Opinion
You, Romney, are no Kennedy
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Greenfield:
- Community Car a smart move for consumers, environment (September 23, 2008)
- Broken center in need of overhaul (September 9, 2008)
- Drinking age tramples rights, endangers health (September 2, 2008)
- Madison eateries need calorie info (April 28, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
You might expect a member of a religious minority running for president to strongly support religious tolerance. You would expect this candidate to likely be a fervent defender of the separation between church and state. You'd expect him to passionately defend one's right to worship as he pleases or even his right to not worship at all. In the case of Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, you would be mistaken.
Last week at Texas A&M University, Mr. Romney gave a speech, "Faith in America," about his beliefs on the role of religion in politics. It was supposed to be his "JFK moment" — in fact, it took place just miles from where President Kennedy, a Catholic, gave his famous speech on religion. Like Mr. Kennedy, the goal of Mr. Romney's speech was not to delve into controversial Mormon doctrine and explain it in detail to voters, but rather to show in a general sense how "the governor's own faith would inform his presidency if elected," a campaign spokesperson told CNN.
This was his chance to put to rest any lingering doubts about his Mormonism. And there clearly are a lot of lingering doubts among Americans. A Pew Research poll from August found that only half the American public has a favorable view of Mormonism and a quarter would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president, including one-third of Republicans and evangelical Christians.
Many evangelical Christian Republican primary voters are not going to vote for Mr. Romney simply because he is a Mormon. They consider Mormonism to be a cult, regardless of the similarity in social conservative values he shares with evangelical Christians. A speech like the one he gave probably won't help him with these voters, since the very idea of separation of church and state is anathema to many conservative Christians.
But should the faith of political candidates be an issue at all in a nation that supposedly has constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom and historic separation between church and state? This is the essential double-standard in American politics. We're supposed to accept that faith permeates everything a religious person does. We passively acknowledge that faith is a necessarily positive influence; as long as you believe in something, you're more likely to have strong moral values. But we can't ask candidates specific questions about religious doctrine.
Yet, can't we suspect that a person's deeply held religious views will affect his policy positions? If a candidate's religion bans a certain thing (say, birth control pills) and he is a strong adherent of that faith, aren't we entitled to know if strict adherence to that faith will require the candidate to impose his religious views on those who don't share them?
I don't think the YouTube question in the last debate about whether the candidates take the Bible literally was out of bounds. If someone does think the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God, it puts his or her overall judgment into question. The same goes for candidates who would blindly follow the decrees of the hierarchy of their religions.
This was exactly the kind of thing Mr. Kennedy was trying to convince Americans not to worry about. Mr. Kennedy stated in his Texas speech in 1960 that he believed in an America where "the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president how to act." Can you imagine any Republican saying that today?
Mr. Romney, instead, chose to speak in code, giving lip service to "religious liberty," but insisting that faith permeates his life and emphasizing the commonalities between Mormonism and Christianity, declaring "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." He also stressed the commonalities between all religions but omitted any reference to Eastern religions and the nonreligious. He even insisted, "Freedom requires religion," which would seem to indicate nonreligious Americans cannot be considered "free."
As Maureen Dowd so aptly titled her column in The New York Times on Sunday, "Mitt is no J.F.K." Ms. Dowd quoted Jon Krakauer, an author of a bestselling book on Mormonism, as saying, "J.F.K.'s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn't a religious fanatic. Mitt's was to tell evangelical Christians, 'I'm a religious fanatic just like you.'"
Mr. Romney recently told a Christian Science Monitor reporter he wouldn't favor nominating any qualified Muslims to serve in his cabinet if he were elected president, noting their small population size. This would include Zalmay Khalilzad, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. His spokesperson refused to answer a question about whether Mr. Romney believes atheists even have a "place in America," after his refusal to acknowledge them in his speech.
If you give lip service to intolerance, you shouldn't be shocked if you eventually fall victim to intolerance. Mr. Romney has made a calculation that he can't be nominated if he says anything tolerant of the two biggest bogeymen to Republicans: Muslims and atheists. But Mr. Romney should think hard about what kind of voters he wants to court because, as he is beginning to figure out, it's not easy to be all things to all people.
Ryan Greenfield (rgreenfield@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and economics.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
So, when an oilman (Bush) gets elected, oil more than doubles in price. If Willard Mitt Romney gets elected, should I invest in multiple wives, postmortem baptism or religious undergarments?
It appears that you did not either listen to or read Mr. Romney's speech. He directly mentions Muslims, what you call an "eastern religion", and even compliments the Muslims on their habit of frequent prayer ("and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims"). It would seem to me that if you are majoring in political science, one thing you need to make sure you keep an eye on is accuracy in you analysis and reporting. Obviously, your article is devoid of such accuracy, since the crux of your article is that Mr. Romney ommitted both Muslims and atheists. One out of two's not bad, though?
I didn't even read this article. I'm just disappointed it wasn't another Gerald Cox piece.
Lets talk about the so called "republican intolerance" that democrats claim exist. Oh, but Romney can't be President because of his religion....hypocritical? What about the fact that democrats refuse to acknowledge the threat from Islamic extremists because that is racist, but Mitt cannot be President because a small sect of his religion are polygamists. Yup, I forgot, free speech is only free when your ideas are the ones being spoken.
this is so intolerant of religious people!
mitt's speech was in response to this persecution.
mitt is the only true minority running for either party.
i have a dream that my children will be judged on the content of their character and NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.
10:06, you're an idiot. That's not what Democrats say.
7:59, you're also an idiot because that's not what Ryan said. Romney said the word "Mormon" once in his speech and "Muslim" or "jihad" five times. His speech was not to convince the American people that a Mormon could be in the WH -- like JFK's was to convince Americans a Catholic could be. It was, as Maureen Dowd said, to tell us he's a religious fanatic too.
Considering there are as many Muslims in this country as there are Mormons, Romney's excuse not to put any Muslims in his Cabinet because they don't account for enough of the population makes no sense.
What Ryan was trying to say is that we need to cut religion out of this entirely. Since Romney has refused to do this with his comments on Muslims, then why should we take him seriously when he asks us to ignore the fact that he's Mormon?
10:06....Who cares about his religion? Romney can't be president because he's a flip-flopper. You GOPers made it more than clear in 2004 that a flip-flopper must not be elected to the White House. I bet Romney windsurfs too!
Its not a flip flop if he changes his position once. I don't want a President who still believes what he believed in HS, its natural that as people mature and learn their points of view will change. Flip-Flopping ala Kerry is when you change your position 5 times during the course of a year or 2 based solely on polls. I dont want my President to do that.
Jeeesus! When will we finally learn? The only people who should be aloud to rule our country, our land of milk and honey, should be business and profit above the air our children breathe, the value of the labor we spend our lives toiling under, the freedom we have forgotten how to define, and the equality we, especially Reagan, claimed to value. But in order to value all of these things, even in the proper order, which is security above freedom, we must have control. And God, and only our Christian God, has the means of control we require. What do you think we are here? Adults? I think NOT my friends. Let's not forget how dangerous it is to question what we're told.
And dont try to disagree! Im not listening unless you agree.