Cheney at BYU: my view from Europe
I fully understand that given Dick Cheney’s offer to speak at BYU’s commencement, BYU and the church would have little choice but feel obliged to honour the sitting Vice President.
Still, it might be useful to have some sense of how Cheney’s appearance at BYU will be viewed. As a British Mormon, I feel obliged to point out that most people in the UK and Europe see Cheney as the architect of a discredited war and abuser-in-chief of many of America’s cherished civil liberties and moral values. When BYU’s Kelly Patterson suggests that Cheney will enjoy a “very receptive and very hospitable” audience, this will sound in Europe as if BYU supports the Iraq war with which Cheney is inextricably linked. Indeed, this is exactly how it is being spun in the British media, namely that Cheney, unpopular everywhere else, will be among friends at BYU.
Universities understandably want high-profile speakers at their commencements, but BYU is more than a university, it is the academic arm of the global Mormon church and as such the views of those of us outside of the US ought to be considered. For some European Mormons, Cheney’s visit may look to them like the church endorses his policies. This would represent a palpable moral blow to the many anti-war European Mormons, and might further encourage a view, rightly or wrongly, that the church, despite claiming neutrality, is in fact in step with the American Republican Party. For many faithful European Mormons, whose political views would tend to the center-left on the American political spectrum, this is a bitter pill to swallow.
Dick Cheney is not just the Vice President. He currently represents much more than that, and for many people, what he represents is wholly negative. I would rather our church, to which we in Europe are faithfully dedicated, not also bear Cheney’s stigma. This could be avoided if BYU would more frequently invite high-profile guests from the other side of the aisle.
___________
Take a deep breath. I don’t have the stomach for a partisan fight here. People are entitled to feel that Cheney is unfairly maligned and that his appearance at BYU will do honour to the university. I am just reporting on how it will look, especially from overseas. Whenever the church and the Republican party come across as inextricably linked (fair or not fair, this is sometimes the impression) it is desperately alienating to many of us and terrible PR to boot. Needless to say, these are my views alone.
Other fora: Check this out, Bloggernacle Times, Connor’s Conundrums, Messenger and Advocate.
I am an alumni of BYU and this choice to invite Cheney seems completely inappropriate to me.
Realize that a lot of people consider the choices made by the BYU administration to be synonymous with the choices of the General Authorities of the LDS church. This view was reinforced when they started making the President of BYU an actual standing General Authority. This move will be interpreted by many I know as a direct endorsement of Dick Cheney by Church Headquarters.
It is decisions like this that make me more reluctant to donate anything to BYU. I’m not saying it’s decisive by any means, but it does make it harder for me.
Note that I am also an alumni of the University of Wyoming and I would be completely OK with that university inviting Cheney to speak.
Why?
Because not only does UW not have to carry the torch for a major religion, Cheney is also a native-born son of Wyoming and a loyal patron of the university. He makes complete sense as a speaker THERE.
BYU also ought to consider: the only reason Cheney is even bothering to speak at lil ole BYU is because he’s so hated almost everywhere else, that the list of places where he can get a good reception is so small. BYU needn’t be patting itself on the back over this catch. It has more to do with Cheney’s unpopularity than any merit on BYU’s part.
Comment by Seth R. — March 28, 2007 @ 4:00 am
I said on Messenger and Advocate that the gracious response would have been to kindly decline. The evidence is strongly there that Cheney is a liar and a violator of the law. Sorry, but I normally wouldn’t care if BYU invites a Republican VP. Cheney is a different individual. He does not deserve the respect of his office.
Comment by Dan — March 28, 2007 @ 5:17 am
The issue is complex. The church invited GWB himself a year ago or so. He declined, but then, in response to the original invitation, the White House called and asked if the VP could take his place. For a church that accepted a medal of honor from this presidency, this is a tricky position.
And, finally, the official release announcing this indicates that the decision to accept the new terms was made by “members of the First Presidency.” Whatever the kind intentions of accepting this request, I believe Cheney is hoping to “(de)spitefully use” the kindness of LDS leaders.
I wish that the White House would have the decency to let the Mormons off the hook on this one, but this regime has not been marked by decency at any level or phase.
While ultimately, BYU (and the church) are not mine to run, I do feel that it’s reasonable to give personal feedback about the moral and emotional cost such a decision has on committed, rank-and-file Latter-day Saints. I’m afraid the message is as discouraging to me as it is to European Mormons. (Incidentally, I was at the Brigham Young campus shortly after the announcement was made, and people were in a state of nervous consternation–even faculty members were surprised and dismayed at the way this was playing out.)
Comment by Sam MB — March 28, 2007 @ 6:21 am
Even if he wasn’t the pupeteer behind everything wrong with the Bush administration, he’s still a terrible speaker. What’s he going to talk about the good old days at Halliburton? Morality? Integrity? I’d love to be there just to see this guy lie through his teeth.
Comment by cj douglass — March 28, 2007 @ 6:28 am
[...] attended or currently attend BYU to sign the petition. I also encourage you to visit and read Ronan’s post at BCC, as well as Connor’s post over at Conundrums. Both are well done. [...]
Pingback by Petition Opposing Dick Cheney's BYU Commencement Speech « Messenger and Advocate — March 28, 2007 @ 6:38 am
Well said Ronan. I think it is particularly helpful for faithful non U.S. Mormons, like you and others, to make their views known. As you rightly point out, this will look bad for the Church and BYU worldwide. It only reinforces the Mormon Church/Republican Party myth. I see absolutely nothing virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy by inviting Mr. Cheney to speak at BYU. Thanks for the link and for endorsing the petition.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 6:48 am
I agree with everything that has been said above. In my opinion the decision to invite the VP sends the wrong message to those of us who have always accepted the First Presidency’s statement of political nuetrality. Cheney is not just a political figure, he is the most devisive political figure in this country. On graduation day, a day when BYU should be celebrating education and enlightenment, they are hosting a man whose actions and attitudes have reversed, by about 50 years, our country’s long struggle for civil rights and liberties. The actions of this adminstration, of which he is the most influencial figure - even more than the president himself - have destroyed our previously held position as the world’s moral leader. I am so glad and thankful that Ronan has expressed the feelings of Europeans. I know first hand that church members in other parts of the world, and especially here in the U.S., share those feelings.
Comment by lamonte — March 28, 2007 @ 7:00 am
I despise PR mongering and folks driven by what others will think. It looks bad because many on the left and right and center disagree. Some will reach unwarranted and logically rediculous conclusions. If BYU tiptoed around everyone who disagreed and ran their lives and calendars by what others think it would virtually cease to exist. Isn’t there a better way … like education?
Mormons will be linked with the Repbulican party not because Cheney speaks at BYU but because the vast majority of Utah Mormons vote Repbulican. That won’t change as long as the Democrats adopt a pro-abortion pro-gay, pro more-tax platform. [Don't get me wrong, I'm no Repbulican -- I happen to believe that the abortion stance of choice outlined by the Supremes is largely correct, that government ought to stay out of sexual preference issues and we're always taxed too much for the wrong things].
The Vice-President of the United States has offered to speak at BYU. Even if you’ve despised the war since the beginning [like I have] and now despise the rhetoric of irresponsibility to cut and run after we have destabalized the enitre region and do so will leave the entire region in melt-down [like I do], the Vice President is still an important player in American politics and his visit can be very enlightening and educational. The petiition is just stupid. It won’t change anything and says in essence: if I disagree with a speaker I refuse to even listen. With apologies for the stigma ya’ll will be stuck with, isn’t it wiser to voice disagreement intelligently based on policy reasons? Forget the PR and the what-others-will think syndrome. If we get stuck in that line of thinking we have sold out to the worst kind of dogmatism. Heck, we ought to listen just out of spite for those who think that they can control American politics from afar and worry about what the neighbors might think.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 7:10 am
Personally, I agree that any association with Cheney stinks.
On the other hand, because the university was approached by the VP’s office, I can’t really see them turning it down, and I think most people would see that or should see that. If Tony Blair went to BYU and asked to be a speaker, how would LDS Brits feel if he were turned down (because he is also an architect of the war and the head of a government which has threatened the tradition of Britain’s cherished civil liberties)? I imagine national offense would trump political sensitivity.
In my limited experience in my corner of Europe, I couldn’t really predict the response. Finnish members are fairly wide on the political spectrum. Some members disapprove of the liberal president but were universally pleased to see her meet with President Hinckley during the SLC Olympics. Interest in American politics is low nearly to the point of irrelevance. Most members, incuding hip YSAs, have no idea about Mitt Romney, for instance. (Ronan: I searched for UK coverage of Cheney speaking at BYU: where is it reported?)
FWIW, I also endorse the petition (and because of my personal politics I added my name). The petition shows healthy political dissention within the church. I also accept that it is inevitable that he will be speaking, and I understand that as reasonable from another point of view. (Can you imagine the petition if he were refused?) In the end, the best thing for the church is to have him speak with no honorary degree, and to have a vigorous (but not disruptive) protest for the world to see.
Comment by Norbert — March 28, 2007 @ 7:13 am
I think much of the criticism of Cheney here and elsewhere is way overblown, but I’d rather BYU not host Cheney. I’d prefer that BYU not host any high profile politicians of any persuasion.
A question for Ronan: will Cheney’s appearance at BYU’s commencement really get that much press in Europe? Will this register on the radar screen of the Man on the Street? It’s normal for vice presidents to speak at commencements and which universities they go to is only mentioned in passing in the national press, if it’s mentioned at all. I’ve only heard about this through LDS blogs.
Comment by Tom — March 28, 2007 @ 7:21 am
Tom and Norbert,
Ronan wishes me to tell you that it was reported in the Guardian, although he can’t find it online right now. But more to the point is how some LDS Europeans will see it: that the church supports the war. That makes for some discomfort, especially when added to Mitt Romney, Utah politics in general, and President Hinckley’s 2003 talk. Throw the lefties a bone once in a while, eh? Or just once.
Comment by Ronan's Dispassionate Ka — March 28, 2007 @ 7:29 am
Given the nature of the institutions involved–the vice presidency and a graduation speech–I don’t think Cheney’s appearance at BYU says much of anything, let alone an endorsement of Cheney’s views. On the other hand, a disinvitation would be a very strong statement of rebuke, which would probably be inappropriate. Hopefully, Cheney will read “Oh, the Places You’ll Go,” and that will be that. Now if the audience greets Cheney like the second coming of Elvis, that would be a problem.
Comment by Jonathan Green — March 28, 2007 @ 7:35 am
I find the above statement “Forget the PR and the what-others-will think syndrome” laughable. The Church already has a PR department that is all about trying to fix what other people think and the move to mainline ourselves is reflected there. Ronan, I agree with you completely. Universities are generally perceived to support the individuals that they invite to speak at their convocations. Combine this with our 12th article of faith, and I fail to see how many people, especially those outside the U.S. can take the church’s claims of political neutrality at face value.
Comment by kris — March 28, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Serves us right. Since the 1950s we’ve made it clear that we’ll allow the government to come to Utah anytime they want to dump something radioactive that nobody else wants in their back yard…
Comment by Jeremy — March 28, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Kris: I find your view up-chuckable and logically impossible. Damn the church if it pays attention to PR, damn the church if it doesn’t pay attention to PR. That is the implication of your view. With so many hard spots between the rocks your throw it would be impossible to satisfy your demands.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Steady on, everyone. No name calling. (Except when used against Richard “Lucifer” Cheney.)
Comment by Admin — March 28, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Admin — finding a view repugnant is not the same thing as finding a person repugnant. Important to keep in mind important distinctions. I don’t have a problem if Kris finds a view I propose to be laughable, at least there was a good laugh.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Blake, you know nothing about my “demands” — it was you who said to forget about the PR. I was merely pointing out that the Church is unlikely to do so.
Comment by kris — March 28, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Kris: No — what you said is in # 13. You agree with Ronan that the Church should not invite Cheney because it is bad PR and then you argue that the Church can’t be taken seriously about its claims of political neutrality and you find the view that we ought to stay out of the PR business laughble. If you cannot see the double bind then nothing I can say will remove them thar opaque eyeglasses.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Does anyone have the statement made by GBH when there were protests about the Rodin art exhibit? Did anyone feel it was kinda complicated signing?
I signed the petition, b/c I think that of all the republicans in all the states, [Gonzales, Rove, Libbey and Cheney] shouldn’t show up in our gin joint.
HOWEVER,
I don’t agree that BYU needs to become apolitical in investigating, listening, discussing, etc. Also, since BYU and the church have had a policy of supporting *praying* for leaders and welcoming heads of our government (and countless others) regardless of politics, if they STOPPED NOW, that WOULD be a major political statement.
So while we’re all whining that we can’t accept Cheney b/c of our “neutrality”, actually REFUSING him would be violating that neutrality the most.
Comment by J.A.T. — March 28, 2007 @ 8:49 am
“Laughable” and “up-chuckable” are probably not conducive to civil discussion.
Comment by Admin — March 28, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Blake,
PR is only 20% of this. Mostly, as I’ve already reiterated, it’s the uncomfortable position that many church members continually find themselves in because of their honest political objections to the current US Regierung. It’s a one way right wing show.
Comment by Ronan's Dispassionate Ka — March 28, 2007 @ 8:53 am
It’s clear that this conversation will spiral out of control into hateful debate, as evidenced by the adjectives already being bandied about by Blake and others. It’s unfortunate that people use the internet as an excuse for incivility, but I suppose I’m as guilty as anyone else. I don’t particularly like Dick Cheney, I supported the petition and I think picking him to speak was an exceptionally poor idea. Others may think that protesting, petitioning or complaining is a stupid idea. That’s just fine, folks — if that’s your view, state it and move along. Leave those of us who care to grouse unperturbed by your disdain of all forms of dissent.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 28, 2007 @ 9:07 am
“…the church, despite claiming neutrality, is in fact in step with the American Republican Party.” The actions of the people and ward-level leaders speak louder than any press release or annual reminder of political neutrality. The Latter-day Saints in the U.S. are deeply connected to right-wing American social politics (and quite probably taken completely for granted by Rove, et. al. to boot). As for what people are thinking in the CoB: who knows? And does it really matter?
re: 8
“..Utah Mormons vote Repbulican. That won’t change as long as the Democrats adopt a pro-abortion pro-gay, pro more-tax platform. [Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Repbulican — I happen to believe that the abortion stance of choice outlined by the Supremes is largely correct, that government ought to stay out of sexual preference issues…”
The only way I can interpret this is statement is that somehow you’re smarter or more enlightened than the “vast majority” of Utah Mormons??? Also, you’re parroting a very distorted description of what the Democrats represent.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Ka: you are not dispassionate. Your discomfort comes from your own “honest political objections.” I didn’t see anyone here complaining wheen Michael Moore came to UVSC or that the vast majority of college professors lean far left. It’s about partisan politics; not some principles suggestion of neutrality. I tend to agree with JAT about that.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 9:11 am
I don’t think that BYU can gracefully deny him the opportunity to speak, as he has asked. I hope that the students listen politely to him and, if they are so inclined, then join the protests that will surely take place just off campus.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Mike: you’re right I was parrotting a caricature of the Democratic party. That was my entire point. As long as Utah republicans see the Democratic party that way, they will continue to vote Republican. Now let me be clear, I am no Democrat (tried that; didn’t like it).
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 9:14 am
For the record, I complained about Michael Moore and Sean Hannity during the ruckus at UVSC. Please don’t intuit facts.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Here’s the Guardian link — a straight AP newswire run, though; not clear it appeared (or will appear) in print.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6501405,00.html
Comment by Marginscribbles — March 28, 2007 @ 9:16 am
The problem with all this anti-Cheney rhetoric is that if BYU were to invite Hillary Clinton, those of you who are objecting would be applauding. I like you guys, you know that, but this is hypocritical and simply party rhetoric based on the present polarity.
He is still the vice president of the United States and it’s not high treason for him to be invited–or invite himself to speak at any university.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 9:20 am
And I don’t even like Dick Cheney.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 9:20 am
Steve Evans: Sorry to disturb your dissent. If you don’t like “upchuckable” (I thought the neo-logism was at least interesting) then at least get the facts straight. Cheney more or less invited himself. BYU is simply not rejecting him. Small facts make a difference — don’t you think?
As for rejecting all forms of dissent — I suggest that such dissent isn’t productive and not that dissent as such is always out of line. I’m sorry that I distubed your dissent with my dissent.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 9:21 am
annegb,
I don’t think that Hillary should be speaking anywhere. This is partly because she bugs me personally and partly because I think she engenders much more Republican hate than Democratic support. The more publicized she is, the more likely we are to have four more years of Republican’s in the Oval Office.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 9:25 am
#14 - Pres. Kimball did tell a republican president ‘not in my backyard’ to nix the MX missle.
Comment by Ken — March 28, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Problem is it sometimes feels like it’s not a myth. The often perceived perception is that to be a good Mormon you have to vote against abortion/gay marriage = Republican. An impression solidified with conversations I had with members whilest living in the States.
In England (and I suspect most of Europe), politics and the church just don’t come together. Church members are not majority voters of one party, and who you vote for is never linked to church values (all the parties have similar lines on abortion, for example, so it’s not an issue you choose a party to vote on).
Foreign views of the church are almost always linked with members being one (or maybe 2!) issue voters and that the right party to choose is Republican. Does Cheney at BYU do anything to change that view? No. It send a very strong message that BYU and therefore the church support this administration and lose their political ‘neutrality’.
Comment by Rebecca — March 28, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Numerous schools actually turned down Cheney, so I don’t see why BYU would not have been able to do so.
