Does a Candidate's Religion Matter?

The religious affiliation of political candidates in the United States is not a subject of much discussion. This lack of general interest stems from the fact that there is not much variation in candidate religious affiliation. However, the variations that do exist have a significant impact on voters understanding of candidate ideology. When political candidates identify as evangelical, voters will apply a conservative stereotype to the candidate’s ideology. Evangelical candidates are seen as significantly more conservative than candidates with similar policy preferences. Voters use their understanding of a religious tradition to shape their perception of a candidate. However, a lack of impact has been illustrated in the fact that some candidates of non-traditional religions have successfully received high levels of support from the general public. Despite broad support, voters may have used their understanding of the candidate’s religion to structure their attitude towards the candidate. 

Religion has played a major role in the United States since the founding era, and it continues to have a strong influence on Americans today. Religious institutions have consistently served as tools of socialization in society that frame our understanding of the world. This process of socialization has shaped the values of Americans. People often turn to their religious affiliations to help them form political opinions and make voting decisions. Religious values have also emerged at the forefront of debates on cultural issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and women’s rights. This would suggest that candidate religious affiliation would play a major role in the process of making voting decisions. While religion is prevalent in the United States, the impact of candidate religious affiliations on voters’ evaluation and electoral decisions is predominantly restricted to candidates that identify as evangelical.  

            Americans are well known for their lack of knowledge about political issues and candidates. In order to deal with a lack of political knowledge, voters often apply general knowledge as a shortcut to making political judgements. These shortcuts often come in the form of voters applying social and political stereotypes of groups to infer information about candidates who are members of these groups. Evangelical Christians are an example of a religious group that is stereotyped as conservative among voters. Monika L. McDermott analyzed voter stereotypes of evangelicals using a case study of hypothetical evangelical Christian candidates. The experiment provided each participant with the description of two candidates, asking them to rate each on a variety of measures. The religion of the candidates was manipulated and McDermott only used the conditions in which either candidate was evangelical, Protestant or was a control candidate with no religion. According to McDermott, “Respondents rate evangelical candidates as significantly more conservative than they do both the control candidates and the Protestant candidates— an average of roughly 1 full point on the 11-point ideology scale for each. Clearly respondents apply a conservative stereotype to evangelical candidates, all else equal. In addition, the difference is plainly because of the label evangelical” (345-346). This analysis demonstrates that if voters are aware that a candidate is an evangelical, they will likely stereotype them as conservative. In cases where the voter may not actually be aware of the candidate’s political positions or ideology, they are willing to use this piece of information to form a stereotype. The evangelical stereotype is so strong that when two candidates have the same political positions, the evangelical candidate will be seen as more conservative. The conservative stereotype of evangelical candidates can have a positive or negative impact on voters depending on their ideology. McDermott writes, “The conservative stereotype of evangelical candidates gives them an advantage among conservative voters (who stereotype them as ideologically closer to themselves than their opponent is, all else equal) but a disadvantage among liberal and moderate voters (who stereotype them as being further away, ideologically).” (350-351). This will offer evangelical candidates an advantage when facing more conservative voters in elections such as a primary, but it will result in a net loss of votes in a general election. In the case of evangelical candidates, there is clearly an impact on voters’ evaluations and electoral decisions. Although the evangelical label produces a strong effect, other religious labels do not produce the same results.

            The powerful conservative stereotype of evangelical candidates can be better understood in the context of fundamentalism. A study titled, “The Anti-Christian Fundamentalist Factor In Contemporary Politics” showed that a growing number of voters in the 1990’s started to orient their political attitudes according to their feelings toward Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalism is a religious movement within the evangelical faith tradition that has become associated with the Republican Party. Fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible in matter of faith and morals and as a literal historical record. Antifundamentalists, a group within non-fundamentalists, have created a negative stereotype of fundamentalists due to their association with politicized evangelicalism, antiabortion activism and opposition to gay rights. According to this study, “Between 1988 and 1992, the proportion of antifundamentalists who volunteered religious and cultural issues as reasons for disliking the Republican party increased from just one in 20 to one in four”. Although fundamentalism falls under the category of evangelicalism, not all evangelicals are fundamentalist. But this association with fundamentalism has greatly contributed to the conservative evangelical stereotype. This association further illustrates the notion that religion has become important to the political thinking of American voters.

