Mitt and the Mormon Question. No Problem.

At least it shouldn't be. Here's one good reasoned viewpoint on the subject:


Would A Mormon President Subvert American Democracy?

[...] What follows below is not a Romney-fan’s propaganda. Actually, my favorite used to be another aspirant. The LDS affiliation of Mitt Romney exposes us again to the temptation to make religion into a criterion for picking a candidate. Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest. To many, the implications of a President embracing that creed are of concern. However, American public life and her high-level politics have created indicators that Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy.

The record of Utah State, when it was ardently LDS, is also an argument. In practice, LDS keep the worldly realm separated from the private pursuit of heaven. Yes, Mormonism involves a way of life. Furthermore, the Church is interested in conversions. Nevertheless, the instinct to “rescue souls” stops short of imposing the “right way” upon non-believers. Unlike the Sharia, it refrains from making outsiders to adhere to enforced norms that limit every aspect of life. Since Mormons know a personal realm, the faith can place politics outside of religion’s sphere. Accepting or rejecting Mormon theology does not have political consequences. The faith does not command unquestioned obedience in the public realm. At any rate, it does not do so to a larger extent than does the now discarded scarecrow of “Popism”.

The second point issues from an old moral obligation. To those that had no contact with Mormons such testimonials could be revealing. Nevertheless, at the outset a cautionary note is needed. We tend to judge exotic groups by the first “samples” we encounter. The resulting generalization can be quite misguided. I recall my college roommate and now best friend “I have never met a Hungarian before. So this is what you guys are like.” Since I am rather unlike other Magyars, I thought that this “discovery” was ironic.

Now to my story. In the seventies, we were moving back to the US. We knew that we had abandoned a secure existence to face uncertainty. On the plane, we sat near to a large group. Soon a gentleman came over and congratulated us because of the behavior of the children. Given our trepidation, this felt reassuring. I told Mr. Hugh Smith that much and explained our probable predicament. He then identified himself as a Mormon returning from Israel. [...]

Read the whole thing. Mr. Smith sounds like many of the Mormons I've known.
     

Mormon Church takes middle path on gay rights

Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

[...]

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn't carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting "basic civil values," Otterson said, does not compromise the church's religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

"There are going to be gay advocates who don't think we've gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we've gone too far," Otterson said. "The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that's going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness."

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church's stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

"The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it," Knox said. "It's not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts."

The church's action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays. [...]

Interesting. Siding with "fair-mindedness", as seen by the "vast majority". Given their position on gay rights, their is a logic to their conclusion. This is a matter where it will be impossible to please everyone, and the middle path often leaves the extremes on both sides angry.
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

Smart, sober and chaste? Is the Real Mitt Romney a truly kind, nice guy?

“The Mitt Romney I know”

[...] I spent a lot of time with Mr. Romney that year, and I occasionally served as his volunteer driver, taking him to local campaign events. The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.

If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.

As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney’s, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. [...]

Follow the link to read the rest, including a convincing rebuttal to the claim that this is just political spin. I don't see any reason to believe it's not true.

Below is a photo of the Romney's, with their children (five sons), their wives, and the eight grandchildren: the extended Mormon family:



There has been talk about how electable he is, because of his Mormon religion. Personally, it's not an issue for me, but I have posted about it previously, because it would seem to be a concern for some people.

I came across this article in Meridian, an on-line LDS publication. It's an interview with Mitch Davis, an LDS filmmaker, who makes some interesting observations about Mitt making a bid for the presidency. It seems the interview was done before Mitt announced he was running, but it directly addresses the Mormon question, and some of the ways it might be dealt with. Some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

Could a Mormon really become the President of the United States?

[...] MITCH: Right now the single largest impediment to Mitt’s election seems to be a widespread, negative impression of Mormonism. 35% of those polled nationwide by The Los Angeles Times said they could not vote for a Mormon for president. We conducted our own poll in South Carolina and got a 33% negative response to that same question.

We then asked South Carolinians why they felt so negatively about Mormonism. We didn’t have to go very far: 44% of them believe Mormons still practice polygamy, 50% believe we worship Joseph Smith, 27% think we don’t believe in the Bible, and 25% believe we are not Christian — with another 50% undecided on the topic.

On their face, those are very disappointing numbers. But I think they are actually good news for Mitt. They tell us that the basis of anti-Mormonism is ignorance rather than simple bigotry, and we can address ignorance.

MERIDIAN: How?

MITCH: We are going to produce a series of television ads that show who Mormons really are and why nobody should be afraid to elect one as President of the United States. Depending on funding, we will run billboards and newspaper ads as well. We just have to get rid of this widespread ignorance that breeds widespread fear.

MERIDIAN: Is it really possible for a grassroots organization to have that much impact on a national election?

MITCH: Absolutely! We modeled our organization after two groups: The highly conservative, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the ultra-liberal, “MoveOn.org.” Both have been extremely effective in having major impact on major elections the last few years.

[...]

MITCH: Let’s just say there are a lot of successful Mormons out there whose religion has not stopped them from stepping onto the world stage and performing at the highest level; athletes, musicians, business leaders.

Could you imagine anyone saying with a straight face: “A Mormon could never be a quarterback” or “A Mormon could never run a hotel chain” or “A Mormon could never be Senate Minority Leader.”

MERIDIAN: Wait a minute! You’re going to use Harry Reid (a Democrat) to campaign for Mitt Romney (a Republican)?!

MITCH: We’re going to use every arrow we have in our quiver, and we have quite a few.

MERIDIAN: Any landmines you need to avoid?

MITCH: Our biggest concern will be finding a way to address the issue of anti-Mormonism without fanning those same flames. The last thing any Evangelical Christians want is to feel that by voting for Mitt Romney, they are voting for or promoting Mormonism.

MERIDIAN: Aren’t they?

MITCH: No. They are voting for the best candidate to run for the office of president in a long, long time, and he just happens to be a Mormon. They are voting against ignorance and bigotry. They are voting for Article Six of the Constitution that prohibits a religious test “to any office or public trust under the United States.” They are voting for a man who is clean and smart and sober and chaste. They are voting for someone whose values mirror their own, never mind doctrinal quibbles.

MERIDIAN: Why are Evangelical Christians so key to this election?

MITCH: Because they wield tremendous influence in the Republican Party, and throughout the South.

MERIDIAN: Any bright signs?

MITCH: Jerry Falwell just stated that he wouldn’t have a problem voting for Mitt Romney, and Christian Broadcast News did a positive piece on him three or four weeks ago. You can find links to all of this stuff on our site.

MERIDIAN: www.RunMittRun.org?

MITCH: Don’t leave home without it.

One thing I have learned, as I've read more and more about the Evangelical community in the US, is that they shouldn't be seen as a big monolithic group that agrees on everything. They might well agree on many issues, like abortion, but even there they might disagree about strategies to deal with it. Evangelicals can be a diverse group, with diverse options about a lot of things. About how the majority of them would feel about voting for Mitt Romney, I can't say. But I do see some sense in Mich Davis' strategy for getting the word out. Give people the facts, so they can decide.

Mitt is not my first choice; I'm backing Fred Thompson for president. Yet there is no denying that Mitt is a major player, and if he doesn't succeed in getting the presidential nomination, he might still succeed in another role... perhaps as Veep? Whatever happens, he's still in the running, and I'm not counting him out.