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.
Obama could be fairly criticized for launching competing health care reform messages that create logical inconsistencies. But health care reform isn’t being killed by logic but by gut punches. I would argue that “death panels” burrow into the psyche on many more levels than cost. Uncaring bureaucrats, anti-life liberals, big brother, etc. Obama struggles to keep the public discourse rational while the Republicans, Fox News, and conservative pundits counter with preposterous emotional attacks. The attacks are so provocative that the media just can’t help paying way too much attention. The Obama administration should have been ready with powerful evocative answers. Of course, this isn’t easy — I’m not sitting any fantastic rejoinders. But maybe someone should see if some of Jon Stewart’s writers might like to do a little moonlighting while their boss is on vacation.
Isn’t the problem that Obama said he was focused on cost-controls and, also, that everyone would get to keep what they had, and that we’d insure the uninsured? Seems to me that it was of the administration’s “have-cake-eat-too” argument that raised suspicions. As the post says, I don’t know there was any way to avoid controversy on this difficult issue. But certainly the approach the administration took certainly doesn’t seem to have helped the administration win over the public…
Obama’s message on health care was going to be attacked, and attacked hard, no matter what it was. There is no such thing as an attack-proof health care messsage. Too often, Democrats succumb to something analogous to a “blame the victim” mentality which goes something like this: look how bad they’re attacking you – how dumb could you be! Well, guess what, the Republicans were going to attack no matter how carefully crafted the message. Instead, Obama deserves blame for an ineffective counter-attack. It appears that he, his administration, and the Democratic party were completely unprepared for the Republican’s fire storm of misinformation and distortion. Instead of wailing about the attack they’ve engendered, I wish the Dems would start thinking one (or more) steps ahead. Failing to anticipate the inevitable Republican onslaught is a good way to get beat everytime.