United We Stand?

Although the Democratic Party has recently been able to attract an unusually high percentage of Evangelical support for President Obama and his platform, this support may prove rather ephemeral with the passing of the new $787 billion economic stimulus package. According to Tom Strode of the Southern Baptist Convention, evangelicals oppose this act on many fronts – particularly in claims that it will promote rationed healthcare, discriminate against faith on school campuses, and spend too much in areas that will not immediately stimulate the economy. Granted, this last point is a view that certainly isn’t unique to Evangelicals – many people believe that the stimulus will not do what it’s intended – but it’s not a surprise that a plan that expands the reach of the federal government would be opposed by this group. The preoccupations about healthcare and schooling are voiced stronger in this article: ethics leader Richard Land contends that, “there are a lot of things that are disturbing in this bill… but if I were to single out one thing that is most disturbing it would be the $1.1 billion to create a superstructure of rationed health care to the sick and elderly.” His worries are lodged in the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research that is to be organized, which, like the (socialized) British system, is designed to promote healthcare treatments that are cost-effective over those proven to be superior methods of medical treatment. Basically the new council will either “grant or deny healthcare based on whether it is cost effective” and, “kill health care… as far as quality.”

One encounters an uncanny feeling of déjà vu when reviewing the opposition to educational provisions: the stimulus allows funding to go to private colleges and universities, but prohibits funding for facilities used for sectarian instruction or religious worship. While this isn’t actually a change in policy since the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the sentiments being harvested in Evangelical groups now mirror those that brought about the rise of the Religious Right in the late 1960s. William Martin explains in his book, With God on Our Side, that the Religious Right originated as a response from conservative Christians to new government policies removing the tax-exempt status that many private Christian schools enjoyed. The threat of higher tuition and school closures with the new burden of taxation manifested itself to conservative Christians as a threat to their ability to practice their way of life, and so, desperate for a return to the old status quo, this group saw no other choice but to involve itself in politics by becoming what is known as the Religious Right. This translates to a modern-day concern that schools without financial aid from the government will prove unable to maintain themselves, and Christians will need to send their children to secular schools. History suggests here that the rallying points that Evangelicals have found within the economic stimulus may be enough for a strong revival of the Religious Right and a return of religious value-voters to the Republican Party.

Speaking of expanding government influence, I can foresee the $500,000 cap on executive salaries causing outrage among Evangelicals as well. While the number of impacted families is small, this provision puts America on track to becoming a more socialized nation, and could rekindle a certain paranoia that Jerry Falwell, cofounder of the Moral Majority, explained the Christian Right once maintained about Communism inflicting American families. With a cap on the amount some Americans will be able to spend and more controls over schooling and healthcare, some may begin to feel that they are rapidly losing control of the ability to make their own life choices or teach principles unlike those off of which our government acts to their children.

A dichotomy has already manifested itself in the distribution of votes on the stimulus. The House voted 246-183 in favor, but no Republicans approved. In the Senate, the stimulus passed 60-38; with 3 Republicans and 55 Democrats supporting it and no Democrats in opposition. As the stimulus is implemented, outcry will only become louder; surely change won’t be visible immediately, so widespread panic and desperation will lead to more extreme activism. James Morone, author of Hellfire Nation, outlines the pattern of widespread panic unifying the masses under morality to raise opposition to the status quo. It appears that this is already beginning to take place over faster forms of communication like the internet. Several sources have also indicated recently that Christian Churches have seen swelling attendance rates due to recent economic disparity. According to Life Christian Church in New Jersey, “prayer requests have doubled – almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs.” If people can be coerced into attending church in hopes of reviving their finances, it’s likely that they’ll listen to Evangelicals’ opinions about the economic stimulus and follow suit.

The pocketbook, as William Martin points out, is a fierce motivator in politics, as is the need for security. An economic crisis is one of the best things that could happen for the Religious Right seeking support for their political agenda. My prediction is that history will repeat itself; the Religious Right will not wane in the near future as some have predicted from the outcome of the election, it will utilize the economic stimulus as a rallying point for Evangelical involvement in politics. Can Obama's call for unity and cooperation prevail over the prevalent feelings of panic and desperation that our economic crisis invokes? I think it would take too much for one man – even the President – to get people to override their nature in favor of cooperation.

Changing Religious Voters

There have been a number of articles over the past week detailing Barack Obama’s success with winning votes from a variety of religious people. In her article from Newsweek, A Post Evangelical America, Lisa Miller describes Obama supporters as “a wild diversity of the American religious experience, including mainline protestants, church-shoppers, the curious, the spiritual but not religious, the heterodox, the intermarried, the community minded.” Obama also did well with Jewish people, Catholics and religious African Americans.

Another article, which is from the LA Times, looks at the differences in demographics between the people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 and the people who voted for Barack Obama. Cathleen Decker highlights the fact that “Obama did better than Kerry among pretty much every religious group.” Obama did surprisingly well with Catholics even made a little bit of progress with white evangelicals.

Miller asserts, “For at least four decades, white evangelicals have been the religion-and-politics story in this country.” Ever since Billy Graham became a national figure, decrying communism and spreading the gospel, the evangelical right has been one of the essential voting blocs needed to win an election. This idea was solidified with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and his efforts to get Ronald Reagan elected. However, this election demonstrated that simply winning the white evangelical vote is not enough. Candidates must appeal to a variety of religious voters.

This shift in the voting patterns of religious voters can be explained in two connected ways. Miller argues, “The religious vote for Obama did not reflect a massive shift in ideology and priorities among Evangelicals but rather muscle-flexing by a coalition of others of faith.” With higher voter turn out among Latinos and African Americans, who mostly supported Obama, voter demographics were quite different. Furthermore, social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, where not the most important issues for a number of voters. More pressing problems, especially the economy, influenced many voters to chose one candidate or the other.

The question that I am left is will these shifts be permanent? Are religious voters becoming more liberal, or at least more willing to support more liberal candidates? Or were certain issues simply prioritized during this election? I think that the current state of our nation definitely influenced voters’ decisions, but I also do not think that the “religious” vote is guaranteed to the republicans. Candidates need to learn to not take any votes for granted.

Switching Sides?

I have often heard the phrase, “God is not a Democrat or a Republican.” Nonetheless, some in the Religious Right might say that God would support one party over the other because He would support their stance on key political issues. It was not always this clear cut though, because in the beginning of the rise of the Religious Right evangelicals originally supported Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. However, when it appeared that he was not as conservative as they had hoped, there was a push for them to vote for conservative Republicans. From 1993 to 1996 the efforts of the rising Religious Right culminated in a political cleansing as the Republicans “surged from minority to majority at every level of government” (James Morone, Hellfire Nation, pg 455). Today, many within the Religious Right still choose the Republican Party as their representatives because of their pro-life and pro-family platform.

The article, “Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play” discusses the recent shift in party lines as some Democratic campaigns include anti-abortion stances. Currently, there are twelve Democrats running for the House who are anti-abortion, the greatest number of anti-abortion candidates the party has seen in recent years. As the article contends, the increase in anti-abortion Democratic candidates threatens the Republican domination over “social issues.” Furthermore, there are tensions within the Democratic Party because their platform supports abortion rights and relies on funding from abortion rights groups. However, one Democrat from Pennsylvania responded to criticism by saying she “believe[s] they have a narrow view of what a Democrat is.”

It is clear that America’s polarized two party system promotes narrow views of Republicans and Democrats, and it is even more interesting how religious issues fall into that polarization. Even though it appears that members of the Religious Right only care about “social issues,” this article highlights an understanding that religious people care about a wide spectrum of political issues. Some are willing to vote for a candidate based on both their religious views and their economic views. This willingness to switch political parties shows that religious issues are not the only ones of concern.

On the other hand, is it a problem that people are so willing to vote for someone solely based on their stance on “social” or religious issues even if they disagree with their economic views? If this is the case, it seems better for the Democratic platform to loosen strict adherence to the abortion rights campaign so that the conservative base is more willing to vote for Democratic policies. Lastly, what does it mean that religious issues are an area of compromise? I believe that it shows religion still matters to many voters, and some within the Democratic Party are shifting their stances so that they can reach a conservative constituency. In contrast, others might say economic issues are becoming more of a priority for religious voters, as moral issues move to the back burner.