Article VI Blog

Conservative internet maven Eric Erickson has decided to go public with what went down in last weekend’s Evangelical confab.  Two key passages, first:

As with all meetings of Christian conservatives, we all pledge to have an off the record meeting and a handful of the sinners start leaking like sieves. It is aggravating and typically why I never say a word in these meetings.

Since a few have decided to leak so many details from the meeting as background and anonymous sources, I want to clarify a few things from my perspective and I will do it decidedly on the record.

Let me summarize, “Well, we aren’t supposed to say anything but because someone else did, I am going to anyway.  It is not really my fault that I am breaking my word – it is theirs.”  Let’s look at the next few key graphs:

If you are reading this from the media, I think the story you should tell is that Mitt Romney​ will probably become the nominee of the Republican Party with even less good feelings between evangelicals and him than John McCain​ had.

The problem for Team Romney is that the distrust of Romney is overwhelmingly about his record and shiftiness, but the Romney campaign fundamentally believes it is about his religion. When Team Romney concluded the pitch (read from an iPad seemingly without a passionate delivery) with an admonishment to not be an anti-Mormon bigot, it was game over. Several of the attendees felt like the Romney campaign was almost implying that they’d win without evangelicals and would expect everyone to line up when it was over even without Romney reaching out.

Note to Team Romney: When you are in a room full of Christian leaders like those who were in that room and who have all long been attacked by the left as bigots, it is unwise — no, it is damn foolish — to accuse them of being anti-Mormon bigots, something too many Romney supporters have descended to as the only possible explanation for daring to not get on board with Romney.

In other words, “It’s not our fault we don’t support Romney – it’s yours.”  Do you get the feeling that Erickson really wants to recite that trite little childish rhyme I used as the headline for this post?

What precisely is Team Romney supposed to think when the purpose of the meeting was to pick a “not Romney” and at least some of the attendees had been openly hostile to Mormons in the last cycle?  Further when it is in the record (see Joel Belz) that a significant portion of Evangelicals think Mormons are definitionally “shifty,” what should Team Romney think when that accusation is hurled at them?  As has been pointed out countless times, the much beloved Ronald Reagan took much the same journey that Romney has on issues important to social conservatives, from a state as far left leaning as Massachusetts – Why is Romney “shifty” and Reagan a political savior?

And finally, there is one simple fact – and even Erickson admits it.  Romney is going to win the nomination.  Simple political wisdom says that in such an instance, the smart move is to back the winner – that gives you the most influence, the most ability to move your issues forward.  If you decide to back someone not the winner then you must have an agenda, at this point unspoken, other than advancing the issues you claim to care so passionately about.  Is not religious discrimination, particularly given the circumstances, the most logical unspoken agenda?  The only alternative I can think of is utter ignorance of how the American political system works, and these people are a lot of things, but ignorant is not one of them.

Erickson long ago decided to sequester himself and squander the incredible influence he once showed the possibility of garnering.  As we have said, so too has the group of evangelical leaders that met in Texas.   But that is not the saddest thing, though it is indeed sad.

What makes me most sad is that this group of people, people that claim to lead Evangelicals like me in our faith, have so little faith themselves.  God is strong enough to withstand the office of President of the United States being filled by anyone – Mormon, Hindu, Baha’i, Buddhist, yes even Islamic.   God is sovereign and as such not subject to the whims of man, even when they are writ quite large as in the election of  a POTUS.

This Evangelical can and does support Mitt Romney precisely because God, as he knows him, is so much bigger than all this.  The God that moved through the godless, the sun worshipers, the Baal worshippers, and all the other extraordinarily errant religions of the Old Testament – the God that converted a hedonistic and polytheistic Roman Empire into Christendom can certainly deal with a POTUS that has a few theological issues, but is certainly closer to us than any of the religions of history.  Not only can God deal with such a POTUS; God can use such a POTUS  to advance the causes of life and marriage, and all other issues that are important to me and other Evangelicals.

Particularly if we are on board with such a POTUS.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• For A Subject That Is “Off-Limits”…
• I blame Mitt Romney
• The Media Double Standard and The Incredible Chutzpah of The Obama Administration
• The Return of Wright
• More Religious Values That Matter – Right and Wrong Turns