There’s been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about Dan Liljenquist’s op-ed in the Deseret News along the lines of “how dare Dan do this, Mike Lee is a patriot!” or “Senators Cruz, Lee, and Paul are right.” What gets lost in all of this talk is one simple little truth:
Dan Liljenquist agrees with you.
How could that be? He said that Senator Lee was wrong. What got lost in the message is that he didn’t say that Senator Lee had the wrong content, just the wrong tone. Instead of working to advance his goals via negotiations, via using his influence to build relationships and then persuading people to come over to his side (to repurpose a metaphor in the article), he doused the middle ground in gasoline and set it on fire. His tone was so strident, so unyielding, and so virulent that no Democrat in his right mind would support him. In other words, because his tone was so combative, he didn’t have any opportunity to actually influence the debate in a positive direction.
Official portrait of United States Senator Mike Lee. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’ve heard Senator Lee compared to Senator Charles Sumner, the Massachusetts Republican who was beaten with a cane on the Senate floor for his support for abolitionism. What’s more amazing is that this comparison has been made in the vein of “he’s amazing, he’s just like Sen. Sumner, willing to fall on his petard for his convictions.” That’s all well and good, and I appreciate him having those convictions. At the same time, is that how Senator Lee should be remembered – as a footnote in the history books? As the answer to a trivia question in 2140? Wouldn’t it be better if he was remembered not as a footnote, but as someone who actually helped fix our constitutional issues, instead of the guy who stood up there waving his US Constitution on bow of a sinking ship (to mix my metaphors).
What’s lost in the Sumner comparison is that Sumner didn’t help free the slaves. He didn’t do one thing to solve that particular problem. He’s not Lincoln’s forbearer, he’s not someone who made the US stronger. On the contrary. He’s a Senator who went in to the Senate and helped polarize the nation enough that not only was he beaten half to death on the Senate floor, but who also helped contribute to the deaths of 750,000 Americans in the Civil War.
Would the Civil War have happened if Sumner had been more of a uniter instead of a divider, to borrow a Bush-like turn of phrase? Nobody knows, and it’s not necessarily ideal to armchair quarterback the issue from 150 years in the future. What I do know is he certainly drove his own personal wedge in an already divided nation. That’s what Senator Lee has done, is staked his position and driven his wedge.
What he should have done is thrown his wedge away and worked as much as possible with the other side to stop the ACA (Obamacare). Perhaps he could have pulled out a one year delay in its implementation. That’s something that even strident progressives like Jon Stewart support. Perhaps he could have then used that time to work on his fellow Republicans to work with their colleagues and friends on the other side to mitigate, further delay, or stop all or part of the ACA from happening. At the end, we will never know because he chose to do his part in driving the Senate apart.
It’s my opinion that there is no honor in being the lone voice in the wilderness driving people away with an uncompromising, unlistening voice. What there is honor in is being that voice of sanity and of reason and bringing others over to your side, thereby actually causing change instead of just screaming at the top of your lungs that people should change. That is ultimately what I think Dan Liljenquist was saying, and I agree with him.
RSS - Posts
No, Dan isn’t right, but I appreciate knowing he supports Senator Lee. There comes a time when it is necessary to take a stand like Senators Lee and Cruz took. The ‘go along to get along’ and ‘consensus building’ tactics have failed, and the future of our country is in jeopardy. More of the same ‘relationship building’ ‘negotiation’ and ‘persuasion’ techniques that got us in this mess is not the answer. History has shown that a serious event must occur as a catalyst to usher in real change. Although there was never much of a chance that they would succeed in defunding Obamacare, Senators Lee and Cruz have provided that catalyst. If significant change follows in the near future, we will look back and recognize that it was in large part the result of the government shutdown which is now being used as a club to bash these two honorable public servants.
Dear Daniel,
I don’t believe that Beau has accurately described Senator Lee’s “tone,” or even Senator Sumner’s legacy for that matter. But, I would like to set aside those issues for the moment in order to focus upon what I consider to be the larger question:
When, if ever, is it appropriate to contend against others?
I ask this because, if I am understanding Beau and Senator Lee’s other critics correctly, they seem to be saying that Lee is wrong because he has been too controversial and contentious, that if he had just played ball — gone along to get along — it would have all worked out better for the Republican Party and the country as a whole. But, the problem is that a growing number of us no longer believe that the entrenched Republican Washington Establishment can be trusted to reverse our nation’s dangerous course in order to prevent us from going off the cliff: Fiscally, morally and constitutionally.
Indeed, we now see them as being the enemy instead our allies, because of how they have used us Conservatives to get elected, only to just turn around and act as Democrats themselves once they are in office. (Failed nation building adventures, crony capitalist bailouts, government/entitlement expansion, run-away deficit spending, to name but a few examples.)
If we are correct in our assessment, then what is the proper way for us to respond? Like many others, I look to my faith for answers.
Regarding himself, Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:34-36)
And, yet, He also said: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) To that, He added: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.” (Matthew 5:38-40)
This, though in other scripture we learn: “And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.” (Alma 43:47) “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 54:17)
I don’t know about you, but I frequently find myself struggling to find the truth that lies behind ALL of these, and other such verses, in my efforts to better follow the Lord’s teaching: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” (3 Nephi 27:27)
What was Jesus really like? Wasn’t He a highly controversial, indeed, revolutionary figure? Didn’t He speak truth to power, without mincing words? Was He not a temple cleanser?
https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/jesus-cleanses-the-temple?lang=eng
If so, are we to be even as He was in all of those ways? I sincerely seek to know. What do you think?
Respectfully,
David Lund