Monday Odds and Ends
Fortune Telling…
The new site on religion, Patheos, ran a series last week on the future of Evangelicalism. Included therein was a sub-series on the political divides inside Evangelicalism. Again confirming the wisdom of the strategy recently floated by the nascent Team Romney – you can’t court something as non-cohesive as Evangelicals, you can just let those that are on your side join the party.
The Mormon organization FAIR held a conference recently. One presented looked at what would happen if a Mormon were elected president:
If the scenario were true, Watkins said, members of the media would scrutinize his tax returns and wonder why 10 percent went directly to his church. Devoting three or more hours to church meetings and other duties, home teaching and national coverage of Sister Johnson’s sacrament meeting talk might turn some heads. General conference would be a major media event. Attending the temple would become complicated.
And think of the possible political satire. “Saturday Night Live” would have a field day.
Dear friends, if that is all that happens – consider it a blessing. Any person of faith is considered an “oddity” in this age and EVERYONE is made fun of on Saturday Night Live, usually distastefully. I am far more concerned about mining Mormonism for political ammunition.
But this is the 2012 meme that I am seeing and hearing more and more of and find disturbing:
Our fear must be that through the 2012 primaries and caucuses, the winnowing process will bring the GOP back to its boring, staid old self – and thus turn off the Tea Party fervor which is the hottest political movement in decades.
What we should be looking for in our 2012 candidate is a conservative who can sell conservatism – and also attract middle-of-the-road independents – all the while being pleasantly on the attack against the liberals, using humor and a light touch to harness the underlying fear and anxiety we are all feeling about our country’s future.
The current administration is evidence of what happens when a party goes for pizazz over substance. Ronald Reagan was an extraordinary human being in his capability to both sell conservatism AND administer the nation, but he would have been an abject failure if all he could do was sell conservatism. The first qualification to run for president is not the ability to “sell conservatism” – it’s the ability to actually run the executive branch of government. 2012 is going to be the “get serious” election and we have some candidates that are very good at getting serious.
Sitting around an pining for something better is a sure path to losing. Just look at the last election.
The Field…
The Christian Science Monitor surveys the field. They seem to be thinking star power more than serious capability. That’s a mistake.
But this New York magazine article just cracked me up:
It’s not exactly groundbreaking news, but according to an MIT study, a candidate’s aesthetic appeal holds a lot of sway with voters. In short, respondents from the United States, Mexico, and India pretty much agreed with each other about which candidates “would make a better elected official” just by looking at photos of them. And the candidates they picked were often the ones that actually got elected.
[S]imply knowing which candidate the participants judged to have a superior appearance allowed the researchers to correctly predict the winner in 68 percent of Mexican elections and 75 percent of some Brazilian elections.
Luckily for John Thune and his chiseled face, he will probably have the “superior appearance” in whatever race he runs in.
Wait?! – I thought Romney was the one with the “chiseled good looks?” Has our nation really turned so superficial that we will vote for the “it” president? Are we so superficial that handsome today is “old and ugly” tomorrow, not just in our Hollywood starlets, but our presidential candidate? Well, on the left maybe…
The Meme To Watch For…
Remember that story we ran into a few weeks ago about Mormons in financial institutions? Well, if this piece out of the UK is any indication, a meme is forming:
They are nicknamed The mormon mafia. Its followers are taking over the corridors of power on Wall street, heading companies in the Forbes 500 and have already made a bid for the White House. “You’ll find mormons in many board-rooms wielding influence and shaping society,” says one leading mormon businessman. “We’re trained for success.”
Last cycles antics have made the “cult” charge unusable this go around so it look like they are going to use “conspiracy theory” this time. Watch this space.
…Or not
Chris Cillizza this social issues will make a comeback, particularly in light of last week’s judicial ruling on Prop 8. First of all, they never have been quite as dead as some would like to think, but that said, he’s wrong. This stuff does not hit national until the Supremes rule.
Finally, ugliness…
Here and here. It takes smart serious people to do religion and politics. These are not them.
Lowell adds . . .
I am sorry to have been so absent from the blog lately. Vacation plans called, followed by a severe and unexpected attack of employment.
The FAIR conference speaker’s comments on the impact of a Mormon president reminded me of a concern raised on Al Mohler’s radio program back in the 2008 presidential cycle. Mohler had two guests on his show and one of them expressed a fear about Romney (or any Mormon) winning the White House: That a Mormon president would “mainstream” Mormonism. That fear creates what Mohler called a issue of “Christian discipleship” for him: Could he vote for a Mormon if he knew that the religion may consequently become more attractive to possible converts, causing them to be deceived and to lose their salvation?
I am not raising this to make fun of Mohler. I do not doubt his sincerity or that of his guest, although I think they are both terribly wrong-headed about the matter. If the FAIR speaker is right (and he probably is, largely), then people will indeed learn a lot about Mormonism if Romney is even nominated, much less elected. I recall the 1976 election, when Jimmy Carter’s nomination led to a great deal of news media coverage of what were then called “born-again Christians” (now known more precisely as Evangelicals). I don’t know what direction the Evangelical response will take if there is similar attention paid to Mormonism, but it will be important, both in the GOP primaries and in the general election. As John said, watch this space!
Posted in Reading List | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention Monday Odds and Ends | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 09 Aug 2010 at 6:33 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Article VI Blog, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: #hhrs New @ Article VI Blog:: Monday Odds and Ends http://www.article6blog.com/2010/08/09/monday-odds-and-ends/ [...]
JLF9999 on 09 Aug 2010 at 11:19 am #
A couple of years ago, John rightfully chastised me for lumping all Evangelicals into one basket when I said they could not be trusted. I was talking about Iowa’s rejection of Romney in 2008 which I believed, and still do, was due primarily to his religion. I felt that way because of the open anti-Mormon message presented by Huck and his acolytes at churches and meetings across the state. Huck presented himself as the Christian candidate even though there were others. Huck played on the decades old disinformation and misinformation presented about Mormons by so many traditional Christians. Even in the face of countless corrections, these same groups persisted in the distortions. It was obvious to me that Huck intended to capitalize on it. I presented my case here several times.
It has been through watching what John and a few others in the Evangelical community have written that my horizons have been expanded. Huck still isn’t my favorite politician but my view of Evangelicals has changed largely through the consistent efforts of John and a few others. I can’t tolerate liars and cheats. I spent my adult life locking many of them up. I am sensitive to their ways which makes listening to some of the most popular Evangelicals so difficult. However, there are people in the Evangelical community who represent a view of Christ that I recognize. It has little to do with doctrine and everything to do with practicing what Christ so plainly taught. That isn’t always the case with some preachers and their acolytes. Time usually tends to present the truer picture of a man. And so it has been for me. John has changed my mind.
coltakashi on 09 Aug 2010 at 12:57 pm #
My guess is that one effect of having a committed LDS president like Romney is that the Secret Service would be adding security measures to the local meeting ward house, and the ward would need to find men and women with security clearances to be the First Family’s home teachers (from the high priests’ quorum)and visiting teachers (from the Women’s Relief Society). And a number of other LDS wards would be getting visits during presidential travels, which would be very interesting when the president goes overseas.
It is quite possible that LDS members of Congress will attend the same ward, from either political party! And there will be visiting Mormon governors and mayors, as well. Plus a lot of Mormons from out of town. (I am sure that members in the DC area will be asked by their leaders to not crowd into the president’s ward.)
In the normal course of things, the President and his (or her!) spouse will be asked to speak in church. As is the normal practice, cameras and sound recorders will be prohibited.
Visiting Mormon congregations overseas could have real repercussions in raising the profile of the issue of international religious freedom, not just for Mormons but for Christians and other religions, in nations where freedoms are limited, such as many officially Muslim countries.
Would it “legitimize” or “mainstream” Mormonism, making it harder to criticize freely and ignorantly? I should hope so. It will take the media cameras and reporters into Mormon congregations around the world, showing the national and ethnic diversity of the Mormons. Heck (as we Mormons say), they will probably find such diversity right there in any Washington, DC congregation a Mormon president attends.
On the other hand, would it lead more people to become Mormon? A president is often a polarizing figure, so for every person who is attracted to (e.g.) the Romneys, there will be someone else who is repelled, and the fact is that few people are going to go looking for the Mormons; they will wait for someone to find them. The attitude toward the president may rub off on Mormonism, but that will have negative as well as positive aspects. People who are open minded and religiously tolerant will be receptive, but they are anyway. People who are closed-minded and intolerant will stay that way. People will probably classify themselves one way or another in response to a Mormon president, but it won’t be different than they would have classified themselves eventually anyway, when confronted with the opportunity to hear about Mormonism or not.
One way to consider this question is to ask, If the President were an observant Jew, would Americans start converting to Judaism en masse? Not too likely.
JLF9999 on 09 Aug 2010 at 2:46 pm #
The Mormon mafia thing has been around for a while. It is just now making its way into print. Few LDS take offense at the term because it really doesn’t fit. It is looked at as a swing and a miss, to borrow a baseball metaphor. Actually, I preferred Danite. It has history. For the uninitiated, the Danites were a small band of early Mormon’s who were organized to protect the Saints from the marauding bands of anti-Mormons who murdered, burned and pillaged Mormon farms and settlements in the early days of the church. They have been given far more credit for being violent vigilantes than they deserve. But, they still represent the sort of militant man who was capable of taking care of business when business was done at the end of a gun. Today’s Danites still take care of business sans the shooting iron. Today its done with balance sheets, contracts and prospectuses – or is it prospecti?
JLF9999 on 10 Aug 2010 at 11:15 am #
The Colonel makes an interesting point. I wonder if the First Presidency would create a branch for WH. There are many LDS people in government who have the required clearances. The CIA is loaded with them, or so I read. Add a couple of Congressmen, a few State Department and Pentagon types and pretty soon you have enough for a congregation. Think of how they organize the unmarried wards by assigning them based on marital status and not where they live. Imagine putting the Relief Society in the Oval office – a natural fit they would suggest. They could just clear the president’s desk and gather around it their blue denim jumpers.
JLF9999 on 10 Aug 2010 at 11:49 am #
I really like the idea of a W.H branch. I can see it now. A 40 something mid-level CIA analyst is called as president of the White House branch. Romney of course would be the stake representative given his previous stake and ward experience. He would almost always be busy in stake meetings regarding the budget, building fund, and calling stake missionaries. His 0700 Sunday intelligence briefings would have to be put off until the breaks between his visits to the wards. “You have 15 minutes before I have to see to the junior Sunday school so make it quick,” and “I don’t have time for Kim Jung Il until after fast and testimony meeting.” Sundays are always busy especially when you have to interview for temple recommends, call a new Sunday school superintendent and save the Europeans from themselves.
sewinglady on 12 Aug 2010 at 9:46 am #
I agree with Coltakashi on this one. If our President were a practicing Jew, I do not think that more people would join Judaism. We, as a people, may become more aware of what is entailed in being a practicing Jew, but I think it really wouldn’t significantly increase the converts to Judaism in any given year. The only scenario I could see that happening in is if the President is viewed as a Rock Star, and even then converts from such a background would be suspect at best. I think very highly of Mitt Romney, but I don’t think he is that kind of a “Rock Star.”
JLF9999 has really gotten me laughing about the W.H. branch and squeezing time in between meetings to do intelligence briefings. Very funny! Any member of the CJCLDS knows how busy Sundays can be. Of course, I am teaching primary, so I don’t really have a lot of meetings; I just get to spend 2 hours every Sunday with 10 ten-year-olds. After I’m done with that, I don’t NEED more meetings. I am out for the count.
As a member of the Relief Society, I did have to comment on the “blue denim jumpers.” BLUE DENIM JUMPERS??!!! I have never in my life been exposed to such a dowdy thing. I am a Sewing Lady for a reason. Three months ago I made my daughter’s Prom dress from a picture off the internet, and I had 8 days to do it in. I made it from 100 percent silk, and saved $200. How can you offend my sensibilities in such a way?? No more BLUE DENIM JUMPERS!
brimstan on 15 Aug 2010 at 10:01 pm #
“Some Question Whether Ads Are True to Faith or PR for Mitt Romney Presidential Run”
That was the sub-heading on the ABC News report on the new mormon ads. It seems to me to be a pretty long stretch from the “aspirational” hopes of a liberal mormon to a conspiracy by the church to pave the way for Mitt Romney’s possible presidential run. Not too long a stretch for ABC News.
It is bad enough to have the commentary from an “active” Mormon who thinks the church leaders are racist and sexist, but even he didn’t speculate that the church leadership was just shilling for Mitt Romney. Or maybe that was his speculation expressed through the editorial commentary.
The Birth Of A New Conspiracy | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 06 Nov 2012 at 3:02 am #
[...] now – let’s follow this very closely. Way back in August 2012, we first encountered the term “Mormon Mafia” with regards to certain financial instituti…. Then, just about 3 weeks ago, an Iranian English language news service made the charge there was [...]