Why the Nationally Renowned Evangelical Leaders Endorsed Santorum by a Supermajority

Evangelicals representing a large number of local and national organizations voted decisively today to endorse Rick Santorum. Here is the story and an explanation why they so overwhelmingly picked Santorum.

We evangelicals had been divided. In Iowa, we were split between Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry. Santorum left Iowa with a win (or a 2nd place win by a handful of votes). Bachmann quit the race, Perry should have, with Gingrich just ahead of Perry at the bottom of the pack.

In liberal New Hampshire, with the help of independents and cross over Obama supporters in the open primary, the moderates and the Libertarian won, but Santorum still came ahead of Gingrich, while Perry picked up but 1% of the vote.

Now Santorum heads into South Carolina with a win and a fourth place finish, and with an estimated 12 delegates, second only to Romney’s 20. None of the other conservatives have any delegates. Although Santorum has a clear advantage over the other conservatives on the early score, many evangelicals still felt divided among themselves. Their desperate desire to unite behind one conservative prompted them to seek guidance from their leaders.

In the effort to unite, about 150 nationally renowned evangelical leaders went to Texas, sequestered themselves for a two day retreat, and forged a consensus. Perry didn’t survive the first round of voting. In the third round, Santorum overwhelmingly beat Gingrich by a supermajority of 85-29.

Why did these evangelical leaders so decisively settle to endorse Santorum? I wasn’t invited, but as an evangelical scholar, here is my educated guess.

Preliminarily, evangelicals certainly were not going to support Romney simply because of his recent conversion to conservative social views; he is suspected to be a conservative of convenience, rather than a conservative of conscience. Similarly, they realize that Ron Paul is far removed from views favorable to the pro-life movement; like Pres. Obama, Paul does not think that the federal government has the responsibility to protect the rights of the unborn to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of the other candidates, based on news reports, the question of electability was what bumped Perry out, leaving Santorum and Gingrich. This is a telling story, for it suggests that they also considered electability in the final choice between Gingrich and Santorum. To some extent, these leaders perceived Santorum as more electable than Gingrich. This makes sense for two reasons. First, Gingrich is perceived to have so much baggage that it could pay off the national debt in excess baggage fees. Secondly, Gingrich brings no electoral advantage to the election, while Santorum, with his Made-in-America plan, appeals strongly to the Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector of the Midwestern swing states http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html. A win of Ohio and Pennsylvania converts into a Republican victory http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html.

In addition to evangelical leaders perceiving that Santorum is more electable than Gingrich, Santorum probably increased his lead over Gingrich through the perception that Santorum has more evangelical bona fides than Gingrich. In particular, Santorum is well known for living a life above reproach. I think evangelicals are quick enough to forgive Gingrich for his moral failings. However, evangelicals appreciate the value of a life-long commitment to morals, and are wary about entrusting leadership to recent converts http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/marital-fidelity-as-criterion-for.html.

The evangelical leaders probably also gave points to Santorum for his level of commitment to evangelical urgencies. To be sure, Gingrich holds to many of these same urgencies, but not as passionately as Santorum. Throughout Santorum’s career, he has shown that these evangelical priorities are written in his DNA and reach down to his very bones.

Ultimately, I suspect that these many evangelical leaders endorsed Santorum over Gingrich simply because they trust his leadership and because they find comfort in endorsing the most principled candidate.

Santorum's Post-Iowa Strategy

To understand Santorum's post-Iowa strategy, it is key to understand Romney's precarious position. First, Romney spent five years and $5+ million in Iowa, but actually received fewer votes in yesterday's Caucuses than he did in 2008. He has plateaued. Secondly, polling data indicate that supporters of Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann are less likely to switch their allegiance to Romney should their preferred candidate suspend. Thirdly, the most significant reason for not supporting Santorum was the perception of his unelectability, an obstacle that has suddenly been removed; this point is reinforced by Santorum's remarkable million dollar fund raising one-day feat today. These factors all suggest that Santorum has an intensity of momentum going into New Hampshire that Huckabee lacked in 2008.

