A Fox News report on Mitt Romney’s surge in South Carolina is introduced this way:
CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was almost unthinkable months ago that Mitt Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts, had a chance in South Carolina, the buckle of the Bible Belt. But with a relentless focus on family values, he has now become a serious contender here.
Now, imagine the following report from 2000:
NBC News reporting: It was almost unthinkable months ago that Joseph Lieberman, a Jew from Connecticut, had a chance in South Carolina, the buckle of the Bible Belt. But with a relentless focus on fighting terrorism, he has not become a serious contender here.
If somebody can point me to any news report along these lines, I will admit I’m wrong and shut up. But it seems to me that Lieberman’s Jewishness was considered quaint and a positive trait, but it was never the central focus of his candidacy. But Newsweek ran a cover that called Mitt the Mormon candidate. What the heck is going on here?
Now, in fairness the Fox News report is mostly positive, and his religion is mentioned as relevant in the overall picture of trying to paint himself as the “candidate of faith and moral values.”
But it seems like we have completely lost perspective on the correct roll of Mitt’s religion and its relevance to the campaign. I don’t remember Lieberman being described as “the Jewish candidate.” Instead, he was a respected senator from Connecticut known for his honesty and probity and being a moderate Democrat and somebody who happened to be Jewish. Why is it fair to describe Mitt as the Mormon candidate?
Am I wrong about this? I’m willing to be convinced.
I think you hit it at the end of your post, that the coverage of the Mormon angle has been so pervasive it’s taken a life of its own and there’s been a loss of perspective.
A few days ago, I was thinking the same thing about another article. If you just exchanged “Mormon” for just about any other religion, it wouldn’t be politically correct or acceptable.
As tiring and frustrating as it is, I chalk it up to the natural process of getting mainstream society acquainted with Mormons. With all the talk of “immunizing” in the Bloggernacle, I think Romney’s campaign is at least doing a good job of immunizing the public to the Church.
It just isn’t always pleasant.
I imagine most Americans don’t see Judaism as much of a threat to democracy. Many do see Mormonism in this light, though. In the Bible Belt specifically, the Southern Baptists and Evangelical Christians there don’t see Judaism as a tool of Satan at worst, and a rapidly-expanding non-Christian sheep-stealer at best. Mormonism, however, is portrayed in this light.
I don’t think Mormons are being singled out here. If a Jehovah’s Witness or Christian Scientist ever emerged as a potential candidate for the U.S. Presidency, I imagine their religion would be consistently brought up, much like Romney’s is.
It’s been too long and I can’t find it on the appropriate archive, but both CNN and Time openly asked the question about how Lieberman was a devout Jew who abstained from most non-essential activities on the Sabbath, and how it might affect his vice-presidency.
(Insert your own vice-presidency is non-essential joke here.)
Queuno, agreed. But that falls under the category of “candidate x who happens to be Jewish” rather the “the Jewish candidate.”. Mitt is described as the latter (ie, the Mormon candidate). I would have absolutely no problem with a story that explored Mitt’s Sabbath day habits. I do have a problem with describing him as Lthe Mormon candidate.”
I don’t think the Bible-Belt sees us as a threat to democracy really. More a threat to the shadow theocracy they’ve been pushing for the past ten years than anything else.
I agree with Christopher in #2. As long as Mormonism is viewed as a fringe religion, Mormons in the public eye will be identified by their Mormonism. I don’t think that’s necessarily wrong. People always try to find characteristics in people that they find unique in order to identify/classify them.
Interesting, I read recently that there are more Mormons than Jews in the United States (someone correct me if I’m wrong). But Jews are seen as much more mainstream since they’ve been around for a long time.
I agree also with #2 that there are other religions that would have the same issue. I would be curious to see what would happen with a Muslim candidate. Just 5 years ago, if a Muslim ran for president I definately wouldn’t be surprised to see him (or her) identified as “The Muslim candidate”. However, Muslims have become so much int the public eye that now I think the media would shy away from that. That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be a big issue, it’s just that the media would be too afraid of political incorrectness. I’m amazed by how fast that has changed. Perhaps in 5 years we’ll be saying the same thing about Mormons.
