When Mitt Romney delivered his address yesterday on his perspective on religion in America, he had a fairly specific audience in mind. There’s a significant percentage of the Republican Party that opposes church-state separation, and is inherently skeptical towards Mormons, and Romney had the daunting task of trying to convince them that a) he’s with them on the issues; and b) those issues matter more than his faith tradition.
So, did it work? Early indications aren’t encouraging for Team Romney.
Most conservative Christian political activists and pastors who studied Mitt Romney’s speech on Thursday addressing his Mormon faith agree it was something he had to do.
But few said it was strong enough to change the minds of evangelicals – a powerful force in Republican politics.
“It was a wise move on his part,” said Chuck Hurley, a pro-family Christian activist and former Iowa legislator. “He is a gifted speaker and I would guess he will have mollified some people’s concerns. But the more people investigate the beginnings of the Mormon church, the more uneasy they will be, and there’s nothing he can do about that.”
I disagree with the sentiment and prejudicial motivation, but this man’s observation underscores exactly why Romney’s speech probably won’t succeed as a political ploy — it didn’t come close to addressing why anti-Mormon voters question Romney’s candidacy.
Collin Hansen, editor-at-large at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today, explained, “I’m not sure it’s going to work for evangelical voters. Pure and simple, there are very dramatic differences [between the Mormon faith and other Christian traditions]. People wonder, does he really believe that — and if so, can I really trust him?”
Most of the media analysis I’ve seen points to Romney’s assurances that his church won’t have undue influence in matters of government if he’s elected president. But that answers a question that hasn’t been asked. It’s painful to recognize, but Romney’s evangelical critics don’t like Mormons. It’s sad and offensive, but their bigotry isn’t based on reason, and it won’t be assuaged by Romney’s promises.
Meanwhile, Romney also went out of his way to offer non-believers in the U.S. a slap in the face. Even Peggy Noonan, of all people, noticed.
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots.
Not Romney, who desperately wants to convince the idiots that he’s one of them.
Remember, even George W. Bush has been surprisingly tolerant of non-believers. His father was pathetic on the issue — H.W. Bush once publicly declared that atheists are not patriotic and should not be regarded as “citizens” — but the current president, in one of the few nice things I can say about him, has actually been quite charitable towards those who choose no spiritual path.
Which makes Romney’s remarks all the more striking — when it comes to religious belief, Romney wants to stand to Bush’s right. Eric Kleefeld asked a campaign spokesperson if Romney “sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers,” and the campaign has thus far refused to say either way.
In one speech, Romney has managed to disappoint evangelicals and offend non-believers simultaneously. That’s a rare feat.