July 2, 2007

Romney’s Religion: Mitt, You Can’t Have It Both Ways

 

It’s considered bad political form to criticize a person for something the person didn’t choose or can’t change. This usually includes physical characteristics like noses and head-size. It generally also includes racial and ethnic identity, gender and, depending on one’s beliefs, sexual orientation. Should religious background be included in this prohibited category? This seems a key question for the candidacy of Mitt Romney.

 

Candidate Romney has expressed concern that some criticism of him has explicitly or implicitly represented attacks on his religion, which he says would be unacceptable in this society if his religion were other than Mormon. I believe he is attempting to use this issue and our sensitivity to political advantage, and inconsistently at that. Still, the debate over his concern raises important issues about the role of religion and belief in political campaigns.

 

We seldom hear public criticism of a candidate’s ethnicity, race or family background. Belief, however, seems another matter. As adults, most of us choose our beliefs, or at least believe we can. And beliefs have direct predictive validity regarding the decisions that a leader is likely to make in office. It was reasonable for people to want to be sure that a Kennedy as president, or perhaps someday a Goldberg or Asaam, could make decisions that were in the best interests of the United States without conflicting loyalties.

 

This is quite different to me than rejecting a candidate for office because of being Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or, perhaps, Mormon, as a matter of ethnicity or peoplehood, as it is referred to in some parts of the world. Even if this expressed concern might at times be a smokescreen for more basic prejudice, the issue on its merits needs to be taken seriously.

 

I have a right to know how a candidate might consider his religious beliefs or identity regarding relevant issues. Will a Catholic justice be limited in his decisions on the right to legal abortion by the views of the pope? Might a Jewish president feel constrained by loyalty to actions of an Israeli government?

 

Or might Mormon history, laws or customs regarding multiple wives, the essential status of blacks and other matters, influence or limit a Mormon president’s ability to make decisions, with the best interests of the United States as the criterion? That is the important question.

 

This guideline presents an especially difficult challenge when basic tenets of the religion are out of synch with mainstream culture. It seems unfair to have to repudiate beliefs of one‘s church and family or risk being rejected as a candidate by many voters. Unfair, perhaps, but necessary to the electorate that needs to be sure its leaders are exercising leadership based on our country’s priorities.

 

Moreover, Mr. Romney cannot at once appeal to the Republican religious right on the basis of broadly sharing their beliefs, then react in a defensive and self-righteous way when someone calls those beliefs into question. He cannot pick and choose among the beliefs of his church to determine which of those he wishes to be known and taken into account by the electorate.

 

He can, and probably will, attempt to make a Kennedy-like separation between his religion and his candidacy, but I’m afraid he will be up against several disadvantages. He lacks the Kennedy eloquence and comes out lower on the perceived-integrity scale, already being forced to respond repeatedly to questions about where he really stands on a range of issues.

 

More so, the issues he would be trying to separate are far less divided in this case. Once religious belief is put forth as strength, it is difficult to take it off the table.  As Perry Mason would say, “Your honor, opposing counsel opened this line of questioning.” Imagine if Kennedy told us proudly that his Catholic beliefs guaranteed his positions on certain issues to a large segment of the electorate, but that any attempt to call attention to his Catholic beliefs was un-American religious persecution. Come on, Mitt. This isn’t just Massachusetts anymore.

 

I’m from Massachusetts. And we’ve seen firsthand the impact of this fast-talking politician’s approach to belief, positions and integrity. His “flexible” use of beliefs and positions makes Bill Clinton look overly rigid by comparison. I’d be satisfied to be sure this particular candidate has any beliefs at all, other than in his ability to come across to voters as whatever he deems most convenient.