I promise that I will stop talk about religion for a long time after this, but this post has been coming for a long time. I have continually stated that conservatives will be wary of supporting Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. Consistently, I have also said that this is a poor reason to not support a candidate, and that Romney is the best candidate the Republicans can field. Due more to Obama's failures than his merit, he actually polls favorably in national polls. Also, it may say that people are more comfortable with a spineless Mormon as opposed to a spineless African-American. The problem with politics is that neither Romney's Mormonism or Obama's attendance of a church with a hyperbolic preacher should be part of the news cycle. However, the news cycle never stops now and has even more time for worthless debates over the inherent value of a candidate's faith and how the American people are affected by it.
Right now, the nomination for the Republican ticket is far from over. Specifically, Romney has not won a single Midwestern state, which considering the way the country votes is alarming. The Republicans will win the South, Obama will win the northeast and California, and the West is too sparse to make great changes in the electoral count. So it stands to reason, that the electoral votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri are of the most importance. Romney hasn't won any of these states, and is polling far behind Santorum in Ohio.
He has failed in several ways that are holding him back. He lacks the charisma that almost single handedly carried the last three presidents to victory. Even poor Republicans aren't fond of Wall Street, so his ties to Wall Street aren't going to play well in the current environment. Simply, he is a typical Republican in a party that has shunned the typical candidate since their loss four years ago (even before if you consider Sarah Palin). His candidacy for President certainly isn't all about religion, but his most fervent challengers are all cut from the same cloth. None of them are more suited to be President, all of them are more suited to be chosen by the evangelical base of the Republican Party.
The irony of religion being a factor for Romney is that on the issues that matter to the far right of the Republican base, the Church of Latter Day Saints agrees. The amount of money that has been funneled into moral issues by the church is egregious, and would be preferable if they just did it better and kept their hands clean. That people in California didn't get violent over such intrusion from two states over is a good testament to the progress our country has made in the last 150 years. Then again, gay people tend to be far more reasonable than the religious groups which attack their sexuality, but I digress. If the policies of a church line up with the policies of a voting group, yet the voting group constantly rejects a member of that church, what does that mean? It could mean two things, the church is radical (It is not.) or the voters are ignorant about the church (Most certainly).*
*That paragraph was the longest back-handed compliment I have ever written.
So this brings up two issues, should religion matter to politics and can a man or woman run for the Presidency without it?
The first has a simple answer of no and then perhaps a nuanced answer that leans towards yes. The religion of a person does not determine the mind of a person. You should not immediately become disqualified for President by choosing a religion. In Romney's case, I don't even see how he can be regarded by religion, because the Wall Street chop shop image is far more relevant.*Do I think it matters that we elect a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, an Atheist, or another religious believer? Yes, simply because at some point your faith will be tested and what do you do at that point? Do you feel comfortable standing against the word of God in the Quran in order to preach the values of American freedom? Can you tell Christians that though you have no problem with prayer in school, it crosses Constitutional boundaries, that while vague do exist?
*I'm actually on Romney's side on this, because people who cut the fat off of obese businesses shouldn't be chastised for actually improving the economy. By on his side, I agree with the practice and still think he comes off as a smug elitist, when no one in the country is hated more than the smug elitist.
My last post was on my atheism and I think the above discussion is funny because an atheist can't be elected President. Being in a small minority is never going to get you far in politics, even if your minority is well-educated and at times influential. It's only amusing, because what happens when there is nothing above the American idea. If there is no God to cow you, who does a man ultimately serve as President of the United States. He could choose to serve himself, but that is unlikely as we are both a wary and well-thought out political society. He could choose to serve the American people also. He could choose to fight poverty, not because it's Christian of him to give to the poor but because the inequities of the human condition can only be righted by humanity itself. He could choose not to go to war, simply on the merits that it will cost both money and human life, not on the jihadist rhetoric of the Bush presidency and Reagan's belief in end times. He could choose to go to war as Roosevelt did, despite reluctance and fear, for the good of mankind (and the United States, it wasn't completely altruistic).
There is only one type of man who can fully serve every constituent in the United States and that is a man who has no one to serve. In a perfect world, there would be no religion. There would be no re-elections to run for. There would be no racism, homophobia, jingoism, and ignorance that divides us. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and for that reason we will never have a great leader. The problems which drown our country will always supersede the potential due to our own petty reluctance to accept each other. Religion just gives that hatred and ignorance a pulpit from which to spread the word.
0 comments:
Post a Comment