Does Protestant hostility to Mormonism sink Romney’s chances?
(Note: There are wide differences of view expressed in this thread. Some believe that the Protestant opposition to Romney’s Mormonism constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to his election as president; others believe it is a minor factor. I don’t have enough information yet to decide the issue for myself, but for the moment I tend to side with those who do not think it’s an insurmountable problem.)
Meanwhile, Jeremy G. indicates to me that the Christian opposition to voting for a Mormon is bigger and comes from deeper sources than I had realized. He writes:
I wanted to clarify one point I made in the first post this exchange. I am troubled by Romney’s Mormon faith for traditionalist reasons, as I described before. But, as a purely practical matter, I don’t believe that Romney can win the election. In conversations with traditionalist Christians where I live, it has become strikingly apparent that many of these Christians absolutely will not vote for Romney no matter whom he runs against. Therefore, if Romney wins the Republican candidacy, he will not win the election, but he will damage the already tenuous relationship between traditionalist Christian voters and the Republican party. Any Republican candidate needs to bring out traditionalist Christian voters in droves in order to win the presidency. Romney cannot do this.
Jeremy then quotes SN’s recent post and my reply:
The rather large numbers of Protestant evangelicals who believe that the foundation of Mormonism was Satanically influenced (and this is a mainstream understanding in this group) certainly do not view Romney’s faith to be harmless nor Christian. And they will not have a hard time voting for another candidate who “glows” less. [LA replies: it’s really a hard sell to convince people that Mitt Romney is satanic. In fact the attacks on him from liberal and evangelical quarters have been so overwrought that they’ve actually had the effect of making him seem better in my eyes.]
Jeremy G. continues:
I don’t think SN was trying to persuade you that Mormonism has satanic foundations. He was simply informing you that the group we are considering, deeply observant Protestants, holds this belief and that they will act on it. This goes back to my intuition about Romney’s un-electability. He will have a very difficult time winning over this essential group of voters.
LA replies:
If the number of people who have this view is large, then you’re right, Romney has no chance. Then it’s not just (as the media have made it seem) that there are “some people” out there who “have a problem” with Mormonism. Rather, it’s an almost definite check to his prospects. If this is the case, hasn’t it been foolish of Republicans not to try to understand this? I guess they avoid the subject because it would be considered prejudicial. I wonder if the Romney campaign has any idea of how deep this opposition is. If they do, how do they expect to win?
In any case, if it is as you say (and I don’t know that it is), then there is no GOP nominee who is both acceptable to conservatives and viable in the general election.
However, in my view, it would still be better to nominate a candidate committed to conservative principles, than let the party be taken over by McCain or Giuliani. Their nomination alone, even without their election, would push the party in a liberal direction.
LA wrote to Jeremy G.:
Hasn’t it been foolish of the media not to report this phenomenon and try to understand it?
Jeremy replied:
How would it be reported? Do you want liberal journalists writing stories about ridiculous Christian bigots who think Mormons are devils? And wouldn’t the liberals come off themselves as being a bit anti-Christian?
We live in a liberal age. Truth is neither understood nor desired.
LA writes:
There must be polling data on this. Pollsters must have asked respondents questions like this:
If a candidate for President were a Mormon, how would that affect your decision on whether to vote for him?
1. I would vote for him regardless of any other factor.
2. I would be inclined to vote for him, but that might be offset by other factors.
3. It would have no effect at all on my vote.
4. I would be inclined to vote against him, but that might be offset by other factors.
5. I would never vote for a Mormon for President of the U.S. under any circumstances.
Maybe pollsters do ask questions like this, but the people in group 5 don’t answer honestly. Instead they answer with number 4. And this leaves the Romney camp with the idea that there are people who do not like Mormonism, but who can still be won over.
* * *
Here is an objective approach to Romney’s Mormon problem by political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, in an article called, “Why Mitt Romney Can’t ‘Solve’ His Mormon Problem.” What I mean by objective is that Rothenberg seeks to understand what people actually believe and why they believe it, instead of dismissing and ignoring certain beliefs because they are non-liberal.
Rothenberg writes:
Indeed, the gushing reviews [of Romney’s religion speech in December] once again demonstrate that many observers still don’t fully understand why evangelical Christian voters are having a problem with Romney’s Mormon religion. It’s not merely that they disagree with his church on matters of theology or, as some may believe, that they are intolerant. The issue is far more fundamental than that.
Many evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon for president of the United States for the same reason that almost all Jews would not vote for a candidate (for any office, I expect) who is a member of Jews for Jesus. For Jews, the Jews for Jesus movement is a deceptive attempt to woo Jews to Christianity under the guise of remaining true to Judaism.
Likewise, for evangelicals, Mormons are not “Christians” in the sense that evangelicals understand the term, and by portraying themselves as “Christians,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deceptively wooing evangelicals or potential adherents away from Christianity.
Evangelicals see Mormons as trying to blur the line between Christianity and Mormonism, just as Jews see Jews for Jesus as trying to blur the lines between Judaism and Christianity.
In each case, evangelicals and Jews would not want to elevate to high office someone who might give legitimacy to a group that passes itself off as something that it is not, and that threatens their own group.
Any president’s religious views are likely to receive attention in the national media, and the authority of the office is likely to translate to added authority and respectability for the president’s religion.
Given this fundamental belief (which is hardly irrational), when Romney said, midway in his speech at the Bush Library, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind,” he was actually reminding evangelicals who are uncomfortable with Mormonism that his election would help erase the lines between what they view as the two very different religions.
To people who have been taught as children that Mormonism is a cult and who regard some of the more unusual Mormon beliefs as heresy, one speech from Mitt Romney is not going to allay all of their fears.
For many Catholics and Jews, the idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is somehow a threat to evangelical Christianity probably seems absurd. But that is what many believe, and that view makes Romney’s religion a grave concern to evangelicals, no matter how much they agree with the former governor’s views or admire his values.
Anyone who has followed the internal fights of Judaism, with Orthodox Jewish authorities refusing to accept the practices of the Reform, the Reconstructionist or even the Conservative movements, should begin to understand the fundamental problem that many evangelicals have with the Mormon Church.
Many in the media portray evangelical attitudes toward Mormonism as a form of bigotry and religious intolerance akin to the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic sentiment that was once so prevalent in this country and is much rarer these days. But it is a very different kind of concern, a concern about the meaning of Christianity.
Few in this country would disagree with Mitt Romney’s assertion at the Bush Library that, “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should be rejected because of his faith.” And just as few would doubt his promise that, if he is elected president, “no authorities of my church … will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.”
But Romney’s “Mormon problem” bears little resemblance to John F. Kennedy’s “Catholic problem” in 1960. Few evangelicals worry that the former Massachusetts governor will call Salt Lake City for instructions on how to proceed as president.
And Romney’s problem isn’t merely that evangelicals won’t vote for nonevangelicals. They will and they have voted for Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Some have even voted for Mormons for lower office.
Given that evangelicals see Mormonism as deceptive and an attempt to pass itself off as a form of Christianity, one speech about tolerance and the importance of faith is not likely to convince evangelicals to support Romney. I’m willing to bet that American Jews would overwhelmingly feel the same about voting for someone who is a “messianic Jew.
- end of initial entry -
LA writes:
Stuart Rothenberg’s article says that “many” evangelicals will not vote for Romney. He doesn’t give a percentage and he doesn’t say whether the evangelical attitude is large enough that it would preclude a Romney victory. I’ve written to him asking him about this.
Emily B. writes:
My husband gave a very flippant response to the intelligent conversation about this: “But they think everything is satanically influenced! They even think Def Leppard was satanically influenced.” He started naming bands right off the top of his head that had been thought to be “satanically influenced” and made it back to the Beatles.
And that’s just bands. I think it’s a little overwrought to put the spotlight on what is more than likely a small, but noisy, segment.
LA replies:
Please read the excerpt by Stuart Rothenberg that I quote in this entry. He doesn’t talk about “satanic” at all. He makes a reasonable argument showing why certain Protestants would never vote for a Mormon. The comparison he makes is to Jews voting for a “Jew for Jesus.” Just as Jews are hostile to Christians claiming to be Jewish, and see that as a threat to their own religion, certain evangelical Protestants see Mormons as non-Christians who are falsely claiming to be Christians, and see that as a threat to their religion, especially if such a person became president and legitimized this false view.
Alan Roebuck writes:
You asked for my take on whether Protestant hostility to Mormonism could be a significant factor against Romney. I don’t have a strong sense of the extent of this hostility, but this lack of evidence suggests that the hostility may not be sufficiently widespread and strong to significantly impede Romney. There is a sector of evangelicalism that refuses to vote for anyone who is not 100% on board with the biblical worldview, but these people seem to me to be permanently estranged from “mainstream” Republicanism, and therefore they probably will have a very limited effect on Romney’s chances.
In brief, I’m waiting for the evidence that Evangelical-dom will harm Romney.
Terry Morris writes:
One thing I slightly disagree with in Rothenberg’s analysis is his assertion that “many” Protestants will simply not vote for Romney. I think they’re cautious about him and his religion but not necessarily in the extreme.
Emily B. replies to LA:
I did read the Rothenberg article and I read it before when it was brought up by Fr. Neuhaus, I think, when he addressed it and brought in the Catholic angle as well: Catholics are used to theologically flawed Presidents.
My husband was brought up in the Bible Belt, his mother’s side of the family is Baptist through and through, and he is even a descendant of Roger Williams himself. He knows these folks. He’s not dismissing the fact that Evangelicals hate Mormonism. but for the correspondents to basically say, “Romney’s problem is worse than you realized, for you see, they believe it’s Satanic!” is a bit overwrought.
LA replies:
Does your husband believe that Romney’s Mormon problem with evangelicals is big enough to prevent him from being elected?
Emily replies:
He doesn’t believe it’s much of a problem. In fact, we both had reservations about voting for a Mormon at first, but came around. He believes that most of the evangelicals view Romney the same way we do, but there will be the rare one who won’t vote for a Mormon under any circumstance. He believes that these folks answer, “Satanic” to questions about anything they find wrong.
M. Mason writes:
Though some of the anti-Mormon sentiment is a fuzzy sort of bias based on little more than an uninformed, vague feeling that Mormons are kind of weird, I suppose if that alone were the problem it could be overcome by a public relations campaign that tries to defuse concerns about the religion and shifts focus to the candidate’s personality and other issues.
But Romney’s main obstacle now is the evangelical base—a voting bloc that makes up around 30 percent of the Republican electorate, and it wields particular influence in primary states like South Carolina and Virginia. Just as it’s hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the Republican Party today, it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. They don’t merely have the sort of vague, ill-defined anti-LDS prejudice that some Americans do. For them it’s a crucial doctrinal matter of transcendent importance, based on very specific core theological disputes that can’t be overcome by personality or charm or even shared positions on social issues.
And Romney’s problems with Republicans go even deeper than that. GOP moderates who have no such theological stake in the matter could help to derail his candidacy as well, because Romney isn’t answering their questions in a satisfactory manner either. I urge you to take a look at this video clip if you haven’t seen it already. It’s an interview with Mitt Romney conducted by a prominent Des Moines talk show host that was also posted at YouTube by his campaign, presumably to quell voter concerns about Romney’s Mormonism. Yet the video ends up raising its own serious, fundamental questions about the man. Once you get past Romney’s initial schmoozing and rehearsed political sound bites, the interview becomes interesting at around the 8:00 point, particularly when the program goes to break and the camera keeps rolling in studio while the two men have a somewhat heated off-air discussion. Romney states, more or less, that Mormons in public office are “free” to make policy decisions which are not in line with their religion. (As an example, he even emotionally claims that some Mormon church leaders are “pro-choice”, despite the church’s official stance against abortion).
