Opinion: School shootings, GOP debates and Evan McMullin — Utah politics are heating up

With rising summer temperatures, the Utah political climate is getting heated in the wake of mass shootings, a democratic endorsement and unconventional debates

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Memorial Day was the official start of the summer election season. The stormy weather we experienced last week reflected current turbulent politics. We highlight some of the issues.

Much has been written about Utah Democrats declining to nominate a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate at their state convention and instead backing independent Evan McMullin. A recent Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll indicated 36% of Utahns agreed with this decision, 44% did not and 21% did not know. Further, 50% of Democrats agreed and 36% did not. What does this indicate about the race and the Democratic Party?

Pignanelli: “In every free and deliberating society, there must be opposite parties, and one of these … must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time.” — Thomas Jefferson

I am on a quest. When encountering a Democrat or left-leaning independent expressing support for McMullin, I ask for a reason other than he is not Mike Lee. The dozens of responses to date are devoid of any substance.

The decision to support McMullin does not match the fundamental purposes of a political party to promote candidates who support certain ideologies and policies. The common justification made by some Democrat leaders is their party cannot win the election and must work with Republicans and independents to elect a candidate that is “moderate and mainstream.”

This strategy raises many questions. Will moderate Democrats in future conventions receive similar absolutions and blessings from liberals as granted McMullin? What about Republicans that satisfy this threshold with a history of bipartisanship dealings (i.e. Gov. Spencer Cox, Sen. Mitt Romney, multiple legislators, etc.)? Is this a disguised acknowledgment the left-wing progressive policies of national Democrats are unpalatable to Utah voters?

The poll emphasizes a plurality of Utahns, including many Democrats, are suspicious of the alliance approach. This signals the McMullin coalition is weak and unlikely to succeed.

I will continue my search for that elusive rationale. Finding the Holy Grail or Montezuma’s gold may be easier.

Webb: The Democrat-McMullin embrace means most Democrats concede they can’t win a statewide race, so they hold their noses and endorse a candidate who, to them, is a little less noxious than Lee.

This is a nice test case to see if an independent candidate can win in Utah. It might provide valuable intelligence in case some other moderate politician wants to run against a conservative Republican in the future. Might this be a new route to win office?

However, it must be remembered that Democrats gave McMullin a nice boost by clearing the decks for him. McMullin won’t have to split the liberal/moderate vote with a pesky Democrat. Thus, any future moderate pursuing the independent route would also have to replicate McMullin’s success in keeping a Democrat off the ballot. So why have a Democratic Party?

It is probably all moot, anyway, because Lee will likely win handily.

The Utah Debate Commission was scheduled to conduct a number of primary election debates earlier this week, but most Republican candidates declined to participate. Instead, most will appear in GOP-sponsored debates where Republican leaders control questions and moderators. What does this mean for the primary election and the future of debates?

Pignanelli: Because Republicans dominate Utah politics, the primaries are the de facto general elections. Thus, the philosophy for candidates to engage in debates remains sound. However, the commission was established for general elections, not primaries. Intraparty contests have different dynamics, and the respective political parties should have greater influence in how these activities are conducted.

Webb: The GOP is free to hold its own debates, of course, and party leaders have a point that primary elections are intraparty affairs. Incumbent Republicans may not want to take questions from moderate or liberal moderators. They prefer throwing red meat out to the party faithful to ensure a primary win.

Still, they will certainly face tough questions from liberals and moderates in the general election, so why not get in some practice? These folks are all capable politicians and good debaters. They ought to have enough confidence to debate anytime, anywhere.

Will the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, impact political discourse and prompt legislation?

Pignanelli: The current tenor of the responses is different. Because the November midterm elections — and control of Congress — will depend upon suburban voters, there is a greater likelihood of bipartisan actions.

Webb: I hope this act of unspeakable horror will prompt action on many levels: A recommitment to family, love and support for each other. Better mental health support and intervention. All of us watching for unstable people and reporting concerns. Hardened schools and better law enforcement training. Sensible red flag laws and strengthened background checks, making background checks practical, quick and convenient. More attention and action regarding the daily and weekly acts of violence across the country, which vastly outnumber the “mass casualty” shootings.

Violence is a symptom of a breakdown of societal values and mores. Hearts must be changed, and government doesn’t do so well at changing hearts. Government can try to deal with the consequences of societal breakdown, but it can’t solve the fundamental causes. That is the responsibility and prerogative of parents, extended families, teachers and religious institutions.

Is the 2022 election about 2020, or are we ready to look ahead?

With the upcoming Republican primaries, Utah’s Republican candidates are looking good — if they can avoid discussing 2020

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Key primary elections are occurring in states across the country. Candidates and political parties are rolling out strategies and messaging. Maneuvering is also beginning for the 2024 presidential election. Because Utah doesn’t exist in a political vacuum, we take a look at the national political intrigue and what it means for our state.

Former President Donald Trump and some of the candidates he has endorsed are spending much of their energy arguing about the 2020 election, claiming the election was stolen from Trump. Is this a winning political strategy in 2022?

Pignanelli: “Mr. Trump has real influence but it is not determinative.”— Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

Many polls reveal at least 75% of Americans believe the country is “on the wrong track”. This is a kind description of their anger — and who can blame them? Inflation is roaring at a 40-year high, which is only exceeded by the crime rate. National politicians initially dismissed the cost of living as “transitory” and now admit a problem without providing solutions. Congress seems more focused on holding hearings to attack Big Tech while expanding social programs, including student loan forgiveness. Immigration remains a mess. The fiasco in Afghanistan still smarts. Now millions must worry whether their infant will have enough to eat — an outrageous crisis caused by a clueless Food and Drug Administration and a sleepy administration.

Little is expected of a Republican candidate to assure victory in November — just point to President Joe Biden and do not say anything stupid.

However, to “not say anything stupid” includes omitting references to the 2020 election or making accusations that the upcoming balloting is corrupt. Americans do not want to hear this tirade because the topic demonstrates a lack of concern for the everyday difficulties they are now facing.

Once again, “message discipline” will determine success in the November elections.

Webb: Given the weakness of the Biden administration and the Democrats, Republicans should be poised for historic wins in 2022. It could be a real realignment of politics in this country. The only thing that could derail a monumental victory for conservatives is Trump and his damaging fixation on 2020 and his selfish demand that all his supporters follow him like lemmings in this political nonsense.

It’s true that Trump was badly mistreated by Democrats and most of the news media during his 2016 campaign and in his presidency. He generally put forth good policy (except immigration) and the nation blossomed economically under his leadership. So Trump should focus on those things and the Democrats’ many failings instead of continually harping on the 2020 election. It’s over. Sensible people are sick of hearing about it.

The tragedy of Trump, as I’ve written previously, is that he could be a major benefit for Republicans up and down the ticket, in all states, if he would play the role of senior statesman, promote mainstream conservative causes, bring the party together, endorse reasonable candidates and stop being self-serving.

But, alas for Republicans, Trump is Trump. No sensible GOP candidate wants the 2022 election to be about 2020.

Still for Democrats, they’re in such bad shape that even Trump dragging down some GOP candidates probably won’t save them.

The U.S. faces the prospect of having two rather old men — Biden and Trump — square off once again to become president of the United States and the leader of the free world. Is this the best our country can do?

Pignanelli: In addition to the multitude of issues plaguing the country, Biden is unable to inspire confidence when speaking. This is not a new struggle for the president, although age has increased his discombobulated speech. Biden was nominated and elected because he was perceived a moderate (bending to progressives’ demands has confused that advantage).

Trump succeeded because he tapped into a massive national frustration with the establishment, which remains his singular value.

Currently, there are no other well-known moderate Democrat or anti-establishment Republican politicians willing to challenge the progressives or Trumpistas. Hopefully, the fallout from the 2022 midterm elections creates opportunities for new faces, otherwise expect a return of the Methuselahs.

Webb: If the choice is between Biden and Trump, then shame on us. I’m an old guy myself, but I can’t think of a more depressing presidential race than these two old has-beens calling each other names for a year. It’s time for a new generation of leaders. Both parties have plenty of younger, fresher and smarter candidates than Trump and Biden. On the GOP side, I can think of a dozen excellent candidates who are just as conservative as Trump, who would govern much as Trump did, but without Trump’s toxic personality and character baggage.

What do these national political developments mean for Utah candidates and issues?

Pignanelli: Utahns do not believe the 2020 elections were stolen. So if Republican contenders ignore the topic, they can ride the wave. Otherwise, they risk a surprise.

Webb: We can be glad a majority of Utahns are sensible, mainstream Republicans and Democrats. But GOP candidates must carefully navigate the Trump nonsense or risk alienating his base. If you want to see a GOP candidate squirm, just ask if the 2020 election was stolen.

Opinion: Utah’s primary elections are filled with intrigue

From Sen. Mike Lee’s reelection bid to local races in rural counties, voters face many interesting choices By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Pignanelli & Webb: The 2022 primary election contests are starting to sizzle in Utah and across the country. We’re watching to see who emerges as party nominees for the November general election.

In Utah, whether through the convention process or signature gathering, candidates are running hard in advance of the June 28 primary. While most of the drama is on the Republican side, both parties have interesting primaries to watch.

The primary election will provide hints about political trends in Utah and elsewhere. It will foreshadow the November general election and show which party has the most committed voters. Here are questions that the primaries might help answer:

In 2020, thousands of unaffiliated voters registered as Republicans to vote in the gubernatorial primary. With great interest in the Senate and congressional primaries, will this cross-voting repeat in 2022? Who might be helped or hurt? Will moderate challengers taking on conservative incumbents fare well? Conversely, will conservative challengers opposing moderate incumbents succeed? Is there anti-incumbent theme? With the state performing well, why so much grumpiness among Republicans?

We spotlight some of the races politicos are watching:

U.S Senate: The three-way contest for the GOP nomination between Sen. Mike Lee, Becky Edwards and Ally Isom is garnering attention. Although Lee is predicted to win, the question is the strength of his performance, which may have bearing on the race against independent (but endorsed by Democrats) Evan McMullin in the general election.

Freshman Congressman Blake Moore, perceived as a moderate, is facing interesting headwinds in the 1st District from Andrew Badger and Tina Cannon from the right wing of the party. Results will indicate whether moderate Republicans have a place at the Utah political table.

It’s Groundhog Day in the 3rd District as mainstream Republican Rep. John Curtis faces his perennial archconservative opponent Chris Herrod (which must be getting boring for these voters). Curtis is expected to win.

In the 2nd District, although incumbent Chris Stewart garnered more than 80% at convention, he remains opposed by attorney Erin Rider, a moderate. Similarly, Burgess Owens’ strong convention performance did not prevent a primary confrontation with Jake Hunsaker. (These results raise the question of why conventions are necessary.)

Republican legislative leaders also face primary battles: Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers (Cedar City) is challenged by Patrick Larson; Senate Majority Whip Ann Milner (Ogden) by Douglas Durbano; Appropriations Chair Jerry Stevenson (Layton) by Betty Young. These races are of intense interest to veteran observers because the incumbents are powerful lawmakers with deep roots in their communities. Upsets could signal a trend.

On the House side, prominent Republican attorney Rep. Kelly Miles (Ogden) faces Katy Hall; physician lawmaker Rep. Ray Ward (Bountiful) is contested by Lyle Mason. Rep. Melissa Garff Ballard (North Salt Lake) faces longtime archconservative activist Ronald Mortensen. Rep. Jeff Stenquist (Draper) must overcome a challenge by Carolyn Phippen, a well-known GOP operative. These races capture interest because the incumbents were successful in their legislative activities.

Some former legislators are attempting comebacks, including Val Potter (Logan) who hopes to unseat Rep. Mike Peterson. Rep. Susan Pulsipher (South Jordan) must overcome a challenge by Rich Cunningham, also campaigning to return to the Legislature.

In other interesting House GOP races, State School Board Chairman Mark Huntsman (Fillmore) is running against Bridger Bolinder. And former first lady of St. George Kristy Pike is facing Neil Walter.

Democrats have races too: Popular activist incumbent Sen. Derek Kitchen (Salt Lake City) is in a primary contest with Jennifer Plumb. The 36-year veteran of the Legislature, Gene Davis (Salt Lake City) is in the unprecedented situation of a primary against Nate Blouin. Holladay Sen. Jani Iwamoto is retiring. Her replacement will be the victor of the primary between current Rep. Stephanie Pitcher, a prosecuting attorney, and musician and youth advocate Deondra Brown.

We’re seeing some fascinating county contests: Amelia Powers Gardner captured national attention when she revitalized a dysfunctional Utah County Clerk’s office and was recognized for her performance. Later appointed to the county commission, she faces a primary with Renee Tribe. The other county commission seat also has a primary featuring incumbent Bill Lee and Brandon Gordon.

Utah County Attorney David Leavitt had a rough convention, garnering only 10% support. Opposed to the death penalty, this controversial prosecutor has his work cut out for him as he is facing his deputy, Adam Pomeroy, and also Jeff Gray.

Rural battles: Millard County has witnessed several controversial political initiatives. This is driving hot contests for county commission. Vicky Lyman is opposed by Evelyn Warnick, while incumbent Dean Draper faces two opponents, Trevor Johnson and Johnny Munoz.

In Beaver County, incumbent Commissioner Tammy Pearson is opposed by Chris Noble and Dawn Caldwell. Another incumbent, Mark Whitney, is challenged by Brandon Yardley.

It’s a long shot: Long-time mainstream Rep. Steven Handy (Layton) chose not to obtain signatures and was booted at the convention by strong conservative Trevor Lee. Handy is popular with constituents and may run a write in campaign — an always difficult path. This will be one to watch.

Who is in charge, the governor or Legislature?

Where is the balance of power in Utah’s government? Public opinion is divided — but we have thoughts on who is right

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Political events of the last several months have emphasized the different approaches to public policy taken by Gov. Spencer Cox and most GOP lawmakers, even though they affiliate with the same political party. We explore how this impacts public perception about who holds the most clout in state government.

A recent Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll revealed 33% of Utahns believe legislative leaders have the most influence in the state, and 32% believe the governor does. Is this perception by citizens a reality?

Pignanelli: “The same rule that teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other.” — Alexander Hamilton

During my service in the Legislature, I witnessed the shift of a gubernatorial centric of power in state government towards a legislative axis. A classic example is that for a century, the Legislature utilized the governor’s budget for deliberations. Then they initiated the tradition of constructing their own budgetary document with occasional reference to the chief executive. This included increased scrutiny and accountability of appointed officials. For over two decades this metamorphosis continued. Many political observers believe these developments are unnatural and not beneficial.

I disagree.

Granted, my legislative background and lobbyist experience does not breed objectivity. But the facts demonstrate that many of the recognitions and awards Utah receives for quality management, technological advancement and transparency are substantially due to legislative initiatives.

Furthermore, Utahns noticed the legislature was the driving force for very high-profile measures including tax reform, modifying citizens initiatives, major capital improvements, responses to pandemic, readjustments to local control, etc. These actions were controversial, and sometimes fostered strong organic opposition. Yet, they planted a deep impression that part-time lawmakers were the energy behind many state policies. (This explains the passage of the recent constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to call itself into special session.)

A quarter century of transformation is evidence that citizens’ perception of a strong influence of Legislature is warranted. Thankfully, I paid attention when it began.

Webb: I believe Utah enjoys a very healthy balance of power in state government. There will always be ebbs and flows, pushing and pulling and natural tension, but I think the balance in clout, approval ratings and popularity is about where it should be.

It’s important to remember that on 90% or more of the issues, Cox and the Republican Legislature are in agreement. Cox is a little more moderate on social issues than a majority of Republican legislators, but the gap is not enormous. 

Both executive and legislative branches are led by mainstream, pragmatic politicians representative of most Utahns. If the Legislature was led and dominated by far-right extremists, we’d see many more battles.

It’s also worth noting that among Republicans, the governor is viewed as wielding more influence than lawmakers. Democrats say legislative leaders have more influence, but in their eyes that’s a negative thing because they often disagree with legislative decisions.   

The Legislature has strong leadership, and they’re not going to simply follow the governor’s lead. That’s a good thing. But the governor is highly visible and popular, and he has the entire executive branch of state government to do his bidding.

This balance is healthy for society and pays off in good governance and a robust economy. It’s what the founders intended in creating three separate branches of government that would check each other and prevent any individual or branch of government from becoming too powerful. 

If the governor’s impact on the state is less than, or at most equal to, part-time lawmakers, should or can he do anything to adjust the perception or the reality?

Pignanelli: Barring any weird emergencies, the current structure will remain. But the governor can reassert primacy in some areas through aggressive measures best suited to executive action including state government responses to drought, growth, air quality and higher education reform, etc. Unlike the Legislature, he has a singular bully pulpit to lead, persuade and cajole other officials, the media and citizens. Like a muscle, if regularly used, strength and coordination can result.

Webb: When I worked for Gov. Mike Leavitt (yes, it was 100 years ago, or so) I witnessed an immense amount of work with the Legislature behind the scenes, influencing and molding legislative action, without any public visibility or credit. It’s remarkable how the threat of a veto can kill a lot of bad legislation without it ever seeing the light of day. Or how legislation can be improved with the help of a cabinet member or executive branch expert.

I assume a lot of similar things happen today.

Mother’s rules apply to politics, too

Whatever your political leanings, take mom’s advice to heart and make her proud — at least occasionally

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Saturation advertising over the last few weeks reminds us that on Sunday we honor our mothers. We should all reflect upon the nurture we received from our mothers. This includes the sage advice — Mother’s Rules — imparted to us when we were much younger.

Please consider the enormous problems facing the nation and the world. Pretty much all of them could be prevented, or solved, if we just listened to mom. Therefore, as a public service to all involved in the political world, we apply Mother’s Rules to politics.

If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. This rule is routinely ignored in politics, especially by cable news anchors, political operatives, campaign commercials and politicians in general (and sometimes by us). Let’s try, at least occasionally, to make mom proud.

You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In politics, this is called collaboration, compromise and bipartisanship (but we could never understand why anyone would want to catch flies).

Do not live in the past. You cannot change it because life only moves forward. In other words, stop relitigating the 2020 election or the flaws of former presidents.

Tell the truth. It is easier to remember than telling a lie. This sound rule is related to the political axiom, “It’s usually not the crime, but the cover-up.” Just ask Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton if mom is right.

A penny saved is a penny earned. Borrow only as a last resort. Obviously, the hundreds of members of Congress for the last many decades who ran up an unfathomable federal debt ignored this motherly advice.

Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. And, treat all people kindly. You have no idea what they may be going through. (Recent versions mention karma) For millennia, mothers have lectured about the benefits of kindness. Too bad it doesn’t help with fundraising.

You have the power to change your life. Mom is right about this. But we don’t think she would approve of all the book deals and television appearances from motivational speakers expanding on her advice. 

You can be anything you want to be. This explains why every U.S. senator and governor thinks they should be president.

Wear clean underwear. You never know when you might get in a car accident. For politicians, this means obey the laws and mores of society because you never know when you might be exposed by a whistleblower.

It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but only a few minutes to lose it. And that rule came even before the immediacy of social media, text messages and the 24/7 news cycle.

Stay away from unsavory people. We can think of presidents, British royalty, senators, congressman, governors, lieutenant governors, state lawmakers, county commissioners and city officials who didn’t listen to mom’s prudent advice.

Make good choices. Choices have consequences. Adherence to this wisdom helps politicos avoid having to repeat the phrase, “I don’t recall” multiple times.

If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? If followed, this admonition would prevent a lot of lemming-like behavior in the political world.

Don’t be your own worst enemy. You can do better. The unforced errors of stupid personal behavior have destroyed countless political careers.

You made the bed. Now you have to sleep in it. Mom tells us to grow a spine, admit our mistakes, don’t dodge questions from the media or “plead the Fifth.”

Listen to the advice of the person who has nothing to lose or gain from your decision. Many lobbyists don’t like this bit of mother’s wisdom. Almost everyone has an agenda.

If you don’t know the answer, just say so. Adherence to this rule would eliminate much of the political commentary on cable television and social media. The talking heads wouldn’t have much to say.

You should sweep your own front porch before sweeping somebody else’s. Mom advises us to avoid hypocrisy.

The more we hesitate over solving a problem, the bigger it becomes. Immigration and a lot of other issues come to mind. The modern parlance in Congress is “kicking the can down the road.”

Pick your battles. Not everything is worth fighting for. Unless you get on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or watch cable television where everyone fights over everything.

You can’t always change what’s happening, but you can change your attitude. She’s right. The world can be a very tough place. But we can still find happiness.

Moderation in all things. This is critical advice in an era of partisanship and extremism. Following this alone would guarantee some common sense in political deliberations.

Remember who you are and act accordingly. Even in a heated political campaign.

Look before you leap. Good advice. But don’t just live by the polls.

The quality of your thoughts is determined by what you read. Mom is warning us to avoid the foolish and nonsensical. … So why are you reading Pignanelli & Webb?

What the latest Supreme Court nomination says about Utah

Utahns, although generally conservative, understand the historical viewpoint Ketanji Brown Jackson provides.

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. This produced local controversy as Utah’s senators split on the vote, with Mike Lee voting no and Mitt Romney voting yes. This mirrors the division among Utahns as revealed by a recent poll.

According to the Deseret News/Hinckley Institute poll, 47% of Utahns agree that Jackson should have been confirmed, 32% disagreed and 21% did not know. Will this be an issue in upcoming elections? Does the survey indicate any important trends in Utah?

Pignanelli: “It’s important for all Americans to see that the default of a Supreme Court Justice is not in the mold of a white male. That it can be anybody.” — Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Boston Globe

In her autobiography and numerous articles, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor emphasized how fellow Justice Thurgood Marshall brought the court a “special perspective.” His life experience prodded colleagues to the “power of moral truth” in deliberations and rulings.

Most Americans are intelligent, thoughtful individuals well-educated at a public or non-Ivy League private university. Amy Coney Barrettis the first justice in generations without an Ivy League degree, and therefore offers a needed perspective. Fortunately, her confirmation broadcasted the highest bench may be open to more than just an elite few.

Jackson, a Black American female, is a former defense counsel and trial judge. While some may disagree with Jackson’s prior judicial rulings, it is obvious her unique background will provide another important perspective.

The poll indicates Utahns, although generally conservative, understand the historical viewpoint Jackson provides. Even those strongly opposed to her nomination comprehend the significance and will be reluctant to raise this as an issue.

Thus, in future decades a fellow jurist will likely compliment Jackson for her insightful perspective.

Webb: Utahns are fair-minded people who understood that Jackson will be a liberal justice, as reflected in many of her opinions. But they also understand that Jackson will be replacing another liberal, and the ideological makeup of the court will not change. Conservatives will still hold a majority.

By essentially all accounts, Brown is a woman of accomplishment and integrity who is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. So I understand why Romney voted for her. However, the political ideology of Supreme Court justices absolutely does matter, especially in this era of government expansion, immense debt and federal encroachment into every aspect of our lives.

We need non-activist judges at all levels who understand that government, with its coercive power, is not the answer to every problem that confronts society. We need judges who will put constitutional principles ahead of personal preferences. So I understand why Lee voted against Jackson. Were I in the U.S. Senate, I would have voted with Lee.

What does the confirmation of Jackson signal about race relations in America?

Pignanelli: Even before given the right to vote, Black female Americans were a major pillar of our republic. Always pushing their family to participate in government activities, they also made the righteous and necessary demands for equal treatment. Continuously overcoming challenges while tirelessly toiling inside the system to change it was their standard. All Americans, regardless of personal characteristics, owe these fearless warriors of democracy a huge debt. Most, but certainly not all, Republican senators comprehended this fundamental element of our society and at least offered nice statements about Jackson before casting a negative vote.

The confirmation of Jackson’s is an overdue, positive step for our country that all should herald.

Webb: The confirmation of Jackson is, indeed, another sign that America is not currently a systemically racist country, as asserted by Black Lives Matter activists and many left-wing politicians. Racism does not permeate every institution in the country. Such assertions are one reason why the Democrats will likely get soundly beaten in elections later this year.

But we should all acknowledge that racism, in all its repugnancy, still exists and we need continual improvement. As has been the case in virtually every country in the world, past racism has been a stain and disgrace that has stifled the progress of millions of people who were different.

However, America has confronted and rejected its past racism. Just in my lifetime, race relations have dramatically improved. Real racism is far less prevalent and is not tolerated by polite society. We’re not perfect, by any means, but we’ve come a very long way. Black conservatives assert that today the nanny-state is far more harmful to Black progress than is racism.

Is there any hope that future Supreme Court nomination hearings will be less divisive?

Pignanelli: The cruel media circus that surrounds modern hearings is not what the founders intended. Special interest groups feed on these ideological fights. Only a concerted effort by a determined president and Senate leaders can alter this tragic development.

Webb: The Jackson confirmation process was relatively tame compared to the contentious, nasty brawls over the Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett nominations made by President Donald Trump. Even though Republicans asked Jackson tough questions, they did not engage in personal, raw and disturbing attacks as suffered by Kavanaugh and Barrett.  

Here’s how Utah can fight extremism in politics

This environment is an opportunity for Utahns to demonstrate how common sense can prevent extremism from debilitating our customs

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Whether it’s in the corridors of the Capitol or city hall, on main streets in many cities, in community and religious gatherings or around the kitchen table, many Utahns are discussing the same thing: extremism in politics. Your columnists have been questioned by our fellow citizens regarding this subject, and we share our thoughts.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently delivered a blistering missive against Utah’s Gov. Spencer Cox and U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney. The video went viral throughout the state. Some relished the hostility. Others, while concurring with Carlson’s policy analysis, were pained by the personal disparagements. Still others were appalled and offended by the attacks. Zealotry has always oozed from the right and the left, but are we entering even higher levels of extremism in the country and in Utah?

Pignanelli: “American democracy is under threat from the left and the right. Both sides are chipping away at the foundations of the Republic.” — Jonathan Rauch, Peter Wehner

Our country and state were founded on the ideals of citizens engaging in substantive arguments over policy and belief differences. Often, this caused spurious allegations against usual opponents. But the recent controversy with Cox illustrates how right- and left-wing extremists utilize personal attacks within their own ranks.

Cox is enduring harsh critiques for a response to a student’s inquiry regarding personal pronouns. He is mocked for signing the Utah Compact on Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (an important document signed by hundreds of Utahns representing all faiths and political affiliations). There are allegations “neoliberal interest groups control Cox’s brain.” (Thankfully, he is not vilified for baldness.)

Similarly, left-wing progressives are intolerant of liberals and moderates who do not conform to their extreme. These radical organizations use threats — and protests — to prevent public expression and free exchange of ideas in schools and businesses. Traditional defenders of open discourse (i.e. The New York Times and The Washington Post) are complacent to such actions. Studies reveal many Americans are self-censoring at abnormal levels to prevent character assassination.

McCarthyism schemes are purging those not deemed to be ideologically pure. This environment is an opportunity for Utahns to demonstrate how common sense can prevent extremism from debilitating our customs (especially respecting baldness).

Webb: The Carlson tirade illustrates much of what is wrong with politics today. I’m pretty darn conservative. I support traditional values, and I am frequently amused and repelled by the wokeism, identity politics and cancel culture of the far left. But whether someone agrees or disagrees with Cox on the transgender/sports issue, the nasty, personal attacks were not warranted.

Cox is one of the most decent, caring people anyone will ever meet, while holding basic conservative values and common sense.

Carlson hosts one of most popular shows on television because he knows how to enthrall his audience. He exaggerates and takes things out of context. Trouble is, if you’re a conservative and you don’t know Cox, you might believe Carlson.

Utah’s county political party conventions are delivering an unprecedented number of primary challenges, and even ousters, to longtime incumbents. Is this a sign that extremists are taking over the election process and what can be done?

Pignanelli: The delegate/convention process is a breeding ground for strident politics. The precinct caucus model is no longer reflective of 21st century lifestyles and will continue to create mischief until jettisoned.

Webb: Thank goodness for Count My Vote and SB54, which gave candidates the option to gather signatures instead of being entirely at the mercy of delegates at county and state conventions. Without it, the extremists would be in total control of the nomination process.

A number of mainstream and incumbent candidates would have been ousted at conventions, but will be on the ballot because they gathered signatures. Sadly, one long-serving mainstream conservative who will not be on the ballot is Rep. Steve Handy, who (to his regret) did not gather signatures and was defeated at convention.

Every year in the Legislature, efforts are made to weaken or eliminate the provisions of SB54. Commonsense leaders need to fiercely protect the right to gather signatures.

The way to avoid a takeover by extremists is for more people to participate in politics, allowing all party members to select party nominees. Hundreds of thousands of primary election voters choosing the final candidates will produce better results than just a handful of delegates at state and county conventions.

Eternal vigilance on this matter is necessary. Extremists are dedicated, persistent and obsessed. They will outlast normal people who enjoy life beyond politics.

Do individual citizens have an obligation to diminish extreme views in their own thoughts and actions?

Pignanelli: Living in a democracy is a privilege, not an entitlement. More is required than just paying taxes and voting. The internet is an easy and inexpensive means to determine the veracity of any statement. Therefore, every citizen should fulfill his/her responsibility to nominally investigate and develop positions on politics, science and culture. (This is a fantasy but we can always hope.)

Webb: We can all be nicer, recognize other points of view. Disagree, but don’t engage in personal attacks.

How strong is Sen. Mike Lee heading into election season?

Lee will face divided opposition that confuses voters and encourages supporters. Thus, the story will continue not to be about them but about Lee.

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

“Political junkie” is an expression frequently used because the description is so apt. Politicos are addicted to polls, among other things. Our kind recently received another infusion of this mind-bending drug — a survey on the Utah U.S. Senate race.

The Deseret News/Hinckley Institute pollindicates that 67% of voters in the upcoming Republican primary support incumbent Sen. Mike Lee. The remaining 33% are split among six GOP challengers. Any surprises? What does this suggest about the convention and primary elections?

Pignanelli: “I don’t even know who McMullin is.” — Chris Bleak, commentator, Hinckley Report

Most of the media and pundit coverage of the Senate race has focused on independent candidate Evan McMullin, his bipartisan support, and the intraparty foes lined up against Lee. But the survey reveals the true dynamics underpinning this race — Utah’s senior senator is very strong within GOP ranks.

The Republican precinct caucuses in March were lightly attended, allowing the more extreme and engaged elements to control delegate selection for the conventions. This factor is already impacting the county gatherings. Therefore, Lee will perform very well at the state event, especially because his opposition is disbursed among many challengers.

Lee’s opponents were hopeful that Democrats and independents would repeat their actions in the 2020 gubernatorial primary and change affiliations for the 2022 Senate primary. But the McMullin presence deflected most of this activity.

Lee will face divided opposition that confuses voters and encourages supporters. Thus, the story will continue not to be about them but about Lee.

Webb: Lee will come out of the state GOP convention with a big win and real momentum. Republican voters like him. I very much like both Ally Isom and Becky Edwards, two Republicans opposing Lee. They are terrific people, moderate conservatives and excellent candidates. It’s unfortunate they’re both in the same race because they will split the moderate vote. But even their combined votes likely wouldn’t be enough to defeat Lee in the primary.

Utah Republicans are simply not going to send another moderate (in addition to Sen. Mitt Romney) to the U.S. Senate to do battle with the Biden administration and liberal Democrats. They want a red meat Republican to fight for conservative causes in Washington.

Lee does have some vulnerabilities. As I’ve written previously, he’s more a conservative policy wonk than a back-slapping politician. He’s relatively low-key, and his charisma needs some work. But he fights for conservative causes and principles, and Utah Republicans appreciate that.

The poll also indicated a baseline for the major candidates in the general election: Lee gets 43% support in this early poll; independent Evan McMullin, 19%; and Democrat Kael Weston, 11%; with 24% undecided. McMullin refuses to reveal if he will caucus with Democrats or Republicans. Will this impact any momentum he has?

Pignanelli: The core support for Lee is such that he must obtain only a small fraction of the undecided for a guaranteed victory in November.

McMullin advocates claim he will not formally caucus with Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Supposedly, such positioning gives him a powerful leverage. This is a fantasy because any member of Congress who does not affiliate with a major party diminishes effectiveness to the detriment of their state (i.e. committee assignments). Expect this naïveté to be an election issue.

In the event McMullin announces that he will caucus with a major party, a portion of voters would flee to the arms of other candidates. Consequently, running as the alternative to Lee in 2022, without an established reputation in Utah and defined political personality, will deliver McMullin no better results than when he opposed Donald Trump in 2016 (21.5%)

Webb: Forty-three percent support certainly isn’t great for Lee at this point. But with Weston and McMullin splitting the Democrat/liberal/moderate vote, Lee is clearly the favorite.

Most Utahns have no idea what McMullin stands for, other than that he loathes Donald Trump and conservative Republicans like Lee. That’s not a great platform to run on.

McMullin’s endorsement by leading Democrats indicates that he’s no conservative. I receive his many email messages begging for money and he comes across as a political opportunist desperate to get elected to something.

Some high-profile Democrats are supporting McMullin. Will they pay a price as candidates in future Democratic contests?

Pignanelli: The extreme right and left share many characteristics. This includes purity tests for candidates regardless of good intentions or strategic purposes. Democratic supporters of McMullin should expect major grumblingwhen attending party functions or seeking office.

Webb: A number of leading Democrats have gambled big by endorsing McMullin, with the clear intent of encouraging Weston to drop out of the race. McMullin would love to have the full weight of the Democratic Party behind him, plus some disgruntled Republicans.

But Weston doesn’t seem like the sort of fellow who will drop out. Thus, the Democratic ruse may backfire. Endorsing McMullin is an acknowledgement by high-profile Democrats that a Democrat can’t win statewide office in Utah. That’s a sad message that the party base doesn’t want to hear.