Romney's Kennedy Moment
Successfully Defusing that Mormon Thing
By Hunter Baker Posted in 2008 | politics | religion | Romney — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have not seen the speech, but I have read it. Religion and politics is my academic specialty. While I would quibble with the way Romney presents the founding of the Republic and what it did or didn't settle about religious liberty, I think he did an outstanding job of framing the overall discussion.
1. The United States has traditionally been a nation that recognizes freedom must be paired with religion and morality if it is to persevere in political society. Mitt said it. Libertarians need to hear it. So do secularists. When Mitt embraces that point of view, he puts himself squarely in the conservative camp, not only the religious conservatives, but the traditionalist Burkeans, too.
2. Though his faith has some unique features (so unique that thinking of it as "Christianity, but different" is a BIG stretch), he plants his flag on American values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, religious liberty, and limited government. He is right to do so. It is perhaps imperfectly understood that Mormonism is an American religion with a major preference for American values. Mormon missionaries spread their faith and its unique doctrines, but they also spread pro-Americanism. I think you'd be hard pressed to find Mormons abroad who hate America.
3. He correctly recognizes that while the church must always seek to encourage the state, to critique the state, to urge the state toward justice, it must never be part of the state. When the church is part of the state, it either becomes a useless Department of God, as is the case of European established churches, or it becomes a dangerous theocracy of the sort we find in many Muslim lands.
Overall, this speech showed tremendous sophistication on religion and politics. I'm not a Mitt supporter. But he listened to someone who understands the issues well.
A+++ for this one. Attaboy, Governor Romney.
END.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | And Now a Word on the Romney Speech. — Comments (52) »
Romney's Kennedy Moment 50 Comments (0 topical, 50 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Up to this point I have been flip flopping on who is my candidate like John Kerry in a rubber room (okay, a bad simile, but a funny word picture), but I feel comfortable in saying that Mitt is my man.
He looked mighty presidential up there- calm, rational, composed, and flat out likable.
I am a born again Christian, and his Mormonism was never a factor for me, after all, I already have a pastor, and I'm not looking for a new one.
What I am looking for is a strong leader who mirrors my values, and Mitt is the closest one I see. (If Fred ever woke up I woulda leaned his way.)
Well done, Mr. Romney. You have my vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
While maintaining that Romney is my candidate of choice among the leaders and that if it came down to him and Rudy, I'd vote for Mitt in a heartbeat, I am far less comfortable with him now than I was before the speech. While I have plenty of problems with his religion, I never really considered the issue to matter much to his candidacy. Of course, like Leon, I don't think he shares my values, but I have at least some hope that he would govern as a conservative.
That said, I had a couple of major problems with his speech. I don't care for him saying that religious leaders will not exert influence over his decision-making. While I would not want any President turning over his authority to a religious leader, including the Pope (I'm Catholic), I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea to take what such leaders say seriously. They are moral leaders, and moral and political issues frequently overlap. Political leaders are remiss when they fail to seek the counsel of religious leaders when that happens. Again, that does not mean handing the decision over to such leaders, but it does mean giving serious consideration to what they have to say.
My other problem is his statement about serving the nation above all and not allowing his religious beliefs to get in the way. Religious beliefs, for those of us who are believers, are part and partial to who we are. If you can separate a person from his religious beliefs, such a person is too insincere to either be a member of his Church or serve in public office. To be sure, I cannot envision a situation in which the demands of a church and the responsibilities of a political office conflict. If one believes that the possibility of that situation arising exists, though, he cannot responsibly retain his faith and seek the office. Rightly understood, religion tells us that we must serve God first. Failure to do so is a failure to properly serve man. This does not mean imposing one's religion on other people, but it does mean recognizing the human dignity of every individual and acting accordingly.
My other problem is his statement about serving the nation above all and not allowing his religious beliefs to get in the way. Religious beliefs, for those of us who are believers, are part and partial to who we are. If you can separate a person from his religious beliefs, such a person is too insincere to either be a member of his Church or serve in public office..
Its really unlikely there'd be any conflict. But he's saying that if there were any conflict between his religious beliefs and his leadership of the nation, he wouldn't just go with his religious beliefs. I think that's right, myself. I think the proper thing to do in that situation would be to resign.
Although Romney said, "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin." It can be interpreted as meaning not his or any other church will ever influence his decisions as President.
I disagree and think he is specifically talking about the church's authority and that they will not have any authority over presidential decisions. Mitt Romney is a consumer of all data. He seeks out input from many varied and different sources. He will not turn a deaf ear to other churches as has been said here before, he is beholden to those churches like no other candidate.
He goes on to say, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." I believe this is what he is saying. That no one church authority will ever exert undo influence on Presidential decisions, but as President he will listen to the people of the United States, and we know many of those interest groups are given voice by their churches.
If you still doubt, then ask Mitt himself if there will be no religious influence on him as President at one of his "Ask Mitt Anything" meetings. Or you can ask him here. I look forward to seeing what answer you get.
I have used the form and I'll let you know what I find out.
And I agree that our Constitution does and should not specify any religious test qualifying or disqualifying any person from holding office, but voters can have whatever tests or list of qualifications they want to have.
I personally would not vote for an atheist or a Child of Baal, but they are not prohibited from holding office if they are elected.
If this speech manages to take the momentum away from Mike Huckabee, it was successful. If it doesn't, it wasn't.
Does being an Atheist somehow make a person less moral? if so, how? I'm very curious...
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
I even took a class called "'If There Is No God, All Is Permitted' -- Theism and Moral Reasoning" in college. It appears various philosophers tried to argue about this, like Augustine and Aquinas, and like Plato, their logic was consistently and utterly flawed. Maimonides (RaMBaM) made more sense, but not nearly enough. Nothing has been able to come even close to convincing me that gods are required for personal morality.
I won't dispute that gods may be required to make a large group of people act morally -- The Grand Inquisitor, in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, says this fairly well. But to say that *I'm* immoral because I don't believe in whatever deity you want me to believe in is a reeeeeeally big stretch.
This is my problem with Romney's speech. Sure, he's got to pander to the bigots who impose religious tests (the Democrats have been doing that all along as well). I certainly have no problem with a Mormon president -- certainly not any more than with a president believing in any other thing (including gods) so long as he or she puts what's best for the country first -- and Massachusetts did not explode under his Mormon governorship. But by saying that religion is important for freedom is either completely misguided or utterly trivial. If it includes the absence of religion, then it's utterly trivial, and if it does not, then he is personally insulting my beliefs and my morality.
I can't possibly support a Mormon president if that Mormon president won't support an atheist constituent. I'd rather have a corrupt adulterer.
Your interpretation of Romney has been brought up already, by stillnotking, in "Romney Nailed It."
I think you have interpreted him incorrectly, but what is the benefit of engaging in a dialogue to try to resolve that issue. Are you voting in the Rep. primaries? Are you seriously considering voting for Romney in the general? What are you after? The "pandering" line is a signal.
I like your point #1. I like the argument that we can not make our politics turn on our religious differences without acting as if religion was just a personal preference that doesn't really matter.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
(in case on Romney staff are reading).
I think he could have cut it off before he gave the whole history of religous persecution and had a better overall effect.
However, he did say something that you may have missed if you don't speak Evangelical and it was RED MEAT for would be Huckabee voters:
But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
Great job Gov. Romney, talk about an American loving speech, he aced it!!!!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
And I'll probably watch it a second and a third time before writing my long post about it, but my first reaction is that he was correct to make the speech, and I'm relieved that he rose to the occasion so well. It's a tremendously difficult subject and he handled it very well. Importantly he handled it in a serious way but he didn't seem overburdened or reluctant to discuss it; rather he seemed positive, respectful, and also enthusiastic about the prospect of speaking about it. That was very encouraging to me.
On things like this I usually like to watch the speech a couple of times and then digest it for a few hours, so that's what I'll do. But on the whole he took nothing away from his candidacy while tackling this difficult subject squarely.
He's still My Man Mitt!
And from what I understand he probably consulted with a lot of people but the speech was primarily his work and his words, not the work of a speechwriter that he signed off on. Pretty good job for an amateur ;).
We should have kept religion out of this, but since Mitt brought it up, he said atthe debate that the Bible is the Word of God, but he believes the Book of Mormon. The Bible states there can only be one gospel, so where does this put the book of Mormon or Mitt for that matter?
Ah, I see
Member for
4 hrs 17 min
Why do I get the feeling you weren't particularly "comfortable" with Mitt before and, short of "I'm abandoning my campaign...", there's probably precisely nothing he could have said that would make you feel, erm, "less unfomfortable"?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Let me say this. Romney is not my first choice, but he is a close 2nd or 3rd. And I would feel much more comfortable with him than the NYer or Slick Willie II, but I think we what we need to is get away from all the religion talk and discuss the issues, and religion should not be one of them!
I don't think religion should be "kept out of this." Men are guided by religion. A candidate's faith should be known, but it is his VALUES that ought to matter, not the doctrines of his faith.
Mitt's a Mormon. Theologically that carries certain issues that ought to be discussed, but we are not looking to fill a theological role, but a political one. What are the man's political views? What are his values? What kind of a leader will he be? THIS is what matters in a political election.
I could not disagree with the man more when it comes to God, Jesus, and basic doctrine...
...But I stand next to him on core political and social principles.
Which is why I will vote for him.
...By the way, Mitt didn't make it an issue, the media did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
Although Mitt Romney worked overtime to draw comparison with the Kennedy speech, today he proved that he is no JFK. To begin with, John Kennedy's speech was about separation of church and state. Kennedy said "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute". Instead, Romney's speech was a muddle of separation of church and state and the role of religion in politics. Afterall, the stated goal of his speech was to "offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected."
Second, Kennedy advocated an America "where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--". Romney did not include - I would say purposefully - people of no faith in his vision of America.
Third, Kennedy's speech promoted "the American ideal of brotherhood." Romney's speech had a us (believers) vs. them (non-believers/secularists) flavor. Romney said: "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Finally, Kennedy's speech put an end to the discussion about his religion. Romney's speech jump started the discussion about his religion.
JFK - the MOST OVERATED politician EVER. Romney's speech has been widely recognized as nearly pitch perfect by those without agendas. What's yours.
But it differs in substance from the Kennedy speech.
I was young but I remember my parents being totally against him as a President. Bay of Pigs for one.
That’s okay, JFK is no Romney. Thanks to JFK, Cubans live in virtual slavery. He abandon his allies, and they were slaughtered. JFK is beloved because he is a Kennedy, not that he was a great president. The only thing he did well, was when he stood up to the Russian over the missile crises, which by the way, would never had happen if not for the Bay of pigs.
_______________________
Give me juicy, Red meat
JFK's speech did not put an end to the discussion about his religion. It did elevate the discussion afterwards, but that discussion still continued. As is the case with Mitt Romney's speech.
So now the masses will be clamoring to hear more about Mormonism because he gave this speech? I'm skeptical dude.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
it will be apparent in the next few weeks. Personally, I believe the media has been itching to discuss Mormonism but have held back because they fear the bigot label. I fear that Mitt has provided an opening for them to "explore" the LDS church.
You're talking about the media who feature the Pope if he's talking about war or the death penalty, but dare not give him a column inch if the topic is abortion or marriage.
is there something in the religion that is "scary". This man is not running to be the Pope of America he is running to be the President.
If he is as comfortable about his religion as he seems that I don't think he fears it either.
I mean really enough is enough hell Christianity was "new" to 2K years ago. Atheism is a religion their just to stupid to recognize.....so what who cares except for people who think they are better than everyone else because their "religion" is the be all end all. We as well have the new "religion" of Global Warming that's all the rave with the "cool kids".
I hope that he from this moment forward does not talk about nor accept a question about his religion. He does not have to and that should be his answer.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Religious freedom has always been important for Mormons for historical reasons--one of the few churches to really suffer at least a degree of persecution in the US. They have produced a lot of important scholarship on church/state issues.
The religious question concerning the Presidency is not only absurd, but historically proven to be unfounded paranoia! In 1800, the Federalists declared Thomas Jefferson to be an infidel, godless, and the harbinger of God's wrath. Here's but one rather famous publication of such persuasion:
Serious Considerations on the Election of a President: Addressed to the Citizens of the United States
Rev. William Linn
New York, 1800
pages 18, 19, 20I shall only mention what passed in conversation between Mr. Jefferson and a gentleman of distinguished talents and services, on the necessity of religion to government. The gentlmean insisted that some religious gaith and institutions of worship, claiming a divine origin, were necessary to the order and peace of society. Mr. Jefferson said that he differed widely from him, nad that "he whished to see a government in which no religious opinions were held, and wer the security for property and social order reflected entirely upon the force of the laws."
Would this not be a nation of Atheists? It is not natural, after the free declaration of such a sentiment, to suspect the man himself of Atheism? Could one who is impressed with the existence of a God, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things to whom we are under a law and accountable; and the inseparable connection of this truth with the social order and the eternal happiness of mankind; express himself in this manner?
Putting the most favorable construction upon the words in the Notes, they are extremely reprehensible. Does not the belief influence the practice? How then can it be a matter of indifference what a man believes? The doctrine that a man's life may be good, let his faith be what it may, is contradictory to reason and the experience of mankind. It is true that a mere opinion of my neighbor will do me no injury. Government cannot regulate or punish it. The right of opinion is inalienable.
But let my neighbor once presuade himself that there is no Godm and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there be no God, there is no law; no future account; government then is the ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake. No colours pain the horrid effects of such a principle, and the deluge of miseries with which it would overwhelm the human race.
How strongly soever Mr. Jefferson may reason against the punishment by law of erronious opinions, even of atheism, they are not the less frightful and dangerous in their consequences ... Though neither the constitution, nor any law forbids his election, yet the public opinion ought to disqualify him, On account of his disbelief of the Holy Scriptures, and his attempts to discredit them, he ought to be rejected from the Presidency.
No professed deist, by his talents and acquirements whay they may, ought to be promoted to this place by the suffrages of a Christian nation. The greater his talents and the more extensive his acquirements, the greater will be his power and the more extensive this influence in poisoning mankind.
Obviously the Reverend was completely wrong. Mr. Jefferson turned out to be one of our greatest Presidents.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.*
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
The talkin heads are fussing about atheists being left out of Mitt's speach.
Why would an atheist be upset about being left out of a religious conversation?
Duh.
whether they want to admit it or not, they treat atheism as their religion.
It's what they put faith in, and after all, isn't faith the definition of what religion really is.
No need for disclaimers - I'm sure it's pretty well known that I was/am for Governor Romney. Just wanted to get it on the record.
Well, I've been through the speech 3 times. I first read it, and liked it - a lot. Then, I heard almost (missing a word or two here and there) the whole speech in clips. Choppy, but still liked it - a whole lot.
Just watched it - and it gave me goosebumps.
It's anecdotal but for what it's worth, the last time I got goosebumps at a speech was when I had the opportunity to listen to this speech on the radio live as it was being delivered.
Well done, Governor Romney. Well done.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"They treat atheism as their reigion."
"That don't make no sense."-Pete, from "O brother where art Thou."
We all know good and well that he didn't write his own speech; no pol does. I read the text too; thought it was well written but watered-down -- definitely no basis from which to award an "A+++." As a PhD and an academic yourself, I'd expect more than that from you.
Jeff, I gave him the A+++ because I'm grading on the curve. Most of what American politicians say about religion is puerile. This was pretty good stuff.
While most politicians don't write their own speeches, most politicians aren't of the intellectual caliber of Romney. It is being reported everywhere that Mitt wrote the speech himself. Thus, an A+++ is deserving. You should check out Romney's academic record before dismissing him as an intellectual lightweight. Save that title for the guy who dropped out while studying the ministry.
I happen to know a few evangelicals and they are not happy with the idea of a Mormon being president. Bigots or not, they are voters.
The thing was, that not everyone knew Romney is a Mormon, although some did. Now that he made his speech its plastered everywhere. In fact, in a teaser for the nightly news here in Chicago the line was "Romney talks about the role of his Mormon faith".
I think despite the favorable reviews on the speech, which from excerpts I've seen was quite good, it may backfire.
1. It makes everyone aware he's a Mormon. Some Christians who did not know this will now know it and may jump ship
2. If its such a big deal to warrant a major speech before the elections, those Republicans most concerned with "electability" may jump ship also. Their logic may be that if this Mormon thing is still an issue by November 2008 he may lose, and therefore, they're better off supporting someone more "electable".
Keep in mind that the electability factor is big, and one of the only reasons Giuliani is still competitive, and I got a feeling to some degree Romney as well (as he is perceived as electable because he's got the money and organization to run a solid campaign). Pull the "electability" rug from either of those two and they will fall flat on their butts.
I guess we will find out in the polling next week how this speech impacts the race as by then for sure the effects of the speech will have settled in the national consciousness.
He's gonna lose all those voters that didn't know he was a Mormon because they now know! Wow, I think his "Elect me because you don't know who I am" strategy is failing.
Dang, maybe Hillary's "Elect me because I have a v..." strategy will fail too.
Let's face it, ask an average person about any candidate and chances are they will only know a few quick facts that the media repeated many times over and they will define that candidate by those "facts".
It's not about hiding who you are, it's about what will be the first things that pop into someone's head when they hear your name. If you name Giuliani most people think 9/11 and crime, if you name Thompson most people think Senator and star of Law & Order, if you name McCain most people think war hero and maverick.
Now what will happen when you name Romney if this stays in the media long enough? Will it be the man who ran the Olympics? Will it be Mass. Governor who cut taxes? No. It will be "the Mormon"
Basically what I am saying is this might overshadow his other positions and qualifications and impact him negatively, especially among those who aren't into politics and are likely not to know much about any of the candidates other than what the media repeats over and over and over.
The sharpest tools in the shed are the ones that show up for the Primary. The less than sharp tools get another year of mindless media exposure if Romney were to be the nominee.
Mitt has spent more than any other candidate on ads etc so people WILL get to know him. The problem is the bigots who wont vote for him simply because he's a Mormon.
Hey Romney, you otta keep the Mormon thing under your hat til after you are sworn it.
It would only speed up the inevitable. Mormons are the fastest growing group in the country, aren't they?
"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields
Good post.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill