Choosing the Left

Review of The Liberal Soul: Applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Politics (TLS), by Richard Davis

__________________

Many Mormons consider the word “liberal” to be a pejorative description. For example, when I decided to attend law school at the University of California, Berkeley, several of my family and friends made comments like, “But that’s the most liberal school in the country!” In other words, why on earth would a Mormon choose to go to such a liberal school?

However, BYU political science professor Richard Davis sees the term “liberal” quite differently. Rather than having negative connotations, Davis defines “liberal” the way that it is used in the scriptures, namely describing “personal characteristics of generosity, magnanimity, and charity.” Davis thinks that all Latter-day Saints should become “liberal souls” (a term taken from Proverbs 11:25), meaning someone who “follow[s] Jesus Christ in his love and acceptance of others, specifically in his care for the poor and the needy, his concern for the most vulnerable in society, and his compassion toward all.”

Most of the book focuses on the way in which a “liberal soul” should view the role of government. When considering this issue, many Mormons will undoubtedly think of the writings of conservative Church leaders like Ezra Taft Benson, who once said (in General Conference, no less) that the “function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.”

TLS presents a different perspective. Davis argues that, to the “liberal soul,” government has an important role to play in creating the type of society that most of us want to have (what Mormons might call a “Zion society”):

[A] Latter-day Saint can approach economic policy, war, the environment, and social issues with the perspective that society is basically good and not evil, … and that government can and does play a positive role as a vehicle of society in improving the lives of citizens. … Latter-day Saints can apply the gospel of Jesus Christ to our roles at … three levels — individual, group, and society — rather than assuming that the societal level violates the principles of the gospel.

For example, consider assistance to the poor. Although most Mormons would acknowledge that God has commanded us to care for the poor, some would argue that such assistance should only come from individuals or private charitable institutions. However, Davis points out that “some problems are overwhelming for individuals, families, or even communities” and “[w]hen societies have excluded government in favor of private sector charities, needs too often remain unmet. The result is massive, needless suffering.” Instead of simply assuming that “excluding government involvement [is] the Lord’s preferred means,” Mormons should instead “interpret and implement our scriptural admonitions to help the poor at multiple levels—individual, family, church or other charitable group or organization, and society as a whole.”

Davis makes similar arguments in favor of government involvement with facilitating economic opportunity and protecting the environment.

TLS also discusses the extent of separation between church and state, arguing that “the Framers established the first secular national government in the world.” While many Mormons will probably bristle at the word “secular,” Davis points out that “‘secular’ does not mean anti-religious.” Instead, it simply means that the government “is neutral on religion” so that all can “believe as they wish and practice their religion in accordance with those beliefs or be allowed to have no religion at all.” This probably won’t sit well with those who believe that American government should be overtly Christian, but I believe that Davis’s perspective is correct and consistent with D&C 134:9 (“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government….”).

Davis also tackles the difficult issue of war. While dismissing complete pacifism as “not satisfactory,” Davis also believes that war is only justified in rare occasions (self-defense and defense of others), and even then only as a “last resort”:

When war drums start beating in a society, it is the obligation of the liberal soul to refrain from joining in a war chant but instead to advocate peace, to suggest alternatives to war, and to ask whether other measures — diplomatic, economic, and moral — have been sufficiently applied to solve the problem.

To be clear, Davis is not claiming that his is the only valid way of understanding politics and the gospel. Instead, he simply “seeks to address the imbalance in LDS discussion of the role of government” and demonstrate that extreme political conservatism “is not hand in glove with the gospel of Jesus Christ or LDS Church policy.”

In addition, most issues are treated at a fairly high level, so there’s a lot in TLS that those in the political center (or even center-right) would agree with.

For example, Davis says that the liberal soul favors “affordable health-care access … for the poor and needy,” and “sees clear advantages for health-care access and delivery going beyond the confines of individual or private organizational efforts.” While these high-level statements are certainly consistent with Bernie Sanders’ call for a single-payer national health care program, they also are at least arguably consistent with more moderate policy proposals, including Hillary Clinton’s ideas and possibly even the center-right American Enterprise Institute’s reform proposals (which call for government’s involvement with health care to be reduced, but certainly not eliminated).

Similarly, Davis states that “[t]he liberal soul supports the implementation of a public education system that is both inclusive and effective in providing education for all.” Few would argue with this. But does that mean that the government should make college free for everyone, as Bernie Sanders has proposed? Or would it be more effective to rethink financial aid and regulatory policies?

I believe it was wise for Davis to keep policy discussions at a fairly high level, because “liberal souls” can have different opinions about public policy. Rather than advocating for a specific policy agenda, TLS simply tries to convince Mormons that government can play an important role beyond simply protecting property rights. “Government is not the cure-all for economic, social, and political problems faced by individuals,” Davis says, “but neither is the role of the government ‘off the table’ as part of the total offering of service to individuals.”

That may sound like a modest proposition. But to a Mormon culture that seems to be saturated by extremely conservative political views, it is a sorely needed perspective.