Well, if that is so, then any intelligent conservative voter will ask: what is the driving ideological basis for a Mormon’s beliefs about what should constitute public policy in America? And specifically, what is Mr. Romney’s? Anything goes? Or will it be whatever a particular political activist group pressures him the most to support? With Romney, what you’re going to get is the worst outcome with someone of his religion—all the bad aspects of his association with and deep belief in Mormon theology, with no guarantee whatsoever that he will decide to frame any of his own bedrock political positions based on the good parts of their moral code.
Even if conservatives persist in downplaying and dismissing the theological ramifications of the Mormonism issue, with “Latter-day Saint” Romney in particular I’m afraid they’re going to be in for a very rude political shock if they imagine that he wouldn’t think of “undercutting Christian values” should he become President.
LA replies:
With respect for Mr. Mason, I think he is so tendentious in his anti-Romneyism that his argument cancels itself out. In earlier threads, as I remember, Mr. Mason had attacked Mormonism fiercely as a threat to our society; now he attacks Romney because Romney says that Mormonism does not dictate any particular political ideology and will not dictate his own politics as president. Mr. Mason even claims to be upset that Romney will not follow the good moral aspects of Mormonism! This is the first time I remember Mr. Mason saying anything good about Mormonism, and he does it only when Romney declares his political independence of it. So it looks as though Mr. Mason will oppose Romney if Romney stands for A, and he will oppose him if he stands for non-A.
Now I don’t dismiss Mr. Mason’s concern. Maybe Romney’s comment does indicate a troubling lack of connection with an underlying moral-spiritual system; but maybe it simply indicates a practical freedom from the religion that Mr. Mason says is so terrible.
Let me repeat that I have no sense of certainty regarding Romney. Maybe he will turn out to be utterly unreliable and unsound as president, as Mr. Mason expects. But we run that risk with every other candidate as well. Indeed, with the other candidates, it is not a risk, but a certainty, that they will be radically unsound. In my view, Romney is still by far the best bet.
Bruce B. writes:
There seem to be two different issues being raised in your discussions that I see as fairly distinct and as needing to be kept separate:
1. Whether or not Romney would represent an acceptable choice from the perspective of traditional conservatives. I haven’t formed a strong opinion on this yet.
2. Whether or not his Mormonism will make him unelectable because of the Evangelical vote. This has nothing to do with what I think about him.
M. Mason addresses the second issue in his second paragraph and I tend to share his view. I can’t offer anything more than my personal experience of close friendships with a LOT of Evangelicals (Southern Baptists, Nazarenes, etc.) and having been raised around them. Even if we find something like the “satanic” angle (and they’ll find other things to object to) on Romney risible, it doesn’t mean that things like that won’t effect how a HUGE voting block votes. I’d almost be willing to bet money that a not-insignificant minority of the Southern Baptist convention won’t vote for him. If so, he can’t win some of the close states and the general election.
You’ve argued elsewhere that the right-liberals define themselves by their opposition to the left liberals. It follows that they want nothing as much as to beat the Dems and maybe they think Romney can’t. Could this be the reason for their opposition to Romney? Either that or he’s an in-the-closet traditionalist and Tom’s endorsement actually makes sense.
