This seems to come up every couple of weeks, as if the political establishment expects action. That doesn’t make it any more likely.
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday his political advisers have warned him against giving a speech explaining his Mormon faith.
During a house party overlooking Squam Lake, Romney was asked by voters if he would give a speech outling his religious beliefs and how those beliefs might impact his administration, much like then-Sen. John F. Kennedy did as he sought to explain his Catholic faith during the 1960 election.
“I’m happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no — it’s not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone.”
I don’t think it’s a good idea, either, but for an entirely different reason. To reiterate a point I raised a few weeks ago, Romney can’t give a JFK speech, because the Republican base doesn’t really want to hear it. They just don’t seem to realize it.
The frequency of this Kennedy-in-’60 comparison just won’t quit. National Journal conducts a weekly “Insider’s Poll,” and a couple of weeks ago, DC politicos were asked: “Does Mitt Romney need to address the issue of his religious faith the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960?” The results showed that 59% of Republicans, and 44% of Democrats said “Yes, and soon.”
Robert Novak recently noted the same trend. “Although disagreement remains within the Romney camp, the consensus is that he must address the Mormon question with a speech deploring bias,” Novak noted. “According to campaign sources, a speech has been written, though much of it could still be changed.”
I don’t doubt that Romney’s faith tradition is controversial in some conservative circles, but I haven’t the foggiest idea what he could say about it to overcome some voters’ prejudice.
The notion that Romney could deliver a JFK-like speech is rather silly, for reasons that have nothing to do with Romney’s skills. The AP report said the now-famous Kennedy speech “sought to explain his Catholic faith.” That’s not quite right. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, and made a powerful case that his administration would be neutral on matters of faith. (It seems ridiculous in hindsight, but there was a common fear that Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican dictate U.S. policy.)
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”
Romney’s challenge is entirely different. He can’t deliver a similar speech because the same message is now Republican anathema. Nearly a half-century after JFK’s speech in Houston, many of today’s conservatives, particularly those in the GOP’s religious right base, abhor the very idea of church-state separation. It’s not unusual to hear figures like James Dobson and Pat Robertson reject the constitutional principle’s very existence.
If Romney were to publicly argue that “the separation of church and state is absolute,” he would be booed aggressively by conservative audiences that want more intermingling between religion and government, not less.
For that matter, the nature of the controversy is very different now than in 1960. Conservative Republicans uneasy about Romney’s faith aren’t worried that Salt Lake City will dictate policy through the White House; they’re just not comfortable with a faith tradition with which they’re unfamiliar (and in some cases, find heretical). In this sense, as a friend of mine recently argued, Romney is “boxed in.”
Michael Crowley makes a compelling argument that Romney could do some good by getting the Mormon details out in the open.
Couldn’t he have an ask-Mitt-anything town meeting on the subject of Mormonism? Show that he has nothing to hide or be embarrassed about. Let people ask about “magic underwear” and whether Jesus is the Devil’s brother and so on. He won’t convince everyone but it would take a lot of the steam out of the pent up rumor-mongering and mythology out there.
Of course, that’s not about a JFK-in-’60 tactic; it’s more of a “Everything you wanted to know about LDS but were afraid to ask” tactic.
One thing’s for sure — there’s still plenty of ugliness out there when it comes to prejudice.
The mother of Sen. John McCain criticized the religion of one of her son’s competitors for the Republican presidential nomination Friday night.
When asked about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s experience by Hardball host Chris Matthews, Roberta McCain, who’s campaigning in New Hampshire with her son at the age of 95, said “as far as the Salt Lake City thing, he’s a Mormon and the Mormons of Salt Lake City had caused that scandal. And to clean that up, it’s not a subject.”
Stay tuned.