Question answered on my hesitation about Romney

First of all, it ain't just his Mormonism that concerns me, though that is part and parcel of my cautious approach to the man. M. Mason continues to articulate a position very close to my own over at VFR. The main difference between us being that Mr. Mason has already written Romney off; I haven't.

In an email to Auster, I replied to Mr. Mason's latest thus:

Mr. Mason writes:

"Unless the ideological dynamics of the race shifts in a significant way, I'll most likely have to settle for a write-in vote next November for Tancredo."

While I'm not absolutely convinced of Romney's unqualified status as yet, increasingly I find myself contemplating this exact situation for me (and my wife ;-)) next November. Mr. Mason and I are very close in our assessments of Mitt Romney. However, to my mind Romney's governorship of the state of Massachusetts comes mighty close to a disqualifier in and of itself.

LA replies to me:

Tell us what about his governship disqualifies him in your view.

First, let me clarify something. I didn't say that his governorship or any of the particularities of it "disqualifies" him from being president. To be honest I've not investigated the matter in its particulars yet. What I said was that his governorship of the state of Massachusetts, in and of itself, comes mighty close to a disqualifier in my view. The explanation is this: I view the state of Massachusetts as the epitome of modern American liberalism and how it corrupts people. Any electorate that effectively appoints a Ted Kennedy or a John Kerry et al, to a life tenure in the U.S. Senate, is an utterly liberal and corrupt electorate; totally self-absorbed. The same electorate appointed Mitt Romney as its governor. Since I'm one of these people who firmly believes that our leaders more or less reflect ourselves, this fact about Romney--his governorship of the state of Massachusetts--has me deeply concerned.

Now, I'm not saying that all people from Massachusetts are corrupt leftists, just most of 'em. As I recall (someone from Massachusetts correct me) Kennedy enjoys about a 70% approval among the voting citizens of his state. In my state someone as obviously and thoroughly corrupt as Ted Kennedy would most likely be in jail right now. He most certainly would not be serving as our representative in the United States Senate, nor Kerry.

If you think my cautious approach to Romney on that basis is unfair or irrational or whatever, I have one thing to say to you: whoopti-do.

Update: Mr. Auster says that my argument amounts to pure prejudice. Okay, so I'm prejudiced toward the political judgment of the people of Massachusetts. I'm prejudiced toward them in the same way that I'm prejudiced toward the people of the State of Arkansas; the same electorate that gave us Bill Clinton and Mike "open borders for Christ" Huckabee. Call me crazy (or prejudiced or whatever) but I think this is relevant; that I must consider these facts until I learn more about Governor Romney.

Read More

Romney Roundup

A lot of good discussion has taken place at VFR over the Romney faith speech so I thought a roundup of all the recent VFR entries containing these discussions should be put together, which I've done below.

The discussion began with VFR reader RWM's negative reaction to Romney's speech. Mr. Auster then gave his assessment of the Romney speech after he saw the speech. Here LA responds to criticisms of Romney which are too Mormon-centric. And here LA names the winner of the most tortured argument of the week award. The discussion really takes off here where Steven Warshawsky articulates a position on Mormonism very close to my own. And here VFR reader, M. Mason, lays down Mormonism's unorthodox cultic and downright weird theological underpinnings which Mitt Romney embraces. Here the discussion culminates (for the time being) in two separate criteria, Richard W.'s and M. Mason's, for determining what is a cult and what is not a full blown cult, and the implications of both views.

There you have the roundup of the current (main) VFR entries on Romney's faith speech. In the culminating entry, The reasonableness of Romney opponents, M. Mason continues to articulate a perspective very close to my own.

Mr. Mason writes:

My concern isn't so much that Romney as President will personally act to advance Mormonism per se. It is rather that, as Mr. Morris states, electing a Mormon as President of the United States will immediately and effectively begin to normalize other strange religions like this in the national political arena as well (which up to this point still remain confined mostly to the margins). I'm also thinking about something else, too. A while back I referred to the issue of President Bush's aberrant Methodist theology/worldview and the devastating political consequences of those beliefs. This did not become obvious to many until those beliefs of his played out once he arrived on the world stage. Bush at least initially appeared to us as a man who was well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, and yet his fatal errors were just another variety of brain-dead liberalism compared to the implications of Romney's fantastic theology. Admittedly, one cannot know for certain how or even to what extent this could become a terrible problem in the future should he occupy the Oval Office. But ask yourself this: do you actually want to turn over the Presidency to a man who sincerely and firmly believes in Mormonism with every fiber of his being and thus beliefs that he's a potential deity-in-training? God help us. Frankly, I don't even want to think about the possible consequences of a Mormon President's bizarre religious beliefs on U.S domestic and foreign policy. (emphasis mine)

On Mr. Mason's point about legitimizing abberant religious doctrines which have more or less heretofore been confined to the far corners, I would say first that this is indeed one of my concerns with electing a Mormon President. With every election of every Mormon to high political office, we continue to normalize and legitimize Mormonism as a faith consistent with American religious and political orthodoxy. I would also add that I think it reasonable to assume that it is precisely because Americans have historically relegated Mormonism to its place among the strange religious cults that Mormonism has adjusted itself to be more (or to appear more) American-like in its religious and political manifestations. As with liberalism, once you legitimize and normalize it, I predict that Mormons will become more emboldened by their newfound legitimacy among American religious and political philosophies of God, Man, and government, and will begin to assert themeselves accordingly.

As with Mason's assessment of President Bush and his religiosity, I concur as well. All the more reason for me to be very cautious about the way I approach the candidate Romney, his faith and the faith of his fathers. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.

Read More

Warshawsky on Romney

Over at VFR Steven Warshawsky articulates almost my precise reaction to Romney's much anticipated faith speech upon reading it. I won't post the entirety of Mr. Warshawsky's thoughts here, but I will tease you with an excerpt:

Mr. Warshawsky writes:

But Romney's liberal multiculturalism went much farther than simply trumpeting the nation's religious diversity. In his speech, Romney took the next step and proclaimed the essential oneness of all religions. Thus, according to Romney, Americans of all denominations, regardless of theological differences, share "a common creed of moral convictions." Romney even claimed that these disparate religious traditions inspire him on a personal level. As Romney wrote, in what for me was the most ridiculous passage in the speech (emphasis mine; me too btw):

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages [apparently Romney hasn't attended any services in Reform synagogues!], and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

Only a few years ago, conservatives were ridiculing Al Gore for his use of the term "faith tradition." How is what Romney said in his speech any different? This passage, in my opinion, was disingenuous to its core--and reveals that Romney was much more concerned about pandering for votes than offering a serious public statement about religion in America.

Do read the entirety of Mr. Warshawsky's argument. It is very well thought out and reasonably articulated. It probably goes without saying, even on reading no more than the passage I've excerpted here, but it is much better done than anything I've put together as yet. And there's a lot more to it.

Read More

Standout negative reaction to Romney's faith speech

Over at VFR Auster declares Lee Harris the winner of The Most Tortured Argument of the Week Award for his non-persuasive argument in favor of the view that Romney's speech missed the mark.

I agree that Mr. Harris should be the hands-down winner of this prestigious award given that part of his case involves his declaring that he "doesn't have a problem with Satan worshippers in America, he just isn't inclined to vote for one." What!?

I can say that I don't have a problem with the followers of modern Mormonism in this country (and I enjoy the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's patriotic music very much!), I'm just not inclined to vote for one, and this would be consistent with my view and I think a reasonable position to take. On the other hand, I can't say that I don't have a problem with Satan worshippers. And I damn sure can't say that I'm merely disinclined to vote for one. I can say that I would never vote for a known Satan worshipper irregardless of his superior qualifications otherwise. I can say that I have a serious problem with Satan worshippers in this country without reservation.

So, what's with the goofy analogy offered by Mr. Harris here? He's disinclined to vote for a Satan worshipper in the same way that I'm disinclined to vote for a Mormon? How am I supposed to identify with a nonsensical statement like that which in no way is representative of my view towards Mormons?

I'm not inclined to vote for a Mormon as I've already said, but that doesn't mean I'd never vote for one as with Satan worshippers ... or Muslims.

Read More

Romney Faith Speech cont.

Under the original entry, Is there a difference between watching and reading?, VA posts the following comments:

Gentlemen - I've been at a loss as to why so many conservatives have been writing glowing praise for Romney's speech when they didn't express such admiration previously.

However I read the speech rather than watching it, so maybe Romney's charm eluded me. When I have watched him during the debates, however, he strikes me as artificial.
It is probably true that Americans at least in our day are more concerned with a candidate's image and less with substance and character. If leaders had been judged by those standards back in the days of the Founding Fathers, I suspect Jefferson would have been found wanting, since he was said to be a weak public speaker and extremely retiring.

Too much emphasis is placed on glibness, surface charm, and good looks.
If Romney was likening the intolerance shown by Christians to the early Mormons to the persecution of Puritans and other dissenters in England, it's not a very good analogy. The early followers of Joseph Smith were not always peaceable and their beliefs were a clear deviation from Christianity, which our forefathers were not able to accept as merely another Christian sect.

VA and I are very much in agreement regarding Romney. She notes that Romney strikes her as being artificial when she watches him speak. I too have always been impressed by Romney's "artificiality." Perhaps it's just a quirk that both VA and I possess which has us seeing his "sincerity" as being artificial and manufactured, but I think I can safely speak in VA's behalf, since she and I share the same impression of him, when I say that this impression we get of Romney is nonetheless real to us. So in essence Romney's sincerity comes across as insincerity to me, and I imagine to VA as well.

Regarding my own impression of the man, and only my impression of the man, I will say as well that beyond seeming insincere, Romney also gives off an holier-than-thou aura. I've noticed this about him on several occasions including the clips I saw of his speech the other day. In other words, I doubt that Romney's charm eludes VA anymore than it eludes me. I would say to the contrary that his charm is not very appealing to people like myself and VA, while apparently it is to others.

There's an old adage Dad taught me way back that goes something like this: "you can't fool a fooler." I suppose it could be said as well that "you can't charm a charmer." ;)

To attempt an answer as to VA's query concerning why conservatives heap praise on the man when they never had before, I would venture a guess that there are a couple of dynamics at work here. First, I think Romney is seen by conservatives as the closest thing to a truly conservative viable and electable candidate that the GOP (the party that conservatives, including myself, still identify most with) has to offer. His shortcomings, then, are sort of swept under the rug for the higher goal of defeating the dhimmicrat demagogue nominee, whomever that turns out to be -- Hillary. Second, I think Romney was relatively unknown to conservatives (and liberals) until fairly recently. Now that his name and his political affiliations are becoming household words, it stands to reason that he'd catch the eye of many conservatives and right leaners where he'd eluded them before. I don't really have a good explanation for why a paleo like Buchanan, or a traditionalist like Auster, or evangelical leaders like Dr. Dobson write glowing reviews of the man and his speech, except to say that I think in every case these individuals are applying rule number one above. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm simply calling it as I happen to see it. In the end, when it's all said and done, I may reluctantly climb on the Romney bandwagon as well. But seeing as how it is a rather high step for me at this very moment, I may require a little help getting onboard.

Finally I agree with VA as well that Romney makes an inappropriate comparison between the persecution suffered by Pilgrim and Puritan dissenters in England, and the "persecution" suffered by the early Mormons at the hands of orthodox American Christians. I wrote that it chaps my hide that Romney made such a comparison, marking both groups as committing essentially the same sin of intolerance precisely because the comparison has no historical basis in fact. He's just saying things that he knows appeals to modern conservatives because they're generally not that knowledgable about the two historical events, nor are they very knowledgable about their own faith and its essential aspects, nor are they that "conservative" in truth. As has been said before, we can argue over the non-essentials, but the essentials must remain intact. If it's considered as persecution to deny a group of so-called "Christians" the right to have numerous wives and concubines, then count me firmly among the persecutors. If that's not incompatible with historic Americanism and a biblical-Christian worldview, I don't know what is. I'm no expert on Mormonism, but I do realize that to be a true and consistent Mormon, much like Islam, one must accept that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. This is simply not possible with orthodox Christians, and I personally make no apology for it. And seeing as how our forbears were much more biblically and historically astute and orthodox than we are, it makes no sense to me to compare them to the persecutors doing the dirty work of the church of England two centuries before Joseph Smith ever came along.

Read More

Is there a difference between watching and reading?

(Update: Two of my favorite conservative thinkers, Mike Tams and Lawrence Auster, have reacted positively to Romney's speech. This gives me some pause as to my initial thoughts.)

Much has been written about Romney's faith speech across the blogosphere. Dr. Dobson of CitizenLink commends Romney for speaking so highly of the role of religion in our society. I hear that Pat Buchanan has some kind things to say about the speech as well, though I've not read Buchanan's take as yet.

I don't have time to go into all the details of where Romney and I part ways on religion in America, but I will excerpt one passage from his speech here:

Romney said:

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.

Now, that just really chaps my hide! If he hadn't already lost me with his admiration for Islam, this statement would have sealed the deal with me. I imagine that Romney thinks the same thing (it seems to be the implication here) about people like me who are "unable to accomodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths," namely Muslims.

As I wrote to Auster, it's one thing to say you admire Muslims' commitment to frequent prayer. It's something altogether different to preface it with the statement Romney chose. If you don't know how he prefaced the above statement, then go read the transcript of his speech.

Which brings me to the point of the post:

Are we sometimes enamored by a candidate's presence, his personality, his ability to communicate effectively, his clean appearance and so forth, to the point that we're not hearing the implications of his words? I didn't have a chance to watch Romney's speech except for short clips after I'd read the speech and had found it wanting in several respects. But I thought it was an interesting question--seeing vs. reading--and I'd be interested in your take.

Read More