Positive Liberty

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that my Positive Liberty colleagues, especially Jon Rowe, will be along to comment on Mitt Romney’s speech today. I can’t wait to see what they’ll say.

But the analysis each of us will give this speech is, to some degree, premature. In the days and weeks to come there will be a lot of dialogue about that speech. As well written and presented as the speech was, there will be things Romney will regret having said after the critics are through with it. And he may well regret the entire thing if it costs him the nomination (if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, odds are good he’ll “run the table”). It’s history that will be the ultimate judge here, and our comments are mere drops in a demographic ocean.

I am not a fan of Mitt Romney. In fact, this speech is the most conviction I’ve seen from the man. I think he is the Stepford Candidate, a robot willing to say whatever it takes to win. He’s flip-flopped on a number of issues. Maybe it was just nice to finally see there was something he actually believes in when he said that if his faith costs him the nomination, “so be it,” but he’s going to continue to embrace his faith.

But overall, I think it is unfortunate that in 21st Century America, a candidate thinks he must address questions about his faith as if he’s running for National Rector, Priest, or Pastor. During the CNN/YouTube debates, it was a liberal secularist who asked the candidates their position on the Bible. And I’ve read secularists who have written with zest about the fact that at least three of the original GOP candidates (and possibly four of them) didn’t accept a Dawkinsonian position on evolution. The President is not running for Chief Scientist either.

What matters are his policy positions: Not his religious faith, not his views on controversial social issues, but what he will do in office. If the candidate professes that his religious faith will be the deciding factor, and not say the Constitution — if he campaigns saying that he intends to make Intelligent Design the dominant teaching in the nation’s classroom — that’s a different ballgame. Those are policy positions. If Alan Keyes were a contender (and it’s important to note that he’s not, for reasons I’ll elaborate on in a moment), then his faith might be fair game.

And to be consistent, if one wants to keep Church and State “Separate,” one must separate them. I have little doubt that Romney, who has flip-flopped on a number of things, will do as he says here. Why? Because the public doesn’t want any form of governing that comes with a whiff of theocracy. And Romney is epitome of the sociopath personality that enters politics — he wants to please everyone and be whatever he needs to be to win. Not only should Christians be set at ease, so too should secularists.

Which brings up another important point. Many secularists will insist that Romney read them out of the party with his speech. Given that there is no religious test for the primary — that they can show up to vote against him — that charge is hyperbole.

But he said that secularists were wrong about the role of God in public life. In my opinion, they too have nothing to fear. Romney is not going to stick his neck out on this principle either. He’s not going to be working to establish religion, any more than former Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor, himself a professing conservative Christian, did when he did his part to expel Judge Roy Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court (and won favor with the Bush Administration and a seat on the federal bench for doing so). Romney hasn’t campaigned for state established religios displays or policies up till now.

He’s quite satisfied to give the religious right, a very important constituency in his nomination game plan, a symbolic, rhetorical sop. The religious right is very symbol-minded and if recent GOP history is any guide, that will be sufficient. And secularists should see this political posturing for what it was.

But what still troubles me, and what matters, are Romney’s policy positions. In at least two debates this year (there have been so many of them, that I’m not certain there weren’t more) he’s defended indefinite detention of terror suspects and torture. He cares not a whit about the tradition (Christian theology) of Just War, advocating hawkish positions on Iraq and Iran — with statements that would satisfy the most ardent neo-con. When challenged about difficult issues, he doesn’t suggest that his position is grounded in the Constitution, or any philosophy whatsoever. Instead, he promises to do what any good businessman would do, consult with experts and then make an executive decision. Almost certainly, those experts will include pollsters — the moral guides for the professional, power-driven, sociopath personality.

Mitt Romney places far more stock in sound business practice and power/popularity-seeking than he does in his Mormon faith. As his Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

I think this was a well-written, well-delivered speech, that made him appear to be a man of conviction (a new side of Mitt that we haven’t seen before). Content-wise, I think 99% of it could’ve been delivered by any of the Republican candidates, and probably 80% of it could’ve been given by most of the Democratic candidates. His “symphony of faith” was, well, very American in flavor.

But whether or not he helped his campaign is, as of now, highly subjective and personal. Only time will answer that question definitively, if at all.

Trackback URI |