Daniel Larison explains why Mitt Romney’s speech on “religious liberty” on Thursday is going to be a tricky balancing act:
His speech will have to go something like this: “My faith, which is very important to me and has made me who I am, should not be important to you, but it is important that we have a person of faith leading this country, and that person happens to be me.”
It is Romney’s misfortune that many Americans wonder if he actually belongs to a cult. Doubtless he feels this is unfair, but he could comfort himself by reflecting that he could be labouring under a much more grievous burden: he could be an atheist*.
Besides, Romney has no-one to blame but himself. When a candidate declares that “We need a person of faith to run this country” it is entirely reasonable for the public to ask, “Well, mate, what do you believe in then? And why?”
*Or a smoker**
**I had a higher opinion of Obama before he decided to quit tobacco…
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in