It’s almost obligatory now for religion reporters to write their own version of “Romney is a Mormon,” ensuring readers know precisely what they’re getting into if they vote for him in two months. Or you have the general assignment reporters who think no one has already written that tired narrative.
In this case, we have the religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times connecting Romney’s faith to his view of personal responsibility. The piece launches with a Mormon couple who had never thought to seek government assistance, somehow tying it to Romney’s recent remarks about personal responsibility.
That worldview, focused on church and not government, is part of the culture of American Mormonism, paradoxically rooted in both self-reliance and communitarian idealism. It may help explain the roots of Mitt Romney’s conservatism, which in many ways mirrors the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
When Romney said in a secretly recorded video that 47% of Americans lacked personal responsibility and believed they deserved government entitlements, it reflected a conservative political view rooted in the idea that freedom demands responsibility.
But it also may reflect his history as a Mormon bishop, whose duties included giving the needy among his flock a hand up — but never a mere handout.
I don’t necessarily doubt that the above paragraphs could be true, but I would like to see some evidence, either from Mormon teaching or from more of what Romney has said. Otherwise, from a readership standpoint, it feels like the reporter is reading into a remark.
Two-thirds of American Mormons describe themselves as politically conservative and only 8% as liberal, according to a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Nearly three-quarters lean Republican. Mormons are significantly more conservative, on balance, than evangelical Christians, the religious group most identified with the political right in this country.
But Mormon conservatism differs from its evangelical counterpart. It can be more pragmatic, more flexible. It springs from different sources, some theological, some rooted in the Mormons’ rugged pioneer history. Those steeped in Mormon culture can hear echoes of it in Romney’s political rhetoric, although he generally avoids explicit mentions of his faith.
Romney is not in lock step with his fellow Mormons on all issues, and he has shown a willingness to take positions at odds with LDS doctrine, as when he took a stance in favor of abortion rights. (He now espouses antiabortion views similar to those of his church.) But it is difficult to fully understand him without grasping how his faith and its unique culture play out in political belief.
The reporter starts this section of the piece showing how Romney hasn’t been 100% in line with the LDS Church but then proceeds to show historically where the Republican Party and the LDS Church have met or diverged. The narrative set up seems too forced.
For many Mormons, the idea of free agency, with its intrinsic emphasis on individual responsibility, translates into a belief in limited government and an abhorrence of the welfare state, which is seen as crushing individual initiative. This meshes neatly with the ideals of the Republican Party, and was echoed in Romney’s recorded comments about Americans who believe they are “victims” and are entitled to help.
…But Mormons are quick to point out that, unlike many evangelical churches, their church allows for exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, when the life or health of the mother is in danger or when the fetus has such severe defects that it is not expected to survive beyond birth.
…Mormons tend to be less conservative on immigration than evangelicals, a position some attribute to the fact that so many of its young people serve abroad as missionaries.
Seen by whom, exactly? The reporter continues to suggest where Mormons and evangelicals diverge, but last time I checked, evangelicals really do not hold official church positions the same way the LDS Church would hold. That’s what you call apples and oranges, right? Generally, the piece seems to include quite a bit of conjecture, connecting dots that might not be worth connecting without more evidence.