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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Romney’s “Faith in America” Speech: Changing The Discussion Forever

John and I were on Hugh Hewitt’s show Friday for a few minutes and Hugh asked us if we thought The Speech put The Question to bed. We didn’t have time to answer fully.

On reflection, I think what has happened is that Romney has irrevocably and forever changed the discussion about The Question. (K-Lo seems to agree.)

As John notes below, Romney has drawn a line in the sand, and everyone watching this race — candidates, commentators, or voters– will need to decide which side they are on.

Why? Because Romney has taken the high ground on the issue of religion. From this point on, the following statements from his “Faith in America” speech will guide the discussion:

1. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

This bold and provocative assertion is a fine example of the line in the sand John references. It has already drawn attack from the left, and probably will as long as Romney is in the race. As for the other Republican candidates, especially Huckabee, they are reduced to saying “me, too.” Romney has occupied the space around the question of religion’s role in civic life. The others can join him in that space, but he was the first to go there.

2. “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

An even bolder line in the sand. Can anyone be on the other side of this one? Yes, but no one can stand there without first doing some pretty fancy tap-dancing. To argue that a candidate should be rejected because of his or her faith requires a lot of careful parsing of words and qualification of positions. Can any Republican candidate contradict Romney here? It doesn’t seem so; Huckabee, after insistent questioning by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today, and despite frantic wriggling, was finally forced to concede the point.

3. “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of ay church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”

This is one issue that truly is dead after this speech. Any serious candidate who challenges Romney on this point will be reduced to saying that Romney is simply lying – a very difficult burden to carry.

4. “Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people.”

Can you see Mitt Romney, way up there on the high ground? The Dick Morrises of the world, who insist the GOP should not and will not nominate Romney because nominating a Mormon would be to hand the election to the Democrats, now look very small-minded indeed.

5. “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

Of course there will be some who want to say, “Yes, but Romney believes in a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.” They are free to do so, but those who will vote based on that concern are a small minority in any event, and look . . . well, small in making that argument. (There’s Romney again, up there on the high moral ground. Get used to it, everyone.)

6. “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”This is a brilliant two-line argument. Romney makes an entirely reasonable assertion, one that almost everyone will accept: Candidates don’t and shouldn’t speak for their churches. Then he makes that assertion an imperative of leadership and unity: The president needs everyone’s prayers, because we’re all in this together as people of faith.

Of course Huckabee is eager to say that he will speak for his faith and the other candidates should speak for theirs. Which approach do you think will wear best with the electorate-Romney’s high-mindedness or Huckabee’s cynical slickness?

7. “It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”

The reference to a “creed” is a bit sly; many Evangelicals emphasize that Mormonism’s rejection of the great Christian creeds separates the Latter-day Saints from orthodox Christianity, and the LDS readily agree. But Romney is once again up there on the mountaintop, urging ‘religious people,” in civic affairs, to focus on what unites us more than what divides us. Again, no one can challenge this without looking small; no one can agree without being in a “me too” position.

8. “Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“These are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation.”

This is the kind of language that will end up chiseled on the walls of the W. Mitt Romney Presidential Library, if there ever is one. They are presidential words. As John remarked to me while we filed out of the auditorium at the Bush Library, Romney was speaking to the nation the way a president does.

Going forward, any discussion of The Question will be framed by the statements above, as well as the other marked Romney laid down about secularism — markers no other candidate in this election, Republican or Democrat, has even mentioned seriously yet.

With this one speech Romney has gone from being the punching bag on religious issues to the thought leader on those same issues. It’s an impressive tour de force. If you’ll forgive a purely partisan statement, based on what I know about Mitt Romney, I have a hunch we’ll see more of this kind of leadership as the campaign unfolds.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are.  He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party.  McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004.  McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president.  Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down.  I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives.  Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.  I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions.  If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.  These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated.  They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”

Dr. Dobson did love Romney’s speech on “Faith in America,” but has never endorsed anyone in the race.  Well, at least we know which candidate he will not vote for.

(HT:  The Campaign Spot.)

UPDATE:  A reader e-mails us and reports that Dr. Dobson was on Dennis Prager’s show this morning: “Dobson said, even tho he has doctrinal differences with Mormons, he would definitely vote for Mitt in the general were he the nominee.”

