Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The Aftermath

Back in October 1992, the following appeared in the Daily Herald: 

"BYU Students for Clinton" the sign blared at the Salt Lake airport at Clinton's departure. Excuse me! Is this the same pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-excessive government, pro-immorality Clinton who has endeared himself to so many people with like values? Why would a BYU student support such a man for president? Bill Clinton stomps on every value that the LDS church and BYU stand for...If abortion, homosexuality, and immorality are on Clinton's agenda, why would a morally upright person want to support him? What also must a teacher or teachers supporting Clinton be teaching students at BYU? BYU should clean house. There are thousands of "liberal" arts colleges around to take the malcontents at BYU. Before Satan gets both feet in the door at BYU let those on the Lord's side stand up and be counted so that truth can prevail.[1] 

BYU Democrats responded to this and other such nonsense by publishing their favorite "theories on how imminent destruction will surely follow when Clinton takes office":

- The nation will be destroyed in a Rush Limbaugh led uprising of people who refuse to be ruled by femi-nazis.

- "The Lord will quicken His work for [Clinton's] sake."

- God will smite America for electing an atheistic adulterer.

- Clinton is the anti-Christ.

- The election of corrupt leaders is one of the signs of the times.

- The voice of the people chose evil over good in the recent election.

- The communist takeover is now complete.

- "My uncle's neighbor picked up a hitchhiker who said that he had to have his year supply ready before January 21. The hitchhiker got out of the car and when my uncle's neighbor looked back, the hitchhiker had disappeared!"[2]

To my fellow Mormon Republicans: Be disappointed. But if you sound like this, you're a bit silly.[3]

1. Quoted in Paul C. Richards, "Satan's Foot in the Door: Democrats at Brigham Young University," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28:2 (Summer 1995), 1-2.

2. Ibid., 2.

3. Update: See this fantastic post at Feminist Mormon Housewives and Ezra Klein's WP Wonkblog post.


  1. I don't sound like that, but I also don't comprehend who would want more of the same. -__- And I'm pissed at the 3rd grader who called Taj a racist for voting for Romney in their school election. THAT kind of crap does more than disappoint me. Don't talk to me today. I'm walking around on the verge of tears.

  2. I laughed at your list, and actually was there during the time you spoke of and remember it, but it is not just the "Mormon Republicans" that are disappointed. Do I think Obama is the anti-Christ? No, but I do know that his beliefs of how this country should function do not align with my own beliefs of less government and personal freedoms. I also know that my family, as self-employed small business owners, have been hurt by policies already put in place and soon to be in place. As a mom who handles our budget and purchases, I also know that my family has struggled with rising prices on everything from heating and cooling to food to gas to healthcare, and the price of those things will continue to rise. The deficit is out.of.control. and my children are going to suffer because of that and be shackled with a debt they did nothing to create and will get no pay-off from. So yeah, I'm disappointed, sad, and frightened for the future of my children and for the future of our country, but it has nothing to do with being "Mormon," or "Republican" for that matter. I honestly hope that people will come together and pray for the good of our country, and particularly for Congress (where the real problem lies, in my opinion) and for our President.

  3. Remember that I voted for Romney. I was genuinely disappointed when I heard the results. But it is what it is.

    @Tori: That's odd. Hard for Taj to cast a racist vote when he can't vote... ;-)

    @Tara: I specifically addressed it to Mormon Republicans because the same White Horse Prophecy-inspired idiocy that plagued Mormon political discussions 20 years ago is still floating around today. The whole [insert political party] = "the Lord's side" is arrogant, divisive, and incredibly stupid. Not only is it a form of taking the Lord's name in vain, but it automatically shuts down potentially fruitful discussion and debate (without which nothing is accomplished). One should make an evidence-based argument against the President's policies. But one should not use largely baseless bits of folk doctrine to make quasi-revelatory statements about them.

    1. Agreed. And I wasn't mad at you, just for the record. And Tori, I have been holding in tears all day, too.

    2. Oh, school election. I take it back. He's a total racist. :-P