My colleague, Ralph Hancock, recently raised the question: "Can a Mormon be a liberal?" He explains that I answer yes, but he is disturbed by my answer. He wonders whether it is worth the trouble to be a liberal, given what he perceives liberalism has become.
Liberalism itself is a slippery term. As I point out in my book, "The Liberal Soul," the term has become a grab-bag for all sorts of meanings. However, Ralph does give it three meanings that I don’t think apply.
One of those meanings is that liberalism means secularism, i.e. eschewing religion. But liberalism and secularism do not equate. Indeed, there are secular conservatives, i.e. people who don’t believe in God and view the world in secular terms.
It is true there are also secular liberals. But liberalism also can emanate from religious belief rather than secularism. A liberalism that favors mercy, compassion, and understanding of others is not inimical to Christianity. In fact, I believe it is a product of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I translate that belief into society using government as a tool (not “the” tool) for helping others as a religious act, not a secular one.
Still another connotation for liberalism Ralph uses is the notion liberals are interested in material well-being and not in the soul. Liberals, he suggests, focus on moving “from the outside in,” while conservatives are interested in moral and spiritual edification. In other words, he argues liberals believe people become better if they are given material things, while conservatives want to change people from within, which then will alter their attitudes and behavior.
This really is a false dichotomy. First, a person’s material well-being needs to be addressed before they can be helped spiritually. When Jesus healed the sick, he dealt with their physical ailments first. Then, he admonished them to be righteous.
Consider missionaries who try to teach the gospel to people who are starving. H. David Burton, when he served as presiding bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, related a story about LDS Church President David O. McKay coming to the door of a poorly dressed woman when he was a missionary in Scotland. When he offered the woman a religious tract, she asked, “Will this buy me any bread?” Then-Elder McKay recounted this woman was not ready to hear the gospel because she was “in need of temporal help, and there was no organization, so far as I could learn, in Stirling” that could help her.
Today, there are such organizations, in the sense there are modern welfare systems for the poor. That woman’s descendants now have bread to eat and decent housing to live in and adequate health care. They are in a position to hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ because they are not starving.
Basic human needs do come first. However, that is not where the religious liberal stops. People also need to feel a sense of being loved and wanted. They need to understand they have a Savior and other human beings who care for them, and that they have purpose in life. The welfare state cannot give that to them, but it can put them in a position where they can hear that message.
Still another meaning of liberalism for Ralph Hancock is liberationist. That means someone who promotes a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro “do whatever feels good” agenda. Granted, many people believe that today. To me, those are not liberals. They are libertarians who believe government should play little or no role in regulating or even influencing human behavior.
But the liberal believes society cannot function or progress without government playing a role in affecting human behavior. If individuals act primarily in selfish ways, the good society liberals seek to achieve will collapse. This ranges from enforcing basic traffic laws to regulating economic interactions to proscribing social behavior that is destructive to self and others. The liberal, unlike the libertarian, understands the need for balance between the good of the society and the choices of the individual.
Given all of that, Ralph, I believe it is worth the trouble to be a liberal. Indeed, can a Mormon not be liberal?
Richard Davis is a professor of political science at Brigham Young University. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU.