It's an appealing argument, that there's a moral difference
between "Vote for me, I'm one of you" and "Don't vote for him, he's
not one of us." However, I don't think it works in practice. In a
campaign, you only make the "Vote for me, I'm one of you" argument
if the other candidate isn't. During my time in politics, I faced
opponents who talked about religion, ostensibly generally, but
clearly in ways that made both arguments. As a Jewish candidate, is
it proper for my opponent to talk about how he has accepted Jesus
as his savior--thereby making the comparison that I haven't? Isn't
that really making both points, the positive and the negative
simultaneously?
The other objection is that candidates use religion as a way to
avoid talking about values and principles in a way that might
actually help voters understand what the candidate might do in
office. E. J. Dionne wrote about this during the 2000 campaign,
comparing the answers given by President Bush ("well, if they don't
understand, it's hard to explain") with Gary Bauer's explanation,
in terms not freighted with sectarianism, about how his faith
shapes his views on poverty, hunger, and the death penalty.
(There's something you don't see everyday--me complimenting Gary
Bauer.)
Comment statistics for Sam Coppersmith on the Electrolite blog
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Sam Coppersmith:
Show all comments by Sam Coppersmith.