Crunchy Con

Pew: Religion, politics shaking up

Friday August 25, 2006

We're as giddy as a schoolgirl today, because the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, one of our favorite organizations, is out with new poll results on American attitudes toward religion and politics. For Your Working Boy, this is better than a new edition of Tiger Beat!

The big headline out of the survey is that the GOP is no longer considered to be as friendly to religion as it once was, especially among Catholics and white Evangelicals, which are key to the GOP coalition (among Evangelicals, the percentage who think the GOP is friendly to religion has plummeted an astonishing 14 points -- a figure that ought to furrow the Rovian brow). But Democrats are not benefiting from the loss of confidence -- the number of Americans who consider the Dems friendly to religion is only one in four, the same as last year. Still, the downturn in confidence among Catholics and Evangelicals could be enough to make a difference in close-run elections. The advantage, however slight, goes to the Democrats -- and that could be just enough to make a difference in some races.

Another key finding is that the Religious Right is not only significantly larger than the Religious Left (no surprise there), but also dramatically more cohesive. Pew concludes that there simply isn't a "Religious Left" in this country to serve as a counterpart to the "Religious Right." Says Pew:

On the left, a larger share of the public (32%) identifies as "liberal or progressive Christians." But unlike evangelicals, progressive Christians come from different religious traditions and disagree almost as often as they agree on a number of key political and social issues. These differences in the makeup of the religious left and right are an important reason why white evangelicals remain a more politically potent force.


Here's an interesting fact from the survey:

A relatively high proportion of adults under age 30 (14%) say they think of themselves as a member of the religious left, twice the level of any other age group. However, roughly the same percentage of young people (13%) say they think of themselves as a member of the religious right.


Fascinating. Religion is becoming more important to young people than to the older generations -- even liberal young people. This suggests that the Democratic Party 10 years from now will be less rigid and faith-ophobic than it is today. It also tells me that the Democratic Party really needs to be talking to Amy Sullivan. Also interesting was the finding that people who identify themselves as "progressive Christians" tend to be not liberal but moderate on political questions. Conclusion: if the Democrats want to make inroads with the coming generation, they need to reach out more to the faithful (and in a real way, not that fakey-fake, patronizing Howard Dean way), and it needs to be more than just words: the party needs to be more open to moderate-to-conservative positions on social issues. The Dems have a lot of ground to make up. The number of Americans who view the Dems as friendly toward religion might be, in Pew's words, "largely unchanged from last year, but 16 points below the proportion who viewed Democrats as friendly toward religion just three years ago (42%)."

Finally -- and this is going to come as a shock to many liberals and Democrats -- more Americans are dissatisfied with the left for trying to push religion to the margins of public life than they are with Republicans trying to bring religion more to bear on public matters. There is a huge disconnect between the Democratic party leadership and the American public on the question of religion. But the Democrats now have opportunities to reach out to religious Americans, especially younger ones. The question is, will the party leadership and its elites be able to overcome its cultural bias against religion and take advantage of the GOP's sudden weakness on the issue? Don't bet on it.

The suspicion of religion, and even hatred of the religious conservatives (and I would say of the religion in general) goes very, very deep among the activist elite of the Democratic Party (as distinct from the broad spectrum of Democratic voters). Researchers Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio found that the secularist vision is as powerful a motivator for liberal politics as religion is for conservative politics. I wrote a piece for Touchstone a few years ago, on the Bolce & De Maio study. Here's a relevant part (boldface emphasis mine):

A fascinating set of statistics emerged when questioners polled each party’s delegates on their views of various subgroups among the other party’s activists. Both Democrats and Republicans were "significantly more negative toward groups associated with the newer religious and cultural division in the electorate than toward groups associated with older political cleavages based on class, race, ethnicity, party or ideology." That is, Republican delegates felt much warmer toward union leaders, mainline liberals, blacks, Hispanics, and Democrats than toward feminists, environmentalists, and pro-abortion activists. For their part, the Democrats were more favorably disposed to big-business types, the rich, political conservatives and Republicans than toward pro-lifers and conservative Christians. Of the 18 groups covered by the survey, Christian fundamentalists came in as the most despised, with over half the Democratic delegates giving them the absolute minimum score possible. Put another way, Republican delegates thought more highly of those who favor the legalized killing of unborn children than their Democratic counterparts thought of people who believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Advertisement
Comments
trotsky
August 28, 2006 6:53 PM

