The Case for Romney
Leveling The Playing Field
Regarding the GOP race, this is no time to count any chickens before they’ve hatched. As has been pointed out, at this time in the last election, John McCain was only polling 3%. There are still at least a couple of very possible strong, late entries, missteps and key endorsements to be made, debates to be won and lost, and domestic and international events to unfold.
The debate this week saw the boxing gloves put aside for now, and niceties from and for all except Barack Obama. But warning shots like “Obamneycare” had already been fired, and the truce will no doubt be only temporary.
Nonetheless, polls last week showed Romney leading the GOP pack, and the only one beating Obama in a head-to-head contest. Of course part of that is due to name recognition from the last election, and the dilution of votes among the wide and lesser-known field of candidates. But the post-debate polls show Romney at 33% of GOP likely voters, and Bachmann at 19%, with the rest 10% or under.
With all the blood-letting and disaccord of the last primary, and the disastrous results under Obama, there will hopefully be a tendency to be more careful, thoughtful and wise in the selection process this time. And to be much more unified – swallowing relatively petty differences -- in the interests of our common good and values. We simply cannot afford, in any sense of the word, an Obama second term.
And if we are not careful, we may be misguided by a subtle but biased media, biased special interests, biased affinity groups to which we belong, or our own personal biases, prejudices or even bigotry. These can blind us to qualifications of an otherwise outstanding, winnable candidate, and leave us exactly where we were last election.
In this post, I’d like to try to address some of the biases, prejudices & bigotries that I see as blinding many and preventing them from supporting one such candidate, to the detriment of the country. It’s an attempt to level the playing field. I began this blog after the last election was decided, and so only my close friends, family and acquaintances saw my flurry of emails in support of Mitt Romney in the primaries. The photo of Mitt and me on this blog was taken during that campaign in 2007 (the only time I’ve ever met him). But after all I’ve learned of Mitt, I still firmly believe he is the right man.
Of course I’m no doubt not above bias and prejudice myself, and by way of full disclosure, I, too, am LDS (“Mormon”), and happen to be a second cousin of Mitt’s. But in my work at the Aerospace Corporation, the most highly held values are integrity and objectivity. They are similarly highly held by my Church when it comes to politics – the Church never endorsing candidates. Indeed, Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, are both LDS. And so judge my arguments (and those of others I quote) by their factual accuracy, logic and reasonableness, and don’t discount them simply because of who I am. There are others I will cite who are of other faiths, and not related, who are of a similar mind.
I’ll address, in order: The personal equation, the Mormon issue, flip on abortion, Romneycare vs. Obamacare, concerns over entitlements & Tea Partiers, and his general qualifications.
The Personal Equation
Let’s begin with one preference or bias that draws all of us to others – personality or “chemistry.” And in politics this often translates to charisma. In our personal relationships we sometimes learn after being blinded for a time by charisma or chemistry that there are other qualities or shortcomings we’d overlooked that we only later realize we wished we’d been more aware of.
For those who see Romney’s relatively uncharismatic personality as a problem, who miss that good-old-boy preacher Huckabee or whoever is his likable successor, are they blind to the results of our having elected the very charismatic Obama? Is charisma really a valid priority criterion? Can we afford that in our current domestic fiscal crisis or stumblings in foreign affairs? Don’t we rather need substance and proven experience over style, especially at this time? Won’t it be better to be respected and predictable than loved in the domestic markets and by foreign leaders and terrorists? Many parents today prize their childrens’ friendship over respect, to the detriment of all. Our economy is an adult problem requiring adult leadership and solutions. Romney’s demeanor is less good-old-boy and more CEO and down-to-business – just what this economy needs.
The emperor Obama’s new clothes (charisma) are proving threadbare, revealing his lack of leadership and accomplishment. Charisma may have been an excellent credential in community organizing and getting elected, but has proven apparently useless in governing and accomplishing. We are tired (literally – e.g., the sleeping academy cadets) of his droning oratory, as the flowery words are devoid of substance and results.
The “chemistry” has gone, both from his domestic and foreign audiences. Despite his own confidence in his charisma, it didn’t get us the Chicago Olympics, the cooperation of the Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Russians, North Koreans, Europeans, Venezuelans, Hamas, the climate summit, etc., etc. Businesses and the economy have shown utter lack of confidence in his pep talks, stimuli and the vagaries of his policies. All these problems clearly require more than mere force of personality. Of late his personality has resorted more to fear-mongering and demagoguery.
As George once concluded on Seinfeld, if what you normally have done never works, then the opposite must be right. Let’s not dismiss a candidate based on personality – that may be how we choose friends or lovers, but not necessarily the president of the United States and leader of the free world (which title Obama has abrogated). There are more important qualities. And as personality affects electability – just look at the current polls showing Romney over Obama. His vision is very positive and upbeat for America and its exceptionalism, in stark contrast to Obama’s apology tours. Attitude and values are important parts of the personal equation that no amount of personality can make up for.
The Mormon (& Christian) Issue
The purpose of this is not to defend Mormonism theologically, although I do defend Christian & Mormon faith (to me they are one and the same) rationally, scripturally and otherwise on my sister blog linked through my profile, which is linked on this page. Many thoughtful and credible scholars (e.g., Mormon Scholars Testify), the generally very high level of education among Mormons, and otherwise highly accomplished Mormons, elevate it above the “crackpot” level. Business Week cites a considerable list of prominent LDS business people, mainly CEO’s. Others (e.g., the June 5, 2011 Newsweek article “Mormons Rock!”) tend to acknowledge there do seem to be noteworthy good fruits borne.
For many in the secular world, any religious person, especially a Christian, seems either simple-minded, misguided by “fables,” or a threat. For some religious non-Christians, any Christian is a problem or infidel. Many secular and non-Christians feel perfectly at ease openly ridiculing Christians, but not Muslims. For many Christians, someone not of their particular faith and biblical interpretation, and especially a Mormon, is a problem, a heretic, a heathen or even Satanic and worthy of disgust, disdain and utter rejection if not persecution. Mormons seem to be somewhere near the bottom rung of the conventional religious pecking order ladder.
Witness the popularity and many Tony awards won this week by “The Book of Mormon” Broadway play that mocks Mormonism. One can’t even imagine them daring to produce (or critically acclaim) a similar one on “The Koran”– book authors, documentary producers and cartoonists who dared criticize it are either dead or in hiding under fatwa’s. Or “The Torah,” or “Bhagavad-Gita.” But Mormons are especially fair game. The timing is amazing, as Romney’s campaign begins, presenting yet another public attack on his faith & credibility. John Reynolds, an Evangelical, wrote an interesting criticism of the play on the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, titled “Amos & Andy and the Book of Mormon.”
Suffice it to say that it is easy enough to find very similar out-of-the-ordinary events in the Bible or any other Christian (or non-Christian) faith as the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. There is no monopoly on incredible miracles or things that are hard to explain or fully understand rationally or empirically. I’ve wondered if the reason the biblical events are so accepted is because they are so traditional and comfortable after at least 2,000 years of distance, or that supposed believers just don’t read or believe those aspects of the bible. Mormon founding events occurred less than 200 years ago, and at the same point in early Christian history, persecution and martyrdom still raged, and wouldn’t settle down for another 150 years of debates, state adoption & the Nicene Council.
But one could say there are similarly many things not understood and hard to explain or prove in nature and the 96% of the universe that is unknown “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Faith in some form is used in scientific as well as everyday pursuits – not only religion. For instance in pursuing hypotheses, or holding to theories not fully established empirically. Even atheism requires faith, as do Keynesian, Socialistic and Communistic theories – one could even say blind faith, with their lack of empirical support. Conservatism and Liberalism also require some faith.
Let he who is without faith cast the first stone. Or he who is without hard-to-explain-or-prove beliefs, or who cannot be accused of unorthodoxy or heresy or blasphemy by some other group. Christ Himself was so accused, and crucified. And perhaps the commandment to love our neighbor might even include tolerating and overlooking differences, especially for the common good. Choosing the lesser (or less immediate) of two evils, we even made an alliance of convenience with Stalin to defeat the Axis in WWII.
Historically there have been many wars between Muslims and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, etc. and even in very recent or current times religious wars and persecutions – Sunni-Shia, Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Jew, etc. Many fled such persecutions and discrimination in Europe to come to America and start a new nation based on the principle of religious liberty and non-discrimination. This became enshrined in the United States Constitution. Although in one of its darker hours, a US governor issued and began to execute an extermination order against Mormons, who found no protection, but could only flee.
Article VI of the Constitution reads, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This of course applies strictly legally only to official qualification. Individuals are free to apply whatever test they choose in voting. But “can” and “should” are very different -- the principle behind Article VI is broader. As a Mormon, I differ just as strongly theologically with many others as they do with me, but I don’t think twice about voting for those of all other faiths, or no apparent religious faith at all, and have voted so every election of my adult life. The criterion for me is whether they share my political, fiscal and moral values and are otherwise competent to hold the office. After all, I’m not voting for a pastor-in-chief, but commander-in-chief.
Despite many shared values, Evangelicals seem to have particular difficulties with Mormons, and considering voting for one. But alliances are not unheard of for the greater good. An Evangelical and a Mormon have teamed to produce the “Article VI” blog, with further discussion of the issues, and links to many other relevant current sites.
David French founded “Evangelicals for Mitt” in 2006. Last week he wrote an article titled “Evangelicals can (and should) support Mitt Romney”. It begins,
“Warren Cole Smith stirred up a hornet’s nest. Writing at Patheos (where I’m also a columnist), the evangelical journalist had the courage to say out loud what many evangelicals think: that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Mormonism. At last count, his column had generated more than 600 comments, hundreds of blog mentions, and a formal response from the LDS Church in The Washington Post. In short, Smith’s column went viral.” He goes on to allay fears and give a number of excellent reasons for Evangelicals to vote for Romney.
The response alluded to was by the LDS Head of Public Affairs, Michael Otterson, titled “Evangelicals, Mormons and the Beliefs of the President”. It addresses a few key points.
