July 26, 2005
Mitt Romney for President?
Posted by Gordon Smith

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has presidential aspirations. He is a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. He is the son of George Romney, three-time Michigan governor who famously tanked his own presidential campaign by claiming that his initial support for the Vietnam War was due to the fact that he had been "brainwashed" by the U.S. military. Like his father, Mitt Romney has been a successful businessman. (He founded Bain & Company, a private equity firm). He also has a JD and an MBA, both from Harvard. And he gave Ted Kennedy a surprising run for his money in the 1994 Senate race.

Romney's official bio touts his work in resuscitating the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee as his greatest pre-gubernatorial achievement. Unless you followed that story closely, it is easy to forget what a job Romney did with it. This from Rocky Anderson, the Democrat mayor of Salt Lake City, who is not known for praising Republicans:

He was absolutely spectacular. He was a strong leader, extremely competent. He walked into an utter disaster, and slashed spending without cutting corners on what was necessary to put on an absolutely extraordinary Olympics. With his unique management skills we came out in the black--which no one ever dreamed.

More important than all of this to some people, however, is the fact that Romney is a member of of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Predictably, some people are starting to ask: Would America elect a Mormon as President?

The big concern is that Romney may feel beholden to follow instructions from Church leaders: "So would Romney likewise feel obliged to follow the dictates of the church's president, whom Mormons believe to be a divinely inspired prophet?" Of course, this question reminds us of a similar question posed to Jack Kennedy about his relationship to the Pope. Kennedy responded:

I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic . . . I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.

Could Romney give a Kennedy-esque response? I doubt that would suffice in today's political environment, at least on a national stage (see more below), but if that is Romney's intention, he had better tell his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, who offered this statement:

[Governor Romney's] first obligation is to fulfill his duty of office, and that would take precedence over anything.... This is a governor who has signed a law permitting Sunday alcohol sales, and who has been open to an expansion of gaming. This is by no means someone who is marching in lockstep with his church.

My impression is that Romney, like all Mormon politicians, usually tries to walk a thin line. He does not want to be portrayed as the Church's puppet, but at the same time, he does not want to defy the Church. Most Mormon politicians avoid this dilemma by noting that the Church has never told them how to vote on a particular piece of legislation. And as far I can tell, it is true that Church leaders do not attempt to exert direct influence on Mormon politicians. This was essentially Kennedy's position with respect to the Catholic church, and it still works in local and state elections.

Fehrnstrom's statement, however, does not take this tack. By asserting that Romney was not "marching in lockstep with his church," Fehrnstrom staked out a position of defiance. Consider Romney's actions with respect to gaming. The Church has an official policy in opposition to gambling and urges members to oppose its legalization. [UPDATE: this portion of the post has been edited to remove a quotation from the Church's General Handbook of Instruction, which is not a public document.] This anti-gambling message is repeated often in Church publications. To the extent that Romney "has been open to an expansion of gaming," he appears to be in direct conflict with the Church's teachings. Not being all that politically savvy, I wonder how being portrayed as a hypocrite helps Romney. This reminds me of John Kerry's cafeteria Catholicism, which raised more questions than it answered.

Would America elect a Mormon as President? Perhaps. But as noted above, I doubt that Kennedy's elegant fudging of the role of faith in politics would suffice today. As Ann Althouse has observed, the world today is much different than Jack Kennedy's world, and "personal moral questions have become central" to politics in a way that they were not in 1960. In that milieu, I have serious doubts about the ability of a faithful Mormon to win an electoral majority, and I sincerely hope that no Mormon would be elected President on a platform that defies Church teachings. If so, it would be without my vote.

Politics | Bookmark

TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d834844cc069e2

Links to weblogs that reference Mitt Romney for President?:

Comments (14)

1. Posted by Scott S. on July 26, 2005 @ 19:28 | Permalink

That was a very interesting post. These days the mass media seems to separate the U.S. into a red state/blue state pattern without bothering to consider the variety of viewpoints around the country.

As someone who believes that God is very good but does not participate in any organized religion, I do not know much about the Mormon faith.

With all due respect, could you explain the rationale behind the Mormon Church's position against gambling? Specifically, does the Mormon position preclude investing in the stock market, a practice that some consider nothing more than an elaborate wager on future company performance?


2. Posted by Shag from Brookline on July 27, 2005 @ 5:29 | Permalink

At this year's St. Patrick's Day bash in South Boston, Mitt Romney appeared with the mostly democratic pols to try to humor us. He said that he belived "marriage was between a man and a woman ... and a woman ... and a woman ... and a woman ...." He has been a real joke as Governor. Mitt Romney, President"? I say, "Mitt-out Romney." Put his replica on top of wedding cakes where it may belong.


3. Posted by Bruce Hayden on July 27, 2005 @ 8:42 | Permalink

I am sure that there is some religious justification for the Mormon Church's opposition to gambling. But realistically, I suspect that it stems from being somewhat tied to Las Vegas. There has been a lot of Mormon money there for quite awhile, as well as a lot of Mormons working in the Casinos. Ditto of course for more northern NV, such as Elko. In any case, as I understand it, the big thing is for Mormons not to gamble. It appears to be somewhat ok to work in a casino, or even own a piece of one, just not to gamble in one.


4. Posted by Plainsman on July 27, 2005 @ 10:34 | Permalink

Many Americans, and not only Mormons, oppose gambling on religious grounds. I am not familiar with Mormon social thought, but one common theological argument is that gambling on chance events is a form of mocking at God's Providence. Another is that it detracts from a proper attitude toward the value of work.

The Catholic position is more qualified:

"Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter [i.e., they can be mortal sin], unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, sec. 2413.

As for speculation on the securities markets, again, I do not know the Mormon position, but I have read Protestant theologians who distinguish the securities market from mere gambling because investment in securities serves useful social purposes; it makes it possible to raise the large sums of capital necessary for socially beneficial enterprises. This is not true of the typical bookie's shop.

(From my knowledge of her scholarly work, Professor Hurt might have some interesting things to say about this supposed distinction.)

Since the profits from state-run lotteries in America today largely go to support meritorious public causes, such as schools, you might similarly argue that participating in public lotteries should not be held immoral. But some would respond that there are clearly more efficient and equitable means of gathering funds for public spending; that public lotteries are a form of regressive taxation, and so are contrary to social justice and still deserve to be condemned.


5. Posted by Plainsman on July 27, 2005 @ 10:38 | Permalink

On the other hand, there's a libertarian argument that lotteries are morally superior to taxation because at least participation is voluntary; the state does not extract lottery revenues by threat of imprisonment.


6. Posted by Scott S. on July 27, 2005 @ 19:29 | Permalink

Thanks Plainsman.


7. Posted by Gordon Smith on July 27, 2005 @ 20:47 | Permalink

Scott, I apologize for not checking back in earlier. My connectivity is really limited here.

Anyway, Plainsman did a nice job providing the basic arguments. Mormons are not discouraged from investing in the stock market, but distinguishing stock trading from gambling is not all that easy, as Christine will tell you.


8. Posted by Ryan on July 28, 2005 @ 9:13 | Permalink

I find it a bit disturbing that the church's official policies are hidden in documents that are not made available to the public, or even the majority of its own members.


9. Posted by rywinter on August 1, 2005 @ 11:27 | Permalink

Ryan,

You can find just about all topics and policies on the church website www.lds.org. If you don't find it under the "Basic Belief Section", you can simply do a "search" for the topic you are interested in in the "Gospel Library Archive" section. You will find multiple talks given by various church leaders on the subject.

You just need to look for it.


10. Posted by AH on August 2, 2005 @ 12:13 | Permalink

For those interested, here is a discourse given very recently by the President of the LDS Church solely on the subject of gambling.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-520-21,00.html


11. Posted by mike on August 7, 2005 @ 8:52 | Permalink

You discussion is very interesting. As a Mormon, I find it interesting to see what others think and say about the church. I am pleased to see that in the course of your discussion many have seemed to keep an open mind about the general topic.

You are right that church policies are not open to the public; they are given to church leaders in a type of handbook. But, do not speculate that you are missing out on a lot of very interesting information. The guidelines are vague in order give church leaders the ability to make their own appropriate decisions as prompted by the Holy Ghost. It may say something like gambling is wrong and list a few scriptures that support this stance. But leave any and all consequences for doing so up to the leader who is working with someone who has a problem gambling. But the church’s stance is always discussed openly. You would not likely find anything different in there than you would find taught generally to the church. You can find information like that by doing the search that a previous post mentioned.

It would be interesting to see if Mitt Romney could persuade the majority of America to vote for him, because of him being a Mormon. I think we would first have to see if the Republican Party gave him their nod. If that happens, maybe there is room in the White House for a Mormon.

I know there was some discussion about some decisions he made and bills he signed but, I would ask this: Did the state of Massachusetts elect Mitt Romney to enact Mormon laws upon state of Massachusetts or did they elect him to enact laws by the voice of the people for the state of Massachusetts? There really is a big difference between the two.


12. Posted by Mike on August 22, 2005 @ 15:22 | Permalink

Well, the real question is how is Mitt Romney going to justify moving back to Michigan since he has not lived there since he was 18? There have been several Romney campaign leaks stating that the Massachusetts governor is moving back to Michigan after he leaves the corner office in Boston. Thus, he can avoid the Massachusetts liberal title. Is this another classic Romney flip-flop—like his position on abortion or gay marriage-- or a brilliant Mike Murphy move? Only time will tell.


13. Posted by Kevin on April 3, 2006 @ 22:01 | Permalink

I'm a member of an online grassroots organization called "Americans for Mitt", I would recomend this site to anyone interested in learning more about Mitt Romney.

http://www.americansformitt.com/


14. Posted by Brady Alder on September 19, 2006 @ 22:24 | Permalink

I think the whole idea that being a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) would somehow hinder Mitt's ability to serve as our president is just plain silly. A president is elected to lead and represent the interests of all his people and that's what he would do. There is no conflict between being LDS and not wanting to illegalize gambling for example. You can believe something is wrong and still believe people in this country have the right to make the decision for themselves. One of the major tenants of the LDS faith is the belief in personal agency. So if the people in a state want to choose to legalize gambling, a person of faith can, without hypocrisy, speak against it, then vote for it (as a representative of his state). LDS leaders don't preach about how to vote, they teach how to lead your personal lives. Besides, LDS people have served honorably and without “religion problems” as governors, senators, congressmen and on the president’s cabinet. This whole religion issue is really set up to distract people from the fact that Mitt is nearly the perfect presidential candidate and nobody can say anything substantial against him.

For those of you who are trying so hard to figure out why the LDS faith preaches against gambling, I think letting you in on the secret of why LDS missionaries can't go swimming will enlighten you. When I was a missionary, there was a lot of speculation as to why we couldn't go swimming. Some quoting scriptures that mentioned water, some thinking it was because when Missionaries got time off they were overexcited and did dumb things. When a General Authority of the church visited us we asked him and got the inside scoop. He told us that the real reason is that Missionaries die every year from swimming-and that's with a rule against it. They don't want to allow swimming because it would mean more parents loosing their son or daughter on a mission. The same is true of gambling-it ruins people's lives every year, thus we are advised to stay away.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Random Walk
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
July 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Syndicate The Glom
Subscribe

The Glom's Blog Network on Facebook:

Miscellaneous Links