AHC: Less Conservative/Republican Utah

Perhaps Bernie, Hillary, Obama, etc aren't saying they're fine with undocumented workers wandering in, etc, but if you reduce efforts to stop them from coming, don't deport them when you happen to catch them, and do everything you can to make them feel welcome (benefits, no police, even calling them by a nice term, etc.), you're essentially saying you're fine with them coming.

Environment comes down, in part, to the convergence of rising environmentalism, woodstock, and the sexual revolution.

On labor, the Democratic party is certainly as strongly pro-labor as ever, but labor (as a portion of Democratic party power) has declined. Hillary, Bernie, etc are all solidly pro-labor, no right-to-work, spend and spend, etc and all heavily backed by unions, especially the government ones.

Let's get a couple things straight- Compared to today's Republicans and even the average Republican at the time, Eisenhower and Nixon were both very liberal. Eisenhower and Nixon both had high taxes and didn't campaign on lowering taxes, that all came about in the Conservative Reagan revolution. Nixon created the EPA and lots of other bureaucracy. Eisenshower created the interstate highway system and the federal control over it. Both not only continued the bureaucracy and welfare system of FDR, JFK, and Johnson but also acknowledged its right to exist. And as far as universal healthcare? Yea both Eisenhower and Nixon wanted it. In fact every president from FDR through Carter wanted it. Everything you think of as Republican today- is from Reagan. Except for expenses must match revenue (and talk was about cutting the expenses, not cutting revenue as well), that's old school Republican, last espoused by Rockefeller. You can't compare pre-1980 elections of Republican versus Democrat to today's in terms of liberal and conservative.
 
On fiscal and bread and butter issues both parties are far to the right of where they were 40 years ago. Social issues have changed, obviously. Even Bernie Sanders isn't really to the left of Hubert Humphrey at this point.
 
Perhaps Bernie, Hillary, Obama, etc aren't saying they're fine with undocumented workers wandering in, etc, but if you reduce efforts to stop them from coming, don't deport them when you happen to catch them, and do everything you can to make them feel welcome (benefits, no police, even calling them by a nice term, etc.), you're essentially saying you're fine with them coming.

Environment comes down, in part, to the convergence of rising environmentalism, woodstock, and the sexual revolution.

On labor, the Democratic party is certainly as strongly pro-labor as ever, but labor (as a portion of Democratic party power) has declined. Hillary, Bernie, etc are all solidly pro-labor, no right-to-work, spend and spend, etc and all heavily backed by unions, especially the government ones.
I think it was Pacifica radio that said deportations have actually increased under President Obama. But we don't really have a Left presence in Congress to talk about this.

I know President Obama has supported executive action on suspending deportation if someone has been in their community so long, etc, etc. I don't really know the details. If you do, we might discuss and debate this.

Of course, some of the worse results of the current situation and current policy is human trafficking, both for sex workers and just plain old agricultural workers. This is the whole question of indirect results. So, how would a change in policy affect the people worst bad off? I think that's a very good question to ask.
 
And even if we did have a very realistic and humanist society, which I wish we did, immigration would still be just a really tough issue. We're a rich country next to a poor country. That alone makes it a hard issue.

And add to that, well, who's financing the drug cartels? And it's mainly us rich Norte Americanos who are buying the drugs. So, while we might rag on Mexico for not having their own house in order, we ourselves are contributing to the problem in a big way.

This guy wrote an editorial in Mother Jones magazine that people should boycott drugs, just like you should boycott any industry which is causing real human harm. Now, if you need medicinal marijuana for a medical problem, that's one thing. But if you don't, then use all your street smarts and be pretty damn sure that the hydroponic weed you're buying is not from a cartel. I'm paraphrasing of course, but it was a brave and thoughtful editorial. And this is one thing I like a lot about the Left. We directly care about people. Conservatives, to their credit, say exactly the same thing. Hey, we care about the rights of the individual. Now, to my mind, some of the other conservative theory makes it hard to see overreaching corporate power, but that's a topic for another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Mo hits the sweet spot. Maybe the very time LDS church members are deciding they should invite African-Americans to consider becoming church members, Mo gets credit for being ahead of the curve. Maybe 1976?

The LDS church has always had African-American members, what it didn't have were African-American's ordained to the priesthood. Which honestly makes sense when you consider the fact that the LDS church always had mixed race congregations. (i.e. If a black man was ordained to the priesthood there was a very real chance he would be called to serve as the bishop of a mostly white congregation; which would have ended poorly for a lot of people before the civil rights movement achieved permanent results).

Also, when you look closer at the Church's decision to lift the ban it seems to have more to do with with the Church's growth in Brazil than it does with social changes in the U.S.A.
 
Top