What Romney’s Spokesperson Gets Wrong About Religion The idea that we should simply adjust our handling of the Mormon issue misses the point completely. We should not be handling this issue at all. Last week, Washington Post reporter Jason Horowitz wrote a piece in which Mitt Romney’s campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul questioned the fairness with which Romney’s faith is being handled by the press during this campaign season. According to Horowitz’s report, Saul (below) questioned whether or not a Jewish candidate’s religion would receive the same type of coverage, as Romney’s Mormonism seems to. “Our test to see if a similar story would be written about others’ religion is to substitute ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish,’” she asked, pointing out passages from news reports that she said painted Mormonism as “exotic.” On Friday, Ari Melber wrote in The Nation that he agreed, indicating that she “has a point.” She does have a point, but not an intellectually or constitutionally sound one. Yes, the media is bungling its handling of Romney’s religion on many levels. And yes, there is a sense in the ethos that Mormonism is an “exotic” religion, and therefore is being fetishized. But the idea that we should simply adjust our handling of these issues misses the point completely. We should not be handling this issue at all. The coverage of any candidate’s religious preference is “exotic” coverage by default. Ask any atheists, who will undoubtedly say that religion in itself is an “exotic” and self-indulgent practice. And unless the U.S. constitution was amended last week adding a particular religious belief as a criterion to hold office, or even campaign for one, the point is moot, without intellectual merit and should therefore be dismissed out-of-hand. To give any credence to the idea that someone’s personal spiritual belief is somehow relevant to her/his candidacy or ability to govern abdicates a journalist’s true responsibility to cover and report on the kind of governor or legislator a candidate would actually be. This is anti-science, “be more like me,” Tea Party bullshit, and I don’t understand why journalists, who have the power of the podium to elevate political discourse, honor it. A few forward-thinking purists pointed this out after a McCain supporter insisted that then-Senator Barack Obama was a Muslim at a rally in 2008. But even they prefaced their defensive positions by inserting the “not that it matters” postscript after speaking out. What is this, Seinfeld (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that …”)? This is anti-science, “be more like me,” Tea Party bullshit, and I don’t understand why journalists, who have the power of the podium to elevate political discourse, honor it. The only acceptable coverage of a candidate’s spiritual belief (or lack thereof) is no coverage. Anything else is a tacit nod to the theocrats who still hold dear the idea that some religious belief inherently holds some type of virtue that indicates a particular political philosophy. Even those who speak out in defense of candidates like Obama and Romney implying that no religion should be considered more or less virtuous than another, collude in the idea that religion is an important factor in deciding who should represent us. It’s “short-cut” thinking, and this intellectual laziness is not good for the democratic process. Why do we, as a country, continually conflate the roles of religion and civics in our public discourse? Even those who have the “right” idea tend to fall prey to what is apparently an irresistible urge to pepper our politics with religion. Did it matter that Grover Cleveland was a Presbyterian, or that William McKinley was a Methodist, or that John Adams was a Unitarian, or Jimmy Carter a Baptist? Of course not. Would hit have mattered if they had been atheist, Muslim or Jewish? Perhaps, in terms of their ability to get elected, but probably not in terms of their governance. Our system of government doesn’t allow for it. Covering a candidate’s philosophical leanings in an election season is fair game if that philosophy is germane to the question of one’s ability to govern. Otherwise, religion has no place in the political discourse. These are ideas of personal belief, not of policy. [Images: Austen Hufford / Andrea Saul's Twitter] Scott Mackey is a writer based in San Francisco, California. A former teacher and public relations executive, he currently chronicles cultural and political affairs in the U.S. and U.K. PREVIOUSLY: A Paucity of Content and a Surplus of Jargon Follow us! Click and Follow Us for more updates straight to your news and nonsense feeds.
Tom E Canavan 05.06.12 @ 10:19 am I want to know if my next president believes in magic underwear, because I sure as hell wouldn’t trust him with any important decisions!
mainstreetliberal 05.06.12 @ 2:02 pm I couldn’t disagree more, Mr. Mackey. We could all agree that religion shouldn’t be discussed but, in some instance and in some context, it would be: think Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Addressing the matter of Senator Obama’s relationship to his controversial pastor probably was justified; but even if it were not, it would have been raised, perhaps in disguised form with a denial that religion was involved. Deciding not to discuss religion gives a politician a free pass. Governor Romney, for instance, already has raised the issue, having stated at a campaign event in early May “I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant but probably inspired, and so was the Declaration of Independence.” By whom would they have been inspired- Ann Romney, Steve Jobs, or perhaps LeBron James? Presumably, Romney was speaking of God- and should have been asked to confirm the assumption. Don’t ignore religion and thereby fail to probe the background, values, and/or instincts which help form the candidate. Embrace it, and trust the electorate to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sapientum 05.06.12 @ 4:27 pm A candidate’s faith should not be an “issue”, unless said candidate invokes their religious belief or adherence to particular doctrine as a merit of their candidacy. Once that happens it is our duty to scrutinise the underlying tenets of that faith for how it is likely to inform their views and decisions once elected.
Scott Mackey 05.06.12 @ 7:11 pm Virtually every American president has been affiliated with a religious doctrine that runs counter to some of his public policy positions. To scrutinize a candidates religion has become to simplistic a way to disregard a candidate as “other.” And, while they may well be just that, our conclusions should be based on their public record (or statement of belief about an issue) rather than a perceived understanding based on their religious affiliations. Substitute “race” for “religion” here and the concept seems unthinkable.
mr.blah 06.06.12 @ 4:15 am I would also have to disagree with Scott Mackey’s assessment of religion’s role in political discourse. From a non-religious perspective, I can see how “personal” religious views should not get in the way of policy making, but from a religious perspective, it’s impossible to separate the two. Let’s take Christianity for example. Christianity tells you how to have sex (monogamy, no sex outside marriage, no divorce), how to spend your money (better to give than to receive, give to the poor), and self-defense (turn the other cheek, if someone steals your shirt give also your coat). Christianity is an all-encompassing affair, personal and public, individual and corporate. How does someone in power separate their “personal” beliefs that affect every area of their life from their policy making? And let’s not forget that Christianity (and Mormonism) is doctrinally commanded to make converts, to conquer the world. I think the bigger question is not whether or not religion should be a part of political discourse, it has to be, but rather to what extent a candidate’s religion plays into policy making. Let’s get it out in the open, talk about it, and see where a candidate draw their lines. Obama made it clear before he was elected that he would not let his religious views get in the way of his policy making (read here for the full speech http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html?pagewanted=all), but I guarantee he will never have the conservative Christian vote because of this. Yes there is a separation between church and state, but you gotta be joking me if you’re to say that religion doesn’t effect a politician’s policies. Politicians are gonna fall on one-side or the other on every issue, and that side will most likely be one their religious beliefs and constituents also fall on.
Scott Mackey 06.06.12 @ 3:18 pm Mr. Blah, If you believed Obama when he made “made it clear before he was elected that he would not let his religious views get in the way of his policy making,” then you’ve made my point for me. If you didn’t believe him, the same logic applies. My argument is for less religious pandering to a reactionary electorate. Such pandering in collusion, and it harms our democracy.
Mr. Blah 06.06.12 @ 9:12 pm Mr. Mackey, I think your point of view is valid. I wish religion wasn’t used as a tool to condemn or condone political candidates. But like every issue, the pendulum swings. To argue that religion should be altogether thrown out of public discourse is asinine. As my argument above tried to prove, religion is an all-encompassing affair, and nearly impossible to separate from one’s policy making. I think the better solution is to bring it out in the open. Ask how a candidates views effect their policy making, just like Obama did. He made it very clear how his religious views were personal, and his public policies were for the “greater good.” But I think he’s an exception. Must candidates ignore the religion issue and go on promoting their voting history. Romney for example, is a Mormon. They believe some pretty bizarre things. They are super secretive about their leadership and what happens behind closed doors. They believe in special underwear. These are things that are important! How is Romney’s adherence to Mormonism, which calls for every aspect of your life to be given over to the Church, going to effect his public policy? These are valid questions that need to be addressed! Let’s not push religion into the corner and ignore it. Let’s follow Obama’s lead and get it in the open so we can truly evaluate a presidential candidate’s personal, religious, and public character.