Here’s the basic data from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:
Among the 57% of Iowa caucus-goers who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, Santorum finished in first place with 32% support. Ron Paul garnered 18% of the evangelical vote, while Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each received 14% of the evangelical vote.
I’m not someone who pays close attention to every inning of the long political game. But the data seems clear. A Catholic candidate got a great deal of the Evangelical vote.
What this suggests to me is that the “religion factor” has shifted. Today Catholic, Protestant, and Jew make little difference. I’ll go out on a limb and say that Mormon makes little difference. (Muslim does make a difference, a big difference, but that’s for another time.) What seems to move voters is a combination of authentic piety, or at least the appearance of genuinely believing, and clarity about crucial moral and social issues.
I’m convinced that an Orthodox Jew could win as many votes from Evangelicals in Iowa as Santorum did—assuming of course that he had similar unequivocal views about the key issues of concern to Evangelicals.
The same is probably true for a Mormon. I find it hard to believe that Romney got fewer votes from Evangelicals because he was a Mormon rather than a Catholic. As the former governor of Massachusetts Romney has a track record of compromise, accommodation, and silence (if not outright agreement) with liberals on all sorts of issues, some economic and some social. That—and not Mormonism—was his liability among Evangelicals in Iowa.
In any event, it ain’t 1960 anymore. Pious Baptists in places like Houston or Des Moines don’t seem worried about the nefarious influence of priestcraft. These days it’s just religious conviction plain and simple that arouses loyalty among some voters—and anxious antipathy from others.
January 5th, 2012 | 8:31 am
Despite Romney’s notorious reputation for compromise, and just flip flopping generally, he’s no more guilty of it than any other politician. It simply comes with the territory of politics that compromise, assuming one wants to get anything done, is part of the game. Santorum, for example, has advocated accepting laws that, although banning abortions generally, allow for exceptopns in cases of threats to the life of the mother, rape, or incest. However, he personally believes that abortions should not be allowed in these cases (he may believe in an exception for the life of the mother). Is he an appeaser? No, he’s doing what he should do, in order to acheive practical results: compromise. I
It’s just that Romney seems more famous for it, but he hasn’t really done it more than other politicians have. And what’s so wrong with changing one’s mind if it’s based on sound arguments and/or empirical evidence, as Romney seems to have done, concerning abortion? Mary Ann Glendon, has attested to Romney’s genuine pro-life convictions (I think it was an article in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, where it mentions Glendon’s support of Romney).
Of course, a politician can go too far. But Romney’s changes seem to be either about getting things done, or a genuine change of mind.
January 5th, 2012 | 9:02 am
The job of a senator is to talk. He can be as ideologically pure as he wants to be. A governor has to compromise or nothing gets done.
The assertion that Romney has ever been anything but an exemplary Mormon is just insupportable. In fact, the Obama proxies are already attacking him for his faithfulness to Mormon doctrine while he was a stake president. (E.g., “The Dark Side of Mitt Romney” at Vanity Fair’s site.)
January 5th, 2012 | 10:51 am
[...] that that’s the bottom line for many evangelical voters, not the candidate’s theology. See also Evangelicals and Santorum, where R. R. Reno shares the same intuition as I [...]
January 5th, 2012 | 11:08 am
“These days it’s just religious conviction plain and simple that arouses loyalty among some voters—and anxious antipathy from others. ”
What about “religious conviction plain and simple arouses fanatic loyalty among some voters – and reasonable worry from others”. Oh well, is just wording…
January 5th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
“These days it’s just religious conviction plain and simple that arouses loyalty among some voters—and anxious antipathy from others. ”
What about “religious conviction plain and simple arouses fanatic loyalty among some voters – and reasonable worry from others”. Oh well, is just wording…
As long as we understand that this applies to humanist or “Enlightenment” religious fanatic convictions as well as Mormon, I’m good with the correction.
January 5th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
[...] Evangelicals and Santorum – R.R. Reno, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
January 5th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
But did you hear the scandal with Santorum? A woman called the NY Times and said Rick slept with her and he sired children with her. Later they learned this woman was his wife. How unusual. I don’t think he is fit for office if he is too boring to just be happily married.
January 6th, 2012 | 1:00 am
[...] is a difference between midwestern and southern evangelicals. But consider this: as R.R. Reno noted, in Iowa, 60% of the evangelical vote went to Catholic and Mormon candidates. (Well, it’s [...]
January 9th, 2012 | 10:11 am
Blake:
No, in context, it applies to evangelicals, catholics and christian fundamentalists, which make the base of the Republican Party and of Santorum voters. Is that clear?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact