Article VI Blog

As we alluded to yesterday, the story of the day was Mark Davis' piece originating at RCP, but syndicating everywhere.

But the issue of his religion, which some say has been overplayed, has in fact not been addressed with nearly the thoroughness and honesty that will be necessary to satisfy some in the Republican voting base.

It has not been addressed well by the candidate, and it has not been handled honestly by pundits. Until it is, it lurks as a torpedo that could spell the doom of his promising candidacy.

On radio and in print, I have made clear that Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a non-issue to me. But this does not mean it is a non-issue for him, or to America.

I have known several Mormons in my life. They are all superb people, and I envision nothing in their faith that would peel me away from backing an LDS candidate.

But my conclusion has come only after a thorough examination of what Mormons believe. Some of it is vastly divergent from what I believe, and I have had to consider whether that is acceptable to me in a candidate.

First of all, Davis was able to figure out what Mormons believe and conclude it was not an issue for him without the candidate ever addressing it, so I fail to understand why he concludes the rest of the American electorate is incapable of doing the same thing.

There is a presumption in this argument that strikes me as simply silly. Apparently, by Mr. Davis' logic, because the tenets of a faith are relatively unknown by most in the electorate, they are to be discussed.

Yet that is, and apparently will be, the continuing Romney policy. I don't know if the Governor thought he had successfully turned the tables in this next remark, but when he asked: "Do you think it makes a lot of sense for a Methodist to get up and say 'Let me tell you the unusual beliefs of the Methodist religion that you all don't know,'" I nearly jumped through the phone.

"Yes! That's exactly my point!" I wondered what that strange buried Methodist dogma was that he had in mind, but I gave him benefit of the doubt for grasping at a religion purely for the sake of example.

Why, I can think of many not-so-buried Methodist dogmas that could be considered "unusual." For some in this country the simple claim that Christ was resurrected (a belief that Mormons and creedals share) is considered fantastical and unbelievable. Do you see, Mr. Davis, your frame of reference is not necessarily the frame of reference shared by everyone in this nation. If Romney answers the questions you want answered, so too would George W. Bush have to answer the questions someone else wants answered. And that precisely violates the very spirit on which our system is based.

Davis is right - there are some people for whom an explanation of his faith is mandatory. Such people are either lazy voters, for that information is readily available, or they do not really want an explanation, they want a refutation, or at least a limitation - something where Romney lets it be known that he somehow "doesn't really buy that silly pile of belief."

What Romney understands is that it is essentially and fundamentally his right as an American to believe whatever he chooses, and hold public office. What Romney understands is that if he gives into the demands of people like Davis, we will have to be answering to the public about our beliefs in things like the resurrection, or transubstantiation, or healing, or tongues, or whatever miraculous claims your particular brand of Christianity may make.

[Lowell: Bravo! Bravisimo!]

I really wish people like Mr. Davis could understand that Romney is doing people like me, and him, a favor. He is protecting us. He is also putting the great American principle of the correct intersection of religion and politics ahead of his own election. I have little doubt that Romney could deliver a speech that would win over the people that Mr. Davis refers to - it might even make him a shoo-in (although I don't think there as many of those people as perhaps Mr. Davis does), but in refusing to do so Romney is demonstrating quite a bit of character, and a deep understanding of America. And finally, a great respect for his faith…and mine.

And Since We Are Talking About What Candidate Should Talk About…

Jonathon Martin reports on Guiliani's unwillingness to discuss his Catholic faith.

President Bush has been equally open about his Christianity.

Oh come on Jonathon! Bush has talked about little of his faith except that which could readily fall within the commonly accepted boundaries of the American "public religion." I have no idea what view of Methodism Bush holds or does not hold. I don't know when was the last time he took communion. I don't know when he was baptized.

Elsewhere…

Now this is an interesting point of view when it comes to religion and politcs.

Is David at EFM insulting me?

I never hear of these same people asking questions about the Christianity of those candidates who belong to our watered-down, mainstream denominations. I was reminded of how dramatically many Episcopalians, Presbyterians… [emphasis added]

I'll try to take solace by presuming that I am not among the "many" Presbyterians.

Lowell adds a few thoughts:

What follows is not obviously relevant to our Article VI theme, but I could not resist saying something about it. Via Howard Kurtz and WaPo we have from the Boston Globe an entire story on Romney's clean speech habits:

"Whoop-de-do!" he says of John Edwards's proposal to let Americans save $250 tax-free. "Gosh, I love America," Romney said during one GOP debate. After hitting a long golf drive in one of his campaign videos, he shouts, "Holy moly!"

Romney often sounds as if he has stepped out of a time machine from 1950s suburban America, golly-ing and gosh-ing his way across the nation, letting out the occasional "Holy cow!" after something really shocks him.

When he won the straw poll, he pronounced himself "pleased as punch." On NBC's "Today" show a couple days later, he said his opponents would also "be pleased as punch if they could be in my position in Iowa today, no doubt."

Of course, every presidential candidate tries not to swear in public, so most deploy the occasional "darn." And Romney is hardly the only folksy candidate in a field that includes a former governor from rural Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, who is known for his colorful one-liners . . .

But the face Romney presents for public consumption could be right out of "Father Knows Best" or "Leave it to Beaver."

The focus of the piece is whether Romney really talks that way, or if he's putting on a false clean-language front.

David Gergen is trotted out to observe, sagely:

"This 'Ozzie and Harriet' world in which he lives seems to be his true world . . .. For that reason, there are some who find it a throwback. Others are very comfortable with it."

And here's a true academic's view:

Mary E. Stuckey, a professor of communication and political science from Georgia State University in Atlanta, said adopting a 1950s image could help Romney counter his opponents' contention that he is a flip-flopper who holds no true convictions.

"One of the things 1950s nostalgia evokes is integrity or honesty or truthfulness," she said. "I think people associate the 1950s with something that could be called authentic, and I think he needs that."

Can you believe this stuff? I wonder if Lisa Wangsness, the Globe staffer who wrote the story, realizes how ridiculous she looks.

A few obervations:

It may well be news to Langsness, but many people who take their Judeo-Christian-Muslem-Buddhist religion seriously try to use decorous language and to avoid profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity (and yes, those are three different things). As a Mormon, I know members of my faith make that effort. (And I wish I were more successful at it . . . .) Not everybody talks the way people do in the newsroom.

Hubert Humphrey often used the expression "pleased as punch." He ran for president in 1968 and 1972. Is Romney compared to him in the Globe piece? No, the comparisons are to Dwight Eisenhower and other figures from the 1950's– the better to fit in with the "Leave it to Beaver" meme.

Is this really worth an article?

In my feeble mind the suspicion arises: Can it be that MSM writers and the professorial punditocracy, overwhelmingly liberal and secular, simply find it too hard to believe that a man can live up to very high standards of personal behavior? Is that so foreign to their experience?

We blog, you decide.

John adds:

It's not foreign Lowell - this is The Question in a thinly-veiled disguise. They are building a code word. We have been seeing increasing Osmond references when it comes to Romney's sons, but that is just a bit too obvious. So instead they make a reference to something "squeaky-clean" which conjures up those other references and soon we can talk about Romney's religion without really talking about it. This is a meta-euphemism.

Sphere: Related Content

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