Political Identity

Blog 5: Political Identity

            Political identity is defined by David Samuels as “the ways that individuals categorize themselves and others” (149). That being said, is there a distinct Mormon political identity in the United States? The short answer is no. There may be a perceived Mormon political identity in the U.S., but there is ample evidence to the contrary.

            The last time a democratic presidential candidate won in Utah was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Considering that Utah, as of 2008, was roughly 60% Mormon (LDS Population), this is often viewed as evidence that Mormons overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. This correlation has also been greatly influenced in the past several years by former Mormon leader Mitt Romney’s republican nomination for President of the United States. However, 15 Mormons are currently serving in Congress as representatives of opposing parties, including Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader (Weaver). If there is a distinct political identity that Mormons share, how is it possible that Mormons support differing sides of partisan debate?

            One source of evidence regarding the absence of a distinct political identity may be the official position of the Mormon Church on political issues:

While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote (italics added) (www.lds.org/handbook).

            This alone may account for an absence of any distinct political identity among Mormons. When any institution declares political neutrality, it allows its members the freedom to choose for themselves. Of course, how Mormons interpret the official position may differ, but that does not change the position itself.

            The ways in which an identity is politicized may offer another insight into why there is a perceived identity among Mormons. Primordialists argue that political identity is a result of the family or community context in which you are raised (Samuels, 153). Constructivists, on the other hand, would argue that political identity is malleable and evolves (Samuels, 153).

As an institution that focuses much of its time and energy on the family unit  (The Family), it’s understandable that many researchers would assume a large primordial influence on Mormons’ identity. However, there is a strong constructivist argument as well. Take for example, the 1964 election in Utah. In 1964, the democratic candidate for president Lyndon B. Johnson won 54.7% of the vote, democrats won control of the governorship, and democrats maintained majorities over republicans in both the Utah House of Representatives and Senate. However, in 1976, Republican candidate Gerald Ford won 62% of the vote, and Republicans had commanding majorities in the House (forty to thirty-five) and Senate (eighteen to eleven) (www.media.utah.edu).

If there was a strongly entrenched political identity among Mormons, as primordialists would argue, what explains this large difference in voting over just a matter of years? Theoretically, many of the same people voted in both of these elections. If looked at through a constructivist lens, it is much easier to see what caused this change. As social consequences of Roe v Wade materialized and parties were forced to realign on main talking points, many, but not all, Mormons swung to the Republicans. This is an evidence of something previously not politicized becoming highly politicized and causing possible changes to political identity, a core argument of constructivist theory.

Historically speaking, Mormons have varied in their political identity. Currently in the U.S., Mormons have a perceived identity of being very conservative. But this is a false perception. Mormons exist in many varying degrees on the political spectrum. In fact, a recent survey among voters in Utah found that 89% of active Mormons disagreed with the statement “a person cannot be a good Mormon and a democrat” (Brown). This only adds to already substantial evidence that Mormons do not have a distinct political identity, regardless of whether one is perceived.

Works Cited

Brown, Adam. Can a Good Mormon Be a Democrat? Rep. Utah Data Points, 23 Dec. 2010.

Web. 11 Oct. 2012. <http://utahdatapoints.com/2010/12/can-a-good-mormon-be-a-good-democrat/>.

"The Family." The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation>.

"LDS Population of Utah Declining." Salt Lake City and Utah Breaking News, Sports, Entertainment and News Headlines. Deseret News, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705266634/LDS-population-of-Utah-declining.html?pg=all>.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. 2. 1. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.

"Selected Church Policies." Handbook 2: Administering the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng>.

"Utah History Encyclopedia." Elections. University of Utah, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/e/ELECTIONS.html>.

Weaver, Sarah J. "LDS Church News - 15 Mormons Serving in U.S. Congress." 15 Mormons Serving in U.S. Congress. LDS Church News, 8 Jan. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/60334/15-Mormons-serving-in-US-Congress.html>.