Article VI Blog

Why is this important?

EFM links to an interesting post from a Blog called The Virginian Federalist entitled "Doctrine vs. Politics: Why Evangelicals Should Consider Romney:"

Some of our contributors are strongly supportive of Governor Romney, but it is not support of him or any other candidate that has motivated the whole editorial board to write on this topic. Rather, we at The Virginian Federalist believe that it is of the utmost importance that the debate in the Republican primary focus on issues that truly matter, so that the GOP can select the best possible candidate to address the many challenges currently facing this country. If that person is Mitt Romney, then it would be shameful to exclude him because of his religion only.

Now, I happen to agree with every word of that, but I am beginning to wonder if we do ourselves any favors by narrowing our focus on The Question to a simple pragmatic consideration of the best representation of our issues. There is much more at stake than simply the issues that are important to us right now.

Consider this very interesting Townhall piece from K-Lo on the recent Louisiana dust-up, and she also mentions Romney.

For a country that was founded by folks escaping religious persecution, the existence and exploitation of religious bigotry is ugly and unfortunate.

I think K-Lo understates - it is frankly un-American - and it threatens the religious freedom that has allowed my faith, as well as Lowell's, to flourish. Some of the most foundational principles of our nation are at stake in The Question. Arguments like those advanced by the VF's above are convincing, but they are insufficient because they leave open the door to religious bigotry in the event a candidate does not represent you well on all issues.

I am on record as saying that if Romney is elected it will be in spite of his faith. Killing bigotry and bias is a multi-generational task, not for a single election cycle. But we cannot take our eyes off of the goal. Appeals to baser pragmatism may succeed in the short term, but they will not aid that multi-generational greater effort.

The religion card has, as we have documented on the blog, been played in many, many elections throughout American history. There is little new here, save in Romney's case a new religion is in play. The American people have always shown a wisdom far above the pundits and operatives, generally, and in large numbers, ignoring this kind of tripe. I believe they will do so again, but the sheer volume allowed my modern media makes it harder and harder to suffer.

The Silly Talking To The Bigoted…

Katie Couric proves herself once again to be cute, but incapable. Looking to examine Mormonism, she interviews Ken Woodward! She even goes so far as to ask Woodward about statements he made in his NYTimes piece from last spring - you remember, the grossly bigoted and highly ill-informed one. She was not challenging the piece either, she was seeking to understand it. There is a bunch wrong in this interview, but it's not new - we dealt with it when we dealt with the NYtimes piece, so follow that link if you are interested.

Lowell adds: We already said lots about Woodward's piece. What's intriguing to me about Couric's interview is her easy acceptance of Woodward as an expert on Mormonism. He's not. He's certainly talked to lots of Mormons, mostly of a certain stripe (academics and other MSM types who tend to be disdainful of the faith), but that kind of inquiry does not an expert make. I'll never forget how surprised (and eventually irate) Woodward became when Hugh Hewitt interviewed him and challenged his assumptions. He clearly was not accustomed to being on the defensive.

Wishful Thinking?

Our friend Stan Guthrie looks at the potential for Huckabee.

Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, able to connect with evangelicals in a way the other candidates cannot.

Stan is pulling that point from someone else, so I don' know if that is his personal view or not. I hope we Evangelicals are smarter than to vote for someone on a "just like me" basis. I wouldn't make a very good president, I want somebody quite a bit different and more capable.

Oh, just review the movie for pitified sakes. Or could it be that you are wishing to stir up problems for Romney? Would the MSM do that?

Of course they would; they'd make trouble for Mormonism in general as well. Consider this story, headlined, "Romney raises N.J. profile of Mormons." Frankly, Romney has done no such thing. He does not talk about his personal faith in political situations unless asked. He may make statements in line with the commonly held public religion, but he does not discuss Mormonism unless asked, and then he is very circumspect in is answers - as are all candidates about their personal religious convictions. Which is the real point here. THE PRESS has raised the profile of Mormons, not Mitt Romney.

Elsewhere…

Jay Cost, from Friday, responds to some criticisms he received, though not ours. After reading this, I think we need to add, in parallel to the term "theonerd" we have coined here, the term "polinerd." This guy thinks too hard.

Lowell: I'm not sure it's a matter of thinking hard; it's more a case of over-analysis. I think Cost would be tossed out of many a political science seminar course for some of the tenuous stuff he comes up with.

Perhaps the most left-leaning of all English language newpapers, short of communist house organs, The Guardian of London is essentially simply insulting to religion in general and Mormonism in particular.

Finally…

Funny thing bigotry, people don't like it much.

Lowell: And yet Mr. Keller's ranting reminds me of James Taranto's wise saying: The great thing about free speech is that it makes it "easier to spot the idiots."

Sphere: Related Content

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