Crunchy Con

Evangelicals are solid Republicans

Tuesday March 27, 2007

More bad news for the religious left. Political analyst Stu Rothenberg says Democrats should forget about competing for the Evangelical vote. Excerpt:

A candidate’s religiosity is not enough for most evangelicals, though it may cause evangelical voters to stop and consider the political hopeful’s agenda. Instead, evangelicals care about issues and where politicians stand on them.

In this regard, evangelicals are closer to Jews (particularly observant Jews) and African-Americans than to Irish or Italian voters who already have blended into the American melting pot. A politician can wear a kippah (a skullcap worn by observant Jews), eat knishes and say that “Fiddler on the Roof” is his favorite movie, and he still won’t get Jewish votes if he opposes Israel and says he wants to Christianize America.

Republicans have spent decades reaching out to the African-American community, but they have made only minimal gains with black voters, in part because of the party’s position on affirmative action and its overall conservatism.

Evangelicals, like blacks and Jews, have a strong group identity and see themselves as outsiders from the dominant social and political culture. Since all three groups tend to be wary of one of the parties, it takes more than words — and in the case of evangelicals, “giving God his due” — to pull them away from their allies.

Those mainstream evangelicals who talk increasingly about protecting the environment or addressing poverty are not discarding their traditional commitment to cultural issues such as abortion. They are not going to support a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Democrat because he or she is an environmentalist or wants the government to help the poor.


My hope -- and my guess -- is that Evangelicals are going to change the Republican Party, not abandon the GOP for the Democrats.
Advertisement
Comments
M. Roth
March 30, 2007 2:51 AM
HASH(0x910f904)

IMO, neither party represents evangelical Christians. Both are corrupt and both support things that are anathema to Christianity. Believers have an obligation to look beyond party loyalty and vote on the individual candidate and more than just 2 main issues. There are many other issues that desperately call for attention than just gay marriage and abortion. The administration of the past 6 years has not been truly "Christian".
When I cast my vote I look at all candidates and issues and vote accordingly. As a result I have voted Republican, Democrat and Independent.
M. Roth

wildwest
March 30, 2007 3:07 PM
HASH(0x913bbc0)

"As if an entire religious movement can make a "stealth attempt" at anything." The rank and file? No. Think tanks? Yes. "Jim Wallis?! I can't imagine too many evangelicals - fundamentalists, if you prefer - finding much in common with him (let alone the GOP)." Of course not. Jim Wallis is an evangelical, not a fundamentalist. I used him to illustrate the difference. When fundamentalists call themselves "evangelicals" they create the confusion. (Not sure what you meant by "let alone the GOP").

wildwest
March 30, 2007 5:43 PM
HASH(0x913cbac)

This response to Rod Dreher's entry just in from Sojourners: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/amy-sullivan-republicans-dont-own.html

Starrs
March 30, 2007 11:03 PM
HASH(0x913cb34)

wildwest, this gets us nowhere. You cite Focus on the Family, I cite Freedom from Religion. The media has much more to do with the naming and perception than anyone within a religious group. I don't think most fundamentalist groups give a hoot one way or the other - they're pretty proud of their stance. I agree with you - I think - that "evangelical" has become seriously misused. Wallis is indeed an evangelical by theological definition, but how does the media often refer to him? Progressive. They make the mistake of confusing evangelical with conservative. Defining one's terms is important. P.S. I meant that religious conservatives and the GOP don't have much in common with Wallis. But I appreciate the point you raised.

wildwest
March 30, 2007 11:40 PM
HASH(0x913f0dc)

Where did I cite Focus on the Family? Anyway, Jim Wallis is an evangelical as well as a progressive. I wish the media would point out his evangelicalism more often.

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.