M_David,

You wrote upthread -- at 8/27 at 1:24 a.m.:

"Any basic biology text (there are thousands, take your pick, none disagree) will explain to you that a human zygote is alive, and it is a life form of the species Homo Sapiens."

And you write in the very same post accusing me of putting words into your mouth:

"What everyone forgets is that science is firm about the progression of zygote to death: we have proven that this is the same living creature . Thus, the only logical place to pick a soul infusion is at conception."

So you've repeatedly said something "of the sort."

I'm sorry. It's been a pleasure having this exchange, but if you won't even acknowledge your own words there in print, it's impossible to have any sort of fruitful discussion. Cheers.>

SiliconValleySteve
August 28, 2006 7:08 PM

the lifelong mourning by parents that invitably comes from losing a child?

My wife and I lost children to misscarriage and it is something we have mourned for 20 years. Like all sorrow, we have learned to live with it and put it out of our minds most of the time. We still however carry the sadness and pray for our lost children.>

M_David
August 28, 2006 7:11 PM

Franklin Evans:

Why is it, do you think M_David, that M.Z. and I seem to be able to talk civilly and in depth

I hate to point this out, but it seemed to me M.Z. was mocking you. Maternal twinning? I think he was deomonstrating how foolish folk are who could take this seriously.

Your 'polite' talk you claim (which I dispute you do) is meaningless anyway, as you won't talk clearly and to the point. Personally, I would prefer you even (more) rude and yet logical and intellectually honest - addressing each point. This you won't do.

E.g. - you still haven't backed off your comment that walking and talking is what makes a human have rights.

Yet now you have moved on again, this time to punishment. This is a red-herring - something you do often when your previous point falls apart.

But if it makes you feel better, I haven't ever even thought that far ahead to punishment, and don't really think it matters much until our laws consider abortion a crime. Today, abortion is legal, and nobody has been prosecuted except once I remember reading about a doctor who was aborting a baby that popped out and he throtted it on the table. Why he ws prosecuted is beyond me. At least the doc understood the reality of what he was doing: killing.>

Franklin Evans
August 28, 2006 7:41 PM
http://madfedor.blogspot.com/

M_David,

Well, I did try. I see now that you are as much a literalist in your attempts to contribute to a debate as you are in your interpretation of the facts.

There, that was a bit more nasty, was that better?

I'd be somewhat disappointed to learn that M.Z. is not sincere in his engagement of me on this thread. I do suggest, though, that you let him (or her) divulge that piece of information, should it be true.

For all that I sometimes choose sarcasm as my mode, my points are always seriously held and sincerely expressed. That you can't fathom this is not my problem, especially when I use a straight mode in an attempt to clarify my position.

That red-herring, as you insist on seeing it, was intended to find out if you have the moral fiber to go with the rhetoric you spout. I am unsurprised to learn that you have not one whit of the substance to back up your pronouncements of evil and danger. Pointing a finger and declaring something bad, then hiding behind the skirts of those you think should do your thinking for you, works very well for the schoolyard. It does not work so well in adult life.

In the end, "walking and talking" is what a person does to understand rights, to exercise those rights, and to recognize when an absolute right is both dangerous and wrong. For the definition of person, I invite you to read what M.Z. and I have to say about it. While he and I are not likely to agree, we at least are taking a shot at the issue in a spirit of respect and cooperation. Doing so in public allows you and others to ponder our words, accept or reject them after giving them due thought, and see that there is perhaps a middle ground on a spectrum of belief, instead of the black-and-white extremes you seem to be able to see at the expense of just about everything else.>

andrear
June 21, 2008 9:05 PM

NO abortion!!! >=Z

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.