On Social conservatives vs. Tea Party conservatives

The NY Times has a story about how social conservatives in Iowa could complicate an election strategy for Mormon candidates (or potential candidates) like Mitt Romney and John Hunstman (former governor of Utah, and recently stepped down from his position as Obama's ambassador to China), and for candidates who may be more popular with the Tea Party crowd. I'm not sure I'm buying it.

The Times frames the story as "evangelicals don't like Mormons, so Romney and Huntsman are skipping the upcoming straw polls." However, the story seems to undermine itself immediately by then listing several political positions that may have done just as much work in affecting the poll's outcome.

First, although Huntsman does indeed seem to be skipping the straw poll, he's not even an announced candidate yet, so I think it's lame to attribute this to some sort of anti-Mormon bias. Further, his statement says he's skipping because he's against ethanol subsidies, believes in global warming, and hasn't embraced the Tea Party movement. Considering this, the decision to skip Iowa makes perfect sense. If a guy is going to run for president, he's going to need an obscene amount of money. Donors don't want to waste money, so they're going to give it to a guy who they think can win. Those three positions do indeed put Huntsman at a disadvantage, and when you combine that with almost zero name recognition, you're writing a recipe for single-digit support, not an auspicious way to kick off a campaign (or the fund raising for one).

Second, the article goes on to list several political problems that Romney may have with Iowa voters, namely the fact that the health care plan for the state of Massachusetts that passed while he was governor has been cited as the model for the federal legislation (derisively, but handily known as "ObamaCare"). This paragraph of the story, in particular, immediately contradicts itself:

Mr. Romney’s decision, in particular, suggests that candidates who are viewed suspiciously by the state’s religious conservatives may stand little chance there. Mr. Romney, who was once a pro-choice governor and passed a health care plan that served as the inspiration for President Obama’s, has struggled in Iowa for years.

(Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that the Times is setting up to spin a poor Romney showing as based either in sectarian animosity, or on Tea Party opposition.

Next, the story holds out Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum out as candidates with Tea Party support. While Bachmann is certainly a Tea Party favorite, she is also known as a social conservative. Santorum is also a serious social conservative, not known for significant Tea Party support at all. Again, I suspect the Times is conveniently lumping social and Tea Party conservatives together so as to tar the two with the same brush.

What's my evidence for this? In the story, there is a link to a March 26 story, also from Iowa, where the Times asserts that social conservatives are flexing their muscles. The story distinguishes Bachmann and Santorum from Romney as candidates with social conservative followers. Somehow, in the intervening four months, they gone from social conservatives to Tea Party candidates?

But the real point, according to the story, is this:

Here in Iowa, whose caucuses next winter will open the campaign, social and religious conservatives are pressing the likely candidates on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion rather than on jobs, the budget deficit and other economic concerns that leaders of both parties expect to dominate the general election.

... 

 While social conservatives have long wielded a greater influence in Iowa than in many early-voting states, a bitter fight here over same-sex marriage and rivalries among some of the state’s conservative leaders have amplified the issues and might help define the message of Republican candidates in ways that could resonate nationally.

So, by conflating social conservative candidates with Tea Party candidates, and by defining Mormon candidates with serious political problems as victims of evangelical bigotry, the Times seems to be putting together a narrative where whoever emerges from Iowa's contest can be painted as hand-picked by evangelicals. This will "define the message" of the candidate, and will "resonate nationally" even though the election will be dominated by budgetary and economic issues.

Personally, I think the claims on anti-Mormonism amongst evangelicals are overstated. While tricky to prove, I don't think that if Romney loses in Iowa, or nationally, that this will be due to his religion. I think this election is about policy, and in particular, the size, scope, and proper role of the federal government. I think this is the motivation of the Tea Party folks, too, despite thinly-sourced accusations of racism, nativism, or anti-intellectualism.

For a variety of reasons which I hope to explain further as the campaign progresses, I don't support candidates because of religious affiliation, or because of antagonism to one denomination or to religion as a whole. I should hope it obvious that the pre-eminent issue facing the country right now is, broadly stated, the economy. Further, I think the role of the federal government in the economy is an issue  inextricably linked to "the economy." While there are certain to be plenty of distractions along the way, I hope that this is what we're all talking about for the next 17 months.