For my final Daily Free Press column I thought it appropriate to wax “arrogant,” as some would say, about the latest news of the 2008 election campaign. As you may have heard, Mitt Romney gave a fascinating speech last week about his faith and adherence to the Church of Latter-day Saints. Now I could offer some murky diatribe about Mormonism or faith and politics, but I think I will use my last 800 words or so to discuss the utter importance of electoral and civic responsibility — I assure you it’s more entertaining than it sounds.

What I mean by this is the responsibility of citizens to vote in an informed and intelligent manner. I say this in earnest to my collegiate peers because it is imperative to understand the issues before we make a choice for our next president; George W. Bush being the best example of what can happen when we make a choice out of ignorance, blissful as it may be.

I tie this in to the Romney “faith speech” because I have been flabbergasted by the very notion that, 47 years after JFK was forced to defend his Catholic faith, we still hurl barbed epithets at non-traditional religious candidates. Certainly we have a right to question our potential “presidentials” on everything from character and morality to taxes and the environment, but have we progressed so little in two score and seven years that we still require an explanation of a man’s belief in God? And furthermore, that we judge him solely on that belief and nothing more?

Forgive me that I am from the North and I have a difficult time comprehending the evangelical good ol’ boys, but I think it does a great disservice to our American electoral institution when we became a single-minded voting bloc. And that, my friends, is why I ask you — smart-as-a-whip Ivory Towering college students — to be informed when you “enter the voting cubicle,” to quote Kang from The Simpsons. If we condemn Romney because of one stance on one issue or one belief in one faith, and do not take a holistic perspective, then we are as myopic as the dictatorial and authoritarian barbarians we condemn overseas. Well, perhaps not quite so bad as the junta in Burma, but close.

There may be many things to dislike about Romney, but certainly his particular faith should not be a disqualifying factor. While I believe that, conversely, having faith is an important prerequisite for electoral success, an “alternative” version or conception of belief should hardly be a point of condemnation.

The American populace tends to do this “issue-based voting” much too often for my liking. We squash a candidate because of his or her abortion stance, viewpoint on the environment or take on constitutional interpretation. Liberals as well as conservatives are equally guilty, though we tend to harp on the latter rather than the former. Oddly, we also tend to make this “issue-based” calculus from both positive and negative perspectives: That is, we may vote for a certain candidate because we like or dislike them on only one criterion.

So what is to be done to rectify this thorny malady? Well, very little can be done because interest groups tend to patrol the campaign trails like circling carrion birds waiting for an injured animal to take its final breath. We need look no further than the infamous Swift Boat ads to recognize why John Kerry is remembered as a presidential “never was.” So I write this column with the hope that just one person will look at Giuliani as more than “America’s mayor,” will look beyond Hillary’s desire for national healthcare reform or Barack’s ability to be Oprah’s Svengali. If you can realize at least 10 issues that are important to you, analyze the candidates on that set of criteria, not your singular passion. I would be hard-pressed to find many Americans who can rightfully claim that they have such a large stake in one particular issue that it becomes their “make or break” factor. There are exceptions to this theory: I leave room, for example, for those suffering from quadriplegia to vote for candidates of the pro-stem cell bent, but these are few and far between.

I offer this simple essay so that we can elect a candidate who is well-rounded and mindful of more than the interests of a particular group. Mitt Romney, irrespective of my feelings for him as a political figure, has ideas on healthcare, gay marriage and the income tax. Like them or not, judge him on those and not the fact that he believes in the teachings of Joseph Smith. Take me at my word that should the majority of us make an informed choice, it will be the best choice for America.

In parting, I will digress from my thesis to offer a long-coming admonition to some Boston University students and our society writ large: Much like we should not judge a candidate on his or her singular stance, we should also not judge each other for one particular opinion or association. If, however, it is necessary to make such judgments, then do them through constructive and incisive debate, not ad hominem attacks. I say this not as a columnist who has been mocked or harmed — in fact, I have rather enjoyed my quid pro quo with Free Press readers and others — but as a lifelong debater who is deeply saddened by a society that offers rhetoric over substance and axiom over thoughtful critique. Therefore, in this election season, and indeed in any aspect of your life, carry forth a beacon of knowledge that can be used to advance the marketplace of ideas through purposeful analysis. Please do not become the next Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson, who use illogical, fear-based rationale to justify their opinions.

If nothing else, I hope that I have extended this philosophy through my semester as your columnist. I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and have been honored to write for the Free Press. Many thanks go round to those who made it possible.

I will close in the same manner that I close each episode of my butv10 show On That Point: “It is only worth having an opinion if you are willing to stand up and fight for it.” Keep this well and have a wonderful winter break.

Neil St. Clair, a senior in the College of Communication and College of Arts and Sciences, has been a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He is also the host of butv10’s On That Point. He can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected].