Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Appeal to Religious Voters

It would seem that the Republican party is not the only party trying to use religion and faith to appeal to voters; the Democratic Party is also putting forth an effort to appeal to "moderate protestant Christians and Catholics." This is being accomplished by framing certain mainstream issues in a religious context, in an attempt to make religious voters feel a moral obligation to vote for Barack Obama. For example, Mara Vanderslice, who is employed by the Obama campaign, has organized a political action committee called Matthew 25. This committee uses this passage in the Bible, a passage which implores Christians to "help the least of these" meaning the poor, in order to provide Christians for a moral reason to vote for Obama. Vanderslice describes how her role in the democratic campaign has changed drastically in four years - on the Kerry campaign she had only one staffer, while the Obama campaign has given her six staff members who are devoted entirely to religious issues, and organizing Obama's "Faith and Family Tours." It would seem that religion and faith are playing an increasingly larger and larger role in our public elections.
The question then becomes: are campaign tactics like this appropriate? Should we allow are candidates to incorporate religion into their campaigns this way? Do campaign tactics like this constitute violations of the separation between church and state? My response would be that, from a legal standpoint, there isn't anything wrong with these campaign tactics, because there is no violation of either religion clause of our Constitution.
The express purpose of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is to protect citizens from government actions and legislation. The Establishment Clause seeks to eliminate law that respect an establishment of religion, or laws that show an unfair preference toward one or more religions over others. The Free Exercise Clause exists to prevent laws that would prohibit citizens from fulfilling the duties of their religion and practicing their religion. The important aspect of both clauses that one must recognize is that they are only applicable to laws, or government actions, not to the actions of private citizens. When candidates are campaigning, they are not acting as agents of the state, thus nothing that they say or do can be construed as the actions of the state, and certainly does not qualify as law. As such, even if the candidates do show a preference toward Christianity, there is nothing legally problematic with such appeals to the Christian faith.
A logical counter argument to these types of campaign tactics would be at a practical level. Sure, it may be for the candidates to use religious appeals during the campaign, but once a candidate gets elected he or she cannot enact policies that are expressly religious in nature, since he or she would now be acting as an agent of the state. One could make the argument that candidates ought not campaign on religious grounds, since they would essentially be making promises that they cannot necessarily keep. However, I would respond to this counter argument by once again drawing the argument back into the legal realm. Legally speaking, agents of the state can enact policies that have religious motivations, so long as the effect of the legislation is secular. In order to be appropriate public policy or legislation in terms of the Establishment Clause, it need only pass the Lemon Test, meaning that 1. it must serve a secular purpose 2. it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion and 3. it must not cause excessive government entanglement with religion. There is nothing in this precedent that dictates that the law or policy cannot be motivated by religion. Thus, candidates are not necessarily making promises that they cannot keep; if Barack Obama is elected, he can pursue policies to aid the poor, and so long as they actually help the poor, he can cite whatever motivations he wishes, religious or otherwise.
Simply put, there is nothing legally problematic with the current campaign tactics that appeal to religious voters.

3 comments:

Jonny C said...

Good call Van. I think you're right, campaigns can use religion as much as they like as long as once they are elected they are only passing laws that have a secular purpose. Now if only people could see that Matthew 25 is directed to individuals, not the government...

Drew Wh said...

I have to agree with the substance of this post, but I see a problem with candidates invovking religion in the public sphere. I completely agree that so long as legislation passes the Lemon test it can almost always be endorsed/passed, but I find it problematic that people are running campaigns (or an aspect of a campaign) on religious platforms. I find it very unsettling that a candidate might try to win voters by appealing to their personal piety, especially when there is a general consensus that politicans say one thing and do another (see what will happen to "middle class" taxes come next year, assuming the polls pan out next week...). I think the problem is not so much that a candidate might have a religious motivation, but how religion has been turned into a tool to use on the stump, and that we feel the need to vote on a candidate based on religion rather than on issues. And yet at the same time, since we know that politicans are deceptive, it might be nice to know what their deepest held beliefs are, since these might paint a more accurate view of what type of policy they will enact than pre-written stump speechs. What a conundrum...

Brittanie P said...

I agree that this is a necessary movement in today's political nature and that on its face is not an establishment because any intelligent campaign would readily appeal to all aspects of people and (considering the huge jump in McCain's numbers when he brought on Sarah Palin, soothing the fears of the religious far right) it is obvious that religious groups hold a significant pull. However I worry about the implications of trying to persuade voters based on a strict religious belief. Is it not potentially detrimental to religious integrity if we are submitting political issues to some sort of sacred test? What I mean, is that in these appeals it appears that persuasive attempts are growing out of the implications that if you do not vote for this candidate you are not following religious creed and perhaps even implies salvation. That comes from my own background and the current events unveiling in the Catholic church especially right now, but I am not okay with that and I seriously wonder if religious followers are not offended by this act that I view as diminishing God to s human level. As for the idea that his policies may indeed follow through with his promises, I agree Van. I take issue with your assertion that he can then label them under any motive he wishes. I would not be okay with him bettering the poor and then chalking it up to God. That would absolutely be establishment to me. Overall, okay with the political move but think its reality is sad and worry about how far it will go.