Godless post-election analysis

Would that all evangelicals followed the advice given here where it is argued that Christians should not engage in the "worldly" act of participating in secular politics, including voting in elections.

Except that there was a lot of "God-talk" from Democrats, especially in the south and midwest. Hmm..

But was there really a lot of God-talk? I did not hear it. I heard a lot about bread-and-butter issues, about Iraq, and about the incompetence of the incumbents.

Except that there was a lot of "God-talk" from Democrats, especially in the south and midwest. Hmm..

You mean this South?

http://www.scnow.com/midatlantic/scp/news.apx.-content-articles-FMN-200…

This is interesting - I assume that the author is a Republican and an atheist, yet terrified of Islam and believes that atheists should "naturally" be conservative (in the ancient Rockefelllerian sense of the word).

I don't really know what to consider "god talk." One of the guys I worked for last year talked a lot about his work as a missionary... but it was pretty much a stepping stone to talking about the importance of building schools. Likewise, plenty of Dems this year mentioned religion... but then maybe that's because virtually all of them were religious. I think there is a BIG difference between pandering (pre-arranged photo-ops of you and your people praying/yammering about how Iraq is bringing armageddon and that's just awesome!) and being sincere (talking occasionally about ones faith and how it impacts your life, but not making it a selling point in and of itself or the focus of the campaign).

I am no republican of any sort (I'm a monarchist) but I am also an atheist, and I'm terrified of islam....

So should you be - read the koran - it's scary.

Regarding the claim that evangelicals didn't vote in significant numbers, I've seen it written elsewhere on blogs that 1/3 of them voted Democrat. Granted, I haven't seen any official statistics to back that up, but if that number is true, that seems pretty significant to me.

Still, I agree with the premise of your post. The Democrats don't need to pander to religion to win voters.

PZ: I don't agree with assumptions given above. The number of evangelicals who voted Democrat in this election was significantly greater, in my opinion.

Further, Evangelicals are not, and have never been, a monolithic voting bloc. Even during the height of Bush's post-9/11 popularity, more than 20 percent of evangelicals identified themselves as Democrats.

And there are many, many signs that evangelical leadership is inching back towards the center. Rick Warren ('The Purpose-Driven Life') calling for a focus on fightin AIDS and poverty in Africa. Randy Brinson ('Redeem The Vote') building a powerful alliance with Democrats promoting voter registration among young people. Richard Cizik (NAE, Ted Haggard's group) has been instrumental in promoting the recognition of global warming as part of our 'stewardship of the Earth.' And, for the last 18 months, the editorial board of Christianity Today has quietly encouraged Christians not to automatically throw their hat in the Republican ring. Their most recent post-election editorial sounds, well, almost joyful at the opportunities that Democratic leadership in the Congress affords them:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/novemberweb-only/145-33.0.html

I'm not an evangelical myself. But I can recognize a sea change when I see one in the pews. Democrats should act aggressively to cement a relationship with centrist evangelicals, making common cause on values that they can agree upon. And yes, that means it is wise to have party leadership which is not inimically hostile to religion.

In other words, I'm in favor of winning a few more elections and I think we need a tent big enough to accomodate centrist evangelicals in order to do that.

Comments?...SH

No one is quite sure where the 1/3 voted for Dems thing came from. As far as I can tell, they went 3% more for Dems, which is a pretty darn tiny amount of movement.

IIRC, 29% of evangelicals voted for Democrats this year, compared to 28% two years ago. Political analysis seems to be one of the few places where it's considered acceptable to declare a single data point as a "trend." Similarly, the percentage of voters in 2004 who cited "moral values" as their most important issue was about the same as it was in 2000 and 1996, yet somehow it was supposed to represent a major change (and in any case, for about half those voters "moral values" meant concerns about candidates' character, not "culture war" issues).

The number of evangelicals who voted Democrat in this election was significantly greater, in my opinion.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is false.

Even during the height of Bush's post-9/11 popularity, more than 20 percent of evangelicals identified themselves as Democrats.

Well, how much of the evangelical vote did Democrats actually get this time out? It's very hard to say, because there have been some misleading claims (one-third of evangelicals voted for Democrats) based on a poorly-worded NYT story. (It seems it was actually one-third of evangelicals who held particular viewpoints on Iraq, torture, etc. - in other words, much less than one-third of the total evangelicals).

Still, if we already had 20 percent of them, how many more is a "significant" increase?

The religious vote is not the same as the evangelical vote. Nor is the evangelical vote all one thing.

As I understand it, Catholics moved back to the Democrats this year after having voted majority Republican (at least slightly) in the last election. Also, Hispanics moved back to the Democrats (not unrelated, obviously, but also not just the same thing) and Black voters went overwhelmingly for the Democrats (this would include a lot of Christians of some kind of born-again type). In fact the majority of Whites voted for the Republicans, and the Democrats were carried by Blacks and Hispanics, both of which are groups containing lots of religious people.

With regard to Catholics, I think the fact that many many Catholics are concerned about social justice issues overcame Catholic concerns about abortion and marriage (and lots of Catholics have non-orthodox views on those issues anyway).

But if the Dems were to move in a more explicitly "godless" direction -- say, opposing tax-exempt status for churches, or arguing that religious education is harmful to children (ideas that have been floated on this blog) I think that would spell the end of their support among the groups that actually brought them into power in this election.

Don't worry, I don't expect anybody to have the guts to confront THAT sacred cow in my daughter's lifetime, let alone mine.

opposing tax-exempt status for churches, or arguing that religious education is harmful to children

Perhaps but they would be on the right side of these issues.

With regard to Catholics, I think the fact that many many Catholics are concerned about social justice issues overcame Catholic concerns about abortion and marriage (and lots of Catholics have non-orthodox views on those issues anyway).

Yeah well you can expect lots more views to become "non-orthodox" since your new pope wants to take the orthodox thing back to the way it was in the good old days. Three cheers for the 21st century. Yay.

But if the Dems were to move in a more explicitly "godless" direction -- say, opposing tax-exempt status for churches, or arguing that religious education is harmful to children (ideas that have been floated on this blog) I think that would spell the end of their support among the groups that actually brought them into power in this election.

Not if they do it right. The power of religion in African- and Hispanic-American communities is largely historical, but charity is a significant element of it. Stories of ghettos where the only decent schools and hospitals are run by churches abound. An agenda that will not only undermine religion but also provide secular alternatives in the form of equal funding for low-income schools, single-payer health care, amnesty to illegal immigrants, and stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination laws won't lose votes among minorities.

G./ Tingey said:
I am no republican of any sort (I'm a monarchist) but I am also an atheist, and I'm terrified of islam....
So should you be - read the koran - it's scary.

Thank your God/Lucky Star/Cthulhu/whatever that you are an atheist, so that reading the Qu'ran should not affect you any more than, say, watching 'Grudge' or 'The Shining'. If you will intrepid enough, you should also read the Bible as in the Old Testament. I can guarantee you that you would be no less terrified.

That's what organized religions do: they inspire either fear or greed, and that is how they control the believers. I quote a memorable line from the 'Name of the Rose', a movie adaptation of Umberto Eco's eponymous book: "Laughter kills fear, and without fear there can be no faith, because without fear of the Devil there is no more need of God."

Need I say any more?

And there are many, many signs that evangelical leadership is inching back towards the center.

Scott, the problem is what led them to the irrational positions they have maintained for the last 20 plus years.

...and how their belief systems made them ABSOLUTELY positive their opinion on the issues involved was correct.

after all, when you have "God" on your side, you can't be wrong, eh?

remember who GW said the most influential philosopher was in his life?

My point is, courting the evangelicals is courting the fickle, and fickle based on irrational thought processes and a near total blind following of whatever authority happens to be running their particular local sect (you brought up Haggard, but what about Bakker, or Swaggart, etc?).

Just because they vote one way this week, doesn't mean their local preachers won't tell them to vote the other way next week.

remove tax exempt status for churches that have been shown to make political endorsements?

hells yes.

give the evangelicals special treatment to court votes?

fuch no.

Coturnix, you are in a state with a race in which the Democrat constantly mentiond God (Shuler), and my home state is another (Harold Ford, Jr.).

Icthyic, I think I owe this thread some clarification.

First, something of an apology. After re-reading and fact-checking, it seems that what I perceive as an 'evangelical' (such as the readership of Christianity Today) may differ from how some secular types (like the NY Times) define as 'evangelical.' In that context, I admit that a one-percent uptick in one poll is not that significant and I can only plead ignorance on how others define 'evangelical.' I may have oversold the significance of what I perceive.

For the record, I oppose tax-exempt status on property taxes for all churches.

And, again, I have to point out that evangelicals are not the monolithic group many of you seem to tacitly assume they are. They are not all sheep, since a significant fraction of them continued to vote Democratic when virtually the entire odious GOP/Christian Right nexus was telling them they shouldn't, in peril of their mortal souls.

Special treatment? Not at all! The Dems should attempt to build alliances with ANY group that is willing to forego ideological conformity in order to affect change in the real world. That should include centrist evangelicals...and radical atheists.

They are not all sheep

at least 30 million of them are.

NAE ring a bell (national association of evangelicals)?

how about all those who follow the advice of good 'ol Pat Roberston?

what about GW receiving weekly advice from Haggard?

there is a large group of irrational evangelicals out there you obviously would rather sweep under the rug.

history shows them to be a readily mobilizible voting block.

just ask the neocons, last election excluded, and then only because of all the blatant corruption of late in the leaders of the evangelical movement and republican party in general.

those wounds will fade quickly, and the evangelicals will be right back to their ridiculous position statements.

I agree, you need to take a closer look at what is considered the "evangelical" voting bloc, or even what an evangelical xian is to begin with.

(hint: those are the folks who now say Haggard was no "true" xian, even though 30 million of them elected him head of their "church". I'm sure they would say about yourself, too)

ugh, damn code.

the first line is Scott's (They are not all sheep), and should be italicized.

Horsefeathers. Dems won on no discernible platform. They simply took justifiable advantage of Republican arrogance and stupidity.

One should not read this as an "anti-God" mandate. . .unless of course, you are one of those faithful atheists that sees the Hand of Reason in everything. . .

(sheepish grin) You're probably right, Ichthyic. A bunch of them would say I was no 'true Christian'. And those guys are the ones we shouldn't give the time of day.
But others who call themselves evangelicals wouldn't make that choice, and those are worthy of dialogue.

I'm not talking about the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons, obviously. I'm talking about those Christians who are increasingly appalled by those hucksters, self-described evangelicals, many of whom voted for Bill Clinton, TWICE. Don't write off an entire class of people in terms of political engagement just because a significant number of them are sheep. Those of us who care about the future need to find ways to engage those who will at least listen to us on the basis of common values....SH