Donny & Marie for Prez

Wayne Grudem has argued in favor of Romney for president:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals_should_support_mitt_romney?page=full&comments=true

I’ll briefly comment on his reasons. (I’ll excerpt his reasons rather than quote them in full. You can read the whole article if you like.)

“The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record.”

I agree with Grudem that what someone did in the past (especially when he was in power) is the most reliable indicator of what he will do in future, if we return him to power. It’s far from infallible, but it’s the best available evidence that we’ve got to go by.

“He is incredibly intelligent.”

I agree with Grudem that Romney seems to be very smart. But that, of itself, can either be a plus or a minus. Bill Clinton was very smart. Napoleon was very smart. Robert Reich is very smart. Larry Tribe is very smart. Robert Rubin is very smart. Noam Chomsky is very smart.

I’d rather have a smart president promoting good policy initiatives rather than a dumb president promoting good policy initiatives, but, unfortunately, those are not the only alternatives.

If push came to shove, I’d rather have a dumb president promoting bad policy initiatives instead of a smart president promoting bad policy initiatives.

High I.Q. is morally neutral. Whether it’s a vice or a virtue all depends on what cargo it’s pulling.

“Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state.”

This skates over the issue of how he won and how he governed. Yes, he may have restored financial discipline to the state, but from a Christian standpoint, is that our overriding priority?

Did he run as a social conservative? Did he govern as a social conservative? I notice that Grudem glosses over that question.

“He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President.”

I agree with Grudem that a Romney administration would probably be much better for the economy than a Hillary administration. But is the economic bottom line the moral bottom line for Christians? Once again, I’m struck by Grudem’s priorities.

“Chairman of Olympic Games: He also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. When he was brought in to run the Games he turned what was heading to a scandal-ridden financial and PR disaster into a widely-praised success. This involved massive skill in public relations, media management, diplomacy, morale building, and financial administration. This is Romney’s consistent track record: he solves large problems.”

Here my evaluation is the same as the I.Q. question. Whether a problem-solver is a virtue or a vice in the oval office all depends on what he thinks the problems are, and what he thinks the solutions are.

For example, pundits often complain about Congressional gridlock. But whether that’s good or bad turns who is in power. When the Democrats are in power, I much prefer Congressional gridlock to a well-oiled legislative process that spits out one dreadful law after another.

At present, the Congressional republicans don’t have the votes to pass good legislation, but they do have, at least some of the time, enough votes to block a certain amount of bad legislation, and for that I’m thankful.

Rudy is also a resume of impressive accomplishments. But the question is what would he accomplish?

“Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative.”

What’s striking about this claim is the way in which Grudem abandons his criterion. He initially told us that “the best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record.”

However, he falls notably silent when it comes to Romney’s track-record on social issues. It’s because I agree with Grudem’s criterion that I disagree with his conclusion, since he’s made no effort to apply his stated criterion to Romney’s campaign promises.

“On major issues such as…a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.”

Although I don’t oppose such an amendment, I don’t think this is where we should put our time and effort. For one thing, it wouldn’t outlaw homosexual civil unions.

In addition, I think it’s one of those decoys which insincere politicians use to placate the religious right. Distract us and divert us with an empty, emblematic gesture.

“Some people object that Romney has ‘flip-flopped’ on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated.”

I don’t know Grudem’s source of information. Both Jason Engwer and I have cited sources which seem to document his opportunistic policy reversals.

“He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative.”

He’s become more rhetorically consistent—but why should we believe that this reflects a genuine change in outlook, and not a sheer political calculation? I find it ironic that a Reformed theologian forgets the doctrine of original sin when it comes to campaign promises.

“I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal.”

It’s a good thing if it’s sincere. It’s not a good thing if the timing just happens to coincide with a bid for the GOP nomination.

“(In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.)”

Two problems with this comparison:

i) Reagan’s evolution from liberal to conservative wasn’t an overnight conversion experience.

ii) It’s also a question of the alternative. In the case of Reagan, it came down to a choice between Reagan and Carter, or Reagan and Mondale—in the general election.

But we’re talking about the primaries. This isn’t, as of yet, a choice between Romney and Hillary. Rather, it’s a choice between Romney and other contenders for the GOP nomination.

“Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.”

Possibly, but why is Grudem so credulous?

“But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.”

True, and that’s because Mormonism is a Christian heresy. But Mormonism isn’t monolithic. It has its own version of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy, just as you find in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Mormons range along an ideological spectrum—from far left to far right. It seems to me that Grudem’s impression of Mormon family values has been formed by watching too many reruns of Donny & Marie.

I’d add that the traditional Mormon paradigm of family values is polygamy rather than monogamy.

“Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian?”

That’s a good question, but, in context, it’s also a question-begging question since it presumes that Romney is politically conservative.

“Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a ‘Christian nation’ and only want evangelical Christians in office.”

I myself am quite comfortable with that accusation.

“For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible.”

Well, that’s an interesting comparison, but it also glosses over some important differences. For one thing, although the Jewish canon is incomplete, it’s an authentic divine revelation as far as it goes. That’s quite different from the Mormon apocrypha.

Conservative Judaism mainly goes astray because it’s deficient, and not because it’s positively false in the way that Mormonism is.

“Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.”

This assumes that Romney is a conservative Mormon. It also fails to distinguish between primaries and general elections.

“Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians?”

That oversimplifies the issue.

“I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes.”

Grudem proceeds to cherry-pick the best examples of pagan rulers. But what about Ahab, Jezebel, Athalia, Nero, Caligula, Diocletian, Antiochus Epiphanies, Julian the Apostate, and so on and so forth?

“Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States’.”

So Grudem wouldn’t object to an Aztec or Satanist or Scientologist or Jihadist for president on religious grounds?

“The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but ‘for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way’ (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are ‘instituted by God’ (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call ‘God’s servant for your good’ (Romans 13:4).”

What does imperial Rome have to do with the democratic process of electing a head-of-state? I’m sure that if he were alive today, St. Paul would call upon us to pray for Pres. Romney (assuming he gets the top job), but I’m not at all sure that St. Paul would pen an op-ed calling upon Evangelicals to vote for a polytheist.

“When people get to know who Romney is, his Mormonism seems not to be a big deal in a political election. The hypothetical question, ‘Would you vote for a Mormon?’ is very different from, ‘Now that you have gotten to know who Mitt Romney is, would you vote for him?’ The more voters get to know him, the more his Mormonism doesn’t matter much.”

And one of the reasons for this is that so-called Evangelical leaders like Grudem are telling them that his Mormonism doesn’t matter very much. I don’t wish to be mean about this, but it reminds me of the Arian controversy, in which the hierarchy favored the Arian cause while the laity favored the Orthodox cause.

“In addition, I think Romney would not just tie but win in presidential debates against Hillary Clinton: he’s smarter, more articulate, and more experienced.”

Yes, I can easily imagine Romney trouncing Hillary in a debate. I can also imagine Rudy and Huckabee trouncing Hillary in a debate.

“In addition, nearly everyone who has known Romney finds him genuinely likable, which would work to his advantage over Hillary’s abrasive personality in the long months of a campaign.”

Well, I agree with the second half of this, but I also think that many people find Romney’s public persona more than a bit preppy, which you’d expect, given his patrician upbringing and education. It’s ordinarily the Democrats who run preppy candidates, and preppy candidates have a way of losing in the general election. Rudy, Huckabee, and McCain all have an earthy, authentic demeanor that connects with a wide swath of the electorate in a way that Romney does not.

“There are other Republican candidates with conservative positions, but they haven’t generated anywhere near as much support as Romney, probably because more and more voters are deciding that Romney is much better qualified (my point above), and that he is simply the best candidate: articulate, persuasive, intelligent, mature, strong, successful in several fields and a genuine leader.”

I think that oversimplifies the issues on both sides of the equation. On the one hand, Romney can afford to buy name recognition in a way that Huckabee, Hunter—or, if you prefer, Ron Paul—cannot.

On the other hand, name recognition cuts both ways. Rudy and McCain both enjoy instant name recognition, but with that comes a certain amount of baggage.

I’d add that, at a gut level, I find Rudy more impressive than Romney, although I’d never vote for Rudy.

“Therefore it seems to me that supporting Mitt Romney who has a very reasonable chance of winning makes more sense at this point than supporting someone who is not persuading many Republican voters.”

That may be, although it may also be a circular proposition. I won’t vote for so-and-so because he can’t win, and he can’t win because I’ve convinced enough other voters that he can’t win, in which case there’s no point voting for him…

“Or speculating about supporting a third-party candidate who can’t win.”

I agree with Grudem that the third-party candidacy is a blind alley.

“And who would effectively hand Hillary Clinton 2 to 4 Supreme Court appointments and thereby undo 25 years of pro-life work in trying to change the Supreme Court.”

Maybe. Remember, though, that Supreme Court candidates are nominated rather than appointed. They must still be confirmed by the senate. It’s not a forgone conclusion that the Democrats will hold the senate in 2008. The approval rating of Congress has gone from bad to worse under the Democrats.

“As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative.”

As I recall, Thompson’s voting record, which is his track record, is more conservative than Romney’s track record. McCain is a maverick: to the right of Romney on some issues, and to his left on others.

In addition, Grudem is oversimplifying the comparison. You can either compare than in terms of their current campaign rhetoric or their respective track-records.

“So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate.”

This is true, but it’s true because it’s circular. You could just as well say that if enough Evangelicals don’t throw their support behind Huckabee or Hunter or McCain or Ron Paul, that Rudy will win by default.

“So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife.”

I don’t disagree with this analysis. However, Rudy has also pledged to nominate conservative candidates to the Supreme Court. He’s also said he would support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if too many states go the way of Massachusetts.

Why is Grudem so trusting when Romney makes that campaign promise, but so distrustful when Rudy makes the same campaign promise? Either be consistently sceptical or consistently gullible.

“Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the ‘middle’.”

But this is transparently bogus. You don’t claim the moral high ground by plugging Romney as the most expedient choice. That doesn’t inspire the base.