The Romney Quandry

I'm not sure the LDS church is going to come out looking very good in this campaign, but not because of any Democratic "bashing" of his religion. Rather, the general inquiry of both liberal and conservative press, and voters looking for basic enlightenment, may lead to some awkward places.

When John F. Kennedy was running for president, two things were different. First, Kennedy made a very clear speech (the one that made Rick Santorum sick to his stomach) in which he laid out the difference between personal morality and the moral requirements of leading a religiously-free state, where he had to protect the civil rights of ALL citizens, regardless of creed.

Second Pope John XXIII was on the cusp of implementing "Vatican II," where the Catholic Church was trying to shed its more cultic images and be a better, integrated, part of the global religious (and non-religious) community. This meant that the focus changed to put more emphasis on being a positive force on its members and the global community.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has not addressed, in any meaningful way, his view of the role of his faith in a secular society, where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and non-believers ALL have basic civil rights that the president is in charge of protecting.

Second, the LDS church (and now the Catholic Church, for that matter) has chosen to directly insert itself in politics and the restriction of the civil rights of people who do not share their faith. They plowed millions of dollars into obstructing and denying the civil rights of LGBT people in California, and they are vocally supporting of letting employers control the choices women elect for their own health care.

What we see in both churches is a bunch of old white men trying to exert their money and power to control the lives of non-believers in their respective cults (using the word in the sense that every denomination expresses its cultic beginnings in these circumstances - secretive, top-down, manipulative, and absolutist).

A friend of mine worked for a company that was purchased by a Bain-wannabe equity capital firm. This process is called "tax arbitrage," manipulating a corporation's structure, assets, and debts so as to take advantage of inconsistencies in tax laws, and siphoning the cash off to the equity capital partners in a tax-favorable manner.

No wealth is created in the process, except for the partners, and around half of the companies die in the process. Interestingly, a recent study has shown that the pension funds and others who put up the cash (the equity capital firm itself puts few assets at risk) have received very poor returns on these investments over the last twenty years, while the equity firm itself gets its money back within months.

Mitt's father ran a real business, turned down a bonus during its most profitable year because, "no man is worth one million dollars per year," and while governor, invested heavily in universities, parks, roads, and a big public-private partnership with the auto industry and state universities. His wife ran for US Senator supporting both Roe vs. Wade and the then-in-process Equal Rights Amendment. Although they were then called "Republicans," today they would be seen as to the left of President Obama.

Think of every positive thing your parents ever stood for, and then thumb your nose at it and run on an opposite philosophy. What kind of child would that make you?