Personally, I will gladly consider Mr. Romney as a candidate in the field of hopefuls and enthusiastically vote for him should he ascend to the nomination next year. I have a gut feeling that I am joined in this regard by at least 80 percent of Republican voters. ~Mark Davis
The numbers among likely voters that I keep banging on about are rather different from Mr. Davis’ generous estimate. Among likely GOP voters, 40% say they would never consider voting for a Mormon for President, and another 18% are unsure whether they would or not. It is impossible to know all the reasons why these people are opposed, but we can make a few educated guesses. In my own case, I can explain my reasons, as I do below.
First, there are the obvious reasons, some of which I have talked about at some length before. There is the desire to have a candidate to whom you can relate and with whom you can identify. Mormonism is unfamiliar and alien to the experience of most voters, and it is impossible for Christians to closely identify with someone from that background. There are many voters for whom a candidate’s faith is a major factor in their voting preferences, and this can become a question of whether or not someone has had the same religious experiences and has the same religious practices as these voters.
Then there are those voters who believe this is a Christian country, full stop, and therefore it is not desirable and not appropriate for non-Christians to have positions of leadership in that country–call this Christian majoritarianism, if you like. This attitude apparently becomes more intense when it is the Presidency at stake, rather than a single Senate seat here or there; the Presidency, at least for these people, is a symbol of the nation, and it is not acceptable for them to see that symbol pass into the hands of someone who subscribes to a fundamentally different religion. There is, of course, the perception among evangelicals and other Christians of Mormonism as a cult in the popular, pejorative sense of that term. This perception is strengthened by the fact that there are services that are closed to non-Mormons, which will always cause those already suspicious about a religious group to conclude that there must be something nefarious or undesirable going on in these closed sessions (when, of course, nothing of the kind is happening).
Then there are more visceral reasons and reasons based in ignorance: some voters dislike Mormons in particular because they have only heard bad things about them for as long as they can remember and what they have heard about them is often false or outdated. I virtually guarantee that some significant portion of intense anti-Mormon sentiment in this country stems from the false belief that the mainline LDS church allows polygamy. The relative obscurity of the religion combined with its, shall we say, troubled past conspire to make people anxious about its adherents even when there is no objective reason to have any anxiety about Mormons themselves.
For a few voters, and I would class myself among these, the non-Christian character of Mormonism troubles us, and its tremendous theological divergences from what some call the Great Tradition of Christianity mark it as a false religion fundamentally removed in important ways from the religion that has been the core of our civilisation. For cultural conservatives for whom that Christian heritage is extremely important, it would be quite unhelpful and even damaging to the work of preserving and renewing a Christian culture to rally around a candidate for the most prominent office in the country who does not really believe in that heritage. Indeed, such a candidate, of necessity because of his religion’s teachings about all other churches, regards the traditions and achievements of some 1,900+ years of post-Apostolic Christianity as an abandonment of the Gospel and a betrayal of the covenant with God, which means that he really must regard the history of most of our civilisation as a massive detour inspired by false doctrine and lies. If we are in a civilisational conflict, electing a Mormon President is a strange sort of vote of no-confidence in our own history and a repudiation of most of the heritage that at least some of us believe we are fighting to protect (from enemies here and abroad). To my mind, that declaration of hostility to our own past is far more dangerous and worrisome than the realisation of any of the far-fetched theories of Damon Linker about Mormon theocracy.
For those who regard this as terrible, there is some consolation. This wave of anti-Mormonism, with all its diverse causes, will not be derailing a particularly good candidate. Romney’s campaign is so vexed by conventional, run-of-the-mill problems of poor credibility and a bad record that he might belong to the most ordinary suburban evangelical church and still not have a chance in the primaries.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Russell Arben Fox
Daniel’s thoughts about the hesitations that paleoconservatives like himself have about Romney prompted some further thoughts from me here. As a Mormon who is, I hope, conscious of the philosophical and theological challenges my faith poses, I’ve thought a lot about these sort of questions. But then, I also think certain conservatives need to think about what it means that Romney has as much appeal as he already has.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks, Prof. Fox, for your comment and the very interesting post. Thanks also for the kind remarks about me in the post. I will try to write a reply to your post soon. I appreciated your insights, and I would be glad to have someone explain in some greater detail what Mormons think of other Christians, if I have misstated or poorly stated the case. If I have significantly misunderstood this, I would be very glad to know it.
