January 8, 2007
Mitt Romney, Again Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 02:00 PM EST Referring to my statement that politicians who make their faith a central theme of their candidacy should be prepared to answer specific questions about that faith, John Steele Gordon writes, “I’m sorry, but I smell a political rat here. Mr. Zeitz, after all, will not be heading up the Upper West Side Romney for President Club. This seems to me to be an invitation for people of faith to get tangled up in public theological discussions that will win them no votes but might well cost them votes, especially if they make some misstatement or fail to express clearly some obscure point, providing an opening for their political enemies to twist it into something else entirely.”
For starters, Mr. Gordon is absolutely correct. I will not be heading up the Upper West Side Romney for President Club. I live on the Upper East Side. And I spend much of my year in England.
As for Mr. Gordon’s point—“Mr. Zeitz didn’t reply to my question as to whether a Nexis search would turn up concerns among the ‘religious right’ regarding Romney’s Mormonism”—the answer is yes, and no. A quick Nexis search revealed that James Dobson, the powerful head of the Focus on the Family, said recently, “I don't believe that conservative Christians will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen, I guess.” He should know. Tom Minnery, Dobson’s policy advisor, pointedly declined to say whether Dobson would refuse to endorse Romney on religious grounds. In an interview about the prospects of a Romney candidacy, Charles Colson, the Watergate felon who once was lost but now is found (Colson is a leading evangelical conservative), invoked the story of Martin Luther, who said he would rather be “ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.” Doesn’t sound like Colson will be heading up Former Watergate Felons for Romney. Strike two for the governor.
Recognizing the sectarian dilemma inherent in a Mormon candidacy, Romney’s campaign recently organized a sit-down between the candidate and leading evangelical Christians, including Gary Bauer, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and the pastors of several important megachurches. Several of the attendees were impressed by Romney and told reporters that while they had serious theological qualms with the governor, they were willing to give him a serious look because they liked his stance on political questions.
Ironically, a recent Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll revealed that the two groups that are most resistant to installing a Mormon in the White House are people who attend church more than once a week, 50 percent of whom said they would not vote for a Mormon, and Democrats, 42 percent of whom made the same claim. The former group includes a disproportionate share of evangelical Christians. So, at least one can say that Mormon politicians help Democrats and devout Christians find common ground. Sort of.
Mr. Gordon writes, “Mr. Zeitz says that people of faith should be cross-examined by a bunch of intellectuals to find out exactly what faith and what tenets and what the pattern on their theological boxer shorts is. Mr. Zeitz’s offer for people of faith to sit down and discuss the details of that faith is one that can—and undoubtedly will—be refused. Can anyone imagine candidates without faith sitting down and discussing the reasons for their agnosticism at length, or even admitting that they are agnostic?”
I don’t recall having suggested that we subject candidates who profess a strong faith to trial by university professors. Unlike Mr. Gordon, who postures as a populist but clearly has trouble imagining that non-intellectuals are concerned about and engaged by the political debate, I think that most voters are genuinely interested in knowing what ideas drive and inspire political candidates. If a politician makes faith a central part of his message, as Romney has done, he should explain precisely what that faith entails. Voters have a right to know. If a religious candidate doesn’t tout his faith as a selling point, then his faith is, and should remain, a private affair.
Mr. Gordon ignores my larger point—to wit, that by making a fetish out of “faith,” we denigrate faith.
If history is any indicator, evangelical Christians and Mormons will likely find ground for political cooperation—if not this year, then eventually. Remember that in the mid-twentieth century, fundamentalists and Catholics were deeply distrustful of each other. This was particularly true of fundamentalists, who regarded Catholicism as an apostate creed and often speculated that the Roman church might very well be in league with Satan. Prominent fundamentalists like Otto Klink casually denounced Catholicism as a “monster of iniquity, ” while Bob Jones, Sr., founder of Bob Jones University, a leading Bible college, argued that the “Roman Catholic Church in its organization and its exaltation of saints and a priesthood, is veiling Christ as our Intercessor. You don’t need any Virgin Mary to intercede for you. You don’t need a pope or a priest. The humblest Christian who walks this earth has as much access to God the Father through Jesus Christ the risen Lord as a priest, a bishop, or a pope. We Christians in this church age are a ‘kingdom of priests.’”
Fifty years later, leading evangelical and Catholic conservatives collaborate comfortably in their political opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage, and in their push for stronger human rights laws and funding for faith-based initiatives. Sectarian boundaries have tended to crumble in America, if slowly and in fits and starts. But as I said in my initial post on this subject, history doesn’t always move in a linear fashion, and even when it does, its direction is not always forward-looking.
|