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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:

MR. RUSSERT: You, you raise the issue of color of skin. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools. In 1964 civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn’t till 1978 that the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to participate fully. Here was the headlines in the papers in June of ’78. “Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias. Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites.” You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation. Didn’t you think, “What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?”

Romney responded:

GOV. ROMNEY: I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith–well, it’s true and I love my faith. And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad’s reputation, my mom’s and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I’ve told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there–there’s, there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

If you want to try judging Romney’s sincerity on the racism issue, watch the video clip. (Shorter version here.) I won’t detail my own experience; suffice it to say that like many other adult members of the Church on June 1, 1978, when the change was announced, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news. It was like a thunderbolt, and I felt as though a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders. Thanks to reader Jeff, here’s another account of the events leading up to that day, written by the man who is now President of the Church.

There is nothing new in the Meet the Press interview, except Russert’s follow-up on whether Romney believes the Church’s former policy was wrong. For reasons I’ll discuss below, it is very difficult for Romney to answer that question directly. This is a problem Romney cannot solve. The only question is whether his refusal to get into that level of doctrinal detail will hurt him politically. I doubt that it will. But let’s take a look at the politico-religious issue.

Byron York rightly points out today that candidates have long been asked about their past association with institutions that discriminate based on race. He sums up Romney’s problem:

. . . Romney is faced with the simple question: Was the church policy before 1978 wrong? This morning, he wouldn’t say, and it might be difficult for him, as a former church leader, to get out in front of the LDS leadership on that. And he certainly can’t cite McConkie’s advice to forget everything that was said before 1978. Given all that, it’s an issue that’s likely to pop up over and over again.

Romney’s position is painfully familiar to many, if not most Mormons who were adult members of the Church prior to the announcement on June 1, 1978. Most of us say essentially this:

We don’t know why the policy existed and we don’t know why it took so long to change, but we were terribly uncomfortable with the policy while it was in place and we are delighted and relieved that it is now in the past. Because we don’t know the answers to those two “why” questions, and because we believe the Church is guided by revelation, we can’t in good conscience say the policy was wrong. All we can say is we are grateful it is over. That’s not very satisfying spot to be in, but we accept it and move forward as faithful members of the Church.

At least that’s how I feel about the matter. I don’t know that voters who care about the Church’s former policy will have the patience to accept that response. I suspect there are not enough of those voters to make a difference, especially in light of the Romney family history on the issue. Mitt Romney himself has all but said that whatever the Church’s position used to be on the issue, his family’s behavior was in support of equal rights.

York is right that the issue will pop up over and over. Along the way, reporters will probably refer to this interview with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. If you scroll down a ways you will find some interesting and, I think, candid comments about the Church’s former race-based policy.

By the way, on the Meet the Press website there are outtakes, called “Take Two,” from today’s interview, including excerpts here from George Romney’s interview on the show in 1964. The elder Romney was also asked about Mormonism, but the very benign nature of those long-ago questions is fascinating. (Hint: They’re about the gnarly issue of Sabbath observance.)

If you want to get to know Mitt Romney better, watch the Take Two portion. It is much more relaxed and provides some insight into the man.

Christians?

K-Lo notes that today’s MTP session will fan the flames around the “Christian” question:

[A]s much as it pains me, I can’t help but think that there are some evangelicals who heard Romney talk about “Christians” who were seething that he won’t say “I am not a Christian.” I remember the first time it was explained to me at a Concerned Women for America conference that I am not a Christian because I am Catholic. At the time I wondered why we — my pro-life, conservative CWA friends and I — couldn’t just strengthen our political alliance on issues we agreed on and go our own ways Sunday morning (or whenever). I hope pray Iowa conservatives get how important it is to have that alliance — to unite where we agree on the policy and political issues that are at the core of what the next president will face in office — and not splinter it for a guy who wants to be a “Christian leader” who has a whole host of the policy and political issues wrong.

We could not have said it better.

Update: John Hinderaker of Power Line is tired of all this and comments in a post entitled “Enough Already.”

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it’s only going to get worse. I’d thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, “Do you believe every word of this book?” — and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.

Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.

Krauthammer saves special mention for Romney. This is because The Speech was far and away the most reasonable utterance by a candidate in the subject to date, but the point Krauthammer makes refers to my biggest and only serious “wince point” in the whole Speech:

Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn’t, because the theme of the speech was that there was something special about having your values drawn from religious faith.

Krauthammer is right here, but the question is, what is a Republican candidate to do? Krauthammer is making the case that the candidates are to lead, not follow, on this issue, but they also have to get elected. As the rush to Huck has shown there are a lot of votes in the religion label. George Will said a couple of weeks ago as the Huckaboom exploded onto the national stage:

If Huckabee succeeds in derailing Romney’s campaign by raising a religious test for presidential eligibility, that will be clarifying: In one particular, America was more enlightened a century ago.

I think Will is being proven right; in such a less-enlightened environment, it is leadership to attempt to move the country back in the right direction, even if that is a baby-step and not all the way into the proper perspective. Krauthammer concludes:

But apparently not in the campaign of 2008. It’s two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.

I think that is not a completely unfair statement, but I also think it is far more true of the Republican voter than it is of Romney, certainly, and probably most of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Huckabee.

Leadership is a tricky thing. One must create a sufficient connection with those he is attempting to lead for them to want to follow. If you run too far ahead they will simply wander off.

I am far more concerned about the rank-and-file Republicans that are insisting on this discussion. I do not think they are a majority, but they do win the volume contest and more important, they win the press attention contest because the press wants this religious stuff front and center. It makes good copy.

Moreover, in the end, as we of religion battle this out, the voices of secularism, which you can hear in background of Krauthammer’s piece, sound more and more reasonable. In the end religion will lose unless it can learn to play the game by the firmly established rules. It is not enough in America to argue on the lines, “God said it, I believe it, and that is that.”

What makes Americans unique is that we do not hold government as the agency of God, even the generic, non-descript God of the political, or civic, religion. Our government is an agency of men, actually it is an agency of law established by men. Recall the invocation of the Almighty in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights [emphasis added - as if you didn't know that] . . . .

The way things work in this nation is that God acts through man. This means the role of religion is to change people, who then change law which then changes government. If I, as a person who has been changed by God, want to change law, then under the rules of our nation, I have to convince people, regardless of whether God has changed them or not, that that such a change is good for them. A mere claim of Divine authority is insufficient.

The religious voice has gotten lazy in this country. We are numerous enough that we can make the party with which we are most closely affiliated come to us. But we are not numerous enough to win the big prize. We have got to play by the rules or we will lose.

Tocqueville warned of the “Tyranny of the Majority.” If we play this game by labels and brands, and by flavors of religion, we come dangerously close to giving reality to his fears. Frankly, it is in response to those fears that our society secularized as much as it has.

One final thought: Playing politics by politics rules is not inherently an “un-Christian” thing to do. Many people fear this. Politics is religiously, and value neutral. Losing is not irreligious nor un-Christian in this context, it is simply losing. We have a choice to make when confronted with a political loss. Take our ball, declare moral victory, go home and watch the nation rot, or figure out how to win according to the rules.

The movie “Amazing Grace” is very instructive on this front. William Wilberforce gave up at one point because he lost so much. But he played by the rules and in the end, God won.

Lowell’s post-script: I agree fully with John. I also agree that the 2008 candidates must respond in some way to the electorate’s wishes. Romney would certainly rather be talking to the voters about his policy vision for the nation than about his belief in Christ, but we have right now a GOP electorate (and a cheerleading MSM) that insists on religious expressions by the Republican candidates. Many of my friends among politically conservative Christianity have not been helpful in this regard. In his responses to these pressures, especially The Speech, Romney has shown leadership. I don’t think the others, particularly Huckabee, have. K-LO certainly does not think so.

I also liked Krauthammer’s comments on the significance of the Constitution’s Article VI:

The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.

In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race — changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next — so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.

Occasionally, readers here complain that we confuse Article VI’s prohibition on religious tests by the government with restraints on how people may vote. We know the difference. One of our goals on this blog is to use Article VI as the teacher Krauthammer describes.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

On reflection, I think what has happened is that Romney has irrevocably and forever changed the discussion about The Question. (K-Lo seems to agree.)

As John notes below, Romney has drawn a line in the sand, and everyone watching this race — candidates, commentators, or voters– will need to decide which side they are on.

