Is America ready for its first Mormon president?

The YouTube clip of Mitt Romney being questioned about his Mormon faith by a conservative radio host, which this week went viral, was no doubt an unwelcome surprise for the candidate’s campaign team, prompting voters to ponder just days before they go to the polls exactly what it would mean to have a leader of the uniquely American religion in the White House.

In the clip, Romney’s unease at having to defend a faith that believes Christ visited America 2,000 years ago is clear… despite being filmed in 2007, long before he was even a Republican candidate.

Despite Romney’s best efforts, it seems religion is the one issue presidential candidates cannot avoid. As noted by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to the United States, in European politics “God does not even get a walk-on part… In America he is centre-stage, wherever you place yourself in the political spectrum”.

Team Mitt has certainly done its best during the campaign to push faith itself, rather than the particulars of the Church, leaving their candidate to emphasise “shared values” over denomination.

Speaking to the Huffington Post UK, Dr Uta Balbier, the Director of the Institute of North American studies at King’s College London, argued that Romney has been successful to this end, and has “established himself as a person of faith in the eyes of the American voters”. As such, Romney has managed to make “the general perception of his faith more important than his belonging to the LDS church”. By emphasising Mormonism into just another branch of Christianity, Romney has neatly sidestepped the issue.

One can speculate whether the YouTube clip will undo Romney’s clever evasions come Tuesday night. However, that the former Governor of Massachusetts was even able to secure the Republican nomination speaks well of a religious pluralism that the US is rarely given credit for (albeit a win aided by a paucity of credible candidates from the dominant Evangelical wing of the GOP, as well as Romney’s large bank balance).

Should a Mormon beat Obama, would that not represent a victory for diversity of American society, an openness already emphasised in the election of an African American in 2008 and a Catholic in 1960? Perhaps, though some will no doubt see it as a testament to Republicans voters’ willingness to overlook Romney’s Mormonism (or at least to have their concerns subsumed by an often rabid desire to see the incumbent serve only a single term).

But why should Romney’s religion be so controversial, especially as the LDS, a 19th century off-shoot of Christian Protestantism, represents a modern American success story, with the religion currently boasting more than 13 million members worldwide?

The faith certainly has a chequered past, particularly in the practice of polygamy. Yet polygamy – the one certain fact everyone knows about Mormonism – was left behind by the main church more than a century ago and is now only practised by some of the movement’s more fundamentalist sects. As Romney noted in a recent 60 Minutes episode: “I can’t think of anything more awful.”

Since the days of its birth, the Church has undergone gradual change, with many of its rougher foundational edges softened by schism and secularisation, resulting in the seemingly more “benign” variant practised by Romney and his contemporaries today (although it is important to note that it wasn’t until the ’70s that the Church ended its prohibition on non–white members).

The LDS has its odd beliefs – the Garden of Eden was geographically in the US and that Christ will rule from Missouri upon his return – but Mormonism is hardly the only religion to hold bizarre revelations (the evangelical rapture or the return of the 12th Imam are no less inexplicable).

That’s not to say the modern LDS church is a bastion of transparency and openness – secrecy and obfuscation remain, particularly when dealing with the outside world. Non-members aren’t allowed into Mormon temples, while members are threatened with excommunication for discussing the faith’s rituals or theology.

Again, witness Romney’s unease when pushed to discuss the finer points of his faith or the rarity by which elders in the Church offer insight (the European LDS church was contacted for this article but would not comment due to “political neutrality”).

Yet secrecy alone is unlikely to be enough for one-in-five Americans to say they would not vote a Mormon for President as highlighted in a recent Gallup poll.

In a recent interview with CNN, Russell Ballard, an Apostle in the LDS, said it would be “misguided” if a politician tried to proselytize his religion while in office. Yet herein sits the problem for Romney: there’s the suspicion that a Mormon president would take direction from his Church rather than his office, echoing the anti-Catholic concerns surrounding Kennedy’s campaign in 1960 when critics argued that the Pope would be able to exert ‘foreign’ influence on the Camelot coterie.

There is also the Mormon belief that America is divinely blessed, so much so that church members profess that Christ actually visited the US two millennia ago, a notion heretical to Christians of other stripes. This has led many Americans, particularly conservative evangelicals, to dismiss the LDS as a cult, albeit based on the hypercritical notion their brand of Christianity is somehow lent authenticity due to its antiquity.

For Balbier, two things have helped Romney reduce Christian concerns over his faith: “His choice of the ultra-conservative Catholic Paul Ryan made the ticket more appealing for conservative Christian voters and the fact that Billy Graham, one of the most influential Christian evangelists in the US offered his endorsement.”

So if Romney wins, is it a victory for religious pluralism in the US?

“Religious pluralism [in the US] is functioning to an impressive degree,” said Balbier, “but from a European perspective, the acid test would be the presidential campaign of a Muslim candidate”.

Perhaps a Muslim candidate in four years time (hopefully running against a Trump-Palin ticket), but whatever happens on Tuesday night, the 2012 election has added yet another layer to the increasingly complex and often paradoxical relationship between a nation founded on principles designed to limit religion, and its citizens’ ardent desire to practise it.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Advertisements

Paul Ryan, the ‘intellectual leader of the Republicans’

Mitt Romney has ended months of speculation by naming Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate ahead of the November election.

The 42-year-old Wisconsin Representative was unveiled in Norfolk, by the presumptive Republican presidential candidate ahead of a four-day bus tour through key states and battlegrounds.

Appearing alongside Ryan for the first time, and with the World War II battleship, the USS Wisconsin in the background, Romney called his VP pick a “shining exception” in Washington, and praised Ryan’s “character and values”.

“Paul Ryan works in Washington but his roots remain in Janesville, Wisconsin,” said Romney to the delight of the flag-waving crowd, adding that youthful-looking Representative had become the “intellectual leader of the Republican Party.”

The selection of Ryan, revealed by Huffington Post late on Friday night, will be seen as a gamble by Romney, who is hoping that the Representative’s appeal to fiscal conservatives on the right of the GOP, as well as the Tea Party base, will out-way the loss of any moderate Republicans or Independent voters at the polls.

John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign was hugely energised by his selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate, even if the bounce was only temporary. By selecting Ryan, Romney is betting on a similar boost for a campaign that has come under increasing criticism in recent weeks, not only from Democrats, but from allies within his on party.

In the run-up to Saturday’s announcement, a number of “safer” candidates had been mooted, from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

Yet by selecting Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the Path To Prosperity series, Romney is pushing the economy front and centre of his presidential campaign.

Romney’s VP candidate has built his name in recent years on the back of the “Ryan Budget”, a series of radical proposals for the US economy that includes repealing much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), while converting Medicare – the safety net offering seniors access to health care via the state – into a voucher-style system dispensed from government through private insurance companies.

Ryan’s selection will be hugely popular with the conservative wing of the GOP, as well as the Tea Party grass roots, many of who see the repeal of Obamacare and the end to entitlement spending as the key focus of the 2012 election.

Yet Ryan is likely to prove equally as popular with Democrats, who now have the Republican’s poster boy for fiscal conservatism in their sights. Should Obama and Biden defeat Romney and Ryan in November, it would be a resounding rejection of the principles upon which much of the Tea Party has campaigned since 2009, as well as clear rejection of the path of austerity and deficit reduction as favoured by the Romney camp.

Ryan’s budget, particularly the reformation of Medicare, one of the government’s most popular programmes, will give Democratic campaigners another easy line of attack, while large spending cuts, allied to income tax rate reduction, can easily be portrayed as a budget for the wealthy at the expense of the middle and working classes.

And while Romney has been quick to point out Obama’s lack of experience in the private sector, Democrats can now point to Ryan, whose career has been almost exclusively in politics.

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.

Cenk Uygur on Brits, Bachmann and Barak…

Cenk Uygur is an unlikely global celebrity. Born in Turkey and raised in the US, the trained lawyer started broadcasting a satellite radio talk show called The Young Turks in 2002. By 2005, the format had developed into an online broadcast distributed on YouTube, from where it has grown to become one of the best known and most viewed offerings on the web. It currently boasts around 30 million views each month, and has received more than 500 million views in total since launch.

“I knew we had a following,” Uygur tells The Huffington Post UK, “when I got off the underground in London and heard someone shout ‘Cenk – what are you doing here?’ I’d only been in the country about an hour.”

Yet notoriety is something the 41-year-old has increasingly had to deal with. Last year, the success of Uygur’s online show caught the attention of cable news channel MSNBC, who offered the LA resident a contract to host their coveted 6pm slot. He accepted, though it proved only a brief association. After six months, Uygur was offered a lower profile time, which he refused, having been told his tone was not to the liking of executives in Washington.

Uygur’s combative style, developed for the web generation, apparently didn’t sit well with the cable news audience. So, he moved back to TYT (though he never actually left) and is now looking to expand.

“The UK is our third largest territory behind the US and Canada,” he says. “It would be great to take the show there. Maybe in the future we can expand to set up Young Turks in different regions, and the UK would definitely be a prime contender to do that. Because of the show’s global popularity, we are definitely looking to give it more of an international feel.”

Using YouTube, alongside live web streaming, has given Uygur and his fellow Turks an almost global reach.

“That’s the great thing about being online,” he says. “If you look at shows like John Stewart and The Colbert Report, they’re restricted to a channel. We are not.”

Every day, more than a million people visit the TYT channel on YouTube, for their daily fix of progressive political discourse, entrenching Cenk as a fixture in the US media landscape. And, in a country where newscasters wear their political leanings like an identity badge, Uygur is unashamedly to the left of the divide.

“I started The Young Turks as there needed to be a push back against Fox News and the other news sources, which only pushed the agenda of big corporations,” he says. “We didn’t sit down and have a meeting in which we determined the editorial or political line. We just try and present the news without all the bulls*it. The show is just a reflection of the people that make it.”

For Uygur, John Stewart, The Colbert Report, Air America on the radio, plus MSNBC’s increasingly progressive stance is all part of the same push back. “It is a fight to balance out the news so Americans aren’t just told one side of the story,” he says.

I enquire if, in the interest of balance, he ever invites conservatives on the show?

“We try and get conservatives on the show all the time,” he snaps back. “It’s great when they come on. I have nothing against conservative principles, however what’s preached by people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism.”

“You only have to look at subsidies for oil companies,” he continues, now in full flow. “These subsidies are sold by the right-wing media as an issue that fits well with conservative principles. Can there be anything less conservative than subsidies for oil companies? People like Limbaugh or companies like Fox News are paid by the corporations to push their agenda. They call it conservatism, but it’s just corporate propaganda.”

It’s the kind of vitriol that has won the Uygur fan and foe alike. It is also indicative of America’s increasingly polarised media, much of which has come to resemble two armed camps rather than members of the same profession.

It’s a situation not only certain to continue through to the 2012 election, but could well have a bearing on its outcome.

“Obama is in so much trouble right now,” says Uygur. “He’s got nine per cent unemployment… and that nine per cent is not going down anytime soon. Then there’s the downgrade of the country’s credit rating, following the ridiculous situation with the debt ceiling.”

In recent months, the TYT host has become increasingly critical of Obama and the current administration.

“If he was doing the right things, it wouldn’t be so bad,” he says, “but the President simply isn’t looking at the type of policies that will get the country out of its current mess. It”s just more tax cuts for the rich. I can honestly see Obama’s popularity figures dropping into the 30s.”

So you think Obama will lose, I ask?

“No – I’m not saying he will lose. The Republican Party could do him a favour and nominate some lunatic. That would give him a chance.”

The nomination process for the Republican Party, although underway, is far from yielding a definite candidate, with a recent CNN poll putting Ricky Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann as the leading candidates in that order, with Sarah Palin yet to declare.

“People are actually talking about Michelle Bachmann as a real candidate for the Republican nomination,” he says with exasperation. “Come on… Admittedly, her figures are good right now, but she is simply not a serious candidate. Mitt Romney is more likely as is Rick Perry. I’m surprised that Mike Huckabee has ruled himself out of the race. He would mobilise the evangelical vote and could portray himself as a populist. There’s a mood in the country right now for a populist candidate. I’m amazed he hasn’t jumped back in.”

“The run up to the election is going to be vicious,” he continues, barely drawing breath. “The Republicans have already started. The leak about Michelle Bachmann taking prescription drugs was unbelievable. I’m the last person who wants to see Bachmann in the White House, but for Republicans to leak the migraine information, questioning not only her mental health but also inferring that she was addicted to prescription drugs was unforgivable. Unfortunately, I think it’s going to be that kind of election.”

Whatever happens, The Young Turks will no doubt be covering it, broadcasting their daily mix of the irreverent, the serious and the funny from their poky studio in downtown LA.

“We’d like to expand as the set is looking a bit cramped,” he says. “The set has been a good home as it’s very intimate but we’re in the process of moving very soon. Actually, I can’t confirm that right now… but we are.”

This first appeared in The Huffington Post. The original article can be found here.