I have been pondering why Romney has won as much support among activists as he has, and I think it does go a long way towards the same trend that I noticed in another post on the role of religion in the conservative movement. Back then I wrote:
“When Cal Thomas started singing the praises of secular modernity after 9/11 (as if to show you that he was no religious fanatic like those people), you could take it as a given that religion, and specifically the great significance attached to Christianity even by some old Moral Majority hands like Thomas, was potentially expendable for a lot of conservatives when supposedly more important things (such as the fight against “medievalism” and for “women’s rights” and “tolerance”) were at stake. In the end, I don’t see that much modern conservative reliance on religion. The “movement” certainly relies on religious people to keep it running with their support, financial and otherwise, and to that end they have to say nice things about the value of religion now and again (and I assume most honestly believe these things when they say them), but do they “lean heavily” on religion “to the exclusion” of nonbelievers? Quite simply, no, they don’t.”
As far as the activists who are backing Romney today go, I take it as more or less a given that their support for him vindicates this interpretation of the importance of religion, specifically Christianity, for a lot of the movement’s “movers and shakers.” That is, it is useful in certain cases, but it will not serve as an obstacle to other goals. What remains to be seen, and what I think will end up surprising a lot of these activists, is just how different the mass of Christian conservatives is from the activists in the movement and the party. I assume that the difference is still rather large.
The activist approach to ‘08 is something like, “Just win, baby.” Thus you see people willing to tie themselves into knots to find some way to explain Giuliani as a plausible candidate and pretend that people will rally around Romney because he has “good values.” The Christian conservative voters, on the other hand, work on the assumption that they back the movement and party because it advances their worldview–it is not supposed to be an alliance into which they entered to make such fundamental compromises, but it is supposed to be a vehicle for bringing their convictions into the political arena. To ask them to look past things in these candidates that are at odds with the basic reasons why they are involved in politics in the first place just seems bound to fail. Religious conservatives have been had too many times to keep falling for the old spiel that says, “He shares your values.” I’m not sure what it says about a movement that is willing to so thoroughly compromise on key elements of its identity, but it can’t be an encouraging sign for that movement’s future health.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Christopher Hayes
I’ve half-written a few comments in this space the past few weeks, but I think I’ve got my thoughts down to a manageable size now.
What do Mormon’s think of other Christians? Well, we say “You love Jesus Christ? Great! So do we. You have truths that have helped you live good lives? Great! Come get more! You want a renewal? It’s here! The heaven’s are open, and God speaks through a Prophet again!”
Do we discard all the work and wisdom of faithful Christians during the last 2,000 years? No. We will, however, contend that there was no Prophet presiding over the matters of God here on Earth. There have always been faithful followers of Christ, but throughout history, there are times when these followers are led through a Prophet, and times when they are not. It’s a bold claim, and we make no apologies about it.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ holds the answers to todays problems, not only through application of previous revelations, but through current revelation, from God, about the specific and unique issues we face today. These instructions are not what most would call specifically political. They are direction on how to live a good life. These influence political decisions to the extent that politics are involved in what people do (or don’t do) in their daily personal lives, and should act as a global anchor and reference point for all decisions.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Ron Guhname
Anyone who knows and understands Mormons realizes that there are no good reasons for anti-Mormonism. This is especially true for a conservative, and it is true for someone like me who cherishes our Christian heritage. Wayward believers are not the enemy. In politics, they should be our allies, and if the most qualified, our leaders.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
MDCLXVI
I like Mormonism as a culture, not so much as a religion. Wish there was some way to have it both ways.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
MDCLXVI
Or rather one way and not the other.