So far, by and large, they’re doing pretty well.
You're a generous person! I've long hoped that Hillary will tick off black voters by what she has to do to shoot down Obama, after reading the attacks on the faith of our LDS FReepers, I'm sorely afraid that Mitt Romney supporters may be tempted to feel that way about a non-Mitt Republican candidate. I'm reassured only by the fact that every Mormon I've ever met is a much more sensible person than the average gimme-gimme Obama voter. (Sorry if that sounds like damning with faint praise!)
Look at how the Masons and Quakers have taken over the country!
One big fat difference: when's the last time the Masons or Quakers sent a couple of nicely-dressed, articulate folks to your doorstep to tell you about what their beliefs are? The method that your faith uses to extend itself is what motivates a lot of distrust, unfortunately.
Many people who agreed with what David Duke would do politically were justifiably worried that a vote for him in Louisiana would legitimize the KKK. I'm sorry to use that comparison, as I don't wish to equate the LDS faith tradition with something as vile as KKK racism, but it is the only clear example I can think of in politics where people had to choose between the lesser of two evils. (I remember the pro-Edwin Edwards slogan, "Vote for the crook, it's important!")
Surely some evangelical swing-state voters faced with a choice of Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton will feel like they are in the position of either ratifying a religion that they have been taught to abhor, or of approving of a socialism that they hate even worse. In my case, if its Giuliani vs. Hillary, I take comfort in the fact that NY will not be a swing state, whichever of those New Yorkers takes NY, the die will be cast for the rest of the nation, and I can vote for a third party candidate with a clear conscience.
...every little policy difference that some people have will automatically be attributed to Romney’s faith, resulting in a lower estimation of the LDS Church.
I can't think of any other faith tradition that has been hurt by having one of its members become President. When a nation is willing to elect a person from a previously unrepresented religious path to the highest office in the land, it's saying in effect, "We've gotten past this." Joe Lieberman's very observant Jewish faith was not an issue in 2000, and it is clear that if he had been elected as Vice President (and then ascended to the Presidency), even when it came to issues of dealing with Israel, only the terminally bigoted would have attributed his faith in Judaism to his policy initiatives.
Oddly enough, it is this, "We've gotten past this," that anti-Mormon voters are not willing to confer. They don't really oppose Romney on issues relating to the economy or the military (although I can understand that social conservatives have legitimate worries about the "flip-flop" problem), but they know that his nomination and election mean that their anti-Mormon rhetoric looks more like bigoted ramblings that their fellow Americans have repudiated at the ballot box.
I’m looking for someone to inspire me as a member of the conservative base. Romney seems to fit that bill.
I'm looking forward to the coming debates between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. It's my hope that whoever tops the other becomes a better general election candidate in the process, on the strength of ideas and the ability to communicate them effectively.
~”One big fat difference: when’s the last time the Masons or Quakers sent a couple of nicely-dressed, articulate folks to your doorstep to tell you about what their beliefs are? The method that your faith uses to extend itself is what motivates a lot of distrust, unfortunately.”~
Goodness, I hope you’re wrong. We are a faith that proselytes aggressively; I’m afraid I fail to understand what is threatening about that, though. If a person is unwilling to listen, we smile and walk on.
Interestingly, the LDS Church encourages its members to find the new members, rather than the missionaries. In an ideal world, I invite you over as a friend to hear the missionaries; the only role they would serve is to teach. It doesn’t always work like that, so they go from door to door to fill time.
But what is it about a knock on the door that would engender mistrust? From my perspective, I fail to understand it.
~”I can’t think of any other faith tradition that has been hurt by having one of its members become President.”~
I hope that you’re right, but Mormons seem to be treated differently in many other ways. I suppose it remains to be seen if this will be one of them.
~”Oddly enough, it is this, “We’ve gotten past this,” that anti-Mormon voters are not willing to confer. They don’t really oppose Romney on issues relating to the economy or the military (although I can understand that social conservatives have legitimate worries about the “flip-flop” problem), but they know that his nomination and election mean that their anti-Mormon rhetoric looks more like bigoted ramblings that their fellow Americans have repudiated at the ballot box.”~
Excellently stated. Another dimension that must be considered is that anti-Mormonism is quite a lucrative business; pamphlets, books, tapes, speeches are all sold. Those whose livelihoods depend on the business are taking advantage of Romney’s election as an excellent opportunity to play on the fears they market so well, and they’re stirring the pot for two reasons: 1. they get to sell more stuff right now, and 2. if Romney wins, they lose support, and therefore business.
I must admit that some of my excitement over Romney is generated by the anticipation I have for the deeply satisfying sense of schadenfreude I would experience for these people if Romney were to be president. It’s not a terribly intellectual response, so I try to look past it; but it is a growing factor in my decisions as such people attack what I love day after day.