Romney In A Box
The book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin is one of those “inside the campaign” books that is both fascinating and gossipy all at the same time. But the purpose of this post is not to review the book. Chapter 6 of that book has the intriguing title “Barack in a Box” which we have here borrowed. In that chapter is this most insightful paragraph:
The debates fed a narrative that was becoming pervasive in the press: Edwards was running on bold ideas (universal health care, a new war on poverty); Hillary was the mistress of the nitty-gritty; and Obama was a lightweight, all sizzle and no steak. This is what the media did—it put every candidate in a neat little box and slapped a pithy label on it. Obama understood. But for the past three years, as the press fawned over him, the box he was stuffed into bore a succession of tags that were flattering and advantageous. New. Fresh. Inspiring. Post-racial. He’d never had a negative run of press on the national level, and therefore never developed the kind of thick protective hide that repelled the media’s slings and arrows.
[Emphasis added.] There is little question, as we discussed in our review of campaign ’08, that the box Romney was most stuffed into was labeled “Mormon.” As Romney has begun, with his book tour, to reemerge publicly, some in the press are continuing with that narrative, as we saw in yesterday’s review of the coverage. Due to Mike Huckabee’s deliberate attempts to box in Evangelicals, being stuffed in the “Mormon” box harmed Romney significantly in ’08.
Questions:
- Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?
- What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?
- Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?
- Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful? Assume one or both are in?
- Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause? What would those steps be?
We are interested in our readers’ input here. Comments on this blog are subject to moderation, which means they may not get up for a while as your moderators have limited time to check. This post should appear on our Facebook fan page within 24 hours (although at this moment the Facebook servers seems to be a bit behind) and there comment is immediate and unmoderated, though limited by size. Either place, let us know what you think. Answer these questions and any others that may come up in the course of the discussion.
Lowell adds . . .
Since John posed the questions, I guess I can try to answer them. (It would be bad form for John to answer himself.) Here goes:
- Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?
I think they will because for so many of the liberal members of the MSM, Romney’s religion is important because he is conservative. They do not manifest any concern over any liberal politician’s religion. Example: Harry Reid, Romney’s fellow Mormon.
- What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?
His only hope is to continue to respond patiently that his religion doesn’t matter to the American people, which he has been doing for years now. I certainly do not think any overt effort, like The Speech, will be necessary. I think such a step would attract attention to, and legitimize the issue.
- Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?
See comments above.
-
Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful? Assume one or both are in?
If neither is in, then I think the issue is almost neutralized. If one of them is in, it will be present, if for not other reason than that “The Question” is like catnip to the MSM and the blogosphere if there is an Evangelical-Mormon divide they can write about.
-
Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause? What would those steps be?
Hard to imagine what the Church could do without making things worse for everyone. But that’s just my opinion, and I the Church never consults me. (Very wise of them.)
And, in the words of Forrest Gump, “That’s what I have to say about that.”
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Thursday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath on 11 Mar 2010 at 7:30 am #
[...] Candidates and boxes. [...]
Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e109v4 on 11 Mar 2010 at 7:33 am #
[...] Candidates and boxes. [...]
ltngroup on 11 Mar 2010 at 9:58 am #
I agree with Lowell on practically every answer he gave. I’m not sure that Palin will have much effect at all if she’s in but Huckabee is not. If Huckabee is in, there’s no question in my mind that it will get big.
I don’t think the CJCLDS will do anything directly involved with Romney… but just continue to try and clarify their story. The most adamant haters of the Mormons seem to be those with the least knowledge about them. A difficult task, at best, progress is made only very slowly and somewhat quietly… you can’t shout down the hordes that are on the www.
“And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.”
coltakashi on 11 Mar 2010 at 3:04 pm #
I agree with Lowell that ANYTHING the LDS Church says about Romney or issues related to his candidacy can be construed by enemies of the Mormons as confirming Church influence on Romney and a formal endorsement of him.
On the other hand, I disagree with John and Lowell’s previous statements that oppose Romney talking in depth about his Mormon faith. He took that approach all through the last campaign, and it did little good. The speech he gave about freedom of religion did not deal directly with the fear of some people that Mormons want him to become president so they can use him to exercise influence over Americans.
The other criticism, which is related to his Mormon membership and the notion that “Mormons lie” promulgated by some of his critics, is that he is “too good to be true”, a plastic candidate who is not sincere and should not be accepted at face value.
I think the only effective way Romney can address BOTH the “scary Mormons” and the “plastic candidate” notions effectively is through a direct and specific statement in response to questions, NOT as part of a formal speech, where he can be spontaneous and be subject to cross examination by the news media. For many Americans, “Mormon” is a black box whose contents they don’t know, and are therefore suspicious of. Romney will only overcome their anxiety by putting something specific and positive in that box, so that when people think about it Romney and Mormonism, they will understand that it is an asset and not a liability for him. And what Romney should say is this (of course, in his own words, and spontaneously, and adapted to the occasion and the audience):
“I AM a Mormon, and I will always be a Mormon, even though some people think it is a political liability for me to be so positive about my religious faith. I was raised a Mormon where I grew up in Michigan, I came to believe for myself that what my parents taught me is true, and I have devoted a substantial part of my life, as a local leader of Mormons in Boston, and especially as a husband and a father and grandfather, trying to live up to my beliefs and share them with those close to me. And let me tell you what that means to me as I run for president.
“As a Mormon, I believe that the United States has a special place in God’s providence, a place of special blessings and special accountability. It is a role that the Declaration of Independence speaks of when it says that our rights are gifts from our Creator. Lincoln spoke of America’s role in his Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address, both inscribed on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial. The US is directly responsible for bringing about the freedom of half the world, through its actions especially in World War II and the Cold War, and it has served as the example for aspiring democracies around the world, for whom our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are almost sacred models for how to ensure that the people rule the government, and not vice versa.
“As a Mormon, I believe that God wants full freedom of religion, and religious tolerance for our neighbors, so that each man or woman is free to live his or her beliefs to the fullest extent possible. Neither religions nor governments should control each other. When government power and religious establishments mix, you get tyrannical government and ungodly religion. As a Mormon, I will do everything I can to ensure that your freedom to believe and worship as you choose is protected against government interference.
“As a Mormon, I believe that no political party and no political candidate has a monopoly on God’s favor. God has given us political and religious freedom so we can be free to work together, despite our differences, and each bring to our society the gift of our own diverse viewpoints, along with the tolerance for the views of others, political, religious, and otherwise.
“As a Mormon, I believe each man and woman is born with a conscience that helps us judge right from wrong, and that democracy allows us to collectively use our best judgment to choose right and wrong for our communities, states and nation.
“As a Mormon, I believe that any leader, to please God, must avoid coercion, and instead depend on what we call ‘gentleness, and meekness, and love unfeigned’. That is how leadership in our church is done, since it is staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers who rotate in and out of positions of leadership. And all of my church’s members are volunteers who join and remain voluntarily. And I believe that, in a democracy like America, leadership is most essentially the same thing, a matter of persuading your fellow citizens to agree with you, to vote for you and with you, to have faith in the collective good judgment of the American people. No one has an entitlement to leadership because of wealth, or family, or education, or church affiliation. The people choose their own leaders.
“As a Mormon, I believe there are good men and women of every religious heritage who can serve as our public servants in any office of responsibility. There are Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus, Christians of every kind, and those who claim no religious faith or affiliation, who have faith in democracy and in the ability of Americans to collectively, through our votes, choose a path of justice and fairness for America through the rest of the 21st Century.
“I hope you share that faith in America and our fellow Americans.”
Doug King on 12 Mar 2010 at 6:32 pm #
I like the “Yes, I’m Mormon and proud of it!” tone of Col Takashi’s suggested speech but political candidates should not give the impression they speak for all members of their faith. Imagine Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, and Glen Beck debating health care and each using the phrase, “As a Mormon I think…” These are ambitious, strong-minded individuals who happen to be Mormon, but I’m not aware any claimed his political views were driven by the LDS church.
Americans are rightly uncomfortable mixing theology and politics. That’s why the media’s putting any religious label on a candidate’s “box” is patently unfair.
I do think it appropriate for LDS public figures to mention how their faith influenced their resolve to practice civic virtues, such as “being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous” and “doing good to all men.” And/or to say something like: “As a member of a religious minority, the First Amendment protection of religious freedom and expression are extremely important to me because…” Also describe about how his religious upbringing influenced his attitude towards government and the law.
Some non-Mormons fear a sinister connection between Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City and the Oval Office. These fears are unceasingly manipulated by political opponents of LDS candidates and anti-Mormon ministries. Kennedy resolved similar fears in his day by secularizing himself as President in his 1960 speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. That was a great speech, and I think Romney would need to reaffirm the principles outlined by Kennedy. I think it gets down to what the Presidential Oath of Office means, and the importance of “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (In my lifetime, I’ve seen one President resign in disgrace and another impeached and disbarred because they broke the law.)
Did Not Take Long For Things To Get Really Ugly… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 15 Mar 2010 at 5:29 am #
[...] Comments Doug King on Romney In A Boxcoltakashi on Romney In A Boxltngroup on Romney In A BoxStones Cry Out – If they keep silent… [...]