The Bishop or The Senator?

Posted by Carina | September 10, 2008 | 14 Comments

Last week the presidential campaign of McCain/Palin announced that they refused to grant interviews for Sarah Palin until she was treated with “deference.” This struck me as kind of amusing. First of all, being treated civilly and with respect, sure! All candidates running for public office are entitled to civil and respectful treatment—actually everyone is entitled to that kind of interaction. However, deference? Really?

Deference is the respectful submission to another person’s judgment or opinion. I don’t know about you, but I’m not about to submit my will to an elected person’s opinion, at least, not without a serious discussion first and probably not until they are actually in office. I really don’t want the fourth estate to defer to public servants at all; it’s their constitutional job to act as another check on officials. I demand accountability from all those who represent me, regardless of political party.

That being said, I am trying continually to defer to the prophet, because if you’re going to submit your will to another human on earth he’s a good place to start. In fact, as members, although we’re often encouraged to find out for ourselves, pray for ourselves about counsel, we will defer to our leaders. So it intrigues me when we LDS folk extend the same kind of deference to elected officials.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel like I should ever take any political counsel without question. Elected officials are not kings, they are not princes, I do not owe them fealty. Civil servants work for me, and for you; we are their bosses. To me there is a difference in the way I accept counsel from my stake president than in the way I’m willing to listen to my mayor.

I wonder if we don’t do ourselves a disservice civilly because as Mormons we sometimes apply our church paradigm of leadership to our civic leaders.

Category: Daily Special

Comments

14 Responses to “The Bishop or The Senator?”

Brooke
September 10th, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

yes. i do this. it’s like i want my politicians to be more– more moral, more true, more honest. i think that’s why i’m always disappointed.

so i guess i should stop feeling sick over this election wondering about my vote, and instead of perfection just go for better.

or even just good.

(probably not going to get best.)
La Yen
September 10th, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

You use big words. Math is hard.
So, what do you say to the people who are so desirous that their elected officials be moral and clean-living? Because I think that a lot of that desire comes from the same reasoning as you stated. (As for me, I have been fine with the dirty old men as long as they cut my taxes and give my husband a raise. But I am TOTALLY Machiavellian. You know that.)
A Librarian
September 10th, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

I think they probably chose the wrong word to use. I think they meant civil and respectful treatment, not necessarily deference in the way it is defined.

I personally also think that most people aren’t deferential to civil leaders. I find that they are very willing to “trash talk” them and complain about them. Perhaps they defer to them in that they (me included) don’t often DO something about their public mistakes…
Carina
September 10th, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

No, morals, however you might define them, are NOT what I mean.

I mean that it seems like as a collective we are often unwilling to question elected officials for fear of …what?

Fear that we might seem unsupportive of a leader? Fear of questioning someone in a more authoritative calling? Like if we disagree, even vehemently with a political leader we shouldn’t say too much because they are elected and therefore we owe them the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if sometimes, that kind of deference leads to a puffing-up of our local elected, leading to outrageous behavior on their part.
jendoop
September 10th, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

Honestly, I am guilty of this myself. But I think there are times you have to give public servants the benefit of the doubt. They can’t check with their constituents every time there is a decision to be made. Especially when there is complicated and sensitive information involved. In some ways I have given Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I know he can’t share every piece of information that goes into making a decision. Which is why the character of a candidate does matter they will be making decisions for you.
Justine
September 10th, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

I cannot honestly believe that McCain’s camp would be so unknowing to use the word deference in any way that actually comes close to its true definition. Maybe it was someone trying to sound smarter than he really was by using a big, grown up word.

hehehe

I’ve lost all respect and trust for almost all public servants. I’ve just seen too much corruption, even in local politics. I’m afraid there are hardly any of them that get anything even close to “deference” from me — even the ones I end up voting for.
wendy
September 10th, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

I think I echo many of you. I don’t trust most political leaders and can’t think of any I trust implicitly. It’s hard to not be cynical about it all. I do think I give some respect for certain political offices even when I don’t trust the individual holding the office, though.
ameliorateme
September 10th, 2008 @ 8:26 pm

Don’t like Palin. Don’t like McCain. But I do think they their camp threw out the word “deference” without really understanding what it meant? Palin is treated differently by the media. Partly because she’s a woman, partly because she’s a woman running for a high government position – rare in our country. BUT she’s also being treated differently because of the “scandals” (pregnant daughter, supposed affair) and her seemingly mom-next-door life (kids in public schools, outdoorsy woman) that has captured people’s attention. None of the men in the current campaign have such gossip-worthy backgrounds and all seem pretty comfortable in high-class, political lifestyles.

I’ve heard the 12th Article of Faith quoted so many times at church in regards to why we need to “trust and respect” our local and national leaders. I have worked with local political leaders before and have learned, as a citizen, to always ALWAYS question our political leaders, never follow blindly because of their status.
Sue
September 11th, 2008 @ 11:36 am

AMEN.
Heather H.
September 17th, 2008 @ 6:15 pm

If we aren’t going to question them and hold them accountable, who will? It’s okay to be critical of their choices . . .they are just people, as long as we’re doing our part. That’s what I think anyway.
vfg
September 21st, 2008 @ 11:36 am

I definitely see this. Know, for instance, that growing up & praying for both of “my” presidents, I got them very confused. I’ve never had a problem questioning political leaders at all levels, but have had this attitude met with horror (“But he’s our president!”), particularly by the most loyal of fellow members (mother-in-law…)

My mom is only now starting to believe me that questioning, in whatever area, is not a huge personality flaw (and, likely, parenting failure by herself).
kelly mccaleb
September 22nd, 2008 @ 11:14 am

def·er·ence [def-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.
2. respectful or courteous regard: in deference to his wishes

it’s quite obvious they were using definition #2, a understandable and right request.

i don’t know people who follow political leaders blindly. party platforms, maybe. but that is understandable when you have basic principles that you are not willing to yeild on. like abortion and gay marriage. within parties that support my priorities, i offer no unwavering loyalty to a specific person. i believe this is what people are doing when they don’t seem to want to sway to this side or that side.
kelly mccaleb
September 22nd, 2008 @ 11:19 am

oh, i meant to add, that when you use a word, every definition doesn’t have to be applicable.
Dalene
September 23rd, 2008 @ 7:26 am

Great points Kelly. I get frustrated when my side of an issue or choice for a candidate (which is so often more against someone I dislike or distrust rather than actually for someone I feel I owe some allegiance to) or firmness in my position is automatically deemed uninformed or misguided or sheep-ish just because it may differ from the choices of another or it may align with that of someone else who might follow their political leaders religiously.