« 90s Nostalgia Blogging | Main | Things I Don't Believe »

A Good Question

12 May 2007 04:57 pm

Kevin Drum asks: "Here's a question for any old-timers who might be reading this blog: was George Romney's Mormon faith an issue for him when he ran for president in 1968?" I wonder, too. One important difference, though, is that George Romney, much like Mitt Romney when he ran for office in the past, was a moderate Republican.

If you're going to adhere to secular politics, then people are either going to dislike you because they dislike secular politics, or else they're not going to care a lot about your religious views. When Romney was running in 2002, I recall his Mormonism only really playing insofar as it made a lot of people assume Romney was anti-choice and anti-gay and his campaign put a lot of effort on reassuring people about that. The new Mitt is trying to run as a cultural conservative who's trying to get people to write things like "we believe Governor Romney is not only acceptable to conservative Christians, but that he is clearly the best choice for people of faith." This is a demographic that clearly sees its political views as grounded in religion. Evangelicals for Mitt have the view that conservative Christians principles drive them, in this instance, to support a Mormon for the presidency but it's natural that other conservative Christians might feel that their principles drive them to seek out someone whose religious views are more closely aligned with their own.

Share This

Comments (18)

I don't recall George Romneys' religion being an issue, mainly because Romney stuck his foot in the pot full of crap by stating that he had been brainwashed on a visit to Vietnam. He was out of the race almost before it began (the races for the nomination began much later then then they do now).

I was in high school for the run-up to the '68 election, and remember the ins and outs of the republican nomination battle vividly. I remember Romney's faith coming up only in connection with his non-US birth -- they said his family had been driven out of the US due to religious prejudice. That "spin" (though I don't think the word had that connotation back then) made him a more sympathetic figure.

Personally, I was partial to him because he came around to opposing the War in Vietnam (I never understood why people didn't see the word "brainwashed" as a figure of speech) and because I liked Ramblers (he'd been head of Nash Rambler or whatever it was before it was American Motors). I was more partial, however, to the Democrats.

Colorado's Congressman Mark Udall picks up Mormon votes just because his family was Mormon (he's not).
It helps Democratic candidates in Western states to be LDS: Harry Reid comes to mind.

You have to remember that as recently as the late 60s--despite the crashing arrival of the counter-culture in practically every corner of everyday life--America's civil religion was still fairly intact. So you had, on the one hand, good, mainline, mostly nonpracticing Protestant journalists who noted that Romney was religious and that was about it, and on the other hand, hordes of evangelicals and fundamentalists who were decidedly uninvolved in the political process, because--despite decisions about school prayer, etc.--the worldview they'd been developing for close to half a century wasn't yet threatened in the way that Roe v. Wade would threaten it a few years later. The pressure to inquire into the particular's of George Romney's faith simply wasn't there, on either side. This, really, had been the case for the previous generation or two, ever since those with memories of the tail-end of Mormonism's conflicts with the U.S. government at the beginning of the 20th century had died out. Ezra Taft Benson, later prophet and president of the Mormon church, served for eight years in Eisenhower's cabinet and no one blinked an eye. (In fact, some early CBS news program went into the Benson's home and did a long piece about how Mormons pray and worship, etc. Totally ho hum. Religiously speaking, at least amongst Christians, it was a different--much more secure, and thus much less contentious--time.)

I don't recall that many people knew much of the details about Mormonism back then. Most people just regarded it as another Protestant sect, maybe like Jehovah's Witnesses. Few knew about the Book of Mormonism, the golden plates in New York, the stone spectacles, the miracles, the modern prophets, etc. There was some awareness of their antipathy to blacks, but that was common among Baptists too. Mormon membership has grown from about 2 million in the 60's to over 12 million today. So they were much less influential and well known back then.

I was 17 in 1968 and paid close attention to politics (a continuing affliction). George Romney's Mormonism was definitely NOT an issue at that time. It hardly ever got a mention. I don't think that many even knew of it.

In George's time, as mentioned above, the Southern Baptists and other evangelicals didn't have the crushing hold on the Repub. party that they now share with the NeoCons and CorpCons. The 'base' of the Repub. party was not thought of as being the south, but the midwest and parts of the east coast and mountain states.

If the evangelicals accept and get on board the Mitt Romney wagon, we will know for sure that actual Christian teachings and fidelity to the Bible are more than moldable to fit Republican cant, but are just a cloak. With only a smidgen of knowledge of the LDS beliefs, you just can't fit Christian evangelicalism and Mormonism together into religious whole. The US originally populated by a lost Jewish tribe? Sure....

I remember that there was discussion in the press that one of George's ancestors was a polygamist. There was a clear asssociation with polygamy and the Morman Church. Of course, evangelical Christianity was nowhere near the polictical force that it is today. The Catholic Church and Kennedy in '64--there was religious controversy that seems quaint today.

I was 15 and recall very little being said about Romney's Mormonism. I agree that pre-Rode v. Wade, religion was much less a factor in our politics. Ah, the good old days...

I don't recall that many people knew much of the details about Mormonism back then. Most people just regarded it as another Protestant sect, maybe like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses are just as weird and removed from traditional christianity as Mormons are.

The religous controversy i'm salivating over is the possibility that if rudy wins the nomination, ratzinger errr pope benedict XVI will order american bishops not to give adminster the eucharist to him. That would be some old school Church-State conflict not seen since like...emperor Theodocius.

Re: hordes of evangelicals and fundamentalists who were decidedly uninvolved in the political process, because--despite decisions about school prayer, etc.--the worldview they'd been developing for close to half a century wasn't yet threatened in the way that Roe v. Wade would threaten it a few years later.

I don't think there were "hordes" of evangelical Christians sitting out elections for religious reasons. Rather, there were hordes of such people whose religion was not a determinant in their voting behavior. In fact many of them probably voted Democrat because A) there were working class folks and the Democrats were pro-unions and pro-workers or B) they were Southern white folk and Southern white folk naturally voted Democrat back then.

Re: The religous controversy i'm salivating over is the possibility that if rudy wins the nomination, ratzinger errr pope benedict XVI will order american bishops not to give adminster the eucharist to him.

Since he is divorced and remarried without a church annullment he is not allowed to receive Communion already. There would be nothing new about it, and no church-state conflict, it's not as if the Constitution requires the President to take Catholic Communion after all! Bseides he could do what lots and lots of divorced Catholics have done: join the Episcopalian Church (or, if desiring to stay traditional, join the Eastern Orthodox among whom remarriage after divorce has always been allowed).

I was in high school in Michigan when George Romney was governor and running for president. Not only was his being a Mormon an issue but he was born in Dublan, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico and I don't know if the "natural born" citizen issue was ever resolved. It's not that they're Mormon, it's that they're M*O*R*M*O*N - George's great-grandfather and Willard's (oops Mitt's) great-great-grandfather was Parley Parker Pratt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_Parker_Pratt

Mitt does have a Jewish 10th cousin. Maybe that can help "cousin Mitt". :-)

The release of the movie September Dawn http://www.septemberdawn.net this summer, about the Mountain Meadow Massacre (allegedly partly in revenge for the death of great-great grandpa Pratt) won't help Mitt..

Hey Matt, do you do requests? If so please talk about this video...

http://www.dailymotion.com/us/cluster/news/featured/video/x1yg72_returning-to-the-moon-in-2018

(it is purported to be from NASA... Is this really our big plan?)

The only negative remarks I can remember hearing about George Romney's campaign was his claim to have been "brain-washed" by the generals about the situation in Vietnam...nothing about his Mormon faith (I was a Roman Catholic, pro-intergration liberal teenager in Baptist, segregationist, eastern North Carolina during that campaign, and would have been attuned to that sort of critism).

Can we try to get past using the euphemism "faith" when we mean "religion"? The substitution of "faith" for "religion" is one of the subtlest subversions of our discourse that Bush-Rove have introduced.

I grew up in Michigan and was 16 in 1968. Romney was my choice for the Presidency, and I was furious at his humiliation over the 'brainwashing' comment, especially since I agreed with him--we were brainwashed, just as most Americans were brainwashed over Iraq in 2003.

We in Michigan knew of his Mormonism, but it never came up. The big worry then religiously was the Catholic push for public funds for their schools, called 'parochiad', which Romney, to his credit, opposed. There was no religious right then to pander to, other than ultra-montane Catholics.

The 1960 race more or less took religion off the table in Presidential races, as Kennedy insisted (and other politicians mouthed agreement) that religious beliefs would not influence governance, so the issue was more Romney's Mexican birth and whether that disqualified him.

Believe it or not, the candidate who injected religion into the Presidential stakes was Jimmy Carter in 1976 with all his 'born again' pronouncements. I worked for Mo Udall then, a Mormon who definitely did NOT wear his religion on his sleeve. Carter's campaign did a Rove-esque smear on Udall then for his Mormonism, for which I never forgave him--and never voted for him, either. By 1980 the religious right, stirred by Carter, felt misled and went totally Republican.

Neither Udall nor George Romney seemed to stir up much LDS enthusiasm--it is only since Reagan that the Mormons have generally injected themselves into the 'culture wars' and for religion in government, allying with the evangelicals and conservative catholics.

If Romney treated religion like Udall or his father and insisted on keeping religion OUT of Government and did not push the cultural right agenda, I would find him attractive. The fact that Mormons now are firmly entrenced with the cultural right and are bankrolling Romney heavily now frightens me. LDS members were not pushing a religious agenda between 1896 and the '80's, but now they are, and it is to be feared.


Comments closed May 26, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.