Just watched Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech again. I was significantly more impressed the second time around, mostly because I made peace with the idea that its wooden style and staccato argumentation is just the way Romney talks. And then it didn't seem nearly as awkward.
Actually, it was quite good -- a fitting, if imperfect, response not only to evangelical Iowa voters who may be creeped out by Romney's Mormonism, but also to secular types who are especially wary of someone like Huckabee.
One hears the complaint more and more these days that there's too much religion in politics, a complaint driven not only by genteel horror that someone would act as if their religious beliefs actually influence their lives, but also by reasonable wariness of religion's power, and hence its power to pollute if corrupted. (Religious conservatives should always remember that the first modern mainstream presidential candidate to talk about his faith in the way we've come to expect nowadays was world-class scold Jimmy Carter -- a man I've heard invoked more than once in conversations about Mike Huckabee.)
And yet: It seems only commonsensical that (1) if one's religious convictions were a major part of one's life, one would seek a natural, honest way to talk about them with people who may not share them, and (2) to the extent to which those convictions govern one's actions and values, the voting public has every right to be interested in them.
Come to think of it, I'd be very interested to see whether the members of the NY Times editorial board -- in such top form as they berated the intolerant Iowa evangelical for daring to be curious about Romney's Mormonism -- would be completely neutral to a candidate who professed a religious conviction that, say, the earth is 6,000 years old.
But quite understandably, Romney had neither the time nor the inclination to convince voters that nothing in Mormon doctrine was the slightest bit antagonistic to either good sense or the American political order. A lot of people wanted him to give that speech, but it would have been a fool's errand from the beginning. For one, he'd have had to bring up a lot of the exotic things Mormons actually do believe.
By talking much more generally -- and with evident feeling -- about religion in America, however, he made a very strong argument along these lines: "Trust me." And he promised to return the favor:
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience."
I would only note that if Romney does lose the nomination, there will be plenty of explanations other than that Americans, in fact, do respect believers of convenience. But I digress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In my case, the mountains of final papers that I should be doing just make me want to do anything but, including writing long-winded political rants like the one below. Apologies in advance.
I read this speech much more cynically than you did, John.
Ostensibly, Romney was defending himself on two fronts here, as you said, the freaked-out Iowans and the genteely-horrified atheist grinches.
The first, he dispatched with pretty much as he has throughout the campaign, by completely sidestepping any discussion of theological differences between himself and said freaked-out Iowans and forcefully emphasizing their common ground. There's nothing wrong with that--I agree it would have been a fool's errand, but I think his job there was basically taken care of at the headline: "Romney Gives Much-Anticipated Speech Defending Mormon Faith, a la JFK." Nothing else new.
On the second front, he was basically jousting at straw men, which is pretty much all that I'd make activist-secularists out to be on the national stage at this point. If there are voters out there still so turned off by a candidate being religious that they would put that distaste over their opinions of his or her policies: A, they're not voting Republican anyway, B, they're not running against him on either ticket, and C, they're totally drowned out at this point by the main stream of the Democratic party, which has been flowing for more than four years now in the direction of Jim Wallis, Good Samaritan references, and highly publicized duck hunts. Genteel Tolerance is what's in. We could argue about how much of that is just window dressing, and I'd have to concede that some elements of this shift have been more gracefully executed than others.Bu the fact is, I've heard more people criticizing secularists for being critical of religious candidates than I have heard actual secular criticisms of religious candidates. I think Romney's speech is itself a pretty good barometer of that trend. I seriously doubt any staffers were running after his car on the way to that speech saying "No, Mr. Romney, tone it down! This speech is political suicide!" Partly because I have a hard time believing Romney has ever resisted a politically alarmed staffer on anything.
Romeny has a habit of answering fairly big questions with neutral deference to the experts: What would you do in this scenario? "Well, I'd talk to our best experts and..."
"Well, I'd look at the best information available and..."
"Well, I'd take into account the advice of our military's top whoevers..."
As if these responses weren't the bare minimum of our expectations of a commander-in-chief, but ideologically substantial platforms. Given that habit, I suppose it's reassuring that the Mormon hierarchy is off his list of folks to call in a crisis as the Vatican was crossed off JFK's. But I think the real test of political and religious courage is the one that was put to John Edwards at the YouTube debates. If you'll remember, the Reverand from North Carolina said something along the lines of "John, whenever anyone asks why you don't support equal marriage rights you answer than it's because you're of your Southern Baptist upbringing, but many of us down here don't agree with you. If you're going to use religion as an excuse to duck an uncomfortable question, why not at least tell us how your religion informs your beliefs, explain to us what parts of Jesus' teachings really resonate with you on this issue, and how you would respectfully reconcile those beliefs with the rationale of those that disagree?" Edwards didn't take him up on that challenge that night, and no one really has since. That's the kind of political courage that I would really like to see in a candidate. Maybe its time just hasn't come.
In my case, the mountains of final papers that I should be doing just make me want to do anything but, including writing long-winded political rants like the one below. Apologies in advance.
I read this speech much more cynically than you did, John.
Ostensibly, Romney was defending himself on two fronts here, as you said, the freaked-out Iowans and the genteely-horrified atheist grinches.
The first, he dispatched with pretty much as he has throughout the campaign, by completely sidestepping any discussion of theological differences between himself and said freaked-out Iowans and forcefully emphasizing their common ground. There's nothing wrong with that--I agree it would have been a fool's errand, but I think his job there was basically taken care of at the headline: "Romney Gives Much-Anticipated Speech Defending Mormon Faith, a la JFK." Nothing else new.
On the second front, he was basically jousting at straw men, which is pretty much all that I'd make activist-secularists out to be on the national stage at this point. If there are voters out there still so turned off by a candidate being religious that they would put that distaste over their opinions of his or her policies: A, they're not voting Republican anyway, B, they're not running against him on either ticket, and C, they're totally drowned out at this point by the main stream of the Democratic party, which has been flowing for more than four years now in the direction of Jim Wallis, Good Samaritan references, and highly publicized duck hunts. Genteel Tolerance is what's in. We could argue about how much of that is just window dressing, and I'd have to concede that some elements of this shift have been more gracefully executed than others.Bu the fact is, I've heard more people criticizing secularists for being critical of religious candidates than I have heard actual secular criticisms of religious candidates. I think Romney's speech is itself a pretty good barometer of that trend. I seriously doubt any staffers were running after his car on the way to that speech saying "No, Mr. Romney, tone it down! This speech is political suicide!" Partly because I have a hard time believing Romney has ever resisted a politically alarmed staffer on anything.
Romeny has a habit of answering fairly big questions with neutral deference to the experts: What would you do in this scenario? "Well, I'd talk to our best experts and..."
"Well, I'd look at the best information available and..."
"Well, I'd take into account the advice of our military's top whoevers..."
As if these responses weren't the bare minimum of our expectations of a commander-in-chief, but ideologically substantial platforms. Given that habit, I suppose it's reassuring that the Mormon hierarchy is off his list of folks to call in a crisis as the Vatican was crossed off JFK's. But I think the real test of political and religious courage is the one that was put to John Edwards at the YouTube debates. If you'll remember, the Reverand from North Carolina said something along the lines of "John, whenever anyone asks why you don't support equal marriage rights you answer than it's because you're of your Southern Baptist upbringing, but many of us down here don't agree with you. If you're going to use religion as an excuse to duck an uncomfortable question, why not at least tell us how your religion informs your beliefs, explain to us what parts of Jesus' teachings really resonate with you on this issue, and how you would respectfully reconcile those beliefs with the rationale of those that disagree?" Edwards didn't take him up on that challenge that night, and no one really has since. That's the kind of political courage that I would really like to see in a candidate. Maybe its time just hasn't come.
This speech should have done something to humanize Romney. But, it really didn't.
I don't think he's the right man for the White House now. We need someone honest and bold. We need someone who already knows what he wants to do.
Emily is right -- his "I'll seek out the best advisors" reply to so many questions is wearing thin.
Post a Comment