I suspect these two new polls conducted by Pew Research will generate a lot of discussion across the blogosphere in the next couple of days. Among white Evangelicals 18-29 years old Bush’s approval rating has gone from an astronomic 87% in 2002 to a shockingly low 45% today. These results are especially interesting considering the news that the Democrats are intensely courting disaffected social conservatives and prominent SoCons are mulling forming a third party in the event that Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination.
Are these yet another sign that the Conservative Coalition of the past 40 years is breaking up or is it all just no big deal? Discuss.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
One of the reasons for hisloss of support is his unrelenting drive to divide Jerusalem and give the Palesentinians most of Israel.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
While I can’t speak for evangelicals, I have noticed that among under-35ers, the religious are much less Republican and much less
focused on traditional culture war issues. Instead, they tend to be fiscally liberal, pro-life in the case of both abortion and
the death penalty, and agnostic or even liberal on gay rights issues. I met a 20-something girl recently who described herself
as a fiscally liberal, socially conservative practicing Catholic…who is for gay marriage. Another friend of mine, a Protestant
from the deep south who is always trying to get me to go to church with him (guess how well that works out) supports the
normalization of homosexuality. A generational shift in values away from the Boomer definition of socially conservative along
with growing concerns among the religious over economic issues are causing this shift, and it will only get worse with time.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
I think Bush has destroyed the conservative coalition personally.
Bush has made people so mad at him that they will vote democrat for a long time even though they don’t agree with democrats. I think conservative principles will alays prevail in the long run, but it may take time for people to get over bush.
this is very interesting post given the intense love these evangelicals had for bush. I would like to know the reason for the drop in support?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
“One of the reasons for hisloss of support is his unrelenting drive to divide Jerusalem and give the Palesentinians most of Israel.”
Bush can be criticized on a lot of fronts but that charge is quite the stretch. Bush has been the most pro-Israel president in years if not ever.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:55 am
John Galt: ‘I think conservative principles will alays prevail in the long run, ‘
It depends on what you describe as ‘conservative principles’. Conservatives tend to be opposed to most changes. But that doesn’t really prevent them from happening. So did conservative principles ultmately prevail with regard to Social Security? What about the Civil Rights Acts?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
“I would like to know the reason for the drop in support?”
Perhaps spending, immigrations, and the inability to articulate the conservative cause clearly.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
DaveG: ‘ pro-life in the case of both abortion and the death penalty’
I’m pro-life when it comes to the death penalty. Kill the murderers so you deter the future killing of innocent people.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
John Galt – maybe this is partly because of his support for the pro-amnesty bill.
Just a guess.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’m a young evangelical and yeah I can support these findings. Younger evangelicals are concerned much more with non-hot button cultural issues than our parents. While most of us are adamantly pro-life and maybe opposed to gay marriage this generation is MUCH more liberal on economic issues. In my opinion this is why the Republican coalition is much more at risk than the Democratic one. The fact is most Democrats, while they may vary in degree, do generally believe the government is a greater force for good. While on the Republican side we’ve got libertarians, all the way conservatives (security, economics, social) and then “Social conservatives only” who have been voting based on abortion and gay marriage but are economically very liberal and believe that government should solve social and economic problems. Speaking for myself I think the reason we are less inclined to vote on “hot button issues” is that I look at the work of my elders and frankly I see very little accomplished. I think many of are tired of our parents approach to using the government to solve abortion for instance and would rather go straight to the population with outreach and ministry. To some extent I believe our parents insistence in using the government is just because they are too lazy to go do the heavy lifting themselves and engage in evangelism.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I think Bush’s broader decline has to do more with his inability to sell and defend his own agenda. Bush has had difficulty communicating in a clear, convincing, and effective way at times. Even when Bush is right on the issue, he gets made out to be this bumbling buffoon by the liberal press. Such criticism largely goes un-checked and without retort.
Our next nominee needs to use the bully pulpit to combat the liberal press.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Rush always says that Bush was not the leader of the conservative movement like Ronald
Reagon was.
I voted and worked for GWB to get re-elected and defended him in conversations, but when
he came out so strongly for the recent immigration bill, I felt betrayed.
