The Audacity of Logic - A Mormon's Viewpoint

Just as a beginning disclaimer, I am firmly in Obama's camp this upcoming election.

This does not mean I think Obama is the Messiah (or the Second Coming if you're Christian), or that he is going to solve all ills. I strongly disagree with several of his positions in all areas - politically, economically and socially - but I feel he is a very strong and viable candidate and will be excited to exercise my right to vote for him. The fact I disagree with some of his specific policies does not disturb me - never trust a man who claims to have all the answers. I vote for him because of his tendency to surround himself with the smartest and brightest and not necessarily just friends who agree with what he believes, and his almost legendary ability to organize, whether it's a community, a caucus, a campaign, a party, a state or a country.

This is in response to a lot of people who ask me why I'm voting for Obama, and then subsequently recite without so much as pausing to take a breath the laundry list of "reasons" why I shouldn't vote for him. In short, 90% of these items on the list are 100% ridiculous. I don't mind that people disagree with my political opinions. What gets me is how the Republican Party is experiencing a severe bout of sour grapes when it comes to Obama.

There's no doubt about it; regardless of which political spectrum you are on, it's hard to disagree that what Obama has done is pretty significant, and very amazing. He started a grass roots based campaign that managed to dislodge one of the biggest political heavyweights from one of the biggest political families in his own party. He did this all with the handicap (yes, it's still a handicap in this country) of being African American and a minority. He is the first presidential candidate to successfully utilize the Internet and other telecommunications advances for his campaign. He is an incredible orator. He is responsible for the revitalization of American politics for the millenial generation, and has broken a rule previously set in granite - young people never vote - and galvanized what was once thought of as a hopeless demographic. Despite the fact that there are rumors surrounding him that makes some anti-Mormon rumors seem tame, he is still pulling strong in the polls. He filled a stadium with 85,000 people just as a celebrity would - except instead of a sports game or a concert, he was giving a political speech. He runs an incredibly aggressive and dynamic campaign while other more well known and experienced politicians stumbled or gone bankrupt. In reality, he's broken records and done what most people thought were literally politically impossible. Had I gone back in time and told myself five years from now that there would be a minority running a serious bid for the United States presidency and actually succeeding, the key of his success being his ability to a) utilize the internet, b) motivate entire demographics through the sheer power of words, and c) wake up the powerful but once thought to be eternally slumbering demographic of college students and younger adults while outmaneuvering older, more seasoned opponents as a relative political rookie, I would have told my future self that he was too idealistic and none of this would ever happen, at least not in five years.

How soon we forget how historical this is! How soon we forget that only a mere fifty years (perhaps two generations removed at the most) African Americans were still fighting for basic rights as a citizen. We forget that YouTube and Facebook are less than half a decade old, that four years ago the Democratic Party's best chance to fight against an unpopular president was a lifeless Massachusetts senator. Rarely do we realize how momentous Barack Obama accepting the nomination of his party to run for president really is (the conservative pundits and FOX News has done a good job of helping us forget). Our children will read about that convention speech in their history books. As Anton Gunn, political director for Obama's campaign said, "Whether you like Obama or not, if you believe in democracy, you have to be excited about what he's done."

And so, in face of all this - the fact that Barack Obama has run a very efficient, a very effective and very historical campaign - his enemies snipe at the details in a most unconvincing manner. In one breath, they whisper in hushed emails that Obama is a radical Muslim - and on cable television, broadcast the taken out of context sound bites of his radical Christian minister. "His Christian pastor and this Muslim thing - how can he have problems with both at the same time? Pick one," as his spokesman Robert Gibbs put it. Same with his experience; he is either a completely unskilled and wet behind the ears politician who will - mark my words! - run this country into the ground with his inexperience and naivete, or he's a conniving snake oil salesman, an experienced demagogue skilled in his ability to manipulate, a man who's every word is a calculated lie, a radical in centrist's clothing who promises paradise but only has deceit in store. When he admits his inexperience in foreign policy and taps Biden as his vice-president choice - an experienced senator in foreign policy - he's criticized for picking a "Washington insider" while his campaign message is about change, despite McCain's choice to pick Palin as his veep choice, a recent governor with just as paper thin a resume when McCain has been citing Obama's "inexperience" like a broken record. When Obama expresses intelligence (he's an accomplished and talented writer and a graduate of Harvard Law), he's out of touch and elitist. When he expresses his past and reminds people of his all too common background being raised in a broken family who lived on welfare from time to time to get by, taking out student loans and only recently being able to pay them off because of his blockbuster success as an author, critics remind us he eats arugula, as if that means anything about someone's ability to run a country.

By now, Mormons should recognize this kind of smoke and mirrors bait-and-switch attacks. It should all sound vaguely familiar:

"At least they can't all be right. You remember Mr. Tucker said Joseph Smith was of a 'plodding, evil-brewing mental composition,' that 'he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his intimate associates,' and above all, that he 'was never known to laugh.' And Mrs. Eaton, taking the cue, says 'he rarely smiled or laughed. His looks and thoughts were always downward bent.' Yet one high authority says he had 'a deep vein of humor that ran through all he said and did,' and Charles Dickens declares that 'the exact adjective for Joe's religion is - jolly!'...Also, while Mr. Hendrix assures us that he made 'warm friends,' other neighbors say 'he was shunned by the boys of his own age' and that he was 'an awkward and unpopular lad.' Here is nice impasse: Chase, Ingersoll and Stafford, who knew him so well, describe him as a brawler who frequently got drunk and 'when intoxicated was very quarrelsome,' while Tucker and Harding, who knew him just as well, assure us that Smith 'was noted as never having had a fight or quarrel with any other person.' Who are we to believe?"
- Hugh Nibley, Their Portrait of a Prophet

Of course, by now, some daft Mormon will run off saying that Brother Lee is espousing Barack Obama as the next prophet! This is far from the case. However, most serious Mormons will look at the wild accusations about Joseph Smith hitting all parts of the spectrum with bemusement. They would refuse to take such silly, biased, ridiculous assertions at face value, and instead scoff at their true attempts - to try and throw anything that would sully a man's reputation in hopes that it will stick, mostly because they don't have a lot to throw in the first place. How do you demonize someone who hasn't done much to deserve demonizing? How do you ruin the reputation of a charismatic, persuasive, incredibly intelligent and efficient religious leader? How do you destroy the public image of a genius organizer, forceful and inspirational orator who is making history?

Try any of these ridiculous accusations on Joseph Smith with a faithful, intelligent Mormon and they will laugh at you. "Who are we to believe?" Hugh Nibley, famous scholar, asks. "At least they can't all be right." So when the same tactics are used against Barack Obama, how come so many card carrying Republican Mormons fall for the same tricks? It's not very becoming of the collective intelligence of our religion.

I'm not saying you should vote for Obama out of pity or because his most vocal enemies can't seem to construct strong, logical cases against him. All I'm asking is for those Mormons out there to think twice about what people are saying about the guy. They'd be surprised how flimsy some of their house of cards arguments are against him. The most common accusation I receive for supporting Obama is the insinuation that I like him for his "celebrity" status, and that I really don't know what he stands for. The truth is, I do. And so when I ask them why they specifically oppose Obama's presidential campaign, I get just as vague reasons - something about him being liberal, something about universal health care or abortion or gay marriage. When I press for a more specific answer, the lack of substance behind the reasons soon reveal themselves; they themselves simply don't know much about him, even though he's written two books and given many speeches and written statements with specific points, as well as participated in debates. Vehemently opposing someone out of ignorance has never been classy, nor intelligent in any degree. If you don't like being intelligent, that is a whole different matter, but if you do care about it then, please, before you tar and feather the politician, think twice about why you want to. Do you actually oppose him on specific moral, political, philosophical, economical or social grounds? Have you really given thought about what he stands for, what he believes in, what he has said and done? Or are you just using the same old talking points that can't stand on their own in the scrutiny of calm, reasonable thought, whether it's from political pundits, news radio hosts, FOX News or an unruly, violent Missouri mob?