Evangelicals and the presidential race: an interview with Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family Action

Tom Minnery. (Photo: Focus on the Family Action)

At the “Values Voters Summit" in Washington, D.C., last month, the Republican presidential candidates tried to woo the evangelical Christian leadership in attendance, seeking the kind of support that helped George W. Bush get elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004.

Mitt Romney won a straw poll at the event, followed closely by Mike Huckabee, who wowed the crowd with his populist conservative pitch. Huckabee has since risen in Iowa polls to within striking distance of Romney.

Two weeks after the conference, PoliticsWest editor Stephen Keating caught up by phone with Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, the evangelical organization founded by James Dobson and based in Colorado Springs. Minnery is senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family. He holds the same post with Focus on the Family Action, the organization’s lobbying arm.

Dobson has been outspoken early in the presidential campaign and is not supporting the candidacies of John McCain, Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. As Minnery points out below, Dobson’s support of Romney, a Mormon, is “doubtful because of the tremendous difference in theological views.”

If support of Romney is doubtful, Giuliani is beyond the pale, according to Minnery, citing the former New York mayor’s socially liberal positions - and his personal behavior, including appearing in drag. “I just cringe at the thought of the TV commercials that will be forthcoming from independent leftist organizations, 527s, if Giuliani becomes the nominee,” said Minnery.

Minnery acknowledges that if the general election were between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Giuliani, many evangelicals would “swallow hard” and vote for Giuliani. Televangelist Pat Robertson this month endorsed Giuliani.

A Clinton/Giuliani race could also draw in a third-party candidate who opposes abortion, a possibility Dobson has addressed.

Could Dobson himself be such a candidate? Minnery answers that question below.

The edited transcript follows.

EVANGELICALS AND THE GOP

Q: There’s been a lot of reporting and speculation that this ’08 election is a crossroads for evangelicals in their relationship with the Republican Party. Do you see it that way?

A: I think it could be a very significant election in ’08 because a pro-life party (the GOP) has reached out to evangelical conservatives. The party platform, since 1976 I believe, has had a very strong pro-life plank in it. And for the party to nominate a candidate who does not uphold that important plank will make it difficult for social conservatives to get excited about the Republican candidate.

Q: Did you see The New York Times Magazine story, the analysis of the evangelical movement in Kansas and elsewhere? What did you make of that view that there’s some kind of crackup occurring among evangelical conservatives?

A: It’s typical of what we see during election cycles. I remember as far back as 1988 when Pat Robertson ran for president and failed. There were wide predictions of a crackup; of the Moral Majority back then, of evangelicals. Then, of course, the Christian Coalition immediately rose up and became very strong. When that organization faded, there were another spate of stories about the crackup of evangelical Christians as an influence in the public square.

What did we see then? Well, as recently as 2004, we saw 11 out of 11 states that had state marriage amendments on the ballot, passed them all by landslide proportions, except for liberal Oregon, which passed it with a 57 percent majority. And the exit polls in the 2004 election astonished a number of reporters when the single issue that brought most of them to the polls - as elucidated in the exit polls - was social, moral issues, such as marriage, such as the decline of our culture. And that astonished reporters.

So, obviously, there was a big stick swung by social conservatives in the 2004 election. The fact that George Bush won in Ohio, that very key state, because a lot of people turned out for the marriage amendment in that particular state, was deemed to be significant. Now, we’re into another cycle and the normal predictions of the crackup of evangelicalism is occurring. One of the phenomenon that gives rise to that, of course, is the fact that there is no single conservative candidate who has enough marbles for everybody in the conservative movement to want to play with. Everybody’s lacking in something. Partially, this is just the way it is. People will have to figure it out, who to support. So there’s some unsettledness. But I’d hardly call that a crack-up.

DEMOCRATS AND THE ABORTION ISSUE

Q: Do you think there’s any possibility, looking farther out, that any of the pro-life views that Focus holds so dearly would influence the Democratic Party?

A: I wish that were the case. I wish the Democratic Party would recover the principles it used to hold. It used to be the party of the working man. It used to be strongly pro-life, given the influence of Catholics. We think of Gov. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was a pro-life governor. Unfortunately, he was barred from speaking at the Democratic National Convention one presidential year. That’s the slap in the face of the pro-life view given by the Democratic Party. The fact that the Democratic Party has moved away from those views is the story of the Reagan Democrats, the rise of Reaganism; people from the South who switched allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party as a result of the party listening to its left wing.

Q: In Colorado, Gov. Ritter is a Democrat and says he’s pro-life. How do you view that?

A: I don’t know that significant pro-life issues have been before the state legislature. I do believe the governor has restored funding to Planned Parenthood in Colorado that was cut off by the previous governor; because money that goes to Planned Parenthood can free up other money that is used for abortions. So, this seems to be part and parcel of the few pro-life Democrats we have seen. For example, Senator Casey, the son of Gov. Casey, has cast two pro-abortion votes in the Senate recently. And he tries to explain that away. But the fact is, he ran as a pro-life Democrat. And his voting record, unfortunately, is getting to be typical of what we see in the Democratic Party nationally, which is left-wing liberal.

Q: Sen. Clinton espouses keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare” in an attempt to reach out to those who would prefer that there are less abortions.

A: One small thing she could do would be to support what’s called the Mexico City policy which prevents any money going overseas to organizations which promote or engage in abortions. She could do that domestically here for Planned Parenthood, the primary organization which engages in and promotes the idea of abortion. But she will not put her vote where her rhetoric is and so the refrain becomes tiresome. It seems, however, that they understand that the country is growing more pro-life. More and more polls we see show that gradually people are taking a dimmer view of abortion, and that’s why at least you see the rhetoric coming from Democrats now.

