Who Will Evangelical Christians Vote For in 2008?

Remove all ads!

I think we're about to see an interesting case study. Namely, do Evangelical Christians tend to support the Republican Party because they agree with the Party's platform, or is it because the Republican Party tends to agree with their Bible?

Consider the following. Giuliani currently holds a double-digit poll lead with his closest competitor. Unless something changes drastically in the next few months, it's not at all far-fetched to say that he will be the Republican nomination for President. Most years, he could expect the Evangelical Christian vote. However, there are few points with Giuliani that make him different from most Republicans. Namely:

1. He is pro-choice.
2. He supports civil unions. He even went so far as to sign a domestic partnership bill for New Yorkers when he was mayor.
3. He supports loosening regulations on stem cell research.

Those are three things the Evangelical Christians have always been against. That doesn't even count other un-Christian acts that Giuliani has engaged in, including being married and divorced multiple times, and carrying on a very public affair while still being married to his last wife.

So what's an Evangelical to do? Whether Hillary wins the nomination or not, any Democratic canidate is going to have very similar views as Giuliani on abortion, stem cell research, and civil unions. So do they pick one of the two major canidates based on some other issue - in which case who do they vote for? Or, do they pick some 3rd party canidate who's more aligned with their moral compass - which will almost certainly hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats?

I know we have some conservative Republicans on the board, and I'd really like to hear their take on whether or not they think that being more centrist on these issues will hurt Giuliani. Usually being centrist is good, but in this particular case the votes he gains by moving to the center would have to be huge to offset what he may lose from the conservative right.

EDIT: A third possibility just hit me. They could decide to not vote for anyone at all. So I guess those are the three choices: A.) Which turd sandwich would you like? i.e., pick one of the major canidates, neither of whom them like B.) pick a 3rd party canidate who, even if all Evangelicals support has no realistic chance of winning or C.) stay home on election day.

[ October 16, 2007, 22:11: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Good question, Aldeth.

I don't really think that the evangelical Christians can be considered a monolithic bloc. In my experience they are largely divided into two major camps. There are the members of the mega- churches and there are the traditional Christian conservatives. The mega-church Christians are like your normal mindless partisan voters. They will vote for whoever their pastor says they should vote for. The leaders of the mega-churches are more like business magnates than pastors and are probably not as conservative across the board as you might think. They think about growth first and foremost. Their followers are are like customers. They will have one or two major conservative values but the rest of their views are basically neo-con. I can actually see these people voting for Guiliani just because he's a Republican and they don't want Hillary or whoever to be elected President.

The traditional conservative Christians would be far less likely to vote for Guiliani. These Christians are usually not part of mega-churches so by definition they are more likely to actually think for themselves. These are the ones who will be more likely to go with a third party candidate. This group will range from far-right conservatives to libertarians to neo-cons. This is the smaller (and ever shrinking) group and thier pull is not as strong as the previous group.

On the other hand, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate I can also see the evangelical Christians voting party line just to keep her out. We shouldn't underestimate just how much Hillary polarizes opinion.

I think it's even possible that some of them might actually vote for Romney should he be the Republican candidate. Some evangelical Christians may actually be attracted by his perceived moral values and be willing to overlook the fact that he's a Mormon.

In theory a candidate like Ron Paul should appeal to most of the evangelical Christians. However, people don't know what to make of an actual Constitutionalist (people think he's a radical) not to mention that he gets completely ignored by the mass media. After all, evangelical Christians are as much slaves to their televisions as anyone else.

This is the way I see it, anyway.

 

Hmm, what about the other Democratic candidates? I've heard about Obama, for example, trying to reach out to religious people. Are some of the less dogmatic (politically) Evangelicals likely to support a moderate Democrat who, if not support for any of those three issues, makes a stand about morality or values and has a clean and respectable biography?

 

They will vote for the one who mentions jesus and god the most.

 

There was an interesting article in Harper's a few months back in which is was mentioned that if the Christian Right comes to feel abandoned by the Reps, and labor feels abandoned by the Dems, an alliance between the two groups would not be out of the question.

 

It's not entirely impossible, I guess - the far right party here has a strange mix of rhetoric pandering to labor and religious values. Labor is often threatened (and some parts of it actually hurt) by further opening of the market, so it's not that hard to channel it into a more "traditionalist", if not outright xenophobic/nationalist course. Of course, how religious such parties are is another topic. Ours tried to slime the Metropolitan of Plovdiv after he advised one of their hopefuls (a former priest, iirc) to not participate in the local elections.

* in case anyone was wondering, in Orthodox churches Metropolitan is a position similar to archbishop, and in the Bulgarian church the second highest position after the Patriarch. By and large, they are supposed to be treated with some respect.

[ October 17, 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

But that's just the thing. Even during the primary process, these mega-churches are throwing their support Thompson's way, because he is more in line with their values. The problem is only 1 in 5 Americans are Evangelical Christians, so it's not like even if all the Evangelicals banded together they could nominate someone of their own chosing without popular support from the party at large.

I just have a hard time buying that a pastor will stand at the front of the congregation and say even though we beleive that civil unions, abortion, and stem cell research are all bad, we're going to support a canidate who is pro-choice, supports civil unions, and will loosen stem cell research legislation.

I also think there's no chance that they would support Romney, simply because he's a Mormon. Most Evangelicals do not even consider Mormons to be Christians. (This is despite the fact that Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ - which I thought was the qualificantion of becoming a Christian. Don't ask me to explain it - it's their rule, not mine.)

 

There was an article on this very topic on NPR's "All Things Considered" program a few weeks back. Apparently some on the Christian far-right are making noise about splintering the Republican party if they don't like the turd who floats to the top of the bowl. They think they have enough influence to do more than merely set the party platform, they want to run the whole show.

At least one of the commentators who was interviewed said it was no big deal, they made the same threats in the past and they're still securely in the Republican fold. They're just trying to scare the less rabid conservative voters into thinking that if the Christians really were to splinter off, the Democrats would have an easy victory.

Whee, I found the article more easily than I was expecting!

 

Interesting question for academics, but not for the religious right (or Evangelical Christians). The answer is very simple: choose the lesser evil.

A candidate may have opinions one direction or the other on major issues (to any specific group) -- those opinions are important in the primaries. Once the party give that candidate the nod, far too many special interest groups only vote on party lines.

 

That's the real problem with such contentious issues like Stem Cell Research, Abortion and Gay Rights. It puts too much focus on the "Thou Shalt Not" side of Christianity. As such, it doesn't give a fair and balanced view of the faith as a whole.

I would hope that people in the Republican party would elect someone that sounds like a Republican...

 

Speaking from the other side of the fence, I have to say I could really give two ****s how a candidate sounds. I care about what the candidate will do, instead. Most republicans, I imagine, are the same way. Or at least they should be.

 

Are the religious people in the states really generally so one-sided to the right of the political spectrum?

If I look here in Sweden where religion plays a much smaller role but we still have lots and lots of Christians and they tend to be divided generally like the rest of the populace. Maybe even with a small leaning to the left as Jesus solidarical underdog point of view is much more emphasised here than old testament "thou shalt not" attitude.

 

They aren't called "the religious right" for nothing. Actually that's not fair. It's more appropriate to say that the right is more in line with Christian doctrine. Generally speaking, the right is pro-life, against gay marriage/civil unions, against stem cell research, etc. Since that is also what many of Christian faith believe, it is natural that Evangelicals tend to vote Republican. Also, look at where the largest number of Evangelicals are located - in the southeastern quadrant of the US - often referred to as "The Bible Belt" - when was the last time any of those states voted Democrat?

Acutally Gnarff, while I realize that you are Canadian, and thus cannot vote in the US, I'd be interested to hear what your take on this is. What would you do if presented with such a choice? Would you vote your conscience, even if you knew that the person you were voting for had no chance of winning? Or would you vote for who you saw as the lesser of two evils?

I also understand that there are more than two political parties in Canada - so an exact correlation to this event isn't really possible. I don't know - pretend it's a local election in which the two primary canidates both held views counter to your own - would you vote for the third guy even though you knew he wouldn't win - or would you cast your vote to one of the two that you didn't particularly like, in the hopes of the one that you REALLY didn't like would lose?

 

This type of situation is actually almost always an issue in Canadian politics and frequently plays a huge role in determining which party forms the government. There are four main Federal parties but only two of those have a realistic chance of obtaining a majority government. As a result there is always debate about whether the supporters of the third and fourth party should vote for the candidate they believe in or vote for the lesser of the two evils from the two main parties.

The current situation is a really interesting case. We had one minority government that failed under a vote of non-confidence so when the required election was held there was huge speculation that people would change their votes to ensure that there would be a majority government. It didn't happen. The main two parties are so close to each other politically and their leaders were so uninspiring that they just were not able to steal away votes and the fourth party actually ended up winning a lot more seats than the previous election.

 

You have portrayed the other side of Christianity fairly well. There's the whole thing about looking after the poor and the needy, and making sure that all have a fair opportunity to labour. That is what I complain is lost with the focus shifted squarely on issues that fly in the face of the "Thou Shalt Not" side of the fence. In the presence of a greater evil, the goodness is the first thing you lose sight of...

I have voted for the one I like before and I will again as long as I don't like any of the main parties. In the recent provincial election, since I did not care for any of the 5 options, I voted the lesser evil.

 

It seems to me to be a simple logic question -- if two candidates hold similar views on a subject, and those views are reprehensible to me, then I will have to select another subject on which to make my decision.

That said, if each holds one view I agree with and one I disagree with, I have to do some thinking and decide which issue is more important to me -- in other words, the lesser of two evils.

I'm Canadian too, and so what I say next will not shock those who do not know me, but for those who know that I tend to cling to the right wing of things this might come as a surprise. I'd likely vote for a Democrat were I a U.S. citizen. My reasoning is based around the idea of Medicare and drug plans. If someone went to Christ and asked him to heal them, I don't think he'd do a credit check on the person. I don't think that necessary medical care should be contingent on the depths of the patient's pockets. My understanding is that getting sick can bankrupt people in America (correct me if I'm wrong, here) and I don't think that's right at all.

 

Hopefully third party so not only will they stop disturbing the rest of the voting process but also show how much of the parties' base they are.

 

Interesting backgrounder: The Evangelical Crackup.