The Evangelical Mistake
It was a hard morning to be an Evangelical and read the Romney/religion/convention news. This week should be a week of celebration – we have a candidate of good character, smarter than most, a devout family man, and a greatly weakened opponent. The economy is going to get turned around and we are in good shape to definitively slow, if not stop, the general cultural slide that the nation is experiencing, and with a majority in Congress perhaps even begin to reverse the slide. And yet, when I read the news, Evangelicals, who should be leading this parade, are in point of fact (and pardon the “French” here) sucking hind tit.
They are talking about Mike Huckabee, who with his endorsement of Akin has rendered himself a non-player. Even with Huckabee saying the right things about Romney, who cares? More importantly the fact that it is necessary, at this juncture, for anybody to say anything of that sort is pathetic.
Which brings me to Ralph Reed. Reed is a good man, trying to say the right things, but he sure is not helped by a salacious headline from USNews:
Evangelical Leader Sees Romney as Latest Convert
Reed, of course, says nothing about Romney changing faith. This is the headline writer playing on Romney’s change of heart on abortion – which Reed does discuss. And in so discussing, Reed’s messaging is all wrong – I mean really wrong:
Reed attributed some of this shift to Romney’s changed stance on abortion. When Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts, he promised abortion rights groups he would be a “good voice” for them. By 2005, however, he professed to be anti-abortion. “They are not going to hold it against someone because they had a different view,” Reed says. “The whole Evangelical theology is based on conversions, they are used to making converts. They don’t take converts and kick ‘em in the teeth. They hug them, they love on them.”
Evangelicals, it seems, are content to treat Romney as their newest convert.
Come on Ralph, why don’t you put the ball on the Tee for the T-ball league for crying out loud?
The facts are pretty straightforward – Mitt Romney is the nominee. It is official now, the convention voted him in formally yesterday. We don’t talk about what was anymore. We don’t soul-search about what’s “right” anymore. We don’t apologize. Mitt Romney is the man and unless we want four more years of the garbage we have been enduring for the last three-and-one-half we better get busy telling the world how good Mitt Romney is. No caveats, no exceptions, no “buts.”
Do I sound a little more edgy than usual with this one? It’s because I am. McKay Coppins, doing some very good Mormon reporting for a change, gives us some pretty thorough insight into how Romney has decided on his approach to discussing religion this cycle. There are two key pulls from the piece. The first concerns why Romney is talking religion now:
The official explanation for the sudden shift in strategy is that the campaign was always waiting for Tampa — where they would have tight control over the choreography and the narrative — to start telling Mitt’s Mormon story.
“The convention is a good platform for telling all the dimensions of Romney’s life — his service as governor, as the head of the Olympics, businessman, devoted husband and father, and as lay leader in his church counseling families facing different hardships,” senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told BuzzFeed.
Let me translate that for you. The campaign wants to talk about character and service and the great civil religion. Mormonism is a part of that tradition, regardless of how you think about Mormonism theologically and ecclesiastically. During the primary season any such talk would have been pulled, as it was in 2008, into soteriology, the Trinity and talk of “cults.” In the general election with an opponent actively attempting to squelch religious freedom and the force of Evangelicals, who seem unable to help themselves from talking about the politically unhelpful aspects of religiosity even now, greatly diluted it will be much easier to keep the conversation focused where it needs to be – character and service and the great civil religion.
Which brings me to the second pull from the Coppins piece:
The day after Thanksgiving in 2007, Tagg Romney, the candidate’s oldest son, phoned a longtime family friend. They were weeks out from the first primary of the season at the time, and the campaign had determined that his father’s path to victory ran through Iowa.
As a result, the Romney family had spent several months, hundreds of man hours, and millions of dollars in a desperate attempt to win over the state’s conservative Evangelical base. While the candidate surrounded himself with every culture warrior he could woo, surrogates — including his wife and five sons — fanned out across the state to bring their family-values message home.
But on the front lines of Iowa’s retail politics, one thing was regularly made clear: There were many Republican voters who held Mormonism in deep contempt. Romney family members were routinely confronted with Bible-bashing Evangelicals on the campaign trail, local pastors spent Sundays sermonizing against “the Mormon cult,” and some voters even refused to shake hands with Romney’s former Lt. Governor Kerry Healey because they thought she was Mormon.
When the family friend asked Tagg how it was going that day in late November, he sounded dispirited.
“It’s brutal,” the friend recalled Tagg saying. “It’s just brutal.”
[...]
In the end, though, none of it seemed to help. Romney lost Iowa to Mike Huckabee, an insurgent former Baptist minister who had publicly called into question some the candidate’s Mormon beliefs. And while Romney would stay in the race for several more weeks, one adviser who worked for the campaign at the time said the loss was crushing — especially for the candidate’s family, who viewed the defeat, in part, as a referendum on their religion.
“I remember everyone was totally depressed on the plane,” the adviser said, recalling the morning after they lost. “Everyone was exhausted, and Mitt’s going up and down the plane trying to cheer everyone up… It was so hard.”
Many in Romney’s orbit, including some in his family, considered the entire episode a lesson learned. And as he weighed another presidential bid in the run-up to 2012, some of his sons urged him not to do it. Among other reasons, the detractors in the family cited the anti-Mormonism they had encountered on the trail in 2008, said one person familiar with the situation.
Let me react to that in the most basic of terms. We, Evangelicals, hurt these people – deeply. And of that I am ashamed, even if I fought hard to prevent it from happening.
Now, let me pose a question here. Given that we inflicted a wound like that on these people, how far out of their way do you think they are going to go to include Evangelicals in their administration? Oh, there will be Evangelicals in the administration, make no doubt, many have been very helpful. But how many more would there be if Evangelicals had boarded the bus early? And how many more again would be in if at this juncture, rather than still needing to be convinced by guys like Reed and Huckabee, we were busy extolling the virtues of Mitt Romney? Just how much influence inside the Romney administration do you think we have sacrificed for the sake of religious identity and theological purity?
So, yeah, I’m edgy. While Romney will be busy fixing the economy – definitively priority number one – we could have been busy working inside the administration to fix some of the lesser issues that are important to us. Romney will make the necessary appointments and hires, but he is not going to go out of his way to search our community for the brightest and most motivated – and I cannot blame him one bit – he has bigger fish to fry and we have not earned the consideration.
I’m edgy because as the candidate I have worked six years to bring to this point finally accepts the nomination, I am confronted with my religious community having sacrificed much opportunity and seemingly working to sacrifice even more. Who knows if there will be a next time?
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |
Print this post
|
Email This Post

TVHall on 29 Aug 2012 at 8:06 pm #
John – Thank you for saying what needed to be said. One can only hope it reaches the hearts of a few for whom it is intended. This is why I have continued to return to this site on a daily basis. (Well, except for the occasional vacation
)
sewinglady on 30 Aug 2012 at 1:37 pm #
Tell us how you really feel, John! I found this post to be heart wrenching. I agree that it seems many evangelicals have forgotten that civil religion in this country is still real and is desperately needed at this time. Mormons are not the enemy; those who will strip us of our religious freedoms ARE.
I’m sorry there are those who are behind the times on this. I guess we also need to focus on how far we have come in the last six years–thanks to people like you, Lowell, and John Mark. Also the Evangelicals for Mitt and those religious groups and churches who joined together on Proposition 8 and similar propositions in other states. Truly, there has been progress. I believe that evangelicals will not be as ignored by a Romney administration–if it pleases God that there will be one–as you fear. Although many evangelicals’ actions, and words, have marginalized them; I believe that Mitt will still seek out the best people he can to help in this effort. I like to imagine that you and Nancy and David French, and many others like you who have been helpful will be listened to as you seek out the best and brightest talent among the evangelical community. Mitt is not the type of man to hold grudges. Thank heavens!
I appreciate all of your efforts to help in the cause of American civil religion. We Americans have always needed our civil religion, but I feel that we need it now as desperately if not more so than at any time in our history. When I hear who is speaking at the Democrat convention–people like Sandra Fluke getting news time, even if it’s only c-span and cable–I cringe. The focus on abortion is appalling. We who believe in God need to celebrate our religious freedom. We need to stop the bickering among ourselves and worship God, love one another, and continue to work together to protect our own right of religious freedom and the rights of some of the most vulnerable among us–the unborn.
trvalletta on 31 Aug 2012 at 9:54 am #
John — good article with great insights. Thank you.
JLF9999 on 03 Sep 2012 at 7:37 pm #
If I may, the truly nasty Evangelicals would likely not a have a place in ANY administration. It has little to do with religion and everything to do with not knowing how to play nice. Even the Southern Baptists have recognized the error of their religious ways. So much so that they have made plans to change their name. I suppose that is something like moving to a new city where no one knows your past in order to get a new start. So, taking just a little exception with John, it isn’t that others have a different take on doctrine as much as it is about people who have trouble with other people for a lot of reasons and not all of it has to do with religion. Some folks are just not nice people.