Nonetheless, some pundits are claiming that Santorum's win in Iowa is nothing but a flash in a pan. Such analysis depends upon the unlikely meteoric recovery of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry which would suck the air away from Santorum. However, Gingrich and Perry were so far removed from the top tier winners of Iowa that their campaigns are no longer legitimate, especially since both of them spent so much time and effort at scoring in Iowa. Their poor performances in Iowa are likely to send a good portion of their supporters scurrying to the Santorum campaign next Tuesday on election day. Meanwhile, Gingrich and Perry are most likely to focus their negative ads against Romney, as Gingrich has made clear. Santorum will benefit from all this at Romney's expense.

A key mistake of pundits who anticipate Santorum's eventual demise is that they underestimate Santorum's campaign organization in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Indeed, pundits probably view Santorum's prospects in light of Huckabee's demise who did not have sufficient time to build a campaign presence in New Hampshire or in South Carolina after his Iowa win.

What makes Santorum's situation different from Huckabee's is that he has already invested much into both states. He has made 30+ visits to New Hampshire in the past year, more than anyone else but Huntsman (who lives there). Santorum has garnered 23 endorsements from New Hampshire state representatives. In South Carolina, Santorum won the state's most significant straw poll this summer. For the Dec 10 debate, Santorum supporters sported 20 debate parties for their candidate in South Carolina. Support for Santorum in these two states are intense.

So, I think a reasonable expectation is that Santorum will perform respectably in New Hampshire. Romney is expected to win significantly, with Huntsman coming in second--understandably since both candidates have strong ties there. However, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Reagan Democrats and to those in the manufacturing sector. Santorum hopes to join these blue collar voters with New Hampshire's 23% Evangelical Republicans and considerable Catholic population in a viable voting block.

If Santorum outperforms expectations in New Hampshire, he will be able to move on to South Carolina to wage a campaign where Huckabee faltered.

Red State's Erick Erickson Would Think George Washington a Failure

In an effort to save his own prognosticating derriere, conservative Red State bloigger Erick Erickson, who has been utterly dismissive of Santorum and his campaign for the Republican nomination (see here), claims that Santorum is a statist (see http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/28/no-surprise-iowa-social-conservatives-are-about-to-shoot-us-all-in-the-foot-again/ and http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick-santorum-earmarxists-and-the-pro-life-statist/).

This claim follows weeks and months of dismissive comments that were pedantic and lacking in substance. They amounted to little more than sandbagging Santorum's efforts to get off the ground. Lacking any real complaint about Santorum, Erickson resorted to saying that Santorum is whiney, Santorum is angry, Santorum is arrogant, Santorum is not likable, as if such subjective and disputable claims could justify a dismissal.

For several weeks, I criticized Erickson for his shallow analysis. My comments posted on his blog were polite, but were so effective that he blocked me from posting comments. This says a lot about Erickson's character--not only does he dish out baseless criticisms, but he also cuts off dissenting views from other Reagan conservatives.

With Santorum surging so much so that some are suggesting that he might steal first place in Iowa, Erickson now realizes that thinking conservatives have not been swayed by such shallow criticism. Consequently, he spelled out his best case against Santorum.

An uncritical reading of Erickson's case against Santorum might make people think that Santorum was Tom Daschle's and Harry Reid's best friend in the Senate. But Erickson's case needs to be evaluated in light of what he doesn't say about Santorum. His analytical method is akin to damning George Washington by citing his every miscue, fault, and failure (which were myriad) while ignoring that he defeated the British and founded our country.

For Erickson, Exhibit One which would prove that Santorum is a big-government proponent is that he voted for various Bush initiatives. Erickson claimed that Santorum undermined the conservative opposition to these Bush initiatives. In reality, however, these initiatives were widely supported by Republicans, with minimal Republican dissent. Indeed, the only Republican senators who voted against them were liberals such as Lincoln Chafee and Judd Greg. By Erickson's criteria, all of our Republican Senators during the Clinton and Bush years, including 2008 conservative favorite Fred Thompson, would be damned as liberals. The fact that Santorum voted with conservatives increases his conservative credentials, not reduce them.

