Article VI Blog

I find it almost horrific that a holiday weekend, this far from the actual election, would produce this much material for this feature. I apologize if this is not up-to-snuff, but I had better things to do, which is kind of the point I think . . . .

Annually, the Wall Street Journal reprints an editorial from 1949. Excerpting it robs it of some of its power, but a subscription is required to read the link, so I'll do my best.

When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression — for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar.

[…]

Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

[…]

And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Some commentary on the tone of the discussion. I tend to agree, but interestingly, most of the really ugly tone cited is from the left, NOT the right. To those Evangelicals concerned about Romney's faith - there is a lesson in that. If it works against Romney, which it could if we help the left, they will use it against us.

Speaking of which, Slate summarizes some response to Jacob Weisberg - it's all over the map.

Glen Johnson's AP story on "The Question" has been making the rounds of the major outlets, but CNN is just way over the top. Here's the headline:

Romney's likeliest backers think his religion is a cult

We have been over and over that word "cult." Without detailed discussion it is nothing but a slam - nothing, and it's use by CNN in this fashion completely destroys the veil of "impartiality" in which the MSM cloaks itself.

K-Lo, writing at Townhall thinks Romney should say more, not less, about his faith. An interesting point, but K-Lo is Catholic and comes from a religious tradition which, contra to modern Evangelicalism, has a well developed philosophy for political engagement. What she suggests will play extraordinarily well with Catholics, and most Protestant denominationalists, but for the independent Evangelicals, I'm not so sure. I think an interesting undercurrent is developing in the wake of Romney's run - a power struggle between the creedal Christian factions inside the Republican party - a move towards the center as the traditional expressions of creedal Christianity are more to the left than the Evangelicals?

Lowell adds: In general I tend to share the "worry" to which K-Lo refers, which is that "too much 'common values' talk can water down one's religion, and thus weaken the overall role religion plays in public life." On a more Romney-specific level, I think he will be less successful if he tries to say, "Don't worry about my religion, I have the same basic values you do, in spades." He probably should take the more affirmative middle way urged by Richard Land:

I just encouraged (Romney) to do it forthrightly and honestly and say, "Look, this is my faith, and we don't have a religious test for office, and here's how my faith informs my values system."

In other words, say, in essence, "Here are the teachings of my faith, which I fully accept, about the values that matter to you, the voter." There's a risk there, but it's better dealt with forthrightly. There's no need to get into specific doctrines, but it would be fine to say, "I believe in human dignity and the need for all of us to care for each other in a way that does not forsake the fatherless, but that also supports individual responsibility."

Mark Steyn argues for the rationality of faith. Interestingly, his argument distinguishes not between Mormon and creedal Christian.

This BBC piece just glows about Mormons and Romney. Some of it is just the way Brits write, and forgive me Lowell, you know I love you, but its over-the-top. Correct, right . . . but over-the-top. Puffery, not journalism.

Lowell: Well . . . as I note below, journalists need something to write about. What seems to have happened is that the writer was surprised to find that that there seem to be a lot of Mormons who are not weird. Yes, the piece's tone is a little chirpy, but I do recognize the people he is writing about as mine, in all their idiosyncratic, diverse wonderfulness. (Not that I have a strong opinion about them. ) Many MSM pieces about Mormons read like caricatures; this one does not.

This may be THE REALLY most interesting aspect of Campaign '08 - and we're smack dab in the middle of it.

Ramesh Ponnuru on sincerity.

If a politician can’t project sincerity even when he is insincere—or worse, can’t do it when he really is sincere—then he is probably in the wrong business. The suspicious timing of Romney’s change of mind may end up dooming his candidacy.

That is pure insider cynicism talking. We try pretty hard to stick to our religion issue portfolio around here, but I just have to say this - I've met the man and quite a bit of his family. Something I have had the honor to do with many leaders, including U.S. presidents. More than any of them, "sincerity" is precisely the right word for Romney. If he is not "projecting" it, it is because he is not trying yet, all anyone has to do is see him.

Lowell adds: (Warning! Mini-rant follows!) As I get older (a phenomenon of which my kids constantly remind me) I pay less attention to pundits, especially early on in any campaign. These folks earn their daily bread by expressing their opinions, and although many of them are very bright and have seen a lot of politics over the years, for the most part they're no wiser or more prescient than anyone else who watches politics. I'll bet if you kept track of all the predictions of the Ramesh Ponnurus, Fred Barneses, Morton Kondrackes, Jacob Weisbergs, and Eleanor Clifts of the world (to name only a few) they'd be right less than half the time. (Mini-rant over.)

I suspect that what is really going on is that to Ponnuru, Romney comes across as insincere. That does not mean the Governor will play that way to American voters. We'll only know that with the passage of time, but I'm with John: Both close-up and in speeches, Romney comes across as very genuine. Sometimes Princeton graduates who daily breathe the rarified air at National Review mistake their views for those of the hoi polloi.

As Hugh Hewitt points out, Romney has seen the most biased press coverage in history. Yes, as a candidate he has to take control of his image projection, but bear in mind, he is not yet a candidate! Lowell: He is no dummy, either. I think a lot of people will be either surprised or impressed with the way he handles these matters.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post