The Candidates
Featured Archives
After a year of near uninterrupted Mormon coverage, Romney has decided to give the Speech. Good on him. I’d always believed Romney intended to give the speech at some point, and I’d begun to suspect they were saving for a (hopeful) general election. I think Team Romney has since realized a few things. They’re likely acknowledging he may not make it to the general election, and therefore it’s possibly now or never. Also, it represents a huge variable in any equation’s they’ve set up. A team as diligent as Romney’s doesn’t want something so unresolved, as they near the homestretch. It effects their ability to plan for a general election; what states should they plan to heavily contest? Will some currently close states easily drift into “safe” category, after a successful speech? How does the state’s he plans to contest effect what sorts of issues he ought to be focusing on? No campaign wants questions this murky. I’d also guess that Huckabee’s sudden rise among evangelicals (which hasn’t been fully mirrored among other Iowans), has shed greater light on the extent of the problem. So I suspect that Romney made the right decision, to give a speech, and to give the speech prior to the Iowa Caucus. Given that, what exactly should the speech look like? Here are my thoughts.
Things to Include:
References to Mormonism within the broader American landscape- Emphasize that, whatever else Mormonism is, it’s a religion that is uniquely American, and which has it’s roots in the American West. In this context, talk about it’s focus on hard-work and determination; how these values grew up precisely out of the traditions of the American West. This, regardless of your theological perspective, is a fascinating story.
References to Romney’s Childhood- I wrote an article a couple of months ago, discussing Romney’s failure to create any sort of personal narrative; any sense of where he comes from; what sort of person he is, and why he’s that sort of person. As far as we know, Mitt popped perfectly coiffed and fully formed, out of the head of Zeus. I think this is an inexcusable error on his campaign’s part, especially given the persistent “plastic” and “too perfect” memes he’s dealt with. But, I can sort of understand the difficulty Romney’s had here, because undoubtedly a good deal of his early experiences, a good deal of his foundational principles, center around Mormonism. As long as Romney was generally trying to direct attention away from Mormonism, this was a story that couldn’t be easily told. This is probably Romney’s only opportunity to tell this fully rendered personal story, because if “The Speech” does it’s job, the religion issue will rarely come up in the future.
References to his father- This is a corollary to the above. It’s admirable that Romney’s largely escaped his father’s rather large shadow. But, his father’s past and legacy have alot to add to fully developing both Mitt’s Mormon faith, and his personal character. Mitt’s accomplished enough in his own right to avoid being characterized as some sort of legacy; he can talk about his father and not be “Bush Jr.”.
References to general values- He has to tread lightly here, but he’d do well to expand upon the personal values Mormonism promotes. He might even chance citing the Book of Mormon here (or other Mormon sources). He’ll likely have to do so at some point, or else the Speech might be easily dismissed as a “dodge” or some such. This might be the best opportunity.
References to his current family- I’d envision a “coming full circle” sort of thing here. I.e, he referenced his childhood earlier, and the effect Mormonism had on him then, and now he references Mormonism’s effects on his own son’s.
References to political positions- He must address how Mormonism effects his political positions and, though it seems the most clear aspect of the speech, it’s really a fairly tricky issue to negotiate. Romney cannot simply say, or even allude, that his religious beliefs don’t affect his politics. Evangelicals think religious beliefs SHOULD affect one’s politics. On the other hand, he can’t simply say that religious beliefs do affect his politics. Because evangelicals are obviously wary of his religious beliefs in particular. I’d imagine Romney giving this part of the speech towards the end, when he’s already explained how his religion affects him personally. Done properly, and he can merge the personal and the political in a non-threatening manner. As a quick example, if Mormonism emphasizes diligence, he might say that Mormonism causes him to examine political issues more thoroughly.
A Recognition of Frailty- Romney needs to make sure to emphasize that neither he, nor his religion are perfect and that, in some sense, he’s just chugging along, doing his best. Weave the failures in with the successes. Again, Mitt needs to create a compelling human and personal narrative here.
A Recognition of Shared Works- Note that, in many ways, evangelicals and Mormons have been working together for some time, on shared goals. Reducing teenage pregnancies and abortions. Promoting healthy life-styles. Though, theologically different, they’ve come together in key ways to improve the world.
References to the Founders- Note that many of our most prominent founders differed on theology. Don’t expand too greatly here. You wish to avoid creating an ecumenical message (see below).
References to the Envisioned Role of Religion in America- This is fairly self-explanatory.
Things to Avoid:
Any Broad Ecumenical Message- At all costs, Romney must avoid talk of “reconciling faiths” theologically. He must avoid, at all costs, talk of various religions having certain truths. He must avoid, at all costs, talk of bringing faiths together in a grand community. In other words, he must avoiding blurring the lines between different faiths, or suggesting they ought to be blurred. He must reject out of hand any attempts to make Mormonism “acceptable”, by casting a variety of faiths as “acceptable”. He absolutely must avoid focusing on the values of faiths even more “unpopular” then his (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc). These are not messages that will go over well with conservative Christians.
Mentioning He’s a Christian- Thus far, Romney hasn’t claimed Mormonism=Christianity. I can’t imagine he’d do so now, but he has to be very careful in that respect. He’s mentioned the “Judeo-Christian” religions previously. That seems acceptable, but he may or may not wish to so clearly include Islam in such a net.
