Article VI Blog

The Boston Globe reports on an overt (and frankly disgusting) attempt by a McCain operative in Iowa to take "direct aim at Mitt Romney's religion, according to four people at the meeting." My question: Where is McCain? Brownback immediately apologized when his staffer crossed the line. So did Giuliani. Does John McCain have the spine and class to do the same?

And in the wake comes a pro-McCain blogger who tries to defend the use of Romney's faith to attack him. His thesis: Mormonism is different, "secretive," so . . . bigotry is simply going to exist and McCain can't help that.

John comments: Simply, McCain is no respector of religion. He has decried the Evangelical voice in Republican politics for a long time, making this a natural for him. Moreover, he is a rotten loser, and right now all is lost for him. He is plummeting in the polls and it is all over save for a concession on his part. That's gotta hurt - losing before the first vote is cast. He has always reacted to loss by striking out, that is usually when bigotry reveals itself.

As to the blogger, "secretive"? Yes, there are secrets inside of Mormonism, things I as a non-Mormon do not know. But have you ever hung around a fraternity or a sorority? What about the Shriners or the Scottish Rite? Or what about that "secret society" (Skull and Bones, I think?) at either Harvard or Yale that has produced the last several presidents? You see my point? Secrets do not equate to a problem. Bigotry keeps trying to find excuses, but there are none.

In light of this latest incident, David Brody thinks Romney needs to give a "Kennedy speech."

John opines: The attack on Romney is of a very different nature than what was going on with Kennedy. The role of religion in our political process is very different in 2007 than it was in 1963. If Romney gave Kennedy's speech verbatim, substituting LDS for RCC, the results would be very different. In 1963 religion was largely a private virtue, today it is a public force. In 1963 most people of all religious persuasions in the US would resonante with Kennedy's claim to keep his religion on the margins. Today, such a claim would be considered a lie or a mark of insincerity.

Brody's broader point; however, is that Romney's current passive strategy of relying on people's basic goodness and understanding of the proper role of reliigon in American politics may be inadequate. Having these attacks come from McCain is not worth changing strategy over. These are the death throes of a hooked fish on deck, much thrashing but to no avail. McCain's supporters will soon find themselves on the sidelines or aiding another candidate who, having more sense than McCain, will muzzle this garbage.

Nor do I think the media fenzy is worth changing strategy over, at least not until some votes are cast and we can see how much the media frenzy is really affecting voters. Most Republicans instinctively understand religious attacks are out-of-bounds. Thus McCain finds himself dead-in-the-water, and thus they do not trust the press in this frenzy. The general election is; however, an entirely different story. The strategy now must lay a foundation for an active strategy then.

The John adds some links:

A Baltimore Sun op-ed wonders if Evangelicals ain't what they used to be as a political force. Not exactly, they never were what the press saw them as, often confusing Evangelicals with Fundamentalists, but more as "Evangelical" has become a recognized power base, many have been self-identifying with that label that previously would have been considered outside the fold. I'm betting people's voting patterns have not shifted so much as have the labels they chose to attach to themselves.

From the world of college newspapers: a student at Middle Tennessee State seems to get it, although his rather cursory search into Mormonism will bring the Theonerds out in force. While out of Lowell's alma mater one student comes out strong. Again, she does so with little understanding Evangelical sensibilities regarding the word "Christian" but then we Evangelicals have been doing that to Mormons for years - I'm just not sure my Evangelical brethren will be as understanding as my Mormon cousins have been.

Other places: A Mormon warns that Mormons should not vote for Romney just because, anymore than Evangelicals should not vote for Romney just because.

Sphere: Related Content

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