Thor's Day: Politics and religion

Thursday of the week is devoted to airing out religion and religions. The column’s title, “Thor’s Day,” comes from the etymology of the word Thursday, literally “Thor’s Day.”

It’s ungodly, all the politics in the air now. The commentary on one of last Friday’s fish provoked the thought that presidential politics in America is a lot like religion. And not just in the obvious sense that one of the commenters pointed out, that “being religious” is a sine qua non for running for president. Rather, a candidate has to be nominally something, something mainstream, and in America that generally means something Christian—even Mormon, which the Latter-Day Saints certainly consider themselves to be.

But there are things more cripplingly religious about our politics than that. So much is taken on faith, you see.

Many Americans still take it on faith that the candidate who is more their own color is (for just that reason) more desirable than the other one (or other ones, but not this year).

It is generally conceded by pollsters that most voters have already made up their mind. And apparently the basis on which many of those voters made up their mind was…faith. Faith in Obama’s or Romney’s image, or in Obama’s or Romney’s party. Faith, in many cases, learned from their parents, right along with their church religion.

Or faith that their preferred party’s candidate has a plan, and faith that he will be able to act on it and it will make things all better, if not for the common good, then at least for the voters involved.

It’s faith because, if their candidate has a plan, they don’t know what it is.

It’s faith because no “plan” (singular) is going to address everything that will come up.

Plus the daily faith in the truth of the TV ads they’re watching—that is, the ones for their candidate, supplied by himself, his party, or their PACs. Voters avoid watching the other guy’s ads, except when they feel the need for a jolt of outrage to energize them.

Barring "something's happening" (like income tax evasion’s being revealed by an examination of Romney’s tax returns, after he finally releases them the Sunday evening prior to the election; or the release of an authenticated videotape showing Obama praying toward Mecca during Ramadan), the pollsters already think they know which states’ electoral votes will go to Obama and which to Romney.

It is said, probably rightly in terms of statistics, that this November’s election will be decided by the swing voters in a handful of states. Most of the other voters have made up their minds (largely based on faith), so their votes can be considered already counted. That is, the states where one candidate’s presumed voters significantly (in statistical terms) outnumber his opponent’s are already decided. Barring "something's happening."

Notice one other thing. One candidate’s side must be very much more “religious” than the other one’s side. Sound strange to you?

I use “must” in the logical sense that the conclusion follows from a line of reasoning. Here’s the argument:

In terms of logical necessity, one of the presidential candidates is, objectively speaking, the better choice for America—probably the much better choice, because the two candidates’ and their parties’ philosophies are so different. Voters who decide objectively by careful research and analysis whom to vote for are probably in a minority—perhaps a very small one. (Oh, let’s be honest: they are definitely in a very small minority.) If they are truly objective, then they will all vote for the same candidate—the objectively much better candidate (and party).

Now, both sides have voters who aren’t objective, who vote on faith. (Both sides have many such voters, and each side hopes to secure these “faith voters” by hammering home the side’s talking points.) But one side—the side whose candidate is the objectively inferior choice for America—must logically have nothing but faith voters, because every voter originally on that side who voted objectively (that is, did their research and analysis and concluded that the other side’s candidate was the better choice) had to change sides in order to vote for the better candidate. The only voters left on the inferior candidate’s side are faith voters.

Ergo: The inferior candidate’s side is much more religious than the other side’s candidate.

But the better candidate doesn’t necessarily win elections in America. America desperately needs less religion in its politics.