Noonan on Romney

(In this entry, a Mormon protests M. Mason’s earlier attacks on Mormonism.)

Peggy Noonan, grading all the candidates from the point of view of whether they are reasonable or not, makes observations about Romney that pretty closely parallel the points I’ve made over and over:

Mitt Romney? Yes. Characterological cheerfulness, personal stability and a good brain would be handy to have around. He hasn’t made himself wealthy by seeing the world through a romantic mist. He has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in the global economy. I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can’t go back to pro-life again, because if you do you’ll look like a flake. The positions Mr. Romney espouses now are the positions he will stick with. He has no choice.

Or, as I’ve said, he’ll stay with the girl he brought to the dance.

The whole column is interesting. I enjoy the activity of sizing up of presidential candidates, like checking over the horses before a race, getting a feel for which one you think is the best of the lot.

Let’s face it, American presidential contests, while having serious outcomes, are also a grand sport and diversion, a recreation for the mind. There’s nothing like it.

And if anyone thinks that too frivolous an attitude for a serious, traditionalist website such as this, please remember that presidential elections, including their “horse-race” aspect, are a great American tradition.

- end of initial entry -

M. Mason writes:

Though I can understand the appeal of an outwardly attractive candidate like Romney, I found Noonan’s evaluation of the man to be disappointingly shallow. [LA replies: Has anyone ever expected Noonan to be deep?] Whenever a politician running for President begins to make a splash on the national stage with all the campaign and mainstream media hype, I always pay close attention to the testimony of politically-involved people on the local scene who really know the politician and his record. I’ve been reading a lot at MassResistance.org and other sites lately that have been closely following Romney’s tenure as governor and I have to say that what they report isn’t the least bit encouraging. I cut out one quote (no line) from one poster who summed up the conviction of many and said: “After 4 plus years of being on the email list of MassResistance.org , I am certain that Romney is not now nor ever was conservative based on his record.” There is an increasing number of other conservative voices being quoted in the legacy media warning against him as well.

Personally, I would not characterize Mitt Romney as a “reliable opportunist” who “stays with the girl he brought” to the dance. What would insure that someone with his political track record continues to stay with that particular “girl” at any given point in time after he’s been elected President? Before you answer that question, consider also that after studying this man for a while now there’s another reason why I have come to certain negative conclusions about him quite apart from his Mormonism. Noonan misses what I believe is the essential point about Romney. Whatever degree he may or may not adhere to conservative politics as a matter of principle (and I would say his commitment is only slight at best), my own analysis is that a very deep and powerfully motivating force in the life of someone who displays his particular type of personality is not holding to ideological principle, per se, but rather social acceptance. Which is not, I would stress, the case with someone like, oh say, Lawrence Auster, for example—and even more pointedly, it wasn’t with Mitt Romney’s own father who, you will recall, as a liberal Republican opposed Richard Nixon on ideological principle in 1968 and lost the GOP nomination in no small part because of that. Whether it was his father’s steadfastness to principle that was an object lesson for his son in what not to do if he doesn’t want to end up as a footnote in presidential politics, or it’s the younger Romney’s inherently different temperment that is the cause of his unreliability in this matter is an open question. I suspect it’s mostly the second factor. But whatever the case, for all these reasons, I’ll go on record here and state that anyone who expects political consistency from Mitt Romney in the future as far as holding to conservative policies is concerned is likely to be sorely disappointed.

LA replies:

This is an entirely reasonable statement. I think that Noonan’s and my view that Romney will stay with the girl he brought is also reasonable. As I keep saying, I am not endorsing Romney, and furthermore I personally will probably not vote for anyone who attended that Spanish language debate. My purpose here is to cast about for a viable GOP candidate who is an acceptable alternative to the Democrats. It’s entirely possible that such a candidate does not exist this year. But in the meantime, I remain open to the possibility that Romney, based on his evident smarts and talents, would be an acceptable alternative to the Democrats.

Lynn J. writes (December 29, 2007):

M. Mason’s basic thesis, in the December 10 post, “What Mormons believe about God and man,” is in error. There is no evidence that Mormonism is a threat to sound government. Mormons have served in a variety of government positions since Ezra Taft Benson as Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. What evidence can Mason offer that any Mormon ever governed unwisely because of religion?

Rather, this is a sectarian analysis that is designed to make Mormons less than human. Witness Mason’s language: “strange, twisted world of Mormon theology,” “dangerous, blasphemous lunacy,” and so forth. There are numerous examples. This is a writing style unworthy of serious consideration.

U. Conn psychologist Ken Ring researched near death experiences for much of his career. He reported on a minister who upon dying found himself in the presence of Jesus Christ. He began asking exactly the kinds of questions that Mason raises, doctrinal issues. He claimed that Christ laughed and asked him, “How did you treat the people around you?” I suspect that Mason would have to say, “I used inflammatory language against my brothers and sisters, marginalizing them and excluding them.”

The result of Mason’s rhetoric is to drive conservative Mormons away from conservative causes. What’s next? Excluding unbelievers or Jews? Using dehumanizing language, even as James S. says, “a bit brainwashed,” is a slippery slope.

LA replies:

While I agree that some of M. Mason’s phrases in that post were on the hot side, I’m a little nonplussed by Lynn J.s comment that the heated rhetoric of one individual will drive Mormons away from conservative causes. This reminds me of the telephone calls that Rush Limbaugh used to receive, in which the caller would say something like (I’m exaggerating just a bit), “Rush, I’ve been a conservative all my life, but when I heard that you were against homosexual marriage and higher taxes, well, that’s it, I’ve had it with conservatism.”

In any case, Mormons are surely aware that their theological beliefs do seem strange and offputting to Christians. That’s why they avoid discussing them openly. Mormons have been a minority religion in America for almost 200 years and have always dealt with the fact that the Christian majority doesn’t approve of their religion. It seems strange for Lynn J. suddenly to discover this fact and expect all opposition to Mormonism to disappear.

The fact is, there are always going to be some Christians, such as M. Mason, who will not tolerate Mormonism. At the same time, Romney obviously is enjoying a lot of support from conservatives notwithstanding his Mormonism. So my advice to Lynn J. would be, look at the half of the glass that’s full.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Send