Shunned Mormons Could Serve Up the West for Obama

Mormons learned a hard lesson from the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. The message Southern Evangelicals made loud and clear was "you are not welcome." Despite sharing substantially similar values, Mormons and Evangelicals are deeply divided on the issue of theology. To Mormons, voting for Evangelical candidates is routine. For Evangelicals, voting for a Mormon candidate is now seen as nearly heresy -- hence the reason Mormons may abandon the Republican Presidential nominee in November

As one blog contributor noted recently, this election was never about the Mormons supporting Evangelicals, as there is a history of such support coming from Mormons. This election was about turn about and fair play. Mormons believed that the Republican Evangelical base in the southwestern portion of the United States would accept a Mormon candidate on shared values, despite theological differences. In other words, Mormons incorrectly assumed that where common values prevailed over theology, Evangelicals would return the favor and vote for a Mormon candidate.

Sadly, the Mormons have been soundly rebuked and the results will have an important impact in the presidential election.  The most significant result will be the defection of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Mormons for Obama, a Democrat. Obama has appealed directly to Mormons, expressing the need to place religious and racial differences aside for the best interest of the country. His message is being heard loud and clear by those who have been subjected to the narrow-minded thinking of Southern Evangelicals, both on race and on religion.

Mormons have long accepted that their differing beliefs are not broadly accepted by other Christian denominations. In many ways they are proud of the differences; however, those differences are matters of theology, not matters of public policy. Mormons find the rejection by Southern Evangelicals of a Mormon candidate for office based only upon his religious beliefs as unacceptable. As most political pundits will point out, the southern votes in the Republican party were cast primarily based upon religion and not the policies or qualifications of Mitt Romney. The key phrase "flip-flop" was simply coded terminology for Southern Evangelicals. What they really meant was "I won't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon."

This absolute rejection of a Mormon candidate by Southern Evangelicals resulted in Mormons also playing the religion card by overwhelmingly rejecting Mike Hucklebee, the candidate who pandered to the Southern Evangelicals in the Utah and Nevada primaries. Hucklebee received fewer votes than even Ron Paul in the west. The message was heard loud and clear. Mormons also vote and without the Mormon vote, your candidate will not make it in the West.

In short, the Evangelicals shot first, and the Mormons responded. Had Huckabee simply been a conservative and had he not used religion as a weapon against Mormons, he would have found broad support for his candidacy in the southwestern states which are dominated by Mormons. Instead, his anti-Mormon rants and those of his followers across the Internet resulted in a crushing rejection for Hucklebee west of the Continental Divide -- even by sympathetic Western Evangelicals who are much more accepting of Mormons holding political office. Southern Evangelicals hold Mormons in great suspicion and do not trust what they don't know or understand. Likewise, Mormons and Western Evangelicals have expressed themselves in such a way as to hold such narrow thinking voters in great suspicion as they do not want national elected officers using such intolerance to achieve the nation's highest office. It is a stand-off based on a lack of trust between the South and the West.

Now comes the national election. In the conflict between the West and the South, one would think that John McCain was outside of the debate of intolerance. Again, had McCain avoided inclusion, he would be sitting happily upon the support of the Mormons in the West. Sadly for him, however, he is in the thick of it.

Sen. John McCain has also made terrible mistakes regarding the Mormon population in terms of offending the rank-and-file membership of the LDS church. Though avoiding directly intolerant speech, his foot soldiers have engaged in the battle without much reproof. For instances, McCain's own mother blamed the Olympics scandal on the "Mormon Church" and one of McCain's principal campaign staffers was quoted as making ridiculously intolerant remarks about the Mormon faith. Where McCain couldn't "fire" his mother, he failed to take any substantive action against the campaign staffer. Mormons took note.

The many Mormons I have spoken to in attempting to obtain a read on how Mormons will vote in November are universally stating that they will either not vote for the Republican candidate, which is likely to be McCain, or they will vote for Obama as a candidate who will include Mormons in his campaign. If the candidate is Huckabee, the Mormons will turn out in droves to reject him as he openly used religion against the Mormons, which would result in a heavy vote for Obama.

Obama has taken note. In Obama's Super Tuesday speech, he made it very clear that his candidacy is inclusive of disaffected Republicans, as well as those who share differing religious views -- e.g., code word for Mormons. He is a smart character and he knows what it feels like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. He perceives he can tap into that well and turn the Mormon vote in his direction. He can also bridge to the Mormons on race as Mormons have been viewed as intolerant because of excluding their priesthood leadership responsibilities where the rank-and-file Mormon population is far from racist and as a group they have been seeking a way to heal the perceived racist policies of the past. Many prominent black Americans, such as Gladys Knight, who have joined the church have found racial ignorance in the church's mostly white and Hispanic population, but not intolerance or open racism in the church. With some patience, Obama can appeal to the members of the Mormon faith and become a popular symbol for overcoming the church's past perceived isolationist and racially-based policies.

Of course, Obama sees the possibilities and recently sent his wife out to Salt Lake City to meet with two members of the Mormon Church hierarchy and had photographs taken with them. It was all smiles and mutual understanding. No one would have thought the Mormons would embrace so openly and warmly a black American candidate and his family, but bigotry, religious intolerance and racism does create a common cause and mutual understanding among its victims.

Like Evangelicals, Mormons also have their differences with liberals, but the feeling is different with Obama as he is reaching out and acknowledging the differences, but emphasizing the similarities while assuring Mormons that they would be treated with respect in expressing their differences. A close analysis of Obama's policies finds some common ground which could result in broad-based support from Mormons. For instance, the Mormon emphasis on family values, education, welfare, compassion, self-reliance and the like are all significant political similarities.

If Obama moved a small step towards the middle, he could also persuade Mormon right-wingers that he is their candidate as well. For instance, Obama's position on abortion could be restated as a "status quo" which would translate into a discouragement of abortion, but an acknowledgment that it is currently the law of the land. Contrary to most political perception, Mormons are not pure "right-to-lifers" as abortion is acceptable within the Mormon Church, but limited in use because of an overriding respect for life. For instance, a Mormon woman can have an abortion in the case of Rape, Incest or where the health of the mother could be put in jeopardy. That is not a purely pro-life position, though it is clearly a more conservative approach as it is still a restriction on when abortion is acceptable or permitted. Obama could make the similarities more clear and push a pro-family position that highlights the need to avoid extra-marital relations. He might ruffle some feathers of those not wanting any social responsibility, but that crowd appears to be narrowing, even within the Democratic Party. Besides, the National Organization of Women chose their candidate, and it wasn't Obama. By taking a higher road on the issue of abortion, Obama could simply stress personal accountability and avoid the direct discussion of "choice." As a status quo candidate, he could emphasize the need to make progress in reducing unwanted pregnancies and child bearing outside of the confines of marriage. He certainly would find no disagreement among Mormons in this emphasis.

On gay marriage, he need only follow the Clinton position, which is to support the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, while giving some basic rights to those who need protection on health and inheritance benefits. Allowing the states to make their respective choices allows the fight to be made at the local level as long as he would support the notion of avoiding one state from having to recognize the more liberal policies of states that might expand rights to their respective gay communities. In other words, Obama could emphasize the need for tolerance and understanding without advocating the radical positions of changing the foundation of society and definition of marriage.

On the issue of taxes, simply a pledge that he would allow the markets to work themselves out and not attempt to recreate the "Great Society" policies of the past would easily calm the concerns of Mormon conservatives. His health coverage proposal appears to be in this stream of thought.

On the war in Iraq, few would disagree with Obama that the war has been a mess. Assurances that he would counsel with his generals in making a wise choice on how and when to pull out would not offend many if it was measured and did not waive a white flag of defeat. By the time Obama hits high office, the pull back would be nearly implemented anyways. He could attract the hawks by indicating that we need to stay the course in Afghanistan in relation to finding Taliban and Al Queda elements and stabilizing Pakistan in this time of crises. As to Iran, his desire to open discussions is merely a continuation of Nixon and Reagan policies of speaking with the enemy. No one can or should fault Obama for such conservative views. Clearly, the isolationist views of Bush have not worked, whereas discussions with North Korea have worked effectively.

In other words, with a little study from Mormons in the know, Obama could very easily change nearly 10% of the vote in the southwest -- and perhaps more importantly, take critical votes away from John McCain to win the national election.

To secure and consolidate the Mormon vote going into the future, Obama could take a bold step and choose a Mormon for several cabinet positions, such as Secretary of the Interior and perhaps Secretary of the Treasury. He would soon learn that loyalty begets loyalty from Mormons and despite some liberal leanings, he would find a lot of common ground with Mormons. Democrats of the past had trusted and relied upon the Mormon vote. Reagan changed that dynamic. Perhaps Obama could reverse the defection. Where Reagan was able to attract Democrats over to the Republican tent, Obama could move many middle-standing Republicans into the "big tent" of the Democrats.

In a run against John McCain in the general election, the center votes will count as all important to Obama. As McCain will not have broad support from conservatives and it is likely they will stay at home, that should translate to damage to his base and a significant loss of total votes -- especially in the west and south. Obama simply needs to trim a few groups away from the Republican party in order to win. He should start with the Mormons.

As Mormons make up 20% of the voting population in the southwest, this strategy could be key in taking states like Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, California, Arizona and New Mexico. It might even cause Utah to go into the Obama win column.

As Obama is not clear on the Mormon question in terms of what their priorities are and where bridges can be built, and as the most prominent Mormons in the Democratic Party are currently supporting Hilary Clinton, Obama needs to identify a clear Mormon policy to persuade the LDS faithful that he is their candidate and he can represent their policies and concerns nationally.

It would be worth the time and effort for Obama as he faces a tight November election. The Mormons can deliver the west and be the difference in the close margins. Of course, recognizing the defection, the Republican leadership isn't likely to take such a move without taking some action of their own. One could expect Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh to call the troops back, but how much they will be motivated to support a party lead in the wrong direction by John McCain is now seriously in question.