Mitt Romney as “Mormon of the Year?” Why?
A Mormon-oriented website has named Mitt Romney Mormon of the Year. I must admit that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have mixed emotions about this. Bear with me while I explain, because I have both personal and philosophical questions.
The web site, Times and Seasons, notes that in 2008, “Romney concluded the most credible presidential campaign of any Mormon to date.” Personally, I wish that we Mormons could be a little less self-conscious about the achievements of our members.
An analogy: I think it was Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach, who didn’t want his players celebrating in the end zone after scoring touchdowns. “Act like you’ve been there before,” he is reported to have said.
I concede that regarding the presidency, we Mormons haven’t “been there,” but Lombardi’s advice still applies: We should act like the people we are. We are no longer a small, struggling, persecuted sect. We are the fourth-largest religious denomination in the USA and our members are sprinkled throughout American society.
Too often, however, we act like a small, struggling, persecuted sect.
We shouldn’t. We shouldn’t act surprised or bemused that one of our co-religionists actually became governor of Massachusetts (of all states) and was a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination. We have been there before, in the person of George Romney.
I also wonder how Mitt Romney feels about being named Mormon of the Year. I have a hunch he would rather be seen as a national political leader who happens to be a Mormon, instead of a Mormon who happens to be a national political leader. But that’s just me.
Philosophically, I suppose identity politics are unavoidable, but I am hard-pressed to think of a president who won because he ran as a member of an identity group. (President-elect Obama worked very hard not to run as an African-American candidate, and did not do so, in my opinion.)
In short, winners don’t think that way.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- A Complete Breakdown in the Religion/Politics Line
- Obama’s Policies and Religious Issues
- The Price Of Being Who We Are
- This IS Interesting
- Here’s Something to Talk About Over The Weekend
- Is History Doomed To Repetition?
- Go Join The Discussion
- Recall Jerry Brown? And Yet Another Mormon Hit Piece
- Weekend Reading
- Proof - Biased Media
5 Responses to “Mitt Romney as “Mormon of the Year?” Why?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
fitzwdarcey on 09 Jan 2009 at 9:50 am #
This Mormon thinks that is distasteful. Yuck.
ScottK on 09 Jan 2009 at 12:55 pm #
Thanks for the perfect response to the Times and Seasons recognition of Romney. I never knew there was such a thing as “Mormon of the Year” until I read this and I am a lifelong member of the church. Good grief.
kgbudge on 09 Jan 2009 at 3:41 pm #
I think he has more character than that.
In the end, when we stand before God, I believe that being a good Mormon is going to count more than being a good President.
CarlH on 09 Jan 2009 at 4:54 pm #
Lowell’s comments pretty much mirror my feelings about this (and it is no surprise to me that the Salt Lake Tribune is ringing the dinner bell on this “story”). But my immediate reaction was:
“Yikes, what was Times and Seasons thinking?”
The idea of naming a “Mormon of the Year” has enough problems springing from the label alone, but to then suggest that the “honoree” is really the Mormon who made the most news, or even had the “greatest impact on Mormons and Mormonism” during the year, is only to highlight the problem. If the criteria is the first, then call him/her “Mormon Newsmaker of the Year” (which would have solved a lot of the objections, IMO), and if it’s the latter–especially when they explicitly leave open the door for adverse “impact”–the problem with their chosen designation should have been immediately apparent.
klarsen on 09 Jan 2009 at 5:40 pm #
I’m not sure that we at Times and Seasons quite agree. I realize that the standard assumption here is that Mormon of the Year is some kind of award or honor. That isn’t what we think this is about.
In our view, it is merely a recognition of the impact, for good or ill, that Romney had. This is not an attempt to say that he is better than anyone else, or worse than anyone else. It is also not an attempt to point out how Mormons are doing great things or something. When it comes right down to it, I think it is just as possible that a Mormon who has had a large impact because of something bad he did will be so named. Its the impact that counts, not what they did.
This is the first year that we have made this recognition. Next year the Mormon of the Year will be someone else, undoubtedly, and we’ll see how people react then.
I really don’t see this as much different from any of the hundreds of similar recognitions that happen in the media at this time of year.