Like all candidates, there are essentially two types of info about Mitt: 'personal' information e.g. about his personal history, his religious beliefs, his family and his character; 'public' information, e.g. about his policies and political beliefs.
One relevant question is the extent to which those two categories can or should be parsed out as distinct or separate for a candidate for President of the US. Some people argue that the 'private' life of an individual is not relevant to the fitness of as person for the office of president (rewind to this debate circa Clinton and Monica). We have some funny flips on this argument with Mitt- his personal character and family life seem genuinely lovable, perhaps downright impeccably so - he gets lauded all the time for the way he treats his wife and his family, for example. The Boston Globe has the most comprehensive treatment of Mitt's personal history, and it ends up fairly glowing. Naturally, he wants to play up those aspects of his personal life - he wants to argue that private behavior DOES matter. He even recently said as much, when he said to a crowd that he wouldn't embarrass the country like Monica and Bill.
But the one area of Mitt's so-called private life that gets negatively scrutinized by the right and the left is his Mormonism. There are at least four versions of criticisms of Mitt's faith in Mormonism (1) it's not really Christianity (the critique by some evangelicals) (2) if Mitt is irrational enough to believe that an angel gave golden plates to a New Yorker nearly 200 years ago, how can we trust him to handle foreign policy? (3) Mitt's faith is so hierarchical that voting for Mitt is tantamount to voting for Mormonism's leader (this is a rehash of the "Popery" critiques leveled at JFK) and (4) Mormonism is just WEIRD - what's up with the polygamous tradition or the so-called "funny underwear" (as per mainstream media blogger Andrew Sullivan).
So what is a fellow to do? Mitt can't say that his Mormonism is off limits because it is part of his 'private life'- he wants to make private lives part of the debate. In fact, he goes further- he wants religion to be part of the debate, or at least to an extent. The careful position Mitt has constructed is that America wants a 'person of faith' and that he is a person of faith, but that beyond that it is inapprpriate to be bigoted about the particular brand of faith. It's a nuanced approach to how much 'personal' is appropriate, and Mitt will be the test case for what level of personal attack or benefit American voters will give a candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment