To Support or Not To Support, That is the Question

For this week's post I read a brief timeline of Romney's position on gay marriage. Here is the link to the article: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html. As the timeline made apparent, Romney's position on gay marriage has been somewhat inconsistent.

In an attempt to gain office in Massachusetts Romney knew he would have to appeal to the LGBTQ community for two reasons. Firstly, this population is a large voting bloc within Massachusetts. Secondly, the general population is relatively liberal and in support of LGBTQ rights. With an understanding of these facts, Romney was very strategic in his appeals to the LGBTQ community. He made sure to promise more attentiveness and concern for this population than the previous political leaders of the state. However, when he took office these announcements proved to be merely symbolic.

Romney was and is firm in his belief that marriage is a special institution between man and woman. This paradigm did not mean that Romney was anti-gay rights while governor, but instead advocated that this population have rights that were lesser than those granted to all citizens. In example, Romney was anti same-sex marriage, but still a proponent of civil unions. This became a particular problem when the Massachusetts court affirmed the right of same sex couples to get married, as was present in the state constitution. In that instance, Romney was forced to accept the court's ruling, but still encouraged them to change it by advocating for things such as the VoteonMarriage amendment.

Looking towards Romney's political platform entering the 2012 elections, it is apparent that Romney no longer feels obligated to appeal to the LGBTQ voting bloc. His rhetoric and strategy seem to be appealing more to the Religious Right and evangelical voters. Thus, as a consequence of these appeals, Romney has significantly undermined his original support the gay community from his gubernatorial platform in Massachusetts. This choice, although revealing of an inconsistent platform, may prove valuable to Romney as right-leaning voters are generally anti-gay marriage and support candidates who share this mindset.

Romney, Latinos, and Immigration...Oh My!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/03/mitt-romney-rallies-gop-hispanic-vote_n_948004.html

As the race between Romney and Perry tightens both GOP candidates are striving to win the Latino vote. Perry's records with Latinos is much more favorable than Romney. One key reason for this division is Romney's position on illegal immigration. As described in the article linked at the top of this post, when discussing issues of illegal immigration Romney emphasizes the need to support legal methods of immigration while making illegal immigration less favorable for individuals and more manageable by the federal government. And although this appeal has worked with a handful of Latinos who already identify as Republican, the same cannot be said for the Latino population as a whole.

Romney's position on illegal immigration has often made him an adversary of the Latino population in the United States. His drive for stringent policies on illegal immigration has proven to be a divide between him and this important voting bloc. As revealed in this cartoon from the 2008 presidential election, Romney's position was generally considered one of the least favorite when referring to illegal immigration.

Taking such a controversial position will not be advantageous for Romney as the 2012 elections move forward. Perry is successfully taking a slight lead in many national polls and the Latino voting bloc will prove to be an important group come actual nominations. Romney, if he wants to secure this population or at least chip away at Perry's control of this population, he will need to tone down his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric. Notions of a high-tech fence separating America from its Southern Neighbor are not going to quite grasp the ethos of Latinos who have experience with illegal immigration or who are just generally passionate about the issue.

Note: This is not to say the only issue of importance to Latino voters is illegal immigration. In fact, the issues facing this population are diverse and include a wide range of issues both economic and social. With that being said, as a consequence of an increase in immigration in the last few decades and increase in media attention of the issue this issue is very pertinent not only to the voting bloc itself, but the way this bloc is treated by politicians. Hence, the majority of the analysis provided above highlights this issue as it is tantamount in the political sphere when looking at the positions candidates and the press choose to highlight.

The Population's Perspective

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/herman-cain-mitt-romney-mormon-/1

22% of Americans said they would not support a Mormon for president. - USA Today

For this week's post I read an article that discussed two key issues in Mitt Romney's campaign: how his opponents are discussing his religion and how the American public is impacted by his religion.

For the former it is apparent that Romney's candidates are trying to use his religion as a political tool. As I have previously discussed on this blog and as has been noted in our class discussions Romney treads a thin line when discussing his religion. He identifies as a mormon, but in the public sphere attempts to concentrate more at his general Christian faith instead of emphasizing his mormon identity. In doing this he concentrates the attention of the American people on what makes him similar to the general population (Being Christian) not what potentially makes him different (Being Mormon). However, these efforts are undermined by his opponents. His opponents strategically draw attention to his religion in two ways. Firstly, they attempt to make his Mormon identity appear cult like. Stereotypes that surround the Mormon religion often have negative connotations that make being a member of the Mormon faith synonymous with being a member of a cult. This is important as this association negatively construes the public's opinion of Mormonism while making a clear delineation between Christianity and Mormonism. Which is the second way in which Romney's opponents bring attention to his Mormonism - they claim that it is not holistically Christian. Some candidates contending Romney are not willing to take the stance that Mormonism is cult-like, but are willing to challenge its place in the realm of Christianity. The candidates who make this claim are doing so to differentiate Romney from the voting public, but making his religion seem un-Christian. In doing this, they call into question his morals and his ethics as people often assume these positive value are associated with Christianity.

Turning attention now towards the American public it is apparent that Romney's opponents are having an impact. A Gallup Poll found that 22% of Americans would not support a Mormon president. This is a substantial population of people who are going to automatically discount Romney without evening knowing his platform. These poll numbers are important as many think that Romney is one of the few serious contenders for the potential Republican nomination. But if he plans to actualize this potential he'll need to find a way to combat this inherent opposition to his religious identification. His other campaign choices and platform positions can only get him so far with this wall in the way.

