Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Mitt the Mighty Mormon”

« I Decided Not to Liveblog My Sister's Nuptials... | Main | In Shocker, Mass Court Rules According to Law »

July 10, 2006

Mitt the Mighty Mormon

Hatched by Dafydd

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics frets that Mitt Romney will be un-nominatable among Republican voters -- because Romney is a Mormon; it's the polls, you see:

On Monday The Los Angeles Times released the third batch of results from its most recent poll, dealing with religion and politics. The number with the most significance for 2008 isn't very shocking: "Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate."

But of course, they wouldn't be voting for "a Mormon presidential candidate;" they would be voting for (or against) Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts... and that can make all the difference.

I'm trying to remember the last time a candidate was rejected because he was a Mormon. Or a Catholic. Or a Jew, or because he was black or Asian, or because he was a woman or she was a man. I think the answer is "not in my lifetime."

Oh, there have been many defeated nominees who claimed they lost because of some completely ancilalry characteristic; former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for governor of California in 1982 and 1986; and when state Attorney General George Deukmeijian just barely defeated him -- after early projections that Bradley would win -- many Bradley supporters (if not the mayor himself) accused Deukmejian supporters of racism (Bradley was black).

I suppose his race could have caused his defeat. Of course, a more likely explanation is that Bradley was very liberal; in addition, just before the 1982 contest, Bradley came out strongly in favor of a state initiative to ban all handguns from California. Prior to that announcement, Bradley was well ahead; but shortly thereafter, his support plummeted. Perhaps it's just a coincidence; perhaps all that latent California racism just happened, by sheer random chance, to catch up with him right after he announced he would work to disarm all Californios. But that's not how I would bet it.

So I'm still trying to think of a case where a candidate was defeated in a clear-cut case of racial, religious, or sexual bigotry... and I'm still drawing a blank, at least in the last forty or so years. All right, maybe in the deep South in the sixties, somebody might have been defeated for some office because he was the wrong religion -- Episcopalian, maybe. But it's far more likely such a person would be defeated because of the liberal or conservative positions that often come hand in hand with particular religions.

The big-C Conservative Jew Joseph Lieberman has been elected again and again from Connecticut, a state not normally associated with widespread Judaism; and of course, he was the Democratic nominee for president in 2002. And for that matter, the subject of this post, Mitt Romney -- remember him? -- was elected governor, not of Utah, but of Massachusetts.

Bevan frets that the attack on Romney would not be overt, where it could be dragged into the sunlight and dried up, but rather a whispering campaign that would lurk and fester in the damp and dark:

In addition to the LA Times poll, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Romney's religion is going to be anywhere from a moderate to severe handicap, especially in the South (see Robert Novak and Amy Sullivan). And Ross Douthat provides a nimble description of why Romney's problem isn't just confined to the GOP primary:

So the Republican primaries would be tough on Romney, and he would be a ripe target for an enterprising Rove wannabe with a taste for dirty campaigns. A few flyers about polygamy in South Carolinian mailboxes, or some push-poll telephone calls about the weirdness of the Book of Mormon in the Catholic Midwest . . . well, you get the idea. And things wouldn't get any easier in the general election, when the media would suddenly discover all sorts of juicy details about Joseph Smith's faith that are just crying out for a Time cover story, or a 60 Minutes special. If you think that journalists have had a field day with George W. Bush's fairly banal brand of evangelical Christianity, well, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

But neither Novak nor Sullivan cite a single objective source for assuming evangelicals will refuse, en masse, to vote for a Mormon (would they refuse to vote for a small-c conservative Jew like Dennis Prager? I think not)... just unpersuasive anecdotal predictions. Example: Novak writes:

Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So some unnamed folks told Robert Novak that others -- not he, but "millions of [his] co-religionists," primarily, we suppose, in the South -- would prefer a liberal Democrat to a conservative Mormon. Among urban folklorists like Jan Harold Brunvand, this is called a "FOAF," a friend of a friend, and is one of the hallmarks of an urban legend.

Sullivan's "evidence" is even sillier. Discussing the 2002 gubernatorial race between Democrat Janet Napolitano and Republican Matt Salmon, a Mormon, she notes:

A month before election day, the race was neck-and-neck, when a third-party candidate named Dick Mahoney began running a television commercial that raised Salmon's Mormonism in the context of a Mormon fundamentalist sect that openly practices polygamy on the Arizona/Utah border. The ad was offensive and was immediately denounced by religious and political leaders. It was also effective.

On election day, Salmon lost to Napolitano by a razor-thin margin. Napolitano won in part by picking up votes among moderate female voters, but also because Salmon ran far behind congressional candidates in the most conservative and heavily evangelical districts.

So if the race was "neck and neck" before the election, and then, after the anti-Mormon ads, Napolitano won by a "razor-thin margin" -- isn't the most likely conclusion that the ads had no effect whatsoever? Sullivan reports that Salmon did poorly among evangelicals; but she doesn't tell us whether he was doing any better among evangelicals "a month before election day." (She also completely buys into the myth that John McCain was destroyed in South Carolina by vile rumors spread by "Bush surrogates," so I tend to discount her seriousness.)

Simply put, when people say, in the abstract, "I would never vote for a Mormon," it's a relatively meaningless statement from a political perspective: as I said above, nobody pulls the lever for "Mr. Mormon cult leader;" the candidate is "Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the guy who saved the Olympics in Salt Lake City and a first-rate conservative who managed to get elected in one of the bluest of blue states."

In fact, the whole suggestion that Romney will lose because "evangelicals" (translation: the evil religious Right) think he's one of those Satan-worshipping Mormons smacks not only of anti-Christian and anti-Southern bigotry but also argument by melodrama: it must be true because it would be so wild and bizarre if it were true!

It likewise depends upon believing that those "rightwingnut Christians" hate Mormons, call them cultists, and are so bigotted, they would never, ever vote for one. Big Lizards says, regardless of how they answered in a Los Angeles Times poll, when the time comes, evangelicals will step up and vote for the conservative over the liberal... not the secular Christian over the conservative Mormon.

If Romney loses the primary, it will be because of something he said or something he did... not because of something be believes.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 10, 2006, at the time of 5:20 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/947

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd,

I really hate to present an argument by using anecdote but I feel I must.

My wife and I attend a pretty conservative Christian Church. The same Church an author of childrens books attends, Max Lucado, although we don't go to the same congregation. My mother and father also worship at the same Church.

Basically, we are all of us Right Wing Conservative Christians and part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You really can't find people further to the right than my family.

My wife's family (My in-laws) are all Mormon. They are also, most of them, whack-jobs. Pardon the slur. One night over a year ago, my parents and my wifes mother, sister and brother were all having dinner at my house. My father says in casual conversation something about Mormons being Morons making a play of words. This of course upsets everyone and my stubborn father refuses to apologize.

Having said that, my father also loves Mitt Romney and knows he's a Mormon. He still refers to Mormon's as Moron's yet he hopes Mitt Romney will be the next President. As do I.

I wonder how Sullivan and Novak would explain that?

The above hissed in response by: Baggi at July 10, 2006 5:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

They said the same smack about Kennedy (Americans will never elect an Irish Catholic).

I think this coming out now is an example of dirty politics - dry up support for the guy before the race even starts.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at July 10, 2006 9:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: mbaesq

Mssr D:

Spot-on analysis. However, I differ (in part) with your conclusion for the presidential race.

Taking a WayBack Machine(tm) look at 2004, the Dems nominated a Frankenstein-like candidate in John Kerry. By that I mean his positions seemed to be cobbled together from multiple sources, that's not a jab at his looks.

He still came within 60,000 votes of Dubya in Ohio. It's not so much that Evangelicals/churchgoers (who do exist in critical numbers in certain swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania) can stomach the thought of voting for a Mormon over a Democrat. Rather, it's the intensity factor - will that same voter stand in line for an hour to vote, or stand in the rain?

My guess is the answer is yes - if there is a sufficiently polarizing factor on the other side. For example, my hypothetical Christian voter would stand in line in the rain for an hour to vote against Hillary Clinton. (Come to think of it, the Republicans could run a stalk of celery and that voter would still stand in line in the rain for an hour to vote against Hillary Clinton.)

