Article VI Blog

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.

Fascinating Captain.

Posted in Electability, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 11 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John and I feel somewhat validated – but not at all surprised – by this report of a scholar’s analysis of Romney and religion in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

The paper, entitled “Mitt Romney’s Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity,” appeared in the May issue of The Journal of Media and Religion. This paragraph will bring a smile to those who’ve followed this blog for a while:

For many, the combination of Mormonism and Romney’s ‘flip-flops’ on many hot-button issues gave reason to oppose him. Conservative activist Brian Camenker’s report on Romney’s shifting positions gave ammunition to conservatives to withdraw support from Romney. Vanderbilt University researchers found Romney’s flip-flopper label was an easy cover for anti-Mormonism. In the end, it was the rise of Huckabee and the political primaries in the evangelical-dominated South that derailed Romney’s bid for the presidency. For many, Romney’s run represented a misguided attempt to curry the favor of evangelicals.

That almost makes me think Professor Baker is also a regular reader here. (Seriously, with this paper she has moved to the top of my list of “People I’d Like to Have Lunch With.”)

Here is the article abstract from The Journal of Media and Religion (it costs $30 to see the entire piece):

Mitt Romney’s religion accounted for 50% of all religion-related presidential primary campaign stories in 2007, and 30% of Romney’s total media coverage focused on his Mormon faith. This article reviews that coverage and considers it within the larger historical context of the complex relationship between media and Mormonism throughout the 180-year history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A factorial model (the first in the area of Mormon Media Studies) is proposed by which to document and analyze the wider societal influences that are reflected in media representation of Mormon identity. The model’s 5 factors include the media, the Mormons, other religions, secular influences, and politics/government. The model assumes an interrelationship among the five factors. Factor influence and relationships among factors vary according to time, issue, and circumstance. The model relates to informational (not entertainment) media. Suggestions are made for application of the model to academic studies.

As I jokingly note above, we documented and analyzed all of this as it occurred.  If you’re interested and want to save $30, be sure to read our “Telling The Story” series for our version of this same tale, minus the Smoot comparisons, which we examined in our five-part series reviewing and commenting on Kathleen Flake’s book “The Politics of American Religious Identity.”  You may recall that Flake’s book was about the Smoot seating hearings.  You can find our posts about that here - here – here – here and here.

John Jumps On Board…

..Because The Huckabee “boomlet” has become a “Boom?!”

In the words of Jacob McCandles when confronted with rumors of his death: “Not hardly.“  Here’s how this went down.  Huckabee did Fox News Sunday last Sunday.  If you read the transcript, this is what he says:

I haven’t closed the door. I think that would be foolish on my part, especially when poll after poll shows that there is strong sentiment out there. I end up leading a lot of the polls. I’m the Republican that clearly, at this point, does better against Obama than any other Republican. You know, I’m not totally unaware of that.

At which point the MSM and leftie blogs went ape – The Hill – HuffPo – Politics Daily – The Fix – USAToday – one very right wing outlet sounded the trumpets – News Max.  His home town paper was a bit less impressed.

Let’s analyze what’s really happening here.  Fox commentator Huckabee appears on FNS in a short segment.  That sounds more like a promotional appearance than a serious interview to me.  The idea was to generate some heat for Huckabee’s show and based on the coverage, I think they got it.  Secondly, Huckabee is prone to exaggerated claims.  He still claims to have finished “second” in the 2008 primary race despite the fact the delegate count, and his speaking slot at the convention, clearly indicate to the contrary, even though he stayed in the race far longer than the actual second place finisher – Romney.

Huckabee is a media guy now – he has speaking fees to maintain, and his bread-and-butter constituency is not what it used to be.  The Huckster needs the possibility of a run to continue to make a living.  And of course, the MSM and non-team players are always willing to stir the pot on our side.

There’s a lot of coverage here, but no meat on the bones.  Call me when Huck’s fundraising gets better and he loses at least 60 pounds, until then its all posturing for ratings and fees.

UPDATE (7 hours after initial publication) – Told ya so! I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet….  Back to the initial post.

And Speaking of Lefties Doing Some Pot Stirring…

What do you think Marc Ambinder is up to with this piece?  [Lowell interjects:  I do not like his suggestion that Iowa and New Hampshire just be allowed to go ahead with their February primaries.   Why should those two quirky, small states, whose voting is so easily manipulated, be allowed to set the tone for the entire campaign?]

Mormon Stuff…

This is silly, and discriminatory – CNBC covering “Mormon” business.  Most business school graduates prefer to hire grads of the same business school,  Nothing to see here.

This is just great read.  Would that other forms of Christianity were as open minded.

Here’s another one with idiot commenters.  Why someone has to turn that story into a religio-political comment is beyond.

General Religion Stuff…

This is so utterly simplistic as to be annoying.  (In fact it is self-contradictory, but it is not worth the effort to demonstrate that fully here.)  One can judge a candidate’s character, or stance on issues, without reference to religion.  Religion does indeed influence those things, but it is not wholly determinative.  When you drag religion into it, it indeed starts to get about “us” and “them” instead of about the issues at hand.  And that leads to unnecessary conflict.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Telling The Story, The Speech | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Somethings require that one stretch beyond self-imposed limits.  This blog is not really about politics in general, but I just have to comment on Joe Biden yesterday.  If you have not heard, he wandered into a frozen custard shop in Wisconsin, asked for “ice cream,” was corrected and when he asked the owner how much he owed, the owner responded with “It’s on the house – just lower our taxes.”  Moments later, Biden’s “retort” (it hardly deserves that name) was “Why don’t you say something nice, instead of being a smart ass all the time.”  See the video here.

Most of the MSM reporting is trying to make this out as funny ha-ha, but its not, it reveals deeply the major flaws of this administration:

• a tendency to demand, rather than earn, respect
• an inability to listen to the voice of the people
• complete classlessness – a lot of trash talk

This nation simply deserves better.  When it comes to policy details, there is often little the POTUS can do – but one thing the person holding the job, and the VPOTUS should join him in, is set a national tone/mood – that is real leadership.  Often what makes people better in this world is not their circumstances, but themselves.  We cannot always control circumstances, but we can control our reactions to them.

If a nation reacts to circumstances with complaints. moans, self-absorption, and ill-temper little good can ever happen.  But, if the nation responds with humility, good humor and hard work, amazing things will happen.  History proves this out time and again.

And this, frankly, is where religion matters in politics.  Deep abiding faith, regardless of theological specifics, helps make people of humility, good-humor and industry.  These are character traits that it is very hard to develop without faith in a higher power.  What is truly sad to me is that when we get belligerent, nasty and discriminatory in politics over our theological differences, we are missing these essential character developing lessons of faith.

OK – enough preaching, sometimes it is just really hard to watch this administration treat people this way.  We deserve better.  Have a blessed Lord’s Day.

Posted in Electability, Miscellany | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

There is no surer sign of the Democrats’ increasingly tenuous grip on power than the fact that they are trying to spin Scott Brown’s (R) incredible victory for the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death as problematic for Mitt Romney.  We first noted the spin on Politico early Monday morning.  In the wake of the election Investor’s Business Daily tried to point out how it was big for Romney, and yet the first comment on that post tried to show it as a downer for him.  Fortunately, other commenters quickly pointed out the error of that commenter’s ways.

Funny though . . . Romney was on the dais at Brown’s victory speech and Brown called him forward for thanks – the first call after his family.  Do you need other facts?  Calling this “spin” is actually being kind.  Romney played this just right – he was an enormous amount of help to the Brown campaign.  Cash from Free and Strong America was just the beginning – staff was loaned.  Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a Republican “machine” in a place like Massachusetts, but given that he came closer to beating Ted Kennedy than anybody and got elected governor there, Romney comes as close to having one as possible.  No Republican could have pulled this off without him.  But despite that, Romney stayed, as far as coverage was concerned “in the background.”  This was Scott Brown’s campaign, not Mitt Romney’s.

And that points out the huge difference between this administration and a possible Romney one.  This president enters the room and he insists that the spotlight shine on him.  When he went to Massachusetts to stump for Coakley, he sucked all the oxygen out of the room.   Romney did far more for Brown than Obama even thought of doing for Coakley, and yet he did it in a way that left the spotlight on Brown.  Service, not ego, was what mattered here.

And that seems to me the heart of where religion and politics intersect.  Good religion, regardless of theology, makes us better people – it makes us people of service and goodwill, not self-service and personal will.

Lowell adds . . .

Romney played this one very well.  Ed Carson at Investor’s Business Daily:

“Ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was . . . a key backer of the little-known state senator [Scott Brown] back when he was seen as a sacrificial lamb.

“While some are already touting Brown as a 2012 presidential contender, Romney could be the big beneficiary. He’s helped deliver the 41st GOP Senate vote, perhaps derailing Obamacare. Activists will remember that.”

I think so too.

John Updates The Next Morning…

Here from the local Massachusetts press is a recount of what went on in Brown’s suite as news of his victory spread.  Key ‘graphs for our thesis above:

He said he’s been “calling everybody I know, doing everything I can to make sure Scott Brown won. Finally we can tell Washington, ‘We want you to listen.”‘As 10 p.m. approached, and Brown prepared to go down to the crowded ballroom to give his victory speech, former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney looked over his speech of introduction for Brown. “This is heroic,” he said of Brown’s win. “It wasn’t expected that he would have a victory this big.”

With everyone piling out of the room to head downstairs, Ayla smiled, sending an affectionate glance toward her dad as he consulted withRomney.

Romney did introduce Brown at the victory celebration.  A sure sign that he was key to the campaign.  And yet, no mention of that on TV coverage last night (Even Fox which is what I watched) and when Brown thanked Romney, he had to step from way back in the crowd to receive Brown’s handshake.  So far back I did not spot him until he came forward – unlike the unmistakable visage of Doug Flutie and other Massachusetts luminaries.

And it was former (perhaps to be again?) senior adviser to Romney’s presidential campaign, Kevin Madden that had an op-ed in the WSJ this AM:

Republicans could easily recline and leave Mr. Obama and the Democrats to self-destruct. Majority status and control of Congress is conceivably in reach just by reminding voters you can’t blame Republicans for Washington’s current appetite for excess, since Democrats are in control of this mess. It would be a safe maneuver because it’s true.

However, for Republicans the progression from malcontent to sustainable movement involves learning from President Obama’s mistakes. Unlike Mr. Obama, the party can go beyond ideals and process ideas that deliver an actual reformist agenda. The party can prove to a disaffected public that we stand for more than just winning elections but instead are dedicated to reforming a broken system and governing a nation with public support. A Republican Party that avoids the same shortsightedness and reflexive partisanship that has defined President Obama’s first year in office will be one truly deserving of majority status and deliver on the promise of a remade America currently eluding Mr. Obama.

That sounds like the map for 2010 and beyond to me!

And on a final sad note, this “tweet” passed through our little twitter monitor at right this morning:

OMG Romney is on stage with Brown lapping up the victory. This is a nightmare. The Mormon takeover.

We certainly hope you all are taking our advice and actively engaging in comment “policing.”  See “Online Activism” above.  You might want to set up a Twitter account.  After all tweets are just comments without context.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Time doesn’t permit a long post today, but we can offer a few quick hits:

Mike Huckabee, Convicts, and Religion

Anyone not living in a cave for the last 48 hours knows that Maurice Clemmons, the murderer of four police officers in Seattle, was once in state prison in Arkansas – until Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.  Huck has been running away from that decision and attempting to spread the blame to others involved in processing Clemmons through the legal system.  It’s been suggested that Huckabee’s faith played a huge role in his clemency decisions as governor.  The man himself has not yet addressed that question, probably because he doesn’t want to touch it.

That’s understandable.

Consider:  While Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee issued 1,033 pardons, twice as many as the prior three Arkansas governors combined.  Just as a point of comparision, Mitt Romney did not issue a single pardon while Governor of Massachusetts.  I have a hunch that Huckabee, as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, is now . . . toast.

David Frum Thinks The Whole GOP Religion Situation Is Terrible

At least that’s what he seems to be saying here.  Frum, who’s unhappy with religious conservatives generally, sees the Manhattan Declaration’s failure to include Mormons as yet another example of Evangelical bias against that faith.  Well, the Declaration was authored not just by Evangelicals but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians, something Frum doesn’t seem to grasp.  Also, as I noted here, the Declaration is a doctrinal trinitarian document.  Mormons and other heterodox Christian faiths could not have signed it (to say nothing of Orthodox Jews), so the document’s drafters didn’t even invite them to sign.  There are political reasons to quibble with the Declaration’s narrowness, but to this Latter-day Saint it doesn’t look like a slap at Romney or Mormonism.

Meanwhile, this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam.  An atheist, he thinks Romney’s religion is fair game:

Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.

What a stunning insight.  Move along, folks, nothing here to see . . . .  (And thanks to our reader Mary Lynn, who told us about this piece.)

And Finally: The Question, Studied Once Again

This recently-published study reaches some intuitively unsurprising conclusions:

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney’s supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism. . . .

In other words, our study suggests that Romney’s supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Well, we certainly agree with that.

John Adds His Two Cents

There is much I am tempted to say about Mr. Huckabee and the role religion played in his commutations.  It is an expression of much that is wrong on a religious level with the shallowness that has become Evangelicalism.   But this is not a religious blog so I shall let that be.

Huckabee has been striking out at his critics over this, even when he admitted he was unlikely to run just 24 hours before the story broke.  Therein may lie the problems for future politics.  Huckabee has been the standard bearer for many Evangelicals and as he plays this so are they likely to go.  Slipping into defensive “You don’t get it’s and “I told you so’s will not be productive for that group.

Which brings me to the Manhattan Declaration.  Religiously motivated political activism was, in the 2008 election cycle highly fractured.  It fractured along left-right lines, which is not new, but visible for the first time, and it fractured between the ideologues and the pragmatists.  The ideologues retreated to Hucks and Palins of the world- fueled no doubt by anti-Mormon sentiment amongst some as the study cited above demonstrates – and as a result hurt conservative effectiveness.  Unity needs to be restored amongst the traditional coalition or all is lost.

The trinitarian references in the Manhattan Declaration, as one of our commenters has pointed out, are pro forma and not necessary to the primary stances taken therein.  They are a reference that would come for many involved as straightforwardly as breathing.  Their inclusion is likely because to debate them would have increased the fracture lines that were attempting to be healed.  Little can be judged about the relationship with Romney and Mormons on a political level until the healing is complete.

Frum’s commentary is designed to foment fracture along any fault line he can find.  It’s quite obvious that is what is at play here.  And yet, the commenter at Frum’s site shows why we must heal all such fractures.  To the non-religious, who are primarily left-leaning, there is no real distinction between the orthodox and the heterodox – such distinctions appear to them to be infighting and to be politically exploited.  Huckabee’s defensiveness, and that of his supporters, is another such fracture line.

When things like this happen, we would be wise to look for ways to heal the fractures not widen them.

EVEN LATER ADDITION BY JOHN:

Our old friend Joe Carter has posted an important response to the Frum commenter (Alex Knepper) that we discuss above:

Knepper has a valid point about certain religious beliefs and traditions being fair game for scrutiny while others are off-limits. There is a peculiar double-standard in place, though the criteria for which ones are included is difficult to discern. I also agree that religious beliefs—indeed I would include all beliefs of any type—should be considered fair game when evaluating a candidate. The question Knepper leaves unanswered, though, is how such beliefs are to be evaluated in the public square. Where is the line between reasonable criticism and irrational bigotry?

Personally, I’m open to being exceedingly tolerant of raw religious bigotry as long as its accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty. When we enter the public square I’m willing to allow anyone to make whatever nasty remarks they like about evangelicalism as long as I can presents arguments that are rooted in my faith and that are given a fair hearing.

Interesting approach, but I am not sure it works.  The entire point of prejudice and bigotry is to discount arguments by the object of the prejudice and bigotry.  Hence prejudicial references are not admitted in courts because they mean the jury’s judgment is compromised with regards to the pertinent facts of the case.  In other words there is no religious liberty when there is raw religious bigotry – bigotry precludes liberty of any sort – total bigotry against blacks resulted in total slavery, the ultimate denial of liberty.

Bigotry and prejudice are the enemy of law and ours is a nation of laws, not men.

Lowell’s Postscript:

I’ll be more blunt than John:  Joe Carter’s argument is just plain nuts.  To say “raw religious bigotry” is just fine “as long as its [sic] accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty” is an argument so internally inconsistent as to be laughable. But there’s nothing funny about what Carter says. There can not be any acceptable level of religious liberty in the presence of raw religious bigotry. I fear that Carter is simply trying, however feebly, to make an argument that leaves room for his own approach to Romney’s faith in the public square. He needs to re-think his position, and soon.

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Pundits have been talking about the 2012 Republican field for some time now.  I’m not sure Byron York is the first major political soothsayer to mention Romney’s religion in the new presidential election cycle, but he’s surely one of the first.  Near the end of an otherwise policy-oriented Washington Examiner column on Romney’s activities, York tacks on this paragraph:

There’s also no way to know whether the Mormon factor will again come into play. In 2008, some evangelicals rejected Romney on the basis of his religion, even after he gave a much-publicized speech on the role of faith in his life and in politics. That might still be an issue next time around.

Does the expression “short shrift” come to mind?  Or maybe “understatement?”   Both do for me, but I can’t really blame Byron York.  His comment is accurate as far as it goes, and to York’s credit, in the 2008 cycle he always seemed most interested in policy issues and paid little attention to Romney’s faith.  In fact, I always felt that York considered “the Mormon factor” a distraction.  It is inevitable that the subject will come up.  What we don’t know yet is whether 2012 will be a replay of 2008 (a very depressing thought), or if the news media and the electorate will move on, at least to come extent.

Note:  Jennifer Rubin managed to write about the race, with prominent mention of Romney, without bringing up religion.  Kudos to her.  She’s a fine conservative thinker, so maybe there’s hope for the rest of the group.

I will succumb to the temptation to prognosticate just a bit.

• As John has written, politically conservative Evangelicals are in danger of isolating themselves from the rest of conservatism.  (For the record, I do not want to see them do that, if the majority of them want to play a constructive role and will resist the temptation to take their ball and go home.)  This will continue unless some leader steps forward who can pull them in a different direction.

• Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with.  I cannot see her playing the Mormon card.  I have no idea how viable she will really be in 2012, but religious conservatives love her and will pay attention to what she says.  She may well be the leader I wish for above.

• Huckabee will be so busy fighting for his political life against Palin that he may not be able to play that card at all without looking terribly small and desperate.  (He looked that way in 2008 too, but he’s already shown he’s capable of blazing new trails of smallness and desperation.)

Beyond that I can’t predict anything, other than that it’s going to be an interesting ride. But you already knew that.

John comments: At this point I am not sure Palin will run, not at all sure.  In two recent and highly unscientific polls at Instapundit she blew away the field, but she has no organization to speak of.  The Values Voters Summit is a MUST for her and she did not show.  She has a huge fan base, but in terms of political insiders – people that matter – I just do not see a “camp” forming around her.  She is falling behind the curve rapidly.  Her family situation is such that she needs to make some serious money.  She was in Hong Kong speaking during the VVS, getting paid serious money.  She cannot make that kind of coin as a candidate.  That looks like her priority at the moment.  In this environment, coming to the game late will likely put her out altogether.

I do not think she is necessary to make the Huckster look small and desperate.  He is very capable of that himself, and doing a pretty good job so far.  The isolation of some conservative Evangelicals is inevitable and the Huckster will lead that parade.  Fortunately, in terms of numbers, it is not that many Evangelicals.  Only problem is they will take the label with them.

That crowd will only be a problem for Romney if the press enables it.  They should be ashamed for the way they handled it last time, and I think those that are not completely in the bag for the left (there are a few) are so ashamed.  Question is, how do we make the rest of the press feel it?

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post