There is something about politicians specifically appealing to the bigots among society that really puts me off!
Yesterday in a speech found here, one political candidate (name omitted to protect the guilty–let’s call him Finn, after the Mark Twain character in the book Tom Sawyer) said, “You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do…. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell ’em what to do with the pole, that’s what we’d do.” What a “defender of freedom”—except that the flag he refers to is the Confederate battle flag, which some South Carolinians want to use for official functions.
At least twice before, less savory elements of South Carolina, Arkansas and other states used the Confederate battle flag to tell outsiders, in effect, “You can’t tell ME what to do!”—and both times (during the Civil War and at the end of the Jim Crow era) it was because they didn’t want to be told that they couldn’t treat Blacks as subhumans. As author Ayn Rand might put it: There is no such thing as the freedom to enslave!
Unfortunately, this isn’t Finn’s first appeal to less savory elements. Last month, Finn asked a non-LDS interviewer, in a faux-innocent manner, whether Mormons believed that Jesus and Satan are brothers. As much as I would like to think the best of people, I have two reasons for disbelieving this feigned innocence:
1. What would a non-Mormon know about LDS doctrine? If you want to know about LDS doctrine, ask the Latter-day Saints, not somebody from another religion.
2. Finn was keynote speaker at an anti-Mormon convention held in Salt Lake City, headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While he didn’t attack Latter-day Saints directly then, his “innocent question” last month was phrased suspiciously like those of anti-Mormons intent on making their opponents seem ridiculous, bizarre, and/or downright evil.
I am not saying that there is no goodness in Finn, though. On the contrary—any person who professes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, even if not of my group, will be a better person for it. Indeed, his Christian denomination has many ministries helping the less fortunate, and God will surely bless this effort. (Matthew 25:40: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”) Two months ago, I would have had no problem accepting him as the GOP presidential nominee.
But since Thanksgiving of last year, Finn has campaigned in a way that appealed to the worst elements of our society—often in a very underhanded manner. Thus, I can’t see how either Blacks or Latter-day Saints can support him.
At least I can respect Bill Keller because he is up-front with his stance on Mormons. With Finn I can’t be sure. While he doesn’t say so directly, he does hint at it—in terms quite intelligible to the bigots among us.
There is one thing I’m sure of: I won’t be supporting Finn until I can be sure that I will not be voting in effect to commit suicide. And that won’t happen until I can be certain that his profession of Jesus Christ is not being overridden by his desire to appeal to the worst elements of a good Christian church—and of humanity.
“Finn” has proven to be nothing but a liability for the Republicans. He is the worst of both worlds, to extreme for non-evangelicals to trust and to economically liberal to even remotely think about voting for.
The guy has been spouting off a lot of the racial stuff before on Islam and Mexicans. While Romney indulged on the immigration thing I am sure that “Finn” has been much worse.
His positions are as suspect as one would imagine.
This comment is cross-posted at: http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/saturday-discussion-on-mitt-romney/
Hi!
I authored one of FAIR’s “leading the charge about bigotry,” and I’d like to set some things straight:
1. For the record, I HAVE supported non-Mormons against good members of the Church–many times. I agree that religious grouping is usually a poor reason to vote either for or against a candidate.
2. Even though Utah is 70% LDS, inhabitants seem to have had no problem electing qualified non-Latter-day Saints (For example, Utah was the second state with a Jewish governor! Neighboring Idaho, with a large LDS population, was the first–by two years. See http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Jewish%20Governor%20Political%20Items%201.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Alexander.).
3. On the other hand, in my home state of Florida, with inverted ratios of Evangelicals to the LDS, in the entire history of official LDS presence in the state, there was only ONE LDS who was ever elected to statewide office: Paula Hawkins, who lost the next election to Robert Graham, a Baptist [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Hawkins.%5D.
4. I have no problem with “Finn” using his Church’s social network as a political base, or with his championing Evangelical Christians as a whole. Evangelical Christians have been getting some bad press over the past several decades. While their worst elements have no doubt deserved that bad press, the vast majority do not. My problems with “Finn” began with his targeted appeals to those in the “worst elements.”
5. I am not categorically refusing to vote for “Finn,” but he will have to take some substantive steps to undo the harm he did over the last few months. That, however, would cause massive problems with those less savory elements that “Finn” specifically appealed to.
Some people are looking for a Pastor-in-Chief of the United Bigots of America. I cannot, and will not, vote for “Huckaberry Finn” unless he publicly apologizes for his whisper anti-Mormon campaign.
Andrew, did he apologize?
And by the end of this Presidential campaign, do you think every candidate should be apologizing? Or is it exclusively to one group of religious people that there should be apologies?
To demolish bigotry is to in equal measure attack strongly every wrong by every candidate. Right?
Lead the way, Andrew.
Todd, Romney didn’t attack anyone’s faith (except arguably atheists). True, he attacked CANDIDATES, but not a group of believers. Nor am I aware of anything tying him to such efforts.
You just can’t say the same thing about Huckabee.
Todd,
If Romney or Hillary or Obama or anyone else were critical of Huckabee for his religious faith, I’d be just as annoyed. I have no problem with evangelicals in public office. I voted for Bush both times (and would again). It’s Mike Huckabee’s bigotry and double-talk that is so problematic.
For a person to attack another’s political views is fair game in a political contest. To attack them on the basis of their gender, race, religion, education, etc is another issue all together. While political attacks get old, it is not bigotry (Even if some are dishonest).
Andrew, I’m not so sure that education should be on your proscribed list. I would think that we want our candidate to be sufficiently qualified, both in terms of education and experience. A comparison of Huckabee and Romney with regard to education is revealing:
Huckabee: BA in Biblical Studies, graduating magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University
Romney:
– BA with Highest Honors from Brigham Young University (1971) (Romney began as an undergraduate at Stanford University and completed his first year there but transferred to BYU after his LDS mission to France)
– MBA from Harvard Business School (1975), where he was named a Baker Scholar;
– JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School
This seems relevant to me, Andrew Miller, and is not in the same set as race, gender, or religion in assessing a candidate’s qualifications and competence in running for President.
John,
You’re probably right. However, it’s one thing to compare education levels, and it’s another to mock or belittle a person because of their education or lack thereof. Generally, however, that hasn’t been a problem in politics. The problem now is religion. “Finn” is running for Pastor-in-Chief while desperately trying to make it look like Romney is.