|
|
|
 |
|
JAN. 5, 2004 ELECTIONS 2004
This unusually rich mix of religion and politics results from a convergence of factors. The most salient is the enduring fallout from the 9/11 attacks and the resulting war on terrorism that focuses on radical Islamism. The religious passions the conflict has stirred up - both in the Muslim world and among Christians and Jews - continue to thrust faith to the front of the political stage. This is especially true on foreign policy matters, which generally take a back seat to voters' domestic concerns. Another issue is President Bush's own evangelical Christian faith, along with that of many of his advisers and Republic Party leaders. Scholars say the president's open use of his faith to inform his policies, the close association between high-profile religious conservatives and the GOP, and a host of recent controversial court rulings have helped reignite the so-called "culture wars" on the home front. Battles over gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, religious displays such as the Ten Commandments, morally conservative judicial nominees and faith-based initiatives have a greater resonance than in recent years. Fallout from the Roman Catholic Church scandals has also reconfigured the traditional political calculus. American Catholics remain the single largest voting bloc: They make up nearly a quarter of both the total population and the voting population. But the steep decline in the hierarchy's credibility makes campaigning for the Catholic vote - and the diversity of beliefs among it - more difficult than in the past. The ReligionLink staff has compiled issue primers based on dozens of interviews. Read the entire list below, or click to jump to these topics: Whither the 'religious right'?Is there a 'religious left'? Which Democrat, which denomination? The Catholic vote African-American churches and the black vote The growing Hispanic vote Oh, and mainline Protestants… Jews in a quandary Muslims feeling left out Biblical morality and the ballot box The 'none of the above' vote Surveys and polls
Whither the 'religious right'? "Be careful of what you pray for," it is often said, and that could be the mantra of Christian conservatives. In the 2000 election conservative Christians rejoiced because they helped elect the most overtly evangelical Christian president ever. Today, experts say, the organizations associated with the conservative Christians - the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and others - are having trouble raising money and their profiles. They don't have Bill Clinton to kick around anymore, and Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. Moreover, Christian conservatives in the last decade have been subsumed into the Republican Party machinery at the state level. So they are lobbying from within, and at the local level (see a June 2, 2003, ReligionLink tip) rather than relying on national pressure groups such as the Christian Coalition. That goes for foreign policy issues, too (See a Sept. 23, 2003, ReligionLink tip). Experts agree that the main goal of Christian conservatives in 2004 will be to re-elect George Bush. But if their membership grows complacent with Bush already in the White House, they may have trouble mobilizing the troops to vote, which is key to their political success. Tracking efforts to elect - and enthusiasm for - Bush at the state level and in the pews will be the single most important barometer of how important religious conservatives will be to the 2004 vote, experts say. Some potential
problems to watch for: One of the enduring mysteries of the nation's political dynamic is why there has been no organized religious counterpart to the religious right, especially when many Americans say they disagree with the goals of Christian conservatives. The latest effort, announced Nov. 21, 2003, is the fledgling Clergy Leadership Network, a Washington, D.C.-based group of moderate and liberal clergy who say they will challenge religious conservatives' public and political influence. Several states have similar groups working on state and local issues. Several groups advocate stands that are often in opposition to religious conservatives. Experts note the involvement of socially progressive evangelicals in the political arena, particularly Jim Wallis of Call to Renewal and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, as well as organizations such as The Interfaith Alliance, headed by the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy. A range of Jewish advocacy groups and some African-American denominations share some social and political goals. The largest umbrella group for liberal Christians, the National Council of Churches, has emerged from financial problems and continues to push political causes. The 2004 campaigns include national and local issues that experts say offer opportunity for a "religious left." Some experts view the anti-globalization movement as an expression of religious liberalism. Moreover, the environment - which is seen as a potential weak point for the president - is increasingly being cast in moral terms by religious groups (See a Jan. 20, 2003, ReligionLink tip). There are also indications that social justice issues might gain traction with continued concerns about unemployment, economic uncertainty, and the administration's tax cuts that favor the wealthy. An Oct. 14, 2003, poll by Bread for the World found that 75 percent to 80 percent of likely Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire said they are more likely to choose a candidate who made reducing hunger a "higher priority." Whether opposition to religious conservatives will be effective is another question. In a Dec. 28, 2003, New York Times Op-Ed piece, Call to Renewal's Jim Wallis argued that Democrats need to reclaim religious values for progressives. But he also noted a November 2003 poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press that shows that people who attend church more than once a week vote Republican by 63 percent to 37 percent. Conversely, people who seldom or never attend church vote Democratic by 62 percent to 38 percent. That is the widest gap in 16 years of polling. Which Democrat, which denomination? The Democratic field features an array of faith traditions as diverse as the candidates themselves. Howard Dean, currently the presumptive-front-runner, is seen by many as the most secular candidate. A Dec. 29, 2003, New Republic cover story by Franklin Foer is titled: "Howard Dean's Religion Problem." It details Dean's rejection of the Episcopal Church over a bike path dispute, and his belief that beliefs should play no role in formulating public policy. Joseph Lieberman, an observant Jew, would continue his groundbreaking ways if he becomes the first Jewish candidate to head a major party ticket. John Kerry, meanwhile, would be the first Catholic to head a ticket since John F. Kennedy. And the Rev. Al Sharpton would be the first ordained minister to head a ticket. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is a Methodist who appeals to the conservative Southern base that has been the backbone of the GOP's Southern resurgence. Retired General Wesley Clark, the latest entry to the crowded field, is a religious amalgam: Raised a Southern Baptist, his family has deep Jewish roots - his ancestors were eminent rabbis. But he converted to Catholicism in Vietnam and now attends a Presbyterian church. "I go to church. I've been a Christian my whole life," he says. Depending on which candidate gets the nod at the August 2004 convention, the religious dynamic of the race could be very different. For example, experts say Clark's many religious transitions could work against him because voters tend to favor candidates with identifiable religious convictions. But they also don't want someone who is seen as zealous. Polls show that voters say they will not vote for or against someone if they follow a faith different from their own. Experts caution, however, that voters may tell pollsters one thing and vote another. Another issue is that the very religious identifier that could help a candidate with the wider electorate might hurt him within his own denomination. That is because so many faiths are currently roiled by divisive internal debates. Thus a Jewish candidate, for example, might be forced to answer sensitive questions about Jewish practice or relations with Israel. And Catholic candidates would likely become embroiled in the internecine fights over abortion rights and perhaps face sanctions from church hierarchy who want them to vote according to official church teaching. As a Feb. 24, 2003, ReligionLink tip shows, voters want candidates who espouse strong values, but embracing religion too tightly brings risks. Does it exist? How does a politician appeal to it? Long gone are the days when Catholics were a solid bloc that voted strongly Democratic. Since the off-year elections of 1994, when Catholics voted more for Republicans than for Democrats, the Catholic vote has been in play. It has still leaned Democratic, but Catholic voters have also shown they will go with a winner. In fact, experts say that for decades no presidential candidate has won the popular vote without winning the Catholic vote. (Al Gore edged out George Bush among Catholics in the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College.) Scholars say the unpredictability of the Catholic vote - about one-quarter of the electorate - is also due to the fact that neither major party appeals to the economically liberal/socially conservative outlook of many Catholic voters. About 19 percent of Catholics identify strongly as Democrats, and 15 percent as Republicans. Hence they are politically "homeless" and will make different judgments under different circumstances. Political observers say it is also difficult for candidates to know how to appeal to Catholic voters who are increasingly divided among themselves over controversial issues such as abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. They do say that support for vouchers for private schools unifies many Catholics. Another point experts make is that in the wake of the clerical sexual abuse scandal, the credibility of the church hierarchy is at a historic low with the nation's 65 million Catholics. Hence, posing for pictures with a bishop or cardinal - the usual strategy - may not necessarily help. (See an Oct. 7, 2002 ReligionLink tip.) In covering the Catholic vote, experts note that it is important to distinguish between the attitudes of white European Catholics and the growing bloc of Latino Catholics. Latinos are often much closer to their immigrant roots, and see government programs as a safety net and a helping hand to assimilation. They also say they are troubled by some of the Bush administration's rhetoric regarding immigrants. White European Catholics, on the other hand, are increasingly wealthy and suburbanized - prime GOP voter territory. Many polls show the gulf between these groups growing, and scholars say political coverage of Catholics must distinguish between the attitudes of these groups, just as good surveys do. A guide for Catholic voters released in October by the U.S. bishops' Administrative Committee says that in today's political climate, the Catholic Church must be "engaged but not used" in the political process. The document, "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility," says: "We welcome dialogue with political leaders and candidates, seeking to engage and persuade public officials.… But we must be sure that events and 'photo ops' are not substitutes for work on policies that reflect our values." African-American churches and the black vote The Democratic presidential field boasts two black candidates: the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun. Yet experts on black churches say they are taking widely divergent approaches, with Sharpton opting for the traditional route of using pulpits as platforms, while Braun is steering clear of a direct embrace of religiosity. Experts say Braun's strategy reflects a new tack, one that tries to position a black candidate as mainstream rather than a representative of the churches, which have long been the political base of most African-American candidates. Whether either tactic will prove more successful remains to be seen. What is becoming clear is that neither candidate appears to be gaining support, even within their own community. Vermont's Howard Dean, the governor of a largely rural northeastern state with a tiny black population, is picking up endorsements from black leaders, as an Oct. 28, 2003, New York Times story showed. And other white candidates also appear to be doing well among black voters. Where will that leave African-Americans, who make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, on Election Day? Experts say blacks harbor resentment toward the GOP from the 2000 election and the recount battle that blacks say disenfranchised many of them. But political observers caution that they may not turn out in sufficient numbers to defeat Bush, especially if the Democratic candidate is less than galvanizing. Two other factors bear watching. One is the fate of the faith-based initiative. This was supposed to be Bush's wedge into the African-American community, but it has not borne much fruit. On the other hand, the issue has left black church leaders deeply divided, experts say, and that could blunt the unity and effectiveness of this voting bloc. A second factor is the changing dynamic of black churches themselves. Like many other Americans, black Americans are increasingly worshipping in large, often suburban megachurches that have fewer ties to the activism of old-line African-American denominations. The 28,000-member Dallas church of Bishop T.D. Jakes is a prominent example. In 2003 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the fast-growing Hispanic population is now the largest minority group in the country, making them important for candidates nationally and locally. What's more, they are growing in areas of the country previously not thought of as Hispanic. At more than 37 million, Hispanics are also a diverse group, making them a tricky target for both Democrats and Republicans. In surveys they self-identify as heavily Democrat, although they tend not to support Democratic stands on moral and church-state issues. Just before the 2000 election, one study found that a whopping 37 percent identified their party affiliation as independent. They are mostly Roman Catholic, but many of those also consider themselves Charismatic or born-again. As a group, Hispanics' religious and political involvement varies according to the language they speak, their country of origin, age and other factors. The 2002 National Survey of Latinos, sponsored by the Pew Hispanic Center and Kaiser Family Foundation, looked at issues of identity, assimilation, discrimination and government, among others. A July 18, 2003, ReligionLink tip explored how churches are developing Hispanic leaders for work in the church and beyond. Once the politically dominant religious bloc, mainline Protestants have for decades been an afterthought in most electoral coverage. Yet mainline Protestants remain a large bloc - about 20 percent to 22 percent of the electorate - and they are up for grabs. Scholars say the Reagan years redefined the political dynamic for mainline Protestants. During that time, evangelicals became dominant and mainliners - who used to be known as "the Republican Party at prayer" - focused more on local issues and retreated from national politics. Bitter internal battles, which continue to rage, also have distracted mainline Protestants and sapped their energy and focus. While mainline Protestants continue to vote Republican more often than they do Democrat, the trend is shifting. They are much more independent today and are considered swing votes. Overwhelmingly white (91 percent) and more likely to be women than men (58 percent to 42 percent), mainline Protestants are also interested in progressive social issues in ways that other Protestant groups are not. They are "soccer moms" rather than "NASCAR dads." On the other hand, research shows that mainline Protestants still respond strongly to appeals to patriotism, and so the course of the Iraq war will be an important bellwether for their voting behavior. Experts say that in doing stories about mainline Protestants it is especially important to talk to the folks in the pews rather than just their pastors, because research indicates that Protestants tend to give less weight to the advice of their clergy - who are often more liberal than they are - than do evangelical Protestants, for example. For decades American Jews have been the most solidly Democratic bloc apart from African-Americans, and for nearly as long, Republicans have been saying they are on the verge of ending that monopoly. This year, experts say, the GOP may have its best shot at making that dream a reality. Though proportionally Jews are but a tiny segment of the U.S. population - less than 2 percent - they have always carried importance because of their high-profile engagement in politics, academia and media. The defining issue, of course, is the Bush administration's campaign against Islamic radicals. After 9/11, many Jewish commentators said that the United States was now experiencing, in terms of the daily threat of terrorism, what Israel has lived through. That close identification between Israel and the U.S. remains. This alliance is not without risks for the president, however. Experts say that if the war in Iraq goes badly, or if the Bush administration tries to distance itself from the hard-line policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Jews in America could grow uneasy about the administration's commitment to defeating Muslim-based terrorism. Moreover, the political alliance between Bush's evangelical Christian base and Jewish groups is fraught with religious perils. The same conservative Christians who strongly support Israel often do so out of theological convictions about the Second Coming of Jesus and the need to convert Jews to Christianity. These are flashpoints that can explode at any time. Experts say Jewish voters remain far more socially liberal than Bush and would be ready for any reason to vote Democratic again. They may have one good reason given that Democrats are stocked with candidates with Jewish ties. Besides Joseph Lieberman, who in 2000 as Al Gore's running mate was the first Jew on a major party ticket, Wesley Clark has Jewish roots. And John Forbes Kerry, the Roman Catholic Massachusetts senator of Boston Brahmin heritage, recently discovered that his own background was Jewish. Thus there are three "ancestrally" Jewish contenders. In addition, Howard Dean’s wife is Jewish. Jewish identity can make a difference. With Lieberman on the ticket, the Democrats gained 77 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, the highest mark in years. The same issue that has helped Bush make headway with Jewish voters - the war on terror - is causing him trouble with Muslim voters. During the second presidential debate in 2000, George W. Bush strongly and unexpectedly denounced profiling against Arab-Americans, and thereby gained the endorsement of several Muslim organizations and thousands of swing votes that may have provided crucial help in key states. "There is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America," Bush said at the time. "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we've got to do something about that." After 9/11, however, everything changed. While Muslims are invited to the White House to observe their holiest days, they are also subject to scrutiny and detention under secret evidence as never before. And despite Bush's repeated pronouncements that America is not waging war on Islam, Muslims are angry at the crusading rhetoric of some in the administration. The furor over the comments of Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Read an Oct. 22, 2003, Chicago Tribune story) - and the administration's refusal to censure him - were emblematic of the problem, Muslims say. On the other hand, it is difficult for any Democratic candidate who wants to appear tough on terror to court Muslim voters - especially if the eventual nominee is Jewish. Lieberman found that out when he was heckled during an Oct. 17 speech (See an Oct. 17, 2003, CNN story) to the Arab American Institute leadership conference. So who will Muslims back on Election Day? Or will they stay home? Or head to polling places to vote for themselves? (Read a Nov. 7, 2003, Christian Science Monitor story about a rise in Muslim candidates.) One new advantage Muslims do have, experts say, is an organized voice. The community is rapidly coalescing behind advocacy groups that are growing in sophistication - and registering more voters -- with every election cycle. That will give Muslims a higher profile and a more coherent message than they have ever had. Important reminder: Only about half of the estimated 3 million Arab-Americans in the United States are Muslim. The Muslim community is in fact quite ethnically and racially diverse, made up of South Asians, for example, and a growing number of African-Americans. They all have different concerns and agendas. Biblical morality and the ballot box The culture wars are back in full swing, and just in time for the election season. Consider the court rulings upholding a right to gay sex in the bedroom and striking down the addition of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; the legislative push to legalize civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and the looming court decisions regarding the ban on late-term abortions; the removal of a public monument of the Ten Commandments and the back-and-forth fights over holiday displays, school vouchers and public prayer. Not to mention the wrenching struggle over the fate of Terry Schiavo, the vegetative Florida woman who has galvanized public opinion over the right to die. A Nov. 3, 2003, Barna organization survey shows that moral issues continue to be hot-button topics that can draw sharp divides within the population. And pollster John Zogby has written that values will define the electoral contests, more than even the Iraq conflict. Most experts agree that moral and ethical issues are powerful symbols to the electorate, and that they are minefields for political candidates. Several tripwires could touch off a furor in the coming months. They include Supreme Court rulings on the abortion ban recently signed into law by President Bush and the constitutionality of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance (See an Oct. 3, 2003, ReligionLink tip). Meanwhile, state legislative battles over gay marriage will likely keep that emotional issue on the boil. (An Aug. 4, 2003 ReligionLink tip offered resources to explore the many ramifications of the marriage debate.) A December 2003 CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll showed that 30 percent of Americans said that candidates' stands on gay and lesbian issues would be "extremely" or "very important" in determining their vote. And a November 2003 Pew poll details voters' divided views on homosexuality. The bitter senate battles over Bush's morally conservative judicial nominees also promise to continue. Democratic filibusters of nominees such as Charles Pickering, a nominee for the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor are raising charges of religious bias. GOP Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas warned that "Some senators have decided to assert an unconstitutional religious-beliefs test as they debate judicial nominations." An exclusive focus on religious voters would neglect another important segment of the population - those who reject hard and fast religious labels, or religion itself. They are the "un-Cola" of the religious landscape, and they are growing. According to the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, the proportion of the population that does not subscribe to any religious identification more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million adults in 2001. Their proportion grew from just 8 percent of the total in 1990 to more than 14 percent. In addition, the ARIS project also noted a substantial increase in the number of adults who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference, from about 4 million, or 2 percent, in 1990, to more than 11 million, or more than 5 percent, in 2001. Moreover, ARIS found that in 1990, more than 9 in 10 respondents identified some religion group. In 2001, such identification dropped to 81 percent. This illustrates a significant trend away from the denominations that have traditionally been the "vehicles" for political action by believers. As a Sept. 29, 2003, ReligionLink tip shows, most of these 29 million people have spiritual beliefs: Two-thirds believe in God, more than one-third consider themselves religious, and they buy a lot of books about spirituality. But will they have an impact on the political discourse? On the culture? On elections? Perhaps the most visible subset among the "nones," as they are known, is the small but high-profile number of adults who come under the broad umbrella of secularists - atheists, agnostics, humanists and others. This group is increasingly vocal and increasingly prepared to pursue its aims through the courts (see a July 8, 2002, ReligionLink tip.) That can produce rulings, such as the Pledge of Allegiance case, that can galvanize public opinion in ways far larger groups never could. Polls are the raw fuel of political campaigns, and they are invaluable baselines for stories about religion and politics. Caveat emptor, however: A Nov. 14, 2002, Chicago Tribune story discussed why polls are sometimes wrong (as many were in the 2002 elections) and the pitfalls of relying too heavily on them. Here are some of the major providers of polls, surveys and data: NATIONAL
POLLING ORGANIZATIONS ACADEMIC
AND NONPROFIT RESEARCH CENTERS
NEWS ORGANIZATIONS
POLITICAL POLLS
STATE POLLING INFORMATION
RELIGION AND POLITICS DATA
RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEYS
OTHER USEFUL RESEARCH TOOLS
STANDARD-SETTING ASSOCIATIONS FOR
POLLING |
 |
 |
© 2008 Religion Newswriters Foundation | |
A
year from now, and after untold campaign speeches and news stories, the United
States will either have a new president, or voters will have returned George
W. Bush to the White House for a second term. But the next 12 months will feature
more than the usual intense campaigning. Experts say that more than perhaps
any other election cycle, the 2004 race will offer a revealing look the state
of religion in America and its role in public life.