Letters to the Editor
clay.collier
Published Letters: 10 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Can it ever be enough for the religious right?
[Read the article: Romney to speak about his Mormon faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a real question as to whether anything that Romney says is going to pacify the religious right enough to get them behind his campaign in earnest. Many in the evangelical camp have an abiding suspicion of Mormonism- their worry is not that Romney will govern based on Mormon principles (whatever those might be), but that his presidency would provide a public spotlight for a faith that they regard as heretical. Political pragmatism might win out if Romney is the eventual GOP nominee, but in the meantime there are a lot of previously influential right-wing Christian figures that are going to have a hard time getting excited- or marshallings their followers- for the Romney campaign. That hampers him during the primary season, and more importantly raises questions about the ability to draw evangelicals to the polls in November.
-
Having it both ways
[Read the article: A question of faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The position of both Huckabee and Romney regarding questions of their religious faith perplexes me. Both candidates have made it clear that their religious faith will be a guiding principle of their administration, were they to be elected. At the same time, they seem to resent any questions about what these beliefs are at a concrete level. It's a kind of religious McCarthyian grandstanding- wave the thick stack of papers so everyone thinks your serious, and then refuse to let anyone else read it.
There are two possible reasons for this response. One is that both men are titanically naive. They are honestly amazed that, having proclaimed that their private religious beliefs will be guiding the hand of their administration, people are interested in knowing what those beliefs are.
The other option seems much more likely. Both the public proclamations of religious piety and the feigned distaste for questions about their beliefs are a studied tactic. Each candidate is trying to signal to religious conservatives that he is the man who will be most agreeable to their socio-religious agenda. At the same time, it's clear that the eventual Republican nominee will be facing a hard race with a Democrat, and that they can't risk alienating the moderate social liberal/political conservatives who may prove decisive swing voters in 2008. So they send up a signal- public appeals to a general spirit of 'religious values', clearly rooted in conservative Christianity- and then dodge questions on the specifics by citing principles of religious tolerance.
Both men know that no Republican will grasp the nomination without an overt show of piety for the religious right. But their campaigns also realize that tying their candidacy too closely with any single religious faction may sink them come November.
Neither man should be allowed to have his cake and eat it too. A promise to govern guided by religious principles is to some causes- gay rights and abortion rights- as good as a threat. It has implications for how foreign relations will be carried out with the Islamic world. It has implications for domestic policies on education and social services, which many religious conservatives would like to see put more fully in the hands of faith-based organizations which may not serve the needs of secular and non-Christian Americans.
Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs. But the voters have an absolute right to know how their elected officials will govern. Asking about beliefs that you have promised to govern by is not a religious test- it's a policy test.
-
Starting out behind in the count
[Read the article: Romney looks for a silver lining (or medal or cloud or something)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's early to count Romney out of a long contest, but losing the first round is only OK if you can win the next three or four. The perception is that Huckabee's "religious values" (read: he's not Mormon, and he's not Rudi) gave him an edge in Iowa. The same issues will likely continue to play throughout the South and Midwest, areas that the eventual Republican candidate will need to own handily to have any hope of upending the Democratic nominee. Now New Hampshire won't be enough; Romney needs to pull out convincing wins in some core Republican territories to show that he can appeal to the Republican faithful. South Carolina and Wyoming will be important tests; Wyoming will show how well Romney plays among some of Bush's most ardent supporters, while South Carolina will test his ability to draw religious conservatives in a state with few voters of his own faith. Winning in Iowa would have taken the air out of the comparatively under-funded Huckabee campaign and allowed Romney the luxury of writing off a state like South Carolina as small potatoes for the leading candidate. Losing means that his campaign will have to up their game substantially in what could prove to be more difficult conditions.
-
Happy Trails...
[Read the article: 9 + 1 + 1 = sixth place]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Giuliani is finished. Iowa will likely be an important swing state in 08; his performance there among Republican voters would make any savvy primary voter think twice before pushing the button for him in any other state. Meanwhile, his weird personal life has alienated religious conservatives, and his macho shtick has turned off war-weary voters tired of hearing about the next great inexplicable battle for freedom. Who is left to vote for him? Pro-war voters, who want to see the Republicans fail in the general election, and who have a wide tolerance for non-traditional personal lives? OK, so he has Hillary's vote, but I don't think that will do him a lot of good...