Skip to comments.Loyal to the End: Evangelicals Stay the Course
Posted on 11/07/2008 7:23:40 AM PST by Alex Murphy
So much for the "new evangelicals."
For the past two years, hundreds of articles have appeared in newspapers across America making the claim that the old religious right was moving left and that Barack Obama, with his religiously infused rhetoric and various "outreach efforts," was leading the charge. A year ago, David Kirkpatrick predicted the "evangelical crackup" on the cover of the New York Times Magazine. "Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have the Corner on Christ," "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America" and "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right" are just three of the dozens of books released since 2004 that suggested that evangelicals were rethinking their loyalty to the Republican Party and conservatism in general. The new evangelicals, just in case anyone missed the storyline, were not so backward as to vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage. They were enlightened about the environment and favored government aid to the poor.
Well, whoever these new evangelicals were, they didn't show up at the polls on Tuesday.
John McCain won 74% of white born-again Protestants' votes. And while this was four percentage points lower than George Bush's share in 2004, President Bush's re-election was "the highpoint" for evangelical support of Republicans at least since 1980, according to John Green, a pollster at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. It's become something of a cliché that Mr. Bush has a "special relationship" with his fellow evangelicals -- but it's true. And it's a little unrealistic to expect that Sen. McCain would enjoy the same relationship with them, given that he is not one of their own. But he did just as well as, if not better than, every other GOP candidate in the past...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I am very impressed with the evangelical vote. This is a very good sign and hope for the unborn. I wish my fellow Catholics had such an impressive showing.
Evangelicals will soon be a major target of the 0bama administration, and not in a good sense. They will be singled out for scorn, labeled as “agents of intolerance,” and “dangerous hate-filled zealots.” Eventually, if we don’t watch out, the gas chambers will await...
more mis/disinformation debunked
Regardless of the election’s outcome, our consciences and sacred honor remain intact.
Bobby Jindal could take that % to 85.
That was Bill Ayers plan. My new home page, lest I forget: Eyewitness to the Ayers Revolution
So keep praying so you have the grace to stay the course next time, because without Christ you can do nothing.
This is one reason I am not particularly dejected at the outcome of this election. The country is no more liberal today than it was 8 years ago. To my mind, this is 1976 all over again.
In ‘76, the Republicans had lost their way ... corruption and distinctly non-conservative activity plagued the party. They had a two-term unpopular President (Nixon); a lackluster “moderate” Presidential candidate (Ford) that defeated a far more conservative counterpart in the primary (Reagan) and was directly tied to the unpopular administration (pardons). The Democrats ran a soft spoken leftist that used his Christian morality to blind the electorate ... and they won.
In ‘76, the Republicans, not conservatism, were repudiated.
In 2008, the Republicans lost their way — corruption and distinctly non-conservative activity plague the party. We have a two-term unpopular President that failed to live up to conservative promises. We had a lackluster “moderate” Presidential candidate that beat far more conservative rivals in the Primary (Thompson, Romney), and could be closely tied to the unpopular Administration. The Democrats nominated a mild-mannered, well-spoken leftist that was able to blind the electorate with soaring oratory ... and they won.
The Republicans, not conservatism, have been repudiated in 2008.
But — in both 1976, and 2008, the electorate is still fundamentally conservative. To quote Ronald Reagan in a speech after the disastrous loss in 1976 ...
“Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own. Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed.”
I believe the Republicans lost partially because the Democrats co-opted conservative rhetoric (”tax cuts” for the middle class, renewed victory in Afghanistan, etc), and the Republicans’ proved they could not be trusted to follow through on their conservative rhetoric. We allowed the lines to be blurred.
But, I believe we can utilize this loss as the Republicans did in 1976. We can renew conservatism. Like Reagan did with the “Reagan Democrats”, we can win converts we thought were completely unreachable with a conservative message. This will partially be done when Democrats reveal their true colors.
We lost in 1976, and the media announced that conservatism had been officially repudiated ... and that the short-lived conservative movement was dead. They were wrong then — and they’re wrong now.
To my mind, this is 1976 all over again.
Let us remember that this is 2008 and the approach need to be different. Sometimes , we have to be proactive. Like democrats, in 2006 elections, we need to plan for 2010 and take one democrat at a time. We need more registrations and lot of ground work. Radio’s and fox news will help us but, we have to go beyond that and play in the turf of democrats.
Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. Would Evangelicals support him, or would they reject him the same way they rejected Romney for being a Mormon ... or worse?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but am asking an honest question.
>> Let us remember that this is 2008 and the approach need to be different. Sometimes , we have to be proactive. Like democrats, in 2006 elections, we need to plan for 2010 and take one democrat at a time. We need more registrations and lot of ground work.
You said we need a new approach ... then stated an approach that is no different from the approach taken between 1976 and 1980. We need to return to our roots — not “reinvent” ourselves. We need to get the conservative message out, speaking to one Democrat at a time.
Most importantly, we need to communicate a cohesive set of conservative principles, and then govern from those principles.
I'm working on a regular program of threads identifying those guys and suggesting how that can be done.
Not exactly the same...this evangelical has gladly gone to Mass with friends or when that was the only thing available (overseas). You wouldn't catch me dead in a Mormon temple.
>> Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. Would Evangelicals support him, or would they reject him the same way they rejected Romney for being a Mormon ... or worse?
You’ve got a couple of wrong assumptions here.
(1) Evangelicals did not reject Romney, en masse, because he was a Mormon. If the conservative vote had not been divided between Romney, Huckabee and Thompson ... any of the three likely would have beaten McCain. The trio, however, fragmented the conservative vote.
I am an evangelical, and I personally went with Thompson over Romney for a couple of reasons. (1) Romney’s record in Massachussetts wasn’t particularly conservative, (2) I don’t care for Romney’s style and delivery (he’s a little too much like a “politician” sent from central casting), and (3) the mixture of his record and slick style made me wonder whether he was just telling me what I wanted to hear (rather than what he actually believed).
None of those objections — which were very prevalent on this site — had anything to do with his religion.
(2) I don’t think most evangelicals believe Catholicism to be particularly objectionable. On the basics of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism are pretty close to one another. There are distinct differences, of course ... but, on moral and religious issues, Protestants and Catholics (and Mormons, for that matter) are generally on the same side.
(3) Even those that found Romney’s Mormonism objectionable (which I contend was a small minority), are still less likely to object to Catholicism. Mormonism has distinct and radical departures from Protestantism ... Catholicism has far fewer.
And ... if conservative voters would vote for a liberal because the conservative candidate was Catholic or Mormon (which I believe VERY few would) — they’re not particularly conservative, and we’ll likely be better off without them.
They would support him. Evangelicals were the one group that supported Keyes in Illinois. They would be happy to vote for a good man like Jindal.
I don’t think that would be a big problem. Hey, if JFK could do it, so could Jindal.
You are forgetting one important factor: JFK was a Democrat. Traditionally the majority of Catholics vote Democrat. Just because Jindal is Catholic does not mean that Catholics will vote for him.
Evangelicals will soon be a major target of the 0bama administration, and not in a good sense. They will be singled out for scorn, labeled as agents of intolerance, and dangerous hate-filled zealots. Eventually, if we dont watch out, the gas chambers will await...
Which means, evangelicals need to drop the silliness and the fluff, and get the gospel right.
(Kennedys have evidently been able to do that for some time.)
I hope Jindal can't, and won't, say that.
The traditional nativist slam on Catholics is that their real loyalty is to a foreign power. (The Vatican is of course a grave threat to US interests; why, it's almost big enough to walk a large dog. ;-))
(This comes straight out of the Reformation-era polemic in England; look up Regnans in excelsis and the English response to it, Guy Fawkes Day, etc.)
Kennedy defused that by throwing his faith under the bus. If Jindal is half the man I think he is, his Catholicism is a non-negotiable part of who he is ... as mine is of me.
If you're looking for a man of integrity and strong Christian convictions, with Catholicism being an inextricable part of both, then I hope we can unite behind Governor Jindal.
Evangelicals would be foolish to reject Jindal because he is a Catholic. I would personally vote for him in a heartbeat because his value system is the same as mine on most of the important issues, even though our worship forms are quite different. There aren’t enough Evangelicals or conservative practicing Catholics to make a political difference, but when we stand together on the important moral and ethical issues we can make that difference.
What's going on with the other 26%? I wonder what the % was for my Black brothers.
I don't think they will try to do anything like that. They don't need to. They already control the school systems. They control the media and will restrict debate by means of the "fairness doctrine" and censorship of the internet. The tax codes will be changed and the middle class that already does not pay it's fair share will start receiving checks from the govt.
A culture of dependence on govt will be expanded at the same time children will be indoctrinated with the liberal belief in "tolerance".
Judges will be appointed that feel free to impose their liberal view of "tolerance" and in no time at all Christianity will be marginalized and be "obsolete".
The history is yes.
Why is it that Roman Catholics don't support conservative Born Again Christians?
I got tripped up on that assumption yesterday re the Catholic vote ... we think black/white and forget the hugh numbers of hispanic Catholics and Evangelicals .. hispanics went big time for Obama.
I swear, I recall hearing early in the primaries that hispanics would never vote for a black. ha! You can safely assume that 95-99% of your black brothers went for Obama, regardless of religious persuasion.
xx% McCain, 67% Obama - Hispanic Protestants and other Christians
xx% McCain, 94% Obama - Black Protestants
You can find the expanded, updated chart on my profile page.
