Couldn’t It Wait Until December?
Tradition has it that the presidential election cycle unofficially begins after the mid-terms – but not this time. As a massive move towards the GOP seems more and more apparent in the mid-terms, people’s minds are turning to what that means in terms of POTUS 2012. That’s not entirely unreasonable, but given that Romney remains firmly in the mix, what is unreasonable is that the Mormon shots are starting to abound. I really thought we’d be over it this cycle, but if the sheer number of hits our many internet-combing robots are getting is any indication, it’s not going to be pretty. The discussion currently really has four epicenters -
The Idiot, Bill Keller…
I am through being civil with this guy, he’s just a media whore, pure and simple. He never comes up unless he puts out a press release which he did this week. This time he is attacking Beck, not Romney, but it is just more of same. Needless to say, this bit of stuff stuck to the bottom our our shoes was picked up and passed on. Keller’s antics would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic – and predictable.
Seems like any time there is a media storm surrounding a widely known Mormon, Romney in 2008 and Beck now, Keller starts putting out his press releases and trying to gin up some new names on his mailing list so he can continue to solicit donations.
In this instance, he charges Beck with “lying” because Mormonism itself is a lie. Rarely have I seen such a myopic, self-absorbed, needless to say self-aggrandizing, view of belief and faith. By definition people believe their faith to be true, which means all others are false. Until a specific faith can be proven true (now there is a tall order) a claim like Keller’s defies reason.
From this point forward, unless he takes a specific shot at Romney that makes sense, Keller is Persona Non Grata around here. I am embarrassed that most people think he and I are of the same faith.
The Financial Times…
…did a piece on the changing face of Mormonism. (registration required) The piece is not all bad, but it fails to even directly pose, let alone answer, the essential question that lies at its heart. The article is about the amazing success being enjoyed by many Mormons in many fields of endeavor. But in its early stages it talks about Romney’s religion problems in ’08. It demands that one ask, “Why are Mormons so successful at so many things, but NOT at running for POTUS?”
Of course, if we could answer that the country would likely be in a very different place than it is at the moment.
The Discussion Around the Boston Globe Piece Continues…
We talked about it last week, but typically it takes people a while to catch up to us. A Mormon I have never heard of thinks the proposed strategy makes sense. Meanwhile, Mark Silk seems to think it’s all wrong. Silk’s analysis discounts a number of pertinent factors like the Tea Party movement and the fact that people can, and likely will in the current climate, have a very different idea about what matters in the next election cycle.
Silk is right that the Romney campaign has to acknowledge the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, but to ask Mormons not to call themselves Christians is simply to ask too much. That is like saying, “I’ll vote for a socialist provided they don’t really believe that stuff.”
Evangelical numbers remain impressive, but they are not going to be concentrating on social issues next cycle.
David Frum Makes Trouble…
Of course, that in and of itself is hardly news. He starts by putting forth Jon Huntsman as “the Mormon.“ – Old, tired, not buying it. Huntsman took himself out of the hunt (pun intended) when he took the China ambassador job. Do you honestly think anyone that has worked for Barack Obama is going to get the Republican nomination in 2012? Be real!
But then Frum had to go and call out Mike Huckabee. He specifically called out the Huckster for his use of religion last time:
Faith-based politics is fine. But Huckabee’s support in 2008 often seemed sectarian. He says his words were taken out of context, but at least once in the campaign he seemed to criticize Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. This too-narrow religious appeal offended not only many American Mormons, but also a much larger group, Catholics, who readily inferred: “Huckabee, a Baptist, seems to disapprove of Mormonism as non-Christian. What must he think of us?”
This, unsurprisingly, drew a rise out of Huckabee – who deigned to write Frum personally. EFM has tackled the facts pretty well and later added more to the mix.
Given the vitriolic reaction we have seen on this blog from former Huckabee staffers, and now Huckabee’s personal response to similar accusations, it seems to me that Huckabee wants to do whatever he can to try and erase the record of his obvious playing of the religion card in Iowa in 2008. The inherent dishonesty in such efforts is what really gets under my skin. Instead of owning up to the mistake – the Huckster “apologizes” but denies he really did anything wrong. We analyzed this completely when we did our review of the 2008 cycle.
That’s a lot of Romney/Mormon stuff when the mid-term general is just heating up – a whole lot. One must wonder if it is the issue in its death throes or a portent of things to come. If one analyzes the sources for the noise, one sees that the trouble seems to be coming from the left – Huckabee did not raise the issue, he tried to run away from it – Frum caused the stir.
I think what we are seeing is this – Romney is rapidly emerging as presumptive. If it was entirely a party insider vote, it’d be done. The only reason there is a window for others is the party insiders are concerned about whether they can convince the rank-and-file on Romney. Romney’s credentials on the economy are overwhelmingly good – no one comes close. The economy is likely to be issue #1 come 2012 which puts Obama in a very precarious position against Romney. The left wants to kill a Romney candidacy before there really is one because they only have a chance in ’12 if the Republican candidate is not Romney.
