The Toady

Here's why Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech is backfiring: Bullies don't respect their toadies.

The speech includes some decent stretches, but it was not, primarily, a courageous plea for religious tolerance and mutual respect. It was, instead, primarily an obsequious bit of sucking up by an outsider hoping to curry favor with the in crowd by parroting their condemnation of other outsiders.

Romney's appeal was directed at the evangelical Republican voting bloc -- in particular to the "America is a Christian nation" crowd. He set the tone with this David Barton-ish riff:

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.

That prefaces the heart of the speech, a somewhat garbled rehash of the religious right's use of "accommodationist" arguments as a Trojan horse:

... In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain [sic] any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. ...

Romney's use of the dog-whistle term "heritage" is another Barton-ish touch, reinforcing the godandcountry civil religious theme of the preceding paragraphs. That bit about "judges who respect the foundation of faith" seems like a shout-out to the Roy Moore lunatic fringe.

For a religious minority like Romney, this is playing with fire. People like Barton and Moore don't like people like Mitt Romney. They consider Mormons a threat to their imagined "Christian nation" -- just as much of a threat as "secular humanists." For these people -- the target audience of Romney's speech -- Mormons and atheists are not real Americans. Romney lacks the courage or the conviction to challenge their narrow, revisionist, unconstitutional construct of Christian America, so instead he attempts to squirm his way inside their exclusive circle.

Romney's gambit here comes straight from the school yard. As a Mormon, he is an outsider, getting picked on by the bullies of the religious right. Instead of standing up to the bullies, he sucks up to them, trying to prove his loyalty and win their approval by acting like them and picking on the other outcasts and outsiders. "You guys want to pretend that 'secular' and 'profane' are synonyms? I can do that. Look, I'll even beat up this atheist kid for you. See? I'm just like you guys!"

This desperate, canine obsequiousness infuses his sniveling speech with fearfulness and flopsweat. Romney is pleading, begging to be allowed to serve as the bullies' toady. As far as that goes, he has probably succeeded. Eager-to-please toadies can come in handy, so the bullies will probably be willing to accept him in that capacity.

But as useful as they may sometimes be, toadies are never liked, respected or admired by the bullies. Nobody likes or respects or admires an unprincipled coward. And the characteristics of a successful toady don't fit with anybody's notion of the characteristics of a potential president. A toady can't get elected president (the best he can hope for is a Connecticut senate seat).

Hence the speech is backfiring. I don't know enough about the relative importance of the religious right in the Republican Iowa caucuses to speculate on what this speech will mean for Romney there on Jan. 14 Jan. 3, but wherever that voting bloc is strong, he will lose.

Comments

[burgundy]

But BushCo needed a reason to invade so they came up with this line of crap to see who would bite.

Even when you're maligning them you're showing that you've bought what they're selling. They didn't push the humanitarian angle until it was clear that we weren't going to find any WMDs. That was the original motivation for going to war the way we did. People seem to have mostly forgotten about that, because it didn't pan out and because it wouldn't explain our still being there. But please, please don't let them get away with the bait-and-switch.

[Ian]

Assassination of heads of state tends to make the ruling party even more hardline. On the other hand, supporting a coup d'etat tends to be quite effective as a means of toppling a troublesome government, and a coup is much less bloody than open war.

What could go wrong?

[Johnny Pez]

Jesu's original post asks the question I want answered. Who says Romney's speech backfired? That's the sort of assertion you want to back up with a link to a reputable source.

[Ursula L]

The invasion of Iraq was almost certain to fail, no matter how brilliantly it was carried out. The policy was based on a chronic misunderstanding that US administrations have of people in the rest of the world, somehow assuming that they would react differently to an attack and invasion than they'd expect people in the US to react.

Iraq, and elsewhere, was the failure to realize that a meddling outsider is hated much more than a despotic local.

Consider our own situation. Most of the people here pretty much agree that Shrub is an evil, unethical, incompetent, who's rule has been a disaster, and who gained power by subverting the electoral process, and who is a threat to the rule of law, to the basic civil rights that the nation was founded on, and who has made our nation worse in many ways.

But, if the sane nations of the world got together and invaded the US to topple Shrub, they would not be welcomed as liberators. They'd be hated, and there would be resistance, and anyone who tried to cooperate with them would be seen as a legitimate target of the people trying to fight the occupation. Collaborators, Quislings, etc.

Yet somehow, the US assumes, again and again, that if we do the exact same thing to another nation, the people of that nation will see us as heroes.

The circumstances are very, very rare where an attack that is perceived as unprovoked by the attacked party is going to be seen as a blessing. It may even be impossible.

Of course, the whole situation was made that much more difficult by the fact that the US is known in much of the world, not for supporting democracy or civil rights, but for supporting dictators who are compliant with US interests at the expense of their own nation. People won't give an invade the benefit of the doubt, when it has that type of history of intervention in the region being invaded.

[Drak Pope]

The policy was based on a chronic misunderstanding that US administrations have of people in the rest of the world

That's not true. The US administration knew exactly how the Iraqis would react. The whole "greet us as liberators" thing was directed towards the people, who they hoped were too naive and stupid to remember that this fuzzy dream never comes true.

[Ursula L]

That's not true. The US administration knew exactly how the Iraqis would react. The whole "greet us as liberators" thing was directed towards the people, who they hoped were too naive and stupid to remember that this fuzzy dream never comes true.

Hmm...

Perhaps "a common failing of US culture to appreciate that people of other nations are as loyal to their nation as US folk are to the US."

The idea was accepted broadly enough that a claim that we could bomb, attack, invade and occupy another nation, and still be "greeted as liberators" was accepted by a lot of people who, if the names in the story were switched, would see the nonsense of the idea.

The problem, though, is not just that this administration has gotten away with this excuse for policy, but that it has been used over and over to justify the US doing abhorrent things. Going all the way back to forcing Native American populations onto reservations to "civilize them for their own good." A delusion that dehumanizes others, but which is clung to despite repeated failure and evidence of the harm caused.

[Drak Pope]

Going all the way back to forcing Native American populations onto reservations to "civilize them for their own good." A delusion that dehumanizes others, but which is clung to despite repeated failure and evidence of the harm caused.

It goes back a bit past that. Try the British Empire, and its attempts to "civilize" Africa. Although I'm sure that ethnocentrism goes back much farther than the British. If I were most historically-inclined, I'd bet we'd find propaganda like that all the way back to the Caliphates and the Byzantines, or even all the way back to the Egyptians, the Babylonians (ha, irony!), the Hellenistic Empires... It just goes on and on. Ethnocentrism / jingoism is hardly a uniquely (or even primarily) an American concept, and it will continue to be an effective "rationale" for war for as long as ideologies and nations exist.

[Jeff]

Fred, serious question, any comment?

What's the question? Are there psychopathic and sociopathic Christians? Duh, yes. Does this mean that not all terrorists are Muslim? 'Fraid so!

Seriously, what's the question?

[Dean Booth]

Great post as usual, Fred.

Lawrence O'Donell's take on Romney's speech was, um, interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYgp-JszZ1w

[Ecks]

The idea was accepted broadly enough that a claim that we could bomb, attack, invade and occupy another nation, and still be "greeted as liberators"

a) all empires think that they are the peak of civilization, and occasionally feel put upon to go civilize someone less fortunate than themselves. I bet that you could take roman senators into the american senate, teach them english, give them updates on the local pecadillos, and they'd function pretty effectively after a while.

b) America has relatively fresh memories of parading through the streets of Europe being greeted as liberators. It doesn't seem that far fetched an idea at all to people who have seen it happen in living memory. What they forget is that in WWII, America sat out the first 3 years while Europe blew itself to pieces, but was clearly an ally, and fought WITH, not in place of, not as proxies for, European troops. Also it was very clear to everyone that the US wasn't arriving to set up its own puppet governments. None of those things were true in Iraq.

To be fair, Saddam was a LOT worse than shrub is... Yeah shrub tortures people, but only a handful of foreigners, and he works pretty hard to hide it. In Saddam's Iraq if Quday came through your wedding it wouldn't be that surprising if he decided to have his way with the bride as part of the party. There's no equivalent to that here. I think a lot of Iraqi's were genuinely happy to see Saddam gone. As far as it went, that part was great. It's only when you get to the "so... what now..." part that it all fell apart. It was bound to be an almost impossibly hard thing not to have huge acrimony and fighting on a large scale. There was a brief window of good will and awe right after the invasion, but shrubCo blew that small opening (and it wasn't a big or a good one), and now we're bollocksed up just where the experts said we would be, except in closer to their worse case scenarios with the ethnic cleansing.

[Ecks]

Scott, serious question:

I had a tuna sandwich for lunch. There was melted pepperjack on it, it tasted good.

[Bugmaster]

I had a tuna sandwich for lunch. There was melted pepperjack on it, it tasted good.

Typical liberal. Eating tuna just because that's what Fred and the government want you to eat. Pathetic !

[Ryan Ferneau]

I think the question was, "Any comment?"

As in, I'm assuming, "Why aren't you talking about MY favorite news stories? You must think that killing Christians is okay!"

[Ecks]

Er. lets see, reaction:
It's a tragedy.
Thou shalt not kill.

Re: Someone shooting a church because they "hate Christians." Is this so very different than kids shooting up their school because they hate it, or someone shooting a president to impress an actress?

Haha, I'm just kidding, those never happen. I guess those Christians must've been asking for it.

Oh, but Scott if you enjoy quoting random biographical details from news stories, how about this:

His favorite band was The Beatles. He began work as a YMCA summer camp counselor, where he was very popular among the children, who nicknamed him "Nemo." He won an award for Outstanding Counselor and was made assistant director. The executive director of his branch said, "If there ever was a person who had the potential for doing good, it was Mark."

This is the dude who shot lennon. You can totally see it coming, right?

[hf]

Does he want comment on the fact that these stories appear to contradict each other? Since the first link doesn't work and the other reports I've seen agree with the second that the gunner was not only Christian but a rejected applicant from the school in question, I suspect the 'anti-Christian' spin is pure bullshit.

[hf]

In Saddam's Iraq if Quday came through your wedding it wouldn't be that surprising if he decided to have his way with the bride as part of the party. There's no equivalent to that here.

I suppose that depends on your point of view. Nobody has ever found an objective scientific test for analogies.

Since the first link doesn't work and the other reports I've seen agree with the second that the gunner was not only Christian but a rejected applicant from the school in question, I suspect the 'anti-Christian' spin is pure bullshit.

Reminds me of a media reports about Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, saying the tape was "anti-Christian tirade" or "railed against his parents' faith". But the only segments they aired related to Christianity were Cho comparing himself to Christ. ("You just loved to crucify me.", "Thanks to you I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire the weak and the defenseless people. Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled, impaled upon, on a cross and left to bleed to death for your amusement?")

Which made me wonder, "what 'anti-Christian tirade'?" Do they think his Messiah complex was denigrating Christianity?

[Francis]

Scott messed up his link - this is the correct one. And all it links to is an unnamed and unconfirmed source within the police without any substance. I.e. not entirely worthless, but to be taken with a pinch of salt without verifying facts and/or sources. (He doesn't even have a psychologists report to go on).

And the evidence from Scott's own links seems very clear that if he "hated Christians", this was not without sufficient knowledge of Christians to have been training to be a missionary without being thrown off the course.

So, what's the question, Scott? That failing a missionary training course makes people hate Christians?

[cjmr]

Back to Jesurgislac's original question...

Over the weekend, I looked around on the 'current events' sub-fora of a couple of my homeschooling BBS sites (a place I know a lot of 'America is Christian' types hang out), and the people participating in the two very small discussions of Romney's speech were all Catholic or Mormon and (mostly) Democrats. There was one Ron Paul supporter in the discussion and one Huckabee supporter. Nobody in the discussion seems more likely to or less likely to vote for Romney because of the speech. So, as far as I have resources to tell, the speech is being ignored by the people to whom it was allegedly targeted.

[Ecks]

Huh, fantastic link hf. High high level discussion, disturbing and important info and topic.

But to work my analogy through in an decidedly non-scientific fashion, there is a difference between ordinary people sitting by and watch crimes openly happen without responding (though apathy is far from universal, people often do respond them - so a crim prof in undergrad told us once) and for a high level government official to walk into a wedding, have his guards abduct the bride for him to rape right then and there, leaving everyone else at gunpoint, and the groom to go off and shoot himself.

Bad stuff happens here, really bad stuff, and without anyone who could doing a finger to lift it - either out of fear or ignorance or misplaced senses of duty, or "not wanting to be involved" (as if that's possible once you are there and it happening) - but Saddam's regime took it way way waaay above and beyond that.

Did that justify invading Iraq? Weell... in an ideal world, yes it would. In the world we have, maybe not so much. I realize it's not even close to why Iraq WAS invaded, but, to me, that is a separate question.

[A Kennedy]

If Iraq had been invaded with the true and heartfelt intent to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyrrany of Saddam Hussein, the invasion itself would have been prosecuted in a completely different way. For example, it's never a good idea to bomb or shoot the civilians you intend to save.

[Zzyzx]

Well it DID go over well in the conservative blogs. Even Rapture Ready seemed to like it.

...just don't ask WHY I read them...

[Barry]

Ecks: "...there is a difference between ordinary people sitting by and watch crimes openly happen without responding (though apathy is far from universal, people often do respond them - so a crim prof in undergrad told us once) and for a high level government official to walk into a wedding, have his guards abduct the bride for him to rape right then and there, leaving everyone else at gunpoint, and the groom to go off and shoot himself."

The reason that the KBR guys will get away with this is that the administration quite deliberately made sure that US contractors in Iraq are under no law. They can and do kill as they please, with no consequences.

That wasn't an accident, and anybody who arranges for such a thing bears the full guilt of the quite forseeable outcome. The only difference between Bush/Cheney and Saddam's sons in Iraq is that Saddam's sons didn't kill as many people (to be honest, some of that was probably due to lack of opportunity).

[Ecks]

Huh, Barry, that's a really excellent point. Although to be COMPLETELY fair, The Iraqi's are *slightly* better off with the contractors, because when they commit a mass atrocity (shoot more than a handful of people in REALLY wide open public, f'rinstance), okay maybe the contractors themselves don't get into trouble, but at least the Iraqi government can make a mildly embarrassing stink about it, and put SOME pressure on the Americans for small concessions. With Saddam you didn't even get that.

Ok, I'm depressed now.