Why the evangelicals should support Romney, not Huckabee

Literary critic Carol Iannone writes to VFR:

Pro-Giuliani economic conservatives kept telling us that social conservatives and evangelicals no longer hold their traditional issues paramount, that all they want is to be “safe,” and that they see Giuliani as the best person to keep them “safe.” The Huckabee surge shows how wrong the economic conservatives were. The social conservatives do care about their traditional issues and about not putting into the White House someone with Giuliani’s history of dishonorable personal behavior towards his second wife and disregard of his children, thereby bidding farewell to the whole family values issue for Republicans.

Unfortunately, in going behind Huckabee, the evangelicals are detracting from the most electable and reasonably conservative choice, Romney. They are dividing the anti-Giuliani vote and making it more possible that Giuliani will get the nomination. They are letting their anti-Mormon feelings get the better of them and giving power to what is far worse. The anti-Mormonism is unreasonable, because, as Romney explained, the Mormon beliefs that may seem odd to us would in no way impinge on his leadership, and yet the basic values of Mormonism are in sync with those of America as a whole. Mormons are good people who have more than proven their compatibility with America, after the initial commotion, and we have nothing to fear from them and in fact everything to gain from their stronger values. Romney’s harmonious marriage and family life are proof of that. In fact, Romney’s large family, and the larger Mormon families in general, can offer a good counter to our no-child and one-child families. And this is aside from their, and his, great contributions to public life. And aside from Romney’s commitment to conservative issues.

As for the “best person to beat Hillary,” there too the feeling prompting many conservatives was a kind of desperation that only Giuliani could do it. At times they sounded like medieval peasants clamoring for El Cid. But it was becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. People were waiting to see how the grassroots Republicans would lean. But the grassroots are often waiting for leadership, and while some conservatives were definitely for Giuliani, others were holding back on Romney. Now that many prominent conservatives are supporting Romney, he will have momentum.

- end of initial entry -

Terry Morris writes:

Carol Iannone wrote:

Pro-Giuliani economic conservatives kept telling us that social conservatives and evangelicals no longer hold their traditional issues paramount, that all they want is to be “safe,” and that they see Giuliani as the best person to keep them “safe.”

Might I say that this just shows how ignorant and inept the pro-Rudy economic conservatives are. How can they believe that social conservatives no longer hold their traditional values as paramount? A little wishful thinking maybe? It should have been no surprise to economic conservatives that Rudy was initially well received by social conservatives, and they ought to be smart enough to know why, which apparently they aren’t. It wasn’t because, as economic conservatives believed, the social conservatives just wanted to be safe and therefore, since Rudy is the best qualified to provide them that safety, they were willing to drop their morality. A true and dedicated social conservative could never prioritize that way because it is completely backwards to his way of thinking. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Social conservatives reacted favorably to Rudy initially because they thought he was a man of real character; how could they think otherwise given the favorable media attention he was getting after 9/11? In other words, economic conservatives got it completely wrong.

Rudy got a lot of national exposure during the 9/11 event and the aftermath. All, or virtually all, of that exposure as “America’s Mayor” was good. Just like anyone else in America, the further removed from that person’s center one is, the less you know about his true nature and character. That’s the reason that founders such as Noah Webster advised that when considering one for high level public office you should learn something of his character. The very best means for discovering this, Webster advised, is to ask of the people who have long known him.

Here’s a timeless and unfailing formula that the economic conservatives need to understand:

Social Conservatism = Traditional morality. That’s priority numero uno with Social conservatives, and always will be.

John D. writes:

I agree with Terry Morris on his perspective regarding the fact that social conservatives will usually prioritize traditional moral values, especially when voting for the high position of POTUS. What then, can possibly be the reasoning behind Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani? Some people conjectured that Robertson felt that Rudy was the only GOP candidate that had any chance of stopping Hillary. Some said that he felt that Rudy would be the only one strong enough to lead the U.S. through the present day Muslim uprising. But Pat Robertson himself stated that it was because Giuliani assured him that his nominations for replacement of the ever aging SCOTUS judges along with other federal judges would be those with irrefutably socially conservative records. Is this not where the true power remains in the U.S.? Romney’s record shows that even HE is dissatisfied with his own appointees during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, and has recently even called on one judge to resign. The Boston Globe reported in July of 2005 that Romney had “passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents—including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”

Huckabee said in 2003 that Lawrence v. Texas was correctly decided. Enough said.

I agree with much of what you and other readers at VFR have said regarding the degradation that the conservative movement would face regarding a Guiliani presidency, just one of many reasons that I would not vote for him. And his foreign policies would be Bushism on steroids. But where do social conservatives stand to gain the most ground? SCOTUS and the appeals courts, as Robertson is well aware. If we are to bank on presidential ideology (a changed man in Romney or an evangelical Huckabee) as an avenue in which to advance social conservatism, we may well end up with another “compassionate conservative” like the do nothing GWB. If we are to put our stock in Robertson saying that he trusts that Giuliani will strengthen social conservative power in the courts, we still take a chance on another Clinton-like debasing of the White House, or worse. This is the dilemma we face.

It’s a shame that Tancredo hasn’t fared better.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 15, 2007 01:07 PM | Send