Brian Snyder/Reuters
Bob Vander Plaats has seen this movie before—and he’d really like to change the ending. He’s the right-wing Christian leader in Iowa who helped launch Rick Santorum from the back of the Republican presidential pack to a stunning virtual tie with the far better-funded front-runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses—each getting 25 per cent of the vote. Vander Plaats, who heads a social conservative group called the Family Leader, endorsed Santorum two weeks before the vote, when the former Pennsylvania senator had a mere four per cent in the polls, and his network of conservative activists helped rewrite the first chapter of the campaign.
But when Romney emerged victorious from the next vote in New Hampshire on Jan. 10, Vander Plaats saw history repeating itself. Back in 2008, he’d been the Iowa campaign chair of Mike Huckabee, the once-obscure former pastor and governor of Arkansas. Huckabee shot to national prominence with his Iowa victory, carried, like Santorum, on a wave of support from Christian conservatives concerned with social issues such as abortion and gay marriage—only to be bested by John McCain in moderate New Hampshire. And most crucially, Vander Plaats’s candidate was defeated by McCain in South Carolina, where conservatives split their votes between Huckabee and a former-actor-turned-senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson. McCain went on to win the nomination despite staunch opposition from conservatives critical of his views on everything from illegal immigration to climate change and torture.
The loss in South Carolina was particularly painful to conservatives because it was by a mere three percentage points—McCain had 33 to Huckabee’s 30. Thompson took 15 per cent—much of which would have likely gone to Huckabee. Vander Plaats fears Republicans are careening to a similar result this year, splitting their support among several challengers to Romney: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, congressman Ron Paul, and Santorum.
Today Romney espouses party-line conservative ideology, but he is stuck in the McCain role because of his past positions on social issues, such as his now-recanted support for abortion rights. “We have a huge trust gap with him,” says Vander Plaats. “He has been on both sides of every issue—the life issue, the marriage issue, health care, gay rights, you name it. We would like to nominate someone who will present a very strong contrast to President Obama.”
(Vander Plaats rejects occasional accusations that evangelical Christians won’t get behind Romney because of his Mormon religion, which some evangelicals consider a cult. “Frankly, the Mormon issue is rarely brought up. It’s more his policy issues,” he told Maclean’s, adding that for some people in his movement Romney “isn’t Mormon enough—the Mormon church is very clear on life, marriage and same-sex relationships.”)
The irony is that the Republican party has moved to the right in recent years. Most of the presidential candidates are staunchly conservative. But they are dividing the votes and giving Romney the edge—sparking calls for an “Anyone But Romney” candidate. “If we stay divided, Romney will win South Carolina,” says Vander Plaats. Then “it’s probably no longer game on—it’s probably game over.” And, Vander Plaats adds: “I’m doing whatever I can to make sure we don’t repeat what we did four years ago.”
The movement’s leaders are worried. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based group dedicated to promoting social conservative policies, has been working with other like-minded Christian evangelical and activist groups to organize a meeting this weekend in Houston to try to find agreement on one candidate around which the right wing of the party can rally. He said the meeting will include presentations from pollsters and political strategists to help assess the merits of the candidates. “There is certainly an effort to try to coalesce around a true conservative candidate. One that has as few question marks around their conservatism as possible,” Perkins told Maclean’s. “Fresh in our minds is what happened in 2008.”
But, he admits, getting conservatives to agree will be difficult. “When you invest so much into a candidate or a campaign, it’s really hard for you to say, I’m just going to walk away from it.” Anointing a single candidate to beat Romney “is easier said than done.”A case in point is Vander Plaats, who says he won’t attend the meeting. He has already thought out the road map to consensus: “Rick Perry needs to get out of the race,” he says. “Even if he takes five or eight or even 10 per cent—that percentage is going to come away from the alternative to Romney. The only thing Perry is doing now, in my opinion, is aiding and abetting Romney’s candidacy.” With Perry’s departure, Santorum and Gingrich should then join forces to support whichever of them is in the lead in South Carolina. “Santorum and Gingrich need to take a hard, unvarnished inventory of what their chances are in South Carolina. I really do believe the stronger one needs to prevail and the other needs to get behind him.”
There is little sign that the candidates are ready to coalesce. Gingrich’s supporters are on track to spend millions in the state. And Perry has reason to believe he could do well there too, says David Wilkins, a former ambassador to Canada, who was a long-time Speaker of the South Carolina legislature and who has endorsed Perry. “I know there are people out there saying everyone needs to coalesce, but no one wants to coalesce around your candidate—they want you to coalesce around their candidate,” Wilkins told Maclean’s. “I don’t see any coalescing. It’s a wide-open state and everyone is running their own race.”
Wilkins rejects the proposal that Perry withdraw. “Outside of Texas, South Carolina plays as well to him as any state,” he says. “We are strong on the military down here, a very patriotic state, and he is one of the two candidates that wore the uniform of the United States. He is in it through South Carolina and beyond.” Wilkins adds: “Nobody was telling Santorum to drop out when he was at three per cent in the polls.”
One factor that could help the non-Romney candidates: former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s third-place showing in New Hampshire, behind Ron Paul. Huntsman has a moderate image because he worked for the Obama administration and, as governor, tried to combat climate change. While he doesn’t appeal to the staunchest conservatives, Huntsman could help peel more moderate Republicans away from Romney, who could emerge bloodied from South Carolina. Both Gingrich and Perry are waging a harsh campaign against Romney, attacking his record as the head of investment firm Bain Capital. They have accused the company of “looting” some of the businesses that it purchased, resulting in large layoffs.
Wilkins says he is not worried about the damage that could be inflicted on the eventual nominee. “I don’t think a spirited campaign and dividedness is going to do anything but totally evaporate once the winner is selected,” he says. “There will be complete unification against Obama.” Even activist Perkins says he would vote for Romney if he were the nominee: “Yeah, I’m going to be for him. But that’s not the real question. The question is where will be the intensity of support. I was for John McCain but I wasn’t that enthusiastic about him. And this election is going to be very close.”
And the enthusiasm of conservative groups matters, because they play a role for Republicans similar to what labour unions play for Democrats—providing organizations and networks of people to help run phone banks, canvas door-to-door and get out the vote on Election Day. “You have the election of 2000 and 2004 for George W. Bush where our base got actively engaged, door knocking and phone banking, and he won the presidency twice,” notes Vander Plaats. “John McCain didn’t get the base excited. When the base isn’t inspired you get Barack Obama.”
But even if Romney himself has trouble motivating the conservative base, he’ll get plenty of help from the President, says political scientist Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia. “Among conservatives, the level of enthusiasm for Romney may not be high,” he says, “but the level of opposition to Obama will be.”