John Mark Reynolds is an Evangelical professor of philosophy for Biola. In February, he wrote “The Christian case for Mormon Values”. He presents sound arguments for supporting a highly qualified candidate with shared values, and references LDS Apostle (and Constitutional expert) Dallin Oaks’ February speech on religious liberty at Chapman Law School. Reynolds’ article preface reads,
“With former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both believed to be gearing up for a run for the presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again found itself answering questions about what these two prominent members believe.
“Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar wrote in a story published Tuesday that Mormon leaders see the ascendancy of these and other Mormons (such as convert Glenn Beck) as a sign "that the community has finally 'arrived,'" but added "researchers say there remains a deep mistrust of Mormons and that little has changed in public opinion to suggest that voters will be more open this year than they were in 2007."
“If conservative Christian and Mormons share a political agenda, why do suspicions still plague Mormon politicians?”
John Huntsman entered the race today, and some of these issues and arguments could apply to him as well (at least the Mormon issue). Interesting that while Mormons comprise about 2% of the US population, they will represent about 20% of the presidential candidates. I believe that says something about their love for, and commitment to, this country, which John Reynolds alludes to in his article.
Romney himself gave a landmark 2007 speech on “Faith in America,” in an attempt to put faith in proper perspective in American politics, and to allay fears of undue influence by his religion, after Huckabee played the religion card in the Iowa caucuses. At the time, Margery Eagan (Boston Herald) called it “…just one more indication of the scary way America has gone backward in tolerating religious differences in politics. That Romney feels he needs to give the speech at all …” She also noted the huge “Christian Leader” in Huckabee’s ad, saying “So, is this where we’re at? Huckabee’s gaining ground because he’s a ‘Christian Leader’ as opposed to Mitt Romney, the Mormon?....if ‘values voters’ won’t side with him because he’s a Mormon, then McCain was right. They are ‘agents of intolerance.’ And among their so-called values? Religious bigotry.” But the speech was pretty much unanimously praised by conservatives and even some liberals – except atheists (though he did refer to people of “faith & reason”). Michael Medved called it the best campaign speech he can remember. Chris Matthews said he hit it out of the park. Larry Kudlow – “absolutely superb.” Fred Barnes called it unprecedented – a media coup. Hugh Hewitt cited all the conservative spokesmen as praising it – Prager, Ingraham, Limbaugh,… Of course die-hard bigots will not be fazed.
Hugh Hewitt’s book “A Mormon in the White House?” answers very solidly every serious objection to Mitt’s religion – to any honest and thinking person, leveling the playing field. And it cites his qualifications, and shows he does have a personality, and excellent family life.
In short, I’d say to evangelicals, “get over it!” Show your Christian charity, humility, forgiveness and civility. Leave religious debates out of the political arena. And just maybe the country will be better off, rather than suffering another GOP defeat in part due to divisiveness. Yes, there are consequences to your ill feelings, however well-disguised.
Quotes from the 2008 Election Campaign (and still highly relevant)
Michael Graham wrote in the Boston Herald: “People who object to electing a Mormon have no clue what they’re talking about. Romney’s problem is that ‘people who have no clue what they’re talking about’ make up a solid one-third of the American electorate….If Romney’s problem is his religion, then the fundamental problem is ignorance, and that’s too big for any one pol to tackle. Smart people don’t need a speech, and dumb people …won’t get it.” And points out that while some object to Mitt/Mormons not being “real Christians,” many evangelicals enthusiastically supported Joe Lieberman – certainly no Christian at all. And that “It’s hard for me to believe, however, that in a nation where 78 percent of adults believe in angels [I thought National Geographic had 82%], and towns like Salem issue licenses to ‘real psychics,’ Romney’s problem is that his religion is too ‘out there.’”
Let’s see, we’ve now had presidents who were deists, agnostics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptist, Catholic, evangelical,…. But we’re drawing the line at Mormon? Now there’s a Christian test.
Among the thinking (and less bigoted) electorate, Mitt has picked up a number of key evangelical endorsements, for instance at Bob Jones University (S. Carolina), “the influential Christian college that teaches that his Mormon church is a cult.” The chancellor (Jones) & a top dean (Taylor) – the former saying “As a Christian, I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I’m not voting for a preacher; I’m voting for a president.” They said they looked past their belief that Mormons, as well as Catholics, belong to a “cult.”
Changed Position on Abortion
As to the “flip-flop” charge, there’s been no flop (only a one-directional move on abortion), and more of a gradual evolution than a flip, with solid pro-life decisions as governor long before his presidential candidacy. But apparently many “value” voters can’t accept a Mormon “convert” to their values. So much for their Christian principle of forgiveness (oh, yes, they devoutly and publicly pride themselves that they’ll forgive murderers). Here’s an excerpt from his pledge on his campaign website -- there is much more there:
MY PRO-LIFE PLEDGE
Mitt Romney | June 18, 2011
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench
Foreign Policy
THE PRICE OF INEXPERIENCE
Mitt Romney | June 17, 2011
“Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.
RomneyCare vs ObamaCare
I’ve already addressed this to some extent in my last blog post, focusing on the state vs. federal aspect. But Romney addressed other important differences (as well as other matters) in a June 2 Fox News interview with Sean Hannity (video & transcript).
Bruce Bialosky wrote why this & other concerns are needless in “Stop Beating Up On Mitt”
For Liberals/Leftists who believe, as Obama implied & Pawlenty was quick to pick up on, that Romneycare inspired Obamacare – well, why not go with the mentor, rather than the student? From such a great mind should come other great things. Romney clearly demonstrated the ability to work as governor successfully with perhaps the most liberal state legislature in the country. And he apparently doesn’t suffer from rigid religious fundamentalism or dictates from his church, having held more liberal views on abortion and gay rights in the past.
Liberals have now shown to themselves and the world how unprejudiced and egalitarian they are, having elected the first Black president. What a great opportunity for them to demonstrate that egalitarian attitude towards a Mormon! It might be the ultimate proof of their tolerance of people of faith, and apparently one of the most odious among them.
Are they tired of Obama’s oratory coming up short on delivering? If they’re going to get the same (even more) war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc. as under the GOP, why not get the GOP and an economic recovery and jobs as well?
For those who care only or mostly about their entitlements – in case you hadn’t heard, those entitlements will be shortly going bankrupt, along with the country, unless they are reformed. And that means possibly no entitlements, or drastically cut ones. The alternative is the GOP plan Romney endorses to save entitlements by judicious reform. And if you have any concern for your children’s & grandchildren’s welfare, you might want to show a little willingness to sacrifice a little (along with the rest of us) to avoid disaster for them. Unions don’t tend to think bigger picture like the well-being of the nation or future generations, but only about their current members.
For Tea Party Conservatives
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney balanced budgets, and brought the state back from the brink of bankruptcy. He did the same with the 2002 Olympics, and with many private firms. Time and again he’s shown he understands fiscal responsibility and can achieve it. He’s promised to grant all 50 states Obamacare waivers.
For all concerned about the economy & US solvency, now that it’s clearly “the economy, stupid,” who has more successful economic/fiscal experience in private, government & non-profit sectors than Romney?
Here are 2 of my letters to the editor that were published in the LA Times and/or Daily Breeze in 2007/8, and are still relevant (the Times ran a shortened version of the first along with someone else’s, and titled them “Romney Offers Strength”):
Why Romney?
America needs strength and vision. Romney’s exceptional executive ability was demonstrated in turning around failed organizations across government, volunteer and private sectors as governor of Massachusetts, and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics and of Bain Capital. His ability to effectively work with an opposition state legislature bodes well for Washington and the international scene. His strength and broad appeal across the party were emphasized in the National Review endorsement, and verified in early primaries.
His intelligence, breadth and depth of knowledge, and ability to utilize strong advisory teams to understand and solve important, complex problems like the economy, war on terror, energy, immigration and education, are evident in the debates and his prior experience. He has articulated a clear and optimistic vision for America’s future, vital for leadership of the free world.
He is a man of integrity and strong moral values, evidenced in his life story and “Faith in America” speech. He meticulously recorded some 100 promises made in his campaign for governor, and then in 4 years accomplished each and every one. Every decision as governor was on the side of life, marriage and families. We can expect the same as president.
His Mormonism, wealth, greatly exaggerated “flip-flop” charges and other personal attacks (e.g., “too perfect”) are red herrings used by those who can’t refute his positions, character, experience, accomplishments, capability and relevance. Such attacks reveal more about his detractors and their adherents than about Romney. The viciousness of their attacks is a measure of his viability and the threat opponents face as he goes forward to fix a broken Washington.
Voting the High Ground
This is an historic presidential election, generating tremendous interest with a candidate field that includes the first woman, first black, Mormon, Evangelical preacher, 71 yr-old ex-POW, etc. Both parties have been split by the various identification groups, and individuals belonging to multiple groups have been conflicted.
Of course it would be gratifying to show the world and ourselves our lack of prejudice by electing whomever we feel has been most disadvantaged or discriminated against. Or we can show our solidarity and clout with the group with which we identify, as has happened in other states. Or we can follow polls and pundits to select someone who hopefully can defeat the other party’s candidate.
Or, perhaps we can take an even higher road more worthy of a California that can yet lead the way as it has historically, and look beyond all of those superficialities. Perhaps we can do something that takes a bit more effort than just going with our emotions or group identities. We can think about what our truly greatest concerns and issues are, and then consider who will likely best address them for the benefit of the entire country – and free world. It requires of course doing a little homework – studying issues, as well as candidates’ positions, character and demonstrated capability.
At the same time, we would be showing a lack of pettiness and prejudice -- that we are truly gender-, race- and religion-blind. We would demonstrate the more noble qualities of intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness. And it just might tend to make us a bit less divided and contentious. After all, we are choosing the leader of the free world – we should be thinking of more than ourselves, our groups, and even our country.
Get Involved!
Finally, to learn more about Mitt’s campaign, and get involved or offer support, visit the Romney Believe in America website.
Regarding the GOP race, this is no time to count any chickens before they’ve hatched. As has been pointed out, at this time in the last election, John McCain was only polling 3%. There are still at least a couple of very possible strong, late entries, missteps and key endorsements to be made, debates to be won and lost, and domestic and international events to unfold.
The debate this week saw the boxing gloves put aside for now, and niceties from and for all except Barack Obama. But warning shots like “Obamneycare” had already been fired, and the truce will no doubt be only temporary.
Nonetheless, polls last week showed Romney leading the GOP pack, and the only one beating Obama in a head-to-head contest. Of course part of that is due to name recognition from the last election, and the dilution of votes among the wide and lesser-known field of candidates. But the post-debate polls show Romney at 33% of GOP likely voters, and Bachmann at 19%, with the rest 10% or under.
With all the blood-letting and disaccord of the last primary, and the disastrous results under Obama, there will hopefully be a tendency to be more careful, thoughtful and wise in the selection process this time. And to be much more unified – swallowing relatively petty differences -- in the interests of our common good and values. We simply cannot afford, in any sense of the word, an Obama second term.
And if we are not careful, we may be misguided by a subtle but biased media, biased special interests, biased affinity groups to which we belong, or our own personal biases, prejudices or even bigotry. These can blind us to qualifications of an otherwise outstanding, winnable candidate, and leave us exactly where we were last election.
In this post, I’d like to try to address some of the biases, prejudices & bigotries that I see as blinding many and preventing them from supporting one such candidate, to the detriment of the country. It’s an attempt to level the playing field. I began this blog after the last election was decided, and so only my close friends, family and acquaintances saw my flurry of emails in support of Mitt Romney in the primaries. The photo of Mitt and me on this blog was taken during that campaign in 2007 (the only time I’ve ever met him). But after all I’ve learned of Mitt, I still firmly believe he is the right man.
Of course I’m no doubt not above bias and prejudice myself, and by way of full disclosure, I, too, am LDS (“Mormon”), and happen to be a second cousin of Mitt’s. But in my work at the Aerospace Corporation, the most highly held values are integrity and objectivity. They are similarly highly held by my Church when it comes to politics – the Church never endorsing candidates. Indeed, Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, are both LDS. And so judge my arguments (and those of others I quote) by their factual accuracy, logic and reasonableness, and don’t discount them simply because of who I am. There are others I will cite who are of other faiths, and not related, who are of a similar mind.
I’ll address, in order: The personal equation, the Mormon issue, flip on abortion, Romneycare vs. Obamacare, concerns over entitlements & Tea Partiers, and his general qualifications.
The Personal Equation
Let’s begin with one preference or bias that draws all of us to others – personality or “chemistry.” And in politics this often translates to charisma. In our personal relationships we sometimes learn after being blinded for a time by charisma or chemistry that there are other qualities or shortcomings we’d overlooked that we only later realize we wished we’d been more aware of.
For those who see Romney’s relatively uncharismatic personality as a problem, who miss that good-old-boy preacher Huckabee or whoever is his likable successor, are they blind to the results of our having elected the very charismatic Obama? Is charisma really a valid priority criterion? Can we afford that in our current domestic fiscal crisis or stumblings in foreign affairs? Don’t we rather need substance and proven experience over style, especially at this time? Won’t it be better to be respected and predictable than loved in the domestic markets and by foreign leaders and terrorists? Many parents today prize their childrens’ friendship over respect, to the detriment of all. Our economy is an adult problem requiring adult leadership and solutions. Romney’s demeanor is less good-old-boy and more CEO and down-to-business – just what this economy needs.
The emperor Obama’s new clothes (charisma) are proving threadbare, revealing his lack of leadership and accomplishment. Charisma may have been an excellent credential in community organizing and getting elected, but has proven apparently useless in governing and accomplishing. We are tired (literally – e.g., the sleeping academy cadets) of his droning oratory, as the flowery words are devoid of substance and results.
The “chemistry” has gone, both from his domestic and foreign audiences. Despite his own confidence in his charisma, it didn’t get us the Chicago Olympics, the cooperation of the Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Russians, North Koreans, Europeans, Venezuelans, Hamas, the climate summit, etc., etc. Businesses and the economy have shown utter lack of confidence in his pep talks, stimuli and the vagaries of his policies. All these problems clearly require more than mere force of personality. Of late his personality has resorted more to fear-mongering and demagoguery.
As George once concluded on Seinfeld, if what you normally have done never works, then the opposite must be right. Let’s not dismiss a candidate based on personality – that may be how we choose friends or lovers, but not necessarily the president of the United States and leader of the free world (which title Obama has abrogated). There are more important qualities. And as personality affects electability – just look at the current polls showing Romney over Obama. His vision is very positive and upbeat for America and its exceptionalism, in stark contrast to Obama’s apology tours. Attitude and values are important parts of the personal equation that no amount of personality can make up for.
The Mormon (& Christian) Issue
The purpose of this is not to defend Mormonism theologically, although I do defend Christian & Mormon faith (to me they are one and the same) rationally, scripturally and otherwise on my sister blog linked through my profile, which is linked on this page. Many thoughtful and credible scholars (e.g., Mormon Scholars Testify), the generally very high level of education among Mormons, and otherwise highly accomplished Mormons, elevate it above the “crackpot” level. Business Week cites a considerable list of prominent LDS business people, mainly CEO’s. Others (e.g., the June 5, 2011 Newsweek article “Mormons Rock!”) tend to acknowledge there do seem to be noteworthy good fruits borne.
For many in the secular world, any religious person, especially a Christian, seems either simple-minded, misguided by “fables,” or a threat. For some religious non-Christians, any Christian is a problem or infidel. Many secular and non-Christians feel perfectly at ease openly ridiculing Christians, but not Muslims. For many Christians, someone not of their particular faith and biblical interpretation, and especially a Mormon, is a problem, a heretic, a heathen or even Satanic and worthy of disgust, disdain and utter rejection if not persecution. Mormons seem to be somewhere near the bottom rung of the conventional religious pecking order ladder.
Witness the popularity and many Tony awards won this week by “The Book of Mormon” Broadway play that mocks Mormonism. One can’t even imagine them daring to produce (or critically acclaim) a similar one on “The Koran”– book authors, documentary producers and cartoonists who dared criticize it are either dead or in hiding under fatwa’s. Or “The Torah,” or “Bhagavad-Gita.” But Mormons are especially fair game. The timing is amazing, as Romney’s campaign begins, presenting yet another public attack on his faith & credibility. John Reynolds, an Evangelical, wrote an interesting criticism of the play on the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, titled “Amos & Andy and the Book of Mormon.”
Suffice it to say that it is easy enough to find very similar out-of-the-ordinary events in the Bible or any other Christian (or non-Christian) faith as the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. There is no monopoly on incredible miracles or things that are hard to explain or fully understand rationally or empirically. I’ve wondered if the reason the biblical events are so accepted is because they are so traditional and comfortable after at least 2,000 years of distance, or that supposed believers just don’t read or believe those aspects of the bible. Mormon founding events occurred less than 200 years ago, and at the same point in early Christian history, persecution and martyrdom still raged, and wouldn’t settle down for another 150 years of debates, state adoption & the Nicene Council.
But one could say there are similarly many things not understood and hard to explain or prove in nature and the 96% of the universe that is unknown “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Faith in some form is used in scientific as well as everyday pursuits – not only religion. For instance in pursuing hypotheses, or holding to theories not fully established empirically. Even atheism requires faith, as do Keynesian, Socialistic and Communistic theories – one could even say blind faith, with their lack of empirical support. Conservatism and Liberalism also require some faith.
Let he who is without faith cast the first stone. Or he who is without hard-to-explain-or-prove beliefs, or who cannot be accused of unorthodoxy or heresy or blasphemy by some other group. Christ Himself was so accused, and crucified. And perhaps the commandment to love our neighbor might even include tolerating and overlooking differences, especially for the common good. Choosing the lesser (or less immediate) of two evils, we even made an alliance of convenience with Stalin to defeat the Axis in WWII.
Historically there have been many wars between Muslims and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, etc. and even in very recent or current times religious wars and persecutions – Sunni-Shia, Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Jew, etc. Many fled such persecutions and discrimination in Europe to come to America and start a new nation based on the principle of religious liberty and non-discrimination. This became enshrined in the United States Constitution. Although in one of its darker hours, a US governor issued and began to execute an extermination order against Mormons, who found no protection, but could only flee.
Article VI of the Constitution reads, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This of course applies strictly legally only to official qualification. Individuals are free to apply whatever test they choose in voting. But “can” and “should” are very different -- the principle behind Article VI is broader. As a Mormon, I differ just as strongly theologically with many others as they do with me, but I don’t think twice about voting for those of all other faiths, or no apparent religious faith at all, and have voted so every election of my adult life. The criterion for me is whether they share my political, fiscal and moral values and are otherwise competent to hold the office. After all, I’m not voting for a pastor-in-chief, but commander-in-chief.
Despite many shared values, Evangelicals seem to have particular difficulties with Mormons, and considering voting for one. But alliances are not unheard of for the greater good. An Evangelical and a Mormon have teamed to produce the “Article VI” blog, with further discussion of the issues, and links to many other relevant current sites.
David French founded “Evangelicals for Mitt” in 2006. Last week he wrote an article titled “Evangelicals can (and should) support Mitt Romney”. It begins,
“Warren Cole Smith stirred up a hornet’s nest. Writing at Patheos (where I’m also a columnist), the evangelical journalist had the courage to say out loud what many evangelicals think: that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Mormonism. At last count, his column had generated more than 600 comments, hundreds of blog mentions, and a formal response from the LDS Church in The Washington Post. In short, Smith’s column went viral.” He goes on to allay fears and give a number of excellent reasons for Evangelicals to vote for Romney.
The response alluded to was by the LDS Head of Public Affairs, Michael Otterson, titled “Evangelicals, Mormons and the Beliefs of the President”. It addresses a few key points.
