Normally I cannot bear to read David Brooks at all. Given the strongly negative editorial in today's New York Times about Romney's "Faith in America" speech yesterday, I steeled myself and forced myself to take a look at Brooks's review, which turns out to be more critical than either the call-out on the Opinions page or his first several paragraphs would lead the reader to think.
Brooks begins his "Faith vs. Faithless" column by acknowledging that Romney "artfully blended [ideas from] the centrist Meacham and the conservative Neuhaus." Unable to repress his innate intrepid reporter, he writes that he "called around to many of America’s serious religious thinkers — including moderates like Richard Bushman of Columbia, and conservatives like Neuhaus and Robert George of Princeton. Everyone I spoke with was enthusiastic about the speech, some of them wildly so." I would have been interested in knowing who was "wildly enthusiastic" among the "serious religious thinkers" with whom he spoke. (I know Mormon scholar and former stake president Richard Bushman personally, for example, and wonder about his level of enthusiasm in particular.--But I digress.)
Brooks then explains that he doesn't feel quite so enthusiastic. His first reason is one that kossacks have commented on at length:
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.
Of course, Brooks cannot resist a snark attack: He ends the above paragraph with "I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press."
I assume Romney left that out because Romney sincerely views unbelievers as part of What Is Wrong With America. Mormon theology makes it clear that America's prosperity is dependent upon the faithfulness of its inhabitants (below is just one of many examples):
And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. --The Book of Mormon, Ether 2:9
Nonbelievers, unbelievers, believers in the "wrong" God (or gods)... Romney joins the likes of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell in blaming sinners (particularly atheistic or agnostic sinners) for anything bad that happens to America, no matter who is in power and what kinds of decisions they make or actions they take.--In other words, freedom in America really does "require religion." (This theme is deserving of its own diary, and I will try to follow up soon.)
I found it interesting, however, that like Romney, David Brooks also overlooks all the other religions besides Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, as though America has no Buddhists, nor Hindus, nor Baha'i... nor anyone else. In the narrow world of America's religious conservatives, of course, the Heathen do not count. What seems clear to me, however, is that Romney was very deliberate and calculating in whom he chose to include and exclude.
Brooks's second criticism is clearly his principal criticism (given the space devoted to it):
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?
This idea is just a build-up to his conclusion that Romney wants people to "submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end."--A "culture war" instigated, promoted, and endlessly fueled by America's religious right, I add.
I think Romney's speech has a decent chance of succeeding with a good part of the audience for whom it was intended. The die-hard antimormons aren't going to vote for him, period. The endorsements of various evangelical leaders have already been helpful in persuading some portion of their flocks to ignore the antimormon, spawn-of-the-devil, antichrist tracts and leaflets that their churches have spewed out in abundance over the years. These endorsements, coupled with an "enthusiastic" post-speech response, may be enough to carry the religious right for Mitt, especially if Huckabee keeps tripping up over current affairs and especially if the story of his role in pardoning a rapist-murderer continues to gain momentum.
In short, for me--and surprisingly, for David Brooks (but for somewhat different reasons)--"Faith in America" wasn't a home run for Romney, but it was a base hit. It remains to be seen if his campaign can drive home the run.