Lincoln was a self-taught Shakespeare scholar. Little wonder, then, that his words were so eloquent, his philosophy so deep. Words do move people, and I think Governor Mitt Romney’s attempts at focusing solely on the economy seemed to stifle the poetic yearnings in all of us. Wouldn’t it have been nice, for example, for Romney to use this Shakespeare quote as his theme?

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures. [Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3]

Or how about a quote from War and Peace about “the spirit of the army,” similar to the way Bruce Hafen used the quote in a BYU gathering?  I’ve found on both political sides a distinct lack of training in the great literatures of the past. It seems that most of our campaigns are staffed solely by MBAs and accountants, economists. Nothing wrong with a good dose of that, but the greatest political moments are inspiring moments couched in the greatest words every written. What we need is inspiration. In the meantime, it seems we are "bound in shallows and in miseries."

On election day 2012, the student who usually edits video for BYU Magazine wasn’t available. So I was the sound crew and the editor for the project, which we finished in a day. Working on the project was cathartic for me--being as mournful at the result of the election as I was.

Thousands descended on the South Towne Conference Center and were greeted with crowds hawking their wares. Award goes to Senator Orrin Hatch for the best gift, a cowboy hat. Little did they know that a real cowboy was coming in, hat and all. It kind of made the Orrin Hatch hat crew look  a bit dandyish. (He was from Montana and talked to me about the circus he had entered. Thanks for reluctantly letting me take your picture.)

There was a problem with many of us in Utah County for our credentials. No one was there at first in the problems-with-credentials line but eventually someone showed up and hand lettered our credentials. After about an hour wait, we got our high-tech touch pad and were ready to go.

Bramble/Holmes

First stop: 300D room for the state senator 16 spot. There were dueling breakfasts there: donuts on the one side, bagels, muffins, and juice on the other. It was not a good day for weight watchers.

Finally the doors opened for us. There were 126 delegates from the senate district who had been courted and educated for the past month. I had announced my decision the day before, with the hope that a primary would allow further exploration of some of the issues and involve the precinct more. After listening to each candidate for six minutes, the vote was taken. No primary in this contest. Senator Curt Bramble barely passed the 60 percent mark by two votes. I was disappointed that only 112 votes were cast. What about the other 14 who were supposed to be representing their precincts? I was ashamed of them. I found out later from Senator Bramble that there were seven denied by election officials because the talks had started. As I understand it, the officials were supposed to cut it off right before the voting was opened up, not as the talks began. I don't know what could be done at this point. The denied one did come in later than the 8:30 scheduled time. (When I asked Andrew Holmes the starting time the night before as he dropped by the house, he said jokingly, "8:30 if you're voting for me. 9:30 if you're voting for Curt." Good to have a sense of humor.) Later in the day, Senator Bramble told me that he still wanted to discuss things further with me even though he doesn't have a primary. Nice touch.

Interesting Images

Hatch?

I loved the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Pretty tough image, though he didn't get many votes.

Part 2: The big convention. Next. . . .

For those who want primaries on the county levels, the two areas I voted for (state house and county commissioner) are going to be held as primaries for the two top candidates in late June. Taz Murray and Keven Stratton will have a runoff for the Utah House. Larry Ellertson (who I voted for) and Larry Grierson will have a runoff for the county commission. At the convention we heard from nearly all the candidates for the state convention next week. Credit for best food goes to Taz Murray for the breakfast burrito.

There were several rounds of voting before the last two were chosen for each office. It is an interesting philosophical decision to decide who to vote for. I had decided to vote for Steve White for county commissioner, but as I talked beforehand with several delegates, it was obvious that he would make the first round of voting. And so I decided that the first round I would vote for Dani Hartvigsen. Dani didn’t get a lot of votes the first round and was eliminated, as expected, but I hope my vote gave her a vote of thanks. I then voted for Steve White, who got booted out the second round, which surprised me since he clearly had the vast experience and was a budget hawk that would have benefitted the Utah House. So then the last two candidates were left standing and none received more than 60 percent. That means a primary in late June for you registered-Republican voters to decide.

So, What Is a Good Strategy for the State Convention?

I’m left to ponder: Is it a good strategy to vote for a candidate to force a primary so the public could vote? There is little danger in the first round that my top candidates for U.S. Senate will be eliminated since several voting steps will be required. (I’m glad it is electronic, which will be much faster than the county convention.) After the first vote, one can see where the general direction is headed and then the vote can be adjusted to help force a primary or to put someone over the top of 60 percent. I generally like the idea of a primary for the top two (though three would be even better, but that’s not the way it is run). Years ago it used to take 80 percent of the delegate vote to not force a primary. Then it went down to 70 percent. Now it is 60 percent, which I think is too low and created the Bob Bennett scenario of two years ago.

For U.S. Congress there are only two viable candidates. If I vote for Lynn Wardle, a distinguished scholar professor and presenter, could we force a primary with Jason Chaffetz and let the registered Republican voters decide? I do think people should at least listen to Lynn Wardle.

To be continued . . .

Like most of you, I have been disappointed in the abusiveness of what many of the so-called “super-PACs” are doing. I first was introduced to them as I watched that awful, untruthful video about Bain Capital and Mitt Romney. The ones who are “affiliated” with some of the candidates I support have disappointed me, too. FreedomWorks, the anti-Hatch PAC is awful but have at least left the state for now. Freedom Path, the secretive pro-Hatch PAC might even be worse. I got an anti-Liljenquist mailer just yesterday from them--and it was as disingenuous as any I've seen. These PACs treat me like I am stupid--just waiting to swoon by every wind of advertisement. They forget that his technique doesn't go over well in Utah County. Here's a blurb from an article I wrote on Bill Orton in 1991:

With two days to go a now infamous full-page ad appeared in the Utah County Journal. The ad showed a Karl Snow family portrait with the caption "Karl Snow and his family." Next to that picture was one of Orton, all alone, with the caption "Bill Orton and his family." The ad continued: "Some candidates want you to believe that their personal values don t [sic] matter. Most issues facing the United States Congress seriously affect our families. Values do matter! Vote Republican." And then, in smaller type at the bottom: "Paid for by the Utah Republican Party."

The ad proved to be an affront to the voters and was unapproved by Karl Snow (though it seemed to follow the general strategy mentioned earlier). Republican campaign specialists began playing the equivalent of "who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?" trying to find out who had placed the ad. Prominent elected Republicans were quick to criticize. "I was totally offended by the ad," Senator Orrin Hatch said later. "I’ve seen a lot of stupid things in politics, but this ad was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen."

[Bill Orton won handily.] Where in the early 90s this ad was a rare moment, we are bombarded with it constantly now. In the mail today I got a letter from the Liljenquist campaign reprinting an article from the Utah Taxpayers Association that disembowels the Freedom Path argument pretty thoroughly. I'll put it at the end of this blog. (I also got an anonymous email yesterday attacking three of the Utah House candidates.)

I've had several people tell me they don't like Liljenquist because of Freedom Works. If that is solid reasoning, we shouldn't vote for Hatch either because of Freedom Paths. They're both simply awful and have huge funding outside the state.

Last point. Many want to legally do away with super PACs, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently voted to allow.

I don't think we should do away with them as long as we have a free press and alternate voices. One wise man told me as I was headed down a challenging path, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity." I think the PACs have created more discussion and energy in our political sphere. I think the bad ones are ultimately exposed for who they are and encourage, like with the Bill Orton anti-campaign, the opposite of what they intend.

I now know more about Dan Liljenquist's work in the Utah Senate than ever before.

So, let's keep all the awful super PACs and the energy they create. I'm growing fond of them!

Here’s the article from www.utahtaxpayers.org:

Setting the record straight: Super PACs inaccurately describe record of 2-time "Taxpayer Advocate of the Year" Dan Liljenquist

While the Taxpayers Association has made no endorsement in this year's US Senate race, we feel it our duty to present the facts to claims we feel are misleading.

Freedom Path, a super PAC supporting Senator Orrin Hatch's reelection is lodging two complaints about former State Senator Dan Liljenquist, who hopes to replace Senator Hatch in the US Senate. First, they allege that Liljenquist supports double dipping by state employees. Second, Freedom Path accuses Liljenquist of inappropriately missing a large share of votes while in the Utah Senate. The first accusation is demonstrably false, and the second reveals a disappointing willingness to shade the truth.

State employees "double dip" when they retire from their state job and begin collecting retirement benefits, then take the same or a similar job with the state and continue to accrue towards their retirement. According to a 2009 report by the Legislative Auditor General, paying into a reemployed state retiree's retirement account cost the state $400 million between 2000 and 2008. Without
Liljenquist's reforms, Utah taxpayers would have accrued another $900 million in expenses by 2019.

Regular readers of The Utah Taxpayer will recall that the Utah Taxpayers Association honored former Senator Liljenquist for reining in double dipping. Senator Liljenquist sponsored SB 43 in the 2010 General Session. SB 43 gave retired state employees wishing to return to state employment a choice: they can either forgo their retirement allowance, or earn additional credit toward their retirement benefit. However, they can no longer do both.

Anyone familiar with the legislative process knows that crafting and brokering approval of legislation this path breaking requires a great deal of hand holding. Competing groups like fire fighters, the
judicial system, the police and other public employees all want to protect the system they benefit from, and they all have powerful allies within the lobbying corps and the Utah Legislature.

Crafting good policy (like his 2010 pension and post-retirement employment reforms and his 2011 Medicaid reforms) that wins passage through both the House and the Senate demands meeting after meeting after meeting. (Importantly, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst estimated that the Medicaid
reforms in SB 180 would save Utah nearly $800 million in its first 7 years.)

To make sure SB 180 passed the House, Sen. Liljenquist participated in dozens of meetings with various stakeholders. In doing so, he relied on his Senate colleagues to make sure other good bills moved forward, and bad bills were stopped. However, he was on the floor when his vote was needed on close votes.

Having spent more than three decades in the U.S. Senate, Senator Hatch undoubtedly understands the need for this kind of hand holding in passing path-breaking legislation. Nevertheless, Freedom Path is faulting Liljenquist for missing many floor votes in 2011. While technically accurate, their ads distort the real picture of Liljenquist's service, and what Utah taxpayers expect of their elected officials.

It is disappointing that Freedom Path is besmirching Senator Hatch's illustrious career this way. Instead of decrying Freedom Path's misrepresentations, Senator Hatch seems content to ignore inaccuracies, as long as they help his reelection effort.

Senator Liljenquist's legislative record earned two "Taxpayer Advocate of the Year" awards. Reforming Medicaid, pensions or post-retirement employment individually would have been difficult. Sen. Liljenquist did all three. Your Taxpayers Association will not sit by as outside interests misrepresent those important reforms. We are committed to setting the record straight, so Utahns can cast an informed vote based on accurate and full information.

I found out recently that the delegate votes at the county and state meetings are private. What does this mean to me? Here's my internal dialogue, please read to the end before commenting.

Wow. That relieves a lot of pressure I feel from my constituents. They won't know how I voted.

Besides, I keep getting these calls from irate precinct members because they demand I vote for [fill in the blank] but they themselves haven't done any research.

So, surely, I know better than they do! I’ve done so much research and my requests for them to help me have largely gone unheeded.

Oh, I really enjoyed Kim Burningham's editorial on openness and deliberation.

And, as I try to be honest with myself, I notice that my attitude (above) sounds exactly the same as the Soviets back in the day. "You, the great masses don't know enough, so we, the informed insiders, will vote in a way that will be best for you."

And thus begins the journey toward tyranny.

So, I will let you know who I vote for because you can’t vote--and I represent you. Right now I'm in the process of choosing by first eliminating those I’ve decided I won't vote for. If you click on the “declined” tag on the top of the page, you will see where I'm headed. Sometimes I will give an explanation. Sometimes, because of time restrictions, I just can't.

Ultimately, the choice will get down to one for each office.

As always, you're welcome to help me in the process. I do appreciate your well-researched and thought out feedback.

Myth 1: Illegal immigrants

"steal American jobs."

[About Guest Blogs] In 1980 Fidel Castro made the surprise announcement that anybody who wanted to leave Cuba could do so; as a result more than 125,000 Cubans swamped the Miami labor market over the course of a few months--virtually all lower-skilled workers looking for jobs. What was the result? Nothing. No increase in unemployment for less-skilled blacks, other non-Cubans, or even Cubans. (Card, David. 1990. The Impact of the Mariel Boat Lift on the Miami Labor Market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review Vol. 43, No. 2. (Jan., 1990), pp. 245-257.)

The impact of illegal immigrants on the labor market is a very complex question, with literally thousands of very technical pages written on the subject in academic journals, but as the case with Cuban immigrants in the 1980s suggests, any effects that do exist are not significant enough to matter much, even for low-skilled workers.

The Miami case is representative of what many people think would happen if the U.S. had an open immigration policy. I disagree (see Myth #4), but even if it was it wouldn’t be any skin off of our noses.

Myth #2: Previous immigrants worked hard to become

American, whereas Mexicans refuse to assimilate or even

learn English.

Actually the rates of English learning for Mexican immigrants are comparable to the rates found in the immigrant communities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with monolinguilism in English by the third generation. The idea of a halcyon era of hungry, ambitious immigrants clawing their way through society to become a Carnegie is imprinted in our collective national consciousness, but it's a myth.

Italians and other immigrants took their children out of school rather early, and many of them did not take great pains to teach their children English. The reality of the situation was that it usually took several generations of clawing for the grandchildren or great-grandchildren to make it to the top. (For a brief treatment of the similarities between immigration assimilation, see Foner, Nancy and Richard Alba. 2006. The Second Generation from the Last Great Wave of Immigration: Setting the Record Straight. Migration Information Source.)

Myth #3: Previous immigrants were not illegal,

making them more legitimate.

The very concept of legality of immigrants is fairly new. The first nonspecific immigration restrictions of the kind we use today were not in place until the mid-20th century. Before then, certain groups were favored over others (Northwestern Europeans over everybody else basically), but if you fell within these quotas the conditions of immigration were generally quite liberal, and if you didn't there wasn't exactly a bureaucracy set up to deport you if your papers weren't in order, so it's really apples and oranges since you can't say what the noble generation of immigrants would have done had they had the border patrol running after them.

The insinuation that Irish Potato Famine refugees would have somehow had the nobility to throw the chance at a new life away because of genuine concerns for legal protocol is quaint. I guess the worse thing that could happen with illegal Hispanic immigration is they all come here with strange viral diseases that we haven't built up an immunity to, wipe us out, and force the survivors to live in the desert. (For a review of the history of immigration legislation, see Tichenor, Daniel. 2002. Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Chapters 1 and 2.)

Myth #4: Liberalizing immigration laws would trigger

a flood of immigrants.

Late 20th-century attempts to control immigration by making border crossings more difficult for illegal immigrants led to more illegal immigrants staying in the United States instead of going back home because they did not want to risk not being able to get back in. Similarly, the liberalization of immigration within the EU helped seasonal and other migrant workers return home after their work was over, leading to decreased number of immigrants overall. While the long-range effects of any policy are undoubtedly complicated, there are implications to stricter immigration laws that can actually be counterproductive for both the interest groups trying to curtail immigration and the migrants trying to live their lives.

Someone once said, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different topics." I appreciated Dani Hartvigsen at the recent Utah House candidates’  debate when she was asked a multiple choice question about gun control. "I haven't studied the gun control laws well enough to answer," she said. A refreshing and hopeful response!

During my study of the candidates for various offices, I have been more than fascinated by immigration. Several pieces of information have coalesced together to make it possible for me to do a serious study on this topic:

• My son, Stephen, is working on a doctorate program in demography and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He happens to be taken a class on fertility/immigration and is in the immigration section right now. He, apologetic for the length, has forwarded me the substantially researched resources he has been studying (including quite a bit of U.S. immigration history), which has given me much food for thought. We have Google-plused (GP) three or four times on a Sunday evening about the topic.
• Joining us in those GP sessions has been my son, Alexander, who until recently was an economics major at BYU and is still a teaching assistant in that department. His economic studies have great relevance to immigration issues.
• While on my trip to Illinois, I finished off U.S. Senate candidate Chris Herrod's The Forgotten Immigrant, a book he published a couple of years ago on the topic. When we went camping with the youth years ago together, I remember (particularly one winter camp where we didn't feel much like sleeping!) his impassioned thoughts about immigration. I'm personally am not in agreement with all of Chris's views on immigration but respect his detailed perspective nevertheless, which shows me a different view and gives me food for thought as I generously consider his stance.
• My personal spiritual study has focused on Nephi's momentous vision recorded in the Book of Mormon and has caused me to think about all our immigrant roots and the particular promises given.

These events and more have combined to cause me serious contemplation about a key issue. So I decided that I would establish a particular category on whyivote.net to further explore my explorations. To end this blog post, I will say that I have been particularly moved by the sonnet "The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, which is found attached to the Statue of Liberty, which millions of immigrants saw as they were processed through Ellis Island. Parts of it will be familiar to you.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightening, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From the beacon hand
Glows world-wide welcome, her mild eyes command
The air bridged harbor that twin cities fame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free,
The wretched refuse of your teaming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Of the forty people I need to vet for various state and county offices, it is interesting to note that only one of them is a woman--Dani Hartvigsen,** who is running for state house representative in district 48.

I wonder why there’s only one? I know my wife, who was on an Alpine School District committee years ago wrestling with a controversial subject, was flabbergasted at the irrationality--and, really, brutality--of those who opposed to the committee’s process and recommendation. She would never, ever run for elected office because of that experience.

Yet I believe my wife--a real nurturer, negotiator, and thoughtful analyst--and many other women I know would be some of the best elected representatives I could think of, creating a balance in our system. There’s a word in Russian, Ð-алко (Zhalko), that comes to mind. “This is the pits. Ah, too bad” or something like that. So how about next round we have some courageous, talented women join the ranks? I would like that.

**I can’t find out a lot about Dani Hartvigsen except one letter, which was sent to me as a delegate, and so I don’t know much of her qualifications, which of course are important. No web page listed on her registration for office. She’ll be at debate in Edgemont Elementary on Wednesday, April 4, and I can see her and hear her there. On the left is a detail from her equestrian Facebook picture. UPDATE: She just launched her website. She has impressive credentials. I look forward to talking with her.