Pew is one of the few polling agencies I generally like. Part of it is that they have less obvious bias than a lot of other pollsters, especially on social issues. Second is that they are more likely to issue polls I'm actually interested in.
A couple days ago, Pew released a series of polls on public perception of religion and the major presidential candidates in the US. This is fairly standard for them, but is perhaps particularly interesting this year considering that the GOP candidate is clearly a member of a religious minority and arguably the Democratic candidate is as well.
The big surprise from this poll, or at least what is getting the most attention, is that while 60% of registered voters identify Mitt Romney as LDS (more commonly known as Mormon), only 49% identify Barack Obama as Christian. 17% of registered voters identify President Obama as Muslim.
If you pay much attention to really conservative media (by which I mean to the right of Rush Limbaugh), you hear a lot of talk about Obama being a closet Muslim. If you break down the numbers further, you aren't surprised to find that 34% of "conservative Republicans" think he is a Muslim. The puzzle remains, however, why so many others aren't sure Obama is a Christian.
I think I can shed some light on this. My guess is that a decent percentage of the people who don't identify Obama as a Christian don't do so because of ignorance, but due to a nuanced perspective. Let me give two examples.
Last night I was talking politics with a friend who is Black, highly educated, from Chicago, and a huge Obama supporter. She does not believe Obama is a Christian. She thinks he started going to church for political leverage. As evidence, she cites that fact that he grew up in a non-religious home and that he didn't start going to church until after he moved to Chicago after to be a community organizer. Translation: he started going to church to network and be electible in his community. Obama's faith, she claims, is just for show.
The second example is very different. Among theologically educated religious conservatives, many do not identify Obama as a Christian because he does not seem to adhere to certain basic tenants of Christianity (what used to be called "the fundamentals"). Having not read any theological writing of his beyond a belief in the mandate to help the poor, I can't speak to his theological views and whether they fit into the basic tenants of Christianity. As far as I know, there is no public indication of what his theological views are. It is quite understandable that a significant chunk of the theologically sophisticated would have questions about how to categorize Obama.
Now, these two groups can't explain all of the 31% who can't identify Obama's religion. However, if you take these into account, it demonstrates more clarity about Obama's faith than the 32% who can't identify Romney's faith.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Gingrich's win and the influence of Evangelical leaders today
The other day my friend Prof. Knowsome (not his real name) dared me in his Trying to Explain Politics blog to explain why voters in South Carolina picked Gingrich over Santorum and what that had to say about the influence of the old-guard conservative evangelical leaders.
The success of Gingrich at the cost of Santorum came as a surprise to many, especially those with certain stereotypes about evangelical voters. I'm not sure I can fully explain what happened, but at the same time I wasn't surprised.
One thing you have to remember is that not all evangelicals are the same. I am personally an evangelical, but have consistently disliked Newt Gingrich since the early 1990s. Culturally, I am more of a Midwestern evangelical (like those found in Iowa) than a Southern evangelical (like those found in South Carolina). Midwestern evangelicals trace their political roots to William Jennings Bryan, a populist who supported both moral values and government intervention where appropriate. Southern evangelicals trace their political roots to resistance to federal government intrusion after the Civil War.
Some of the things Rick Santorum proposes are very attractive to Midwestern evangelicals. Things like raising some taxes/fees to pay for an increased child tax credit is something Midwestern evangelicals are more likelely to find appealing than would more libertarian-minded Southern evangelicals. Midwestern evangelicals are much more sensitive to insincerity and are more likely to reject Gingrich due to his morally questionable personal history. Southerners are more concerned about ideological than personal purity, so Gingrich's marriages don't bother them as much. Southerners are also attracted to fiesy politicians and tend to ignore more mild-mannered ones such as Santorum.
(Note: All of the things stated above are generalizations. There are plenty of individuals who break these generalizations in both regions.)
Now, to address the seeming loss of influence of evangelical leaders. To provide a bit of background, about a week before the South Carolina primary, a group of established conservative evangelical leaders met in Texas to join together in support of a single candidate. They chose to endorse Santorum. Many whose political minds are 10-15 years behind the times assumed this would be a huge boost to Santorum. In reality, the endorsement didn't seem to make any difference at all.
This did not come as a surprise to me or many other close observers of the interaction of religion and politics. Over the past couple of decades there has been a gradual transition of power in the evangelical community away from more politicized and partisan leaders such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and towards less partisan leaders such as Rick Warren, Gary Chapman, Mark Driscoll, or Bill Hybels. The politically conservative evangelical leaders who met in Texas are no longer recognized as the leaders among the rank and file evangelicals in the churches. In other words, the voters in South Carolina didn't really care.
So, what about Mitt Romney? Why didn't Romney get more evangelical voters? It seems to me that, among Southern evangelicals, there is more concern about ideological purity in their politicians than purity in their personal lives. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is also a nervousness among evangelicals about voting for those they do not believe to be Christians. In the Midwest, the evangelicals are a bit more open to such things.
The success of Gingrich at the cost of Santorum came as a surprise to many, especially those with certain stereotypes about evangelical voters. I'm not sure I can fully explain what happened, but at the same time I wasn't surprised.
One thing you have to remember is that not all evangelicals are the same. I am personally an evangelical, but have consistently disliked Newt Gingrich since the early 1990s. Culturally, I am more of a Midwestern evangelical (like those found in Iowa) than a Southern evangelical (like those found in South Carolina). Midwestern evangelicals trace their political roots to William Jennings Bryan, a populist who supported both moral values and government intervention where appropriate. Southern evangelicals trace their political roots to resistance to federal government intrusion after the Civil War.
Some of the things Rick Santorum proposes are very attractive to Midwestern evangelicals. Things like raising some taxes/fees to pay for an increased child tax credit is something Midwestern evangelicals are more likelely to find appealing than would more libertarian-minded Southern evangelicals. Midwestern evangelicals are much more sensitive to insincerity and are more likely to reject Gingrich due to his morally questionable personal history. Southerners are more concerned about ideological than personal purity, so Gingrich's marriages don't bother them as much. Southerners are also attracted to fiesy politicians and tend to ignore more mild-mannered ones such as Santorum.
(Note: All of the things stated above are generalizations. There are plenty of individuals who break these generalizations in both regions.)
Now, to address the seeming loss of influence of evangelical leaders. To provide a bit of background, about a week before the South Carolina primary, a group of established conservative evangelical leaders met in Texas to join together in support of a single candidate. They chose to endorse Santorum. Many whose political minds are 10-15 years behind the times assumed this would be a huge boost to Santorum. In reality, the endorsement didn't seem to make any difference at all.
This did not come as a surprise to me or many other close observers of the interaction of religion and politics. Over the past couple of decades there has been a gradual transition of power in the evangelical community away from more politicized and partisan leaders such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and towards less partisan leaders such as Rick Warren, Gary Chapman, Mark Driscoll, or Bill Hybels. The politically conservative evangelical leaders who met in Texas are no longer recognized as the leaders among the rank and file evangelicals in the churches. In other words, the voters in South Carolina didn't really care.
So, what about Mitt Romney? Why didn't Romney get more evangelical voters? It seems to me that, among Southern evangelicals, there is more concern about ideological purity in their politicians than purity in their personal lives. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is also a nervousness among evangelicals about voting for those they do not believe to be Christians. In the Midwest, the evangelicals are a bit more open to such things.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Are Iowa and New Hampshire good for America?
My friend Phil over at Trying to Explain Politics thinks so. His argument is essentially that you need a highly engaged electorate to trim down the list of candidates and that there aren't very many states that could effectively do the job. It's an interesting argument, but I don't see a lot of citizens in other states agreeing with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)