Timothy Dalrymple: Open Letter to Mitt Romney Skeptics, Especially Evangelicals

Thanks to John Schroeder of Article VI Blog for connecting Mitt Romney Central with Timothy Dalrymple. The following open letter is another outstanding endorsement of Governor Romney as the candidate best suited to represent conservative values as our President of the United States. Tim’s three main arguments below are compelling, especially regarding Governor Romney’s moral leadership.

Timothy Dalrymple is the Director of Content for Patheos.com, the largest religion website in the country, and the managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. He earned his Ph.D. in modern western religious thought at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and contributes to Evangelicals for Mitt. Raised in non-denominational evangelical churches in California, Dalrymple has ministry experience in youth ministry, college ministry, prison chaplaincy, teaching apologetics, and leading overseas missions. Formerly of Boston, he is now a member of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. You can follow him at Philosophical Fragments or Facebook.

Timothy Dalrymple

See the just-released ebook from Evangelicals for Mitt for a comprehensive explanation of why Romney is the best positioned to represent evangelicals’ values in the White House.

By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008? We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain. Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain. I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP. The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters. The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay. Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket. If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country. Our financial house is in shambles. Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help. But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated. Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural. I am convinced of this with every bone in my body: We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues. On the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; Romney’s experience in venture capital, properly understood, is one of his truest strengths, because the venture capitalist learns a great deal about what kinds of ventures succeed and what kinds of capital they need. On the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

I’ve written responses to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy – and a long, specifically evangelical case for Mitt can be found in this ebook. The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy at the right time for this country. The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership. In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need. He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership. As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future. That’s Mitt.

Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man. He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success. Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but in most cases you’re eliminating jobs in order to avoid eliminating a company in its entirety. You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable. You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later. In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut one job and save the company that employs ninety-nine more.

Romney’s experience in executive management, and in the financial and investment sector, are precisely what we need right now, when we are faced with enormous managerial challenges in reforming the government and its entitlement programs and enormous economic challenges in rebuilding a thriving private sector and restoring the millions of new jobs it should be producing each year.

36 economists, recently asked to rate Obama’s performance on the economy, rated him mostly “poor” and “fair.” Asked which of the Republican candidates would be best, two-thirds chose Romney, one chose Gingrich, and the others gave no response. In other words, of the leading economists who offered their thoughts on who could best turn around the American economy, 24 out of 25 chose Romney. This is not just happenstance. Romney knows the economy through and through — and everything our government offers, from the most basic services and social safety nets all the way to military and national defense, depends upon a thriving economy. The business community will welcome the news of a Romney presidency, and it’s easy to see why when you take a look at Romney’s economic plan — a marvel of creative, pro-growth economic conservatism. If you haven’t read it, you really should. I’m particularly encouraged that we could have a President who understands the financial sector, since so much of our fate is now tied together with the financial giants. Romney is the best prepared to rebuild a thriving, job-producing economy.

On matters of foreign policy, Romney’s positions are consistently conservative, consistently show a solid appreciation of America’s unique role in the world, and consistently support our allies and promote a strong national defense. Romney believes that a strong America that sets the international agenda and promotes the interests of democracy and the free market are in the best interest of the world. He favors a stronger, more multi-layered national missile defense system than Obama, and a stronger military, increasing the Navy’s ship-building rate and replacing the aging equipment of the Army, Air Force and Marines. His positions with regard to Russia and China, rogue nations, and the threat of radical Islamic Jihadism are clear, smart, and, again, consistently conservative. Romney will establish an excellent team and represent us well on the international stage.

Moral Leadership

One need not agree with Mormon theology in order to agree with Mormon values and marvel at how well Mormons in general put those values into practice. Romney is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and a staunch defender of religious liberties – and yet he’s often accused of merely feigning his commitment to social conservative values. On this score, I fear that social conservatives have been badly misled. I cannot address every issue, of course, but let me deal with abortion in particular to show how Romney’s record is far more consistent with social conservative values than the detractors have claimed.

