About Me

Name: The Valletta Papers
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

How to Stifle Political Discussion or Can Romney Gain the Republican Nomination?

Earlier this week I enjoyed lunch with a few fellow workers. As often happens when I am around, the conversation soon wandered into politics. A couple of my associates are self-described liberals. One of the more vocal liberals loudly offered his assessment of Giuliani and McCain by flatly stating that they had both been previously divorced. He added that Rush Limbaugh had been divorced three times. (Last I heard, Rush wasn’t running for office.) Most of those at the table nervously fumbled before attempting to change the subject. Before anyone could say anything, my liberal friend continued. He declared that Romney could never get the Evangelical vote because he was a Mormon and “everyone knows that Evangelicals hate Mormons.” For a few moments, uneasy silence reigned. Finally, one of the others at the table nodded knowingly toward the outspoken Democrat and sarcastically whispered: “Way to stick to the serious issues.” With a few mild chuckles, the topic quickly changed to the weather.

Partisan politics can be fun, but it often descends into meaningless name calling and rancorous personal attacks. It’s sad that philosophical and policy issues sometimes are downplayed political discussions. Partisan debate sometimes devolves into petty and ignorant name-calling. Sadly, I have fallen into this trap too often myself. This is a fault of which I would sincerely like to repent.

Monday’s Hugh Hewitt show provided an example of how name calling and biased labeling can stifle communication and discussion. On the positive side, Hugh Hewitt provides an excellent model for countering cheap labels and keeping the discussion alive when name-calling occurs. This transcript was picked up from this morning’s posting on The Article VI Blog.

Today's first item is a transcript of a couple of calls from Hugh Hewitt's Monday radio program, in the show's third hour.  The first call was from a caller named Tim from San Diego, to be followed a couple of calls later by our own Lowell!

Tim: Hey Hugh.  I'm calling in regards to Mitt Romney, I'm a little surprised that Evangelicals and a lot of people on the media, conservative media, are embracing him being that he is part of a cult.

Hugh:  Well, I don't think he is and I think that's one of the issues I'm dealing with the book.  When you say "cult" you have to give me a definition, and my definition always includes coercion, and there is no coercion at all about the LDS.  It is a religion quite distinct from my own and it has beliefs which are not orthodox Christian beliefs, I know that, but cult is a pejorative that you need to give me a definition for.

Tim:  There's no proof whatsoever

Hugh:  Tim, I know that, but what's you definition of cult?

Tim: As a Christian, it's something that's not following Christ.

Hugh: That means everybody that is not a Christian is in a cult.

Tim: Uh, no it doesn't, it's not a religion like Islam, which I would call a false religion.

Hugh: Again, you need to come up with some definitions, but I don't think they help so much in a political, we are in a secular country with a civic religion that says we don't look at what people's religious beliefs are.  And I do find that to be a general consensus.

Tim:  Ok, I've studied Mormonism and I'll give you something on your email.

Hugh:  You can if you'd like to, but believe me, I've been reporting on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for over a decade.  I've read all of the anti-Mormon literature.  I've discussed it with Mormons.  I've discussed it with Protestants.  I've discussed it with Catholics.  I've discussed it with Jews.  I know the whole debate, the political system of the united States is not about that debate.  That's what this book is about, is how we don't want those two lines to cross for a whole bunch of reasons.  And I know we're going to be doing that a lot, but I would encourage everyone who is fervent about their desire to convert Mormons not to confuse a political movement for a religious movement, 'cause they're just not the same thing.  Do you get where I'm coming from?

Tim:  Yeah, I do.

Hugh:  And . . . everytime I talk about Mitt Romney I get a number of calls from people who are convicted of the need to preach to or attempt to convert Mormons, and it's something that's going to happen a lot over the next year, and I don't really know how I am going to respond to it, Tim, but I want to be able to respond to it without dismissing your concerns, but I deeply object to the use of the term "cult."  I mean DEEPLY object to the use of the term because it's almost not an argument, it's an argument replacement — you know what I mean?

Tim:  Right.

Hugh:  If you just assert that someone is in a cult, they immediately think of something like the Branch Davidians or the Hale-Bopp people or something like that and that's just not fair to our Mormon friends.  You know, they could confuse it with being a Democrat . . . I'm just joking, sorry.

A couple of callers folowed in between, who basically "dittoed" Hugh's position, and then our very own Lowell called in:

Hugh:  OH! Lowell is here, probably Article 6 Blog Lowell!

Lowell: Hi there.

Hugh:  Hi Lowell, how are ya?

Lowell:  Great . . . hey,you know what Tom Wolfe's definition of a cult is?

Hugh:  What?

Lowell:  "A religion without political power."

Hugh:  [laughter] There you go.

Lowell:  We've spent lots of time on that.  John Schroeder's blogged about it on his own blog too, in a pretty scholarly way I might add.  But anyway, it's an interesting subject.

Hugh:  Well, I just hate the word, it's a pejorative and it's intended to foreclose argument.

Lowell:  I have to tell you, as a Mormon I've been on the receiving end of it for a long time, and it gets pretty old.

Hugh: Yeah, and it's just not appropriate in American political discourse.  But that's just a fight that is going to have to be waged throughout 2007.

Lowell:  It is.  We had an interview we published today with John McIntyre.

Hugh:  Oh, I haven't read that yet . . . Article, the number 6, blog dot com if you want to read that.

Lowell:  That's right, and he goes into this the way John would, he's a realist, a pundit, and he thinks you're right– that there will be a battle for the next year or so over this, and people will decide at the end of the day whether they think it's important or not.

Hugh:  That's exactly what's gonna happen.  Lowell, I gotta run.  Thank you.

 

As I reflect on my luncheon with my outspoken friend, I would have loved to have an open and lively discussion on the topics of divorce and religion. A candidate's personal life plays an important role in understanding their philosophy and ideology; and in determining whether or not one might support them for office. My friend, however, did not raise these points as issues for an engaging conversation, but as pejorative labels and personal attacks meant to shut down further debate. Our already poisoned political atmosphere needs more open and forthright debate on the important issues, not more dismissive labels and personal name-calling.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive