Article VI Blog

« The “Presbyterian” Romney and The Elephant in the Room | Some Laughs For A Friday »

Continuing The “Presbyterian” Romney Discussion

Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:15 am, February 15th 2008 &mdash 5 Comments »

One of the primary jobs we have had on this blog is to seek and highlight instances of anti-Mormon sentiment and bigotry throughout the Romney campaign. It is very real and it was very effective, and it was wrong. Lowell and I both acknowledge that is was a factor in the campaign. There will be much work for this blog in the future trying to get, as best we can with our limited and non-academic resources, a handle as to how big and how effective a factor it was.

But there is also an important question about how to move things forward from here. One of the things that I am most concerned about both for my Evangelical brethren and my Mormon friends is relegating ourselves to separate, but equally isolated political “ghettos.”

Frankly, I think the perceived ghettoization of Evangelicals goes a long way to explain Huckabee and I fear that too much emphasis on “Mitt lost because he was a Mormon” runs the risk of creating a similar self-fulfilling perception for Mormons who are just now in the process of moving out of an actual imposed ghetto - The Jello Belt. I think this accounts for the difference in viewpoint and emphasis that Lowell and I bring to the question we have been discussing.

To give this a complete view I want to look at three basic concerns: 1) Blacks and The Self-Fulfilling Ghetto; 2) The Perceived Evangelical Ghetto, and 3) The Potential Mormon Ghetto

Blacks and The Self-Fulfilling Ghetto

I recently heard Los Angeles Talk Radio Host Larry Elder discuss his new book with Sean Hannity. His book is entitled “Stupid Black Men: How To Play The Race Card - and Lose.” Here is the Amazon description:

Radio host and bestselling author Larry Elder has made a career out of being a thorn-in-the-side of the conventional wisdom crowd. He deflates the pompous and points out the completely logical truths hidden behind the nutty rhetoric and out-of-control pandering of many of the politicians and so-called leaders of a variety of special interest groups. In Stupid Black Men, he takes on the mind-set that always captures the most media attention—as well as masses of public money—in this country: those who rail against racism as the root of all problems, and who end up hurting precisely those they claim to be helping.

His sometimes hilarious and always infuriating examples of wrong-headedness skewer not just politicians for their smugness and hypocrisy, but also actors, educators, religious leaders and the “mainscream media” for keeping the story in the headlines.

But Elder has a positive message, too: though they are fewer—and generally not as loud-mouthed—there are leaders and role models today who want to sweep away race-based whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great. [Emphasis added.]

The fact of the matter is that for blacks a continued reliance on the politics of race has kept them segregated and denied them the piece of the American Dream they deserve because they demand it rather than earn it. There was a time when blacks were denied even the opportunity to earn, but that time is past.

This is the thing about America - everything is earned. As a democracy we removed the hereditary right to rule - you must earn your place in leadership in this nation. We cannot produce equality of result, we can only produce equality if opportunity, this means we must earn the rest.

Which brings me to . . .

The Perceived Evangelical Ghetto

In the early days of blogging, God bloggers often complained of existing in a “blogging ghetto.” By that they meant they all read each other, but none of them ever broke out an became the next High Hewitt or Instapundit, or Michelle Malkin, or…. That very sentiment carried with it the presumption that someone should have broken out. I never understood the complaint, to be frank.

Christianity Today has no where near the circulation of Time or Newsweek. It never will - it can’t - because it has a specific identity and exists in that niche, and that niche is of limited size. The newsweeklies exist in a much larger niche and therefore have a larger circulation.

The problem is simple, when all you do is hang around with people who are like you and talk about stuff only you all are interested in, you create a ghetto. Is that ghetto imposed on you? Not really, its just that no one else cares about what you care about so much. In such a circumstance you have two choices, really. One start talking about other things so that more and other people will want to join the conversation, or somehow change other people so they want to talk about what you are talking about.

In the case of evangelical political activity, tough as it is to believe, not everyone is as strident on abortion and defense of marriage as we are. We are abortion absolutists, most people are not, they want limits, but not banishment. So, how do we get out of this political ghetto? Well, we can expand our interests to join the rest of the party and thus, by virtue of joining the conversation, be better heard (provided we make our arguments in language other than the language of our ghetto), or we can evangelize the world to be Christians so they think the same as we do. In actuality the answer is probably some of both, but that is not my point. My point is that we stay in the ghetto by virtue of our behavior, by clinging to our evangelical identity above all else.

Mike Huckabee has not helped in this regard at all. His protestations nothwithstanding, - he can even try to play the victim but - Huckabee played to the ghetto. His supporters in many cases were even worse. The problem is exacerbated by how many of us there are. Just enough to have influence, but not enough to carry the day. Huckabee with his cries of “establishment” played to the perception of the ghetto and did so in a way that encouraged us to remain in it rather than break out of it. (Not to mention his getting personal gain from it as we languished.)

Through all this, we not find ourselves at best wallflowers, if not outside of the dance altogether. Evangelicals have to make some choices. We have to broaden our message or we will be stuck in the ghetto, powerless and taken for granted, exactly what Huck claimed to want to save us from.

The Potential Mormon Ghetto

Mormons historically had ghetto imposed on them through persecution, but they have spent the last 130 years or so trying to move back into the mainstream of America. Mormon are idiosyncratic, but then as Martin Marty points out, aren’t we all. There is little doubt that those idiosyncracies were used to trigger old resentments and that hurt the Romney campaign in some places and with some people. The question, as we have said over and over and over, is how many people, how effectively?

Well, in one sense, the answer makes no difference. If people keep claiming that it was all about Romney’s faith, like this student, or this newspaper, or this magazine (even with contrary opinion in the mag’s blog) then the Mormons run the risk of a new, but still self-imposed, ghetto such as blacks have built a whole culture upon, and Evangelicals now risk doing the same.

As when this all started, Evangelicals and Mormons find themselves with far more in common than they have differences. Their political effectiveness at serious risk.

What To Do?

Look at the Larry Elder book blurb above again - What is Elder’s advice to blacks:

…sweep away race-based whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great. [Emphasis added.]

That is, I think good advice for Mormons and Evangelicals.

What we need to do is to grow more sophisticated - to learn better how to do politics. We need to develop a message that appeals to the majority of the American people, but we need to develop it with out giving up our distinctives, our idiosyncracies, or our uniqueness. We can do this. Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder or Ward Connerly did not stop being black when they joined the mainstream of American political and cultural thought; the only people that think so are those who are afraid to leave the ghetto.

We can remain abortion absolutists, for example, but we must be open-minded enough to accept limits as a step in the right direction. But we can only take even those steps if we leave our ghettos and join the party. We are going to be stuck in our ghettos if we keep pointing fingers at each other and naming names. But we can leave our ghettos together by finding our common ground.

This is the reason I am unwilling to grant that the elephant to which Lowell refers is “huge.” If I think that, then I think it is too big to move and I have to stay stuck here in this ghetto. I am not interested in that. I am interested in either moving it out of the way or walking around it. I don’t want to focus on the elephant, I want to focus on the end of the journey.

Lowell adds: I hesitate to tread on John’s well-written and thoughtful post, which I agree with almost 100%, but this seems the best place to contribute (I hope) to the discussion.

I still think the elephant is huge, but as John correctly observes, what’s really important is what we do about it. For Mormons, the teachings of our church could not be clearer. Here are excerpts from a letter read in every Mormon sacrament meeting (the main meeting of the Sunday worship services) in the United States:

“We wish to reiterate the divine counsel that members ‘should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness’ (D&C 58:27) while using gospel principles as a guide and while cooperating with other like-minded individuals. . . .

“Therefore, as in the past, we urge members of the Church to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs. Members of the Church are under special obligations to seek out and then uphold those leaders who are wise, good, and honest (see D&C 98:10).

“Thus, we strongly urge men and women to be willing to serve on school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment, including involvement in the political party of their choice.

“While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are counseled to study the candidates carefully and vote for those individuals they believe will act with integrity and in ways conducive to good communities and good government. Hence, political candidates are asked not to imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders.

“As always, Church facilities may not be used for political purposes, nor Church directories or mailing lists.”

I have been hearing almost those same words regularly all my adult life. It seems to me that for Mormons to retreat in to the “ghetto” mentality to which John refers is contrary to the teachings and beliefs of our church. So John’s counsel (in Larry Elder’s words, to “sweep away . . . whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great”) describe exactly what Mormons should be doing. I can’t see any reason why Evangelicals should not be doing the same thing.

At the same time, there are clearly Evangelicals in this country who don’t want to see Mormons serving on “school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment.” I don’t know what Mormons can do about that except keep trying, and keep extending the hand of friendship and common cause to those who may disagree with us on religious matters. Evangelicals have some work to do on increasing their brethren’s willingness to accept those efforts.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » | Print this post | Email This Post

Recently:

5 Responses to “Continuing The “Presbyterian” Romney Discussion”

fitzwdarcey on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:31 am #

The problem is that John, Lowell, and many like them tried to move the elephant or go around it, and it didn’t work. HOW do we get the elephant out of the way so that we can move forward?

Evangelicals and Mormons have supported the same candidates and causes in the past, and that will continue. However, working together in the future is no indication that the elephant is gone in the sense that it should be just that there isn’t a Mormon candidate or a Huckabee-like candidate, so we get to ignore it until it rears its ugly head again.
CarlH on 15 Feb 2008 at 11:11 am #

Very interesting and valid points–and the focus suggested for the future is spot on. However, from my perspective, there is very little reason to believe that Mormons will, because of what happened during the Romney campaign, retreat to a sort of self-imposed ghetto. At least in this point in its history, Mormonism and LDS culture is too outward-looking and outward-reaching for that. The reaction of the institutional LDS Church to Romney’s withdrawal from the presidential race emphatically says as much.

I think the greater danger among Mormons may be better analogized to the situation of Jews in relation to “Christian America.” With the exception of the most orthodox, Jews are actively and meaningfully engaged with the broader society and culture–even having powerful influence on it. But there is an unfortunate tendency among some Jews to see anti-Semitism and other dangers lurking in places that others simply can’t perceive them. In the current political situation, the LDS run the risk of seeing the world through a filter that assumes an anti-Mormon animus when there is none or through a prism that over-emphasizes a prejudicial element that does exist.

I found it interesting that among John’s examples of “people claiming it was all about Romney’s faith,” it is very likely that only the student article was actually written by a Mormon. (The irony of the Salt Lake Tribune editorializing against religious divisiveness is just too rich for a short commentary!) It clearly is not just the LDS who have observed the force of The Question on the demise of the Romney campaign. One need only look at the comments to many of such on-line articles–even after the Romney beast has been taken down–to see the depth of the animosity that remains in some quarters.
HaroldHutchison on 15 Feb 2008 at 1:09 pm #

Unfortunately, the “ghetto” explanation just does not really explain everything.

The Vanderbilt study is perhaps the biggest item of contradictory evidence I can point to. 57% of evangelicals in that survey have a bias against Mormons. 50% would view a non-Mormon moderate more favorably than a Mormon conservative.

Then there is the admission of Joe Carter: That “flip-flop” would be used as a cover for anti-Mormon bias in this election. In conjuncton with that comment, I cannot help but notice how Mike Huckabee made several dramatic flip-flops (most notably on immigration). So why did Romney have this held against him, while Huckabee got a pass?

Huckabee’s supporters also got a pass for denigrating Mormons in terms that would have been viewed as unacceptable if aimed at immigrants, Jews, Catholics, backs, or any other ethnic or religious group. You could hear the crickets chirping from people who supposedly stand up for people of faith, like James Dobson. Oh wait, didn’t Dobson’s wife try to exclude Mormons from the National Day of Prayer?

Then there is the other anecdotal evidence - the reports of an increase in anti-Mormon sermons in South Carolina in the December preceding the primary, for starters, the stuff that Nancy French came across as she tried to generate support for Mitt Romney.

I think “huge” may be an understatement about the elephant’s size.
texan on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:37 pm #

I think the elephant was big enough to tip the scales.

Although we can’t rewind time to test this hypothesis, I think there’s a credible case that Romney would have been a competitive candidate beyond Super Tuesday without the faith issue.

An Evangelical friend told me that his in-laws had planned to vote for McCain instead of Romney. He asked his in-laws how the religious differences between them and Romney would affect the way Romney would govern, given that Romney’s political positions were closer to theirs than McCain’s were. However, he told me that his in-laws couldn’t get past the fact that Romney is Mormon. My friend then asked me if possibly 1 in 5 Evangelicals - like his in-laws - had voted for one of the other candidates because of Romney being Mormon. Which got me to thinking. So, I did the math….

Let’s assume that in every state, 1 in 5 Evangelicals was nervous about voting for a Mormon and that half of them voted for McCain and the other half voted for Huckabee because of that nervousness. This assumption may not be unreasonable since a survey conducted by BeliefNet showed nearly 1 of 3 Evangelicals admitting Romney’s religious beliefs made them less likely to support him. Anyway, assuming for a moment that this scenario is plausible, and assuming that 1 in 5 Evangelicals - instead of avoiding Romney because of his religion - had actually voted for him, what difference would that have made?

Romney would have won Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, which would have made it rather unnecessary for him to pull out of the race. Is it possible that 1 in 5 Evangelicals found it easier to see good qualities in the other candidates than in Romney because Romney is Mormon?

In fact, we wouldn’t even have to assume that 1 in 5 Evangelicals in every state walked away from Romney because of religion. If Romney had merely siphoned away 7.5% of the Evangelical vote from Huckabee and had only succeeded in doing that in the state of Iowa, Romney would have won in Iowa. Instead of Romney holding the delegate lead from January 5th until the Florida primary, Romney would have held the delegate lead from January 3rd until the Florida primary. Is it possible that the media would have actually noticed Romney was the front-runner if he had led in delegates beginning with the 1st state instead of - as actually happened - having led beginning with the 2nd state and maintaining that lead until Florida? In this scenario, Huckabee would have secured zero wins before Super Tuesday. And, if that had happened, the Huckabee campaign may well have fizzled before it could ever take off.

In an election where Romney was polling so close to McCain nationally that Romney would have been within 1% of McCain in the delegate count if delegates were allocated proportionally, how could religion not have been enough to tip the balance? (I’m not making an argument here for proportional allocation of delegates, I’m just observing that when dealing with scales that weigh people, perhaps we don’t need a Guinness-Book-of-Records-sized elephant to tip the balance).

How else does a successful executive, popular governor, and Olympic rescuer who has a well-financed campaign and has three home states (born in Michigan, governed in Massachusetts, and rescued the Olympics in Utah, where he polled well among Mormons and non-Mormons) only last through Super Tuesday?

In a race with anti-Mormon push polling, in a race with pastors and religious activists jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon and even providing Biblical arguments against voting for a Mormon, in a race with Huckabee making his innocent snipe at Mormonism, in a race with the media having a field day - even without Huckabee’s help - regarding undergarments and the historic practice of polygamy, in a race in which a large portion of the population (Evangelical and non-Evangelical alike) expressed reservations about a Mormon in the White House (more than expressed reservations about a woman or an African-American in the White House), how could religion not have been a deciding factor?

Why does this question matter? I fear that if we don’t acknowledge that religious prejudice has consequences and has become one of the last bastions of socially acceptable prejudice, we will collectively remain comfortably seated, endlessly watching remakes (though a different denomination may be cast in the starring role next time).

As John and Lowell have tried to size up this elephant, one of the side-effects was leaving behind a case study that an Evangelical and a Mormon can work together a long time and still be respectful when they disagree on a sensitive topic. Maybe there’s hope that we can avoid those remakes that Santayana warned us about…
coltakashi on 17 Feb 2008 at 4:27 pm #

The existence of anti-Mormon prejudice is acknowledged by everyone. The only question is, how large is the constituency for it and how resistant is it to persuasion in favor of a Mormon candidate? The fact that many Evangelicals were willing to vote for Romney, and that a good number of Evangelicals of prominence were willing to endorse him, or even say good things about him, is encouraging. There are reasons to think that it is a definite minority of Evangelicals whose prejudice against Mormons is so strong as to overwhelm all other considerations in voting for a candidate. Let’s say it is texan’s 20%. Where does that put us?

Since elections are always contests between people who try to appear attractive to voters, a margin of evangelical voters of 20%, which may translate into 10% of the electorate in some states, is enough to swing the margin 20%, ensuring that a Mormon candidate could not win in such a state. It clears things up if we ask ourselves, on a state-by-state basis, whether a Mormon could be elected to Congress or to a statewide office like governor in each state. It is far more likely that a Mormon could be elected president before he could be elected governor of Alabama, because the national population dilutes the influence of Evangelicals in general and those who are prejudiced against Mormons in particular. No one realistically maintains that, short of some kind of miracle, a Mormon could be elected governor or senator in most southern states.

Since Southern states have substantial black populations, it seems likely to me that it is more probable that a black candidate could be elected to statewide office in those Southern states before a Mormon could win. since Mormons don’t have any substantial indigenous support. Even then, we would admit it would be surprising to see black politicians elected as governor or senator with any frequency. Even thought the vast majority of voters in the South are probably willing to consider a black candidate, the persistence of a small prejudiced minority is all it takes to line up against black candidate and deny him or her an office.

The only way to neutralize the race factor in an election in a Southern state would be if all the candidates for an office were black. Then the prejudiced would have to either line up on some other basis or avoid voting.

Similarly, the only way to be sure that anti-Mormon prejudice was not playing any role in a presidential campaign would be if all the candidates were Mormon.

Given that the marginal anti-Mormonism will likely be around for some time, the only way to overcome it is if there is very strong support for a Mormon candidate, so that the entrenched opposition is overwhelmed. A Mormon will have to be twice as good as any other candidate to simply win consistent pluralities and majorities.

This is simply a fact of life for Latter-day Saints. It does not mean that they as church members or the LDS Church itself are affected significantly. Mormons are just beginning to reach a population in the US that is significant politically on a regional scale, though not nationally. In 20 years there will be about twice as many Mormons in the US, many of them among Hispanic and other minority groups. There will be other Mormons who rise to prominence in government and business and the military. But the Church itself does not need to have a Mormon president to advance its own religious goals, it just needs a condition of freedom of religion. It is more important for the LDS Church to have Mormons get elected to Congress and to state governorships than to the presidency, in order to ensure that Congress does not view Mormons as religious aliens who can be discriminated against in law with impunity, the way it was done for 30 years from 1860 to 1890. And if one of them is able to go from there to compete for the presidency, that is OK, but not in any way essential to the LDS Church.

So the faltering of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is not a tragedy for Mormons. It is a tragedy for America, in losing the services of a man who is good and wise.