Dear Mr. Romney:

In spite of the Herculean labors of their spin doctors, politicians on the stump often say stupid things in the heat of the moment, and you are probably right to resent the unfairness of journalists who exaggerate the importance of such mundane stupidities.  But rarely are politicians’ unconsidered remarks so remarkably unconsidered as your own attempt, in a 60 Minutes interview this summer, to distance yourself from the polygamous practices of your Mormon ancestors.  When questioned on the issue by Mike Wallace, you stated,

I have a great-great grandfather.  They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert.  And so he took additional wives, as he was told to do.  And I must admit, I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy.

In the interest of fair play, Mr. Romney, I will extend to you the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps you have in your possession some old letters passed down to you, or a diary, maybe, in which your great-great-grandfather reveals that he entered into polygamous relations (polygynous, strictly speaking) only because he was instructed to, presumably by Mormon religious authorities.  You implied that he had no choice, that he “took additional wives” reluctantly.  Perhaps that is true, but, the masculine nature being what it is, what sort of a man, Mr. Romney, would only reluctantly accept a guilt-free opportunity to bed as many women as he could reasonably feed and clothe?  I hope you will forgive me for suggesting that, by all appearances, you were merely engaging in standard evasive maneuvers—admitting, on the one hand, that your ancestors were polygamists, while suggesting, on the other, that their marital practices can’t really be held against them because their volition was not fully exercised.  You, however, appear to be fully volitional and possessed of at least normal intelligence.  Thus, you have only yourself to blame for the astonishing inanity you uttered in the final sentence of the above-quoted passage.  It’s worth an instant replay: “I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy.”

Forgive my impertinence, Mr. Romney, but if you can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy, then you have led a more sheltered life than one would have thought possible, even for a Mormon.  Or, you are suffering from an imagination deficit that would make Paris Hilton blush.  Or (and this seems more likely), you are engaging in an ill-considered piece of rhetorical sleight of hand, trading on the dubious assumption that most Americans regard polygamists with the same abhorrence they reserve for serial killers, child molesters, and nicotine addicts.

Allow me, Mr. Romney, to offer some discreet advice.  You’ve grasped the wrong end of the stick!  If you really want to reside on Pennsylvania Avenue, you’re going to have to face facts.  First of all, in case you haven’t noticed, the popularity of monogamous marriages like your own is in steep decline.  Most Americans now prefer serial monogamy.  Some sociologists call this serial polygamy, and, indeed, the terminology is apt.  Is there really a great difference between being married to three women in succession and three women simultaneously?  Second, Americans are increasingly tolerant of all sorts of marital arrangements.  Look at our beloved Vice President, Dick Cheney, the proud grandfather of a baby conceived by his daughter and an anonymous sperm donor.  Samuel David (fine Old Testament names!), as the child is called, will reside with his two mommies, Mary Cheney and former park ranger Heather Poe, who describe their relationship as a “marriage.”  Far from being nonplussed, Mr. Cheney has gone on record as saying that people “ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”  Apparently, millions of Americans agree.  Yes, it’s true that conservatives in a number of states have recently voted for constitutional amendments banning homosexual “marriage,” but would they object with the same righteous vehemence to a movement to legalize polygamy?

Somehow, Mr. Romney, I think not.  On the contrary, most Americans haven’t the slightest idea why polygamy is illegal in the first place.  Collar the nearest man in the street and ask him.  He will shrug and admit ignorance.  If he happens to be a sincere Christian, he may tell you that it’s a sin.  But where in the Bible is polygamy condemned?  Clearly not in the Old Testament, which speaks of the polygamy of the Jewish patriarchs with nary a word of disapprobation.  It’s true, to be sure, that Adam and Eve were a strictly monogamous couple, but, as one of your own apologists has noted, Adam couldn’t spare another rib!  Nor is the practice condemned in the New Testament, though admittedly Christ and Saint Paul both strongly endorse monogamy.  But didn’t Joseph Smith himself have more wives than he could possibly have kept satisfied?  Frankly, you Mormons really aren’t very consistent on this point.  Is the Book of Mormon divine revelation, or isn’t it?  Or is the 1878 Supreme Court decision outlawing polygamy (Reynolds v. United States) now regarded by Mormons as yet another divine revelation, one that supersedes the endorsement of “plural marriage” given in the Book of Jacob (2:30)?

Believe me, Mr. Romney, if you want to be elected president, you’re going to need more than “Ken doll” good looks.  Nor can you count on the fundamentalist vote.  Their electoral force is rapidly on the wane—at least for the moment—and, besides, many of them do not regard you Mormons as bona fide Christians (and they may have a point there).  What you need is some serious branding, something to distinguish you from the pack.  That’s why I would suggest that you drop this antipolygamy rap and embrace your heritage!  You’ve probably been too busy campaigning to watch much television, so you may not have noticed that polygamy is going mainstream these days.  HBO’s Big Love, now entering its second successful prime-time season, features a well-mannered, middle-class polygamist, his three wives, and their seven children.  Bill Hendrickson, the dapper “patriarch” of the family and the owner of a home-supplies store, is really just an updated, if somewhat harassed, version of Ward Cleaver: a loving father and husband struggling to keep his rather large brood safe and well fed, and his wives content (with a little help from Viagra, which I’m sure your great-great-grandfather would have appreciated).

In short, polygamy is making a comeback, Mr. Romney, and you are splendidly positioned to ride the “plural marriage” wave all the way to the White House, especially since polygamy, properly understood and packaged, is perfectly consistent with your social conservatism.  Consider the societal benefits.  As you know, divorce rates in America have risen to catastrophic levels since the 1960’s.  Nearly everyone—a few diehard feminists notwithstanding—recognizes the deplorable fallout associated with this state of affairs.  As I am sure you would agree, the American family is facing an unprecedented crisis, and polygamy may be the ideal solution.  In the first place, polygamy obviates one of the most common reasons for divorce: male promiscuity.  Once upon a time, men—especially middle-aged men—had “affairs,” but rarely did their straying lead to divorce.  Divorce was too difficult (and too expensive!), and the social stigma, too burdensome.  Now, in the era of “no-fault” divorce, men are free to abandon their aging wives at the drop of a hat and throw themselves into the arms of the nearest tattooed tart on offer.  In a plural marriage, however, there is no need to abandon anyone.  Masculine vanity and lust may be equally satisfied by simply adding another, presumably younger, wife to the fold.

Speaking of younger women, as the sociologists have informed us, and as the statistics show, the male-to-female demographic these days is a bit lopsided.  Women outnumber men in substantial numbers.  Millions of single women are still searching for husbands well into their 30’s and 40’s.  It is no exaggeration to say that their situation is desperate.  You may recall the advice proffered by the Fruitcake Lady to a forty-something lass who asked how she might find a husband: “Get yourself a good dog.”  Well, I have no doubt that a good dog is probably a more affectionate companion than the average American male, but the solution is not ideal.  For these millions of lonely women, polygamy may be the best hope.  Of course, many of them may be reluctant to share their mate with several “sister-wives,” but now that the baleful influence of feminism is waning, women are beginning to realize once again that what they really want, more than anything else, are security and intimacy.

Lastly, Mr. Romney, polygamy is a states’ rights issue, and states’ rights is, as you must know, a sacred cause to millions of traditional conservatives and their paleo-libertarian fellow travelers.  With them, I urge you to take your stand on firm constitutional ground.  Historically, the states have regulated marriage.  Your very own state of Massachusetts has recently conferred legitimacy upon “gay marriages,” and had every right to do so, just as my state of South Carolina has every right to pass a constitutional amendment banning such unnatural unions.  In 1878, the majority in Reynolds v. United States ruled that polygamous unions were illegal because they were “subversive of good order,” but clearly they were (and are) nothing of the kind.  On the contrary, in hundreds of societies throughout history, polygamy has been the very foundation of good order.  It is time to restore to polygamy its good name!

Think of it: By raising the battle flag of states’ rights and plural marriage, you not only will distinguish yourself as a man with a message, but you will attract an enormously diverse constituency: traditional conservatives and libertarians, women, “gay-rights” advocates, Muslims, and many old-fashioned liberals—not to mention your own coreligionists, many of whom must secretly long for a way of life consistent with their founder’s beliefs.  Yes, I understand that you may be reluctant to seem wishy-washy on this issue, but there is an easy solution to that problem.  Simply announce, at a judiciously chosen moment, that you have been granted a new revelation!  Remember that Fortune always grants her favors to the bold!