I’m actually kind of intrigued by the Republican primary. I mean, yes, I’ve been alarmed, too, but mostly intrigued. It seems like Romney has been anointed the obvious front-runner almost from the get-go and the media stories have all been “And here’s where Romney’s lead becomes decisive and unassailable” only to have the decisive and unassailable lead evaporate. And yes, no delegates were awarded to Santorum yesterday, but he’s got very little money and his association with poop is even more yucky than Romney’s “I let the dog shit on the roof of my car” association. So, I think the fact that he pulled three wins out of his ass (sorry, folks, sorry) says something important.
But what?
I think it’s obvious that Romney doesn’t have the support of regular Republican voters and I think regular Republican voters are trying to signal as hard as they can that they wish they had someone else to vote for. But I’ve been trying to understand why, exactly, in order to speculate on whether he could turn it around.
Clearly, his religion is a problem. And one that the Republican establishment doesn’t quite understand. I think they think that he says he’s a Christian, so fine, he’s a Christian. But I don’t think Republican voters buy that. When he says he’s a Christian, I think it makes a lot of non-Mormon Christians uncomfortable and upset. The problem is that, for him to say he’s a Christian, for a lot of Christians, means that basic doctrinal tenets of Christianity can just be ignored. It’s not a matter of whether women can be preachers or something (though people get really worked up about that, too.)–not a “B” level problem. Christians don’t believe men become gods–an “A” level issue, so to speak (I’d lump in the divinity of Christ and the mystery of the Trinity as being other examples of “A” level issues). So, a religion that does believe that and which also calls itself “Christian” is going to dip into a lot of people’s uncanny valley–it’s supposed to be Christian and it comes so close that its inability to bridge the gap causes revulsion.
But would it be better for Romney to say that he’s not a Christian? I don’t know. We have another prominent example of a religion that believes Jesus is a holy dude, but that Christianity isn’t the end-all-be-all of religions and that they, in fact, have a later revelation that surpasses the New Testament. But I have a hard time imagining a Muslim Republican Presidential Candidate. Except that, I feel like, if I squint a little and imagine a Republican party that was like “Hey, let’s focus on economic conservatism and religious freedoms” and that turned away from xenophobic bigotry, it’s not hard for me to imagine Muslim Republican politicians. The party’d have to move some, but it’s going to have to move some if it doesn’t want to be lost on the trash heap of history.
I mean, consider where Republicans were, even twenty years ago, with Catholics and now Santorum is running for president as a Republican. And he’s getting votes, at least in the primary, from people who believe Catholics aren’t really Christian.
So, I don’t know. Maybe that’s an argument for Romney to continue to say he’s a Christian–eventually people will come around? But I don’t know. The differences between Catholics and Protestants aren’t at that “A” level.
And I stand by my earlier statement that this kind of has the Republicans over a barrel. If Mormons come to believe that Republicans won’t vote for a Mormon because of his religion, the Republicans face an enormous and very real risk of losing the Mormons.
But the other thing is that, as assholish as I think Santorum and Bachmann and Gingrich are, they’ve done a very good job of having a point of view and a message and getting it out there.
What does Romney really stand for? I don’t know.
One thing is clear, though. The time has NEVER been riper for a conservative party that wasn’t xenophobic. A political party that appealed to conservative Mormons, Muslims, African-Americans, Latin@s, and gay people as well as fiscally conservative white people would be incredibly popular. And I wonder if we’ll see a party like that come into being.
Filed under: America how can I write a holy litany in your silly moo, My Imaginary Friend is Better Than Yours, Politics and Other Nonsense
Wow, B.; the GOP voters you’re seeing must be entirely different from the GOP voters I’m seeing. I just don’t see Romney’s religion being as important in the general election as is his whiteness and wealth. Sure the racist yahoos (politically speaking) that I know are mostly trending toward the “stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like”, but if Romney gets the nod they’ll vote for him because he’s the not-Obama. It doesn’t appear to be much more complex than that.
In the larger view, I don’t see the GOP becoming irrelevant in the near future, if for no other reason than the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to keep that from happening.
I should add the following:
We have this already, and it’s called the Democratic Party.
Ha, Sam, I had added something about how that was something liberals were going to have to accept that the Democratic party had already taken into account, but I thought it was slightly off-topic.
But I don’t know if Republicans will fall into line on Romney. A large group of them suspect Obama is a Muslim, but they KNOW Romney’s a Mormon. They may just stay home.
I think it would be a mistake for Romney supporters (or hell, just those of us armchair quarterbacking) to underestimate the discomfort mainstream Christians feel with Mormons calling themselves Christians. Mormons don’t make a habit of complaining about religious bigotry they face and most mainstream Christians aren’t going to say that they have a problem with Mormons.
But my god, Colorado prefers Santorum? Santorum? Colorado?
I think it’s more likely that Coloradans just didn’t want to vote for a Mormon guy.
I mean, I’ll be honest. I’m not even Christian any more and I’d have a problem voting for a Mormon guy who insisted he was a Christian. I’m embarrassed to admit that, because it’s ugly and not my fight and bigoted. But I don’t think I’m alone.
I’m just not sure how big a group that is.
But, if I were Republican, I’d be worried about folks just staying home if Romney’s the nominee, because I’m not sure he’s capable of walking the line he’d have to walk to appeal to Christian voters without causing their ministers to feel like they need to make clear that Mormons aren’t Christian.
We’ve never elected a non-Christian president. Whatever Romney self-identifies as, that’s the hurdle he’s got to clear.
Those are some great points, B. I think we might see a bit more volatility in the GOP primary because of these decidedly non-bread-and-butter issues. I expect, however, that all of this will be laid to the side in the general election. No matter which GOP nutjob or empty suit wins the nomination, I think we’ll see the housing covenant dynamic come into play come November. You know, where the neighborhood Italian-Americans say mean things about the Polish-Americans, who don’t like the Irish-Americans, who are leery of the German-Americans. But they all share one thing which becomes violently apparent when the nigger family tries to move in.
Sure, there might be a few GOPers who’ll sit it out, but if Romney’s campaign has half a brain to go with its deep pockets it’ll make a strong racist appeal to those who they have reason to believe hate liberals and colored people more than they mistrust Mormons.
Just to be clear, I’m proceeding from the position that much of organized evangelical Christianity in the U.S. is closely linked to traditional sensibilities of white supremacy. In other words, Mormon > Negro.
Evangelical Coloradans do what Focus on the Family whistles for them to do. They backed Santorum for his laser-like focus on violating women’s privacy/medical rights. Anti-Mormon bigotry just added to the pile. I’m a little surprised that Paul didn’t do better there. There’s a lot of doper California libertarian ex-pats and I was hearing that he had pretty strong support in Boulder and Denver.
The problem with most conservative white voters (and I come from a family full of them) is that they want to vote for someone just like them. Same color, same religious convictions, same prejudices. Mitt is the same color, but that’s about it.
Sam, this is exactly what I’m not so sure about, because White identity is so closely tied with white Protestantism. Not just closely tied–a crucial component. Part of what makes white people able to recognize other white people is that they are Christian.
Now, that’s shifting some (obviously, they didn’t used to recognize Catholics as Christian and now they do and, under the right circumstances, they’ll vote for a Jewish person–though Jewish people aren’t claiming to be Christian so the uncanny valley dynamic doesn’t come into play) but I’m not sure how much.
On one level, it seems painfully obvious that Mitt Romney is white. But at the level where these ancient prejudices live? I’m just not sure.
That’s what I’m fascinated about. People hate Obama, but enough to come out to vote for Romney? I’m honestly not sure.
So, to be clear, I don’t think, given a choice between Romney and Obama, their discomfort with Mormons is going to be enough to make them vote for Obama. But given a choice among Romney, Obama, and not voting? Some segment is going to chose not voting. And I think that segment may be larger than anticipated.
But I’m not sure. It’s just something I’m keeping my eye on because it seems so unclear.
Whoever came up with the phraseology “Santorum Surges” yesterday must be some kind of evil genius. Giggle…
I think you may be right, B., but there will also be large numbers of folks incredibly dissatisfied with Obama. Will they overcome their disappointment enough to brave those longer lines and greater distances, especially if the alternative is someone as relatively inoffensive (to the average, low-information voter) as Mitt Romney? This November’s bipartisan charade may be decided by which candidate turns off the fewest potential supporters.
Sam, true enough!
Seems to me that this may be over-stressing the religious issue versus other questions conservative Republicans (among others!) have about Romney–namely, the fact that if he has ANY core convictions, you can’t be sure what they’ll be next week. That doesn’t go away, and it’s not about his denomination. And second, a lot of those same populist conservative Republicans from the evangelical denominations are just as likely to be concerned with the crucial “Does he understand and care about people like (little ol’) me?” question and find that he comes up wanting. (hence>>Santorum. Or “somebody else.”)
I was not surprised Santorum took Colorado, and I don’t think the reason he won is that folks here can’t stomach a nominee who is a member of the LDS Church. I don’t see this state as particularly hostile to the LDS Church. The ratio of LDS members to the total population of the state is the 12th highest in the country. LDS members are our neighbors and friends. Some people reeeally don’t like them (the South Park guys are from Littleton as you probably know), and the rest of us think the stuff they believe is pretty weird but, shit, the stuff Catholics believe is pretty weird too. Nevertheless, Romney’s religion is more of a problem in other regions than it is here.
Remember that Colorado held a caucus on Tuesday, not a primary vote. Santorum does not necessarily have the approval of most Colorado voters or even most registered Republicans. There is an individualist, libertarian (big “L” and small), contrarian streak in this state, especially in the West–plenty of Paul supporters, plenty of tea baggers–but how much influence they have in the party leadership I’m not sure. There is another ideology, however, that holds much more sway….
Ahead of the caucus Santorum spent a lot of time in Colorado Springs, a major–if not the major–Christianist stronghold. Those are his people and he is their candidate. The more Romney is seen as the “anointed” front-runner, the more free Republicans are, especially in small states like this one, to back another candidate just to send a message…and the Colorado Springs crowd wants their message heard in Tampa Bay–especially if they’re concerned about Romney.
When it comes to the general election, though, the Christianists know that having a Republican in the White House, whatever his religion, allows them to gain more power. Church leaders will mobilize their people to hold their noses and vote for whoever the nominee is. (I’d still bet on blue though…and there will be a statistically significant number of write-ins for Paul.)
Also, B., I’m not sure I understand what you mean about “A” level issues. You say that Catholics and Protestants don’t have “A” level differences, but elsewhere you identify the Trinity as an “A” level issue. Catholics differ with some Protestants, and Protestants differ among themselves, on that one.
Yes, but no one disagrees that it exists. Its exact nature is up for dispute, but Christians believe in a Triune god. One god with three parts, aspects, modes of being, whatever or three parts that make up one whole.
Part of why every Christian can recite the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed is that Christianity has some broad, recognizable beliefs one has to adhere to in order to be broadly recognized as a Christian.
–Belief in the tripartite nature of God.
–Belief that Jesus is God in a physically incarnate form and that he was born like everyone else to a human woman.
–Belief that Jesus was resurrected.
–Belief in some kind of final judgment.
–Belief that at least some people will live forever with God.
–Belief in the sacrament of communion.
–Belief in the forgiveness of sins
–Belief in the sanctity of the Church
Those are “A” level issues. If you believe that some of those aren’t true or that they are modified by you getting to become a god when you die, then your beliefs are incompatible with calling yourself a Christian.
If you want to sit around and argue about what, exactly, the tripartite nature of God is like or whether God had a little human sperm to help Mary along or whether the judgment the dead face happens right when they die or at the end of time, or whether the sanctity of the Church means it’s never wrong, those are the kinds of issues people form new denominations over. They’re “B” level issues.
It’s not that they’re not a big deal. Obviously people have fought wars over them, put each other in the ground over them. But a difference of opinion over them isn’t, in the end, incompatible with Christianity.
Not all Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate. The Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed are not—I believe?—strictly Biblical. Therefore strict fundamentalists wouldn’t have any use for them.
Well, they’re not oaths, if that’s what you mean. But they are almost universal statements of faith and I’m having a hard time imagining the sect that would feel uncomfortable reciting either of them that still considered itself Christian or was considered Christian by other Christians.
I mean, at heart, I personally don’t give much of a shit if people I don’t think meet the Nicene or Apostolic standard want to call themselves Christian.
But Christians who don’t believe that Jesus is God incarnate are committing heresy. And, you know, more power to them. They’re committing a heresy as old as Christianity itself, but “not all Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate” is a judgment you, as a modern person, are making, not an indisputable fact. Other Christians do think that nontrinitarians are not Christian.
You can consider yourself a Christian and believe that Jesus was a taco in the shape of a man and that’s fine with me. As far as I’m concerned, that’s between you and your god.
But if you want to be recognized as Christian by other Christians, you should expect to be met with resistance as nontrinitarians are.