Time to Weigh In…
A recent Time magazine article examines the convictions of Mitt Romney; an accompanying article studies the challenges he might face as a Mormon seeking the Republican nomination for president. A major questions posed is, “Is he going to face prejudice since he’s a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?”
During this discussion, John Kennedy’s presidential campaign was cited. His Catholicism was a major issue for many voters. Would he keep church and state separate? He reportedly put the subject to rest during a speech to Protestant ministers in September 1960, when he said, “But if the time should ever come…when my office would cause me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office.”
Reading this, I first thought, “That’s great; he’s wouldn’t put his religion above the interests of the country.” Then I considered the impact a resignation would have had… Some people would have been for it, others against it. Some would have declared, “I told you so!” Others, I’m sure, would have complained that he was forced out unconstitutionally due to religious beliefs. In any case, it would have been a major blow for the U. S.
Jump to today’s candidates… How do personal convictions (religious or otherwise) affect their political positions? Certainly, we’ve seen aspirants such as Rudy Giuliani, who confirms a personal objection to abortion, yet still supports states’ rights to determine it. On the other hand, we have President Bush making decisions (e. g., embryonic stem cell research) based on his own “deeply held beliefs.”
What do you think? Should politicians follow their convictions or use other criteria to make their decisions? Do you believe, as some have stated, that they can ignore their values in order to support others? Also, should a candidate seek election if s/he believes there’s a possibility that there could be a crisis of convictions where the best alternative is to resign?
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
May 25th, 2007 15:27
Hi Susan, hello all,
Been off the site for a while dealing with life.
Susan,
When we elect an individual, the basic assumption is that such an individual will act in way that protects and promotes our interests. The question then arises of how best can this representative accomplish these goals? The answer, I think, depends both on who you ask and on what issue/level of government your concerned with.
Local government seems to be more about direct representation. You voted for person X because they will build the new school, lower your property taxes, fix the roads, whatever. This seems much less about the individual’s personal convictions/beliefs than it is about concrete and specific goals, and this makes a great deal of sense. The problems at the local level are generally comprehensible and fixable.
This seems to be less true at the state level and almost irrelevant at the national level. At these levels the problems get more complex and variable. Think healthcare, terrorism and global warming. Here we are much more likely to vote people rather than issue, except with respect to a few “litmus test” issues like abortion and the death penalty. We vote for the person who seems to represent the morals, beliefs and abilities we want to see in high public office. And then we expect them to follow those personal characteristics as the basis for their governance. People love or hate President Bush often because they have very entrenched beliefs concerning HIS beliefs and moral conduct.
So, in answer to your questions, if we elect a Mormon or Quaker to the Presidency, I think it is with the expectation that they will govern based on their conscience, and we voted for them largely because of their beliefs.
May 26th, 2007 12:50
Hi Grant-
Interesting distiction among levels of government (state, local, federal).
When voters consider a candidate’s religious affiliation, I wonder how the depth of beliefs come into play? Of course, we only know what the candidates say about their beliefs; we don’t know what’s really going on in their heads. (reminds me of a line from Nellie McKay’s “Sari”: “You can hear what’s on my lips but you don’t know what’s in my mind.”
An individual’s depth of faith could make a big difference to me as to whether or not I vote for him/her. Not sure how to discern that, though, unless the candidate is brutally honest. As in, “Yes, I’m a practicing Quaker and I am committed to nonviolence.” (Be an interesting choice for commander-in-chief). Or, “I was raised a Catholic [or Mormon or evangelical Christian] but I don’t follow all the teachings and traditions anymore.” Or, “and I STILL follow all the teachings and traditions.”
Guess the point I’m trying to make in this round-about way is that I’m tired of talking points, sound bites, generalizations…I’d like to hear some plain talk from candidates. What they really think and believe…not what they hope will get them elected. (And not just about religion; that was just on my mind.)
Not expecting it, just wanting it.
Susan
June 18th, 2007 08:11
A lot of people will buy a car because it looks nice, or it is trendy or the stereo system is great. Most won’t lift the lid and look under the bonnet. With a car at least you can take it for a test drive, and with the exception of rogue traders, new or used cars have to meet certain standards.
If you go for a job as a doctor, it is a very reponsible position a lot of people depend upon you. So we as the public require that those empoying doctors meet certain criteria, qualifications, experience, membership of regulatory bodies.
For some reason you can run the most powerful country on the planet, and many other similarly powerful nations without such a high level of checks for suitablility. The candidates are selected by a few and we are similarly influenced by a few people, for the electorate, who we chose to represent us is almost an act of faith. I guess that’s why many potiticians wear a badge of faith. Or am I being cynical?
Keep voting
David