|
The Roundtable:
Tell us what trends you observed among religious voters in the 2006 mid-term election.
John Green:
The 2006 election will go down in history as a very important election. We do not know exactly where it will lead. But most elections like this are not because of one phenomenon, but several different phenomena happening simultaneously. Even the role of religion in an election has different aspects.
One thing that happened was some Democrats decided to make a bigger effort to appeal to people of faith. They did this by talking about their personal religiosity more fully, by trying to explain the origins of their policy positions in their religious values, and by actually courting religious voters. This was an adjustment from 2004 when many Democrats concluded that they might have won that close election if they had done a little bit better in the faith communities that voted Republican.
There were a number of candidacies predicated on this idea of attracting religious voters. In at least a few cases, it appears to have been quite successful. I say "appears" because there are other things going on in the election as well.
But if you look at the case of Bob Casey winning as Senator in Pennsylvania, Ted Strickland as governor in Ohio, and Harold Ford in Tennessee - who did not win but made it much closer than people thought he would - those were all examples where the Democrats made a real effort to reach out to religious voters.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Democrats were saying the Republican Party was on to something by getting a lot of support from religious communities, and Democrats wanted to do that, too.
There was a revival of what some people call the "religious left." These are people of two sorts: People who use a very liberal theology politically, and others who are conservative or traditional in their religious beliefs but choose to emphasis progressive issues such as the economy or the environment.
Those two groups have become more vocal since 2004 and were active in the 2006 campaign. Some worked on issues such as the minimum wage propositions that were on ballots in six states, where they all passed.
There was a reinvigoration of elements that the religious community had not been vocal about in a long while. There is a long tradition of liberal causes coming out of religious communities - the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the antiwar movement. In the 1990s, things were pretty quiet in that sector, and now they are very vocal.
So we have two different things going on the election. We have an adjustment by some Democrats to compete more effectively for religious votes. And then we have a new sector in the religious community becoming more vigorous and vocal.
The Roundtable:
Did some Democratic candidates adopt a more conservative tone on some religious issues?
John Green:
There is no question that the Democratic caucus in the House and the Senate will be more conservative now than before the election. When Nancy Pelosi (the projected winner as House Majority Leader) assembles her troops, there will be a larger number of moderates and conservatives on some issues.
The largest numbers of Democratic office holders are liberals, particularly the more senior members who will chair the committees, so the voice of liberalism will not disappear from the Democratic Party anytime soon. But it is a more diverse group now. It looks a little bit more like the Democrats in the 1950s or 1960s when there were liberals but also Midwestern, Southern and Western Democrats who were culturally, and sometimes economically, conservative.
The Democratic caucus is more diverse than it was. If this trend continued long enough, it might call into question the dominance of liberals in the Democratic Party. For the moment, it adds greater diversity and that helped them win the election. That is a positive thing for them. But in terms of policy, it might create some tensions down the line.
The Roundtable:
How did Democrats win control of Congress when constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage passed in seven states?
John Green:
There is a difference among the states and voters. One (marriage) amendment passed in South Carolina, but that is a very Republican state. But one (marriage) amendment passed in Wisconsin, which is a very Democratic state.
It shows that many people are willing to vote for traditional moral values, at least with regard to the definition of marriage, but at the same time turn around and vote for Democratic candidates. Voters sometimes contradict themselves. A Catholic in Milwaukee can, with good conscience, affirm traditional marriage but then vote for a Democratic congressman or governor because they are better on economic issues or on the war in Iraq.
People's behavior varies issue from issue. While only one same-sex marriage amendment lost in Arizona, the efforts in South Dakota to restrict abortion were defeated. It could be different voters in different states. It also could be people saying the traditional definition of marriage is what we like, but we do not want too stringent restrictions on abortion, because that is a different issue.
The Roundtable:
Did this election redefine the relationship between faith, politics and campaigns?
John Green:
In some ways, it might have. In other ways, it did not and reinforced the disconnection. The fact that some Democratic candidates were able to do better with Roman Catholics, who had been voting Republican in the past, and make some modest inroads with evangelical voters, who are a solidly Republican constituency, is something of a change.
If Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio were able to win large majorities with Catholic voters, it would change the relationship between religion and politics. That would look more like the 1950s, when the Republicans were the party of Protestants and the Democrats were the party of Catholics. There is the potential in some of these states for a significant change in the way religion impacts politics.
On the other hand, some features of the connection between religion and politics were reinforced during 2006. For example, one common pattern in recent years is the relationship of worship attendance to the vote. In the last few years, the typical pattern was that people who attend (worship services) more often were much more Republican. Nationally, in the 2006 congressional vote, that relationship became stronger. The reason was that the people who attend (worship services) weekly or more often changed very little. They moved a tiny bit in the Democratic direction, but they mostly stayed Republican.
As you moved away from those regular attendees to less frequent attendees and non-attendees, the shift toward the Democrats became increasingly pronounced. So in 2006, among people who never attend church or synagogue, two-thirds voted for the Democrats. Those who worship more than once a week voted 60 percent for the Republicans. We saw a widening of this "religious attendance gap." That is not a new connection between faith and politics, but an intensification of an existing relationship.
The Roundtable:
Are there exit polls showing how Jewish or African American voters voted?
John Green:
Jews voted decidedly Democratic - almost nine out of ten. That was an even more Democratic vote among Jews than we have had in the past. I do not know why. It could be a fluke in the exit polls or the issues strongly motivated Jews to vote Democratic.
African Americans cannot be easily separated in the polls. But we do have non-white Christians, which is largely African American Protestants, but also includes Hispanic Catholics. There was a 75 percent turnout in the non-white religious community. That was not a large change.
The Roundtable:
What is the future of the religious left?
John Green:
These efforts will continue because they have proven to bear success. What we do not know is the impact in a different context. The 2008 elections are very likely to be different from 2006. President Bush will be on his way out, and there will be fierce competition for the open seat. A new set of issues will be open by then.
2006 shows that there are significant religious communities that can be moved politically, and both political parties will pay a lot of attention to those communities.
The Roundtable:
What is the future of the religious right?
John Green:
A lot came out of 2004 where, perhaps erroneously, religious conservatives were attributed with re-electing President Bush. They were important to him, but he got lots of other votes as well. But that image developed, and they became demanding. It may have backfired on them. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans deal with their defeat because they cannot continue as they were. They need to find some new directions. That might involve muting some of these demands of religious conservatives, who will not want to go along with that. So we might have a conflict in the Republican Party.
The Roundtable:
What impacts will the election outcomes have on the Faith-Based and Community Initiative?
John Green:
Faith-based politics is a very broad term. With the Democrats in control of Congress, we will not see the classic social issues like restricting abortion or gay marriage come forward immediately. We have moderate and even conservative Democrats in the House and Senate, but these issues could be potentially divisive for the new Democratic majorities. I think they will stay clear of them for as long as they can.
The Democrats will focus primarily on domestic issues, many of which have a faith component. For instance, Nancy Pelosi has promised to raise the minimum wage in the first 100 hours, and many people on the religious left and religious moderates are very supportive of that on the grounds of social justice. There may be efforts on prescription drugs and protecting the environment, which could be considered part of a faith-based agenda, but an agenda focused on social justice issues rather than sexual morality.
The more narrowly defined Faith-Based and Community Initiative, as proposed by the President, may end up being included in this new domestic focus. [Editor's Note: The Bush Administration's Faith-Based and Community Initiative, launched in 2001, is an effort to encourage religious charities to expand their social service work, often with government funding.] Some more conservative and moderate Democrats may find this topic worth pursuing. Many African American churches are supportive of this. Even with this sea change in Congress, this idea of having public resources work through faith-based organizations may be on the agenda, although not on the top of the agenda, because there are people in the Democratic Party who find the topic worth pursuing.
If this does happen, it may be a different kind of approach than since 2001. The Democratic Party is much more diverse in religious terms, and there are concerns about issues of separation of church and state. The Democratic Congress may have more safeguards in legislation for the expansion of faith-based programs. Vouchers might be one idea. Another would be to allow money to go to these groups, but remove some of the immunity to discriminate (in hiring, according to a person's faith).
The Roundtable:
Do you think it is significant that the first Muslim has been elected to Congress?
John Green:
I think it is American pluralism at its best. This is a diverse country. There is a reason why we have 435 members of Congress - so hat we can represent the great diversity in this country. It sends a powerful message abroad that Americans believe what they say about diversity, freedom and democracy. We do not always live out our dream. But this sends a powerful message to the rest of the world that in America even a Muslim can get elected to Congress.
It is going to be an important symbol as we go forward on the war on terrorism and domestic security issues to have someone of the Islamic faith voting on these issues and perhaps alert his colleagues on both sides of the aisles to the sensitivities in the Islamic community that maybe they otherwise would not be aware of. I think it can only have good results.
The Roundtable:
Thank you for speaking with us. |
