Beliefnet has a review of a Pew study, American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes (PDF), which breaks down the American populace into 12 categories. Now, many (most?) people think their own political views are too complex and nuanced to fit into a box or can be labelled, and honestly, I do think that the standard Left/Right dichotomy (or religious/non-religious) can really mislead in many contexts (I will not deny a basic utility, but distortion really creeps into any conversation as the level of complexity increases). Now, if you broke down the electorate into 100 categories based on a various combinations of policy positions, you would be more technically precise, but the utility of such a typology is difficult to ascertain in everyday discourse (though political analysts and consultants could probably make use of it). 12 seems like a manageable number to balance precision and ease of use.
Quite often what is interesting (and useful) about such typologies is not confirmation of truisms, but surprises (or what some might feel are surprises). For example, here are the groups and most & least supportive of “Free Trade” (see the original Pew document for details):
Question: Free trade is good for the economy even if it means the loss of a few US jobs.
Group/Yes to question
(most pro-Free Trade)
Jewish/48
Atheist, Agnostic/44
Traditionalist Evangelical/41
(least pro-Free Trade)
Black Protestant/16
Unaffiliated Believer/17
Latino Protestant/21
Modernist Evangelical/21
What’s going on here? You have Jews and Atheists & Agnostics agreeing with Traditionalist Evangelicals, the most ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ groups. On the other hand, You have “Unaffiliated Believers,” which to me suggests a New Agey “Spiritual” type, being extremely anti-Free Trade, along with blacks & Latinos and Modernist Evangelicals. These groups tend to be rather more Democratic than not, but, they are certainly religiously disparate.
Here is what I think is going on. Jews & Atheists & Agnostics are probably the most likely to live in cosmopolitan urban areas that benefit from exchange of goods & services with other economies, if not directly, at least in their capacities as financial transactional hubs. Additionally, these are two groups who are less likely to concentrate in blue-collar occupations which have traditionally born the brunt of “job exportation” over the past generation, even out into their extended families. But what about Traditionalist Evangelicals? Well, I don’t know if they have been convinced about the law of comparative advantage, rather, I suspect that perhaps they have been less impacted by the decline in the Rust Belt because they might concentrate in the New South (which has actually benefited from internal comparative advantage because of loose regulations and low wages), and, they are extremely Republican and so might be more amenable to go along with the pro-Free Trade orthodoxy so long as their core cultural concerns are met. In other words, Free Trade is a lower priority concern, and they are inclined to agree with the orthodoxy dominant in their own political camp (I believe this is common with political coalitions).
What about the second group? I think it is pretty obvious why Latinos and blacks are not keen on Free Trade, the history of comparative advantage in the United States does not stand on the side of those skewed toward lower skill occupations, which these groups concentrate in. But what about Modernist Evangelicals & Unaffiliated Believers? I think these two groups are similar in that both are non-traditional but often seriously religious. Though on most issues they cluster with Jews and Atheists & Agnostics, this is one where the Hard Secular/Cultural Creative disconnect is likely more salient. The opposition to Free Trade exists in the context of a worldview that tends to be suspicious of economies of scale, corporate efficiency and materialistic reductionism, they are suspicious of the God of the Market. Holism, localism and naturalism would probably be keywords that would trigger something positive from the liberal religious. Though Modernist Evangelicals and Unaffiliated Believers differ in the details of their religious worldview, I believe they are psychologically cognate groups.
These aren’t the only surprising splits you an find in the data. Jews and Atheists & Agnostics are in many ways fellow travellers politically, but when it comes to Israel, the two groups are at opposite ends.
Question: The US should support Israel over the Palestinians in the Middle East.
Group/Yes to question
(most pro-Israel)
Jews/75
Traditionalist Evangelical/64
Traditionalist Mainline/43
Traditionalist Catholic/43
(least pro-Israel)
Atheist, Agnostic/15
Unaffiliated Believers/19
Other Faiths/23
Secular/22
Modernist Mainline/22
“Other Faiths” includes Muslims, so I suspect that is a pretty good explanation of the data point. But these numbers seem to justify the arguments of neoconservatives who promote evangelical Christianity in the interests of supporting Israel. If you assume an identity between “What is good for the Jews” and “What is good for Israel,” a literal interpretation might argue that conservative Christianity is good for the Jews, and secularism is very bad for the Jews [1]. Here Unaffiliated Believers cluster with Atheists & Agnostics, reflecting perhaps their explicit rejection of any mythological/religious link with a Hebraic past and present, ergo, once this emotional tie is severed Israel becomes just another country rather than a Light Unto the Nations. This might also explain the Israel-skeptism of liberal Christians, whose non-literal metaphorical faith has moved furthest from Old Testament moorings.
[1] One could argue that the indirect impact of some Christian eschatologies are in the long term more directly harmful toward Israel and the Jewish people than a short term dimishment in the Americo-Israeli alliance.
Posted by razib at 11:24 AM