The Divine Campaign

A lot has been made of Joseph I. Lieberman's comments and emphasis on religion since Al Gore '69 picked him as his running mate last month. It has been a long time since a member of the Democratic ticket spoke so openly about the role of religion in public life, and many people are surprised. Groups that usually reserve criticism for conservative Republicans, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have asked Lieberman to stop speaking so overtly about his faith on the campaign trail.

But the critical question has been lost in the shuffle. Before one can decide whether Lieberman's religious references are kosher, one must wonder why Lieberman has put so much emphasis on morality and religion in this election.

There are two possible explanations for Lieberman's frequent religious rhetoric. The first, and the most common in a campaign setting, is that he is trying to exploit his religion for political gain. This is a very valid concern, for there is little more dangerous than an appeal for votes on a religious basis. There are hundreds of examples of politicians attempting to invoke religion for their own gain.

One of the most recent and, if it were not such a serious issue, most laughable, attempts to profit via morality was the transformation of Republican presidential hopeful Steve Forbes from 1996 to 2000. In the 1996 election, Forbes's name was synonymous with one idea--the flat tax. He trumpeted it everywhere, and earned a small but devoted following. He was a one-issue candidate, much like Arizona Senator John S. McCain was this year.

Discovering that he couldn't win the Republican nomination with such a narrow base, a startlingly different Steve Forbes suddenly appeared in the 2000 election. Now, Forbes mentioned faith and family values almost as often as the labyrinthine federal tax code. Assuming Forbes did not undergo a drastic personal metamorphosis in the last four years, he began to speak about religion solely to attract voters. Actions such as this deserve scorn and condemnation.

However, Joseph Lieberman does not fit into this mold. He is, and has always been, devoutly religious, and he has never been afraid to say it. In his very first senate race, Lieberman's opponent criticized him for his unabashedly religious outlook. This is not an opportunistic attempt to gain votes. Few doubt his sincerity when he speaks about his faith, whether they agree or disagree with him. Lieberman has lived his life by his religion and his morals.

Which brings up the second, and much less common, reason that a politician would speak about religion on the campaign trail. When people run for as high an office as the presidency (or the vice-presidency), it is their duty to present themselves to the American people in an honest and straightforward manner. People expect them to speak forthrightly about their vision for America, the policies they hope to implement, their personality, their ideals and their beliefs.

If devoutly religious candidates like Lieberman did not speak fully or truthfully about their values, beliefs and faith, then they would be guilty of a far greater crime--an attempt to hide an important part of their personality from the American people.

Joseph Lieberman does not seem to be flouting his morality for political purposes. If that is indeed his intent, then it seems a foolish gamble. By speaking openly about his religion, he has earned the ire of groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, that usually back Democratic candidates. This cannot be very helpful to the party's political chances, especially at a time when Gore has been working to strengthen his support base.

In addition, his faith could still come back to haunt him in the more conservative areas of the country. Over the summer, in the heat of the veepstakes, Boston Globe political columnist David Nyhan came to speak at the Institute of Politics. He appraised the chances of each contender on the Democratic side and chose Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry as the most likely vice presidential pick. Nyhan said that Lieberman would not be picked because the nation's heartland was not yet ready for an Orthodox Jew on the ticket.

While polls seem to have proven Nyhan wrong so far, there remains the possibility that Lieberman's comments will backfire. He is certainly taking a big risk. From a purely political point of view, Lieberman ought to tone down the rhetoric. The fact that he has not, that he continues to trumpet morality at every campaign stop, leads one to believe that he is genuine.

The separation of church and state is a fundamental cornerstone of liberty and freedom in America--one that must be vigorously protected. However, Lieberman has not yet breached that wall.

Lieberman advocates a greater role for religion in public life. He believes that religion is, in general, "a source of good behavior." He speaks of the "constructive role that faith can play in the lives of individuals, and in the lives of the community."

But Lieberman also says, "I know religious people who I consider not to be moral, and I also know people who are not religious who I consider to be extremely moral." He says that an atheist in the White House would not bother him, if he thought the person was good. And he would be a fool to claim that his religion alone provided the correct set of beliefs--he must be well aware that he is a member of a small minority in America.

Religion does play a very large role in the lives of many Americans, and it is usually a positive one. To say that does not demean atheists, or imply that one cannot be moral without religion. It is like saying that caring parents or close friends play a large positive role in the lives of many Americans. A person who grew up without either can still become a productive, happy and gentle member of society. By the same token, many people who had both kind parents and close friends will fail the test of life.

I don't consider myself particularly religious, but I do not feel offended when someone like Lieberman speaks about religion in a public context. As long as he asserts that no one religion is better than another, as long as he realizes that anyone who isn't religious can be just as moral as anyone who is, as long as he does not try to force his religion onto others, and as long as he does not prostitute his faith for votes, I'll feel comfortable watching him on the campaign trail.

David M. DeBartolo '03, a Crimson editor, is a government concentrator in Lowell House.