Sure, he’ll have to deal with those who won’t vote for him because he’s LDS, just like Hilary Clinton will have to deal with those who won’t vote for her because she’s a woman and Barack Obama will have to deal with those who won’t vote for him because of his race. I think we have to take facing discrimination as an essential characteristic of being part of a group that is traditionally not a part of America’s ruling class. To me, being a second-class citizen implies some kind of unique discrimination, branding me to be particularly different from the masses. However, it seems like most people – the great majority – have some kind of characteristic (one completely independent of merit, like race, gender, or religion) that puts them at odds with the traditional image of the presidency. That’s why all the presidents look so much alike. It’s been pretty clear, at least up until the present, who is welcome, and who is not. The presidency is this great symbolic representation of the ruling elite and most of us can’t even pretend to fit into that image. So if that makes me a second -class citizen, then, alright, I guess I am, but I’d say I’m in the company of most people, for whom recognition as a member of the ruling elite is at best an uphill battle, and at worst, practically an impossibility.

If Romney had followed a different strategy or the vagaries of the campaign had worked differently, we’d still be normal citizens. But now we’re on our way to being second class. I am delighted.

Even though you probably won’t be back, I’ll respond anyway in case there are any others with the same view. I agree that there are many reasons why not to vote for Romney (as there are for every other candidate). I am not sure either that I will vote for him, although I’m leaning that way. However, I disagree with you that his Mormonism is not an issue for 2 reasons:

1) I’m glad that you and those you associate with wouldn’t reject Romney because he’s a Mormon, but I can’t ignore the fact that there are polls that say that something like 30% of voters rule out voting for a Mormon. I think those kind of numbers are too high, but even if the number is something like 5%, that 5% can still affect the outcome, especially if they are concentrated in key states like Iowa.

2) I wonder if there could be some subconscious discrimination. I feel that I favor Romney partially because he is a Mormon. I am trying to overcome that by asking myself, “who would I vote for if Romney was not Mormon”, and when I think of it that way I tend to lean less toward Romney and see good things in other candidates. Just as I know his Mormonism is not a reason to vote for Romney, but yet still subconsciously it makes me more likely the vote for him because I can relate to him, perhaps being Mormon makes him seem strange to others and therefore makes them less likely to vote for him. Such people would probably cite other reasons for not voting for him, but his Mormonism might be part of the real reason. I’m not saying you or your friends are doing this, but I think some people might.

With that said, I think I’ve changed my position (no Romney-pun intended) since I posted #38. Here’s why:

The argument, as I understand it, goes like this: If a Mormon can’t be president, then Mormons aren’t full citizens since they can’t participate fully in the political process. That’s true, but the problem is that if Romney loses the election when he would have won it had he not been Mormon, that doesn’t mean that a Mormon can’t be president.

To illustrate my point, let’s say hypothetically that Obama loses in Iowa by 1 vote. Did he lose because he was black? Probably. Is there 1 racist voter in Iowa that would have voted for him if he were white? Probably. Of course, there are some that would vote for him because he’s black, but my point still is valid. If there is 1 more racist voter than there are black-pride voters, and Obama loses by 1 vote, does that mean blacks are not full citizens? No, that means that there are still elements of racism in our nation, which is a shame.

The same conclusion could be reached for Romney. If he loses by a hair because he’s Mormon, when he would have won by a hair if he wasn’t, that doesn’t make Mormons half-citizens. That just means there are elements of bigotry against Mormons in our society, just as there are elements of racism, sexism, anti-semiticism, etc.

We walk a fine line between the type of tolerance Joseph Smith preached so passionately and the claims of truth he made simultaneously. Unfortunately, it is far too easy to cross that line and allow the claims to temper our tolerance.

SK, I think you’re ignoring the 1994 campaign, where Mormonism was an issue. Romney was able to get elected to the governorship later partly because all the anti-Mormon stuff had been already ventilated and a reaction had set in.

Also, to the extent that there is more tolerance in Massachussetts, its the tolerance of condescension. Religion is thought to be a personal eccentricity and his Mormon religion is so fringe in MA anyway that it can’t be threatening. The tolerance of people who take particular religion seriously is a lot more meaningful.

Personally, I think Massachusetts has it right — its tolerance for both a personally conservative Mormon governor and gay marriage is built on the same principle — the principle of equal citizenship for all.

Thus, while I despise the anti-Mormon craziness I\’ve heard, it’s also quite familiar. Romney is now getting hit by the same religious intolerance from the same people who fought gay marriage here, with his support.

We should be wary of arguing that A is a sinner and not like me, therefore A does not deserve full citizenship. I think that line of reasoning says nothing about faith and everything about a poor understanding of what makes America a great democracy.

Supporters of gay marriage in MA had to fight Romney for equal citizenship. If he loses the nomination because others think his \”sin\” (their thinking, not mine) disqualifies him for office, I call it poetic justice.