A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election

Chapter 3: Faithful Divides: Party Elites and Religion

The results of the 2004 presidential campaign provoked an unusually strident debate about the impact of “moral values” on the outcome of the election and added fuel to the ongoing argument over the “culture war.”1 Some scholars argue that the culture war is real and consequential, rooted in fundamental moral divisions that will soon dominate political discourse. In their view, the American public is deeply polarized, leaving little middle ground or room for compromise.2 To these advocates, “moral values” had, as they expected, a great impact in 2004. However, other scholars argue that the culture war is much exaggerated. Cultural disputes involve only small minorities of the population and have modest effects on political discourse . Moreover, they say, the public is not especially polarized on such matters ,withmostpeopleholdingmoderateviewsandopentocompromise.Inany event, the populace is focused on other concerns.3 To these advocates, “moral values” had limited impact in 2004 and that impact was overstated. Despite their disagreements, both sides agree on two things. First, political elites, including party elites, are critical to the values divide, whether they Faithful Divides Party Elites and Religion John C. Green and John S. Jackson 3 37 1. See Ferguson (2005); White (2005); Pomper (2005); Muirhead and others (2005). 2. Hunter (1991); White (2003); Greenberg (2004). 3. Williams (1997); Wolfe (1998); Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope (2005). reflect a culture war raging in the public or instigate such “wars” themselves in their bid for power. Second, the disputants agree that religious communities are important to the values divide, whether in terms of bitter sectarian rivalries focused on sexual morals or religious coalitions concerned with an expanded issue agenda. These points of agreement provide fertile ground for investigating party elites and religion in 2004. This chapter undertakes such an investigation, using a survey of national convention delegates in 2004. Consistent with other recent studies, we find evidence of “faithful divides” among major party elites: differences in religious affiliation and observance were important characteristics of Democratic and Republican delegates. These differences were often systematically linked to political attitudes, most clearly on cultural issues such as abortion, but to a lesser extent on liberal or conservative ideology and the Iraq war, where partisanship seemed to play a greater role. Overall, the party elites represented their co-religionists within the party’s base reasonably well, both in aggregate numbers and on attitudes toward issues. Furthermore, the views of both “religious liberals” and “religious conservatives” were deeply embedded in elite party politics. These faithful divides contributed to the marked polarization among party elites. Party Elites, Religion, and Values Delegations to the major party presidential nominating conventions are among the broadest and most accessible bodies of party elites, and as a consequence, they have been extensively studied.4 Delegates constitute what Kirkpatrick called “the presidential elite”; they are strategically located to influence national politics and they wield their influence in both formal and informal terms.5 Informalterms,onceeveryfouryearsnationalconventiondelegatesbecome the embodiment of the national parties, elected to serve as each party’s highest plenary body. In addition to formally nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates, they adopt the party’s platform, enact the rules under which the next presidential nominations will be conducted, and hold a giant “pep rally” for the party’s candidates.6 The success or failure of the national conven38 JOHN C. GREEN AND JOHN S. JACKSON 4. McClosky, Hoffman, and O’Hara (1960 and 1964); Jackson, Brown, and Bositis (1982); Miller and Jennings (1986); Maggiotto and Wekkin (2000); Abramowitz, McGlennon, and Rapoport (1986). 5. Kirkpatrick (1976). 6. David, Goldman, and Bain (1960). tions reveals the extent to which the party is united and ready for the general election in the fall. In addition to their formal duties, the delegates represent critical components of the major parties’ resources and organizational personnel. Many are envoys from state and local party organizations, which are the constituent parts of the national committees and the convention itself. Others belong to key interest groups or social movements allied with the party. Still others are part of the presidential primary campaigns, particularly that of the winning candidate, while many are connected to their party’s congressional, state, and local officeholders. Finally, the delegates are a slice of the “life of the party” at the grassroots, embodying the priorities, opinions, and ferment within each party’s larger activist pool. And when the conventions are over, the delegates return home...