Democracy in America

American politics

Mormonism

Mitt's prerogative

Feb 7th 2012, 20:23 by E.G. | AUSTIN

THE past few days have brought some new calls for Mitt Romney to directly address the fact that he is a Mormon, notably from Frank Bruni in the New York Times and Randall Balmer at the New Republic. It's not as if people ever stopped talking about this issue, but there are several factors that helped drive Mr Romney's religion back into the spotlight, including the fact that he is ever more likely to be the Republican nominee; that he won the Nevada caucus on Saturday with a lot of support from Mormons there; and that Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, reporters for the Boston Globe, have just released a new biography, "The Real Romney", excerpted at Vanity Fair.

The latest round of commentary suggests that Mr Romney needs to talk about his religion not because people are curious about Mormonism, but because they are curious about Mr Romney himself. Here's Mr Ballmer:

There’s no doubt that, to some extent, the voting public’s interest in Mormonism is informed by prurience. But that’s not to say it should be dismissed entirely. What ought to interest us about Romney’s faith are not the vagaries of Mormon theology, fascinating as they are, but how he understands that theology, how his faith informs the way he lives, his sense of responsibility toward others and how that might affect the way he governs.

And Mr Bruni:

His aloofness, guardedness and sporadic defensiveness: are these entwined with the experience of belonging to a minority tribe that has often been maligned and has operated in secret? Do his stamina and resilience as a candidate reflect his years of Mormon missionary work in France, during which he learned not to be daunted in the face of so much resistance that he won a mere 10 to 20 converts, according to “The Real Romney,” a biography published last month?

There are two ways to interpret the argument that Mr Romney should talk about his religion: as a political analysis, that Mr Romney risks alienating voters if he takes a coy line on this, and as a normative comment, that voters have a right to know about his religious beliefs. Both are suggested in the pieces at hand, although Mr Ballmer seems to focus on the former, and Mr Bruni on the latter.

Neither is very convincing. As a political matter, it may be the case that Mr Romney's Mormonism has alienated some evangelical voters, but even if he is awkward about these questions, he remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. And while recent polls have suggested that nearly a quarter of Americans are leery of supporting a Mormon for president, it's hard to disentangle that finding from the fact that roughly half of Americans are apparently leery of supporting Mr Romney or any other Republican.

The second argument, that Mr Romney has a particular responsibility to talk about his religion because he is a Mormon, is where we get into more interesting territory. It would be reductive to say that this is just about prejudice. If you're running for president, you can expect people to check your teeth and kick your tires, and if you've had a life experience that is unfamiliar to a lot of people, that part of your biography is bound to attract curious attention.

As to the substance of the matter, it may be that Mr Romney's experience with Mormonism has affected him in ways that we haven't fully considered. I called Matthew Bowman, a historian who has a new history of the religion (and is a Mormon himself), to ask. Mr Bowman flagged a couple of things. Mormonism has a "really strong communalist bent", for example, partly as a result of its historical tensions with the federal government; you could draw a line between that and Mr Romney's support for small-government conservatism. Another consideration: "Mormonism is not a very theological religion", Mr Bowman said; in a typical sermon, you're more likely to hear a call to do good deeds rather than a critical inquiry about the nature of God. That, he continued, might infuse some of Mr Romney's noblesse oblige.

I was glad I asked because the conversation gave me some food for thought with regard to Mormonism's standing in American society. You can see how some people might get suspicious, for example, if evangelical Protestants are thundering that Mormonism is theologically treacherous, and Mormons are asking if you need a ride to the airport. And it's probably not a stretch to say that a president's formative experiences, religious or otherwise, do impact their administrations in interesting ways. In her new book about Barack and Michelle Obama, for example, Jodi Kantor argues that Mr Obama's sangfroid about West Wing squabbling traces back to his relationship with his parents—"to hold those around him to strict standards would have left him with no one"—and you could argue that George W. Bush's interest in providing funding to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic was a function of his Methodism, given that church's traditional emphasis on social justice. But we should be careful about extrapolating too much from these lines of inquiry. This is political journalism, not psychoanalysis. All of the phenomena described could be rooted elsewhere, and as a voter, a candidate's character traits themselves are presumably more relevant than the underlying causes thereof. In the current case, it's clearly Mr Romney's right to decide whether he wants to talk about his religion, just as it's the voters' right to base their decision on whatever substantive or silly reason they prioritise.

