Christian Conservatives in 2008
by Jeffery L. Sheler

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. -- Despite the diminished influence of Christian conservatives in the 2006 election, and amid signs that the "God gap" separating Republicans and Democrats may be narrowing, religion remains an important factor in electoral politics in this country and is likely to play a decisive role in the 2008 presidential race. Yet exactly how religious values will infuse the political debates, and which candidates stand to benefit the most, are far from clear.

That was the consensus of six experts -- religion scholars, political theorists, and journalists from around the country -- who participated in a recent Regent University symposium on "The Future of Religion in American Politics." The early February event drew some 500 evangelical students, professors, and others to the university's Robertson School of Government, named after Regent founder and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Much of the discussion focused on the impact of religion in the upcoming presidential race. "The coming campaign undoubtedly will involve religion big time," said Marvin Olasky, a University of Texas journalism professor and editor of the evangelical WORLD magazine. "The question," he said, "is whether the dominant religious discussion will involve a religion of reality" -- which he described as a Bible-based faith that "describes the reality of the human condition" -- or "a religion of nicety [that is] based upon utopian hopes and claims."

Adherents of the religion of nicety, Olasky explained, "believe that poor people everywhere want to do the right thing, so solving the poverty problem is like solving a math problem: Move dollars from X to Y and the job is done." But those who practice a religion of reality -- namely, Christian conservatives -- "see poverty as a complex tangle of spiritual, psychological, political, social, historical, institutional and technological factors" with no simple solution.

Regarding foreign policy, Olasky said, "Those who subscribe to the religion of nicety believe that leaders and nations essentially want peace, so if only we clear up misunderstandings and sign treaties or arms control agreements, all will be well." Adherents to the religion of reality, meanwhile, "understand that leaders and people often covet their neighbor's homes, industries and wealth, and if they can grab such by force they often will. Those who want peace need to stop aggression and terrorism, by force if necessary."

Olasky, who famously helped then-candidate George W. Bush define "compassionate conservatism" as a political philosophy in the 2000 presidential campaign, failed to mention the subject in his talk.

Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, noted that religious behavior has proved to be a strong predictor of voting patterns in recent elections. He cited polls showing that religiously active people tend to vote Republican by a 2-to-1 margin while those less engaged in religious activity tend to vote Democratic. But while this "religion gap" or "God gap" is real, he said, it is not as simple as it seems. "It is not entirely religious people in one party and totally secular people in the other." Both parties are riven by the so-called culture wars.

So far, panelists concurred, no 2008 presidential hopeful in either party has emerged as a favorite of religious conservatives. Neither of the two leading Republican contenders, Senator John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have natural ties to the religious right. And even though he shares many of their conservative views on social issues, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon faith poses an obstacle for some evangelicals who view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult. No other social conservatives among the current crop of Republican candidates were mentioned by name.

Efforts by some Democrats to infuse their campaigns with religious values, several speakers noted, so far have not proven persuasive to religious conservatives who tend to view the sudden religiosity as political opportunism. Cromartie predicted that "any candidate who attempts to contrive a religious sensibility in an inauthentic manner" will be seen as "insincere and politically calculating" by religious voters. "However, any candidate who is tone deaf to religious language and who is uncomfortable speaking publicly about religious themes…will not be nominated by their party, much less have a chance to win the presidency."

But Michael Barone, a political columnist for U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, argued that "events and decisions not yet made" are likely to influence voters, including evangelicals, more than religious behavior or litmus tests. Concerns over terrorism and national security could be decisive. In the face of terrorist threats, he said, "voters eventually will ask, 'Who is better able to protect us?' And the answer for many social conservatives will be Giuliani or McCain." It was as close as the day's discussion came to addressing the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorism threat, even though evangelical voters have been among the most persistent in supporting President Bush's war policies. Recent polls have shown a decline in that support among evangelicals.

Not everyone on the panel was ready to concede the religious vote to social conservatives. Darryl G. Hart, director of honors programs at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Del. and the author of A SECULAR FAITH: WHY CHRISTIANITY FAVORS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, described what he called a "left turn" among evangelical baby boomers. He said Democratic gains in the 2006 midterm elections "suggest that the religious right may be faltering in its hold upon born-again Protestants."

Since the rise of the Moral Majority in the late 1970s and the Christian Coalition in the 1980s, Hart noted, evangelicals have become a reliable constituency of the Republican Party, focusing much of their political energy on moral issues and biblical values. "But biblical standards of morality have a way of also nurturing an interest in biblical standards of justice," he said.

"Consequently, while the older generation of evangelicals read the Bible for its application to sex and family relations, younger evangelicals turn to holy writ for guidance on war, hunger and poverty…The irony is that once the religious right let the genie of Bible-based politics out of bottle of American conservatism they may have unleashed a Protestant force that Republicans will find impossible to harness."