Article VI Blog

I am fascinated by the fact that the Beeb has reported on Hillary and now Obama, but nothing about Romney, McCain, Guliani, etc.  The Beeb is supposed to be neutral.  Lowell:  There's some recent rather compelling evidence to the contrary, however . . . .

Listen to James Dobson interview Ann Coulter. (HT: The Thinklings) He sure is nice to her.  I don't get it.  He'll slobber all over that shrill woman, but a reasonable Romney?  I guess the lesson is, if you are a Dobson Evangelical, better nominally creedal and just rude than Mormon and nice.  I think they call that niche marketing.  Thus Dobson reduces himself to irrelevancy.

The Washington Times looks at books on religion and politcs.  Oh, yeah and some comments from the former German Chancellor.  Take close note – NO RELATION!

It's over, except in the minds of MSM'ers that cannot bear the fact of a Romney that has successfully maneuvered himself into leading presidential candidate status. 

Lowell: Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe doesn't know it's over yet.  His op-ed piece today triumphantly refers to the Globe's articles of last week, which are full of unwarranted assumptions and unsupported conclusions, as if they were holy writ.  Especially charming is Lehigh's reference to Romney as "Slick Willard."  (Romney's first name is Willard.)  Couldn't they at least come up with something original?  Next thing you know they'll be calling him "Tricky Mitt."  The Globe's animosity toward Romney is embarrassingly palpable. 

Update by Lowell:  Here's an interesting perspective on the Globe controversy from Ron Scott, a writer who knows some of the players involved.  I am more forgiving than Ron is about the involvement of LDS leaders and others in the story, but I think he is exactly right when he says:

Once Romney announces his candidacy, every cynical "vehicle" that violates the spirit of the law will be scrutinized under high-powered microscopes. Count on it!

I don't agree that anything cynical went on here, or that the spirit of the law was violated; but  it's the appearance that matters, and Romney and his people will need to be very careful about appearances, regardless of the reality.  Without a doubt, the Globe articles will not be the last we see of MSM probes into the inner workings of Mormon culture and its interaction with the Romney campaign.

Update 2 by Lowell:  For those interested, here's a set of links to the flurry of related news media activity in Utah, where, not surprisingly, much more detailed information is being generated.

Heather MacDonald is back once again decrying the role of religion in conservative politics as it leaves no room for the secular conservative.  There should be room for secular conservatives, but religion is not what squeezes them out.  That honor belongs to small-minded, near bigoted, exclusively religious conservatism.  You know, the kind that would not vote for a Mormon, or a Jew, or a Hindu….  I think that's a minority form of religious conservatism.  What I wonder, though, since she has been banging this drum a while, is whether there is room in the secular conservative's world for religious conservatives?

Jeb Bush supporting Romney.  Given his brother's current approval ratings, is this good?  I really like President Bush, but I think I am in the minority.  Lowell:  I may be mistaken, but I think Jeb has better ratings than W.

Harvard steps in the right(!) direction when it comes to religion in public discourse.  Although, I am forced to wonder if its hubris thinking they will "disprove" religion.

A glimpse of the future?

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We've commented extensively here and here below on the Boston Globe stories of October 19 and October 22.  Following up on those posts, I e-mailed to the stories' writers, Scott Helman and Michael Levenson:

Dear Messrs. Helman and Levenson:

I co-author a blog called Article VI, the goal of which is to explore the intersection of religion and politics in the 2008 presidential election. Mitt Romney's Mormonism is, of course, a big part of that discussion.  I read with great interest your recent stories on the alleged involvement of Romney's church in his campaign efforts.  I posted about today's story, which focused on the Don Stirling e-mails, here.

I also posted about the original story here.

That last post got more traffic than anything that has ever appeared on our blog site, by a factor of ten.

I found serious flaws in your first story; as for today's follow-up story, I merely offered a Mormon perspective on the peculiar cultural issues at work.  You are warmly invited to comment about either of our posts; we will publish anything you wish to say. 

