I’m getting a bit tired of the Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence O’Donnells of the world, so I’ve decided I’m going to concentrate on comments like these:
Here’s Michael Novak:
Why I Decided to Support Mitt Romney [Michael Novak]
National Review beat me to it, alas, but I have been deciding to come out publicly for Mitt Romney for some days now. I have been supporting him privately for weeks, though I was trying to avoid supporting anybody publicly.
But the attacks upon Romney’s religion have been a last straw. They are just not fair. I remember his father’s campaigns and what an upright man he was — and no one even breathed a word against him because of his religion.
In addition, every one of the Mormons I have ever worked with, beginning with a great graduate assistant for one of my classes at Stanford in about 1967, have been the most well-mannered, inquisitive, competent, kind and thoughtful people I know. Arch Madsen of Bonneville Broadcasting, with whom I served on the Board of International Broadcast for many years, Joe Cannon who was on the AEI Board, Senator Orrin Hatch, and a long list of others always lifted my spirits.
One of my favorite texts from the New Testament is “By their fruits you shall know them.” That verse has taught me to look for persons who actually love God, not so much by the churches they attend or what they say they believe, but by how they and their families live their lives. Over two public generations now, the Romney family has given us examples of upright, decent, warm lives, given to public commitment even though they did not have to be.
These days, though, it has become imperative for some Christians to come out publicly for Mitt, now that his religion has come under unfair attack. I am no expert on Mormon theology, but I do profoundly admire the good family life and good individuals it keeps sending forth into the world. Those are signs I read clearly.
And last night and today I was too sick at heart at Mike Huckabee’s low and dirty dig at the Mormon faith, along disgustingly false lines. In running a clean campaign, the devil is in the details. Here Huckabee made the devil into a dirty headline. It seems to be a fatal mistake. Since Huckabee has shown himself to be such a good-humored, folksy man, this aside was entirely unnecessary, and emphatically wrong. He should disown it, and publicly apologize, very quickly.
In any case, that’s the last straw. Someone has to protest, in the name of Christianity itself, that spreading bigotry and hatred for the sake of winning a political campaign is wrong. I for one don’t want to let this issue of bigotry and suspicion pass by without protest — and without open support for its victim. The least Americans can do is speak up for each other on matters of religious liberty.
Romney is a good, executive-keen man, and without this mud he would earn the respect and love of the American people on his own.
12/12 12:47 PM
And then there was this from Mike Potemra:
Michael Novak and Mormonism [Mike Potemra]
I want to second something Michael Novak said. In my decades’ worth of meeting people from many different religious backgrounds, I have found that in every faith tradition-Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, what have you-there is roughly the same proportion of nice people and jerks. To this rule there is one conspicuous exception: Mormons. I have yet to meet a single Mormon who has been a jerk-and I have met many LDS believers. As someone who grew up in Rudy Giuliani’s faith, and is now somewhere between Mike Huckabee’s and John McCain’s, I find Mitt Romney’s religious background a factor that makes me more, rather than less, likely to vote for him.
12/12 04:33 PM
This comment is by Geoff B: President Hinckley has pointed out that the best symbol of our faith is our people. It’s nice to know we have a good reputation in many circles.
Yes, the above quotations are both from the National Review, which just endorsed Romney. Neither of the commenters had anything to do with that decision. I’m really focusing on the issue of “nice comments about Mormons” for this particular post. I included the rest for context.
So what new does this bring? The National Review has already endorsed Romney, and this is obviously a reason why.
But I shudder as I remember Orrin Hatch’s rudeness in the Clarence Thomas hearings. He was not a good example of our church on that occasion.
Good ol’ Naismith. Always able to see a black cloud instead of the silver lining.
Although these thoughts are nice, I’m with Naismith. Orrin Hatch is considered an example of a good person?
Orin Hatch is an embarrassment. He’s the one Utah Republican I always vote against. I really wish he’d let someone else run but he pretty well ensures there can be no effective primary challenger and of course he’ll win the regular election.
JJohnsen, there are all kinds of people with whom I disagree politically who are still nice guys. Politically Harry Reid is a complete jerk. In person, I am sure he’s a nice guy, and I’m sure I would like him. I don’t know that much about Orrin Hatch, so I can’t really comment there, but apparently Michael Novak does know him personally and likes him. Is it OK with you if somebody chooses to like somebody, or do they have to include all of their politics and run them by you before they can like somebody?
As for Clark’s comment on Orrin Hatch, well, you’re in Utah, you can vote for whom you please. But I think Michael Novak’s comment was really intended as a personal note. “Lifted my spirits” seems to mean that he has a personal relationship with the guy and has decided to like him personally. I’m sure there are a lot of people who like Orrin Hatch personally.
It’s interesting to note that we have three responses so far (besides mine) on a thread called “nice comments” and none of them are nice comments but instead focus on somebody’s negatives. Is that just the Bloggernacle or do people spend all their time going through life looking for negative things to say?
Thanks for sharing these comments. For these people to go out of their way to say nice things is impressive.
Oh, and I kinda like Orrin Hatch.
“Always able to see a black cloud instead of the silver lining.”
Actually, I consider Sen. Hatch to be a black sheep rather than a black cloud, but if you want to think of him that way, fine.
Eric, that’s the spirit. Naismith continues on the naughty — not nice — list for Christmas.
I feel for you Geoff. Try to be positive, but the partisans keep fighting the nearly two decade old battles (I’ve heard of fighting the previous battle, but this is ridiculous).
Some people just don’t know how to move on.
On a more positive note, http://www.getreligion.org has been posting some very good commentary on how Mormons are treated in the media. Overall the tone is friendly.
After hearing the O’Donnell horror show and reading that idiot Huckabee’s line in the NYT Mag, it was awfully nice to read Novak’s piece. I wouldn’t vote for Orrin if I were a Utahn (and, in fact, I think I voted for Ted Moss in 76, when Orrin came carpetbagging in from Pittsburgh and got himself elected), and sometimes I wince when I hear him on TV, but I’m glad that to Novak he comes across as a nice guy.
If we cannot be good, decent, honorable and kind, then we may as well quit.
Geoff B – Thanks for this post. And sorry that the comments have been trashed by those who don’t like it when someone they don’t like is called nice. (Boo on all of you!) It is heartwarming to think that these gentlemen have obviously been touched by members of our church. Let us be those type of people ourselves.
I smiled when I read both of those on NRO. I like it when people say nice things about one another.
Thanks for posting these, I hadn’t seen them.
“Naismith continues on the naughty — not nice — list for Christmas.”
“Boo on all of you!”
Well, thanks so much for modeling the behavior that you want us to emulate:)
And for the record, I am not a partisan. I vote for folks of either party. I would have considered Hatch’s behavior at the Thomas hearings rude if he had been a Democrat.
Just because I do not consider him to be a paragon of Mormonism does not make me “naughty.”
“…do people spend all their time going through life looking for negative things to say?”
No, Geoff, it’s just that not all of us see the same things as “nice.”
I smile when I see three Toyota Prii in line at a stoplight.
I rejoiced to visit Taiwan recently, and see how small businesses were thriving, in large part because of a single-payer health insurance plan that allows entrepreneurs to follow their dreams (unlike the US where such aspirants are often thwarted because they have to keep slaving for MegaCorp in order to keep their family’s health coverage.
I was delighted to see college students creatively and with dignity protesting Alberto Gonzales’ speech (dressing in Guantanamo orange and silently falling on the stage writhing in pain).
To me, those are all very positive things that make me feel good about the future of the world.
You like hearing nice comments about people who have been rude and obstructed legislation that would do much good, etc.
If you want to carry on like that, fine. But why do you think that you should be able to say it without anyone expressing a different view? And why do you feel compelled to call them names when they do?
Nothing makes me happier than herds of Toyota Prii moving across the landscape like buffaloes in “Dances With Wolves.” Oh, to wear a feather in my hair like Kevin Costner and do a “renewable energy” dance around a windmill! Oh, to join in Alberto Gonzales protests with politically correct young students dressing in orange! Oh, to be able to rent a sense of humor!
I love it when people embrace the spirit of brotherhood and behave with civility despite relatively minor political differences. Like the letters John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote to each other in their old age.
“I love it when people embrace the spirit of brotherhood and behave with civility despite relatively minor political differences. Like the letters John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote to each other in their old age.”
I agree with the sentiments, Sarah, although I personally struggle putting them into place. That said, I’m not sure I’d use your example: Jefferson and Adams only patched things up after decades of horribly villifying each other, and their detente came at a time when neither had much to lose politically by patching things up. And I don’t think either ever thought their differences were minor.
This is true. One would hope that we could learn from their examples and recognize that what they both thought mattered in the end is worth striving for before you’re old, grey, and living hundreds of miles apart from one another.
And by “minor” I mean “in the grand scheme of things,” not “things that don’t matter much to me right this second.” There’s always stuff that seems like it’s worth fighting about. I don’t think it’s often actually worth it, in the final analysis.
I’m still trying to practice the Christian virtue of forgiving and etc after watching Lawrence O’Donnell recent tirade against “mormons”.
I appreciate your bringing Michael Novak’s article to my attention. These kinds of remarks get lost in our fallen world.