So, I think we are going to see a lot of Mormon stuff this cycle, but I think it is going to be more like what we expected last cycle. It’s going to emanate almost entirely from the left in an effort to stir up divisions on our side. This is why the proposed Romney strategy of more-or-less punting the hardcore social conservative vote makes a great deal of sense. If Romney pursues that group he emphasizes a division the other side wants to open up – a division he wants to close. Better to operate as the presumptive and let them come alongside because they will have little choice if they want a seat at the table.
So, watch the sources when the issue arises, chances are it will be nutbars like Keller or lefties. Look for Huckabee to keep his head low on the issue, but watch the undercurrent (comments, etc.) Look for lefties to be making comments on the internet where ever they can, trying to stir the issue, and they will pose as Republicans to do it. Call them out and fight back.
Meanwhile, In Other Romney News…
A bunch of very left-leaning Republicans are “wishy-washy” on Romney. So where’s the news there?
And this headline just warms my heart:
Romney, Dobson help Hoekstra in Mich. gov. race
I really do like seeing those names linked. Now, if we can just keep Dobson from stepping on himself….
PALIN!…
…For RNC Chair makes an enormous amount of sense to me. She is just not a serious candidate, but she is a valuable political asset to our side. Polarizing? Yeah, as a candidate, but as party chair she could solidify a link between the party and the Tea Party. Her fund raising capability is enormous. Polarization is also energy and that is a large part of what a party chair is supposed to do – generate energy in the party. This idea strikes me as allowing us to get the best of what Sarah Palin has to offer while being able to largely ignore her weaknesses.
Steele has to go and hiring Palin has all the plus side stuff Howard Dean offered the Dems without the foot-in-mouth disease.
General God Stuff…
“On Faith” asks a question only a non-believer could ask.
The Dalai Lama, who just celebrated his 75th birthday, often refers to the ‘oneness’ of all religions, the idea that all religions preach the same message of love, tolerance and compassion. Historians Karen Asmstrong and Huston Smith agree that major faiths are more alike than not.
But in his new book “God is not One,” religion scholar and On Faith panelist Steve Prothero says views by the Dalai Lama, Armstrong and Smith that all religions “are different paths to the same God” is untrue, disrespectful and dangerous.
Who’s right? Why?
As we discussed above, believers must, by definition believe in the bottom-line truth of their faith, and therefore the less-than-truth status of others. Otherwise, they do not truly believe what they claim to believe. The idea that “all religion is the same” is designed not to do away with religious conflict, but to do away with religion itself. That’s part of what makes American truly unique – we want and cherish religious conflict (within civil bounds) as we seek to live together with our different convictions. We know we are better people for it and better people make a better nation.
Sadly, some people are far more overt in their efforts to remove religion.
This is ugly. It is also what we seek to avoid on the national level.
Posted in Electability, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 11 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:44 pm #
John, thanks again for an insightful and comprehensive survey of the activity out in the realm of ideas that is relevant to your topic.
The Financial Times article is largely accurate in what it says (except for details like the fact that missionaries write letters home every week, they just don’t get to phone more than twice a year). It attests to a remarkable vote of confidence in Mormons and BYU in producing skilled people of integrity and intelligence with an international mindset, the kind of people that America needs in the 21st Century–one of the best exemplars of whom is Mitt Romney. It does blow out of the water the allegation that “Mormons lie”.
Perhaps this and other articles along this line, that have more credibility with much of the press because they aren’t from the LDS Church, can be used by the Romney campaign to respond to negative press about Mormons that is used to attack Romney. When someone wants to emphasize Romney’s being Mormon, he can respond, “Yes, and this is the kind of Mormon I am.” It would get the emphasis off of a century-old oddity like polygamy and onto the 21st century Mormons that Romney exemplifies. The press should be asked “If you want to write stories about Mormons, why don’t you tell the stories of modern Mormons, international Mormons, Mormons like Romney?”
coltakashi on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:58 pm #
On the topic of “all religions are the same”, I think that one of the negative aspects of that kind of bland, lowest common denominator ecumenism is that, in the hands of some opinion leaders, especially on the left, support for this thesis becomes enforced as a new kind of orthodoxy. If you are not on board with the “all religions are equally good” notion, then you are branded as “intolerant” or bigoted”. It is apparently not good enough for some people if you are simply willing to grant everyone religious freedom, without forcing anyone to justify their beliefs to anyone else. It is the same basic doctrine of an enforced embrace of equality of religion, beyond simply allowing others the freedom of their own behavior, that is being used on groups like the Christian legal society at Hastings Law School to force them to endorse homosexual behavior as a valid moral choice.
Phil on 13 Jul 2010 at 9:47 am #
The Financial Times article and the Bill Keller link provide an interesting contrast between those who use common sense and those who lie, twist the truth, and manipulate media and others for their own personal gain. I enjoyed reading the FT article, as it was very matter of fact and upbeat. Bill Keller, on the other hand, is a classic example of someone who is using religion for their own personal gain, along with the technique of scapegoating those of a different faith to garner attention and support from those with similar tendencies and prejudices. A couple of years ago, I sent Mr. Keller an email stating basically that a true Christian does not need to spend his time tearing others down but building them up, and that his techniques were very “un-Christian” to say the least. His email reply? “Enjoy hell, idiot. LOL”. That pretty well sums up his attitude and shows his true character. The best policy is to ignore people like that and not give them any of the media attention that they so crave and thrive on.
Only when more people recognize religious bigotry and prejudice for what it really is will we be able to elect decent politicians. Only then will we be also able to have good religious role models that deserve our support.
coltakashi on 14 Jul 2010 at 12:23 pm #
A couple of years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention reported that it had essentially zero net growth in membership over the previous year, one of its leaders was quoted in an Atlanta newspaper as saying that Southern Baptists were perceived by other people as being very judgmental and that this was was deterring people from coming to their church.
I have no idea what religious affiliation Mr. Keller has, but his reply to Phil is an example of the kind of offensive self-righteousness that is hindering the SBC and will hinder any effort by people who want to use the political process to advance the power of a religiously partisan faction.
Religious factionalism caused the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 70 AD to break apart in internecine fighting and persuaded many Jews (like Josephus) that they would be safer if they opened the gates of Jerusalem to the legions. Religious factionalism in modern politics is just as suicidal.
kgbudge on 15 Jul 2010 at 12:35 pm #
I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like Mr. Keller has, at some point in his life, had a powerful religious experience accompanied by a statement of commitment to Christ.
Fair enough. So have I.
But Mr. Keller has then adopted a theology in which it’s done, it’s all over, his salvation is absolutely guaranteed and there is no possibility of his falling from grace; and he is therefore free to be as rude and hateful as he likes and to gloat all he wants over those he supposes have not had the same miraculous experience, and to look forward to seeing them roast in hell for his entertainment through all eternity.
I have had conversations with folks I respect on salvation by grace alone that convince me these folks do not understand the concept this way. I do not myself subscribe to salvation by grace alone — I believe in the necessity of both grace and works, and believe that there is always a possibility than man may fall from grace — but I do not find the doctrine as repugnant as Keller is doing his level best to make it.
Sorta Silly Season | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 16 Jul 2010 at 5:42 am #
[...] Comments kgbudge on Couldn’t It Wait Until December?coltakashi on Couldn’t It Wait Until December?Phil on Couldn’t It Wait Until [...]
JLF9999 on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:45 pm #
Why are Mormons so successful? I don’t know why the FT made such a big thing over this. There is no secret. Every American has the same available to them. It is called a good education and preparation for life by means of service to God, others and by living correct Christian principles as we understand them. Any body can do it. Even Englishmen.
JLF9999 on 19 Jul 2010 at 10:14 pm #
The Colonel is right. The SBC has been seen as overly judgmental and unduly harsh to people they have theological disagreements with. I talked about that very subject here in 2007. But since then, the object of my previous posting, the SBC website with all the hate literature, seems to have been taken down. That is a good thing. It proves that there is a new generation at the helm – one that seems to value good relationships with everyone, even those with whom they disagree. Good job SBC.
I don’t know who this particular Bill Keller is, but if he is the same one that said a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan then I have no intention of listening to more of his stuff. He or others like him have always been around. They are not as common as they were at one time, thankfully. At least we don’t hear about them as much. I have to think it is because the American people are really turned off by these people. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that they have turned many against God all together. I actually feel sorry for people like that. You have to wonder what made them so bitter and angry. It is like a blind rage has taken control of them. I can’t hate them. I feel bad about their predicament and hope they can find a way out someday.
JLF9999 on 21 Jul 2010 at 8:13 pm #
I commented elsewhere on this site that Mike Huckabee might be too easy going and insinuated that he might be too tentative in difficult situations. That isn’t meant to demean him as a man. Presidents who were too timid, such as Jimmy Carter, have gotten us into trouble. I see Huckabee as that type of leader.
JLF9999 on 21 Jul 2010 at 8:31 pm #
John wrote above
If by that you mean that the good doctor keeps his anti-Mormon sentiments to himself, I agree. It seems that in some circles, the specter of Mormonism presents a greater problem than bad government. If that is the case with Dr. Dobson, then why can’t he just accept what Mormon theology is different than his understanding of Christianity and work for better government. I got the feeling in 2008 that Dobson would never support an LDS president. He would rather stay home than vote for Mitt Romney. If so, that makes the conservative cause even more difficult. We Mormons don’t expect that everyone will agree with us. That is they way of the world. We can live with it. I, as a Mormon, can still respect and honor others who think differently. But then again my theology tells me life is test and we are here to learn and that growth in understanding is a process. It doesn’t seem to be as black and white as what Dr. Dobson apparently thinks.
John Schroeder on 22 Jul 2010 at 6:51 am #
JLF9999 – you are wrong about Dobson. Yes, he disagrees with Mormon theology, but he is not personally anti-Mormon. What he is is a lousy leader. He has been consistently lead around by the nose by many of his people on the issue. The background rumors last cycle were that he wanted to endorse Romney but was cowed by his organization. Now that he is separated from FotF we are hoping very much that he will be more forthright – he now speaks only for himself and not for that big lead weight.
Unwarranted accusations of anti-Mormonism will not help. He deserves criticism, make no doubt, but let’s make them on the proper grounds.