[R-G] How the faithful voted

[Steven L. Robinson]

How the faithful voted

Stephen Bates
The Guardian
Friday November 7 2008

In recent presidential elections the religious right - basically white,
evangelical Protestants - has been one of the most scrutinised portions of
the electorate, with good reason. Although they make up fewer than a quarter
of voters, for some decades now Republican strategists have recognised that
they can be mobilised and reliably turn out to vote, particularly if juiced
up on certain moral issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, both of
which have been turned successfully into politically partisan causes.

That gives them influence out of proportion to their numbers - which is why
Republicans have targeted and cultivated them, while the Democrats have
largely ignored them because of their antediluvian views. In tight elections
such as 2000 and 2004 they certainly made the difference between defeat and
victory for George Bush, particularly as they made common cause with white
Catholic voters who had traditionally voted for the Democrats. Bush could
certainly do the "God Talk" - the buzz words and phrases that convinced
evangelicals that he was one of them - in a way that Al Gore (himself a
southern Baptist) and John Kerry (a Catholic) either could not, or would not
do.

So how did God vote this time? Time magazine quotes James Dobson, leader of
Focus on the Family, as telling Sarah Palin on his radio show a fortnight
ago: "God's perfect will be done on November 4th," in which case He's let
the religious right down rather badly this week.

On the other hand, the early polling evidence is that, despite the fact that
Barack Obama's team tried considerably harder to attract the Christian vote
this time than Kerry - who employed one part-timer and a student to do
"outreach" in 2004 - and despite widespread suspicion of John McCain among
religious voters and lack of enthusiasm for him as a candidate - remember he
called them once "agents of intolerance" - regular evangelical church-goers
remained largely loyal to the Republicans.

Initial analysis by the respected Pew Forum polling organisation seems to
show that about 73% of born-again evangelicals voted for McCain/Palin - down
from about 79% four years ago - while non-church goers voted in similar
proportions for Obama. Among Catholics - who after all are the largest
single denomination in the US and make up 27% of the entire electorate - the
margin was much narrower: 52% of white Catholics who are regular
Mass-attenders voted for McCain, 47% for Obama, while non-practising
Catholics went 61% to 37% for Obama. The shift in the Catholic vote may be
accounted for in the increasing proportion of Hispanic voters who opted for
the Democratic candidate: of all Catholics - so including blacks and
Hispanics - the proportions were 54% to 45% for Obama. Four years ago, the
Catholic vote went to George Bush by five points. In any event, the stern
and highly partisan warnings by some Catholic church leaders to their
congregations not to vote for Obama because his views on abortion seem to
have had only limited influence - something the bishops will now have four
years to reflect upon (but probably won't).

Of other Christian denominations, among non-evangelical Protestants, this
week's vote split 52% to 46% for Obama - an almost precise reversal of four
years ago - and other denominations: Jews and other faiths went by margins
of 73-78% for Obama to 21-22% for McCain. There were gains too for Obama
among regular church attenders: those attending services at least once a
week: 43% of them voted for the Democratic candidate as opposed to 39% who
voted for Kerry last time.

It seems likely that many of the evangelicals who voted for Obama came from
black churches - a result of the increased registration drive by the Obama
team and the attraction of having a black candidate. That may have had a
downside for liberals as socially conservative black Christian voters are
probably responsible for anti-gay marriage amendments being passed in states
such as California.

It is to say the least ironic that the Republicans have largely ignored the
black vote, despite its perceived social conservatism - and probably they
could never have won it against Obama, who took over 90% of the black vote
this year anyway - but they have smugly subsided into being an
overwhelmingly white party at a time of increasing US ethnic diversity. Two
years ago, when I was researching a book on American religious influence on
politics (God's Own Country, Hodder and Stoughton 2007) Richard Land, the
chief Washington lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention, a largely
white gathering, happily told me that Republicans were steadily building a
solid majority because they were outbreeding Democrats (because the latter,
of course, aborted their babies) but that at least has proved to be not only
inane but wishful thinking.

What messages do these figures give to Republican strategists licking their
wounds this weekend? Probably that the white evangelicals continue to form
their most reliable constituency and that moral issues will remain the
bedrock of their support. Whether this will enable the party to reach out to
the wider, more diverse electorate and to be seen as less obsessive about
gay people and abortion remains to be seen; but they will draw comfort from
the fact that Obama's popularity will probably not last as the recession
continues and disengagement in Iraq takes longer than anticipated.

If they continue to pander to the religious right though they will find it
hard to build a majority, or a convincing narrative, to appeal to less
committed voters. Doubtless at this weekend's Republican post-mortems on the
result some will be arguing that the trouble was that this year's campaign
was not conservative enough, or sufficiently firm in its commitments to
religious voters on issues such as abortion. If that is the case, the
party's strategists should cast a glance at the experience of British
Conservatives - if, that is, modern Republicans deign to look abroad for any
possible lessons on any subject whatsoever - and observe how the Tory
right's messianic obsession with the wickedness of the European Union helped
cast it into outer electoral darkness for the 1997 and 2001 general
elections here.

Republicans may be tempted to note that if only three voters in every 100
had voted Republican instead of Democrat, John McCain would have won and
therefore conclude that the push need not be so great next time. In some
swing states Obama won that would be true: Indiana one point, Ohio and
Virginia five points, but not in all: Nevada 12 points, New Mexico 15
points, Pennsylvania 11 points. Moreover, those majorities indicate changing
demographics: more Hispanic voters, more younger professionals in swing
states. There are even signs that the evangelical vote is changing: younger
evangelicals are not so obsessed as older ones with some issues: they are
pretty hot still on abortion, but much more concerned about climate change
as an issue. And even they are affected as much as any other voters by the
credit crunch.

But probably, since no one likes to concede a mistake, Republicans
strategists will conclude that the religious right can be stirred to outrage
once more in 2012 and that they will provide the perfect base from which to
work. And who would be the best candidate to talk the God Talk next time
round? Step forward Sarah Palin ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/07/uselections2008-usa

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm