Conversion

Via Ross Douthat, Noah Millman and Russell Arben Fox offer their views of what Mitt Romney ought to say in his big speech about religion. Probably he should stay in keeping with his main campaign themes and just tell Republican primary voters that he's willing to say whatever they want him to say about Mormonism and explain that he's only had trouble with this issue because it's not clear what people want from him.

For that matter, if you could just replay this whole primary campaign, it seems to me that Romney's big mistake was failing to flip-flop on the question of his faith. Back when he was a culturally moderate Bay Stater, religion wasn't especially central to Romney's political identity. And while flip-flopping on "the issues" is generally held in low esteem, flip-flopping on religion -- converting, in short -- is usually celebrated as long as people like your new religion. So why not find Jesus? Back when he was considering that stem cell bill, Romney could have consulted with a wide array of religious leaders including, say, a baptist minister. And maybe the minister in question is really convincing and Romney decides to abandon the faith into which he was born. Religious right types have to be prepared to believe conversion stories, and the experience of being "born again" would be the perfect opportunity to flip-flip on an array of issues, lending the flops a pseudo-plausible veneer of respectability. And who, then, would speak of Mike Huckabee?

Comments

I love it. Headline: Mitt abandons creepy cult and becomes "normal" Christian. So what should he be, Baptist, Church of Christ? Let the ideas for Mitt's conversion roll!

Posted by scott | December 5, 2007 5:00 PM

I suspect that no one cares about any religion. Republicans have a grassroots organization and they will vote for whoever they are told to vote.

Posted by abb1 | December 5, 2007 5:06 PM

Pretty clever idea! Matt should hire himself out as a political consultant.

But while we're at it, let's remember that the religious profile of the various states differs considerably.

So Romney should keep the headlines flowing by converting through the entire primary season, from Ethanol Evangelical for Iowa to Anti-Tax Episcopalian for New Hampshire to Anti-Abortion Southern Baptist for South Carolina...

Wasn't there some famous French King who said that "Paris was worth a Mass..."

Posted by RKU | December 5, 2007 5:15 PM

"For that matter, if you could just replay this whole primary campaign, it seems to me that Romney's big mistake was failing to flip-flop on the question of his faith."

It's funny because it's true.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 5:16 PM

Probably he should stay in keeping with his main campaign themes and just tell Republican primary voters that he's willing to say whatever they want him to say about Mormonism and explain that he's only had trouble with this issue because it's not clear what people want from him.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 5, 2007 5:19 PM

pity the fool.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | December 5, 2007 5:20 PM

Matt keeps discounting the fact that a 2nd or 3rd place finish for Romney in Iowa plus a win in New Hampshire with Huckabee finishing 4th or lower is very plausible. That would leave Romney as the establishment candidate left to face the upstart Huckabee.

Posted by Rob | December 5, 2007 5:25 PM

So why not find Jesus?

He's already found Jesus, since Jesus is central to the faith to which he belongs.

Posted by yave begnet | December 5, 2007 5:33 PM

This has worked in the past.

From Wikipedia on French Wars of Religion (edited):

The situation on the ground in 1589 was that the new (Protestant) Henry IV of France, as Navarre had become, held the south and west, and the Catholic League the north and east. The King knew that he had to take Paris if he stood any chance of ruling all of France. This, however, was no easy task. The Catholic League's presses and supporters continued to spread stories about atrocities committed against Catholic priests and the laity in Protestant England. The city prepared to fight to the death rather than accept a Calvinist king.

Realising that there was no prospect of a Protestant king succeeding in fanatically Catholic Paris, Henry reputedly uttered the famous phrase Paris vaut bien une messe (Paris is well worth a mass). He was formally received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1593 and was crowned at Chartres in 1594.

Enough Catholics were won over by the King's conversion to make the diehards increasingly isolated. Henry IV and his advisor, the duc de Sully continued the work of reconstruction and led France into a peaceful and prosperous age.

Posted by Martin | December 5, 2007 5:46 PM

Didn't McCain announce last month that he was now a born again Baptist? Doesn't seem to have gotten him very far with the Christers.

Posted by Arrow | December 5, 2007 6:01 PM

Ahh yes, this post is typical of you, Matt - the whole idea of a religious principle is so alien to you that you can't imagine that Romney could take his religion seriously.

Posted by James Robertson | December 5, 2007 6:34 PM

Uh, I think it's pretty clear that Matt's point is that we have good evidence that the idea of a principle of any kind is foreign to Mitt Romney.

Posted by Kalkin | December 5, 2007 6:50 PM

Holy crap, that would indeed have been brilliant. Jesus Freaks LOVE new converts, and it would have given him not only cover for flip-flopping on abortion etc., but it would offer him an absolutely unassailable cover, since if anyone questioned his sincerity, he'd play the persecuted Christian card.

Hey maybe it's not too late.

Posted by Jason C. | December 5, 2007 6:55 PM

Uh, I think it's pretty clear that Matt's point is that we have good evidence that the idea of a principle of any kind is foreign to Mitt Romney.

Projection?

Posted by kwo | December 5, 2007 7:43 PM

James Robertson:

"...you can't imagine that Romney could take his religion seriously."

Mitt Romney:

"I think we ought to double Guantanamo!"

QED.

Posted by Bill | December 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Not to mention this big speech Romney is set to give on his "faith," the distinguishing characteristic of which will be dodging every single controversial tenet he's supposed to hold, in an effort to appeal to religious voters with whom he is supposed to fundamentally disagree. I mean, any chance this speech will involve Romney standing up for Mormonism? I.e., take his religion seriously?

Seriously, James. Lemme have what you're smoking. Virtually NO politician takes his religion seriously to begin with, and you don't find religion while running for your party's nomination. Especially when it's the Grand Ole Party.

Posted by Bill | December 5, 2007 8:35 PM

I don't know Romney personally, but I strongly suspect that he is completely sincere in his religious beliefs. He has certainly sacrificed a huge amount of time and money for them.

Posted by ed | December 5, 2007 8:57 PM

The Mormon dentist and his family up the street lived in a big Tudor house.

Being southern California it was the only house on the block - and probably only one of several in the County - with a basement and an attic.

The basement was full of canned beans, and pumpkin spice. They were anticipating the apocalypse. Apparently there was a shortage of canned goods in paradise.

They were all blond.

They seemed happy.

They had amazing teeth.

Posted by Linus | December 5, 2007 9:00 PM

Don't know how much good it will do Mitt in the primaries but many a neo-con has converted to Catholicism. They appear drawn to infallibility and colorful robes.

http://www.slate.com/id/2069194

Posted by 2 cents | December 5, 2007 9:32 PM

No, Matt. Your intentions are good, but religion just isn't your strong suit.

If Romney abandoned Mormonism, he would utterly alienate a key bloc of Republican voters in several Western states, and he would most likely be greeted by Evangelicals not as born again, but derided as a something like a converso of Castille, whose motives and devotion were forever suspect.

The best reading of Romney I've seen is a comment from TPM: his political principles are up for grabs, but his personal principles aren't.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | December 6, 2007 1:39 AM

For Matt to entertain the idea that Romney would be willing to jettison his faith for political gain is simply ridiculous and demonstrates how little he understands religious faith. Anyone who believes that a genuinely believed faith can be dropped at at a moments notice does not have any idea of what being devout believer actually entails.

Romney, as a known lay leader in his church, has sacrificed more time, money, and personal gain for his faith then people like Matt, Kalkin, or Bill will ever understand. Sorry folks, some people actually do take their religion seriously. I know it's hard for many of you to believe, but alas, it's true.

Posted by cbs | December 6, 2007 5:35 AM

Okay cbs, I'll bite.

Apparently, for you, it's about the money. Romney, a gazillionaire businessman, has given lots of money to his church. Apparently that makes him holier than me. But I thought sacrifice was to be measured in relative, not absolute, terms. Silly me.

I took Matt's post to be sardonic, in light of Romney's seemingly easy conversion on other matters. Nobody expects he would do such a thing, but he's vulnerable to the satire. And leaders of the religious right have time and again betrayed their questionable motives in backing this or that candidate or cause, so it oughtn't surprise anyone were they to get behind a "born again" Romney. Look at how hard some of them are trying to fit Giuliani into the proverbial round hole.

Anyone who believes that a genuinely believed faith can be dropped at at a moments notice does not have any idea of what being devout believer actually entails.

Of course. There's far too much personal pride wrapped up in genuinely believed faith for someone to drop it at a moment's notice. It usually takes months or years. Often times, the wronger you are, or were raised, the harder it is to admit it. So sure, I'm sure Romney devoutly believes that Jesus came to America, etc etc etc, and that his enormous expenditure in the name of such loony causes isn't a means to self-validation and self-importance, and is all genuinely "solo Dei gloria."

In other words, take your superior understanding of the religious and shove it up yer ass.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 8:02 AM

I mean, I guess I'm naive enough to take Jesus' line about rich people getting into heaven at face value. Clearly I don't understand "The Devout," who can just buy their way in.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 8:06 AM

Romney, as a known lay leader in his church, has sacrificed more time, money, and personal gain for his faith then people like Matt, Kalkin, or Bill will ever understand.

Sacrificed personal gain? Bwahahahahaha.

Posted by Chris | December 6, 2007 9:44 AM

Chris, how dare you. Romney had to miss several haircuts raising money for the church. Think of all the red ties and Massachusetts so-blue-they're-purple suits he could have bought with the money he gave to a bunch of rich white people for when the Apocalypse comes to Utah.

"Anyone who believes that a genuinely believed faith can be dropped at at a moments notice does not have any idea of what being devout believer actually entails."

Considering that is a big part of how Christianity spread through Europe, I beg to differ. A lot of kings, such as Henri IV above, were willing to convert for power. Constantine, without whom Christianity would probably be just an old exotic eccentricity instead of the basis of much of modern European civilization, may not have fully converted, but he ruled as if he was a Christian who wanted his faith installed among his people (not too dissimilar to how the Manchus practiced both their folk religious practices in private and Confucian practices in public during the Qing Empire).

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 10:06 AM

A huge section of his campaign infrastructure and donor base is Mormon. Even if his religion is ultimately a liability, he couldn't afford to alienate that section of his core support this close to Iowa.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | December 6, 2007 10:59 AM

Shorter Reality Man, to the defenders of Very Devout Leaders:

Pwned.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 11:19 AM

Ok, Bill, I'll bite back. And rather than stick my "superior understanding" up my posterior, I'd rather use it help enlighten you a bit.

"Apparently, for you, it's about the money."

Uhh, no. That's not what I said. I also didn't say that anything Romney has done makes him "holier" than you. I said you and Matt clearly don't understand religious faith, or at a minimum, Romney's religious faith. I stand by that statement.

Now for someone who apparently thinks he's part of the "reality-based" community" you sure do seem averse to facts. I'll let you in on a secret - sometimes they come in handy when you want to make a substantive argument. Do you really have any idea how much time Romney has given to his church? Want to guess for me?

I don't know him personally, but as a Mormon I have a pretty good sense of it. First, Romney gave up over 2 years of his life from the age of 19-21 as a missionary. That's 2 yrs of full-time service to his faith. Second, Romney has been a bishop and a Mormon stake president. Each of these positions typically lasts somewhere between 4-9 years. In each of those positions he probably gave, on average 20+ hours a week in service to his congregations. So, just to take a number, Romney gave, unpaid (since you seem hung up on $) roughly 80 hrs a month for at least 7 yrs to his faith. Even that understates it as it doesn't include the various other voluntary positions he held before or after serving in those positions. All of this is on top of starting and raising a large family, graduating in the top of his class from Harvard, and becoming an incredibly successful businessman.

However, if money is the issue you want to use as the main barometer that's fine by me - it merely adds to my point. As a devout Mormon Romney gives 10% of all his income to his faith. Now Romney is reportedly worth upwards of 200 million so I think it's a safe guess to say that over the course of his life he's donated $20 million to his church. You're right, the absolute amount doesn't make him any better than the widow who can only give $10. But there is no question Romney has made a clear financial sacrifice on behalf of his faith.

"I'm sure Romney devoutly believes that Jesus came to America, etc etc etc, and that his enormous expenditure in the name of such loony causes isn't a means to self-validation and self-importance, and is all genuinely "solo Dei gloria."

That (and Chris's) attitude is precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned "personal gain." Do you really think Mormons don't know that they're often ridiculed by others (both from the more secular as well as other Christians)? Do you really think that in all of his interactions with his Harvard professors, big-wig executives at Bain, or the Boston elite that there was no moment where people took him a little less seriously or at least treated him differently because of his faith? Mormons know that their faith doesn't carry much currency in most parts of the world. It's usually treated with the same disdain exhibited in the quote above, whether explicitly or implicitly. Does it have social costs? You better believe it does. And yet we still believe.

Again, the point here is not to exhibit pride or to tell you why Mormons are better than you (or to evince pity - that's not my intent at all). I only bring this up to show you that anyone who thinks Mitt Romney would be willing to give up his life-long faith now, to turn his back on all that he has given and said and done for the last 5 decades of his life, makes little to no sense at all.

Posted by cbs | December 6, 2007 12:15 PM

Chris - Go back and read my initial comment. Pay special attention to the words "genuinely believed faith" and "devout." Now, reconsider what you wrote above.

Posted by cbs | December 6, 2007 12:19 PM

cbs:

Please explain to me how serving as a missionary amounts to "giving up two years of a life" in a way that I just would not understand. I "serve" a lot of people living below the poverty line as a private tutor, for 10-20 hours per week. Am I "giving up" those 10-20 hours, or is that just life? Why not rephrase it less sanctimoniously? There's nothing inherently wrong with Romney's lay leadership; I'm just not required to be in awe of it. And by the way, Romney's missionary activity was in southern France. Boo hoo.

Second, as for the amazing success story that is Mitt Romney, top of his class at Harvard, he's the son of a governor whose best friend was named Marriott, as in Hotel. So he was born on third base; let's not pretend he hit a triple. And as for adding up all the money he's given to the church, which you seem so fascinated by, sane people are free to believe there are better causes to throw millions at than the LDS. But good for him.

Third, as for this:

That (and Chris's) attitude is precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned "personal gain."

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. The idea that Romney gave up "personal gain" -- because some people at Harvard, or Bain Capital, might have sniggered at him for his religion is risible. What a hard knock life!

But the point you're avoiding is that for all his lifelong devotion to the Mormon Church, he's clearly prepared to duck all of its most inconvenient "beliefs" so that he can get elected by a group of assholes who insist that there be a religious test for public office. Romney's a smart and worldly guy: does he believe there should be a religious test for public office? Almost certainly not. Would he ever admit it in public? Not a chance. So again, take your superior understanding of "devout" and "genuinely believed" and kindly shove it.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 1:25 PM

Re Mission - I fail to see much of a distinction between your "serve' and my "gave up" but if makes you feel better, I'm happy to call it "serving" a mission (which is actually how it is referred to within the Mormon community). The reason why I equated that with one "giving up" two years of his life is because in going on a mission the individual foregos college, dating, job experience or income, contact with friends and family, hobbies and just about any form of recreation or personal pursuits. You really do set aside two years of your life to nothing else but missionary work. Regardless of semantics, the point is that it is a significant sacrifice.

- I admire you for being a regular volunteer tutor. Wouldn't you agree that this service has made you acutely aware and loyal to the cause of educating the impoverished? Would you agree that it has made you more "vested" in the cause? Romney's time dedicated to his church has the same effect.

- Having the name and money gets you into Harvard. It doesn't get you to the top of the class. Only personal success gets you there.

- I'm not fascinated by Romney's financial contributions to the church. I do, however, think it's absurd to think that it shouldn't be a data point when determining whether someone is committed to a particular cause.

"But the point you're avoiding is that for all his lifelong devotion to the Mormon Church, he's clearly prepared to duck all of its most inconvenient "beliefs" so that he can get elected by a group of assholes who insist that there be a religious test for public office."

I'm not avoiding anything. What you're avoiding once again is any evidence. Tell me a single doctrine Romney has ducked. You can look long and hard, but I can tell you now you won't find one. He's committed to his faith.

- Your last point baffles me. You believe that Romney wants a religious test for public office? Huhh? I can't figure out where you coming from on that one but if you were sincerely asking, I think Romney's nationally televised speech today pretty much answers your question. Of course he doesn't - he's been saying that virtually since the day he started running.

Posted by cbs | December 6, 2007 2:44 PM

Romney, in his so-called JFK Speech, barely mentioned anything about Mormonism, for fear of offending GOP religious bigots.

It's pretty obvious.

Posted by bob | December 6, 2007 3:44 PM

So we're all supposed to be in awe of every Mormon who serves on a mission? I don't see why that's the case. The mission, after all, is to convert people to a religion to which most of us do not subscribe, so I don't see why we should be so psyched that Mitt went on one. It's not even the Christian-type Mission of feeding starving children in Africa. It's walking up to strangers and asking something like "have you heard of the story of Mormonism"? I understand why other Mormons feel strongly about it, but I don't see why people of other faiths or no faith should.

Posted by bob | December 6, 2007 3:49 PM

Shorter Romney: "Yo, Fundos! Let's go out and beat up on those atheist fags!"

Posted by Henderstock | December 6, 2007 4:23 PM

"You believe that Romney wants a religious test for public office? Huhh? I can't figure out where you coming from on that one but if you were sincerely asking, I think Romney's nationally televised speech today pretty much answers your question. Of course he doesn't - he's been saying that virtually since the day he started running."--cbs

You've got to be kidding.

Posted by Henderstock | December 6, 2007 4:26 PM

Here's an idea, cbs. A person's faith/belief in something isn't measured by how much time and material resources he spends on it. It's measured by how much risk he is willing to take for it. Mitt Romney was born into a rich white guy club and has pretty much coasted from there on his natural abilities. His extensive involvement in the Mormon Church is just, as far as I'm concerned, akin to X hours of club membership per week, glad-handing other people at the clubhouse who're thankful they have such a well-heeled leader around. "Missionary work" that is merely asking people to join your club, in oh, how about France, and "charity" that is just essentially paying X amount of club dues, to be appreciated and applauded by other alike-thinking members of the same club, doesn't impress...

And then, when it's time to try and gain acceptance by a different club, one that hates your club, well, then it's time to dodge every particular of your lifelong club. A big speech in Texas about Romney's Mormonism, that somehow fails to talk about Mormonism. Wow! What a believer!

Granted, he wouldn't have this problem if he'd just run for President like a normal person should, without embracing the crazed voting bloc that believes one's faith should be worn on one's sleeve.

Posted by Bill | December 7, 2007 7:54 AM

bob - Nowhere have I said that people should be in awe of Romney for serving a mission. My comments are a response to Matt's proposition that it is reasonable to think Romney would be willing to jettison his faith in order to pick up some votes. Nothing has been said here that would convince me this is a plausible statement.

Bill - This last post of yours demonstrates precisely where we differ. You see Mormonism as the equivalent of a rarefied country club. I, as an adherent to that faith, see it as something entirely distinct. As someone who knows acutely what being a Mormon actually entails, I can tell you that it wouldn't get very far if it were little more than a polite men's society.

How many people do you think would join a club with these requirements: mandatory weekly attendance at the clubhouse, two-years of uninterrupted service at a location and with people not of your choosing where learning a new language may be required, daily rituals (prayer) and reading of the club manuals expected, monthly house calls to other members of the "club", hourly assignments each week, no drinking, no smoking, no coffee, no tea, no gambling, no pre-marital sex, complete faithfulness to spouse after marriage, strong encouragement to live a family-focused lifestyle, limited activities on Sundays, strict obedience to the various other club house rules, etc. I could go on. And the great thing is that you get all these club perks for one very low fee of 10% of all income generated over the course of your lifetime. Additional fees can also be levied for special circumstances (to assist the poor and needy).

If Mormonism was merely a social club as described above, it wouldn't have a single member.

My point in all this, again, is that while I readily admit Romney has changed position on a number of political issues, it is not a realistic proposition to think he's willing to, or would even consider, giving up his lifelong dedication to a faith that is not easily held for a short-term political ploy.

You do not need to respect the Mormon faith or the sacrifices it requires, but it doesn't behoove your credibility when one completely disregards the very real and tangible sacrifices that are clearly associated with this faith.

Posted by cbs | December 7, 2007 9:14 AM

cbs,

Of course he's not willing to jettison his faith. It's much easier to just whitewash it for a while, until he's President Romney. Matt's post was sardonic.

(Does he still have to make monthly house calls once he's President?)

As for the requirements for the "club membership" they can be as draconian as you like. All the more reason for Romney to own up to them, especially when he's pandering to the faithful.

Posted by Bill | December 7, 2007 9:55 AM

Bill,

So you agree it's silly to think Romney would leave his faith for political points and I concede that he's open to criticism for shifting policy positions. Are we really that far from each other?

With that said, I don't think he's whitewashing his faith - he's trying to win people's votes, not their religious fealty. Why then should he pitch them his Mormonism? As the thrust of his speech yesterday articulated, it's largely immaterial which creed or the specific religious beliefs he, or other candidates, hold. The important and politically relevant thing is the political values a candidate adheres to.

Posted by cbs | December 7, 2007 11:28 AM