Thanks for the data. It's a shame their Christian faith didn't come first, makes me wonder how Christian they really are.
I kinda figured the "historic" aspect of it would be a driving force for Blacks.
I think it's surprising with Hispanic Evangelicals, maybe the mishandling of immigration reform fed into it as well.
Some of them are "Catholics" in name only. The "Catholics" who can't be bothered with Sunday Mass attendance are going to vote exactly like pagans, because most of them live like pagans.
Of those who practice their faith, a significant number don't make the connection between between their faith, and their behavior in the voting booth, partly because of an long-entrenched history of voting Democrat, and partly because, although they attend Mass on Sunday morning, their faith doesn't make much of an impact on the rest of their life.
It would be interesting to see the exit poll numbers for Catholics who really, really know and practice their faith: Mass attendance at least weekly, daily prayer/Bible study (preferably 2-3x per day), confession at least monthly, don't contracept, etc.
I can give you a little data point on that. I went to the local GOP HQ and got 6 McCain Palin yard signs @ 3 dollars each. I put one in my yard. I took the other 5 to a Catholic function for men (one organized by a Catholic lay organization slandered in a recent movie). My 5 signs were gone in 5 minutes.
I live in the South. Practically every one I vote for would answer to the description of "conservative Born Again Christian".
I still don’t think it will matter that much. If it does, then shame on evangelicals!
I still don’t think it will matter that much. If it does, then shame on evangelicals! Heck, if I was willing to vote for a Mormon, a Catholic shouldn’t be much of a problem, right?
IIRC, George Bush got 60% of the RC vote. I don't recall what Ronald Reagan got.
Most of the time, it's me, lamenting that my fellow-evangelicals aren't as out-front, identifiably focused on abortion as Roman Catholics.
Evangelicals by definition practice their religion. Half of self identified Catholics don't. But like you as a Catholic it makes me sick to see so many Catholics voting for the most radical pro abortionist ever elected to be POTUS.
Conservative Roman Catholics do. We just supported the hell out of Sarah Palin.
Catholics support conservative born again evangelicals. If anyone supports pagan, liberal baby killers they are not Catholic.
I would be privileged to vote for a man of his character and integrity, Catholic or not.
A pox on them then. How stupid can they get? I guess they showed it Tuesday. Don’t have to guess anymore, LOL. Kennedy was very charismatic and handsome. That’ll get a lot of votes. Jindal is honest, has integrity and good character. If Catholics can’t see that, then they need to repent. M
The left has invaded religions, religions where you can believe in abortion and still call yourself religious.
AM's profile page: 55% McCain, 43% Obama - Weekly mass-attending Catholics
I have no doubt that 99%+ of the RC freepers vote for the conservative it's the body as a whole that doesn't.
I think a large factor is the clergy. The clergy is probably just as much a factor in the Evangelical Churches. Thus you see a high % among White Evangelicals but a low % among Hispanics and a terrible % among Blacks.
Do you have any particular "Born Again Christian" in mind?
The way you phrase it, you make it appear like Catholics deliberately reject candidates purely because they're "Born Again Christians". They don't. Catholics (using the broad, CINO-inclusive definition) vote for liberal, state welfare-loving candidates. It's not a vote against an evangelical. It's a vote for the historical party of Catholics; the Democrats.
There are all sorts of historical reasons why, most centering around poor Catholic immigrants from Europe, but it's not because of animosity to evangelicals.
I have no doubt. But why are there so few conservative RC's?
I would ask a similar question of Black Evangelicals, or Hispanic Evangelicals.
In this last election we had a candidate that not only supports abortion, but supports infanticide. How any Christian can turn a blind eye to this makes me wonder whether they really are a Christian.
I would agree here at FR. We share a common bond in our conservatism, but as a body I'm not aware of the % exceeding 60%.
25% of the electorate is Roman Catholic. About half are not apostates. McCain got about 55 million votes, whic means he got about 14 million votes from Roman Catholics, the practicing kind. I don’t speak for the apostates.
Frankly, I am stunned by the numbers. I had thought Catholics would turn the tide against Obama this time around. The bishops were much, much more vocal this election cycle. On our local RC radio station Fr. Corapi's no holds barred anti-abortion sermons were played four times a day.....for weeks. There was no mistaking where my pastor stood and he hosted an electoral novena to pray for our country. I personally know of no Catholic that supported Obama. So I don't know who these "Catholics" are who claimed to support Obama.
Because the dominant culture overshadows religiosity. An hour of church on Sunday is no match for the godless public schools, the MSM, and the statist government.
I am too!
I thought the Bishops had been very clear.
In Evangelical churches there is a tendency to self segregate and I'm stunned as well that the %'s weren't higher among all the different churches. The argument about when life begins is mute when a candidate supports infanticide (allowing a live baby to die).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.