(Photo credit: AFP)

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

sanjait

I'm generally happy to see Romney twist in the wind, because I think Republicans are sort of crazy right now and it's important they don't gain any meaningful power.

And simmering inquiries about Romney's religion will cause exactly that to happen. It hurts him politically.

But even so, I'm not happy about that. The candidates should be allowed to say "it's personal" to religious questions, for a few reasons:

1. It really is personal.

2. Campaigns should be about issues. What really affects the American people isn't where the president goes to church but what laws he puts his pen to.

3. Even though "getting to know" the candidate on a personal level might seem like a good proxy for measuring their character and predicting how well he will do on the issues ... it's a conceit to assume this is possible. We never really get to know the candidates. We see the competing images they carefully project during the campaign and the smears they throw at one another, but none of us is really close enough to get a clear view. Forcing them to answering more questions about their faith my make us feel like we know them, but we'd be fooling ourselves.

guest-iiooinj in reply to sanjait

I think the LDS theology is wonderful though often misrepresented by opponents, who are often more interested in mudslinging than establishing the facts. However what is more relevant to the Presidential election is what have Mormons working with the White House done in the past. One great example is Elder V Dallas Merrell a Mormon (LDS) church leader who worked with President Ronald Reagan’s administration and established a process for assessing and training leaders that became the subject of a Presidential Executive Order that was implemented throughout the entire federal government. This is an example of the type of political leadership a Mormon is likely to promote. See www.merrellindex.com
One might also consider the leadership publications of Stephen Covey another influential Mormon; including “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” These teachings have been applied in most major corporations in the USA, government and organizations around the world, and are currently available in most book stores.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

The evangelical rejection of Romney's Mormonism is a direct consequence of an ideology that rejects church-state separation. A more secular minded individual can accept that someone running for office is of a different religion, but when your worldview is that government should function as an arm of the church, having someone who doesn't share your beliefs becomes more problematic. It would be like having an Islamic mullah teach Sunday School.

K0NOD in reply to WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

One must wonder who you are referring to. Certainly not Mr. Romney, whose religion draws a careful and forceful line against any interference by religion in matters of state. Those outside the LDS Christian faith may not be aware that members are reminded regularly not to mix church with politics. That being said, however, LDS members are urged to be good and active citizens of whatever country they reside in, and express their thoughtful and considered opinions at the voting booth.

MyMumsSon in reply to K0NOD

I'm pretty sure he is referring to the "evangelical rejection of Romney's Mormonism".... not Romney's Mormonism. And I agree with his point. Can we get an atheist candidate ever? or at least agnostic?

Harry Reid is a Mormon and proof that Mormons in politics are not controlled by the Mormon church. Harry Reid goes against Mormon Church policy and doctrine on a regular basis.

Church leaders encourage members to be active in politics and to exercise their right to vote. The Church does not, however, specify how members should vote or which political party they ought to support. Occasionally, however, the First Presidency issues a letter which is read over the pulpit urging members to act upon some political matter. Why does the Church choose to do this? President Gordon B. Hinckley answers this question:

“We try to follow a very strict course in political matters. We observe the principle of the separation of church and state. We do concern ourselves with matters which we consider of moral consequence and things which might directly affect the Church or our fellow churches. We try to work unitedly with other people of other faiths in a constructive way. We hope we can use our influence for the maintenance and cultivation of the good environment in which we live as a people in these communities.” (Press Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 13, 1995., reprinted in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 62. )

President Hinckley also said:
“We believe in the separation of Church and state. The Church does not endorse any political party or any political candidate, nor does it permit the use of its buildings and facilities for political purposes. We believe that the Church should remain out of politics unless there is a moral question at issue. In the case of a moral issue we would expect to speak out. But, in the matter of everyday political considerations, we try to remain aloof from those as a Church, while at the same time urging our members, as citizens, to exercise their political franchise as individuals. We believe, likewise, that it is in the interest of good government to permit freedom of worship, freedom of religion. Our official statement says, "We believe in worshiping God according to the dictates of conscience, and we allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Media Luncheon and Press Conference, Tokyo, Japan, May 18, 1996, reprinted in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 62.)

