It’s still vacation time for Article VI Blog, but we will offer a few thoughts about the possibility (which some consider quite likely) that John McCain will select Governor Romney as his running mate.

If Romney were still in the race as an active presidential candidate, what impact would the Texas controversies over the polygamous FLDS movement had?  A poll conducted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) revealed some interesting possibilities:

• More than a third of those surveyed (36 percent) erroneously thought that the Texas compound was part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or “Mormon Church” based in Salt Lake City
• 6 percent said the two groups were partly related.
• 29 percent correctly said the two groups were not connected at all
• 29 percent were not sure.

In addition, when asked specifically which religious organization members of the polygamous group belonged to:

• 30 percent said “Mormon,” “LDS” or “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
• 14 percent said “FLDS”
• 6 percent said “Mormon fundamentalists”
• Nearly  half (44 percent) were unsure

As John might say, had Romney still been in the race, it would have gotten ugly.

Now ask yourself:  In the general election, what would Democrats do with this opportunity to obfuscate and smear?  That might be uglier still.  Would they do those things even against Romney as a vice presidential nominee?

On the brighter side, it appears unlikely that the MSM would be willing particiapants in such confusion-mongering.  Elder Lance Wickman, one of the Church’s general authorities and an attorney who is the Church’s General Counsel, issued a letter to the news media that included these significant paragraphs:

1. As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2. We ask that, when reporting about this Texas-based polygamous sect or any other polygamous group, you avoid either explicitly or implicitly any inference that these groups are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. On those occasions when it may be necessary in your reporting to refer to the historical practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that you make very clear that the Church does not condone the practice of polygamy and that it has been forbidden in the Church for over one hundred years.  Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances.   

Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for who we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.

It is significant, I think, that the letter came from legal counsel and not simply from the Church’s Public Affairs department, which has been issuing similar requests for years.  Also notable is the request that the letter be distributed not just to the media’s editorial staff, but also to their legal counsel.  The Church does not threaten legal action often, and the tone of Elder Wickman’s letter could not be kinder or more respectful; but the implicit threat of legal action seems quite remarkable to me.

Sadly, my crystal ball is still not working as well as I would like it to.  But I am sure that somewhere within Team McCain, these issues are being discussed.  My guess is that in the end, the decision will be made on other grounds, and that if Romney is McCain’s choice, any new media organization that actually uses editors will do its best to avoid smearing Romney by association with the FLDS or any other such organization.

Time will tell.  That’s the great thing about political prognosticating - eventually, we find out who was right and who was wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Heck - Where The Coverage?

Clinton and Obama stood up for something called “The Compassion Forum” over the weekend. In some ways the thing bordered on a religious debate considering, for example, questions about why God allows suffering. More to the point it was an attempt to can religious credibility for Democratic candidates. A fact which, I think, accounts for the lack of serious coverage. Here is coverage from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the NYTimes. I did find one interesting commentary post.

Now imagine for a minute, if you will, a similar forum for Republicans. There would be massive coverage, all spun to make it look like Republicans were close-minded religious automatons. In the primary cycle now complete, there would have also been massive efforts to compare and contrast Romney’s views as a Mormon with the views of more mainstream Christians.

Had this event happened with Republicans, we would have been treated to endless commentary, blogging, TV discussions, etc. on how religion cannot creep too much into the public square - yet this event featured discussions of religion and religious issues in depths that Republicans would routinely refuse to answer - well, save for Huckabee who never passed up a religious question. What is amazingly outrageous is that Democrats who, for several decades, have decried the role of religion in politics - worked tirelessly to eliminate all mention of religion in a public setting - here invoked it on levels that Republicans could never contemplate.

I think this bespeaks an important point: Religion is a political hot potato and moderation in its discussion is key. With the Republicans apparently employing a religious test in the primary, this sort of discussion amongst the Democrats begins to look moderate. While they discussed the metaphysical and theological on levels we would never go near, they did talk about unity and diversity and community.

Our nation loves its religion when it builds bridges, but hates it when it builds walls. The Republican primary appeared to build a wall and the Democrats are not hesitating to capitalize on it. And what is worse, is this version of religiosity is not one that Republicans would agree with much when it comes down to policy. And so, once again, by applying a religious test, even if only amongst individual voters in the voting booth, we have limited our ability to get the policies we want, not enhanced it.

Oops . . .

Lowell jumps in:

I found the Democrats’ behavior in the Compassion Forum fascinating. (I understand McCain was invited but declined to attend. A wise decision, I think.) It makes me wonder if conservatives have a better substantive message, but lousy delivery.

Predictably, the religion Obama and Clinton professed Sunday was the “social gospel” type: Government is a means to deliver the charity taught in the Scriptures. As John notes, the MSM treated the event and its content as totally unremarkable.

I am wondering (worrying) that the Democrats’ religious “message” might be more appealing to the general public than the social conservative/values voter message we saw in the GOP primaries, which was largely driven by Evangelical and like-minded voters. I also worry that Huckabee-style overt religiosity will repel voters to whom the social gospel simply feels better. I am taking about people who are more interested in being made to feel comfortable by vague notions of a kind and benevolent government.

Finally, I worry that although most people probably like the more conservative, values-voter views about the big issues– i.e., the content of the message– most people also prefer a less strident tone. If that’s true, then conservatives win on debating points, but lose on style and delivery.

Speaking of which…

Obama’s “bitterness” gaffe is not playing well when it comes to the Dems’ attempts to garner a religious sheen. Which means we may have the opportunity to recover the high ground before it is all said and done, but we need to get about the business of digesting the lessons of the primary.

More On The Religiously Mute McCain . . .

This time from the Washington Times. And you know, given the analysis just completed, I am wondering if such muteness does not go a long way to explain the Republican primary results - not to mention bode well in the general with Obama’s problems.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Today I just have a few questions:

Why is it that folks on the left and in the MSM (but I repeat myself) have such a double standard for religion in the public square?

More specifically, why is it not objectionable for Harvard University to close one of its on-campus gyms to men for six hours each week so Muslim women can exercise without men present? (HT: Ronald Bailey, writing in Reason Magazine, and commenting extensively.)

Would an on-campus Evangelical group get the same consideration?

Also at Harvard, why is it OK to have the Muslim call to prayer broadcast over a loudspeaker from the steps of the university’s main library during Islamic Awareness Week? (Also from Ronald Bailey.)

That means that daily, Harvard students heard the refrain that “there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.” I don’t begrudge the Muslims that belief or practice at all, but can you imagine a Mormon Awareness Week at Harvard, during which quotations from Joseph Smith would be read over a loudspeaker?

Or, as Bailey asks:

I wonder what the protesters would have thought if some students had similarly recited the Nicene Creed during Christianity Awareness Week?

Just wondering.

I am also wondering: Why can Barack Obama undergo that huge kerfluffle over his minister’s appalling anti-American rants, and yet suffer little damage in the polls — while Romney, whose Mormon faith is unabashedly patriotic, must wear that faith like an anvil around his neck from day 1?

It just seems that some people and faiths get a pass, and others don’t.

Or am I wrong?

John comments: In every case, the Mormon one included, we are confronted with multiple issues wrapped up in a single knot, and we get varied reactions because the press and people tend to focus different single issues rather than trying to untangle the knot and deal with all the issues.

In the Harvard case we have not only the religious issue, but also the issue of their literal militancy.  In this instance people are essentially conceding to blackmail.  People assume that the special privileges they grant the Islamic community will prevent violence.  They are wrong, but the point is they are focused on the violence, not the religion.

In the Obama case, we are confronted with racism and religion.  Now, I think the verdict is still pending as to whether he is or will suffer damage from all of this.  I believe it could yet be fatal to his aspirations, if not in the primary, in the general.  In addition, I have been highly uncomfortable with the detailed theological analysis that Jeremiah Wright’s preaching has undergone as a part of the political discussion.  Especially from some sources that I highly respect.  But again, any break that Obama and his pastor are being cut is based on people focusing on the racial aspects of the situation, not the religious one - which begins to point to the problem.

In the Mormon case the knot is religion tied up with historical polygamy.  As in the other two cases, people seem unable to separate issues.  It is especially troubling for Mormons because they have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years, which makes it somewhat jaw dropping that people are unable to separate the issues with the expanse of time, but I think it is the lessons on Mormon polygamy from history class that underlie most of America’s “weird factor” with Mormons.

In all three of these cases, the reason people are unable to make the separation of the issues is the idea of  religion defining a persons entire identity.  Now, as a deeply religious person myself, I want my religion to consume my entirety, and transform it into something better, but it does not establish for me a group stereotypical identity.

Consider these two links to stories on Romney.  In both cases, Mormon is treated as a defining “label” for Romney and for a larger group of people instead of an individuals chosen faith and philosophy.  Now in fairness to the shot that I took at Hugh Hewitt in the link above, this is the point Hugh was trying to make. I just think that making it by picking on Wright’s specific liberation theology is too targeted, the point needs to made in a broader perspective.

In essence, religion is an individual’s choice, and they should not suffer consequences based on that choice alone, thought he right is reserved to bring those consequences if that individual behaves - either as a direct result of their faith, or a combination of that faith and their individual proclivities - in a fashion our nation deems to be unacceptable.  But it is important to note the consequences are a result of behavior, NOT RELIGION. 

Which brings me back to Lowell’s original concern.  The Harvard and Obama situations have current behavioral consequences, and yet they are cut religious breaks.   Mormons had, but no longer have, behavioral consequences, and therefore are the only group which should be accorded “the religious break” and yet they are not getting it.  That is undeniably a form of bigotry.
Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Just assume, for a moment, that lightning strikes and John McCain selects Mitt Romney as his running mate. Would The Question rise up to bite them both?

We’re not seeing much lately among the punditry suggesting a lot of concern about that. Joe Gandelman, at The Moderate Voice, says McCain has been making interesting noises about Romney as a veep nominee:

The Republican party’s Presidential nominee to be, Senator John McCain, is now dropping hints that, yes, he would indeed seriously consider his former nomination rival former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate. . . . it would make sense. It would be perhaps the first Republican ticket in many years containing two media savvy politicos who know how to talk to the TV camera but also come across well on the TV camera.

Gandelman’s source is this Boston Herald Story, in which McCain is quoted as saying that

the former Bay State governor ran an effective primary campaign and is a rising star in national politics.

“Millions of Republicans voted for him,” McCain said during a swing through New Hampshire. “He’s earned himself a place in the future of the Republican Party.”

Notably, Gandelman lists the “downsides” to such a ticket, and . . . none of them includes Romney’s Mormonism!

Similarly, the CBS News blog (to which Gandelman links) says Romney’s attacks on McCain during the primary races could come back to haunt Romney. I don’t really think so, but again, like Gandelman, CBS does not mention Romney’s faith as a reason he’d be a bad choice.

What is going on here? Several possibilities come to mind.

First, these pundits could simply be clueless. Maybe the elephant in the room suddenly disappeared, but I don’t think so - not after 20 months of the news media talking about him incessantly.

Next, maybe the pundits are right - or a little bit right. Psychologically, maybe it doesn’t bother hard-core Evangelicals as much for the veep nominee to belong to a faith that upsets them so. That’s illogical, but I’m talking about psychology. Even though the vice president really is a heartbeat from the presidency, most of us don’t really believe the unthinkable will happen.

And yet . . . and yet . . . McCain needs to do what he must to win. If he really thinks he needs all the conservative votes he can get, then why would he risk alienating hard-core Evangelicals by choosing Romney?

Then again, those people are already about as alienated as can be. A “M & M” ticket would presumably not make anything worse.

As you may be able to tell, I am frankly undecided as to whether The Question would haunt a McCain-Romney ticket. What do you think?

John Takes A Stab: My off-the-cuff answer is “depends on Huckabee.” I am speaking metaphorically here. Let me break that down a bit. Most Evangelicals would have voted for Romney if there was not something they perceived as a more viable alternative in the race. There is a level of unease concerning Mormonism at the highest levels of government (no logic here, it does not seem to exist at the lower levels - it is a symbolism over substance thing) that can be overcome, relatively easily, unless someone specifically manipulates that unease, in the primaries that someone was Mike Huckabee.

That would be troubling for a Romney veep slot save for one fact - no one on the Democratic side comes with sufficient Evangelical credentials to pull off that manipulation. We are watching Obama’s religious credibility evaporate before our very eyes, and Clinton’s went away about a decade ago. No Evangelical leader worth the title is going to say a word at this point, they know the damage this whole thing has wrought.

If Romney is the veep choice, there will be rumblings - something like aftershocks from a major earthquake. There might be some that cause a little damage, but nothing fatal. The worst is over, the significant damage done. My guess is the only people that will pay attention at this point are political junkies.
Sphere: Related Content

7 Comments »

It was not that long ago that we made a virtual sport of puncturing Huckabee’s claims to divine oversight, approval, and guidance of his campaign. We have, to date, largely ignored Obama’s religious issues because, to date, it was about the church he belonged to, not him. Well, that is rapidly changing:

Barack Obama has put his religion back into the headlines, trumpeting the power and salvation of faith and asking a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

Obama has long been trying to capitalize on messianic-type energy to compel his campaign forward, but this is the first time I am aware that that he has claimed actual prophetic status. What was bad for Huck is bad for Obama. I am not sure I need to cover the ground too much here; we have been over it so much. But I do one observation and a hypothetical.

The first is to compare and contrast the news coverage of all this. Obama’s church is now getting a going over that is not that dissimilar, though much less intense, than what Romney’s church did. Now, much as it pains me to say anything nice about a Democrat, he does not deserve this anymore than Romney did. At least until he crossed the Huck line in these claims. What is extraordinary, though, is how much coverage this utterance from Obama has gotten compared to when Huck said the same things repeatedly. I guess if you claim divine intervention from the majority religion, its not news, but from something a little different like Obama’s church it is?

And now the hypothetical. Imagine Huck v Obama. Two men, running for president, both claiming to be God’s best representative. What is the net result of such an election battle? I can promise you it is not good, not good at all. Religious war comes to mind, at least rhetorical war. It would be bad for politics, bad for the churches involved, and bad for the nation in general. That’s why the common convention has been to avoid this kind of stuff.

I find myself shaking my head in amazement - and praying for some wisdom for our candidates.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Amid 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?
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »