A few observations on the Iowa caucus speeches last night

I'll leave the parsing of the percentages and all that to abler analysts. What interests me more than the results are the speeches that followed. I didn't stay up to watch all the speeches, I was mostly interested in Obama's and Huckabee's as the winners. But while waiting for those two I did catch Edwards' and Clinton's.

First was Clinton. She was predictably stilted and only barely stifled her rage at Obama and Edwards. It was a stale, safe, innocuous, boring speech. The highlight was seeing Madeline Albright over her right shoulder.



Next was Edwards. I suppose it's no surprise that Edwards did well in Iowa, what with his populist pro-union, anti-free trade, universal health care shtick. Not surprisingly, his speech hit the health care theme hard, complete with anecdotes of individual Americans who get sick and can't pay for treatment delivered in a charming, folksy drawl. It's his bread and butter. It's his theme, and he plays it well. He played it well as a trial lawyer and he still does well. The only problem is that he's a bit of a Johnny-one-note. My other stylistic criticism of Edwards he does the Bill Clinton thumb point. The idea is that pointing is rude and a subtle thumb emphasis is more friendly. But when Clinton was in office, the thumb point was satirized to death by late night comics ("Ah feel your pain"). Edwards doing it now is almost self-caricature.



Then came Huckabee. It was about what you would expect. A lot of folksy grandstanding, a lot of talk about our American (i.e. evangelical Christian) values, and a lot of drawling. He talked about how it's a "new day" in American politics---an throwback, I think, to Reagan's "morning in America." The funniest part of Huckabee's speech was the way a be-flanneled Chuck Norris hung, fawning, on his every word like, grinning giddily like a twelve-year-old girl at a Hannah Montana concert. And for some inexplicable reason, the unshaven Texas Ranger shifted from Huckabee's left shoulder to his right shoulder midway through the speech.



Obama's was the best speech of the night. I like to compare it with Edwards. Edwards' message really plays only to working class Democrats. That's not a bad thing, particularly in a Democratic primary in Iowa, but it is limiting. Obama's message has a more universal appeal. He eschewed the Clintonian anecdotes of individuals and went for a more abstract, but more unifying message hitting hard on hope, unity, and possibility. Such abstractions can be hard to visualize and can often make for a forgettable speech, But Obama countered that with his personal stage presence. I appreciate that Obama does the real finger point rather than the Clintonian thumb point. I don't think it's rude, I think it's forceful. He was by far the most energetic, the most passionate. This highlighted his youth and energy, which in turn complements his message of change over Clinton's of experience.




Speaking of Democratic youth, energy, and idealism, I couldn't help but see shades of Kennedy. Not only is Obama a young man who appeals to the unifying transcendence of American values, but he also has a young, attractive, graceful wife, and two cute kids to boot. And if you look at Michelle Obama, it's not hard to see a shadow of Jacki Kennedy, especially in her conservative, chin length, flipped coif---specially last night, wearing pearls and a conservative dress that would not have been too out of place in the 1960s. All she needed was a pill box hat, and a pair of gloves. It was to the point that I almost wonder if it's on purpose.

But after two Bushes and a Clinton, I guess we could use another Camelot after all.

Anyone see Romney's?

Why I want Romney to win the Republican nomination

This is cross-posted at the Council of Fifty.

I don't like Romney's politics. I've said this before. I also think he has come across as insincere and seems to be more a conservative of convenience than of conviction. I also can't get his support for President Bush's foreign policies.

But I want Romney to win. As I've said before, I think it would be good for the Republican party. So what do I, a Democrat, care about having a good Republican party? Well, if my party screws it up, there's only one other alternative. Sure there's a lot of dissatisfaction right now with the current Administration, but Congressional Democrats aren't that far behind he President as targets of public bile. In this atmosphere, neither party is all that likely to win an overwhelming Congressional majority. And the fact is, no matter which party wins the White House in 2008, the other one will still have a significant amount of power. So even if there's a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will still have plenty of influence. I want them to be shepherded by a party leadership that is moderate, pragmatic, reasonable.

An additional reason: it would make Clinton less likely to win the Democratic nomination. If, say, Huckabee gets it, he would stand no chance against Clinton, and the liberal party elite would have an easier time getting Clinton the victory because the concern about drawing moderate votes would be essentially irrelevant. If, on the other hand, the Republicans put up someone with a real fighting chance to beat Clinton, the Democrats would be more likely to give their nomination to a candidate less polarizing than the ex-First Lady, someone who could draw more moderate voters.

Romney is more Presidential, arguably more moderate, and most importantly, better funded than any of the other Republican candidates. He stands the best chance against Clinton. If he wins, the Democrats will be forced to think more carefully about nominating Clinton. A strong, moderate, electable Republican candidate gives more leverage to the Edwards and Obama campaigns to argue that Clinton, a elite northeastern liberal connected to perhaps the most hated Democrat (at least among conservatives) in recent memory, can't win in the heartland.

And on a personal level, it comes down to this: I don't want to vote for Clinton. And at this point, Romney is the most appealing Republican.

So what's my beef with Hillary? Well, for one, it goes back to before my mission when she first started trying to be a Senator from my home state (actually, I voted against her by absentee ballot). I had no problem in theory with the idea of Clinton running for, or even being my Senator. She's certainly capable. But the fact that she wasn't from New York and hadn't lived there, that she bought a house to barely met the residency requirements, and that it was obvious that she had chosen New York only because it was a liberal enough state to elect her to a calculated Presidential launching pad---well, that bothered me.

And to make matters worse, the state Party leadership didn't even make her run the primary. They just handed her the nomination. That bothered me even more. Now, the interesting thing about Hillary Clinton is that most of the other members of the New York Delegation in Congress can't stand her, personally. These are the people that have worked with her, not those that are paid to stump for her. But they won't say that in public because of the huge amount of influence that the Clintons hold over the party machine. I trust their opinions, and I don't trust her.

Another problem with Clinton: We've already had eight years of the second half of a Republican political dynasty. Do we really want the same thing coming from the Democrats? Do we really want the last few decades of our history to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Are there really so few qualified people that we have to keep picking from the same two families?

Of course, it would be cool to say that we had finally elected a woman to be President. But do we really want to show the world that the only way a woman can be elected in this country is if she schemes for three decades, finagles her party leadership, and rides on her husband's popularity? Wouldn't we rather have a woman who gets elected on her own merits?

So I want the Republicans to choose someone that will give the Obama and Edwards campaigns a better chance against Clinton. Nobody but Romney can do it: McCain is too old and crazy, Huckabee is too trailer park and Ted Nugent, Fred "Cadaver" Thompson (AKA dead man walking) can barely keep his eyes open during interveiws, Guiliani ought to be disqualified for running a campaign based entirely on 9-11, and Ron Paul, well, come on, it's Ron Paul. If he wins, the Democrats might as well run Kucinich so we can distribute the crazy equally on both sides. It's got to be Romney.

On the other hand, if Clinton does win, that would make Bill the first First Gentleman, which might get him into the news more often and provide some excellent political comic relief.

New post on new blog: Why Democrats should be pro-life.

I've been invited to blog over at The Council of Fifty, a new blog about politics and Mormons (the name was my idea).

The original Council of Fifty was organized by Joseph Smith just prior to his death. The idea was that it would be a sort of political wing of God's Kingdom, while the church was the spiritual wing. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good. Two articles published in BYU Studies in 1980 give a more complete historical treatment. The first, by Michael Quinn, lays out the basic chronology and purposes. The second, by Andrew Ehat, attempts to answer some of the questions that Quinn raised and gets more into the theological background and purposes of the council.

This Council of Fifty is about discussing politics as it relates to Mormonism. My first post is about why the Democrats should be more open to running pro-lifers, especially for the Presidency. Here's a summary of my line of thought:

A less militantly pro-choice Democratic party would diffuse the potency of the abortion card. This would be good for the Democratic party, good for Mormons, and good for the Republican party as well. It would be good for Democrats because they could expand their base. It would be good for Mormons because it could help bring balance to the one-sidedness of political affiliation among Mormons. This in turn may give Republicans more incentive to attract Mormons, or at least to stop tolerating the anti-Mormon rhetoric from the fundamentalist wing of the party.

Of course, this is all speculative. But that’s what makes it fun.

So, really this post comes down to a few observations and a conclusion: (1) the Democrats are trying to ride a wave of populist discontent with the Bush administration and its blunders, (2) populist movements are only successful if they represent what is popular, (3) a hard-line pro-choice stance is out of line with what is popular, and (4) a hard-line pro-choice stance is not crucial to the party’s most important goals and ideals, especially not in presidential politics. Therefore, it makes sense for the party to moderate bit more on the abortion issue.

Read the entire post here. Leave comments about the argument there, comments about other stuff here. I don't want to poach the discussion.

Three examples of the rhetoric of religious identity in national politics: Smoot, Kennedy, and Romney.

Here's an interesting comparison and contrast. Three speeches addressed to similar concerns about how a candidate's religion will color his reception in the national political arena.


The first was given by Reed Smoot (Utahn Senator, LDS Apostle, and forerunner of Wilford Brimley, famous walrus impersonator) on the floor of the Senate in 1907. Several Senators had opposed Smoot sitting in the Senate charging that his religious obligations disqualified him from performing his civic obligations in the Senate. The speech is reprinted, with some background and commentary, in the Spring 2007 Issue of Utah Historical Quarterly (Click here for online version). The article starts on page 100, and the speech on 105.


The second is the famous JFK Speech given in 1960 to convince protestant ministers that his religious obligations would not interfere with his civic obligations as president. You can read, listen to, or watch the speech at NPR.





