Alright…so I have to admit that I absolutely LOVE the writers strike…for no other reason than politics and reality television have taken a front seat in primetime.  Well, actually, when I refer to reality TV I mean, political reality!  We are watching a true drama unfold daily as the presidential primary works the nominating process for each party.  Perhaps it was the perfect storm for the writers to strike and these candidates to step forward in a time when all of the world’s eyes are fixed on tossing America’s current President for someone (but not just anyone) better.  No, Americans want to be sure this time that they don’t elect another buffoon to the White House, and we have certainly learned a lesson or two about apathy.  Just look at the huge voter turnouts so far, particularly among Democrats (”never again,” they say!). 

But that’s not exactly what I want to talk about today, or what I would like to elicit a dialogue about in the coming days leading up to the Feb 5 primaries.  No, I want to talk about what I call a ‘marketplace of ideas.’  I got to thinking about this the other day when the Clinton team pounced on the Obama camp for his remarks about Ronald Reagan’s presidency. 

Now, I should admit two things: first, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and second, I am a moderate democrat, so I don’t demonize Reagan with quite the same fervor as many of my colleagues have.  And one final thing to add, that I think Barack Obama should admit, is that he was not just stating that Reagan had ideas, he was making the point that Reagan inspired people with his ideas and changed the course of government/politics in much the same way that Obama hopes to serve as President (but with ‘other’ ideas).

That said, I think the Clinton campaign went too far in their assertion that Obama was endorsing Reaganomics or Republican policies of the 80’s.  Moreover, I think its a sad, sad day in politics when we lambaste a party member for endorsing or supporting the ideas of another party for the sole reason that they were the ideas of the other party.  That truly is partisan politics.  In Obama’s Reagan snippet, he did not discuss or detail which Republican ideas he was referring to, and the Clinton campaign chose to pull out those ideas that they know will rally the Democratic base, not because they were bad ideas, but because Democrats think they were bad ideas.  And that is a distinction with a big difference. 

I am not arguing that trickle-down economics is good public policy, or that it was good public policy at the time.   What I am arguing is that, as an idea, it exists in the marketplace of ideas about how government should be run.  And because it resides in the marketplace, it is not owned (or should not be owned) by any one party as a monopoly.  For some reason, the marketplace notion seems to be passe; or maybe even too futuristic, like we’re not there yet– we’re not yet at a point where we can evaluate an idea on its merit rather than its motives or ownership. 

The fact is, economic policy is incredibly complex and nuanced.  It changes substantially based on incremental differences and minute changes in the economic environment.  So in the 80’s trickle-down may be a bad idea, but in 2020 it may be the goose that lays the golden egg. 

Bogging ideas down in a partisan mire does not serve electorate who are trying to make a presidential decision, and only distracts real debate amongst the candidate on the issues.  This partisan bickering would almost be stomachable if it only happened during campaigns where it has little paractical effect, but it doesn’t. 

Often, our elected officials fail to stroll in the milleau of ideas, and rather choose to stay close to home and brainstorm/analyze the ideas of their party and coalition colleagues.  These conversations go something like this:

Democrat:  “Uh-oh, the Republicans are running another voucher bill.”

Other democrat:  “Oh no, how do we defeat it this time.”

**********

Republican: “Ugh, not another GLBT bill…don’t the Democrats get it? We’re not passing those!”

Other republican: “Well, we’ll just have to kill this one in committee, too.”

Instead of actually addressing the specifics of the antidiscrimination bill or targeted tax credits, each plays her/his part in the group think and condemns it as bad because of where the idea came from.  It is not uncommon for a bill to be defeated one session, only to be revived in the exact same form the next session, sponsored by the other party and passed. 

This is a dysfunctional way to run a government, and I was a bit disappointed to see Hillary engage in undercutting the marketplace for a cheap campaign play.  Afterall, wasn’t it President Clinton who embraced NAFTA and welfare reform (Republican ideas)?

Gordon B.; President Hinckley; and, our prophet.  Gordon B. Hinckley has been called by many names since being called as the President and prophet of the LDS church.  But true to his endearing character, I think we all felt like we knew him a little, and so “President” wasn’t used quite as it had been in the past.

President Hinckley, or Gordon B. as many of my friends refer, had an ability to make you feel like he knew you, that he was joking around with you when he added a quip during general conference.  He was disarming and forthright, and so a wonderful spokesperson and example for the LDS church. 

Much has already been written about his many works and his enduring legacy, and there will no doubt be endless volumes about his life and the impact of his legacy on the church and the world.  His humanitarian leadership is well documented, and transcends religious, cultural, and ethnic divides. 

Serving as the head of an international organization of the magnitude of the LDS church is no paltry or trifling task.  It is my belief that other Presidents and presidential hopefuls can take a page from the Gordon B. book (literally, if you read Stand for Something) and demonstrate what true leadership can be.  That’s how you heal a nation.