Britain and America

Romney pulls out for the sake of the war on terror

Samuel Coates, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, reports on Mitt Romney's resignation speech.

Talk show host Laura Ingraham gave Romney a strong introduction, saying that he was a security conservative, a social conservative and an economic conservative and that she was proud to be the only introducer with the job of introducing the conservative candidate. She also spoke of how Reagan battled on to the convention when people were saying he should stand down for the good of the party (curiously, so did Mitt!). I wonder if she was told?

Romney walked on to the stage to mass placard waving and cheering. He spoke of the "unique" sacrifice America had made in the cause of liberty in the 21st century - only taking enough land after its victories to bury its dead - and that if it didn't change course it could be the new France (crowd boos). There were several nods to Christians, he said the majority of Americans believed in God or at least in "a purpose-driven life" (the title of a bestselling Christian book), and criticised intolerance of such faith.

He spoke in particularly strong terms about:

• fighting the "culture-killing poison of dependency"
• how "depressing the private sector depresses the well-being of all"
• the danger of China and India overtaking America in the same way America did the UK and France
• being held hostage by the oil needed from "the likes of Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad"
• getting the dividend bit of Bill Clinton's "peace dividend", but not the peace bit

He said he disagreed with John McCain on a lot of things but that he was absolutely right on doing whatever it takes in Iraq and the fight against radical, violent Islam.  I half-expected a slight jibe to follow this concession, but it didn't come. He criticised Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for wanting retreat and defeat. Then, to a gasping crowd that had been giving him a rapturous reception, he said that continuing to stand made it easier for one of those two to win. That because he loved America and because he "cannot allow the next President to retreat in the face of evil extremism", he felt he must stand aside. If his candidacy was only about him, he went on, he would have continued.

In short, he did an Obi Wan Kenobi, and in doing so endeared himself to those who, like me, saw him as little more than a politician's politician. It was a great speech. If a British Conservative had said the things he said about the blend of issues that he focused on, I'd be right behind them.

He'll have his eyes on 2012 now. He's set himself up well.

Joe Loconte: Mitt Romney's Step of Faith

Joe Loconte is a commentator on religion for National Public Radio and will join the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University as a senior fellow in January 2008.

WASHINGTON, DC — Skeptics at home and abroad are carping about Mitt Romney’s first major speech on religion. They should stop huffing and hyperventilating long enough to actually read it—a text that ranks as the most sober, sane, and historically informed view of religion and American democracy delivered thus far in the presidential campaign.

Many have tried to coax Mr. Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, to explain and defend his Mormon beliefs. Yesterday he declined the invitation. “To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution,” he said. “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”

That welcome answer—the American solution to the question of religion and government—goes to heart of the American Creed. The driving aim of the separation of church and state is not to quarantine religion from public life, but to protect religious liberty for people of all faiths, or of no faith. Mr. Romney’s answer is anchored in the concepts of equality and the inalienable rights of conscience. It is established by the original text of the Constitution, in Article VI (“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust”) and by the lead-off amendment to that text, the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).

Mr. Romney’s answer is also long overdue. For years now most conservatives have kept their mouths shut as politicians or presidential advisors have played the religion card for Christian audiences—a disgraceful game I’ve witnessed up close. It has inflicted untold damage to the public understanding of America’s democratic heritage. In the recent YouTube campaign debate, for example, the Republican candidates were asked if they viewed the Bible as the word of God. Predictably, and pathetically, none of them appealed to this bedrock political doctrine: no religious test for public office.