In an interesting study that was released today, researchers at Vanderbilt University report that it appears that people who really have problems with presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs cover that problem by saying that they believe he is a “flip-flopper.” Apparently, ingenious Americans are finding the flip-flopping charge to be more socially acceptable than just saying ‘Mitt’s a Mormon, and that disqualifies him from being president.’
In the words of one of the researchers,
We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue.
According to the research, “26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Among those who are Evangelical Christians, the bias is especially strong–57%.
It’s interesting to see hard data concerning religious bias–regardless of how you hide it.
-Allen
Coming from a different point of view, 74% — a solid majority — have problems with his changes in belief and not his Mormonism.
It is also possible to hold both positions — opposed to his Mormonism and his flip-flopping — simultaneously.
And it’s also possible to not have any problems with his Mormonism or his flip-flopping, but be opposed to him for a completely different reason.
We don’t know how many Republicans don’t like Romney for those last two reasons, but it would seem that the 26% cited in the study represent a very small faction. A disgusting faction, but a small one nonetheless.
I’m a little dubious about that “study”. It was nothing more than an Internet survey, the same kind that Ron Paul supporters would say prove that he can be something more than President of the Internet. In other words, it wasn’t a scientific study so it’s only slightly more reliable than somebody’s word.
I agree with you that the “flip flopper” tag has been sticking but as one who follows politics for my own blog (go Fred!), my assessment is that it’s starting to lose traction. Mitt will win Nevada and will remain ahead of the pack. As he is gaining momentum, people are beginning to look at him as a serious and credible candidate with positions as opposed to just a religion. In other words, the “Mormon card” was played a bit too soon and it’s losing effectiveness. And while flip-flopper may be tied to his (and my) faith, it too appears to be losing traction.
I think Mitt will probably come out on top as the campaign goes on. While I don’t look forward to the religous beating to which we’re going to be subjected, and I do think some of those “flip-flopper” accusations have some basis (abortion & gay rights, especially), I think he’s the likeliest candidate for the Republicans.
Ann Coulter just did a piece on Mitt and the “flip flop” label that attacks it from a different direction that is worth a read. http://www.anncoulter.com
I am a Mormon myself and I have no problems with Romney’s Mormonism. I do believe he is a flip-flopper who has carefully chosen sides with no real intent to accomplish anything in order to gain followers.
The problem with his flip-flopping is not that he has changed sides. The problem to me, resides in his inability to communicate/convey/share the process he completed to change his opinion. Every time he is asked about one of his drastic changes he simply ducks the question and engulfs the answer with endless blabber. There is nothing to be said about what factors led him to change his position.
Now being that my field is the reduction of uncertainty through statistical analysis in manufacturing engineering and quality systems; I would like to know the validity of such study. To me, it simply sounds like the tired, overused and perhaps abused argument that Mormons are the eternal innocent victims of religious bigotry.
You will, of course, need to contact the study’s authors (available through the original link) to determine their methodology.
As to what it may sound like (“tired, overused and perhaps abused”), I can’t address that. Since the argument is being made by presumed non-Mormons and is backed up by statistical data, I doubt that it falls into any of those categories.
-Allen
Are Mormons victims of bigotry?
I can’t say that I’ve heard the question asked about any other candidate of whether their religion ought to disqualify them from serving as President.
No one has suggested that Huckabee can’t be president because he’s a Baptist. Or McCain for the same reason.
Is every attack on a Mormon because of anti-religious sentiment? Of course not.
But, to act like Mormon politicians are being treated to a “level playing field” is just silly.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Joe Lieberman had been asked whether being Jewish disqualified him for the presidency? Or, if another candidate casually mentioned something like, “Jews–hmmm, aren’t those the people who deny the deity of Jesus? I don’t know much about it; just asking…”
Anyone who did that to a Jewish candidate would have rightly been roundly condemned for the bigot they were. Such a remark would be unthinkable in mainstream American political discourse.
The same, sadly, cannot yet be said about a Mormon candidate, who has far MORE in common with Protestant Christianity than even a Jew.
I don’t know about a Mormon candidate, but a modern LDS candidate certainly has a great deal in common with protestantism.
Looking at the statistics of yesterday’s Nevada caucuses, LDS really have no excuse to cry about religious prejudice. 20% of Nevada caucus attendees were LDS. Of those, 94% voted for Romney. I’m sure some small proportion of those voted from a careful study of the various candidates, and a true determination that Romney (without regard for his religion) best fit their ideas of good government. With those numbers, however, there’s little reason to doubt that many LDS voted for Romney because of his religion—-which, by implication, is voting against the other republican candidates, because of their religions.
As a result, Romney’s Nevada win was almost (but not quite) as big a “surprise” as Joseph Smith winning the Nauvoo mayoral race.
This is a rather silly standard. By this argument, becoming a practicing Christian is to be “anti-Jew” or “anti-Muslim.” I doubt than many of the LDS involved (even if we grant your scenario for the sake of argument) would (if Romney were not running) turn around and say, “Well, I’d NEVER vote for McCain because he’s a baptist.”
Mormons prove this all the time, since they generally do vote for people not of their faith for political positions.
But, a number of surveys demonstrate that many evangelicals would NOT ever vote for a Mormon, based soley on religious grounds.
It astonishes me that people cannot see why this is a different kettle of fish all together than voting FOR someone, and why it is ominous in a pluralistic democracy.
(And, I say this as someone who isn’t a US citizen, and who doesn’t live in the US, so I don’t have a particular axe to grind.)
The evangelicals ought to be careful, though–they may get what they wish for, and in a day not too far distant, being a conservative Christian of any stripe might be reason for an outright dismissal by a majority of the electorate.
Greg
I have no doubt that there are significant numbers of evangelical Christians (particularly Southern Baptists) for whom Romney’s religion IS a big issue.
I also expect there is a not inconsiderable number of more secular voters (by which I include those who are religious but wish to keep religion and politics in their respective arenas) who have concerns with how Romney seems to trying to tap into that same religious right social agenda as do the Southern Baptists and many other evangelicals.
And there does seem to be little doubt that Mitt has significantly altered his positions from when he ran for Massachusetts governor. It is, of course, quite possible for someone to genuinely change his/her positions on any number of issues (I always liked Emerson’s “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”) but the impression many of us have is that Romney is marketing himself based on strategy and focus groups (as one might expect for an MBA) rather than based on core beliefs.
(Full disclosure: I met Mitt a few times in Park City when he was head of the SLC Olympics, and had a generally favorable impression of him at that time).