The Mormon Problem

Filed under: 2008 elections, Mitt Romney, Mormons — Michael van der Galien on May 30, 2007 @ 6:14 pm CEST

A great post by Jason at The Moderate Voice about Romney’s problem: yes, that he is a mormon.

Evangelical Christians at the heart of the Republican base are heirs to a long tradition of anti-Mormonism, harking back to pulpits in the midwest in the 1830s where Mormonism was disdained and feared, even to the point of openly promoting violence and leading ultimately to a historically unprecedented “order of extermination” — an official government authorization of genocide against the Mormons. Intolerance towards Mormons based on both sincere and dishonest disagreements with their religious doctrines has persisted through the years, resulting in the refusal of the Congress to seat a Mormon representative and a 3-year battle before seating a Mormon Senator. Numerous books and movies by self-styled anti-Mormon “scholars” seeking to “expose” the religion have been promoted and displayed through the network of evangelical congregations. In spite of the Church’s century-old rejection of the doctrine of “plural marriage”, the popular image of Mormons within the evangelical community remains one centered on polygamy.

On the other hand, often extreme theological differences have often been overridden by a strong political alliance. Utah is one of the most reliably Republican states in presidential politics, usually exceeded only by Idaho, which is also heavily Mormon. And while early Mormon life was actually a socialist commune, Mormons in the 1950s and later developed a “Boy Scout culture” combining large-family-based conservativism at home with a firm, often strident anti-communism abroad. Mormon politicians like Orrin Hatch hold powerful positions in the Republican Party and provide reliable support for conservative policy programs.

Along with Rudy Giuliani’s support for abortion rights, Romney’s candidacy forces Republican voters to confront directly the question of what kind of party they want to be. Will it be a party based on traditional conservative principles or a party based on evangelical religious principles?

It’s a fascinating issue: I personally know Republican voters who are dedicated to change the direction their party is going. Many more moderate, and traditionally conservative Republicans aren’t happy with the influence of the so-called Religious Right. I hope for the Republican Party that traditional conservatives win this battle: less emphasis on the so-called social issues, and more on fiscal conservatism.

That is what the Republican Party needs.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.

1 lthomas

May 30, 2007 @ 7:04 pm CEST

I fail to understand why the conservative party which embraces christian values has to abandon its principals because it looses an election?

If anyone is opposed to Christian values then their are two parties for you. Democrats and Libertarians.

Why is no one asking them to abandon their Christian values? AFter all they are all jockeying to make everyone know that they are christians or catholics or whatever faith they embrace.

No I really feel that the party will Reject Romney and Guilani when Fred Thompson enters the fray because the Republican party represents the conservative values of Christians and will continue to do so.

Those who do not like it can find the exit.

This is akin to asking the Democrats to embrace Anti Gay Legislation and Striking down Roe v Wade. Aint gonna happen because that is not who they are. They lost election after election but they did not abandon their core social beliefs just to win an election

2 David

May 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm CEST

Ithomas, I am not convinced that either US party has “core social beliefs”. The current positions did not really exist in the 1970s and who knows if they will still be there in 10 years time. My own feeling is that the “religious right” is in decline. This means that Republicans will not feel the need to give them any policy decisions. Similarly the Democrats policies are likely to shift a bit because while radical atheism may be popular at Daily Kos it is a big vote loser in the real world. If the Democrats feel that they can get votes by allowing candidates more leeway on abortion or gay marriage they might just try.

3 lthomas

May 31, 2007 @ 2:31 am CEST

Also what I find ironic is that a conservative movement whose very definition is to reject CHANGE for changes sake is being asked to change in order to go forward.

Funny.

4 Jettboy

May 31, 2007 @ 10:24 pm CEST

“No I really feel that the party will Reject Romney and Guilani when Fred Thompson enters the fray because the Republican party represents the conservative values of Christians and will continue to do so.

Those who do not like it can find the exit.”

Ultimately, this attitude will make the Republican party what the Democratic party almost was - in decline. As I said at another place:

If that is what ends up happening, I say bring it on! They will end up dispirited by their own bigotry and deserve Hillary/Obama/whoever gets into office. As a conservative it will be sad for me, but my respect for fellow Republican conservatives has gone down hill since the degree of bigotry and self-centeredness has proven so deep.

I am not saying the liberal MSM have not been equally bigoted, but at least they are consistant in hating all forms of faith (and I would add conservative viewpoints). With a large segment of the Republican conservatives, it is becoming more plain that they are not looking for a moral and ethical political nation with respect for the Constitution. They are proving (sadly) that the MSM might be correct that they are trying to create a theocratic (vs. simply religious)United States.

Remember, the more you push people out, the less people will be in.