Proselytizing for Mormonism- He’s not back in France, playing a missionary. His job isn’t to make Mormonism attractive, and he shouldn’t explicitly avoid doing so. His job is to make Mormonism less “weird”.
More General Thoughts on the Speech: It ought to be very personal. He should be telling a story. Possible sentence beginning: “When I was 12, my father sat me down…”. It should also try to be somewhat concise. I’d use Kennedy’s speech as a general barometer of length.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Look forward to it, go Mitt!
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
i initially thought this was a panic move,and was against it. but the latest article said he’d been thinking about it for a long time, and felt now was the right time. anyone familiar with the LDS community knows that when another member has a feeling about a certain action they should take in their personal life, its generally encouraged. so in that spirit, i say ‘more power to you, mitt’.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Matthew,
I get the feeling that like me, you start from the idea that Mitt’s Mormonism and faith is a net positive and potential strength in this campaign. We differ slightly on particulars, for instance, I tend to believe that a call for ecumenicalism and agreement and highlighting similarities and reconciliation are good talking points, whereas you are a bit more skeptical of this. I think that your idea of Romney referencing his father is a very good one. Like it or not, America loves its political dynasties and just as George H.W. Bush is the revered patriarch (”poppy”) of the Bush clan so to is George Romney the guiding spirit and inspiration of the budding Romney sphere of influence. Also, one unnoticed twist on this if he plays it right could be the fact that if he wins the nomination, he is likely to compete in the general against a woman or African-American (both traditionally oppressed minorities). In playing up his Mormonism Mitt will also be seen as an oppressed minority, balancing out such a contest and providing America with an alternative “first” – “first Mormon President.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
As far as we know, Mitt popped perfectly coiffed and fully formed, out of the head of Zeus.
No shit. You mean he didn’t?
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
References to his father
I’d avoid too much delving into his father’s history. His father was ultra-RINO. Focus on the personal side of him, but don’t mention anything about the public figure, George Romney.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I second the idea of him getting personal, it could help alot.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
This is a well thought out post. When I initially read that Romney was thinking about making the speech, I could not envision one that would be effective. Having read your suggestions, I am now much more optimistic. I agree with #3 (JA Pruce) that Romney’s Mormonism should be net positive in a presidential candidate, and this is a good opportunity for Romney to make that case.
As an aside, thanks for taking the time to write out a post discussing strategic elements of the race. I have gotten a bit weary of the constant, partisan candidate-boosterism from a number of the contributers to the site. I appreciate the return to more neutral analysis.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Tommy,
I like George Romney a great deal. I view him a sort of modern day Teddy Roosevelt; obviously not perfectly in tune with the base, but a terrific leader, and a fine American. It’s not as though the alternatives that election cycle, Nixon and Rockefeller, were any better. Romney was the most conservative of that crew, and certainly a good deal more ethical then Nixon.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Matthew, I’m talking about the George Romney of 1964 who refused to endorse Barry Goldwater, walked out of the republican convention, etc…
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Tommy,
Sure. He walked out of the convention because he opposed Goldwater’s position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964; perhaps a wildly liberal position then (though I’m skeptical), but I suspect most would agree that history has vindicated him.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Goldwater was in favor of Civil Rights, he cosponsored the act from the 1950’s. He was on the board of the Arizona NAACP, and started the first African American national guard division, or something like that. He thought the one in the sixties went to far, in some aspects. However, there was more to it than that. Hell, Reagan opened the convention and was a huge Goldwater supporter.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
If I were Romney, I would emphasize the good that mormons do in the community. In Arizona where Im from, we had a once a year help the community day where hundreds of mormons like me would paint houses, or plant trees, and help eyesore neighborhoods. Mormons do an unbelievable amount of charity and good in times of need. I would show understanding of others who disbelieve our doctrine, but clearly the case needs to be made that mormons make a positive contribution to society.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Romney had to address this sooner or later. Efforts to shrug this off as a JFK situation were more than pathetic. Accepting Mormonism is a big step for much of the country.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Tommy,
I’m well aware that Goldwater was excellent on civil rights in many respects. But, his strong conservatism caused him to refuse to endorse the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on primarily federalism grounds. Governor Romney was a strong supporter of Civil Rights, who didn’t have particularly deeply developed federalistic principles. And he was angry that Republicans were willing to sublimate Civil Rights to federalism. This was really almost entirely responsible for his opposition to Goldwater.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Romney is making this speech for one reason. Huckabee and Iowa.
If Huckabee was not rising in Iowa, this speech would not
be happening. It is the last thing Mitt wants to do
Huckabees support is coming from evevangelicals. Mitt knows it is a huge
gamble to bring this up but he would rather not live with the regret of
not giving the speech were he to loose.
My personal opinion. It will do more harm than good. It will bring more
attention from the evangelicals causing further disintegration of Romney’s
support. Evangelicals hate Mormons because they have heard the hate mongering
in their churches since they were kids.
Thus the GOP will bow down to the evangelicals once again
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I trust Romney will hit this one out of the park. Im sure he has already tweaked this or that, that may create waves with some evangelicals. He has been mulling this over for months now, and has had it written and rewritten over and over. Im sure that it will be a great speech and will serve its purpose. The only drawback is that JFK’s was so freicking good. I have heard it and wow, im very, very impressed when he gave it. Romneys should be good to but JFK was a very, very tough act to follow.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Romney had to address the topic sooner or later. Trying to shrug if off as another JFK situation was more than pathetic. Acceptimg Mormonism is tough for most of the country.
http://political-buzz.com/
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“References to political positions” This is a no-no. Why? Let’s say he ties his faith to being pro-life. The obvious question becomes, what did your faith say when you were pro-choice. Its best to just leave this whole area alone.
“A Recognition of Frailty- Romney needs to make sure to emphasize that neither he, nor his religion are perfect . . .”
No one describes their faith as imperfect.
Inevitaby, Romney’s speech will be compared to Kennedy’s. I think it would be a mistake for Romney to make that comparison easier because he can’t live up to Kennedy’s. So Romney must either deliver a different address or give JFK’s. And by that I mean, use JFK’s address to craft a 21st century version. Where JFK talked about WWII, Romney should talk about Iraq and GWOT. Ironically, some of the problems Kennedy identified are still problems today (schools, poverty) and that offers an opportunity to talk about policy separate from talking about faith.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Ben, I disagree. I dont see how the speech will cause him to lose support among evangelicals even more than his mormonism today already has. Some evangelicals know he is a mormon and have no problem with it. Many cant bring themselves to support him because of his mormonism. These are the people he is reaching out to. I think if its done right, it will only help him. How can it hurt him. Its already known among the country he is a mormon. If others have an issue with it, let him give his speech and we can have a national discussion about it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Mormonism is only a problem with two groups of primary voters:
1) Secular people who think it’s a cult. (Romney can win these folks with a speech)
2) Serious Christians who are skeptical of Mormonism. (The speech will be a net negative with these voters).
If Romney gives a speech he will be ceding Iowa, SC and most Evangelicals to Huckabee. He’ll be betting on winning with secular voters in NH, MI and just being Evangelical voter’s second choice.
What’s obvious is that Mitt was forced into this from a position of weakness not from a position of strength.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Feltcher,
“References to political positions†This is a no-no. Why? Let’s say he ties his faith to being pro-life. The obvious question becomes, what did your faith say when you were pro-choice. Its best to just leave this whole area alone.”
I didn’t mean that sort of reference. I agree that this type of framing would be disastrous. I was referring to something like, as I noted, “Mormonism has made me diligent, which causes me to consider problems more thoroughly”. I.e, show how religion affects his political judgment. Yes, political judgment is probably the better phrasing.
I have refrained from watching Kennedy’s speech, because I wanted to fully develop my own thoughts on the issue, without being influenced. I’ll likely watch the speech tomorrow, and write another post about the issue.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I only read JFK’s address; I’d love to watch it. I am sure C-Span will show it now.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
If he wants to avoid dashing his hopes for the general election, he needs also to be open to agnostics, seculars, atheists, Shintoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, pagans, Confucians, animists, Jamaican voodooists, etc. Any exclusive, rather than inclusive, talk would only jeopardize his chances even further for Nov. ‘08.
Otherwise, I’d prefer him simply to shut up about it.
Something tells me, though, that he’ll mainly talk about the Constitution and freedom of religion in American heritage. That’s the only thing that could partially redeem him in my mind. If he’s sincere, he’ll avoid boasting about his familial perfection as code for smacking Giuliani and Clinton. If he drones on about a bunch of pro-family, pro-life guff, he will remain for me another pandering, flip-flopping charlatan, willing to say anything to appease the nearest block of voters.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
JA Pruce,
“I tend to believe that a call for ecumenicalism and agreement and highlighting similarities and reconciliation are good talking points, whereas you are a bit more skeptical of this.”
This would be a disaster if he is courting Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives will not take theology lessons from a politician, particularly a Mormon one. They will not be told that differences don’t matter, because that is another way of saying their faith doesn’t matter, and that Romney takes his faith lightly too. Their theological positions are set, and will NOT be influenced by a politician after their votes. I don’t know if you are aware, but in conservative Christian circles, this sort of “ecumenism” is somewhere between a joke and evil.
But I hope Romney takes your advice. He can then kiss off Iowa and South Carolina.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
lol
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
MWS,
Yup, that’s what I was trying to tell JA Pruce earlier.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“If he drones on about a bunch of pro-family, pro-life guff, he will remain for me another pandering, flip-flopping charlatan, willing to say anything to appease the nearest block of voters.”
Do you believe that no honest politician can be pro-life or pro-family, or do you simply believe that no person is ever allowed to change their views?
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Judging by the contradicting reactions here, I’d say that no matter what Romney does, he will lose. He must do X. He can’t do X. He must do Y. He can’t do Y.
And since it’s all about public reaction anyway (not objective right and wrong) I’d call that a no win situation.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
he needs most of America to either forget or not even know that he is Mormon. Bringing such attention to it is a mistake. He needs the evangelicals and this is not the way to get it. This speech will just push the undecided evans to Huckabee.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
MWS,
I disagree. I think are objectively better ideas for “the Speech”. I attempted to highlight some of the better ideas here. And I made clear which ideas I felt he should avoid. I did not do so arbitrarily. As I’ve said, I think JA Pruce’s idea for an ecumenical message is objectively bad. The fact that we may happen to disagree only suggests that the task is hard; not that there isn’t a right answer.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I think everyone should watch or read JFK’s address before concluding what the outcome of a Romney speech will be. JFK’s speech does not leave you with the impression that you just heard a catholic or even a religious address.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Matthew,
The more I think about it, what would you think about Gov. Romney saying something like this, (and of course this is just a rough paraphrase, the speech could communicate this more subtly in more eloquent language): “I was raised Mormon and deeply revere and love this faith tradition but I have also learned from other faith traditions and am open to accepting some of the tenets of the Evangelical faith for there is a lot of rich doctrine and teachings found in this tradition that I could apply to some of my decisions and it compliments my own beliefs.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
In addition to trying to pooh pooh religious differences, I think other major mistakes Romney might make include:
1. Lecturing us about the Constitution and why we shouldn’t consider his religion when voting.
2. Emphasizing Mormonism as “uniquely American.” This only underscores the point that it is not Christian. Christianity is not “uniquely American.” It is 2000 years old and started in Palestine.
3. Claim to be Christian, or try to convince us he is (as Matthew noted). He should acknowlege that real and serious theological differences exist, thereby acknowleging the seriousness and commitment to faith of the people he is trying to soothe.
4. Should not try to separate himself from Mormonism. He has enough problems with flip flopping. If he looks like he is throwing his religion under the bus to get elected, noone will respect him. Therefore he shouldn’t mention how crappy it was that black people couldn’t be high ranking members in the LDS until the 1970s.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
From Byron York:
One thing Kennedy said that Romney won’t is this: “This is the kind of America I believe in — and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe.” That was a pretty strong deal-closer.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
JA Pruce,
#33. No, that would be more pandering, and goes along with my joke on another thread where I predicted Romney would foresake Mormonism and come out as a Baptist-Catholic-Methodist.
The guy has done so much flipflopping, that he must appear rooted. Unfortunately for him (politically) that means he must stand squarely with the Mormon faith, without coopting the more popular religions of his contitutants. They’ve already had enough of that from him in other issues.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Enough flip-flopping already!
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I am surpised Governor Romney will be making the speech. If it was anyone besides Huckabee who was surging in Iowa, the speech would not have been given until the general.
This seems like a high-risk, low payoff proposition. That said, Matthew, you gave sound advice. Most importantly, the Governor must avoid likening Mormonism to Christianity or he will torpedo his waning chances for the nomination.
Even though I have grave reservations about Romney’s electability, I hope he nails the speech so that (in the event he still manages to win the nomination) he will still be nominally viable in the fall campaign.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
JA Pruce,
“The more I think about it, what would you think about Gov. Romney saying something like this, (and of course this is just a rough paraphrase, the speech could communicate this more subtly in more eloquent language): “I was raised Mormon and deeply revere and love this faith tradition but I have also learned from other faith traditions and am open to accepting some of the tenets of the Evangelical faith for there is a lot of rich doctrine and teachings found in this tradition that I could apply to some of my decisions and it compliments my own beliefs.—
No. “Learning from other faith traditions” comes across as unitarianism, spirtualism, or soft-left Christianity. Romney’s attempting to appeal to strongly-right wing Christians. I’m on the fringes of this group. And they STRONGLY oppose any messages of that sort. They believe faith IS in the differences. Romney doesn’t need to claim he’ll be open to evangelical theological ideas. Conservative Christians have more respect for those who thoroughly believe in something, even if it’s not something they agree with. If he claims that he’s open to evangelical theological beliefs, and will incorporate parts into his “faith tradition”, I’d agree with MWS; he’ll collapse into the sea in any state that has the remotest degree of religiosity. Your idea is well-intentioned, but it’d be an absolute disaster.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Matthew,
I think there is better or worse that he could do in this speech, but I’m not sure there is good (for him politically). I have a hard time seeing him pull this off as a net plus. JFK’s job was much easier. He was living in the pre-culture war era and just had to convince a consensus Protestant nation he wasn’t going to take orders from the Vatican.
These days, people need to know what side of the culture war you’re on, and generally on the right, that means having a faith that influences your politics. The faith that influences his politics (presumably) is contrary to the faith that defines the Christian right.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I have to say that I think Romney is a great person and a great candidate and I hope and pray that he not only becomes the GOP nominee, but becomes our next President.
I am not a Mormon.
I am an evangelical Christian.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
MWS,
I thought about that, but then figured that people like you and I pay attention to these things more than the average voter. My guess is that the more he is able to conflate Evangelicalism with Mormonism and somewhat blur the difference the more the uninformed voter (most voters) will be mollified and think it a non issue.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
beth – can I ask why you support Romney?
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
On that note, if he is appealling to the religious right, he’d best not let the phrase “faith tradition” enter his speech. That’s part of the lexicon of the theological left, and easily identifies someone who is hostile or indifferent to traditional Christianity. “Faith tradition” to theological liberals is like “diversity awareness” to universities.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Here’s the dichotomy as I see it — and I’ll try not to offend our LDS posters here.
If both Huckabee and Romney were to say that they were guided by their religious beliefs, Huckabee would win and Romney would lose with most of us who are either devout Christians or come from a Christian background. Bigotry has less to do with it than the fact that, for many like me, Mormonism is the more mysterious, more exotic and strange of the two. Hearing that someone is guided by beliefs in something thoroughly unfamiliar makes the person much harder to identify with and somewhat of a conundrum.
Whereas Huck could say, Vote for me: I’m a good Christian! and I’d be open to the suggestion, if Romney said the same thing, I’d be instantly off trying to comprehend the odder aspects of what being a devout Mormon actually entails — and not from the official perspective of the LDS elders.
It used to be a commonplace to hear people say there is nothing worse than launching into discussions about religion or politics in polite society. I really wish beyond all hope that our common view of what “conservatism” is would return to that apparently now defunct way of thinking.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
JA Pruce,
“My guess is that the more he is able to conflate Evangelicalism with Mormonism and somewhat blur the difference the more the uninformed voter (most voters)”
But confusing people politically is not the same as confusing people theologically. The guy who attends Ames Bible Church may not know his Fair tax from his Flat tax, but he sure as hell knows there’s a big difference between Mormonism and his Bible Church. They have Sunday School lessons about this stuff.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Here is what I would advise Romney to say:
“I am a Mormon, and I recognize that this will cause some to question me more deeply than they would other wise, but let me assure those people, the way I govern will not come as a directive from the Mormon church, but from deep personal convictions regarding the value of life and family, honestly and hardwork, and let me also assure them that more than I am a Mormon, I am, like all other human beings, a child of the one true and living God.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
JA Pruce,
“My guess is that the more he is able to conflate Evangelicalism with Mormonism and somewhat blur the difference the more the uninformed voter (most voters) will be mollified and think it a non issue.”
This is a plausible argument in a political sense. Romney does want those he’s currently courting to essentially believe that, politically, he’ll be more or less identical to an evangelical. But, he absolutely doesn’t want to conflate Mormon theology with evangelical theology. He should duck and dodge through the theology woods in general. That’s a sure ticket to insuring that evangelicals not only don’t vote for him, but rise up against him to cast the “heretic” out.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
ACT – very nice! Maybe Mitt should hire you!
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Here’s what I want him to say:
Hi. I’m Mitt Romney and I’m an alco-Mormon.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
It’s really fairly fascinating to watch people who come from “outside the evangelical community” speculate on the best strategies to mollify that community. Because it indicates that despite the power of our movement, there are a considerable number of people who don’t understand it at all. JA Pruce’s ideas are well-intentioned, but they clearly come from deeply outside the evangelical tradition.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
JA Pruce,
Sorry, but trying to conflate the two would blow up in his face.
In fact, the more I think about the whole idea (what little room he has, the downside to being compared to Kennedy, and the risk of actually offending christians) the more I think its a bad idea. He’d be better off delivering a speech deconstructing Huckabee.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
MWS is doing an amazing job here of proving that fundamentalists are unthinking dolts who worship unthought.
If y’all think only your religion is true, by what standard? That you were born into it? Relatively few of you weighed the merits of various religions (and are apparently against it) and/or converted. You were just born into it. Pure coincidence.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Unthinking masses are ripe for dictatorship.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Ya know, it seems one important question has been glossed over and that is, who is Romney’s audience? Who exactly is he trying to persuade? I ask because there is a real chance that any speech will offend independents who, while personally religious, want a secular government.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Matthew,
“It’s really fairly fascinating to watch people who come from “outside the evangelical community†speculate on the best strategies to mollify that community. Because it indicates that despite the power of our movement, there are a considerable number of people who don’t understand it at all. JA Pruce’s ideas are well-intentioned, but they clearly come from deeply outside the evangelical tradition.”
I agree, but would add traditional Catholics to that group as well. I grew up evangelical and converted as an adult to Catholicism, but in this respect, they are pretty much coming from the same place.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Feltcher,
I’d agree that there are awful lot of ways he could go wrong. But, it seems to me most of the pot-holes are easily visible, and provided Governor Romney doesn’t decide to suddenly get astoundingly courageous (something that his detractors would likely suspect to be an impossibility) I’m sure he won’t be falling into any of them. He has smart advisers; James Bopp knows, far better then I do, how not to completely alienate the evangelical community. And if Romney writes a poor draft, no doubt these advisers will point the pot-holes out. I’m not particularly worried. I’m reasonably I could construct a decent Mormon speech. Surely Romney can, with a crowd of evangelical advisers standing by to make sure he doesn’t step in it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Metro,
“MWS is doing an amazing job here of proving that fundamentalists are unthinking dolts who worship unthought.
If y’all think only your religion is true, by what standard?”
Speaking of unthinking, by definition, two contradictory propositions cannot both be true. Something cannot be both “a” and “not a.” So if Catholicism is true, then other faith are true to the extent the share commonality with Catholic truth, and are wrong to the extent they reject it. Likewise, if Islam is true, then Christianity certainly is not. At most, only one relgion could be true. I would think to a “thinking” person that should be pretty self evident.
BTW, as I noted above and in other threads, I am an adult convert.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
MWS,
Sure. I’d agree with that.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Metro,
“Unthinking masses are ripe for dictatorship.”
Which is why your Jacobinism is so troubling.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
hmm. perhaps we need a “write your own speech” contest.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
ACT Blog,
Verbiage about “the one true and living God” would only serve to exascerbate the Governor’s problems. That is precisely the difference between Christianity and Mormonism. While both claim Christ as Lord, Christians believe the biblical precept that Christ has always been God while LDS believe Christ is a created being who attained his status. Also, discussing the “one true and living God” could draw attention to the Mormon doctrine that there are many who have attained god status as well as profound differences between Christians and LDS on the concept of the Trinity. Both faiths have the same terms but have profoundly different definitions of those terms.
If he is determined to move ahead with the speech, I would avoid any mention of even the most basic theology and simply state that his faith informs his decision-making and has brought him to, broadly speaking, to traditional conclusions about moral issues.