He was so strong about national defense in the Middle East, but right here in our own country
he was will to abandon our borders and let anyone into our country and become legal.
It was like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I think a lot of conservatives were really P*&^d off about that.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I’m not an evangelical but I’d suspect Bush’s placing of social security reform and amnesty as priorities during the last three years has hurt him. Social issues are a priority and instead Bush wasted his time pushing for an unpopular social security plan and then an unpopular amnesty scheme. This is after he appeared to mismanaged Iraq and Katrina.
The only group Bush shows his “compassion” to is illegal aliens. This isn’t warming the hearts of evangelicals in my opinion.
I could be way off though because I’m not an evangelical.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
test
October 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
ugadawg: ‘I think many of are tired of our parents approach to using the government to solve abortion for instance and would rather go straight’
Please also help Senator Larry Craig go straight. He desperately needs your help right now.
By the way, you must be the first evangelical to adopt a name like ugadawg and not something like Salvation, SinnersBurninHell or JESUSISCOMINGJESUSISCOMING.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
ugadawg: ‘I think many of are tired of our parents approach to using the government to solve abortion for instance and would rather go straight’
Please also help Senator Larry Craig go straight. He desperately needs your help right now.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
econ grad stud: ‘Social issues are a priority and instead Bush wasted his time pushing for an unpopular social security plan and then an unpopular amnesty scheme. ‘
So which hugely popular social issues should he have pushed?
October 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
lol…oh geez.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
#2 DaveG at work has it about right. I would say, that on the issues of abortion, values and marriage, evangelicals (and I am one) should be pleased, because with Alito, we now have a 5-4 majority on most issues of free religious speech that will reverse O’connor’s lemon test for the est clause and are one vote from reversing roe.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Gamecock: ‘now have a 5-4 majority on most issues of free religious speech that will reverse O’connor’s lemon test for the est clause and are one vote from reversing roe.’
1. The Lemon Test was formulated before O’Connor was even on the Court.
2. Anthony Kennedy has, at times, endorses the Lemon Test.
Can you tell me why some religious fundamentalists are so obsessed with putting Ten Commandment monuments near courthouses? What purpose does that serve?
October 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Why are atheists obsessed with not having the 10 commandments near courthouses? Are they afraid of a stone with a few words written on it?
October 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I know A, but it was O’Connor that ran with it and added more and more tests.
The cases that have violated free speech rights are mostly 5-4 with Kennedy with the conservatives and O’Connor on the other side.
My obcession is that we the people preserve self government and not cede it to judges. That the contract that guarantees same, ie the constitution, be followed.
Banning religious speech like its obscenity cedes the culture to the non-religious. Our values are part and parcel of what made us the greatest nation in history, and its that we have been so influenced by judeo-christian values that we are so tolerant of others.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
He talks pro Israel but has done- and Rice is at this moment planning to do even more- damage to Israel then any previous President. He supposedly “fights” Islamic terror, Americans are dying in Iraq, but he supports the Palestinian terrorists of Fatah and allowed Hezbollah to walk away successfully with the UN cease fire. Iran? North Korea?
He nominated Alito but only after being forced to withdraw Miers.
Tax cuts, only temporary.
He’s for a marriage amendment as he knows it has no chance.
He is against stem cell research. Evangelicals may like that one, too bad it pisses off the rest of the Nation and damages Republicans.
Evangelicals fell in love with the man who said Jesus was his favorite philosopher. Likely because outside maybe Yogi Berra he couldn’t think of another philosopher.
Bush is a remarkably lousy President. Evangelicals are late to figuring it out.
But count on Evangelicals to repeat their mistake for a candidate in 2008.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Not an Evangelical (duh) so take my response with a grain of salt. I think the reason Evangalicals are running from Bush is that they are citizens also. You can have your core beliefs all you want, but if a President is bad, he’s bad. You can only defend a man so much before you have to throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat.
Bush is a very poor president and the GOP will be paying for his ineptitude come the next election.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“I’m pro-life when it comes to the death penalty. Kill the murderers so you deter the future killing of innocent people.”
Priceless. And Ditto!
