The idea continues to circulate that Republican nominee Mitt Romney ought to make his religious heritage a more central part of his campaign messaging. There are two related rationales for this line of thinking. First, there’s the notion (most recently forwarded by Joanna Brooks, an LDS writer and commentator) that only through understanding Romney’s experience of Mormonism can we fully grasp the character and leadership that he would bring to the presidency. Second, there’s the idea that Romney’s life of serving in his church provides a great opportunity to humanize him, by showing the diversity of people he has worked with, and the real acts of thoughtfulness and charity that marked his labors. Slate’s John Dickerson makes this point here. Dickerson draws on a presentation given Monday by Michael Otterson (head of the LDS Church’s public affairs outfit) and Clayton Christensen, a prominent business professor and author, in which Christensen argued that being a Mormon is something to be very proud of, and would bring needed balance and color to Romney’s public resume. I respect Joanna Brooks and Clayton Christensen. Both are wise and thoughtful commentators on Mormon issues. But to the extent either actually believes that Mitt Romney needs to educate the American public about his lived experience of Mormonism, I think they’re dead wrong.
First, Professor Brooks. In her Washington Post op-ed, Brooks argues that Romney must certainly have drawn conclusions through the prism of his faith on issues like gay rights, gender discrimination, and racial equality. She also hypothesizes that Romney’s leadership style and views of foreign affairs must also have been formed by religious belief. The question, as Brooks puts it, is whether Romney “consults his faith” in making decisions on all sorts of different issues. And for me, the answer that comes to mind is: if so, we’ve already seen it. Like every human, Mitt Romney is a complex person, having been influenced by all kinds of different people, institutions, and ideas. Some these influences are undoubtedly religious. But does anyone really know how much of their own views on foreign policy can be traced to one’s theology? So far, it’s clear that Mitt Romney consults a variety of sources in making decisions– including past experiences, his reading of history and sociology and demographics, conservative ideology, polling, and campaign and policy advisers. It isn’t plausible to think that this mix of influences would dramatically change once a President Romney sat down for the first time at his desk in the Oval Office. Whatever his style might be once elected, it is very unlikely to be dominated by religious thinking after all his years operating as a secular public figure. It may be interesting to know how a prominent person responded to various movements in his religious community. But that would bring almost no light to figuring out how that person might govern a country. What is far more relevant are the public decisions and pronouncements he has made about his thinking and positions. Psychologizing a person’s faith never leads to firm conclusions, for the very same reason that Harry Reid and Mitt Romney view the world so differently– individuals respond differently to experiences of faith.*
Read Full Article »