M. Mason writes:
I don’t see what’s “tendentious” about my argument. My opposition to Romney is solidly based on objective facts clearly stated—first of all, regarding his life-long commitment to and deep belief in polytheistic Mormonism, a religion which in the judgment of every major Christian denomination is way, way outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, despite Romney’s deliberate obfuscations about this. I belong to the group of evangelicals that I described in paragraph two of my post above who believe, therefore, that this disqualifies him for the Presidency for that reason alone, regardless of his faith’s pro-life stance or any other personal attributes of the man himself. So it’s not so much that I’m “upset that Romney will not follow the good moral aspects of Mormonism” as you stated. The primary reason why I brought that up is for your benefit at this point, not mine (and for other conservatives who are also prepared to overlook his religious beliefs). If you decide to vote for him, know that by his own testimony you’re going to have all the negative theological and political baggage of his Mormonism to contend with and no guarantee at all that he’ll even hold to the good parts of Mormon ethics (like his church’s stance against abortion) when it comes to formulating his public policy decisions. Frankly, I think you need to ask yourselves: Is there a coherent, non-negotiable ideological core somewhere in this man amidst all his extreme political contortions and continual pandering? As President, what is he going to stand and fight for?
And by the way, just because I believe that a Christian can and should rightly condemn Mormonism in general as a systematic theology, that doesn’t mean I think all the things that Mormons say or do are all bad, you know. I imagine Barack Obama’s anti-American, black racialist church has some of its own positive ethical aspects and some outwardly “nice people” too if you look hard enough. There are deeper issues here than that. There are also other important reasons why I oppose a Romney presidency, which I’ve already explained here at VFR.
Apart from the fact that he belongs to an anti-Christian cult, pursued a virtual scorched-earth policy as far as conservatism is concerned when he was governor of Massachusetts and, in my judgment, is motivated by social acceptance, not adherence to principle as a politician, Romney seems a likable, talented fellow who has a very nice family and no serious hint of personal scandal in his life that we know of. I don’t envy the man for his gifts or financial success; he has an excellent business head on his shoulders, and as a businessman myself I can appreciate that. Good for him. But I’m still not going to vote for the guy to occupy the highest political office in the land.
LA replies:
“If you decide to vote for him, know that by his own testimony you’re going to have all the negative theological and political baggage of his Mormonism to contend with”
Again, Mr. Mason acts as though Romney is going to be parading his Mormon beliefs as president when nothing could be clearer than that the opposite is the case.
“Is there a coherent, non-negotiable ideological core somewhere in this man amidst all his extreme political contortions and continual pandering? As President, what is he going to stand and fight for?”
I think that is a legitimate question. I have the same question myself. I see Romney as very solid in his own personal character, but as highly malleable in his political character and views. As I’ve said almost from the first time I discussed Romney many months ago, I think Romney’s evident lack of an enduring political core is a legitimate reason for someone not to support him. I described him as an opportunist, but an opportunist one could rely on, as someone who might bring a girl to the dance for political reasons, but he would stay with the girl he brought. I’ve said that given that he is running for president as someone committed to conservative views, and that he is not known for being dishonorable in his commitments, and given his other talents and his personal morality and solidity, and given the unacceptable nature or lack of viability of the other major candidates, Romney is the best bet.
* * *
January 15. Stuart Rothenberg has replied to my e-mail:
It is, of course, an impossible question to answer.
I could toss out a number, but it would be pure speculation, and I try to rely on empirical data whenever I can.
National polls have repeatedly found large numbers of voters (in excess of 20 percent) saying that they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon or that they would not vote for a Mormon. And while we don’t know who those people are, I have been assuming that a large percentage of those respondents are evangelical Christians.
I appreciated getting that feedback from Mr. Rothenberg. However, as I said to him, I think it would not be an impossible question to answer, if there were a study directed at the religious communities that have this view, similar to the sample poll question I posted above. Now it’s true that my sentence number five, “I would never vote for a Mormon for President of the U.S. under any circumstances,” is too bluntly worded to elicit honest responses. But perhaps there is a more subtle approach could still get at this information.
The question, again, does not concern the number of people who sort of, kind of have a problem with Mormonism but could be persuaded otherwise (after all, I’m sure there were a lot of Americans at the start of 1960 who would have said they were less likely to vote for a Catholic for president but ended up doing so), but rather the number of people who would never vote for a Mormon to be president, period. If I were in the Romney campaign, or in the Republican party, or in the news media, that’s a question I would want to answer.
* * *
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 13, 2008 05:09 PM | Send