Today’s Reading List – September 17, 2007 | Article VI Blog

It gets very serious…

The Washington Post carries a piece by Beliefnet Editor Dan Gilgoff that attempts to summarize the state of "The Question." The piece is not all that politically astute, but it does do something that was bound to happen. In an effort to explain Romney's religious problem (What problem– the one that has him leading in the polls in all the early states?) the piece looks first right:

Much of the intolerance toward his church arises from the politicization of evangelical Protestants. Before the appearance of groups such as the Moral Majority, which didn't get off the ground until a decade after George Romney's run, Southern evangelicals were politically uninvolved or tacitly Democratic. But the rise of the Christian right turned them into a key segment of the GOP's base — a shift that suddenly made the personal beliefs of would-be Republican presidents very relevant. "Does anyone care about Harry Reid's Mormonism?" asks Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, referring to the Democratic Senate majority leader. "No, because he's not in the party where everyone goes out of their way to prove their piety."

And then left:

But Romney's Mormon woes also stem from the secular liberalism that took root in the 1960s. The left-leaning New Republic questioned the fitness of a Mormon to serve as president in a cover story last January. Another Gallup survey found that liberals represent the ideological group most wary of Mormonism, with 61 percent holding an unfavorable view of the faith. "The difference between a Southern Baptist and a Mormon might be academic for a typical secularist," says John C. Green of the University of Akron in Ohio. "Both groups would be seen as supporting a social agenda that the secular population doesn't care for."

The net result is that "evangelical Protestants" are cast as extremists.

As the article points out, religion was a non-issue in Romney's father's campaign. The struggle for religion to find a political voice in the following decades has been a major effort, and it has been successful. But having it cast as extremism is a certain way to kill it.

Of course, the press will go running to the extremists because they make the most interesting stories, and there are extremists in the mix. It may be the extremists that have garnered the attention during the rise of the religious voice since George Romney ran, but it has been the hard work of the moderates that has made the difference.

If stories like this keep being written it is time for the moderates to move to center stage and demand the attention their efforts deserve. By nature such people are not attention grabbers, but they need to learn some new skills. Too much is at stake.

Lowell: I actually think Gilgoff got this right, at least in terms of the liberal and conservative aspects of religious-based concerns about Romney. Even so, some of the commentators he quotes seem a bit too wedded to stereotypes. E.g., Alan Wolfe's claim that the GOP is "the party where everyone goes out of their way to prove their piety." Let's see, aren't Democrats Obama and Clinton doing just that? And aren't Republicans Giuliani and Thompson trying hard not to talk about their lack of piety? Romney's problem is that he is a conservative and unabashedly religious. The left and the mainstream news media (excuse my redundancy) are very uncomfortable with such people. To the extent conservatives are uncomfortable with Romney on religious grounds, that's because of ignorance (the majority) or stubborn religious prejudice (a fairly small minority, I think).

LATE ADDITION!: Powerline begins to discuss the Gilgoff piece. They are wondering if the problem is anti-Mormon sentitment or general anti-religious sentitment and suggest that looking at the polling and seeing where the Romney resistance comes from will answer which. That is a little simplistic with an issue like this.

For one thing, Romney's camapaign strategy clouds the existing data. National polls are not going to tell the story because Romney's name recognition nationally just is not there yet, and he is working the campaign that way.

Secondly, evangelical Christians just are not the bloc vote their test assumptions would demand. They may be regionally, but not nationally. But then there are a number of other factors that contribute to the regional polling patterns besides religion.

However, a survey of all that has been written on the issue clearly demonstrates where the opposition resides. It has consistently been the left that has written the biased and bigoted pieces about Romney's faith (Weisberg, Linker, Woodward, Kinsley). What has been written from the right has been resistant, but not dissmissive, and it has come from very specific corners of the religious right and not the movement as a whole. For every Al Mohler there is a Pat Robertson.

When it comes to what has appeared in the press there is little doubt where the strongest opposition to Romney lies. In the end the religious right may have other preferences, but they will support Romney if he can position himself as a winner in all other ways. But the left wants him destroyed and is willing to use whatever, including religion, as a weapon.

LOWELL adds:

Two of Paul Mirengoff's points deserve comment. First:

But there's no reason why Mormons, qua Mormons, should be any less popular (or electable) than they were 40 years ago. It's true, as Gilgoff points out, that evangelical Protestants have become much more "politicized." But that does not mean they have become more bigoted. [Emphasis added.]

This strikes me as a bit superficial. The issue is much more complex than mere Evangelical bigotry, and there are plenty of reasons why a Mormon presidential candidate's electability is a much more interesting hurdle today than it was in 1968. Then, there were around a million Mormons in the entire world. Now there are twelve million. That faith is simply a much bigger "blip" on the political radar screen than it ever has been before. Evangelicals, for their part, were not even on the radar screen in 1967-68. Today they have been a potent political force since 1980 and the early days of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. Just as important, the left in American society, and leftism's adherents in the legacy news media and the entertainment industry, were much less hostile to traditional values in 1967 than they are now.

So: Mormons are more visible and more controversial. That's true in some evangelical circles for reasons of doctrinal differences and the growing threat Mormonism presents to some– a phenomenon that is very much "inside Evangelical baseball," as John as noted repeatedly. The news media is more hostile to traditional religious values and loves — loves – the idea of mean, nasty and bigoted Evangelicals beating up on a straight-laced Mormon presidential candidate. For them, it's a "twofer" — internecine warfare among two groups they either find bizarre or simply dislike.

For those same reasons, I think Paul is more on-target here:

[I]t makes sense that prejudice against candiates [sic] with deeply held religous [sic] beliefs would initially manifest itself in problems for a candidate who belongs to a demanding church that's outside the mainstream. In the same way, for example, one would expect an uptick in anti-Jewish sentiment (of which, to my knowledge, there's no evidence) initially to redound mainly to the detriment of an Orthodox candidate.

The "demanding" nature of Mormonism frightens many people, primarily those on the left. Think about it: Romney is a wealthy, handsome candidate who doesn't swear; has been married for almost 40 years to the same beautiful, smart, articulate woman; and belongs to a church that insists for its members that sexual relations are appropriate only within marriage and that alcohol, drugs, tobacco, tea, and coffee are forbidden. Add to those beliefs Mormonism's conservative positions on such left-wing shibboleths as abortion and same-sex marriage. Romney truly provides the news media, which finds all those characteristics and beliefs quaint at best and dangerous or frightening at worst, with what the military call a target-rich environment.

Oh Give Me A Break….

David Brody:

I understand that presidential candidates aren’t running for Pastor-in-Chief. But there has been such a movement by the top tier republican candidates to distance themselves from any talk about God and Church that quite frankly, it’s been rather startling. This is an opportunity for Baptist preacher and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to gain ground.

Should we be monitoring a candidate’s Church attendance? Of course not. That’s not the true indicator. This is not about who’s more religious. That’s not the question. The larger issue here is which candidate will get the support from the bulk of religious conservatives? The top tier guys want their support but don’t want to engage in the religious part of the discussion.

This group has said as much, and in many cases more, than any presidential candidates in prior elections. They just don't say what the press wants to hear. What they refuse to do is play religion as a constituency group, something that is in the great American tradition.

But that does not prevent the London Telegraph from thinking Republicans will lose "the God Vote." Yeah, uh-huh!? Like there is someplace else for them to go. Frankly we will be better off without a "God Vote." Religion is religion, not a voting bloc. A WaPo blog thinks the same thing as the Telegraph, but uses the "values voter" code.

Might it just be possible that religiously motivated voters have matured a little – that they are thinking issues and candidates, not labels? Could be, but then the left would not have something to bash us with, and the press can't let that happen.

Some people…

Like a TV reporter in Houston, have yet to figure out that the religion thing is about dead and they just have to plow the same old row, one more time.

Fortunately, our Houston friend is not alone, as this guy from a Detroit suburb illustrates. As well as this Phoenix area columnist.

Just wondering…

There might be some lessons for cross-religion voting in this story.

Finally…

If I had a dollar for every political fund-raising call I have received in my life, [insert hyperbole about being wealthy here] - but something happened yesterday that has never happened before in all those phone calls. WHILE I WAS GETTING DRESSED FOR CHURCH, I got one – from the Thompson campaign. Hmmmm….

Lowell: Irony, thy name is Fred.

Share and Enjoy: