A MORMON FOREIGN POLICY
WOULD BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND GREAT FOR THE WORLD, BUT IT WON’T HAPPEN….
As the world prepares
to face another US presidential election, thoughts turn to the likely foreign
and national security policies of America’s first ‘Mormon’ White House under
Mitt Romney. Widely derided as either weird or a cult, a foreign policy ‘true’
to Mormon beliefs would likely see radical shifts – a massive rollback of
American military forces from Afghanistan, reduction of the threatening
attitude to Iran, a reversal of blanket support and aid to Israel, and slashed
military spending. America would ‘come home’ and experience a real peace
dividend that so patently failed to materialise after the end of the Cold War.
But there’s a
difference between authentic Mormon beliefs and ex-Bishop Willard Mitt Romney,
the Church of Latter Day Saints’ establishment and, it must be noted, the
majority of American Mormons. So ‘Americanised’ are Romney, the LDS
establishment, and lay Mormons that a Romney White House would differ little in
practice from previous administrations – including JFK’s ‘Roman Catholic’ and
Obama’s ‘African-American’ ones. And that is testimony to the almost
overweening assimilating powers of the American Way of Life – the subordination,
or hollowing out, of any beliefs that challenge free enterprise, limited
government, American exceptionalism, and US proactive global leadership.
A variety of dissenting
voices – socialist, conservative, and others - are heard in the Mormon
community which, at 14 million strong worldwide, is the fourth largest
denomination in the United States. ‘Mormons for Ron Paul’ – a libertarian
Republican contender for the GOP’s nomination who may have as much as 20% of
all delegates at the upcoming national convention in Tampa, Florida - argue
that Romney, the LDS hierarchy and fellow Christians have forgotten the
fundamentals of Christian beliefs in peace, diplomacy and negotiation. But when
Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, rejected US military intervention as a ‘silver
bullet’ for global problems, he was met with derision from fellow Republicans
and Christians. LDS ‘Liberty’ members, who also backed Ron Paul, suggested that
US foreign policy be run according to the Bible’s ‘Golden Rule’ – the principle
that “forbids interference by one with the rights of another. It is equally
binding upon nations, associations, and individuals…” “Love your enemies,” they
suggest, while deriding as “death and destruction” large swathes of American
foreign and national security policy.
Meanwhile, the ‘Latter
Day Conservatives’ website further underlines Mormons’ authentic belief in
Christian values. They argue that Christians should ever lift “a standard of
peace” rather than fight wars or exact “vengeance” even for the terror attacks
on 9-11, rejecting “pre-emptive war” on Iraq, or a future war on Iran, as
Romney threatens, if elected. Projecting back into American history to trace
the rise of an interventionist mindset, LDS Conservatives criticise President
Woodrow Wilson’s alleged support for a
“world safe for democracy” during World War I, suggesting that “There is
one and only one legitimate goal of US foreign policy…: the preservation of our
national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President
shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader…. [nor] to
influence the life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster
their economies….”
Yet, so reputedly integrated
into the American Way are Mormons that the FBI and CIA regard mere LDS membership
as de facto patriotic loyalty tests. And there is a logical reason: Mormons
believe the American Constitution to be a sacred document received direct from
God – not the work of mere mortals. They also believe fundamentally in
America’s exceptional character and mission. And this aligns perfectly with the
missionary character of Mormonism itself. Indeed, the teetotal Mitt Romney
spent years in France – and in French bars – trying to win converts to the
cause.
There are Mormons,
however, who lament the uncritical acceptance among their community of the word
from the White House in regard to the dangers to the republic from “monsters
abroad”. To some, the broad mass of Mormons appear to be only faintly familiar
with the Book of Mormon, the LDS’ earliest and most holy scripture, making
them prey to “scheming leaders”. They reject the claims of the LDS
establishment, which backed the preventive war on Iraq in 2003, on the basis
that it was a war, in the words of LDS President, Gordon B. Hinckley, “not…
for… power but… for [Americans’] homes and their liberties, their wives and
their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their
church.”
From the Left, The
Mormon Worker website not only rejects Romney’s foreign policies on Israel
and the Palestinians, among others, but also lambasts President Obama’s
strategy - before and during the Arab spring – of supplying American arms to
some of the most repressive and backward regimes in the region to put down
popular revolts.
But these are relatively
isolated voices in the Mormon community, while Romney swims with the tide. Romney
has drawn his foreign policy advisors from among re-organised and renewed
neoconservatives who backed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and
other militaristic organisations – like Elliott Cohen, William Kristol, Robert
Kagan, John Bolton- that called for an American war on Iraq as early as 1997.
Not for Romney, a foreign affairs novice, the counsel of old time Republican
internationalists like Brent Scowcroft or Richard Armitage, or Reagan-Bush I
era former secretaries of state, James Baker III or George P. Shultz – who were
aggressive enough in the pursuit of American power. Consequently, Romney has
veered towards bellicose declarations – no negotiations with the Taliban
(instead the US should “go anywhere they are and… kill them”), greater military
and economic pressure on Iran, more arms to Taiwan, and declared
Russia America’s main geopolitical enemy.
Romney has dozens of
foreign and national security policy advisors but his inner circle are reputed
to be similar to Bush’s ‘vulcans’ – neoconservative hardliners who appear to
think that the Iraq War was a great American victory and that the military
budget should be increased by $200 billion by 2016 ( the Obama administration
had increased military spending by $200 billion over that of President Bush in
2008; Romney’s plans project spending to increase 38% higher than Obama’s
current plans), including an increase of 100,000 soldiers in the military, from
five to nine navy ships built annually, stationing two aircraft carriers off
Iran’s coast (Obama has ramped up such pressure on Iran too), and installing a
missile defence system in Europe. At the same time, Romney advocates cutting
taxes by 20%; in 2010, Obama, it may be recalled, retained President Bush’s
planned tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The Obama administration’s
militarism has pushed Romney to even greater, politically less credible,
extremes.
A truly Mormon White
House? If only….
