Why I Dislike Direct Democracy - Part 2

I defined direct democracy in my last post. So, what's the current alternative? Our republican system of representative government, structured with checks and balances.


The Utah State Legislature (legislative branch) makes laws, the Governor's office and the executive branch enforces and carries out those laws, and the judicial branch interprets those laws and determines whether or not they are constitutional. Each branch checks the other in specific ways.

When a bill is introduced into the legislature, the actual language is up for modification all throughout the process. A sentence changes in committee, a compromise is reached in one house, a different word clarifies intent in another house, a reduction (or increase) of projected expenses is attached from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, etc. When the bill is finally sent to the Governor to be signed into law or vetoed, it has been discussed, debated, changed, switched, refined - you name it - multiple times. Even then, the law is subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court if it is deemed unconstitutional. And finally, future legislatures may choose to revise, edit, or get rid of the law altogether. (See "How an Idea Becomes A Law" at the Utah State Legislature website: http://le.utah.gov/documents/aboutthelegislature/billtolaw.htm)

One concern that I have with direct democracy ("citizen"-led petitions and initiatives) is the high potential to create BAD POLICY:

1. All 21 pages of this "Ethical Government Initiative" will pass into law "as-is" if Utah voters approve of it in the ballot box. To the best of my knowledge, there is no ability to change, tweak, or refine the language from now till then. So, instead of being discussed and refined by hundreds of involved minds like a legislative bill, the official language of an initiative will only reflect the opinions of the relatively few sponsors who put it together.
   
   
2. When challenged on the previous point, many initiative sponsors claim that the legislature has the power to revise the law in the next session. That may be true, but what legislator in his or her right mind would try to overturn something voted into law by the voters of the state? In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted to implement a bad policy, only making it harder to change it down the road.
3. 
   
   One common excuse given to legitimize an initiative effort is "We've tried to pass this idea but the legislature (all those evil, nasty, corrupt legislators including the ones we voted into office) keeps shutting us down." Well, could it be shut down because it's just a bad idea, or even more, because the legislators we elect to serve as watchdogs can discern good, effective proposals from those that are little more than a political ploy to gain more power? Some interest groups/factions have a hard time accepting a little "Vitamin N" - "NO!"



4. I wonder if some interest groups try to get initiatives passed in order to circumvent the legislative process. It's a short cut. Let's face it - any type of democratic government is going to be messy because of all the different perspectives that come to the table. It's not easy to get laws passed. It's not an efficient system, but our Founding Fathers knew that and counted on it to keep bad policies in check as much as possible. A truly "efficient" system would be like an absolute monarchy. The problem with that kind of system is a lack of freedom. I tend to be quite wary when a group tries the "short cut" way around the elected legislature.

Okay, that's enough for now. Get ready for some more ideas tomorrow!

Why I Dislike Direct Democracy - Part 1

What is direct democracy? Why do I talk about it now? Why do I dislike it?

1) Direct Democracy Defined:

"A form of democracy in which the people as a whole make direct decisions, rather than have those decisions made for them by elected representatives. Example: A referendum is a form of direct democracy, as is the practice of recall, by which an elected official may be voted out of office between elections if enough people sign a petition to remove him and then win the subsequent vote."

(Direct democracy. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon. Dictionary.com, LLC. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/direct democracy (accessed: September 28, 2009).


2) Why talk about it now?

You may or may not have heard about the "Government Ethics Reform Initiative" that was officially submitted August 12th to the Lt. Governor's Office. See the following story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705325882/Latest-Utah-initiative-ethics-in-government.html


I feel like I've done nothing but study this initiative this past week. I've read through all 21 pages at least twice, highlighted questions, started mapping out a timeline, visited the only "official" open house on this initiative for the Summit, Wasatch, and Utah Counties (last Wednesday night at the Provo City Library), attended an information meeting on Saturday in Orem hosted by the Republican Leg. 59 Chair, and participated in several emails back and forth between my political friends.

So, this topic is definitely on my mind right now.

3) Why do I dislike it?

