A few thoughts on the “but he’s a Mormon” meme
USA today ran a long article today on Romney’s efforts to position himself for 2012. It’s a fairly thorough piece, but these two paragraphs (not surprisingly) caught our eye:
Romney’s 323-page book is laced with lists and policy prescriptions — three “pillars,” 14 priority points, 64 agenda items — that focus mostly on the economy and national security. He defends the Bay State health care plan and argues it differs in fundamental ways from the one congressional Democrats have drafted, noting that it didn’t include a tax increase or government-run plan.
But he doesn’t discuss his conversion from supporting abortion rights while running in his home state to opposing them when he sought national office. Nor does he try to explain or defend his Mormon faith, an issue in 2008.
(Emphasis added.) It is interesting – and significant, I think – that the reporter, Susan Page, apparently considers Romney’s Mormonism a significant omission from his book, which is about public policy. She also equates his religious faith with his past position on abortion, as if both things were of the same importance. But abortion is also a matter of public policy. Ms. Page’s treatment of both subjects suggests that she thinks each one is politically embarrassing to Romney.
I wonder if this is a harbinger of coming MSM treatment of the issue.
John Chimes in…
OK – maybe I spoke too soon yesterday when I said there was no religion chatter. In addition to the USAToday piece that Lowell cites above, Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government site had this to say:
As for Romney’s weakness, besides his Mormonism which may again hurt him nationally, the fact of the matter is that this is a Governor that implemented a state-run healthcare system.
OK, so there is some religion chatter, but it is a of a very different tenor than last time. Both these mentions of religion make mention of 2008 as if to say, “It was such fun last time, let’s not let it go.” Note that in both cases the mentions are asides. By this time last cycle we had detailed and heavily researched articles from Terry Eastland and Amy Sullivan.
It’s too early to say if we are seeing a template for how it will be discussed, but it seems reasonable. The left wing media, not wanting to get their bell rung as bigots, are going to discuss policy, and mention religion – just evoke the emotion from last cycle. But I think its a losing way to approach it, the near universal revulsion at Obama’s policy initiatives and the continued high rates of unemployment are just going to make people read over this stuff in a effort to get to the central issues.
There is one other thing that I think bears mention – These mentions come from reporters, not analysts, not pundits, not columnists. In the world of journalism there are people that report and people that set the agenda. Reporters are good people that do good work, but its the agenda setters that make me worried.
Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
kgbudge on 22 Feb 2010 at 9:19 pm #
I think the reason for the relatively light mention of Romney’s Mormonism is that the reporters assume it’s a given that, if Romney ever starts to look serious, his Mormonism need but be mentioned and he’s toast as a candidate.
I wish I was sure they were wrong.
I think Romney would make an excellent president, better than anyone else I see out there right now, but I don’t think he has any real chance. He is anti-Teflon — everything sticks — and I think his Mormonism is the reason for it. John, you touch on this with the observation you’ve made in the past on the “Mormons lie” meme. You see it in the awful comment section for that Albuquerque Tribune article.
Lori on 22 Feb 2010 at 10:19 pm #
Why is it that reporters would think he needs to defend his faith or that his faith may hurt him and it not occur to them to condemn those attitudes as bigotry? Why should anyone have to defend their faith? Its a free country, is it not? We are a pluralistic society when it comes to religion are we not? No person of any faith should be shut out of participation in government, right? So how can those who think of themselves as so enlightened as to correctly analyze the mind of voters are so unenlightened as to attribute to voters such horrible un-American sentiments? I think they are projecting their own sentiments upon voters without recognizing the outrage of such prejudice. If its brought up at all it should ALWAYS be accompanied with a show of disgust toward those who persecute and oppose a statesman and upright citizen because of his religion.
Everytime I read about it, it smacks of voter manipulation; that reporters think they need to remind us all what Romney’s faith is, and try to convince us that Mormonism should and ought to be a problem. To bring it up when there is no valid reason, no direct relationship to the main topic is in itself religious persecution. To keep the focus on something that is irrelevant to the article, or to the qualifications for office strikes me as conniving and manipulative. I cannot stand these attempts at voter-tampering.
coltakashi on 23 Feb 2010 at 1:37 pm #
If Romney’s book had discussed his religious beliefs, he would have had to go into some depth to make himself understood correctly, especially since there is such abysmal ignorance among Americans, and even more so among most Americans who write book reviews. And since he would have presented Mormonism in a positive light, the same people criticizing him for NOT talking about Mormonism would be complaining that his book was really a subterfuge to convert people to Mormonism. Not to mention the professional anti-Mormons who would attack every positive statement about Mormonism and Mormons with one of the standard misrepresentations.
Of course, the rabid Anti-Mormons will still attack Romney’s book as an underhanded attempt to get Americans to think like Mormons do (whatever that is). I offer as Exhibit A the letter that syndicated radio DJ “Delilah” sent to all the parents of children who attend her own children’s private school in Seattle, attacking the school’s adoption of a leadership training program because it was developed by Dr. Stephen Covey, a Mormon–whose leadership training programs such as “The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People” have been used by Fortune 500 companies and the US military for decades. Delilah attacked pernicious “Mormon” ideas like “Seek to understand, then to be understood”–heavens, where would Americans be if EVERYONE adopted that notion? No one could confidently rely on their ignorance about minorities like Mormons, Jews and Muslims to justify their own religious bigotry.
Romney Returns To The Public Eye, Religion and Law – More… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 04 Mar 2010 at 5:55 am #
[...] A few thoughts on the “but he’s a Mormon” meme [...]