The Limits of Rationality

A Response to Jacob Weisberg’s A Mormon President? No Way?

While living abroad in Europe I had the pleasure of reading Jacob Weisberg’s article A Mormon President? No Way! In it Weisberg opines that it is not bigoted to withhold ones vote for “someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism” While I personally find such whoppers® delicious, whether such a stance is tantamount to bigotry is not what I wish to address. Rather, it is the floodgates that open up when we discriminate against candidates for exclusively held personal beliefs systems we deem irrational. Afterall, is there anyone who doesn’t hold certain irrational beliefs? Brief consideration easily ferrets out such irrationally held notions in all of us. Then there is the issue of rationality itself—the principles of warrantable assertability. Assuming the accuracy of sense perception, our world is in constant flux, and along with it, our conception of reason and rationality. Certainly any honest individual would willingly admit that each age has had its own conceptualization of rationality. Moreover, rationality is relative to the standards of the particular traditions of a particular time. What is rational to one culture is perhaps irrational to another. If rational is then relative to culture, time, and tradition, whose conceptualization of rationality should we use to determine the validity of a politicians personal beliefs? And could Romney possibly have a right to claim a rational belief in God considering his particulars?

Of course, Weisberg argues that this really is not the issue. To him, there is an inherent difference between Romney’s belief in new religious tenets as compared to tenets founded thousands of years old. In other words, there is a difference between believing Joseph Smith saw God 150 years ago and believing that Christianity is an inspired institution. But is that really the case? Take Europe for instance. Many secularists view the tenets of Christianity as just as irrational as Mormonism. History has afforded them a clear view of Martin Luther’s slaughtering of the so-called “murderous, thieving hoards of peasants,” the Spanish Inquisition, and the constant meandering of Catholic and Protestant metaphysics. Yet, these secularists take no issue with voting for individuals that see value and place faith in those same Christian institutions. How else could Nicolas Sarkozy, a believing Catholic, be elected in France (52% of French citizens profess adherence to atheistic or agnostic creeds)?

Holding the relativity of reason in further view, there is the other side of the coin to consider. Is it not just as shortsighted to withhold one’s vote from an atheist for what many religious folk see as an irrational disbelief in a higher being as it is to do the same to Romney? Shortsighted indeed. Many non-believers have had successful political careers: Mikhail Gorbachev, the famed communist reformer, and Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the Polish president who transitioned his country from the ruins of the cold war to a market economy and EU accession, are two among many. Nonetheless, such imprudence on the part of believers has led to unfairly discriminating against atheist politicians for their perceived irrationally held notions. Neither Romney nor an atheist deserves such constrained consideration.
The question that we as voters should be asking is not so much what candidates personal beliefs are, but rather how those beliefs will effect how that candidate will legislate and execute the law. In Romney’s case, his shift from liberal to social conservatism as governor is testament enough that his beliefs have no significant bearing on how he has or plans to execute the law. Weisberg makes this very point, but seems to miss its significance. Romney is no more interested in legislating Mormon politics, whatever that would be, as Weisberg is interested in serving an LDS mission. Romney’s religion, whether one views it as rational or irrational, does not cater to his politics. So, give the man a fair shake.

In closing, there is however, one position with which Weisberg and I both agree: Romney will not get either of our votes. But for me it is not because of his personal beliefs. Afterall, I am a practicing Mormon with a firm belief in the tenets of my faith. Rather, Romney will not get my vote because he is an insincere political opportunist with a bizarre CEO approach to politics. Instead, Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, will. But again, not because his personal beliefs. Personally, I find his church’s belief on Transubstantiation, where the sacramental bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, irrational. But I can afford Joe Biden his personal beliefs, irrational or not, as long as they remain just that, personal. Biden is receiving my vote because his beliefs that will impact me, energy independence and a regionally autonomous Iraq, are beliefs that I do find rational. In essence then, greater tolerance for each other’s exclusively held personal beliefs, irrational or not, and a deeper introspection into publicly impacting political beliefs is my new mantra, and it would all do us well to adopt it: atheists, believers, rationalists and irrationalists alike.