Today’s Reading List – June 12, 2007 | Article VI Blog

ANN ALTHOUSE has written a terribly provocative post in response to Andrew Sullivan's latest sneers at "the bland, super-nice 'Up-With-People' vibe of Romney's cultural Mormonism." Excerpt:

. . . Sullivan is pushing the envelope in trying to legitimate criticizing people because of their religion. He seems to think that putting the word "cultural" in front of the name of a religion makes it acceptable: Once religion crosses the line from the purely religious and becomes part of the motivation for achieving various political goals, we've got to be able to criticize.

I agree that we shouldn't hang back and act respectful simply because it's religion. But anyone who takes the route and brings up religion in a political discussion invites scrutiny. Surely, he has legitimated the subject of whether he is bigoted against a religious group.

There is such delicious irony in Sullivan's condescending elitism toward Mormon "culture." Sullivan, the great sophisticate, betrays an utterly provincial attitude that seems stuck in the late 1970s and the "Donny and Marie Show," which many (if not most) Mormons find (and found) at least a little embarrassing and certainly not reflective of their own experience. What does Sulllivan know about Mormon culture? Or does he simply know about Mormon cultural stereotypes? Note: We have not seen this kind of sneering on the right; it has shown up only on the left. And it will continue.

John comments: Sullivan has reduced himself to caricature in recent years. He long ago made his disdain for Romney clear and anything he writes must be viewed in that light. As we all know, a great measure of bigotry is substituting a different group and seeing how the comment stands up. What say we substitute "gay" for Mormon? How do you think Sullivan would feel about humor then?

Althouse is right on here, but increasingly Sullivan is not worth the effort. I think it is high time he moved from mostly ignored to completely so.

John adds: CQ Politics looks at "shifts" in religiously motivated voters. I remain unconvinced of such "shifts." First of all, when these pieces are written they are always from a left/right perspective. Few Christians I know are purely one or the other, and efforts by the press to paint a different picture do not reflect reality. But more importantly, they are not examining the REAL shift that is occurring. Politically active Evangelicals are maturing in their politics – learning not to vote the label but the person – learning that you can achieve your goals politically by making common cause with those of differing religious persuasion.

A left-leaner manages to make Romney's faith into an attack point and sound strangely positive at the same time?!?!? They are edging into what is likely to be the most devastating attack on Romney in the entire campaign – "he is too good to be true." We see a bit of this in Sullivan above too. It would be effective if it weren't so predictable.

Michael Gaynor gets it:

I say to those persons (particularly secular extremists) who are trying to use Mr. Romney's Mormon faith against him: KEEP IT UP! Because the bulk of Americans will prefer a faithful Mormon (or Methodist, or Jew, etc.) to a presidential candidate pretending to be faithful.

Lowell: Ouch!

And here's a well-balanced article from a paper in John's home state neighbor that seems to focus on clarity and accuracy regarding Mormon-Evangelical common ground.