            While forming stereotypes of religious groups may serve as a useful shortcut, it also creates a potential for mistakenly assuming candidates’ ideology. An important factor to consider in this process is whether or not an individual is a member of a particular religion. Matthew L. Jacobsmeier analyzed data from the American National Election Studies to understand how religion affects the evaluation of candidate’s ideologies. According to Jacobsmeir, “Moreover, citizens who show higher degrees of formal religious commitment are more likely to make use of such stereotypes. The results suggest that citizens will tend to perceive evangelical candidates to be more conservative than non-evangelical candidates with similar policy preferences, and this tendency is stronger among better-informed citizens. Additionally, Catholic respondents perceive Catholic candidates to be more conservative than non-Catholics do” (365). An important point made by this study is that the level of familiarity someone has with a religion impacts how they stereotype a candidate. A candidate’s religion will be perceived differently depending on whether or not voters are members of that particular religion. Religious stereotypes are also more likely to be used by individuals with a higher degree of formal religious commitment. Less informed citizens may not be knowledgeable enough to use the stereotype in order to infer candidate ideology. 

            There is evidence to suggest religious stereotypes of candidates are driven by partisan stereotypes of the religious group in general. An example of this is the fact that Catholic voting behavior has changed the partisan stereotype of Catholics over time. Catholics were stereotyped as being predominately Democrats from the 1950s to the 1970s, until they started trending towards Republican in the 1980s. Monika L. McDermott analyzed Catholic stereotypes using information from the American National Election Studies and a Gallup Poll that have measured attitudes toward Catholics over time. McDermott writes, “In 1963 and 1969 a person’s probability of saying he or she would support a Catholic candidate increased by 23 and 17 points, respectively, if the individual was a Democrat rather than a Republican. In 2003, well after the Catholic stereotype had flipped partisan directions, an individual’s probability of supporting a hypothetical Catholic candidate increased by a full 33 points if the individual was a Republican rather than a Democrat” (965). This study shines light on exactly how these stereotypes are formed. It suggests there is a partisan effect driven by the voting behavior of Catholics. The potential for a partisan effect was also addressed by David E. Campbell. His study used survey experiments to determine if a candidate’s religion can affect partisan voting. The experiments show that identifying a candidate as evangelical increases Republican support and increases Democrat opposition to a candidate and that identifying a candidate as Catholic, Jewish or Mormon does not have a direct partisan effect. Campbell’s findings seemingly contradict McDermott’s notion of the modern Catholic stereotype. McDermott claims Catholics are stereotyped as Republican and this concept suggests there would be a partisan effect on voting. However, because the studies were fundamentally different, that conclusion cannot necessarily be drawn. The potential of a partisan effect on voting can be better understood by analyzing real world examples.

            The religion of a candidate for national office became an election issue when Al Gore nominated Joseph Lieberman, a Jewish senator from Connecticut, to be his vice-presidential running mate in 2000. Polls over the previous four decades showed a greater willingness amongst voters to elect a candidate with a nontraditional religion, but these expressed opinions were purely hypothetical. The vice-presidential nomination of Joseph Lieberman provided a real test of the matter. Despite concerns raised by many commentators and Jews regarding the potential of anti-Semitism affecting support for Lieberman, his religion did not significantly impact voter’s decisions. According to a study by Jefferey Cohen, “The 2000 ANES asked respondents whether they knew Joseph Lieberman’s religion. Unfortunately, the ANES failed to ask people whether they knew that Lieberman was Orthodox and highly religious. Still, compared to many knowledge items, a hefty percentage of respondents knew that Lieberman was Jewish (60 percent)”. This relatively large percentage of voters presents the possibility for his religion to affect vote choice. However, no significant impact on support was measured. Cohen writes, “Lieberman’s net favorability ratings stayed quite high, rarely dipping below 70 percent, across the entire campaign. If broad-based anti-Jewish attitudes were coming to the fore, one would expect this rating to dip much lower”. Although his religion did not negatively impact voter support, it is still quite possible voters used their attitudes toward Jews to structure attitudes toward Lieberman. The stable levels of support for Lieberman show that Americans are willing to elect a candidate with a non-traditional faith.

            The impact of religion on voter’s decisions can also be measured through an analysis of the electoral preferences of America’s diverse religious population. When voters are classified into their specific religious traditions, distinct patterns regarding electoral support begin to emerge. This was illustrated by James Guth in a study that measured the religious influences in the 2004 Presidential election. An interesting pattern that emerged in this study is the split within religious traditions between traditionalists and modernists. Traditionalists adhere to Orthodox beliefs and want their religious institution to follow traditional beliefs and practices. On the other hand, Modernists embrace new religious ideas and want to adopt beliefs and practices consistent with modern ideas. A third group known as centrists fall in the middle with moderate beliefs. According to Guth, “The Republicans depend heavily on Evangelical Protestants, Latter-day Saints, and traditionalists from all major (and most minor) religious traditions, with the bulk of their remaining support coming from centrists in the three largest ones. The Democrats have clearly retained their historic identity as the party of most religious minorities, but depend far more heavily on secular citizens than ever before, with the bulk of their remaining support coming from religious modernists and centrists” (227). Traditionalists from all major religious traditions overwhelmingly voted for Bush in the 2004 election. This suggests that individuals with more traditional religious beliefs tend to support conservative candidates. Political candidates try to cue support from these traditionalists through the expression of similar values. 

            Religious rhetoric is an effective tool often used by political candidates. The use of certain phrases and words are implemented to cue the support of religious voters. The Republican Party has adopted the use of certain phrases to specifically to specifically target support from evangelical voters. The language used in used in evangelical churches to describe how God works in the word is different from the language used in a Catholic or mainline Protestant churches. A study was conducted by Brian Calfano to analyze how these phrases are used to cue support from evangelical voters without alienating other voters. The efficacy of religious cues is tested in survey experiments with students. How the students self-identify their religious beliefs was established through survey response. Students were presented speech excerpts from a mock political candidate and then asked to identify the political party of the candidate and whether or not they would vote for them. The results show that white evangelicals identify the candidate as Republican using the code and indicate their support while Catholics and mainline Protestants are not affected by the code. This study illustrates that political candidates can effectively use religion to gain support from voters.

            Although candidates can effectively use their religion to cue support from voters, candidate religion is not a major area of focus in the media. A study by Kenneth Rogerson analyzes how the media framed the religion in three presidential elections: John F. Kennedy in 1960, Joseph Liebermann in 2000 and Mitt Romney in 2008. Each of these candidates were the first of their faith to make a serious run for the White House, Kennedy was Catholic, Liebermann is of the Jewish faith and Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. Data was drawn from articles from US newspapers focusing on national media. The articles were from a 6 month period prior to each election and they were coding using the categories of: type of article, reference to religion, frame, and tone. The analysis shows that religion is a small part of focus and that the way the candidate approaches their own religion will strongly affect the views of the collective. The lack of focus on religion in the media suggests religion does not play a major a role in voter’s decisions.

            There is not a multitude of variation in the religious beliefs of politicians in the United States. This lack of variation is illustrated in the religious affiliations of each member of the 113^th Congress. The vast majority of members fall into two groups: 56.1% of the members are Protestant and 30.6% are Catholic. However, this Congress contains the first Buddhist to serve in the Senate, the first Hindu to serve in both chambers and the first person to describe their religion as “none”. This increasing amount of variation is significant but it is small and isolated to a few select cases. The overwhelming majority of politicians in the United States are either Protestant or Catholic. This lack of variation equates to candidate religious affiliation being less significant for voters.

            Religious institutions play an important role in society as tool of socialization. This process of socialization has shaped the values of Americans and people often turn to their religious affiliations to help them make voting decisions. While religion is important, there is not much variation in the religious affiliations of political candidates in the United States. This lack of variation means candidate religious affiliation is usually not a significant variable in the process of making voting decisions. The one exception to this lack of variation is the conservative stereotype of the evangelical faith tradition. If a candidate identifies as evangelical, voters will use that information to stereotype of ideology of the candidate.