Article VI Blog

So yesterday, when writing about the latest Perry misstep, I said, “Their camp insults Romney on the deepest possible level by asserting that ‘Mormons are not Christians.’”  I have been thinking about that a lot and being as it is the weekend and all, I am going to wander into some more personal religious territory than is our normal fare here.

I really mean what I say about that being an insult on the deepest possible level – that is something I know because I have had it thrown at me.  We Christians tend to debate about who is and who in not inside the club all the time.  Such debate does not generally have the import it carries with it at the moment, but it is fairly common.  The exclusion of Catholicism from the fold is reasonably common amongst the more hardcore of we Protestants, but somehow, not withstanding the rants of Jeffress, we have found a way to co-exist amiably.  Never been a problem for me personally.

However, within Protestantism there is a branch called “Pentecostalism.”  In the broadest of terms, Pentecostals have an overt, and many would say overwhelming, focus on the miraculous – most commonly “glossolalia,” or the speaking in tongues.  The strict definition of a Pentecostal is someone that believes that the conversion experience comes in two parts.  The first would be the salvation experience, or the “acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Savior,” that we are all so familiar with.  The second part would be a separate experience known as “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and this experience is universally accompanied by glossolalia.  There are volumes and volumes written about this stuff and I could go on for days, but that is all you need to know for the story at hand.

When I was in high school, a Pentecostal revival movement swept through my community.  People not normally prone to such things were claiming ecstatic experiences and “miracles galore” were happening throughout the community.  For a whole bunch of reasons, this was a tide I resisted.  But it resulted in a deep hurt.  It took some years, but the movement eventually died a violent and tragic death.  But long before it turned so ugly, one of my closest friends, a spiritual peer if you will, that was caught up in it accused me point blank of “not being a Christian because I had not spoken in tongues.”  Fortunately I am still friends with this individual today – some 40 years later – and that, I believe, is the real miracle to come out of the whole thing.

Boy, it hurt at the time though, obviously because I remember it so vividly today.  The scar from the wound that was created by that accusation serves as a constant reminder to me that some theological opinions are best kept to oneself.  Needless to say, a wound that deep resulted in a number of counter-accusations, some substantive and some designed to wound as deeply as I was wounded.  One of the arguments that I made that sticks with me even to this day was that my friend could not possibly expect me to come to his point of view, nor even be much of a friend if he was going to so casually toss about such insult.  He was free to believe I was wrong and he was free to pray for my correction, as I did his, but such an accusation served no purpose but to construct a wall where a bridge should be.

In the end, that is the bottom line here.  The theological chasm between Mormonism and traditional creedal Christianity is indeed wide.  I am fascinated by how it has narrowed over the years, but it remains quite large at the moment.  But at a time when our nation desperately needs to change course we need bridges, not walls.  Yes, I want Mitt Romney to be the next President of the United States.  But I am also smart enough to know that he might not even be the Republican nominee – that’s politics.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that I am going to support the Republican nominee because the nation so needs a new direction.  That is unless there has been such a wall constructed between myself and such a hypothetical not-Romney nominee that I cannot overcome it to pull the lever.

That is something Camp Perry and others with religion issues about Romney need to think about.

Posted in Issues, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Rick Perry finds himself under continued fire for his association with Robert Jeffress, who is looking increasingly foolish.  I thought this issue dead, but it turns out Jeffress not only has a problem with Mormons, but Catholics as well:

The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is calling for Texas Gov. Rick Perry to cut any and all ties to Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress, over comments Jeffress made last September that are considered to be “anti-Catholic” in nature and for his recent Mormonism is a “cult” comments.

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, which defends Catholicism, issued a statement Wednesday denouncing the Baptist pastor.

[...]

At the heart of the issue are comments Jeffress made on his Pathway to Victory radio show. Last year, (the) Rev. Jeffress said the Roman Catholic Church was the outgrowth of a “corruption” called the “Babylonian mystery.” He continued, ‘Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word. It comes from that cult-like pagan religion. … Isn’t that the genius of Satan?

The fact that Perry will not repudiate a guy that accuses the Roman Catholic church of being somehow Satanic has got to be a matter of religious conviction on Perry’s part.  I know people for whom that is a matter of religious conviction, and I frankly cannot conceive of any other reason to put forth such a close-minded viewpoint.  But there is no place for such things on a political level – none.  If Perry wants to have any political future on the national level, he has got to put a lot of distance between himself and Jeffress and he has to do it now.  So far, his refusal to do so still stands.

What we were greeted with yesterday, was Perry’s wife playing what amounts to the religious victim card:

“It’s been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press,” Perry said, according to NBC News. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some true conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”

You can see the video of her here.  Now I supposed that makes some sense if the religion-based-slams for which they have taken such a pounding are rooted in their personal religious convictions, but it also belies a deep misunderstanding of how religion and politics intersect in this nation.

Furthermore, Mrs. Perry just sounds like a cry baby.  Their camp insults Romney on the deepest possible level by asserting that “Mormons are not Christians,” and they are being victimized for their faith!?  That is a flat-out Obama-level blame dodge.

I desperately want Rick Perry to come out of this whole thing respectably – I really do.  There is a lot to admire about the guy – he has done an incredible job in Texas.  It would be a shame for the final label he takes out of public life to be “religiously small minded” rather than “great governor.”  But he is going to have to run, not walk, away from Robert Jeffress if he is to have a prayer of being so favorably labeled.

Quick update from Lowell:

Just this morning George Stephanopolous of ABC News posts “Rick Perry Agrees With Wife, He Has Been Brutalized for Christian Faith:“

I spoke to a feisty Rick Perry this morning who said he agreed with his wife’s comments that his campaign has been “brutalized” because of his Christianity and Perry came out of the gates attacking Herman Cain’s now famous 9-9-9 plan.

“I’ll stand by my wife. I think she’s right on both cases. My understanding is that she said I’m the most conservative candidate in the race and ‘he’s a Christian.’ So I haven’t got anything I can add to that and she’s hit me on my mark both times there,” Perry said on “GMA.”

It looks like Perry has decided to ride that victim horse.

John Mark here:

My Dad wanted Rick Perry to win and there is still some dim chance this could happen. Perry has money enough for one more shot. Otherwise he will be remembered with Gramm and Thompson as the guy who was going to be great until he was and then . . . he simply wasn’t.

Perry is, by all accounts, a good governor. He worked himself up to a high position and I honor that. He is a good public servant. Now his wife bemoans his treatment in the media. She claims the secular elite do not like Evangelicals.

Sadly, his wife is right. He is attacked for his Evangelical faith. He is held to a higher standard and assumed to be “stupid” when he is not. He is vilified more than he deserves by the media, because they don’t like people of faith.

They hate Evangelicals for the very things we have in common with Mormons: belief in God and in the supernatural. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in the media philosophy, but they pretend otherwise.

The same standard applied by his pastor friend is applied by the media to any person of faith. Jesus was right as always: we end up judged by the judgment we use.

I take no pleasure in seeing Perry struggle. He should have joined Governor Romney in decrying the bigots, but instead tried to use one.

Now the Governor of Texas is reduced to having his wife tell a hard truth that nobody can hear from this particular messenger.

Yet another missed opportunity in a campaign of missed opportunities: the epitaph of the Perry campaign.

Lowell adds . . .

A few bits and pieces from around the country:

The weight of commentary seems to be firmly against Pastor Jeffress and, by implication, Gov. Perry.  Daniel Ruth of Tampa’s St. Petersburg Times has an interesting, if uncharitable, view of Jeffress, who seems to be coming out of this episode very much discredited. Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer is also pretty tough on Jeffress. Lisa Miller, writing at the Washington Post’s Belief Watch blog, thinks Romney should actually emphasize his Mormon faith and the related positives. (We think that would be a mistake, believing as we do that Romney’s religion is largely irrelevant to his qualifications for office.)

Jim Geraghty wonders this morning, Why Can’t Any Rival Take Mitt Romney Down a Peg?

I think I’d ask the Romney skeptics to recognize that maybe Mitt’s got some game, or at least some discipline, which is a vastly underrated trait in a candidate. This has been the cycle where all the non-Mitt options took turns imploding. First Newt begins his campaign by going on a cruise and most of his staff quits. Then Michele Bachmann suggests that a vaccine causes retardation. Then Rick Perry stumbles through three debates so badly that by the fourth he’s expressing exasperating that everyone around him keeps arguing “whether or not we are going to have this policy or that policy,” and nobody even blinks that he’s bothered by the presence of policy debates at a policy debate. At this rate, next month Herman Cain will be apologizing for offering sausages made from endangered species as topping options while running Godfather’s Pizza.

Finally, Larry Sabato doesn’t think Romney’s Mormonism will end up stopping his candidacy:

“So Romney will have a tough time getting [Evangelical Christian] support, a tough time getting fundamentalist support in, say, South Carolina. But I think it’s also true that, if he’s the Republican nominee, overwhelmingly, over 90 percent plus of those fundamentalist Christians, will end up voting for Romney,” he predicted.

“They’re not going to sit out the election, they’re certainly not going to vote for [President Barack] Obama.”

Other than misusing the term “fundamentalist,” Sabato seem to have been reading this blog.

 

Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I remember when Rush came to Rochester.

It was exciting to hear a conservative on the radio. I bought Snapple, because it was fun to see fellow graduate students squirm when you drank it.

Sadly, like the rest of us Rush has gotten older. I remember when my students would try to be conservative, but “not-like-Rush” since their parent’s listened daily and the act had worn thin for them. The good news is that this snobbery has ended.

The class of 2015 is more conservative, but Rush never comes up.

This year’s class does not know his name, because mostly it is their grandparents who listen.

Rush has decided Romney is no conservative.

Maybe.

But Rush decided McCain could not be the nominee and backed Romney last time around. How did that work out for Romney?

With luck, Romney will find that once again the senior vote is immune to pressure. They like listening to Rush, but they vote as they want: just like last time. Rush invented modern talk radio. He is entertaining and most often right. It would be a thrill to meet him, but his influence is waning.

It is sad really.

Sorry Rush: you are the man whom fame outran and so the name died before the man.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Every four years the media makes a mystery out presidential elections and nominations. My job is to remind you that while surprises happen, things usually turn out in a predictable fashion. Four years ago, I kept telling you that the election was Obama’s to lose and he probably would not. He didn’t. This year I am telling you it is Obama’s to win and it is not looking likely.

This election will be all about the incumbent, because elections with a sitting President are about the incumbent. President Obama is in a weak position, but still has major money, the power of incumbency, brains, some foreign policy successes, and an opposition party still tarnished from four years ago.

His problems are the economy, the unpopularity of his signature accomplishments, and weariness in the public with constant speech making.

Any incumbent is more likely to win than not, Americans do not like to admit a mistake at the voting booth, but President Obama is very weak for an incumbent. If the Republicans nominate a plausible centrist, someone that scares nobody, Obama is in serious risk of losing.

If the economy does not improve by next summer, he will lose to a Republican center-right candidate.

Ideologues are loud in the Internet com-boxes, but muddle dominates the voting booth. Like or not, people want better and cheaper health care, wish government would help, and fear government health care. They want lower taxes, spending, and cutting spending.

Does that make sense? No, but that is the way it is. You might hate Social Security. You might be right. Ask Rick Perry how attacking it goes.

Most voters will react strongly against anyone who scares them or seems too ideological. The exceptions are the rare situations (like last time) where one party is so toxic and tired that the other party can take risks.

Winners will get to push the boundaries. Obama did, but the economy did not improve. As a result, people, fairly or not, blame his actions.

Reagan had the opposite experience. He produced a plan, became unpopular, but people felt the economy vindicated his plan. That changed politics for decades and still impacts choices.

People are brutally Darwinian in their votes. If the economy is not fit, you will not survive. No excuse will do.

If the GOP were to win this election and cut spending drastically, raise some taxes, and balance the budget, then GOP popularity would tank immediately. What happened next would not entirely be in their control, but if prosperity returned, then “big spending” would be dead for decades.

If not, the GOP budget-balancer would be finished.

Obama was like Reagan in swinging for the fences. He passed as liberal a program as he could get through a Democratic Congress. He will, therefore get the blame or praise for the result.

Obama is not yet toxic, but he might get there. What props him up is the weak state of the Republican Party brand. The GOP, still hurting from the Bush years, cannot afford an “out there” candidate. Primary voters know this and will not give the GOP one, because GOP primary voters never do.

A Review of History

Last time around, the Republican brand was so tarnished that the Democrats could have nominated anyone and been the favorites. Anybody who pretended that any Republican was likely to win was kidding you. Because the Democrats took a risk and nominated a very liberal candidate, John McCain had more of a chance than he might have had, but when the economy cratered he was finished.

McCain ran pretty well considering the climate.

The same general rule that the expected almost always happens in elections applies to the GOP primaries. Daily poll watchers would get excited about one candidate or another, but wiser men like my friend Giles from West Virginia knew the basic GOP truth: “The next guy in line for the nomination almost always wins.”

The last few Republican nominees have been McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, Ford.

The favorite wins.

Bottom Line: President Obama versus Romney

Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee unless he makes a major error. Don’t write and tell me you do not like it. Tell me who beats him. The only serious opponent for Romney ended up being Rick Perry . . . and Rick Perry is running with the energy of Fred Thompson, the debating skills of Tim Pawlenty, and the savvy of Phil Gramm.

Every other candidate either lacks the gravitas, experience, or the money to be a contender. Romney has all the prerequisites of a Republican winner: former governor, money, gravitas, and brains. The very things GOP primary voters worry about in him (think of this before commenting to me!) will help him in the general election.

Romney’s attempt to insure more people in Massachusetts ended up flawed, but trying to insure the poor or children will sell well and not badly with most Americans. It also gives him the most credibility in the general election to attack the President’s plan without sounding heartless.

When he says “repeal and replace,” people will know he really wants to do something better and not just leave a system they hate alone.

Pundits get paid to be pundits and so will breathlessly report the twists and turns of each new poll or statement, but here is the historic bottom line. The race will be Romney versus Obama. The Vice-Presidential picks will matter little. Voters will decided whether they want four more years of Obama, not if they love Romney.

Romney must be acceptable to win, so he will pick a safe vice-presidential candidate. (Check out the popular governor of Virginia or Senator Rubio of Florida.) He will run a careful race, because the election is all about Obama.

If the economy improves at all, Obama will be a slight favorite.

If the economy gets even a bit worse, Obama will lose badly.

If the economy stays as it is, Obama will lose a close race. The election will hinge on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida.

If the election were held today, Romney would win narrowly in the popular vote, but with a clear electoral college mandate.

Right now the best bet, whether one likes it or not, is that Mitt Romney will be our next president.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

If you do not get Jim Geraghty‘s “Morning Jolt” email, you really should – it’s funny and informative.  The email this morning opened with, “If Republican candidates debate on the Bloomberg News channel, and no one can watch it because their cable system doesn’t carry it, does it mean that a tree falling in the forest makes more of a sound?”  Yeah, that about covers it.  Snoozefest – rendered so in large part by the absolute absence of the religion issue.   There was a not-so-wise wisecrack by Huntsman, but that was it.

Consider what has transpired.  At the now-infamous Values Voter Summit, the next major address after Jeffress/Perry was Bill Bennett, and he absolutely slammed both of them.  In a surprise move yesterday Chris Christie heartily endorsed Mitt Romney and in the process both men slammed the discussion generally and called on Perry to repudiate Jeffress.  Perry refused.  By the way, any disconnect between Perry and Jeffress is non-existent.  Yesterday, Slate – of all places – reported that Perry staffers distributed copies of Jeffress’ speech in advance.  They knew exactly what was coming and approved it.  (One must wonder if Slate is trying to make-up for past sins.)  Oh yeah – there is a straight line between Jeffress and Mike Huckabee too.