Geoff:
1. Judaism is not perceived as monolithic as Mormonism is.
2. Jews and mainstream Protestants are not perceived as loyal to a central authority as Mormons and Catholics are. Or at least as Catholics were in JFK’s day.
So, you’re all OK with the media defining people by their religion first? I definitely am not. Seems to be creating a religious test. To be quite clear, if we had a Muslim running for president, I would vote for him/her based on his/her’s policy, personality, experience, etc NOT based on religion. I don’t like the one Muslim we have in Congress because I diagree with him on policy. I could never support him based on that – I could care less about his religion. Note that religion did NOT become an issue for this guy (sorry, I forget his name) until he made it one by refusing to swear his oath on the Bible.
Geoff,
I don’t think it’s right for the media to say, “Mitt Romney, the Mormon” every time they talk about him. However, in what you quoted his Mormonism was directly related to the point that was being made. It’s true that Romney’s Mormonism is a challenge in the south. That’s not made up by the media. So the quote is making the point that despite his Mormonism, he is still making strides in the south. I think it’s entirely appropriate to bring up his religion in that context.
If you had quoted some other news story that mentioned his Mormonism for no particular reason, then I would mostly agree with you. I’m sure there are plenty of those types of stories out there. I say “mostly” agree with you because I do think its natural (that’s not to say its “right”) for people to describe people based on what they feel is unique about them.
Sorry for the multiple comments, but I don’t feel I’ve done a good job of stating my position. Let me try again:
Romney’s Mormonism is politically relevant because there is a significant portion of the people who would be less likely to vote for him because of his Mormonism. That’s sad, but that makes it valid for the media to talk about his religion (to a point). Lieberman’s Judiasm does not make him less appealing to the vast majority of voters, so his religion is less politically relevant.
Is it ok for the media to talk about Romney’s Mormonism? Yes.
Is it ok that Mormonism is viewed negatively by a significantly portion of the population? No.
What did you expect from FOX News? Something fair and balanced?
Geoff,
Because Romney is appealing to religious voters who have serious questions about his religious beliefs. Lieberman was NOT appealing to religious voters but to secular voters who didn’t care about his religious beliefs.
The moment Mitt Romney starts deciding to stop pandering to the religious right is the moment he starts getting fairer treatment in the press (even from FoxNews).
As far as FoxNews is concerned, remember it is run by Roger Ailes, a long time friend of Rudy Giuliani. Note that Giuliani can use FoxNews coverage, but Romney and McCain better get FoxNews approval before they can use footage with their logo on it. FoxNews has an agenda, and it is not for the benefit of America. It is for their own benefit.
Geoff,
His name is Keith Ellison. It’s funny that you criticize a religious test, but then say that Keith Ellison made it an issue when he refused to swear the oath of office on the Bible. Why would it be an issue? Why can’t he use any book? Didn’t Senator Smith of Oregon use his Quad?
The necessary conclusion that must follow from Evangelical creedalists’ position that Mitt Romney’s religion makes him “unqualified” or “unfit for the Presidency is that no Jew can ever be President of this country
The Evangelical creedalist contention against Mitt Romney and their argument that he does not believe in Jesus Christ (even though that should be entirely irrelevant in a secular democracy that value pluralism with anything more than a facade of tolerance) turns on the fact that Mitt Romney does not believe in the “one substance” that is found in Trinitarian creeds’ definition of the nature of God.
Jews also do not believe in “one substance”. In objecting to Mitt Romney’s bid for the Presidency based on his religion, Evangelical creedalists are therefore also revealing their belief that a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or anyone who does not professes a belief in “one substance”, should not become President. This raises very real concerns about Evangelical creedalists’ commitment to fundamental rights because the right to serve in political office in the United States should not be dismissed lightly. One wonders what other rights have less importance to Evangelical creedalists — the right to vote (why should someone who does not believe in “one substance” have the right to vote and thereby exercise influence on the political process in a “Christian” country, even one, such as the United States of America, that was founded largely by deists?); the freedom of religion (why should people who do not believe in “one substance” have the freedom to worship something other than “one substance”-as-God — it could cause others to follow suit); the right to assemble (why should people who don’t believe in “one substance” have the right to assemble — only those who believe in “one substance” live a life worthy of the full array of rights available in the United States of America); and so on.
John F, thank you for reminding readers of the real point here, which is why “no religious test” is in the Constitution and applies directly to Mitt Romney.
Dan, I know that Ellison is a Democrat and therefore Good, but if you re-read my comment you will notice that I am not making the swearing on the Koran thing an issue. It seems to me that insisting that a Congressman swear on the Bible IS a religious test and would violate Article VI. So, I could care less if he swears on a Koran, a Bible, a Quad or anything else. I was only pointing out that Ellison made his religion an issue, which he did indeed. Whether or not it should have been an issue is another subject entirely on which, believe it or not, you and I probably agree.
That’s cool then, Geoff. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Dude, what are you doing blogging at this time of day? I’ve got an excuse — I’m in Hong Kong and it’s 7 p.m. here.
#14: That may be part of the reason evangelicals are less likely to vote for Romney, but I think the greater reason is that they consider Mormonism a cult. They don’t consider Judaism a cult. If Mormonism is a cult than that means Romney is either brainwashed or doing the brainwashing. Would you vote for someone for president that you considered to be a member of a cult?
I can’t believe I’m defending evangelicals, but I don’t buy your reasoning that if they reject a Mormon they must reject non-Christians.
Another important question this story raises is why every state from West Virginia to Oklahoma considers itself the buckle of the bible belt. They can’t all be the buckle, someone has to be the leather.
“Would you vote for someone for president that you considered to be a member of a cult?”
Only if the cult is really cool.
re #18, I think the key is actually as I described in my second paragraph of # 14:
The Evangelical creedalist contention against Mitt Romney and their argument that he does not believe in Jesus Christ (even though that should be entirely irrelevant in a secular democracy that value pluralism with anything more than a facade of tolerance) turns on the fact that Mitt Romney does not believe in the “one substance” that is found in Trinitarian creeds’ definition of the nature of God.
Plenty of creedalist splinter-groups exhibit cult tendencies in spades but they are not a concern because they profess “one substance”.
Geoff,
I went to sleep early when I put my daughter to bed. She woke me up at 3am, and I wasn’t tired, so I did my usual evening routine at 3am. 🙂
We’re normally up at like 5am anyways for our daily lives.
Dan, yeah, I’ve got two little ones and they often wake me up at 3 or 4 a.m., and, well, once you’re up, you may as well stay up. By the way, it 3 a.m. in Hong Kong and I’m up, but I haven’t gotten much sleep this week anyway. 🙂
I agree with Mike the Horebite (#10) that Mitt’s Mormon status is highlighted so much by the press because a powerful political bloc in this country counts it as an issue. You can’t blame the media for capitalizing on that. Well, you can, but it’s like yelling at the rain.
Frankly, as a good LDS Republican I don’t care one whit if Mitt wins (say that 3 times real fast), although I am interested in the rift in the evangelical camp and the ways pro-Mitt Christians spin his satanic tendencies as “being one of us even though he isn’t one of us.” It would be grand to see them ultimately all rally behind him (if it becomes a Clinton-Romney race, they won’t have much choice), and if he were to actually win– and not blow it by being a putz– it’d be cool for the Church to be given its deserved double-take.
Take a look at how CNN covers Romney in South Carolina. In this particular instance, CNN’s coverage beats Fox News hands down. The Mormon issue is put in context rather than highlighted as the primary issue, which it is not.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/king.romney/
It isn’t that the media hasn’t tried to keep the Mormon issue in balance. The problem is that every time they do a close up on Hillary you can see her horns. Scary.
Deep Thoughts by Jack
I must take a bit of issue with comment #2; was it not during Bush’s first term that some evangelical and ‘born again’ savants said that, “God does not hear the prayers of a Jew”? Judaism may not be perceived by mainstream Protestants and Catholics as a threat to democracy, but just how could the evangelicals elect a president who’s prayers would go unanswered?