Meh, only the 3rd of January and already I have writer's block. I just don't feel like writing about my personal journey, so...
How about that Mitt Romney?
Now that he's poised to win Iowa and NH, and thus ruin the little remaining suspense and entertainment value of the GOP primary, it's time to ponder the question: Is he for real?
With his very public flip-flops on many important issues, one can be forgiven for wondering whether he has any core principles at all. What's going on in his head? How can he live with all those internal contradictions?
Well, I'm here to tell you that he sleeps very well at night, thank you very much. He genuinely believes what he says (on any given day); in fact, he is the most genuinely conservative candidate in the GOP race. And his Mormonism has a lot to do with it.
More after the jump, but first, a history lesson.
Any voluntary association of human beings is inherently unstable. The initial enthusiasm and euphoria of establishing a new community inevitably gives way to conflict, as the different internal hopes and expectations for the community collide with the cold, hard reality of necessary compromises and adjustments. Eventually, the conflict inexorably leads to a crisis, at which point the association must either dissolve, or re-establish itself with a new and different understanding of its shared purpose and goals. This re-establishment leads again to enthusiasm and euphoria, and so the cycle continues. Hopefully the cycle is more like an upward spiral, with each successive re-establishment building upon the lessons and changes of the previous conflicts and resolutions.
The pattern is universal, extending from individual relationships all the way up to the largest (semi)voluntary associations that currently exist, namely nation-states. In fact, nation-states are large and diffuse enough that the process becomes more regular and predictable: the cycle lasts roughly one human lifetime, 70-80 years. As the historians William Strauss and Neil Howe describe in their book "The Fourth Turning", America has regularly passed through these phases, as exemplified by the decades of the 20s-30s (crisis), 40s-50s (resolution), 60s-70s (euphoria), 80s-90s (conflict), and the 00s (crisis again.)
The generation that comes of age in each of those phases has their worldview strongly shaped by that societal background (GI, Silent, Boomers, Xers, Millennials). And so Mitt Romney, as a Boomer, is part of the generation that simply took for granted that they would reshape the moral landscape, bringing peace, prosperity and righteousness to the whole world.
So far, none of this should sound particularly new or insightful, or unique to Romney. But now add Mormonism to the mix.
Mormonism, like every other religious movement, is subject to the cycles described above. However, since Mormonism's core identity is that of a revealed religion, neither option of dissolution or compromise is available. Instead, the only path forward is to double down on the godliness, with a renewed emphasis on obedience to the received wisdom and authority of the Church hierarchy.
However, this is in contradiction to the Church's own doctrine and origin story of personal revelation directly from God. It also runs counter to the ethos of personal responsibility and self-reliance that Mormonism is steeped in. So how to deal with this contradiction?
The most powerful defense mechanism the ego uses to protect itself from cognitive dissonance is to convince itself that "the world is just that way, it can't be changed". And fundamentalism adds "because it's God will", to which Mormonism adds "to bring about his living Kingdom on Earth". Now, of course, Mitt Romney was born to wealth and privilege. So that too must be God's Plan for the Salvation of all mankind.
So Mitt Romney has convinced himself, down to his bones, that he is on a mission from God to preach and practice the Gospel of Prosperity, even if it means liquidating a few companies on the way.
And because he uncritically accepts the world As It Is, rather than trying to make the world a place that fits his ideal image (like Paul or Gingrich or Santorum), he is the true conservative in the race.
But do Iowans want a conservative, or do they want a radical reactionary?