Upon which issues might the Church take a stand? President Hinckley specifically mentioned issues involving alcohol, gambling and "thing[s] of that kind. (BBC Interview, February 21, 1997., reprinted in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, pp. 62-62.)

g cross

I personally am an atheist (and am what many of you would classify as a member of the "secular liberal" monolithic group that you claim to know so well :-) ), but I have no problems at all with Romney's Mormonism despite the fact that Mormonism itself is *completely insane*. The reason for this is that from the relatively little I know about Romney he seems, like most religious people, to have the ability to compartmentalize any inconvenient parts of his religion away when it comes to making decisions. Thus, what is important to me is not what he is technically supposed to be believing and doing according to "official" interpretations of his religion, but how he acts in practice.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about Muslims. Many people see Islam as being a fundamentally dangerous religion because what they view as the "official" interpretations are violent and dominant. However, the existence of large communities of peaceful, secular Muslims proves that these interpretations do not hold sway over everyone or even the majority. Again, the important things is not what people are "technically" supposed to believe and do, but how they preach and act in practice.

Konker

"a candidate's character traits themselves are presumably more relevant than the underlying causes thereof"

Not really. By understanding the underlying causes of traits you can infer other traits attitudes and behaviours. It helps as a heuristic device to understand someone better. E.G.s argument would render root cause analysis valueless....which it isn't.

Cinci Rob

Listen. If the presidency of JFK taught us anything, it was that a politician's religion has little to do if at all about how he will govern a state. There is no backstage cabal of Mormon leaders poised to pull strings to maneuver theor man in the White House. Harry Reid's religion happens to be the same as Romney's, and will not alter the fact that if Romney wins the presidency, Reid will likely be one of his chief adversaries across the isle in Washington, and I for one would advise Mr. Romney to say as little about his religion as Mr. Reid does about his. Romney to reporters: "You want to know about my religion? Ask Harry Reid!"

kxbxo

The Economist writes:

"The past few days have brought some new calls for Mitt Romney to directly address the fact that he is a Mormon."

----------

Who cares?

Social Security is going bust, the country can't afford medicare or medicaid, and the cost of worldwide military committments exceeds what the economy (or the tax base) can continue to afford ...

... and these idiots think it's important whether the man believes in a fairy story from New York state instead of an equally plausible fairy story from the Galilee?

Oh, please.

That any adult of voting age in a democracy cares about this kind of nonsense when choosing an elected representative says a lot more about the people making the fuss than it does about Governor Romney or any other politician.

edwardong

"Don’t talk about religion, sex or politics" is a time-honored way of saying that we see those areas as belonging to individual self-determination.

If somebody wants someone else (not just Romney) to talk about any of these three, they should first: (i) discuss their own stands on the three; (ii) discuss the incumbent President's stand on the three; (iii) discuss how it has affected their work and leadership.

EtonaLife

And so, the followers of one myth discredit those of other myths.

This reminds me of Colin Powell's point on Meet the Press from 2008:

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Beth A.

I always figured the traits best traced back to his Mormonism was the Republican willingness to ignore evidence. To be fair, it is a trait shared with Evangelicals.

I'm not sure where he got the tendency to say whatever he thinks will get him ahead: I'm guessing that is all him.

LastLivingModerate

Does Romney believe that the historical state of the world prefigures the 2nd coming of Christ? Seems a relevant question for a would be millenarian head-of-state.

Keats0

Two things:

A. One of the reasons I prefer the U.S. politics print articles over Democracy in America blog posts is that in the print edition words like "sangfroid" would be (wisely) taken out before publication.

B. I don't like Romney much and am planning on (reluctantly) voting for Obama again, but the amount of open bigortry I hear slung about his religious beliefs bothers me. My friends and colleagues are almost all well educated moderate liberals living in lower Manhattan. Yet despite their generally being very tolerant individuals, many of them have no issue admitting they'd have second thoughts voting for someone of Romney's faith.

Now personally I happen agree with them that Mormomism is a cult with ridiculous beliefs. However as an atheist I don't see the difference between LDS and Christianity other than age and influence.

francini in reply to Keats0

Regarding point A: "...in the print edition words like 'sangfroid' would (wisely) be taken out before publication"

You are therefore missing the point of DIA and all the other blogs. Since they're signed with the initials of the writers, they're far more personal (and therefore opinionated) than the weekly publication. And what's wrong with 'sangfroid' anyway? It's one of those concepts that doesn't have a single corresponding word in English, much like zeitgeist, schadenfreude, or gestalt. They also raise the reading comprehension level of their pieces to some point well above the 8th grade level of much domestic news and opinion writing.

Doug Pascover

I've been to a few sermons and based on those anecdotes, they seem to typically be about neither the nature of God nor doing good deeds but how demonstrably correct the faith is.

That said, I agree with the post. If Romney wants to talk about it, I'm sure America will give a listen but I don't see why he has to.

Connect The Dots

Mormonism is a millennialist religion that is fixated on the Book of Revelations, Armageddon, Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ.

Mormons and their local churches maintain bomb shelters and nuclear survival kits.

Nuclear war is seen as necessary but ultimately survivable--at least survivable for believers.

For an American President with fingers on the nuclear trigger, survivalist beliefs are too scary to contemplate.

This is patently ridiculous. It might have been true of the church at the height of its Cleon Skousen-fueled right-wing paranoia in the '60s, but certainly isn't today. I have no doubt that there are big bomb/fallout shelters near Temple Square in SLC and maybe at the Brigham Young University campus in Provo; However, the cookie-cutter LDS meetinghouse sitting on a bland suburban arterial near you is about as well-equipped to survive a nuclear attack as the fast-food restaurant or office park that sits next to it.

ConnectDots just made that up because he heard that Mormons stock food and such for various emergencies. He is just a gossip.

In 50 years of attending countless LDS meetings I have never seen any fixation on the Apocalypse, never seen or heard of a church bomb-shelter, nor teachings of inevitable nuclear war.

So...

Another liberal media attack.

Why don't nobama talk about being a muslim?

MyMumsSon in reply to So...

besides, you're missing the point. Its not a liberal media attack, its conservatives who appear to harbor their doubts about his faith and yada yada yada. unless facts are offenseive to you, then yes, another liberal media attack.

David906

I have for months been reading articles addressing Romney's Mormonism and the public side of religion in general, and this author shows far better understanding of the subject than most. I hope that more journalists will read pieces like this and understand that some topics can't and shouldn't be covered by articles made up of a string of tweets. There is great understanding shown in recognizing that you don't have full understanding, and taking a measured approach. Bravo.

k.a.gardner

To: Frank Bruni
Re: Mitt's Muffled Soul

Even the so-called voices of moderation are scratching their heads over the Obama administration’s decision requiring the Catholic Church and other religious groups “to buy contraception-related health insurance for employees at their hospitals, universities and charity groups, or pay heavy fines,” said New York Times columnist David Brooks.

During Friday’s PBS “NewsHour,” Brooks called the decision by the administration “under-reported,” warning it would have the effect of uniting Catholics and evangelicals with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, even with Romney’s so-called “Mormon problem”.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/david-brooks-obamas-anti-catholic-mand...

k.a.gardner in reply to k.a.gardner

To: Fareed Zakaria
Re: Psychoanalysis

Sun. Feb 5th at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. EST

What does Romney really believe?

Fareed has a special message for Mitt Romney:

"The world had changed. It is now a post-American world and chest-thumping triumphalism won’t secure America’s interests or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players.

"We have a lively panel on the GOP, religion, and Russia: the New York Times' David Brooks, David Remnick from The New Yorker, Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal, and Chrystia Freeland of Reuters."

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/on-gps-what-does-romn...

billatcrea in reply to k.a.gardner

Actually, I was commenting on the political cost of this decision. I think the data show that insurance coverage for birth control is pretty popular with women, and I don't think they cotton to these decisions being made for them by men, especially men in collars. After all, the Catholic clergy is not exactly occupying the high ground on matters of sexual morality.

k.a.gardner in reply to billatcrea

Bill, regardless of what the data shows, or the sexual morality of the Catholic clergy, this particular controversy is not going away anytime soon.

WASHINGTON, February 7, 2012 - A large group [154 U.S. Congressmen and Senators] has sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blasting the administration’s “unprecedented overreach” against the religious freedom of countless Christian schools, hospitals, and charities by forcing them to pay for all contraception, including abortifacients, and sterilizations..

LifeSiteNews.com

billatcrea in reply to k.a.gardner

What was the gender and political affiliation of the signers? I think the Obama administration is calculating that this decision will work to their political advantage. The people most outraged by it would not vote Democratic anyway. I also think they are trying to flush out Romney on this issue during the primaries. There is some indication that he opposes federal funding of contraception in general. Now that wouldn't be very popular with a broad section of the female populace.

billatcrea in reply to k.a.gardner

k.a., there is also a perspective on this that is not so blatantly political. One that contains an element of principle, even though it might not be a principle you could agree with.

Let's say you are a 35 year old non-Catholic female resident working at a Catholic hospital. You know that the old bastard who is head of orthopedics has his prescription for Viagra covered by the hospital's medical insurance, but it won't cover your birth control pills, because the Church doesn't approve. From your perspective the Church is hypocritical (no problem with Viagra for that randy old goat) and paternalistic by imposing it's sexual mores on to you. Yes, you can afford the prescription, and you would not have turned down this residency for an inferior one just because of birth control. But for you, it's the same old story: Men telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

rusholmeruffian

Perhaps one of the reasons Romney is reluctant to discuss his religion more is that, despite his leadership positions (although being a bishop or even a stake president is Not That Big a Deal when you consider that a bishop usually has only 200-300 congregants under his direction), his preferred policies increasingly conflict with the doctrines propounded by the men at the top of the Mormon hierarchy.
Look up the LDS Church's official statement (link) on immigration, which makes nods toward the rule of law but condemns both the rhetoric and the substance of most immigration hawks. The church's #3 figure, Dieter Uchtdorf, made an address at one of the church's recent semiannual General Conferences in which he strongly condemned those who attribute their own prosperity to virtue and others' poverty to laziness or vice. The church's mission statement, for decades "Proclaim the Gospel, Perfect the Saints, Redeem the Dead," had "Care for the Poor and Needy" added to it in 2009.
Were Romney to open up about his faith, he would expose himself to this question: "If you're such a committed Mormon, why are you so bad at practicing its basic tenets?"

rusholmeruffian in reply to RyanDonovan

How does saying "I'm not that worried about the very poor" and proposing a budget that slashes their safety net count as "caring for the poor and needy?"

The LDS welfare system is superb (as The Economist noted in an article twelve years ago next week), but it has serious problems scaling society-wide. While bishops are the ground-level administrators of the church welfare system, Romney would have difficulty claiming that he has much experience in these matters: the congregation of which he was bishop is in Belmont and its neighboring towns--the very wealthiest part of the Boston metropolitan area.

RyanDonovan in reply to rusholmeruffian

A commitment to care for the poor and needy might be well carried out through personal or community action to do so, without commitment to expanding federal government programs. To a Morman, does "Care for the poor and needy" mean "I" or "we" will care for the poor and needy, or does it mean "we will compel our neighbors to care for the poor and needy"?

g cross in reply to rusholmeruffian

@ rusholmeruffian: "Were Romney to open up about his faith, he would expose himself to this question: "If you're such a committed Mormon, why are you so bad at practicing its basic tenets?""

Perhaps, but people commit themselves to religions while not taking the official theology too seriously all the time so I doubt this would count too strongly against him; personally I consider his disregard for what the hierarchy has to say to be a plus. :-)

g cross in reply to RyanDonovan

@ Ryan: "[...] or does it mean "we will compel our neighbors to care for the poor and needy"?"

You mean, the same way that we "compel" our neighbors to pay for a police force rather than just providing for our own security ourselves?

Or the same way that we "compel" our neighbors to build roads and street lights for everyone to use?

RestrainedRadical

It makes sense for some evangelicals to prod around his religion since many of them believe it affects a president's performance. But when the secular left does it, it looks self-serving. "I don't want a president who believes in magic underwear," is a political attack dressed up as an appeal for a rational president. These same people wouldn't say that if the Democratic nominee was Mormon Harry Reid.

Besides, if Romney thought he could get away with it, he'd be evangelical.

About Democracy in America

In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events