POLITICS DECEMBER 18, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he represented—among many things—the shining hope for the religious left. Here was a liberal politician who was not afraid of the language of faith, who just might reclaim territory that the Democratic Party had, willingly or not, ceded to Republicans. Red America did not own religion, Obama declared: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states."
Between 2004 and 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, he became possibly the most prominent Democratic politician who was comfortable speaking about religion—a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics. He spoke with ease about his conversion; of the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and, in a key speech before the Call to Renewal conference in 2006, of the importance of “religion in the public square.” In the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s message seemed to resonate with religious people who had not, in recent years, gravitated toward the Democratic Party. He won more churchgoers than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton.
But, in just two short years, the left has become sluggish in its courtship of religious voters, significantly scaling back its faith-outreach programs. While many factors—primarily the economy—doomed the Democrats this fall, the consequences of this abdication nevertheless seem to be severe. In the recent midterm elections, House Democrats lost white evangelical voters in greater numbers than they did in 2004, when “values voters” flocked to George W. Bush. Reversing their Democratic allegiance from the past two elections, Catholics—nearly a quarter of all voters—favored the GOP 54 to 44 percent. Compared to 2008, the drop-offs were steep: a 20-point decline with Catholics, a 14-point decline with white evangelicals, and a 10-point decline with white Protestants. How and why did this happen?
The post-2004 revival of Democratic faith outreach, which reached its apex in the 2008 elections, can be traced to 2005, when House Democrats began holding a series of closed-door meetings. The gatherings, known as the Faith Working Group, were the brainchild of Nancy Pelosi, who wanted Democrats to start paying attention to religious voters. John Kerry had just lost the election and had seemed markedly uncomfortable talking about faith. (Though a Catholic, Kerry lost the Catholic vote to Bush, an evangelical Methodist.)
More than two dozen congressmen regularly attended the sessions, or sent aides on their behalf. (Barack Obama, then a junior senator, even sent a representative.) Attendees saw presentations on getting out the “God vote”—reaching voters motivated by their religious affiliation—and met with mega-church pastors as well as leaders from the religious left. The aim was simple: to formulate a sincere expression of progressive faith.
This idea caught on with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as well. Though not known for his religious literacy, DNC Chair Howard Dean (whom TNR called “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history”) made faith outreach a priority in 2005. He instructed DNC staffer and Pentecostal minister Leah Daughtry to target religious voters, opened a faith-advisory council for the DNC, and kicked off the Faith in Action initiative, which, according to its mission statement, was intended to increase “the national visibility of Democrats on issues of faith and public life.” The new strategy showed promise. According to political consultant Eric Sapp, Democrats who did extended, targeted faith outreach in 2006—like Ohio’s Ted Strickland and Michigan’s Jennifer Granholm—fared 10 points better with frequent churchgoers than the party’s national average.
By 2008, faith-related political efforts had become prominent within the Democratic Party, with Obama’s campaign exemplifying the trend. Obama chose a young pastor, Joshua Dubois, to head the campaign’s religious outreach, and a hefty portion of the campaign’s field game was led by divinity school graduate Jeremy Bird, who adeptly merged religious outreach with political organizing. The campaign ran dozens of faith forums in pivotal states, and the Democratic National Convention even kicked off with an interfaith worship service—a first in its history.
On Election Day, Obama made modest but definite inroads among white evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics. He did eight points better than Kerry with Catholic voters; and with voters who went to church more than once a week, he lowered the GOP advantage from 29 to 12 percent. Voters who attended church monthly actually favored Obama over McCain, 53 to 46 percent (Kerry had lost these voters by two points). Once elected, Obama expanded a Bush-era creation, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP), and put Dubois at its helm, hiring a number of the party’s faith consultants to work under him. Obama and the Democratic Party seemed poised to command respect among the religious population they had so diligently pursued.
But, when Obama took office, the Democrats’ faith outreach began to fall by the wayside. Several of those who had led the religious aspects of the Obama campaign landed in the OFBNP, which is legally barred from electoral politics, and thus faith-based political outreach. “I accepted this position knowing it would be distinct from the electoral role,” Dubois told me. Another key faith operative, Mara Vanderslice, joined Dubois in the OFBNP, abandoning her nascent political action committee, the Matthew 25 Network, which had been formed to promote progressive Christian candidates. With Dubois and others quarantined in OFBNP, many of the strongest religious-outreach coordinators were removed from the efforts in which they had been so effective.
At the same time, the national party began to strip down its religious outreach programs. The DNC’s faith program had at least seven staffers on hand in the 2008 race; during the recent midterms, it downsized to one, who was also charged with African-American outreach—a throwback to the days when Democratic faith outreach meant showing up at black churches. To be sure, there are significant differences between midterm and presidential elections, but even taking this into consideration, several insiders say that the Democrats’ faith effort noticeably dropped within the last two years. According to Mark Silk, a professor at Trinity College who writes frequently on religion and politics, the Democrats “did take [faith outreach] seriously enough in 2008.” But, he says, “it didn’t happen in 2010.”
Current DNC Chairman (and former missionary) Tim Kaine has made vague statements denying that he would allow faith outreach to falter, but evidence of the DNC’s clear commitment to faith-based coordination is hard to come by. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) will not confirm the amount spent on faith-based efforts during the midterms, but it seems likely that it was less than the reported $82,000 spent on faith outreach in 2008. “I haven’t met or talked to anyone who knows of specific activities that are happening out of the Democratic Party right now,” says Rebecca Sager, a sociologist who studied faith outreach during the last two elections. In the lead-up to the midterms, Sager embedded with the campaign of Virginia Democrat Tom Perriello, who ran a strong religious outreach program in 2008, and attempted to do the same in 2010. In 2010, however, the candidate received little encouragement from the national party to pursue religiously motivated voters, according to Sager. (He ultimately lost his re-election bid.)
The experience of Democratic political consultants, Eric Sapp and Burns Strider, whose consulting company, Eleison, specializes in Democratic faith outreach, further testifies to the newly diminished role of faith-based campaigning. In 2008, Eleison was contracted to work on over 40 campaigns. This year, it was not hired by a single campaign. In August, the DNC made a last-minute play and brought the company on board, but, as Sapp puts it, “you couldn’t get a program fully underway in a couple months.”
Of course, the Democrats’ chances at keeping the House this election cycle were slim for many reasons, and they would not necessarily have fared better if they had amped up their faith-based efforts. “If anyone thinks that we lost because we didn’t give enough contracts out to faith-based consultants, I’d like to know what they’re smoking,” says one Democratic strategist. “This campaign was all about economy and jobs.”
Yet while it’s certainly true that the 2010 campaign was mainly about the economy, it’s not true that economics and faith-based outreach are mutually exclusive. As one Democratic organizer told me, “I think religious voters want to hear there is a moral reason we need to save this economy and not just an economic one.” To defend his record and contend with the right-wing grassroots, Obama would do well to articulate the moral-religious values that permeate his policies and initially energized his supporters. And, if the Democrats want to avoid the impression that such values messaging is merely a presidential-election-year tactic, they should probably begin reinvigorating their faith outreach efforts sooner rather than later. “Ninety percent of people believe in some sort of God,” Sager points out. “It’s mind-boggling why you would cede those voters to the Republican Party.”
Tiffany Stanley is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
13 comments
Sorry, but looking at religious voters from a 19th century social gospel perspective won't do it with today's evangelicals. The parables in Matthew 25 (that's the Gospel of Matthew for you non-Christians) are right out of the social gospel, as is the mission statement for the charitable organization Matthew 25 ("inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable"). One would think that, after almost 500 years since Martin Luther and the protestant reformation, Democrats would have a better understanding of evangelical Christians. I will offer two hints. First, it's not the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that evangelicals look to for guidance; it's the letters of Paul. Second, forget "good works" (the social gospel) as the basis for living a Christian life; it's faith alone in Jesus as savior that is the one true path ("one way") to the kingdom of God ("justification by faith"). The Democrats' failing with evangelicals has nothing to do with "messaging"; it's due to a fundamental misunderstanding of their faith.
- rayward
December 18, 2010 at 9:41am
Rayward, What you say is true. However, listening to evangelicals, I hear a totally different argument from them against Democrats or liberals. It goes something like, "They don't respect us. They don't understand us." etc. That is why on some level symbols are important.
- MikeB.
December 18, 2010 at 11:06am
But Evangelicals AREN'T the only religious Americans, by far. And for those non-evangelical Christians, Jews and others, good works, social and economic justice, and, in many cases, a principled stand against the aggressive (rather than defensive) use of force are extremely important issues. They want the government to address our brutal unemployment rate over addressing tax cuts for billionaires, care about things like torture and the morality of the official treatment of "enemy combatants", believe, Like Winston Churchill; "The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion." To these relious Americans the right to life promised in the Constitution is, among other things, exactly what Churchill was talking about -- a citizen's right to receive, and responsibility to provide, mutual aid against the inevitable threats to life all of humanity faces through illness, accident, natural catastrophe, economic change and collapse, etc. In other words, they demand more action and ethical conduct from politicians and leaders than Evangelical, who are more concerned about what they believe than what they do. But, since the election there have been many indications that the administration does not share those values, or, does not have the courage to take right action. Of course, he doesn't share the values of the "faith" over morality evangelical crowd either, but he does seem to be more afraid of them. He apparently believes there will be more political consequences for offending them, in terms of politics, than for disappointing, in terms of policy, the rest of us. But catering to Evangelicals without being an Evangelical is a zero sum game -- because they don't care what a politician does, they only care what he claims to believe or feel. (You can rape babies all day long and still have a chance at their vote -- as long as you profess your faith that you are forgiven because you "accept" Christ.) The rest of us aren't considered a politically potent group because we are not a group that's at all represented or covered in the meida. Not because we don't enjoy numbers as great as the Evangelicals, but because our values challenge the magical thinking/ethics free Libertarianism of the economic elite in ways that Evangelical Christianity does not. For that reason, left wing religious issues and agitations are studiously ignored, or, if they are acknowledged in any way, mocked or visciously distorted in the media. I saw that for myself, first hand, in the coverage of "The Battle for Seattle" -- an event that was organized by and based in HUGE participation by liberal religous groups, as well, or course, by secular religous groups such as unions. An event that's slogan was "If it doesn't work for working people it doesn't work" that was overwhelming made up mature, middle class and working class adults and families, and that was in no sense a "battle." The reality of an this amazing, unprecedented number of peaceful middle class Americans -- THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS -- filling the downtown streets to an unprecedented (by far) and unanticipated degree (that made timely evacuation impossible and froze the city to a halt), was transformed by the media into a story about a very small, very youthful number of anarchist and hooligans -- who in reality merely took advantage of the gridlock to act out, and in most cases didn't even have real political objectives. Democratic politicians and elites, stupidly, tend to take all their cues about who the voters are and what they want from the media and clueless beltway professionals rather than from the people. And the media and beltway professionals take all their cues from the financial elites who support them -- elites for whom the only working class, middle class or religious American voices they find useful to acknowledge, report on and embrace are the voices of the reactionary right, the prosperity Gospel wishful thinkers, and the do whatever you want because I can't wait for Armegeddon crowd. As a result, the real majority voice is never heard, and our politics because more and more undemocratic and exploitive of the people rather than representative.
- esmense
December 18, 2010 at 12:52pm
Obama "won more churchgoers than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton." This means he got more than John Kerry. Did you mean Jimmy Carter?
- mnkoplow
December 18, 2010 at 11:22pm
Characterizing evangelicals as a 'Faith Alone' justification is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of applied order of relevance. The evangelicals hold that grace imparted by confession and submission makes room for the Holy Spirit to inspire and generate good works of missionary benefice even if that mission is the next door neighbor or community food bank. Ostensibly grace (Love) is the gift from which all other fruits flow.
- jacko
December 19, 2010 at 6:21am
Mike B -- Evangelicals are proselytizers. That's their nature and mission. The first order of their religion is conversion. Unless you surrender to their beliefs they will never feel "respected" because respect for them is acceptance of their beliefs -- conversion. Given their need to spread "the good word," their conviction that their faith is required for salvation, and their belief that those who don't embrace that religion are outside God's grace and damned, many Evangelicals, whether they acknowlege or even realize it, really have no respect at all for other religious traditions, and find tolerance (a necessity for religious freedom in a complex multi-cultural society like ours) intolerable. Ultimately, the disrepect Evangelicals have for those who don't embrace their beliefs is a danger to our culture of religious diversity and freedom of conscience. In my experience most Evangelicals are deeply sincere. But they often are not very aware of or sensitive to other people. They are big on faith, often big on sentimentality (like our former president), but at the same time weak on ethics, understanding and compassion. Like the woman who stood up in a restaurant where I was dining with my family a few years ago, loudly stamped her feet and shouted her joy at -- and enthusiastically demanded that other diners celebrate the "good news" with her -- the Indonesian tsuami and its thousands and thousands of victims (in her mind a hopeful sign of the end days). Or all the "born again" business men I have dealt with over the years whose determination to follow "God's plan for their lives" leads them to overlook their ethical obligations to others. Like the publisher of a trade magazine that we (my business) advertised in regularly who was suddenly inspired to start a new Christian magazine and in order to do so charged all his existing advertisers for ads they never requested in a publication they had never seen, that could not help them reach their targeted customer base. Or the CFO of a "Christian Ad Agency" who felt "led" to divert agency money into a private project of his own. Or Ken Lay. Or Tom DeLay. A weakness in Evangelical Christianity and its emphasis on "grace" and a personal relationship with God is the temptation it provides to believe that because you have been "saved" you are good, and because you are good and godly and God is working personally in your best interest, any action you take is good (even if others are being harmed). In seeking God's personal "guidance" Evangelicals too often give up on struggling with the ethical and moral dimensions of their desires." Many "born again" Christians in fact, who may have been brought up outside of any religious or ethical tradition at all before being "saved," have little to no ethical training and may have never struggled with the complexities of their moral and ethical obligations to other people. Faith is about one's relationship to God. But morality is about your relationship to your fellow humans. They can not stand in place of each other.
- esmense
December 19, 2010 at 10:10am
esmense, I reside in a small southern town where being Christian is being evangelical. Your anecdotes ring so true. My earlier post wasn't intended as a complete description of evangelical beliefs (impossible in a few sentences) but rather as a practical suggestion for non-evangelicals to stop viewing people of faith today through the prism of the 19th century social gospel; it's insulting to evangelicals because the implication is that being a Christian must be centered on good works, or you can't be a good Christian. For me it's not a choice I ever had to make because, being a cradle Episcopalian, I ride the fence, paying lip service to "justification by faith" but actually adhering to the admonitions of James (brother of Jesus) in his Epistle that faith without works is an empty faith indeed. We Episcopalians like to have it both ways, the RC way and the protestant way (that is, the protestant reformation way), what we call the middle way. Two more points and I will get off this. First, justification by faith is the essence of Christianity, i.e., that we have a sin nature, that no amount of good works can redeem us, that Jesus is the son of God and free of sin, that Jesus died for our sins, and that our only path to the kingdom of God is through Him who was free of sin. While it takes a leap of faith to follow, the logic is unassailable. Second, and this really confuses, the “good works” that we identify with Christianity is not the same “good works” as used by the Apostle Paul in his letters or by James in his Epistle. Christians, and non-Christians, would be very surprised to learn what, according to many biblical scholars, they meant by “good works”.
- rayward
December 19, 2010 at 4:06pm
Lordy esmense. The spirit doth move. Pound it out, man. Those scoundrels and yokels and ethically untrained in church look a lot like the ones outside the church. On the other hand there are many folks who go unsung providing a quiet kind of steady guidance despite the roust about know it alls who constantly threaten to either bust open the gates of heaven or bust open the gates of hell. I'm not here to make excuses for or even defend these misguided folks who often use the power of God as a means to imposing their own will on the unfortunates that cross their paths. I've seen bona fide professional hucksters work their way along the lines of whatever will increase their ego. Any flavor affirmation will do, be it money or power or really anything that keeps that voice in their heads rolling toward the promised land. That said, the greatest majority of Jesus freaks are well intended and are intimate with the humility of one fully acquainted with their own humanity. Those noisy horns sure do stick out. But there is a much louder chorus that sings in its own very quiet way. These are the people I'll happily stand for and with. We may not understand 'things' in the same way but we can meet up just fine on that which is really important.
- jacko
December 19, 2010 at 10:03pm
Why anyone bothers drawing conclusions about anything based on a comparison of an off-year election to a Presidential election year is beyond me.
- wildboy
December 20, 2010 at 9:50am
The Democrats want to put forward progressive religion? Talk to the Jews and Catholics. Let's watch the evangelicals try to argue against a halakhically-based universal health-care stance.
- egottlieb
December 20, 2010 at 2:58pm
“I think religious voters want to hear there is a moral reason we need to save this economy and not just an economic one.” Yes, we can't afford to lose voters who think like this. Maybe what we need is a broader appeal to the dim-witted? Neil
- purcellneil
December 21, 2010 at 1:42pm
We reformed health care so that millions would no longer be uninsured, over the opposition of Republicans - the same Republicans who have held extension of unemployment benefits hostage to the millionaire tax cut. And religious voters side with the Republicans?
- purcellneil
December 21, 2010 at 1:45pm
I am not sure what the purpose of debating the shortcomings of the Evangelical world view is. After listening to the transparent ignorance of Catholic doctrine espoused by Nancy Pelosi, it is a too exhausting to worry about both the theology and the behavior of our political leaders. The article is concise in listing the shortcomings of the Dem's political efforts towards Christians. This was a Dem interest group that was not fed. What is lacking is the realization that certain groups are going to vote for Dem's regardless of the candidate's religious pandering (i.e. African-Americans, Hispanics). And certain Dem interest groups are going to conflict based on values (abortion rights advocates vs. traditional Catholics) This played out in California with the passing of Proposition 8. Although the Gays did their best to blame the minority religion (Mormons), it was the Black Churchs that pushed it through. Ah, the joy of identity politics. What the Dems need to understand is that if you are Catholic, an Evangelical or a Progressive Protestant, you attend church with your brains and you leave with them also. We believe our faith is compatible with reason. So if they try to sell us a boondoggle like ethanol, or try to make us believe that paying for more people's health insurance will save us money, we aren't going to buy that just to make us feel good spiritually. There was a reason why Reagan took the Religious vote away from Carter. Reagan didn't share the faith tradition of the Evangelicals, but he knew how to talk to them. He didn't make them feel isolated or disrespected. He made them feel that their voice would be heard. Does Obama have some of the same magic? Maybe. It pops out sometimes. But he has to understand two things: 1. You can't appeal to everyone, and if you try, you look like a phony. 2. You don't get a vote just because you share faith. Good, sensible policies help. There is an old joke. An Irish mother is attending her son's prize fight. She sees the local Parish Priest in the audience, and says "Father, can you say a prayer for my son?" He responds, "I can certainly say a prayer, but it would help if he could punch."
- JPWinklhof
December 23, 2010 at 2:53pm