Exhibit Two is Santorum's endorsement of Arlen Specter. Yes, we all despise the RINO, but there was no way that Toomey could possibly win a statewide election in 2004; he only won in 2010 by 2%, and that was a landslide year for Republicans. So Santorum took advantage of Specter's predicament and traded him an endorsement on the condition that Specter would approve Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. It worked. The pro-choice Specter nearly chomped his tongue bloody while saying good things about Roberts and Alito to get them confirmed. These two justices are likely to serve as stalwart Constitutionalists for two or three decades, even if Toomey votes for another liberal Obama nominee like Sotomayor. Erickson, instead of condemning Santorum, should be praising him for his brilliant maneouver.

These two exhibits are the core of Erickson's case against Santorum. But in claiming that Santorum is a statist, Erickson is blind to what is otherwise obvious to the rest of us Reagan Conservatives. In the words of the Riehl World View blog, Rick Santorum has done more to advance conservatism thus far than someone like Erickson will ever do in his entire life http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/09/why-erick-erickson-will-never-lead-the-conservative-movement.html Consider just a couple of points in passing.

First, Santorum was the first of the candidates to endorse the Ryan plan. No statist would ever do so. Santorum has pledged to cut 5 trillion dollars in the next 5 years.

Second, Santorum co-sponsored and fought for a balanced budget amendment that failed by a single vote, prompting Santorum to demand that the RINO (Hatfield, OR) who voted against it be stripped of his chairmanship. He did so even against such stalwart Republicans as Jesse Helms who defended the RINO. Santorum's fight led to the RINO's early retirement.

Santorum's conservatism is in his DNA. He is not a conservative of convenience like Romney, and his faith and family emphasis is not newly found like Perry's, and his expertise and stalwart positions on national security is mined from the purity of Reagan conservatism. Erickson negative assessment of Santorum is skewed badly by ulterior motives (see http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2012/01/ulterior-motive-behind-red-states-erick.html).

Know the Candidates' Weaknesses before You Choose

Voters should be fully informed about their candidates before voting. This includes knowing their weaknesses. While most of the candidates have considerable strengths, let me remind you of some weaknesses.

MITT ROMNEY: I think Romney would make a reasonably good president, and I would support him if he were the nominee. He has a great reputation for knowing how the economy works. However, he is a conservative of convenience. He only affiliated with the Republican party in 1994 when he decided to run against Ted Kennedy; his strategy was to out-liberal him on issues. As a governor, Romney had a history of appointing liberal judges. His change from pro-choice to pro-life happened about the same time as he was considering entry into national politics--just in 2005. His primary legislative accomplishment was Romney-care, but it indicates that his approach to solving problems is to look to government as a first solution, rather than to look first toward the free market. He does not seem to be a conservative of conviction. He changed his position on gay marriage several times as governor. In 2008, he was running as a moderate Republican when the finger-in-the-wind wisdom was that Reagan conservatism was dead. At a time when our country desperately needs to return to core conservative values, we fear that Romney will be quick to compromise too quickly and unnecessarily, as was his practice as governor.

NEWT GINGRICH: I think Gingrich has the potential to be a reasonably good president, but his past performance in leadership roles suggests an equal potential for a mess. We should note that Gingrich's own financial miscues led to his check-kiting (22 in all) in the house banking scandal that Santorum and the other freshmen congressmen of the Gang of Seven exposed. One of the frustrating things about Gingrich was that he would stake out hard-lined stances, but in the stare-down, Gingrich was the first to blink. This happened with the 1995-1996 government shutdown when ultimately the Republicans accepted $300 billion more in spending through 2002, and it happened again when Newt blinked during the House Managers' prosecution of the Clinton impeachment trial (while Newt was himself having an extramarital affair--did the Clinton machine use this information to force him to back down?). Ethics charges and a $300,000 fine against Newt combined with the loss of the House of Representatives to force Newt's resignation--he lost the confidence of his own caucus mostly because of leadership issues. These failures makes us wonder how Newt could ever possibly recover and win a presidential election. More recently, Gingrich has proposed a plan to reward illegals with some sort of amnesty. Although he is brilliant, Gingrich has earned our skepticism, and his excess baggage fees alone could pay off the national debt. He is unlikely to survive a full frontal assault from the Obama attack machine simply because he has so many vulnerable points.

RICK PERRY: Perry appears to have a good record as governor of Texas and would probably be a reasonably good president--if he managed to get through the debates with Obama without embarrassing us all. Much of Perry's strong points are offset by the fact that he spent so much time in office as a Democrat. He was elected as a Democrat to theTexas legislature in 1984. He also ran Al Gore's campaign in 1988. With Texas becoming more and more solidly a conservative state, it is easy to see Perry's switch to the Republican party as an act of convenience rather than of conviction. Perry has vigorously defended his immigration policy, even though it clearly provides a magnate for illegals. Perry's requirement of young teenage girls to get the Gardisil vaccine shows how Perry is willing to impose the government into family matters.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Bachmann has withdrawn with class and dignity. Running a presidential campaign is difficult, and I have nothing but admiration for her, and pray earnestly that God would encourage her and continue to guide her. I have no doubt that she will continue to contribute positively to our American life.

JOHN HUNTSMAN: He should withdraw from the Republican primary and run as a Democrat. One exit poll showed that 51% of those voting for Huntsman in New Hampshire were moderately satisfied with Obama as president. Huntsman will not win the election simply because there are too many states that have a closed primary which disallows independents and Democrats.

RON PAUL: 75% of Republicans repudiate Ron Paul as utterly unacceptable as a Republican. Rush Limbaugh, who knows politics as well as anyone else in America, says that he should drop out of the race as run as a Democrat. Many Republicans figure that Paul would be no better than Obama. On foreign policy, he holds the same position as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He'd do nothing to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He'd do nothing to assist our allies or protect our international interests. He's a poor leader, serving as the editor of a newsletter containing numerous racist articles written in his name. He attracts the most fringe elements of American politics, including neo-Confederates and and the Klan; his supporters invasively protest other Republican campaign events. As a doctor who has delivered many babies, it is inexcusable for him to promote the use of the morning after pill as a CONTRACEPTIVE! Paul will not be the nominee (there are too many closed primary states), and when the Republican party repudiates him, many of us presume that Paul's messiah complex will kick in so that he will run as an independent. The Republican tent is not big enough for this RINO.

RICK SANTORUM: The more I study Santorum, the fewer flaws I find. The biggest concern has been whether or not he is electable. His victory in Iowa has given him a boost, tripling his support in New Hampshire where he was the conservative with the most votes, beating Gingrich by 138 votes . He expects to win in South Carolina, or, at least get more votes than the other conservative candidates (Gingrich and Perry). In the general election, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Midwest manufacturing states so that Santorum will have an excellent chance of carrying not only Ohio, but also takikng Pennsylvania, and perhaps one of two of the other rust-belt states (Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). If a Republican takes Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will win the election so long as he keeps Florida and the other red states (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html). The second concern about Santorum is his support of RINO Arlen Specter, but this turned out good for the sake of Conservatism as I have argued here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/skeletons-in-candidates-closets-is.html), especially in light of the fact that Pat Toomey voted for Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The third concern was that Santorum supported Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, but no conservative Republican in the Senate opposed it, and it advanced the Republican urgencies of accountability of teachers and schools, and closed dead end schools (Santorum has since argued that No Child Left Behind was a mistake). The fourth concern is that he lost his last election; however, he did so on principle, and this was much less problematic than Newt's resignation. On the other hand, Santorum is the experienced leader who gets legislation passed which reflects the three legs of Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism. See here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorum-and-reagans-3-legged-stool.html).

Santorum and States' Rights

One of the inexplicable objections that some people have about Santorum is that he is insufficiently committed to states' rights. States' rights is the flip side of the coin of a small federal government, and so this objection implies that Santorum looks to increase the size and impact of the federal government. The objection could not be more fallacious.

The basis for this objection is Santorum's proposal of two constitutional amendments, one to define marriage, and the other one to define personhood (a pro-life amendment). Presently, different states have different laws pertaining to these issues. For example, as Rick Perry indicated earlier in the campaign, he has no problem with New York allowing gay marriage, so long as Texas can make up its own mind.

Perry's stance would end in pandemonium. If a gay couple duly married in Massachusetts were to move to Texas, would Texas recognize the marriage? Or if a gay "married" couple were merely to visit Texas, would their marriage not be recognized by Texas during their visit? Would a Vermont gay couple filing jointly for federal income tax have to pro-rate their tax by deducting days in Texas that they weren't recognized as being married?

In some ways, our present situation is reminiscent of the competing slave laws from state to state in 19th century America. Slave owners from the south taking their personal body servants with them on visits to the north risked having their slaves granted freedom by the states they might visit. Similarly, runaway slaves were considered free once they crossed into northern states. To solve these issues, southern states were altogether eager to use the heavy hand of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of northern states through fugitive slave laws and through the intrusive arm of the Supreme Court (e.g., the Dred Scot decision) which trumped state laws.

All this changed with the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery throughout the United States. Santorum's two amendments would likewise establish a common policy on marriage and on the definition of life. However, there is a considerable difference between the way pro-slavery federal legislation was imposed in the pre-Civil War era and the way that Santorum's proposed amendments would be enacted. The pro-slavery federal legislation reflected the heavy hand of an intrusive federal government that was expanding its role. Santorum's proposed constitutional amendments, however, give due consideration to states' rights. Here's how.

The most important factor in amending the constitution is that it involves a vote of the states' legislative bodies. The issue is not sent to the states until the proposed amendment passes by a 2/3rds majority of both the U.S. House and the Senate. Only then is the amendment sent to the states which utterly control the fate of the proposed amendment. Each state legislative body votes on the issue. Only when 2/3rds of the states pass the amendment does it become a part of the constitution.

Thus, this process is heavily weighted in favor of the states, giving due consideration to states' rights. The only role the federal government has would be in initiating the amendment process. This contrasts remarkably with the fugitive slave laws of the 19th century which infringed upon the rights of the northern states by a simple majority of the U.S. House and Senate, and the president's signature.

Santorum's amendments are necessary in order to avoid a free-for-all situation where some of the states infringe upon the civil rights of some humans simply because they have not yet been born, and where states define marriage differently. Failure to have a common position on these key issues will have grave consequences on our country. But Santorum respects states' rights by addressing these issues through a constitutional amendment process which puts the states in control of the process, a process determined by our Founding Fathers.

This overthrows the criticism that Santorum is against states' rights. Quite the contrary, his goal is to fix a problem within the United States by sending the issue to the states.

Skeletons in the Candidates' Closets: Is Specter in Santorum's Closet?

Most candidates have skeletons in their closets. Romney ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy for his Senate seat, flipped on abortion, and created Romney-care. Perry ran Al Gore's presidential campaign. Ron Paul has his racist newsletters, his promotion of the morning after pill as a contraceptive, and his neo-confederate supporters. Newt has so many skeletons that his closet can't contain them. Bachmann has no skeletons that I know of, but she's only been in Congress for five years.

Santorum's skeleton is Arlen Specter, his fellow Pennsylvania senator who was a RINO extraordinaire. Santorum and Specter had huge disagreements on policy, but managed to work together for the good of Pennsylvanians. But by 2004, conservative Republican Pat Toomey arose to offer Specter a primary challenge. Santorum supported Snarlin' Arlin, prompting some conservatives to peg Santorum as a traitor.

This week, Michele Bachmann, when confronted with the notion of backing out so that conservatives could all get behind one conservative candidate, recalled this bit of Santorum's history, hoping to keep undecideds out of Santorum's camp. The badge of shame that Bachmann would pin on Santorum, however, is actually a badge of courage and political insight if one knows the rest of the story.

First of all, Santorum knew the political landscape in Pennsylvania well enough to realize the difficulty Toomey would have in defeating Specter. Indeed, when Toomey ran for the open Senate seat in 2010, he narrowly defeated the Democrat by a mere 2%, even though it was a landslide year for Republicans. Santorum saw that a wasted endorsement on Toomey in 2004 would burn up any goodwill between him and Specter, to the detriment of Pennsylvania.

More importantly, however, Santorum saw a credible opportunity to promote a pro-life, strict constitutionalist agenda. While Washington insiders pondered whether Santorum would endorse Toomey, Santorum had a meeting with Specter to broker a deal. Santorum would endorse Specter if Specter would use his position as the chair of the Senate Judiciary to get Bush's Supreme Court nominees confirmed.

