McCain: Quiet About His Faith. Is This A Problem?
Is A Candidate’s Faith A Qualification for Office?
It’s Friday, and we have a great topic for our readers to ponder this weekend.
Jonathan Martin reports that John McCain does not discuss his religious beliefs in public:
Traversing the country this week on a tour of places that have shaped his life and informed his values, John McCain spoke in strikingly personal language to introduce himself to the American public.
But missing so far is any significant mention of religious faith.
In an Oprah Winfrey era in which soul-baring and expressions of faith are the norm for public figures, the presumptive Republican nominee, open and candid about much else, retains a shroud of privacy around his Christianity.
Martin thinks this will be a problem for McCain unless the candidate loosens up and becomes more “verbal” about his religious beliefs. Why? Because social conservatives expect it.
This trend has been going on for some time, and I do not like it. I do not think any presidential candidate has ever seen his religious conscience probed the way Mitt Romney did in 2007-2008. For that matter, all the candidates have been subjected to such probing this time around, to an extent that seems unprecedented to me.
Think, for example, of Mike Huckabee being asked on national TV (I think it was Stephanopolous on ABC) if he believed that Adam and Eve were real people. That’s borderline outrageous.
John has touched on why this is happening. Part of it is that Evangelicals got spoiled by George W. Bush being willing to discuss his faith publicly and openly.
Jonathan Martin again:
[Gary] Bauer describes McCain as “a very private man” who isn’t comfortable discussing his relationship with Christ.
That’s a contrast to the evangelical world, where being verbal about your faith is just the cultural norm,” Bauer notes, citing the 2000 campaign, when then-Gov. George W. Bush offered an open tribute to Christ for changing his life.
I think that about crystallizes the issue. My Evangelical friends, with whom I agree so much on policy issues, are very comfortable with open professions of faith. Ironically, I, as a fairly typical Mormon, a very missionary-minded church, am not so comfortable in that regard, unless a discussion is invited. We try to keep such discussions to their proper time and place. My sense is that many religious people, including Evangelicals, feel the same way. After all, when we are talking about religion, we are talking about things we consider sacred.
Beyond that, there is a certain stridency to the more public and politically active part of the Evangelical community. (I am not generalizing about that entire slice of Christianity.) These folks want the candidates’ religion out in the open, loudly, clearly, and, most important of all, in agreement with their own.
Here’s another bit of crystallization:
“It’s a faith-based country,” observes Sen. Sam Brownback, a devout Catholic who has grown closer to McCain since backing his candidacy last year. “Presidential candidates should acknowledge that and say just what is their identity as it relates to that.”
It’s because of that view that Romney was compelled to talk about his religion at all– and I don’t think he was ever comfortable doing so. That’s also why Huckabee proudly (and very comfortably, in contrast to Romney) spoke of his faith, ad nauseum.
I think Brownback’s statement is terribly misguided, by the way. America is a religious country, and I am glad for that. But “faith-based?” I do not want to go there. Unfortunately, that view is typical of many, if not most, religious conservatives, and they hold to it fiercely.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Tony Blair — a genuinely religious man– is talking about this very issue:
In his first speech on his Christian beliefs since leaving Downing Street, Mr Blair said faith was central to his politics but that he nevertheless followed his press secretary Alastair Campbell’s advice that “we don’t do God”.
Mr Blair said he feared the assumption that “before you take a decision, you engage in some slightly cultish interaction with your religion – ‘So, God, tell me what you think of City Academies or Health Service Reform or nuclear power’ i.e. people assume that your religion makes you act, as a leader, at the promptings of an inscrutable deity, free from reason rather than in accordance with it.”
If I lived in the U.K., I’d be a Tory. But I have to tell you I agree with Blair. Watch the video of his comments here.
Bottom line: I do not think requiring candidates to be open and specific about their particular religious beliefs has been, or will be, a healthy thing for either religion or government in this country. What it does, mostly, is turn up the volume in a national shouting match that ought to be a national discussion.
In Other News
Looks like Paul Weyrich really has turned on Mitt Romney, placing an ad in a Prescott, Arizona newspaper (on the day McCain would be in Prescott) stating:
The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a Vice Presidential running mate. . . . If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party.
Not much there about The Question, but it’s interesting just the same. Religion aside, many on the Republican Right (and I am one of them) are just not very warm and fuzzy people.
Happy weekend to all!
Update: The comments to this post (five so far) are notably insightful; I recommend them.
Posted in Political Strategy | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
K.G. on 04 Apr 2008 at 8:37 am #
Thanks, Lowell.
I personally love to discuss matters of religious faith– at appropriate times and places. (At least I try.) However, I am increasingly squeamish about what’s been happening this election cycle. Even back when Geo. W. spoke of Jesus Christ at the debates, I cringed. It seemed inappropriate at best and a vote-getting ploy at worst.
I too am a former Mormon missionary and love to share what I believe to be true with others. But matters of faith are sacred, personal and intuitive. It’s a matter of respect. It’s offensive, I believe, for “evangelical” people of all religions to be so much in-your-face with their certitude. It’s offensive to pry and prod and expect candidates to reveal spiritual feelings which can scarcely be given utterance in private, much less held up to ridicule in the public square.