But what if the opponent is a mild-mannered, Christian (with a small 'c') middle of the road kind of guy who 'shares their values'? Like Evan Bayh or John Warner?

It's going to get a lot trickier to find 60,000 churchgoing voters who will stand in line in the rain for an hour to vote in Romney over someone like that, IMO.

The above hissed in response by: mbaesq at July 10, 2006 9:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

MBAEsq:

But what if the opponent is a mild-mannered, Christian (with a small 'c') middle of the road kind of guy who 'shares their values'? Like Evan Bayh or John Warner?

It's going to get a lot trickier to find 60,000 churchgoing voters who will stand in line in the rain for an hour to vote in Romney over someone like that, IMO.

On the other hand, how many Democrats will be willing to stand in line in the rain for "a mild-mannered, Christian (with a small 'c') middle road kind of guy who 'shares [the] values'" -- of Republicans?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 10, 2006 12:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

You CAN win an election with 37% of the people voting against you.
Polls like this are meaningless unless the candidate is compared to another.

BussinessWeek before the last election had a Poll among Soccer Moms, Bush had a 42 or so approval rating but over 65% planned to vote for him, their approval of Kerry must have been a lot lower. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at July 10, 2006 12:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

It likewise depends upon believing that those "rightwingnut Christians" hate Mormons

I would think that Progressive Liberals would hate a Moderate/Conservative Religous candidate even more ;-)

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at July 10, 2006 12:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Kelly

Drill down a bit on the anti-Mormon 37% and you get this breakdown: 35% of conservatives wouldn't vote for a Mormon, compared to 32% of moderate Republicans and 50% of self-identified liberal Democrats. (There's at least one missing group here, to drive the average down to 37. Wish someone would publish the entire poll results, rather than just some reporter's recap of the high points.) Dan is right: these folks on the left aren't about to vote for Romney anyway.
It's troubling that the numbers for conservatives are higher than for moderates (while within the margin of error), but that's what campaigns are for.

Side note: had a miracle occurred and Lieberman actually won the Democratic nomination in '04, I was prepared to vote against him on purely religious grounds. The middle of a shooting war against Moslem fanatics is no time to elect an Orthodox Jew, although the screw-you aspects would have been hard to resist.

The above hissed in response by: Kelly at July 10, 2006 6:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Personally, i am almost Dualistically a Mundaka Upanishadinaist with a slight twist of Tao and Buddhism tossed in for flavor. However, i like Mitt Romney and Mormons, since America no longer has leaders with balls enough to kick-some-arse whilst doing head-butting full-time...so to speak.

Like two golden birds perched on the selfsame tree, intimate friends, the ego and the Self dwell in the same body. The former eats the sweet and sour fruits of the tree of life, while the latter looks on in detachment

Granted, Dualistically speaking, Detachment can be a problem...well, when it comes to Non-Duality, but so what?!?

If America's left really had any balls, then they would run Cindy Sheehan for President, and Deborah Frisch ("Ph. D.") as Vice President. OK, let's talk some more...since i Vote *AGAINST* the Democrat Party, and not for the Republican Party.

'Whars Genghis Khan or Chingis Khan when you need him or them!!! So to speak of:

A man's greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them, to take their horses between his knees and to press in his arms, the most desirable of their women.

Or:

A man's greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them, and then to take their wives and daughters to his own bosom.

Personally, i think that Chingis makes a great point (and Presidential candidate), and that Mitt Romney might soften the image a tad, as the Vice President candidate...so to speak.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 10, 2006 7:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

"Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate."

Hillary Meter

37% Say They Would Definitely Vote Against the Senator in 2008

Don'tcha just LOVE Symetry? ;-)

Be interesting to see what a poll outcome would be with Romney against Hillary wouldn't it? ;-))

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at July 10, 2006 8:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: brotio

Had Lieberman been the Dem's nominee and Pat Buchanan the Republican, I would have choked back the bile and voted for a Democrat because of one issue: We MUST win this war.

The above hissed in response by: brotio at July 11, 2006 11:41 PM