October 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I have noticed similar trends. I have a theory that I think does a reasonably good job of explaining various trends in the US over the last 40-50 years. The US has diverged so prominently from Europe, in both it’s depth of religiosity, and it’s relative committment to conservatism, because of it’s central role in the Cold War. As the Soviet Union expounded communism, a thoroughly deterministic and Godless doctrine, two simultaneous trends occurred. First, people who were intrinsically opposed to determinism, reacted harshly against communism. They tried to disassociate themselves from it in every respect. The second trend is related. Nations that were highly involved in the Cold War saw it’s citizenry grasp more tightly to ideas that the Soviet Union opposed. In turn, a few key things happen. One, people hold onto their general religiosity in the US, while much of the west is abandoning there’s. Two, those who are already deeply religious, in their zel to reject communism, find themselves grasping more tightly to capitalism.
These trends helped the US remain religious and generally conservative. But, as communism has become a more distant memory, natural inclinations are reasserting themselves. Christianity, which preaches frugality and charity in private life, is embracing economic liberalism in public life. For instance, the church I currently attend, is a rather hippieish, non-denominational informal gathering, composed largely of young adults, and geared towards group activity. My pastor, a thirtyish man who plays in a rock band, demands, virtually every sermon, that we “give away all our money”. He sprinkles sermons with anecdotes of various rich people he’s known, failing to achieve happiness. I don’t mean to give the impression that my church is a liberal church. It’s not, in many respects. Virtually everyone there accepts that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus really rose from the dead, and that all the various miracles the Gospel talks of truly occurred. It’s not a “The Bible provides good life lessons” brand of church, that’s popping up in certain areas of America, and has already come to dominate Europe. But, most of the parishioners could probably be most accurately described as social conservatives, and fiscal liberals.
I don’t wish to say this is the natural tendency of Christianity. But, I do think that the sort of evangelicism which has become widespread in the US, when it’s no longer forced to react against an existential threat like communism, is more likely then previous incarnations, to preach active government, as well as an active citizenry. In other words, people who believe the primary mission of Christianity is to be “active” in spreading God’s word, aren’t terribly likely to muse on the fine distinctions of govermental theory. They’re no longer going to automatically blanch at the thought of carrying out their goals through government. There are many other things that go into this, but the long and short of it is, Christians of the 21st century are more likely to be Mike Huckabee’s, then Barry Goldwater’s. A friend of mine, who’s training to be a youth pastor, summed up the new order to me when describing his political views “I don’t want to kill babies, but I also want to feed the poor”.
What are the implications for our party? Well, the most obvious implication is, the Republican Party stands to lose quite a bit of it’s traditional base through such a shift. And there’s very little realistic chance of making up the difference from other quarters (note, poll after poll shows that the public at large is closer to the Democratic Party economically).
This phenomenon explains my unwillingness to jump on the Rudy Giuliani bandwagon in a nutshell. Assuming that America’s admiration, for America’s Mayor, overcomes the ideological opposition modern evangelicals have to Rudy, what then? Does anyone seriously expect that this effect is likely to carry over to the Republican Party at large? When evangelicals voted for Carter in 76′, they did so because they liked the man. They could relate to him in fundamental ways. When they began their monolithic support for the Republican Party in 80′, it was because even a likeable president can’t control an entire movement’s political beliefs, using only a thin veneer of popularity. They left Carter because, despite being an evangelical himself, he didn’t represent the evangelical movement’s goals. And they left the Democratic Party because it was clear it never would.
Enter Rudy Giuliani, circa 2008. And watch the Republican Party slowly unravel. After years of devotion to a party that no longer represents social conservatism, evangelicals vote for Rudy, but reluctantly. But, something’s building within the movement. Darfur, health care, poverty, and disease worry evangelicals. They begin to look at the Giuliani adminstration as fundamentally opposed to solving any of these crises. And they begin to wonder why they support the Republican Party at all. And the stage is set for a Governor Rendell, or a Barrack Obama. They sweep in, preaching social justice. And with the Republican Party divorced from social conservatism, they have no means to parry this message. The party loses in a landslide, and the coalition which Reagan built, is now centered around the few remaining sincere fiscal conservatives and a group of hawks that no longer preach Democracy and freedom (causes evangelicals could identify with) but Realism and interests, and which ignores “just” causes in Darfur to focus on “oil” in the Middle East. And just like that, a sincere majority has become an embarrassingly small minority.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Matt.
An alternative scenario is that only the fringe of both Left and Right demand absolutes in social, religious and defense issues (here the surrender Democracts). The mainstream want competence and problem solvers.
Enter Giuliani. He creates a new majority of the great middle. independents, right leaning Democrats and mainstream Republicans.
Romney too could fill that position if he wasn’t seen changing as the wind blows.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Opinionated,
There is no great middle. That’s a myth. There’s a great “I don’t care”. And those types vote with the political winds, or they vote for a candidate they “like”. The political winds…well, I shouldn’t have to tell you which way they’re blowing. And candidates who get in through sheer force of personality alone never create durable majorities. Reagn had tremendous events occurring all around him, and solved serious problems. Five years later, the great “I don’t care” were happy to elect Slick Willy. You create a majority by finding a majority. And there’s no majority in Bush 41 hawkishness, Ford social agnosticism, and rabid fiscal conservatism.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Giuliani doesn’t have, in my opinion, that great a personality. He wouldn’t get in on personality. If he gets in, it will be because of perceived competence. A competent successful President who is for the things the middle (as much as you may deny their existence) desire, low taxes, strong security, etc, may usher in a new template for Presidents. It would be great for the Nation.
It happened in NYC. Liberals hated Giuliani but many voted for him anyway (both terms) because the alternative, even one of their own, was to risky to their personal well being.
Clinton won because the first Bush was perceived as incompetent and out of touch. And there was Perot. For his second term, Clinton was judged to be very competent. And there was Dole.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Giuliani does have a great personality. He doesn’t necessarily have a likable one, but it’s enormously strong. Everything he did in NYC came through sheer force of personality and will. In that respect, he resembles Teddy Roosevelt. He’s “pure act”. It’s an admireable quality, but it doesn’t create durable majorities. Wilson scooted in 5 years after Roosevelt. And Mayor Bloomberg is nearly as bad as Dinkins. Giuliani helped revolutionize New York City. Of that there can be no doubt. But, he did very little to revolutionize it’s political culture. Even as New Yorkers who didn’t like Rudy reluctantly voted for him, they maintained their liberal viewpoints. And happily went back to electing liberals after he left.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“And happily went back to electing liberals after he left.”
Actually they didn’t. They voted for Bloomberg on the Republican ticket because Giuliani endorsed him.
Say what you will about Bloomberg, he is not Mark Green: who would have likely been elected otherwise.
Bloomberg’s election was similar to the way Bush I was elected as an extension of Reagan. One of Reagan biggest mistakes was Bush. Imagine a successful Republican followup to Reagan. Everything would be different. No Clintons.
For my view to materialize would depend on who followed a successful Giuliani Presidency.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
For those who say that there will be no one to replace the lost Social Conservatives, I assure there will be plenty. There are lots of folks out there (like my former self) who view the Republican party as a tool of religious interests bent on undermining personal liberty rights and imposing biblical mores on the country.
This viewpoint is similar to the widely held view among Republicans that the Democratic Party is basically an organized shill for a variety of interest groups who want our money (unions, NAACP, ACLU, etc).
I spent several elections casting my ballot mostly for Democrats because of my distate for Republican hypoccracy – “we’re the party of freedom, except for abortion, condoms, gays, et al.”
Finally, I came around to the fact that I belong in the Republican Party, but that many Republicans do NOT belong in the Republican Party. I have respect for folks who hold religious beliefs. I wish I had that sort of boldness of faith. But, I don’t want the principles that derive from religious dogma directing the government or influencing its policies. So, now I’m working from inside the party to change it. I think there are a lot of other peoople out there like me, who would feel comfortable in a party that finally became fully about liberty, and not just 2/3 about liberty.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
So we should just turn our heads while millions of innocent children are aborted in the name of convenience? Sorry, freedom and liberty does not extend to the right to destroy another innocent life.
Personal freedom is good – but not when it harms others, as Abortion certainly does.
–
As for the support of evangelicals – its because he strayed on immigration and a couple other issues.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
econ grad stud: ‘Why are atheists obsessed with not having the 10 commandments near courthouses?’
Nice try. But the burden of proof is upon those who wish that such monuments be present. Now will you explain to me what purpose it serves?
October 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
ACT I’m sure some evangelicals are pissed about immigration, but there are a lot that were with the President. Many of the evangelical churches stood up with the Latino members of their congregation in support of the policy. In my non-denominational church there was probably 50/50 support for the immigration bill. It should be noted especially in the south and southwest, many evangelical churches have outreach to illegal immigrants.
Michael I think what your describing is the type of realignment I see taking place in the next 10-20. Where the Republican party will line up as a largely libertarian party which some “conservative” remnants remaining. You will see a lot of the “abortion/gay marriage” only voters become disaffiliated and support third parties. Then lastly, a significant (maybe not majority) part of the evangelical movement (largely the younger generations) will realign with the Democratic party on economic liberalism.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Gamecock: ‘I know A’
Everyone knows something after they’ve been told the truth. Hell, I would know all the intricacies of physics, if someone told me and I could follow him (unlikely).
‘The cases that have violated free speech rights ‘
I assume that you’re talking about the government putting up Ten Commandment monuments. Please do tell me whose free speech rights are being violated. The government’s?
‘My obcession is that we the people preserve self government and not cede it to judges.’
Damn judges. I no longer have the right to keep my children from the Negro, thanks to their inspid ruling Brown v. Board of Education. Can’t a decent racist live according to his own values nowadays?
‘and its that we have been so influenced by judeo-christian values that we are so tolerant of others.’
That’s History 101. It is not Judeo-Christian values that are tolerant, indeed, many people were slaughtered in name of these religions. It’s the Enlightenment that tamed these religions, and the American Constitution, regardless of what contemptible creatures like David Barton would tell you, is based on the values of the Enlightenment.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Michael Lawrence: You sound like you support Fred Thompson. Is that the case, I’m just curious.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
ugadawg: ‘Where the Republican party will line up as a largely libertarian party which some “conservative†remnants remaining. You will see a lot of the “abortion/gay marriage†only voters become disaffiliated and support third parties.’
At the same time, educated and intelligent people who are disaffected with the Republican Party’s theocratic and authoritarian tendencies, will vote in greater frequency for the party of Lincoln. Screw the social issue voters. It’s time to ram a hard choice down their throats, either they’ll accept the 10% the GOP will give them, or the 0% of the Democrats. I’ll revel in their well-deserved misery.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
35. Awakened. I don’t know how you come to that conclusion and I would be very surprised if Michael Lawrence confirmed your belief.
Thompson is running as the top tier candidate that the Social Conservatives can trust on abortion- amonmg other issues. Seems a pro life position is the opposite of what Michael Lawrence would seek in the Republican Party. I could be wrong.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
36 – That is true, but I’ve seen that the strongest individualists seem to be supporting Thompson.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Awakened,
I have not yet chosen a candidate. I’m waiting for them to say a bit more of substance, especially with respect to how they will approach health care policy and entitlement reform. FDT hasn’t said much of anything yet, so the jury is still out on him. I don’t, however, agree entirely with those who brand him as a lazy candidate. We will have plenty of time to vet him.
Let me be clear on abortion: I oppose Roe v. Wade. It’s a judicial travesty. But, I personally support abortion rights. I believe that a fetus is “life” (what else can it be – it has 46 chromosomes and grows). I just do not believe that a fetus is “a life” in the same way as the woman carrying it. It is not an individual (because one cannot be an individual inside of another individual – it’s logically impossible). Indeed, biologially speaking, mammal offspring in gestation are most accurately descibed biologically as parasites. So, I draw the line in favor of erring on the side of the “individual” with “a life” over the potential individual that is, nonetheless, alive.
Even if I came to agree with those like ACT Blog and Ron Paul who believe that anti-abortion stance is consistent with the libertarian/conservative philosophy of protecting the right to life, I still can’t understand how SoCons think that restricting education of evolution, access to condoms and other sexual devices, and denial of gay rights is equally consistent with Republican political philosophy.