Or rather, evangelical Christians' problem with Romney as a Mormon may mean he will miss a vital bloc of Republican voters
This past weekend marked the New York Times' unmitigated revelation of its feelings for Mitt Romney: deep dislike. The paper was crammed with anti-Romney articles. One argued that the former Massachusetts governor is deliberately exploiting racial tensions. An editorial attacked Romney for failing to address the issue of income inequality, while sniper columnist Maureen Dowd listed at least a dozen reasons why the Republican presidential candidate is unelectable.
Of particular note, though, the Times devoted a front-page story to an issue that so far has not dared truly speak its name: the fact that as a Mormon, Romney is alienating a vast swathe of Republican born-again and evangelical voters.
I'm glad that someone in media is finally addressing the issue of Romney's Mormonism in a substantive way, rather than alluding to it obliquely or as a deliberately understated afterthought. To be clear, reporters rarely miss a chance to mention the fact that the Romney family are Mormons. But – until Sunday – they have generally eschewed declaring it a major weakness in his candidacy and the cause of a potential schism in the Republican party.
Romney's "evangelical problem" runs much deeper than appears at first glance. Certainly, Romney was never going to win the endorsement of the most prominent conservative groups that met in Texas this past weekend to anoint Rick Santorum as their man of the moment.
And undoubtedly, Romney's dismal ratings among evangelical voters, many of whom openly consider Mormonism a cult, may not block his winning of the South Carolina primary. Indeed, though 2008 exit polls showed that 60% of that state's voters were white and born-again or evangelical, Romney can count on that substantial block being split between other candidates, giving him an overall advantage.
That, after all, was Romney's winning strategy in Iowa, where only 14% of born-again and evangelical Christians voted for him. The rest were fragmented, giving him an (admittedly tiny) plurality of the vote. An analysis of entrance polls in that state showed Romney scoring big with traditional, upscale, suburban Republican voters – voters who quite notably do not prioritize family values in the same way others in the party do.
The great divide between born-again and evangelical Christians on the one hand, and less religiously-oriented, pragmatic conservatives on the other, has become increasingly clear in the support Mitt Romney has attracted during these primaries. And this, in turn, reveals a more fundamental divide in the Republican party – one that may cost it dearly at the general election.
For years, I have been forecasting that so-called "big tent" Republicanism was doomed to failure. As more pragmatic conservatives evolve in their views of critical issues – such as, gay marriage, which a plurality now supports – born-again and evangelical Christians are intent on preserving the doctrinal status quo. And that tension is unsustainable.
George W Bush deftly handled that divide by offering something to everyone – tax cuts for the rich and a ban on stem-cell research for the religious. He was also handed the opportunity of the 9/11 attacks to unite Americans of all persuasions.
But Romney has no such luxury. Why? Well, bluntly put, he is a Mormon. As such, evangelicals will never trust him. Will they vote for him, reluctantly, against Obama in the general election? Possibly, but not in a way that will represent the energized base Republicans need to win this election.
A near analogy is with the 2004 election. George W Bush was universally hated by Democrats (as Obama is now by many rightwingers) and yet the left failed to fully coalesce around the anemic character of John Kerry with any great enthusiasm. The result was dismal Democratic base voting on election day – and that ultimately secured George W Bush a second term in office.
This is the risk for Romney now. Will he be able to sew together the cracking seams of the Republican party? Certainly, he's trying in South Carolina, running a deluge of television ads that emphasize his vetoing of stem cell bills and over-the-counter sale of birth control.
But my guess is that's just not going to cut it. Either in South Carolina during this primary, or with evangelicals during the general election. In what will likely be a highly competitive election, it could take just a small percentage of those voters to sit at home on election day to swing it for Obama.
Of course, all this depends on Obama's ability to turn out his voters. But there, Democrats have reason to be optimistic. The African American vote, for example, shows signs of returning strongly in his favor. And recent stratospheric fundraising will help mount a "ground game" like nothing history has ever seen, as well as a barrage of anti-Romney ads that will depress Republican turnout.
It's too early to tell for certain whether born-again and evangelical Christians will sit out this election. But the answer to that question will, without a doubt, be critical in determining who is president for the next four years.