Article VI Blog

We commented rather extensively on Friday on Jim Geraghty's NRO piece on Romney's "quirkiness." We noted on Friday that Hugh Hewitt has some good things to say about the piece as well, and on Saturday morning Hugh had a lot more to say.

I don't think Jim Geraghty has an ounce of such bigotry in him — see my blurb for his book and my many endorsements of his many incredible contributions to political commentary over the years– but I do think he made it more respectable to throw around anti-Mormon canards by worrying that people were going to throw around anti-Mormon canards.

I believe that attacks on Romney's faith that are bigoted have to be vigorously denounced, not worried over. I expect conservatives, especially those with an understanding of the left's long assault on the participation of people of faith in the politics, to understand that snide assaults on Mormon practice are going to be followed by snide asssaults on Catholic and evangelical beliefs and practices because religious bigots generally hate all religions except their own. Even if one can't be persuaded that they have skin in the game, religious bigotry is itself an evil thing that deserves denunciation whenever it appears, just as all sorts of bigotry ought to be denounced.

I think that Geraghty's permission-giving goes perhaps a step further. The juxtaposition of Geraghty's comments about Romney's "quirkiness" with his concern about The Question implicitly establishes a "code" behind which anti-Mormon bigotry can hide. I don't think it will be more than a week before I will begin to see blog posts, if not news pieces, utilizing the code. John Mark Reynolds agrees:

Of course, Geraghty has the right to say as he pleases, but that does not make it prudent or even proper. He would never pass on anti-Semite or racist code words without denouncing them as such. In the same way, it is improper to pass on anti-Mormon code words (such as weird) without pointing out that those that use them are acting improperly.

Does anybody besides me remember Jimmy the Greek? His comments concerning African-American athletes were largely factual, not bigoted, but they were comments of a type that could provide cover to racial bigotry. Hence they were considered deplorable and the Greek lost his job. To this day you can hear people use the term "better athletes" in a derogatory and racist fashion concerning Blacks.

Implicit in Geraghty's comments is an acceptance, as was the case with the Greek's comments, that certain levels of bigotry simply are, they cannot be changed, they must be accepted. I, like Hugh, do not think bigotry can be accepted. Because, as Hugh points out so plainly, when we accept it in any fashion, we give it room to grow.

Geraghty's comments, although certainly unwittingly so, made him an accomplice to bigotry, that deserves criticism.

Lowell comments, ever so briefly: I have a trial this week so I may be scarce here on this blog, but I must say that the truly compelling teaching of the Geraghty-Hewitt exchange, and Professor Reynolds' analysis of it, is that denunciation of bigotry is important. We cannot simply report it as the inevitable consequence of a Romney candidacy.

As if to illustrate the point for us, Power Line points to a Politico discussion. The discussion begins as precisely the the kind of thing we are talking about - facts or psuedo-facts presented about a people, in this case Jews, that provide cover for pure bigotry. The discussion rapidly loses even its civilized veneer and drops into anti-semitic vulgarity. After reading through it, it would be very easy to see the same thing happen in the wake of Geraghty's piece.

Speaking of the Law of Unintended Consequences…

David over at EFM points out the serious double standard in some of Al Moher's continuing discussion on whether Mormons are Christians and ends his post with this very insightful comment:

Is it the case that "thinking" evangelicals should embrace candidates with multiple marriages, overlook adultery, and not worry about theological niceties so long as someone is at least in the pew next to us and mouthing the Nicene Creed (or used to sit in the pew next to us and used say the creed)? But at the same time it's just too much to vote for a Mormon who loves Jesus, loves his wife, has raised five great sons who love Jesus and love their wives, and shares every relevant moral and political value with us — because, well, it's just symbolically a bad message?

We should never forget that debates like Beliefnet's "Blogalogue" take place in the real world and that tearing down the Mormon candidate invariably helps someone else. And that someone else is not Mike Huckabee. In 2007 and 2008, that someone else will be a person who does not share our moral and political values.

We are engaged in a national political debate, not an ecclesiastical one. The election from which this theological discussion springboards also means the theological discussion is not happening in the halls of academia, but in the most public of eyes. In the eyes of a public that simply lacks the background to understand the niceties and fine points to which Mohler clings so tightly.

In the same piece we linked on Geraghty, John Mark Reynolds contributes to this discussion too:

(As theology, I think Mormonism wrong. I do not think Mormonism is Christian in the strong sense of the term, but I think my theological differences, which are very, very great with Mormonism are not relevant to my vote for President in the case of Mitt Romney.)

Note again the necessity of a modifier to the term "Christian" to even begin to have this discussion. Audience is everything in a discussion like this. We have here discarded the use of the term "cult" when it relates to Mormonism because the term has so many definitions - some which fit, and some which do not. A similar argument applies to this discussion. "Christian" is a word with many, many meanings; from "follower of Christ" to "subscriber to the Westminster Shorter Catechism." I would be willing to bet that if you surveyed a Sunday church service full of people as to the definition of "Christian" you would get as many definitions as there were people surveyed.

Under such circumstances, to fight over whether Mormons are or are not "Christians" is, at best, to attempt to relegate them to the category of "other" - yet another in the series of code words for societal and political bigotry.

