Article VI Blog

JAMES LILEKS REVIEWS Hugh Hewitt's book. It's very worthwhile read, and like most thoughtful writing, difficult to excerpt and still do justice to the entire piece. Here are just two graphs:

Hugh’s book isn’t a defense of Mormon theology. It’s a defense of the Mormons' right to have their beliefs respected in the public sphere. Hewitt gives two reasons; religious tolerance is the first, obviously. The second concerns a bright line not yet crossed in the mainstream political arena, and it’s a line I’m sure will be erased in years to come. It’s the line that surrounds an individual’s belief in what some call the divine or the miraculous, and others call Magical Thinking. In short, it’s about the right to believe in something that lies outside the realm of empiricism.

Oh, we can all respect that right. We can all make public proclamations about the sanctity of individual beliefs. And we’ll all qualify those remarks in private, among friends. (Note: nothing I’m saying here reflects personal conversations with Hugh about the matter. Just so we’re clear.) People who have friends of different creeds can josh about the differences, as long as each knows that the each respects the other’s beliefs. But some beliefs are, well, out there; doesn’t it say something about a person if they’re a Raelian, or subscribe to the Church of Joe-Bob Briggs (a splinter group of the Church of Subgenius, formed in the great Bob Schism Wars of the early part of this century) or pray to a plaster bust of St. Leibowitz? Yes. It does. That’s the problem for many: it does matter.

John adds: But Lowell misses the most important excerpt:

…I can recommend it for one solid reason: this marks the second time in my life I have looked for my name in the index, and found it.

This would mark the first time for me, I have no idea about Lowell, but we are mentioned twice in the book. Now that Lileks brings it up, it is undoubtedly the mentions of Lowell and myself, with a little help from James that have pushed that book's extraordinary sales, certainly they are what make it a worthwhile read.

SEVERAL COMMENTERS have suggested we remind everyone (again) of the PBS American Experience/Frontline documentary to be broadcast April 30 and May 1, entitled "The Mormons." We understand that Romney is mentioned only briefly in the documentary, but the program's timing probably makes this mandatory viewing for anyone interested in The Question. Here's the (rather long) trailer, which even includes a brief shot of Romney.

IN THAT LIGHT, I was very taken with John's analysis yesterday of Romney's "campaign narrative." John's right: When the narrative is about what Romney wants to do as president, he moves forward; when it's about Mormonism, he stalls. The biggest problem facing him in that regards – and it's a dangerous one– is the MSM, which is dying to report on Romney from a religious angle and which loves, loves, loves the idea of Evangelicals opposing Romney. Did I say they love that idea? I guess I did.

The most striking example I've seen of the MSM's fixation on Romney's faith came on the heels of his fund-raising success. Silly me; I thought the story was that he unexpectedly out-raised all the other Republicans and leaped into "credible candidate" status. Within hours the New York Times was reporting that 15% of his money came from Utah, and the MSM developed that meme all week long. By the weekend, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor Scott Simon was introducing the story not by commenting on how successful Romney had been, but by saying the first quarter financial results "called attention to Romney's faith." He added his view that "a significant amount" of the funds donated came from the State of Utah. A significant amount? What happened to the 15% figure? More important, what happened to the real story, which was about Romney's surprising and phenomenal fund-raising success, not his religion?

It will be interesting to see if Romney can get hold of his campaign narrative, or if the MSM's relentless focus on his Mormonism will prevent him from doing that. Possibly, the public will just get sick of it and start focusing on policy issues. Time will tell.

John adds: The Associated Baptist Press does a two part series on religion and the presidential election, one on the GOP and one on the Dems. They are pretty good pieces, that outlet can be a bit fundamentalist shrill, but in this case they bring up something extraordinary. From the GOP piece:

With Democratic front-runners talking openly about evangelical-style conversion experiences and Republicans lamenting that none of their top-tier candidates are bona fide social conservatives, experts say the 2008 presidential campaign may rewrite political playbooks on the role of faith.

From the Dem piece:

According to experts in politics and religion, a handful of faith-savvy Democrats — including two who speak fluent "evangelicalese" — may be able to woo religious voters in ways previous Democratic nominees have not.

We have always contended that making Romney's religion into an issue was playing into the left's hands, but these pieces take it to a new level. I have always figured that if Romney's faith was a factor it would be of the "stay at home" type, that it would just keep GOP voters out of the polling places enabling a Dem win. But these pieces are contending a larger strategy at play. Consider this from the GOP piece:

Experts say a massive rearrangement of voting patterns among religious conservatives probably won’t happen in this election. But the election may signal the beginning of a significant shift in the dynamics of faith and politics over the long term — and even small shifts in the way certain demographic groups cast their ballots can mean big results for an electorate that has been closely divided between the Democrats and the GOP for nearly a decade.

Not only do the Dems want to drive a religious wedge in the conservative movement, they want to take the votes of one of the sides they wedge off! I need to put some thought into this before I comment too much, but that would be extraordinary. Nullifying Evangelical votes is one thing, but compromising them is another thing altogether. Would that mean Evangelicals would shift their stance and moderate, or does it mean the Democrat party would moderate? (Likely some of both.)

One thing is certain, the Democratic left has always been better at incrementalism than we are. Should such a shift happen, some increment towards the left will be achieved. Can we afford that?

Sphere: Related Content

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