Hugh Hewitt’s “A Mormon in the White House? Ten Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney” – The “Three Objections”
Hugh Hewitt's latest book, A Mormon in the White House? Ten Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney, is finally out and today Hugh's national promotional tour begins. John and I have both read the book, and because it addresses so many of the issues we've been digging into for the last year, and does so very directly and in great detail, we've decided not even to attempt a single review. There's just too much "there" there. Instead, we'll do a series of mini-reviews, examining specific issues the book covers.
Before beginning our first mini-review we need to say that A Mormon in the White House? is an indispensable guide to the religious issues connected with Mitt Romney's candidacy. Anyone interested in those issues would be well advised to read the book and to share it widely with their friends and acquaintances of all faiths.
Full disclosure: John and I have a special connection to Hugh's effort in writing this book. As we note here, this blog resulted from a serendipitous appearance by the two of us on Hugh's radio show. For the last year we have kept a keen eye on everything appearing in the news media and on the blogosphere related to Mormonism, Romney, and the presidency. During that time John and I have been eagerly awaiting the publication of Hugh’s book, which we knew would be based not only on the same source materials we have analyzed here, but also on a series of in-depth interviews with Governor Romney himself, his family and close acquaintances, and others in the world of politics. Hugh has not disappointed us. It is a fine and important contribution to the ongoing discussion of religion in presidential politics. (We also thank Hugh for kindly and generously mentioning Article VI Blog in several places in his book.)
We begin our series of mini-reviews with what Hugh has identified as the three religiously-based objections to Mitt Romney's candidacy:
1. If there is a Mormon in the White House, Salt Lake City will call the shots, at least on the biggest issues.
2. A Mormons president will supercharge Mormons' missionary work.
3. It [Mormonism] is just too weird.
We've addressed these issues here, of course, but Hugh brings new information to the discussion.
James Dobson has famously said, "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess." Hugh accepts Dr. Dobson's estimate as "a reasonable one," and then addresses his three questions in reverse order of importance:
1. Salt Lake City will call the shots in a Romney presidency.
For the first time that we have seen, Romney himself provides a strikingly blunt rejection of the idea that LDS Church leaders might call him about policy issues, or that he might take their guidance on such matters:
"Would you ever expect a call from [LDS Church] President Hinckley or his successor?" I asked.
"No," he emphatically replied. "Absolutely not. And I'd also note that when you take the oath of office, that is your highest oath and first responsibility. That's true when you become governor, it's certainly true for anyone who becomes president. When I placed my hand on . . . the Bible . . . when I was sworn in as governor . . . my highest and first responsibility was to honor my oath of office and follow the Constitution and protect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For those sworn into national office, their highest obligation is to the nation. It would be inappropriate for Church officials to contact me and it would be less than appropriate for me to take guidance from any institution other than caring first for the oath of office."
2. A Mormon President will supercharge LDS missionary work.
This is essentially the concern that Al Mohler has expressed so candidly, as we've discussed in detail. In his interviews with Hugh Romney addressed the issue directly– and light-heartedly:
Does Romney think he will be held up as a role model of Mormonism, part and parcel of the missionaries' pitch in the remote regions of the world?
"That would kill us," he said with a laugh. "It's hard for me to know what the impact of that would be. I think certainly that's not the reason I'm considering a run and I think it overstates dramatically the impact of the faith of a particular president."
He laughed again. "I haven't actually looked. My guess is that if you looked at the conversions here in Massachusetts, you wouldn't see any change between before and after I became governor, and I don't think Democarts are flocking to the Mormon church because Harry Reid is the majority leader. . . .
To suggest that people would say, 'You know, because it's sort of fashionable, I'm going to join this group where you have to give up 10 percent of your income, you can only have sex with your wife." The dues in my Church are pretty high."
"It certainly hasn't worked that way in Massachusetts," he said, with a final laugh at the idea . . . .
3. It is just too weird.
This is the Jacob Weisberg argument,which we discussed here.
This gets right to the heart of the Article VI issue – when is the candidate's religion relevant? Referring back to an early reporter's question about Romney religious undergarments, Hugh frames the issue this way:
"[T]here is sphere of private beliefs about God that is not right to raise or probe, and though the border is hard to find when there are legitimate issues that need to be discussed, heading for the undergarments angle is disgusting and will appear so to most Americans."
I still think the best response to the "Mormonism is too weird or irrational" argument is John Mark Reynolds' analysis, which we first quoted here and have referred to many times). Professor Reynolds is interviewed at length in the appendix to Hugh's book, beginning at page 271; the interview is fascinating, and highly recommended.
Hugh thinks Romney should refer reporters interested in The Question to his book, and should say that The Question's been "asked and answered." Hugh may be right. He's given a broad response to the issues, with Romney himself providing the responses– for the first time so far, in most cases. Romney does respond to the "3 objections" quite definitively.
One of Hugh's closing comments to his book seems most appropriate:
It seems very unlikely that in a time of war, when the country is indeed threatened in very real, very immediate ways, that the electorate will punish a candidate for having a belief in a God who is not indifferent to the conduct of men and women, who hears the prayers of His people, and who believes in compassion toward the poor and justice for the evildoer.
Indeed. Get this book for yourself everyone you know who might be interested. It is a very important and successful effort at illuminating the "Article VI issues" and advancing the related discussion.
John?
John adds: First of all, as all of Hugh's books, this one is a masterpiece of readability and clarity. It would be very easy, given the subject matter, to get lost in esoterica and to brandish a vocabulary that would render the book just flat out inaccessible. I also would like to add my word of thanks to the kindness Hugh shows this blog in the book. This book is destined to quickly make it onto the NYTimes bestseller list. Such is rarified air for a couple of guys like Lowell and I.
We have been over these objections and this territory quite a bit in the year of this blog's existence, so I will be brief. First of all, there are historical as well as political precedents for these questions and all have been shown historically to be objections without substance. I am referring, of course, to the Reed Smoot Senate hearing of 1901-1905. We have examined those in detail in a series of five posts which began February 20 and ended last Thursday on March 8. If you are interested in the whole series, use the search box in the right-hand column and search the term "Smoot."
My second comment is one of the two shortfalls I find with the book. There is a lack of direct quotation of evangelical Christian leadership. With the notable and valuable exception of Al Mohler, Hugh does not present an interview with James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, Richard Land . . . . One is forced to wonder why. I had hoped Hugh would get interviews with these people. We have tried and failed, at least to date, but I was hoping that Hugh's credibility and visibility would allow him to succeed where we could not. Hugh, of course, cites the already public statements by these individuals that we have cited on this blog, but why were we not treated to Hugh's great and patented interviews with them.
I have a conjecture in response to that question: These individuals have nothing left to say on the matter. As Lowell has pointed out, with the exception of Dobson, and Mohler, all of these people have said Romney's faith should not be an issue. They know The Question is going to echo through people's minds and concerns and that if they say too much about it they risk alienating such people among their constituencies, but they all realize the essential illegitimacy of the question when it comes to American style politics. They all find themselves on a bit of a political high wire here.
Regardless, this is a great and valuable book.
Posted in Book Reviews, Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Issues, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post