...on all things sappy, I will be attending the Breaking Dawn movie (possibly and pathetically alone) tomorrow afternoon. But because I love America (Bachelor's in Am Studies, rightch'ere!) and because I feel like writing all the thoughts that no one wants to hear from me today (because it's not about fashion, duh!) I will now give you my opinion on the politics of Mitt Romney and the elephant in the room that every one is actually really okay talking about, particularly when they have an audience. (I'm referring to his "Mormon issues"--at least that's what the cool kids are calling it these days.) The reason why I am even discussing this is because this kind of defamation has occurred in the past (with John F. Kennedy, for example) and will doubtless occur again. I think it is very important to discern a valid defamation from an invalid one in order to pass judgment wisely.
I will present to you my thesis but only after this small disclaimer. (I wasn't allowed disclaimers in college English classes, but I am an expert at them since becoming a Relief Society teacher. And this is my blog. So I will do whatever I darn well want to (except I won't replace darn with the real word I want to say, because I am still a lady, after all.))
Disclaimer: I
will be voting for Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Elections (if he makes it past the primaries, that is. If he doesn't, then I will be voting for an Independent on whom I'm not yet decided at the moment, but that's beside the point.) My decision is not based on his religion (although, I do give him a few brownie points for that, too). You may roll your eyes at this exactly one time. Get it out of your system. (Now stop doing that. It freaks me out. And I'm trying to be serious right now, can't you tell??? (
Three question marks equals Business Time.)) My decision is based on his family history of social and political activism, his demeanor and debate capabilities, and the large majority (but not all) of his political platforms. I also believe a president should
look intelligent,
sound intelligent, and
act intelligently. Not all of those facets have been met for quite some time in our history, and I think he is closest of the current candidates to almost consistently doing just that. (In case you are wondering, I believe President Obama has the first two facets going for him.)
Okay, now you know where I stand, so we can begin.
Inspired by
this article from the Washington Post, I argue that using the history of the Mormon church (particularly the issue of "racism" as it pertains to the church's history) as a platform to defame Mitt Romney is not only poor form, but it is irrelevant.
When Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ran for president, did we debate whether as Southern natives they had left behind the heart-wrenching history of Southern white Protestant racial prejudice? Did we delve into Episcopal and Baptist beliefs and history to root out any antiquated dogma? Did we ask them whether they agreed with the practice their ancestors had of owning slaves and then forcing their slaves to give up their own religion and become "Christians"?
No, we didn't. Because that's dumb. Any one man or woman cannot be held responsible for the history of an entire group, especially a man who has never once claimed to be a spokesperson for that group. If you want to interrogate someone about Mormonism, ask the prophet of the church. He is the spokesperson. Mitt Romney is not. Mitt Romney is a politician, and although his faith lies in the gospel preached in the LDS church, he does not claim to answer for the church nor is he a fan of all parts the church's history. On that note, neither am I. But neither are most members of most religions worldwide. Every religion grows and changes with the times.The real test of a man is if will he grow with it.
But I have digressed slightly, the point is that Mitt Romney should not have to answer for the tenants of his faith and the history thereof. Who he prays to at night and what church he attends on Sunday is not what will dictate what bills he will push to have enacted or what his foreign relations policy will look like. Democrats are widely known to be pro separation of Church and State. So learn to practice what you preach and separate them, folks. Republicans are the more conservative sector of the country. So take a conservative look at the facts, and then judge, why don't ya?
What I'm saying is that what we are seeing happen to Mitt Romney is called muck-raking. And muck-raking is unflattering. And when poorly executed, muck-raking becomes disgusting. I don't care if you like Mitt Romney or not. I don't care if you vote for him or not. What I do care about is on what the people of this country are basing their decisions. If we want to continue to live up to the view held by many individuals around the world that Americans are lazy and ignorant, then we will continue to rake that muck and love it.
I think that's enough politics for me for one morning. I hope admitting to loving the Twilight series didn't discredit my argument before it started. But if it did, then so be it. I am more than happy to hear your thoughts on this. I am admittedly not an expert on politics and love to learn new things if the new things are relevant to the argument.
I was not looking for a fight when I wrote this. So please do share, but please remember that you are talking with a friend and keep the language clean. Thank you.