David

Karki

Read Davids bio and previous columns here

December 10, 2007

Mitt Romney’s Problem: The Liberalism, Not the Mormonism

Mitt Romney gave an eloquent speech in Texas last week on the place of religion in American political life in general, and regarding his own Mormon faith in particular. At times the language positively soared, and I’m sure those at the ACLU were none too happy with the omission of atheists and agnostics from it. (As if implementing the state-forced atheism they inexplicably read into the clear text of the First Amendment wasn’t representation enough to satisfy them.) 

But while Romney’s speech did give the citizenry a much-needed reminder of the foundation of American principles (i.e. creator-endowed unalienable rights, requiring acknowledgement of the former in order to stake a rightful claim to the latter), I can’t say I am all that enthusiastic about it. In fact, part of me was forced to wonder how much of this was designed as a cynical political ploy to sweep questions about Romney’s shifting positions under the rug and put him on an issue that he can’t possibly lose.

Romney obviously has as much right as anyone to run for president, and his Mormonism is not an issue in that regard. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution sees to that: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So the idea that being Mormon is a problem is clearly silly. To the extent it may cost Romney votes, there is nothing he can do about it anyway, as there is never a way to know precisely what motivates someone’s secret ballot vote once they step in the booth and pull the curtain shut.

So why make this speech? All Romney ever had to do was cite Article VI as I just did. That and the specter of appearing bigoted in questioning his Mormonism would be all that was necessary to defuse the issue. But he took it one step further.           

There is no way that a political calculation wasn’t made, at least in the hypothetical. This is what campaigns are all about, after all. Spontaneity is strictly forbidden. Every move is as thoroughly thought through and all the potential consequences as analyzed as ones made in a world championship chess match. So the idea that this was a “risk” or “taking a flier” is laughable.

It’s no secret that Romney, like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, is having much difficulty persuading the Republican base of his conservative bonafides while brandishing a heavily liberal track record. And his attempts in the debates and elsewhere to explain his seeming Road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism have been at best clumsy and at worst outright flip-flops. Not to mention that for quite a few amongst the base, myself included, the more he tries to win us over the less we believe him. There’s just something about it all that’s simply too cute by half.

So what better way to get a two-for-one deal than this speech? Romney shifts the focus on him to something he cannot help but win big, gives a legitimately excellent address that is also dead-on correct on its merits, and at the same time all the questions about just how conservative he really is or isn’t get pushed aside and crowded out of the conversation.

That is what it is really all about, after all. And not even an excellent address should cause us to get sidetracked. It’s Romney’s past actions as Massachusetts governor – a job to which only a liberal can get elected, and the more liberal the better your chances – that matter, more so than his words as a candidate. And the former tends to betray the latter.

I would rather he explain that, if he can, than talk about something that is an irrelevancy to all but those whose votes Romney will never get anyway. But perhaps the fact that he could speak so much more convincingly about his faith than his positions is why he chose that for his subject, rather than something that could go much further with the conservative base and thus toward his winning of the Republican presidential nomination.

I don’t care if Romney believes every last word of the Book of Mormon. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest. But if he’s going to believe most of the same things that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards do, then I care a lot. And his track record suggests that is a distinct possibility, which means it is that to which he should be speaking so fervently.

It’s not the Mormonism that’s the problem, Mitt. It’s the liberalism.

© 2007 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK093. Request permission to publish here.