Religion and Presidential Politics
By Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin
Al Gore’s choice of Joseph Lieberman as his running mate offered indisputable evidence that, as many have already remarked, the American electorate has come a long way since John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency.
The United States was nearly two centuries old before its first Catholic president took office. The “civic religion” of America had long been a generic and rather bland form of mainstream Protestantism. Catholicism’s priestly vestments, incense, and Latin mass – soon to be dealt a serious blow by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), but, in 1960, still shedding an aura of medievalism on Catholic worship – seemed alien to many Americans. Moreover, Catholicism was associated with waves of relatively recent immigrants. And, most frightening to some, it followed a monarchical, leader, the Roman pope, who happened also to be the head of a foreign state.
Kennedy’s election changed that, of course, and, for all except a relatively few bigots, the possible Catholicism of a presidential candidate is simply no longer an issue. Some cynical wits, of course, have suggested that his religion wasn’t much of an issue for Kennedy himself; John F. Kerry’s lightly worn Catholicism drew little attention.
But the nomination of an observant orthodox Jew clearly represented another milestone in the history of religion and politics in the United States, and paved the way for his more recent (albeit failed) bid for the presidency itself. And it was a positive milestone. Senator Lieberman’s selection was universally greeted as an important step, and the addition to the Democratic ticket of a politician who enjoys a reputation for moral seriousness sent Mr. Gore’s poll numbers soaring.
However, although Mr. Gore’s choice of Senator Lieberman was hailed as courageous, it is a happy fact that no electorally significant blocs of anti-Semites survive in the United States. (Nor would such anti-Semites have been likely to support Al Gore in any event.) No reputable public voice expressed concern about the senator’s religious affiliation, and it is difficult to imagine anyone daring to do so, whatever his or her private feelings might be. Reaction to Mr. Lieberman’s nomination on religious grounds was, without serious exception, enthusiastic.
Still, American tolerance for religious diversity among its leaders and politicians is not infinite. One has only to pose the question to know the answer: If an American Muslim were to emerge as a credible candidate for the presidency, would his faith pose an obstacle to his nomination and election? Could a Buddhist be elected president today?
But one need not look to foreign faiths. If a Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were a serious contender for the presidency, would his religious affiliation trouble substantial numbers of American voters? Evidence and intuition both argue that it would.
Careful study of Michigan governor George Romney’s campaign for the White House in the late 1960s suggests that his strong commitment to his minority faith was a political liability. A few years ago, Mormonism became an issue in Romney’s son’s challenge to Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, although Mitt Romney was subsequently elected that state’s governor. Utah senator Orrin Hatch’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination a few years ago required him to publicly defend his faith – something no longer required of Catholic candidates. And a survey of pastors taken before Senator Lieberman’s selection revealed that, although 63-64% of those surveyed could support a Jew or a Catholic for political office, fully 76% would not vote for a Mormon. (86% would not support a homosexual.)
Presumably, such attitudes can largely be credited to what might be termed the “religious right.” American society has lately been undergoing what church historian Martin Marty calls “Baptistification.” This is evident in many places, including presidential politics. Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist. So was Bill Clinton. In the 2000 election, both Al Gore and George W. Bush were southerners who vocally proclaimed their religious beliefs and their commitment to religious values. Evangelical leaders are not typically fond of Mormons, whom they regard as heretics.
But the political “left” has its own sensitivities. It is uncomfortable both with too much overt religiosity (except, perhaps, among American blacks) and with the specific stances of many religious groups on such issues as abortion, gay rights, and the role of women. In this regard, Mr. Lieberman was a “safe choice,” because his attractive personal religious allegiances have largely not interfered with his public policy votes. In fact, on 23 October 2000, the New York Torah Court, the Beth Din, excommunicated him on the grounds that, while claiming to be an observant Jew, he has voted for partial birth abortion, gay rights, and gender integration in the military.
What we may be seeing in recent politics is not so much wide-open tolerance for religious diversity but, instead, the emergence of a new civil religion – simply a different range of acceptable religious positions and tolerable religious affiliations.
This may shortly become a significant issue, as politicians are already setting their sights on the next presidential campaign season, with the nomination effectively up for grabs in both major parties. Latter-day Saint Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, has been identified by more than a few pundits as an “A-list” contender, but everyone wonders just how serious a liability his religious affiliation will prove to be.