It’s true, as he has explained many times, that Romney’s views on abortion have changed. We would all agree, however, that it matters little what Romney believes 17 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde were both pro-choice before their conversions, and converts are often the most passionate advocates for the causes to which they converted. They hold their views not because they inherited them uncritically, but because they’ve seen the other side and its implications, and they’ve examined the issue thoroughly.

So the question is whether we can trust that Romney is, right now, honestly representing his stances. But if his convictions were feigned, if he were adopting positions for political convenience, why in the world would he have changed those positions when he did? Romney was Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union from 2003 to 2007. Essentially, the first time that he was confronted with a “life” issue as Governor, in 2004, he did his research (as he always does) and came to the conclusion that his earlier support for abortion access had been wrong. Having come to this viewpoint, he has acted in a pro-life manner consistently ever since.

Now, if you were actually, secretly pro-choice, and wanted to be a successful Governor of a blue state, and then change your views on abortion in order to situate yourself for an eventual Presidential run, wouldn’t you wait until later in your Governorship? Wouldn’t you wait until after you’ve dealt with some of the most nettlesome life issues? Remember that this was not 2010 or 2011, when conservatives were on the ascendant, and when Romney needs to appeal to the Hard Right. This was 2004, when any person in Romney’s situation, if he wanted to run for President, would be thinking more of appealing to moderates. Remember, too, that Romney’s wife Ann has multiple sclerosis, which many people were claiming could be overcome through embryonic stem cell research. So, wouldn’t you proclaim yourself pro-life but open to stem-cell research and the morning-after pill?

Yet that’s not what Romney did. Against the roaring outrage of the liberal establishment in Massachusetts, and against the will of the very powerful research universities in Boston and Cambridge, Romney vetoed a bill that would have expanded support for embryonic stem cell research. He could not condone “embryo farming,” he said, that treated “innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.”

Yet this issue has been thoroughly demagogued. Let me give an example: Erick Erickson of Red State wrote a piece entitled, “Mitt Romney Didn’t Just Give Planned Parenthood Money, He Gave Them Extra Power.” Erickson makes a non sequitur reference to $150 Romney gave Planned Parenthood seventeen years ago, when everyone acknowledges he supported access to abortion. But the real smoking gun, for Erickson, comes in three parts:

1. Romney appointed “to the Massachusetts bench” a certain Matthew Nestor, who once touted himself as pro-choice. But really, Nestor was appointed to the Cambridge District Court, where he would deal with low-level misdemeanors, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion law. Romney sought judges who would be tough on crime, and Nestor — who has earned the nickname “The Hammer” – recently made news for sending a Democratic State Senator to jail.

2. After vetoing a law that would have expanded access to the morning-after pill, Romney “slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.” But, again, Erickson is misleading his readers. The report he cites says the measure “could expand the number of people who get access to family planning services.” For legal analysis, I turn to David French: ”The bill he signed was merely a request for Massachusetts to get federal reimbursement for services it was already providing at cost to the state — the state was paying $5 million per year already and had a chance at a 90% federal reimbursement. This is no change in Mass law but an attempt at cost-shifting to the feds. It did not pay for abortions.”

3. And third, Erickson’s biggest accusation: Romney, two years after his conversion in 2004, “expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law.” But again, this is so misleading that it can only be intentional. Romney’s health care law only made abortion more accessible in the same sense that it made all health care more accessible; but since there was already a court ruling in Massachusetts requiring taxpayer funding of abortions, the expansion of state provision of health care arguably did nothing to make abortion more accessible. Moreover, in the midst of crafting a very complicated law that required a lot of compromise across the aisle (Romney did not write this portion of the law, he merely signed the bill into law as a whole), Planned Parenthood was actually given 1 of 14 slots on a payment rate advisory board. They were not given “new rights”; their power was merely advisory, and it had no authority over abortion-related matters.

Again, there are areas for legitimate disagreement here. Some conservatives think Romney should have defied the court ruling that mandates taxpayer funding of abortions — but Romney, with great justification, believes that Governors are executives who execute the laws that are passed by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. But this latest piece from Erickson is just another in a long line of attack articles that prop up one-sided Potempkin-Mitts in order to knock them over and benefit other candidates.

Romney has been very clear throughout the debates and countless interviews: he believes life begins at conception, opposes Roe v. Wade, will nominate pro-life judges, would overturn the Mexico City policy, and will oppose embryonic stem cell research. Most importantly, he supports the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which may be the best approach presently available to protecting the lives of a great swath of the unborn. See Romney’s own statement on his pro-life views.

I could write similar refutations on a whole host of issues that matter to social conservatives, but the sum of the matter is this. I lived in Massachusetts for the whole of his governorship, and Romney consistently stood up for social conservative causes against enormous pressure from the Far-Left legislature and the Far-Left Boston Brahmins on Beacon Hill and Harvard Yard. Which shows greater courage and greater conviction? Holding thoroughly conservative views in a thoroughly conservative state (or Congressional district), or fighting for conservative values in a blue state? Which is a better predictor that a candidate will maintain his social-conservative positions when he gets into the left-leaning Beltway? And which candidate will be more sure to keep his word once in office: one who was never really questioned on the sincerity of his views, or one who still has to prove himself to supporters?

But personal morality should not be overlooked here, either. I cannot tell you how many stories I’ve heard from Romney’s friends and acquaintances about his integrity, his compassion, his selflessness and generosity, and his excellent family values. These mean a great deal to me. If we wish to restore the moral underpinnings of our society, we need someone who represents those virtues. I also value — let’s call it what it is — all the pastoral experience Romney gained as a major leader in Boston’s LDS circles. I grew up watching my father (an elder and a pastor of an evangelical church) deal with all the same issues Romney would have dealt with: crumbling marriages, wayward children, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual infidelity, depression, and the like. I appreciate that Romney’s experience in the Mormon Church gave Romney this same experience of speaking wisdom and healing into broken lives and broken relationships.

The Power to Beat Obama

Finally, don’t fool yourself. Obama is a formidable campaigner. He will have a massive war chest at his disposal, and media, entertainment, academic and labor establishments that will still much prefer him to a Republican. The Left Wing will get fired up over Obama again, and we’re going to need all of the eloquence and intellectual firepower and presidential gravitas that we can get.

Repeat this to yourself: No candidate can represent social conservative values in the White House if he cannot win the White House.

Romney is the only candidate that I’m confident can beat Obama. Look at the the most recent numbers from Rasmussen, where Romney beats Obama by 6 points among likely voters (45% to 39%) while Gingrich and Santorum are 10 points behind the President (37% to 47%). That’s a 16-point swing. Remember: Barack Obama has not really begun to campaign yet. This is going to be a hard-fought, tooth-and-nail electoral contest, and only Romney has the resources, the organization, the skills and the credibility to be a plausible favorite over Obama.

I respect conservatives who support other candidates, but I firmly believe that Mitt’s the right guy at the right time. We need to get past the superficialities, get past the misinformation, and see that we have in Mitt Romney an excellent candidate for this particular historical moment. Is he perfect? Of course not. Do I defend what he has said and done in every particular? Not at all. But it gives me great comfort to know that the leading candidate right now is the one with the best chance of turning our economy around, the one who will represent us well on the international stage, the one who stands for the right values, and the same one who has the best chance of beating Obama.

This is a rare confluence of fortune. Let’s not steal defeat here from the jaws of victory. Sincerely,

Timothy Dalrymple

“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” — C. S. Lewis

About Victor Lundquist:

Victor is a businessman working in the healthcare industry. He and his wife of 33 years have five children and four grandchildren. Vic has been blogging for Mitt Romney since 2007.
View Posts | View Profile

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn 

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Timothy Dalrymple: Open Letter to Mitt Romney Skeptics, Especially Evangelicals

  1. Ben says:

    Very nice article.

  2. Excellent article. Well done.

  3. Robert says:

    Wow. You really study the candidates. Your comments are so refreshing in a world of political mud. Thank you for the great effort you made to research and write this article. I have to say that I’m very impressed with your research and thinking on this matter.