A Malleable Wall: Romney's Position on Separation of Church and State

“My church says I can’t drink alcohol, right? OK, should I say as governor of Massachusetts, we are stopping alcohol sales? No. My religion is for me and how I live my life. So don’t confuse what I do, as a member of my faith, with what I think ought to be done by government.” - Mitt Romney

The above quote and much of Mitt Romney's political rhetoric alludes to his position on the separation of church and state. Specifically, most signs point to Romney supporting a distinguishable wall between organized religion and the structure of American government. However, when forced to explicitly state his opinion, Romney's position becomes less pronounced and more flexible. Romney likes to appear as if he is a steadfast believer of church and state, but when the issue is called into question his answer reveals an indefinite position that calls for a separating between church and state, but one that is flexible.

This issue of inconsistency is made most apparent in Romney's 2007 Faith in America speech. In the speech Romney claims this pos "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion." This position clearly illustrates a support for building a wall between church and state. After reading this passage, one would assume that Romney took a separatist stance. However, Romney quickly caveats this position when he exclaims "But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning." Then, he continue on to explain how he thinks it is important to recognize God in our public sector by commemorating Him on our currency, in our oaths, and so on. This position is inconsistent with the former stance Romney had taken as by integrating religion in the public sphere there is no longer a clear delineation between church and state. I believe Romney's argument is that the government should not favor one religion, but that the government can still recognize the existence of God. What he does acknowledge however, is that by recognizing the existence of God in the public sphere the government is indeed favoring particular religions, primarily those that believe in the Wester image of God. This is problematic because as he preaches for a separation of church and state, his actual examples allude to a different reality in which the government does take a religious position that supports particular religions while dismissing others. 

Overcoming Hurdles: How to Win Over the Evangelicals

Although the above cartoon is clearly in reference to the 2008 presidential elections, I find it to be an accurate summarization of the challenges Mitt Romney will face in pursuing the Republican Nomination in 2012. As his particular sect of Christianity diverges from that of the Religious Right and Evangelicals it will be hard for him to win over voters from these groups.

If the Fowler reading showed us anything it was that religious institutions and communities have the potential to foster strong political activism by teaching skills of civic engagement. The emphasis on political engagement gives greater influence to these religious populations as they have higher rates of participation in elections. Combining this information with our reading from a couple weeks ago about seculars and their low voter turn-out, it becomes clear that religious voters can literally sway elections based on the candidate they endorse.

Romney, although within the Christian faith, is less likely to receive support from this block of religious voters as Mormonism is sometimes considered outside the Christian norm. Because of this constructed divide, Romney will have to work to combat this prejudice in his election and break down the wall separating him from the Evangelicals as their support could determine who wins the Republican ballot. So, speaking in reference to religious symbols, Romney actually uses them very minimally in his campaign. By avoiding the discussion of his Mormon identity he can better align with the Religious Right. And, when he does use religious imagery, it is generally more universal symbols of christianity such as a cross or reference to Jesus as savior. These images are both central to his Mormon faith, but also speak to the larger Christian populous.

Thus far religion does not seem to have dictated to much or Romney's campaign, but as the race continues I am sure he will have to work to incorporate some religiosity into his campaign if he hopes to attract voters from the Religious Right.

A Wearer of Many Hats

When beginning my research on Mitt Romney it became apparent that religion was a focal point both within his own political campaign and within the reviews of those critiquing his political campaign. That is to say that Romney does, at times, use religion as a vehicle to explain his moralistic platform, but his religion is even more pronounced when others criticize Romney in his attempt to win the Republic nomination for the 2012 presidential elections. 

Romney's religious affiliation, Mormon, is well publicized throughout the media circuit. Depending on the station or paper one listens to or reads his religious values are either the driving force that ought to gain him support, or the anchor the prevents him from moving ahead in the Republican rat race. These various media outlets diverge based on their intended audiences; liberal news stations use his religion as a way in which to mock his campaign attempts, moderately conservative channels use his religion as a means by which to illustrate his strong moral backing, and extremely conservative stations (primarily those targeted towards or ran by the Religious Right) use Romney's Mormon identity as a means to show how he is separate from the 'Christian Ideals' the Religious Right affirms (made apparent by the cartoon above). However, taking a step back from the media's portrayal of Romney's religion, one would assume Romney himself would present a more coherent and linear explanation of how his religion fits into the larger scope of his campaign. Sadly, this presumption proves false when looking at various speeches or interviews Romney has given in the past. When it comes to his religious ideals Romney is a wearer of many hats - at times he tries to brush aside his religion  and concentrate solely on concrete political issues, sometimes he identifies as a Mormon in order to gain support from voters who also consider themselves members of the Church of LDS, and at other times, Romney uses general Christian beliefs (such as the belief that Christ is savior) to align with more general Christian ideals, but detaching himself from the specific rituals and traditions of Mormonism. This last points follows in accordance with the culture shift thesis presented by Robert Fowler. The culture shift theory of religion and American politics claims that society is moving a way from the more formalized and uniform religious practices to embrace more spiritual religious values that manifest more as a belief in a higher power, and less in performing rituals that affirm one's religion (such as church attendance). Romney plays into this system as he attempts to unite Christians around his campaign by ignoring the specify practices of Mormonism and highlighting the general religious principles that unite Mormons and all other Christian populations.

With all that being said, I am excited to see how religion will shape not only Romney's campaign in the coming months, but more importantly, how effective his strategy will be in garnering support his candidacy. Can Mitt Romney be the next JFK, or will his outwardly unique religion prove to be a downfall during the race? At this point I cannot definitely answer that question, but will diligently follow his campaign to see which path it follows.