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.
Here, perhaps, is the saddest commentary on the American electorate: that overwhelming majorities regard atheism as a most-disqualifying flaw and religiosity as a most-qualifying commendation.
This is to say that Americans require their leader not only to espouse, but also to demonstrate a decision-making process essentially–by definition–irrational, what Kierkegaard called an absurd “leap of faith”. Such demonstrated irrationality, in fact, is a requirement for true adherence to any faith, whether of extreme or moderate stripe.
Now of course, one of the oldest adages is “when in Rome, do as the Romans”; and none know this better than the politicians. One must genuflect before the idols for the sake of the form. But particularly in a secular state that maintains official neutrality among religions, the politician–as he always has–must do so with a wink and a nod. The 1st Amendment right to practice religion as one pleases is at stake, so the politician must maintain an official neutral stance, even if his values are influenced by his religious training–and even if he admits as much.
Neverthless, the soundness of the secular state is threatened when infested by “true believers” masquerading as politicians, rather than the other way around. We have seen the devestating effect with some of the Bushies. We see the worry in military quarters with the Turkish parliament’s election yesterday of Gul. We worry about the influence of the ayatollahs in Iran.
So, we should safeguard against such an infestation of the Democratic Party. As Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet illuminate in Mother Jones (Sep/Oct 2007), HRC holds hands weekly with mostly-GOP Christian ‘wingers at the Senate Prayer Breakfast and is a member of the shadowy Fellowship of Doug Coe. Many sources demonstrate a history of HRC’s knee-scraping religiosity, including her own statements and writings. The question Joyce and Sharlet ask: is this more Clintonian triangulation, a clever strategy for Senatorial achievement (ala those Romans), or is she really “down with” the theocratic aims of Coe, the Fellowship, and their congregants? The nod and wink have yet to come.