Romney and the GOP Religious Conservatives

In the Washington Post today, Chris Cizzilla asked an interesting question: is Mitt Romney underrated?
His answer is “yes” and I’d like to explain why he came to that conclusion and give a little of my own commentary.
First, Cizzilla says that, no matter what anyone says, Romney’s Mormon religion is a negative with Republican evangelical voters. In any state where they make up more than 50% of the GOP vote, Romney has lost.
Second, Romney is a “moderate” compared to the other candidates, and this is a non-starter with the GOP’s base, especially when Romney refuses to play to the crowd by launching attacks on President Obama by calling him a “socialist,” something all other GOP candidates have done.
Third, Romney’s natural base is in the northeast, in a party where the natural base is the south. Fourth, Romney’s largest success while governor of Massachusetts was his health care law that made health scare universal in the commonwealth and has earned him animosity in the GOP, where Obamacare is despised because of its infringement on personal liberties.
Cizzilla is right about all these items. And, if one considers them carefully, there is no reason why Mitt Romney should be leading the pack and seem set to be the 2012 GOP nominee. Cizzilla goes on to explain that it is the Romney organization and money-collecting machine that has made the difference. He tosses in the idea that finally, GOP voters are beginning to ask what the others have done compared to Romney’s long list of achievements in the private and public sectors, and the answer - nothing - is making them tend toward Romney, even though they don’t really like him very much, because they want very badly to get rid of Obama in November.
So far, so good. But, I think there is more to explain in the relationship that has developed between Mitt Romney and the GOP.
If we consider the consequences of the four items above, it would be hard to imagine that Romney could win any delegate votes, let alone be the leading candidate with more than half the votes needed to be nominated.
I think there is something much deeper happening.
It is the return of the GOP to politics.
The notion that somehow elections are won because of social or religious preferences morally binding voters to candidates is a myth, foisted on the Republican Party by groups that want to co-opt the GOP for non-political purposes. They want to bring back a society that no longer exists…with its dogmas of religious conservatism, non-abortion, i.e., sexual abstinence outside marriage, refusal of sexual preferences outside heterosexual marriage, and refusal of the rights of the minorities when they disagree with these dogmas.
The only truly political policy these social conservatives support is fiscal conservatism. Their demand for a balanced budget, paying off the national debt and refusing to expand the tax base are the symptoms of this. And these are honorable political goals. But, the tactics used o achieve these goals are far from the political tradition of the United States and its Constitution.
Demanding signatures on a “No New Taxes” pledge, asking every congressperson to vote in knee-jerk fashion against even the smallest compromise, often those that would benefit their cause by lowering taxes or reducing spending somewhat, is not a political program. It is a quasi-religious crusade meant to divide the country into two camps - the neo-Christian conservatives and everyone else.
Mitt Romney has surely seen this and is fighting against it. His moderation, his refusal to be drawn into debates on issues that are personal rather than political, his calm in the face of the attacks from the religious right demanding that he explain again and again his position on abortion and gay rights, bear the markings of a religious crusade.
And because of his tactics, Mr. Romney, despite the media’s wrong-headed analysis that he is outside the GOP base and cannot ever win them over, is going to win them over, despite themselves.
He represents the voice of political reason, of political tradition, of political leadership. His goals are not religious. They are political, and finally, the social and religious conservatives will agree with him. They will agree, even while they go on talking about religious issues as a cover for their visceral need to defeat President Obama, because Romney’s approach has a chance of beating Obama, while they have seen in this primary season that their approach will lead to national division and defeat.
Perhaps Mitt Romney has known all along that catering to the religious right is a fool’s game. Perhaps he has known all along that they will buckle under and vote for him because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
So, I say, do not underestimate Mitt Romney. He may understand the Republican Party much better than most of us.