The Dynamic Center: Mitt Romney and the Religious Other in U.S. History

Posted by Dan Martin on 02.23.2007

Mitt Romney is by no means the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints to run for President, but his candidacy is part of a long line of religious “others” to seek high office in the United States.

Speculating about the 2008 presidential election has been something I have been doing since mid-November 2004. Seriously thinking about it in February 2008 because forums and campaign ads are in swing seems blasphemous. Maybe I am being inconsistent, but the state of a permanent campaign is to my mind bad for the Republic. So it is with a heavy heart that I contribute to the decline of the United States in my on small way by writing about the 2008 election as a current event rather than a future event. My apologies to the authors of The Federalist Papers, but here goes.

At a February 20 campaign stop in Florida, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was heckled. The heckler claimed that he would cast his vote for a candidate that knew "the Lord" and that Romney was a "pretender." Romney has seen his policy stances shift over time toward the right, but aside from being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (LDS hereafter - I believe this is preferred to the term Mormon), Romney would seem to be an attractive candidate to Republican voters. He is a polished speaker, a Washington outsider, a hero for rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics, a private sector success and a winner of a state-wide election in left-leaning Massachusetts.

However, Romney's religious status is indeed a key story to follow in 2008. As much as the U.S. purports liberty and justice for all, it never guarantees electoral viability for all. Mitt Romney offered the first presidential television commercial of the 2008 election cycle on February 21. I doubt the timing was coincidence. By offering the first ad, Romney took "the Lord" out of the news cycle and put his early bird status into the news cycle. I doubt Romney wanted Evangelical voters' first impression to be a man questioning his salvation status.

Personally, I feel bad for Romney. I do not particularly agree with his policy position of further tax cuts given the size of the federal deficit and national debt, but I do think he is a credible candidate. I doubt I will vote for Romney due to my deficit hawk status. However, having lived through questioning about my own salvation status on a few occasions, I know that such interrogation can be both hateful and hurtful. I was impressed with how calmly Romney handled the questioning. I know I would have reacted one of two ways. I either would have made a joke about how if I am hell bound I would be too busy playing bingo with my Catholic friends and family to notice the heat, or I would have lashed out at the historical ignorance of the heckler. Both responses demonstrate why I will never be a candidate.

The United States has a long history of holding the religious other at arms length and with a grain of suspicion. To illustrate my point, consider the fervor that surrounded Al Gore receiving funds from a Buddhist Temple in California during the 1996 campaign. In 2000, there was no fury over Gore receiving the blessing and endorsement of Bishop T.D. Jakes and the money that such an endorsement entailed. The fact that voters were less comfortable with Gore raising money from Buddhists than televangelists says a lot about how exotic American's view Eastern religions to be. Clearly, Buddhists are religious others in contemporary American politics.

Who else is a religious other today?

Roman Catholics seem to have moved out of the exotic other status. Al Smith was the first Roman Catholic to receive a nomination from a major political party for president. In 1928, Smith lost to Herbert Hoover, but pushed Catholic voters solidly into the Democratic camp. FDR's New Deal Coalition relied heavily on Roman Catholic voters and his policies were influenced by Rev. John A. Ryan who was also known as "Right Reverend New Dealer." John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, but had to assure Southern Baptist ministers in Houston that his religious beliefs and policy decisions were separate entities. JFK was still an "other" to the establishment. Mario Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro both applied JFK's stance when explaining their pro-choice politics. They claimed, to believe one thing, but because they have to govern those who do not believe as they do to be pro-choice as a matter of public policy. John Kerry used a similar stance in the 2004 election and religious conservatives faulted him for not being Catholic enough; rather than questioning if he knew "the Lord." If non-Catholics expect Catholic politicians to adhere to Catholic positions, it is an odd sign that Catholics have arrived as members of the establishment. Also, Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Leahy, former Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Brownback, Sen. Kerry, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Stephen Colbert, John McLaughlin, Sen. Casey, Pat Buchanan, and five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court all being Roman Catholic demonstrate that Catholics have arrived (even if this motley crew of strange bedfellows suggests that a consistent Catholic approach to politics does not exist).

Jewish politicians have not been fully integrated into the establishment in the U.S., but their status as a religious other is shrinking. Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ in a landslide in 1964. A political joke that existed at the time went something like this "We always knew the first Jewish president would be an Episcopalian." Goldwater was an Episcopalian, the most established of all branches of Christianity in the U.S., as was his mother, but his father was Jewish. The joke was not particularly sensitive to Goldwater, but it also might have been telling about the posture of the national political will toward Jewish candidates in 1964. In 2000, Senator Joseph Lieberman was a vice presidential nominee for a ticket that won the popular vote and nearly carried the electoral-college. Lieberman survived a primary loss to win his senate seat as an Independent in 2006 with a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independent voters. Lieberman is unlikely to ever reach the presidency, but the ground he broke in 2000 will likely pave the way for a future candidate's success.

LDS politicians likely face the same difficulties that would face a Hindu or Buddhist candidate for a national office. Many Christians view members of LDS Churches as not being Christian. This is obviously true of Judaism as well, but given Christianity's Jewish inheritance many Christian conservatives hold Judaism in very high esteem. This is not true of Hinduism, Buddhism, and LDS Churches. Thus, until the establishment views these religious bodies with less suspicion in the case of LDS Churches and as being less exotic in the case of many Eastern religions, the odds of a successful national candidate emerging seem slim. Romney may be playing the role the Al Smith and Joe Lieberman played for their religious bodies. Being a pioneer may not be as rewarding as being president, but Romney can do a lot for the chances of future LDS politicians if he handles the 2008 election well and makes a solid showing.

Politicians that are either Muslims or Scientologists seem to be carrying the burden of being the most other of religious others in the current political context. While a politician adhering to an Eastern religion or belonging to an LDS Church could win a state wide office of governor or senator especially in states such as Hawaii or Utah, it seems unlikely that a Muslim or Scientologist could be elected to anything beyond a seat in the House of Representatives in a district populated by a majority of like-minded voters. Senators and governors tend to be more nationally viable than members of the House of Representatives in part because winning a statewide election requires creating a coalition and this skill is a must for winning the presidency.

In closing, Mitt Romney faces an uphill battle in his quest to win the Republican nomination in 2008. Senator Orin Hatch of Utah ran for president in 2000 and had little success. If Romney has more success than Hatch, it could be a sign that the LDS Church is making progress toward being accepted by the U.S. establishment. I believe candidates for president should be judged on their experience, character and policy stances rather than on their faith tradition or lack thereof. The success of Mitt Romney's candidacy hinges on his ability to convince voters of that criteria and convincing them that he is the best candidate. Most other candidates only have to convince voters that they are the best candidate. Romney having to convince voters of two things rather than one is undoubtedly a hindrance to his chances. This alone makes it a story worth following even in February 2007.