The third is the Romney speech given Wednesday to convince GOP voters in Iowa that his membership in the Mormon church does not disqualify him from being a good Republican candidate for President. I put up video and links to text and audio here on this blog the other day.




This being the middle of the finals cram, I'm not going to post an extensive exposition of my thoughts. But I find the similarities and differences interesting. What do the readers think?

The Romney Speech: A Rhetorical Comment

There's been considerable hype about Romney's speech yesterday and over whether it was successful. The speech, entitled with a not-so-clever pun, "Faith in America," was billed as the "JFK Speech" where Romney would finally address his religion the way JFK did in the 60s by reassuring WASPS that he wouldn't turn America into a Papal State. But there are differences between JFK and Romney and their respective situations that make the comparison a bit misleading.

First, Kennedy and Romney are addressing different audiences. Kennedy gave his speech weeks before the general election and was speaking to America as a whole.

Romney's audience is a bit more complicated. His speech was given weeks before the primaries begin, and is addressed to GOP voters---specifically, GOP voters in Iowa. On the other hand, it was also nationally televised and predictably pounced on by the national punditry, so he had a bigger indirect audience.

Secondly, Kennedy and Romney are addressing different concerns. This is partially a function of the first difference. With Kennedy the fear was that he would answer to the Pope. This was relatively easy to disarm. He simply disavowed that he would make Rome a decision-maker. With Romney also, some fear that he will answer to Salt Lake, but for most, there is also the more amorphous fear is that he is not truly Christian, and that he is part of a weird cult. This seems to matter to GOP voters in Iowa (hence, Huckabee's success). This is harder to disarm. He could just disavow Mormonism, but that's not really an option if he has any devotion or integrity. So he has to either (1) make Mormonism acceptable to the Christian conservatives in the heartland, or (2) convince them that Mormonism doesn't matter.

To evaluate whether Romney was successful, we need to have answer three questions:

1. what exactly was his goal in giving the speech?
2. how well did he achieve that goal? and
   
3. are there unintended consequences that undermine that achievement?

I.
Romney's goal, it seems to me, is simply to convince voters that the fact that he is a Mormon is not a valid reason to vote against him. Some of the TV pundits suggested last night that his purpose in giving the speech was to "address his Mormonism" as though he intended to give an exposition of the faith, and criticized him for not doing so. That approach misunderstands the concerns Romney is trying to address and the viability of the different ways to address them. They seem to assume that Romney would have attempted to make Mormonism seem palatable and rational to evangelical Christians. That is probably not possible at all, and certainly not possible in the available forum. His goal cannot be to make Mormonism acceptable, and his faith and integrity do not allow him to disavow it, so the only reasonable goal is to articulate convincingly why Mormonism simply does not matter.

II.
So did he do it? Did he convincingly articulate why it should not matter to GOP voters in the heartland (mostly evangelical Christians) that he is a Mormon? I say yes, he did about the best job anyone could do. However, the question that remains is whether the evangelical Christian GOP voters will buy it.

He spends a lot of the speech doing the normal flag waving and laudatory patriotism, and makes the requisite hagiographic references to the so-called greatest generation, and the founding fathers, but there is a section early in the middle of the speech where he really gets into the meat of addressing his goal.

"They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

A couple of strengths to note here. First, he makes his religious commitment clear. This is an improvement over the past where he has sometimes seemed uncomfortable about his religion. Building integrity is almost always helpful. Second, he makes a nice rhetorical move in heading off those who wish he would not be committed to Mormonism. With the "they underestimate the American People" phrase he is not only praising the goodness and greatness of Americans' religious tolerance, he is also implicitly saying that if you don't agree to be tolerant, you don't live up to being a real American. I thought this was effective.

He then goes on to elaborate on the American virtue of religious tolerance. Specifically, he expands its application, and challenges those who don't think tolerance extends to accepting cultish religions.

"Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

Framing his Mormonism as a test of the tolerance (and therefore the American-ness) of his critics was a well-played rhetorical move. And then he articulated a constitutional standard to back up the tradition of religious tolerance he had already alluded to:

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."

This has the virtue of grounding tradition in text, for any legalistically minded listeners. The appeal of a text is also important to evangelicals who subscribe to "sola scriptura" inerrancy. It also has the added bonus of an appeal to the founders, which is always an important trope in political rhetoric, and one that is particularly useful with GOP voters who tend to be originalists.

Then he illustrated the principle of religious tolerance with this nice little "it's-a-small-world-after-all" survey of religions.

"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 the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

But you can't tell evangelical GOP voters that faith doesn't matter altogether. So after tearing down the notion that a candidate's subscription to evangelical Christianity should be some kind of litmus test, he then had to build some kind of shared faith to stand in it's place. He did so by appealing to the "shared values" trope.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'"

The shared values idea has a long and venerable history in the GOP that extends from the time that protestant denominations banded together to fight the "twin relics of barbarism" to the time they now welcome Catholics in their crusade against gay marriage and abortion rights.

While I might quibble with Romney's choice of words in a few places, overall I think he did a good job. He was articulate, smart, laudatory, and (unsurprisingly) polished. Whether the audience bought it is something that will have to be determined by upcoming polls, but I think he stated the case as compellingly as anyone could have.

III.
Are there unintended consequences? A few possibilities come to mind. First, while Romney did mention the venerability of the separation of church and state, he also spent most of the speech extolling religious virtues and asserting their place in the public sphere. This could alienate any potential atheists or agnostics. However, remembering Romney's audience, this is not a surprising choice. Secularists on the whole tend to be the sort that would be unlikely to vote for Romney even if he were an atheist himself simply because of his politics, so he has very little to gain by accommodating them, and potentially much to lose.

Second, quoting Matthew 25:35 and alluding his father marching with Martin Luther King is a great appeal to the social conscience. But the social conscience is generally (though not exclusively) a thing of the left in this country. This is not to say that Republicans can't appreciate civil rights, only that Romney saying these things almost makes him sound like a democrat. This could remind some GOP hardliners of his father's embarrassing (to them) opposition to the Vietnam War. But he also worked in the religious angle to the social conscience, which is going to be hard for Christians to deny. It may also help him with the more moderate national audience that may have tuned in.

The bottom line: I think it was a good speech---way better than the admittedly low standard the current President has set. And while I still have policy concerns about Romney, it is nice to see him stand up to the religiously intolerant wing of the GOP and call them on the un-American-ness and hypocrisy of that attitude. I wonder if this is what he would be like all the time if were being his own moderate self rather than trying so hard to be a conservative. After all, this is a guy who won an election in Mass.

The Speech

Here's the video that Romney's campaign put up on his website.



George Herbert Walker Bush gives an introduction. Romney starts talking around 2:55. It's about 20 min.

Here's the text. There's also a link to audio on the same page. The NPR audio is way better quality than the audio on the video.

Is this a "hate crime"?

Recently I came across this over at Civil War Memory

Some of you are no doubt aware of the story out of Montgomery, Alabama surrounding the vandalizing of a Confederate statue. Last week the faces of Confederate soldiers were painted black with "N.T. 11 11 31" spray painted in reference to the anniversary of Nat Turner's insurrection execution in Southampton County, Virginia.

I understand that this offended some southerners, but I think it's pretty funny. First, I love irony, and the irony is fantastic. Second, the fact that southerners are offended, I confess, means very little to me. I am an unapologetic Yankee.

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center calls the vandalism "very objectionable," but asserts that unless it had included the message "Kill Whitey" or some equivalent, it cannot be a hate crime because it does not target an entire race (or ethnicity, or faith, etc.).

On the flip side, the Alabama Division of the Sons of the Confederacy is offering a thousand dollar bounty for the "arrest and conviction of the perpetrators" (so if somebody turns them in but they get acquitted does that mean he doesn't get his money?) and calling for investigation as a hate crime (though I'm not sure how calling it a hate crime would affect the investigation). And Pat Goodwin, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (isn't it ironic that they have a permutation of the word "Union" in their name?) says the following: "This speaks loudly to me as a white person that whoever defaced this monument must hate all whites by honoring Nat Turner, who slaughtered innocent white children by decapitating them in 1831." Congratulations, Ms. Goodwin, you just won the non-sequitur award of the 2007.

Regardless of Goodwin's unfortunate lack of a grasp on logic, is there an argument that the defacement is the functional equivalent of a "kill whitey"-type statement? Could Nat Turner occupy such a place in the common memory that honoring him is an endorsement of racial hatred? Or are Turner's actions just insignificant in the face of the ongoing societal brutality of slavery? Was it worse for Nat Turner to kill innocent whites than for the heroes of the Confederacy to kill innocents of both races to defend their right to enslave innocent blacks? Or does American historical amnesia pretty much just foreclose any assertion about the common memory anyway?

What say ye? Hate crime or creative historical hooliganism?

Just in case you haven't made up your mind yet...

If you happen to be: (1) a Republican, (2) not apathetic enough that you actually are going to vote in the primaries, and (3) heretofore undecided who you're voting for, Chuck Norris might help you decide who is really the best candidate.

Mitt Unplugged, or Oedipus Romney: Why Romney's best virtue may lose him the nomination.

This video has been getting some mileage around the 'nacle (and the rest of the internet to a lesser extent) as of late.

Those who read this blog will probably know that I am leery of Mitt Romney. On the other hand, my opinion of Romney went up when I watched the video. The general consensus both on the 'nacle and elsewhere seems to be that Romney did a great job defending himself and his church. I agree that the video shows us Romney at his best. My interest lies in why Romney seems so much better in this video than on the regular campaign trail.

My political misgivings about Romney I've explained elsewhere. But stylistically, my criticism of the regular campaign trail Romney is that he is always on script. He doesn't seem to know how to give an answer that directly addresses the question rather than giving an answer that addresses the question enough not to be evasive but that is really an attempt to get back to the campaign talking points. Romney is hardly the only political candidate to fall victim to this vice. But he has mastered the technique so well that he arouses suspicion. Add to that the fact that he is a successful wealthy businessman, handsome, and has a nice family, and you can really begin to understand that criticism that he is "too perfect."

But here, perhaps because he might not have known the camera was on, he was engaged with the issue, not with the talking points. He realized that the interviewer was was not going to let him get back to the talking points unless he resolved the issue, so he took it head-on, not backing down. It gives us a chance to see Romney thinking on his feet, and being articulate, not just drawing on a catalog of sound bites. It was refreshing.

So what made Romney get off his robotic message tricycle? Was it just the fact that the interviewer was an irritating Skousenite? (He's got to be the only non-Mormon Skousenite out there.) That might have had something to do with it. But it seems more likely to me that Romney was more personally engaged because he had more personally (as opposed to politically) at stake. Let me explain: when people attack Romney for being inconsistent or for changing his mind, (aka "flip-flopping") he has political clout to lose. But when a non-Mormon with a mistaken understanding of the church's position on abortion accuses Romney of having violated that position, he attacks Romney's personal religious commitment and also, his mis-characterization of the policy falsely represents the church. Therefore, Romney's church and his faith, two things closer to his heart than his politics (hopefully) are attacked. This is why Romney says "I don't like coming on the air to have you go after me and my church."

So it's an irony worthy of Greek tragedy that Romney, trying to win the Republican nomination, is at his best when defending a the moderate position of the church against the more right-wing fringe of the party. I say its ironic because those are the people he needs to play to if he's going to have a prayer at getting the nomination. This is not because republicans as a whole are extremists, but because, unfortunately, the extremists turn out to vote in the primaries in larger numbers and exert more influence on the nomination process.

Some politicians cannot think off message. Romney demonstrates that he can. It's a rare talent; and he ought to show that off by responding more directly and being more honest and passionate. It was one of a few a smart moves his campaign has made (you can count them on one hand) to release the video. Most Americans, I think, will respond better to this Romney than campaign trail Romney. The only question is whether the right-wing party hacks in St. Paul this year will think like most Americans.

Ever notice that Romney ryhmes with OMNI?

And by OMNI I mean spanish UFO's, not Book of Mormon prophets or defunct provo dance clubs.

This rich guy newspaper that apparently can't afford to pay for real photos and instead uses old-timey drawings ran a pretty good story on Mitt Romney.

Honestly, I'm getting a little tired of the Romney-Mormonism discussion. How many ways can we say "Kennedy already settled the issue, religion doesn't matter"? And how many ways can we say "Mormons are a wierd, scary, quaint, and ridiculous cult"? It pretty much boils down to those two sides.

But it got me thinking. What kind of effect would a Romney nomination have on the Republican party? What kind of effect would a Romney victory have on the United States. What kind of effect would both have on the church?

I.
My view is that a Romney nomination would bring a fantastic change to the Republican party. It would show that the majority of Republicans are not paranoid anti-science fundamentalists, but decent people who hold conservative values but are reasonable and willing to compromise. It would re-enthrone religious tolerance as a conservative virtue. It would have the effect of banishing the extreme evangelicals (not most evangelicals, just the extreme ones) to the outer wings of the party. This would be a much better Republican party.

II.
On the other hand, I have my doubts about Romney. He seems very willing to shift his views depending on the audience and the race. He is too willing, in my opinion, to embrace people like Ann Coulter, and to identify with them. But he is bright, he is competent, and in the past he has demonstrated the ability to see both sides and be moderate. I have also heard by hearsay from people who know Romney personally, that he is not nearly as right-wing as he is now appearing to be. One man in particular said that he had no idea why Romney was acting this way. I know its a campaign strategy, but it smacks of dishonesty. Romney's support for Bush's foreign policy decisions is probably the thing that mystifies me the most. I would have a difficult time voting for anyone who supports the recent accretion of executive power and wants to "double Guantanamo." Bottom line: I think the old Romney, the one that ran against Teddy Kennedy, or even the one that ran for Governor of Mass. would be a pretty decent president. The new Romney worries me. I suspect that an elected Romney might shed the new Romney, but I'm not sure I'd want to bet on it.

III.
A Romney nomination would have a mixed impact on the Church. On the one hand, it would signal that the church is more acceptable to Republicans as a group. This could also mean that traditionally very conservative religious groups may soften up on their anti-mormon bent. Or they might just leave the Republican party. The point is, it would force a choice: stop hating Mormons so much, or give up your political clout. Either option would be good, either for the church or for the GOP. On the other hand, a Romney nomination may strengthen the already too-strong tie between Mormons (note: not the Church) and Republicans and embolden and seemingly legitimize Mormons who believe that GOP stands for God's Own Party. These folks are rare, but there's usually one or two in every ward who think that the UN is the Gadianton Robbers, that the civil rights movement was an attempted Communist takeover, that the First Presidency and all the Apostles are closet republicans, that the church's political neutrality is only a PR front, and/or that the temple recommend interview is designed to ferret out liberals. A Romney nomination might add fuel to their fire. On the other hand, this very possibility might prompt the institutional church to emphasize neutrality even more, and could clarify it for many.

IV.
A Romney presidency would, in my opinion have terrible effects on the international church. It's no secret that the U.S. is not so well liked in the world these days. If President Romney did indeed continue to push Bush's foreign policy ideals, these horrible ideas would be connected in the minds of many with the church. Not such a good missionary tool. I also wonder about even the physical safety of missionaries in places like Latin America if the world at large began to see U.S. foreign policy as Mormon-inspired in some way. I don't think it would be entirely disastrous, or that it would kill the missionary program. After all, no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. But it would be a significant and substantial challenge for the church.

What it all comes down to for me is that I want Romney to get the nomination. But I don't want him to win unless perhaps Clinton is the alternative.

In 1844, the democrats were split...

Bjorn recently left a comment on one of my old posts about Mitt Romney reminding us that "Romney wasn't the only Mormon candidate for president" and including an excerpt on Joseph Smith's political platform. (You can read Joseph Smith's platform unabridged, here. It is titled "Views on the Powers and Policy of the Government of the U.S.) Indeed Bjorn is right. Most recently, Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch (taking some time off from his bizarre music career, apparently) made an embarrassingly short-lived bid for president in 2000. Before that, Romney's own father put himself in the race for the republican nomination in 1968. A strong supporter of civil rights, Romney was a moderate republican, and as such was a bit of a dying breed. The general consensus is that his strong anti-war stance cost him the nomination. A Romney nomination (in 1964, that is) would have raised interesting constitutional questions because Romney was a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born to U.S. citizens living in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico. The fact that he was born outside of the U.S., some argued, made him a U.S. citizen, but not a "natural born citizen" as the constitution requires.

The excerpt Bjorn included comes from 1902 book written by William Linn called "The Story of the Mormons, From the Date of their Origin to the Year 1902. Though I have seen Linn's name mentioned in other Mormon history texts, I am unfamiliar with him and his work. Just cursorily skimming his preface I saw what seemed like a fairly unabashed anti-Mormon agenda with a moderate dose of sarcasm. But having not read the book, I am probably unqualified to make a an informed judgment. (You can read it, among other places, here.) My knowledge of Joseph Smith's candidacy comes mostly from Richard Bushman's and Donna Hill's work. Linn's final assessment of Joseph Smith's candidacy (in the part that Bjorn excerpted anyway) is that "there was nothing modest about Mormon political ambition."

It is this final comment that interests me. In some ways, he's absolutely right. Joseph Smith did have a vast amount of political clout in local politics and was a considerable force in state politics as well. While he always preserved the forms and the procedures of democracy, his concurrent positions in political and ecclesiastical leadership blurred the line for many people. The Nauvoo charter gave the city government considerable (though not unheard-of) independence from state government. Nauvoo itself was bigger than Chicago in its heyday. Fears of a Mormon bloc vote and the substantial political power of the Mormon community (along with dislike of the fact that most Mormons opposed slavery) were in large part what fueled anti-Mormon sentiment and politics years before in Missouri.

But on the other hand, Linn's comment makes it seem like Joseph Smith was not just a political force to be reckoned with, but that he was delusionally ambitious as well, which I'm not sure is accurate. It is true that when Joseph declared his candidacy, the whole church got involved. Missionaries became campaign canvassers, church papers took up the call, and amid the frenzy of hyperbole that characterized 19th-century politics, many Mormons probably believed that their prophet would actually win. Joseph himself postured and strutted in earnest like any candidate worth his salt. But did he actually think he had a chance of winning?

I don't think he did. That would have been so quixotic as to make Ralph Nader a paragon of pragmatism by comparison. Bare political ambition is too simplistic a motive. Early in the election, Joseph wrote each of the candidates then running asking what would be his policy toward the saints. The candidates essentially dismissed the question. Most notably, John Calhoun and Martin Van Buren cited concerns of federalism and state sovereignty to say that the "Mormon question" did not fall under federal jurisdiction. Joseph thought it was unreasonable that the President could call out the militia to suppress an insurrection at any time, but not to protect the lives and property of the citizens of a state unless requested by the governor. Unsatisfied, Joseph ran for president not because he expected to win, but to deprive unworthy candidates of the Mormon vote.

That's my take on it anyway. What do you think? Why did Joseph Smith run for president in 1844?

Who's the one?

Look at this picture. I can't get the image, so you'll just have to click the link.