Specter, more than any other senator, really was the man who could open and close the door on Supreme Court nominees. He shut the door on Robert Bork. In 2004, he shot off a warning to Pres. Bush not to nominate pro-life judges (). He was poised for a great self-aggrandizement, courtesy of the mainstream media just as soon as he might be given the chance to sink a conservative nominee. As a Republican, he could easily do so by saying that his party's president had nominated someone too extreme for America.

As it turned out, Specter accepted the deal. In fact, when Bush nominated Alito and Roberts, Specter gave considerable support to them, so much so that Democrats had no credibility in opposing their nomination. Instead of stepping into the limelight for another few minutes of stardom, Specter was uncharacteristically quiet throughout the confirmation process.

When Specter became a Democrat, Santorum was asked about his endorsement of Specter, whether he had regrets. Of course, any involvement with Specter would encompass some regrets, but Santorum argued that the deal with the devil was worth it. Nothing would have come out of an endorsement of Toomey, but his endorsement of Specter brought two outstanding conservative justices to the Supreme Court where they will serve perhaps for as many as two or three decades. Santorum's deal was not only the right one, but one that reveals profound long-term insight.

Bachmann and perhaps others will refuse to understand Santorum's strategy--not because it is difficult to understand, but because they want to use it as a campaign issue. Their argument, however, is utterly decimated by the fact that Toomey himself has turned out to be an uncommitted conservative. While Specter confirmed great conservatives like Alito and Roberts, Pat Toomey--whose interest Bachmann feigns so much concern--confirms pro-choice Obama appointees like this one:



As it turns out, if Specter is the worst skeleton in Santorum's closet, if this is the worst thing that Bachmann can say about him, then Santorum is squeaky clean. Considering his vast experience in the House and Senate, Santorum is THE consistent conservative.

Marital Fidelity as a Criterion for Leadership

The question in Saturday’s debate, arising from Romney and Perry ads implying a contrast with Gingrich’s past sins, is whether character in general and marital fidelity in particular should weigh heavily in the process of vetting the Republican candidate. Perry argued that if a man cheats on his wife, he’s all the more likely to cheat on his business partner, implying an analogous relationship between someone holding elected office and those who elected him. Santorum affirmed that marital fidelity is an important consideration, but not necessarily one that might disqualify a candidate.

I think the most important aspect of this is that we want our president to be someone who can be upheld as a role model, and not an object of derision.

Interestingly, the Bible addresses a comparable situation pertaining to the choice of church leaders. Paul’s language of “a husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:?) has been taken to disqualify absolutely any divorced person, although in context, it is probably best understood as “not a womanizer,” rather than absolutely. This qualification arises from the principle that if people cannot manage their own household, how can they be trusted to manage the household of God (i.e., the local church)? One could say the same thing in regard to a president’s management of national affairs.

The principle is a principle, and not an absolute, and most Evangelicals understood this in regard to President Reagan, whom they did not impugn for his previous divorce, in part because they saw his long-time fidelity to Nancy.

Gingrich, however, is no Ronald Reagan, for Gingrich’s infidelity and three marriages have been rather public and rather recent. Divorce and infidelity are not unpardonable sins, and I think that people in such situations can regain their reputation. However, it does not happen over night. In the case of choosing church leaders, new converts are not to be placed in leadership, but must be proven first; so should it be with those whose reputation has been tarnished through marital infidelity and going from one spouse to another and to another.

Here’s why it matters.

It was Gingrich’s House that impeached Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it was Gingrich’s House Managers who prosecuted the case before the Senate. It has been said that Clinton and Gingrich were in a stare-down, but that Gingrich was the first to blink. It was during this time that Gingrich’s infidelity was secretly in full gear. It has been suggested that Clinton operatives discovered the secret, and that Gingrich blinked in order to preserve his secret.

I do not know the historicity of this. Let us assume only that it is just a tale, but one that is instructive. The lesson to be learned is that character matters, for indiscretions whose secrecy is valued can be converted into capital that results in political manipulation. In extreme cases, scenarios can be envisioned of foreign governments spying on presidents of weak-character, and using personal indiscretions as blackmail to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.

While a politician’s failure to manage his own house may not be the decisive factor in one’s choice of candidates, it matters at least a little. In light of the importance of family to the fabric of American society, we should choose leaders who are beyond reproach in regard to managing their own family affairs.