Much attention was given to Mitt Romney's speech on religion delivered on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. Comparisons were made between Romney and John F. Kennedy as both were presidential hopefuls representing a religious minority. As such, each in his own way made a plea for religious toleration and reaffirmed our nation's stated commitment to religious freedom. Where Romney parted ways with Kennedy, of course, was on the question of the separation of church and state. Whereas Kennedy stood unequivocally on the side of the disestablishment of religion, Romney expressed concerns about the naked public square by playing on the religious Right's sense that they are victim to a hostile secular culture. For Romney and the social conservatives from whom he hoped to draw his support, our nation has lost its moral compass which can only be recovered by restoring God to the center of our national life.
In spite of the largely favorable reviews Romney received for this speech, it failed to sway the evangelical voters who decided instead for one of their own in Mike Huckabee. Looking back now from only a few weeks remove, we can see how the illuminated cross from Huckabee's Christmas ad was the spear that punctured Romney's presidential aspirations. As Huckabee remains strong within the evangelical base of the Republican Party, Romney's message has shifted emphasis (yet again) towards an economic platform that distinguishes him by his success as a business executive. While this proved successful in the hard-hit state of Michigan, his poor showing in the Bible Belt state of South Carolina proves the dead-end of his religious pandering. As the two-term presidency of George W. Bush attests, the evangelical Right has been successfully mobilized. But now that it has tasted power, its grip will not be easily relinquished. The result is a fractured Republican Party, with Huckabee playing the role of spoiler to Romney's claim on the complete package of the Reagan conservative coalition. Meanwhile, after being left for dead, John McCain is back as the last man standing forcing those such as Rush Limbaugh and others to hold their noses from the stench of the seeming inevitable nomination of this maverick turned standard-bearer.
Turning from the Republicans to the Democrats, their intra-mural maneuvering is no less intriguing: Witness Bill Clinton's master manipulation of the expectations game in Nevada and the fracas over race that just happened to coincide with Hillary Clinton's three to one advantage in the Latino vote. But more significant than that, I believe, is today's ritual observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Barack Obama's speech at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta was every bit as telling about his views on the relationship between religion and politics as Romney's was one month prior. For the short term, it was the opportunity for Obama to invoke the memory of King in order to solidify his support among African Americans on the eve of the South Carolina primary. But the memory of which King is the question.
Obama has already proven his skills as an orator. It was his stirring speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 that introduced him to the American public. Likewise his victory speech in Iowa gave witness to the power of a movement having the potential to transcend the man and his message that perhaps clouded the pundits' judgment heading into New Hampshire. But today, standing in the pulpit once occupied by King himself, Obama seemed to dial it back, diverting attention away from himself as the symbol of change and towards the people without whom no change is possible. It seems to me that this was not only a savvy counterpoint to the politics of identity (e.g., see Reza Aslan's misguided critique of Obama and Christopher Hitchens on the perils of identity politics) that would only confine Obama's appeal as yet another minority whose candidacy is seen in purely symbolic or representational terms, but also revealing of his substance as a leader and, dare I say it, his hope for our democracy. The false choice of experience verses change misses the point entirely. When Obama tells of his experience as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney he is reminding us of the change that is built as a movement from the ground up. And on this day to memorialize King, it is a reminder that King only emerged as a leader of the civil rights movement, which was and is a movement that would always remain larger than King himself.
Which brings me to the earlier point about Obama and religion: When looking back to Romney or even Kennedy, their talk of religion was largely an effort to carve out a space for their candidacy as president knowing full well their status as religious minorities. To the extent that this message of religious tolerance has been heard is to our nation's credit. Obama's task, however, has always been different. His message goes beyond tolerance to unity. As such, it is a transcendent message that points beyond Obama himself to the very aspirations of the American promise, a promise that is still yet to be fulfilled. This is a message that resonates deeply with the biblical motif of the promise to come. In this way it has a certain intellectual integrity to it and suggests that it is something more than the standard political pandering we have come to expect from our presidential hopefuls. At the same time, it is an open and non-exclusionary message befitting the public discourse of our civil religion.
Therefore, when Obama concludes his speech with the story of the elderly African American gentleman's response to the young white Obama campaign worker Ashley Baia, it is an appropriate parable for Obama's gospel of unity--black and white, old and young, male and female, we are all one nation under God.
Loading comments…
Posted January 22, 2008 | 06:24 PM (EST)