Holy Rollers

Florida Evangelicals a different breed of voter than brethren in Iowa, South Carolina

By John Sepulvado, CNN..com, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/28/florida-evangelicals-a-different-breed-of-voter-than-brethren-in-iowa-south-carolina/

Summary

This article is dated January 28, 2012 and the FL primary results were announced this morning, February 01, 2012. But for the purpose of this article I will not reference the results as they were not part of the chosen article.

It seemed fitting to read this article just as the Florida primary results were being tallied last night. Republican presidential possibilities Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were both looking to secure the conservative vote by courting the religious right. But this is not just any religious right; it’s the non-denomination Christian evangelical bloc, in a state that bases much of its economy on tourism.  Because of the tourism, coupled with Catholic Cuban immigrants and New York Jewish retirees, the state of Florida, particularly the Panhandle area, is in fact a fairly open-minded area. This could also be due to the number of college educated voters and the Megachurches evangelicals are members of promote a broad message of acceptance not seen in other regions of the country.

This is a different type of religious right that faced the politicians. In previous primaries the voters were either of the Southern Baptist variety (South Carolina primary) or the mature, rural Iowan version. Both are conservative but neither is noted for an “all are welcome” attitude like Floridians of the Panhandle.

Both GOP politicians attempted to make inroads with the non-denomination Christian evangelical base by speaking with their church leaders and advocates. The evangelicals were concerned with Romney’s moderate stance on gay rights and abortion and less concerned with Gingrich’s two divorces, the direct result of extramarital affairs. 

Analysis

This open door policy fostered by the Florida evangelicals is refreshing. Because the state is made up of such diverse groups, it makes sense that all of those beliefs would be welcome. Jewish, Catholics and non-denomination Christians have learned to cohabitate quite well in Florida and regardless of religious affiliation are prepared and comfortable with the idea of a Mormon potential president.

This ability to accept a candidate’s religious association or even separate it from a candidate’s message is a clear indicator of how far Romney could go with Florida voters. I would even suggest it’s a wonderful example of a separation of church and state at the collective individual level. This would have been a great civic lesson when Kennedy was running for president decades ago and some were fearful a Catholic president equaled Popery interference at the uppermost level, but I digress.

The tolerant approach by the evangelicals is something many constituents could learn from. This group has set aside their personal religious associations, is willing to hear a candidate’s message and cast their ballot based on nothing more than the pertinent information. However Florida isn’t the only state that has tourism, a large immigrant population, many recognized nationalities/religions and Megachurches. Arizona comes to mind as does California. What is it about the Floridians that they are able to remain cohesive despite their differences and other states are unwilling or unable? It could be worth exploring.  

Also worth exploring is why the evangelicals, for all their broad-mindedness, questioned Romney’s position on abortion and gay rights but did not question Gingrich for being twice divorced and marrying his last mistress. Do the evangelicals feel there is a fundamental difference between adultery and the subsequent fallout when compared to two current hot button issues? Does the evangelical tolerance not extend to equality for gays and women’s reproductive decisions? Are these two topics that even the college educated, progressive evangelicals cannot concede and if not, what is the difference? Would that mean adultery and divorce are more acceptable sins than homosexuality and abortion to that target audience? Perhaps socially those are more acceptable transgressions to evangelicals and the latter are beyond justification.

If I’m reading the piece correctly, the non-denominational Christian evangelical voters are progressive enough to not dismiss Mitt Romney from the presidential race simply because he is Mormon any more than they would dismiss Newt Gingrich as a potential candidate for his extramarital affairs. But their sticking point with Romney is that he too is progressive in his moderately conservative view of gay rights and abortion.