by John’s post about visiting the William Howard Taft National Historic Site got me thinking about our 27th President. Taft was a political conservative but theological liberal, a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ. (As far as I know, he was the last President to do so publicly). Although it’s not widely remembered today, Taft’s Unitarianism was an issue in the 1908 campaign. That episode reveals the complicated relationship between religion and Presidential politics.
Taft didn’t advertise his beliefs, but he didn’t keep them secret, either. In 1899, when he was approached about becoming President of Yale University, he declined because he perceived his Unitarianism would make Yale’s faculty and alumni uncomfortable. “I do not believe in the divinity of Christ,” he explained in a letter to his brother, “and there are many other of the postulates of the Orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.” When he ran for President nine years later, against the politically liberal but theologically conservative William Jennings Bryan, his Unitarianism came up again. Taft received many letters from voters questioning his beliefs. Rumors hinted that he was an atheist or, bizarrely, a secret Catholic. Taft’s campaign was seriously concerned. Taft thought it best to address the problem indirectly. He made no statement about his beliefs, except to confirm that he was a Unitarian, but he let it be known that he sometimes attended an Episcopal church with his wife and daughter and that he supported the spread of “Christian civilization.” In the end, other issues dominated the election, and Taft won fairly convincingly.
What should we make of this episode? Secularists might complain that someone with Taft’s views could not be elected today, that American voters have become more intolerant than they were 100 years ago. I think the situation is more complicated. In politics, religion matters mostly as a marker of cultural status. Non-mainstream beliefs are threatening if they are combined with groups the majority perceives as alien – Catholic immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century, for example. Perhaps the reason Taft’s religion wasn’t more of an issue was that Taft was so obviously a member of the Establishment, a political and cultural conservative, whatever his religious convictions. If that analysis is correct, the election of 1908 suggests that Americans are fine with Presidential candidates who hold non-traditional beliefs – as long as the candidates don’t seem threatening for other reasons.
Incidentally, Taft lost badly when he ran for reelection four years later, in the worst showing ever by an incumbent candidate. No indication his religion played any role in that.
Mark, thanks for the interesting background. In contemporary politics, whom do you think is most analogous to Taft in terms of the analysis you’ve offered? My own immediate reaction was Mitt Romney, though I’m sure there are others.
I also think it’s a function of the place that traditional beliefs hold in the society at the time — i.e., I agree that traditional Christians today may be less likely to support a candidate holding non-traditional beliefs than they would have been in 1908, but I think that’s because traditional Christians perceive themselves as increasingly marginalized from the socio-cultural-legal mainstream (whether or not that perception is accurate). The “Obama is a Muslim” charge has gained traction (in some circles), I think, because it plays into the overarching narrative of Christians being marginalized. “Taft is a Unitarian” would create problems for Taft’s candidacy today for the same reason (though perceptions of race and being “foreign” exacerbate the divisiveness in Obama’s case).
Marc and Rob,
I agree that Romney’s situation is roughly analogous to Taft’s 100 years ago. It’s widely believed that Romney’s Mormonism did create issues for some primary voters in 2008. Of course, we don’t know (yet?) how Romney’s religion would have played in a general election. And it may be that Christians’ greater sense of alienation from the cultural mainstream would make their resistance to candidates with unorthodox views more intense today than in 1908.
I am always disappointed when unethical political operatives play religion as a card, like race, which happens more often than it should. And, I think these cards work more effectively with people who think their way of life is threatened, which is also partially a function of these same unethical operatives.
But, I would credit the fact that there are many traditional Christians who sincerely believe that the only way God’s will can be done on this earth is if its leaders are Christian. Many Christian traditions, including my own Lutheranism, don’t accept this premise; but if one does, it seems to me that it would almost be incumbent on such a Christian to vote for a Christian, and to exclude those with professed faiths which do not share core and necessary dogmas of traditional Christianity, including the Triune God and salvation through the cross of Christ alone and not through works.
I’m not advocating for that, obviously, but it does seem logically consistent. The tough question is how someone, Christian or not, would argue with the premise in a way that made sense to both parties.