Regards,

Lowell Brown

This morning I received this response:

lowell,

thanks for writing and alerting us to these. i'm sorry you saw flaws in the story. our intent wasn't to target mormonism, or discredit romney, but merely to report what we know about discussions between the two camps and why they have to be careful. regards, scott
——————-
Scott Helman
Political Reporter
The Boston Globe

Update:  I then replied with this:

Thanks, Scott.  My big problem with your story was that you seemed to
connect dots that were not necessarily there.  (That's prety much what I
said on the blog in response to your e-mail.) So take that feedback for
what it's worth.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

Best,

Lowell Brown

I thought that was the end, but Helman rejoined:

lowell,

you're certainly entitled to see it that way. but again, our interest was
in laying out what we know without drawing any vast conclusions. some
people will see a clear effort to help romney; others won't.

best,

scott

I appreciate Mr. Helman's responses.  It's interesting to me that although he doesn't take time to address any of the flaws we saw in the story (and in all fairness I did not expect him to  do that) he falls back on his intent in writing the story.  It's great that he and Mr. Levenson wanted to report what they "know about discussions between the two camps," but I think they did more than that– they really did attempt to connect dots that didn't exist. 

In Helman's second response, he says he and his writing partner were not interested in "drawing any vast conclusions."  But it seems to me that drawing conclusions– vast or not– is exactly what they did.  Right in their lede they concluded, for example, that "Romney's political team has quietly consulted with leaders of the Mormon Church to map out plans for a nationwide network of Mormon supporters to help Romney capture the presidency in 2008."  Taking that paragraph at face value, it seems like a pretty vast conclusion to me. 

Helman and Levenson also concluded– or at least assumed– that Don Stirling's promotional e-mails accurately described the nature of the meetings that took place.  As a lawyer, I know that when a witness tells a story that also happens to serve his best interests (like Stirling's e-mails), I should be skeptical.  I thought newspaper reporters were supposed to think the same way.

If the reporters' intent was also to report "why [the Romney camp and the Church] have to be careful," one wonders if there's any reason to believe either party needed to be reminded of that.  The more likely result is that Romney's team and Church officials will now be paranoid about even acknowledging one another when passing on the street, for fear of reading an extensive and accusatory report on that encounter in the Globe.

John adds: Reporters never intend to do anything, save report, it is always a question of what they report, when they report it, adjectival choice, placement, and column inches.  The Globe has had little kind to say about Romney since he was elected Governor.  This is just more of same.

The CJCLDS does have a problem though.  Evangelicals, as opposed to more mainline creedal churches, are organized in a fashion that makes political action much easier.  The CJCLDS is organized more along Catholic lines than even traditional protestantism, making any contact between church and campaign very problematic under current law.  Thus, I think the paranoia that Lowell suggests above is probably a correct response.

There have been mistakes made, minor and non-consequential, though they may be.  The problem with the Globe is not that they reported the mistakes, but that they featured them on page one like they had uncovered a murder or some such.

I think it noteworthy that these stories have not been picked up by other papers or news outlets – a sure indication that there is little of consequence there.

[tags] Boston Globe, Scott Helman, Michael Levenson, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Mormon problem, religious prejudice [/tags]

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Boston Globe continues its assault on Romney.  This time trying to create the appearance of controversy by comparing public speeches on judicial appointments.  Two things I find interesting.  First, they seem to think the fact that Romney does not slam judges to their faces in public makes him two-faced.  And they say blogs are polarizing!  Secondly, while they have always attacked Romney (Red gov. in blue state) they have switched the attack to national issues in the wake of Liberty Sunday.  If I was a Globe reporter, with left leanings, that did not want Romney to be elected president, that was relying on what I thought would be strong Evangelical bigotry, that event would have been terrifying.  Speaking of the Globe K-Lo says the Mormon thing is getting boring.

Remember that story from the British press where Romney got on so famously with Margaret Thatcher?  It showed up in Australia too.

