The Conservative "Secular Problem" Deepens

On Fox News Sunday, leading House conservative Mike Pence looked at the success of ballot initiatives that deny equal marriage rights as evidence that conservatism remains healthy in America.

Discussing how the Republican Party should move forward, Pence told host Chris Wallace:

...you build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, a belief in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. You look at those social issues, Chris -- you know, there were three state referendums on marriage. All three of them carried -- I think in Florida, California and Arizona. You know, the vitality of the conservative movement around the country is very real.

Which told me, conservatives still don't accept the depth of their "secular problem" -- a problem that just got worse.

Before the 2006 midterm elections, I wrote in Wait! Don't Move To Canada! that "...there are an equal amount of voters who attend services at least weekly as there are voters who seldom or never go. It is true that regular churchgoers trend Republican and the 'seldom of never' group trends Democratic, but that means you could just as easily say Republicans have a 'secular problem.'"

At that time, to the extent that both problems existed for both parties, they were roughly equivalent problems based on the presidential exit polls in 2004 and 2000.

But after the 2006 elections, the conservative "secular problem" became the bigger problem. Based on Pew Research Center exit poll data, I then wrote:

Democrats crushed Republicans among secular voters, broadly defined as those who attend church seldom (favoring Democrats 60% to 38%) or never (67% to 30%). Republicans retained strong support among those who attend church more than weekly. But among those who only go weekly -- the larger portion of the religious vote -- the Republican lead shrunk from 15 points to 7.

In short, Republicans failed to be competitive among secular voters, while Democrats were at least competitive among regular churchgoers. And since the secular vote is roughly equal to the regular churchgoing vote, according to the last several national election exit polls, that means Republicans and their conservative base have a far bigger secular problem than their rivals have a religion problem.

Now, after the 2008 presidential election, the conservative "secular problem" looms even larger. Why?

1. The secular vote Is bigger.

Unlike the previous two presidential election, the secular vote -- defined as voters attending religious services seldom or never -- is bigger than the weekly churchgoing vote.

Secular voters were 44% of the electorate in 2008, a touch higher than the 43% from 2004.

Meanwhile weekly churchgoers composed 39% of the electorate, down from 42% in 2004, and now trailing the collective secular vote by 5 points.

2. The secular vote has moved even farther away from conservatives.

In 2008, Sen. John McCain received 39% support of voters who seldom attend religious services, and 30% from those who never go. Both numbers represent a 6-point drop from what Bush received in 2004.

3. Liberals have a stronger religious-secular coalition.

President-Elect Barack Obama, whom more than 60% of voters consider to be "liberal," ran stronger among weekly churchgoers than Vice-President Al Gore or Sen. John Kerry.

Obama received 43% of the vote from voters who attend religious services weekly or more than weekly. For Kerry, those numbers were 41% and 35%. For Gore, it was 40% and 36%.

Obama's positions on hot-button social issues are no different than what Gore and Kerry ran on. In fact, he talked about ending division between "gay and straight" more regularly than his predecessors.

But Obama's outreach to religious voters was more consistent. And Bush's failed conservative policies hurt religious voters just as much as secular voters, providing an opening for Obama's message of active government, and proving that you can forge common ground between religious and secular voters without sacrificing liberal progressive principles.

For conservatives to cling to the slim victory of California's Prop 8 as evidence that America is a "center-right" nation is more self-delusion.

Yes, gay marriage remains a bridge too far for most Americans as of today. But the basic principle of equal rights for gays is embraced by the majority -- in the 2004 exit a broad majority supported either gay marriage or civil unions.

Further, if conservatives want to prevent young voters -- two-thirds of whom support Obama -- from remaining liberal Democrats for their rest of their lives, hating on gays is not exactly the best way to do it.

Most importantly, for conservatives to cling to opposition of gay marriage exposes their strange prioritization of issues.

The economy is reeling, we face a myriad of foreign policy threats -- problems created or exacerbated by conservative policies -- and instead of owning up to your failures and coming with new ideas to fix the problem, top of your list is stopping somebody else from getting married?

That sends exactly wrong signal to secular voters, as did the comical attempt by conservative congressional leaders in 2005 to meddle in the affairs of Terri Schiavo -- that conservatives consider writing their specific religious views into law as more important than doing something to improve the quality of life for all Americans.

The first step always is admitting you have a problem. Conservatives clearly have not gotten there yet.

Cross-posted at OurFuture.org and LiberalOasis.com.

Comments

[Sardonica]

Here in Michigan, the majority of us voted for Barack Obama and passed initiatives for medical marijuana and stem cell research. It felt like a giant F.U. to religious conservatives. It felt good. It still feels good.

[NationalTreasure]

leave the republicans to their strategy of divsiveness and hatred

let them implode as a political entity as the rest of America evolves away from the politics of fear, hatred and hypocrisy

[mmerose]

Mr Scher, I think you emphasize political affiliation too much, and not enough the diversity in religious institutions and congregants. Many of those "regular churchgoers" are in New Thought denominations, or Episcopalian, or liberal Catholic or Jewish temple communities. The "coalition" is simply one of sympathy of thought and belief.

The importance of this to me is, that many denominations are wedding gays under God, and how is it consistent with the First Amendment Establishment Clause when the government gives official recognition to marriages by some religions, but not some marriages by other religions?

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm a young voter and I will NOT be voting for any conservative Republicans - even if their liberal opponent is a useless candidate. Religion, homophobia, racial prejudice, and their extreme views on reproductive rights do not interest me in the least. If a Republican wants my vote he or she should leave their Bible at home.

[mmerose]

Conservatives haven "gotten there yet" because they can't help themselves. Maybe there is a thin layer of cynical opportunistic leadership that really doesn't care, but down amongst the "civilians," believe me, they really do hate gays. All the science in the world, all the constitutional ideals, have no impact on their ugly, bitter core, any more than science has persuaded a single "true believer" that human activity has any impact on global warming, or that The Bell Curve didn't conclusively prove that negroes aren't quite human. all that will happen if party leaders change the approach is that an increasingly small and nasty New Republican Party will coalesce aroung our girl Palin.

[Sir681]

Time-honored principle of the sanctity of marriage! He must be reading a different Bible. The one that I grew up reading, the King James version, had polygamy as a popular marital arrangement. Jacob had two wives and two other women living with him (concubines) and God alone know how many wives and concubines King Solomon had.

Come to think of it, isn't there a book of the Bible named Solomon? The conservatives must have skipped that one in their Bible study classes. They may also skip the book of David, who had several wives and concubines.

If I knew my Bibe well enough, I could point out to the conservatives just how many times the arrangement of multiple marriages is mentioned in the Bible. Not to mention men and women living together without being married, a practice that is frowned upon by those religiously-inclined. However, I don't know my Bible well enough as I left the church bacause I couldn't in good conscience deal with the hypocrisy.

People being pro-life and pro-war, now that's a concept which I have yet to wrap my mind around.

[pjburke]

Religious folk who consider themselves conservative because they have been bamboozled into believing that conservativism supports their religious rights need to carefully rethink that... but those who have been raised within the authoritarian, patriarchal and anti-intellectual swamp of the modern theocratic Right find themselves in a mental, emotional, and psychological straight-jacket from which they cannot view themselves ever having to wear, let alone walk a lifetime in, the shoes of The Other.

Moderate and liberal religious folk get it: their rights inhere in their humanity -- therefore the specific language of 'inalienable' in the Constitution -- and are not a reward from their God for their faith. The security of rights for each depend entirely upon the steadfast defense of rights for all. Not the selective defense of rights for straight, white Christians only... or even for Americans only... but for all humans equally.

[PatA]

I have been doing research and I found that the LDS church probably gave 76% of the money that was used to fight Prop 8.

[mommadona]

"A marriage is between a man and a woman, and a woman and a woman and a woman"

The hypocrisy of this political 'marriage' can only be looked upon in amazement and digust.

That, and 'the changing of the magical diapers' are just too much for this reality-based person.

Oh, and don't forget the "baptism of the dead" that has family of holocaust victims ready to tear the wings off that angel on top of that temple.

