Polarization, Romney, and Religion
John and I are interested in the subject of polarization, something that seems to characterize American politics these days. Is that going to change anytime soon? Will religion– especially Mitt Romney's religion– have any role in making the problem better or worse? Michael Barone has a view on the first question:
For a dozen years, our politics has been bitterly polarized, dominated by two baby boomer presidents who happen to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 both made genuine efforts to run as unifiers, but once in office proved to be dividers.
The 2008 cycle will bring a different cast of characters. The leaders in the polls — Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton — all are, to varying degrees, in tension with their parties' bases. That suggests that they have the capacity, to varying degrees, to appeal across the cultural divide and pull their parties above the 51 percent ceilings they've been under for the past 10 years. Other potential candidates — Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama — may have similar potential. The culturally conservative Republican base and the vitriolically antiwar Democratic base don't seem to have strong candidates, unless you count Al Gore and John Edwards. [Emphasis added.]
Our blog being what it is, we're of course interested in the question of polarization as it relates to a candidate's religious affiliation. Will Romney's Mormonism be a factor in his ability to "appeal across the cultural divide?"
In our interview with John McIntyre (published two days ago) we had this exchange:
Schroeder
Do you think this upcoming election will be more or less polarized than the last one, the Presidential elections?
McIntyre
Oh, I think it will be more polarizing, though, well, you know what, I should take that back, I think it really depends on who the nominees are, and because I think a united Republican Party, behind either Giuliani or McCain, I think is going to steamroll, and that, to me actually, I think if the Clintons start to sense that that’s where things are going, I think that opens up the possibility of whether they may actually back out, and she may decide not to run. Because the last thing she wants to do is run and get killed, and I think a united Republican Party behind either Giuliani or McCain, would kill her.
Brown
Do you think Romney is more polarizing than the other two?
McIntyre
Well, Romney is going to run, is going, you know, Giuliani or McCain will be able to run more from the middle than Romney. Romney would run I think from the right, that doesn’t mean he can’t get elected, but I think a Romney/Clinton battle would be more bitterly divisive. [Emphasis added.]
I hope McIntyre is wrong, but I fear he is right; and I wonder what role “The Mormon Question” might play in such a battle. A few thoughts:
1. Romney is not by nature a polarizing figure, or at least he doesn’t seem like one. His good-natured but withering press conference smack-down of a presumptuous reporter seems to be evidence of that. Not everyone can do that with a smile. (See Bob Dole.) Romney's a likeable, charismatic person, kind of a cross between Hubert Humphrey and Ronald Reagan. So Mitt Romney, unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, seems to lack those “personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe.” That may be why Michael Barone thinks the Governor has the potential for broad appeal.
2. Even so, personality isn’t everything. Issues and positions, and the reaction of the Left and MSM to them, will tell the story of polarization in 2008. I don’t think Romney will be polarizing in the primaries. But if he’s nominated his conservative social views, his unabashed religiosity, and his “too good to be true” persona will infuriate the Left and the MSM, who don’t trust a man who stays married (and apparently happily so) to the same woman for 37 years; who doesn’t drink, smoke, or swear; and who has spent years serving as a very high-level lay minister in his church. That loathing and disbelief will pervade the Left's public statements against Romney.
I think that would be true of any candidate, of any faith, who runs his or her life like Romney does. So it’s not Romney who will polarize; it’s his views and his lifestyle, and the MSM will be all over that, digging to find evidence of weakness or hypocrisy in his past.
3. And the opposing Democrat campaign? Well, we’ve seen what a frightened Ted Kennedy did to Romney in the 1994 Massachusetts Senate campaign, as K-Lo recalls here.
This is where we’ll see the polarizing forces at work. I expect to see open attacks on Romney based on 19th century polygamy (Romney has numerous polygamous ancestors); his church’s ordination of only men to its lay priesthood; and the pre-1978 church policy that did not allow black men to be ordained to that priesthood. McCain’s surrogates have already field-tested two of those issues.
We’ll probably see more covert attacks, usually conducted by surrogates, on more sacred aspects of Romney’s religious life — jokes about the special garments he wears as a committed Mormon; lampooning of unique Mormon religious doctrines; and sensationalized stories about Joseph Smith and Mormon history. (Remember Christopher Hitchens, a lefty on cultural matters, on Hugh Hewitt’s show: “I say that anyone who believes that stuff is an idiot.”)
I’m not trying to paint a gloomy picture, but simply to be realistic. The left either hates or fears any religious tradition that requires high standards of personal behavior and sacrifice from its adherents. If Romney’s candidacy proceeds successfully, I think we may see a level of nastiness in the general election that we have not seen in over a century.
What will be fascinating to watch is how the American people will react to that battle. John and I (along with many others, like Hugh Hewitt, who has a book coming out on the subject) think that after all is said and done, Middle America won’t care. In fact, Middle America might even flock to Romney the way they did to Reagan.
4. Ah, yes, Ronald Reagan, often referred to in his day as a polarizing figure. But was he really? It was Reagan who said, in 1975, after another disastrous mid-term election:
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
What some call polarization, others call unmistakably clear leadership. Those "bold colors" sound much more interesting to me than Clintonian efforts to fuzz over differences. And it seems to me that Romney is the candidate, so far, who has flown that banner. If that's polarization, then bring me more of it.
5. Back to religion as a polarizing factor. In my heart of hearts, I think Americans’ sense of fair play will cause them to reject religiously-based attacks. If I’m right, once the backlash arises, the Left will be forced to campaign on the issues. (That’s what happened when Kennedy tried to play the religion card in 1994; how much damage was done before Teddy pulled back is something we’ll never know.)
In any case, this blog and others will make an effort to provide some education that might help keep the public debate from getting to that point, to cry “foul” when the discussion veers off in the wrong direction, and always to invite the “better angels of our nature” into the American conversation.
We are optimistic enough (or naive enough) think we can do that. We hope the country can do that. Wish us luck.
John adds: I have a slightly different view, but not much. The recently concluded election delinked, to some extent, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat. There is little that can bridge the conservative/liberal divide that is widening in the political landscape, but in the end it's the parties that matter in an election. However, as those factions are less directly aligned with the parties, the gap between the parties will close, which will bring the undeclared out in greater force.
Given that Evangelicals largely represent the social conservative faction of the Republican party and that hardcore Evangelicals (as opposed to the more numerous moderate Evangelicals) are also the people most likely to object to a Romney candidacy, I think his participation in the primaries will further the delinking I discuss.
Now, in a general election, I do think hardcore Evangelicals will return to the Republicans simply because the alternatives would be too difficult to contemplate, but they will do so with their hold on the party greatly reduced which will thus reduce polarization.
I also think that as the hardcore Evangelicals lose some hold on Republicans, the virulently socially liberal will also hold less sway on the Dems, as the Dems will no longer need them as a balancing force.
In fact, because of this, I think Romney is the best bet for de-polarization. He cannot escape his religion and as such "forces" the effects I describe. Other candidates will try to finesse the issue and may achieve a bit of a ceasefire, but I doubt they can produce a permanent depolarization like Romney can.
Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, polarization, Mormon, Evangelical, Christopher Hitchens, John McIntyre, Rudolph Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Michael Barone, Ted Kennedy
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | Comments Off | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post