Some prominent Mormon intellectuals are having a hard time with Mitt Romney's write-down of that 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income tax.
Over at Huffpost, Gregory Prince--a highly successful inventor as well as co-author of an important biography of the great LDS president David O. McKay--writes that because "a sacred obligation to assist the less able" is "the very basis of Mormon community," non-Mormons should not take Mitt Romney as "the face of Mormonism."
Meanwhile, Vanderbilt University theology professor Kathleen Flake--author of important works on Mormon doctrine and history--told WaPo's Lisa Miller that what Romney had to say to his fatcat donors was not Mormonism but Republicanism. In fact, she said, the message from Mormon pulpits is always, "if you judge the poor, you have no place in the kingdom of God.”
Are the critics right? Once upon a time, few Mormons would have had any doubts that accepting government help was not against their religion. When the Great Depression pushed the unemployment rate in Utah to 36 percent, the Utah state government gladly accepted public funds supplied under the New Deal; in 1933, a quarter of the Utah population received some form of public assistance.
Yet although, as historian Jan Shipps points out, government aid to Utahns during the Depression was 10 times greater than funds provided by the new LDS Welfare Program, church leaders began urging the rank-and-file to avoid "the dole" if at all possible. Indeed, in 1936, church president Heber Grant publicly instructed all Latter-day Saints to vote against FDR. (A majority didn't heed him.) Over the years, hostility to government assistance, in word if not always in deed, has only strengthened within the LDS leadership.
So with all respect to my friends Greg and Kathleen, it seems to me that Gov. Romney was expressing, doubtless more boldly than he now wishes, a point of view that is not alien within the Mormon community. In the LDS Church as in most other sizable religious organizations, substantial differences of opinion are to be encountered--over time, over place, and over person. Mitt's does appear to be at least one face of Mormonism.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | Sep 22, 2012 | 7:36pm
Romney was talking about the strategy of his election campaign, NOT about aid to those in real need. He was pointing out the simple fact truth that the ongoing goal of the Democratic Party has been to increase the degree that American voters feel dependent on government, and that it is impossible for any Republican to compete for the votes of people who have signed up for the Democratic Party program of dependency financed by tax money taken from other people. The whole point of President Obama’s “tax the rich” plan is not to actually raise significant revenue—he knows it wouldn’t, and he had TWO YEARS to enact that plan before the Republicans took over the House in 2011—but to encourage voters to think that there is a money tree that can be tapped to pay for more and more benefits.
The fact that this progression of dependency and revenue shortfalls willo lead to fnancial disaster for the Federal government is not a bug ini Obama’s program, but a feature. It will create a new crisis in which he would be justified in reformatting even more of the US economy, nationalizing other industries. The reason people who are Democrats hate Romney’s statement is that they know it is true, that increased dependency and lack of willingness to take responsibility for their own lives is the best thing the Democratic Party has going for it, but it gets harder to suck people in to become clients of the government when people realize what is going on.
Flake and Prince are confusing personal and collective acts of VOLUNTARY charity, which ALL faithful Mormons endorse and practice, with government-conducted gifts, that takes money involuntarily from those who earn it, and gives it to other people who did not earn it. King Benjamin of the ancient American Christians in the Book of Mormon did not endorse the poor going around and “Occupying” the front yards of those with wealth and demanding that the wealthy share equal portions with the Occupiers. Rather, he called on every person to voluntarily help care for those in need as an expression of their love and gratitude to God. Though he was a king, he did not threaten to send his soldiers around to collect taxes and hand them out to the poor. Instead, he made a point of talking about how he had supported himself with his own labor, rather than taxing the people.
There is also a wicked king described in the Book of Mormon, named Noah, who levied a heavy tax on his people and used it to build palatial buildings to show off his wealth. Taxing people heavily is viewed by the Book of Mormon as an evil practice. It endorses true voluntary sacrifice to help those in need, but not government taking wealth from one person and giving it to someone else.
Mark Silk | Sep 23, 2012 | 7:30am
If Romney really was making the claim you say he is, Raymond, he has no idea who his supporters are. The only demographic group that is currently favoring him over Obama are those over 65—the majority of whom are receiving receiving government payments via Social Security and Medicare, and constitute roughly half of the 47 percent. And in fact Romney and the Republican Party are not writing off their votes at all, but are working hard for them. The only campaign strategy at work in his remarks was the strategy of appealing to the self-regard and ideological prejudices of the rich people he was seeking to raise money from.
Marmot | Sep 23, 2012 | 3:01pm
Mark,
You are way off basevhere. Have you read a transcript of Romney’s remarks? I have and he was speaking of political strategy: some are never going to vote for him, others are never voting for Obama, and he must focus on the small group in the middle who are reachable.
Here is the relevant portion directly from MotherJones:
Romney: ... “how much of that gets picked up, there are so many things that don’t get picked up in a campaign because people aren’t watching them. By the way, most people don’t watch during the summer. I said we’re going to go into a season here starting with the beginning of June with almost no attention paid, then after Labor Day, in September and October, that’s when it’ll get fun.
Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody’s been told is, “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.” How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you’ve got to take care of yourself?
Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…
[Recording stops.]”
Then, later on, he picks up the thought again:
“We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you, the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side, they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, “Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?” they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, “Are you disappointed in his policies that haven’t worked?” they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don’t want to be told that they were wrong, that he’s a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he’s corrupt. Those people that we that have to get, they want to think they did the right thing but he just wasn’t up to the task. They love the phrase, “He’s in over his head.”
This is not Romney spouting Mormonism or Republicanism. It’s just political strategy. Obama does the same. He knows some are solidly for him, others “clinging to their guns and religion” will not, so he too focuses on the independents and undecideds.
The Left is quick to twist Romney’s words to judge him as uncaring, seeking character assassination of an individual who has personally donated more money to charity that I will ever make and who as a Mormon Bishop has given enormous amounts of his time to helping the poor and needy among us.
My question: What does it really say about the character of those who seek to “lie a little, [to] take advantage of one because of his words”, of those who twist words into something that they never were?
Mark Silk | Sep 24, 2012 | 6:14am
Sure he was talking about electoral strategy, Raymond. But his characterization of the 47 percent is just plain wrong. That was the point of my response. But meanwhile, you agree with the point of the post itself right?
Joseph | Sep 24, 2012 | 9:36am
Again, Mr. Silk reads something from two Mormons, and a different thing from another, and concludes, on the basis of that evidence alone, that Mormons hate poor people.
Mr. Silk, stop reporting as fact something you read about Mormons somewhere once. Instead, I would appreciate a thoughtful analysis of the issue.
I found the statements of Ms. Flake and Mr. Prince a bit silly. They both basically said that Mr. Romney is not a true Mormon. Balderdash. There are Mormons of many different political persuasions. Just because a majority (not overwhelming) self-identify as Republican doesn’t mean they are all right-wing. It also doesn’t mean that a self-identified Republican would be considered a Republican in other states.
Is Mr. Romney’s view any more alien within the Mormon community than the Catholic, other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or other communities? It seems to me that, based on your threshold for ‘alien’, you could define anything as ‘alien’ or ‘not alien’ within a community. That is a self serving sentence.
You asked a question on how Mormon’s view the 47%. Look at the LDS Welfare System (yes, it may not have given as much money as the government during the great depression, but 1) it wasn’t based solely upon monetary distributions, 2) such distribution was limited by what the church could procure and what members had to contribute, and 3) the welfare system is significantly larger now—these points, and others, are left completely unexplored). You can also look at the state of Utah and how it has handled the needs of its poor. Moreover, look at the state and its budget (a surplus of $85mil. this year), what it supports, etc. You have done none of these.
Now, why is it so invidious that the church leadership encouraged members to “avoid the dole”? It seems to me that there are many plausible, and virtuous, explanations for this. For example, the church wanted to encourage members to be good citizens, and only take what was necessary and only when it became absolutely necessary. The church leadership may also have seen its welfare system to be more efficient, and therefore encouraged members to use it and not government assistance. The church leadership may have believed the government strategy to be flawed, and likely to lead to dependency on government, and wanted its members to be self-sufficient, now and in the future. I bet there is some information in that same talk you fail to cite (you, instead, cite hearsay) wherein Pres. Grant encouraged members to “avoid the dole”. And how has the leadership been “hostile” to government assistance? You assert, but provide no evidence. None. Not even any analysis. It is pure…bunk.
Did you explore any of this? Alas, no. You read somewhere by someone once that Mormons think that the 47% are getting what is due. And so you conclude.
Karen Welch | Sep 24, 2012 | 11:56pm
@Mark Silk - my husband and I are well under age 65, and we support Romney because he is a better alternative than our current President. You’d be surprised who supports Romney in this election.
Michelle | Oct 28, 2012 | 12:33am
Romney was never hungry. The Mormon church always are for the rich…Romney hate gay people he try to kill one on high school…