Romneypalooza

Pat Buchanan (!) thought the speech was a knockout, saying that if Romney wins the presidency, it will probably be because of this address.

Mark Shea thinks it's wrong for Romney to have had to have given that speech (as do I), but is put out with Romney for having done so:

But even more repellent than the demand that Romney do the Oath of Loyalty to the Secular Messianic Kingdom of America ("freedom's holy light" sheesh!) is that Romney is willing to do it. He promises me that he will let *nothing* stand in the way of the sovereign authority of the law. His fealty to abortion on demand bears eloquent witness to that. Another candidate for whom law establishes morality.

Elsewhere in that post Mark characterizes Romney's speech as saying, "We have no king but Caesar." That strikes me as deeply unfair to Romney. What does Mark expect Romney, or any president to say? That he would disobey the law when it conflicted with his religion? I don't think this means that Romney believes the "law establishes morality." It only means he believes that as president, the law must take precedence over his private judgments. As much as I would like to see as president a man or woman who shared my religious convictions and beliefs about what kinds of laws we should have, especially regarding the dignity of human life, I would under no circumstances want a president who believed it his right to pick and choose which laws he is bound to obey (which, come to think of it, is in some ways the president we now have). A president who doesn't feel bound to obey the law when it conflicts with his conscience is a greater threat to liberty, religious and otherwise, than bad law.

Alex Massie, who is British, is appalled beyond all telling by the whole Romney spectacle. Again, I agree that it was stupid that Romney should have had to have given that speech, but American political culture really left him little choice. As silly as that may seem -- as silly as it is -- is Britain really better off? This, from Jeff Jacoby's column on Romney today:

It was on Sunday that the Romney campaign announced the forthcoming speech, saying the candidate would discuss how his "own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected."

On the same day in Britain, as it happened, the BBC broadcast an interview with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said that his Christian faith had been "hugely important" to him during his 10 years in power - but that he had felt constrained to keep it a secret for fear of being thought a crackpot.

"It's difficult to talk about religious faith in our political system," Blair said. "If you are in the American political system . . . you can talk about religious faith and people say, 'Yes, that's fair enough,' and it is something they respond to quite naturally. You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."

Apparently that was more than Blair was willing to risk. The fear of being thought ridiculous was why his press secretary had snapped, "We don't do God," when an American reporter asked the prime minister about his religious views in 2003. It was why Blair's advisers vehemently protested when he wanted to end a televised speech on the eve of the Iraq war with the words "God bless you." American presidents routinely invoke God's blessing on the nation, but Blair's spinmasters warned him against annoying "people who don't want chaplains pushing stuff down their throats." (Blair told his flacks they were "the most ungodly lot," but bowed to their demand and ended the speech with a limp "thank you.")

Personally, I'd vote for a wise and trustworthy atheist over a brother in Christ who struck me as neither. But I'm in the minority here. Still, I prefer a political culture where politicians are expected to make some kind of respectful gesture toward God than one in which they are afraid to do so for fear of being thought a kook.

UPDATE: A reader writes to point out that "law establishes morality" is a phrase that Huckabee used in an interview, and that Mark picked up on in a subsequent critical column. Here's the Huck quote:

Well, let’s remember that all law establishes morality. That’s what law does. The law of speeding is saying that it’s immoral to go at 85 miles an hour. The morality is that we have established a 65-mile-an-hour limit. So that’s what all law does: It establishes that it is wrong for me to murder you.

I don't think Huckabee was saying here what Mark (and others -- I see that Larison took the same point) interprets him to be saying. Here's the full exchange in Salon, from which that quote was taken:

[Question:] Do we want the federal government imposing morality? You are comfortable with the federal government playing that role?

Well, let's remember that all law establishes morality. That's what law does. The law of speeding is saying that it's immoral to go at 85 miles an hour. The morality is that we have established a 65-mile-an-hour limit. So that's what all law does: It establishes that it is wrong for me to murder you. We've determined that that's not a good idea. I'm sure you are happy to hear that. So if I go over that law and murder you anyway, then society is going to punish me because I have violated a moral code, which we have all agreed to. So that's what law does. When people say you can't legislate morality, I am thinking, actually that is exactly what you do every time you pass a law. Now you don't legislate behavior. That's true. You can't legislate people's behavior. But all legislation legislates morality by its very nature. It defines the right and the wrong of the people.

Seems very straightforward to me. He's not saying that morality is whatever the law says it is. He's only saying that the law is, inescapably, the codification of morality. This is the same thing I always tell people who say, "You can't legislate morality." Unless we're talking about legislation defining procedures, the law is always the reflection of somebody's morality (e.g., the people's, the king's, the holy book's, etc.). People who want gay marriage, and who criticize conservatives for trying to legislate against them, should recognize that by pushing for gay marriage, they are simply trying to see their version of morality legislated. This is normal.

The phrase "you can't legislate morality" is, then, simply wrong. What those who use it really mean to say is "the law is a poor instrument with which to change people's hearts." Huckabee agrees with this, obviously. All he was trying to do in this exchange is challenge the bad thinking behind the phrase "you can't legislate morality." Here endeth the lesson.