Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

What's On Twitter

  • Tweets: Romney Mormon

  • Tweets: Evangelical Politics

  • Does The Silence Speak?

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 04:49 am, August 12th 2008     &mdash      2 Comments »

    The volume of discussion regarding Mitt Romney as a Veep possibility has dropped to near zero. There has been a notable drop in all Veep prognostication, but in what little discussion is going on Romney seems to be completely off the radar now. This precipitous drop in Romney-talk has come directly on the heels of the “evangelical warning” of a couple of weeks ago. One must wonder if there is a cause-and-effect relationship.

    Now, given Richard Land’s leadership – weak, but far more sober, concerns that we looked at on Friday – if you are John McCain, you must certainly include the “evangelical warning” issue in your deliberations. John McCain, like all nominees in a hard fought primary, finds himself needing to unite the party if he has a chance to win the general. Given McCain’s history with Evangelicals, that is the place where he has to do the greatest work to heal the rift, or at least build a sufficient bridge to allow him to win. If you are McCain, caution towards Evangelicals is called for.

    So, from the standpoint of a Romney supporter, this is where the weakness of Land’s discussion of the bigoted 20% becomes so important. If the majority of the reasonable within the Evangelical fold are willing to speak out strongly against the bigoted 20%, then a Romney Veep nod begins to make sense because McCain knows he can rely on the vast majority of Evangelicals. But, when you get tepid statements like those Land gave, McCain has to view Evangelicals as “soft” when it comes to a Romney nod and respond accordingly.

    What at is really insidious about that bit of political calculation is that in the end, the reasonable (and most powerful) Evangelical leaders have first ceded their personal authority to the bigoted minority, since they are now effectively setting policy. Second, by contributing to losing not only the primaries, but also, in essence, the race for Veep, they reduce Evangelical political influence in general.

    So, where are we? Well, where we have been since this whole thing started: the biggest loser in a Romney loss is Evangelicals.

    There is another related question. If Romney does not get the Veep job, will the Tim LaHayes of the world try to take credit? The answer is absolutely! Because, as we analyzed above, the current Evangelical leadership will have effectively ceded authority to the bigoted minority and hence to the minority’s spokesmen, it would be natural for those spokesmen to try and leverage that into a larger leadership role.

    What is sad is that they will be attempting to take command of a sinking ship. The current leadership could right the ship – they could in fact bring the ship successfully into port, cargo intact, payday perhaps delayed, but nonetheless preserved. All they have to do is be willing to throw the pretenders “overboard.”

    It is really time for Evangelicals to get serious if they want to have real political influence.

    Lowell adds a little speculation: What to make of all this? Richard Land made his statement knowing that McCain would hear it. Land therefore knew he might well be torpedoing Romney’s chances for veep. It was a pivotal moment, potentially, and Land must have known that.

    Of course, land Might have said:

    I think Mitt Romney would be a solid choice. Of course I have significant theological disagreements with Romney’s religion, but I have disagreements with many religions. Romney’s positions on the issues Southern Baptists care about are right, and he is very well-positioned to help Senator McCain win the presidency. I recognize that some Southern Baptists have strong theological disagreements with Governor Romney, but those are unrelated to how he would serve as vice president, and I hope everyone will see it that way.

    Land would say that in my dreams, I guess.

    If he did, and if Romney got the nod, then Land and his group would be a faction that can get things done, rather than stopping things from happening. They seem to prefer the latter role. Along the way, they reinforce their image as intolerant, “my way or the highway” people. That’s certainly how this blogger sees them. It’s not an endearing image.

    There very likely have been private discussions between Land and the McCain campaign as well. In his public statements I doubt Land was trying to influence McCain against choosing Romney. I do think Land was trying to preserve his own skin. I wonder if, in private, Land said to McCain’s peeple, “I like Romney, and you can pick him, but a lot of Evangelicals will stay home on election day if you do.” If so, the effect is the same.

    All in all, it’s difficult to find much positive in this situation. The most qualified candidate, in my view, is being stopped because of his religion, and that of his ancestors for four or five generations. The group that is stopping him is shooting itself in the foot and making it less likely in the future that it will have the clout necessary to help promote true conservatives for the presidency. They will be seen as a bunch of mean and nasty people who played religious politics and got away with it.

    At a deeper level, people like Richard Land and James Dobson will be seen as cowards who stood by and let that happen because they are terrified of their own constituencies. The hit to their credibility will be lasting.

    In many ways, 2008 might be called the year of “The Great Evangelical Crack-up.” We’ll see.

    John responds:  I agree that this may well the the cycle that marks the end of significant evangelical influence in electoral politics, but I think it is due purely to ineptitude.  I seriously doubt there have been private communications between Land and McCain, Dobson and McCain or McCain and any other Evangelical leader.

    McCain does not like us that well.  He is not going to reach out to us, it is really up to us to reach out to him, and I am not seeing that happen either.   At bottom, the problem is too much ego at play here.  McCain has too much as do these Evangelical leaders.  McCain always has had, and the Evangelicals view themselves as kingmakers.

    Sad fact is McCain got here without them, so why should he reach out to them.  He got there because they played religious politics, split the coalition and let him.  It is the Evangelicals that have a choice now.  Either jettison the bigot, go to McCain hat-in-hand and join the team, requesting a Romney, or in essence give McCain and excuse to marginalize them instead of them marginalizing the bigots.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 2 Comments » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    News You Can Use; and A Few Questions Too

    Posted by: Lowell Brown at 07:12 am, April 3rd 2008     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    This just in:

    Dobson still not happy with McCain

    I’ve got to hand it to Jonathan Martin.  Not much gets past that young man.

    My question: What happens if McCain gets elected POTUS? That could happen, you know. How much influence will Dr. Dobson and his group have in a McCain White House?

    And how long has this been going on?

    Newsweek’s “On Faith” section asks,

    John McCain’s spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a “false religion” that should be “destroyed.” Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year’s U.S. presidential election?

    There are numerous responses from various “wise men” and “wise women.”

    But . . . it appears that the hard-left pundit David Corn is the one who named Rod Parsley McCain’s “spiritual guide” in an article in Mother Jones, a journal that is not exactly a model of objectivity.

    And then Newsweek devotes an entire “On Faith” section to a response to Corn’s screed?  Excuse me, but doesn’t the Mother Jones piece look like a pretty lame effort to equate McCain’s endorsement by this Rod Parsley character with the Obama-Jeremiah Wright relationship?

    Share

    Posted in Issues | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Romney Too Perfect? Two Opposing Views That Say A Lot About Our Culture

    Posted by: Lowell Brown at 10:41 am, March 12th 2008     &mdash      1 Comment »

    spitzers.jpgAmid all the post-Romney candidacy analysis, I find most interesting the notion that Romney was “too perfect” to be president.  That is  because, the argument goes, he lives up to high personal standards, by all accounts, and seems extraordinarily successful and fortunate, both in business and in his personal life.  On the day Eliot Spitzer resigned because of his, well, imperfect personal life, that notion seems especially fascinating.

    Libby Copeland of the Washington Post is the latest to express the “too perfect” view:

    Romney seemed so Mormon, so squeaky clean. His seeming normalcy isn’t the norm anymore. Maybe we understand better those who’ve strayed or failed and recovered — or, for that matter, those who aren’t fabulously successful and can’t put tens of millions into their own campaigns. Maybe we relate to the family lives of other candidates, candidates who have been divorced, who have blended families, whose children don’t all campaign with them (and may not even like them). Sure, they’re messier, but messy is authentic.

    “Messy is authentic.” What an interesting way to express the difference between the real and the ideal. In other words, we like what is real because it seems familiar and comfortable to us and doesn’t make us feel inadequate, doesn’t challenge us to aspire to something better. (But wait, I thought Obama’s slogan of “Change” was what people found so inspiring about him. Maybe that’s because he’s talking about changing government, which is appealing, and not about changing ourselves, which is not.)

    Now compare Ms. Copeland’s view, which seems to prevail in the MSM, with that of Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online:

    What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.

    And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream-in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed.

    I agree with K-Lo. Let’s hear it for our political class setting a standard to which the rest of us can all aspire.

    John comments:  What a sad commentary it is when we want leaders “just like us” – meaning “just as screwed up as I am.”  I also find it cognitively dissonant with the idea that the election is about “change.”  I am reminded of high school class elections that were essentially “social group showdowns,” you know, jocks vs. nerds, stuff like that.

    Frankly, what Copeland expresses is identity politics in another guise – only in some ways much worse.  Instead of based on some identity group – that group being hopefully attached to some higher idea – this is pure identity, and negative identity to boot. 

    I also think this is Democrat politics as well – think about it, all their candidates lately come rife with extensive personal problems, thus we see the governor of NY resigning just this morning, and the foibles of the Clintons have been worked out in public for a couple fo decades now.  Then there is Obama’s historical drug use.  All this when guys like Evan Bayh, fairly liberal Democrat to be sure, but decent, moral and honorable human being, is relegated to second fiddle status.  Do we really want to be like the Democrats?

    Share

    Posted in Issues, News Media Bias | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Special Primary Weekend Edition: Nevada, South Carolina, The Tonight Show, and “Huckabee Houdini” (UPDATED ALL DAY)

    Posted by: Lowell Brown at 10:48 am, January 19th 2008     &mdash      9 Comments »

    [Updated all day Saturday.]

    Romney was a guest on the Tonight Show Friday night, just before Nevada. (Video here.) In a long interview with Jay Leno, The Question came up briefly:

    JAY LENO: Religion seem to be an issue. I don’t get why it is. I don’t see why religion really matters, but does it seem like it’s an issue to you? Is it something you have to address constantly on the campaign trail? Or do you find most people just ‑‑

    MITT ROMNEY: I think people want a person of faith leading the country. They want a person who they think, if there’s inspiration needed, inspiration will be received, but I don’t think they select their president or their secular leader based on which church they go to. So as I go across the country, there are probably some who feel that way, but most believe that we should be talking about religious tolerance and recognize that this is the nation that has a religious liberty that is very different than the nations we see around the world. If you’re not a Shia in some places, you can’t be a political leader. We don’t choose our leaders that way.

    If you’re not a Shia in some places, you can’t be a political leader. Although he slipped that comment in subtly, Romney is hitting pretty hard there. Will Evangelicals bristle at the comparison to Islam? Probably only the hard-core. The truth hurts, I guess.

    (Note: In response to one of our commenters: I am not saying hard-core anti-Mormon Evangelicals are like Shia Muslims, and I don’t think Romney was saying that either. I am saying that extremist Islam is not the model we want to emulate in the USA, and that the only Evangelicals who will bristle at Romney’s statement are probably those who think it is appropriate to oppose him because of his religion.)

    (more…)

    Share

    Posted in Electability, Issues, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 9 Comments » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Is The Question Important?

    Posted by: Lowell Brown at 05:13 pm, January 10th 2008     &mdash      1 Comment »

    Apparently not to National Public Radio.  One of our readers e-mails the following: 

    Below is an email I sent today to two friends that I discuss political matters with.  Disclosure, I’m LDS.

    I did a lot of driving today so that means a lot NPR. A thought.

    Identity politics include (at least): race, religion, and sex.

    NPR’s talk radio today discussed the amazing opportunity Americans have in 2008 to break through the barriers of:

    Race: Elect the first black person to the White House

    Sex: Elect the first woman to the White House

    There was no talk about breaking through the religion barrier (electing the first Mormon). I honestly don’t feel there’s too much negativity right now against Mormons (any more than normal), but I wonder why they don’t see Romney’s run as “important for America”.

    Thoughts?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17988094

    (Yes, the title of the story is ” Writer: America Ready for a Female President?” so I wouldn’t expect religion to be discussed, but sex and race were and religion wasn’t. Their discussion is telling, though.)

    Share

    Posted in Issues, News Media Bias | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Mitt Romney, Meet the Press, And An Enduring Religious-Social Issue

    Posted by: Lowell Brown at 05:08 pm, December 16th 2007     &mdash      2 Comments »

    Romney on Meet the Press 12-16-07

    Romney, Russert and Religion

    Today’s Meet The Press Interview is now part of the public record, and predictably, Tim Russert dove into religion first. (Here’s the video clip of that portion of the interview, and here’s the transcript.)

    One issue that got more attention than I think it has previously in the campaign was the former policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) that denied the Church’s lay priesthood to African-American men. The exchange:

    (more…)

    Share

    Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Issues, Questions, Religious Bigotry, The Speech, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    « Previous Page« Previous« Quick Links 12/17/07  |  Next »Next Page »Beyond Disagreement, Evangelical Backlash, and more… »