Yesterday, in College Station, Texas, ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney gave his “Faith in America” speech. Designed to allay
concerns among the mainly evangelical bloc of Republican voters
nervous about nominating a Mormon for the presidency, the speech
was the political equivalent of a base hit. Romney’s speech will
help him, at least in the short term, but it wasn’t the home run he
needed to vastly improve his chances of winning the Republican
nomination.
Sure, the speech offered Romney a chance to look and sound
presidential to an audience that was likely wider than for your
average Thursday morning political address (all three cable
networks carried it, plus C-SPAN 3). To boot, his near-perfect
delivery and presidential manner will no doubt be noticed by voters
watching the already-ensuing multiple replays of clips from the
speech — which help in other ways, too. Ultimately, Romney’s
timing looks designed to detract from the story of the week,
ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Having risen to lead Romney in Iowa
by at least three points, according to recent Rassmussen, Des
Moines Register, and Strategic Vision polls, Huckabee has
become the flavor of the month that Romney’s hoping will go out of
taste fast. Giving the speech Thursday may have helped with that,
in addition to serving a broader purpose.
But while Romney’s speech was successful on these notes, on
others it may prove to be less so. Among other things, Romney
asserted in the speech that “no authorities of my church, or of any
other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on
presidential decisions.” That statement likely relieved more
secular voters, but perhaps not some of the 44 percent of
evangelical Iowans backing Huckabee, the ex-pastor putting his
religion (as opposed to merely his positions on issues of concern
to religious voters) front and center. It’s likely that many of
them in fact want not just evangelical leaders exerting influence
on presidential decisions; they may actually want something of an
evangelical leader himself making them.
But for the speech to be a success, it will need to have
persuaded some voters suspicious of Mormonism that it’s not so
scary or different, after all. With Romney’s single mention of the
word “Mormon,” and the only detail of his faith discussed being his
belief “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of
mankind,” however, it’s hard to see that objective having been
achieved.
True, it is absurd for a candidate to have to explain and
justify his religious faith in order to be eligible for the
presidency — and so, arguably, Romney got it right by avoiding
discussion of the unique beliefs of the LDS faith. But then again,
when a speech is being given because 25 percent of Republican
voters (according to the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion
& Public Life) already view that candidate’s faith as a
disqualifier, some summary of theological differences and
similarities is likely required in order to allay concerns and win
over support. With Romney’s speech, not only did he fail to offer
such a summary. He also suggested that it is okay to ask some
questions about his faith, but not others. In short, it’s easy to
predict that more theological questions will follow — something
that Romney cannot want.
Of course, to the extent those questions are asked, Romney will
have the opportunity to staunchly defend his faith and refuse to
disavow it, as he did yesterday. That could be a boon for a man all
too often depicted as lacking in conviction and ready to change a
position here or there for the sake of political expediency. In
truth, one of the best things about Romney’s speech was that it
showed him sticking up for something in which he obviously does
believe, and forcefully. But, by the same token, his inclusion of
the sentence, “Americans tire of those who would jettison their
beliefs, even to gain the world,” will have struck some as ironic.
Romney is, after all, the man accused with frequency of having
changed his views on everything from abortion to immigration to
Ronald Reagan to his favorite book.
But, while alluding to politically expedient change may not have
been a good idea, on balance, giving the speech was. Clearly, some
Republican voters needed to hear him discuss faith rather than
dodge the topic. Some of them will have liked it, some will not
have, but with those who did, Romney will undoubtedly have moved
the ball forward — perhaps just not by as much as he might have
hoped.
