Since I’m always standing at the intersection of politics and religion, I’m always interested in fresh data on the subject, and wrote some up at New York:
One of the big predictions in American politics lately, of infinite comfort to embattled progressives, is that the increasing number of religiously non-affiliated Americans, particularly among younger generations, will spur a steady leftward drift. Perhaps that will mean, we are told, that Democrats will be able to build their elusive permanent majority on the grounds of abandoned houses of worship. Or perhaps, some hope, the religious roots of today’s Republican extremism will begin to wither away, allowing American conservatives to resemble their less intemperate distant cousins in other advanced democracies, ending the culture wars.
Both propositions may be true. But it’s a mistake to treat so-called nones as an undifferentiated secularist mass, as Eastern Illinois University political scientist Ryan Burge explains with some fresh data. He notes that “in 2022, 6% of folks were atheists, 6% were agnostics, and another 23% were nothing in particular.” This large bloc of “nothing in particular” voters may lean left, all other things being equal, but they tend to be as uninterested in politics as in religion, making them a less than ideal party constituency. He explains:
“To put this in context, in 2020 there were nearly as many nothing in particulars who said that they voted for Trump as there were atheists who said that they voted for Biden.
“While atheists are the most politically active group in the United States in terms of things like donating money and working for a campaign, the nothing in particulars are on another planet entirely.
“They were half as likely to donate money to a candidate compared to atheists. They were half as likely to put up a political sign. They were less than half as likely to contact a public official.
“This all points to the same conclusion: they don’t vote in high numbers. So, while there may be a whole bunch of nothing in particulars, that may not translate to electoral victories.”
As Burge mentioned, however, there is a “none” constituency that leans much more strongly left and is very engaged politically — indeed, significantly more engaged than the white evangelicals we’re always hearing about. That would be atheists. In a separate piece, he gets into the numbers:
“The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.
“The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.
“HALF of atheists report giving to a candidate or campaign in the 2020 presidential election cycle.
“The average atheist is about 65% more politically engaged than the average American.”
And as Thomas Edsall points out in a broader New York Times column on demographic voting patterns, atheists really are a solid Democratic constituency, supporting Biden over Trump in 2020 by an incredible 87 to 9 percent margin. It’s worth noting that the less adamant siblings of the emphatically godless, agnostics, also went for Biden by an 80 to 17 percent margin and are more engaged than “nothing in particulars” as well.
So should Democrats target and identify with atheists? It’s risky. Despite the trends, there are still three times as many white evangelicals as atheists in the voting population. And there are a lot more religious folk of different varieties, some of whom have robust Democratic voting minorities or even majorities who probably wouldn’t be too happy with their party showing disdain for religion entirely. There’s also a hunt-where-the-ducks-fly factor: If atheists and agnostics already participate in politics and lean strongly toward Democrats, how much attention do they really need? There’s a reason that politicians, whatever their actual religious beliefs or practices, overwhelmingly report some religious identity. Congress lost its one professed atheist when California representative Pete Stark lost a Democratic primary in 2012; the only professed agnostic in Congress is Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, whose political future isn’t looking great.
It’s a complicated picture. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat argues that American liberalism’s increasing identification with secularism is keeping a lot of conservative Christians from politically expressing their reservations about Donald Trump. And religious people beyond the ranks of conservative faith communities may feel cross-pressured if Democratic politicians begin to reflect the liberal intelligentsia’s general assumption that religion is little more than a reactionary habit rooted in superstition and doomed to eventual extinction.
Perhaps it makes more sense for Democratic atheists and agnostics to spend time educating and mobilizing the “nothing in particular” Americans who already outnumber white evangelicals and ought to be concerned about how they’ll be treated if a Christian-nationalist Gilead arises. Only then can “nones” become the salvation for the Democratic Party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4436481,00.html
“Democrats who say they are concerned with how the world views the nation have formed a group to run television ads and campaign against Bush. Advisers to the group, Safer Together 04, include former Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake.
The group will run a TV ad starting Friday initially on cable channels in Washington, D.C., before expanding to battleground states next week. The ad, to air during the Olympics, features a lifelong Republican who says he won’t vote for Bush again. It counters an Olympics-themed ad Bush is running”
Its obviously beginning to happen. People are banding together is cells and are doing cooperative things to make this system work.
The scientists have also banded and are asking for a meeting with both Bush and Kerry. Kerry says he is ready. Bush’ team is yet to comment.
This is the best approach towards making things happen for November. Now, each cell and target a different message and a different sector of the electorate and yet, each cell’s message will cross fertilise because each segment of the electorate has multiple interests.
If this trend picks up momentum and is joined by the efforts from the 527s and the DEMs and the Kerry campaign, then the coming months will be full of great things. You can also bet that things will get so nasty that we might have to turn off the TV when the kids are around. Lies will flow like a stream after a torrent of rain and it will all add to the excitement.
In truth and in fact, if the cell concept of the Kerry supporters gets a roller coaster effect, then the republicans will have to rally their troopers quickly and get a response in place… and it just might be late.
I still think that the process must continue and that the rank and file still need to ensure that they chat a bit with the neighbours and the aunts and uncles and make sure that everyone gets a ride to a booth… there is must that can be done.. and I am sure that the rank and file will get even busier in the coming weeks.
I am enjoying the fact that there are a number of small groups (cells) who are carrying the message and refuting the Bush claims.
Cheers
heroditus, I wonder that, too. Another poll in Ohio has Kerry up 2 among likely voters, just like Gallup.
heroditus, I wonder that, too. Another poll in Ohio has Kerry up 2 among likely voters, just like Gallup.
Economist weekly poll out (Aug 16-18):
Kerry over Bush 48-41 in 3-way race.
See:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovG.pdf
Also, Bush has broken another barrier, down to 39% approval. If that holds, he’s sunk.
I would appreciate it if someone would discuss the credibility (or lack of it) of Strategic Vision polls. This is an out and out Republican outfit which has started deluging the world with its polls in the past month or so. It seems to me quite likely that it is just another arm of the Bush re-election campaign which has been assigned the task of making it look like he is not sinking like a rock. It bothers me that so many blogs seem to give it credibility. On Ohio, for example there are a number of other polls just out which show Kerry with a lead – in the case of Gallup a 10 point lead among registered voters. I think people should consider whether or not they want to give Strategic Vision any credibility and any publicity. I think it is a fraud.