Article VI Blog

Before the school shooting sucked the life out of all news yesterday there were a couple of things coming out that apply to this blog.  Paul Krugman wrote a flat out ugly piece about "Christian infiltration" of the government:

In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement – the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right – suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. "Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure," he wrote, "and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order."

 

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide "Christian leadership to change the world," boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

There was some interesting response from Mickey Kaus and Jonah Goldberg and his readers.

What makes this interesting for this blog is the conspiratorial tones and breathless descriptions of "evil intent" that Krugman offers.  If I did not know any better I would have thought I was reading much of the anti-Mormon literature that is so available out there.  If you have ever doubted our contention that Evangelicals' attacks on Mormons will open the door for general liberal attacks on creedal Christianity, you need look no farther than this piece.

It is full of innuendo and misdirection, makes mountains out of molehills, operates with a presumption of bad intent, and most importantly assumes Krugman understands Christians and Christian thought when he is in fact clueless.  It would be very difficult indeed to defend ourselves against this sort of harangue if we engage in it ourselves.

An observation from Lowell:  It is easy to be afraid of Evangelicals when you don't know much about them and the only ones you ever hear or read anything about are the high-profile Swaggarts and Robertsons of the world– or the stories that are spun about them.  It is also easy to fear Mormons when you don't know much about them and the only ones you ever hear or read anything about are the high-profile Warren Jeffs of the world (and he's not even a Mormon), TV programs like "Big Love," or the stories that are spun about Mormons.  If I've learned anything from this blogging experience, it is what it's like to be seen as The Other.  One important result is that I am able to be much more empathetic and compassionate toward "other Others" who are in the same spot.

Ignorance about other religions can lead to some very ugly places.  Which is why I wrote this on my personal blog.

Ryan Sager, normally of Real Clear Politics, but in this case at the NYSun, passes on the Mormon conspiracy fundraising nonsense.  I am growing a bit tired of the echo effect, wherein people who are otherwise reasonable, talk about what others say and it contributes to the advancement of a problem where none exists. 

Lowell:  One thing we've learned from following all these Romney-religion stories closely is how lazy many pundits are.  They need to have something to write about, so they simply recycle the research and ideas of others.  Sager is the third writer I've seen re-do the original N.Y. Times story breathlessly reporting that 15% of Romney's Q1 money came from . . . Utah!!!!   As we note here, that became the MSM "meme of the week" on the fund-raising story.

Which leads us to the final link today…

The Washington Times reports on general Evangelical malaise regarding the current slate of candidates.  There is a telling pullquote:

Mr. Romney leads the Republican presidential pack in campaign cash, but polls show him stuck in single-digit percentages of support from Republican primary voters, despite his strong advocacy of conservative policies.

 

"I hate to say this, and I wish our people were bigger than this, but they do believe the Mormon Church is … not a church," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime leader in recruiting Catholics and Protestant evangelicals to the Republican fold. "But Mormons really do have decent families. In many ways, that ought to be looked at rather than a man's religion."

Is there a general resignation that Romney cannot win settling in?  I don't think so, but there will be if reasonable people like Weyrich and Sager keep saying so.  Yesterday we quoted some fascinating statistics regarding press mentions of Romney's faith versus the other two major candidates.  I think there is a disconnect between political junkies and the rest of the nation  The junkies read the news incessantly (I should know!) and the echo effect becomes reality to them, but most people, most voters, don't even know who Mitt Romney is, and if they do, all they know is he is Mormon.

The campaign, which has not really started yet – right now it is only money and insiders, will change that, the only question is can it change it enough.  The answer is up to Romney and his staff.  I still think that once people hear somethig, anything, about Romney other than where he goes to church that things will change quickly.   It is, as we said last week, about controlling the narrative.  Romney is too smart to let his narrative be defined by anyone else.

Lowell adds:  Oddly, the Washington Times article says:

Richard Land, president of the Religious and Ethics Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes a hard line against virtually all the major Republican candidates.

Then Land is quoted only about Giuliani and McCain.  What about Romney?  Land is on record as having no problems with Romney as a candidate.

It may be, as John wonders, that there's a general sense of resignation setting in that Romney simply is not going to get the support of a large chunk of Evangelical voters.  I agree with John that it's way too early to say; only wonks like us are paying close attention right now.

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• The Return of Wright
• More Religious Values That Matter – Right and Wrong Turns
• Religious Values That Matter
• The Seeds of Social War
• Romney Triumphant