LAT: Insert cliche assumption about evangelicals here

May 23, 2012 By

During election season, we will continue to see stories that make grand, sweeping statements about voter groups. As we saw with The Economist a few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times makes some assumptions about evangelicals where an editor could have easily asked “where do you see evidence for your assertion?”

The piece suggests that evangelicals aren’t necessarily in line with the Republican Party (shocking, right?) or as the headline puts it, “Obama could have a prayer among Ohio’s white evangelicals.” I’ll pull out a few portions of article and ask some editing questions to show you some examples.

Still, when a group of religious leaders in Ohio held two days of meetings in Cincinnati recently to talk about economic and racial justice, issues usually associated with the political left, there was Beard, a fourth-generation Pentecostal preacher with a disarming smile, a shaved head and a set of convictions that knock holes in the stereotypes about white evangelical Protestants.

What are those stereotypes? Are we supposed to just assume some?

White evangelical voters are widely presumed to march in lock step with the right wing of the Republican Party. The reality is more nuanced.

Who makes the above assumption? Scholars? An average Joe?

In fact, various polls indicate that Obama lags behind Romney among all white Americans who express a religious faith. At the moment, the president is in a statistical dead heat with Romney only because of the strong support he gets from black Protestants, Latino Catholics and Americans who are unaffiliated with any religious tradition. (The Pew survey found, rather astonishingly, that 0% of black Protestants polled supported Romney.)

Why is the percentage finding of Romney supporters “rather astonishingly”? What percentage of the electorate are they (or at least in battleground Ohio)?

While Obama will never win anywhere near a majority of white evangelicals, his hope lies in mobilizing what support he can among religious voters and keeping the focus away from divisive social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, on which his views run counter to theirs.

Wait, didn’t Obama just publicly announce his support for same-sex marriage? How is he keeping the focus off of it? Did I miss something?

However, the organization has also made a concerted effort to reach out to white evangelicals, the group most associated with the Christian right. Several white evangelical pastors turned out for the event, and at times seemed a bit bemused by the unfamiliar surroundings.

Who (scholars, journalists or anyone else) is still talking about “the Christian right”? How would you describe how someone “seemed a bit bemused”? Are there specifics you can give to show what pastors’ bemusement looks like?

“It’s not monolithic, especially with the millennials,” said Rev. Dave Workman, pastor at the Vineyard Community Church in Cincinnati, referring to the generation that grew up around 2000. “It’s changing rapidly, and they don’t want to be known as just a two-issue church.”

Those two issues, of course, are abortion and same-sex marriage.

Oh, of course! Because social justice-oriented groups like the Salvation Army, World Vision, Compassion International and many more organizations haven’t existed for several decades now? Listen, if anyone tells you evangelicalism isn’t a monolithic voter bloc, strike it from your notes and move along. It’s true, but it’s also one of many cliches we’ve heard for several years now.

Although he sees abortion as a “justice issue for a human being with a beating heart,” Beard also believes in “a whole pro-life position” that focuses on what happens after someone is born. “The Scriptures,” he said, “call on us to engage with the needs of the poor and the widow and the immigrant.”

All of that can lead a theological conservative to a more liberal political position.

Are you sure? Because that’s quite the leap. The whole story is filled with leaps, one where an editor could have asked more questions.

Image of hand raising via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Journalism, People, Politics, Religion
  • http://ecben.wordpress.com Will

    I would find ANY “0%” figure rather astonishing.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Maybe, though the reporter didn’t have to insert his own reaction, right? Maybe quote someone who studies this kind of thing who might say it’s surprising?

  • http://catherineguiles.com Cathy G.

    Oh, of course! Because social justice-oriented groups like the Salvation Army, World Vision, Compassion International and many more organizations haven’t existed for several decades now?

    Yes – but I’d argue they’re largely separate from politics, which is what the story is about.

  • geoconger

    Sarah’s point is well taken that these articles are telling us what something means, rather than demonstrating what it means by reference to facts, figures or third party expert opinion.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Cathy G:

    Tell that to the HHS. They are now only semi-religious.

  • Matt

    I think it’s actually laudable that this article’s lede clearly distinguishes between theological conservatives and political conservatives. That’s getting something right that we often harp on, no?

    That said, what galls me most about this article is the same blind spot that I see from nearly everyone, about why evangelicals have a hard time supporting Obama. I can only elaborate on this by talking about my own views; please do not argue with me about them because that’s not this blog’s purpose, and because what I am trying to say is not that my views are correct but simply that they exist. I don’t know how many people there are like me, but if there are very many, then the lack of coverage by the media is a problem.

    I am an evangelical pro-life Democrat. I support the President’s economic policy, including reining in rapacious corporations, and especially healthcare reform; I support affirmative action and other initiatives to correct historic wrongs and to improve civil rights; I support the President’s internationalist foreign policy. And yet, I am moving more and more towards voting for Romney in November. My primary reason is the (I can use no other word) outright hostility toward traditional religious groups that the President and those around him have shown during his term. Examples include: 1) forcing Bart Stupak and his supporters into an impossible position as pro-life supporters of healthcare reform, with the result that half of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment (a good tracer of pro-life Dems) were replaced by Republicans in 2010, accounting for half of the Democratic House debacle; 2) attacking the very existence of the ministerial exemption in the Hosanna-Tabor case; 3) the attempt to evict churches from meeting in public schools in my home state of New York (not done by the President himself but by what I see as like-minded leaders); 4) the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle 5) the contraceptive mandate issue. Note that I have not even mentioned same-sex marriage and related topics, which are contributing but not central issues for me.

    The LAT article discusses none of these issues except for some vague mentions of abortion and same-sex marriage; and even there, the article says that the evangelicals being interviewed “side with Republicans on those issue,” as if there were no such thing as a pro-life Democrat!

    It’s not our purpose here to comment on (what I see as) a blind spot in the Democratic leadership on these issues. But I think there is just as big a blind spot in the media.

  • Jon in the Nati

    I think it’s actually laudable that this article’s lede clearly distinguishes between theological conservatives and political conservatives.

    I agree with this. One of the consistent threads of bad religion coverage is that it is generally assumed that conservative or traditional religious views leads inexorably to Republican-style political conservatism. To be fair, this is often the case, but it is far from always true and many reliably-traditional religious leaders would suggest that it should not be the case. The writer does deserve some kudos for recognizing this and not sticking with lazy assumptions.

    That said, I still think the article is flawed, largely for the same reasons geoconger mentions in #4 above. There is a lot of commentary in this article, and of course, the bottom line is still the same: when it comes to election related media coverage of religion, it is all about which political tribe is being supported, rather than anything have to do with religion as such.

    On a semi-related note, that 0% figure is likely +/- 2% or so; these things usually have a margin of error. 0% does not mean there are absolutely no Black protestants who back Romney, but that the number is likely less than 1% and is probably so small that it may as well not exist at all.

  • http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com AuthenticBioethics

    It seems to me that this article is trying to do to evangelical Protestants what the media has been doing to the Catholic Church with great success: Foment discord and provide a plausible rationale to break with leadership to support Obama and liberal politics in general.

    Now, I’m not trying to spin this into a Catholic story. I merely wish to say to evangelical Protestants: We’re all in the same crosshairs.

    And this also isn’t about “we should be Republicans.” I take Matt’s comment seriously and actually am rather ticked off at the trajectory of liberal American politics for pulling the rug out from under my feet on many issues (although I disagree with Matt on particulars, I sympathize with him in general). On the other hand, I’m rather disappointed in the Republicans, too. My support tends go to those who would strive to limit the power and influence of politicians in a general sense, for I’d rather do without heart-fulfilling programs from the government than have a government powerful enough to ruin everything.

    At any rate, I take the basic message of this article not as a report on the level of support each party or candidate has among a particular demographic, but as providing a plausible rationale for people of that demographic to support a particular candidate.

  • Dan Crawford

    One question and one observation:

    Are you suggesting that the majority of white evangelicals do not walk in lockstep with the Republican Party? (Every poll I’ve ever seen suggests otherwise.)

    Like Matt, I too am “ticked off” at liberal Democrats, but I would be appalled to vote for a party whose social darwinism and destructive approach to politics have been on vivid display for the past 15 years. That party has destroyed whatever ideas our founding fathers had about a “commonweal”. Which evil should I judge more egregious?

  • http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com AuthenticBioethics

    Dan Crawford, on the chance that your comment is for me (since your observation seems to be in response to something I said; if not, ignore me)…

    To answer your question: I’m not suggesting anything about the political leanings of any demographic group. If you are right (and I do not dispute it), my point is that the article is trying to break that lock-step. After all, if Obama can succeed in weaning even a few votes from that group, it could sway the outcome. The article appears designed to do that rather than report on anything true.

    To respond to your observation: I didn’t say I would vote for any particular party. You may be right (or wrong) about your charge of social darwinism and destructive politics but the Democrats have defined people like me as their enemy and I will not vote for them. And the charge applies equally to them, though in different ways, perhaps even more so. If I support whom I support and you think ill of me for it, well, then blame the Democrats for driving me away. I will not get into a fight about it — I dispute nothing you said — but I vote my conscience which compels me to avoid Democrats like the plague. My interest in bioethics plays a large part of that. BUT, I make no statement about who I will vote for.

  • Deacon Jim Stagg

    I would caution anyone to view “Pew forum” religious statistics from a great distance…..almost as though they were not there. A simple visit to their web-site and polling method/sample base should remove any feeling of concern or competence in their views.

    Was it Mark Twain who said, “There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.”? I view polls at someone’s stab at statistics which are just about as reliable as those from the Census Bureau (I worked for them).

  • Harris

    I must be a naive reader (or perhaps just a mad liberal), but I think the focus of the article was less on the evangelicals than on the organizing in the religious community (a topic that GR has covered more than once, too). The use of Rev. Beard was an attempt to put a face on this activity. In doing so, the story probably peddled more false hope than it did making presumptions about Evangelicals.

    The Rev. Beard may be a Pentecostal, but his church is distinctly different with its wider diversity. From a sociological perspective it’s not surprising that the congregation has more Democrats. You would expect it. Here, the article wants to make him a stand-in for Evangelicals, but doing so only underscores the the distance of the readers from Evangelicals. After all for them, an Evangelical is an Evangelical. So this could be read as a sign of “how they’re coming around.”

    Here, I thought the article was rather good about deflating such such views. First, there was the poll data. The facts about white evangelical behavior are rather widely known and reported: 74% GOP. Exit polls from 2008 confirm the same rough numbers. These numbers are approaching the minority/Dem identification, and pretty close to lock-step.

    Second was the use of “bemused” — a facial/body expression — a use surely the result of direct reporting and observation. That word too, indicates the gap between readers’ hopes and the reality on the ground.

    The one point the article did not really develop was this question of nuance. The new nuance, less politicized approach to social issues appears to be more of a generational shift, witness the extensive blogging around Rachel Held Evans, as young millennial evangelicals battle it out as to how to be or whether to be politically engaged. And again, this is the sort of difference that a general reader of the LA Times would probably not pick up. Then again, this millennial battle is not taking place in Ohio, so perhaps the reporter gets a pass.