The religion question
James Forsyth 4:59pm
Tony Blair recently complained of how in Britain people think of politicians as nuts if they talk about God. But Blair was a lot better off than Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts who is running for the Republican presidential nomination. Tomorrow, Romney is delivering a speech which could be entitled why a Mormon can be president too.
The polls show that Romney’s Mormonism is a serious electoral problem for him with as more than one in four voters saying they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon candidate in some polls. To compound Romney’s problem his main rival in the must-win for him Iowa caucuses is Mick Huckabee a Baptist preacher who is running, perhaps, the most faith-oriented campaign in history. If Romney doesn’t get the speech right, his presidential bid is toast. But if he manages to pull it off, then he’s got a good a chance as anyone of securing the Republican nomination.
Comparisons are being thrown around to John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech explaining why his Catholicism was no threat to the presidency. But JFK’s task was much easier; he was just arguing that he would keep his faith and his public duties separate. As he famously put it, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote”
Romney can’t say this. He’s actively courted the support of key evangelical preachers in the hope that they will swing their flocks behind him. He’s also supporting the idea that faith should have a greater role in the public square. So, he somehow has to square the circle of arguing for the importance of religion in public life while trying to say that the intricacies of his own faith are not relevant to his presidential bid.
If this wasn’t enough of a problem for Romney, The Boston Globe has just found illegal immigrants working on his lawn for a second time. This wouldn’t be a much of a problem normally as they were working for a contractor not Romney personally but seeing as he has spent the past few months disgracefully demagoguing the immigration issue the press, and his competitors, are going to give him hell for it.
Previous
SJH
December 5th, 2007 5:39pm Report this commentJFK also appeared to keep his faith and his private duties separate.
TGF UKIP
December 5th, 2007 6:19pm Report this commentGood job Romney is a very rich man from his private equity business as his campaign must rank as just about the most expensive waste of political money ever. His achievement in winning the Massachusetts Governorship was a remarkable Republican achievement but he had to embrace so many liberal shibboleths that he could never appeal to mainstream conservative Republicans without the tag of "flipflopper" being visited upon him. He has never, realistically, had a chance.
David
December 5th, 2007 6:23pm Report this commentIt's always amazing how Republicans say they are the guardians of the constitution when it comes to guns, but seem to develop a blind spot about the separation of church and state.
tanuki
December 5th, 2007 6:39pm Report this commentAs far as religious politicos go, they worry me, whatever their faith. Baptist, Catholic, Buddhist, Moslem - personally I want a PM/President/MP who only answers to the electorate rather than having an allegiance to some unseen 'higher power'.
Verity
December 5th, 2007 6:45pm Report this commentThe Mormons are bizarre. Although they outlawed multiple marriages - for men - many of them still hanker after it and many of them believe it was a direct instruction from God. (Funny how these direct instructions from God about relations between the sexes always favour men, isn't it?) They also don't drink alcohol, so that is a large segment of daily life in the US that Romney can't relate to. If I remember rightly, they can't drink tea, coffee or soft drinks, either. So this separates Romney even further from almost all his fellow Americans. Perhaps these things are trivial and don't impact on the voter. It will certain be an interesting primary.
Tracy Hall Jr
December 5th, 2007 6:59pm Report this commentJackie Kennedy is said to have complained, "It's so unfair that Jack's Catholicism is called into question. He's such a bad Catholic." Unfortunately, Ann Romney can't make the same complaint about Mitt. But people of all religious stripes (or not) should take comfort that Romney takes his religion seriously. He truly supports his Church's 11th article of faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." He also observes his Church's policy of political neutrality. The Church does not endorse candidates, even when they are LDS, nor does it seek to influence elected officials who happen to be LDS. The policy is read from the pulpit during every election. (Go to lds.org / "news and events" / "newsroom," then find "political neutrality" under "public issues.")
G Noonan
December 5th, 2007 7:21pm Report this commentIn addition to the pitfalls you identify, Romney has also made the mistake of waiting far too late in the day for this speech. Should it tank, he's far too close in time to the Iowa caucus to recover. Then he'll be forced to rely on a strong New Hampshire finish, which would inevitably be discounted by his "boy next door" status as Massachusetts's former governor.
MTK
December 5th, 2007 7:32pm Report this commenttanuki, Blair answered and listened only to the electorate, and as a result he wasn't exactly a success, except in electoral terms. Whether it's faith-fed or based on some other ideology (or conscience, or even "moral compass"), I don't think it's undesirable for a leader to have some fixed ideas which cannot be moved.
Tom
December 5th, 2007 8:34pm Report this commentre MTK @7.32 Yes, politicians with 'fixed ideas' or 'principles' is a good thing, but in the UK, most folks regard people who profess any faith as suspect. Most people do not beleive in god/gods anymore & regard those who do as un-enlightened superstitionists. British popular democracy was an unavoidable consequence of the scientific, rational enlightenment. God is dead.
Kevin
December 5th, 2007 9:35pm Report this commentKennedy's formula, as quoted, reads as if he would choose between, say, the Monroe Doctrine and the Papal Treaty of Tordesillas based on what he believed to be America's best interests. That's not the same thing as promising that he would make choices that were against his conscience. What kind of candidate would make that statement?
Verity
December 6th, 2007 3:40am Report this commentTom has announced that God is dead. Funny that I didn't see the headlines elsewhere. Perhaps "Tom" is an angry individual with a vengeful mind.
Rev Goat Boy
December 6th, 2007 9:53am Report this commentVerity Have you ever read the bible. Vengeance is mine said the Lord. God is not dead, it never existed.
Max Kaye
December 6th, 2007 10:20am Report this commentIf God is not dead, maybe he/she could get in touch. It's been quite a while since his/her last manifestation. Perhaps he/she is hiding out in Panama living off the insurance money...
Back to top