Elsewhere…

My home town newspaper conducts an interview with the local stake president (for the uninitiated, that is a high lay office in the LDS Church). It is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it is quite respectful and an excellent example of how this sort of thing should be done, if it must be done at all. Secondly, I met the first Mormon I ever knew in high school in Indianapolis, something of a statistical fluke given their scarcity in the region at the time. Blaine Peterson deserves mention in this blog at least once simply because he was the first person ever to demonstrate to me that Mormons were people too - and this gives me the opportunity.

The NYTimes interviews 40 entire Evangelicals in Iowa and figures it knows what we are all thinking. But this article rises to the level of shameful, when it comes to this bit of "bigotry code coverage:"

His religion actually bolsters his credibility in her mind, Ms. Nichols said, as someone with strong family values. His wholesome family image — he and his wife are high school sweethearts, with 5 children and 10 grandchildren — also helps reinforce that impression.

“I felt like morally and ethically, because of his Mormon values, that he would be trustworthy,” she said.

But she began to question her allegiance Saturday, after listening to Mr. Romney speak at a Republican candidate forum in Des Moines sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief. There, Mr. Romney said he opposed federal financing for embryonic stem cell research but would not outlaw it. The response confused Mrs. Nichols.

Note how in those three paragraphs they build a link between the "flip-flop" thing, a wrong but legitimately political charge, and Romney's faith. I have said all along the "Mormons lie" meme would be the most difficult to overcome because it can hide in precisely this kind of "code." Romney's legitimate and sincere conversions on certain issues have created a place for bigotry to hide. Can't do much about that in people's hearts and minds, but for the NYTimes to play it up is despicable, even for the biased MSM.

Finally…

… according to Philip Klein at Politico, we and those who think like us are the villains on The Question: (HT: Kansas City Star's "Buzz" column)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's viability as a presidential candidate, conventional wisdom holds, will hinge on whether he can prevent his religion from becoming an issue. But in reality, if Romney's Mormonism does become a major part of the presidential race, it would be a huge coup for his campaign. Such a controversy would deflect attention from all of the other drawbacks to his candidacy.

[…]

There are many drawbacks to Romney's candidacy. But if the media end up framing the election, as Romney-lover Hugh Hewitt has, by asking, "A Mormon in the White House?" it will only help the candidate by distilling criticism to one issue that he can easily swat away by calling for religious tolerance. In other words, his so-called "Mormon problem" is a giant red herring.

Between those opening and closing paragraphs, Mr. Klein makes his case against a Romney candidacy on political grounds. I do not agree with all of his analysis, but it is legitimate political discussion. His set up and conclusion; however, are so heinous as to belie serious consideration of what lies between.

Firstly, to conflate Hugh Hewitt and the general media is like confusing water and gasoline. Clearly Mr. Klein has not been paying much attention. The Question started long before this blog, or Hugh's book were dreamed of. Both came in response to lengthy media consideration. Please check our "Resources" page for verification of that fact. Eastland, Novak, and most notably Sullivan made issue of Romney's faith. Sullivan is notable because far from reporting, hers was an attack on that very basis.

Secondly, while I cannot speak for Hugh on the matter, I can say that Mr. Klein obviously thinks Lowell and I fools — That we have somehow been duped into fighting a bias and even bigotry that was trumped up as a diversionary tactic. Has Klein not read the litany of bigotry that has come from people with whom Hewitt could not collude if he wanted to - Weisberg, Linker, Woodward, et. al.? The assertion that The Question is a diversionary tactic is conspiracy theory stuff on a level with the Bilderbergers.

Finally, and what makes Mr, Klein's efforts indeed heinous, is that, like the liberals that I assume an American Spectator writer like Klein would loathe, it reduces religion to ploy, to instrument of politics. Such tactics are destructive to both religion and to politics. There is a presumption of insincerity on the part of people of genuine faith that is wrongheaded and insulting. My faith is very real and very important to me - as I know is Lowell's, and Hugh's. To accuse any of us of using something that important in our lives as a mere tactic is to call us liars concerning our professions of faith. Such should simply be beneath anyone of public voice, certainly in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

Speaking for myself, I started with this blog solely and only to help preserve the voice of religion in our political system in the proper and balanced context. I have come, in the course of that activity, to be very sympathetic to the Romney candidacy, but like Hewitt, I am uncommitted - there is a lot of time between now and then. What Mr. Klein accuses Hewitt of, and therefore indirectly this blog, is something I simply cannot stand for. His analysis of the Romney candidacy may stand as he wishes, but I call on Mr. Klein to withdraw his baseless and heinous accusations concerning the motivations of people examining The Question. Such accusations have no place in American public discourse.

Late thoughts from Lowell: Like too many pundits — both conservative and liberal — Klein demonstrates great ignorance of his subject. Anyone — anyone– who has been following the story of Romney's candidacy and his religion knows that the Governor would be a fool to attempt a "Mormon red herring" strategy. The idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

Romney's Mormon problem, as Hewitt calls it, is a serious one for him. What we've tried to do on our humble blog is identify and, where appropriate, denounce the religion-based smears, inaccuracies, and far-too-common outright bigotry that appear in the news media about Romney. As John notes, we are not defending Mormonism– there are other forums for that debate– but we are defending the right of a candidate to be a religious person, and the proper role of religion in the public square. It's disheartening to see a conservative writer like Klein attempt to dismiss all that thought and discussion, and all the underlying serious issues, as mere politics. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Sphere: Related Content

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