If he’s losing white evangelicals…

May 3, 2006

After the 2000 presidential race, Karl [tag]Rove[/tag] was reportedly confused about where his missing evangelicals were. As he explained it, “If you look at the model of the electorate, and you look at the model of who voted, the big discrepancy is among self-identified, [tag]white[/tag], [tag]evangelical Protestants[/tag], Pentecostals, and fundamentalists. … [T]here should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million of them.” Rove vowed to get them back and was largely successful in 2004.

Apparently, however, the last pillar of [tag]Bush[/tag]’s coalition of constituencies is slowly jumping ship.

Even among one of the president’s most supportive constituencies, white evangelical Protestants, Mr. Bush has suffered declines. Given the importance of evangelicals for the electoral successes of the Republican Party over the past several years, how serious is Bush’s slump among this key voter group for the party’s prospects this fall?

A new analysis by the [tag]Pew[/tag] Research Center finds that while the president still has the support of a majority of white evangelical Protestants, significantly fewer of them now approve of his performance in office (55% approve, 38% disapprove) than was true at the start of his second term when 72% approved and only 22% disapproved.

Interestingly enough, the trends among white [tag]evangelicals[/tag] mirror the gradual decline in Bush’s support across the board — it’s just taken a little longer. At this point, a whopping 45% of white evangelicals agreed with the statement that “I am tired of all the problems associated with the Bush administration.” Considering the fact that this constituency was “the largest single demographic group among Bush voters” in 2004, that’s a pretty big number.

The question then becomes what this decline will mean in November, when Bush isn’t on the ballot. The Pew poll found that white evangelicals continue to stick with the GOP — nearly two-in-three say they intended to vote for the Republican candidate for [tag]Congress[/tag] this fall — but the question inevitably comes back to the “intensity gap.” If they’re disappointed with Bush, and they’re frustrated with the inattention to their political wish-list in Congress, will they turn out in droves like they did in 2004? It seems unlikely.

And what can the GOP do about it? Not much. Unless they can track down another 10 votes for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, evangelicals are going to go into the midterm cycle disappointed.

Don’t be too sure. These evangelicals are going around the country, picking up homeless people, feeding, clothing and providing work for them in organized camps by the thousands. In exchange, they vote the christian way. These people want total control, and they aren’t going away easily. The East have Moslems fanatics, the West has the Christian fundamentalists. Both want to move us back to the Dark Ages, and that is where we are headed.
Also, we now have Diebold controlling the voting machines.

  • Hmm!

    Well, I was going to suggest the Dems keep pounding on all the moral lapses of the Republicanites, like poker and prostitute parties.

    Evangelicals don’t get much out of their support of the Republicanite party that I have ever seen. Sure, there are a few scary judges and justices, but not much more than that.

    Also, the longer the Republicanites stay in power, the more the rifts between them grow. The Theocratic Reactionaries may want a huge intrusive government to regulate our moral conduct, but that doesn’t really go well with the party/frat boy Texas mafia headed by Boy George II, nor with the Libertarian wing of the party (if such still exists), nor with the Grover Norquist destroy the government wing.

    The right is hardly diamond hard. Keep chiseling at the cracks.

  • I have known quite a number of “white evangelicals” in my life and I have found most of them to be pretty nice people, and contrary to the popular stereotypes, they are not all stupid. It is hard to admit you have trusted a fraud, but Christians are good at repenting. I know a fair number of evangelicals who are shocked by the behavior of this current crop of thugs controling or government, and I believe the elections in November will see many of them leaving the fold. The sins of the flesh like bribery, prostitution, and gambling are shocking, but the sins against social justice like starting an unnesessary war and refusing to take care of the poor, seem much worse to most thinking evangelicals I know.

    Picking up homeless people and giving them a new chance in life is the Christian mandate, and I won’t fault them for that. Telling a vulnerable person that God is a Republican and every good Christian votes Republican is something else. That is why we should never mix politics with religion, and we sure should not fund institutions that do.

  • Gracious hits it…maybe they are realising that they have placed their trust on a liar.

  • Let’s turn to Cal Thomas to get a little insight into what these “white evangelicals” may be thinking. First there is this,

    GOP impotence in the midst of fuel price spikes may be the final proof that this is a party that has run out of gas[…]
    Where is any sign of real leadership? President Bush has made some personnel changes at the White House, but does he intend to say what needs to be said and do what should be done? Why is it so difficult to tell people that if they want to see gas prices go down, they should reduce consumption?

    Some estimates I’ve seen indicate that cutting consumption by as little as 3 percent could lower prices. It’s called supply and demand, but too many of us have been making too many demands, not only on petroleum, but on politicians.

    Because contemporary culture is so self-focused, are Republicans afraid to tell people to do the equivalent of eating their vegetables?

    Republicans appear content to let people keep eating sugar by indulging them in the view that everyone is entitled to more, bigger and better in their pursuit of comfort and pleasure.

    Who will stand up and say, “Take control of your own lives and stop looking to Washington to solve everything”?

    Republicans have forgotten why they wanted power. It was to reduce the size and cost of government and return power (and money) to individuals.

    This is pretty damning stuff coming from Thomas. But, he doesn’t think the problem is corruption or incompetence or failed policies. He thinks that the problems is that, “[the Republicans now] mimic the Democrats, focusing on their political careers and ever-expanding government.” Let me restate that Republicans are failing not because of the failures of Republican ideas and ethics, but because they are acting like Democrats.

    So what is a “white evangelical” to do this fall? Thomas doesn’t answer that question. However, I believe he hints at what will happen. On the one hand, he says that,

    In this fall’s election, can Republicans go to voters with a positive agenda and solid record of accomplishment?

    From the volatile subject of illegal immigration and lawbreakers demanding “rights” they do not have, to spending on wasteful and unnecessary projects, to a deficit and national debt that would almost shame Democrats (but doesn’t shame Republicans), a majority of congressional Republicans are giving voters little reason to vote for them

    While on the other hand, he says that,

    Democrats aren’t any better and, if they regain a congressional majority this fall, it won’t be long before they again indulge in the same pandering, unethical behavior and content-free politics that has exposed Republican ineptness.

    This suggests to me that the “white evangelicals” faced with cognitive dissonance will bury their heads in the sand and stay home this November. Well, I guy can hope so anyway.

  • I think they may do more than just stay home; they may vote for the opposition. This shameless abuse of the public trust is not lost on many evangelicals, at least I am hoping as much. However a lot can happen in six months and I have no way of seeing the future. Maybe GWB will have another talk witth God and invade Iran. If that happens all bets are off.

  • will they turn out in droves like they did in 2004? It seems unlikely.

    depends how many states besides VA have anti-gay Constitutional measures on the ballots, doesn’t it?

  • Evangelical is not the same as Fundamentalist. A number of Evangelicals I’ve known are downright New-Agey in their approach to theology, far from literalist fundamentalism. They believe in the “gifts of the Spirit” and in open “witnessing” of faith — that’s what makes them Evangelicals — but can be all over the map in terms of doctrine and, yes, politics.

  • The evangelical community has become noticeably broader in its key issues. Environmental and social justice issues are more prominent than they were even two years ago. Don’t forget that Jim Wallis, author of “God’s Politics,” is an evangelical Christian.

  • And what can the GOP do about it?

    Not that I’m saying they would, mind, but the thought of another 9/11 scares me for a lot of reasons.

  • Heh, I have to wonder where Cal Thomas stood when President Jimmy Carter was telling him to “eat his vegetables”, and put on his sweater, and turn his thermostat down to 60 degrees.

    I don’t remember reading anything by Cal Thomas back then, but I’ll go out on a limb and bet he was all gung-ho behind Ronald “consumption is our American birthright, goddammit” Reagan. It’s morning in America! Bring on the cheap-oil fiesta!

    Speaking of “eat your vegetables”, I have to wonder how Thomas feels about mandatory FDA food ingredient labelling. Or is that just “nanny state” Democrats illegally “butting in” to Corporate America’s business and eliminating trickle-down jobs? How about emissions and air-quality standards? Inclusionary zoning? And seat belts? Helmets for bikers? Labour regulations? What, Thomas doesn’t like that big, bad, nasty old mommy government making him eat his vegetables? And he’s been bitching about it for years? And now he *wants* the government to make people “eat their vegetables”?

    What a fucking tool.

    Man, that Lakoff stuff was so right. Contradictions like this are perfectly consistent because the key differences are all in the positioning. Exact same behaviour (i.e. conservation), could be “good” or “bad”, depending on whether it’s “male” or “female”. If you spin it as manly, rugged, self-determination, self-discipline, lift-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, the wingnuts eat it up. Spin it as doing the right thing, sharing and leaving some room for others, obeying the rules, learning and understanding, being healthy, getting along with others, deferring decision or judgement, and the wingnuts cry “nanny state!”.

    What the fuck went wrong with these people’s relationships with their mothers when they were kids? If it’s the Daddy State (i.e. Our Sacred and Beloved Military, or our Bold Entrepreneurial Masters Dominating Nature, or the Stern Stormtroopers of Our Great Abusive Alcoholic Father in Heaven), they get a boner, but if it’s the Mommy State (i.e. EPA, HHS), then they howl both “weakness” and “oppression” at the same time!

    Anyway, the post was about fundamentalists not Cal Thomas, but he and and his ilk have been pissing me off for long enough now I had to rant about it a bit.

  • Great post, Goatchowder. I never thought of it that way, but this “male” vs. “female” worldview make sense in explaining winguts:

    Manly: self-reliant, rugged, take charge, strong, bold, independent, good.

    Womanly: Soft, weak, passive, ineffective, useful only to serve men, bad

    That helps explain why the Religious Right is so scared of gays. They’re afraid their sons (or even themselves?) will turn into purse-carrying, lisping sissies trilling on about fashion, hairdos, or Madonna. They’re afraid their daughters (or themselves) will turn into flannel wearing, power tool wielding, strong dykes who don’t need men.

    Remember 1988-92, when GHWB was perceived as being a “Wimp?” That was the worst insult imaginable. So now Boy George spends his life over-compensating by being MANLY, TOUGH, RUGGED, MISSION-ACCOMPLISHED FLIGHT JOCK, bullying his way around the world, and being MANLY. None of this sissy stuff about negotiation, compromise, getting along, cooperating, and so forth!

  • 7 above is absolutely right: Gay-bashing constitutional amendments will bring the theocrats out in droves in Virginia and in the other states (6 so far) that are voting on discriminatory amendments this year.

    In fact, there are many signs that the GOP will again use those demon gays and lesbians as a primary GOTV tool. Look for anti-gay rhetoric to ramp up in a big way as the U.S. Senate votes on the Federal amendment in early June, and then again when the House votes later this summer or early fall. Look for George Bush to do a little ranting about saving America from the gay/lesbian peril.

    And, alas, look for cowardly Democrats to turn their backs on the current unpopular minority.

  • 5 above, rege, shows some of the misunderstanding concerning White Evangelicals. Gracious does a good job describing this group that I happen to be a part of. I’m ‘evangelical’ by theological conviction, and white by pure accident.

    Anyway, evangelicals are not a monolithic block, like they are often protrayed in left-leaning media and blogs. I know many right-wing evangelicals, who drive me crazy. But I also know many evangelicals who simply are trying to make a political decision (when it comes to elections), and find it difficult to know who to believe.

    Most evangelicals are concerned about abortion, for example. But not everyone believes that anti-abortion laws are the answer, nor that abortion is the only issue. Honesty does mean something, and this administration fails in that department.

    There is a major difference between the average evangelical man or woman in a local church, and the ‘evangelical’ leaders that one sees on TV, or reads in editorials. Since there is no pope among evangelicals, and evangelicals tend to believe strongly in individual convinction, no leader can speak for ‘evangelicals’.

    It is a rather more complicated and nuanced group than the left generally thinks. There is a certain amount of lazy stereotyping on the part of the left.

    • Comments are closed.