|
In his big speech on religion and politics, Mitt Romney sought to achieve two blatantly contradictory goals.
First, as a member of a minority faith that’s viewed skeptically by many Americans, he needed to persuade people that his religion shouldn’t matter in a political context.
Second, as a conservative and a candidate for the GOP nomination, he needed to identify with the Republican majority that believes religion in general should matter a lot – and should play a role in informing governmental and political decisions.
How, then, could he simultaneously argue that faith must be an important factor in politics, but that his faith should count for nothing in evaluating his candidacy?
To an amazing extent, Romney’s speech earlier today succeeded brilliantly in satisfying both goals. The key to that notable and perhaps historic success involved the candidate’s eloquent ability to insist on the proper distinction between religious values (which nearly all Americans share), and specific doctrines and traditions (on which we differ dramatically).
The former Massachusetts governor drew this distinction with the most memorable rhetoric of the Presidential campaign so far.
He satisfied his first goal – arguing that his Mormon faith shouldn’t disqualify him – and he did so while affirming his personal loyalty and devotion. While acknowledging that there are some who “would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion…or disavow one or another of its precepts,” he stoutly and emphatically refused to bend. “That I will not do,” he declared. “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.”
This is, frankly, precisely the sort of clarity and courage Americans expect of a presidential candidate. Romney would have already locked up the GOP nomination had he applied the same consistency and precision in facing other issues.
Meanwhile, in today’s Texas speech he also refused to try to defend the history or theology of his church from its sometimes virulent critics. “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines,” he said. “To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
In other words, he expressed the same refusal to discuss dogma as has his rival Mike Huckabee. When the former Arkansas governor is asked his opinion about whether Mormons are Christians, for instance, he doesn’t “waffle” or “dodge,” but appropriately points out that such questions might be appropriate for a potential president of a theological school, but not for a potential President of the United States. George W. Bush similarly avoided questions about whether he personally believed that Jews and other non-Christians would go to heaven, as did Joe Lieberman when he firmly closed the door on all inquiries on why he didn’t embrace Jesus as his Savior.
If Romney sounded persuasive about the inappropriate nature of theological discussions in a political campaign, how then could he simultaneously make the case -- as he emphatically did – that religion should play a greater, not lesser role in our public life?
He did so by stressing the common beliefs of all major American faiths. “We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders- in ceremony and word,” he said. “He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places…I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’ Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty. They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.”
Even the most embittered critic of the LDS church must read these words and agree with them – and grant that Romney and his rivals for the GOP nomination all share the values he describes. Would an outspoken atheist share the core religious values of the rest of the populace? Probably not, and that’s why judging a devout, church-going Mormon is different from evaluating, say, a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins who is openly hostile to organized religion.
The key question that divides people of faith from militant secularists is the utility of religion for this society. Does America benefit – or suffer – from the tens of millions who regular attend church, synagogue, temple or mosque?
Romney aligns clearly with religious Christians and Jews in his affirmative view on the role of faith – and the desire to see not just his faith, but all faiths, vital and flourishing and nourishing the Republic.
In the most memorable words of a wonderful speech, Mitt Romney declared: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
I’ve been critical of the former Massachusetts governor in other contexts, but these words deserve to be remembered. It’s possible – desirable, even – that future school children will recall them for their power and elegance.
There’s still more than three weeks before the Iowa Caucuses and I still feel potent admiration and affection for Romney rivals Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani.
But in Mitt’s remarks today, he not only looked and sounded like a President – he actually looked and sounded like a great one. All Americans should feel encouraged and grateful.
|