Evangelicals Sent some Messages to the Republicans, But was Anyone Listening?
Please allow me to slip on my political commentator hat for a few minutes if you will. At one point in my life, I was content to be known as somewhat of a political “activist” from the religious right point of view. A couple of years ago, I “retired” from that hobby believing that my time would be better spent on ministry than politics. However, my withdrawal from the activism does not mean that I am disinterested in the process whereby we select our leadership.
So, it was with attentiveness I observed the results from the Iowa 
caucuses last night — particularly those from the Republican side of the aisle. While I am philosophically independent politically, I’m far more likely to find candidates who identify themselves as Republicans that match the minimum basic requirements for me to want to vote for them. This cycle, I’m thus far extremely underwhelmed-to-disgusted by the choices the Grand Old Party has managed to conjure up for a run at the White House.
But as the results rolled in from Iowa, I do believe we saw something that was quite interesting unfold. Every pundit and their dyslexic cousins noted today that Iowans voted for “change” rather than “experience” this time around, so I’ll skip that obvious conclusion. Less noticeable was a message — or perhaps messages that I believe that evangelicals, values voters, the so-called Religious Right, sent last night and that’s what I want to discuss in this article.
Basically, from my perch, I see several messages that someone in the upper echelons of the Republican Party needs to read if they want to have any hope of keeping the White House this year.
Message One — Social conservativism still matters.
Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative. That’s one of the reasons I remain extremely wary of him. But when it comes down to a fiscal conservative/social liberal vs. a social conservative/fiscal moderate — the evangelical block is going to support the social conservative and by no small margin. If the Rockefeller Republicans prevail and their boy Guiliani (extreme), the “converted” 
Mormon alternative Romney (moderate) or the maverick McCain (conservative, but viewed as hostile to evangelicals) is given the keys to the nomination, they should not expect the evangelicals to fall into line and pull the GOP levers. Expect them to stay home or go third party — even for a nutjob like Paul. Prolife, profamily, pro-traditional marriage issues MATTER to these folks and they aren’t going to be bought off with deathbed “conversions” and a backseat on the ticket. They are simply not going to compromise on these core philosophical issues. Period. Even if the nominee is Hillary which seems to have been their silent hope, they won’t. Nominate Guiliani and watch Obama capture a shockingly significant portion of the evangelical vote.
Message Two — Compassionate Conservativism has taken root in the evangelical community.
There is a shift going on in evangelical circles. Consider Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. initiative and his decision to publicly cowtow with Obama and Bono and others. Think the “Greening of Evangelicals”. Consider (alleged) evangelical liberal Tony Campolo’s harping on social activism. Those of us who live in the most conservative shadows of evangelicalism may not sense it as much as those who are part of the “new” evangelical wave of the megachurches and the sycophants of blown-dried personalities like Osteen and the Whites, but there is a move leftward when it comes to how many evangelicals view the government’s view of helping the “underprivileged” and impoverished. They are not impressed with a culture of big business hard-nosedness that sends jobs overseas, invests in high-profit/low morals industries like porn and booze for the sake of profit, and hyper-inflates CEO salaries while single moms can’t put food on the table. They may not understand the consequences of a “nanny state”, but they don’t like what they see happening either. Thus, a Huckabee message that would translate to bigger government and even higher taxes does not frighten them like it once may have.
Message Three — Don’t take evangelicals for granted.
The Reagan coalition of Country Club Republicans, working class/middle class and religious conservatives worked. But the evangelicals are more loyal to ideals than party affiliation. The Blue-Blood Republican set that summers in the Hamptons can’t win without the evangelicals and they know it. The religious right has become very astute at turning out the vote. It’s an uncomfortable marriage — but everyone has a lot at stake in keeping it together. Evangelicals will never write the big checks that the Fortune 500 guys can and most of them wouldn’t do it even if
they had it — they’d give it to or through their church instead. But the CEO’s and summer-house Republicans can’t do what the evangelicals can — organize, network and get their constituency to the polls on election day in a massive way. For all the talk that the Republican subgroups are heading for divorce, they’d both better be fully cognizant that they may split the sheet, but in doing so, they’ll insure that a Democrat ends up laying in the bed. The thought of having Rudolph Guiliani in the White House is as distasteful to many Religious Conservatives as the thought of having James Dobson on the ticket would be to Arlen Spector and Olympia Snow. In their failure to groom or recruit a Reaganesque or even “Bushesque” candidate for this year’s election who is both fiscally and socially conservative (with a proven track record, who didn’t malign the leadership of a major portion of their constituency ala McCain 2004 and who isn’t from some cult where the adherents wear magic underwear and a history of polygamy and racism), they have endangered this delicate alliance and perhaps their hopes of retaining the Presidency.
There are other messages — some of them perhaps subliminal — and it is still early in the cycle, but I’ll stop with these three. Today, I happened to be in my vehicle that isn’t equipped with XM Radio and thus ended up listening to Limbaugh and his local conservative equivalent on AM for a
couple of hours as I ran errands. Limbaugh has been spending so much time in Palm Beach in recent years that he now thinks a lot like the establishment Republicans. His local wannabee conservative pundit basically parroted what he was saying. Neither of them got the message as they savaged Huckabee directly and through inuendo. I’m not a particular fan of the former Arkansas Governor myself. But like those in the RNC, even the pundits are missing the point as they attack the mailman without reading the mail.
I don’t have a solution for the Republicans any more than I have a candidate that resonates with me. My interest in the spectacle of the primary process actually excites me as I view the dysfunctional dilemma that lies before both parties. Both parties may see their futures tied to who got the message the voters sent to both headquarters first.
One thing is for sure. It’s gonna’ be interesting!
Bob Bixby said,
January 4, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
I agree with everything you say here, Dan. I’m a very interested spectator this year, emotionally detached, but very interested. Like you, I’ve failed to get excited about any candidate. Like you, I think Rush Limbaugh has lost touch with the grassroots base. Interesting days!
Brian McCrorie said,
January 4, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Despite our disagreement in some areas of politics, Dan, you’ve written a very thoughtful article here. I agree with most of it.
Obviously, I am a fan of Huckabee. I do happen to believe he is fiscally conservative, despite the fact that he did raise taxes and increase spending in Arkansas. That may sound ridiculous, but I believe that the pattern of his governing over the course of the 10.5 years reflects fiscal conservatism. It’s maybe not as pure as we would like it to be, but it’s no worse than other executives in this race.
Less Ismore said,
January 5, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
First off, I’ll go out on a pretty steady limb and say that it really doesn’t matter, anyway; Hilary Clinton will be our next president I’m fairly certain.
Dan, I am one who has been constantly amazed at the rightful grumblings of the Christian Right and the disconnect. You made some very valid points that I agree with you totally. But the disconnect is that people like you still call Paul a nutjob. Paul is the closest thing to a true conservative that we’ve seen nationally since Barry Goldwater. (Although Reagan had many good points.) There finally is a good candidate out there and he is just treated as a joke by all the people who complain about the same things he stands against. To me, that is where the nuttiness lies.
Much of the change in the socio-political-religious climate can be attributed to Peter Drucker. Drucker was in many ways a brilliant man, although I disagree with much of his views. Do a study of Drucker to see how he envisioned a tightening of the bonds of social/cultural change agents and saw churches and governments and business working together.
patrick said,
January 5, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
i’m not a big fan of politics… don’t follow it too closely. BUT, i do know you are right on in your 2nd point in regards to my generation. we are flocking to support anyone who supports Jesus’ idea of helping the poor, hungry, underprivileged, etc… i guess if you want to call that “leftward” then that’s where we’re going… FAST.
my generation of evangelicals is passionately behind what Rick Warren lays out in his PEACE plan… we feel it’s closer to what Jesus promoted.
we feel that Bono is way more biblical in what he says than most preachers on a sunday morning (check his address to congress at the national prayer breakfast ‘06).
and, yeah, we’re ready to “go green” & support organizations like the fermi project that are proclaiming God’s commands to cultivate & create.
we love what campolo has to say on social issues and would see ourselves as biblical, revolutionary social activists like Jesus.
so, i’m not sure what your thoughts are on these things… but i can say that you are dead on in part #2. i’m far from an expert on what all this means politically, but this is only the beginning. as my generation steps into higher leadership roles in the next 10 years… these issues will be some of the DOMINANT ones in evangelicalism (no longer back seat issues).
*i usually never read your political stuff… and i even only read#1 & #2 of this one, but it was good.
Less Ismore said,
January 5, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
“They are not impressed with a culture of big business hard-nosedness that sends jobs overseas,”
Much of this was the result of NAFTA, a largely bi-partisan project.
politicalinsider said,
January 7, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Excellent analysis. As someone who works in the field I agree on most points, You cannot forget a significant portion of your base and expect to do well if you are the GOP.
The biggest problems stems from the idea that many “establishment” Republicans, attempted to make over Mitt Romney as their guy. Rush The problem is that most evangelical leaders in the party saw right through this ploy. It just shows the “establishment” guys like Rush Limbaugh, George Will, National Review, ect., ect. ect… really have no clue what evangelicals want in a candidate.
I do think some of the compassionate conservativsim ideas are completely overblown. I think this is were Huckabee has lost some support within the evangelical community. People in the mainstream evangelical community want to help the poor and impovershed, but they don’t believe the government should pay for it either with big social progams. Trust me, most evangelicals as a group could care less about “going green”. Everytime anyone talks about going green, their opposition usually gains several points in the polls for most of America. Evangelicals for the most party are very ring wing in most other issues, but they also don’t want to compromise on their two issues. I do think Rush’s comments on Huckabee could cost him dearly in the long run considering many of his listeners are evangelicals.
Evangelicas in the end want two things from a conservative candidate:
1. Ardent in Pro-Life stance (see Reagan and W. Bush)
2. Strong Pro-Family Stance (Anti-Gay Marriage)
What happens when the GOP runs establishment conservative candidate that could care less about the religious right: We end up with candidates like,( Bob Dole, Bush Sr., and Gerald Ford) What do all these guys have in common: They lost to a southern democrat who took away large portions of the evangelical vote.
Less Ismore said,
January 7, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Dan, does anyone listen to your website? I like your website and I wish more people would interact.
Has anyone else heard this stat?: as a whole, current military and veterans financially support Ron Paul more than any other Republican candidate. Could it be because he is against the war? I can’t find any sources to cite right now, but I did hear this this morning on a Fox radio station.
George said,
January 7, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Great article. First, let me disclaim that I have yet to make up my mind about who I’ll vote for in the upcoming Florida primary as well as the fact that my boss has enthusiastically endorsed and is campaigniung for Huckabee. Having said that, it’s nice for someone who seems to be a supporter to admit H-bee may not be as conservative on many fiscal policy issues as the truly conservative base (the hardcore Goldwater/Reagan republicans) would like.
You seem to connect the leaning to the left among evangelicals on some social welfare policies to many the more socially-oriented mega churches. I think this overstates their influence and understates the effect of having an elected leader effectively advance his agenda. While George W. Bush (and Frank Luntz) changed the kneejerk way in which many republicans are viewed by promoting compassionate conservatism and government-funded faith-based programs, I think they also have confused their religious views about how the Bible directs one to live their personal life and the role of the church in society with how government should rule over its citizens. Pure religion — not pure government — is to care for the fatherless and the widow. I wonder about the long-term ramifications of mingling government funding with faith-based social programs for both the programs and the Church.
George said,
January 7, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Oh, one final thought. I think you’re correct that social conservatism — abortion, gay marriage, pro-family issues – still matters, but I see a trend that is reexamining what is a deal breaker in the social conservatism context.
Take for example, a fellow evangelical who I consider to be politically conservative. His position, which I think was fairly nuanced, was that he could support a pro-choice candidate so long as the candidate would actively oppose all government funding for abortions and the candidate also opposed abortions permitted beyond the point of viability, except for life and health of mother. His thought process was that many of the social programs of the Great Society have done more harm to society than abortion. Also, there are other destructive behaviors that kill and harm the family – alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity – but we do not make those behaviors illegal. Finally, the most effective way of changing the behavior was changing the heart, not the law. In contrast, gay marriage was still a deal breaker because of the protections afforded married couples and the resulting forced acceptance of a lifestyle he opposed. In the abortion example, he’s not forced to participate and can actively work to discourage abortion as a reasonable option. In contrast under the gay marriage scenario, if he owned a business that provided spousal benefits, he would have to award benefits to same-sex partners or eliminate the benefit.
Jon Wymer said,
January 7, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Many Republicans on TV have been chalking up Huckabee’s win in Iowa to a motivated evangelical base. Social conservatives still have a voice, and are likely to shy away from Mitt Romney for a number of reasons. It seems clear to me that Huckabee is a moderate in many ways. What is particularly interesting though is that Huckabee has hit the note that Obama understands, but none of the other Republicans seem to get: Americans are sick of politicians. Whether or not these men are solid on policy, Americans seem drawn to someone who is down-to-earth and seems to care about them. This may be the first postmodern presidential race, in the sense that with these two candidates personality trumps policy every day of the week.
Less Ismore said,
January 7, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Good points, George. I think you made a very cogent point here: “Finally, the most effective way of changing the behavior was changing the heart, not the law.”
I still think the wave of the future is to have a 3-legged stool, so to speak, between churches, government and business just as Drucker envisioned. So I’m not sure that any of these new alliances are going away. Years ago in college we studied Drucker and this was his vision. It appears as if we are there through the new connections and programs that you didn’t see years ago.
Dan Burrell said,
January 7, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
Lessismore wrote, “Dan, does anyone listen to your website? I like your website and I wish more people would interact. ”
I don’t know if they listen to it, but I’m getting about 5,000 readers a month right now. I took a bit of a hiatus last summer and I’m still rebuilding the readership. I was hitting about 10,000 a month then.
CommonVoice and FreeRepublic.com both picked up this article and the FreeRepublic site hit the max 99 comments that they allow within hours after it linked.
Dan
Dan Burrell said,
January 7, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
George, I think you and I fairly much agree on the role of government in helping the poor. I see the church’s role to be in helping the church poor first however and I don’t think any of us can deny that it is beneficial when church and state work “with” each other for the sake of the poor and civilization in general. I do’t think the church should do what the state should do, nor do I think the state should do what the church should do. (We can throw “family” in that mix as well, but that’s a different discussion.)
I’m not a left-trending evangelical, but because I don’t swim in that end of the pond, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t out there and growing. The young’un’s who are 10-20 years behind us (I LOVED typing that to YOU) are more social progressive in my observations. While they are not the majority, I think we should note that as closely divided as the American electorate currently is, we don’t have to see many Evangelicals go left (10-20% of them) before we start seeing the margin of Republican victory evaporate in multiple states and districts. That’s why I think it is significant. Not because of a whole-scale move, but because of a subtle and gradual shifting.
Just some additional thoughts and clarification….
Dan
politicalinsider said,
January 8, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Evangelical’s as a large group will never go to the Democratic Party as a whole or even a large section until the Dems alter their stances on abortion and traditional family values.
As a whole the evangelical is extremely right wing and anti-social progressive.They will also stay home when necessary.
Yes, their may be a few “progressive” young evangelicals but I don’t think Republican candidates will ever get this vote.
Yes, evangelicals can potentially get fooled in the short term with nice talk but I don’t believe they want government taking over the role of churches.
This same group of evangelicals loves Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Shawn Hannity and other ultra conservative commentary. The call for evangelicals to “go green” and become more socially progressive will not get very far in the long run. Even the public at large sees global warming as being overplayed by the media in general with their talk of carbon credits and such. When you poll global warming against issues like illegal immigration, terrorism, the U.S. budget, national defense, social security and other bread and butter issues it usually finds itself at or right near the bottom. Right now, people just don’t care. It never ceases to amaze me about the candidates usually from the left, but not always that waste their time and resources with this subject. I have seen candidates in swing districts at the state level spend $50,000-$100,000 dollars attempting to sway the public in general about their progessive ideas on global warming. It just does not work outside of areas like San Fransisco and maybe Seattle and other like cities.
Less Ismore said,
January 8, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
PI, this is intersting: “The call for evangelicals to “go green” and become more socially progressive will not get very far in the long run. Even the public at large sees global warming as being overplayed by the media in general with their talk of carbon credits and such. When you poll global warming against issues like illegal immigration, terrorism, the U.S. budget, national defense, social security and other bread and butter issues it usually finds itself at or right near the bottom.”
This will be an interesting issue to watch over the next few years. First off, my belief is that man-made global warming is a total fraud and is simply a tool used for political purposes. Global warming just happened to be the best issue they could find to rally the world around and to create change. i.e. - global taxes, global governance, whatever, etc. Right now it’s up in the air (no pun intended). Some in the media are boldly saying it’s a fraud (such as the founder of the Weather Channel), and others in the media are pushing it gung-ho like you’re an evil, capitalistic pig if you dare drive down to the local Wal-Mart. It will be interesting to see if “carbon footprint” takes wholesale preeminence in our modern vernacular. I can see it going both ways. There’s enough push for it that global warming will continue to be the “problem” it was manufactured to be. But on the other hand, I am seeing enough resistance (and not just from conspiracy theorist nuts) that it may eventually die.
Erin Stalnaker said,
January 9, 2008 @ 8:43 am
I’m interested to know what your basis is for calling Ron Paul a “nutjob”. He, of all candidates, represents what I would love to see happen with my country, but I want to be especially careful about making a well-informed decision. Any links or history on the subject of Ron Paul would be greatly appreciated!
Terrell said,
February 10, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
What do you have against Ron Paul?
Dan Burrell said,
February 11, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Not as much as you’d think. But he’s followers are strange and anyone who is not actually a follower of Ron Paul will confirm that to be true. They have a ferocity, a loyalty, a dillusionary level of support that swings from creepy to eerie. They can’t seem to fathom that he has NO CHANCE of being elected President, yet they swarm every online poll, every negative blog post, every internet forum with the zeal of a swarm of locusts.