What do Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Mark Levin and Mitt Romney all have in common?

They're all conservatives. But there are some very important differences. I blog a bit about that over on True North. See what you think.

Also, my co-blogger John Schroeder and I have some thoughts about the Value Voters Summit at Article VI Blog. I guess I am all over the place today.

Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and The Wall Street Journal

The following is an excerpt from today's post at Article VI Blog:
______________________________________________

In its lead editorial today, the Journal ran a summary of McCain's best choices, and said this about The Question:

A name often mentioned is Mitt Romney, who looks and speaks the part and as an entrepreneur himself could help on the economy. The former Massachusetts Governor failed to catch fire in the primaries, though, and, however unfairly, his Mormonism seems to be an issue with many evangelicals. Our own concern is that he continues to defend his state health-care reform even as it looks increasingly like a fiscal disaster.

(Emphasis added.) This is fascinating on several levels. To begin with, the same piece describes Senator Joe Lieberman as "a splendid VP in our book" who "is solid on foreign policy and taxes," but would "probably alienate too many social conservatives." No mention of whether Lieberman's Orthodox Jewish faith would "be an issue" with any voter demographic.

So maybe Judaism has passed the "Kennedy test" and is now an acceptable faith for a presidential candidate, just as Catholicism is. (I am not so sure.)

I always like to re-cast statements made in the press about Romney's Mormonism, using other personal characteristics. Try these evaluations of any potential vice presidential pick:

• "However unfairly, his Hispanic heritage seems to be an issue with many anglo voters."

• "However unfairly, his African-American ancestry seems to be an issue with many white voters."

• "However unfairly, her female gender seems to be an issue with many voters."

Kind of hard to imagine, aren't they?

What we have here is the foremost conservative editorial page in the country throwing up its hands on this question: Can a Mormon be elected president?

No, they say; that's unfair, but it's the reality.

I am not convinced, but for discussion purposes, let's assume they are.

If you're a Mormon kid in this country, your parents cannot yet tell you that you can grow up to be president of the United States.

If you're an evangelical, even one who supported Romney for president and who would like to see him as vice president, you must accept the distasteful reality that enough of your co-religionists have made such a stink about Romney's faith that the leading conservative newspaper in the nation thinks the Governor is not viable as McCain's running mate.

If you’re James Dobson or Al Mohler, you might toss and turn just a bit in your bed at night and wonder if you should have shown a bit more leadership — even a little spine — toward those who look to you as a leader.

Maybe you regret just a little bit that a paper like the Journal, which is friendly to the people you lead, simply assumes the existence of unyielding religious prejudice among them.

Maybe you regret even more that the Journal finds such prejudice so unyielding that a political candidate who professes a particular religion is destroyed.

Maybe you realize that you were in a position to stop that from happening, but did nothing — and probably even gave license to the prejudiced members of your flock.

That cannot feel good, deep down.

We might have a chance to see if the Journal is right, if McCain does pick Romney.

I have my doubts. But what we should all be thinking about is the place to which we have come.

It is not pretty.

______________________________________________

I'll pose one further question: Will any credible national Evangelical leader write to the Wall Street Journal and take issue with the Journal's pragmatic conclusion that "however unfairly [Romney's] Mormonism seems to be an issue with many evangelicals," and that he is therefore a problematic choice for veep? That would be nice to see, but I am not holding my breath.

(More on this at Article VI Blog.)

One More Thought on McCain and The GOP Debate

The one important item I didn't mention in the post below is the
impact of McCain's performance on the voters. Those who already have
a candidate will be unmoved; they are all generally happy with their
guy's performance. (See, for example, the commenter to the post just
below, which exemplifies the McCainiacs' approach to matters involving
class and grace.)

What really matters is how the 44% of voters who were still undecided
yesterday respond. Is McCain's snideness and general nastiness of
temperament going to draw those voters to him? I have my doubts, but
we shall see.

UPDATE: Looks like Brit Hume feels the same way:

And John Hinderaker of the very objective and reliably conservative Power Line agrees too:

McCain: McCain did all right, but I don't think he helped himself with his jabs at Romney. At one point he delivered a planned one-liner, agreeing that Romney is the "candidate of change." I thought it was extremely lame; at first, no one but McCain laughed. Romney came off looking, I thought, like the grown-up, something that shouldn't happen to McCain. While McCain was strong on national security issues, as always, I thought he was generally less prominent in the debate than he should have been. . . .

Romney: I thought Romney was the clear winner, most of all in demeanor and general impact. I've been critical of Mitt's television communication skills in the past, but last night he was Presidential and effective. A viewer who knew nothing about the status of the race would have assumed, I think, that Romney was the front-runner and perhaps the candidate with the most stature. Headlines suggest that the other candidates were ganging up on Romney. I think that is overblown; it happened on only a couple of occasions. On those occasions, I thought Romney came across as the candidate who is trying to rise above pettiness and focus on policy. McCain's anger toward Romney backfired, I thought. On a number of issues--health care and energy, and even national defense--Romney showed impressive command.

UPDATE 2: One of our commenters at Article VI Blog makes this interesting point:

What has apparently happened is Mitt’s message has been dulled by his inability to successfully navigate the school yard bullies who look to the presidency as a completion of personal ambition. He is ill equipped for that battle. He fights back the only way he knows. But intellectual jousts and battles of ideas do not win out when it comes to the ways of the world. We still love the guy who can slap the daylights out of the other guy and make him cry like a girl. To much of America it is hard to relate to the uber technocrat especially when he embodies everything your parents wanted you to be. There is no other candidate in either party who has achieved the things Mitt Romney has and that intimidates the hell out them. They automatically hate the guy who achieved by forty what they couldn’t. So they fight back the only way they know. In fact they gang up on him. The intellectually average rely on fear and ridicule as a tools. This is especially true with Huckabee and McCain. This behavior plays to baser instincts of survival. In a world where we should be discussing ideas we are faced with force and, for now, verbal violence. But we all know that people who use violence will rely on it again and again because it is successful. But it is a pedestrian value.

Now even Ken Jennings is involved in the Mitt Romney -Mike Huckabee Iowa range war?

My postings here are usually not tinged with religion, but both Ralph (the Kosher Hedgehog here) and I try to comment here on religious-political news and related issues; sometimes we need to explain religious beliefs in order to comment intelligently on the news. (What else can one expect from a blog written by a committed Mormon and a committed Orthodox Jew?)

I also write daily for Article VI Blog, which for the last 18 months or so has examined religion and politics in the 2008 presidential campaign. My co-blogger there is John Schroeder, an Evangelical Christian who writes Blogotional, an influential religious blog, or "Godblog." (Yes, I keep eclectic company in the blogosphere, and I love it. Both John and Ralph are very smart guys whose writing enriches makes me look good by association.)

Of course, with the rise of Mike Huckabee we have seen unexpected opportunities to comment on religion, politics, and the news. (That's a opaque way of saying that we never dreamed we'd see the stuff we've seen so far.)

Here's the latest example. I never watch the game show "Jeopardy," but I know that Ken Jennings of Jeopardy fame is a Mormon and a Democrat. (No, that's not really such an unusual combination.) I suspect Jennings would never vote for Mitt Romney.

So it's interesting to me that even Jennings has now joined in the religious food fight that has erupted from what John and I call the "Mormon Question." His op-ed in the New York Daily News is entitled "Politicians & pundits, please stop slandering my Mormon faith." His concluding paragraph:

I'm tired of being a punch line and a punching bag. If the only way to get Mormonism out of the arena is to get Romney out of the race, then I'm counting the days. This is one Mormon who would rather have a little civility and tolerance than one of our own in the White House.

Well, I don't think that's a fair trade. Is Jennings saying that it's better for people of faith to keep out of national politics if their candidacy brings out religious bigotry against their faith?

One problem is that many doctrinaire Evangelicals are not making Jennings' argument easier. At Article VI a leading Evangelical, Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, told us in an interview (yet to be transcribed and published) that he thinks many Evangelicals will say they're voting against Romney for non-religious reasons (e.g., Romney's so-called "flip-flopping") when the real reason for their vote is that Romney is a Mormon.

Joe's not just any old blogger. Evangelical Outpost is a major Evangelical blog. He announced his support for Huck last October and is now the Huckabee campaign's research director. He's also prominent in the campaign's outreach efforts to Evangelicals, and Joe's blog postings often drip with scorn for Romney and his people.

So what'll it be? Do we speak out against religious bigotry, or simply run and hide from it, as Jennings seems to suggest? Ralph, what do you think?

The New Republic: Romney's Not Only a Mormon; He's a Bad Mormon!

Jonathan Chait (photo left) is a specialist in political hatred. Back in September 2003, this senior editor of The New Republic made a big splash in the mainstream media when he published a column in TNR entitled, "The Case For Bush Hatred," which began with the subtle statement, "I hate President George W. Bush."

Currently at The New Republic online, Chait demonstrates that his hatred has not lost its edge, but he has perhaps learned to be more subtle. The target now is Mitt Romney, and the column is entitled, "Pray Tell, The Wrong Reason to Hate Mitt Romney." Which of course suggests that there is a right reason to hate Mitt Romney. Indeed, on The New Republic's home page, the article is linked with the come-on line "The Legitimate Reason to Hate Mitt Romney." Gee, I thought it was we right-wingers who are consumed by hatred.

Chait actually purports to show sympathy for Romney: "If it were possible for apolitician to sue voters for religious discrimination, Mitt Romney would have an open-and-shut case against the Republican electorate. Here is a man possessing all the known qualifications for the job of GOP presidential nominee--strong communications skills, a successful governorship, total agreement on every issue, Reaganesque hair--and yet he may well be denied it on account of his faith."

And who will deny Mitt Romney on the basis of his faith? Why none other than those Christian conservatives, of course. "These attacks have nothing to do with how Romney would conduct himself as president. They're purely theological. Romney's critics are declaring they couldn't support Romney on the sole basis that they consider Mormonism un-Christian."

The New Republic was not yet through with Romney for this week. It turns out that now Mormons dislike Romney as well. Also currently featured at The New Republic is an article by Josh Potashnik entitled, "Latter Day Skeptics, Mormons Against Romney." It turns out that the Mormons hate Mitt almost as much as the conservative Christians do! Only very late in the article does the author somewhat begrudgingly admit, "For now, the majority of Mormons remain favorably inclined toward Romney." Just for now, folks. The tipping point is coming and we are going to see a tidal wave of anti-Romney backlash from his co-religionists. Why, I understand that Harry Reid has already thrown his support to a Democrat!

What is truly mind-boggling, however, is Mr. Potashnik's explanation of what had shaken Mormon support of Mitt Romney: "Romney has vaulted to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire largely on the strength of backing from evangelical Protestants-- historical adversaries of the LDS Church, not to mention competitors in the worldwide race for converts."

So there you have it. On the very same day that one article in The New Republic tells us that Mitt Romney will be denied the Republican nomination for President because of opposition from evangelical Protestants, another article explains that he has surged to the lead in the GOP primary races in New Hampshire and Iowa (and alienated Mormon supporters in the process) based on strong support from evangelical Protestants. Chait, you're a senior editor--do you ever read your own magazine?

Alright, I know it's my problem, not TNR's--my right-wing rigid mindset simply cannot tolerate logical inconsistency. However, just for a moment, I thought that Chait and Potashnik, in their rush to stereotype religious Protestants and Mormons, and despite their innate liberal ability to grasp subtle distinctions that a conservative can't possibly appreciate, might somehow have failed to appreciate this subtle distinction: "Some evangelical Christians support Mitt Romney. Some don't. Some Mormons support Mitt Romney. Some don't."

The real question is why The New Republic has such a fixation about Mitt Romney. Could it be that he is the candidate that its staff would least like to see facing off against the Democratic nominee in November 2008?

[Lowell the Hedgehog appends: I know a little something about this, being, ahem, a life-long church-goin' Mormon. Mitt Romney has alienated Mormons who are Democrats. This is, well, unsurprising. Romney has alienated even some Mormons who are Republicans. Also unsuprising. Jonathan Chait is one clueless polemicist. No suprise there, either!]

Damon Linker Says, "Get Your Religious Beliefs Out of This Public Square!"

The previous post mentioned the article by Damon Linker (photo left) in the January 1-15 issue of The New Republic, which questioned Mitt Romney's fitness to be President of the United States, solely on the basis of Mr. Romney's Mormon faith. In the current (2/19/2007) issue of The New Republic, a letter to the editor echoed the suspicions of The Hedgehog Blog that Mr. Linker's article amounted to a partisan attack based on a cynical appeal to religious bigotry. Pamela Hamblin of Albuquerque, New Mexico, noted:

If Romney's religion is such a concern, why didn't Linker fret about its impact on Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader? Reid is an active and believing Mormon, but Linker failed even to mention his name or explain why far more than half of Senate Democrats voted to make him their leader. Religion is only dangerous in the hands of conservative Republicans, it seems.

Mr. Linker responds with a defense equivalent to the proverbial parent murderer who pleads for the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan. He writes:

As for Hamblin's contention that, in my view, "[r]eligion is only dangerous in the hands of conservative Republicans," I unapologetically plead guilty, at least if we limit ourselves to the present moment in U.S. political history. It is, after all, the religious right that has injected piety into the nation's politics in recent years. Having done so, it now wishes to declare the religious views of candidates off-limits for public debate, discussion, and scrutiny. Sorry, but the right can't have it both ways. If believers want to keep their religious convictions private, I wholeheartedly encourage them to follow the lead of such Democrats as John F. Kennedy and Harry Reid in doing so. If, instead, they insist on bringing their faith with them into the public square, then they would be well-advised to drop their defensiveness and get used to reading articles like mine.

So Linker admits that his is a partisan attack, but justifies it because he is on the side of the angels (only figuratively speaking, of course), also known as left-wing Democrats. One problem with his response is that every objection to a Mormon President that he raised in his article, based on the tenets and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and especially his objection to the Mormon belief that the President of the LDS Church is a prophet, would apply equally to a devout Mormon of the political left. If the Church President could prophesy as arbitrarily as Mr. Linker seems to believe, he could just as easily reveal a prophecy calling for the institution of a socialist welfare state as he could one opposing gay marriage.

Or perhaps Mr. Linker's point is that liberal Democratic Mormons don't really in their hearts of hearts believe in all that silly religious stuff, and therefore won't muck up our laws with it. That would certainly be an offensive affront to Senator Reid. Nonetheless, that very possibly is what Mr. Linker thinks, because his response in The New Republic echoes the theme that underlies his career as a political pundit.

Mr. Linker is a rebellious disciple of Father Richard John Neuhaus, the conservative Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher who advocates the active involvement of religious citizens in public affairs and the influence of religious values in public policy. A former editor of First Things, the magazine founded by Father Neuhaus, Mr. Linker apparently has undergone his own conversion to a radical political secularism, and now dedicates his career to forcing religion back out of the public square with all the vigor that Father Neuhaus has applied to returning religion there.

In short, Mr. Linker feels that religion is a very nice, private matter. Let's just not take it too seriously, to the point of where it actually influences our lives and our relationship with larger society. Mitt Romney has no place in Mr. Linker's public square, and neither, one would suspect, does Joe Lieberman. But what about the Reverend Martin Luther King, Bishop Desmond Tutu or even Mahatma Ghandhi. If Mr. Linker is sincere and even-handed (as opposed to a partisan hypocrite), then he should find the careers of these men as objectionable as he seems to find Mr. Romney's presidential aspirations. After all, these men all considered their political activities to be natural extensions and expressions of their religious faiths and beliefs. None of them kept "their religious convictions private." All of them insisted on "bringing their faith with them into the public square." Thank God.

Lowell the Hedgehog adds: Linker is clearly a polemicist more than a thinker, which helps explain his rather embarrassing reasoning. One glaring example: As Ralph notes, Linker's basis for justifying the attack on Romney is that religious conservatives "bring . . . their faith with them into the public square." Excuse me, but like just about every Mormon candidate for public office I have ever known, Mitt Romney never mentions his faith in public; others do that for him, and unceasingly. The irony in Linker's fuzzy thinking is delicious, but it doesn't make his argument any less silly.

Mitt Romney's "Journey to The Right"

Marc Ambinder writes in National Journal about the "evolution" of Mitt Romney's views on the key social issues of same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. Ambinder, who runs National Journal's Hotline blog, has historically not been Romney-friendly (example here) but the article seems thorough enough.

To this observer (a committed Romney supporter) this whole discussion seems to miss the point: What will Romney do as president? It would be very difficult for him, after the very public, controversial positions he has taken on those issues, to back away from those positions as president.

If you believe him when he says his views have changed, then there is no reason to be concerned. If you don't believe him, and nothing he or his supporters say can change your mind, then by all means, support Brownback or Huckabee, and be ready to see John McCain as the nominee.