Romney

I saw the entire Mitt Romney speech this evening. While I didn’t like his wall-to-wall right-liberalism, the usual song and dance about the equality of all people everywhere, that is simply what you would expect from any mainstream American politician and particularly from a Republican. I do not see the especially sinister implications vis a vis Islam that RWM sees. Romney was certainly no more Islamo-friendly than any other U.S. politician and probably a good deal less, since he called “radical Islamism” the greatest threat facing the world.

The speech’s main argument was internally coherent. Its core was where he touched on the original moral unity among Christian denominations in the 18th century that became the basis of a common American identity—and then he made Mormonism a part of that moral unity. It was skillfully done. It was a very American speech, also sincere and moving. Romney’s intelligence and sincerity overcame the initial impression he gave of being a middle-aged Ken doll.

Overall I was very favorably impressed. Romney is very smart and is a “together” human being. Clearly he has more going for him than anyone else in the race. Whether his virtues will overcome his aspect of being somewhat manufactured and shallow remains to be seen. Still, as presidential flaws go, being somewhat manufactured and shallow is pretty minor compared to the flaws presented by the other leading candidates, as well as by the last three presidents.

- end of initial entry -

Steven H. writes:

My first reaction to it was that it does open up the doors to tolerance to Islam. All the talk radio hosts that I heard today namely Ingraham, Prager and Medved were gushing over this “religious tolerance” speech.

Ingraham had a reverend and a rabbi to discuss this “historical” speech. The reverend said that Romney’s Mormon faith would not preclude him from voting for him, however; when he said that he would never vote for a Muslim, Ingraham quickly dismissed his statement by saying that of course he was only referring to radicals. What was also interesting was that the reason he said he would vote for a Mormon was because when he looks on places like Salt Lake City he sees places that are truly American while when he looks at places like Mecca and Tehran he sees something that is totally incompatible with our culture. Ingraham gave this insight not even a nanosecond of reflection since it did fit her “where are the moderates” agenda.

Bill Bennett was in true form this morning. He proclaimed his religious tolerance by proclaiming that he would vote for a “moderate” Muslim for president. He did, however, add that such a candidate would have to assure the public that he was not a “radical”.

Some much for “conservative” thought in our country.

Terry Morris writes:

Then you and Dr. Dobson agree once more.

I admit I’m a bit more skeptical of Romney than you seem to be. He seems to find more good in Islam than I can find. It’s one thing to say he admires the commitment of Muslims to prayer, it’s something entirely different to preface that statement with one proclaiming that “every faith he’s encountered draws its adherents closer to God,” or so he believes. This would include Islam.

As I wrote at Webster’s Blogspot the other day:

I will say this re Romney “On abortion I was wrong”: That’s about the best answer I personally could ever wish to hear. I think it was unnecessary and uncalled for, and a little bit insulting to be honest, to scold everyone for seeking a candidate who never made a mistake, but whatever.

Is it ok to seek someone who’s made fewer mistakes by comparison, or, someone whose mistakes are or have been less damaging to conservatism? That is, the only political force standing in the way of the totally unacceptable and intolerable absolute dominance of the destructive ideology of liberalism.

Mr. Morris continues:

Romney also said this in his speech: Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left. Okay, now he’s really starting to get under my skin.

Lazar writes:

I did not see the Romney speech. After reading your comments I wonder how well a Mormon president would defend traditional America. This is based not on his speech, but on my limited understanding of Mormon doctrine and action, and the parallels with that of Islam relative to their surrounding cultures.

Like Islam and Mohammed, Mormonism was founded by a polygamist with a convenient “revelation” that justified a way of life at odds with the traditional culture and faith around him, that masqueraded as a supplement to the traditional Old and New Testament scriptures, and that rather quickly led to violent conflict with the traditional societies around them—the difference being that the Moslems ultimately kept winning and forced everyone around them to adopt their culture and religion, and the Mormons lost in relatively short order and were forced into an uneasy truce with the surrounding culture and religion. The victorious Moslems continue to force their doctrines wherever they can, the defeated Mormons continue concealing theirs (e.g., polygamy keeps resurfacing, and I believe is still valid doctrine with them). A series of cases called the “Mormon Cases” in the late 1800s simply overruled the Mormons on their more objectionable practices, allowing them to be outlawed, although the First Amendment was invoked.

How would a Mormon president, a member of a religion historically in conflict with that of the traditional culture, stand up to Islam in today’s climate of liberal First Amendment absolutism? I do not think very well.

The Mormon church also, I understand, is something of an open borders advocate, at least with respect to Mexico and South America.

A reader writes:

Romney said in his speech:

[T]he notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation “under God” and in God, we do indeed trust.

The first sentence above is poorly done. The “wall of separation between church and state” has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It comes from Jefferson’s Danbury letter of about 1805. This concoction was illegitimately added to constitutional law by Justice Black’s opinion in, I believe, the 1947 Everson case. This is an ignorant mistake, reflecting how “conservatives” are not able to withstand the liberal propaganda that dominates this country’s public and intellectual life. “Separation of church and state” is a liberal shibboleth phrase. [LA replies: Agreed that it is highly regretable that innumerable conservatives have accepted the liberal lie that the First Amendment mandates a “separation of Church and state.” But at least Romney clarifies this by saying that the state is supposed to be separated from any given denomination, but not from God. Meaning he would oppose the liberal move to remove all state endorsed religious expressions.]

The second parag above is correct. The First Amendment was drafted (poorly) to prevent a national sectarian church. It also did not affect established churches at the State level.

The speech has some other detailed problems that need editing and clarification. Overall it is good, I agree. It does not play up equality of cultures and religions as Giuliani does; it goes about as far in our direction as we could expect. It does not use the phrase “Islamo-fascism” and can be seen as to some degree distancing Islam from Christ and Judaism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 07, 2007 12:37 AM | Send