One of the complaints one hears about Romney is that he lacks a “core.” I wrote down some thoughts about this in 2008 that seem just as applicable today. So I figure it’s time to post an updated and expanded version.  This is going to take the form of a series of posts, because there is just too much to say for a single post.

During the 2008 campaign, Byron York wrote “For what it’s worth, my guess is that at the core of Romney’s being is his church and his family; if Romney were asked to surrender all his worldly success for them, he would.”

As York noted, one of the obstacles for Romney throughout the primary season was a perceived lack of “authenticity.” I believe York stumbled across the reason for the lack of authenticity: An authentic Romney would have been a deeply Mormon Romney, and Romney calculated (I fear correctly) that a deeply Mormon candidate could not win the nomination.

Now, I believe that a deeply Mormon Romney should not have been a bad thing. Modern Mormonism is conservative to its bones on social issues. It is mostly conservative — at worst, indifferent — on most other issues. A Mormon president would be most unlikely to worship at the altar of the God-state, before which so many Democrats (and, increasingly, Republicans) genuflect. Since Mormons regard the U.S. Constitution as an inspired document — an act of Providence, if you will, though most Mormons wouldn’t put it exactly that way — a Mormon president would very likely take very seriously his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I don’t need to belabor this; one need only look at Utah, the reddest state in the Union. This is the state in which Clinton came in third in the popular vote in the 1996 election.

And I acknowledge that Mormonism is not monolithic and there is a deeply liberal minority within the faith. Likewise, I understand the distinction between theological Mormonism, which while it has much to say on social issues and righteous government, avoids entanglement in 21st century partisan politics; and cultural Mormonism, which has the qualities I just described. In this post, I am primarily concerned with cultural Mormonism and will touch on theological Mormonism only to the extend necessary to understand the roots of the culture.

But the unhappy fact is that Mormonism is regarded with deep suspicion, or worse, in many quarters. This is particularly true in the South, which is a vital battleground for any candidate for the Republican nomination. But all this goes back a long ways and it is not exclusively a Southern phenomenon. We have not quite forgotten the Smoot hearings. Given these realities, Romney’s dilemma was either to be the authentic Mormon he is, and risk a campaign even uglier than the one we have actually seen so far; or put his Mormonism — the authentic core of his being — in the background, and emphasize what he perceived to be his other strengths. So far, he has chosen the latter course. This didn’t work in 2008, but this time around Romney had time to work on his game, and he was greatly assisted by the ineptness of his opponents. (And, frankly, I believe the reason his opponents were so inept is because the more competent leaders within the Republican party were impressed by Romney’s organization, were content to see Romney nominated, and thus felt little motivation to run against him.)

It’s easy to see how this is playing out. While Romney has mostly tried to avoid talking about religion, it is not a subject people will leave him alone on. During the 2008 campaign, he tried to talk about shared beliefs using what he believed was shared language. His talk about Christ being his personal Savior was perfectly orthodox Mormonism, but expressed in Evangelical language — and the Evangelicals, who have been taught (incorrectly) by their ministers that Mormon claims to be Christian are just a charade, often didn’t buy it. In 2008, Romney correctly avoided The Speech for as long as possible, but when he finally saw no alternative but to address the issue, he misfired badly. The speech was well-crafted and intelligent, but it was about ten times longer than it should have been; it failed to persuade many Evangelicals; and it hacked off a lot of not-very-religious Republicans who felt that the lack of any mention of atheists and agnostics meant that they weren’t welcome at Romney’s table. Fortunately, the speech was also not particularly memorable, and so has done relatively little damage this time around.

Romney has campaigned on his incredible intelligence and competence, demonstrated by his impressive track record in the private sector, but this has not given him as much traction as he (or I) would like. I personally find this frustrating and deeply discouraging. But I should not have found it surprising: As the geek who was tormented by the jocks all through high school, I should have anticipated the dangers of running, in effect, as a geek.

Romney is now shifting his campaign strategy towards running as a pragmatist. This is authentic Romney, but it is also the least conservative part of the authentic Romney. Romney is a “fix-it” man — an extremely talented, capable, and authentic one — but this is not particularly a conservative trait. If there is anything conservatives agree on (and, even on this, not all do) it is that the government could use some serious downsizing. Romney has the potential to be very good at downsizing. Unfortunately, his Republican opponents came close to redefining Romney, the potential downsizer of government, into Romney, the kind of guy that downsizes you, Joe Sixpack, out of a job. It was a clever ploy that the Democrats will doubtless revive in order to deny him the Presidency — but it was a deeply dishonorable one coming from men like Gingrich, who should be the last to resort to this hoary Democratic talking point.

The charge against Romney that seems to have the strongest sticking coefficient is that he is a “flip-flopper.” But, with the exception of his stand (or should I say random walk?) on the Second Amendment, all of his flips are consistent with a steady drift to the right. Now, to some people, that doesn’t matter; they are as happy to denigrate him as “Flipper” as they are to denigrate him as “Flip-Flopper.” But every politician changes his mind on things, and I remain unconvinced that Romney is remarkable in this respect. But to a voting public already suspicious of Romney’s authenticity, the charge carries unusual heft.

Where does Romney really stand? If he’s the deeply authentic Mormon I believe he is, he regards abortion with repugnance. But you’ve heard the story about his cousin who died in a back-alley abortion, and how this affected Romney. I know: That story sounds a bit convenient to me, too, and I have my own suspicions that Romney’s pro-choice position in the campaign against Kennedy for the Senate was politicaly expedient. But I cannot rule out the possibility that Romney really was then what a lot of pro-choicers only claim to be: Personally repelled, but unwilling to enforce that judgement on others.

If that’s the case, of course, we are justified in carefully examining the sincerety of Romney’s flip on this issue. Where is the authentic Romney? Well, there is the story about how Romney, as a lay Mormon minister, advised a woman to avoid an abortion in a situation where there were serious medical concerns with continuing the pregnancy. Like anyone else, I’m guessing, but I’m guessing that that’s the authentic Romney.

Likewise, Romney’s past positions in support of civil rights for gays and lesbians has been taken as a sign that he is liberal on this social issue, but it could also be the regarded as a statement of tolerance in the best American tradition. It is also pretty much the official position of the Mormon Church, which opposes recognition of gay marriage but has generally supported anti-discrimination and anti-bullying measures for gays and lesbians in Utah. Again, if he is the deeply authentic Mormon I believe he is, his attitudes would reflect both the strict sexual mores of Mormonism and the admonition to love the sinner. I think his marriage and family reflect the former. His past calls for tolerance reflects the latter. I believe Romney is a genuinely tolerant person, and I think this should be regarded as a strength, not a weakness. I dont’ believe he was endorsing the GLB lifestyle, but was simply asking the public to stop tormenting these unfortunate souls. His “flip” on gay marriage was nothing of the kind: I believe Romney understands the difference between tolerance and endorsement, and that state recognition of gay marriage crosses the line of endorsement.

Perhaps it was a mistake for Romney to try to position himself as a conservative in the race, and he would have done better to run as the moderate Republican so many people seem to think he is. That may have been a necessary political calculation given the realities of the Republican primary. But it may also be that Romney chose to run as a conservative because his instincts are actually conservative.

In the next post, I’ll look more closely at Mitt the Mormon.