John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 was supposed to have laid the "religious question" to rest, yet it arises again with a fury. What does the Constitution mean when it says there should be no religion test for office? It plainly means that a candidate can't be barred from running because he or she happens to be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a Pentecostal. But Mitt Romney's candidacy raises a broader issue: Is the substance of private beliefs off-limits? You can ask if a candidate believes in school vouchers and vote for someone else if you disagree with the answer. But can you ask if he believes that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Mo., as the Mormon founder taught, and vote against him on the grounds of that answer? Or, for that matter, because of the kind of underwear he wears?
Slate editor Jacob Weisberg threw down the challenge after reviewing some of Joseph Smith's more extravagant assertions. "He was an obvious con man," Weisberg wrote. "Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country." That argument, counters author and radio host Hugh Hewitt, amounts to unashamed bigotry and opens the door to any person of any faith who runs for office being called to account for the mysteries of personal belief. He has published A Mormon in the White House?, a chronicle of Romney's rise as business genius, Olympic savior, political star. But Hewitt has a religious mission as well when he cites a survey in which a majority of Evangelicals said voting for a Mormon was out of the question. If that general objection means they would not consider Romney in 2008, Hewitt warns, then prejudice is legitimized, and "it will prove a disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life."
While I agree that it's inappropriate (not to mention unconstitutional) to have a religious test for office, that doesn't mean the voters should ignore a person's belief system when making their choice of candidates. I've said all along that Romney's Mormon faith will prevent him from being the nominee, let alone being elected, because to many people Mormonism just a little weird and it raises questions about the discernment of the candidate.
People who disagree like to point out that Romney won the governorship in a very liberal state and from most accounts, did a fine job. Why then should he not be an equally strong candidate nationally?
Well, for one thing, Massachusetts has a history of overlooking the "idiosyncrasies" of its political leaders (see Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry for starters). I'm not sure the voters in flyover country are going to look at things the same way. And, Romney will be subjected to constant questioning about whether or not he buys the entire Mormon belief system, which is undoubtedly be broken down into the minutest of pieces before the primary ballots are cast.
We already have Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes asking Romney if he and his wife had premarital sex, a question that to my knowledge has never been asked of any candidate in the history of presidential politics. Hillary and Bill moved in together while in law school. Did Wallace ever ask about that? How long until interviewers start concentrating on the stranger elements of the Mormon faith? I just don't see how Romney can survive as a serious candidate once that happens...and it will happen.
I know that Hewitt and my friends at Article VI Blog are concerned about the possibility of highly qualified candidates being disqualified on the basis of religious faith, and that's a valid concern. However, let me give you a hypothetical example of how that might play out on the Democratic side and see if you still believe that some scrutiny of one's belief system is still inappropriate.
What if it turned out that Barack Obama was one of those African-Americans who believe that there was once an ancient advanced race of black Egyptians who knew how to fly? That's actually taught in some black studies university courses around the country. Proponents of that idea insist those flying Egyptians were wiped out by jealous non-flying evil white men, and that's why they're not still around. Would Obama's belief in such a thing be a legitimate cause for scrutiny? Would he be asked about it by Mike Wallace? (Of course not.)
It may not be constitutional to bar someone from office on the basis of their religious beliefs, but people are people and you can't expect them to ignore belief systems that are foreign to their way of thinking. I think this explains why Romney, despite raising more money than anybody, is still running third in national polls (and fourth when Fred Thompson is included).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment