Gatherings in Zion
Somebody out there is probably, at this very minute, holding last Thursday’s letter from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints up to the light, daubing it with lemon juice, trying to find a way to play it backwards at the wrong speed, all looking for some way to find some secret meaning.
Maybe there is one. Or maybe the leaders of Utah’s predominant faith just have some good, neighborly advice.
The democratic process in Utah, such as it is, starts next month with precinct caucuses, Democrats on March 13, Republicans and members of the Constitution Party March 15. The LDS Church is reminding its leaders all over the state of the importance of those meetings and asking them to avoid scheduling any church meetings that would pose a conflict.
The church often issues general, and nonpartisan, statements about the duty of its members to participate in the political process. This one, though, is unusually specific, focusing on the party caucuses.
The caucuses are the first step in the long and often obscure process parties use to select those who will stand for them in state and national elections this November. These meetings choose, from among those happy few who care enough to actually show up, delegates to their county and state conventions. Those assemblies, in turn, do most of the decision-making regarding their party’s standard bearers.
Those who are critical of this process (see Salt Lake Tribune Opinion Page) believe that it is deeply flawed. Rather than reflect the views of the broad spectrum of Utah’s mostly common-sense electorate, it plays into the hands of the true believers of either the left or the right. Those are the folks who are most dedicated to giving up an evening at home, at work, at play, to actually influence the process.
In theory, of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. The caucuses are no secret. As the church letter points out, each party’s website lists the location of each precinct’s gathering place. The only real barrier to participation is widespread public apathy.
It is possible that church leaders, like many other people, of both parties and various religions, are concerned with the rightward slant of Utah politics, especially on issues such as guns and immigration. But the church’s letter does not use the word Republican, or the word Democrat. It does not carry the slightest partisan or ideological taint — unless one considers participatory democracy an ideology.
This system we have is flawed. But it is the system we have. It will work better if more, many more, regular Utahns participate in it.
