The Role of Religion in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Richard J. Powell
Mark D. Brewer
Department of Political Science
University of Maine
234 N. Stevens Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-1795
[email protected]
[email protected]
*Paper prepared for delivery at the conference “The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election” at
the Interdisciplinary Center, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy,
Herzliya, Israel. January 2013.
Introduction
Religion has played an important and complicated role in U.S. elections since the
Founding Era, with the 2012 election being no different. With the U.S. as one of the most
religious nations in the Western democratic world, religious values, commitment, and
identification have long been critical to understanding the vote choices of Americans. In
this paper we examine the impact of religion and the religious based appeals of Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign, as well as the voting behavior of key
religious groups. In the conclusion, we briefly discuss the possible policy implications of
the campaign for relevant policy areas during the second Obama term.
Highlighting the general importance of religion in American elections, a 2012 poll
of U.S. voters by Gallup asked people what types of candidates they would and would
not vote for. Assuming a hypothetical candidate that was otherwise well qualified to be
president, only 54% percent of Americans said they would vote for an atheist, the lowest
total of any candidate quality asked about. A Muslim candidate would do only slightly
better, with 58% of respondents saying they would consider voting for such a candidate.
This contrasts with 96% of Americans who say they would vote for a black candidate and
95% who would vote for a woman (Jones 2012).
Although religious identification remains important in American politics along a
number of dimensions discussed below, one of the clearest trends in voting patterns in
recent presidential elections is the growing importance of religiosity, or depth of religious
commitment, in explaining vote choices--the so-called “God Gap.” Historically, religious
identification, such as being Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, was a driving force in U.S.
elections. In recent decades, however, religious identification has been eclipsed in
importance by religiosity, such that devout Catholics are now more similar to Evangelical
Protestants in their voting than to liberal Catholics (Brewer 2003). In 2008, for example,
Republican candidate John McCain fared 12 points better than Barack Obama among
voters who attended religious services on a weekly basis, while Obama won by 20 points
among those attending services only a few times per year, a gap of 32%. As shown in
Table 1, this gap grew to 41% in 2012.
In addition to the long term voting patterns of U.S. voters related to religion, the
2012 presidential campaign unfolded against the backdrop of some unique religious
circumstances for the candidates themselves. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney was
the first Mormon candidate to be nominated by one of the two major parties. Because
Mormons have been the victims of significant religious bias in the U.S., many political
observers believed Romney’s religion presented a substantial obstacle for him. Among
many Americans—Evangelical Protestants, in particular—Mormonism has often been
regarded as a non-Christian, cult-like religion. For example, Pastor Rick Warren of the
Saddleback (CA) Church, one of the best-known Evangelical Protestant ministers in the
U.S., said publicly that Mormonism could not be considered a Christian religion because
it denied the Holy Trinity (Quinn 2012). According to the Gallup survey discussed above,
18% of respondents indicated they would not vote for a Mormon candidate even if he or
she were otherwise well qualified. Moreover, Romney was not merely a Mormon
believer, but was actually a bishop in the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Lingering bias against Mormons presented some significant challenges for
Romney, similar in many ways to those faced by Catholic presidential candidates Alfred
Smith and John F. Kennedy in earlier elections. In 1960, for example, Kennedy faced
opposition from many evangelical Protestants, such as Rev. Billy Graham, who worried
he would be unduly influenced by the Pope. In 2007, during his first run for president,
Romney delivered a high profile speech on faith and politics in which he attempted to
assuage fears about his religion by reaffirming his belief in Jesus as “the Son of God and
the Savior of mankind.” This was a similar approach to the one adopted by Kennedy in
the 1960 campaign. For the most part, though, Romney avoided specific references to his
religion and instead focused on general, non-denominational appeals to widely accepted
Judeo-Christian beliefs. Unfortunately, Romney’s hesitance to discuss religion prevented
him from discussing a wide range of personal experiences that were central to his life
story, many of which had the potential for broad public appeal. This undoubtedly
contributed to the widespread perception that Romney’s personality lacked warmth and
depth. Only occasionally, such as in his August 2012 speech accepting the Republican
nomination, did he open up with regard to his religious experiences and their impact on
his worldview.
On the Democratic side, President Obama faced his own challenges in terms of
religion. According to a July 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, 17% of Americans believed that Obama was a Muslim despite the fact that
he frequently discussed his belief in Christianity throughout his public life. Obama’s
most explicit statement of his Christian beliefs was in a 2006 speech delivered to the
Sojourners Convention titled “A Call to Renewal on Faith and Politics” (Quinn 2012).
Nevertheless, doubts about his Christian faith persisted. Madonna, the pop superstar,
gave voice to this sentiment during a concert in Washington D.C. when she said “For
better or worse, all right, we have a black Muslim in the White House, okay? (Quinn
2012).” As discussed above, American voters have more bias against Muslims than just
about any other group.
Even among those who acknowledged Obama’s Christian beliefs, there remained
many controversies regarding his religious background. Most importantly, during the
2008 campaign Obama was repeatedly criticized for his close relationship with Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama’s home church in Chicago and a close personal
associate. Wright became famous for a number of inflammatory comments that were
sharply critical of the U.S. government. In his most famous comment, captured on video,
Wright said
And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her
citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it
came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in
internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent
fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave
quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior
schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put
them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law,
kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into
positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs,
builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God
Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's
in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our
citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she
is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast
majority of her citizens of African descent (Seattle Times 2008).
The controversy surrounding Rev. Wright became so heated that Obama delivered a high
profile address in which he criticized Wright.
These unusual dynamics created a unique situation in the 2012 campaign in which
the two candidates mostly avoided religious topics, except for general appeals to widely
shared values. This was in sharp contrast to other recent U.S. presidents, such as George
W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who spoke often and openly about their religious beliefs
during their presidential campaigns. For the most part, each candidate had much to lose
and little to gain by delving into religious issues in a high profile way. This dynamic was
further strengthened by the centrality of economic issues in the 2012 campaign, as well as
the fact that Mitt Romney’s political career was dominated by his attention to economic
policy rather than controversial social issues. However, this is not to suggest that religion
was unimportant in the campaign. In the remainder of this paper we show the important
role of religion in shaping the campaign strategies of Obama and Romney, especially
through under-the-radar venues. Both campaigns employed sophisticated means of
making highly targeted appeals to different religious groups and there is no doubt that
each campaign viewed religious-based appeals as critical to their electoral strategies.
In the following sections we examine the key religious groups in the American
electorate and the appeals both campaigns made to these constituencies. As we discuss
the campaign appeals to Americans of different religious groups it is important to keep in
mind that much of the religious-based outreach efforts played to the cross-cutting feature
of religiosity, or between the more secular and traditionalist adherents of each religion.
Catholics
Appeals to Catholics were central to both the Obama and Romney campaign
strategies due to the fact this group has represented a crucial “swing vote” in all recent
U.S. presidential elections. Although President George W. Bush won the Catholic vote by
5% over John Kerry in 2004, Obama outpaced McCain by 9% in 2008. In 2012, Obama
managed to win among Catholics, but by a sharply reduced margin of only 2%. The
importance of the Catholic vote is further magnified by the fact that it makes up over onequarter of the entire U.S. electorate. And, unlike many other religious faiths, Catholic
teachings do not easily sort into Republican or Democratic categories. According to the
official voter guide released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, sanctity of life issues (abortion,
euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) are central to voting with a fully formed
Catholic conscience. The official Catholic teachings on those issues are largely consistent
with Republican positions. However, those issues are counter-balanced by Catholic
teachings on matters of social justice, which tend to fall closer to traditionally Democratic
positions. According to a 2012 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and the
Brookings Institution, 65 percent of Catholics voiced general support for government
programs concerning a social safety net, whereas only 53 percent of Evangelicals
supports such programs (Grant 2012). During the first generations following the massive
waves of immigration of European Catholics to the United States, economic issues led
Catholics to be a solid part of the Democratic coalition. Those allegiances were
significantly eroded as Catholics improved their economic standing over time and as
social issues in American politics assumed greater importance starting in the 1970s and
1980s.
Throughout 2012 the competition for Catholic votes was one of the most hotly
contested battles of the election. Already a key segment of voters, Catholic issues moved
front and center in early 2012. As part of the implementation of Obamacare, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, issued a ruling on January 20 that health
insurers would be required to provide coverage for birth control. The rule contained an
exemption for churches, narrowly defined, but not for other types of religious
organizations such as schools, universities, charities, and hospitals. The USCCB, headed
by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, led the public opposition to the Obama
Administration’s newly announced policies since they conflicted with the Church’s
official teachings on the use of artificial contraception. Taken with Obama’s newly
announced support of same-sex marriage rights, the contraception issue led the USCCB
to launch its “Fortnight to Freedom” campaign in the summer 2012, which encouraged
Catholic parishes to undertake a number of initiatives in support of religious liberty,
many with strong partisan overtones.
Early in the dispute, the USCCB seemed to been in a strong position by framing
the debate as a violation of religious liberty. Their argument was that Obama was forcing
religious entities to act contrary to their own religious convictions by paying for a service
that it considered to be immoral. However, public opinion polls from early February
showed that 56% of Americans—and, in fact, 53% of American Catholics—supported
Obama’s mandate (Zorn 2012). What may have initially looked like an issue that could
work to Romney’s advantage, quickly morphed into a liability when it became politicized
by some of his opponents in the Republican primary debates. In particular, Rick
Santorum used the controversy to remind voters that he had long been opposed to
contraception on moral grounds. Romney correctly sensed the political risks of getting
into a debate about the legality or morality of contraception—an issue that had been
settled for decades in American politics. Romney tried to return the discussion to one of
religious liberty, but ended up being tarnished by the perception that Republicans were
opposed to contraception. Democrats, and their allied groups such as Planned
Parenthood, quickly pounced on the issue by talking repeatedly of a Republican-led “War
Against Women.”
The efforts of Republicans and Democrats to frame the contraception issue
continued to diverge throughout the campaign. For example, when asked about the issue
in the vice presidential debate, Paul Ryan criticized Democrats for “what they’re doing
through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country.
They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on
Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals (Landsberg 2012b).” Obama,
however, repeatedly attacked the Republicans throughout the campaign in saying their
plan would cut women’s access to contraception and cancer screenings.
To see the centrality of Catholics to the Obama and Romney electoral strategies,
one need look no further than their choices as running mates. Both Joseph Biden and Paul
Ryan were lifelong and devout Catholics who were vividly identified with their faith
during their political careers. Moreover, both vice presidential candidates heralded from
areas of the country with large Catholic populations and which were at least partially
contested in the race for Electoral College votes. Both campaigns understandably used
the vice presidential candidates to lead the appeal for Catholic votes. For example, in a
campaign stop at a Catholic college in Iowa in early October, Ryan said, “As a Catholic,
and I can tell you’re Catholic, too, this isn’t just a Catholic thing. This is an American
thing. This is our rights [sic]. This is our religious freedom (Des Moines Register 2012).”
Visiting the same college a week later, Biden delivered ice cream to some nuns living
nearby (Landsberg 2012b). The contrast between the positions of Ryan and Biden
represented a microcosm of the overall Catholic divide in the U.S. Ryan’s views were
consistent with the Church’s teachings on social issues, but his views on issues of
economic justice were criticized by many Catholics for providing inadequate protection
for economically disadvantaged people. Biden’s views represented just the opposite on
both counts.
It is critical to note that the campaigns did not view Catholics as a unified voting
bloc and instead tailored their appeals to distinct subgroups of Catholics. Romney’s base
of support among Catholics was with whites and those attending services on a weekly
basis, groups he won by margins of 19% and 15% respectively. On the other hand,
Obama focused on less devout Catholics—a group he carried over Romney by 14%--and
Hispanics.
Both parties made a number of symbolic overtures to Catholic leaders. For
example, Cardinal Dolan was chosen to deliver benedictions at both party’s national
conventions in the late summer, even though he was widely presumed to support
Romney. Although the clergy were officially non-partisan in keeping with their nonprofit tax status, the clear perception emerged that Church leaders supported the
Republicans. In particular, a number of Catholic bishops released appeals to their
followers in the weeks before the election urging them to consider Obama and Romney’s
positions on marriage, abortion, and education. Although the bishops stressed they
weren’t making endorsements, the Republican positions on all of those issues was nearly
identical to the Church’s official teachings. In some instances, bishops also reminded
Catholics that they risked eternal damnation of their souls by making the “wrong” vote
choice (Gibson 2012).
On Election Day, American Catholics did indeed turn out to be a critical swing
vote. In their narrow support of Obama, Catholics on the whole closely tracked the
overall electorate in its voting patterns. In many ways, the issues that divide groups
within the American electorate continue to serve as fault lines among Catholics as well.
Looking ahead, this presents some serious challenges for Republicans since the Catholic
groups that tend to support them—whites and religious traditionalists—are decreasing as
a proportion of the overall electorate, especially in relation to Hispanic Catholics.
Protestants
Looking at Protestantism as a whole in the U.S. provides one with very little
useful or even interesting information. The 2012 exit poll results demonstrate this fact.
A quick glance at the numbers reveals that Protestants as a whole accounted for 53% of
the electorate in 2012i, and that they favored Mitt Romney over Barack Obama 57%42%. From these figures alone one would miss the substantial variation in electoral
behavior that exists within American Protestantism. In order to say anything meaningful
regarding how Protestantism factored into the 2012 presidential election, one needs to
examine the three related but clearly distinct religious traditions (sometimes referred to as
families) that emanate from Protestantism in the U.S.: mainline Protestantism, white
evangelical Protestantism, and black Protestantism (Kellstedt and Green 1993; Wald and
Calhoun Brown 2011).ii
Mainline Protestantism
Once the dominant religious tradition in American society in terms of both
numbers and influence, mainline Protestantism has declined markedly on both fronts over
the past few decades. This decline appears to be continuing unabated (Hout et al. 2002;
Pew 2012), although Chaves (2011) argues that the days of a declining mainline and
growing evangelicalism may be coming to an end. The mainline in America can, of
course, trace its roots to the earliest days of British colonization of North America, but
first begins to emerge as distinct and separate from what we now refer to as evangelical
Protestantism during and immediately after the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries (Balmer and Winner 2002). Mainline Protestantism does not
require (or even encourage) that the Bible be taken as literally true and endorses a
reconciliation between scripture and science. The mainline encourages involvement in
the world with the goal of making it a better place for all individuals. There is a decided
social justice focus within American mainline Protestantism.
With all of this being said, one can see how mainline Protestantism could promote
a political worldview that is distinct (this will become more clear as we discuss
evangelical and black Protestantism momentarily). The exit poll data that have been
released thus far for 2012 do not separate out mainline Protestants from Protestants
overall, so any analysis of mainline voting behavior will have to wait for the release of
additional exit poll data or additional surveys. But even if we had such data we would
still be limited in what we could say regarding the place of mainline Protestantism in the
2012 presidential election. Even though the mainline has increasing become a swing
group in recent election cycles, in all of our monitoring of the group-based appeals made
by both presidential campaigns we did not detect any appeals from either side aimed
explicitly at mainline Protestants, nor did we see any commentary on the candidates or
the parties coming from the mainline. In our view it is possible that as mainline
Protestantism has lost its central, and in some ways privileged, place in American society
it has also lost some of its distinction, thus making appeals to the mainline as a whole less
doable and less important. So while mainline Protestants may very well have been up for
grabs in 2012, neither candidate mounted an organized and explicit effort to get them.
Black Protestantism
African-Americans began moving into the Democratic Party during the FDR/New
Deal years, and since the Civil Rights era of the 1960s have been the most heavily
Democratic of all of the large demographic groups in American society. It is also the
case that the overwhelming majority of African Americans identify with the black
Protestant tradition. While religious influences may have faded among some elements of
the American public, the black church remains a critical and often times central
component of the African American community, politics included (Harris 1999; Lincoln
and Mamiya 1990; Owens 2007). In terms of politically relevant beliefs and issue
positions, black Protestantism tends to combine the liberal, social justice linked positions
typical of mainline Protestantism on economic issues with the conservative positions of
white evangelical Protestantism (black Protestantism is evangelical in nature) on social
and cultural issues.
It was this social conservatism of black Protestantism that some thought might
become relevant in the 2012 presidential election. As noted above, African Americans
have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the past fifty years. With the first African
American presidential candidate on a major party ticket, blacks as a whole favored
Obama over McCain 95%-4% in 2008. But that was before Obama had "evolved" to the
point where he stated publicly his support for same-sex marriage, a position with which
many black Protestants disagree. While there was never much thought that blacks would
support Romney in any meaningful way, there was some concern among Democrats that
some of the most conservative black Protestants would stay home on Election Day rather
than turn out and cast a ballot for a candidate that supported gay marriage. Indeed, there
were reports during the campaign of some black Protestant ministers telling their flocks
to stay home on Election Day. But such ministers were a distinct minority. Most black
Protestant clergy urged their followers to get out and vote for Obama, even though they
disagreed with him on same-sex marriage (Parker 2012; Zoll 2012). In fact, many black
ministers organized and had their congregations participate in "souls to the polls" events
that brought African-Americans to early voting locations after worship services or other
church-sponsored events (Associated Press 2012; Jonsson 2012; Saulny 2012). This was
especially true in Florida, where some black clergy argued that newly enacted Republican
policies decreasing the number of days of early voting were an open effort to restrict
blacks' right to vote (Saulny 2012).
The 2012 exit polls do not allow us to say anything regarding black Protestants as
a group. As was the case with the mainline, separate results for black Protestants have
not yet been provided. However, we do know that African Americans as a group turned
out heavily (Timberg and Parker 2012), matching their 13% of the electorate mark from
2008, and also that they favored Obama over Romney 93%-6%. Obama's stance on
same-sex marriage appears to have been a non-issue for black Protestants. In the words
of Rev. Lin Hill, associate pastor of a black Protestant church in Virginia that participated
in distributing over 100,000 pro-Obama voter guides late in the campaign:
You've got a president who may be what we call a back-slidden Christian
at worst, but he is one who has accepted Christ as Lord and savior. So if
folks are measuring the president by the standard that says he's a fallen
Christian, well the other guy isn't even in the ballpark playing the same
game, and they have to be aware of that," (Wallsten 2012).
White Evangelical Protestantism
In many ways white evangelical Protestants were the polar opposite of black
Protestants in the 2012 presidential election. White evangelicals have been consistently
and heavily Republican in the electoral behavior since the 1980s (Layman 2001; Leege et
al. 2002), to such a degree that they are now arguably the single most important group in
the Republican coalition. That being said, many GOP leaders were worried about
evangelical support heading into the general election phase of the 2012 campaign.
Romney was, of course, the first major party presidential candidate who belonged to the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), more popularly known as the Mormon
Church. While LDS most certainly considers itself a Christian faith (indeed, the only true
and uncorrupted Christian church), many other Christians disagree. Such disagreement,
and in many instances outright animosity and hostility, is prevalent within many
evangelical Protestant circles (Ostling and Ostling 1999). The vast majority of white
evangelical religious leaders and many high profile Republican evangelicals supported
candidates other than Romney during the nomination season, and once Romney secured
the GOP nomination there were concerns that some portion of the evangelical community
would stay home on Election Day rather than vote for a Mormon candidate.
Such fears proved unwarranted. As one can see from the exit poll results, white
evangelical Protestants made up 26% of the electorate, the same figure as 2008 when
many evangelicals were highly enthusiastic about GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah
Palin and higher than the 23% of the electorate they accounted for in 2004 when one of
their own, George W. Bush, was seeking a second term as the Republican presidential
nominee. White evangelicals also went heavily for Romney, favoring him over Obama
78%-21%. Even though many evangelicals were unenthusiastic about Romney, they
voted for him anyway, in many instances due to fear of what Obama might due in a
second term and/or very favorable views of Romney's running mate Paul Ryan (Reinhard
2012; Schultheis 2012). After all, Obama as president had already endorsed same-sex
marriage, was a strong supporter of abortion rights, ended the policy of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, and included mandatory coverage of contraception in his signature healthcare
reform package, all acts that were and are very troubling and offensive to a good many
white evangelicals (Schultheis 2012; Sherry 2012). At the end of the day it seems that
many evangelicals agreed with the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of a Dallas mega-church
who labeled Mormonism a cult during the nomination phase:
The fear among evangelicals is that this would legitimize a religion that
we believe doesn't lead people to God. And so those of us who have said
yes (to Romney), we're going to support him as the lesser of two evils, but
at the same time, we're making very clear that we're doing so realizing
Mormonism is not Christianity," (Levy 2012).
Romney's success among white evangelicals did not, however, come without
some serious effort. There was a big push to sell Romney to evangelical leaders, and
fortunately for his campaign not all evangelical leaders were as reluctant supporters as
Rev. Jeffress. Mark DeMoss, an evangelical leader who served as a key adviser to
Romney in the campaign, was crucial in these efforts, as were others such as Jim Daly,
president of the powerful Focus on the Family, and Ralph Reed, back in the spotlight as
the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition (Landsberg 2012c; Kucinich 2012).
Meetings between and events with Romney and white evangelical Protestant icons such
as Billy Graham and Pat Robertson were carefully planned and highly publicized (Funk
2012; Hunt 2012; Kucinich 2012; Landsberg 2012c; Politi 2012). The removal of
references to Mormonism as a cult from Graham's website and the full page newspaper
ad Graham placed in newspapers around the country urging Americans to "vote for
biblical values" were seen as crucial tacit endorsements of Romney by evangelical
Protestantism's biggest name. Reed's group was also critical in microtargeting over 17
million religiously conservative voters, using over 171 data points (including megachurch
membership rolls, hunting licenses, pickup truck owners, and those who said they read
the bible on warranty surveys) and urging them to support Romney (Becker 2012;
Reinhard 2012). Focus on the Family sponsored a late mailer in Iowa highlighting
Obama's 2006 remark that "We (the U.S.) are no longer a Christian nation" (Hamby
2012). Romney's pledge to end funding for Planned Parenthood was placed front and
center for evangelicals (Funk 2012). At the end of the day all of these efforts paid off.
Evangelicals stayed with the GOP in a big way in 2012.
A Final Note on the Protestant Voter
We cannot leave Protestantism in the 2012 presidential election without saying a
few words on Mormons. We will leave to others the discussion of whether or not LDS
belongs within the rubric of Protestantism. But there is no doubt that Mormons (2% of
the electorate in 2012) have been strongly Republican in recent years (Wald and
Calhoun-Brown 2011). Indeed, LDS emphases on conservative social issue positions,
economic achievement, thrift, and personal responsibility, and the validity of American
exceptionalism make them almost perfect Republicans. In many ways Mormons look
very similar to Southern Baptists, another strongly Republican religious group, as
Ruthven (1991) pointed out. We also know that Mormons can be mobilized and directed
when church leadership indicates clear political preferences (Campbell and Monson
2003). Given all of this, it should not be surprising that Romney bested Obama among
Mormons 78%-21%, although perhaps we should be surprised that the margin was not
greater.
Jews
Jews made up 2% of the American electorate in 2012, a figure that is consistent
with long-term patterns (generally 2%-3%) in presidential election years. Two percent is
not a large figure, but in an election that was perceived to be very close every vote
counts. In addition, Jews make up a substantial part of the population in the key swing
state of Florida, and as Sweet (2012) pointed out, there are also enough Jewish voters in
other important swing states such as Ohio and Nevada to "fight over." American Jews
have been strongly Democratic since the days of the New Deal, and despite much effort
over the years, Republicans have never been able to attract Jewish votes in any
significant number. The Romney campaign wanted to change this in 2012. While they
were under no illusion that they could win Jewish voters outright, the Romney camp
hoped to "whittle away" (Scherer 2012) at the Democrats' edge among Jews enough to
help turn the tide in their favor in the above mentioned three swing states.
The primary tool in Romney's effort to attract Jewish voters was America's
relationship with Israel. Specifically, Romney heavily criticized Obama for his
administration's treatment of Israel overall and in particular for not taking a strong
enough position on Iran's nuclear weapons program (Jerusalem Post 2012; Scherer 2012).
Such tactics made sense as pre-election polling showed that American Jews cared deeply
about U.S./Israeli relations and were highly concerned about the threat posed to Israel by
a nuclear Iran (Sacramento Bee 2012). Romney also attacked Obama for failing to meet
with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while both leaders were in New York
City to attend the United Nations General Assembly, and an outside group called Secure
America Now released a pro-Romney television ad in Florida featuring Netanyahu
(Marcus 2012; Spetalnick and Fisher-Ilan 2012; Sullivan 2012). The Romney camp also
went after Obama for refusing to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
(Cleveland Plain Dealer 2012) and Romney personally criticized Obama for not visiting
Israel on what he labeled as Obama's "apology tour" of the Middle East (Scherer 2012).
Finally, staunch Israel supporter and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent millions of
dollars of his own money to mobilize Jewish swing state voters in support of Romney
(Gur 2012; Zeleny 2012). Adelson also backed the efforts of the Republican Jewish
Coalition, efforts that included the now famous "Obama…Oy Vey!! Had Enough?"
billboards in Florida (Sweet 2012; Zeleny 2012).
The Obama campaign fought back against these efforts. Chicago Mayor and
former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was regularly dispatched to speak to Jewish
audiences (where he often used his middle name, “Israel”) (Sweet 2012). The campaign
employed high profile Jewish celebrities such as Barbara Streisand in support of the
president (Cohn 2012). The Obama campaign also earned what was labeled an
"unprecedented" statement of support by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) (European Jewish Press
2012), endorsements from popular current and former Jewish mayors of New York City
Michael Bloomberg and Ed Koch (Farrell 2012; Scherer 2012), and ran a campaign ad
touting the administration's support of Israel in general and its role in helping Israel to
develop its new Iron Dome anti-missile defense system (Sink 2012; Sweet 2012).
When all was said and done, Jewish voters continued their long-standing pattern
of Democratic support, but at somewhat lower levels than in the past. Obama bested
Romney 69%-30% among Jews, down from his 78%-21% advantage over McCain in
2008 and Kerry's 74%-25% win over Bush among Jewish voters in 2004. It appears the
Romney campaign was successful in carving away at least some Jewish support from the
Democrats. This development merits monitoring in future contests.
Religiously Unaffiliated
The fastest growing religious group in the U.S. over the past twenty years is
increasingly referred to as the "nones," but is more accurately demarcated at those who
identify themselves as having no religious affiliation, agnostic, or atheist. This group
doubled in size from 7% of the population to 14% in the 1990s (Hout and Fischer 2002;
See also Kohut et al. 2000), and this growth has continued with the unaffiliated coming to
make up 20% of the American population by 2012 (Pew 2012). This same Pew study
found that one-third of Americans ages 18-29 fall into the unaffiliated category, setting
the stage for further growth as population replacement unfolds in the U.S.
The vast majority of unaffiliateds have not necessarily abandoned religious belief,
but rather organized religion. They hold relatively "normal" (for the U.S.) beliefs in God
and the afterlife, tend to describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious, and
disapprove of religion mixing into politics (Hout and Fischer 2002; Pew 2012). To a
certain extent such views make it that those for whom religion is not important would
tend to be Democratic almost by default given the central place of organized religion
within the contemporary Republican Party and the party's support for religion in public
life in general and policy making in particular. At the same time the Democratic Party has
recently began cautiously courting the religiously unaffiliated. For example, one can
certainly see that throughout his presidency Obama has consistently included those who
have no faith in his public rhetoric in such a way that identifies such a view as perfectly
legitimate. This is a relatively new development in American public dialogue.
Pre-election analysis by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that
this group was likely to be crucial to Obama's chances of victory on Election Day
(Markoe 2012; PRRI 2012), and the exit polls bear this out although they also point to the
fact that non-religious individuals are less likely to vote than those for whom religion is a
strong influence. Religiously unaffiliated Americans made up 12% of the electorate in
2012, and favored Obama over Romney 70%-26%, figures that represent a 5 percentage
point drop from Obama's performance with this group in 2008 but a 3 point increase from
Kerry's support levels in 2004. It is highly likely that the religiously unaffiliated will
gain additional prominence in future election cycles.
Other Religious Groups
Religious groups not covered in the sections above comprise a small but growing
segment of the American electorate. The largest of these groups is Muslims, accounting
for less than 2% of the U.S. population. Historically, this group has been cross-pressured
when it comes to voting in U.S. elections. On the one hand, Muslims tend to have
socially conservative views that track more closely with those of Republicans. However,
the policies of President George W. Bush seriously damaged the potential attractiveness
of Republicans for Muslims, especially the launching of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and the widely publicized incidents of U.S. government abuse of Muslim detainees in
places such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
In many ways, the recent voting behavior of Muslims is similar to that of
Hispanics. They both represent groups that have been voting overwhelmingly Democratic
in recent elections, but have potential links with Republican policies. Both groups have
been alienated by Republican rhetoric perceived to be biased against them. In 2012, 85%
of Muslims voted for Obama, an even higher rate than Hispanics. Nevertheless, many of
Obama’s policies continue to remain unpopular with Muslims, such as frequent drone
attacks in Pakistan, the continued war in Afghanistan, and Obama’s failure to close the
Guantanamo Bay detention facility as he promised he would do in 2008. There are
potential places for Republicans to make inroads with Muslim voters, but not as long as
Republicans are perceived to have bellicose rhetoric and policies toward Muslim nations.
Conclusion
The religious appeals and voting patterns of the 2012 presidential campaign
provide some interesting potential implications for the near future of American politics.
In general, current trends as they relate to religion and politics do not favor Republicans.
Republicans have struggled in recent elections with less religious and unaffiliated voters,
both groups that are growing as a proportion of the American electorate. Although
Republicans continue to fare about as well as Democrats when it comes to Catholic
voters overall, this is largely based on their overwhelming support among white and
traditionalist Catholics. These groups are still sizable constituencies, but long-term
demographic projections continue to show that Hispanics will continue to become an
ever-larger share of American Catholics. In 2012, Obama won 70% of the Hispanic vote,
which is a sharp increase over the Democratic share in 2008 and 2004.
These trends present an even more difficult role for Republicans due to their
current bases of support within the electorate. Although white Evangelicals may be
tapering off in their overall growth in the electorate, they remain the critical component
of the Republican primary constituency. This means that Republican primaries favor
candidates who take traditionalist positions on a range of social issues that prove to be
unpopular with key general election constituencies.
The controversy regarding the contraception mandate also has important lasting
implications for social policy in the U.S. Although Obama was loudly criticized by the
Catholic hierarchy, traditionalist Catholics, and Evangelicals, polls consistently showed
that a majority of voters, and in fact Catholics, sided with his progressive stands on these
issues. Obama showed that it is possible to sidestep religious leaders and make direct
appeals to their followers who disagree with the official teachings. This was especially
evident in his success in reframing issues of religious liberty as women’s health issues.
Whereas prior presidents may have been hesitant to openly oppose church leaders,
Obama’s efforts have demonstrated that it can be done successfully. In particular,
Obama’s progressive stands on a range of social issues enjoy broad support among most
of the fastest growing religious groups in the U.S.
References
Associated Press. 2012. "Churches Using 'Soul to Polls' to Rally Vote." 2 Oct 2012.
Balmer, Randall, and Lauren F. Winner. 2002. Protestantism in America. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Brewer, Mark D. Relevant No More? The Catholic/Protestant Divide in American
Electoral Politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Campbell, David E., and J. Quin Monson. 2003. "Following the Leader? Mormon Voting
on Ballot Propositions." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (December): 605619.
Chapman, Steve. 2012. “Why Mitt Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t matter.” Chicago
Tribune, 4 Oct 2012.
Chaves, Mark. 2011. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Cleveland Plain Dealer. 2012. "Republican Jewish Coalition Says Obama Refuses to
Acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's Capital." 24 Sept 2012.
Cohn, Alicia M. 2012. "Streisand Urges Jewish Voters to Support Obama." The Hill, 2
Nov 2012.
Des Moines Register. 2012. “Ryan Courts Catholics During Dubuque Stop.” 2 Oct 2012.
European Jewish Press. 2012. "Obama's Standing with Jewish Voters Given Boost with
Unprecedented AIPAC Tribute to His 'Steadfast' Support of Israel." 21 Sept 2012.
Farrell, John Aloysius. 2012. "Bloomberg's 'Warm Hug' of Obama Arrives at Opportune
Moment." National Journal, 1 Nov 2012.
Funk, Tim. 2012. "Romney Reassures Conservatives in N.C." Charlotte Observer, 11 Oct
2012.
Gallup. 2012. “Religiosity Continues to Power Presidential Vote Choice.” Gallup
Reports, 13 Sept.
Gibson, David. 2012. “Catholic Bishops Make Last-minute Pitch for Romney.”
Washington Post, 7 Nov 2012.
Grant, David. 2012. “How Catholics Could Decide the Presidential Election.” Christian
Science Monitor, 22 Oct 2012.
Gur, Haviv Rettig. 2012. "Obama's Rosh Hashanah Gift: A Bump in Jewish Support."
Times of Israel, 16 Sept. 2012.
Harris, Fredrick C. 1999. Something Within: Religion in African-American Political
Activism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hout, Michael, Andrew Greeley, and Melissa J. Wilde. 2002. "The Demographic
Imperative in Religious Change in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 107
(September): 468-500.
Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. "Why More Americans Have No Religious
Preference: Politics and Generations." American Sociological Review 67 (April): 165190.
Hunt, Kasey. 2012. "Romney Meets with Rev. Billy Graham." Associated Press, 11 Oct
2012.
Jerusalem Post. 2012. "Poll: Obama Pulls Ahead Among Jewish Voters." 17 Sept 2012.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2012. “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates.”
Gallup, 21 June 2012.
Jonsson, Patrik. 2012. "In Blow to Romney, Court Says Ohio Can't Restrict 'Souls to the
Polls' Voting by Blacks." Christian Science Monitor, 6 Oct 2012.
Kellstedt, Lyman A., and John C. Green. 1993. "Knowing God's Many People:
Denominational Preference and Political Behavior," in David C. Leege and Lyman A.
Kellstedt (eds.), Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe, 53-71.
Kohut, Andrew, John C. Green, Scott Keeter, and Robert C. Toth. 2000. The Diminishing
Divide. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kucinich, Jackie, 2012. "Evangelicals Mobilize for Romney Campaign." USA Today, 17
Oct 2012.
Landsberg, Mitchell. 2012a. “Biden-Ryan Debate Highlights Nation’s Catholic Political
Divide.” Los Angeles Times, 9 Oct 2012.
Landsberg, Mitchell. 2012b. “Catholic Bishops Chide Biden Over Contraception
Mandate Comments.” Los Angeles Times, 12 October 2012.
Landsberg, Mitchell. 2012c. "Evangelical Support Grows for Romney." Los Angeles
Times, 25 Oct 2012.
Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leege, David C., Kenneth D. Wald, Brian S. Krueger, and Paul D. Mueller. 2002. The
Politics of Cultural Differences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Levy, Abe. 2012. "Dallas Pastor: 'Romney Lesser of Evils." San Antonio Express-News,
17 Sept 2012.
Lincoln, C. Eric, and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African
American Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Marcus, Lori Lowenthal. 2012. "Netanyahu Bashing Obama's Appeasement in Campaign
Ad Showing Today in Florida." Jewish Press, 20 Sept 2012.
Markoe, Lauren. 2012. "The Biggest Slice of Obama's Religious Coalition? The
Unaffiliated." Washington Post, 23 Oct 2012.
Ostling, Richard N., and Joan K. Ostling. 1999. Mormon America. San Francisco: Harper
Collins.
Owens, Michael Leo. 2007. God and Government in the Ghetto. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Parker, Lonnae O'Neal. 2012. "Black Preacher Spreads the Word…Against Obama."
Washington Post, 4 Nov. 2012.
Pew Research Center. 2012. "'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious
Affiliation." 9 October.
Politi, Daniel. 2012. "Romney Suggests Obama Has Plans to Remove God from
Currency." Slate, 8 Sept 2012.
Public Religion Research Institute. 2012. "The 2012 American Values Survey." 23 Oct
2012.
Quinn, Sally. 2012. “Madonna’s ‘black Muslim in the White House’ quip should give
candidates pause.” Washington Post, 27 Sept.
Reinhard, Beth. 2012. "Evangelicals Will Vote for Romney, but the Passion Isn't There."
National Journal, 3 Nov 2012.
Ruthven, Malise. 1991. "The Mormons' Progress." Wilson Quarterly 15 (Spring): 22-50.
Sacramento Bee. 2012. "AJC National Survey of American Jewish Opinion Shows
Obama over Romney by 65-24 Margin." 27 Sept 2012.
Saulny, Susan. 2012. "With Less Time for Voting, Black Churches Redouble Their
Efforts." New York Times, 28 Oct 2012.
Scherer, Ron. 2012. "Can Mitt Romney Sway Jewish Voters with 'Apology Tour' Quip?"
Christian Science Monitor, 23 Oct 2012.
Schultheis, Emily. 2012. "Obama 'Fear' Drives Social Conservatives." Politico, 16 Sept
2012.
Seattle Times. 2008. “Obama Decries Pastor’s Remarks.” 15 March 2008.
Sherry, Allison. 2012. "Faith Voters Onboard for Mitt Romney." Denver Post, 16 Oct.
2012.
Sink, Justin. 2012. "New Obama Ad in Florida Touts Ties to Israel." The Hill, 26 Oct
2012.
Spetalnick, Matt, and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. 2012. "In Unusual Snub, Obama to Avoid
Meeting with Netanyahu." Reuters, 12 Sept 2012.
Sullivan, Andy. 2012. "In Obama's Trip to New York, There's Whoopi but No 'Bibi.'"
Reuters, 25 Sept 2012.
Sweet, Lynn. 2012. "Campaigns Battle for Critical Jewish Votes." Chicago Sun Times,
28 Oct 2012.
Timberg, Craig, and Lonnae O'Neal Parker. 2012. "Black Electorate Responds Mightily
to Perceived Voter Intimidation Efforts." Washington Post, 7 Nov 2012.
Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun-Brown. 2011. Religion and Politics in the
United States, 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wallsten, Peter. 2012. "Romney's Mormon Beliefs Featured in Pro-Obama 'Voter
Education' Brochure." Washington Post, 5 Nov 2012.
Zeleny, Jeff. 2012. "Mogul Courts Jews for the G.O.P." New York Times, 25 July 2012.
Zoll, Rachel. 2012. "African-American Christians Waver Over Vote." Associated Press,
16 Sept 2012.
Zorn, Eric. 2012. “Polling Shows Consistent Support for Contraception Mandate in
Insurance.” Chicago Tribune, 9 February 2012.
i
According to the Pew Research Center (9 Oct 2012) Protestants as a whole accounted for 48% of the
American population in October 2012. This the first time Protestants have been below 50% in a Pew study.
ii
It is possible that a fourth category would be useful as the latest figures on religious affiliation in the U.S.
from the Pew Research Center (9 Oct 2012) indicate that 6% of the American population falls into the
"other minority Protestant" category. It is unclear from the Pew data what the mainline/evangelical
division is among these Americans.