The Great Incremental Evangelical Crackup?

November 17, 2007 By

hype 02The evangelicals — why, they’re cracking up! They’re so over the Republican Party! They’re sick of hearing about abortion and gay marriage! They’ve matured! They’re concerned about global warming, Darfur, and poverty! They’re warming up to Hillary and Obama! Truly, a new day has dawned!

Stephanie Simon and Mark Z. Barabak of the Los Angeles Times are smart, discerning, and innovative reporters. So it says something that they have endorsed the Great Evangelical Crackup Thesis.

A fundamental shift is transforming the religious right, long a force in presidential politics, as aging evangelical leaders split on the 2008 race and a new generation of pastors turns away from politics altogether.

The result, in the short term, could be a boost for the centrist candidacy of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose messy personal life and support for gay rights and legal abortion have not produced the unified opposition from Christian conservatives that many anticipated.

Over the longer term, the distancing of religious leaders from politics could prove even more consequential, denying the GOP one of the essential building blocks it has used to capture the White House in five of the last seven presidential races.

I think their story says something different from what they intended: The Great Evangelical Crackup Thesis is overstated and overhyped. By relying more on their rolodexes than the latest voting returns, they showed that their thesis isn’t, well, all that it’s cracked up to be.

Simon and Barabak quote from evangelical leaders, scholars, and reporters disillusioned with the Bush administration and the GOP. And to be sure, it’s noteworthy that John C. Green, the leading scholar of evangelical political behavior, believes that young evangelicals are growing weary of the Christian right. Yet it’s one thing for evangelicals to express disillusionment with Bush or the GOP. It’s another for them to proclaim allegiance to the Democratic Party or to say they are staying home in November.

Take the 2004 election. At the time, Christianity Today surveyed 40 influential evangelicals about their views of President Bush, and senior news writer Tony Carnes summarized their views this way: “Many of them spoke warmly about the President but also expressed clear disappointment with the administration, specifically his handling of foreign affairs, his inability to push the faith-based agenda through Congress, and the way he expresses his faith in public.” Well, in November their clear disappointment turned out to be rather opaque.

Perhaps anticipating this rebuttal, Simon and Barabak write that signs of the Great Evangelical Crackup occurred after the 2004 election: “In the three years since, many Christian conservatives have expressed a growing unease about the entanglement of politics and pulpit.” Well, certainly many have done so, but evangelicals continued to vote overwhelmingly for Republicans in 2006. As The Washington Post noted,

In House races in 2004, 74 percent of white evangelicals voted for Republicans and 25 percent for Democrats, a 49-point spread, according to exit polls. This year, Republicans received 70 percent of the white evangelical vote and Democrats got 28 percent, a 42-point spread.

To be fair, Simon and Barabak acknowledge that Democrats don’t “expect to swing the entire bloc of conservative religious voters their way next November,” and quote from an author who says that even a swing of 2 percentage points “would make a huge difference.” Well, this passage suggests that the “fundamental restructuring” of the evangelical vote is incremental, not fundamental.

Maybe the Democrats will nab an extra few percentage points of the evangelical vote in November. But can its presidential nominee replicate what congressional Democrats did?

Possibly, but the presidential and congressional wings of the Democratic Party are different birds. As a certain book Mollie referred to yesterday argues, secular liberals and religious liberals are much stronger in the presidential wing of the party. While the congressional wing urged pro-life Robert Casey Sr. to run for the Senate, the presidential wing denied his father a chance to address the delegates in 1992 because of his pro-life views, as a top DNC official admitted to me.

So isn’t the Great Evangelical Crackup incremental, if at all, rather than fundamental? That strikes me as the real question we reporters should ask.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Politics, Social Issues

  • Pingback: SharkMan » The Great Incremental Evangelical Crack-Up?

  • http://www.armyofgod.com Rev Spitz

    If Christians turn their faces away from the babies that are being murdered each and every day in this country, and most do not have any concern about the babies that are murdered, they incur some of those babies blood to themselves.
    Proverbs 24: [11] If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
    [12] If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

  • Stephen A.

    I think a bit of talking to kids by honest reporters will show them why young people are “wary” of the Right and the Right’s traditional belief systems.

    It could possibly be that it’s been ruthlessly drilled into them – in schools and in the media – that being “judgemental” is just about the worst sin of all (perhaps the only sin left) and that all choices people make are “okay.” That, and an overhyped sense of fear of “labels” and joining groups (because Groupthink is bad, unless it’s the Groupthink belief that all groups are bad) and you have a morally adrift generation that is not well suited to structured, doctrine-based religious teachings.

    It also bears mentioning that the phrase “against my better judgement” sounds like ancient Sumerian to many kids, since judgement is not a skill that’s taught to employ on a regular basis. Too bad for them and for all of us, because they won’t be able to use their judgement when someone says something ludicrous, like the seas are going to rise 40 feet – WITHIN OUR LIFETIME! and it’s reported in the New York Times as “fact.”

  • Jerry

    So isn’t the Great Evangelical Crack Up incremental, if at all, rather than fundamental? That strikes me as the real question we reporters should ask.

    I assume you mean incremental in the sense of only a small change since the word is also used to be a fundamental change that happens in slow stages.

    I do think that stories such as this one that reported abortion rates are not determined by legality might convince at least some pro-life people to look at other alternatives and that provides an opening for the Democratic party to propose measures that would significantly reduce the abortion rate.

    I think also that the Catholic document that we’ve been discussing also is relevant. Pro-life to Catholics means not only abortion but death penalty, unjust wars, torture and other attacks on the life and inherent dignity of people. Presumably this is also true for many Evangelicals.

  • Julia

    A fundamental shift is transforming the religious right, long a force in presidential politics, as aging evangelical leaders split on the 2008 race and a new generation of pastors turns away from politics altogether.

    This sounds like Evangelicals are sheep and only do what their “leaders” tell them to do. I’m sure a lot of Evangelicals don’t think that Pat Robinson and James Dobson speak for them.

    I’m Catholic but Cardinals McCarrick and Mahony sure don’t speak for me.

  • http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/ BabyBlue

    It seems to me that there may be a shift going with Evangelicals and politics but it’s not what Democrats might hope for (but perhaps what Republicans fear). In fact, there seems to be a consensus growing that politics is like a religion in itself and many Evangelicals are just pulling out of politics period. Their eyes begin to roll back into their head at the mention of the latest political cause. The deeper faith-based folks go into the political sphere the more it seems to be the abyss. The leaders from yesterday have either gotten out themselves or have sold out to the establishment (in a sense, one does have to work with the establishment in order get anything actually done – but at what cost?). The devil went down to Georgia, but it seems he took a few spins around the Beltway before he got there.

    In fact, the energy seems to be shifting to the local neighborhood and community and not to the Great Causes anymore. If the terrorists come back, who are you going to turn to? A picket sign and petitions just ain’t where it’s at anymore.

    Where are the Evangelicals? Why they’re down at the local Safeway selling popcorn for the Boy Scouts.

    bb

  • Julia

    It is said that Politics is the Art of the Possible.
    Compromise is required in a democratic republic.

    People who have a horror of ever compromising will get burned out awfully fast in the political world. That is not to say that a particular politician doesn’t have real beliefs, but that he/she knows which fights to pick and which issues to let ripen; and which policy goals require incremental advancement; and how to trade favors with other politicians; and how to build alliances with the other side on issues in common, etc. etc. etc.

    Taking your ball home because you didn’t win the ballgame is foolish. The folks who stick it out will win at least some of the remaining games. The folks who went home will have no influence on any of the remaining games.

    Anyhow, that’s how it looks to me. I’m a Republican in a state largely run by Democratic machines. Perhaps most Evangelicals who are quitting the scene are from areas where their favorites dominate that local scene. That dominance does not transfer to the national scene which bounces back and forth between the parties. That may be frustrating, but it keeps the US from being dominated by wacko groups like the Nazis or Communists. Conservatives could get out of control if they totally took over the government just as easily as liberals could. We need both sides to be the proverbial loyal opposition for our kind of government to work.

  • Julia

    It is said that Politics is the Art of the Possible.
    Compromise is required in a democratic republic.

    People who have a horror of ever compromising will get burned out awfully fast in the political world. That is not to say that a particular politician doesn’t have real beliefs, but that he/she knows which fights to pick and which issues to let ripen; and which policy goals require incremental advancement; and how to trade favors with other politicians; and how to build alliances with the other side on issues in common, etc. etc. etc.

    Taking your ball home because you didn’t win the ballgame is foolish. The folks who stick it out will win at least some of the remaining games. The folks who went home will have no influence on any of the remaining games.

    Anyhow, that’s how it looks to me. I’m a Republican in a state largely run by Democratic machines. Perhaps most Evangelicals who are quitting the scene are from areas where their favorites dominate that local scene. That dominance does not transfer to the national scene which bounces back and forth between the parties. That may be frustrating, but it keeps the US from being dominated by wacko groups like the Nazis or Communists. Conservatives could get out of control if they totally took over the government just as easily as liberals could. We need both sides to be the proverbial loyal opposition for our kind of government to work.

  • Chip

    I think that their story says something different from what they intended: The Great Evangelical Crack-Up Thesis is overstated and overhyped. By relying more on their rolodexes than the latest voting returns, they showed that their thesis isn’t, well, all that it’s cracked up to be.

    Um, I don’t think the thesis of this particular story bears much resemblance to your description of it. I would describe their thesis to be that from 1980 up to 2004 white evangelicals “have become a reliable — and increasingly crucial — Republican voting bloc” and that the nature of that voting bloc is fundamentally changing. The state of the Republican primary campaign is a great example. Despite the presence of Mike Huckabee, the evangelical voting bloc is not acting like a bloc. That’s a change. There’s nothing in that thesis to suggest that evangelicals will “proclaim allegiance to the Democratic Party or that they are staying home in November” which you imply is part of the article.

    As far as their rolodex is concerned, they quoted Barna, John C. Green, an editor from Christianity Today, Marvin Olasky, one of Fred Thompson’s advisors, and several young mega-church pastors. Not bad, if you ask me. You are right that they should have talked about the 2006 election, but you also noted how different congressional elections are from presidential one. Since we are in the lead-up to a presidential election, 2006 is less relevant than what evangelicals are saying about 2008.

    They do some good things in this story, like the following passage:

    The term “evangelical” refers to Christians who claim a personal relationship with Christ and consider the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed. They are a huge group — about one in four voters — and far from monolithic; their ranks include Pentecostals, charismatics, Southern Baptists and many others. Some worship to rock music, others to hymns; some speak in tongues. Some believe God preordained those headed to heaven; others hold that anyone can achieve salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton are evangelicals, as is President Bush.

    It might not be a perfect definition of “evangelical,” but it’s as good as any I’ve seen in the MSM.

  • Stephen A.

    Despite the presence of Mike Huckabee, the evangelical voting bloc is not acting like a bloc.

    Minor quibble about your quibble. The Religious Right have far from flocked to Huckabee, as some critics and observers have noted, with surprise.

    Perhaps this proves the point that the Evangelical bloc is indeed breaking up – supporting the non-obvious choices of Guiliani and Thompson – rather than “one of their own.” Or maybe it just means that Huckabee can honestly say that the Religious Right has not yet made him “their man” with some pride, in the sense that he’s a mainstream candidate, who happens to be an evangelical. And a preacher, for crying out loud! In fact, Huckabee goes to lengths to say he’s not “owned” by anyone, including the Christian Right or Wall Street.

    I fear some of this talk of a “cracking up” misses some important points, among them is the severe disappointment with Bush and politics in general. This isn’t an “unease” that the two authors in the article cited above say they had with mixing politics and religion, per se. But more subtly, they seem disappointed with politics as a tool for change.

    The two points are not the same. One implies that they are somehow converting to the “separation of church and state” idea that liberal secularists advocate. But most seem to still assert their church’s and their pastor’s right to participate in politics. That’s not changed.

    The trend, however, seems to be that many are simply not seeing the system work for them, and have been openly questioning whether to voluntarily drop out.

    More reporting on this trend, and others, is sure to follow, given the hotness of the presidential race, esp. on the GOP side. But Democrat triumphalism should be something that is put in context, since there’s no evidence that this isn’t a seismic political, moral or philosophical shift, but simply a POSSIBLE shift in tactics.