Mitt and the Muslims

Romney fan Katherine Jean-Lopez steps up to the defense of Mitt Romney's "No Muslims Need Apply" cabinet policy:

After reading both Geraghty and Mike Allen it seems like he was responding to an Ijaz Muslim mandate idea. We no more NEED a Muslim than we NEED a Catholic or (dare I?) a Mormon in the Cabinet...is what I assume Romney was saying. The Cabinet should have people who are qualified for the agencies they're assigned to.

This is more reasonable, but it's not really consistent with Mansour Ijaz's account in which he says he asked Romney if he would "consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters." Romney's response was that, no, he wouldn't consider qualified American Muslims as candidates for those jobs which isn't at all the same as saying he was opposed to a specific Muslim set-aside. Indeed, Ijaz's account of Romney's answer makes it seem as if Romney has no problem in principle with the idea of a Muslim quota:

[B]ased on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.

Romney just doesn't think there are enough American Muslims to justify a cabinet post.

As I said previously, though, we should make this more concrete. UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is exactly the sort of person who I'd expect to see on short lists for cabinet jobs in the next Republican administration. He's been loyal to the Bush administration, is respected by the establishment, is currently serving in an important subcabinet job, etc. Would Romney consider him? Based on Ijaz's account, the answer is no.

Comments

Isn't it just plain illegal for an employer to have a policy of disallowing a hire on the basis of religion?

Posted by sherifffruitfly | November 27, 2007 1:18 PM

As I said previously, though, we should make this more concrete.

Who is this "we" you speak of, Matthew? Do you mean some other writer for a major political publication?

Posted by Al | November 27, 2007 1:19 PM

I think Mitt will hire the most qualified candidate, regardless of religion or ethnicity. I think the comment is being spun the wrong way, and the question was probably a trap to begin with.

Mitt is by far the most qualified person to serve in an executive capacity in this country running in the last several elections.

I expect to see a more inclusive America under Mitt, but also more efficiency in all executive positions.

Mormons have nothing against Muslims at all. We have a lot in common in fact.

Posted by Jed | November 27, 2007 1:31 PM

Mitt is by far the most qualified person to serve in an executive capacity in this country running in the last several elections.

Why, exactly? On paper, I'd say Richardson is the most impressive of those with executive experience. I'm not sure, also, how Romney's experience is so superior to Huckabee's.

Posted by John | November 27, 2007 1:37 PM

Seems like standard dog-whistle politics. He's being interviewed by (I presume) a muslim journalist - a question about muslim cabinet members can't possibly have been unexpected. His response was vague enough for people to hear what they wanted to hear.

Posted by BFR | November 27, 2007 1:43 PM

I am not a Mitt fan, but I think he just accidentally told the truth. There is a tradition of diversity hires in certain cabinet positions. Mitt doesn't think there are enough Muslims in the US to make this worthwhile.

Posted by Lemmy Caution | November 27, 2007 1:43 PM

Lopez is a big, fat sycophant. Romney stuck in his foot in his mouth. It's hard to read his words plainly and reasonably conclude anything other than that he's addressing a set-aside.

Posted by W | November 27, 2007 1:47 PM

A lot in common, Jed? In the "Mormons slaughter hundreds of innocent Christians" (see Mountain Meadows) and "Muslims slaughter thousands of innocent Christians" sense?

Posted by bowler | November 27, 2007 1:49 PM

Romney just said he was misquoted on MSNBC. Maybe this iJaz guy is full of it

Posted by Nate | November 27, 2007 1:57 PM

Jed:

Actually, I'd say that Mormonism and Islam have very, very little in common as religions.

On the other hand---and ironically given the current world situation---Islam and Judaism are exceptionally close as religions, so much so that it almost makes sense to regard them as being the same religion, with the former merely being a universalist/non-tribalistic extension of the latter.

For example, if we took (say) the 25 most significant religions in the world and plotted their characteristics in some multidimensional space, the points representing Islam and Judaism would cluster enormously closer together than probably any other two religions. In fact, Jews in China were traditionally known as "Muslims of the Blue Cap," since Chinese thought they were just following some slight variant of Islam.

I've also read that Muhammad originally regarded his religion as actually being Judaism with himself merely filling the (legitimate) role of an new Old Testament Prophet and tried to persuade the Jewish leaders of this, but since his ancestry wasn't Jewish they balked at the claim.

Finally, from what I've read, central religious teachings of Judaism express an extraordinarily strong degree of hostility toward Christianity, but merely regard Muhammad as some sort of fool or lunatic, and his followers as sadly deluded.

Posted by RKU | November 27, 2007 2:05 PM

Romney just said he was misquoted on MSNBC. Maybe this iJaz guy is full of it

Yes, because Romney has certainly earned our trust. Not like he's ever said one thing and then turned around and said the other. Nope. Constant as the Northern Star. On a cosmological time scale, of course.

Posted by Glenn | November 27, 2007 2:05 PM

Maybe it's a ploy to win over Khalilzad to the CoLDS? After all, he may be the highest ranking person to escape Bush's terms with no specific, personal disgrace.

Posted by aleks | November 27, 2007 2:07 PM

I thought you were mistaken that Khalilzad was in a subcabinet post-- the UN Envoy has customarily been given cabinet rank.

However a quick look at the White House website reveals-- Khalilzad is not in the cabinet.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Maybe Bush agrees with Mitt. :o)

Posted by beowulf | November 27, 2007 2:15 PM

Maybe this iJaz guy is full of it

Oh, he's definitely full of it. Mansour Ijaz is the guy who started the whole Clinton-lost-Osama-in-Sudan trope.

He quickly became a darling of the right and, as a commentator on Fox News, made increasingly ridiculous claims based on "unimpeachable sources": Bin Laden was on a tanker headed back to Saudi Arabia from Pakistan; Bin Laden was in Iran; Saddam Hussein and the entire Iraqi leadership had escaped to Syria; etc. No matter how wrong these claims turned out to be, he'd be just as certain when he made his next claim---even when it completely contradicted an earlier one!

I don't even think Fox takes him all that seriously anymore, but who knows?

Posted by Joe | November 27, 2007 2:34 PM

I think concerns about Ijaz's reliability as a source are justified. I suppose what I'm wondering is, if Ijaz wanted to misquote Romney to smear him, what was his motive? Is he a Giuliani supporter? Was it an honest mistake or misunderstanding between Romney and Ijaz?

Posted by Julian Elson | November 27, 2007 2:37 PM

How exactly is it wrong to deny a Muslim a place in the cabinet based religious grounds. During the Cold War would it have been wrong to deny a Communist a position in the cabinet if he werer otherwise qualified? Why exactly are religious beliefs so distinct from political beliefs that they deserve protection. Would it be wrong to deny a post to a young earth creationist at the Smithsonian, or the EPA, or any other science related government agency? No. Would it be wrong to deny a Christian Reconstructionist, who believed the Bible took precedence over the Constitution, a place on the Supreme Court? At the minimum Muslims are required to believe things and engage in practices that make them unacceptably dissonant with Western (therefore American) values. Why is it that you can believe any crazy thing but if you call it religious then you can't be discriminated against for it?

Posted by Bill C. | November 27, 2007 2:41 PM

I think concerns about Ijaz's reliability as a source are justified. I suppose what I'm wondering is, if Ijaz wanted to misquote Romney to smear him, what was his motive? Is he a Giuliani supporter? Was it an honest mistake or misunderstanding between Romney and Ijaz?

Posted by Julian Elson | November 27, 2007 2:37 PM

=================================================

He shouldn't have any reliability as a source - he's a Democratic fundraiser with links to the Sudanese government:

The Washington Post
April 29, 1997, Tuesday, Final Edition
A SECTION; Pg. A01
David B. Ottaway, Washington Post Staff Writer

Democratic Fund-Raiser Pursues Agenda on Sudan

Mansoor Ijaz, a 35-year-old businessman, was precisely the kind of political activist the White House was seeking last year to help finance President Clinton's reelection campaign.

Wealthy and well-connected, Ijaz was more than willing to pitch in. By Election Day in November, he had raised $525,000 for the Democratic cause, including $250,000 from his personal funds and $200,000 donated by guests at a fund-raising reception for Vice President Gore at Ijaz's New York penthouse in September, according to Federal Election Commission records, White House documents and Ijaz.

Now Ijaz is trying to reap what he has sown. Having earned access to the Clinton administration through his fund-raising prowess, Ijaz has met with a succession of senior officials in the White House, State Department and Congress to further his business interests through changes in U.S. policy toward Islamic countries, particularly Sudan, a government long accused of sanctioning international terrorism. Much of the 1996 campaign fund-raising controversy has centered on questions about big donors currying influence and gaining access to administration officials. Ijaz's case illustrates the blurring of lines between fund-raising and the pursuit of personal political and financial agendas by those whose donations helped finance Clinton's reelection.

Since last summer, Ijaz has worked relentlessly to broker a reconciliation between the United States and Sudan, an emerging African oil producer the Clinton administration has sought to isolate because of Khartoum's alleged support for international terrorism.

Posted by Campesino | November 27, 2007 2:51 PM

Re RKU

Of course, there is no animosity amongst Christians about Jews, not. Let us see what Martin Luther had to say on the subject.

"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.

First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...

Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews."

Posted by SLC | November 27, 2007 3:06 PM

well, if you think we're at war with all the muslims of the world, then it would indeed be wrong to consider them for a cabinet post

Posted by novkant | November 27, 2007 3:07 PM

above in response to bill c

Posted by novakant | November 27, 2007 3:08 PM

The question was clearly framed not as a diversity/quota issue, but in the context of "can Muslims be trusted" on national security. The preface to the question did not deal with "representation" in Cabinet - so once again, big fat KJL is full of shit with her excuses for Mitt.

Romney' answer is bad two times over: he *avoided* the question of whether a Muslim can be trusted in a national security position (instead of just saying "I won't let religion dictate my choices of who's best to serve America"), and did so by explicitly noting he considers how representative his Cabinet is (ie. tokenism) instead of how competent the person may be.

So now he has to answer whether or not his Cabinet is simply a quota of the various demographic groups in America, *and* he leaves festering the idea that he's a bigot who might exclude a Muslim from a national security post (funny, that, since all he thinks is relevant about his qualifications for President is that he's a "person of faith" - but the nature of the faith is unimportant (except if its Islamic apparently)...).

Posted by McKingford | November 27, 2007 3:17 PM

The question was clearly framed not as a diversity/quota issue, but in the context of "can Muslims be trusted" on national security. The preface to the question did not deal with "representation" in Cabinet

Huh? How does McKingford know what the question was? That appears to me to be precisely the item in dispute. Does McKingsford have some information that the rest of don't have?

Posted by Al | November 27, 2007 3:21 PM

novakant,

Whether we're at war with them or not is irrelevant. I don't think that someone who holds it as a core belief that the female half of the population is composed of unclean vessels of sin who need to be covered should be in government. Sorry I think that's askew of good sense enough that the rest of said person's mental health and good judgement can be questioned. How many Muslims would fully repudiate sharia law and say the us constitution takes total precedence. Anyone of any faith not willing to say this about their sacred texts should be disallowed from serving public office. I don't see how this is unreasonable. Its not a religious test, its a civics test.

Posted by Bill C. | November 27, 2007 3:47 PM

Bill C.- so all muslims think that way? anywhere and everywhere? even the thousands in our armed forces?

Posted by Rickm | November 27, 2007 3:56 PM

The good news about Romney's apparent represntative quota policy will be to see a cabinet that is 51% female. (And 19% children.)
-J

Posted by John I | November 27, 2007 3:57 PM

Huh? How does McKingford know what the question was? That appears to me to be precisely the item in dispute. Does McKingsford have some information that the rest of don't have?

I know I shouldn't respond to dumb trolls...

We know what the questioner *said* he asked. If that is true, then my point holds.

KLJ isn't saying he was misquoted or that there is a difference in opinion about the wording of the question. Instead, she is putting her spin on the answer the questioner said he was given by Romney. This is untenable, *unless* KLJ is saying that Ijaz's account of the question is wrong. But she isn't.

There's simply no way that when looking at the question and answer one can spin this Romney's way (and certainly *not* the way KLJ is).

Posted by McKingford | November 27, 2007 4:09 PM

"Bill C.- so all muslims think that way? anywhere and everywhere? even the thousands in our armed forces?"

I doubt they do all think that way. But I wouldn't exactly call them Muslims. They fall into the category of people who don't actually believe their religion. Much like Christians in the Western world. I don't think the Koran cna be made ammenable to the kind of tolerance necessary to live in a western democracy. A Communist who believed in the neccessity of capitalistic economies couldn't be called a communist. And given the foundational books of Islam, a Muslim who believes in the goodness of western society can't be called a Muslim.

Posted by Bill C. | November 27, 2007 4:14 PM

OH OK. So you have a private definition of Muslims--one that no one else adheres to. I'm sure this includes Mitt Romney, because he is someone who is not you, and thus doesn't believe in the esteemed scholar of Islam, Bill C.'s, definition. So then, whats your quibble? What's so bad about Mitt Rommney allowing psuedoislamists in the cabinet? You, the arbiter of what is and is not a muslim (who cares what self-identifying muslims think), shouldn't have a problem with that, should you? You,

Posted by Rickm | November 27, 2007 4:27 PM

Mitt should know all about being considered ineligible to apply for a job based on the applicant's religion.

Posted by N. Otter | November 27, 2007 4:38 PM

I'd say that Mormonism and Islam have very, very little in common as religions

The history of their origins are actually very, very similar. I think the comparison is rather apt, personally.

Posted by Tyro | November 27, 2007 4:54 PM

Tyro:

Well, you have a point there, namely some one individual claims to receive divine revelation, and later either he or his followers flee somewhere else to escape "persecution." But I'd suspect something along roughly similar lines applies to very many religions, or even religious sects.

But as far as I can see, the actual tenets of the two religions---Islam and Mormonism---seem extremely different, about as dissimilar as any two religions, their sole commonality being the Old Testament, which they interpret in radically different ways.

In what respects do you seem them as being similar in doctrine?

Posted by RKU | November 27, 2007 5:09 PM

Tyro: Islam like Christianity and Judiasm is a monotheistic faith. Mormonism is a polytheistic faith that masquarades a monotheistic faith. Since Mitt is a faithful member of the LDS Church, he obviously believes that he will be a god with his own world to reign over and with multiple spirit wives with whom he will produce billions of spirit babies to be born on that world.

Posted by Colonel Danite | November 27, 2007 5:22 PM

Bill C. A Communist who believed in the neccessity of capitalistic economies couldn't be called a communist.

???? Ever hear of Lenin's New Economic Policy? And that was only the first of several compromises communist rulers have been forced to make over the decades with economic reality.

This sums up the problems with your arguments nicely. They are wrong primarily because they are simplistic and naive. Truly religious Muslims, as with devout adherants of so many other religions, don't run for office. Some try to avoid the political sphere altogether, in an Amish fashion. This is because politics inevitably tarnishes the purity of religion. Modern Islamists couldn't get anywhere in politics if it couldn't ride on nationalism, ethnic centrism and anti-western paranoia, as it does in Iran and with the Taliban. Like communists, they are forced to sacrifice their ideal to earthly realities.

And any Muslim in modern secular politics anywhere is probably a craven, compromising bastard of extreme moral flexibility. Which distinguishes them from politicians of other religions exactly how?

Posted by sweaty guy | November 27, 2007 6:46 PM

Islamic Fascism declared war against the U.S. and all non-Islamic nations. The truth is the truth. Why would any free human want to suppress this? http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

Posted by Dr Coles | November 27, 2007 7:15 PM

I think that Colonel Danite raises the crucial political issue. The (apparent) Romney position rejecting Muslims for being Muslims is fatally damaging in the context of his own religious faith.

The point is that such a stance completely opens the door to legitimate media questioning of Romney's own religious beliefs. After all, if he rejects Muslims on grounds of their beliefs it's difficult for him to block questioning of his own. The situation is a little like a Bill Clinton-type who declares that the central theme of his campaign will be "traditional family values".

And what exactly happens once a sufficiently bold and ruthless journalist asks: "Governor Romney, as a member of the Mormon faith, is it true that you plan to become a God?"

I actually have mixed feelings about this, since, like Matt, I regard an utter ideological chameleon such as Romney as somewhat less dangerous than a Giuliani.

Posted by RKU | November 27, 2007 7:41 PM

I certainly hope my comp registered a juicy virus to justify that inane website of yours, Coles. To justify the idea that speaking of 'the threat of Islamofacism' is anathema would require a doozy of an argument: instead, I get something that's unironically entitled 'Un-American Activity.' That's your homepage, no doubt.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | November 27, 2007 8:30 PM

As RKU points out, the questions so far about Romney's faith have not really scratched the surface. No questions about why American Indians have dark skin. No questions about the war between the good and evil spirit-babies. No questions about whether Christ really is coming back to Missouri. No mentions of where Kolob, God's home, really is. and certainly no questions about why Mormon men (at least the Salt Lake LDS men) get to ascend to Godhood someday.

Of course, Mormons, ought not to have to defend every stupid thing that their church ever did. But given the way that Romney and his colleagues have described Islam with true subtlety and honesty, it would be more than fair to have these nasty questions start appearing.

Posted by Tim Francis-Wright | November 27, 2007 8:44 PM

Now that you mention him, I could go for Khalilzad for secretary of state or, at least, UN ambassador in a Clinton administration. He seems to be the one exception to the rule that no one leaves the Bush administration with his reputation intact (any other cases ? Anyone ? Bueler ?)

Posted by Robert Waldmann | November 28, 2007 7:31 AM

There are 5-8 millin Muslims in the US, and I guess the Repblicans are writing off those of them who vote, along with the Hispanics and the Blacks.

Posted by bob h | November 28, 2007 8:11 AM