The role of religion in American politics has changed dramatically in the past two decades. Gone are the days when a candidate’s beliefs were considered largely private by the media and voters. Now presidential aspirants are expected to articulate their views on faith as routinely as on tax policy or health care reform.
From voters’ standpoint religious belief has also become a more reliable and important indicator of how America votes. Both the “spiritual” and “secular” voting blocs are growing increasingly distinct and John Kerry wants to have a foot in both worlds. But it’s unclear if the Democratic nominee’s strategy will prove sound or just additional evidence he’s driven more by political expediency than moral conviction.
Voting patterns of mainline denominations are dramatically different compared to a generation ago. Catholics used to be a reliable Democratic voting bloc, while Protestants sided with Republicans. Stanford University political scientist Morris P. Fiorina, writing in “Culture Wars: The Myth of a Polarized America,” says, “Catholics in particular, are far less dependably Democratic today than they were prior to 1968, and mainline Protestants are less dependably Republican than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Mr. Fiorina also cites a growing chasm in the political behavior between “regular and occasional church attenders.” For example in the 2000 presidential election, white evangelical Protestants, who attended church regularly, supported George Bush over Al Gore 84 percent to 16 percent, while the evangelicals who were only occasional church attenders supported Bush by a smaller 55 percent to 45 percent margin. The pattern is even more dramatic among white Catholics, where church “regulars” supported Mr. Bush 57 percent to 43 percent, but those who attended occasionally supported Gore 59 percent to 41 percent.
Moreover, the relationship between religiosity and vote choice did not evolve gradually, but changed dramatically around 1992. Mr. Fiorina demonstrates that between 1952 and 1992 little difference in presidential voting patterns existed among those who went to church regularly and those who did not (most years during that period the difference in presidential vote choice between those who attended church regularly and those that did not was about 5 percent). However, in 1992, 1996 and 2000, the presidential vote choice of “frequent” church attenders differed by between 20 percent to 25 percent compared to those who did not attend or only attended a couple times a year. The bottom line is that “religiosity” used to have little impact on vote choice; now odds are that citizens who attend church regularly will vote Republican, while non-church goers tend to choose the Democrats.
Finally, Mr. Fiorina makes an important point often lost on those analyzing trends in religion in politics. For all of the emphasis on regular churchgoers becoming more Republican, there is something else going on of equal importance — the unchurched are becoming more Democrat. “Their movement to the Democrats since 1992 almost counterbalances the movement of weekly churchgoers to the Republicans,” says Mr. Fiorina.
Yet while both sides are sorting themselves out from a partisan perspective, which side is bigger? Writing last week in the National Review Online, Colleen Carroll Campbell quotes a University of California study that finds that at least among young people, traditional religious values and mores are becoming increasingly important. She quotes the lead Berkley researcher who says, “if the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics… the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues.”
Sensing this trend, the Democratic nominee is consciously trying to have a foot in both camps — a tricky straddle.
So the real question next Tuesday in not who people of faith will choose. Nor is it where those with a more secular orientation will come down. But which of the two camps is bigger — at least in terms of turnout.
Mr. Fiorina argues America is less “polarized” than conventional wisdom suggests. On a variety of issues, including social questions like abortion, opinions vary greatly. America only looks deeply divided when polls or elections force voters to make a dichotomous choice. Next Tuesday voters will have to make that dichotomous choice. And I’m going to bet that when it comes to religion, more voters will choose the candidate with the clear convictions instead of the one talking about faith because it happened to have mentioned in a focus group.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.