Why? Because Romney has taken the high ground on the issue of religion. From this point on, the following statements from his “Faith in America” speech will guide the discussion:

1. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

This bold and provocative assertion is a fine example of the line in the sand John references. It has already drawn attack from the left, and probably will as long as Romney is in the race. As for the other Republican candidates, especially Huckabee, they are reduced to saying “me, too.” Romney has occupied the space around the question of religion’s role in civic life. The others can join him in that space, but he was the first to go there.

2. “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

An even bolder line in the sand. Can anyone be on the other side of this one? Yes, but no one can stand there without first doing some pretty fancy tap-dancing. To argue that a candidate should be rejected because of his or her faith requires a lot of careful parsing of words and qualification of positions. Can any Republican candidate contradict Romney here? It doesn’t seem so; Huckabee, after insistent questioning by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today, and despite frantic wriggling, was finally forced to concede the point.

3. “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of ay church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”

This is one issue that truly is dead after this speech. Any serious candidate who challenges Romney on this point will be reduced to saying that Romney is simply lying – a very difficult burden to carry.

4. “Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people.”

Can you see Mitt Romney, way up there on the high ground? The Dick Morrises of the world, who insist the GOP should not and will not nominate Romney because nominating a Mormon would be to hand the election to the Democrats, now look very small-minded indeed.

5. “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

Of course there will be some who want to say, “Yes, but Romney believes in a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.” They are free to do so, but those who will vote based on that concern are a small minority in any event, and look . . . well, small in making that argument. (There’s Romney again, up there on the high moral ground. Get used to it, everyone.)

6. “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”This is a brilliant two-line argument. Romney makes an entirely reasonable assertion, one that almost everyone will accept: Candidates don’t and shouldn’t speak for their churches. Then he makes that assertion an imperative of leadership and unity: The president needs everyone’s prayers, because we’re all in this together as people of faith.

Of course Huckabee is eager to say that he will speak for his faith and the other candidates should speak for theirs. Which approach do you think will wear best with the electorate-Romney’s high-mindedness or Huckabee’s cynical slickness?

7. “It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”

The reference to a “creed” is a bit sly; many Evangelicals emphasize that Mormonism’s rejection of the great Christian creeds separates the Latter-day Saints from orthodox Christianity, and the LDS readily agree. But Romney is once again up there on the mountaintop, urging ‘religious people,” in civic affairs, to focus on what unites us more than what divides us. Again, no one can challenge this without looking small; no one can agree without being in a “me too” position.

8. “Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“These are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation.”

This is the kind of language that will end up chiseled on the walls of the W. Mitt Romney Presidential Library, if there ever is one. They are presidential words. As John remarked to me while we filed out of the auditorium at the Bush Library, Romney was speaking to the nation the way a president does.

Going forward, any discussion of The Question will be framed by the statements above, as well as the other marked Romney laid down about secularism — markers no other candidate in this election, Republican or Democrat, has even mentioned seriously yet.

With this one speech Romney has gone from being the punching bag on religious issues to the thought leader on those same issues. It’s an impressive tour de force. If you’ll forgive a purely partisan statement, based on what I know about Mitt Romney, I have a hunch we’ll see more of this kind of leadership as the campaign unfolds.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Some things are not helpful . . .

The Los Angeles Times does a piece on Evangelical reaction:

But will it help Romney, a Mormon, win over the key voting bloc of conservative Christians?

The broad consensus: probably not.

“I’m not sure it’s going to work for evangelical voters,” said Collin Hansen, editor-at-large at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. “Pure and simple, there are very dramatic differences” between the Mormon faith and other Christian traditions. “People wonder, does he really believe that — and if so, can I really trust him?”

What Romney’s speech did is draw a line in the sand. He spoke about the great American traditions of religious freedom and tolerance. He pointed out, simply, that if as a religious person you wish to participate in the great American discussion, you’d better be on the right side of the line.

The press knows this too and they are running around look for people on the wrong side of the line so they can paint the religious right, Evangelicals, whatever label you want to us, as precisely the close-minded, “easily-lead,” ‘bots they expect us to be.

Lowell: I don’t know much about Collin Hansen, but his comment leaves much to be desired. If a politician believes in the miraculous, he cannot be trusted? And this, from an editor of a respected religious publication? Hanson should read Jason Lee Steorts’ piece on NRO, “Rational Questions.” He’ll be properly embarrassed if he does.

World Magazine finds the lunatic fringe at the speech and treats them as if they have legitimacy, when their tactics robbed them of it completely. There were two of your typical sign-carrying, slogan chanting opposition groups in evidence. One was a group of atheistic Paul-pods. This group was reasonably well behaved, primarily setting themselves up to be the backdrop for most of the TV coverage. It was the anti-Mormon religious zealots, people whose theology I more or less agree with that proved to be a total embarrassment. I witnessed a confrontation between them and Carl Cameron of FOXNews as they insisted on shouting over his stand-up. These people did not do my religious beliefs any favors whatsoever, and for World Magazine, one of the leading Evangelical voices in publishing to give them any credence at all just adds to the shame. Not to mention the fact it is just flat out lazy reporting.

Lowell: Just to be specific here, there were all of three of those anti-Mormon protesters, holding a sign that said “Joseph lied.” Apparently that’s all you need to do to get quoted in World magazine. By contrast, when we spoke with Carl Cameron after his little set-to with that same threesome, Cameron dismissed them by saying “They’re a dime a dozen,” and moved on to another topic.

And Some Things Are…

The Catholic News Agency interviews some leading Catholics on their reactions. Catholics have a long history of political action. Their sophistication so far outweighs Evangelicals that it can be daunting. You do know that the Catholic Church is the largest church in the US by membership. A Catholic/Mormon coalition could just set Evangelicals down pretty hard. Of course, Catholic political sophistication also means great political diversity inside the church. My point is simple that Evangelicals could be served by some lessons from their Catholic brethren.

Lowell: A personal observation: I think we can all learn some important things from Catholics. In my experience as a committed Mormon, I generally have a much more comfortable time interacting with my Catholic acquaintances than with Evangelicals. For some reason, Catholics seem generally to have an accepting attitude toward all comers. I’m afraid many Evangelicals, once they have learned I’m a Mormon, have tended to look at me as if I had two heads. I never feel that way around Catholics. Evangelicals, for all I know, feel odd when they are in the company of Mormons. But my Catholic acquaintances, with their general lack of hard religious edges, simply seem more secure in their faith and culture than others. Again, an example to emulate.

Update from Lowell: Hugh Hewitt devoted his show yesterday to the speech and has a lengthy roundup on his blog today. Yes, Hugh is pro-Romney and loved the speech, but he has a lot of impressive company, all transcripted and podcasted there for anyone who wants to read or hear: Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, James Dobson and others.

John Updates Sunday Morning

Hey Lowell, don’t forget us in that radio commentary mix!

So, when you want to say something really, totally outrageous in response to teh speech, apparently you run off an publish it in the London newspapers. Thus acted “Mr. Christianist,” Andrew Sullivan in the Time of London.

Theodemocracy: the blending of government with a universally Christian populace in which faith is the prerequisite of public office. This is the vision of America that Romney is proposing. He has behind him the power brokers of the Protestant right, the theocons of the Catholic right, the Mormon church and the vested interests of a Republican party elite that, in the wake of George W Bush, wants to extend the theodemocratic principles of an antisecular movement.

Now first of all, he wrote and published this piece in a nation that, UNLIKE America, has a state established religion. Can you say “Ironic?” Secondly, Romney puts forth one of the best defenses of the traditional American understanding of the intersection religion and politics that has been delivered in several decades and Sullivan is going to label it derisively?

Sullivan is reduced to the whining pleas of a child, “It’s just not fair that most people believe in God and I don’t!” Come on Sullivan, nobody proposed to take away your right to be an atheist. Nobody proposed to take away your right to be gay. You will not be put on trial for being a heretic. Lighten up just a little.

But the most important lesson from Sullivan’s rant is his combination, as if we were some sort of cabal, of Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons. Clarifies the real battles lines, doesn’t it?

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

In general the “good speech” commentary is outweighing the “bad speech” commentary significantly; however, the vast majority of the positive commentary is of the “Yes, but…” variety. Some of that is just the nature of commentary in general, “AMENS” do not appear as serious thought.

Amongst some of the more strident negatives are John Podhoretz:

That’s entirely fine. But there’s something oddly pointless about this protestation. Who is the audience for this speech, aside from people like me who make their living in part watching them and reading their texts and writing about them?

and Lee Harris:

The Reuters headline said: “Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House.” Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It’s a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?

Both pieces are both proof that there is no pleasing anybody. Harris seems to be arguing, still, that Romney should not have given the speech. That just seems silly after the fact. Podhoretz thinks all the speech did was serve to more strongly associate the term Mormon with the name Romney. Podhoretz is an almost purely political analysis and that is where it falls short of great analysis.

One of the key take-ways from The Speech:

“There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

The key to Mitt Romney is that he does not want to be president because he wants to be president, he wants to be president because he wants to serve his nation. As such, he is committed to certain ideal above his election. This speech was, above all a demonstration of leadership – not politics, but leadership.

Peggy Noonan seems to agree:

My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

Michael Gerson notes how very smart Romney is:

This is a sophisticated view of pluralism and tolerance — that religion and freedom are not at odds, because freedom should be one of the deepest commitments of true faith.

Patrick Buchanan is laudatory.

Finally, K-Lo has some interesting Hannity video.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________

This was not a good day for Mike Huckabee and others who may hope to use religious faith as a weapon in the 2008 campaign. Right after the speech I was wandering around the front of the Bush Library auditorium and witnessed the following exchange between a wire reporter and a senior Romney aide.

The Romney aide was looking at his Blackberry and said, “The response is amazing. I can’t believe who I am getting e-mails from.”

Reporter (with a twinkle in his eye): “Is there one from the Huckabee campaign?”

Romney aide (laughing): “No, but what would they be saying right now?”

Reporter: “Damn!”

They both laughed. Both knew Romney had accomplished something important this morning.

The Key Statements

For those interested in The Question, and in the issues we cover here, I think the following are the most important killer paragraphs of Mitt Romney’s speech today. I cannot excerpt these sentences and still do justice to them. They appear together in one section of the address:

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s “political religion” – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

There is one fundamental question about which I am often asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test for tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

Those last two sentences were the first applause lines of the speech.

Some Observations from The Scene

This was a day full of gems, and there were too many to share in one post. Here are just a few, from the perspective of this Romney supporter and Mormon observer of this discussion over the last 18 months:

This speech, as John has already noted, was really a presidential address in tone. Mitt Romney was speaking to the country the way a president does: calling the nation to higher ground, reminding us all what the nation is all about so far as religion, government, and our culture are concerned.

After the speech we ran into Carl Cameron of Fox News. We introduced ourselves, and Cameron asked me: “So what did you think?” I said, “I think he sounded presidential.” “You’re right,” Cameron responded, as he walked away. “You’re exactly right.” We’ll see if he reports it that way.

No one who is prejudiced against Romney because of his faith could honestly listen to or read Romney’s speech without a prick of conscience.

No one who is concerned about Romney’s faith, either because of unfamiliarity or deep doctrinal differences with it, could listen to or read Romney’s speech without being favorably impressed.

No one who was undecided, prior to the speech, about which candidate to support could listen to or read Romney’s speech without being moved Romney’s direction at least a little.

(A side note: Romney wrote this speech himself. He writes all his speeches himself. That alone is amazing. If you want to know what Romney himself thinks and feels, you can simply read his speeches.)

As I noted in our earlier post today, I had a chance to see Romney interact with a room full of supporters shortly before he spoke. It was clear that he was enthused about the speech and eager to give it. I had wondered about that, and whether he would be visibly affected by the pressure. Not so. He was charged up.

So what does all this mean? Without the benefit of time, it’s hard to say. We need to see how the speech will be spun, and I am on an airplane as I write this, sealed off from the likes of CNN and Fox News and the Internet. Some will carp about Romney describing radical islamists in harsh terms. Others will object to his mention of Brigham Young in the same breath as Ann Hutchinson and Roger Williams. Still others will complain about his quotation from the King James version of the Bible, which is the one Mormons use. (I’m not kidding.)

But the people with those objections are not the people Romney hoped to persuade that his faith does not matter; they will probably never be persuaded.

No, the undecided, the open-minded and the open-hearted are the people to whom Mitt Romney was speaking, and I think they will hear his words and feel them.

I’m talking about people like David Nerenberg, a Romney backer who spoke to the group of supporters just before Romney entered the room. David, who is Jewish, said, “If Mitt Romney is not enough of a Christian to be President, then where does that leave me?”

Then David told us he had a yarmulke that his great-great grandfather had brought with him from Germany in 1848, and a prayer shawl another grandfather had brought from Belarus in 1920. He said, “When I enter the sanctuary [that's what he called the auditorium at the Bush Library], I will be wearing that yarmulke and that prayer shawl.” David reminded everyone that “this is an important day for America.”

David Nerenberg is a successful and prominent businessman in Washington State. An hour later, as I sat in the Library auditorium during the event and watched David, adorned with the sacred symbols of his faith and heritage and celebrating Governor Romney’s speech, I was so very proud to be a part of this moment in history.

Near the end of his address, Romney tied together his themes:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, and person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Soaring and worthy words from a man who may well be the next President of the United States. Amen and amen.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Most of the pieces that have been written to the moment have been pretty factual retellings of the event with extensive quotations. When it is up, check the STFS post which will link to the speech text if you would prefer to read rather than watch.

My own reaction remains the same as my initial: “presidential.” He simply raised the bar for religion and this campaign. Anyone that now runs based on a religious identity of any sort will appear close-minded and foolish. It is just that simple.

CNN Airport is blaring in my ear as I write and Wolf Blitzer is busy wondering if Romney actually got the job done since he mentioned “Mormon” only once. And yet, the CNN piece posted on the speech quotes Bill Bennett:

CNN contributor Bill Bennett said he wasn’t sure Romney addressed the concerns voters might have with Mormonism, but, he added, “I don’t think he had to.”

Mona Charen reports on some reader emails:

. . . People are saying it was a good speech. And it was a good speech. The question is was it the speech Romney needed to make? Did it accomplish what it needed to accomplish? Time will tell, but as an evangelical I didn’t feel that any of my concerns about Romney were addressed.

Which is a sign that some voters don’t get it. But Hugh Hewitt addressed such people:

Did Romney convert anti-Mormon fanatics or secular absolutists? Of course not, but they are very few, though the latter are extremely overrepresented in elite media newsrooms, as I argued on CNN International just after the speech, when the anchors immediately wanted to turn to whether the LDS segregation of priesthood until 1978 would hurt Romney.

Romney’s goal was not to win over such people, because, as Hugh notes, he does not need them. His goal today was to clarify the fog of punditry, “news,” whisperings, and flat out rumor. He appealed to the vast majority of Americans of faith that also understand the proper role of religion in political consideration. He did that, and more. In the effort he clearly separated himself from the rest of the field for whom faith is in play as the only one that is really presidential.

Two final comments. First, Michael Luo at the NYTimes cannot help but draw a labored comparison to JFK.

Mr. Romney’s address today, however, differed significantly from that signal moment in recent history, which historians say was a turning point in the 1960 election. For one thing, Kennedy later took questions hurled at him from the ministers, many of them hostile, while Mr. Romney spoke before a friendly audience whose front row included four of his five sons and his wife, Ann, as well as many people affiliated with the campaign.

This will, in the next few days go from a tired meme to simply boring and pointless. To all those planning such pieces, HANG IT UP!

Finally, Andrew Sullivan does what I have been predicting all along:

The second flaw is that he simply cannot elide the profound theological differences between the LDS church and mainstream Christianity. Since I’m a secularist – a Christian secularist – this doesn’t make a difference to me. But if you are appealing to religious people, especially fundamentalists, on the basis of faith, you cannot logically then ask them to ignore the content of the faith. The religious right have tried to do this with the absurd neologism, the “Judeo-Christian tradition,” as if the truth-claims of Christianity and Judaism are not, at bottom, contradictory. But the “Mormon-Judeo-Christian tradition” is a step too far even for those who have almost no principles in using religion for political purposes.

I think it’s a tragedy that a man of Romney’s obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you’ll end up with one. That’s why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind.

Romney and this issue is a hammer that will be used to beat on the Christian Right by the left over and over and over again. With this speech, with its masterful authorship and its presidential delivery, has drawn a line in the sand for the religious right. It has said, if you do not vote for me on the basis of my faith, you are the one that risks sounding like a fanatic. You are the one that runs the risk of being considered on the fringe.

There will be much more to come, but it is now time to get on the airplane.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.