Bush, Kuo, faith – Amy Sullivan takes a look.  Sullivan is one of the better reporters out there on religion and politics and reasonably centrist, though not as much as she thinks she is.  Having said that, I think she gives the Kuo flap more credence than it deserves.  Liberals have to dimiss it because it undoes their theocracy narrative, she has that right.  But, I am not convinced about Evangelical dissatifaction and this book fueling that fire.  The book is about money, not the issues that really matter – same-sex marriage, etc.  She is right that Evangelicals have not gotten all that they wanted, but, most are sophisticated enough to know that war, and politics, happens.  You can't win them all.

I do think Romney could use this guy's help.  One wonders if his departure from the White House has anything to do with the dissatisfaction Sullivan writes about?

Speaking of David Gerson, an old friend talks about why politics do matter to people of faith.

Proof: All politics are local.

Allen, Brownback, Huckabee – guys with potentially more Evangelical draw than Romney.  Not major players at the moment.  Allen may be down for the count after his current senatorial campaign.  And now we can watch Huckabee fade.  Frankly, as someone who has lost 200 pounds in the last few years, Huckabee needs to give it a rest, it should be a matter of personal course, not an election issue.

Hillary demurs and Obama grabs for the ring.  I doubt the juxtaposition is an accident.  Either it is a ploy to take heat off Hillary in the Senate race (which means Obama has already been promised something like the Veep slot) or Hillary has calculated she can't win and is going to feed him tot he wolves.

GetReligion keeps wondering how the press will cover Mormon doctrine.  Guys, the press WON'T CARE!  They can't tell the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian and don't want to.  Do you guys keep bringing this up just to illustrate Mormon doctrine, building prejudice while claiming neutrality?  Just a question.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I hesitate to give the Globe's weekend story on the supposed Romney-Mormon conspiracy more play than it deserves (and it doesn't deserve much).  I won't fisk the entire article the way we did last Friday.  Even so, as the Mormon half of this blog, I think I can provide a service to our  readers of other faiths by giving a little cultural background and perspective on the matter.

If you've read the latest story, you know that Sunday the Globe published the e-mails that were the basis for its story last Thursday.  I do not know exactly what happened with the e-mails, but what seems most likely to me is that Don Stirling, a man who is by experience a promoter, not a political consultant, got carried away and grossly exaggerated the extent of church involvement in a project he was promoting. 

I am not offering that thesis in defense of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church").  Rather, I am suggesting that episodes just like this case occur all the time in Mormondom.  This one simply happened to be very high-profile.

Summary:  What Really Happened Here? 

In keeping with this blog's mission of exploring the intersection between religion and presidential politics in the 2008 presidential election, I offer the following:

• Stirling's activities seem like the very familiar puffery of an LDS promoter attempting to use the involvement of high-level Church leaders to advance a project.  This is common in Mormondon.  Knowing that may be helpful to outsiders unfamilar with Utah Mormon culture.
• There still is no credible evidence of inappropriate conduct by the Church in support of a political effort.  If such evidence exists, the Church will take its lumps; but so far, what we've seen is a strained effort by the Globe to connect dots that are not there.
• This is all important because, as we've stated here before, the most virulent opposition to a Romney candidacy may well come in the general election (if he gets nominated) from influential left-leaning news media organizations who abhor the idea of a deeply religious man becoming President of the United States.

You can read Don Stirling's e-mails here and come to your own conclusions about their significance.  But before you do that, I invite you to consider the following paragraphs.

The "I Am In Touch With An LDS General Authority" Syndrome

The Globe describes Don Stirling as "Romney's Utah-based political consultant."  The e-mails the Globe published are addressed to Sheri Dew, the CEO of Deseret Book, a for-profit publishing company owned by the Church.  The particular e-mail the Globe seems to consider most damning includes Stirling's description of a planned meeting with Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Church's Council of Twelve Apostles:

Kem [Gardner, a wealthly and influential Salt Lake businessman and old Romney friend] . . . called Elder Holland's office  . . . and set up a meeting for Tuesday, September 19 at 4:00 PM to discuss the use of [BYU Management Society, a BYU alumni organization], the [Mutual Values and Priorities] program, and to discuss, generally, what might be appropriate to do within the LDS community. [Emphasis added.]

Keep in mind: It seems the above is what Stirling thought the meeting with Elder Holland would be about. 

Based on my experience in arranging and holding meetings with Church leaders, it seems entirely likely that Stirling was overstating matters considerably.  Those familiar with the way many Church members relate to General Authorities will recognize this immediately.  Many an innocuous conversation with an LDS apostle has resulted in an exaggeration, or even an outright distortion, of what the apostle actually said. The saying is, "When an LDS apostle sneezes, some LDS members get pneumonia."

There's evidence that took place here.  LDS Church spokesman Mike Otterson describes the meeting differently: The Globe reports that "Otterson also said Holland did not share Stirling's understanding of why the Sept. 19 meeting was scheduled." (Emphasis added.)

This statement by Romney's Commonwealth PAC, issued late yesterday, suggests the same thing:

Don Stirling is an old and dear friend of Governor Romney. He got over enthusiastic and overstepped his bounds. The Commonwealth PAC has taken appropriate action to make sure it doesn't happen again. The Commonwealth PAC recognizes the political neutrality of the Mormon Church.

Who Is Don Stirling?

Mr. Stirling is the author of the e-mails.  I suspect that about now he is feeling awfully sheepish, and that going forward he may have little or no role in Romney's efforts.  According to this story and this press release, Stirling's background is in sports and entertaintment, not politics, and he recently moved to Salt Lake City to be "managing partner of a new sports and entertainment marketing company, Rainmaker Sports & Entertainment." One of Stirling's partners in Rainmaker is Larry H. Miller, owner of the Utah Jazz.

I wonder if Stirling is a sports promoter who got excited about a potential run for the presidency by an old friend?  He does seem to be a political neophyte.  If so, that would explain his apparently unsophisticated approach to this matter.  Read Stirling's e-mails.  Do they strike you as the product of a canny political consultant's mind, or the typical work of a promoter?

(By the way, does the Globe have anything other than Don Stirling's e-mails that supports his claims?  For example, do they have any of Sheri Dew's e-mails to Don Stirling? Surely the Globe did not report as facts the uncorroborated statements of a promoter who was trying to generate enthusiasm for his project. Aren't newspapers supposed to have more than one source before they claim an event took place?)

Update:  This information in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune is probably the final nail in the Globe story's coffin.  Read the whole thing.

John adds: Just a couple of quick comments.  One, I don't know beans about how Mormons work, but I do about Evangelicals and especially Presbyterians.  As a Presbyterian elder I have had people come to me claiming pastoral authority to proceed with a project when all that happened was they shook hands with the pastor on the way out of service and the pastor said he thought it sounded worth looking into.

Secondly, religious leaders of any stripe are entitled to engage in individual political discourse.  There is no violation of the the law or IRS regulation until they, or some other official spokesperson, makes endorsements in their official role as a leader and/or commit organizational resources to candidate endorsement.  In my world, such people get asked for such improper endorsement all the time.  What matters is if they give it.

Comments, questions, complaints?  E-mail us using the button above.

[tags] Mormon, Mormon problem, Boston Globe, Scott Helman, Michael Levenson, Mitt Romney, Jeffrey Holland, Don Stirling, Rainmaker Sports & Entertainment, Larry Miller, Sheri Dew, Michael Otterson, religious prejudice [/tags]

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Imus? Pro-Romney?  Give it a minute, that'll change.  Lowell:  I note that the Imus web site describes John McCain as "an all-time I-Fave."  If you listen to Imus you'll hear McCain once a week at least.

K-Lo quotes one of her Mormon readers on the Globe piece.

LDS Church official response to the Globe piece.  Like I said, technical violation, rapidly and throughly dealt with.  By the way, it strikes me as no accident that this story hit just a few days after Romney got over so well with Evangelicals at Liberty Sunday.  Bear in mind the Halperin and Harris trade secret I allude to below.  Lowell:  After yesterday's "fisking" we're pretty much finished with that Globe story.  I'll predict right now that it has no legs and will be forgotten by the weekend.  

Update:  I spoke too soon. The Globe continues to push the story, blithely stating that Romney  is defending his "Mormon Strategy" and simply repeating some of yesterday's unsupported assertions.  Today they're riding the tax-exempt hobby horse.  Romney himself comments here, and archly notes:

"There are two factions of reporters where I come from in Massachusetts," he said. "We have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists — and we have the liberals."

And here's a tongue-in-cheek view.

FoxNews thinks Evangelicals are wising up.  I hate to tell you, we were not that dumb to begin with.  Lowell:  Sadly, the MSM and the left side of the political spectrum (but I repeat myself) do tend to believe that lack of intellectual sophistication is the best explanation for religious conviction.  This writer doesn't seem to be in that camp, but too many are.

Weekend update on the Boston Globe story (by Lowell):   The October 21 Salt Lake Tribune re-hashes the Globe story.  The Tribune re-reports the LDS Church's statement that no coordination took place between Romney's people and the church, and then, in an apparent effort to keep the flickering flame of the story alive, the Tribune writers note that the reports of Romney-Mormon coordination "could fan anti-Mormon feelings with many evangelical groups." In other words, coordination may not have occurred, but the mere allegation that it took place will upset evangelicals– kind of like false reports of Koran desecration caused Muslim rioting in Afghanistan.

"This is just what the Southern Baptists and others need to bash the [LDS] church," said Tony Kimball, a retired professor of American government at Bentley College in the Boston area.

"They are hostile to the church anyway. If they see Mitt's campaign as a Mormon campaign, that's going to drive them into a frenzy," said Kimball, who is LDS.

A frenzy?  Oh, please.  Permit me, as a Mormon, to be offended on behalf of evangelicals and thinking people everywhere.  Both the Tribune's suggestion that  an erroneous report will cause serious upset among evangelicals and Mr. Kimball's "frenzy" statement are simply offensive.  And why, by the way, is Mr. Kimball's religion significant to this story?  Why, for that matter, is Mr. Kimball even quoted, other than his personal friendship with one of the Tribune's reporters?

It seems that if you are looking for responsible and sensitive coverage of religion and the Romney campaign, you may be hard-pressed to find it in the legacy news media.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

It seems that Boston Globe thinks it has a major story about the activities of a reported nationwide Mormon network supporting Romney.  Whether or not this really is important remains to be seen, but the story is bound to get links from all over the blogosphere and to be used for various purposes by Romney's foes as well as those who are simply uncomfortable with his religion.

Here's the attention-grabbing lede:

Governor Mitt Romney's political team has quietly consulted with leaders of the Mormon Church to map out plans for a nationwide network of Mormon supporters to help Romney capture the presidency in 2008, according to interviews and written materials reflecting plans for the initiative.

"A nationwide network of Mormon supporters to help Romney capture the presidency."  In the current climate, it doesn't get much more sensational than that.

What follows here is my effort to review this story as dispassionately as I can.  Bear in mind, I'm a Mormon who supports Romney but am also the Mormon half of this blog, which is dedicated to exploring the intersection between religious faith and presidential politics in the 2008 elections.  That's my "angle" on this story; this is not a pro-Romney piece.  John, who is the Evangelical half of this blogging team, contributes his own ideas below.

To me, the Globe story, by Scott Helman and Michael Levenson, combines several elements:

• The Globe's apparent desire to find an alarming story where there really isn't one.
• Dumb but harmless mistakes by Romney supporters at BYU (now corrected).
• Something that looks an awful lot like prejudice-baiting by the Globe, whether that was intended or not.

1. Looking for A Story Where There Isn't One

Read the story and see if you agree with me.  Here are some telling excerpts:

The president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley, has been made aware of the effort and expressed no opposition, the documents show, and at least one other top church official has played a more active role.

Reading that paragraph critically, I think Helman and Levenson want to find an implied endorsement of the effort by President Hinckley.  Is that a fair conclusion?  I don't think so.  Don't we need to know what President Hinckley was told, in order to determine whether the absence of a comment from him constitutes support for what happened subsequently?  Read on.

Documents indicate that Jeffrey R. Holland, one of 12 apostles who help lead the church worldwide, has handled the initiative for the Mormons and that he hosted a Sept. 19 meeting about it in his church office in Salt Lake City . . . . (Emphasis added.)

Elder Holland "handled the initiative for the Mormons."  A remarkable choice of words, pregnant with meaning.  If that sentence is true, it would be a real story, because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has said this for years:

In this election year, we reaffirm the Church's long-standing policy of political neutrality. The Church does not endorse any political party, political platform, or candidate. Church facilities, directories, and mailing lists are not to be used for political purposes.

Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders, and Church leaders and members should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party or candidate. In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems. . . .

So what do we know happened, assuming the Globe has the facts right?  Here's a summary of the Globe's timeline from the story:

Sometime before Sept. 19:  A wealthy Mormon businessman, Kem Gardner, who knows Mitt Romney from Romney's time with the 2002 Olympics, meets with Elder Holland (the apostle) to solicit ideas about an outreach effort to Mormons.  Elder Holland suggests a BYU alumni group as a place to start.

Sept. 19:  There's a meeting, described above, in Elder Holland's office "to discuss the outreach program." Those in attendance are

Josh Romney, one of the governor's sons; Don Stirling, a paid consultant for the Commonwealth PAC, Romney's political action committee; and Kem Gardner, a prominent Salt Lake City developer who is one of Romney's biggest donors. Globe reporters observed Romney's representatives enter and leave chuch headquarters for the meeting.

The Globe apparently thought the story was big enough to send reporters to Salt Lake City to stake out the general administration building and observe the comings and goings of the story's subjects.

Sept. 27:   "The circle broadens," the Globe reports, in a dinner including other supporters.  Do you see any connection at all between the Sept. 19 meeting with Elder Holland and the Sept. 27 dinner that he did not attend?  I do not, and the Globe story does not give any reason to think there is one.  That a connection exists seems merely to be the writers' assumption. Does it sound to you like Elder Holland "handled the initiative for the Mormons?"  It doesn't sound like that to me.

The official LDS Church response, the Globe reports, is that "the Sept. 19 meeting that Holland hosted for Gardner, Stirling, and Josh Romney was merely 'a handshake and a chat, literally a courtesy call.'  The meeting with Elder Holland was requested by Gardner, "an acquaintance of Holland's," and "was simply a response to an appointment requested by an old friend."

[LDS spokesman Michael] Otterson said Holland held the meeting to "make sure that they were doing this properly and to inform them of the church's political neutrality." Holland expressed the view at the meeting, Otterson said, that the BYU Management Society would be a "perfectly reasonable" vehicle to help Romney.

2.  The Dumb Mistake

Oct. 9:  According to the Globe, Ned Hill, Dean of BYU's Marriott School of Management, and Steve Albrecht, the Associate Dean,

sent an e-mail to 50 Management Society members and 100 members of the school's National Advisory Council asking them to join them in supporting Romney's potential bid for the presidency. Hill and Albrecht signed the message with their official BYU titles, sent the e-mail from a BYU e-mail address, and began the message "Dear Marriott School Friend."

Okay, now we have hit the dumb (and seemingly harmless) mistake.  The BYU offiicials should never have done that. In fact, Albrecht and BYU freely admit the error:

Albrecht, in an interview this week, said he and Hill sent the e-mail after Gardner asked him to reach out to friends on Romney's behalf. Albrecht said that he should not have sent it in his capacity as a BYU dean.

 

"It wasn't something BYU did, it wasn't something I probably should have done, and it was bad judgment," Albrecht said.

 

Carri Jenkins, a spokeswoman for BYU, said Albrecht and Hill's e-mail "did not have the university approval." She said BYU's general counsel told Albrecht to halt his activities last week after learning about the e-mail from a recipient.

 

As a result, Albrecht said none of the responses he and Hill have received back has been forwarded to Romney's political team. "Any response I get I am just printing them out and putting them in a pile," he said.

I am still not sensing any nefarious intent here.  (I am not a BYU graduate, by the way, and have no connection to the school.)  According to legend, when asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, "Because that's where the money is." Why would Romney supporters visit with a leading authority of Romney's Mormon church and then try to tap into Mormon networks– BYU graduates and the like?  Because that's where the Mormons are!  It seems reasonable to me to conclude that here, all we have is a candidate looking to develop a base of natural  supporters.

3.  Prejudice-Baiting?

I think that's also what we have here, but I also think I understand it.  Consider the rather unique position of Romney's Mormonism in the current environment.

For the sake of comparison, imagine a meeting involving backers of a Catholic candidate and a member of the College of Cardinals, in which the backers seek advice about generating Catholic support for their man.  Now, can you imagine a news story like the Globe's arising from that encounter?  I cannot.  

But here's the point:  If John Kennedy's supporters had met with a Cardinal in 1959, some members of the press surely would have paid lots of attention.

To make the point a little more broadly, try to imagine a meeting between supporters of a Jewish candidate and an official from the Central Conference of American Rabbis to discuss developing a network; or a meeting between an Evangelical candidate's supporters and a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention.  Those meetings would not produce a story like this one either.

Romney and his faith are in a similar position to that of Kennedy in 1960.  Mormonism is still unfamiliar and unknown to many Americans, and there are many myths about the church.  People don't know about the Church's long-standing political neutrality, and don't understand the church's organization, or the totally benign nature of the constant encounters between the church's leaders and literally thousands of people each month.  Add to that the Globe's seeming long-standing hostility to Mitt Romney, and you have a recipe for Helman and Levenson's story.

Does the Globe's story raise any concerns about the LDS Church improperly mixing religion and politics?  I don't think so; but it does raise a serious concern about religious prejudice.  The Globe story offers no evidence that anything was wrong with any of the reported meetings between Romney supporters and a Mormon leader and potential Mormon supporters.  The BYU people did make a mistake, and they admit it.  But again, the Globe article is devoid of evidence that Dean Albrecht's activities were directed by anyone in the LDS Church heirarchy.  The writers simply leave it to the reader to infer that connection.

It's easy to see how all this can be very interesting to reporters who are eager to exploit the questions some have raised about Romney's religion.  In their telling final paragraphs, Helman and Levenson state why they think their story is news:

The discussions among Romney's nascent presidential campaign and Mormon leaders also come at a delicate time for the governor politically. By most accounts, Romney has catapulted himself into the top tier of GOP hopefuls, in part by appealing to conservatives on immigration, national security, and other leading issues.

 

But many conservative Christian voters view Mormonism as non-Christian, and the more Romney gains in prominence, the more he confronts questions about his relationship with the church.  (Emphasis added.)

Hence the relevance of the story to this blog.  What is the source of "questions about Romney's relationship with the Church?"  Are Helman and Levenson simply reporting on those "questions," or creating them?  Is there any evidence from a credible source that the LDS Church is officially organizing a nationwide network to support Romney? It seems to me that the two reporters are actually injecting that explosive idea — and the subject of Romney's religion– into the public's consciousness.

Is this an effort to highlight religious concerns about Romney's Mormonism?  In other words, whether they intend to or not, aren't Helman and Levenson pressing religious "hot buttons" and thereby stoking the fires of religious prejudice, or at least those of religious misunderstanding and discord? 

The story's innuendo is that the Mormon Church is quietly organizing to promote Romney's candidacy– a violation of the Church's obligations as a tax-exempt organization.  Before suggesting that such unlawful behavior took place, shouldn't the Globe have been much more careful about suggesting connections between apparently unrelated events, and then suggesting dark conclusions based on those speculative connections?

Back in 1960 the whispered fear was, "Kennedy will take orders from the Pope."  Now it seems to be, "Romney will take orders from the Mormon Church."  I thought we were past that.  What makes the story all the worse is that its foundation is so weak– all assumption, innuendo, and inference.  I think it is borderline irresponsible.  It will be interesting to see if we keep seeing this sort of thing, and if the story gains any traction.  I have a hunch it will not, because in the end, as Gertrude Stein famously said, "There's no there there."  But as always, time will tell.

