Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Column

Why the trouble with Mormons?

By TIM RUTTEN, Los Angeles Times
Published May 23, 2007

In a week filled with interesting political stories, two stood out because they have more than a seven-day shelf life and suggest something important about the way the American media cover politics today.

One, of course, was the death of the fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, a founding father of the religious right. The other is the continuing sniping at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over his adherence to the Mormon faith. What the political media seems reluctant -- in fact, unwilling -- to entertain is the idea that Romney's ordeal is, in large part, a consequence of Falwell's legacy.

Regular readers of this column might recall that, in January, I examined a number of articles on Romney's religion by generally liberal commentators and concluded that, "It's been nearly half a century since our political journalism has witnessed anything quite as breathtakingly noxious and offensive as the current attempt to discredit (the former governor of Massachusetts because of his faith)."

Since then, it has migrated from the opinion columns into campaign reporting. During the past few months, the political media have demanded that this guy -- a successful businessman and politician, although hardly a theologian -- explain his views on everything from the Mountain Meadows massacre to polygamy.

You'd swear he was auditioning for a part on Big Love rather than running for president. It's as if Roman Catholic candidates were being asked to declare where they stand on the slaughter of the Albegensians or the trial of Galileo. Why not demand that Presbyterian candidates declare their views regarding the excesses of John Calvin's theocratic Sparta in Geneva? Let's ask Episcopalians to account for the execution of the London Carthusians or Lutherans for Martin Luther's anti-Semitism.

Then there's the low-level ridicule, masquerading as humor.

Friday, for example, Peggy Noonan, who wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan and now comments for the Wall Street Journal, had this to say about one of the week's big political stories: "Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it's clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn't there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear -- boxers, briefs and temple garments."

Noonan, of course, can have no idea whether Romney wears the undergarments prescribed for devout Mormons, and why make him the only candidate identified by his religion? An instinct for the cheap laugh ... maybe ... or perhaps a not-so-subtle appeal to something that really ought to concern American political writers and commentators.

As the reliably nonpartisan Pew Research Center reported this week, "National polling organizations show strong public misgivings ... about any presidential candidate who belongs to the Mormon Church." Pew's most recent survey found that 30 percent of the American public is less likely to support a candidate if he or she is a Mormon. Three months ago, Gallup reported that 46 percent of its respondents had an unfavorable opinion of the Mormon religion. That was the highest unfavorable impression Gallup turned up; only 25 percent said they held a negative view of Muslims.

Those are troubling findings, and some hard reporting on what lurks behind them would be a real public service rather than an appeal to our politics' lowest common denominator.

Tim Rutten writes about the media for the Los Angeles Times.

[Last modified May 22, 2007, 20:36:46]