No Al Smith

In the past 150 years, Mormons in America have undergone a remarkable transformation, from outcasts to central players in American politics. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign brought to the fore a series of uncomfortable truths about America’s relationship with Mormonism. Despite hopes that his campaign would break down barriers for Mormons in America, Romney’s reluctance to speak openly about his faith seems to have limited the impact that the 2012 election may have had on how Americans view his religion.
Mormonism Before Romney 
Mitt Romney’s nomination for president of the United States represented the triumph of much more than an individual candidate. The heir to a long history of Mormons in American politics, Mitt Romney represented the culmination of American Mormonism’s ascendancy to acceptance in American culture.
Mormons were persecuted and mistreated throughout most of U.S. history.  During much of the 19th century, the Mormon community was functionally at war with the United States. After a mob killed Mormon leader Joseph Smith in 1844, many Mormons moved westward to escape the American borders of the time. Mormons, one might say, simply left what was then understood as the United States.
Mormon reintegration into American society was long and difficult. The first Mormon elected to Congress was held up for four years before being seated, and charges of polygamy continued to plague the church well into the 20th century (even though the Church outlawed it in 1890). Through a long campaign for acceptance, however, the Mormon community has moved from America’s margins to its center. Mormons now account for 15 sitting members of Congress, the Senate majority leader, and the most recent Republican nominee for President.
Despite enormous progress, American Mormonism continues to face hostility and skepticism. Public polling places Mormons as the third least trusted group in American society, trailing only Muslims and Atheists. In 2007, one-sixth of Americans polled indicated that they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified Mormon candidate for public office. In a conversation with the Harvard Political Review, Luke Perry, author of Mormons in American Politics: From Persecution to Power called Mormons “the most disliked Christian group in America.” Many Mormons hoped that Mitt Romney’s emergence as a national figure would help to put an end to the prejudices and distrust that continue to plague members of the faith.
The Evolution of Mitt Romney
As he was preparing to run for President in 2008, Mitt Romney and his advisors made the conscious choice to foreground his commitment to cultural conservatism. Opposition to gay marriage and abortion, they hoped, would help Romney connect with Iowa primary voters. As an almost inevitable corollary, his faith, in broad and general terms, formed an important part of his stump speech. The appeal, however, was far from direct in its use of Romney’s Mormon faith.
Conscious of the need to appeal to white evangelicals, a segment of the electorate that polls identify as being among the most skeptical of Mormonism, Romney was careful to focus on cultural conservative credentials rather than specific theological issues. In fact, much of his rhetoric fit more with Evangelicalism than with his own Mormonism. Ben Crosby, a professor at Iowa State University who writes about the intersection of rhetoric and religion, told the HPR that “rather than trying to connect with voters through [Mormonism], Romney tried to paint himself as someone with a more traditional faith.” He hoped his faith was not be disqualifying, but shied away from using it as a lens through which to view his life and values.
The Romney campaign entered the 2012 election with a very different strategy for dealing with the presidential perennial’s faith. Painfully aware of the failed attempts to endear himself to Evangelicals, Romney decided to avoid talking about his religion altogether. He avoided the topic on the trail and requests for comment on his faith went unanswered. “He made a conscious effort not to go that route,” Crosby argues. Gifted with the implosion of a battery of potential opponents, Romney largely managed to skate through the primary process while dodging the topic.
Religion remained a secondary concern throughout most of the general election, as well. Although Romney included some witnesses to his church service at the convention, he kept them out of the valuable primetime slot. Perry and others have concluded that white evangelicals’ overwhelming dislike for the incumbent pushed them into Romney’s corner with minimal need for outreach. Quin Monson, director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, offered the HPR a simple reason why Romney no longer needed to attempt to appeal to skeptical social conservatives: “because the alternative was Barack Obama.”
A Mormon Al Smith?
In the aftermath of the 2012 election, McKay Coppins, the only Mormon reporter to travel with the Romney campaign, published a long-form article on BuzzFeed in which he argued that the campaign had been transformational for how journalists and the country as a whole, viewed the Mormon faith. Referring to Mitt Romney as a “Mormon Al Smith” (Smith was the Catholic 1928 presidential candidate widely credited with demystifying Catholicism for large parts of the country and paving the way for future Catholic candidates), Coppins argues that Romney’s mere presence in the national spotlight forced conversations about Mormonism that have increased America’s comfort with Mormons in politics.
Others take Romney’s approach to religion in 2012 as a sign of increased comfort with Mormonism in general. “He was able to break some ground in 2008,” Perry argues, “so 2012 was easier.” Monson sees a similar effect on the media, noting that by 2012 many journalists had become tired of covering Romney’s religion. Romney was finally free to ignore his faith, like any other Christian candidate, and talk about his real focus, economic issues.
Still, some empirical evidence suggests that talking about his faith wouldn’t have hurt Romney as much as he feared. Matt Chingos, a Brookings Institution fellow, told the HPR that some polls suggest that “among white evangelicals, mentioning any information [about Romney’s Mormonism] seemed to make no difference … among Conservatives, some mention of his faith seemed to increase their support for him quite a bit.” Notably, however, Chingos acknowledged that other studies suggest a Mormon candidate might make voters more likely to support a different candidate, even though his or her faith is not considered disqualifying.
Perhaps most promising for those who hoped the Romney campaign would increase acceptance of Mormonism was the mere symbolism of the election. Romney’s mere existence as a Republican nominee and Mormon might, they hoped, normalize and validate the faith to skeptical audiences. Maybe, Monson mused, the fact that Romney had “run a national campaign where religion wasn’t a big deal makes it easier for the next Mormon with national appeal.” Robert O’Brien, a Romney advisor quoted by Coppins, put the hope succinctly: “it’s going to be a non-event the next time a Mormon runs.” The Mormon transformation from national outcasts to political force seemed complete.
Enduring Challenges
And yet, despite Mormonism’s clear reversal from exodus, Romney’s unwillingness to talk about his faith in open and honest terms might have prevented the sort of progress Coppins and others desired. A Gallup poll asking whether people would support an otherwise qualified Mormon indicates no movement since 1999. Seventeen percent of the country still reports an unwillingness to do so, the same as reported in 1999 and 2007. Despite their willingness to support Romney’s candidacy, white evangelicals remain heavily suspicious of his faith. Half say Mormons are not Christians and two-thirds report feeling that Mormons are “very” to “somewhat different” from the faith.
Romney’s inability to make serious inroads with the evangelical community leaves Mormons facing the same tactical problem that Monson refers to as a “two front war for Mormons.” On the right, any Mormon candidate must contend with significant skepticism from evangelical Christians who aligned with Romney more out of a desire to beat Obama than reconciliation with his beliefs. The left offers a similarly mistrustful secularist constituency, as a group distrustful of Mormonism’s cultural conservatism and religious commitments. Romney’s campaign, which endeared the community neither to the secular left nor the evangelical right, does little to help a future national Mormon candidate navigate this significant disadvantage.
Some blame Romney’s unwillingness to talk about his faith for the lack of movement in Americans’ perception of Mormonism. Americans may have become more comfortable with Mormons as individuals, but they were offered no new narrative to understand the unfamiliar faith in friendlier terms. Terryl Givens, a professor at the University of Richmond who has written extensively on anti-Mormon rhetoric through history, argues that “we’re still left with a horse and buggy problem.” Just as the Amish are reduced to the symbolic horse and buggy, Mormons are “identified with polygamy and magic underwear.”  The election, Givens concludes, “was a missed opportunity for the Mormon people as a whole.”
While the fact that Romney was able to choose to run while avoiding the topic of his faith might represent a positive step for Mormonism, future retrospectives on the campaign will most likely agree that the 2012 election was a lost opportunity for Mormonism and America.