Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Romney's "Religion Speech" Won't Work

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 6:57 AM on December 3, 2007.


Steve Benen: Right-wing Iowa caucus voters, who are already pre-disposed not to like Mormons, don't much care for "religious tolerance."

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

After months of speculation and unsolicited advice, Mitt Romney suggested a few weeks ago that he was inclined to give a major campaign speech outlining his religious beliefs and how his Mormon faith might affect his administration, but his campaign aides were against it, saying it would "draw too much attention" to Romney's religious tradition.

Asked if he'd ever deliver a special speech on the subject, Romney added, "Perhaps, at some point." Now that Romney is falling behind, it looks like that point has arrived.

John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, and made a powerful case that his administration would be neutral on matters of faith, hoping to assuage fears that his Roman Catholicism would be a problem in the White House. This week, Romney will also travel to Texas for a similar reason.

Mr. Romney plans to give the address, to be called Faith in America, at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex., 80 miles from Houston, the site of Kennedy's speech. His campaign is calling it an opportunity for him 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." [...]

Suspicions about Mr. Romney's Mormon beliefs, which many conservative Christians consider to be heretical, have dogged his candidacy since it began, with many polls showing that large numbers of Americans would not vote for a Mormon candidate. The announcement comes a week after Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor whose rise in the polls in Iowa has been fueled by evangelical Christians, began running a television advertisement that describes him as a "Christian leader," which some viewed as a jab at Mr. Romney.

A senior Romney campaign official said the address is "not going to be a lesson in Mormon doctrine" but rather "an open discussion of how important and critical faith has been and is in Romney's life" and "how faith is what shapes our values."

This idea is almost certainly going to fail.

Sure, it will satisfy the DC establishment, and probably most of the campaign media, which has insisted for months that this kind of speech is necessary.

But as for changing the political landscape and alleviating the concerns of voters who are hesitant to support a Mormon candidate, it's hard to imagine how Romney's speech is going to do any good at all.

There are two broad considerations here: the theological and the political.

Theologically speaking, there's nothing Romney can do to convince evangelicals that Mormons are mainstream Christians. Giving a high-profile speech like this, as Noam Scheiber noted, may very well exacerbate the problem.

My sense is that a lot of people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina only have the vaguest notion, if any, that Romney may not be a standard-issue protestant Christian. Devoting a high-profile speech to the subject only draws attention to his differences at a time when he wants to be downplaying them. That's true even if he speaks about faith in the broadest, most general terms, with little mention of Mormonism per se. The press will fill in the gaps.

And, if he goes the alternate route and tries to educate the public about his religion, that may be even worse. As Amy Sullivan wrote in The Washington Monthly a few years back, Mormonism is one of the few contemporary religions that tends to make people more, not less, uneasy the more they hear about it.

Indeed, for those evangelical Republican voters who are moving to Mike Huckabee because of his religious-right-style worldview, Romney praising "religious liberty" will be utterly meaningless. They know Romney's religious, they know his faith has shaped his life, and they're probably well aware of the fact that Romney won't use his office to push Mormonism on the rest of the rest of us. But they don't care -- they just don't like Mormons. (And given Romney's own bigotry towards Muslims, it's not like he has any real moral authority on the subject anyway.)

Which leads us to Romney's political problem. He's apparently delivering this speech from a position of near-panic, with his once-huge lead in Iowa having disappeared altogether.

In response to these conditions, Romney wants to "share his views on...the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation."

I'm not sure if Romney's been paying attention to Republican politics lately, but right-wing Iowa caucus voters, who are already pre-disposed not to like Mormons, don't much care for "religious tolerance." Indeed, many of them revel in their intolerance.

It's what makes the whole JFK analogy so silly to me. Romney is facing an entirely different kind of challenge. He can't deliver a similar Kennedy-like speech precisely because the same message is now Republican anathema. Nearly a half-century after JFK's speech in Houston, many of today's conservatives, particularly those in the GOP's religious right base, abhor the very idea of church-state separation, which was the basis for Kennedy's address. It's not unusual to hear figures like James Dobson and Pat Robertson reject the constitutional principle's very existence.

If Romney were to publicly argue that "the separation of church and state is absolute," as JFK did, he would be booed aggressively by conservative audiences that want more intermingling between religion and government, not less.

For that matter, the nature of the controversy is very different now than in 1960. Conservative Republicans uneasy about Romney's faith aren't worried that Salt Lake City will dictate policy through the White House; they're just not comfortable with a faith tradition with which they're unfamiliar (and in some cases, find heretical). In this sense, as a friend of mine recently argued, Romney is "boxed in."

Time will tell, but I'm skeptical this week's speech will make any difference at all - and it might make things worse.

Digg!

Tagged as: conservatives, religion, mormonism, election08, iowa, huckabeee, romney

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Hagee's Revenge? Videos Of Controversial Pastor Removed From YouTube
As Christians United for Israel summit approaches, copyright and PR trump evangelism.
Post by Sam Stein. July 8, 2008.
White House Briefing Materials Describe Italian PM as "Amateur", "Hated by Many"
WH apologizes to PM Berlusconi, a close ally of Bush and backer of Iraq war.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 8, 2008.
Rep. Waxman Threatens to Hold Contempt Vote on AG Mukasey
Mukasey must produce FBI interview with Cheney, or face the consequences.
Post by Satyam Khanna. July 8, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Boxed in
Posted by: mike1997 on Dec 3, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first read the title of this article my response was, "jeez, let the guy speak before you declare his speech a failure!" However, after reading the piece I am struck by the seeming impossibility of Romney's position. The author is right, he can't appeal to religious tolerance and the tradition of church/state seperation in an appeal to the Republican base and he can't try to explain Mormonism because most people will just point and laugh. My guess is that he will try the third option that this author says is a non starter. He will try to talk about his faith in a generic non denominational way. The one glaring mistake in this article is that the author believes that if Romney tries this approach the media will step in and "fill in the blanks." Has this guy been reading much of the corporate media these days? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really hope this ends it for Romny
Posted by: SteveO on Dec 3, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having seen Twit speak and having lived in neighboring New Hampshire while he was governor, this man is almost as unqualified as the current occupant of the white house. He is completely unprincipled and will change his views (and his history) depending on who he is speaking to. He is a venture capitalist with all of their foresight (90 days out max) and compassion (none).

This speech is a disparate gasp from a dieing campaign. I'm happy to see that even the republi-sheep are rejecting him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PAINTED INTO A CORNER
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 3, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most religions can be easily explained. Mormonism cannot. It is a way of life that has rigid laws regarding every facet of life. It is impossible to separate chuch and state. The Mormon must go with his religious law or be excommunicated. Romney would have no choice in the matter. There is much secrecy. It's a dangerous gamble. We have a Constitution and courts that help us decide matters.We can't afford another mistake in the White House. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bloodlust
Posted by: Xynyx on Dec 3, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of this political campaign stuff... all of the posturing, the hurling of accusations and insults, the blatant prostrating... it's sort of like a big gladiatorial play. We all get to watch the giant cluster of morons poke and stab at each other, and occasionally one bites the dust in glorious fashion, and we are all entertained. I'm not going to complain about it happening with most of the assholes out there... and this one is no exception. As much contempt as I have for the sophomoric state of American politics, I will still enjoy seeing this guy fall on his sword.

Wouldn't it be great if ALL of the gladiators died, leaving only those deemed too mature, too unwilling to sully themselves, to take the field and compete for the prize via reasoned discussion of important policy matters?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little saddening that it matters so very much.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 3, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't suppose I quite get the ado being made over who has more faith, and of which variety. If we could trust them to simply govern in agreement with the United States Constitution, it wouldn't matter if they were Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Atheist, Agnostic, Pastafarian, and etc.

I don't think Romney would make a terrifically spectacular president. His idiotic plan to make "outlaws" out of healthy people who want to save money and not purchase health insurance in MA gives us an indication on where he falls on the issue of self-determination.

The author is more or less correct: a wild scamper to host a dialogue on his religion smacks of desperation, most likely of the useless variety. I would add that such a speech should be mostly irrelevant, but then again, I don't get to decide what other folks look for in a candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using religion again
Posted by: Richard House on Dec 3, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn’t want to advertise my religion either if it were founded on amateurish magical events based on the magical golden plates, the magical angel, the magical seer stones, and the magical ascension of the plates into heaven so no one could verify anything.

Maybe a little off subject but after reading here how Romney is parading the “grand tradition (that) religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation” and "how faith is what shapes our values" I found it totally hypocritical and a completely false premise when one remembers how North America was founded and actually guided by the Christian religion in relation to the treatment of the native American and their genocide and whose spiritual beliefs were never recognized during and long after the grand rush to settle the continent. They didn’t even want to know since they considered the American Indian an ungodly savage. Many of the remains of this once proud race still living mostly in reservation camps attests to this hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Using religion again Posted by: Quannah
The Real Mitt Romney (Beta-4 Version)
Posted by: Tom Holum on Dec 3, 2007 9:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really very simple. Romney just has to declare that he has converted to the Southern Baptist Church, and that his previous "faith" was a mistake. We're all human, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]