God gap (cont’d.)

Last updated on: July 18, 2007 at 8:02 pm by Fred Clark

God gap (cont’d.) 2007-07-18T20:02:06-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

My main problem with Amy Sullivan’s TIME article, “The Origins of the God Gap,” is that it spends most of its time nibbling around the edges of its subject without ever cutting to the chase.

I’m sure Sullivan is correct to argue that Michael Dukakis might have done better with Catholic voters had he not spurned invitations to speak at Catholic institutions. But it makes no sense to ignore the larger dynamic here — by the time Dukakis ran for office, Catholic voters were already established as “Reagan Democrats,” which is to say “Republicans.” (It’s also odd that Sullivan would discuss the 1988 campaign as an example of Democrats’ alleged hostility to faith without mentioning that, throughout most of the primaries, Dukakis was neck-and-neck with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose stump speech was a revival-meeting sermon.)

Sullivan also writes things like this:

Republicans relentlessly charged Democrats with waging a war on faith (or Christmas or the Bible).

Well, yeah, but why we should take such hysterical attacks as evidence of an actual Democratic “war on faith” is not clear.

All of this is, at most, tangential to the core question of why the so-called “God gap” in partisan voting exists — why evangelical Christian and Catholic voters reliably cast their ballots for Republican presidential candidates. The answer there is very simple: Most evangelical Christians and Catholics are opposed to abortion rights and the Republican Party is opposed to abortion rights. It’s the abortion, stupid.

The God gap, in other words, has little to do with religious rhetoric, or with where candidates agree to speak, or with any other symbolic effort at “faith friendliness.” It has to do with an actual policy position. On this particular policy position the stance of Voting Bloc X aligns with the stance of Party Y. It should not be surprising or mysterious or puzzling to anyone, then, that the members of Voting Bloc X tend to cast their votes for the candidates of Party Y.

This gets inflated into something more confusing than it really is because this particular policy position tends, to these particular voters, to be the single-most important factor in deciding their vote. (Here, it should be noted, there is a big difference between the priorities of X and Y. The position of anti-abortion voters is shared by the Republican Party, but the party seems to hold this position mainly as a means of ensuring the continued loyalty of these voters. It is not, for the party, as urgently and pre-eminently important as it is for these voters.)

The other apparent source of confusion here is that this position is, for most of these voters, religiously motivated. The gist of Sullivan’s advice about “faith friendliness” seems to be that it is possible to woo such voters with appeals to the religious beliefs that motivate their policy stance without actually endorsing the stance itself. That strikes me, frankly, as more disrespectful of the substance of their faith than anything Michael Dukakis might have said or done. It also strikes me as a bit like suggesting that Richard Nixon should have gotten the pacifist vote because he was a Quaker. These voters have taken a policy stance that arises from their understanding of their faith, but the stance itself is what determines their vote. They will side with an impious pro-lifer over a pious and devout pro-choicer every time. It’s not clear that Sullivan appreciates that.

We’re taking here about abortion — a topic that seems to provoke more heat than light. One odd thing about the politics of abortion is that the possibility of persuasion seems completely off the table. It thus becomes all about rallying the already persuaded, hoping that our side outnumbers their side. Either that or candidates just change the subject, hoping that other issues will carry more weight (this seems to be Giuliani’s approach in the GOP primary).

I give Sullivan credit for trying to get beyond preaching to the choir — for trying to put persuasion back on the table and to find a way to reach out to those on the other side. But I think that if you’re going to do that credibly, you can’t just nibble around the edges, talking about “faith” while avoiding the conclusions voters have reached due to their faith. I think this calls for something more. I don’t think candidates who support abortion rights should merely be embracing “faith friendly” rhetoric in the hopes of scoring points with people of faith who oppose abortion rights. I think those candidates should be explaining, forthrightly, why they support such rights and why they believe others should as well.

Three final points here, which I will try to state as generally as possible because, while I believe these apply to the politics of abortion, I also think they apply more generally:

1. When a disagreement involves questions of principle, a willingness to compromise, meeting your opponents half way, is not an effective approach to persuasion. Your willingness to compromise might make you seem more reasonable and appealing to some, but to many others it simply makes you seem unprincipled.

2. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to focus on the worst motives demonstrated by the most egregious of your opponents. But if you’re trying to persuade your opponents, then the presumption of charity isn’t only a more just approach, it’s also a more pragmatic one. If you want to persuade, you need to address the strongest case your opponent can make, not the weakest one, and you need to address that strongest case head on.

3. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to point out inconsistencies in your opponents’ views and to attack these as evidence of hypocrisy or duplicity. But if you’re trying to persuade your opponents, then you need to recognize that such inconsistencies are an opportunity to raise questions they may already be half asking themselves.

evangelicals

Previous Post

July 17, 2007

Origins of the God Gap

Next Post

July 18, 2007 Hummin' a lunar tune

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to James, what should you do when you are in trouble?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pray Repent Serve others Sing Hymns