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean, but here are a few possibilities:
1. Mitt Romney is creating a clone army of himself, resistance is useless.
2. Some kind of weird Romney triumvirate is running for president.
3. The three identical Romneys juxtaposed with the phrase "he's the one" (emphasis added) is a kind of subliminal reference to the trinity, to make evangelicals feel better about voting for a Mormon.

But whatever it means, Romney is most definitely not "the one." As we all know, Nixon's the one.

A good reminder

The SLTrib's Bergera gives us all a reminder of a few things that will probably be ignored over the coming year.

Is the new Mitt Romney more conservative than his own church?

That's what this Boston Globe article from December argues. The church links to the article on its own "newsroom" website. While that does not mean endorsement, it probably does mean that the church considers the article to be credible. Bennet, the author of the piece, makes the point among other things that both the current ardent pro-life Romney and the 1994 pro-choice Romney have a welcome place within the church, and that on the issue of stem-cell research, Romney's vehement opposition has placed him outside the mainstream of church members. The article actually does a very decent job of explaining the church's political neutrality and the church policies and doctrines that inform Mormon political opinions. It's worth a read.

That Krazy Kucinich

This is not a surprise. Dennis Kucinich, that diminutive Ohioan with a penchant for polka has filed articles of impeachment against the Vice President. As previous posts have probably made clear, I'm no fan of Cheney, but impeachment is a bit over the top. I will say this, however, Kucinich, or rather the interns in his office, lay out a pretty persuasive case, not persuasive that Cheney ought to be impeached, but persuasive that he's been dishonest and has not served our country well. Click here to read the articles of impeachment.

Citizen Cheney Part Deux, or, Dick Back in Black

Yesterday, envested in the black robes of a false priesthood, Richard Bruce Cheney received an honorary degree in public service from BYU and served as keynote speaker for the commencement exercises.

Predictably, he was welcomed enthusiastically by most of BYU (there was another protest and an "alternative commencement" but the organizers blew all their credibility when they included Ralph Nader). For me, the two most disappointing moments were 1) when the students applauded louder when Cheney's name was mentioned than when President Hinckley's name was mentioned seconds earlier, and 2) when the student giving the invocation thanked God for Cheney's presence and asked heaven's blessings first on Cheney and then only later did the same for President Hinckley. We thank the O God for a Vice President? Seems a little off to me. Maybe this student had Luke 6:28 in mind---perhaps the Vice President has not cursed the Mormons, but he sure did (despitefully?) use us for political gain.

I was wrong about one thing: I predicted that Cheney would use the commencement as a political forum. His speech was not overtly political. He mentioned politics only in passing. It was a short, relatively bland speech. There are a few possible explanations: 1) Cheney realizes that the administration is beyond recuperation and a political speech would have been in vain. 2) Cheney realizes that his audience is already in the bag and a political speech wouldn't accomplish anything that isn't already accomplished with Utahns. 3) The First Presidency, when they accepted Cheney's self-invitation to speak, explained the purpose of commencement and asked him to leave politics off campus. 4) Cheney himself realized that a political commencement speech was inappropriate. 5) Cheney knew that his purpose (to give the impression of church approval) was already accomplished by the fact that he got to be commencement speaker and he also knows that most people ignore commencement anyway so he didn't bother putting much effort into it.

The speech itself was not an awful speech. It was not a very good speech either. Very mediocre. One moment of perhaps unintentional honesty gave me a chuckle with Cheney saying "my entire political career has been an unplanned enterprise." Well, isn't that what we've been saying about the invasion of Iraq?

I know it's a tradition to give honorary degrees to speakers, but I was still disappointed that Cheney received a degree in public service. Especially since Pres. Samuelson kept emphasizing that this is the highest honor that BYU can give, and that it is only given to people who have demonstrated outstanding service in some way. Being VP is an accomplishment, but accomplishment and service are not the same thing; it is debatable at best that Cheney has done any public service. Pres. Samuelson didn't even give any examples of his alleged service, he just gave a run-down of his political career. Somehow, I feel, viscerally, even though I know that it is logically absurd, that my own degree is somehow sullied or cheapened. I'm just glad I graduated last year. It smarts, but it will fade.

You can still watch commencement here.

A friend's blog

NT, a friend and classmate, is writing political commentary over at The New Right. NT and I disagree on almost everything politically, agree on almost everything socially, and are pretty much half and half on economic policy questions. If you need some more conservative fire-eating in your life, check it out.

Utah County and the magic world view

This is pretty unbelievable. Utah County Republican believes that Satan is behind illegal immigration and offers a proposal at the County GOP convention to formally oppose Satan's plan to destroy the United States through illegal immigration and set up his New World Order.

I just wonder if this means that carne asada is smoked over the fires of hell.

Thanks to Nick over at Salsa Night.

Citizen Cheney, or, Wah! Err! Um! Wah!

Yes, the Cheney-The Penguin comparisons have grown so commonplace as to almost be tiresome. On the other hand, perhaps the longevity of the comparison is an indication of the fact that it rings so true. If its a tiresome joke, its only because it's so easy. In a Penguin look-alike contest, Cheney would probably beat out FDR even sans cigarette holder. But it is a pretty close race:

As many of you are aware, Old Dick himself will be speaking at commencement at Brigham Young University this Thursday at 4:00 PM Mountain Time. You can watch it here by clicking on "tune in now". After all that's been said about Cheney at BYU, Eric Snider's piece is the most insightful.

My take on it: BYU's decision accept Cheney's self-invite to speak isn't the end of civilization as we know it, but it probably was ill-advised. Were BYU an average run-of-the-mill independent private school, there wouldn't really be anything wrong with it beyond the bare fact that Cheney is unpopular and annoying. But BYU is not an average private school; it is the flagship educational institution of a major religious organization with a declared commitment to political neutrality. I don't think BYU in the abstract should refrain from inviting political officials, even controversial ones, to speak on campus. But the question cannot be considered in the abstract.

1. This is not just a speech, this is commencement. Commencement ought to be apolitical. Anyone who thinks that Cheney will not use commencement as a political platform is fooling himself.

2. Commencement gives the impression that the University endorses the speaker. Speaking at a forum is speaking to the University community, but speaking at commencement is in most people's minds, speaking to the graduates on behalf of the University.

3. This comes at a time when only one other campus has allowed Cheney to speak at commencement, and when the Administration's approval ratings are beyond abysmal. In this environment, accepting Cheney's self-invite could easily be construed, right or wrong, as some kind of implicit endorsement.

4. BYU, despite its efforts to be even-handed, has a pattern of inviting more conservative speakers to campus. Inviting Cheney only reinforces this pattern and in doing so, undermines the Church's effort to be politically neutral.

It has been suggested that inviting Tom Lantos to speak a few years ago balances inviting Cheney. The comparison is flawed for several reasons. First, Lantos' wife is a Mormon; it is not unusual that BYU would invite someone with ties to the LDS community, regardless of politics. (The same is true about Harry Reid, who spoke at BYU Law commencement a few years ago). Second, Lantos himself is a holocaust survivor. Someone with that kind of experience is a good speaker to have regardless of politics. Third, Lantos is only one of hundreds of members of Congress. Cheney, on the other hand, is the number two of a co-equal branch of government. While it is true that democrats have spoken on campus, to get one comparable to Cheney in national profile and party stature you have to go all the way back to Bobby Kennedy's speech at the Smith Fieldhouse in 1968; and he didn't even speak at commencement. (On the other hand, that was during the Wilkinson years; the fact that he even got on campus is kind of a big deal).

I think part of the issue here is that the BYU administration sees the world through Provo-colored lenses. In that worldview, there's nothing partisan or that even appears partisan about BYU's choice of speakers. But BYU is not a regional school anymore, it is a national school, and it represents an international church. From a national or international perspective, BYU's choice of speakers tends to lean to the right.

Let me be clear: I don't think BYU or any other school has a legal or an ethical obligation per se to be even-handed in its speakers. But if the First Presidency is going to continue to insist on partisan neutrality, any appearance of a lack of neutrality in BYU is damaging. This is even more so now that media attention is shifting towards Mormons for a variety of reasons (Romney, the PBS documentary, the Mountain Meadows Massacre movie, Kyle Sampson, etc.).

However, the fact that BYU has invited Cheney to speak at commencement and the backlash against that decision have put the administration on their toes. This could mean that BYU will make a greater effort to invite political figures from both sides. At least one of my old profs has said that he will donate nothing to the Alumni organization until BYU invites the anti-Cheney to campus.

Further Reading:
Provo Daily Herald: "Opponents Organize Against Cheney Visit"
CNN.com: "Students peacefully protest Cheney's upcoming appearance at BYU"
A blog with pictures of the April 4th demonstration

Abortion?(!)

In Gonzales v. Carhart, (click here for full-text of the opinion) the Supreme Court yesterday upheld a nationwide ban on certain types of abortions.

This kind of throws a wrench into the semester of jurisprudence my Con Law prof. has been laboring to construct since Christmas.

The law at issue passed both the Senate and the House in 2003 by a fairly large margin. It bans a specific (and fairly gruesome) abortion procedure. Today's decision is not a surprise, especially given the fact that the court's makeup has shifted a bit to the right since the last time an abortion ban was considered. The controversial aspect of the decision, though, is that it contains no exception to preserve the health of a mother. I does contain a life exception, but no health exception.

Is this decision significant? Not really. As a symbol, perhaps, but not in any real practical way. The radical right will trumpet it from the rooftops as a victory over godless secularism. The radical left will call it the downfall of civilization as we know it. In reality, over 90% of all abortions performed don't even come close to using this procedure. In those cases that do use it, other abortion procedures are readily available that are not outlawed. But regardless, get ready for the demagoguery from both ends of the spectrum. It's only going to get louder.