The Evangelical Swing Vote

The Religious Right is once again bamboozling the press and the public with a brilliant sleight-of-hand trick.

They're distracting us with the idea that they are becoming a kinder, gentler force, hoping that while we're pondering that happy change, we'll miss the true shift.

What's really happening is that the Religious Right does not control the hefty percentage of voters that it claimed as its own. These evangelicals voted with the Religious Right for a season, but they never were a solid GOP voting bloc. This election, they're the swing vote.

The non-Religious Right, swing-vote evangelicals are three to five times as numerous as evangelicals who toe the Religious Right political line.

Who says?

The evangelicals themselves. Only 20 percent of evangelicals say they are among the Religious Right, according the country's pre-eminent evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. Other surveys show that the great majority of evangelicals don't even know who their putative leaders, those the press goes to for opinions, are. Given a list of their names, they shrug and say, "Never heard of the guy."

These aren't new statistics. They are ignored statistics.

Seventy to 80 percent of people whom pollsters classify as evangelicals don't believe like, don't behave like, and this election, they aren't going to vote like the Religious Right. These evangelicals are pretty much middle America. They like their leaders to believe in God, to pray for guidance, to be good people. They worry about abortion but don't want to make it a crime. They aren't ready for gay marriage, but they aren't calling anybody an abomination in the sight of God. Discrimination of any kind doesn't sit well with them.

They're culturally conservative but not so much reactionary as merely cautious. They act as a storm anchor for a country being tossed every which way by change. Sometimes they go for the Republicans. Sometimes for the Democrats.

Religious Right leaders, on the other hand, still want their kind of God to be the only god allowed on the public stage, everywhere, all the time. They oppose legal abortion and gay rights as fiercely as ever. They still want sex education to be abstinence-only. They still oppose child protective services, teaching evolution, hate crimes legislation, condom distribution to combat AIDS... the list goes on. It hasn't changed.

Religious Right leaders have merely shifted public attention by adding more palatable issues. The environment. The poor.

It's a good trick.

Journalists, many of whom think born-agains and snake-handlers are pretty much on par, have never quite realized that two groups of very different evangelicals exist. Reporters have so often gone after the flamboyant character and the outrageous quote that there hasn't been room in the stories for the rest of the evangelicals, the bulk of them.

Pundits who worry that John McCain will lose the Religious Right vote don't get the picture. McCain has no rivals for the Religious Right vote. A good portion of those voters are convinced that Obama is a Muslim stealth candidate, and Clinton is the anti-Christ in a pant suit. Given such sentiments, McCain doesn't need to woo them. He merely has to keep that 5 to 8 percent of the population awake and alarmed enough that they won't stay home.

But it's only 5 to 8 percent. The other 17 to 20 percent of Americans who call themselves evangelicals are busy prising open the donkey's lips to get a look at his teeth. The Democrats have this vote if they remember to be moderately pious, as they are being, and mainly concerned with bread and butter issues: health care, jobs, energy.

As for the war, nobody quite knows what to do about that. Nobody wants to think about it. It can be safely ignored for now.

Religious Right leaders have stopped talking about their core issues -- publicly, at least -- only because they are afraid of being exposed for what they are. Not hate-mongers. That doesn't bother them. Not un-Christian. That doesn't bother them either.

What they fear is being exposed as the small minority of evangelicals that they actually are.

That is the important Religious Right story this year. So far, the press is missing it.

Christine Wicker is the author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church and a former religion reporter for The Dallas Morning News. Saved in a Southern Baptist church at the age of nine, she comes from a family going into its sixth generation of evangelicals. Her mother's grandfather was an itinerant Baptist preacher. Her dad's father was a Kentucky coal miner and foot-washing Baptist. Her blog is www.christinewicker.com.

Comments

[lewes17266]

Pat Robertson has for years gotten away with lying, cheating, and stealing. That hate-filled, meddling fraud has made himself wealthy off of his gullible followers. He uses his tv show to manipulate thoughts and to tell his viewers how to vote AND for glaring self-aggrandizing. He abuses his position of trust by exploiting gullible faithfuls and "healing" them on his tv show, then telling them they should give, then sharing his address and toll free number with them. Pat Robertson helped his son Gordon cheat on his wife and they both continued their holy talk and "healings" and "words of knowledge" during Gordon's extramarital affair. Now this fake holyman Gordon is in his daddy's seat poised to bilk the next generation of gullible faithfuls. They point out who is sinning and who God is angry with, while they themselves are in sin. They smear anyone who asks them a reasonable question about their wrongs.



What has happened to Christianity is gross. What the mainstream media has allowed is gross. Many of those Fox anchors and reporters are guests on the 700 Club and CNN invites CBN reporters to discuss the "Christian" vote on their network. These "Christians" do not represent me. They certainly do not represent Christ.

[lewes17266]

Thank you for this essay. I wish the press would expose the hypocrisy of the Religious Right instead of giving them a forum. The spitefulness and hatefulness and powermongering I see in the Religious Right has sickened me. As a Christian, I am disgusted.


Ann Coulter says she is a Christian then says she will vote Democrat just for spite....a "Christian" who is spiteful. Out of the same mouth she claims to know Christ and spews hateful rhetoric against anyone who does not agree with her. She seems to have a special hatred for women. It makes me sick to see the way so many male reporters enjoy this vicious woman.

[TheEuropean]

The influence of religion on american politics is sometimes ridiculous, sometimes tragic.

Read here

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?em&ex=1211169600&en=ce2871d219de27ee&ei=5087%0A

in the NJT what one of our greatest thinkers - Albert Einstein - thought about the belief in god.

Please think also about the fact, that Germany did not participate in the Iraq war thanks to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. He is two times divorced and an atheist, who never in his life attended any church (and nobody in Germany cares about that)

TheEuropean

[AnotherTry]

Yeah, Schroeder was so loved that he lost re-election to the conservative Angela Merkel. What's your point?

[researcher]

the evangels put bush jr into office enough said.

they are war mongers pure and simple.

most americans are imperialists by calling mc war a war hero for bombing women and children in that other illegal war but evangels are pure self righteous war mongers.

americans so called war hero would have bombed every man woman and child in vietnam to win that illegal war so he could earn the respect of his grandfathers.

that is how insane this country is. pure war mongers and they cant see it for their nationalism and corp brainwashing for 60 years.

[knighthowl]

My friend (chuckle, chuckle), I am as anti-evangelical as you, and I am totally opposed to McCain. I cannot, however, share your conclusion that evangelicals are war mongers. Nor can I share your conclusion that McCain is called a war hero for bombing women and children in an illegal war. I was in that war although not voluntarily. I opposed that war, but it was not illegal. We were invited in by a lawful government unlike Iraq.

But more importantly, there is no evidence that I know of that McCain bombed women or children. The reason he is considered a hero is that he was a prisoner of war for more that five years. Much of that time he was tortured. He was given the opportunity to leave because his father was an admiral, and he refused to go before his fellow prisoners were released. Would you have chosen to stay a prisoner subject to torture? I doubt it.

McCain is a legitimate hero, but he is not suited to be President.

[eyendall]

"He was given the opportunity to leave because his father was an admiral, and he refused to go before his fellow prisoners were released."

Another McCain myth.

McCain is no hero. Being a POW and acting honorably does not make you a hero; it is expected of a member of the military. If the Vietnamese had wanted to release him they would have done so: McCain would have had no say in the matter.

[LeonBNJ]

I suspect many 'religious right' voters will either not vote at all or split their votes between McCain and Obama. Those who say they are religious can include many faiths, not just Protestant Christianity and a wide range of views on issues other than as to abortion. I think at this time, the influence of the religious leaders is in a declining wave of a cycle that goes up and down over time. I also believe many of faith are showing more concern of the poor, the sick, the ignored, the illegal, the abused and others of need in their communities and elsewhere in the world. They also believe that government and it's leaders should help all people, not the rich or connected, that support peace, not war. For many, they may indeed support Democrats and moderate Republicans and move away from the extremists that have run our government for the last 7 years.

[lewes17266]

I agree.

It is not about strict observance of laws and rules, power and profit, or even winning. It is about compassion, selflessness, and getting along with your enemies, tolerance and forgiveness. It is not about who is deserving or righteous, as opposed to who is sinning or who God is angry with, rather who is most needy, hopeless, and cannot help themselves.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

The Religious Right leadership is both aging and to a large extent discredited because the voting segment followed it into supporting Bush. Besides NOT getting what they were promised, they also got a war in which they are disportionatly participating, recession and unemployment.

So it is true that there is a large segment of these voters up for grabs since Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic candidate. There is strong movement within these voter circles which corresponds with many traditionally Democratic issues such as poverty and the environment. They are patriotic people who like to vote and they also know enough about preachers and churches to discount the character assassination tying Wright to Obama like they were joined at the hip.

[noneIn2008]

You are right, there is no evangelical swing vote. The religious Right is an anchor around the necks of Republicans. The more they do to pander to the Religious Right, the more irrelevant they become.

Swing voters are regular hard working Americans. They are not lemmings for a philosophical group. Swing voters are more Libertarians wanting to raise their own families and keep more of their own money.

[TinaFreeman]

Jesus was a liberal.

[lewes17266]

He had no concern for himself, for his image. His interests were always for others.

[Liberal2]

Ummmm, not exactly true. Jesus did a number of things to prove he was the "messiah". The old testament listed several actions that would identify the true messiah". Every now and then the History Channel runs documentaries that cover these kinds of things.

[AdobePhsyko]

Thank You TinaFreeman
I wish the Insane Christians knew that

[KarateKid]

My brother in law works for Focus On The Family. His leader has stated that he will sit out the election, a rather strong slam at the Republican Party and particularly John McCain. But he doesn't believe in sitting it out and wasting his vote, so he's going against his company.

My brother in law chafes at the term "evangelical" or "religious right". He has not always voted Republican. Although he is strongly Pro-Life, he is pragmatic about it and has other issues of concern to him, such as the economy, jobs, health care and the war in Iraq.

His four children are all voting age. They are all voting for Obama, for different reasons, among them a desire for a change of direction, and lack of honesty on the part of McCain. These young kids are paying attention, perhaps it is a function of the digital age and easy access to information. Their parents are still undecided, and they speak about what a difficult choice they have to make.

My brother in law prefers the term Christian, and Christians come in many different colors and shapes, and he feels they should not be pigeonholed.

[lewes17266]

I hope young Christians are becoming wiser, more sophisticated and less gullible and so easily deceived and manipulated by counterfeits.

[Liberal2]

Kinda like the change in European society since the start of the 20th century. Guess WWI was a major wake-up call for Europe, WWII being the final kick out of bed. Iraq may be America's great religious wacko (no, I have no empathy for these) wake-up.

[DeWayne]

As a Christian the young lady does not speak for me, however in a secular nation governed by secular (proven majority) representation, having understood the Bible I heave not yoked myself to either political party.

The religious-right (politically) was never part of the Christian true-believer body, so not belonging to these or the servants of satan (upper hierarchy of DEM leadership) would be no surprise to anyone.

Have I noticed that only the Presidential (DEM/GOP) candidates have been singularly shoved in my face for over a year, with complete absents of Congressional candidate information, you can be certain it was only political (Congress) that has been completely ignored in this coming election. Noted because I am aware (only) the Congressional candidates that will not sell out American citizens and their mandate (as year 2006) and upper-level Pelosi did by stating a "Constitutional-Gov of Law" was "Off the Table."

Do I care if McCaine or Obama is elected, not as long as their rhetoric echos the Bush/Cheney regime of war into the foreseeable and distant past shows they also plan on ignoring the mandate of the majority of American citizens for a return to a Constituaional-Gov of Law and Justice.

[Sciguy]

Ah, wish that it were so. I live in a severely Red state, and the folks here are pro-Bush, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty (for the already born, of course), anti-gay, pro-war evangelical wingnuts.

True, not all of them are that way, but I have yet to meet an evangelical who does not follow whatever nonsense is spewed out by the preacher. At least around here, they really follow FAITH - and faith is the opposite of reason. They have faith in lots of things, including faith that the preacher is right about all of those issues that they can't be bothered to analyze for themselves.

Please keep in mind that one of the definitions of "evangelical" is "marked by militant or crusading zeal" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelicall). Since I'm an atheist, I may be misreading the christian bible, but I'd have sworn that Jesus wasn't a militant kind of guy. Therefore, if people are evangelical, they are - by definition - absolutely NOT following the lessons taught by Jesus.

[BEHM777]

Actually, Jesus was quite militant--ask the Pharisees. However, philosophically and spiritually He would not have been with the so-called Religious Right. He would have seen them to be quite hypocritical. He was not a friend of those who would abuse people in the name of God.

[SShaw490]

In fact, the religious people of his day didn't think he was nearly religious enough for them. You know, he was always hanging around with normal sinners, talking about the Father instead of the priests, he was from that backwater pigsty in Galilee, he didn't have any claim to royal blood except David and you had to genetically go back through a bunch of losers to get to him, he had no money, he had no powerful followers, and to top it all off he called the Pharisees "children of their father the devil" and "blind leaders of the blind". In short, the Pharisees got rid of Jesus and eventually became Falwell, Dobson and Roberston.

[lewes17266]

Jesus was tough on hypocrites and kind toward sinners.

[Sciguy]

This is NOT a personal attack.

What about that "turn the other cheek" stuff? Doesn't sound militant - or military - to me. That's just my opinion; I'm not slamming you, just curious. I'd always thought that he was not militant, and the Pharisees hated him just because he was a heretic.

[txbyrd]

I've been wondering about the lack of very much commentary from the 'Christian Coalition' or the 'religious right' during the campaign.

It seems that they are in the process of redefining themselves beyond the (successfully) polarizing and emotional issues of abortion and gay rights. Increasingly their focus seems to be on issues involving caring for others, human rights, and environmental issues.

Traditional 'liberal' concerns.

Bless them.

And thank you to those Christians who are thinking for yourself and considering a vote for Obama.

[cfinhollywood]

Loved your book, "Not in Kansas Anymore." (A fabulous read if anyone wants to know!). Great to read you here on huffpost. Hope you'll be a regular contributor. Enjoyed this blog very much. Excellent information.

[MajorKong]

That's good. We'll need all the help we can get.

[lewes17266]

Helping one another is what we should all want. It should not matter what party we belong to or what church or what color we are or what our sexual preference is. There should be no boundaries to our helpfulness.

[SShaw490]

I'm one of those "Swing Vote Evangelicals", and I've been waiting for a long time for a candidate whose Christian experience is recognizable to me; whose positions look at all like those that I think Jesus would take; and whose priorities are anything like those of the New Testament. I consider any abortion a tragedy but not a crime; I consider gay marriage to be about the same thing as ANY marriage which hasn't been sanctified by a church body (in fact, I don't think the State is qualified to "marry" anyone - they're certainly qualified to administer social contracts between consenting adults); I consider warfare to be the ultimate tragic failure of statesmanship, even when it's inevitable, which the current one wasn't; I consider poverty in a land of plenty to be an abomination before God; I consider a health care system in a rich country that only works for the wealthy to be a travesty; I consider Falwell/Do­bson/Rober­tson/Land/­etc to be damnable heratics who break the commandment not to "use the name of the Lord in vain" in the sense that they speak for God but use words and ideas that he has never one time sanctioned.

In short, I'm an evangelical who's been waiting to vote for Barack Obama for a long time. Thank God I'll get a chance to do that this November. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[martinspringfield]

"I've been waiting for a long time for a candidate whose Christian experience is recognizable to me; whose positions look at all like those that I think Jesus would take; and whose priorities are anything like those of the New Testament". Interesting. And what about Obama makes him different, position-wise, from John Edwards, Wes Clark, Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich? How long you been waiting? I fail to see anything about Obama other than his preacherly tone that sets him apart.

"in fact, I don't think the State is qualified to "marry" anyone - they're certainly qualified to administer social contracts between consenting adults". You have it EXACTLY backward: it is the state that vests power in the Church to marry adults, not the other way around. The immediate value of marriage is that it is a social contract recognized by the state. Obviously you believe in some supernaturally conferred value but that is entirely between you and God (or nothingness, as the case may be). What gay rights activists are fighting for is the immediate social benefits of marriage, not the religious celebration that so many are fixated on.

[martinspringfield]

"I've been waiting for a long time for a candidate whose Christian experience is recognizable to me; whose positions look at all like those that I think Jesus would take; and whose priorities are anything like those of the New Testament". Interesting. And what about Obama makes him different, position-wise, from John Edwards, Wes Clark, Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich? How long you been waiting? I fail to see anything about Obama other than his preacherly tone that sets him apart from most other Democratic candidates this year or the past few elections. I suppose Bill Clinton's sexual appetite trumps his Bible Belt bonafides for Christians of a certain severe stripe, but I don't see what that has to do with Christian action.

"in fact, I don't think the State is qualified to "marry" anyone - they're certainly qualified to administer social contracts between consenting adults". You have it EXACTLY backward: it is the state that vests power in the Church to marry adults, not the other way around. The immediate value of marriage is that it is a social contract recognized by the state. Obviously you believe in some supernaturally conferred value but that is entirely between you and God (or nothingness, as the case may be). What gay rights activists are fighting for is the immediate social benefits of marriage, not the religious celebration that so many are fixated on.

[AmbivalentGuy]

As I read it, Shaw is supporting of the social benefits of civil marriage - the legal rights that I believe that both of us support. (Good news in CA yesterday.­)

And, yes, Shaw certainly sees a difference between civil marriage, and a church sanctioned­/conducted union. That would be a faith and doctrine thing.

That's fine with me. Gay people can find churches that don't agree.

As for candidates, maybe Shaw's enthused because Obama might win?
Disclosure - I'd rather see Kuchinich or Edwards.

[SShaw490]

The big difference I see between Obama and Edwards is that Obama had the perception to know the Iraq war was a lie and a terrible act long before John did - which I think is an example of discernment. I've also read Obama's account of his conversion to Christianity, and it IS THE REAL DEAL.

Regarding marriage, this is largely a question of scemantics - my definition of "marriage" is a spiritual union between a man and a woman, sanctioned by a church and based on faith. The state has no capacity to do that - but the state has an obligation to administer social contracts between consenting adults who want to be a family. I don't mean to elevate one and diminish the other, I only want to point out that there are two aspects of marriage - civil and religious - and the church should have no standing in one aspect and the state should have no standing in the other. The reason "gay marriage" is such an issue is we've tried to push the state into the religious sphere and now the church is trying to push itself into the civil sphere.

[AmbivalentGuy]

I am an agnostic. I was raised Catholic, and taught that faith was a personal thing, beyond criticism, even if I didn't have it or understand it. I don't have it.

I often find myself defending people of faith though. Not necessarily their beliefs.

You sound like exactly the type of person of faith that I admire. Your faith is a gift to you that I don't understand, and you seem to accept that. It also sounds like you walk your own path and respect other people in accordance with their actions.

Frankly, I am most suspicious of anyone who says "I'm a good (insert religion here)" if they're referring to anything other than attendance at services, or formal obligations.

[Lisa123]

I completely agree with everything that you so eloquently said! I too am a "Swing Vote Evangelical". I have always voted Republican because I was voting against the other candidate that did not share my values. It just so happened that I voted with the Religious Right even though I find the Religious Right to be conceited, self-righteous hypocrites not unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus fought against.

I believe in what the Bible says, Jesus' words, and the messages that Jesus was relaying in parables, miracles, and actions. Jesus' message is all about mercy, grace, being your brothers' keeper, loving the sinner while hating the sin, and embodying the fruits of the spirit (like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control) as you lead your life. Basically, the Bible is my user manual for life.

To me, it is so-o-o-o-o obvious that Barack Obama is a true Christian who loves God and is doing his best to walk-the-walk of what the Bible teaches (e.g. humility, honesty, integrity, and justice). Even the way that Obama treated the Rev Wright situation showed how he loved the sinner but hated the sin until such time as Wright was unrepentant about the divisiveness that he was spewing, in which case Obama invoked Titus 3:10 and disassociated himself from Wright's divisiveness (sin).

I am grateful for God sending a leader like Obama to lead our nation powerfully in this time of great despair.

[pilgrim7]

Although I am a Christian, Obama puts me to shame. He doesn't wear his Christianity on his sleeve (or lapel), but he walks the walk more than he talks the talk.

[portwes]

Lisa, I'm glad you finally have broken out of the bubble of evanglical thinking, but it's a terrible shame that it took 8 years of unmitigated disaster of evanglicals running this country for people like you to realize the error of voting according to faith! If you folks had voted on political competency and ability and intelligence, instead of faith, then we wouldn't be in this mess now. If I was going to have open-heart surgery (and I have had!) I would much rather have a brilliant atheist heart surgeon, than an average but super-spiritual surgeon who prays nicely. I may not share the atheists values, but when my life (or the life of the country) is at stake, that's not the most important thing! But don't forget, the atheist's values may be closer in line with the teachings of Jesus, than are the values of the minister of your church!

I left the evanglical church in 2004 because of my disgust with their "values" voting, and I don't see myself ever returning . . .

[TinaFreeman]

And the People said...

"AMEN!!!!!"