Latter Day presidential candidates

‘George Bush lite’ – does this refer to W? How ‘lite’ can you get?

“fastest growing religion in the world”

Sure, if you include all the dead people who’ve converted.

To add, I think how much Romney’s religion is a problem depends on who he’s competing against. With Frist it might matter more. But with McCain or Giuliani it’s simply that Romney is the better choice.

The real issue is less that than what happens if Romney wins the nomination. Will this affect get out the vote of Evangelicals and their aid in grass roots efforts. They may prefer Romney to say Clinton. But will they be excited about Romney the way they were about Bush?

I think samchevre is right – a result of the coopting of evangelicals by rightwing politicians has been a surprising amount of, ahem, flexibility about once-strongly-held beliefs. Turns out, despite 300 years of consistency on the point, the Pope is not the Antichrist. Liberals are. And if Evangelicals have to vote for a (hellbound) Mormon President to appoint (hellbound) Catholics ot the Supreme Court and blindly support (hellbound) Israel, so be it.

I’m pretty sure “Blessed be the Pragmatists” has officially replaced all that “poor” and “peacemaker” stuff.

My understanding is that the Mormon (sorry, LDS) position on stem cells is the reverse of the “Life” advocates among the Catholic Bishops/Christian Right. Is this likely to make a difference with them?

The other issue, which I don’t think will have much political impact, is that Gordon B. Hinckley’s admirable statement on the family, along with much other LDS teaching, emphasises the husband and wife as partners, as opposed to the husband being the head of the family a la Dobson and some JP II Catholics. Can’t see that hurting Romney, though.

There was a Slate article raising exactly this issue.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140539/

I don’t buy it. These same guys who wouldn’t vote for Pat Buchanan aren’t going to suddenly start voting for Romney.

Other thoughts:

1) I think Kth is correct: Romney’s greatest opposition in the primaries will come from McCain, since, however much their handlers spin them, both will come off to the hard-core Christian conservatives of the South as moderates, and hence they will be fighting mostly for the same delegates.

2) For what it’s worth, jroth, there hasn’t been anything nearly like 300 years of consistency amongst all Protestants everywhere on the Pope being the anti-Christ; whether any given conservative Protestant belives that the citizens of Israel are collectively hell-bound depends on what they think about issues of supersessionism (which very from congregation to congregation); and it’s not entirely clear to me why one should believe that being pragmatic within a pluralistic democracy makes it impossible to also be a peacemaker.

3) Gene, there isn’t–as much as some would like there to be–a “Mormon position” on stem-cell research. Several Mormon lawmakers have taken positions on the matter that have upset a fair number of their Catholic allies, but whether their ad hoc positions will ever add up to anything backed by theological or ecclesiastical sanction is anyone’s guess (and whether such would actually affect Republican primary voters is another guess again).

Apart from the Mormonism, do the Christabigots forgive him for presiding over the legalization of gay marriage?

If he wants a lot to become the most powerful man in the world with the big red button and everything – then maybe he could get Born-Again? And why not; stranger things have happened.

Romney’s Mormonism might not matter to evangelicals right now. But if he winds up in a narrow field of two or three “finalists” in the Spring of ’08 and if Karl Rove is advising an opponent, you can bet it will become VERY important.

It depends on the primary/caucus calender. Every evangelical I’ve ever met out West hates Mormons. They hate them worse than they hate atheists or gays. I don’t know how Romney’s religion will play in the South, but in the West it will be death. (The primary calender might dictate that it will be too late for the West to matter, though. That I don’t know.)

“As for Giuliani, I fully expect him to ‘reconsider’ his stances on gay rights and reproductive choice between in the next year or two. If he wants the nomination, he has no choice. And if the punditry is behind him, all of this will be spun as the most natural thing in the world: expect long, fawning puff pieces in the NY Times Sunday Magazine about his profound connection to his faith, his reminiscences of his altar boy days, etc.”

I think he’d be laughed out of the country if he tried that, Uncle Kvetch, but you may be right. I don’t know. It probably comes down to how badly Giuliani wants it. My bet: he’ll decide he doesn’t want it that bad. He’s always been incredibly defensive and full of himself; I find it difficult to believe he’d jump through so many humilitating hoops just for the bare chance that maybe Southern Republican primary voters will reconsider him. If domestic terrorism was front and center again, he might consider it. But 2002 was a long time ago.

So it looks like we’re on KQED Forum tomorrow morning at 9 AM with Phil Swagel to talk about the Fed. What are you going to say?

Brad DeLong

Romney is the fourth in a series of do-nothing Republican governors of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His Mormonism in this state was not a real issue in any of the races he’s run here. His part-time (at best) governance and trashing of our state in his many, many engagements beyond our borders are.

His one big legislative “success” has been the proposed health care initiative, which, from what I understand, requires people to have health insurance coverage. It’s like car insurance. If you have a car, you are illegal if you don’t have insurance. The model is now applied to healthcare: if you have a body, you must have health insurance or else you are in violation of the law. Don’t think it’s going to work and already there are cracks beginning to show.

I had a friend who was a Mormon and a member of the same congregation (the big, new Temple in Belmont, MA). My friend disliked Romney intensely because he knew him. He saw Romney act like a self-righteous and unforgiving fool as a member of the church and couldn’t abide him for it.

Romney isn’t going to last through the first primaries. He doesn’t have the sand.

He sure is purty though.

It probably comes down to how badly Giuliani wants it. My bet: he’ll decide he doesn’t want it that bad. He’s always been incredibly defensive and full of himself; I find it difficult to believe he’d jump through so many humilitating hoops just for the bare chance that maybe Southern Republican primary voters will reconsider him.

Well, that was the second part of my argument, Russell–i.e., the part I didn’t get around to writing. 8^)

As an NYC resident, my feeling is that Giuliani’s personality is by far his biggest political liability. He is, as you point out, a bully: thin-skinned, defensive, and full of himself. He was able to parlay these attributes into assets in the context of NYC, but I don’t see them working in his favor in a national campaign. And it’s hard to imagine him putting himself in the hands of GOP spin doctors attempting to give him the requisite folksy, guy-you-wanna-have-a-beer-with makeover.

Compared to all that, obscuring and muddying his relatively liberal record on social issues will be a piece of cake.

Uncle Kvetch (no. 30), I agree with your take on Giuliani’s personality (thin-skinned and defensive), but both John Kerry and George Bush Sr. had those characteristics and they did okay. Of course, Reagan and Clinton, who seemed, respectively, bemused and charmed by insult or criticism, did better.

‘George Bush lite’ – does this refer to W? How ‘lite’ can you get?

Allen satisfies all requirements. Bush’s father was president; Allen’s, a coach. Bush is a Connecticut-born Texan; Allen is a California-raised redneck. I think he’ll get the nomination, because I think James Bryce’s century-old analysis still applies: he’s truly dumb and has no real achievements, and thus has less to attack than the other potential candidates, while appealing to fellow dumbnuts.

Romney has the problem of running from nowhere, since he’s out of office after November. His religion is less of a problem in early primaries such as NH, I think, though one wonders how he’d cope, say, in upstate South Carolina, where Catholics are considered heretic idolators by the Bob Jones set. While nth-gen Irish/Italian Papists in the north seem to have grown towards the GOP, the old Southern distinctions still hold.

they are openly pro-choice (probably the biggest issue for the Christian right)

McCain? Uh, no. He may be accused of being stealth pro-choice by the every-sperm-is-sacred brigade, but he’s zero-rated by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

I think SamChevre and Henry are both correct: those who make a big deal about evangelical Protestant attitudes towards Mormons in regards to Romney’s run have profoundly misunderstood how conservative Christianity has changed over the past 30 years in America.

The question, though, is how much it’s changed.

There’s no question that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have found ways to make common cause with Catholics. However, I think that Mormons are scarier to the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists than you think. I’ve spent a good bit of time studying websites run by Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups, and some speaking to these people, and one striking universal is that the Catholic Church is basically never mentioned. They don’t trumpet their alliance with Catholics, they merely include htem under the broad banner of “Christians”, as if the Pope were effectively born-again himself.

Sectarian divisions pretty much don’t exist in this rhetoric, except for two: Mormons and Unitarians. The Unitarians are a cult because they deny the trinity and hold bad social views, and the Mormons are a cult because they read anything beyond hte NT as scripture.

Obviously the UUs aren’t going to make common cause with conservative Evangelicals any time soon, so the interesting questions is whether the Mormons can be presented as born-agains in this rhetoric. I don’t think they can, yet.

Mormons do not go over well here in Georgia. They’re viewed as either kooks, cultists, or worse, From Out Of Town. Even with the overlap of platform issues, many southerners turn a suspicious eye towrds anyone not a mainstream Christian. Hell, Catholics are still suspect in some circles around here.

Also, very few of the already small number of secular southerners would vote for him so he couldn’t run as the old Gerogia favorite, the Red Democrat.

Divguy,

“However, I think that Mormons are scarier to the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists than you think. I’ve spent a good bit of time studying websites run by Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups, and some speaking to these people, and one striking universal is that the Catholic Church is basically never mentioned….Sectarian divisions pretty much don’t exist in this rhetoric, except for two: Mormons and Unitarians. The Unitarians are a cult because they deny the trinity and hold bad social views, and the Mormons are a cult because they read anything beyond the NT as scripture.”

I suppose it kind of depends on which websites you frequent. From what I’ve seen and heard (which, admittedly, is limited–I’m hardly on their mailing list!), predominently Protestant groups like Focus on Family, etc., speak frequently and very highly of conservative Catholics and the “theocons,” praised the pope, etc. You’re right that the Mormons pose an entirely different set of theological problems for the more orthodox (as opposed to merely power-hungry) in this group, and maybe you’re right that the Book of Mormon, etc. (forget the historical practice of polygamy as a wedge issue here; the official church has scads of statements and documents to back up their current insistence on heterosexual monogamy, and the Romney campaign will surely make use of such if they have to), will just make a Mormon candidate too big of a pill to swallow. Again, it’ll be interesting to see.

-Scientology and mormonism have been raped the the internet. Mormons aren’t expanding except by birthrate in the mormon corridor. Scientology likely won’t be around in a decade or two. Too many broke ex-scientologists in cyber-space.

-Bush is open about his faith and brings it up all the time, therefore its fair game so to speak. Romney won’t, and efforts to make it so will backfire.

-The hard right christians may have a problem with him being mormon, but they’ll still vote for him. If hillary runs, the dynamics change considerably.

-Romney is a very strong candidate. Stud, articulate, good resume.

samchevre—McCain is not pro-choice, and certainly not openly so. (The rest of what you say may not be right, but I don’t want pro-choice people thinking he’s on our side.)

What kind of person believes such nonsense? Somebody irrational, thats who. I think that automatically makes him unqualified to be President. And I think alot of other people will feel the same way once they find out the details about the mormon religion and what mormons believe. I must admit, as nutty as I thought mormons were, I was shocked by what I didnt know about their beliefs and its history. It really is in the same level of nuttiness as Scientology is.

The only question in my mind is, will democrats be ruthless enough to make hay out of it or will they be politically correct and ‘respect Romneys beliefs’. If they go for the jugular though and make sure voters understand what Mormonism is, he’s toast. Democrats should pray to god that he’s the nominee instead of McCain or Giuliani.

I’m a real-life conservative, not just someone who is acquainted with conservatives. My thoughts on some of the above and more generally:

–Samchevre, Matt Weiner is right to say that McCain isn’t pro-choice. McCain is probably most accurately described now as anti-NRLC (functionally, anti-pro-life). McCain is also not a Catholic.

–I’m wondering, based on Russell’s description of Romney’s record in MA, if Russell and I are both planning on supporting Romney. Welcome aboard, Russell!

–Right now, Allen is considered the “dumb candidate.” But we all know that even if Romney is the nominee, the Republican won’t be as smart the Democrat, whoever that might be.

–jo-n, I think Kennedy’s insistence that Romney was pro-life will be effective in combating Romney’s then-insistence that he wouldn’t change the law of MA on the subject.

–I’ve long been supportive of Romney–I’ve liked him since his 94 campaign. He will find plenty of support in the party despite (and I do mean despite) his religion. Given the choice between a co-religionist and someone who agrees with them on their issues, voters will go with the issues first, is my guess.

–For those handicapping the Republican primary, remember that since 1980, every nominee has satisfied each part of the Republican coalition (low tax/social conservative/hawk). I wouldn’t bet against that pattern.

I’m not sure that Romney’s Mormonism is enough to prevent evangelical Christians from voting for him, but it will change the nature of their support. My family (who are fundamentalist Christians) and their church support Bush because they trust him. And they trust him because he, like them, is a born-again Christian. So while they might be willing to vote for Romney (as Mormons are viewed by conservative Christians as erroring primarily in theology rather than morality), they will not ever grant him the level of support W has.

Jonesy (#46),

“The only question in my mind is, will Democrats be ruthless enough to make hay out of it or will they be politically correct and ‘respect Romney’s beliefs.’ If they go for the jugular though and make sure voters understand what Mormonism is, he’s toast.”

I’m not sure you’re correct, but you might be. Frankly, this is probably why I’m most interested in what becomes of Romney’s candidacy–not because I like particularly him or agree with him on many issues (though Allen would certainly be worse!), but because I want to see what becomes of Mormonism–as it is understood by outsiders as well as how that understanding informs what insiders like myself believe–in the huge, intense, vicious, circus-ring atmosphere of a presidential campaign. Consider it a massive experiment in public relations.

They are well entrenched, well respected, thick as thieves and they are ruthless – a winning combination. I think the religious right will cleave to them in the same manner that Catholics and Jews have been converted from Democrats to Republicans. It is like true apartheid, separate but equal. The differences between the groups will only play after they become successful.

They have so many things going for them, ignorance of the other religions, a fascination with genetics, heredity and marketing. Go to the Temple in the Great Salt Lake – No ugly people allowed.

They make the Catholics look like pikers.

OY is what I say or God help us all!

If Romney gets to the general election, the Democrat will likely be pro-abortion, and that will make all of the difference.

Oh, sure. I think that a “pro-abortion” liberal will lose votes even to a “cultist” conservative. The question about Romney, as stated in the post above, is whether he’ll make it to the general.

I mean, everyone other than McCain is a longshot, but Romney’s probably not going to get the base vote because of his religion, and you don’t win primaries without the base.

the Republican coalition (low tax/social conservative/hawk)

That really is a strikingly incoherent set of issues. Don’t fund the government, but have them set and enforce social policy domestically while starting lots of wars internationally. It’s not a bad electoral strategy – obviously – but it’s just about diametrically opposed to good governance.

Not a chance. A Romney candidacy would make the general public do a little bit of research on the religion and they’ll come to the reasonable conclusion that it’s a cult on steroids and those that follow the religion are seriously gullible and misguided, at best, or just plain out of their minds, with all due respect.

The scary thing is that we’re wondering whether Romney could be a candidate, and the doubt is not over the fact that he professes to believe a bunch of crazy things, but that they might be the wrong brand of crazy for lots of voters.

I do not know what Romney believes socially or politically, but I do have experience with mormon’s and their social beliefs. As a basis for public policy mormon beliefs are unreasonable, e.g. there is no reasonable argument for appealing to mormon views on gender relations for public policy on things like access to day care, employment standards, etc…. To the degree that a mormon politician thinks that public policy ought to be based on the dictates of her faith, the content of her beliefs should be at the centre of the debate. I do not know what mormons think about politics but I am guessing the more public policy reflects their belief system the better. I guess the hope is that the prospect of a mormon president will force more of the American public into this kind of reasoning that sees religiously based public policy as unreasonable because mormons are a further step away from mainstream beliefs. Is this way too optimistic?

aaron_m and glenn,

What, precisely, is the line where people make a different choice between a governor and a president.

After all, if he could get elected as a Republican in the liberal state of MA, why will things go so different with the rest of the country.

Aaron_m, you seem to be saying that you have no knowledge of specific policies favored by mormon politicians that are held in terms of religious beliefs, but that your knowledge of the social beliefs of certain mormons makes it likely that other mormons who are politicians would favor public policy dictated by similar beliefs.

Hey, its a free country…

BTW, the Senate minority leader is LDS (Mormon). So there are Democrats as well as Republicans that fit in the group.