Update:  Here's a Salt Lake City television station's "Questions and Answers" with an LDS Church spokesman, and a related story.  If the church's answers given pan out, then the Globe story is embarrassingly thin.

Update 2:   E-mailer Ryan asks a good question: Where are the documents on which the Globe story relies? "What are these 'documents?' Throughout the article "documents" are cited numerous times with no reference to their title or origin." And K-Lo at NRO dismisses the Globe piece pretty summarily.

John adds:  We have gotten email asking for my Evangelical voice on this one – I apologize to readers for its late arrival, I am on the road.  I think Lowell has done a pretty good analysis here and I agree with it.

I am reminded of W's visit to Bob Jones University during the 2000 campaign and efforts by the press to paint that into the great white, racist, religious conspiracy to take over the country.  Consider this as an example.  Here is a moderate take on the issue.  Heck, here I've googled it, dig in.

In The Way To Win Halperin and Harris offer a number of "trade secrets" for winning the presidency.  They have a whole chapter out of Karl Rove's playbook called "Relationships, Not Transactions."  Getting elected is all about building a network of relationships.  It is only natural that a candidate will network beginning with those he/her knows best.  The fact that Romney would attempt to build a network of Mormons is entirely unremarkable.

The Mormon nature of the network is emphasized by the Globe purely as a means of creating a prejudice against the campaign.  What's interesting is that from a purely political standpoint, this is a double whammy as the conspiratorial fashion in which the story is presented will strike fear into the heart of both the ardent secularist on the left and the deeply committed, but not too deeply intellectual, committed creedal Christian on the right.

Which leads me to two more brief points. One, does anyone, I mean anyone, think Romney stands an iceberg's chance if he were to run a "Mormon" campaign?  Sorry folks the numbers just are not there.  There are only roughly 2 million Mormons in a nation of 300 million, figure 150 million Republicans.  To stand a chance Romney will have to have a very broad base of appeal and breadth of team.  [Lowell:  It's actually about 6 million, but the point remains-- that's not very many.]

Secondly, another of Halperin and Harris' "Trade Secrets:" Negative stories of this sort are usually fed to the press by the opposition.  Where did the Globe get the idea to look into this in this fashion?  My guess, McCain's camp.  We have seen them sawing on that string once before.

Having said all of that, it does appear to me that there has been some technical misconduct on the part of certain people at BYU, but in the McCain – Feingold age, such technical violations are commonplace and on the increase; they are unavoidable in a heavily regulated environment.  In such an environment you have to operate under the "no-harm, no-foul" approach to life.  Chastisement, which this press furor more than accomplishes, strikes me as sufficient "punishment" for the violation.

One final comment, this blog has been cited by LDS officials as properly analyzing the situation – well, Lowell's part has.  I am both complimented and a bit frightened.  From a purely news/politics standpoint, the analysis is right on.  But with the conspiratorial tones established in the original piece, we are likeley to be written off as part of the conspiracy.  Leave us remember, I am not a Mormon.  With the exception of Lowell and some of the people I work with at one (out of 25 or so at any given time) of my clients on entirely business related matters, I have little regular discourse with Mormons.  I am completely unsympathetic to Mormons from a religous standpoint – I think they are wrong religiously.  But politics and religion are not the same thing.

Which is why I participate in this blog and why I am in agreement with Lowell on this issue.  This is not a religious attack.  This is a political attack under the guise of religion and it cheapens religion to have it used in this fashion.  Take note my Evangelical brethren: If this indeed turns out to be an attack from Romney's competition (quite likely), it will also be an effort by that same opposition to paint you as bigoted and small-minded, which is the same narrative the Bush-Bob Jones attacks attempted to establish.  We are better than that.

Comments or questions?  E-mail us using the button above.

[tags] Mormon, Mormon problem, Boston Globe, Scott Helman, Michael Levenson, Mitt Romney, Jeffrey Holland, Don Stirling, Kem Gardner, Ned Hill, Steve Albrecht, Marriott School of Management, BYU, evangelicals, religious prejudice [/tags] 

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post