Mitt's religion doesn't matter: Or, get ready for Wall Street's Koch-upation of America!

    Dag just posted a great and very logical piece about how Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs will make it tough for him to get the Republican nomination, given the fact that voters tend to distrust Mormons and dislike Mitt. Although I see the point, I'm pretty sure Romney's Mormonism isn't going to make much difference in either the nomination race or the race for the presidency--unless the Dems decide to make an issue of it, which seems unlikely. Here's why.

    The Lucrescenti (man, I so want that term to catch on!) want Mitt Romney to be president. And they're not going to let some little issue like what religion he is stand in the way of buying up enough votes to get him in there. Remember, these people are NeoCons; they don't exactly believe in anything. Therefore, they're ready and willing to "help" ordinary Americans see things in a slightly different light, as long as it's the light that gets their guy elected.

    So, get ready for a whole new "grassroots" spin that maybe a fella's religion ain't so important as long as he's a Godly man and has "American" values. Get ready for the Koch brothers to tell us all what that means...

    Get ready for "Americanism" to slip the surly bonds of Christianity, which has become kind of inconvenient anyway, now that the public has seen Michele Bachmann and a few other Evangelical Tea Partiers up close and personal. It'll be surprisingly easy to bamboozle Christians on this one--if the new rhetoric is even vaguely similar to the old rhetoric, most Evangelicals won't even notice. They're conditioned to believe that America=God=Capitalism, and that the meanings of the words are pretty much interchangeable. Getting rid of the litmus test of Christianity as Evangelists know it has the added advantage of attracting more Jews and maybe even a few Muslims if they're "American" enough. That's good stuff, right up there with attracting a few Black Conservatives here and there. (Watch for snark here.)

    Get ready for "American" to look a lot more businesslike in the runup to this election. Get ready for a few of the more "tell-it-like-it-is pundits" to mention that one thing about those Mormons is that they're organized and good with money. And when I say "tell-it-like-it-is pundits" I mean Republican pundits like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Maybe Glenn Beck if he gets his show working again.

     Get ready to hear that the main thing you need to know about Jesus now is that he would never let so many people be without a job--no, no, he'd get in there and turn on the trickle-down, full blast!

    Get ready for disapproval to shift heavily toward "Atheists" or Almost-Atheists. They're Just Not American enough. (And much too fair-minded!) Why, they're practically socialists. Mitt and the preacher from Alabama may not be able to agree on what makes a man a Christian, but by golly they darn sure know what makes a man an American. (And by God, if you don't know what that is, then you're probably one of those Atheist Socialist Liberals, so we're not gonna tell you.)

    Get ready for "cooler heads" to talk about how we really should be getting on with the business of running the country so everybody can choose their religion in peace. (This is a line that Democrats are apparently too dumb to use to good effect; Republicans won't make that mistake.)

    It'll be nauseating, it will have no connection with historical fact or economic reality (facts, after all, can be checked, so it's better to just not use 'em,) and it will be incredibly effective at rallying the Republican base around the Mittster.

    See, the reality is that it IS time to get down to the business of releasing some of the capital that the Lucrescenti's been hoarding, and drop it back into the economy to create some jobs and change things up a bit. But the big boys are not going to release that capital to an African American Democrat. Why would they, when total victory is so close at hand, courtesy of a Democratic Party that hasn't made a convincing case for what it really means to be an American?

    So it's got to be Mitt. Maybe with Huckabee or some other Christian guy as VP. Whatever, you know? Who cares if the public doesn't like him much--they'll like him a lot more once they figure out that Mitt Romney's Jesus might have a couple million jobs in his pocket.

    You have to figure that Romney's Mormonism didn't stop him from running a pretty left-leaning state in a pro-business way that made most people reasonably happy. The Lucrescenti can portray him as the insider who knows how to work with the Godless Democrats Who Run Everything but still holds true to his Christian-ish values. That's how they'll buy those votes.

    "So cast your ballots, Republicans, get back to being good Americans, and go about your business. Sorry about that bank bailout and recession, here's a low-paying non-union job to make up for it, and other than that there's nothing much to see up here in the 1% room. If you need us, try us at our new place in Dubai, and we'll let you know when we need you for our next war...."

    It's important to remember that the NeoCons never left the building. And Mitt, ladies and gentlemen, is their man. So get ready for the Koch-upation.

     

    Comments

    koch-upation I thought that was cute name the girls in the corps de ballet at the NYCB used for paying the rent on their theatre-but spelled the other way...


    not that there's anything wrong etc. etc....

    I know Koch-upation is a lame joke, but someone had to make it, and I wanted to be first.

    I did note that the Koch brothers are willing to sink $200M plus into this election. I strongly suspect they'd prefer to spend it on Mitt.

     


    David wants to spend his money on high maintenance dancers...not that etc.


    Interesting take.  Your emphasis is on the elite.  So, in one sense it's top-down versus bottom-up - who rules America?

    Christianity is certainly inconvenient to modern American notions of capitalism.  I was just re-reading the Sermon on the Mount the other night.  I don't know why exactly, but I felt like I needed to be reminded that Jesus didn't really advocate (most) of what modern American Christians seem to demand of society and government.  No question about it though, Jesus was a 99er.


    As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”


    I can't hope to compete with a Koch-upation scenario, only offer an admittedly loose off-the-cuff intuitive read.    

    As a cultural morality play Romney could use the Mormon Question to take away some of the "feel good" vote that Obama got last time.  In 2008 one way to show you were a good person, tolerant, not prejudiced, was to vote for Obama.  If Romney's it this time he would give people who feel treated by the MSM and the broader culture as though they are bigots--a major resentment shared by much of the GOP's evangelical and fundamentalist base--and who hate Obama a chance to offer evidence that they're not, by voting for Romney.  
     
    My guess is that many people who are open to voting for a Mormon for President and aren't part of the bases of either party would love a Kennedy-type positive speech/message from Romney along lines of "this is a tolerant country" and we have an opportunity to remind the world of America at its best, etc.  For the many who have trouble feeling good about Romney the person, enough might at least feel good about that message he could send and the evocation of lately pretty dormant American pride--in something, anything--it can lend itself to.  
     
    Romney adds to this an effort to try to turn the election into a referendum on the economy. 
    Where there seems to be a real and growing belief--or is it realization?--setting in with the public that we're not likely to see much improvement on jobs, and maybe on the economy generally, on current trajectory.  If voters don't hear Obama having any better-sounding ideas on the economy and don't see huge differences between the candidates on economic policy that are meaningful to them, maybe they just vote to fire Obama figuring things probably couldn't get much worse under Romney and might get better.  Nothing Obama has been saying or doing on the economy--so far-- seems to have left the public with the view that he has some cards he can still play and intends to play.  Voters tend to hold their President much more accountable for a bad economy than their members of Congress, which is why the GOP is betting on obstructionism even though it drives their generic party-approval ratings down as well as Obama's.
     
    One of the things Obama has going for him is that your average, or even below average, doorknob has more charisma than the Mittster.  But the GOP excels at marketing to the point of being able to make almost anyone look presidential enough to enough voters. 
     
    I am increasingly open to re-enactment ads, PETA-approved, of dog-in-cage-on-car-roof-for-10 hours.  Maybe the "it's un-American to be cruel to your dog" vote can overcome the "voting for a Mormon for President showcases American moral superiority to the world" vote.

     


    Hmm to df and ad. Interesting. I might call this race differently if it weren't for the ascendancy of the lucrescenti, the potential for big money donors to outdo themselves, and the ease of marketing to evangelicals.


    Latest Comments