With the 2008 presidential election looming on the horizon, both political parties are trying "to court the ‘value voter’ bloc,” a group that includes a large number of evangelical Christians, who are traditionally conservative. While some argue that these voters are becoming more attracted to the Democratic Party than they have been in the past, Naomi Riley disagrees. In her July 18 Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled "Left Behind: Evangelicals Haven't Embraced the Democrats' Agenda," Riley relies on a combination of statistics and recent trends as evidence to maintain that evangelicals remain largely conservative. Although Democrats are trying to sway voters by emphasizing environmental issues and the Iraq war, they are not being particularly effective, according to Riley. She comments that evangelicals remain strong in their stances on issues such as homosexuality and abortion, citing statistics from recent studies as evidence. Riley also points out that the differences between evangelicals and other American voters extend to issues such as foreign policy. These differences, she believes, help account for the significant advantage of white evangelical support that John McCain possesses over Barack Obama.
Near the end of the article, Riley’s opinion on the Democrats’, particularly Obama’s, efforts to cater to religious voters becomes clear: “Mr. Obama has tried to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to faith in this election.” Riley highlights Obama’s inconsistencies regarding his own religion as well as his support of issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and pulling out of the Iraq war. She believes Obama’s actions tell religious people “all they need to know” about him. In these critical final paragraphs, Riley reveals her stance against Obama and his efforts to recruit religious voters. She slips in phrases such as “evangelicals may not be as gullible as the Democratic elites make them out to be” to show her disgust with Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole.
Is Riley being fair to Obama? She largely glosses over McCain’s attempts to appeal to values voters, but she is quick to condemn Obama for playing up his religion as a strategic move. Riley’s bias is clear; she does not have a problem with McCain’s efforts “to step up his outreach to religious people,” but she is much more cynical towards Obama. The evidence she uses does support her stance on the connection between religion and political attitudes, but she completely neglects the studies that do show some shifting trends. Riley provides convincing support against Obama, but she fails to give facts from both sides of the issue. Therefore I find it difficult to give her much credibility; as a reader, I would prefer to know more about the other side of the argument before forming an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
While I do agree that Riley may be overly dismissive of Obama's inroads with evangelicals, I think that the issues she mentions naturally lead us to the conclusion that evangelicals are overwhelmingly voting republican. Perhaps Obama had a shot before the choice of Palin, but with that decision, McCain has solidified the socially conservative wing of evangelicalism. As long as moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage remain part of the political discourse, socially conservative Christians, especially those who hold to a strict interpretation of the Bible, will continue to vote republican, because it is the republicans who are willing to cater to them.
Jonny is right: white evangelicals vote overwhelmingly Republican. But I think Claire's overall point--that Riley doesn't really deal with McCain's religious outreach--is an important critique. McCain has never been a darling of the religious right, even though most leaders have swung to his side. Obama seems poised to gain ground with white evangelicals when compared to John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. Why is this? Is it because he has a more authentic-sounding faith journey than Kerry or Gore? Are white evangelicals shifting in their values? I'd guess it's a little of both, but neither Riley nor Richard Land (the SBC leader quoted in the story) acknowledges the shifting political terrain. Yes, the Republicans will still win a majority of white evangelical votes. But shouldn't we be attuned to subtle shifts in the electorate? I'm not convinced (as Riley is) that things are the same as they have been.
Riley makes her point(s). The Democrats and Obama want to get more votes from evangelicals and have tried to make other issues more religiously important in order to do so. But the Republicans and McCain will still get an overwhelming number of votes in November.
The thing that I do not see Riley address is whether or not McCain will get the same overwhelming degree of evangelical votes. She presents quite a few polls and statistics but gives them no context because she fails to tell us the previous percentages. Without the old numbers from 2004, the new numbers do not really hold any weight. It would seem Riley was going to eat her cake too but forgot the fork.
Though her argument may be one-sided, Riley is essentially correct: Obama hasn’t been able to garner enough of the evangelicals to constitute a real shift in the voting patterns of this important bloc. It seems that every election cycle, we are talking once more about the “shifts” in voting patterns. But the studies that supposedly detail these shifts seem to have about as much accuracy as the exit polls of the 2004 presidential election did, because they haven’t amounted to much. Sure, there may be a gradual shift away from one party and towards another, but a total shift is just not going to happen in the span of 4 years. I think it’s important to look at these statistics in context—they might indicate the beginnings of a shift, but it’s more probable that they’re not indicative of any immediate shift. This minute, barely detectable pseudo-shift will not affect the ultimate outcome of this election. Do I believe that the left could ever garner a significant portion, if not the majority, of the evangelicals? Absolutely. Will it happen in 2008? Not a chance. Let’s re-examine this “shift” in about 20 years.
With regard to the actual post, Claire, I think you did an excellent job pinpointing Riley’s flawed argument, but perhaps you could provide some evidence (cite statistics or provide a link to a specific study) to support your implied assertion that there are studies that conflict with the ones Riley provided (“…she completely neglects the studies that do show some shifting trends”). I think that concrete evidence in opposition to Riley’s argument would really bolster your argument, but overall—very nice job!
Although evangelical Christians have traditionally voted Republican, I believe that that trend is slowly shifting, especially among younger voters. I myself claim to be an evangelical Christian, and I certainly used to be very conservative, for no more reason than I felt like I should be. After much wrestling with my faith however and trying to figure out which issues should matter to me, I’ve become an independent who plans to vote for Obama. Many of my friends have also come to this same conclusion, along with many members of the church I attend. I know that the majority of Christians will still vote Republican, but I also think part of that is just that the stereotypically fundamental right gets more attention in the media than the Christians who are attempting to somewhat separate our faith from our politics. I firmly believe that Jesus would not be Republican or Democrat, and myself along with a growing number of young Christians are trying to figure out what that means in the political realm.
Post a Comment