Politicians

What is the job of politicians?

Did you know that the expected inflation rate can affect the economy and unemployment rate as much as the actual inflation rate? It makes sense. Reality is warped into our perception of it. Unless we have a clear view of truth then we cannot base decisions off of it. In terms of unemployment, according to the Philips Curve, the best situation is when inflation is high and expected inflation is low, unemployment will be lowest. Sounds great. But that means people have to be completely ignorant of reality.

That is when politicians come into play. They are the great deceivers of society. Why? I suggest that it is the fault of society. We want unrealistic things accomplished, such as having a high inflation without anyone realizing it. And in the short run that would work. No one would see through the lie and the economy would produce a lot more, because more people are working. But eventually the lie cracks. That is where we are now. The lies are coming to light. And we no longer trust the politicians or their appointments. Now, even if they are being honest with us, we assume they are lying.

An example is the 1970's. Paul Volcker was the chairman of the Federal Reserve. America had trouble with inflation and unemployment. It was called stagflation. Trouble was all up in the back pocket of America. So he told everyone that he was going to decrease inflation (the job of the Federal Reserve is to influence the inflation rate by increasing or decreasing money supply by buying and selling bonds by setting the interest rate. Make sense?). And he did it. But everyone had been saying that before so no one believed him. So expected inflation was much higher than actual inflation and unemployment increased a lot in the late 70's. He got a lot of blame. But he knew it was needed for two reasons: people needed to trust politicians and people to lower their expectations of inflation. Eventually people reduced their expectations and unemployment rates went back down.

So here is the problem. If politicians are honest/transparent then society benefits in the long run, but the general populace does not like them, because sometimes they will have to be like Volcker and do something unattractive, even damaging to some people. Then they are eliminated during the next election cycle. A short term in office means they cannot do a lot of good. A political appointment, like Paul Volcker, is able to do a lot more good because his job was tied to the election of other people (Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to be specific) and only has to account to a few people.
If politicians are dishonest and give society what it wants then they are able have power for much longer. Society is satisfied and benefited in the short run, but suffers more long term. But, by retaining political power, they have the potential to do more good in some ways. Maybe a politician realizes his/her election can be assured if he/she buckles on a social issue, but that means that he/she can influence the economy in a better way. So the politician caves to peer (constituent?) pressure in order to benefit more people in a more pressing matter. Is that moral?

So is the job of politicians to have society in their best interest or is it to appease the masses that elected them? I think I understand better why Plato was opposed to democracies.

"The Name of Thy Son"

The sacramental prayers, and other sources, mention "that they may... witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son." Jesus Christ. But what does that mean? And which name?

Jesus was a man. He healed the sick, taught people a good way to live together, and lived a good life. Four different accounts of His life paint different pictures. I am sure the same would be true of us. Imagine if you had your parents, your siblings, your best friend, and your exes write about your life. Crazy. Awesome too. He is depicted like John Wayne in Mark, a good man who is a little rough around the edges, who can still get angry but always has others in his best interest. Luke's Jesus never even approaches an emotion short of an angelic entity. They are different men. And yet, when we combine the four identities we can find a person we might actually be able to be like. Jesus is a name that we can take upon ourselves. It is the name of someone who has needs but puts others first, who takes time to play with children, who cooks fresh fish on the beach with friends, and who tries to share the gospel with anyone who will listen even if they will not hear.

Christ is a title. Christ is the Messiah, the anointed one. Hebrews had three anointed offices: prophet, priest, and king (or prophetess, priestess, and queen. Please apply all nouns and pronouns to your gender). A prophet teaches by example. They live the life they teach. Their most basic actions can be applied into great lessons. Gandhi, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Moses lived lives worthy of emulation. They were prophets.
A priest sacrifices the self to be dedicated to a cause (often a religious one, but not always). Because they are completely devoted to their cause, they are able to teach others when and how and what is appropriate to sacrifice (because it is not always your life or livelihood. Maybe it is an opinion or comfort). Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa understood the blessings of sacrifice for a cause. They were priests.
A king leads with common good in mind (a king that is self-serving is really only a tyrant). A king might be appointed by common consent or inheritance or circumstance. A king can be a president, a senator, a CEO, a shift manager, a mother or father, or anyone in a leadership position. A king must understand why they are in their position, what they can do, and how they are going to do it. A king works with their subjects for their good, because working against the subject's desires (even in their best interests) will appear tyrannous. Queen Elizabeth, George Washington, and Abu Bakr lead their subjects kindly, honestly, and transparently. They were kings.

And these are only two of His names, the most literal. What about the dozens of others: Good Shepherd, Living Waters, Bread of Life, Counselor, Wonderful, etc?

I hope you think more about which name you are expressing a willingness to take. As I am beginning to learn, one of the most productive and beautiful parts of religion is ambiguity. It allows practitioners to apply lessons to the self, even with various needs, dilemmas, and insights. Ambiguity allows a message based on truth to reach everyone, regardless of how far they are along their path. So, which name means more to you? Why?