Anxiously Engaged in the Political Process:
The Family as the Fundamental Unit of Public Policy
By Cherilyn Bacon
Read part one here
Read part two here
Between now and the U.S. general election on November 2nd, Meridian Magazine’s Family News Network will feature a series of articles addressing what it means to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause” in the political process. The series will cover a variety of topics selected from the following: how to volunteer for campaigns, setting family policy standards, where candidates stand on the issues, why this election is so important, the value of a single vote, getting out the vote and beyond the election.
The United States and nations of the world are at a critical, cultural crossroads. Decisions made on Election Day November 2nd in the United States. will bring global consequences for years to come. You can make a difference in your community and nation by standing for something good for the world to model. We hope that principles of responsible citizenship will resonate, motivate and translate into action wherever you live
We know the family is the fundamental unit of society, but who would have made the connection that it is also the fundamental unit of setting public policy? Gaylord Swim, Paul Mero, Bill Duncan and others at The Sutherland Institute did. In 2003 Gaylord’s Utah-based think tank, under the direction of its president Paul Mero, published a legislative handbook in support of the family called “Favoring the Family: The Family As the Fundamental Unit in Public Policy.”
What a concept. In a nutshell, it’s The Family: A Proclamation to the World transformed into what a family friendly public policy might look like. After reviewing the introduction on a flight from Utah to New York, I asked myself where I’d been. I couldn’t wait for the plane to land so I could call my friends at Meridian. “You gotta see this. Sutherland has hit the mark. If we could just get a copy of this booklet into the hands of all Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Legislators, we could change the world!” I trumpeted. The thought even crossed my mind that, after reading this little handbook, all dissenters might just as well pack their bags and go home.
I got off the cell phone, a little embarrassed by my own zeal, and decided do some deep breathing just to calm down. Maybe it was an Excedrin high? Then it hit me again. Could this little handbook really be a blueprint for public policy and a rallying point for Latter-day Saints to become a people described in Mosiah 18:21?
“And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.”
Towards Hearts Knit Together in Politics?
No contention in politics? Perhaps that’s asking for too much in the telestial world of the political arena. But a call was issued in the Proclamation on the Family for us to get involved. The Sutherland Institute responded, bringing us all a step closer to understanding our core values. And I’ve come back down from the clouds enough to realize we will probably always have disagreement because there will always be different creation stories explaining why we’re here and where we’re going. But we also have much educating to do.
Dr. Neil Flinders, a BYU Professor of Education who taught a philosophy of religion class, has been one of my favorite mentors. In the same way Mero has analyzed the divergent and incompatible views in public policy, Flinders also identified the divergent and incompatible philosophical assumptions upon which educators form their philosophies of education.
Doesn’t it all make sense? Conflicting assumptions breed conflicting values, which create conflicting laws.
In order to continue this course in becoming more anxiously engaged in the political process, I interviewed these three anxiously engaged masterminds behind Sutherland’s Favoring the Family – Gaylord, Paul and Bill – to get their perspective.
MERIDIAN: Gaylord, how did you become such an activist to have started a think tank?
GAYLORD: I’d like to think of myself not as an activist, but as a responsible citizen. I like the example of King Mosiah in The Book of Mormon. When the petitions came to him, King Mosiah said [paraphrased]: ‘This ought not to be – the burden should be on all the people.’ This is the call of a free society. We are republican citizens carrying our fair share of the workload, governing society as informed voters and with free will efforts.
MERIDIAN: Was there a defining moment that called you to this mission of influencing public policy?
GAYLORD: When I was in my youth I read a book called A Choice Not An Echo, written by Phyllis Schlafly, who was known as the First Lady of the Conservative Movement in America. It made a strong impression on me. It really was one of the factors that encouraged me to get two degrees – a bachelor’s degree in business and a master’s in political science. I wanted to be an influence for good and to influence political thought.
MERIDIAN: So how did Sutherland come to be?
GAYLORD: I had always toyed with the idea of starting a think tank. In D.C., I sat on a board focusing on domestic policy with Tom Roe at The Heritage Foundation. The idea of establishing think tanks on the state level emerged. About 35 states have since established such think tanks.
PAUL: Through a foundation set up by Gaylord’s mother Katherine Swim, Sutherland was born.
GAYLORD: I wanted to start with correct principles and reason out from that as to what needs to be done. I knew those views would be uncomfortable to people in office or sometimes viewed as radical. Conclusions are not necessarily popular when you reason from principle. But I knew I needed to influence the realm and debate of ideas.
MERIDIAN: Paul, how did you become involved?
PAUL: The institute wasn’t involved in family issues until Gaylord approached me. I had spent 10 years in Washington D.C. working in congressional offices and as a press secretary on the Hill. I had also helped Allan Carlson found the World Congress of Families in Rockford, Illinois, and was fairly well-versed in family issues. Gaylord said, “We want to do something. Counsel us. Where should we throw money in helping the cause of family?”
MERIDIAN: So where should we throw it?
PAUL: I echoed the sentiments of Heritage founder Paul Weyrich, who said, “If you give it to pro-family organizations, you’re throwing it away. It’s going down the drain.”
MERIDIAN: That’s a strong statement, don’t you think? Haven’t these groups done some good?
PAUL: The “pro-family movement” has certainly done a good job of branding what we’re against, but no one has established what we’re for. This handbook lays out a doctrine for what that might be.
MERIDIAN: So what has been the problem?