I don’t think this issue is purely partisan. One can object to the invitation because it appears to send a political message and the church maintains that it is politically neutral. This isn’t the same as invititing someone to speak at forum or to a club, inviting someone to speak at commencement is an honor and endorsement.
One could also object to Cheney on the grounds that he has is questionable ethical role model (Halliburton accounting mispractices, conflict of interest, Cheney energy task force, endorsement of torture, etc. etc.). There are plenty of Republicans who wouldn’t view Cheney as someone who should be held up as an example of honesty, truth, and virtue to a graduating class.
It’s not really about censoring any opposing viewpoint, in my opinion. It’s about the appropriateness of offering an honor and endorsement by the flagship institution of the church to someone who may not (in my opinion, does not) deserve it.
Comment by Hannah G — March 28, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today, we mourn the passing of the academic free marketplace of ideas.
Normally we would have a moment of silence - but those groups opposed to moments of silence have submitted a petition against it. They object on the grounds that a moment of silence was also used by some to mourn the passing of the tyrant Slobodan Milosevic. Consequently, our proposed use of a silent moment would amount to a tacit endorsement of Mr. Milosevic.
Please refrain from being silent.
Thank you.
Comment by Ryan — March 28, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Blake #25 said, “I didn’t see anyone here complaining when Michael Moore came to UVSC.” UVSC is a state run school and not affiliated with the church I belong to. Oh yes, of course there is LDS influence in all of the state run schools in Utah but what concerns me is my church inviting such a divisive political figure to speak at such an important event (it may be routine but graduation from a university if ALWAYS important) when they otherwise claim political nuetrality.
It seems that the the VP’s request to speak could have been respectfully declined and none of this would have been publicized. I doubt the White House would have publicized such a snub.
Comment by lamonte — March 28, 2007 @ 9:48 am
I just don’t see the church as being in the business of “snubbing” governments. But I am not adequately informed on all church interaction with the government over the past 50 years or so.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 9:53 am
annegb,
I don’t think inviting Hillary or Obama would be a good idea either. Of course, once the Cheney visit goes through, maybe it would be a good idea have Obama speak at BYU (Hillary is pushing it), just to try and wash the Church’s hands of perceived bias.
Wouldn’t work though. Such a visit wouldn’t get as much press as a visit by a standing VP. And with Obama campaigning, it’s less than certain he would accept.
If the Church did indeed invite President Bush a while back, and Cheney’s office is indeed the source of the speaking offer, then yeah… I don’t see how the Church can get out of this one gracefully. They probably do have to host him. The best the Church can hope for is a sizeable protest on campus during the visit (which may or may not be covered).
Comment by Seth R. — March 28, 2007 @ 9:58 am
There won’t be an on-campus protest. However, there could be a near campus one.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Seth,
I don’t believe the Church does not allow protests “on campus.”
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 10:02 am
I meant, I don’t believe the Church allows protests on campus.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Seth, if they were the vice president, would you support it? Would you highly object? I suspect not.
Picture this: BYU announces they are inviting Barak Obama to speak. No way would you guys be objecting like this. We’d be reading posts about how terrific it was.
This is about partisan politics, not respect for the office of vice president. I bet they thought about it long and hard and decided this was the right course. Frankly, given that they had to know it would be an unpopular decision, I find it admirable and courageous.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Did I mention that I don’t even like Dick Cheney? It’s the principle of the thing.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 10:11 am
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Ronan!
My husband and I lost sleep over the announcement that Cheney would be the commencement speaker. This has been eating at me since the announcement came, and I (not wanting to post a blog myself) was hoping someone else would. I think you are the perfect person to do it.
There are many of us at BYU who oppose the Iraq war and all of its arquitects, and who (some of us remembering Viet Nam) recognize the quagmire now expanding throughout Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Any war is tragic. Any war fought on a false premise and started offensively goes beyond tragic.
And no, I would not be celebrating a visit by Hillary Clinton either. And though I love Barak Obama, I would think it unwise to invite him–or even Mitt Romney.
Why? Commencement is a time of celebration, of family reunion and photo opportunities. Many in attendance will feel as I do about what Cheney’s role in government has cost this nation–not just in lives lost, but in international reputation. It is a slap at a time when grads should be getting flowers and their families should be happily taking pictures. To invite a figure (and there is a little more to the story than has been posted) whose very presence polemizes the environment ignores the sensibilities of these students and their families.
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Annegb:
How do we honor the Vice Presidency as an office by honoring a dishonorable individual occupying that office? It seems as though you are elevating form over substance to require honor to an office that Mr. Cheney through his entire term as dishonored by his actions.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Margaret,
Please do tell the rest of the story. You seem to be uniquely in a position to do so.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Sorry. Can’t.
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 10:20 am
annegb,
I’m afraid you’re not getting the objection. It’s not that it’s Cheney per se, it’s that it’s always, always, always support for the right wing where the church/BYU is concerned. If BYU were a school that regularly hosted partisan figures from both sides it would be a different matter.
Blake,
I don’t care what UVSC does because it’s not run by my church. And I think having Hannity and Moore is exactly the right idea.
Comment by Ronan — March 28, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Since when has BYU considered the sensibilities of the students and their families? They ignore peoples’ feelings all the time. You guys are always griping about BYU.
Guy, good point. I must ponder a suitable response, if I can come up with one, although I doubt it.
Margaret, it’s easy to say you don’t think Hillary should speak–she hasn’t been invited. I was trying to think of a Democrat who was also controversial to point out that the objections to Mr. Cheney are based on party politics rather than a true moral objection.
It’s traditional for high government officials to speak at commencements at all universities, isn’t it? It’s not unreasonable for the vice president to speak at BYU.
One last point, all the argument aside, I’m rather stupidly proud that people know they can come to Utah and despite their problems, be treated civilly and be safe. We have many Muslims and gays in Cedar, for example. They might experience some social rejection (not much, though, I think), but they are safe and are treated courteously.
I’ve always thought if I were a really strange and different person, or another faith or gay, Utah would be the place I’d pick to go.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 10:30 am
What if we promised to interview you in “secret”, not under oath, and didn’t have a transcript. Would you, could you then?
Comment by Guy Murray — March 28, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Ronan, our posts cross. You know, that bothers me too–I’d be one of the ones applauding Barak’s invite to BYU.
Although, let me think, T & S people are objecting based on his acceptance of his gay daughter and refusal to go along with the amendment. I’m hearing a lot based on his support of the war and other issues. So I might be getting something, somewhere.
Me not getting it, well, that’s par for the course in my universe :).
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 10:34 am
annegb,
I really 100% promise you that for me it’s not partisan. First of all, I don’t have a dog in the US race because I’m not American. Second, I vote for the Conservative Party in the UK.
Comment by Ronan — March 28, 2007 @ 10:38 am
And I’m voting Democrat LOL!
I’m going to turn off this dang computer and go take a bubble bath and eat hot buttered popcorn at 11 in the morning because Bill is down in St. George getting a root canal and shopping at his dream store: Costco.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2007 @ 10:48 am
“The church invited GWB himself a year ago or so.”
I think that this would have been very different. Officially Bush is not just a politician but also the head of state. Unofficially, Bush is capable of giving a light-hearted, somewhat inspiring speech not intended to turn the knife in the gut of a good portion his audience. At any rate, a school should feel honored to have the POTUS, even if they don’t like him or respect him personally that much.
Cheney is clearly a lot different. He is the divisive, partisan political figure par excellence, and has spent a great deal of energy over the past 6 years rallying his supporters around the notion that a very sizable part of the American public are basically traitors or terrorist sympathizers (so I actually disagree with the idea that the main objection to Cheney is *his policies*). The Republican myth is not that there is a pattern to voting in Utah (this is no myth–there is a clear pattern). The Republican myth is that the body of Christ shares not only its basic aims, but its strategy of success and style of leadership with the Republican Party. Cheney’s style of leadership has worked out fairly well for him and his party considering how objectively bad it is. But the church doesn’t grow and succeed through the politics of backlash and resentment, by praising Wyoming and Montana as the real America (or real Mormon) while trying to cut off Massachusetts and Vermont. This point seems to be quite clear to the GAs, from the way they speak and the decisions they make. But the point is somewhat confused by the Cheney invite. I’m not surprised that the church is stuck with Cheney because an offer from the White House, because I would be really surprised if they just settled on Cheney over everyone else.
“I despise PR mongering and folks driven by what others will think…If BYU tiptoed around everyone who disagreed and ran their lives and calendars by what others think it would virtually cease to exist.”
You may call it PR mongering, but the church cares about the face it presents to the world, and for good reason. A BYU shouldn’t and does not by any stretch listen to just any random whiner, but they should, and by all indications do, care about how their students and the membership of the church view their actions (e.g. BYU profs are not spokespeople for the church, but the church cares about and tries to respond the commonly held view that they somehow are). BYU is no different than any other school in that it actually puts thought into the decisions regarding who to honor and who to invite to campus. That isn’t ‘tiptoeing’, it’s acting responsibly.
Comment by Jeremiah J. — March 28, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Ronan: I believe that your comment in #50 is more defensible than yor post. In your post you argue that Cheney is a bad idea for BYU because it reflects badly on BYU because of his dispicable politics. However, in #50 you argue that what you really want is balance so that sometimes left-leaning folks are invited to BYU. Perhaps like Helen Thomas a liberal who spoke at a BYU Forum? If that is your argument, then I believe that signing the petition is counterproductive because instead of objecting to Cheney for his politics like others on this blog you should be petitioning for balance in speakers at BYU — which BTW the petition doesn’t do. It simply objects to Chency on political grounds. I personally would love to Harry Reed speak at BYU. However, if that is your position, then we are not as far apart as I initially indicated. I like education and exposure to a broad range of ideas. I despise those who silence speech because they disagree with it.
Comment by Blake — March 28, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Blake,
1. Harry Reid is not the equal and opposite of Cheney.
2. In the post I both admit that BYU probably had little choice and that the situation could be diffused if the speakers’ list was a little more balanced.
3. The petition is a blunt instrument for sure, but 1,000 people expressing their reservations is worth something. Also, if you read the petition they also suggest that balancing out Cheney is one potential solution.
Comment by Ronan — March 28, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I signed the petition but do believe that letters and emails are far more effective than petitions. All of you who feel strongly about this should write letters/emails to BYU to express your feelings. I did. My point is not to get Cheney to not come, as that won’t happen but to let them know what I think. (E) mail is good at helping people feel more opinion more weightily.
I don’t have high hopes for BYU students’ response. While I was there, Helen Thomas of the White House press corps came to speak. She was a fantastic speaker and she’s got quite amazing experiences. She talked about all the presidents but showed an affinity for Clinton to which the audience booed. I wanted to cry. And then she said am I in enemy territory here? people clapped. I was so embarrassed. Not for the politics per se, but for the PR. Sometimes we don’t realize how foolish we look.
Comment by amri — March 28, 2007 @ 11:19 am
On other threads, we have discussed the “unwritten order” of things–such as the handbook specifically permits men and women to offer prayers in Sacrament meetings, yet many Church officers understand that an unwritten rule requires that only Melchizedek priesthood holders offer the opening prayer.
Another example: officially the Church has not proscribed caffeinated drinks. Yet caffeinated drinks are not sold at BYU or at temples. This shows that there is an “unwritten order” that caffeinated drinks are not endorsed by the Church.
Many Church members believe that, even though officially the Church is politically neutral, in actuality–and as a part of the unwritten order– the Brethren and God wish all members to vote for right wing conservative republicans and to support the Iraq war.
BYU’s actions–inviting to commencement the prominent symbol of the Iraq war and conservative republicanism, but not inviting (since Bobby Kennedy) any equivalently prominent opponents or democrats–strongly suggest that my republican brothers and sisters may be right–that it is part of the unwritten order of things that all good Church members who are “in tune” should support right wing republicans and the Iraq war.
I actually do not, per se, have a problem with Dick Cheney’s speaking at BYU–my problem is the absence of balance. If Anne is correct, and prominent democrats have been invited and have declined, then my concern would be reduced.
Perhaps the University or the Church could make a statement on the subject.
But unless the University or the Church makes such a statement, or does invite other prominent speakers to balance this out, then I must tell you, Ronan, my friend, that I am afraid it is part of the unwritten order that good LDS must act and vote as good republicans.
Fortunately, to my knowledge, this will not appear in the Handbook, and temple recommends will continue to be issued to democrats (as they usually are to Coca Cola drinkers, those who watch R-rated movies, and to those who play professional sports on Sunday). Thank goodness for small favors.
Comment by DavidH — March 28, 2007 @ 11:24 am
re: 51
As the token representative of The Strange And Different people of the world, let me assure you that Utah is not a huge attraction when it’s time to choose a home. We all move to California.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 28, 2007 @ 11:25 am
David,
How the h*ll can half of the church who aren’t American possibly “act and vote as good republicans”?!!! I think you are wrong, because to think otherwise would cause me to wonder what place there is in the Church of Jesus Christ for the non-American.
Comment by Ronan — March 28, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Geoff B. unwittingly hits upon a compromise solution: Allow Dick Cheney to speak but only if his remarks are a rebuke of the Church for antagonism towards gays.
Comment by gst, award-winning commenter — March 28, 2007 @ 11:29 am
I like that comment, DavidH. My husband is in a stake presidency in Provo. At a recent stake event, he wore a silk tie we had purchased in China. It depicts lines of Asian elephants–very pretty design. Someone at the event looked at the tie and said, “Oh, is that a Republican tie?” The bishop of the ward then jumped in: “Oh no. President Young and I may be the only democrats in the stake, but we are democrats.”
I don’t usually order my husband around, but I gave a mandate that evening: That tie is off limits until after the election. I am currently looking for a donkey tie. Really pretty donkeys.
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Geoff B.’s comment here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3788#comment-220284
Comment by gst, award-winning commenter — March 28, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Blake: The BYU law school has apparently tried on numerous occasions to bring Harry Reid in for a speaking engagement, but he won’t come. Interpret that as you will.
Aside from complaints about violation of political neutrality and Cheney’s not being a particularly useful or inspiring speaker anyway, the biggest concern I’ve heard on campus, especially in my English circles, is the radioactive effect this will have on BYU’s credibility as a scholarly institution in the liberal academy. BYU is already associated with conservative thinking and Republicanism–nothing new there, but appearing to welcome Cheney takes the association several steps further into the realm of right-wing paranoia. Many of the faculty are concerned about the impact this association will have on the reception of work they send out in the next year or two; I, as well as many other students, am worried about the reputation BYU will have when I begin applying to (inevitably liberal) PhD programs in just a few months.
Part of me wants to attend the speech just to see how he’ll use the situation to make a political point intended far more for the media and the general public than for his immediate audience. But I’ll more likely set my morbid curiosity aside and join whatever protest happens (on or off campus). I don’t think many of the protest organizers intend to cause problems, but merely want to have a presence significant enough to get coverage that will, to some degree, neutralize the situation.
Comment by Katherine — March 28, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Katherine, you say that the biggest concern you’ve heard is “BYU’s credibility as a scholarly institution in the liberal academy.” What credibility is that, exactly? BYU’s reputation in that respect is already tenuous, particularly in your department, where the institution’s track record with regards to academic freedom is historically quite spotty. It seems to me all this will do is cement what people already suspect about BYU’s allegiances and political views.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 28, 2007 @ 11:37 am
English circles, Katherine? I’d really like to understand the implications of that. I’m assuming you’re referring to the department I teach in. Are we “English” people perceived as being uniquely liberal? (I did hear once that we were a thorn in the side of BYU.)
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 11:37 am
I should clarify — I have a degree in English from the Y, and I know and love many in the department. I have the utmost respect for the work they do, and see them as my intellectual superiors in most (if not all) respects. But if other colleges are hesitant to let Y grads into their English PhD departments, I can’t blame em.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 28, 2007 @ 11:42 am
The whole situation does not surprise me at all.
1. Cheney is speaking at BYU. No surprise
2. The bloggernaccle erupts in protest. No surprise
As far as the reputation issue with other Universities… I find it refreshing that BYU does not hew the “party line” with all the other Universities esp the liberal arts PC Police. Its nice to be counter cultural sometimes
Comment by bbell — March 28, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Steve: Fair enough. By “credibility” I suppose I mean the efforts to recuperate the reputation or at least prevent it from falling further. Yes, my department’s academic freedom record is spotty–that’s another issue entirely–but the faculty joining the department and the work they’ve produced in recent years is going a long way toward ameliorating, though admittedly not solving, the problem.
Margaret: A thorn in the side of BYU? I can’t imagine. Based on my experiences across campus, I’d say the uniquely liberal perception holds, though I do suspect it’s an over-simplification. Not that the department harbors a bastion of flaming, revolutionary liberalness, but whether the humanities, and English in particular, attract the liberal thinkers on campus from the start or we turn that way as a survival mechanism to make our way in the discipline beyond BYU, the perception seems to be grounded in some truth.
Comment by Katherine — March 28, 2007 @ 11:54 am
p.s. kudos to you Katherine for taking the PhD plunge. I just pray you won’t go on the dole.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 28, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Risking a threadjack here, so I’ll be brief. In our English department faculty, we have PhDs from Harvard, Berkley, UCLA, Rice, Cornell, etc. All are very well trained, and all are expected to publish in major, peer-reviewed journals. An article in _The New Era_ will not help a prof get a promotion. (In fact, unless the prof is a creative writer, publications with Deseret Book are pretty much ignored.) But I have heard that Stanford will absolutely NOT admit a BYU grad. (I heard that quite awhile ago, and hope it has been proven false by now.)
The truth is, my colleagues do seem to be liberal–at least in comparison to, say, the Business Management schools. I would guess that one reason this is so is that we have read widely–particularly novels. Tolstoy, Heller, Tim O’Brien (etc.) have invited us to see war up close, and have introduced us to characters we learn to love. All of the great authors have invited us to look at hard, moral questions from many angles. After we’ve read “The Things They Carried,” how can we move easily to the scenes on the Nightly News and not be appalled?
The commencement speakers I would love to see would probably be great authors. We just had David McCullugh as a forum speaker, and we had Gwendolyn Brooks as a forum speaker years ago. We even had Madelyn L’Engle. I would vote for one of them as a commencement speaker.
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Ronan,
My apologies, but I thought it was evident that foreign LDS should act “as if” they were conservative US republicans. I suppose you could look to the US GOP platform, and the positions of Mr. Cheney, to understand the “inspired” positions that should be taken on international issues. I am thinking about sending a note to the missionary department suggesting adding a discussion, summarizing the GOP platform (and the Vice President’s talk) in a way that can be understood in other countries. I am open to suggestions on how this transcultural translation can best be done.
[Actually, if it is not clear, I fully agree with you.]
Margaret,
I am glad to know our stake has more active LDS democrats than yours. I know one other person in our ward and two others in our stake who are democrats–so that makes four of us. Let me know if you find a nice donkey tie.
bbell,
I don’t have a problem with the University’s being “countercultural”, and believe it is healthy to have in our higher education system a university whose student body or faculty lean to the right (or far to the right). My problem is whether this associates, or is intended to associate, the Church with the right wing of the republican party. Do you think such an implicit statement is intended? And should it be?
Comment by DavidH — March 28, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
The proposed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act disturbs me, far more than any commencement speaker, as an official designation of Mormons as loyal Republicans.
Comment by John Mansfield — March 28, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Davidh,
I think when your faculty and student body come from a narrow demographic that pretty much all vote the same way (80%) the alignment simply happens.
What would you have Pres H do? Give a conference talk and divide the membership rolls 50-50 and assign families to vote a certain way? Was that not tried 110 years ago?
Comment by bbell — March 28, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Looks like the BYU Democrats plan to protest on campus during Cheney’s speech, rather than off.
http://byudemocrats.org/?page_id=83
Do you think they will be allowed to?
Comment by lief — March 28, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
This debate appears to be confused.
It is perfectly acceptable for any university to host political leaders. Although Ronan has a point with respect to the lack of balance in BYU’s guest list, an individual politician’s visit neither constitutes an endorsement nor any other indication of support but a modicum of respect.
There are many Republicans that deserve this respect. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney is not one of them. He has squandered that respect when he openly supported torture.
Besides the man is a draft dodger. I didn’t support the draft dodger Bill Clinton. I won’t support the draft dodger Dick Cheney. He does not respect the rights of others and he has never sacrificed for the greater good.
Cheney is no gentleman. He has no honor. The only legitimate reason to extend hospitality to somebody like that would be to extend sanctuary.
Therefore, Cheney should not play a role in anyone’s commencement ceremony.
If BYU wants to invite Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton that would be fine with me even though they would not be my favorite public figures.
Comment by Hellmut — March 28, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Re #20:
Does anyone have the statement made by GBH when there were protests about the Rodin art exhibit?
“I recently spoke on the campus of another university in this state [Utah State University]. The paper reported there were 20,000 in attendance. I think that figure was exaggerated. But the fact is, there was a huge crowd. Most of them were institute students. They looked just the way you look. They were clean, well-groomed, and neatly dressed. They were eager and attentive. As high a percentage of them will be married in the temple as there will be of you. They were much better behaved than some few of you I saw on television the other night” (“The BYU Experience,” BYU Devotional, Nov. 4, 1997).
Comment by Justin — March 28, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
John Mansfield - I hope you find a way to post a blog about the DC Congressman issue. I’m always interested to know why some people believe that Americans who pay the same taxes and die in the same wars as everyone else shouldn’t have a voice in Congress.
Comment by lamonte — March 28, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
bbell,
I am not objecting to the political alignment of members, I am concerned whether, by inviting a controversial prominent republican, but not (since Bobby Kennedy) a similar democrat, the University and its sponsoring institution are implicitly endorsing a political view.
Do you think this is an implicit (”unwritten order”) endorsement of conservative republicanism? If it is, do you think the Church and BYU should be making such implicit endorsements?
Comment by DavidH — March 28, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Stupid Founders!
Comment by gst — March 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Is that true? Why would they do that? The old race and ERA stuff or have their been instances of BYU grads spying on their professors in the fifties and sixties?
Comment by Hellmut — March 28, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Nobody on this thread has yet mentioned the hot water BYU found itself in when its employees started working with the Romney campaign.
Nobody has yet mentioned President Hinckley’s comments about war in his Halloweeen 2006 address.
Nobody has yet mentioned the recent poll data that says Utah Mormons, as of last January, are almost evenly split on the president’s handling of the war.
Nobody has yet connected the timing of the Cheney announcement with the timing of the Soulforce incident at BYU and Temple Square.
Nobody has yet cited this latest report on the various types of protest being planned by BYU students.
Is this all a coincidence? Is it possible the brethren and administrators who invited Cheney to speak were fully expecting (and hoping for) these responses?
Comment by Sterling — March 28, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Can’t be true. My sister, a BYU grad, went there for her grad work in finance. A good friend from my freshman year at BYU was at the law school there. Many of my sisters friends, doing grad work in, among other things, accounting and computer science, were BYU grads. Frank McIntyre was there for Econ.
If you mean Stanford won’t accept BYU students into their English Ph.D. program, I don’t have any idea.
Comment by Sam B — March 28, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
I believe it’s specific to the English department. I wouldn’t know about other fields. I would love to receive a list of BYU alumni who pursued post-grad degrees in English at Stanford. I do know one who did, but he is Chinese and not LDS. Still, I genuinely hope that this “rumor” is just that.
Comment by Margaret Young — March 28, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Sam,
Is your sister named Becky? If so we met once or twice. And I do not find it hard to believe that some of Stanford’s less enlightened departments still hold a BYU grudge. Maybe its because they read so many novels :).
In any case, the BYU-Stanford grad population had law, MBA, various engineering types, economics, political science, accounting, sociology, medical, and a potpourri of others. In all, there was a pretty good sized Mormon grad population (though many were not from BYU). I do not recall knowing any BYU English grad students.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — March 28, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Puzzlin’ Evidence!
Comment by gst — March 28, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Frank,
That’s her. You probably did run into her–she would have been there from 2000 through, say, 2005. I don’t know how much overlap there was between econ and finance, but she would have enjoyed the whatever crossover there was, having done econ undergrad.
Comment by Sam B — March 28, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Sterling,
I am not ashamed to say that I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
Hellmut,
Students spying on professors?
Everyone else,
When the discussion turns to Stanford Economics almuni, you know the discussion has gone off the rails. Chupacabra!
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Brilliant, GST!
(And notice the Mike Wallace reference. Coincidence?!)
Comment by Jeremy — March 28, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
HP/JDC,
I am not sure the links I provided mean anything either. I selected a few facts and asked whether they had any connection or presented any pattern. I guess the people reading this will be the judge.
Comment by Sterling — March 28, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Okay, now I have even less of an idea as to what you are getting at. Tell me, do you wear tin-foil hats about the house?
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
HP/JDC,
Here is another piece that provides the pulse in Provo.
I just figured out what you meant about tin-foil hats. I suppose I was more interested in providing foil for the discussion.
By your choice of terms, it seems to me you smell a conspiracy theory. I was merely wondering if the brethren were demonstrating some political savvy.
Comment by Sterling — March 28, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Do we know whether BYU has invited democrat politicians in the past and they have declined the offer?
Comment by john f. — March 28, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
john f.,
This is probably the closest BYU has come to letting a Democrat politician give the devotional address.
Comment by Sterling — March 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
On a side note, I attended a speech by Paul Tsongas back when he was running for President (or maybe just after). So, Democrats have appeared on campus at least twice in the past 15 years.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Sterling, that wasn’t my question. I wonder whether we know or can know how many democrat politicians have been invited to speak but have turned the invitation down.
Comment by john f. — March 28, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
john f.,
You are right. I don’t have the answer to your question. However, I can say there is a distinction to be made. Very few Mormon Democratic politicians have delivered the devotional address. However, many more have appeared at smaller and less-publicized events on campus. For instance, it is not that hard for BYU Democrats to invite Democratic politicians to attend and address their club meetings.
Comment by Sterling — March 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
During from the fifties until the early seventies various federal agencies paid informers at American universities and colleges. Often this involvement was quite innnocent, for example, professors would recruit personnel for the state department, the CIA, or FBI among their students. Other cases were more problematic. Informers were supposed to find communists and subversives among their peers and professors.
I don’t know this for a fact but I have been told that some Ivy League schools shuttered their ROTC programs in response to these intrusions. I would love to learn more if anyone is familiar with that.
What I do know for a fact is that Richard Perle attempted unsuccessfully to recruit my advisor to spy on his peers and professors at Princeton. Perle offered a fifteen hundred dollar stipend in return for writing “occassional reports” about campus events and personalities. During the early seventies that was a lot of money, especially on top of your regular assistant’s stipend.
According to my advisor, Perle said that this work would be no different than his military work. The man served his draft in an intelligence unit in Turkey.
This encounter happened on my advisor’s first day in the department. Perle cannot have learned this information from a student file. The student file might contain information whether or not somebody had served but not about their military assignment.
Comment by Hellmut — March 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Democrats I heard speak at BYU: Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Congressman Mo Udall. Both were running or indicated that they were planning to run for president.
A while ago.
Comment by Roger — March 28, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Okay, why BYU grads? Was Richard Perle a BYU grad?
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
No, I was just wondering what reason people could possibly have. In my opinion, it’s bizarre to exclude BYU students from any graduate program.
Comment by Hellmut — March 28, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Well, I agree with that, Hellmut. I think that it is probably just bizarreness; it would hardly be the first time.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 28, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
According to a poster on another board who says he graduated from BYU’s law school, Harry Reid spoke at his 2004 graduation in the Provo Tabernacle.
Comment by Greg Taggart — March 28, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I didn’t realize that so many people didn’t like our vice president. In any event, it seems it would be an honor to have the existing vice president speak at your school. Seems like a plus for the students there.
Comment by StillConfused — March 28, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
#1 consider that the BYU board of trustees is at least partially made up by apostles and the President Hinckley is the chairman of the board (see here and search on the word trustee). So, trying to distinguish between the administration of BYU and the church leadership may be fruitless.
I was stunned to hear that BYU had accepted Cheney as its graduation speaker. My personal preference would be to have current political types to abstain from giving commencement speeches. Let them do it after they exit political life.
Comment by AC — March 28, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Amri,
I once heard Helen Thomas speak at Harvard, and I can honestly say her performance was the most pathetic, asinine, sophmoric speech I’ve ever heard given by a public figure. Perhaps she did better at BYU.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron B — March 28, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
I can’t get as worked up about this issue as everybody else. However, I agree that, rightly or wrongly, Cheney’s appearance at BYU will exacerbate the already lamentable tendency to associate Mormonism with the Republican party.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron B — March 28, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Some of us believe we need to win this war regardless of whether or not it was right to go in in the first place. I’d rather have a bunch of flag-waving conservative LDS cheering Cheney on at BYU than have the press all over the Church’s rejection of the VP. I would feel worse about aiding the negative press on the war effort than having my political “principles” compromised. As far as I am concerned, the most christian thing to do at this point is to kick some royal ass in Iraq and prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of middle eastern lives–which will certainly be the case if we cut and run.
Comment by Jack — March 28, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Jack, what we need to do becomes meaningless in light of our incapacity to “win” the war. People who still believe that we can win are in denial.
Besides, you never win counter-insurgencies by “kick(ing) some royal a** . . ..” That’s the kind of attitude that got us in over our heads in the first place.
Counterinsurgency requires sensitive and sensible responses. “A**” kickers are only in the way, which is one more reason not to celebrate the likes of Dick Cheney, the godfather of defeat and debacle.
Comment by Hellmut — March 28, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
right….we just have to decide to kick some royal ass. What a revelation….
Comment by cj douglass — March 28, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I quite like Dick Cheney, though I admit I quit paying attention to the spin machine dedicated to demonizing him, and I don’t really know whether he’s guilty of some of the things he’s accused of. What I do know is his main detractors don’t have much credibility with me, and many of the accusations don’t trouble me at all.
The larger question is more interesting. It would seem apparent that a primary impetus of progressivism or liberalism–or modernism–is the widespread desire manifest in a thousand details to dissolve the influence of Christianity on society.
Of course, a lot of democrats don’t see that and don’t believe it–and even passionately deny it. That’s okay. It’s still true.
Comment by mlu — March 28, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
One item that has not been addressed in this thread, and is of utmost importance to me and my wife who are both graduating from BYU this year, is the issue of the opportunity cost for having Cheney.
With a family of non-members who have all committed to attend our graduation, this was the one opportunity that I had to share my beloved religion with them. We expected, or at least hoped, that the commencement speaker would be selected from the dozens of eloquent and spirit-filled church leaders that could be available to speak at the ceremony. I was excited at the thought that our family would have an opportunity to see the real reason that we both chose BYU for our graduate studies: excellent secular learning in a spiritual context. Not that BYU has a corner on that type of education, but it has a valuable tradition of presenting faithful LDS men and women who can speak to, and inspire the student body from that unique perspective. Instead, we have invited a man that, despite his high political rank, does not seem to represent spiritual wisdom in any way.
It was hard enough to explain to my family that the BYU student body and faculty weren’t all Republican “dittoheads” with our heads in the sand. How can I possibly explain this?
Comment by scott — March 28, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Am I right in understanding the initiative for Cheney’s appearance came from the White House, not from BYU?
Some years ago, we were looking forward to hearing a renowned scientist speak at a son’s MIT graduation, but then MIT announced that President Bill Clinton would be the real graduation speaker and the scientist would speak a little. The word around campus was that the White House was making an offer which couldn’t wisely be refused, despite the university’s embarrassment at bumping their announced speaker. Makes me wonder how much support for Cheney or the Republicans or the war we can read into Cheney’s appearance.
Comment by molly bennion — March 28, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Margaret: I was accepted for the MA program in English at Stanford from BYU in 1993, but I didn’t go. (Long story.)
Comment by Norbert — March 28, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
[...] have very strong feelings on the subject. There are a number of bloggernacle posts (1, 2, 3) and threads dealing specifically with that issue. If you want to discuss that controversy, please [...]
Pingback by Mormon Mentality - Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People » Brigham Young’s Excellent University T-Shirt — March 29, 2007 @ 4:56 am
Hellmut,
Kicking a** simply means to win–and I’m one of those who is still in denial.
Comment by Jack — March 29, 2007 @ 5:43 am
mlu wrote “It would seem apparent that a primary impetus of progressivism, or liberalism or- modernism - is the widespread desire manifest in a thousand details to dissolve the influence of Christianity on society. Of course a lot of democrats don’t see that and don’t believe it - and even passionately deny it. That’s OK. It’s still true.”
I hope you can provide some actual evidence of this other than just stating your opinion. I think perhaps you mistakenly define a “desire to dissolve the influence of Christianity” as liberalism’s desire to not let the influence of Christianity - or Judaism or Islam or any other religious movement - mandate behavior in our secular life. The influence of religion should be left to the religions and not enforced by the state. I’m always amused that the right wing has the nerve to lecture progressives or anyone else on issues of morality, when they are the authors of Watergate, Iran Contra and the current tide of questionable behavior.
Comment by lamonte — March 29, 2007 @ 6:05 am
scott,
just tell them that we are all Tim Burton fans and that the higher-ups mistook Cheney for the Penguin
Comment by HP/JDC — March 29, 2007 @ 7:33 am
Lamonte - Democrats are far less likely to be involved with any organized religion, less likely to believe in God, less likely to believe in an after life and far more likely to be agnostics and atheists. It’s about religion. See here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/35/do-the-democrats-have-a-god-problem
The Democratic party gains when the public loses faith in God. See here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/434/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007 Recent trends give large advantages to the Democratic party.
In Utah at least, my perception is that the Democratic party is largely the party of non-LDS. The divide in the vote for Rocky Anderson is probably the best indicator.
Now I’m not suggesting that one cannot be a Democratic and a fully faithful LDS. I’m just providing information you requested. Further, the Repbulicans don’t have a corner on corruption as anyone who remembers presidential pardons, Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky will attest.
Further, I would suggest that the desire to not let religion “mandate” behavior is one thing (with its compulsory implications); but can any Christian really desire that Christ’s teachings not be a guiding light or influence in the lives of leaders?
Comment by Blake — March 29, 2007 @ 8:13 am
can any Christian really desire that Christ’s teachings not be a guiding light or influence in the lives of leaders?
Indeed this should be a factor, but experience has shown that those most prone to make grand pronouncements of faith are the least likely to live by their own confessions.
The light of Christ permeates all that is good; thus I believe that an atheist/Jew/Muslim/whatever who follows Christ’s principals of social justice and humility in their public life is as worthy of my vote as a someone who attends church.
Comment by Anon — March 29, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Blake,
You realize, right, that none of the correlations identified in the Pew studies establishes mlu’s point that Democrats bear a desire, whether manifest or unmanifest, to eradicate Christianity from society? None of the statistics you’ve cited says anything about Democrats’ intents, desires, or preferences. They only indicate correspondences between voting patterns of people who believe in God and those who do not.
Do you, as a (presumed for the question) non-believer in Muslim tenets of faith, wish to eradicate all Muslim belief from American society? I don’t. Do you, as a non-believer in Catholicism, wish to eradicate all Catholic belief from society? Hindu? Buddhist?
I’m familiar with lots of agnostics and atheists. None of those I’m personally acquainted with has any interest in eradicating the effects of thesism on society. Generally, they’d like to be respected as humans, even though they don’t fit a particular mold. To some extent, they’d like to avoid having their children coerced into worship. Of those I’m familiar with, that’s about as far as “manifest desires” go.
Comment by greenfrog — March 29, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Anon: I don’t believe that one who is influenced by Christ’s teachings is going to make “grand pronouncements of faith.” But quiet, sincere adherence to Christ’s teachings is desirable it seems to me.
Greenfrog: You are of course correct that these statistics don’t establish the Democrats or liberals in general want to wipe out Christianity and faith; only that they have the most to gain politically by it.
Comment by Blake — March 29, 2007 @ 8:41 am
“But I have heard that Stanford will absolutely NOT admit a BYU grad. (I heard that quite awhile ago, and hope it has been proven false by now.)”
Margaret, do you mean they won’t admit one to the writing program? Or not to any other program? I don’t know of any BYU grads in the writing program, but there were some in other fields when I went to an Institute potluck when my son was first considering going there. The writing program is so competitive that I don’t think it can be taken as slight against BYU if many of your grads are turned down.
Comment by Paula — March 29, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Blake,
Our nation’s current leaders are the one’s who have been making grand statements of faith. Are you now arguing that they are not influenced by Christ’s teachings?
Comment by HP/JDC — March 29, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Also, I don’t think that the argument regarding Dems gaining by atheism is true. People who choose atheism are going to be a different demographic from those who cannot worship because the law restricts their rights (which is where I assume all this talk is going). Besides, the fact that atheists prefer one party to another does not indicate that the party prefers atheists.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 29, 2007 @ 8:52 am
If we judge them by their fruits then it is clear that they have not been influenced by the teachings of Christ. Christ is not into cronyism, incompetence, and water boarding.
Comment by Hellmut — March 29, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Anon: I don’t believe that one who is influenced by Christ’s teachings is going to make “grand pronouncements of faith.†But quiet, sincere adherence to Christ’s teachings is desirable it seems to me.
Have you been watching the begginings of the Romney campaign? If a candidate is counting on a religious vote (especially the religious right) its in his best interest to make “grand pronouncements of faith.†And if you don’t see republicans using this - look a little closer. Lets be fair, Democrats rely on atleast an ambiguous pronouncement of faith. It’s no coincidence that open atheists don’t get elected to the US Senate, House or the Oval Office.
Comment by cj douglass — March 29, 2007 @ 8:57 am
greenfrog, HP/JDC and Helmut - Thank you for making statements supporting my position better than I could.
Blake - I accept that statistics show that Republicans, as a group, are more apt to identify themselves as religious than are Democrats. Most of my closest friends in the church are Republicans and they are fine people. I appreciate your belief that political affiliation does not equate to any level of commitment among us Mormons. I should say that most of my Republicans say the same thing but I’m not sure they really believe it.
I am also willing to admit that corruption in politics is not limited to one party. As one who calls himself a Democrat, the personal behavior of Bill Clinton was one of the biggest disappointments in my life. A man with so much intelligence and promise let the entire country down because he couldn’t control his base desires. I suppose that story has repeated itself many times throughout history.
I will state my personal belief, however, that the scrutiny of the Clinton Adminstration was incredibly overblown compared to the scrutiny of the current adminstration despite our current state of affairs related to the war, the national debt, the incompetance of the politically appointed managers of government, the compromising of our civil liberties etc. But what I’m also weary of is the right wing (think William Bennet, Newt Gingrich) lecturing us all on virtuous behavior while they live, essentially, a double life. All the revelations of so-called “religious” people being outed by their actual behavior makes me believe things would be better for them if they just stayed quiet and didn’t try to tell us how to lives our lives. Those are the things that bring me to the belief that we should let the church advise and assist us in matters of spiritual guidance and keep the public square in the secular world.
Comment by lamonte — March 29, 2007 @ 9:34 am
lamonte,
If you are telling me to stop telling other people how to life their lives, then I’m packing my bags and going home! What else is online punditry for?
Comment by HP/JDC — March 29, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Lamonte, you would probably enjoy Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book Second Chance, which evaluates United States foreign policy since the end of the cold war.
Brzezinski links Bill Clinton’s indulgence to his foreign policy in an interesting way. The author blames the president for refusing to engage the tough questions such as Middle East peace, Russia’s integration into the world economy, or systematically engaging Al Quaeda.
Of course, on balance Clinton’s aegis was a lot more rational than Bush’s.
Comment by Hellmut — March 29, 2007 @ 9:50 am
The democratic party understands it has a “God” problem, and is striving to overcome it by reaching out to people of faith, like me, as well as to those, like me, who are pro-life.
The outreach was sufficient that, three years ago, after 31 years as a registered independent who voted for the republican candidate for president seven times in a row, I registered as a democrat and I voted for Kerry. While there certainly are large numbers of “secular” democrats, I have found many, many people of deep faith within the party.
Comment by DavidH — March 29, 2007 @ 9:57 am
HP/JDC - touche’
Comment by lamonte — March 29, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Not even that, I’m afraid. The statistics measure what is — they do not predict what will be. The Pew studies suggest that of those who currently do not believe in God, more vote Democratic than Republican. It does not suggest that tomorrow’s newly-minted agnostics or atheists will choose to vote the same way that today’s do.
Think of it this way: in 2000, the American population maintained, more or less, the same percentages of men and women that it had in 1992. Yet in 1992, America voted Bill Clinton into office, while in 2000 it voted Bush into office. The male/female demographics didn’t change — the voting patterns of the persons forming the various demographic groups did.
I suppose one could study the extent to which theistic beliefs correspond to voting patterns over time, and the extent to which they change, but even that wouldn’t tell us much about what persons who change from one demographic group to the next are going to do — the fact of change, itself, suggests that the people are not as readily categorizable and predictable as we might wish to infer.
Comment by greenfrog — March 29, 2007 @ 10:35 am
What do you like about Dick Cheney? I’ve heard people say they don’t have a problem with him, or he’s just doing his job, but what is it you like about him?
Comment by jjohnsen — March 29, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I liked it when he remorselessly shotgunned that lawyer in the face.
Comment by gst — March 29, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I like how rich and powerful he is, and may I say I personally find him quite sexy.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 29, 2007 @ 11:41 am
GST,
The only problem with the shotgunned lawyer was that Cheney was using number 7 shot. At a minimum when you shoot a lawyer you should use say a turkey load. Number 2 or number 4 shot.
Better yet 00 buck with a magnum 3 inch shell.
My lawyer call me last month and goes…. Hey mad at anybody enough to sue them? Let me know…
To which I said…. Hey I think I just heard a siren. Go chase it buddy.
True story
Comment by bbell — March 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
The Penguin face is a keeper.
Comment by cj douglass — March 29, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
I’ve tried to stay away from the frequent conversations on this topic that have oft consumed the bloggernacle, but Hellmut, the blanket ridiculousness of your statements deserve some sort of response.
“what we need to do becomes meaningless in light of our incapacity to “win” the war”
If the Iraqi Army can’t win with our support, then they certainly can’t win all alone. If entering Iraq was the wrong thing to do then we become all the more morally obligated to help the Iraqi Army and police forces as long and as much as possible.
“Counterinsurgency requires sensitive and sensible responses.”
And the solution to American inner-city gang violence is education and reduction of poverty. But in the meantime, the innocent must be protected. To turn our backs as they are slaughtered would be utterly inhumane.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 29, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
This is the honest truth: I am excited when he’s in the news for any reason, because it means John Stewart might do his Cheney impression, which makes me weep with laughter.
Comment by Norbert — March 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Eric, when did I claim that the Iraqi army would be able to win? Where did I say anything of the sort? Are you sure that you have read my post?
What are your qualifications to judge my words as “blanket ridiculousness”? Better yet, what are your reasons to arrive at such a mean spirited conclusion?
Except for people in the American Enterprise Institute, the expert consensus is that there is no military solution to the civil war in Iraq. Therefore the presence of American troops is superfluous.
As for your second citation, you will be happy to realize that this sentence specifies the mindset that is necessary to conduct effective counterinsurgency operations. Since that statement does not justify withdrawal, your analogy is logically wrong.
Comment by Hellmut — March 29, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Hellmut, no meanspiritedness intended, just calling it as I see it.
You said, “our incapacity to “win†the war.†I consider “us†to be joint US-Iraqi forces.
“No military solution†means no military solution alone. It does not mean that continued military support is not needed in order to win. Our presence might be superfluous, but it’s saving superfluous human lives. Perhaps we simply ought to leave and decrease the surplus population.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 29, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Amen Norbert!
How do you write that “meh/mah” noise that Stewart does? Actually, it’s to the point now that every time I see a picture of Cheney, I see Jon Stewart doing the “meh/mah” bit.
Comment by AC — March 29, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I should add, I see him doing it in my mind’s eye.
Comment by AC — March 29, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
re: 124 You perfectly described Harry Reid in your first paragraph up there, Blake. Senator Reid may well be the most genuinely Christian man in Congress.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Eric, you still have not justified your judgement in terms of reasons, probably, because you can’t.
What exactly is ridiculous about my statement? Please, stick to what I actually said not what you imagine I said.
Comment by Hellmut — March 29, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?company_name=Halliburton&reptype=r&database=fpds&fiscal_year=2005&detail=0&mustrn=y&datype=T&sortby=r&x=13&y=9
Comment by bbell — March 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
HP/JDC,
Did you see this latest piece of news about the Cheney visit to BYU? It took the BYU administrators only about a day to approve the students’ request for an ON-CAMPUS PROTEST. Why do you think they approved this unprecedented event so quickly?
Comment by Sterling — March 29, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
A terrifying and wonderful Dickens quote, Eric.
Hellmut,
What effort did you put forth to justify your response to *my* comment? Aside from your attempt to convey something having to do the deeper meaning of “kicking a**” the only thing you really conveyed was the idea that those who believe the war can be won are in denial. Now does such a *blanket* statement trump all simply because you said it? C’mon, let’s play fair.
Comment by Jack — March 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
And furthermore, I wouldn’t doubt for a second that if the same “professionals” were put to the task of determining our chances for winning the Revolutionary War, they’d all be hollering for us to give it up as a lost cause.
Comment by Jack — March 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Sterling,
I don’t have a single idea, but I don’t ever have a clue regarding what you are talking about. You have advanced beyond me, young Paduwan.
Comment by HP/JDC — March 29, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
That’s a fair point, Jack, but a different question. If Eric had criticized that statement then he would have been right.
Comment by Hellmut — March 29, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
HP/JDC,
I don’t know why either, but I thought it was worth asking. I thought I had given some clues, but maybe my facts didn’t count. How about some more questions? There are no necessarily right answers, so hopefully you won’t have to consider me more advance.
Does BYU want to rescue itself from the embarrassment it suffered when its employees began using university resources to support the Romney campaign?
Was President Hinckley’s condemnation of war in general on Oct 31, 2006, a clever way of letting people assume (without giving them definite proof) that he was opposed to the war in Iraq?
Why did the Salt Lake Tribune wait two months to publicize the fact that, as of January 2007, nearly half of Utah Mormons disagreed with the president’s handling of the war?
Did the church know that these poll figures would be released around the same time that the media found out about Cheney and commencement?
Why did the Cheney announcement hit the news so soon after the media coverage of how BYU filed criminal charges against Soulforce?
Is it possible BYU administrators saw the Cheney announcement as an opportunity to change the protest policy at BYU?
Is it possible BYU administrators saw the Cheney announcement as an opportunity to affirm that the on-campus protest, when initiated by students and not by outside agitators, could be legimitate?
Is it possible the brethren saw the Cheney announcement as an opportunity to distance the Church from the wartime policies of the White House?
Is it possible the brethren and administrators who invited Cheney to speak fully intended to rapidly approve the student requests for on-campus protests?
Comment by Sterling — March 29, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Hellmut,
You’re too nice–I was trying to stir the pot a little. However, I don’t think Eric was totally off base. He never said that you said the Iraqi army could win. He said (in so many words) that because we can’t win–as per your comment–that the Iraqi army doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning as they need our support to have any chance at all. And because they need our support, it would be utterly immoral for us to leave them to certain failure–especially when we share in the responsibility for creating the mess over there.
Comment by Jack — March 29, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
In comment 0, I speculated that it may be part of the “unwritten order of things” that LDS in the US should vote and act as republicans. I suggested that the only way to avoid this implication of Cheney’s invitation would be if the Brethren reaffirmed the Church’s political neutrality and/or if a equivalently prominent democrat were invited to speak to the University as a whole.
I was glad to learn (1) that today the Church has reaffirmed its political neutrality in the context of the invitation, and (2) that Senator Reid has been invited to speak to a Universitywide audience. I was also happy to learn that the BYU democrats will be permitted to protest on campus on the day of the speech.
I still object to Cheney’s policies and think it was a bad idea to invite such a controversial speaker for commencement. And I still think BYU could do a lot better in evidencing political neutrality. But I am grateful for the steps, noted above, which are in the right direction.
Comment by DavidH — March 29, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
In first line, “comment 0″ should read “comment 60″
Comment by DavidH — March 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
And I agree with him on the point about the Iraqi army, Jack. It is unclear, however, that a victory of the Iraqi army would either be necessary or desirable.
Given that the surge will fail, there remain two ways to end the civil war: the Stalinist model and the Gandhi model. US forces cannot contribute to either one.
We will not replace one population with another as Stalin did to end the insurrection of the Tartars or the Chechens (execute the men, round up the survivors, move everybody to an alien environment where the children will perish of exposure and the women of starvation. Stalin could do that. We cannot. That’s not how we conduct wars, thank heavens. Besides you need a loyal population to move into the old settlements).
There will also be no conciliation as long as western forces occupy Iraq. The colonial era is over. Our presence legitimizes violence and thus undermines efforts of conciliation.
The supporters of the invasion and the surge fail to understand that Iraqis interprete our presence as an imperialist effort.
The supporters of the surge are clinging to the illusion that counter-insurgency aka the surge might work. The problems of counterinsurgency are many, some of them are insurmountable in this situation.
Popular loyalties determine the outcome of insurgencies. Since Iraqis understand our forces as an imperial power, the occupation will never enjoy the legitimacy to win hearts and minds.
Besides, we would have to stop spending money on Halliburton and Bechtel and spend it to create an Iraqi political machine. Our political institutions do not have the capacity to be that selfless.
Second, counterinsurgencies cannot succeed unless one can deny the insurgents their refuge. We do not have the numbers to deny the insurgents refuge inside Iraq. Notice, only yesterday, turmoil broke out in Tal Afar, supposedly the model town of counterinsurgency efforts.
We are moving into Baghdad and our opponents are moving their forces north and south. We are still playing whack a mole. The arrival of the remaining reinforcements will improve the force/task ratio only marginally.
Moqtada al Sadr is apparently in Iran. Last time, he stayed there eight years. Saddam Hussein killed his father and brother and thousands of their supporters. Al Sadr was back for six weeks and he had the largest militia in the country.
Going to Iran is the equivalent of Mao’s long march or George Washington’s Valley Forge. They can stay beyond the reach of our fire power.
Since we cannot deny the insurgents refuge, counter-insurgency cannot work. In that respect, the operations in Iraq are fundamentally different from Malaysia where the insurgents were confined to islands and to the Chinese minority.
Of course, one could invade Iraq to deny al Sadr refuge but in light of the fact that we are already short of troops, we are lacking the numbers to occupy another country with seventy million people. Besides, even the invasion of Iran would contribute nothing to the pacification of the Baathist insurgents.
Since our presence agitates violence and we lack the capacity to impose order, the best way to minimize inevitable bloodshed is to get out of the war.
Of course, that will mean that things will get worse but that would happen regardless of when we are leaving. No government formed under the current constitution will be able to impose order either.
The reason is that the current form of democracy is a tool to suppress Sunnis. As long as Sunnis are not safe, they cannot surrender. Peace does not imply an obligation to suicide.
As long as we are there, Shiites have no reason to compromise. They are not paying for their intransigence. We are.
We have herded Iraq into a dead end street and have to get out of the way to let them come out.
Once Iraqi factions have to rely on their own means rather than hiding in the green zone or excusing their barbarism with our presence, opportunities for a negotiated settlement will emerge. That’s no guarantee for success but at least, there is a chance. As long as we are there, the chance for peace and order is around zero.
When we are gone the balance of power will realign. As a result, all sides will have an incentive to negotiate, especially when their international allies and patrons participate. That’s no guarantee for success but it is a lot better than what we have now.
To return to the original argument. Capacity limits moral obligation.
If I were a murderer then my culpability does not imply an obligation to raise my victim from the dead because that is beyond my powers. Likewise, we cannot end the civil war. It is not in our power to impose order.
Ethics is a philosophical morass but every perspective agrees that there is no ought unless there is a can. The United States cannot make the Iraqi people whole. That is the sad truth.
We need to remember that before we want to spread “democracy” by means of war next time.
PS: There are marginal contributions that we can mak