army and Navy supplies and facilities while doing so.  Berns quotes how then Senator William H. Seward mimicked Buchanan’s near traitorous dereliction of duty with the impotent formula, “the states had no right to secede, unless they wanted to, and the president had the duty to enforce the law, unless someone opposed him.”

Lincoln came to office with a singular focus from which he refused to be distracted, to meet foursquare the national emergency, that is, to unite the nation and preserve that unity.  And he knew why.  He knew what the United States meant for freedom, for Americans, and for all people everywhere.  In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln reminded his countrymen that the war was a test whether our free nation “or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, could long endure.”  The answer must not be allowed to be anything other than “Yes.”

As another mark of greatness, Lincoln knew that this was not about Lincoln.  As the war progressed, he fully expected to be defeated in the election of 1864 by the candidate of the Democrats, former Union General George B. McClellan, on a platform of ending the war by negotiating a truce with the South.  Lincoln pressed Generals Grant and Sherman to win the war before Lincoln’s likely successor could surrender. 

Moreover, Lincoln repeatedly pointed the nation away from himself and to who it was who fought the war.  At the new National Cemetery at Gettysburg, he reminded the nation that it was “the brave men, living and dead” whose national sacrifice had consecrated the war effort, far above the poor power of speeches by political leaders to add or detract from it.  Later, as the end of the war could be seen approaching and the end of his own life near if unseen—soon to be added to the many others who paid the price of preserving self-government—Abraham Lincoln again pointed the people to those who fronted the battle.  His second inaugural address could have been a moment of triumph and self congratulation against great odds.  Instead he asked the nation “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan”.

Lincoln was great because he rose to the challenge of the times without shirking or excuse and sacrificed all that he had to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, which principles were given force through the Constitution.  The force of those constitutional principles was correctly interpreted by the southern slave holders as leading to the inevitable end of slavery, confronting them with the acceptance of the end of their “peculiar institution” or rebellion.  They chose rebellion and anarchy, and Abraham Lincoln rallied a nation to refuse to walk away from that challenge to liberty for all.  

Today again we face a rather divided nation facing freedom-threatening dangers, not the least of which is impending national bankruptcy.  Fortunately, our nation is less divided than the press would have us believe (opinion poll after opinion poll shows large majorities who support the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).  This time, however, we have a president who not only avoids the national fiscal crisis but feeds it.  To distract attention from that irresponsible policy he seeks every opportunity to encourage division and create new divisions. President Obama seeks to divide the nation by income, by race, by class, by religious belief.  He indicts whole industries and groups of people one by one as in effect enemies of the nation, whether it is the energy industry, pharmaceuticals, banking, health insurance, or Catholic leadership.  The solutions that he promises all boil down to “vote for me” in a media-supported national cult of personality.

Every cult of personality throughout history has ended badly for its people and their fearless leader.  The current one does not look to be changing that historical trend.  And yet, we still have the power to elect our leaders, and the year of national election has begun.  It may not be too late. 

As I ponder the birth, life, and service of Abraham Lincoln, I choose his example, because he rejected the cult of personality but instead gave his life for individual freedom and self-government.  I have hopes that the policies of dependence on government and the surrender of freedom will be rejected so that the American experiment will witness yet another “birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people” will continue to be a beacon and example around the world.

Of Resolutions and Getting Past Frustration

Not to discourage you from making New Year’s resolutions, but how are your 2012 resolutions coming?  Are you still on track?  Given up on them?  Thinking about it?  They can drive you nuts.

The problem is not so much with making resolutions at the start of the year.  Psychologically, a new beginning that is tied to a new beginning of the calendar can be a good motivator, particularly to get started.  Neither is there a problem with choosing to change something or do something for the better.  Given a minute or less, every honest person can identify a habit in need of change or a practice in need of adoption.  The problem is usually not even that the aim is too high, the goal too unrealistic, the resolution too ambitious. 

If anything, the real problem is that the resolution is too narrow, too small, too unimportant, particularly if taken without a greater context.  Each of us should be self aware enough to recognize plenty of material to work with to create a depressingly long “needs improvement” list.  The question of where to begin—if we persist—may soon be overwhelmed by the question, where does it end?  There are too many for any one to hold our attention.  We need to look beyond the individual sin or foible, on to why we are willing to sin.

Martin Luther was in large measure driven away from the Catholic Church because of its emphasis on specifically repenting of each and every sin, correcting every personal flaw, large and small, with particularity.  There was no apparent end in this life to the correcting, no bottom to the list of sins, especially with a list being added to each day.  Repenting of each and every sin, he never made enough progress on his own list.

Fortunately for Luther and for everyone else, the God of Heaven has never called upon us to repent of each of our sins seriatim.  Neither have His prophets.   That is a man-made idea, and one that is sure to lead to deep moral frustration.

To be sure, God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31).  Heaven is the ultimate “white room;” not a speck of evil can be tolerated there, no room for anything unclean in the least degree (see 3 Nephi 27:19).

God does not require us to repent of each sin.  He requires that we repent of all sins.  There is a difference, all of the difference in the world.  The first suggests that we can repent of sins in some kind of order, working on some sins while still playing with some of our favorites, even if only temporarily.  The true doctrine is more demanding and more liberating:  God wants us to give up sinning, the willingness to do evil.  The focus on individual sins is misplaced, as if the source of the problem is in the act itself, what we do, whereas the real source is found in why we do what we do.  God wants us to change our hearts (and will help us to do so), knowing that with the change in their nature of our actions will then take care of themselves.

Carefully search all Christian scriptures, ancient and modern, and you will find God consistently calling upon His children to repent of all of their sins.  He does not ask for or condone a selective repentance that focuses on this or that individual sin or ever ask us to work down our personal list of evil.  He asks us to give it up, all of it.  What the Lord requires of His children to be acceptable to live with Him again is a change of life.  The ancient American prophet Alma described this repentance, this change of heart, as a man who has “desired righteousness until the end of his days” (Alma 41:6).  John, the Apostle of ancient times, referred to this change as walking “in the light” (see 1 John 1:5-10).

This change of heart comes from belief in Christ, a powerful wholehearted belief that manifests itself in our actions.  Another ancient American prophet, Samuel, declared it with these words:

And if ye believe on his [Christ’s] name ye will repent of all your sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his merits.  (Helaman 14:13)

Notice that it is true, vitalizing belief that brings about the change of action.  A modern prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, explained true repentance in this way:

In connection with repentance, the scriptures use the phrase, ‘with all his heart’ . . . Obviously, this rules out any reservations.  Repentance must involve an all-out, total surrender to the program of the Lord. (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.203)

One last point:  note that perfection is not required to enter into the light.  As the Apostle John taught, those who enter into the light are in the process of making themselves pure (1 John 3:3), Christ giving them the power to do so through the soul-enriching influence of the Holy Spirit.

Make your resolutions and do them now, but put them in the context of changing your heart and thereby your whole life.  Aim for the highest of all.  Then we know where to begin and where it all ends.  And keep in mind, Christ allows you to start over when you slip up.