'This Is Not a Bluff'

Christian conservatives want more respect. They were instrumental in propelling George W. Bush to power—twice—and now they're feeling neglected. At a "Values Voters" summit in Washington last week, leading evangelicals gathered to speak out and take a straw poll. The survey showed how unhappy they are with the twice-divorced, pro-choice Republican front runner for the presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani. He got less than two percent of the overall vote. (Some Christian activists have threatened to back a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination.) Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the straw poll of 5,775 conservatives, which included voters who have been able to cast online ballots since August. But many evangelicals are uncomfortable with Romney's Mormon faith. That may have factored in the voting of people who actually attended the summit: Romney lost that tally by a wide margin to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister. To better understand the current thinking of Christian conservatives, NEWSWEEK's Jeffrey Bartholet and Eve Conant spoke to Richard Land, a leading evangelical who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third-party idea and whether it's serious. A number of people are suggesting it's just a threat.
Richard Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, "The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democratic Party too often takes the African-American community for granted."
This is not a bluff.

So what you are saying, as a bottom line, is that you would be prepared to help Hillary [Clinton] get elected if Giuliani were in the race?
Well, I personally wouldn't be saying that … It's just [that] I'm not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African-American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can't do it. I am not going to criticize those who choose the lesser-of-two-evils option. [But] I can't do it, and my guess is somewhere between 25 percent and a third of our people won't do it.

We met with Gov. Huckabee recently, and he said, "Well, why don't they vote for me right now? They've got me. Why do they need a third-party candidate?"
Well, I think if anybody other than Giuliani is the nominee, there won't be a third party.

But his point is that you are not helping him to beat Giuliani.
Well, that's not my job. That's Gov. Huckabee's job. I just encourage people to vote their values and their beliefs and their convictions, and when I am asked why Huckabee isn't doing better, I can only answer that that's up to the voters.

Did I hear you say that there are things that Giuliani can do that could mitigate …
No, he's not going to do that, and if he did nobody would believe it. He would [have to] say, number one, "This is a pro-life party. I realize I am out of step with where the party is, and I am not going to try to in any way weaken the [pro-life] plank." He could say, "I will only appoint strict constructionists, original-intent jurists to the federal judiciary." Strict constructionists by definition think that Roe v. Wade was an overreach and is a badly decided decision. If he were to agree to appoint a pro-life attorney general in the mode of a John Ashcroft …