Romney Makes His Pitch
“Kennedy said he might have a different religion, but that it did not need to matter in governing. Romney said he might have a different religion, but that his religion was good for governing because all religions are. ”
Sure, there was some bait-and-switch in the speech Mitt Romney delivered on "Faith in America" this week, but those who'd expected the presidential candidate to grasp the nettle of his Mormon faith must blame their disappointment on themselves.
Romney himself never said he would actually defend his familial faith against charges of cultism. That expectation was a product of our own imaginations: How, we asked, could the former governor of Massachusetts address the nation on religion without discussing his own?
We should have known better.
Despite the breathless build-up, this speech at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas was not going to be about the Latter-day Saints or any of the beliefs that set it apart from the classic Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, it never made sense for Romney to talk theology, or get into any detailed aspect of his religion.
What he needed instead was to assert his own devotion to his faith -- " the faith of my fathers." Devotion of this kind is of great value to people of faith in general, and those are the people the candidate wanted to reach with this speech.
So, no surprise, the word "Mormon" appeared only once in a text of 2,500 words. And while Brigham Young did come up in a parade of religious dissenters (rubbing elbows with Roger Williams), Young was not identified as Mormon. Joseph Smith, the religion's founder, went unmentioned as did the Book of Mormon, which Smith's followers put alongside the Bible as divinely inspired.
Romney did, however, mention Jesus Christ twice, and he leaned on the word "denomination." So it was easy to get the impression, once again, that Mormons are just like Lutherans (whom he mentioned admiringly) or Methodists or Baptists. The takeaway for an average listener would be that Mormonism resembles these other "denominations" in church doctrine just as it does in church architecture.
In fact, it was widely observed that Romney's speech, save a sentence or two, might have been given by most any of the candidates for president, if not all of them. Except, of course, that none of the other candidates could have commanded 25 minutes of cable news coverage for what amounted to a long campaign commercial. Only Romney could do that, and he could do it only because Mormonism remains an object of curiosity in the culture and a goad to voyeurism in the media.
Give the man his due. A world-class salesman in his career, Romney has not always been at his best in TV debates. But this occasion found him at the top of his game. Wrapping himself in reverence for religion-in-general, and repeatedly saluting the ideals of the founding fathers, Romney looked and sounded more presidential than he has to date.
And let's remember, his practical goal here was not to change anybody's mind about Mormonism. It was rather to soothe the media beast and provide good material for his defenders in the evangelical Christian and Catholic communities. And he has some highly effective defenders: Just before the speech, he was getting a spirited boost on CNN from Ralph Reed. Remember him? He ran the Christian Coalition in its heyday a dozen years ago.
So score this media event a success for the overall Romney effort. It will not win over the hardcore foes of the Latter Day Saints; nothing is likely to do so. But it will probably help the campaign with people of faith in general, a far larger category, and one Romney needs to win to keep the GOP nomination away from Rudy Giuliani.
At the same time, there could be a price for whatever he gains. Romney made several remarks at College Station that will not sit well with some, including some religious voters and others of a more secular turn of mind.
Early in the speech he linked religious freedom to political freedom, suggesting they were not just compatible but co-dependent. ("Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.") But haven't people pursued faith with great fervor even in countries and eras wherein political freedom was unknown?
But the real thorn in this particular speech pricks those who care about church and state separation. Although Romney himself invoked the famous John F. Kennedy speech to Protestant pastors in 1960 in his own speech, the two texts were at odds on this point.
Kennedy said he might have a different religion, but that it didn't need to matter in governing. Romney said he might have a different religion, but that his religion was good for governing because all religions are.
Speaking specifically to the sealing off of church and state, Romney saluted the idea as expressed by the founding fathers ("no religious test for office"). But he eagerly added that the good idea had been taken too far in modern times. Banning religion from the public square was wrong, he said, drawing himself erect. And the audience of invited guests gave him a sustained ovation.
Romney made it clear he believed that religion was an integral part of the movements that ended slavery and racial discrimination, not to mention the movement to ban abortion.
So while the candidate insisted he would not "define my candidacy by my religion," he also insisted on defining good public policy largely by reference to religion.
That may be a relatively safe place to stand in the Iowa caucuses, or in the rest of the Republican nominating process this winter and spring. But it raises questions that will be around for a good deal longer.
3:53 PM ET | 12- 6-2007 | permalink
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.