Evangelical leaders and the Santorum endorsement: The old guard’s last stand

Republican presidential hopeful former Senator Rick Santorum addresses the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce January 17, 2012, in Columbia, South Carolina, in advance of this weekend's January 21, 2012 Republican presidential primary. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images) (PAUL J. RICHARDS - AFP/GETTY IMAGES) On Saturday afternoon, 114 evangelical leaders gathered in Texas and voted 85 to 29 to endorse Rick Santorum over their alternative, Newt Gingrich. Other than generating one weekend’s worth of good news for Senator Santorum (an honorable man whom I respect greatly), this event will have no discernible effect on the race and - critically - very few evangelicals will care. Aside from one or two exceptions, the people in that room have little name recognition, represent small (and overlapping) constituencies, and simply cannot by themselves motivate large numbers of voters.

It was not always so.

Let’s rewind the clock for a moment - all the way back to age of disco. American political life was very different in the 1970s: The Republican president instituted wage and price controls, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, and the nation was still reeling from the social upheavals of the 1960s. American Protestant Christianity had not developed an effective political/cultural response to the sexual revolution, and for a time it seemed that even the Southern Baptist Convention would be swept away by the liberalizing tides, voting in 1971 to support abortion rights and then in 1974 to adopt a “middle ground” in the debate, explicitly avoiding a strong pro-life stance.

But just as evangelicalism stood on the brink of cultural irrelevance, visionary Christians like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson rallied millions of Americans and inspired them to find their voice. While they couldn’t gain much traction with Democrats, the Republican Party became the home of a new political movement - a movement dedicated to preserving life, religious liberty, and maintaining our core constitutional identity.

Though despised by the cultural left and the mainstream media, the so-called “religious right” won the Republican argument, decisively. In the abortion arena, pro-abortion rights governors like Ronald Reagan (he signed a liberal abortion law as California governor) became staunchly pro-life, and the pro-abortion view has moved so far outside the Republican mainstream that not a single Republican candidate (including libertarian Ron Paul) supports Roe v. Wade.

This success --especially when combined with ministries that reached millions --gave evangelical conservative leaders enormous influence. I vividly remember the days when one comment from James Dobson could melt down the White House switchboard. He called evangelicals to engage, and evangelicals engaged.

But evangelicals, once fully engaged in the political process, did not focus solely on culture war issues. After all, evangelicals have jobs and mortgages too.

And therein lies the problem. If all the leading Republicans are pro-life, have pledged to protect religious liberty, and defend traditional marriage, then what is the distinct value of a culture warrior’s endorsement? Do these (largely unnamed) evangelical leaders have unique insights into dealing with persistent joblessness, the European debt crisis, the collapse of demand for housing, or the progress of counterinsurgency warfare in eastern Afghanistan?
A cross necklace hangs in front of Lucy West's American flag t-shirt as she participates in the opening worship ceremony during the non-denominational prayer and fasting event, entitled "The Response" at Reliant Stadium August 6, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Thousands attended the event organized by Gov. Rick Perry in order to pray for God to help save "a nation in crisis" referring to America. (Brandon Thibodeaux - GETTY IMAGES)

In their quest to endorse a so-called “true conservative” these evangelical leaders have pushed well beyond their core competencies. I have enormous respect for many of the participants, but they have no more knowledge (and often less) than their rank-and-file supporters about finance, housing, and the military. Maybe, just maybe, their rank-and-file supporters are less interested in arguing over who’s been pro-life the loudest and longest but instead on which pro-life candidate can also trim the debt, keep Iran in check, and begin to restore the economic portion of the American dream.

In 2006, when my wife and I (along with a few friends) started “Evangelicals for Mitt” we tried to recognize and respond to this trend by arguing at great length and in many contexts that Mitt Romney was best equipped to respond to the particular challenges our nation faces during this moment in history. Our chosen candidate is pro-life and has a record of real economic success in public and private life. We should continue to fight the cultural battles, yes, but we also fight literal battles in the Middle East, and deal with the challenge of a complex global economy. (We just released a Kindle book making the argument for Mitt as a full-spectrum conservative).

Millions upon millions of Americans are hurting. Their economic pain causes profound stress on families, on marriages, and on children. These hurting Americans are far more concerned with their next paycheck, the value of their home, or the safety of our nation than they are with a declaration by relatively unknown (again, with one or two notable exceptions) “leaders” as to which pro-life, pro-family candidate is subjectively the “true conservative.”

When Mitt Romney won the evangelical and pro-life vote in New Hampshire, it signaled the beginning of a welcome change in evangelical politics. We’re not an identity group focused on advancing our “tribe” but instead rightful participants in the complete range of American political debates. We have ideas not just about life and marriage but also about war and peace, poverty and prosperity, economics and immigration, and health care and foreign aid.

And in those great debates--the debates that will define our national future--endorsements matter less than ideas, and while we deeply appreciate the old-line evangelical leadership for yanking evangelicals back into the cultural conversation, it’s now time for them to let the political movement they so painstakingly nurtured chart its own course for the 21st Century.

David French is a constitutional lawyer, the co-founder of “Evangelicals for Mitt,” a veteran of the Iraq War, and the co-author (with his wife, Nancy French) of “Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney (And Feel Good about It!).”