(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Is George W. Bush the man who is going to unravel the conventional distinction between religion and state in the United States? In the American Bill of Rights from 1787 it is stated: "Congress shall not make any laws concerning the position of religion, nor prohibit its free exercise." But the incumbent president is the man who, more than anyone before him, has brought religion into politics. It's about form; with pictures of Bush with folded hands in many public contexts. But it definitely applies to content as well.
George W. Bush is a man for conservative Christians. He has given them licenses in relation to important value issues such as prayer in school, defense of the nuclear family, support for faith groups and the appointment of Christian judges. He uses the state apparatus to filter moral attitudes down in society. The Ministry of Education calls for abstinence from sexual education; The Ministry of Health uses the welfare system to promote marriage and "responsible" paternity.
Other questions also go to the heart of Christian martial law. Bush is against stem cell research, against gay marriage, and against support for international organizations that promote abortion in other countries. He, on the other hand, has not tried to do anything with his own liberal abortion law. And the attempt to ban same-sex marriage can quickly shore up the harsh demands imposed to enforce a specific federal constitutional ban on this.
Still, the Christian Conservatives are the electoral group that will go to the Republicans in this election. That is to say; if they vote at all.
Great potential
The president's relationship with the Christian right wing, or the Christian wing at all, is not as simple as it seems. For example, many Christian organizations have strongly advocated for the support of faith groups because they fear governmental demands for business. And the ongoing battle between Pat Robertson in Christian Coalition – he says Bush assured him that American soldiers would not die in Iraq, while the president denies having spoken to him – shows that the relationship is not always cordial.
That does not mean that the Christian right has any intentions of failing Republicans in this election. Robertson still says he fully supports Bush.
The problem for George W. Bush is not the conservative Christians in the narrow sense, who after all the sun marks will go to the Republicans. The problem is the other Christian voter groups, whose potential Republicans have not previously mobilized.
And the potential is huge.
For example, consider the following: Evangelical Protestants constitute a quarter of all voters during this election. Catholics are about the same. In such a rough election campaign as it is now, Bush must mobilize these voters. It is a confession from the last election, when four million evangelical Christians simply sat at home.
That recognition is reinforced by the fact that religious voters are even more important in the swing states than they are in the country as a whole. In states such as Missouri, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania, they make up so-called born-again christians 36 per cent, 30 per cent, 27 per cent and 22 per cent respectively of the voter base. These are states that are divided between economic and value-based interests. In relation to economic development, they should vote Kerry, but in relation to cultural values they should vote Bush.
The figures show that Bush has managed to break through with these voters; who either sat on the couch last time or who has traditionally voted democratically. 51 percent of "born-again Christians" identify with Republicans, compared with only 22 percent who say they feel a sense of belonging to Democrats. Among Catholics, 54 percent say they will vote Republican, while only 36 percent will vote for Kerry.
It's a shock to Democrats, who saw solid support among Catholics when John F. Kennedy was elected president. But Catholics have increasingly gone to the right. And this is not the only shock to the Democrats during this election campaign.
Want broader appeal
The problem for Bush is that, to the degree, he is identified with the Protestant fundamentalists. Therefore, he has tried to expand his religious electoral base to include the other faiths. That means an offensive on three fronts. He will win the entrance not only to the more radical religious groups, such as the evangelicals, but also to the moderates. He wants not only Protestants, but Catholics and Muslims as well. And he wants not only white, Anglo-Saxon Christians but also the blacks.
The result is striking, if one is to believe the numbers. He already has Protestants and Catholics, but is now courting Muslims and Jews. He already has the white Christians, but runs an effective – and to some extent successful – campaign against black denominations with the result that a number of African-American pastors have joined him. He has in many ways the radical religious, but now puts the effort into the moderate religious within all groups.
This does not necessarily mean that he will win the election by religious votes. Millions of evangelicals can still choose to sit at home on election day. And the fierce focus on Christian voters can lead to a "backlash" – he can simply lose secular votes at the other end.
For Catholic John Kerry, however, it is a sign in time that Catholics go to Bush. Democrats have more difficulty focusing on religion than Republicans have, because their electorate is divided into a secular and a moderate religious section with completely different views on social issues.
Increasingly, Democrats are becoming a secular party, while Republicans are becoming a religious one. It is part of the cultural divide seen in the United States today. John Kerry is and will be a "Massachusetts liberal" with declining grassroots support among "his own" and absolutely no trust among the born-again Christians.
In retrospect, it has been summed up that Kerry lost much to the absence of religious rhetoric and religious martial law early in the election campaign. Afterwards, he has tried to take it again, not least by an offensive aimed at the black church communities that Bush is trying to take over. But Kerry thrives more on secular facts than religious fervor. And he is for free abortion and for stem cell research.
One of several press groups
One thing is important in all this. The Christians in the United States are a strong wing. But the evangelical Protestants – who are perceived as the president's real Christian base because Bush is a Methodist – are not as strong as they once were. They are a press group, but they are just one of many. They are not about to take over the whole country.
About Bush one can make many conspiracy theories. For example, he is in the pocket of the Saudi Arabian royal family. He is in the pocket of Big Business, Halliburton and the pharmaceutical industry. He is in the pockets of the oil industry, the Jewish lobby and the neoconservatives. He is in the pocket of the traditional industry that has received heavy subsidies and has released environmental measures. And he's probably in the pocket of the evangelicals.
But still, class affiliation and economic wealth are more important to Republican electoral victory. If Republicans were to lose the rich and powerful, they would lose four percentage points nationally while losing the evangelicals would only make up half of it.
There is a truth in the US, among those who research it, that religious conservatism does not always match political conservatism. Add this to the fact that the membership among evangelical faith groups is actually declining, and that the movement has still not recovered after the defeat of the 80s and 90s, so you have a different picture of the Christian United States than what is breaking through right now.
After the Monica Lewinsky affair, many believed that the evangelicals, the movement that waged the cultural war of that time, would flow to the urns and vote out democrats. But many of them sat at home. What gets exciting during this election is how many will do the civic duty this time. People may have overestimated the influence of the Christian charismatic United States.
