Comments on: An Al Smith Moment?

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:21:27 +0000

I was just reading about the Smith defeat in the Ben Friedman book “Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.” Given how closely the 00s have mirrored the 20s, I think the metaphor is quite apt.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:54:18 +0000

My point is precisely that the issue will be muddy, just as it was in Al Smith’s case, but that the muddiness will not be remembered. If he loses I think that that the story of his “Mormon problem” will become part of the canonical narrative of his defeat, if you will. More importantly, that narrative will become part of the canonical story of the place of Mormons in American politics. This is more or less what happened with Al Smith. When Al Smith is a reference for Catholicism in American politics no one says, “Ya know, 1928 was a Republican year no matter what.” Rather they say, “The opposition to Al Smith showed that a Catholic could not be president.”

My piece wasn’t meant to either boost Romney or attack him, but only set out what I think his “Mormon problem” means for American politics. I don’t think that the defeat of a Mormon candidate per se has big implications for the place of Mormons or anyone else in American society. I think that the defeat of a Mormon candidate BECAUSE HE IS MORMON does, and I think that it the real world it will be impossible to get a clean answer to the question at this point if Romney loses.

And now I really need to quite looking for excuses not to grade exams…

By: John Armstrong

John Armstrong — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:42:01 +0000

The tone of your article seems to be saying that it doesn’t matter why Romney (hypothetically) loses. In fact, you seem to make the assertion that if Romney loses for any reason, it will be a discriminatory black mark against LDS members — that just as Smith’s other reasons for losing are forgotten, so will Romney’s.

And yet here you say you’re asking what will happen if Romney loses because of his religion, as if it’s okay for him to lose for some other reason. Did you intend the overtones in the op-ed?

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:42:29 +0000

You may be right, but I can resist pointing out that Herbert Hoover was a Quaker ;->

By: Jack Chin

Jack Chin — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:36:55 +0000

Fascinating post, but if you believe, as I do, that Jewish persons, African Americans, probably Latinos, Indians, Asian Americans, atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, and Quakers (except Richard Nixon) have little chance to be elected president, the fact that LDS members are probably also unelectable seems less extraordinary. It is not that Mormons are out, it is that only white, male protestants and Catholics are in. To be president one must be mainstream–no counterexamples come to mind.