PAUL: Many of these organizations tended to centralize quickly, and they became more about “send us your money and we’ll do it for you.” Then egos, money and power took over and weakened the coalitions. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas said it best: “Two decades after conservative Christians charged into the political arena, bringing new voters and millions of dollars with them in the hopes of transforming the culture through political power, it must now be acknowledged that we have failed. We failed, not because we were wrong about our critique of culture, or because we lacked conviction, or because there were not enough of us, or because too many were lethargic and uncommitted. We failed because we were unable to redirect a nation from the top down. Real change must come from the bottom up or, better yet, from the inside out.”1
MERIDIAN: That’s a strong statement. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’ve got many good friends out there who have devoted their lives to this work, and I do believe they’ve done much good. Were it not for them, our country and world would have fallen off the moral map long ago. Through it all, Latter-day Saints have been missing in this great cultural war against the family. We think it’s about time to add reinforcements. We see the Internet as a way to do it – not, as Cal Thomas said, from the top down, but from the bottom up and from the inside out – through the recently launched communications platform of Meridian’s Family News Network and The Family Leadership Network. If we can teach correct principles virally to an unlimited audience, then we can let people worldwide govern themselves.
PAUL: Yes. Exactly.
MERIDIAN: So tell us more about the policy handbook.
PAUL: What has been needed is a handbook of simple basic policies – policies that if a state implemented them, it could reasonably be called a family friendly state. I fleshed it out for Sutherland. The handbook was a result. It’s a way to persuade people, but the persuasion has to be founded upon doctrine. There’s a doctrine of the family. It’s the doctrine that’s going to persuade. We’re involved in an aggressive but quiet movement pushing the doctrine of the family.
MERIDIAN: Are you suggesting an LDS worldview for setting public policy?
PAUL: Sutherland does not take a religious or partisan position. Our mission is to identify and articulate correct principles, then show how those principles can be applied to public policy concerns. We promote principle-based solutions to public policy concerns. We are not party-driven, but principle-driven. I am a convert to the Church. It makes sense that if the family is the fundamental unit of society, as the Proclamation on the Family states, then it should also be the fundamental unit of public policy. Philosophically, the natural family is prior to the state. The family created the state. The homosexual family is a state creation. State entities only lead to more statism. Gay liberation would lead to a more oppressive state.”
GAYLORD: One of the messages The Sutherland Institute would like to give to Latter-day Saints, Utah citizens and citizens worldwide is this: the family is the beginning of government. Out of it comes the foundation for a free society. It was also Karl Marx who advocated the abolition of the family as necessary to establish the utopian, state-run Soviet society.
MERIDIAN: I read this little handbook on a flight from Utah to New York recently. [You can view and download a copy at the our website]. I was immediately impressed with the contributing scholars reasoning that public policy makers base their proposals upon divergent center points or cores, driven by conflicting assumptions.
PAUL: Yes. These assumptions represent specific mindsets, or ways of thinking about life. We identify six different core points: the state, the church, the corporation, the environment, the individual, and the family. The state, with its coercive nature and legalistic structure, represents ordered man. The corporation represents economic man, while the church serves spiritual man. The environment does not represent man at all, only his surrounding and supporting world. The individual represents atomistic man. And the family, with its inherent familial duties and obligations, represents social man.
MERIDIAN: Bill, you’re the fellow with the institute who wrote a compelling essay in Favoring the Family describing the idea of a “family impact survey.” Is this an original idea?
BILL: During the Reagan Administration, Executive Order 12606 provided a list of seven questions by which policies should be addressed. Shortly before his term of office ended, President Clinton signed another executive order revoking President Reagan’s. But this idea is not altogether buried, and in my view must be resurrected and given new life.
MERIDIAN: So how does this survey work?
BILL: Basically, the order required that any proposed legislation pass this 7-question test:
1. Does this action by government strengthen or erode the stability of the family, and, particularly, the marital commitment?
2. Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children?
3. Does this action help the family to perform its functions, or does it substitute governmental activity for the function?
4. Does this action by government increase or decrease family earnings? Do the proposed benefits of this action justify the impact on the family budget?
5. Can this activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself?
6. What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send to the public concerning the status of the family?
7. What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society?
MERIDIAN: Voting our values is so important in this election. As responsible citizens, we must take the time to know who we’re voting for, regardless of party affiliation. The question is: If Latter-day Saints believe the family is truly the fundamental unit of society, then which candidates represent those values best, don’t you agree?
GAYLORD: Let me quote a friend, Menlo Smith: “If we only focus on prosperity to the exclusion of morality, in time we will have neither.”
MERIDIAN: So our duty as responsible citizens is to act in harmony with our principles, and the principles in The Proclamation on the Family and the First Presidency message in the September 2004 Ensign, wouldn’t you agree?
GAYLORD: The Priesthood Handbook of Instructions outlines our duties. It explains the Church is politically neutral, and does not endorse candidates. Church buildings should not be used for political purposes, but members should study and vote for those who will act with integrity, and be honest, good and wise. We are urged to be willing to serve public office and to do our civic duty by being anxiously engaged. Members should not give the impression they represent the Church. [Book Two, section 17 under the heading ‘Selected Church Policies,’ on page 325.] We need to take the initiative and be the leaven in our own communities and lead out. One of my favorite Chinese proverbs is, “He that stands on side of mountain with open mouth waiting for roast duck to fly in, waits long time.”
MERIDIAN: We want to encourage you to do just that. Be proactive. Take the initiative. Study and learn. Take ideas such as these and contact your elected officials and begin the dialog. We want you to be informed, responsible citizens. Voters who understand the core principles behind their values can then vote consistently for them. Voters can assess where the candidates stand on these family issues at two sites. One is ivotevalues.com, and the other is a legislative scorecard published by the Family Research Institute.
1Cal Thomas, Blinded By Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, April 1999
2004 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.