Religion Isn't Romney's Problem
By Aaron Goldstein (12/08/07)
On December 6th, with much fanfare, Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library titled, “Faith in America.” The talk provided an overview of the place Romney believes religion should be in America. He also discussed his own faith and made assurances The Church of Latter Day Saints or any other house of worship “will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” Romney went on to say, “Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.” (1)
Having read Romney’s speech I could not help but wonder if the issue isn’t so much to do with religion as it is to do with a certain Baptist Minister. With the Iowa caucus less than one month away, would Romney have felt the need to make this speech at this moment in time if Hawkeye voters hadn’t begun to heart Mike Huckabee?
Does Mitt Romney honestly think that Republicans won’t vote for him because he’s a practicing Mormon? Does Romney think his own party to be that bigoted? To be sure, Romney has encountered his share of crackpots on the campaign trail. But do they really represent a critical mass of the Republican Party? According to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, 73% of Republicans state Romney’s religion makes them no more or less likely to vote for him. While 13% of Republicans state it is less likely they will vote for Romney because of his Mormonism it is nearly cancelled out by the 10% of Republicans who state it is more likely they will vote for Romney because of his religion. ( www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-romney5dec05,1,2486134.story )
One must also ask if Romney believes that anti-Mormonism in America is as strong in 2007 as anti-Catholicism in America was in 1960. Democrats were but a generation removed from Al Smith losing the 1928 Presidential election to Herbert Hoover over the fear that Smith would be beholden to the Vatican and not the U.S. Constitution. The same questions arose about John F. Kennedy three decades later. Of course, Kennedy put those doubts to rest during his speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960. Yet as Miami University Communications Professor Robert V. Friedenburg noted in his 2002 book Notable Speeches in Contemporary Presidential Campaigns (published by Praeger/Greenwood), Kennedy was prompted to give this speech five days after the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom led by Norman Vincent Peale raised concerns about Kennedy’s candidacy. Peale had some very negative thinking towards Kennedy and remarked:
While the current Roman Catholic contender for the Presidency states specifically that he would not be so influenced, his church insists that he is duty bound to admit its direction. This unresolved conflict leaves doubt in the minds of millions of our citizens.
Have any major religious figures or organizations in this country issued public statements against Mitt Romney’s candidacy for Presidency? No. Have any religious figures or organizations threatened to establish a third political party if Romney is the GOP nominee? No. The only similarity between Romney’s speech and Kennedy’s 47-years-ago was that they were both delivered in Houston.
As someone who cast his first Republican ballot for Mitt Romney five years ago, I do not believe people should decide not to vote for Mitt Romney on the basis of his Mormon faith. After all, there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for Romney.
In the aforementioned Times/Bloomberg poll, when likely Republican voters were asked (regardless of their choice) which candidate was most likely to say what he believes rather than what voters wanted to hear, Romney finished dead last with 8% while Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani finished in first and second with 20% and 18%, respectively. The Times article goes on to quote Christian Broadcast Network reporter and blogger David Brody who wrote, “The huge pothole in the road for Romney isn’t necessarily the Mormonism as it is the authenticity issue.”
Mitt Romney’s presentation looks and sounds very much like his use of Power Point –very smooth and slick. But how many people are like this in real life? Mike Huckabee is the anti-Romney in this sense. His unpretentious, plain spoken manner puts people at ease. Voters feel like they are dealing with a real person. This isn’t to say that Romney isn’t the genuine article. No one should expect Romney to start sporting dreadlocks and to tell people he listens to Wyclef Jean. That would be equally inauthentic. But as long as Romney comes off as a used car salesman, game show host or, dare I say, television Evangelist his candidacy is doomed because people will see only style without substance.
Perhaps the most telling single sentence in Romney speech was, “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Yet Romney’s views on abortion and gay rights appear to be beliefs borne out of convenience not conscience. Romney’s supporters like to point out that he was elected Governor in what is arguably the most liberal state in the Union. But if Romney were to have campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 opposing abortion and gay rights then Romney would have never been elected.
A mere five years ago, Romney’s platform said, “As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the governments.” ( http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/ ) Now, Mitt Romney calls for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Back in July 2005, Romney wrote,
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother…I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” ( www.mittromney.com/Issues/american-culture ). Well, so much for abortion being a deeply personal choice and not that of the government.
The point here is that Mike Huckabee is pro-life and has always been. Rudy Giuliani is still pro-choice even if he should appoint Ted Olson to the Supreme Court. Mitt Romney’s views on abortion depend on where the weathervane happens to be pointing.
If one compares Romney’s legislative accomplishments against that of Giuliani and Huckabee he is simply overmatched. Of course, Giuliani restored New York City to greatness in eight years as its Mayor. Huckabee is noted for his accomplishments in health care and education during his decade as the Governor of Arkansas. Some conservatives have criticized Huckabee for raising taxes, including Romney. On November 30th, while appearing in Cedar Rapids, Romney said of Huckabee, “He raised sales taxes, gasoline taxes, grocery taxes, even taxes on nursing home beds.” ( www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-romney_for_weddec01,1,4461456.story ) What Romney fails to mention is that as Governor of Massachusetts he raised the gasoline tax by two cents and increased fees for tuition, marriage licenses, drivers’ licenses and even firearms licenses.
Arguably, Romney’s most significant act as Governor was being the driving force behind the initiative that requires all Massachusetts residents to have health insurance. The jury is still out as to how effective it will be in improving access to the health care system. Many conservatives opposed Romney’s initiative on the grounds that the state was telling people how to spend their money. It is also worth noting that the new rule did not take effect until after he left office.
I am not arguing that Romney’s tenure in office was marked by incompetence. It was not. There were measures that toughened drunk driving laws and helped our veterans. But his accomplishments were too simply modest and insufficient to go before Massachusetts voters in 2006. There is every reason to believe that had Romney sought re-election as Governor last year that Deval Patrick would have defeated him decisively. A defeat at the hands of Patrick would have spelled the end of Romney’s White House ambitions.
Romney still has time to regain momentum in Iowa and overcome Huckabee’s surge. If he should become the GOP nominee, I will certainly cast my ballot for him next November. Yet if Romney is unsuccessful in Iowa and/or doesn’t fare well in New Hampshire can we expect him to blame the loss on anti-Mormon sentiment? If he does, it will demonstrate that Romney and his campaign have no insight into his shortcomings and how to overcome them. Romney will face many obstacles on the road to the White House. Religion, however, is not one of them.
1) www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/us/politics/06text-romney.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
