Meridian Magazine :: Faith and Politics: Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and Polling Analysis: What to Make of It All?

Share the article on this page with a friend.
Click here.

Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and Polling Analysis: What to Make of It All?
By Lowell Brown

Mark Mellman writes in Roll Call about "Romney and the Mormon question." All by itself it is a thoughtful and provocative piece, especially for members of the Church. As I read it, however, one fact nagged me: According to the article’s post-script, Mellman "has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the majority leaders of both the House and Senate."

What is going on here? In my experience, political consultants like Mr. Mellman never put anything into print unless they have an agenda, which almost always entails advancing the causes they are paid to advance.

Consider Mellman's thesis:

Anti-Mormon prejudice clearly infects this country, leading many to ask whether Mitt Romney’s religion will be an insurmountable barrier to his presidential prospects.

Mellman offers support first from anecdotal evidence and general observation:

Evidence of this insidious disease comes in part from its very social acceptability. Americans no longer feel free to give voice to negative feelings about blacks, Jews or Catholics. Yet the rules of polite discourse seem to be different when Mormons are the topic — and many freely express their bigotry.

This rings true to most Mormons. It seems to me that generally, we Latter-day Saints do a pretty good job of resisting the urge to slip into victimhood. It’s been rare, for example, for me to find myself in Sunday School, or at dinner with LDS friends, and hear complaints about anti-Mormon slurs or bigotry. Generally, I think we recognize that such things go with the territory of Church membership.

For example, I had to reflect a bit on this quotation in Mellman's op-ed before I realized how outrageous it is:

Even so-called intellectuals are free and easy with such invective, making statements about Mormons they would shudder to hear about any other group. Witness Father Richard John Neuhaus, a Protestant-turned-Catholic theologian, dubbed by Time as one of the 25 most influential evangelists in America. “Anti-Catholicism is, in my judgment,” he wrote, “an unreasonable prejudice … Anxiety about the strengthening of Mormonism by virtue of there being a Mormon president is not unreasonable.”

Could anyone substitute Judaism or Catholicism for Mormonism in that last sentence without being called a bigot?

Mellman then moves from anecdote to data, citing "seven polls over the last couple of years" that "have asked in somewhat different ways about public willingness to support a Mormon candidate for president:"

The responses are remarkable for both their magnitude and their range. On the high side, Rasmussen found 43 percent willing to push an anonymous button on their telephone signaling they would never vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Gallup brings up the low end, with 24 percent telling live interviewers they would not vote for “a generally qualified person for president who happened to be a Mormon.”

My initial response: Well, okay, there are lots of data out there suggesting an anti-Mormon prejudice exists; nothing new there. I found Mellman's column persuasive and reasonable in discussing that phenomenon.

But I found myself back with my question: Why is a Democratic consultant who works for both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid putting out information about a bias problem he perceives to be hurting a candidate on the Republican side of the race — Mitt Romney, whom, I am sure, Mellman would rather not see elected president? In other words, as much as I appreciate Mellman’s sympathy for Romney’s plight, I am, well, skeptical.

And therein, I think, lies the fascinating aspect of the discussion for all thoughtful observers, but especially for Latter-day Saints. Based on the e-mail I get, I know that Mormons of all political stripes read this humble column. So whether you are a Mormon Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent, this should be of interest to you.

Why? Because Mellman is employing a tactic we will see more and more as the Romney campaign progresses toward actual caucus and primary voting. The goal is to help the Democrats by portraying religious conservatives (mainly Evangelical Christians) in the news media as religiously bigoted.

What better way to marginalize that demographic group? And how benign! Mellman need not attack anyone; all he has to do is aggregate the polling data and quote some of the more unfortunate statements of those who, like Fr. Neuhaus, stubbornly insist that anti-Mormon prejudice is acceptable. (Sadly, Neuhaus has lots of company, and portraying a certain element among our Evangelical friends as bigots is not very difficult.)

On Article VI Blog we have commented often on this strategem. If the theme that Evangelicals are religious bigots is picked up by the major news media, we may see one of two outcomes:

First, conservative voters who are deeply religious may be weakened — perhaps greatly — as a political force. Whether or not that’s a good thing depends on where you stand politically. Frankly, although I am a conservative Republican and a religious person as well, there are times when I wince at the ways certain other conservatives use (and abuse) religion in politics.
A second, healthier possible consequence: There may actually be a robust national conversation about a religion in politics, and under what circumstances, if any, a candidate's faith is a legitimate subject of political debate and a basis for voting.

I hope it’s the latter outcome. As Mellman himself notes:

In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office.

Pretty much everyone now agrees that the defeat, in 1960, of religious bigotry against Catholics was a good thing.

I am a Mitt Romney supporter, but I think much more is at stake in 2007 than whether or not he is elected president. Perhaps 2008 will be an election year in which we experience not only a great national discussion about religion in politics, but some national understanding and growth as well.

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.

About the Author:

Lowell C. Brown is co-author of Article VI Blog, http://www.article6blog.com, which is devoted to discussion and analysis of the religious issues surrounding the 2008 presidential election. Lowell is also a Los Angeles-based attorney who is a partner in Arent Fox LLP, where he practices corporate health law for institutional health care providers. He describes himself as an active, committed, convinced Mormon and has served in a number of callings in the Church, his favorite of which was Scoutmaster. The views expressed here are Lowell's own.