I spoke to some friends from Michigan this past week. Boy, did they perk up at the mention of the name Romney. Looks like the Detroit papers agree.
Sigh, It would have been fun.
This very brief blog post really worries me. If it is going to be that rough and tumble, then there is little doubt in my mind that religion will be the tool of politics which perverts religion and takes it from its designed aims.
Sorry, MSM - times are changing and he wants to get the message out without your filter.
Anderson Cooper asks "What is a Christian?" with three very prominent such people. In the context of that discussion which is about interacting with society and the world, and politics, I hear nothing that would exclude Mormons from the discussion under the label. That is to say, that the large theological differences just do not come up in the context. In the areas discussed, as I understand Mormon thought (Lowell, tell me where I am wrong, if I am) they are far closer to Dr. Land here than Jim Wallis is. This is despite the fact that Land and Wallis share theology much more that with Mormons. My point? - Mormons and Evangelicals are natural political allies.
Lowell: On the issues discussed on the Cooper program, there is no daylight between Dr. Land and what Mormon leaders teach. The "progressive" approach to Christianity advanced by Wallis and Hopkins would be quite foreign to most Mormons. We do a great deal of humanitarian relief, but don't see it as the mission of the Church to effect political change, as we've blogged here before.
As George Will summed up over the weekend, things in Romney's yet unannounced (though the announce date now seems to be public) campaign had began to turn from "The Question" to politics as usual. However, I guess spurred by the announcement of the announcement, a whole series of papers raised it anew. Little new in any of it. This Chicago Tribune piece does have an interesting rundown of non-Protestant candidates over the years. The view from South Carolina, where The Question matters more than a lot of places, but again, nothing new. Newsweek tells the same old story with a fascinating graphic. Meanwhile, the Salt Lake Tribune notes a sort of Mormon backlash.
Lowell: To those in the know, that Tribune article (and many others like it) bring a smile. The writer, Peggy Fletcher Stack, was once the editor of (and an early moving force behind) Sunstone, a liberal Mormon-oriented journal often critical of the LDS Church and a favorite of politically liberal Mormons. Peggy does not disclose her former editorship, and she pieces together this and many other articles with quotes from her personal friends and acquaintances, many of them colleagues or writers she knows from her Sunstone days. (Disclosure: I was once on the Sunstone masthead, I think as Director of Special Projects or something similar. I was a terrible staffer and eventually quit — or was dropped, I don't recall– because I felt like the proverbial conservative square peg among people whose liberal views I did not share.) Of Mormon Sunstone readers, I'd guess maybe 10% might vote for Romney. They'd be much happier if Harry Reid were the Mormon candidate.
Back on the issues, the Boston Globe says:
In Governor Mitt Romney's metamorphosis from social moderate to self-styled conservative presidential candidate
"Metamorphosis" - I like that, I'll take a guy that's changed, just not one that "flip-flops." Of course, as Hugh Hewitt points out the piece is designed to show the metamorphosis as insincere, but if anyone can understand change, particularly change for the better, it is Evangelicals and hristians in general.
Newt's new mission - I am fascinated by this. It's good in general, but it could also be a very smart, classy way to play The Question and set himself up as the conservative alternative.
Lowell: One does wonder if there's any underlying cynicism here. Newt's now trying to restore God to His proper place in American history? If Newt's personal history were a little different his efforts in that arena would be much more credible.
When it comes to religion and politics and the difference between the parties, Buddy Laer hits a homer with this:
When faith doesn't come naturally to you but you need it to win votes, what do you do? Hire a faith advisor, of course!
Something for Evanglicals to think deeply about when they decide who to vote on based solely on religion.
Lowell updates: Romney was on Special Report last Friday night (12-17-06), but it was a fairly short interview with Carl Cameron. Two relevant excerpts:
On his faith:
The name on my church is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I do believe in Jesus Christ is the son of God. But of course there are many others in our country that don’t believe that They believe in other faiths and whether that’s the Jewish religion or Muslim religion or others and they are entitled to do that. Look, the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States got it right. It said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States.
On same-sex marriage:
“I want gay individuals to have equal rights in housing and equal rights in education. I don't believe in discrimination and I don't believe the American people do. That’s a fundamental principle. At the same time, just as fundamental is the principle that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. And to suggest somehow that those two things can’t co-exist, that respecting rights of people who think differently and make different choices in their life that that can't go together with preserving marriage is just not right.”
Also, this morning former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who is fond of GWB's "compassionate conservatism," writes about what he sees as the difference between two segments of the Republican Party: "Antigovernment conservatives" and "the party of the governors:"
[T]he party of the governors. . . . is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles—not a small thing in a post-Katrina world.
I add these comments because Gerson also believed in Bush's faith-based inititiatives, something about which I remain skeptical. Many religious conservatives, however, spend a lot of time thinking about the proper role of government in exercising compassion, and Gerson's comments are interesting in that regard. It's an interesting read.
Sphere: Related Content
