Joanna Brooks turns out to be sillier than I thought

[Pelado]

I'm doing my part, assuring everyone I talk to about the election that Mitt doesn't believe any of that stuff anyway.

Thanks for your, umm, help.

[myboynoah]

What the hell is "an LDS faith-informed approach to global politics?"

[oxcoug]

What the hell is "an LDS faith-informed approach to global politics?"

Well, to the mind of JoBro, it's one that, ya know, reaches out to Islamic relief agencies and lots of other fuzzy stuff.

[New Mexican Disaster]

What the hell is "an LDS faith-informed approach to global politics?"

Think anti-Nephi-Lehies.

[Jacob]

Neo-conservative is a label that has not ever been used correctly by the media. Hence, I wouldn't expect most smart people to really have a good understanding of what a neo-conservative is. I wouldn't expect RobinFinderson to use the word in the same way that I or Ox would use the word, but maybe in the same way that Joanna Brooks would use it. And I don't think that I have a perfect understanding of the term, partly because so few agree on what it means, and partly because I'm not student of the label. Specific policy proposals are more important than lables. But labels are great for when we prefer to be lazy, as Ms. Brooks was in her article with her reference to neo-cons.

Who are Romney's foreign policy advisors who are neo-cons? John Bolton is an advisor, and many would accuse him of being a neo-con. However, he doesn't consider himself one, and he is opposed to nation buildling and thinks we should have reduced our footprint in Iraq much sooner than we did, for example. I think Bolton is more of a traditional conservative in the Reagan mold and much more libertarian on economic issues than any neocon would be. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But Bolton's greatest contribution to our nation was his rooming with Clarence Thomas at Yale law where Bolton helped mold Thomas into a libertarian/conservative.

Most non-conservatives, use the term neo-con as if neoconservative is all about foreign policy. It's not. I disagree with most of what Romney says about foreign policy, but I don't think he is a neocon. Why do you suppose guys like Bill Kristol (definitely a neocon) don't really care for him?

[Omaha 680]

Think anti-Nephi-Lehies.

I hear that only turns out well if you've got powerful neighbors willing to take you in and accept payment to defend you against your enemies.

[LA Ute]

Irving Kristol, one of the founders of whatever neoconservatism is, wrote this now-classic piece in The Weekly Standard back in 2003 in an effort to define the concept/movement/whatever it is:

The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.

[myboynoah]

Think anti-Nephi-Lehies.

Or Title of Liberty Captain Moroni.

[ERCougar]

If that were the case I think you'd have a point - but it isn't just that one line and it isn't just this one article - she made an earlier vacuous critique of Romney's private equity history and how it suggested the wrong (i.e. greedy) vision for America's econ future. So I already knew she was a lightweight on economics. Now I know she also has failed to master basic foreign policy theory. Economics and foreign policy: Basically the only two things I care about in national politics, and evidently two things Joanna shld read up on.

But there is plenty abt this article that I dislike:



First, Romney has always been private about his faith in public settings. Close friends attest to that fact and it predates his political career by a long while. Second - he doesn't "stress elements of his faith that align with campaign priorities" - he doesn't stress any elements of his faith. It is, in fact, a source of massive frustration to people close to Romney that he doesn't talk about some faith-related things that would be good PR for the campaign, like the good deeds he has quietly done for decades.

Her suggestion that Romney should feel compelled to make his faith a campaign centerpiece and talk about it in depth runs against recent precedent on faith and the presidency. The only recent president to talk openly abt his religious exercises was W - and he did it badly, in ways that alienated non-religious voters w/o exactly giving comfort to faith voters (i.e. his discussion of how he prays about all decisions).



This is one of the most vacuous paragraphs. "Does he consider minority perspectives?" is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question. "How does he relate to people who disagree with him?" Um, well - this is already all over the public record and the answer is that he thrives in and promotes differing perspectives and is known (both in his approach to health care in MA and in the study groups he led while at HBS) for synthesizing different points of view. There are probably a dozen articles out there around this topic. Has she not read them?

Is he a "by-the-book decision maker who falls in line with corporate and institutional agendas"? - well, obviously he isn't, but the way she asks the question implies that he probably is. This is the dude who produced the groundbreaking health care solution that set the standard for health care reform nationally (for better or for worse). Again, there is significant literature - including one great article in the NYT - about how Romney is not dogmatic or ideological, but attacks problems on a case-by-case basis without prejudicial theory going into them.

I concede your point on one level - Joanna is a very intelligent and well-intentioned person who is making a major contribution to the national discourse on our religion. It's possible for someone to be a "lightweight" in one category while being a heavyweight in others. They should just know better to not go into print in those categories where they don't know much.

And I suspect - and here am wander into pure conjecture - Joanna wld really love it if he talked more about Mormonism because it would mean more articles for her to write and more relevance for her in this year's election.

Good times, you carry on as well ERC.

Ok...now THIS is an answer.

I don't know how to break this up and quote sections, so I'll just enumerate points:
1) She hardly suggests he should make "his religion a centerpiece of his campaign." Instead, she raises questions that the average voter (not your average political junkie) likely has, and that he should address. If he wants to say, "My mormonism doesn't define me as a politician" or a Kennedy-style "I'm not beholden to the prophet", fine. But if he wants to win, he's going to have to address those concerns.
2) I have no idea if she knows what the true meaning of neo-conservatism. I don't. I'm probably a lightweight too, but as others suggest, plenty of smart people don't know. I'd argue that's a failure of the neocons to get their message across. Guess what? Your average smart person doesn't consider neocons super tight friends to the Islamic world. If that's wrong, fix the conception. Or bang your head against the wall, repeatedly. Again.
3) Really, we could apply 1) to your other objections to race relations and corporate sell-out. These are natural questions that normal people have about a multimillionaire Mormon.
4) Yes, I'm sure Joanna is fulfilled by the recent attention she's getting. Just as you would be if there were a sudden national interest in fora.tv. But to suggest that she's somehow altering her approach (see how it feels to have your motives unfairly read?) is unfair at best.

[Pelado]

Ok...now THIS is an answer.

I don't know how to break this up and quote sections, so I'll just enumerate points:
1) She hardly suggests he should make "his religion a centerpiece of his campaign." Instead, she raises questions that the average voter (not your average political junkie) likely has, and that he should address. If he wants to say, "My mormonism doesn't define me as a politician" or a Kennedy-style "I'm not beholden to the prophet", fine. But if he wants to win, he's going to have to address those concerns.
2) I have no idea if she knows what the true meaning of neo-conservatism. I don't. I'm probably a lightweight too, but as others suggest, plenty of smart people don't know. I'd argue that's a failure of the neocons to get their message across. Guess what? Your average smart person doesn't consider neocons super tight friends to the Islamic world. If that's wrong, fix the conception. Or bang your head against the wall, repeatedly. Again.
3) Really, we could apply 1) to your other objections to race relations and corporate sell-out. These are natural questions that normal people have about a multimillionaire Mormon.
4) Yes, I'm sure Joanna is fulfilled by the recent attention she's getting. Just as you would be if there were a sudden national interest in fora.tv. But to suggest that she's somehow altering her approach (see how it feels to have your motives unfairly read?) is unfair at best.

So you really think the average voter will make his/her decision in large part by how Mormonism informs Romney? I think the average voter cares what Romney believes and would do as president, but doesn't really care how Mormonism plays into it.

Her foreign policy argument is maybe a little contrived. I just wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard this after Sacrament Meeting: "The Church has reached out to Islamic-based relief agencies. Romney should reach out to Islamic-based dictatorial regimes who've advocated for the destruction of Israel."

[ERCougar]

So you really think the average voter will make his/her decision in large part by how Mormonism informs Romney? I think the average voter cares what Romney believes and would do as president, but doesn't really care how Mormonism plays into it.

Her foreign policy argument is maybe a little contrived. I just wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard this after Sacrament Meeting: "The Church has reached out to Islamic-based relief agencies. Romney should reach out to Islamic-based dictatorial regimes who've advocated for the destruction of Israel."

I have no idea, so I guess I misspoke. But it would be stupid to assume that there aren't a good chunk of voters who wonder.

[LA Ute]

I have no idea, so I guess I misspoke. But it would be stupid to assume that there aren't a good chunk of voters who wonder.

I really believe the news media wonders. I'm pretty doubtful that the all-important independent voters care.

[Pelado]

I really believe the news media wonders. I'm pretty doubtful that the all-important independent voters care.

We have a winner.

Media types tend to want anything that might be controversial, which drives their ratings. Most voters don't care about Mormons, and won't care if Romney's positions on the economy, taxation, foreign policy, environmental issues, etc. come from his Mormon heritage or his Mormon heresy.

[ERCougar]

I really believe the news media wonders. I'm pretty doubtful that the all-important independent voters care.

Then how did Newt Freakin' Gingrich and Rick Santorum give him such a run for the primary?

Reasonable intelligent people think Mormons are weird. We're barely more trusted than Muslims. There are plenty of people who see us as akin to Scientologists or Christian Scientists and are awfully suspicious about our cultishness. Dissenting (if you could even call it that) articulate voices like Joanna Brooks are one of the best defenses against this perception that Mitt could ask for.

[ERCougar]

We have a winner.

Media types tend to want anything that might be controversial, which drives their ratings. Most voters don't care about Mormons, and won't care if Romney's positions on the economy, taxation, foreign policy, environmental issues, etc. come from his Mormon heritage or his Mormon heresy.

So these religion questions drive their ratings but no one cares. Gotcha.

I wonder who's watching.