So an audience, surely strong on traditional family values and leaning toward conservative Christianity, resoundingly cheered a thrice married, twice divorced, admitted adulterer. Gingrich won the primary a couple of days later, decisively defeating Mitt Romney, whom the pundits, for weeks, had projected the likely winner.
In vivid contrast, Romney represents family values lived: a faithful husband in a long marriage to a high school sweetheart, a dedicated father, and a man of faith long-dedicated as lay-clergy and local leader to his birth church to which he tithes. And there's the rub. Romney is a Mormon.
In the wake of the South Carolina primary, a negative response to Romney's Mormon identity is being questioned. The consensus concludes, it was less of an issue for South Carolina's Evangelicals than it was four years ago; but such a view doesn't dismiss it altogether as an issue.
The Protestant right and Catholics, too, don't find Mormonism to be Christian, despite Mormon contentions that they are.
There's an unspoken religious litmus test for political candidates that relates to belief in God--the God of the Jewish Christian tradition, preferably a conservative Christian take on that God. (It's been proven by reputable polls that the most reviled minority in America are atheists.) For most Americans, Mormonism stands outside the Christian pale.
The pundits are beginning to say that Romney must address his staunch Mormon identity, that it's the elephant in the room of his crumbling campaign. It's not easy to pin down why Mitt Romney doesn't excite popular enthusiasm. On appearance, except for his Mormonism, he should. He's what used to be called "four square."
So, a socially conservative audience, huzzahed a morally suspect Newt Gingrich when challenged on his character/behavior; and a conservative electorate made him the anti-Romney of the week.
Religion matters.
Posts
16 comments:
Fallen then redeemed an American archtype. One can easily overcome that fall and bounce back, although Newt's speed turning adultry to a plus a bit of a schock.
Evasive on your tax returns a far bigger problem. It wasn't Romney's Mormonism at work here, but his discomfort talking about his wealth and taxes.
Conservatives of all stripes looking for a candidate who will take the fight to Obama. Newt showed he could; Mitt looked mushy.
Bill Baar: Now here's telling exit poll info:
Do Republican voters in the South have a problem with Mormonism? South Carolina exit polling provides a hint:
Exit polls show that 43 percent of voters who said that the candidates' religious beliefs mattered "a great deal" went for Gingrich. Only 9 percent went for Romney — a lower percentage than he netted overall, where he is running in second. In contrast, of voters who said the religious beliefs of candidates didn't matter to them at all, Romney won 42 percent.
If a SC voter had a problem with Mormonism, Romney wasn't going to be their candidate. But that was a small bunch.
This electoin saw 157k more GOP voters than 2008 and mostly from the northern part of SC and the foothills.
That's Newt reshaping the GOP electorate bringing in the Jacksonians plenty angry at Obama and looking for a guy who takes the battle to him with a real edge.
They're looking for a fighter and whether that fighter an adulterer or a Mormon of no consequences.
It just happened in this election the fighter was an adulterer. The Mormon wasn't.
PS Don't forget Newt's a convert to Catholicisim. This is the first time ever a GOP primary has never had a mainline Protestant in the bunch. Two Mormons, two Catholics, and the rest Evangelicals of one sort or another... Nary a Methodist or Prysbeterian among them.
Here's a parallel op-ed piece, contending that the Evangelicals' push back on Romney is about competition for converts.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/why-evangelicals-dont-like-mormons/?hp
I second Bill Baar's position. I liken it to the position liberals (and a lot of conservatives, hence the rise of the tea party) took with Bush II, ANYONE but Bush! Today it's ANYONE but Obama. And despite Gingrich's baggage, he seems to be the only one capable of taking the ideological fight to Obama and possibly winning. I think "family values" is taking a back seat to ideological values. I also think, that over the last generation, the perception of family values has changed. Marital infidelity isn't as demonized as it was two or three generations ago (e.g Bill Clinton) and divorce is common place now. I, for one, am more worried about big government and it's slow slide to socialism over the last half century. I see how America thrived and strengthened with the Darwinian concept of natural selection in its first century and a half. I see how socialism to the extreme (communism) failed over the last fifty years or has slowly incorporated aspects of freedom and capitalism to survive (i.e China).
The ideological differences have been more profound these last two election cycles. Should American citizens become even more of a socialist democracy, or should American citizens become less dependant on their government? On one side, America is rich enough to take care of its less fortunate. On the other side, how did America become so rich and should America abandon those principles that brought it such prosperity?
The distasteful byproduct of capitalism is failure. I strongly feel that when the people of a nation start believing failure should be avoided rather than appreciated as a learning experience, socialism is the result (those that succeed should render to those that fail). Eventually, those that fail figure it out, why try harder? Eventually, those that succeed figure it out, why try harder?
So… Ed, in contrast to your belief that religion is a factor, I believe religion is the furthest from the minds of the electorate in general and furthest from the minds of republicans in particular. I believe political ideology trumps religion this time. I think this might account for the confusion some liberals (and even the republican establishment) have over the rise of Gingrich.
Sincerely,
Jay
Jay, Coming out of SC there is a statistical correlation between strong religious belief and voting for anyone but Romney. (Only 9 per cent for Romney.) I see that that as a matter of religion, rather than ideology.
Your correlation's right Ed, but your inference that anti-Mormonism explains the correlation, rather than lets say, abortion for example; is shakey.
Look at the three exit polling questions on abortion. Romney's perceived wobbliness on abortion a far better predictor of how Evangelicals voted than anti-Mormonism.
I realize the context of this blog is to relate religion to life experiences, (including politics) but in this particular debate I do feel the religious right (especially the republican version) is more concerned with ideology. Polls, like statistics, can be perceived or “spun” in different ways. I presume we can all agree with that. I just have to state that, from what I’ve seen and read, this election cycle is more about political doctrine than about religious doctrine. Ed, although I can appreciate your insights into the effects of Mormonism or Catholicism et al. on this republican feud, I still think those effects are minimal a best. No disrespect, that’s just how I see it.
Sincerely,
Jay
BB & JH: check out Frank Rich's commentary reprinted in Huffington Post: "His campaign is intent on enforcing the redaction of his religion, not least, one imagines, because a Gallup poll found that 22 percent in both parties say they would not vote for a Mormon for president."
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/mitt-romney-2012-2/index2.html
A little redaction on Religion not such a bad thing in my opinion. I'm with Hitch in the Rich column, but most of the time it's giving me a break please on religion.
I know plenty of religous right activists here in Chicago. Romney's Mormonism simply not an issue. The perception he's wobbly on abortion sure is an issue though with them.
The Tea Party here in Illinois has made a big point out of staying out of Foreign Affairs, and Socisl Issues. Joe Walsh, our TP leader and Congressman, just announced the TP will ralley around Romney if he becomes the guy. It's that important to vote out Obama.
I fully expect the Religous Right to do the same. I've seen nothing to indicate they'd sit it out over Romney's Mormonism.
Yeah, but Ed, that poll shows 76% WOULD vote for the person even if they were Mormon. That’s more than 3 out of every 4 people.
More to the point that Romney’s religion is not very significant, those numbers have not changed since 1967. Contrast that with the same polling for blacks, Catholics, women, or Jews, all of which have changed drastically over the decades. I find that remarkable since the Mormon religion has only been politically “in the news” nationally since Romney has been running. I interpret that to indicate that the 22% figure in the polling is rather insignificant since it was roughly the same even before a Mormon was running for president.
To further push the point, the 22% is an average of all Americans. Republicans are only 18%, but Democrats are 27%, does that mean Democrats are more religiously bigoted? Actually I interpret that to mean Democrats are more ideologically anti-Republican. Additionally, in the same poll, gay, lesbian, and atheist percentages are far more than the Mormon number. It seems to me those are more ideological ideas than religious beliefs (Unless, of course, atheism can be considered a religion. Then it depends on ones definition of religion, but I digress…)
Mr. Rich’s piece is basically an anti-Romney diatribe with a few quotes and facts thrown in to support his opinion. As far as his contention that Romney is a veritable “ghost” with little really known about his true politics, I whole-heartedly agree. As far as Rich’s contention that Romney’s religion is a detriment to his presidential aspirations, I don’t see the facts bearing that out. If perchance Romney is not the Republican nominee, I think the former will be the reason, not the later.
Sincerely,
Jay
Jay, I think that Liberals and Democrats take issue with Romney's religion--the Hitchen's POV. A previous extended NYTimes article and the cited Rich article give evidence of it. The left's nimus is different from the religious rights' animus.
UU's were in full anti-Mormon mode during the California Prop 8 vote. We go way back with it too http://pfarrerstreccius.blogspot.com/2008/11/unitarian-women-petition-congress-to.html
PS Ed, feel free to join me at a Chiago Tea Party meeting (there's one tonight at Blackie's in the South Loop).
You'll find Romney's Mormonism of little issue. It's his perceived Liberalism and RomneyCare that galls.
I happen to like the guy though.
I thought the discussion was about the Republicans and Romney's religion. Liberals and Democrats won't vote for Romney regardless of his religion(likewise, Conservatives and Republicans won't vote for Obama regardless of his religion). I maintain that ideology is more important to Republicans, and the religious right, than his Mormonism during this election cycle.
Sincerely,
Jay
Post a Comment