Tomorrow, Mitt Romney gives his much-heralded speech on his Mormon faith and his presidential candidacy. Mind you, I am not a political pundit and don’t play one on TV, but I’m interested (and cynical) enough to have a few questions:
* To what extent was Romney “forced” to make the speech? I’m not denying that anti-Mormon prejudice exists. But it doesn’t seem to exist any more now than it did a month or more ago. What has changed is Mike Huckabee’s huge gains on Romney, especially in Iowa (which may be related to religion, but again, seem more closely related to Huckabee’s recent debate and campaign performances). In other words, is Romney’s Mormonism a subject he has no choice but to face now? Or is it a media briar patch he’s willingly throwing himself into–whether to change the subject, create a comeback narrative, or just dominate a few TV-news cycles?
* Related to that, is his success simply measured by how many times the press mentions his name and John F. Kennedy’s in the same sentence? (In which case, interesting choice for a former Massachusetts governor in a Republican primary, no?)
* How does Romney balance the two apparently contradictory goals of the speech: namely, to persuade religious Republicans to vote for him, in part because of his faith, yet to persude them that it would be bigotry to vote against him because of his faith? That seems a taller order than arguing that religion is irrelevant (which, presumably, would play as well among GOP religious-conservative voters as declaring one’s faith in Baal.)
* Speaking of which, why, exactly, does it constitute “bigotry” to vote against someone on the basis of their religion? Religious beliefs are relevant, strong and foundational–as political candidates never tire of reminding us. No one calls it bigotry when someone votes for a candidate explicitly because, say, he cites Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. Yet it seems that, as a society, we’ve decided that you’re allowed to make judgments based on a candidate’s religion–but only positive ones.
* Related to that–and related, finally, to the actual subject matter of Tuned In–is it possible that Romney is banking on the squeamishness of the media when it comes to religion? The media are nervous to begin with about being painted as secularist elitists out of touch with “real America.” This might make the press more likely to give credit to claims of “bigotry” and frame the question as to whether Romney “overcame” them–rather than, say, whether whether voters’ reasons for rejecting him are valid in the first place.
I’m not sure I can answer any of these questions, but I’ll be curious to see how Mitt Romney, and the political media that cover him, do.