Rudy and the Evangelicals

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani means evangelical Christians have "grown up" to accept a social liberal with strong national security and low-tax credentials, right? Don't bet tomorrow morning's protein shake, according to two observers of social conservatives in America.

In National Review Online, Touchstone author Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia and Jon Shields of the University of Colorado argue the Robertson endorsement means little. Of the media speculation that the Robertson move means a new day for evangelical voting patterns, they write:

One problem with this view is that it assumes Robertson has a rank and file to lead. Robertson’s endorsement might have meant something ten years ago when he sat atop a thriving Christian Coalition. Today his endorsement means almost nothing because the Coalition has collapsed.

This reality dawned on Republican Party elites after the relatively poor turnout of evangelicals in 2000 caused President Bush to lose the popular vote. So in 2004, Republicans did not lean on Christian Right organizations to get out the evangelical voter. While the Democratic Party continued its longstanding practice of mobilizing voters through auxiliary organizations, such as unions and MoveOn, the Republican Party centralized its grassroots mobilization in its campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. It did so to great effect.

Wilcox and Shields conclude:

Even if Rudy wins the nomination and employs someone as talented as Karl Rove to build his campaign machinery, it is unlikely he can command the loyalty and devotion of evangelical citizens in critical battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While Bush is a socially conservative born-again evangelical, Rudy is thrice divorced, publicly adulterous, and a social liberal to boot.

Indeed, Giuliani’s reported glee over Robertson’s endorsement reflects a profound failure to appreciate the new realities of Republican-party politics. Old-line leaders like Robertson now have little sway among ordinary social conservatives, many of whom have become disillusioned with a party that seems largely indifferent to their deepest concerns. So, even if Giuliani succeeds in getting most leaders on the religious right to support him in a general election match-up with Hillary Clinton, his candidacy is not likely to ignite the social conservative base in ways that enabled Bush to triumph in 2004. After all, churchgoing Americans are not likely to pound the pavement next fall on behalf of a candidate whose personal conduct while holding elected office, is reminiscent of Bill Clinton. For this reason, the foot soldiers associated with the unions and MoveOn could very well win the turnout wars and help propel another Clinton to the White House.

My own thoughts on the "maturing" of evangelicalism on the abortion issue can be found here.

Regardless of whether Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, or anyone else is the next President of the United States, it is true that evangelicals have some "maturing" to do when it comes to political action. But maybe maturity means something quite different than flexibility on justice for the unborn. The next year or so may show us where we're headed for some time come.