David Brooks has an interesting column recounting Romney family history, and how the culture of the Romney family may have shaped Mitt Romney’s relentless work ethic. Excerpt:

Mitt Romney can’t talk about his family history on the campaign trail. Mormonism is an uncomfortable subject. But he must have been affected by it.

It is a story of relentless effort, of recovery and of being despised (in their eyes) because of their own success. Romney himself experienced none of this hardship, of course, but Jews who didn’t live through the Exodus are still shaped by it.

Romney seems to share his family’s remorseless drive to rise — whether it’s trying to persuade the French to give up wine and join his church, or building a business, or being willing to withstand heaps of abuse in pursuit of the presidency.

Brooks says that Romney doesn’t have the character flaws usually associated with great wealth, and that this Richie Rich issue is “a sideshow.” These paragraphs above suggest that if there weren’t such a strong prejudice against Mormonism in this country, the story Mitt Romney could tell about his family’s pioneer story, and perseverance in the face of persecution and ruin, would be awesome.

If Romney were a Jew, he could tell this story and we would all admire it immensely, because it is admirable, and because America has, thankfully, become far more tolerant of Jews over the past century. But he is a Mormon. As you know, I’m not a Romney fan, or, in a theological sense, any sort of enthusiast for Mormonism, but it’s a damn shame that the man has to be quiet about this history, in which he ought to be able to take public pride. I don’t agree with the theological precepts of Mormonism any more than I agree with the theological precepts of Judaism — which is to say, I agree with some of them in both cases, but find them both to be radically flawed, for obvious reasons — but if folks and their families have lived in an upright way, have demonstrated that, especially over generations, then why would we consider their religion disqualifies them from leadership in this secular republic?

Then again, I would vote for a wise and virtuous atheist over a rash and morally inconstant Christian any day of the week. The wise and virtuous atheist may not ultimately get to heaven, while the rash and morally inconstant Christian certainly may. But this is not heaven, this is earth. And in this country, our kings, thank God, are not priests.