Overall - the cult of the Mormon has lived up to its name and reputation - even into the 21st Century.

[mmerose]

And not just money. this highly authoritarian church directed an army of free labor into political activism, just as they did with the Equal rights Amendment. It's time for a change, baby.

[BSERIUS]

Where do the Republicans come into this issue? Liberal California voted overwhelmingly for Obama yet 52 % ,(70% of the AA community) voted for Prop 8... Basically African ,Hispanic and Asian America voted this in .....Liberal Elite Democrats are aghast that groups that they thought wre under their control are not toeing the mantra

[mmerose]

"Liberal elites" are not aghast at not being in control. Religious and not religious regular libs are aghast that part of their coalition spit on the Constitution.

I agree with your point that this is not all a result of Republican votes, but it is an old strategy for them to make sure a divisive personal issue gets on a ballot to sabotage an important election.

[Bitsko]

Whenever I read the words "time-honored principles" I reach for my Bill of Rights.

[NationalTreasure]

not just their hate on Gays but their hatred and dvisiveness towards anyone who is not white anglo-saxon evangelicals.

but let's not tell the republicans what they need to do to remain as a viable party let them implode.

now is the time to remind President-Elect Obama that if he s going to really run an administration that reflects his campaign he needs to break with the former Clinton administration staffers.

the Clinton staffers are leaking information and spinning misinformation and are going to be the folks to undermine the Obama presidency.

it is time for fresh blood and enough with the "sources within the Obama/Biden administration" style news spinning.

President-Elect Obama needs to run his administration as efficiently as his campaign was run and the Clinton folks are all about theirselves and the Clintons.

[Liberal2]

There is one other reason to strip Lieberman of his positions: Blue dog democrats! The "I woulda run as a rethug but they already had a nominee" kind of democrat. These DINOs are a much bigger threat on major progressive legislation than even Lieberman.It's time to lay down the law and tell they have to follow Obama's lead or leave the party. (Assuming Obama intends to lead on progressive legislation.)

[USA1776]

I agree but also think that Republicans have a religious problem, too. The Obama/Biden campaign and election empowered moderate and liberal Christians.. So now, instead of the religious right, we should be saying the RADICAL RIGHT or referring the the former religious right as the Republican brand of Christianity. The GOP does not own religion.
I think my sign for an upcoming No on 8 rally will be either:
I am a Christian / I don't discriminate or;
I'm straight but No on 8
What do you think?

[davefoc]

I'm a secular moderate Republican that has pretty much left the party. I've read several of these kind of articles over the last month or so and think this was one of the best.

I think it's unlikely that the Republican Party will move significantly away from religiously oriented social conservatism. The fact is that the Republican Party got 46% of the national presidential vote and it's easy to imagine that they could get a majority under different circumstances.

Over time it will change. America will become more secular, but the current band of Republicans were largely elected to keep the gays from marrying, to make abortion illegal and as cheerleaders for a kind of jingoistic militarism that the neocons have made popular again. They are not going to abandon that because of a single election especially when on a local level those are winning positions in the elections they care most about, their own.

[mommadona]

An astute observation from someone who's 'been there'.

Thanks for sharing.

[Eidolas]

So it is "conservatives" fault that gay marriage was voted down in California, a demographic of voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama? I think not.

[KillTheMessenger]

Indeed. No liberal voter will ever vote to remove someones legal rights. "Liberalism" means to support individual freedoms and to maximize the rights of individuals. Giving gay people the very same rights as straight people is therefor the only correct liberal position. You are simply mistaking the fact that conservatives in CA also voted for Obama with the term "liberal". But while a conservative person can easily vote for Obama, no liberal could have ever voted for Prop Hate by definition.

[JinChicago]

werent 'conservatives' back over 40% of the money used to that campaigns success? i think so.

just because you spend enough to confuse people and word things funny on ballots, does not mean you the ends justified the means.

i pray for you, for one day, you will be judged against the words you hold dear and cry out 'but i did this in your name'.

[Bitsko]

I think the Catholic church has to take much of the blame.