And so, as Geraghty quoted Tweets in this morning’s Jolt:

About a half hour in, another key candidate seemed strangely quiet, and Josh Trevino noticed: “Man, too bad Rick Perry couldn’t be here for this debate.” Ryan Streeter timed it: “We’re going on 28 minutes without hearing from Perry.”

Perry was stuck with an albatross and so took the oft-quoted advice, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”  Perry called down the wrong kind of religious test, and his goose got cooked.

Mormonism is, as we have said around here, catnip for the news media. (Oh please!)  I am sure we have not heard the last of it, but it’s dead as an issue in the primary.  It should be clear to all observers at this point that the “not Romney” forces that have been nosing around for two cycles now are not as powerful as they have presented themselves.  They tilted up Mike Huckabee and due to his innate and tremendous political skill he was a spoiler last time.  This time they tilted up Rick Perry and when he faltered they tried for others and when others did not respond, they went back to Perry and they just had to talk religion – they could not help themselves.  Perry lacks Huckabee’s innate skill and the result is embarrassment.  Any serious politician that listens to those people ever again will be immediately deemed unserious.

Obama does have the kind of innate political gifts that Huckabee does, and a whole lot more at stake than either Huck or Perry.  The issue may be dead for the primary, but it is not dead altogether.

Is Rick Perry done?  Well, he has a big war chest – a really big one.  Can he continue to raise that kind of cash after this remains to be seen, but he has enough on hand to seriously compete for a while.  He could recover from this.  Things are looking awfully good for Romney though.

Lowell chimes in, on cue . . .

I was wrong when I said that the religion issue would come up in last night’s debate. It didn’t, except for Huntsman’s off-key comment, which several have already described as cringe-inducing. That led me to hope that mentioning Romney’s Mormonism had become politically incorrect.

Well, not quite, although I think we are getting closer to that point. I did a little channel surfing this morning and saw that NBC’s  Today Show interviewed Christie and Romney together this morning.  The interviewer, Jamie Gangel, asked about the Jeffress kerfluffle.  In response, Christie and Romney repeated what they said yesterday, with Romney once again calling on Perry to repudiate Jeffress’ remarks. (The NBC video clip is here.)  It’s interesting that Perry is refusing to do so.  I think he’s compounding his campaign’s first act of stunningly bad judgment with even worse judgment.

Fox News had Senator Orrin Hatch on for a segment and he got the question too.  In his inimitable style, the Senator also slammed Jeffress. (That video is not available yet; we’ll keep an eye out for it. EDIT:  Here it is.)

It may well be that The Question is becoming so discredited that most people won’t raise it – at least not overtly.  We’ll see how this goes. I predict the next tactic will be to push the “weirdness” meme.
&nbsp

John Mark here:

Perry hurt Romney by calling down bigotry, but as often happens in politics, he was punished for it. In the famous political “murder-suicide” attempt, Perry is killing himself. The mistake is to think enough bigots exist in the party to take out Romney. They do not.

Perry did help Newt and Cain. But Newt and Cain for President? Really? Both Newt and Cain benefit because nobody (certainly not Romney) has thrown much of a punch at either. Nobody needs to do so, because the media will soon do it for the GOP. That is the one (and the only one) advantage of a hostile press.

I think the next religious attack will be from the Left. It will argue that Romney will be extreme and will obey his Church. We know LDS is “extreme” . . . look at how conservative Utah is. The problem with the attack up to now is that Romney is so . . .normal. So good luck with that. I call the race here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John, John Mark and I will all be guests on the Hugh Hewitt show today, beginning at the top of the show, 3:06 p.m. Pacific time.  You can listen online here.

Posted in Latest News | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post