11.29.07
Romney and the Muslim appointee question
In an article in the Christian Science Monitor, Mitt Romney responds to a question about whether he would appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet:
I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration…
The point I make in enumerating these efforts to contribute to US national interests is that Americans of the Islamic faith – even when they have no formal role in government – are committed to helping our nation defend its interests. And we have done so. Why, then, should we be excluded from holding positions that carry the highest levels of responsibility?
I really think that the author of the article is kind of missing the two most important points here. First, there is no way in hell that Romney is going to hire anybody for any sort of a high-level post—and probably not a lower level one, either—who is not Christian, except for the possibility that he can get away with a token Mormon or two.
Remember, on the one hand he’s pandering to right wingnut crackpot religious litmus-testers, who don’t feel that anybody but narrow-definition Christians are qualified to be in office. But he’s also trying to please the public at large, which is largely generic Christian in orientation, and also feels that while broad-definition Christians are acceptable, there should be no religious minorities in elected office.
So he’s decided to limit his Cabinet and other major appointees to Christians, and he’s using demographics as an excuse. Was there ever really any question?
