Byron York opens the 2012 discussion on “the Mormon factor”
Byron York
Pundits have been talking about the 2012 Republican field for some time now. I’m not sure Byron York is the first major political soothsayer to mention Romney’s religion in the new presidential election cycle, but he’s surely one of the first. Near the end of an otherwise policy-oriented Washington Examiner column on Romney’s activities, York tacks on this paragraph:
There’s also no way to know whether the Mormon factor will again come into play. In 2008, some evangelicals rejected Romney on the basis of his religion, even after he gave a much-publicized speech on the role of faith in his life and in politics. That might still be an issue next time around.
Does the expression “short shrift” come to mind? Or maybe “understatement?” Both do for me, but I can’t really blame Byron York. His comment is accurate as far as it goes, and to York’s credit, in the 2008 cycle he always seemed most interested in policy issues and paid little attention to Romney’s faith. In fact, I always felt that York considered “the Mormon factor” a distraction. It is inevitable that the subject will come up. What we don’t know yet is whether 2012 will be a replay of 2008 (a very depressing thought), or if the news media and the electorate will move on, at least to come extent.
Note: Jennifer Rubin managed to write about the race, with prominent mention of Romney, without bringing up religion. Kudos to her. She’s a fine conservative thinker, so maybe there’s hope for the rest of the group.
I will succumb to the temptation to prognosticate just a bit.
- As John has written, politically conservative Evangelicals are in danger of isolating themselves from the rest of conservatism. (For the record, I do not want to see them do that, if the majority of them want to play a constructive role and will resist the temptation to take their ball and go home.) This will continue unless some leader steps forward who can pull them in a different direction.
- Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with. I cannot see her playing the Mormon card. I have no idea how viable she will really be in 2012, but religious conservatives love her and will pay attention to what she says. She may well be the leader I wish for above.
- Huckabee will be so busy fighting for his political life against Palin that he may not be able to play that card at all without looking terribly small and desperate. (He looked that way in 2008 too, but he’s already shown he’s capable of blazing new trails of smallness and desperation.)
Beyond that I can’t predict anything, other than that it’s going to be an interesting ride. But you already knew that.
John comments: At this point I am not sure Palin will run, not at all sure. In two recent and highly unscientific polls at Instapundit she blew away the field, but she has no organization to speak of. The Values Voters Summit is a MUST for her and she did not show. She has a huge fan base, but in terms of political insiders – people that matter – I just do not see a “camp” forming around her. She is falling behind the curve rapidly. Her family situation is such that she needs to make some serious money. She was in Hong Kong speaking during the VVS, getting paid serious money. She cannot make that kind of coin as a candidate. That looks like her priority at the moment. In this environment, coming to the game late will likely put her out altogether.
I do not think she is necessary to make the Huckster look small and desperate. He is very capable of that himself, and doing a pretty good job so far. The isolation of some conservative Evangelicals is inevitable and the Huckster will lead that parade. Fortunately, in terms of numbers, it is not that many Evangelicals. Only problem is they will take the label with them.
That crowd will only be a problem for Romney if the press enables it. They should be ashamed for the way they handled it last time, and I think those that are not completely in the bag for the left (there are a few) are so ashamed. Question is, how do we make the rest of the press feel it?
Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 29 Sep 2009 at 2:56 pm #
If Romney being a Mormon is part of the story, and the prejudice of many people toward Mormons is part of the story, why isn’t the fact that such prejudice is unworthy of a seat at the table in American political discourse part of the story? Why not reports about how the criticisms of Mormons are generally false, and are unworthy of anyone claiming to be Christian and a follower of the author of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?
The claim by those who pass along anti-Mormon gossip, that it must be published because it is “news”, demonstrates their hypocrisy because they never publish the very real story of the animus toward Mormons that would never be given credence if it concerned Catholics or Jews or Muslims.
The fact is that critics of Mormons know for sure one thing about Mormons: they do not retaliate against those who attack them. There is a marked contrast here with the news media treatment of Muslims and Islam. When a Danish magazine printed a few innocuous cartoons making fun of Muslim terrorists, the Muslim response was to riot and kill and threaten even more. As a result, most US newspapers and magazines refused to carry any of the cartoons, or even describe them, leaving the impression that the violent Muslim response was somehow justified by outrageous insults that were so offensive they could not be published in the US. Yet that was a false impression. Every day, cartoons said far worse things about George W. Bush. The dedication of US print media to free speech and free press were utterly lacking in the face of fears of violent reaction from radical Muslims (who endorsed the 9/11 attacks). The same Stockholm syndrome, of being in thrall to abusers, was manifest in the CNN Baghdad bureau, where horrific stories of the sadistic depradations of Saddam Hussein against his own citizens were daily suppressed.
But Mormons are taught to turn the other cheek, to bless those that curse them, and pray for them that spitefully use them and persecute them. So journalists know that Mormons are a safe target. They can denounce Mormons as a threat to the Republic, precisely because Mormons would never actually threaten anyone. And thus many journalists reveal their true character, as timid bullies.
Sadly, the same phenomenon of bigotry being given freest rein against those least deserving of it is also true of many of the news stories about believing and practicing Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. Journalistic prejudice against Evangelicals is not quite as virulent as against Mormons, but it is a strong runner-up. A detailed survey published a year ago about religion in academia showed that Mormons were the most disliked religious group by college professors, but Evangelicals were not far behind. My guess is that the data for journalists would be very similar.
Article VI Blog » And They’re Off… on 01 Oct 2009 at 5:46 am #
[...] amongst the punditry and political watchers is starting to get quite serious indeed. And with it, The Question gets asked again. When it comes to the GOP side of things, [...]
Article VI Blog » Friends of Friends, The “Invisible Primary,” Religious Discrimination and more on 08 Oct 2009 at 6:43 am #
[...] Told you I did not think she was running. [...]