John Mark Reynolds is an Evangelical professor of philosophy for Biola. In February, he wrote “The Christian case for Mormon Values”. He presents sound arguments for supporting a highly qualified candidate with shared values, and references LDS Apostle (and Constitutional expert) Dallin Oaks’ February speech on religious liberty at Chapman Law School. Reynolds’ article preface reads,
“With former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both believed to be gearing up for a run for the presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again found itself answering questions about what these two prominent members believe.
“Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar wrote in a story published Tuesday that Mormon leaders see the ascendancy of these and other Mormons (such as convert Glenn Beck) as a sign "that the community has finally 'arrived,'" but added "researchers say there remains a deep mistrust of Mormons and that little has changed in public opinion to suggest that voters will be more open this year than they were in 2007."
“If conservative Christian and Mormons share a political agenda, why do suspicions still plague Mormon politicians?”
John Huntsman entered the race today, and some of these issues and arguments could apply to him as well (at least the Mormon issue). Interesting that while Mormons comprise about 2% of the US population, they will represent about 20% of the presidential candidates. I believe that says something about their love for, and commitment to, this country, which John Reynolds alludes to in his article.
Romney himself gave a landmark 2007 speech on “Faith in America,” in an attempt to put faith in proper perspective in American politics, and to allay fears of undue influence by his religion, after Huckabee played the religion card in the Iowa caucuses. At the time, Margery Eagan (Boston Herald) called it “…just one more indication of the scary way America has gone backward in tolerating religious differences in politics. That Romney feels he needs to give the speech at all …” She also noted the huge “Christian Leader” in Huckabee’s ad, saying “So, is this where we’re at? Huckabee’s gaining ground because he’s a ‘Christian Leader’ as opposed to Mitt Romney, the Mormon?....if ‘values voters’ won’t side with him because he’s a Mormon, then McCain was right. They are ‘agents of intolerance.’ And among their so-called values? Religious bigotry.” But the speech was pretty much unanimously praised by conservatives and even some liberals – except atheists (though he did refer to people of “faith & reason”). Michael Medved called it the best campaign speech he can remember. Chris Matthews said he hit it out of the park. Larry Kudlow – “absolutely superb.” Fred Barnes called it unprecedented – a media coup. Hugh Hewitt cited all the conservative spokesmen as praising it – Prager, Ingraham, Limbaugh,… Of course die-hard bigots will not be fazed.
Hugh Hewitt’s book “A Mormon in the White House?” answers very solidly every serious objection to Mitt’s religion – to any honest and thinking person, leveling the playing field. And it cites his qualifications, and shows he does have a personality, and excellent family life.
In short, I’d say to evangelicals, “get over it!” Show your Christian charity, humility, forgiveness and civility. Leave religious debates out of the political arena. And just maybe the country will be better off, rather than suffering another GOP defeat in part due to divisiveness. Yes, there are consequences to your ill feelings, however well-disguised.
Quotes from the 2008 Election Campaign (and still highly relevant)
Michael Graham wrote in the Boston Herald: “People who object to electing a Mormon have no clue what they’re talking about. Romney’s problem is that ‘people who have no clue what they’re talking about’ make up a solid one-third of the American electorate….If Romney’s problem is his religion, then the fundamental problem is ignorance, and that’s too big for any one pol to tackle. Smart people don’t need a speech, and dumb people …won’t get it.” And points out that while some object to Mitt/Mormons not being “real Christians,” many evangelicals enthusiastically supported Joe Lieberman – certainly no Christian at all. And that “It’s hard for me to believe, however, that in a nation where 78 percent of adults believe in angels [I thought National Geographic had 82%], and towns like Salem issue licenses to ‘real psychics,’ Romney’s problem is that his religion is too ‘out there.’”
Let’s see, we’ve now had presidents who were deists, agnostics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptist, Catholic, evangelical,…. But we’re drawing the line at Mormon? Now there’s a Christian test.
Among the thinking (and less bigoted) electorate, Mitt has picked up a number of key evangelical endorsements, for instance at Bob Jones University (S. Carolina), “the influential Christian college that teaches that his Mormon church is a cult.” The chancellor (Jones) & a top dean (Taylor) – the former saying “As a Christian, I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I’m not voting for a preacher; I’m voting for a president.” They said they looked past their belief that Mormons, as well as Catholics, belong to a “cult.”
Changed Position on Abortion
As to the “flip-flop” charge, there’s been no flop (only a one-directional move on abortion), and more of a gradual evolution than a flip, with solid pro-life decisions as governor long before his presidential candidacy. But apparently many “value” voters can’t accept a Mormon “convert” to their values. So much for their Christian principle of forgiveness (oh, yes, they devoutly and publicly pride themselves that they’ll forgive murderers). Here’s an excerpt from his pledge on his campaign website -- there is much more there:
MY PRO-LIFE PLEDGE
Mitt Romney | June 18, 2011
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench
Foreign Policy
THE PRICE OF INEXPERIENCE
Mitt Romney | June 17, 2011
“Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.
RomneyCare vs ObamaCare
I’ve already addressed this to some extent in my last blog post, focusing on the state vs. federal aspect. But Romney addressed other important differences (as well as other matters) in a June 2 Fox News interview with Sean Hannity (video & transcript).
Bruce Bialosky wrote why this & other concerns are needless in “Stop Beating Up On Mitt”
For Liberals/Leftists who believe, as Obama implied & Pawlenty was quick to pick up on, that Romneycare inspired Obamacare – well, why not go with the mentor, rather than the student? From such a great mind should come other great things. Romney clearly demonstrated the ability to work as governor successfully with perhaps the most liberal state legislature in the country. And he apparently doesn’t suffer from rigid religious fundamentalism or dictates from his church, having held more liberal views on abortion and gay rights in the past.
Liberals have now shown to themselves and the world how unprejudiced and egalitarian they are, having elected the first Black president. What a great opportunity for them to demonstrate that egalitarian attitude towards a Mormon! It might be the ultimate proof of their tolerance of people of faith, and apparently one of the most odious among them.
Are they tired of Obama’s oratory coming up short on delivering? If they’re going to get the same (even more) war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc. as under the GOP, why not get the GOP and an economic recovery and jobs as well?
For those who care only or mostly about their entitlements – in case you hadn’t heard, those entitlements will be shortly going bankrupt, along with the country, unless they are reformed. And that means possibly no entitlements, or drastically cut ones. The alternative is the GOP plan Romney endorses to save entitlements by judicious reform. And if you have any concern for your children’s & grandchildren’s welfare, you might want to show a little willingness to sacrifice a little (along with the rest of us) to avoid disaster for them. Unions don’t tend to think bigger picture like the well-being of the nation or future generations, but only about their current members.
For Tea Party Conservatives
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney balanced budgets, and brought the state back from the brink of bankruptcy. He did the same with the 2002 Olympics, and with many private firms. Time and again he’s shown he understands fiscal responsibility and can achieve it. He’s promised to grant all 50 states Obamacare waivers.
For all concerned about the economy & US solvency, now that it’s clearly “the economy, stupid,” who has more successful economic/fiscal experience in private, government & non-profit sectors than Romney?
Here are 2 of my letters to the editor that were published in the LA Times and/or Daily Breeze in 2007/8, and are still relevant (the Times ran a shortened version of the first along with someone else’s, and titled them “Romney Offers Strength”):
Why Romney?
America needs strength and vision. Romney’s exceptional executive ability was demonstrated in turning around failed organizations across government, volunteer and private sectors as governor of Massachusetts, and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics and of Bain Capital. His ability to effectively work with an opposition state legislature bodes well for Washington and the international scene. His strength and broad appeal across the party were emphasized in the National Review endorsement, and verified in early primaries.
His intelligence, breadth and depth of knowledge, and ability to utilize strong advisory teams to understand and solve important, complex problems like the economy, war on terror, energy, immigration and education, are evident in the debates and his prior experience. He has articulated a clear and optimistic vision for America’s future, vital for leadership of the free world.
He is a man of integrity and strong moral values, evidenced in his life story and “Faith in America” speech. He meticulously recorded some 100 promises made in his campaign for governor, and then in 4 years accomplished each and every one. Every decision as governor was on the side of life, marriage and families. We can expect the same as president.
His Mormonism, wealth, greatly exaggerated “flip-flop” charges and other personal attacks (e.g., “too perfect”) are red herrings used by those who can’t refute his positions, character, experience, accomplishments, capability and relevance. Such attacks reveal more about his detractors and their adherents than about Romney. The viciousness of their attacks is a measure of his viability and the threat opponents face as he goes forward to fix a broken Washington.
Voting the High Ground
This is an historic presidential election, generating tremendous interest with a candidate field that includes the first woman, first black, Mormon, Evangelical preacher, 71 yr-old ex-POW, etc. Both parties have been split by the various identification groups, and individuals belonging to multiple groups have been conflicted.
Of course it would be gratifying to show the world and ourselves our lack of prejudice by electing whomever we feel has been most disadvantaged or discriminated against. Or we can show our solidarity and clout with the group with which we identify, as has happened in other states. Or we can follow polls and pundits to select someone who hopefully can defeat the other party’s candidate.
Or, perhaps we can take an even higher road more worthy of a California that can yet lead the way as it has historically, and look beyond all of those superficialities. Perhaps we can do something that takes a bit more effort than just going with our emotions or group identities. We can think about what our truly greatest concerns and issues are, and then consider who will likely best address them for the benefit of the entire country – and free world. It requires of course doing a little homework – studying issues, as well as candidates’ positions, character and demonstrated capability.
At the same time, we would be showing a lack of pettiness and prejudice -- that we are truly gender-, race- and religion-blind. We would demonstrate the more noble qualities of intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness. And it just might tend to make us a bit less divided and contentious. After all, we are choosing the leader of the free world – we should be thinking of more than ourselves, our groups, and even our country.
Get Involved!
Finally, to learn more about Mitt’s campaign, and get involved or offer support, visit the Romney Believe in America website.
Comments
Post a Comment