Blog 5 - While the Going's Good...

The Mormon Political Identity

The question this week is a complicated one: is there a distinct LDS political identity in the United States, and what does that mean in terms of primordialist and constructivist arguments about political identity? There's a lot to get into here, so I'll start by discussing LDS political identity, then move on to cause, and finally I'll discuss the broader implications. 

So, what is a political identity? As noted by Professor Hawkins and our Political Science 150 class, a political identity is any sort of identifying characteristic or association that changes the way that an individual makes political decisions, usually in the form of voting. Another definition is offered by the textbook Comparative Politics, by David J. Samuels, that states that political identity consists of “the ways that individuals categorize themselves and others, and how they understand the power relationships of domination that exist between groups” (149). In other words, our political identity is made up of our perspective on things that shape the way we see the world and vote. This becomes more complicated when we try to divide where identity, or the way we look at things, starts to become political. Which parts, exactly, make us change our political decisions, and which parts are just opinions?

This is the “puzzle” we must deal with as we look at LDS political identity. The argument is not whether or not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is affected by their religious views, which is undeniably true (assuming they actually believe the doctrine). Belief is necessary, but insufficient to create a political identity. An example may best explain the difference. Members of the church believe that honesty is a virtue. Suppose there was a candidate that that had demonstratively lied on a previous issue and was not a member of the church. The voter in question could not vote for them because they believe the doctrine that lying is bad, or they could not vote for them because they are not a member of the church. In one case, it is a personal perspective on a point of doctrine that makes the decision, in the other, it is membership (or lack thereof) in a community that determines their vote. The real point is this – did being a member of the church cause the person to vote one way, or was it something else? In the first case it is a matter of identity, in the second, of political identity. 

The short answer to this is that yes, within the United States, there is a political identity. It is not necessarily very frequently invoked, but it does exist. Identifying its causes can make the issue clearer, and the easiest way to do that is through an example. Mormons have a reputation for being largely conservative. This is a matter of identity, not political identity; it all comes back to causation. Being a member of the church did not cause the members to become politically conservative. An example of the true LDS political identity was given on utahdatapoints.com by Quin Monson in the article “Do LDS Dems like Mitt Romney?” posted on the main page on August 22^nd, 2012. Monson points out that “16% of Democrats from other faiths and 19% of non-religious Democrats” approve of Governor Romney, while 42% of LDS Democrats approve of Romney. Those polled all lived in Utah. With a difference that big in the same geographic area, it is safe to assume that the difference was largely caused by their faith; they saw someone of the same faith and (theoretically) values as them, and despite the fact that they disagreed on policy terms, they still approved of him. In that, we can say being LDS has become, if it wasn't before, a political identity. 

What does this mean beyond the Mormon world? This has real theoretical ramifications. The two main theories on political identity are the primordialist and constructivist positions. Primordialist theories state that our identity (and thus the parts of our identity that eventually become our political identity as well) is determined at birth. They include our race, where we are born, the culture of the area, our religion, our family values, etc. The fact that Utah is so predominantly Mormon, and that this shift is so powerful, are big arguments in favor of the primordialist position. Despite our professed political beliefs across the spectrum, up to (assuming all Mormon Republicans support Romney) 71% of Mormons support Romney across the board. That is a staggeringly huge number in political terms.

On the other hand, this information can be interpreted in favor of the constructivist argument as well. The primordialist position says that we are inevitably formed by the culture in which we live – yet we can see serious grounds for claiming that that is simply untrue. Despite being born into, generally speaking, the same area, religion, and even circumstances, there are two critical areas of difference. First off, there are Mormon Democrats. They have already broken out of the political identity they were born into. Secondly, while many of them did support Romney, and almost certainly because of his faith, 58% of them did not. Despite the overwhelming cultural support of Romney by the majority of people around them, that 58% did not go with the crowd, or their geographic area, or their religion, or their race, or any other demographic – they made their own decisions to believe, think, and critically, vote a different way on this political issue. Their political identity, then, is self-formed, not merely a product of their upbringing, which lends strong support to the constructivist claims.

In short, there is Mormon political identity. That it exists, and occasionally comes out strongly, is evidence that there is something to the primordialist claims. But the fact that there is a sizable group that does not conform to these pressures or culture teachings or what have you is strong evidence that while we are, indeed, influenced by the factors mentioned by the primordialist theories, they do not pre-determine our political identity. We are free to choose, after all.

Sources

Samuels, David. Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013. Print. 

Monson, Quin. "Do LDS Dems like Mitt Romney?" Utah Data Points. 22 Aug. 2012. Web. <utahdatapoints.com>.

Blog 4 - at long last, it works!

#4

Another Look at Canada

There has been a long standing and important debate over what causes democracy to take root in some countries, and not in others. One of the most popular is the civic culture argument, which claims that the culture of a country is the strongest indicator of whether a country will become democratic or not. This argument uses three main variables as its base: civic engagement, political equality, and solidarity.

What does these terms actually mean? Civic engagement is, put simply, how involved the average person is in voluntary social activities. This includes religious activities, social clubs, music groups, political parties, etc. Political equality is largely self-explanatory. Are all people allowed to participate in politics, or are some people not allowed to for any reason, be it race, gender, economic class, etc.? Finally, solidarity is the difficult-to-define feeling amongst the people. Does the average person feel some sort of connection with their fellow countrymen? Or are they suspicious, or afraid of them?

In order to evaluate the usefulness of the civic culture, we need an example country to evaluate using the theory's standards and then see if it correctly predicted the country's amount of democracy. In order to do so I have selected the country of Canada, which will be analyzed using the 2005-2008 survey data from the World Values Survey. We will look at the survey results for the three main variables of civic engagement, solidarity, and political equality.

Are Canadians actively engaged in civic culture? The survey results actually indicate that the majority of Canadians are not. In terms of religious affiliation, 49.5% of Canadians reported they are not a member, 22.6% reported they are affiliated but inactive, and 27.9% reported they are an active member of a religion. The same applies for sports (56.7% not a member, 14.2% inactive member, 29.1% active member) and Art and Music groups (64.2% not a member, 12.6% inactive member, 23.2% active member). And, most tellingly, this inactivity is most strongly seen in politics. Only 11.7% reported that politics was very important to them, with 27.4% reporting it is rather important, 36.6% reporting it was not very important, and 14.2% reporting it was not important at all. This is only underscored by the surprising statistic that 82.6% of Canadians report that they are not affiliated with any political party at all, with 12.3% reporting they are an inactive member, and only 5.1% reporting they are an active member of a political party. Compare this with the 8.6% that claim politics are not important at all in the United States and the 16.3% that are active members of a political party. It is clear, then, that Canadians are not particularly big on civic engagement.

What of Solidarity? Canadians were almost evenly split on whether people can be trusted in general, reporting in at 42.8% positive, and 57.2% suspicious of people in general. While, on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being people would take advantage of you and 10 being people would try to be fair, Canadians came out slightly more optimistically, reporting in at 4% with ones, 2.7%, 5.8%, and 13.5% with two through 5 (the median point between split between optimistic and cautious). On the optimistic end Canadians reported 14% with a six, 18.5%, 21%, 9.6% and 3.9% from seven to ten respectively. The extremes were rare, and the average scored between 6.5 and 7. The final solidarity question here examined touched on how Canadians viewed other Canadians. Only 7.6% said they would trust other Canadians completely, with 77.% percent reporting they would trust them a little, 13% saying they would trust Canadians not very much, and only 1.9% saying they would trust fellow Canadians not at all. Again, there is a generally favorable, though cautious, trust and association with fellow Canadians. So, we can conclude that there is a real, if not especially powerful, sense of solidarity among Canadians.

And finally, the sense of political equality. The survey asked if men had more right to a job than women had. 14.3% reported they agreed, while an overwhelming 77.9% said they did not. There was, oddly, 7.8% that said they neither agreed nor disagreed. Regardless, it is clear that the majority feel, at least theoretically, that women are equal with men in terms of capability in employment (if not superior). Our other major indicator is that there was only that single question about equality – there simply is not enough disagreement to merit more questions on the subject. We can safely say that there is a strong sense of equality in Canada.

How then does Canada stack up? Their civic engagement was low, their Solidarity was weak, but there, and their politician equality was strong. Yet Canada is a strong democracy, and has been for some time. What can we conclude? Well, there are probably more, or different, indicators for Democracy than just these. There is a good chance that civic engagement is not as important as outlined, or perhaps is not as important in the long term (as opposed to right at the beginning of the move to democracy). The same can be said for solidarity – it very well could be a factor, but the weak association could indicate that there are other stronger factors. Political equality, however, showed a strong correlation according to the theory. This, I think, is the strongest point of the theory.

Justin Porter

Dr. Hawkins

Political Science 150

12 October 2012

Blog 6

A common denotation of political identity is the “way that individuals categorize themselves and others, and how they understand the power relationships of domination and oppression that exist between groups” (Samuels 2013, 149). Political identity is important in defining us as human beings and is a major part of our cultural identity. Political identity is one of the most powerful unifying features of our culture. In the United States, we have a strong two party system of government. Many people believe quite strongly that they are accepted and that they relate to one of the two parties. Thus, a majority of the nation’s citizens are drawn to one of the two parties. The definition grows even more complicated when variables like religion are thrown into the mix. Do Latter-day Saints share a common political identity in the United States? I will show that even though a majority of Mormons are conservative, there isn’t a distinct political identity for LDS people throughout the entire United States.

            According to lecture with Professor Hawkins “identity is a subset of culture based on our ability to attach labels to ourselves and others” (Hawkins 2012). He furthered the book’s definition of political identity by stating that, “political identity is any identity that significantly shapes our political decisions, especially when it is the most important identity to do so” (Hawkins 2012). While members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do share a common cultural identity based on religion, the reach of this common identity does not apply to their political identity.
            According to the Pew Research Center, six-tenths of Mormons consider themselves conservative, three-tenths moderate, and the remaining one-tenth is liberal. However, when we compare these numbers to the numbers of Mormons who associate with one of the two main political parties in the United States we see a difference. According to this survey 65% of Latter-day Saints identify with the Republican Party. In turn, 22% identify themselves as Democrats. The remaining 13% do not affiliate with either party (Pew). To say that the Mormon political identity is republican would be a gross ecological fallacy, for we cannot make inferences about individuals from data taken of a larger group. We cannot generalize and say that because a majority of Latter-day Saints are conservative Republicans then that is the LDS identity.
            The primordialist argument “assumes political identities are innate and largely unchanging” (Samuels 2013, 153). This view of political identity teaches that political identity is largely inherited or learned early in life from our parents before we consciously make those decisions. It also states that since we don’t choose our perspectives that we also cannot change them. I don’t think that this view is valid when viewing the LDS political culture.
            Since 88% of Mormons believe that there are “absolute standards for right and wrong” then the constructionist view of political identity fits much better. This theory says that, “individuals have some choice over their political identities, but that such choice is constrained by the social context” (Samuels 2013, 153). Eighty-eight percent of Mormons believe that there is a strict moral code of rights and wrongs that exist in the world. So according to the primordialist view 88% of Mormons should belong to one political party or the other (Pew 2009). However, this is not so. According to the constructivist theory, each member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can choose for themselves which political party they wish to affiliate with based on which party best represents those values of right and wrong.
            There is not a national Mormon political identity. To say so would be to generalize all Mormons and confine us to one particular party. However, its plain to see in the data that Mormons follow a constructionist theory in allowing us to choose for ourselves which political identity we feel best represents us as free agents of our souls. We are free to choose for ourselves which identities we best relate to. And while a majority of Mormons relate to a conservative Republican ideology, there are many still that do not.

REFERENCES

Hawkins, Kirk A. 2012. Class Lecture. October 10.

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative politics. Boston: Pearson.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2009. A portrait of Mormons in the U.S.

http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/A-Portrait-of-Mormons-in-the-US--Social-and-Political-Views.aspx. (accessed October 11, 2012).

Let's all move to Canada. Okay? Okay.

In US culture, Canada is often colloquially referenced as the ideal place to move should America’s government either become too liberal... or too conservative, depending on the latest threat to national security. Canada boasts the tenth largest economy in the world,  a relatively peaceful military history, and a stereotype of its citizens as honest, Rousseau-like, down-to-earth people. In 2011, Canada’s democracy index rating was eighth in the world, scoring a 9.08 out of 10.00 total points. Its lowest ranked category was Political Participation at 7.78, and its highest was Civil Liberties, where it scored a perfect 10.00 (Economist Intelligence Unit.) Given these rankings, it’s safe to say Canada has a strong democratic culture–one that can be attributed, at least in part, to its strong civic culture. According to the World Values Survey, Canada is especially patriotic, with nearly 70 percent claiming to be “very proud” of their nationality (Online Data Analysis.)




In taking a closer look, one can examine the facets of public and private life that contribute to such a strong democratic society. Three components that make up a civic culture are (a) civic engagement, (b) political equality, and (c) solidarity.

Civic engagement can be narrowly interpreted as “the degree of citizens’ active participation in public affairs;” that is, how involved they are on a political level. However, a more encompassing definition of civic engagement recognizes the density and quality of all kinds of voluntary associations, even if said associations have nothing to do with politics. By this definition, one can recognize organizations such as churches, sports leagues, labor unions, charities, parent teacher associations, etc. as associations that strengthen a community (Samuels, 123.)
    By this second definition, Canada ranks highly in multiple examples of civic engagement. (As a point of reference, it is compared to the United States, its southern neighbor, and to Russia, which is dissimilar in government but similar in size and climate.) When analyzed against these two countries, Canada demonstrates the most civic engagement in every category except Religious Organizations, where it falls ten points behind the US (Online Data Analysis.)




Political equality refers to the status of citizens in relation to each other; that a government should offer “both equal rights and obligations... Citizens believe that no one is outside the law” (Samuels, 123.) In this sense, Canada is certainly a society of egalitarian ideals. While known for its laissez-fare governmental approach, allowing provinces to run strong local governments, Canada has used a public health care system since the 1984 Canada Health Act. Funded by the federal government, services cost citizens little to nothing and are administered at the provincial level, largely through private entities (Health Care in Canada.)

    As a culture, a majority of Canadians profess to believe in the importance of democracy and hold others accountable to the standards that accompany such a philosophy. Nearly ten percent of Canadians polled by the World Values Survey believe their country to be “completely democratic,” compared to only seven percent of Americans and just over one percent of Russians. Similarly, Canadian citizens showed the lowest level of tolerance for cheating the system–for both petty and federal crimes. For example, almost 56 percent of Canadians agreed that it is never justifiable to avoid paying fare when using public transportation; this is only slightly lower than the 66 percent who said it is never justifiable to unjustly claim government benefits or cheat on taxes (Online Data Analysis.)






Solidarity is a measure of the interpersonal trust, tolerance, and respect found within a people. It is also characterized by a ‘Good Samaritan’ attitude of willingness to help someone in need. Anecdotally, Canadians are well-known for their politeness and trustworthiness. Objectively, Canada’s measurements on questions of solidarity exhibit the most marked difference between itself and the US, out of every facet of civic culture thus far (Samuels, 124.)
    About 43 percent of Canadians said most people can be trusted, compared to the US’ 39 percent and Russia’s 26 percent. In eliminating strangers from this hypothetical pool of people, the difference between respondents is only heightened. When it comes to acquaintances, colleagues, and friends, 47 percent of Canadians say they “trust completely” people they know personally, as opposed to 29 percent of Americans and 21 percent of Russians (Online Data Analysis.)



The argument that Canada’s strong civic culture contributes to its strong democracy is manifested in many facets of Canadian policy. For example, the nation has exceptionally high trust ratings– especially as a country in the Western hemisphere which was founded through colonialism and didn’t gain full independence until 1982. This high level of trust is perhaps demonstrated through Canada’s limited military spending. Although by land mass, it is the second largest country in the world; in 2012 its military expenditures totaled less than $25 billion. (Comparatively, the United States spent $711 billion in 2012) (List of Countries by Military Expenditures.)

    Similarly, Canada’s foreign policy has largely been friendly and without incident. It is a member of many international organizations including the UN, NATO, NAFTA, G8, G20, OECD, and more. On an interpersonal, national, and international level, Canada’s healthy civic culture reinforces its tradition of a peaceful yet vibrant democracy.


Sources
"The Economist Intelligence Unit." Democracy Index 2011: Democracy Under Stress. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. <https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2011>.

"Health Care in Canada." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada>.

"List of Countries by Military Expenditures." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures>.

"Online Data Analysis." World Values Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. <http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeQuestion.jsp>.

Samuels, David. Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013. Print.