If a candidate’s beliefs are somehow going to affect his performance in office, then it’s fair to seek answers. But what’s going on here with the SoCons feels more like an undressing than an unmasking. I hated it with Mitt; and if the SoCons are demanding it of Mac, it ought to be criticized to the high heavens.
There needs to be a zone of spiritual privacy and respect for these candidates.
K.G. on 04 Apr 2008 at 9:12 am #
There is a situation that came to light with Mitt’s candidacy. It’s probably a no-brainer within certain religious communities, but came as a surprise to some of us: That within the SoCon community, there is a religious test for POTUS. He or she must be convincingly “born of the Spirit.”
It doesn’t matter that Mitt or some other candidate successfully live Christian values. That doesn’t count. I heard several say in essence: There is no way Mitt can be born of the Spirit– because he is a Mormon. Therefore, he’s still in bondage to Satan and I don’t want him in the White House. A vote for him IS a vote for Satan.
A “Christian” on one of the blogs wrote yesterday that “Barack Obama is no more born again than my dog.” So now we have some kind of de facto Office of the Inquisitor General carefully dissecting a candidate like a frog to discover whether or not he can be declared spiritually reborn.
Huck belongs to the right church, says the right lingo–therefore, he is the real Christian candidate. Mitt belongs to the wrong church and therefore, no-way, no-how can he receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and should not be POTUS. Mac (now) belongs to the right Baptist-based mega church, but he ain’t yet speaking the right lingo.
Let’s chain him to the inquisitor’s rack and force it out of him. This is one reason many people have such disdain for the so-called religious right.
Eric on 04 Apr 2008 at 10:13 am #
I think there can be some value in a candidate providing a general view of his/her theological/philosophical outlook. It’s helpful to me to know that there is something that drives a candidate other than blind ambition.
All three of the remaining major candidates have done that. I know nothing about McCain’s theology (I assume he’s Christian of some sort, but I don’t even know that for sure), but he has said and done enough to show that he has some core principles that guide him, as evidenced by his willingness to take unpopular stands on issues that have a strong moral component (torture and immigration among them).
I don’t see how we’re served in a society such as ours in delving much beyond that. I couldn’t care less how a candidate interprets Genesis 1 — but I do care about how a candidate will approach issues of war and peace, the economy, health care and so on. That’s where the questions should focus.
The irony is that those who are most concerned about McCain not being evangelical enough, or picking a running might who might not be evangelical, is that they’re the ones who are most likely to face religious discimination if they keep up such tactics. Once we start having a de facto religious test for the presidency, it can cut both ways — and probably not to the advantage of the hard-line religious right.
jmh on 04 Apr 2008 at 1:24 pm #
This election cycle has demonstrated the wisdom of Art. 6.
I used to be blissfully unaware of a particular candidates religous affiliation ( and wish I still were) foolishly believing that the focus was on how a candidate comported him or herself; the values they lived as opposed to the words they spoke. Look around the globe to the problems created when a particular theology is imposed on society, those folks are pretty sure that they have all the right answers and for those that don’t subscribe…
This is not the direction I want for this country. The job for the religous community is to create a godly people, who can be an influence for good in the secular community- but the secular community in general, and the political realm in particular, is not the place to determine WHOSE god, and what the appropriate form of worship may be.
I am trying to live the model of my savior, but I have to say I am pretty fed with being told I am not a Christian, and that the candidate of my choice cannot be considered because he is not a Christian either. Having recently discovered that Sen. McCain is a Baptist, I caught myself thinking that this explained alot about his treatment of Huckabee vs. Romney….and I followed that by realizing that this is what this religous identity policits has brought us to. I am not sure that the choice of McCain at this point would be what is best for this country.As far as I am concerned He has been complicite in this war on religion….at least the Mormon religion, and has been more than happy to benefit from it. I am not sure that winning the ultimate honor of being President of this country and its people- Mormons included, is deserved.
What a sorry state of affairs. At this point, I think the SoCons are looking at a pyrric victory, if any. They may will a battle, but will end up losing the war.
HaroldHutchison on 04 Apr 2008 at 2:47 pm #
I think it is also safe to guess that Weyrich lost donations for supporting Romney, now he’s trying to get back in the good graces of those who pulled the donations by kissing Huckabee’s butt.
I guess he’s also sending the message: Mormons need not run for President.
Screw him.
Sherry on 05 Apr 2008 at 10:00 am #
I have sure learned a lot from reading this blog. I have become increasingly worried that identity politics will devolve into religious politics. I look at Iran and Iraq. I remember Ireland. I have studied history. It seems to me that religious identity politics almost always devolves into war. It makes a certain kind of sense, there is nothing a person holds more tightly then their code of beliefs. I’d rank livelihood at the top of that list as well, but it generally starts political revolutions rather then religious wars. But internal strife and war is not what I want for this country, and I am worried.
The difficulty, as I see it, isn’t political disagreement, or disagreement on the issues. It is the characterization of Romney by some Huckabee supporters. It was not a characterization based on political position or political record. They simply said that a vote for Romney was a vote for the devil. (And Huckabee was touted as their savior. No kidding. I actually received some hate mail along this line, as well as seeing it on some of the Huckabee ancillary sites.) That is not a political position, that is a religious one. It is also the kind of characterization that has mobilized those faithful to it to start a war. What happens if Romney is elected? Yet I still believe that, for the economy, he is the best choice. I am really worried.