Q: Why on one hand would you support school choice but not choice in the arena of abortion?

A: Heavens. Anyone who can’t see the difference between killing an innocent human being and a choice of where to send your kid to school, isn’t grappling seriously with the issue. Hillary Clinton wants to see fewer abortions. There’s only one reason one wants to see fewer abortions and that is that it’s the killing of an innocent human life. That’s the only reason. And it’s reason enough that she ought to get beyond her rhetoric and engage in legislative proposals to accomplish what her rhetoric calls for.

GIULIANI A DRAG ON THE TICKET?

Q: Rudy Giuliani says he’ll deal with the (abortion) issue, or any of these public policy issues, by appointing strict constructionist judges.

A: That’s a politician’s promise. Some conservatives put a lot of stake in that. Others do not. We tend not to. For one thing, he has not had a record of appointing conservative judges when he was mayor in New York City. Not that he had high-level judges to appoint, but local judges tended not to be. He has shown such a welcoming attitude toward destructive policies regarding marriage, that we just don’t have a whole lot of hope. For example, personal life. His being married three times. Even the fact that he has shown up on Saturday Night Live in drag. I just cringe at the thought of the TV commercials that will be forthcoming from independent leftist organizations, 527s, if Giuliani becomes the nominee. I think very few people know that he tromped across the stage in drag. I think that that might be funny in New York. That might be funny for the Saturday Night Live audience. But for middle America, I do not think that will be funny.

Q: Sticking with the prospect of a Giuliani/Clinton race, what about a vice-presidential candidate like Mike Huckabee with Giuliani…

A: I think Mike Huckabee as a vice-presidential candidate would certainly improve the prospects of Giuliani. Whether it would be enough for him to carry the day, I don’t know. Particularly when his record in New York City is fully exposed. Again, I refer to the dressing in drag. He has two male gay friends that he moved in with after his second divorce. And that was a messy affair. And just knowing how degrading politics is, I believe that there’ll be some kind of a PAC or 527 that will engineer a lot of negative advertising out of those events, designed specifically to keep conservative Christian people from pulling the lever for him.

Having said all that, I must say also that (Giuliani) did show up at the Values Voters conference in Washington, D.C., and gave a very good speech. I think he helped himself. I don’t think he won very many votes in the straw poll that was taken after the event. But it was a very credible, honest, open effort and he did a good job.

ROMNEY AND MORMONISM

Q: Let’s take a different prospect, of a Romney candidacy…

A: I think they’ll be some dampened enthusiasm for him, particularly in the South, because of the issue of Mormonism. But again, when the array of issues that he supports is arrayed against the issues that Hillary Clinton supports, the contrast will be starkly clear. When he gets to be - if he gets to be - the nominee of the Republican Party, it’ll be a new ballgame again. So a lot of people will be focusing on him and his issue positions moreso than they’ve been able to do while the field is so crowded.

A: Dr. Dobson has met with Mitt Romney?

Q: Yes, Mitt Romney stopped out earlier this year, I forget what month it was. It was a good conversation. He impressed us with his knowledge of the pro-life issues, particularly stem-cell research.

Q: Is he seen as a credible, viable candidate from the Focus view on values issues?

A: He’s very strong on values issues. If you’re asking me specifically whether Dr. Dobson as a private citizen would endorse a Mitt Romney, I believe it’s doubtful because of the tremendous difference in theological views. And a lot of our constituents regard theological views very seriously. As do we. All of this is why it is such an unsettled year. And why The New York Times can take that unsettledness and call it an evangelical crackup. I don’t think that’s the case. But these are the things that make it unsettled.

A THIRD PARTY POSSIBILITY

Q: Let’s say Rudy Giuliani was the Republican nominee, do you believe that there would be a third-party, pro-life candidate?

A: There will be. The Constitution Party is a third party. And I do believe the Constitution Party would be nominating a candidate who would be pro-life. As with most elections, we tend to have minor parties with candidates who could be suitable protest candidates for somebody who wants to cast a protest vote.

Q: How attractive do you think that would be?

A: Not very. I think a lot of people on our side would probably swallow hard and vote for the more conservative of the two major party candidates.

Q: So you’re saying if it was between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, they would vote for Giuliani?

A: I think many would. We’re still so early in this season that we haven’t had time yet to concentrate on a race between two major party candidates. Everytime anybody sees a televised debate, there’re eight or nine people up there and nobody gets a clear shot at hearing anybody. I was at the Values Voters conference and I heard full speeches from these guys for the first time. I was very surprised. Even a guy like Tom Tancredo, who obviously is a low-tier candidate, did an amazing job in his speech and I think he helped himself. Now all of this will sort itself out pretty quickly after the New Year. So I think it’ll be a new day and a new ballgame when we’re down to one major candidate in each party.

Q: If it is Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, why wouldn’t Dr. Dobson run for president?

A: Because he likes to be in charge.

Q: What does that mean?

A: He’s a leader of an organization here. He’s been in charge of it and developed it. A president is in charge of one-third of the federal government and has to deal with so many different people. I think it would be a very frustrating job for someone, who’s an organization leader, to deal with. Besides, Dr. Dobson represents evangelical Christians. I don’t think that constituency is enough to elect somebody president, although it’s an important constituency within one of the two major parties.

The other problem is that there would be too many death threats against him; his wife would say, “'Jim, if you get into that, I’ll kill you.'”

Besides that, he’s 71 years old. And, in addition to that, he doesn’t want to do it.

Bookmark/Search this post with: