Michael Gerson has a strange understanding of mass democratic elections:

Yet Romney’s faith should not matter. Presidents are elected for their policy views, leadership skills and character, not their soteriology. Such theological convictions about salvation may be infinitely important, but they are politically irrelevant. The whole “no religious test for office” idea remains a good one.

Clearly, these convictions aren’t politically irrelevant, or we wouldn’t be discussing them. In fact, specific policy views are often among the least important things voters use for deciding how to vote. Perhaps all voters ought to judge candidates by their “policy views, leadership skills and character,” but many people vote based on whether or not they can identify with the candidate and his “values.” Religious conservatives would be the first to agree that “values” and faith are supposed to be closely connected.

There is something odd about a religious conservative insisting that a candidate’s religion should never be a reason not to vote for him. Certain theological convictions that touch more directly on public policy are not only used for judging candidates, but they are also demanded as essential tests that candidates must pass to receive the support of religious conservatives. Activists may use secular arguments when they discuss issues of life and traditional marriage, but the reason why most of them believe as they do is rooted in theological assumptions and teachings. For that matter, religious activists opposed to the death penalty are ultimately driven by their religious obligations to other people and their belief in the sanctity of life. Religious conservatives cannot insist on opposing a “naked” public square and then argue that theological convictions are politically irrelevant. The idea that we must pay attention to “values” but never pay attention to theological convictions is completely incoherent.

Most conservatives take it for granted that religious Americans can and should judge candidates based on their “values,” including how their faith informs those “values.” Why is the scrutiny supposed to stop when it comes to the content of the faith in question? Because it’s impolite? Because it might be awkward for a particular candidate? If a candidate invokes his faith on the campaign trail, and if he attempts to make use of his reputation as a religious person to improve his electoral chances, why is it unreasonable or unfair to choose not to support a candidate because of that faith?

Gerson continues:

On much of the right, politics will eventually trump theology.

That may be so, but it’s not clear to me why that is something to be celebrated.