In 2002, Bill Salier, an Iowa hog farmer, stunned the political world in Iowa and beyond when he won 41 percent of the vote in a Republican primary, his first run for public office.  He challenged four-term U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske for the right to run against U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa's Democratic incumbent. Ganske outspent Salier by about 10 to 1 and had the backing of the GOP establishment; at one point, President George W. Bush campaigned for him in Iowa.

Salier’s strong showing as a hard-core, especially anti-abortion conservative, not only demonstrated social conservatives’ strong presence in Iowa, but also provided evidence, said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University, that social conservatives had increased their influence over the Iowa Republican Party.  Goldford recalled Salier ending his concession speech with the words, “This isn’t about politics. This is about God.”

Social conservatives have taken the Republican Party by storm nationally, but especially in Iowa, where they may comprise up to 40 percent of the state party. The presidential Iowa caucuses serve as a reminder of their strength and their ability to influence the larger course of the nation. Mindful of the power they wield, Iowa social conservatives straddle the line between purity and pragmatism. “The problem is, religion is about absolutes, and politics is about compromise,” Goldford noted. “The question is about how well do they mix?”

Organizing Power

Iowa social conservatives first made their mark on the political consciousness by delivering the Rev. Pat Robertson a second-place finish in the 1988 Republican Iowa caucuses—ahead of then Vice President George H. W. Bush. “That’s where they sort of burst on the scene,” Goldford said. “It certainly put these folks on the map. In politics, appearance is reality, and it gave them the appearance of having tremendous muscle.”

Social conservatives’ influence in Iowa politics increased over the next decade. The fierce 2002 primary between Salier and Ganske showed how the political ground in the state had shifted in favor of social conservatives, Goldford said.

“It did not surprise me,” Salier said. “Ganske ran for office on the Contract with America and then abandoned those principles.” Salier said that armed with “the Constitution and Scriptures, people are going to rally.” He was disappointed that Bush and other conservative Republicans endorsed his more moderate opponent, but pointed out that, subsequently, they faced a backlash and that afterwards, the state party’s platform was revised to prohibit state or national party leaders from interfering in primaries. Salier did not endorse Ganske in what would be a losing race against Harkin, though he said he did not work against him. “I did not endorse him because to me, that is an endorsement of what someone believes in,” he said. “I do not.”

Steve Scheffler, president of Iowa Christian Alliance, said the rise of social conservatives in Iowa has been gradually evolving over the last 20 years so that “now, they’re pretty mainstream. I’m part of that movement,” he said. “I’ve been on the state central committee for 15 years.” Scheffler noted that the energy social conservatives put into politics has helped them gain power. “Not all party regulars are motivated by issues; it becomes more of a social club thing to them,” he said. “When you’re motivated by what’s right and wrong for society [people are more likely to act].”

Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Iowa GOP, agreed. “Here in Iowa,” he said, “if you are a true moderate that means you don’t really have a strong stance on the core issues that would drive you to go knock door to door.” Candidates court social conservatives, in part, for their get-out-the-vote skills, not just their ability to show up and vote. Since Robertson’s 1988 showing, Laudner said, “the battle in the Iowa caucuses process has been over those folks.”

Several state organizations help mobilize this potent constituency. After losing the nomination, Robertson turned his presidential operation into the Christian Coalition. An active Iowa affiliate formed, known as the Christian Coalition of Iowa, though it split from the national organization last year, becoming the Iowa Christian Alliance. Other organizations for social conservatives also sprung up around the state, such as Concerned Women for America of Iowa, the Iowa Family Policy Center, Iowa Right to Life Committee, and the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, among others. Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurley said in a previous interview that these organizations work together frequently. “There’s camaraderie, at a minimum,” he said. “There’s active cooperation in certain cases.”

Compromising Values

Salier said one of the main obstacles to his candidacy was that establishment Republicans didn’t think he was “electable” and could beat Harkin. This made no sense to Salier. “Just choosing someone because you think they can win is a guaranteed loss,” he said. “Conservatives are looking for substance. They want to vote for somebody … not just somebody that matches many of the things you’re against.”

Scheffler said social conservatives consider compromise on an individual basis. “We know there’s no perfect candidate. By the same token, even though we’re pragmatic to a certain degree, we want to send a message to the GOP and candidates,” he said. “Don’t give us the fluff off. Don’t give us the attitude that there’s nowhere else to go. That mentality is just not going to sell anymore.”

In the race for the 2008 presidential nomination, social conservative stalwarts like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback remain at the back of the pack. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads in most Iowa polls, despite his past support for abortion rights. Kim Lehman, president of the Iowa Right to Life Committee, said Romney’s former stance would not preclude him from gaining support from social conservatives. “We support people that turn to the right side. We don’t discourage that at all,” she said in a recent interview. “People do become pro-life, and that’s our ultimate goal.”

The Republican front-runner who vexes Iowa social conservatives most of all is Rudy Giuliani. The thrice-married former mayor of New York who supports abortion rights and gay civil rights has sought to assuage social conservatives’ fears by declaring he would appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. Even so, that has not persuaded many Iowa social conservatives to support him.

“Giuliani will be an absolute catastrophe if he’s the nominee,” Scheffler s
aid. “A lot of people in the movement are going to say we’d rather wander around the wilderness for eight or 10 years.”

Laudner shared those fears of a Giuliani nomination. “I’m going to be honest. I think there’s a risk there,” he said. “But that’s very easy to say when you’re more than a year away from the election.  It’s a bold statement,” Laudner continued, “and an easy one to make now. A year from now, the dynamics are going to be different.” Laudner said if New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, he thinks social conservatives will rally around whomever emerges as the Republican contender. “They’re not going to stay home,” he said. “They’re going to be engaged because it’s going to be a monumental battle. They’re not going to sit on the sidelines.”

Salier, who is the chairman of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo’s Iowa campaign, said he wouldn’t be so sure. “I cannot vote for a candidate that is not solidly pro-life and not solidly in favor of securing our nation’s border,” he said, noting this was his personal view, not connected to the Tancredo campaign. “If you’re not going to do that, then no, I’m not going to cast a ballot for someone who will not protect my country and who will lay waste to babies. … [Social conservatives] will simply stay home and not vote if the party continues to take them for granted.”

True Believers

Social conservatives are not naïve; they're political pragmatists, succeeding over the years in consolidating political power in the state and national Republican Party. But there is always concern that they will bolt the GOP or stay home if a Republican candidate does not share their core values. “The purist type is always happy to go over the cliff,” Goldford said. “The more pragmatic types want to say, half a loaf is better than none. That’s the big question.” He noted that any Republican is going to have views closer to social conservatives than a Democrat, but that might not be enough to bring them out to the polls. Indeed, an estimated 4 million evangelical Christians stayed home on Election Day in 2000.

For social conservatives, almost every political battle assumes a biblical scale, and that leaves very little room for shades of gray. They believe they are engaged in an epic struggle for what’s right. In that sense, while they hold views antithetical to those of political progressives, they share the same goal: to make the world a better place for them and their children.

Since the failure to win the 2004 presidential election, progressive activists, like their conservative counterparts, have also bemoaned the idea of electability as a method of selecting a candidate, arguing that a vote of conscience is stronger than a vote of perceived strategy. And there is always the possibility that progressives will stay home or vote third-party if Democrats choose a lackluster candidate. “Pragmatists want to win elections. Purists would rather be pure and right,” Goldford said. The Naderites of 2000 “were closer to Gore but didn’t seem to care. They allowed their purism to help elect Bush.”

Both conservative and progressive activists continue to walk the political tightrope of idealism and pragmatism. Scheffler made that clear in an earlier interview, when he called himself a sometime-critic of the GOP. “I’m much more about issues,” he said. “But if I’m going to effect public policy, I can’t sit on the sidelines and let others who I don’t agree with set the agenda.”