Soft Side of Bigotry
Most Ricochet members would agree that opposing Michele Bachmann because she is a woman, or Herman Cain because he is black, or Mitt Romney because he is Mormon could rightly be labeled bigotry and condemned.
In a recent post it was implied that I favor Romney because he IS Mormon. I admitted that it was a factor and helped me understand where he was coming from. After some introspection though it occurred to me that taking such a stance might simply be the other side of the same coin. I've opposed affirmative action on the same grounds.
While we denounce prejudice based on sex, race or religion is it wrong for blacks to support Obama, women to be enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton or me to boost Romney for the same reasons? Somehow it doesn't strike me the same but I can't argue a reason for that.
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Richard I think you bring up a very interesting point. However, I do think there is a difference between affinities based on race and gender, (innate characteristics) and religious beliefs, which are chosen by a candidate, and in some way reflect their values systems and world view.
While wide variety of personal viewpoints tend to exist even within any single religious group making equivalence of beliefs uncertain, I think supporting a candidate because they come from the same moral foundation that you do is a wholly legitimate rational. It is also far cry from picking someone on the grounds that they were born with a similar skin pigmentation or of the same gender.
Mar '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Beasley: Richard I think you bring up a very interesting point. However, I do think there is a difference between affinities based on race and gender, (innate characteristics) and religious beliefs, which are chosen by a candidate, and in some way reflect their values systems and world view.
While wide variety of personal viewpoints tend to exist even within any single religious group making equivalence of beliefs uncertain, I think supporting a candidate because they come from the same moral foundation that you do is a wholly legitimate rational. It is also far cry from picking someone on the grounds that they were born with a similar skin pigmentation or of the same gender. · Nov 17 at 2:33am
You raise a good point. Thanks.
Mar '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
There is a time to oppose a candidate because of their religious views. For instance, I would oppose any candidate who believed in sharia law--a core religious belief. Religion is often the source of one's convictions. If a candidate's religious convictions run counter to the uniquely American ideal of natural law and individual liberties I will oppose that candidate. Further, if a candidate's religious convictions run counter to my religious convictions I will oppose that candidate if I perceive those differences to be weighty enough to warrant opposition. Save the "religious bigotry" strawman.
That's why we each get one vote.
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
I've certainly noticed that almost every Romney supporter I know (or to be more precise, well over three-quarters of them) is LDS (notable exception: my mom), bu that doesn't bother me at all. I also have Mormon in-laws who are only reluctant Romney supporters.
A candidate being a confessional Lutheran would not guarantee my support for them but it would certainly get me more to their side all else being equal (or even just close).
Oct '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
I don't think there is anything wrong with being more comfortable with a particular candidate because they are more comfortable for you to trust because they speak like you, dress like you, worship like you, etc. It's human nature. If you're a Mormon, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable and understandable that you'll have a bit more favorable opinion of Mitt Romney because he comes from the same faith tradition that you do which makes you trust him more.
May '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
And conversely, those who are not Mormon and/or who have serious concerns with Mormonism as a religion may have doubts about Romney's suitability for the office that have nothing to do with bigotry.
Jun '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
I think you should ease off on yourself. In fact, I'd shoot higher. You likely have a well-formed set of beliefs which are a superset of what a Mormon is likely to believe. Mormons are frequently very conservative, so supporting a Mormon is a safe haven for you.
As a Catholic, I could be naturally endeared to a Catholic candidate. BUUUUT, does that mean I'd vote for Nancy Pelosi? This logic is completely ridiculous, and as such, can show that you are not supporting Romney because he is Mormon, but rather, because he fits the mold that is more closely aligned to what you think Mormons should be. In other words, his Mormonism is a bonus rather than the chief factor. It is a far more robust set of thinking than choosing a candidate based on a category.
(Cruddy writing, but I hope you get the point)
Mar '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Dave Molinari: I think you should ease off on yourself. In fact, I'd shoot higher. You likely have a well-formed set of beliefs which are a superset of what a Mormon is likely to believe. Mormons are frequently very conservative, so supporting a Mormon is a safe haven for you.
As a Catholic, I could be naturally endeared to a Catholic candidate. BUUUUT, does that mean I'd vote for Nancy Pelosi? This logic is completely ridiculous, and as such, can show that you are not supporting Romney because he is Mormon, but rather, because he fits the mold that is more closely aligned to what you think Mormons should be. In other words, his Mormonism is a bonus rather than the chief factor. It is a far more robust set of thinking than choosing a candidate based on a category.
(Cruddy writing, but I hope you get the point) · Nov 17 at 9:58am
I do understand, thanks. I guess Harry Reid for me is the Mormon equivalent of Nancy Pelosi for you.
Feb '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
No one seemed to think it was strange when Orthodox Jews were excited about Joe Lieberman in 2000. Except maybe secular Jews.
Mar '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
It's just as wrong to support someone on the basis of racial, gender or religious criteria as it would be to not support that person for the same reasons. Daniel Hannon made a good point in his "New Road to Serfdom" when he pointed out that one becomes an American by embracing the idea of America and what it stands for, rather than ethnic or geographical characteristics. To use artificial criteria, which these most certainly are, as a reason for granting support to this candidate or that is to move backwards and away from that which makes us an exceptional nation.
May '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
katievs
And conversely, those who are not Mormon and/or who have serious concerns with Mormonism as a religion may have doubts about Romney's suitability for the office that have nothing to do with bigotry. · Nov 17 at 9:52am
Exactly. I am uncomfortable with the conflation Richard just made between gender, race, and religious belief. The first two are innate and inherent in the individual. They cannot be changed (barring expensive surgery or the like). The latter is not innate and, therefore, may be subject to critique and even condemnation.
Apr '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
It is sort of like betting on a horse.
Would it be accurate to say that people prefer a candidate who would vote the same way they would most of the time? Predicting that sort of thing means that we rely on our best information about the candidate's logic, values, temperament and biases. We look for things that will convince us that the person's perspective is one we identify with or at least understand. Since most of us never get to spend any 1:1 time with the candidate, we base our judgment, knowingly, on imperfect information. We bet on one anyways and then we must defend that decision even if we are not fully aware of the nuance of our own deliberative process.
I would really prefer a better way of getting to know each candidate.
May '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
The election of Obama proves that by and large white people are not racists, but that blacks are.
Oct '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Dave Molinari: I think you should ease off on yourself. In fact, I'd shoot higher. You likely have a well-formed set of beliefs which are a superset of what a Mormon is likely to believe. Mormons are frequently very conservative, so supporting a Mormon is a safe haven for you.
As a Catholic, I could be naturally endeared to a Catholic candidate. BUUUUT, does that mean I'd vote for Nancy Pelosi? This logic is completely ridiculous, and as such, can show that you are not supporting Romney because he is Mormon, but rather, because he fits the mold that is more closely aligned to what you think Mormons should be. In other words, his Mormonism is a bonus rather than the chief factor. It is a far more robust set of thinking than choosing a candidate based on a category.
(Cruddy writing, but I hope you get the point) · Nov 17 at 9:58am
Your writing is just fine, Dave, and I agree that Richard should give himself a break on this. Can Ricochet offer an official Free Guilt Pass(tm) for our friend Richard? :)
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Richard, I think that it is entirely understandable that the adherents to a religious sect should instinctively respond in a positive fashion to the candidacy of a co-religionist. I think it especially understandable in cases where the sect has been subject to discrimination or has been treated with contempt. The election of a co-religionist to high office is a sign of public acceptance. That is what John F. Kennedy's election to the Presidency meant for my co-religionists. Barack Obama's election meant something similar for African-Americans.
That having been said, what is understandable and excusable is not always rational. Barack Obama' was ill-qualified for the Presidency and his policies have done African-Americans (and the rest of us) a lot of material harm. In my judgment, John F. Kennedy was not well-qualified for the office he won. A lot of those who were thrilled in 1960 and in 2008 later had grounds for regretting their enthusiasm.
It is probably best that we judge candidates on their record and with regard to their public commitments.
Dec '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
It seems natural to me that having a personal understanding of Romney's moral foundation would bolster your support for him. The discussions we've had demonstrate that your support of him is not based solely on the commonality of faith, and you have shown an awareness of its possible effects, so I see nothing untoward about it.
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
Let me add that I think it legitimate to take into consideration a candidate's associations. I do not think Mitt Romney's record the record of a genuine conservative, and I worry that politically he is a chameleon. In my judgment, the best thing about him is his Mormonism. As a friend at BYU put it to me a couple of weeks ago when comparing Romney with Huntsman, "Mitt is the real deal." That is no small thing, Richard, as you know better than I do.
Mar '11
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
I really appreciate everyone's comments. Those who say that religion is different than race and sex certainly have a point. A week ago or so (I can't find the link) I read that a high percentage of Americans changed from the religion they were born into so it is malleable in a way race and sex are not. I've concluded that trying to be objective in judging anything is, at best, an unattainable goal. But it's worth trying.
Dec '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
We can only acknowledge and mitigate our biases and presuppositions, not eliminate them. One of the chief differences I see between left and right is that we at least make an attempt at this.
Aug '10
Re: Soft Side of Bigotry
I freely admit that Romney's Mormonism is part of the reason I support him. However, I should clarify that my stance is not as simple as supporting any Mormon politician just because they are Mormon.
I am very serious when it comes to my religion - as is Mitt Romney. Mormons who are squishy about their religion - like Huntsman - make me nervous and their attitude about their religion would give me pause, even if their politics aligned with mine. Mormons who appear to be serious about their religion - like Harry Reid - but have completely opposite political views would not get my support.
I should also state that I would have no problem supporting any non-Mormon candidate assuming they were a decent and honorable person. BTW, I would support Mitt in this cycle even if he wasn't Mormon because I feel he gives us the best chance of defeating Obama.