One of the more respected political commentators, Robert Novak, writes that evangelicals have privately told him that millions of their followers will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, no matter what, even if it means the election of Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE: RICHARD LAND OF THE SOUTH BAPTIST CONVENTION SAID THE FOLLOWING IN A RECENT SEMINAR:
On whether Southern Baptists would vote for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, for president: “If their choice is between a social conservative and a non-social conservative, most of them will vote for a Mormon social conservative, because they’re more concerned about where they stand on the issues and their worldview than they are their personal faith. And I think it’s the way it should be.â€
Here’s the key excerpt:
Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that’s just too bad. The Evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.
Romney is well aware that an unconstitutional religious test is being applied to him, but he may be seriously minimizing the problem’s scope as limited to relatively few fanatics. He feels the vast majority of conservative voters worried about his faith will flinch at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But such a rational approach is not likely to head off a highly emotional collision of religious faith and religious bias with American politics.
Novak issues a challenge for Romney to take the issue public and point out that such religious tests are un-American and unconstitutional.
My prediction is that Romney will increasingly be seen as the most viable Republican candidate for many Republicans who are not part of the conservative evangelical base. The Church will be dragged directly into the debate with even ruder discussions of garments, “secret” temple ceremonies, polygamy and on and on.
But, as I’ve posted before, I tend to be an optimist. I think the Truth will out and that most Americans will reject the bigotry of the anti-Mormons. Most Americans will think of the people they know who are members and realize they are generally good, hard-working people who happen to have slightly different religious beliefs than they do.
Be sure to read the article on Novak’s take on some Republicans’ attitudes toward the Book of Mormon.
Also, please visit the always insightful Guy Murray on Bloggernacle Times, who also has a post on this issue.
You must not know the same Evangelical community that I know. (Please also see the last part of my entry #97 in the gay marriage string below.) Novak is absolutely right. While the right-wing political machine happily seeks Mormon support on various social causes, the underlying Evangelical disdain of Mormons remains. I don’t think the average member understands just how deep this theological animosity runs. The Evangelical/Fundamentalist base would probably sooner vote for a gay Republican than a Mormon one, and that speaks volumes. Time will tell, though. Romney should still run because he’s a good man and would be a fantastic President.
I’ve posted on this before, but when I was going through my conversion I tried out a few different churches. Some of my co-workers were very strong evangelicals, and I was involved in some social groups where I got to know literally hundreds of different types of religious people, most of them Baptists or Assembly of God types. They showed true Christian charity and love. They encouraged my religious search and said that they believed Mormons loved Jesus just as much as they did. They were happy when I got baptized and never had a bad thing to say about the Church.
I remain very optimistic about the basic goodness of people. Yes, there are many evangelical leaders who disdain Mormons. But I still believe the vast majority are not bigots and will end up supporting Romney regardless of his religious affiliation.
Evangelical “Christians” are practically the most biased, prejudiced, back-stabbing, hypocritical group on the planet. It’s unfortunate, because Romney is very qualified to take the reigns of the top executive position and turn our economy around. I don’t say that because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I say that because experience shows.
Evangelical “Christians” will never be able to overcome their hatred towards mormons (or any other group who does not see things just their way). If social mores weren’t against mob violence these days, I am certain that these fine “christians” would be out tarring and feathering, pillaging, and ravishing women “in the name of Christ” to rid the world of the hated Mormons. Certainly the inspired constitutional mandates against religious tests won’t matter at all to these hatred-blind “followers of Christ”.
Sorry if I sound jaded- I grew up in the “bible belt” and have personally experienced the “Christlike love” emanating from these folks. That they would elect Clinton over Romney is sad but true, and it’s an understatement. They would probably lynch Romney if society allowed it.
But Geoff, I am glad that you believe in the basic goodness of people. I tend to see things the other way- that people are generally rotten unless they actively try to “put off the natural man.”
I think Mormon also agrees with me on this one:
Helaman 12:1-6.
Basically, people suck. Of course, in their potential to become as God there is great worth, and that is worth every effort on our parts to hone.
And evangelicals also have great worth, but their worth in the sight of God will not help them to overcome their prejudices to vote for a good man who happens to be LDS.
The idea that it is “unconstitutional” for individual voters to apply a religious test is preposterous.
Can I just issue a caution against generalizing? There are probably 60-70 million evangelicals in this country. I just don’t feel that posts like Jordan’s #3 take into account the wide variety of viewpoints within the evangelical community. Many evangelicals are Jimmy Carter Democrats, a large percentage are black (perhaps 20-30 percent), and another large group are Hispanic (perhaps 5-10 percent). So, the image of the toothless cracker who mindlessly follows Jerry Falwell and is anxious to lynch people is simply not accurate. And, for the record, I have felt “Christ-like love” from evangelicals of all political persuasions and race.
I remember this issue arising when Ed Enochs was around and commenting on this same blog. He was constantly telling us how he loved us “in Christ” but when it got down to brass tacks and the possibility of voting for a Mormon conservative arose, that constantly expressed deep love for us suddenly vanished. You can read a few of his lengthy and revealing comments here and here. I am still hoping that there are many evangelicals who think differently.
Wow I agree with Mikewenho!!!
Romney will go down in the primaries cause the evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon.
In my area of the Bible Belt there is lots of Anti-LDS feelings. 3 times a year the huge local megachurch has an anti Mormon message on the sign out front. They hate the fact that there are 4 LDS chapels with 9 wards within 15 minutes of their building. Some of the people in our subdivision will not let their kids play with all the LDS kids. Since there is an LDS family on every street and 2-4 in every class at the elementary school this must be hard to monitor.
I am trying hard to figure out who dislikes us more. Evangelicals or hard left allegedly tolerant secular types.
Wow, Jordan, your number 4 sure is pessimistic. Yes, we are all fallen. Yes, we are all quick to sin. But, as President Hinckley has repeatedly told us, we should be optimistic and try to show trust and love for all, especially those who have treated us badly in the past.
I am certainly willing to accept that there are lots of evangelical “christians” who don’t fit the stereotype. And all of the evangelical types I know (I know lots) are all very nice, good people… until the mormonism card comes out, and their demeanor often (not always) changes instantly. It is an amazing thing to watch how cold they get, and it makes me wonder if the other “christlike” behaviors they typically exhibit are not just a show.
At any rate, to stay on the topic of this post, I have no doubt that Romney will not be elected president, and that it will be because of his religion. If he were sacrificing babies or something, that would be one thing, but come on! I can’t think of anyone who would be a better, more efficient president (and he would probably do it for FREE!). He has such a good business head that he would really be able to take strides in improving the economy. How unfortunate that this will be all overlooked in the irrational hatred harbored against mormons in the South.
For those of you who would like a more complete look at the makeup of different religious affiliations, I would urge you to read the 2001 religious self-affiliation survey. Please, please, please avoid the generalizations about our evangelical brothers and sisters — insulting these people and generalizing about them cannot improve the situation.
Geoff:
Point well-taken. I don’t mean to insult, just to speak from experience. And again, sorry I sound so jaded. I am jaded regarding this issue.
I still don’t think Romney has a chance at the presidency, and again, that is too bad. He is a good, moral man with a sound head and a large heart.
One of the more respected political commentators, Robert Novak
Would that be the same “respected” Robert Novak who outs CIA agents in his column?
LL, whether or not you or I respect him is another issue. He’s not my personal favorite either, but you have to admit he’s one of the more respected in the industry.
Would that be the same “respected” Robert Novak who outs CIA agents in his column?
Yeah, and the same one who’s show on CNN got canceled after Jon Stewart pointed out how deleterious an effect people like him have on our nation’s political discourse…
Ah politics. Ruining american minds one person at a time.
I find it highly likely that whoever wins the Republican primary nomination will be adding Romney on as the VP.
(I noticed this is a bit long so I will bold the important parts if you dont want to read it all)
Reagan often said that he trusted in the good sense of the American people, and part of me wants to do so now.
We should not make the mistake, like McCain seemed to do in the 2000 elections, that Evangelicals are all wooly lambs that follow after certian hateful shepherds (McCain’s soultion was to attack the shepherds, which utimately backfired). This part of me wants to belive that evangelicals will atleast give Romney a fair hearing, even with their reservations about his Mormonism. No doubt some will. This part of me wants to belive that the power of evangelical leaders is that of delivery of information, not the power of command.
This part of me also wants to belive that evanglicals are like what some invison Muslems are, a lound, hatefilled minority trumps the wispering majority or more moderate types. Growing up in the Bible belt also I have had a wide array of experences with evangelicals, from extremely negative to positive. My hope is this wispering majority will win out in this case.
The other part of me feels that Romney wont be able to even get out of the box, to effectively share his ideas, before he is shut down by the hate machine. I know an attempt at this will happen.
What intrests me is how this will play out in the Party itself. Many of the small government Republican commentatiors, including some Evanglical ones, have written or spoken about this. That they take the time to do this shows Romney’s appeal to the Small government wing of the party and the one that feels most shortchanged by the current administration, and to his credit (in my opinion) Romney sounds quite Reaganesque when he speaks (Lord knows he is a more effective communicator that W, but then again that is not saying much). In otherwords, the Small goverment types want a strong canidate and Romney is one canidate who fits the bill.
Here enters the other main wing of the party, religous conservatives (people who vote mainly on social/moral cuses and reasons other than issues of government and there is some overlap with the small government wing), consiting mainly of Evangelicals and other Conservative protestants, Conservative Cathlocs and a good part of Moromons. Even if the Evnglicals move as a block torwards hate, I doubt other protestants and espcially Catholics will because Romney is pretty much on their page (I can just imagine the Cathloc reaction, “We put up with you don’t we?”).
All in all, it could cause a big split in the GOP or it coud lessen the Evanglical’s power in the party. It could tear the party apart when both sides reconcider the allance they struck since Reagan. Overall I hope it will help the party because there are issues the GOP needs to sort out in a post-Bush time.
Thanks Geoff for standing up for our evangelical brothers and sisters.
I think a number of prominent evangelical leaders have indicated they could support Romney (I believe Jerry Falwell is one).
I don’t think evangelicals individually have personal animosity towards Latter-day Saints. My experiences with individual evangelicals, including evangelicals who are former LDS, have almost always been positive.
But I think many evangelicals have real reservations and concerns about our teachings, which would carry over in their evaluation of an LDS candidate for national office. It would be sort of like the reservations some of us might hold if a prominent candidate were members of the Community of Christ or FLDS.
Since first being elected to Congress in 1992, LDS Rep. Ernest Istook has repeatedly won re-election with two-thirds of the vote in an Oklahoma congressional district where 50% of voters are Evangelicals.
re: 8
My vote is that the Evangelicals dislike you more. I, however, find you quite engaging and charitable.
There is no Article of Faith #11 in the Evangelical mindset. Sure, they give lip service to freedom of religion, but at heart the concept is not there. It’s as if “I am….” in John 14:6 is replaced with “We are…” (“We” meaning the Evangelical/Fundamentalist community.)
Well, I’m a native New Yorker transplanted to the bible belt south. The LDS church is doing very well here. We have enough members for “real” wards, unlike the north east. My county has two stakes! I get a lot of questions being a Mormon, but haven’t seen much bigotry, and when I do, I’m not bashful on calling them on it to their face (“sounds like your church is morphing into a hate group, you really should check out mine”). Missionary work is far easier here than in the north east too. Maybe the anti-Mormon bigots are giving us free advertising and we should be counting our blessings?
Mitt will be called off to be mission president in Laos to start in July of ’07. Sorry, there will be no mormon debate in 2008.
Quite off-topic, but no. Valerie Plame was not a CIA agent, was not a covert operative at the time her name went public, Novak did not out her.
Ed (#5):
You are of course quite right, and I suspect Novak knows this too. I think he uses the word “unconstitutional” for rhetorical effect, not actually meaning that it violates the constitution.
MikeInWeHo (#1):
The Evangelicals must love you, Mike–a twofer! The GOP should nominate you and so we can watch Falwell’s head explode.
nathan –
If that happens, I’ll be so jealous. I SO want to go to Laos myself. Are they opening a mission there?
If anyone knows of any job openings in Laos, let me know!
😉
Romney truly is dreaming in technicolor if he thinks he stands a chance in the primaries. He’ll make a respectable showing in NH (won’t win–maybe 2nd) but it’s all downhill from there for him.
I would do anything in my power to make Falwell’s head explode, maybe even join the Republicans. I’ve known plenty of gay Republicans over the years. Such an interesting crowd, and there are lots of them. They look exactly (and I mean exactly) like LDS guys, in their white shirts and ties. The psychological meaning of that is beyond the scope of my training, however.
Part of me wants to point out that anyone who’d sacrifice their professed political, social, and economic interests on the altar of religious bigotry will get exactly the leadership they deserve.
The rest of me wants hard data on late 1950s polling on the question of “would you ever vote for a Catholic?” broken down by respondent religious affilication, and accompanied by a series of maps and charts depicting religious affiliation in the general populace by geographical area, and by votes in the electoral college. Is anyone else annoyed at the number of “opinions on religious groups” surveys that start just or well after the Kennedy assassination? No? Oh, well.
I agree that there is a lot of animosity between evangelicals and Mormons. But from a political standpoint I think Romney has a very good shot. If he does well in Iowa and if the west can combine and move up its primary (a real possibility at this point), then I think he can survive the South. The biggest problem will be the loss of donors as he does poorly through the south. But if he has enough momentum going into the south from a win or top showing in Iowa and the west and then can fund himself through the south he could survive until Michigan where he could easily pull out a win. If he survives to that point he becomes a real serious prospect and it will come down to him and probably McCain. Well, obviously a lot of “ifs” but a legitimate way to see Romney making it through the south at least.
Finally, a question for #23
“Quite off-topic, but no. Valerie Plame was not a CIA agent, was not a covert operative at the time her name went public, Novak did not out her.”
Do you have a source for such a broad statement?
Geoff,
I skimmed through that study that you provided a link to.
I guess I just missed the point. It didn’t really say anything that caught my attention too much. What key information were we supposed to be looking for in that document that pertains to this discussion?
Geoff, I can go along with you to a point. I know plenty of Baptists who are very good people, who show the charity you describe just by their nature.
That said, I lived across the street from the Raleigh North Carolina Temple (in Apex) during part of 1999 and 2000. During the open house in December 1999, there were of course, a few folks handing out “anti” literature. The group doing it was led by the Baptist church at the town crossroads (which the year before had built an addition to their building with more floorspace than the temple) and the majority of the literature was published by the Southern Baptist Convention. That Baptist church even took out an ad or two in one of the local weeklies, trying to make the argument that “Mormons are not Christian”.
I don’t think any of that did too much damage – handing out packets to cars leaving the parking lot probably did this group more harm than good – but the (institutional) Baptist intention was made very clear.
Sure, people might support Brother Romney (my distant cousin, BTW) in a general election. But considering that the way President Bush gained a foothold in the South six years ago by speaking at Bob Jones University (where Catholics and LDS cannot step foot on campus, let alone enroll), I have to seriously question how any Latter-day Saint could make it through the Republican primaries there.
Nonny Mouse (#15), I believe Novak lost his show when he went spastic and started swearing when the Palme affair was brought up by his “opponent” on the show. I do think John Stewart’s attack on Crossfire was fantastic, although according to the interview with his producer that was on NPR a couple weeks ago, it wasn’t intentional and he felt a little bad about it all. (Apparently the argument continued after the cameras went off as well)
John,
Here’s a recent quote by the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Richard Land. Among other topics (SSM), he told more than 30 reporters:
“– On whether Southern Baptists would vote for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, for president: “If their choice is between a social conservative and a non-social conservative, most of them will vote for a Mormon social conservative, because they’re more concerned about where they stand on the issues and their worldview than they are their personal faith. And I think it’s the way it should be.â€?
Based on my experience with a state-wide Marriage Coalition, the Evangelicals admire faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS).
Seth, perhaps you already knew a lot of that information, but I didn’t. For example, I had no idea there were such a large number of black Baptists or black Pentecostals. I had no idea that so many evangelicals describe themselves as Democrats or that so few Mormons (54 percent) describe themselves as Republican (I thought it would be 80-plus). I had no idea that so many evangelicals, Baptists, Penteocostals, Born Again, etc. were Hispanic (20 percent in one case).
My point is simply this: we tend to caricature people. It’s part of the human experience. Think Mormon and you think a clean-cut guy in a white shirt (or woman in a modest dress) who is from Utah and votes Republican. Obviously, in many cases that is true but those of us in the bloggernacle know that there are all kinds of other Mormons (one of my favorites is one of my brother’s friends who grows organic food and wears a ponytail to his butt when he goes to the temple — not your typical Mormon).
Similarly, we caricature evangelicals. We imagine them as Jerry Falwell clones from the South who just 50 years ago were beating up blacks and planning bombings and lynchings. Well, the reality is there are some evangelicals like that, but there are also lots of blacks, Hispanics, liberal Democrats, hippies and on and on. There are also a lot of very sincere, simply folk just trying to follow Jesus’ teaching and be good neighbors.
I’m not denying the negative experiences — I’m just saying that generalizing and caricatures are dangerous because we stereotype people, and that’s the first step toward not understanding them and not getting along.
You’re probably right Geoff.
But I would like to see the official leadership reflecting this diversity of thought and experience a little more than it currently is.
Just found this by the way. I find it intersting alot of people are writing on it.
I didn’t actually read through the thread, but here it goes anyways.
Is there any fundamental difference between a person not voting for a person because he’s Mormon and the person who does vote for his because he’s Mormon? I’m sure somebody can justify the position by claiming similar values or something along those lines, but I simply don’t think that that is really the motivation for many LDS who will vote for him.
Jeff G, It’ll be interesting to see how other answer that question. I’m enthusiastic about Romney because, in order, 1)I agree with him on most issues 2)I think he has a good chance of winning and 3)I know people who can attest to his honesty partly because they have known him as a stake president. I could not say that as much about Orrin Hatch, for example, or definitely not Harry Reid. If I lived in Nevada, would I vote for Harry Reid because he is a Mormon? Probably not (it would depend on the opponent), but I can’t say that any of my reasons 1-3 apply to Harry Reid. Would he get some “extra credit” for me based on his Church membership? Maybe, but the main issue for me is not Church membership but instead personal integrity and honesty. If Bill Clinton happened to be Mormon, he would never get my vote because I don’t think he is honest or has integrity. I’m not sure if that answers your question, but it’s my take.
My guess is that there are very, very few Church members who will vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon. There are many other factors involved that are more important.
I don’t know Geoff, I think you might be over-estimating how politically involved and informed “most” church members are.
When my father was growing up his bishop was polygamist, as was my mother’s elderly grandfather and grandmother and her sister wives my mother would spend the summers living with and helping. Anyway, as part of my earliest store of memories are such things as when we’d visit my parents’ hometown I’d remember pictures of my forebears on my aunt-&-uncle’s kitchen wall which, of course, would show long beards on the older men. Also a calendar on their wall — I think it was — had pictures of “Presidents of the Church” on it with only the first one, Joseph Smith junior, and the ninth — and then current — one having been clean shaven. But then president Earnest L. Wilkinsen had apparently made the Wall Street and US military clean cut look the grooming standard for BYU.
Anyway, all of this was interesting to me ‘caus my oldest brother — who’d worn, I think, a light-colored baggy suit and white-suede “bucks” shoes? while he’d been the editor of the student literary mag while at the Y — after his graduation had begun to work for a publishing house and had begun to sport a Pete Seeger like goatee. (I bob my head here and snap my fingers to imaginary beat of bongos bein’ thumped).
I’d never heard of Mitt’s dad until just AFTER his having-been-brainwashed gaffe. But my mom had thereafter made mention of it repeatedly, since she’d completely agreed with its sentiments: So, the outspoken-business-turned-politician, who for added measure was LDS!, George Romney had been a cultural hero in our house.
Geoff, what do you think of his health care plans?
I don’t agree with Harry Reid either, but I can’t think of anything that would make me doubt his honesty or integrity. In fact, if I remember correctly he was kind of known for having integrity. When he called Bush a ‘loser’, he actually apologized the next day. That’s rare for any politician.
Clark, #43, good question. As you know, I have strong libertarian instincts when it comes to economic policies, so I don’t like the idea of government telling people you have do anything, such as buy health insurance. However, people who criticize Mitt from that perspective are not looking at the whole story. In Massachusetts, the state government covers the cost of uncovered emergency room visits. So people who could otherwise afford health insurance were simply going to the emergency room for health care and charging it to the government. Now, from one standpoint you could say you will try to do means tests for emergency room visits, but that would never fly in Taxachusetts with its 85 percent Democratic legislature (and how do you actual make a means test work?). So, Mitt was very pragmatic and found a solution that does not cost the state that much more than what it was already paying. So, I like that approach. I don’t know if his plan is transferrable to that many other states, but it worked for Massachusetts. If he gets elected, perhaps he’ll be able to come up with pragmatic approaches that will solve other seemingly intractable problems (immigration, rising health costs, energy, etc).
I wouldn’t put money on Mitt’s being either the Republican nominee or even its veepers/jeepers nominee. Read my lips: Iraq. When people go to caucuses and polling booths during wartime they want to vote for a leader who’s got some kind of military credentials or at least foreign policy gravitas. As for the veepers spot, very few candidates have the self-confidence to nominate such a charismatic individual as their veepers/jeepers nominee.
So — the dude’s toast! lol (Of course I should have punctuated this with a ? — my not being a pollster let alone any kind of poly sci type; yet sometimes a casual, outside observer like me sees things that people more involved don’t, due to the “not being able to see the forest for the trees” phenomenon. But then I can be waaaay off, too — when there’s some factor my cursory glance at things misses entirely– )
A query: what level of performance by Mitt Romney would make the evangelical haters here accept that they might be wrong about most evangelicals (though clearly not all of them)? If he fails, how bad does he have to fail before can we be sure its because of his faith and not his waffling on abortion, his being from Massachussetts, his lack of military experience, etc.? My personal opinion is that many of the evangelicals who are the most anti-Mormon are among those who don’t really get politically involved.
A good many of the people who are convinced evangelicals would never vote for a mormon are those who *want* the conservative coalition to break up. It wouldnt’ make them happy at all if evangelicals and Mormons forged a closer political relationship, so they try to nudge things along a little.
I don’t *want* the conservative coalition to break up. Quite the contrary. I just am incredibly biased against evangelical “christians” because of experiences with them in my personal life.
But, unlike them for one of us, I would still vote for one of them. And I think that we must stand together with these people against a form of liberalism which seems throughout the years to ever more separate itself from basic moral values.
I respect them, I would vote for them, and I support them. I just have almost zero trust in their ability to extend the same courtesy to mormons. That’s all.
I didn’t have you or your brother in mind. Apologies.
Perhaps you had me in mind.
I am happy to admit that I would love to see the conservative coalition break up. When John McCain has to remind people that he, too, is a conservative, things have gone way too far.
And I have to wonder; how much public abuse from evangelical preachers would you tolerate in hopes of holding the conservative coalition together?
Perhaps you had me in mind
Er.. probably not based on my comment in this thread. But perhaps based on my comments on the BT thread. I can’t keep all the Mitt threads straight.
Lots and lots. I’m not in politics to feel good or to gain social acceptance. I’m in it because I want family-friendly and virtue-minded laws.
Does that include mandating full quivers of children like they do in Kanab, Utah?
Don’t know what you’re talking about, John Taber, but ten-to-one you’ve been misinformed. Has Kanab made it a crime to have a small family? Not likely.
I stretched things a little with “mandate”, but Kanab did pass a resolution supporting the Sutherland Institute’s attempt to take the proclamation on the family a bit further. See http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3478210 , http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3765543 , and http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3797044 . Sutherland offered the resolution to every municipality in Utah, but only Kanab adopted it.
This is the sort of thing that comes to mind when I hear about the “need” for “family-friendly” laws. That and activist judges like David Young in Park City, Utah, who in 1994 ruled that a woman in a divorce case couldn’t take her children out of Utah because she wasn’t “active in the Church” (the judge’s words).
“I stretched things a little with “mandate”
You stretched them to hell-and-gone. If this is “mandating”, you’re a cauliflower.