Gingrich's win and the influence of Evangelical leaders today

The other day my friend Prof. Knowsome (not his real name) dared me in his Trying to Explain Politics blog to explain why voters in South Carolina picked Gingrich over Santorum and what that had to say about the influence of the old-guard conservative evangelical leaders. 

The success of Gingrich at the cost of Santorum came as a surprise to many, especially those with certain stereotypes about evangelical voters.  I'm not sure I can fully explain what happened, but at the same time I wasn't surprised.

One thing you have to remember is that not all evangelicals are the same.  I am personally an evangelical, but have consistently disliked Newt Gingrich since the early 1990s.  Culturally, I am more of a Midwestern evangelical (like those found in Iowa) than a Southern evangelical (like those found in South Carolina).  Midwestern evangelicals trace their political roots to William Jennings Bryan, a populist who supported both moral values and government intervention where appropriate.  Southern evangelicals trace their political roots to resistance to federal government intrusion after the Civil War.

Some of the things Rick Santorum proposes are very attractive to Midwestern evangelicals.  Things like raising some taxes/fees to pay for an increased child tax credit is something Midwestern evangelicals are more likelely to find appealing than would more libertarian-minded Southern evangelicals.  Midwestern evangelicals are much more sensitive to insincerity and are more likely to reject Gingrich due to his morally questionable personal history.  Southerners are more concerned about ideological than personal purity, so Gingrich's marriages don't bother them as much.  Southerners are also attracted to fiesy politicians and tend to ignore more mild-mannered ones such as Santorum.

(Note: All of the things stated above are generalizations.  There are plenty of individuals who break these generalizations in both regions.)

Now, to address the seeming loss of influence of evangelical leaders.  To provide a bit of background, about a week before the South Carolina primary, a group of established conservative evangelical leaders met in Texas to join together in support of a single candidate.  They chose to endorse Santorum.  Many whose political minds are 10-15 years behind the times assumed this would be a huge boost to Santorum.  In reality, the endorsement didn't seem to make any difference at all.

This did not come as a surprise to me or many other close observers of the interaction of religion and politics.  Over the past couple of decades there has been a gradual transition of power in the evangelical community away from more politicized and partisan leaders such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and towards less partisan leaders such as Rick Warren, Gary Chapman, Mark Driscoll, or Bill Hybels.  The politically conservative evangelical leaders who met in Texas are no longer recognized as the leaders among the rank and file evangelicals in the churches.  In other words, the voters in South Carolina didn't really care.

So, what about Mitt Romney?  Why didn't Romney get more evangelical voters?  It seems to me that, among Southern evangelicals, there is more concern about ideological purity in their politicians than purity in their personal lives.  As I mentioned in a previous post, there is also a nervousness among evangelicals about voting for those they do not believe to be Christians.  In the Midwest, the evangelicals are a bit more open to such things.

Are Iowa and New Hampshire good for America?

My friend Phil over at Trying to Explain Politics thinks so.  His argument is essentially that you need a highly engaged electorate to trim down the list of candidates and that there aren't very many states that could effectively do the job.  It's an interesting argument, but I don't see a lot of citizens in other states agreeing with him.