Posted by Damozel | Mitt Romney is giving a speech on Thursday regarding the issue of his Mormon faith, by which I expect he means he is going to say that its weight should be nil. According to The Corner at National Review Online---and who would know if not they?---he has carefully studied the 1960 JFK speech, in which Kennedy refused to disavow either his Catholic faith or his commitment to becoming president.
Byron York of National Review Online quotes Romney as follows:
I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings. And it in every way would teach me to follow the Constitution and follow the rule of law and recognize that my duty is to my country. (More on Romney and The Speech)
All very well, and he's absolutely right not to renounce his beliefs, but I know something about Mormonism as well as other Christian denominations, and I am pretty sure that none of them "teach" anyone "to follow the Constitution and follow the rule of law and recognize that [one's] duty is to [one's] country." That's not what religion is about, which is why it was always so dangerous for Republicans to run on religion.
If Romney is nominated, they are likely to reap the consequences. I doubt that the part of "the base" that includes fundamentalist Christians is going to accept that Mormonism is the same faith as theirs, particularly when people who don't support Romney start publishing some of the details. To people who have always been brought up to believe one story about Christianity and in one Biblical version of history, it's going to be a lot to swallow. And while it is not one bit stranger in what it asks people to believe is true than the version of Christianity that most of "the base" follows---or for that matter than the version I believe--- it's extremely doubtful that that portion of "the base" will see it that way. After all, they elected W on the strength of the belief that he shares their beliefs and values and their particular sort of relationship to God.
So it's interesting to me to read in The Politico that a pro-Huckabee group---a grassroots group unconnected with the campaign-- has been involved in what I believe is known as 'push-polling.'
For each target, the pattern was the same -- a recorded message using voice recognition technology asked the recipient if they would participate in the caucuses, considered themselves pro-life and thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Then the dirt came, right after those called were asked which candidate they were backing.For all three, the calls were phrased in the same manner: "If you knew that..."
But different candidates were targeted with different attacks.
For Thompson it was his past lobbying for an abortion rights group, his support of McCain-Feingold and that McCain-Feingold had also been known as "McCain-Feingold-Thompson."
For Giuliani, it was that he's "pro-abortion," supports civil unions and that "his police chief and business partner has been indicted" on various charges.
And for McCain, it was about his support for campaign finance reform and opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
At the end, the automated voice directed the recipient of the call to www.trusthuckabee.com (Apparent pro-Huckabee third-party group floods Iowa with negative calls)
Huckabee's campaign were not aware of this group and say they do not engage in this sort of tactic. But there is only so much a campaign can do to control overly zealous supporters.
Although Mitt Romney's campaign had not at the time the article was published heard complaints from supporters (Politico), it is easy to imagine this sort of thing going in a very ugly direction if the people doing it make an issue of religious faith or rather, of specific beliefs.
Here's what the Romney campaign told CNN.
This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected. Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation. (Romney ready to address Mormon religion head-on)
It's wise and right of Romney to take the much more traditional position that his faith, including his specific beliefs, are not a matter for public discussion or campaign tactics because of the principle of separation of church and state. And in fact, as Joe Gandelman remarks, such a move is probably long overdue. At the same time----and with absolutely no disrespect meant to Governor Romney or Mormons generally---it's going to be very hard for this leftward-tilting small-c christian Democrat (as far as I am concerned, Jesus IS "the Christian left") not to laugh out loud at the spectacle of any Republican making this appeal.
Furthermore IF Romney is nominated and IF certain overzealous Democratic organizations make an issue of his Mormonism, the Republicans---however much they may piss and moan, as we know they will----really will have only themselves to blame. It's they who made specific belief a selling point for their "base." And while I am morally certain that Mormonism represents and reflects the same values as any other Christian denomination, it remains to be seen whether conventional Christians in "the base" can be convinced to look at the underlying values rather than the specifics.
Memeorandum discussion of the Huckabee poll here.
Memeorandum discussion of the Romney speech here. The following bloggers have weighed in so far:The Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, The Democratic Daily, PoliGazette and The Politico
UPDATE: At The Moderate Voice, Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes has posted a note on the general topic of Mormonism as a factor in the campaign, arguing that if you look at the things she wants you to look at, it should be in Romney's favor that he is a Mormon. See, here again is exactly the mistake that Republicans have made all along: in making an issue of specific belief. If you can get "values voters" to buy into all of this, good for you, but I don't think they are going to look past the things Dr. Estes wants them to look past to see only the things she thinks they should see. But maybe I'm wrong. If so, it would be a significant advance in Christian tolerance, about which I'd be happy, at the expense of more injection of religion into politics, about which I am not.
Comments