Today’s Reading List – May 7, 2007
In the wake of the debate, I was a bit rough on Huckabee. I was not alone, and Evangelicals for Mitt rose to Huckabee's defense. In my opinion, there is a bit of hair splitting going on here. Huckabee did not attack Romney's Mormonism, but he did attack the sincerity of the faith of a generic someone that said things that Romney has been accused of saying. I seem to recall thinking it, but feeling it off limits to attack the sincerity of Bill Clinton's professed faith. I don't recall reading such attacks except from the nutter right…. That's the point. Utah TV sees it as an attack, which means, I'm betting most of the LDS does.
Lowell: If the Salt Lake ABC affiliate's reporter, Chris Vanocur, had gotten Huckabee's name right (he called him "Jim") his report might have had more credibility. Still, it seemed clear to me what Huckabee was doing. As an ordained Baptist minister, he ought to be more careful about such things. I also think our friends at EFM miss the point just a bit. Here's the key exchange from Huckabee's interview with George Stephanopolous:
[1]10:23:46 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) And [your] denomination teaches I believe that Mormonism is a cult. How big a hurdle is that going to be for Governor Romney in this campaign?
[1]10:23:56 MIKE HUCKABEE (2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
Well, you know, I'm not sure and I don't know that anyone knows. . . .
Having refused to answer the question, Huckabee then moves to a different angle on the subject. Why couldn't Huckabee have simply added the words, "but it should not be a factor." Would that not have been the statesmanlike, leader-like thing to say?
In the MSNBC debate (page 10 of the on-line transcript), Huckabee says this:
Huckabee: I want to state very clearly: A person's faith shouldn't qualify or disqualify for public office. It shouldn't do that.
But we ought to be honest and open about it. And I think it does help explain who we are, what our value systems are, what makes us tick, and what our processors are.
That sounds to me quite clever, actually: Huckabee wants it both ways. He says a candidate's faith should not matter, but that candidates should talk about their faith. Of course it would benefit Huckabee for Romney to step into that morass and start defending Mormonism. As we've said many times here, to do that would be disastrous for all religious conservatives and for religion in the public square generally. (For evidence of how nasty that morass can be, take a look at the comments to Hugh's post. Do we really want more of that?)
And to whom, exactly, is Huckabee referring when he says "we ought to be honest and open about it?" If he didn't mean Romney, now's the time to come out and make that clear.
Speaking of the debate, Michael Gaynor had an excellent legal commentary in the wake of Chris Matthews' utter banality. Meanwhile, at the Washington Post David Broder attempts to cast the entire debate as a religious one. It was far from it, but he is correct in noting that it is the social issues about which people of faith are most concerned that most differentiated the candidates. The press is determined to make religion THE issue this election whether in the form of The Question, or in the stuff Broder discusses, including the fact that Matthews asked extraordinarily inane questions like the one about evolution. There should be a lesson in that somewhere . . . .
So much is being written about, or in the wake of, Romney's commencement address at Regents University (Pat Robertson's school). It is fair to say, as this Boston Globe head does, that any candidate delivering such a speech in such a place is seeking to "woo the religious right." (Actually this is Reuters piece and it went everywhere.) But it has been used to almost universally trot out the same old, same old take on The Question. This is getting really stale. There was also an AP piece, carried here by the LA Times, that took a bit more balanced approach citing the presence in the campaign of Evangelical leaders like Jay Sekulow and Mark DeMoss (interviewed extensively by this blog just last week). But for the first time, in of all places, the less-than-LDS-friendly Salt Lake Tribune we see the emergence of the new story that is so obviously developing and that the MSM may no longer be able to ignore.
There were no jeers, no protests, and there was no mention of the religious doctrines that divide them – just the patter of applause and nods of agreement.
Taking the stage under a cloudy sky, presidential candidate Mitt Romney charged the graduates of Regent University with forsaking the shallow water and seeking the more profound depths where life is about others, one's "spouse, family, friends, faith, community, country."
It could have been just one of the routine commencements held across the nation Saturday – but this was a Mormon addressing students of a school that labels itself "America's pre-eminent Christian university," a scene pundits could predict would be tense given the evangelical community's concerns with followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But as with Saturday and the first four months of his campaign, Romney's religion has not risen as the high hurdle once predicted. The White House hopeful has faced several other campaign bumps, but his religion – one viewed with hesitancy by many evangelical Protestants – appears to be taking a back seat.
Lowell: I hope the Tribune is right. One thing we may never know, as the same article suggests, is whether unspoken bias will manifest itself in the voting booth:
The bias that exists against Mormons may not be explicit, says Grover Norquist, . . . a well-known Republican activist in Washington. People may not admit they wouldn't vote for a Mormon because they would appear prejudiced, but that doesn't mean they don't harbor those feelings.
"I've never heard anyone say, 'I wouldn't vote for him,' " Norquist says. "But I've heard people predicting that will happen."
That may explain, in some ways, recent polls showing Romney in double-digits in Iowa and New Hampshire while still a blip in voters' radar in South Carolina. . . . Romney comes in second in New Hampshire, with 24 percent of those surveyed backing him, according to a poll by the American Research Group published last week. . . . But in South Carolina, home to a large evangelical Protestant population, Romney clocks in with only 6 percent, compared to 36 percent for McCain and 23 percent for ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani . . . .
It's hard to find an explanation for that disparity that isn't just a little troubling.
Rush Limbaugh had a caller on The Question Friday. Both of them were a bit quizzical about what it seems to matter so much, both professing quite a bit of ignorance. It was refreshing, that's all I can say, refreshing.
Is Al Mohler softening a little? Of course he is! Evangelical objections to and/or concerns about Romney's candidacy have never been as strident as the political opposition would hope, but they have been there. However, I have figured all along that as the campaign gains momentum, those with concerns would have to come around or risk being marginalized.
Lowell: Long-time readers of this blog know that I find Dr. Mohler's position on this issue annoying. So much of his discussion is semantic. It's easy to sum up the reality of the situation: Mohler is careful to insist that Mormons are not part of historical or orthodox Christianity. Well, fine; Mormons vigorously and cheerfully agree. That's central to our faith: We are not protestants; we don't even want to be considered protestants, or derivative of any other faith. But we are Christian, as everyone outside of a creedal seminary defines that word. I also think it's undeniable that Mormons are part of mainstream American religious life. Rather than niggling about the definition of "mainstream," shouldn't that be the end of the discussion, as far as politics are concerned?
Bottom line: To call Romney a non-Christian candidate from outside the mainstream of American religious life is misleading and helps no one but secular liberals. Not a good strategy for conservative Christians, in my book.
For those who like to think about such things, the chairman of religious studies at Millsaps College in Jackson, MS writes, The children of Abraham: Mormons may expand the definition.
Out of Iowa, a quick and rather surface skim of The Question, and religion in the election in general.
Last fall, Christopher Hitchens and Hugh Hewitt got into it a bit around the fact that Hitchens is a bigot towards virtually every religion, though in the wake of the current campaign he is spending his bile especially on Mormons. Well, Hitchens has a new book out decrying religion in virtually every form and color, and while I have not read it, the quotes indicate that it consists more of bile than discussion, dismissal than understanding. But this related article out of Toronto contains what has to be one of the biggest whoppers in the history of whoppers:
"(Mormonism) is supposed to be his core belief," says Hitchens, during a phone interview from his hotel room in New York. "No one should be thinking, `Oh dear, we shouldn't be bringing up the chap's religion.'"
Not, Hitchens hastens to add, that Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is dodging the issue. It's more that the media rarely think to inquire. [Emphasis added]
If that is really what Hitchens is thinking that statement alone is sufficient to disqualify him from serious discussion of religion and politics. Remember those statistics we looked at a few weeks ago. 87% of all stories written about Romney at least mention his faith – a percentage that so far exceeds any other candidate of any other faith (even the first Muslim elected to Congress, Keith Ellison only reaches 37%) so as to defy even the normally skewed MSM notion of impartiality.
Hitchens' bile is instructive in this sense, the left views religion as the enemy, not any particular brand of faith. Because generally Mormons are more adherent and less diverse than creedal Christians, they are a better battle for the left at the moment. But make no mistake, the war is against religion, and if we lose the battle on the Mormon territory, the enemy is one step closer to us.
Lowell: I have heard and read Hitchens on this subject many times. His biggest problem seems to be his revulsion for claims of the miraculous. Although Hitchens is a "9-11 Democrat" on the war and on jihadism generally, he's still very much a man of the left on religion. I guess he finds Mormonism especially appalling because it is so heavily based on so many relatively recent miraculous events. But he's an equal opportunity atheist, and questions the intelligence, sincerity, or both, of anyone claiming a belief in mirqacles. So when that particular leftist "bell" is tolling, my creedal Christian friends, it's tolling for all of you as well.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post