Mitt Romney's Speech on Religion

Today was the much-hyped speech on religion by Republican Presidential candidate and former MA Governor, Mitt Romney. I didn't see the video footage of the speech; I am working from the text supplied by the Associated Press. That he had to make the speech at all is a sign of weakness rather than strength, or at least that is what appears. When he was the substantial front-runner for Republicans in IA, he could run simply on his impressive resume, his articulate and personable manner, his optimistic style, and his forceful and thoughtful presentation of ideas. But now that a little-known Governor of Arkansas, the former Southern Baptist Minister Mike Huckabee (whom some people are still calling "Hucklebee"--like a shortened form of "Huckleberry" or something like that) has surged into the lead in IA, Romney gives a speech on religion. It appears, then, that the speech is meant to try to give his campaign a boost on an issue that he would have preferred not to have to deal with.

And one can sort of sympathize with Romney in this desire. After all, John McCain will never in 1,000,000 years have to defend his Episcopalianism; Rudy Guiliani freely mentioned his education in "Catholic Schools" in a NH debate, and no one even batted an eye or asked him a question about priests and nuns. Even Huckabee's being a former Southern Baptist preacher seems not to have been of great interest in the media. But Romney's Mormonism acts as a sort of magnet for criticism or skepticism. Polls that I saw say that America is least likely to elect a Mormon when compared to an "Italian-American, Woman, African-American, or Hispanic-American." Mormons can take rather cold comfort in the fact that Muslims and, presumably, Asians are lower on the cultural diversity totem pole of acceptance than Mormons. Actually, Romney himself fed into this a little in his speech today, making sure that he condemned in party-line Republican rhetoric "radical violent Islam." Surely he would think that none of these folks live in Dearborn...

Giving the Speech--Leading Themes

So, Romney had figuratively to bite the bullet and give the "religion" speech. But before he gave that speech, he had to decide what the question was that was on American's minds--at least on the minds of Republican Americans, whose votes he needs in the upcoming primary elections. He not only had to anticipate what the question was, but he then had to try to answer it in a way that allayed fears as well as reaffirmed people's generally positive view of him. Here is where I think he misjudged things. I think he assumed that people wanted a "John F. Kennedy"-type of speech, referring to the successful speech Kennedy delivered to the Southern Baptist leaders in TX in Sept. 1960. In that speech Kennedy emphasized our religious common ground in America and that he would take no orders from Rome or any Roman Catholic official. I think Romney, in large measure, did the same thing--though he did it with a twist. Yet, John Kennedy did one thing in his speech that Romney didn't do--skillfully use theology in a way to cut his hearers to the quick.

Recall that he was addressing Baptist Pastors. Baptists believe in "believer-baptism," i.e., you become baptized when you make your personal confession of faith in Christ as Savior. Catholics, on the other hand, believe in infant baptism--baptism engrafts you into Christ and his Church as an infant. Here is the line that most observers thought was one of Kennedy's "winners":

"But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans (i.e, Catholics) lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

In other words, Kennedy was skillful enough to point to the distinctive doctrine of his audience, the doctrine that affirms a person's place in the community of faith, and muse on whether someone else's baptism would eliminate them from leadership in the American community. Thus, he was asking his audience, "Are you going to use my baptism against me?" Very powerful.

Romney didn't have to do that, to be sure. He didn't have to show himself a skillful theologian, but he had to try to build bridges by not being afraid to wade into doctrine, at least in some areas. But this is what he steadfastly refused to do. He made it seem that all Mormonism stands for is the verse he quoted from Matthew about serving the needy. Everyone, even Mitt Romney, knows that is false.

Using Bland Instead of Substance

In a word, he substituted "bland" on faith when everyone knows that Mormons are distinctive in religion precisely because they are red hot, and not bland, on faith. Or, to put it differently, Romney's goal of the speech was to try to emphasize the common themes in all religions in America--the love of liberty, the priority of service, the commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution. But in my judgment America didn't want to hear that. America knows that the LDS Church is a highly successful missionary-type religion, which owes its success to a combination of large families, effective proselytization, aggressive planning and a sort of "culture of Mormonism" that makes it difficult for people brought up in the culture to leave it. America also knows that Mormonism is a highly complex faith, with sacred texts and secret disciplinary systems, with rules about marriage and temple recommends, with systems of ethics and a highly developed theology. Though Romney doesn't have to be an expert on any of it, he needed to try to create a bridge between aspects of the theology of Mormonism and the theology of Protestantism/Catholicism. Saying that he supports "Judeo-Christian" values and that he loves liberty makes me want to yawn.

Conclusion

Over the space of four years teaching law school, I had hundreds of students, of whom a few dozen, perhaps, were Latter-Day Saints. I talked law with them, and I talked faith with many of them. Some were great students and some were not as great, but a common theme that emerged for me with my LDS students was their desire to be straightforward, honest, personable and diligent students and prospective lawyers. In fact, I think I should really dedicate this essay to "Matt, Chris, Jeremy, Michael..., etc.." But I think I really want to tell them that the day is coming, perhaps when they reach my age, when this country will, in general, relax its skeptical attitude towards Mormons. I hope we do that with Muslims, too, for that matter. And, indeed, Mitt Romney's candidacy may help traditional Christians, Jews and non-affiliated Americans begin to do that. But it won't work in 2008. Romney's message doesn't yet "fit" with what Americans wanted to know about LDS belief. He won't reach the White House, but he may pave the way for a younger LDS person who has similar ambitions....

3121