Looking Back at The Romney Candidacy: Reality Check Time
Whitney Johnson’s piece in the Boston Globe is a must-read for anyone, Mormon or not, who has been following the religion issue in the Romney campaign. The whole thing is spot-on, but here’s an excerpt:
. . . Romney’s candidacy was problematic for those whose political views are generally aligned with Mitt Romney’s platform; as Mormons, we weren’t just considering voting for a person to be president, but a Mormon to president. And instead of keeping our identity on the down low, it was brought into relief, potentially undermining a century’s worth of work to feel fully accepted by our neighbors and co-workers. In fact we have worked so hard to assimilate, we have even been able to convince ourselves that we are accepted. With Romney in the national spotlight, it has became all too clear we aren’t. This is a discovery we would have preferred not to make.
Read more for equally good insights.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
- Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
- RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
- Say What?!
- In The Wake Of Prop 8
- A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
- Being The Target
- Encouraging?
- Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
- And Now…Terrorism!?
2 Responses to “Looking Back at The Romney Candidacy: Reality Check Time”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
coltakashi on 11 Feb 2008 at 5:50 pm #
I think it is clear that Mitt Romney hoped to avoid discussions about Mormon doctrines, and so avoided speaking of them, other than to affirm the commonality with other Christians that wse believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. The one occasion in which he dealt, against his will, with a specific description of Mormon doctrine on abortion, in the secretly video-recorded exchange off the air with an Iowa radio talk show host, came across as showing his genuineness and the core of his views.
In retrospect, since Romney could not avoid confrontations over his religious beliefs, he might have taken a different tack, more along the line of “Here are the places where my religion affects my capacity to serve as president, and you can decide whether you like it or not.” He could have done this as part of his speech at the Bush Library, and at various campaign venues, as well as in debates.
There are specific texts that are in LDS scripture that directly address issues of personal freedom, government, and church-state relationships. Romney could have paraphrased these and said “This is what I was taught in my church, and I think it supports the aspirations and common faith of all Americans.”
He could start with the 13 Articles of Faith, summaries about LDS beliefs that were placed by Joseph Smith in a letter to a Chicago newspaper editor. One of them affirms absolute religious tolerance for other religions. Another affirms obedience to lawful government. A third asserts the pursuit of happiness, embracing every good principle from any source.
He could paraphrase Section 134 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which affirms the mutual covenant between government and churches, to allow free exercise of religion, while churches refrain from seeking political power.
He could cite several passages in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covanents, which affirm that God had a role in bringing the Constitution and First Amendment into being, and that God supports the political freedom of all men, having intervened to ensure the independence of the American nations from Europe.
He could quote statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Church leaders about the blessings bestowed by God on America as a light for freedom in the world, including religious freedom. He could make a point of citing Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower, and his own father, Secretary of HUD under Nixon. He could point to cabinet service by Mike Leavitt, and service in the Senate by Bennett, Gordon Smith, Hatch, and Harry Reid. He could emphasize that these Mormon principles are consistent with American principles, and have been demonstrated in the lives of Mormons serving in the highest positions of US government.
Because of so much criticism of Mormons on racial policies, it would not hurt for him to make a point that Mormons are of every race, and are a world wide church with millions of people in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Polynesia, and Europe, and that it brings together members of all races to live with each other and learn each other’s languages and cultures, especially in the formative experiences of missionary work in each other’s nations, and in the Church universities, whose students come from around the world. The LDS Church works with governments around the world to enhance religious freedom for all.
He can also cite the compassionate work of Mormons for others in helping during disasters and long term crises as well. He can offer it as an example of how the private sector can perform better than government in bringing compassionate help to those in need.
He can point to this compassionate service as an introduction to the assertion that Mormons are Christian, because they try to emulate his love for others, as a way of demonstrating their love for God, as said by the Book of Mormon prophet Benjamin.
He can mention, briefly, that Mormons pray to the Father in the name of Christ, that they perform ordinances in the name of Christ, that they weekly take the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the name of Christ, that every sermon closes with the name of Christ, that salvation cannot be achieved except through Christ. These are simple things that many people do not know, and show the genuineness and sincerity of his affirmation that he worships Christ.
“I leave it to God to judge whether my worship is any less sincere than anyone else’s.”
The bottom line would be the message that being a Mormon is a PLUS for a candidate, because it demonstrates that he has deep religious convictions about the fair conduct of American government in the service of people of all faiths and no faith.
I think that he could have made this part of this speech on “Faith in America,” as an example of HOW faith can strengthen our commitment to American values embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He could acknowledge that other candidates and other voters have different stories that lead them to honor America’s faith in mankind and freedom, but this is the one that he shares with six million of his fellow citizens.
This is a story that, despite all the coverage of Mormons and Romney’s Mormonism, never was told to America.
I think he could hit on this more directly in questions like the one about whether the Bible is God’s word. He could say, “I have read it through several times in my life, beginning as a young man, and I taught my children from its pages. I have turned to it for inspiration and comfort. Everything I have been taught in my church tells me that the miracles told there, especially concerning the miracle of Christ and his atonement for mankind, and his resurrection, are real and factual.”
I think that the assessment of many people that Romney was artificial and not genuine in his persona stemmed from his restraint in not explaining the relevant parts of his faith. He could still maintain the position that anyone wanting to go into further details about Mormon beliefs should look to the Church, but he could emphasize that he hopes they would let the Mormons explain themselves, rather than let those who disagree and don’t understand Mormon beliefs be relied on to describe them. After all, you wouldn’t go to the Democrats to learn what the Republican position is.
Once he has explained the portions of Mormon belief that are relevant to the relation between faith and government, he can then point other questions to the Church. These teachings are not the kind of thing that anyone could be expected to see as a basis for conversion, but they ARE a basis for granting Mormons full citizenship as loyal to American ideals of freedom and respect for the Constitution. And explaining them to the public could, I suggest, make Romney’s devotion to both his religion and to conservatism appear as an integrated picture, an honest manifestation of deep conviction.
I can udnerstand that solme of his advisors were reluctant to see him become an explainer of Mormon beliefs on any issue, even if it is the just society, but I think the history of this race has demonstrated that an alternative approach might be worth taking. Romney certainly knows these doctrines backward and forward. He could state them in a way that would be utterly convincing to those who called him “plastic” and lacking in conviction. He can explain how his faith in God also supports his views of public policy, not just his MBA-graduate analysis of the situation. He will be speaking form his heart, and people will recognize it.
whitneyjohnson on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:36 pm #
Dear Lowell —
Thank you for the nod on my op-ed piece, “Romney, Mormons and Me.”
The irony is that I was quite reluctant to submit the piece, and had it not been for Elder Ballard’s call to ‘join the conversation’, I may not have, but this raises another set of questions.
Separately, I appreciate what the reaching across the aisle that you and John are doing with this blog.
My best,
Whitney Johnson
www.whitneyjohnson.com