Well, I'll write more about this tomorrow because my blogging time is up. How's that for a teaser? Till tomorrow then!

The Kingdom of Heaven Is Not Like A Political Campaign

In my last blog I sounded a bit depressed, self-critical, and disappointed. I guess that's probably normal for anyone who doesn't reach a goal. My husband has pointed out on multiple occasions that almost everyone gets overly sensitive when their neck is on the line. But I'm feeling much better about the whole thing now.

Michael and I went to the temple last Friday for date night. We participated in a sealing session, sealing together families for eternity. One thing about the sealing blessing really impressed me, and then in my scripture study this morning the same idea was presented again:

"Be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven" (Doctrine and Covenants 6:37).

See, we don't have to run a campaign to make it into the kingdom of heaven, to inherit all that God has and to become like Him. We inherit it, we receive it, based on our actions, choices, and desires during our mortal life.

In a political campaign, other people (the voters) determine whether or not we are successful. In our "heavenly" campaigns, we ourselves are the main determining factors.

In political campaigns, you first have to focus inward and figure out why you're running, what is important to you, how you think you're going to make a difference. But ultimately, you have to focus on who is voting and get a lot of people to like you and what you stand for. Success depends on getting at least one more vote than your competition.

But all the popularity in the world would never get you into the Kingdom of Heaven if you haven't been keeping the commandments, showing faith in Jesus Christ, becoming reborn of the Spirit, and enduring the best you can (which to me, means repenting every time you fall and getting back up and trying again). Of necessity there has to be a focus outward, but it's based on charity and a desire to keep the commandment to "be our brother's keeper," not a desire to "win a vote."

Yes, political campaigns are essential to figuring out "the voice of the people" (see Mosiah 29:26) so we can live out our mortal lives in a peaceful and free civil society. But in the final analysis,

THANK HEAVENS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS NOT LIKE A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN!

When You Lose, Don't Lose the Lesson

Well, I lost my bid for the Chair of the Constitution & Bylaws Committee. I really wanted that spot and felt like I would do a good job. I also feel like I disappointed many others who also wanted me to win.

Probably the hardest thing for me is that I feel like I blew it, that I didn't do my best. Somehow, I let myself get so anxious over this election that I forgot some common sense things that normally come so easily for me. However, I remember one of my Mom's adages she shared with me ages ago: When you lose, don't lose the lesson!

So, last night I wrote down in my journal some of the following "Lessons Learned" (it could be written, "Lessons Re-Remembered"):

1. Next time, CHILL! As soon as I have decided I'm going to run, make up an action plan and stick to it. Do as much as I can not to get too anxious. Remember - anxiety is based on fear; focus instead on faith that I will be able to do my best regardless of the vote outcome.
2. Start contacting members of the committee sooner; don't wait till the day or two before the election to establish those relationships and articulate my reasons why I want the particular office. I was able to contact three of the six I needed to talk to. Maybe I wouldn't have changed any one's mind, but maybe I could have...
3. Don't nominate myself; arrange ahead of time for a supporter to nominate me instead.
4. I think I do better when I focus my campaign speeches on pragmatic things and not so much on philosophical things. There is a time and place for sharing philosophical ideals, but I'm getting the idea that a campaign speech - at least the short, right before the election kind of speech - is better received when I focus on specific actions.
5. Contrary to my normal practice, I didn't prepare an outline in advance for what I was going to say; so yes, it kind of rambled.
6. Again, because I didn't plan my speech well, I didn't include one of my main qualifications - that I had already served as a proxy to LauraLyn (the former chair) at an Executive Committee meeting, I had already worked to set up meetings and initiate discussions among the committee members, etc., all at the same time that I was actively working in my other role as Leg 56 Education Officer. The fact that Doug Cannon felt like he had to share this point with the group - after Lowell Nelson (another candidate for Chair) had mentioned the time commitment involved in the position - well, I thought at the time "Why didn't I mention that first???!!!!"
7. Again, contrary to normal practice, I didn't print out a listing of specific plans and compile the list of pending business for the committee like I had thought of doing earlier. Maybe it would have helped me get elected, maybe not. But it would have helped our committee move forward more quickly on committee business.

So, here's for the good news -

I got elected as both Vice Chair and Secretary by acclamation. So, I'll get to keep on top of committee business, help influence a more structured and communicative committee, and be able to fill in when Lowell can't attend Executive Committee Meetings.

Also - and this actually surprised me - I felt a sense of relief when Lowell was taking over the rest of the meeting after he was elected. Now why would I feel that? I've thought about it and wondered if perhaps I really wasn't ready for this position after all, but I needed to learn these lessons so I can be more effective in future elections down the road.

Also, I know that there is a difference between formal authority and moral authority. I can still be a leader and an influence for good regardless of my formal position. That much hasn't changed for me at all.

Finally, for the best part of all: I can't imagine losing to a better person than Lowell. He really will do a great job for our committee and for our county party. And the others on our committee are pretty amazing! There is definitely a sense of forward motion, activity, and desire to act according to correct principles.

So, I just have to make sure I don't let myself slump into any kind of pity party or beat myself up too much. I can focus on the things I've learned and know that they help me be more effective in the future. And I can be happy that I get to be with such an awesome group and look forward to all the work that we will get to do together. In summary, I lost, but I'm not going to lose the lesson!

National Health Care - A Queen Size Sheet for a King Size Bed

My sister-in-law Becca emailed me the 4-minute video, " Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.". It is well worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

Wow. You can feel Representative Rogers' passion and concern over this awful piece of legislation. I loved his Abraham Lincoln quote: "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak." So true!

And yet, that's exactly what we seem to be hearing from the White House - that we must, in a spirit of "service" and "compassion" reach out to these poor and lonely and depressed and help them to rise above their victimized state so they can lead lives of dignity and respect. Oh, and we're going to do it by picking the pockets of every one else in this country whether they like it or not.

Contrast this Robin Hood attitude with a fabulous quote by President Ezra Taft Benson:

"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature" (First Presidency Message: Born of God, Ensign, July 1989).

The solution to our problems is not more government, but better human nature. That's a tough call for our society that has been preaching the idea "I'm free to do what I want any old time" for decades now. Time to turn the mattress over!

You Can Teach Correct Principles of Government

In 2005, Eagle Mountain City Council & Mayoral Elections focused on the Full-time vs. Part-time Mayor issue. I stood strongly in favor of a full-time mayor. David Lifferth, a candidate for the City Council at the time, was distributing a campaign flyer listing over 20 reasons for supporting a full-time mayor. He included many good arguments, but some of his statements were confusing for those who had not lived in our city for several years. I asked him if I could use some of his arguments but write my own opinion paper. So much misinformation was circulating around our city that I wanted to address this issue publicly. A friend and neighbor, Doug Cannon, helped me publish this document in our local newspaper shortly before the municipal election.

I have heard rumblings that this same issue is resurfacing in this year's mayoral race. Perhaps these ideas I wrote about four years ago may still be of value for our city. Fortunately, Doug posted my article on his website: You Can Teach Correct Principles of Government.

Doug has updated this page to include more information and research on "criminal negligence". When I have a chance to read his comments, I'll update this blog post.

I truly believe that the success Eagle Mountain has experienced over the last 2 years is a combination of a city government structured upon correct principles and individuals who rise to the best in themselves to lead our city according to correct principles. A good government structure means nothing if the city leaders lack integrity and an ability to work together with others of differing opinions. Likewise, good and wise leaders will continue to struggle if the government structure is flawed.

I'm grateful for these lessons I have learned first-hand. I am grateful for friends who also believe in government based upon correct principles. I hope and pray that God will continue to bless our little but growing city so that our citizens and especially our children can grow and learn in an atmosphere of peace and prosperity.

[Note: The Doug Cannon mentioned in this article is not the same person who currently serves on the Constitution & Bylaws Committee in the Utah County Republican Party. The Doug Cannon I am referring to lived in Eagle Mountain City for many years until he moved to Provo in 2006 or 2007 to pursue a law degree.]