The fact that we are having this conversation, as raised by Matthew, is proof-positive of the very pitfalls that await the Governor in a general election. As a purely political consideration, this is why many of us have reservations about Gov. Romney. As an evangelical, I lose no sleep about his religion. As a Republican who wants to win in the fall, I don’t believe we should risk giving ourselves another handicap in an environment already unfriendly to the GOP.
Nevertheless, we must all hope Governor Romney hits the mark with this speech or even if he limps to the nomination, he could be damaged goods for the fall campaign.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
MWS, #58 does not deny that many different religions/philosophies may be part right and part wrong, and that the truth lies between them.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
GMM shows why he is walking a tightrope when making this speech
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Metro,
“#58 does not deny that many different religions/philosophies may be part right and part wrong, and that the truth lies between them.”
Then make “what lies between them” your religion and you’d be right!
But on any given proposition, one is either right or wrong, and mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be right.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Matthew,
Would you advise Romney to emphasize the terminology a “separation between church and state” or even use the word “secular”? Because I understand that many Values Voters object to such a separation and suggest that there is no such thing and some even go so far as to question the establishment clause suggesting that States can establish a religion. Also, I get the feeling that many Evangelicals object to the idea of a “secular” government, viewing this as ungodly or evil. How far should Romney go to adopt their language and what percentage of the primary voters are we talking about here who would object to suh ideas (separation and secular)?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I was just thinking how incredibily damaging it would be to Romney is it were ever discovered that this speech was the result of speech writers and focus groups.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Metro,
I’m not opposed to “weighing the merits of various religions”. I’m just opposed to the idea that there’s any particularly compelling reason to believe “grab-bag” spiritualism has any truth. Religions make claims. Often these claims are miraculous in nature. Often they’re simply concerned with doctrinal points; some large, some small. These claims serve to differentiate the religions. I can’t simultaneously believe in the Trinity and Unity. I can’t simultaneously believe Christ rose on the third day, and accept that he was merely an ordinary who presaged the Messiah. That’s the difficulty with the sort of broad ecumenicalism JA Pruce suggests. It either utterly belittles these differences, or doesn’t notice them. Either is worrying.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Thanks, Tommy. But Matthew already did that with this excellent post.
Even though Governor Romney is not the first choice of many of us, we should all wish him well with this important address. If he misses the mark but wins the nomination, this election will be over before the conventions convene.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Well, I assume there is internal polling that is compelling the speech. I think it would be incredibly unwise in the absence of such evidence.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Would you advise Romney to emphasize the terminology a “separation between church and state†or even use the word “secularâ€? Because I understand that many Values Voters object to such a separation and suggest that there is no such thing and some even go so far as to question the establishment clause suggesting that States can establish a religion. Also, I get the feeling that many Evangelicals object to the idea of a “secular†government, viewing this as ungodly or evil. How far should Romney go to adopt their language and what percentage of the primary voters are we talking about here who would object to suh ideas (separation and secular)?”
I’d advise him to use neither term. He’s used both previously, in passing. But, neither term goes over well with evangelicals. As far as I’m concerned, this “Separation of Church and State” is a constitutional figment of our society’s imagination. There’s precious little textual support for the idea. I’m offended by the term, as a poor application of constitutional interpretation. But, it doesn’t particularly offend me as a Christian. I do think it offends some conservative Christians, beyond constitutional considerations. Secular is worse though. It shouldn’t be particularly offensive, but it’s been attached to too many non-conservative groups, that it’s come to stand for “anti-religion” in the Conservative Christian Lexicon.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
From an article on “the speech”:
“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected,” said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden in a statement released this evening.
The Governor would do well to stick to speaking about religious tolerance. If he sticks to this outline, he might be able to pull it off.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I have a feeling that “religious tolerance” in the Conservative Christian Lexicon is not a positive term. Am I correct Matt?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Gary,
“The Governor would do well to stick to speaking about religious tolerance. If he sticks to this outline, he might be able to pull it off.”
But that can easily appear like he is lecturing those to whom he is appealing, and whining about people who don’t like his religion. He may as well tell those he speaking to that they are a bunch of a-holes who better knock it off (and vote for him).
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
JA Pruce,
“I have a feeling that “religious tolerance†in the Conservative Christian Lexicon is not a positive term. Am I correct Matt?”
You are correct. Not that conservative Chiristian don’t love or like those of other faiths, or that they can’t respect them, or anything like that. But the notion of “tolerance” has been hijacked by the left and now is synonomous with moral relativism for conservative Christians. They (we) aren’t against the OLD concept of toleration, but what it has come to mean in the world of Metro.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Gary Matthew Miller,
That Madden quote seems perfectly fine to me as well. See my last point under “things to include”. That’s likely the safest route, in the sense that it doesn’t touch too directly on Mormonism and doesn’t emphasize theology, but still manages to address religion in a meaningful fashion. Even a average speech of that nature would likely be a wash, and a good one would be a fairly decent net positive.
I envisioned the more complex speech because, I think Mormonism is a potentially powerful outlet for Mitt to tell us about Mitt, something he desperately needs to do to humanize himself. One of the reasons Huckabee’s beating Romney, is Huckabee plays the average guy, populist perfectly, while Romney’s stuck in CEO mode. I feel as though, if Mitt could become a bit of an average guy, even if only for awhile, that would have as big an effect on the Iowa race as any theological cooling. But, maybe that’s all too much to chew off in one speech. The religious liberty route, properly executed, might do well enough for his immediate purposes.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Romney needs to keep away from the theology. He should say something to the effect that the nature of God is mysterious, and that his faith has its own interpretation that is similar in some ways and different in others from others in the Christian tradition; however, their goals on Earth and in the affairs of men coincide, a fact that is amply demonstrated by the deeds and lives of many Mormons, and he is doing his best to meet his own standard for a righteous life. He needs to come across as comfortable talking about his faith without being preachy, and confirm that his faith is compatible with the Constitution as written, and so that when he takes that oath of office, voters can be sure that he means it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I don’t know about this. I’ve got some of the potholes he should avoid and questions of why I’ll post up.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
LOL.
I am sorry to offend Romney supporters, but I am glad an otherwise excellent candidate was not giving this speech. If Romney were actually a JFK I would be very sad right now as opposed to being disappointed.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
LOL.
I am sorry to offend Romney supporters, but I am glad an otherwise excellent candidate is not giving this speech. If Romney were actually a JFK I would be very sad right now as opposed to being disappointed.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Matthew,
Thank you for your insightful and informative comments here. I am not joking when I suggest that you should conduct a seminar for aspiring politicians and office holders who are trying to win over this demographic with the language that they should and should not use.
One last question: Many Values Voters speak of America as a “Christian Nation,” what should Mitt do with this assertion and can he thread the needle here so to speak?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I think religious liberty is the better term, if he decides to go that route. And I disagree somewhat with MWS here. Sure, it’s possible that he could give a “religious liberty” speech that comes off whiny. But, he could also give one does real justice to American history, and her rich tapestry. It’s possible Romney won’t even decide to make himself a particularly prominent subject in such a speech. Subliminally hinting that it’d be a shame for someone to oppose on theological bases is similar to what Kennedy did, and could very well work. There’s no reason he can’t give a religious liberty speech that doesn’t even infer those who oppose him are “bigots”.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
i wasnt around in the 60’s but it sounds like the anti-catholics really dogged kennedy before he gave this speech. i dont think romney is in the same situation today. so mitt cannot give the same speech. (i still dont think many people even KNOW he’s a Mormon). Beyond al sharpton, i dont recall any high profile attack on mitt’s religion. (and no, i don’t consider an anonymous “push poll” that some have called “message testing” to be a high profile attack because it’s anonymous)
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
MWS, I believe an appeal to tolerance would work with evangelicals and a broader audience.
One thing evangelicals and LDS have in common is a history of persecution. Evangelicals fled Europe and played a large role in the American founding. Mormons, sadly, experience persecution in America.
Evangelicals, while they comprise roughly 1 in 3 Americans, still feel some persecution inherent in the broader culture. In fact, it is a belief among all orthodix Christians that persecution will be the result of being serious about one’s faith. An appeal to religious liberty could work.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“Mormons, sadly, experience persecution in America.”
Huh? Please elaborate because I am unfamiliar.
This is beginning to sound like victims party meeting.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I meant “orthodox” in #84, above.
The fact that this speech contains so many pitfalls and opportunities makes one marvel this issue was not addressed earlier. It reminds me of Rove and GWB sitting on the DWI story all campaign and expecting it wasn’t going to go off at the last minute. (For the record, I am not equating being Mormon with a drunk driving arrest. I am only likening the potential for damage is not addressed.)
Bob Novak seems to agree:
Romney would seem the near perfect Republican candidate: articulate, handsome, able to raise funds and write his own checks. He has become sufficiently conservative on social issues where he once strayed leftward. He is the only Republican candidate unequivocally opposed to gay marriage and the only one who signed the no tax increase pledge. He is acceptable enough to non-Republicans to have been elected governor of very “blue” Massachusetts and then, unlike three GOP predecessors, actually governed as a Republican.
But last year I began to hear from loyal Republicans that they could never vote for Romney because of his religion. When I asked Romney about this in April 2006, he was in denial. I subsequently wrote on April 27, 2006, that Romney must make “a stronger response than he now envisions” — a declaration that “the imposition of a religious test on U.S. politics is unfair, unreasonable and un-American.” That was disputed by e-mails sent to me by self-professed Republicans who insisted Mormonism is a cult.
Despite his response to the retired CEOs, Romney is no longer in denial. A Newsweek poll shows 28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category where bias in America has deepened.
This prejudice may explain why Romney trails competitors in national polls. But nobody has emerged as the Republican establishment choice. Rudy Giuliani offends social conservatives. John McCain seems a spent force. Fred Thompson has not yet fulfilled his promise. What’s more, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, where victories would propel him ahead in national polls and likely nominate him. Will the Grand Old Party find itself with a nominee who cannot be elected because of his religion?
It is certain that sooner or later, Romney will address the nation. His task is vastly more complicated than John F. Kennedy’s was on Sept. 12, 1960, when he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Council that as president he would not take orders from the pope. Romney will no more attempt explaining Mormon theology than Kennedy ventured into Roman Catholic doctrine. He will do what I wrote 17 months ago he must do: deplore a religious test as un-American.
Romney will have but one shot to get it right, with no chance for a mulligan.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
JA Pruce,
He’s probably better off ignoring the word “Christian”, except in the context of historical references. Christian Nation is really only something a Baptist Minister could pull off, and not always even him. I tend to think the term Judeo-Christian is generally positively among Conservative Christians, and it sounds inclusive. Which is probably why Romney has used it from time to time. But, again, Islam falls within the “Judeo-Christian culture”, and maybe that’s a bit too broad of an implication.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Sampo,
While I agree Romney is in a different position than JFK – for one, there were 40 million American catholics – I nevertheless think he can give the same speech. Its fairly timeless in the sense that its non-specific.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Gary,
While what you write may be factually correct, Romney is not well served by trying to put Mormons and evangelicals in the same tub.
Better to emphasize their common goals, and vision for American government. Crap, Rudy’s hoodwinked a few on that one.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
can someone give me a link to where romney has been attacked by his religion by a high profile person not named al sharpton?
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 am
#85, I left the “d” off my “experience”. It should have read, “Mormons, sadly, experienced persecution in America.”
There can be little dispute that Mormons were treated terribly before they were driven into the American West. That is just a fact.
But you still raise a relevant point, Feltcher. How do you raise this valid historical point without sounding like a victim? I’m not sure, which again raises yet another potential pitfall for the speech.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
I think it’s fair to say that if this thread is any indication, Romney is pretty much guaranteed to put off some segment of the electorate.
But one smart thing he did was give himself 3 or 4 days to read reactions from blogging sites like this, so that his writers can better create his hearfelt speech about his core convictions!
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
mws, that was brutal.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
[...] believe is not Christian. Mitt’s cheering fan club will cautiously say that this is a good idea and that Romney has been planning to do this for some time. That’s nonsense. “The [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 am
MWS,
You laugh, but I’d be surprised, and dismayed, if Romney wasn’t doing just that. This isn’t a game, and I don’t want to elect anyone who’d treat with that level of concern. Romney will undoubtedly write the speech himself, and ought to. But, he’s silly if he doesn’t consult with evangelicals, and those in the know, about what sorts of things he absolutely musn’t say. I think we’ll no a good deal more about Romney by seeing how adeptly he navigates such a difficult web; and navigation is about more then instinct. You also need the right instruments. Bloggers and the Evangelical community can be those instruments. And I won’t be impressed if, on a whim, he decides he can get by on the North Star.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 am
i’m not gonna lie. i had no idea harry reid was a mormon until mitt told me. i guess the moral of the story is: leave it to mitt to overplay the mormon card. ha..
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 am
Yep, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is a huge gamble and a big mistake for Romney.
Little to gain, much to lose. And none of us here can come up with how to craft the speech that will reassure conservatives.
This is going to leave a mark.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
“none of us here can come up with how to craft the speech that will reassure conservatives.”
Well, he could drop out.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
I have to say that he should metino that his faith is not in the mainstream, but his fvalues are. that is what he needs to do. he must be honest, the mormon religion is christian but not mainstream christian. then he must say, that however, our values are in line with all other mainstream christina. we worked to stop prop 22 in california, we have a huge welfare system that donates and helps milions all over the world…blah blah.
his job is much harder than jfk’s because his problem as demonstrated in iowa is much more entertwined with religious competion among each other than it is with religous bigotry in general.
different christian sects have always been fighting for members. most feel threatened by the mormons succes and proselyting efforts–hence the unusual amount of ‘anit mormon’ efforst out there.
this is an issue that to me seems impossible almost to overcome. however in the public realm romney has gone far to prove it is not a fatal problem and hopefully with his speech he can allay some tf these that despite doctrinal differences his faith would govern his actions and the results would be the same as someone more to their liking doctrinally. he has to make that link that the doctrine equal sathe same values in the public realm.
either way. i don’t know how much this will change. it will simply give him a lot of attention and if he comes off as someone the peopl elike when they watch it and if he can get the press on his side, it might help a little bit more.
one thing is for sure. this will be major news all week. a whole week just to romney. too bad, i was hoping we would have a whole week of giuliani’s scandals and flubbing on stats to enjoy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
I’m a little confused…and I’m not the only one. There are some Mormons out
there who are scratching their heads because of something Mitt Romney said:
Read below from an interview he did with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:
Stephanopoulos: “In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches
that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for
1,000 years…” http://tinyurl.com/yoaw4b
And This:
http://www.saintsalive.org/mormonism/israel_mormonism.htm
Mormon theology is itself an ancillary, though less tangible issue. Mormons
see themselves as Jews of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Joseph,
whereas Jews are thought by them to be of the descendants of Judah. This
means that Mormons hold themselves as coequal in status to “other Jews,”
which is why to them all non-Mormons except Jews are “gentiles.”
Mormon’s believe Native Americans are Jews. http://tinyurl.com/27b7sb
One of the 13 articles of faith #10 We believe in the literal gathering of
Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New
Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign
personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive
its paradisiacal glory.
Mormons view humans as ultimately spirits, who lived with God as spirits
before they were born on earth. God chose a specific time and place for each
spirit to come to earth to receive a physical body.
The Restoration of the Priesthood http://tinyurl.com/2fs6b4
Jesus Christ as Chief Editor of The Book of Mormon
http://www.cumorah.com/bookofmormon.html
LDS Church teaches that God the Father was once a man and was exalted to Godhood. God (and his heavenly Wife)
begat billions of spirit children, the firstborn of whom was Jesus. Lucifer was the leader of God’s rebellious spirit
children. Those spirits who did not rebel become human beings in order to begin process potentially leading to exaltation
to Godhood.
Death and Afterlife Joseph Smith also taught that Mormon families can live together forever in heaven
if they are “sealed” through special temple ceremonies. The rest of us are what?
And Romney wants to be President, Priesthood, and Godhood?