The Republican Trend of Religiosity:
Potential Implications for Media Consumption + Polarization
--
The implications of this research topic:
- Could there be an obscure connection between the patterns of Republican Religiosity and homogeneous Right-wing Media consumption?
- Why are evangelical Christians so attracted to the Republican party? Or is the correct order of this question inverted?
Trend of Decreasing Religiosity
There is a universal trend of decreasing religiosity amongst Americans, including a specific “decline in church membership” that is “ consistent with larger societal trends in declining church attendance and an increasing proportion of Americans with no religious preference” (Jones, “U.S Church Membership Down Sharply in Past Two Decades”). The graphs included below highlight specific empirical facts about this phenomenon.
Interestingly, however, Republicans are excluded from this phenomenon, experiencing declines at a much slower rate. There is overwhelming empirical evidence of this:
“In contrast to the variable changes in church membership among generational and faith subgroups, the declines have been fairly similar among most other demographic subgroups. However, the rates have differed by party identification, as Republicans show a relatively modest decline in church membership of eight points since 1998–2000 (from 77% to 69%). In contrast, Democrats show one of the largest subgroup declines, of 23 points, from 71% to 48%” (Jones, “U.S Church Membership Down Sharply in Past Two Decades”).
Why is this? There seems to be an evident and peculiar connection between Republicans and religiosity, one that is affirmed by the bible-thumpign stereotypes of the red party that permeate our pop culture, but also by our everyday experiences with less fervent Republicans. Scrolling through my own social media sites, I find that many Republicans have an American flag and God in their bio. I have talked to a signficant amount of Republicans/right-leaning individuals who cite the Bible when making their arguments. Why does this connection exist? I dug through some data to trace the breadcrumbs to what may serve as an answer to this complicated phenomenon, in hopes of understanding what appears to be a crucial part of Republican identity, that often puts them at perceived odds with the “secular” (at best) and “demonic” (at most conspiratorial) left.
Hunch #1: Average Age of Republican Party
After parcing through some data, I have discovered that the Republican party is on average older than the liberal party. This is important because of the implications of the data showed in the first graph above. We know that the older generations report higher levels of religiosity, so Republicans on average being older, could contribute to the skewed numbers.
Conclusion: Although a helpful introductory, categorical insight, I do not upon further evaluation believe age to be a valuable explanatory variable for this phenomenon. It is rudimentary. Especially considering what I discuss in hunch #2.
Hunch #2: Ideological Ties Influencing Religiosity, Influencing Party Affiliation
Age did not seem a sufficient explanation, although it may likely be a factor, because there is still a peculiar trend amongst republicans to account for: they are not “secularizing” as fast as other political affiliations are, meaning the younger people are not reporting the same rates of secularity. This is shown in the graphs below:
There is something more at work here, something that must be ideologically attractive to religious people for them to largely flock to one party. The graph below shows similar trends in Republican religiosity, this time measuring a particular devotion to formally practicing organized religion and not just believing in it. I have opted to include it because it makes an interesting categorical distinction between “Republican” and “Conservative,” that got me thinking about the specific ideological framework of a “conservative” and not the impersonal political label of “Republican.”
Source:
Conservative ieology seems to be a safe place for religious people to reside. This was not always the case, however. The quote below briefly outlines the process the Republican party has taken toward increasing levels of religiosity:
“‘The Republican party platform of 1912 did not contain a single reference to God.The word faith appeared once, in the phrase ‘faith in government.’ A century later, the 2012 Republican platform contains 10 references to God and 19 to faith — in phrases like ‘faith-based organizations,’ and ‘faith communities.’ What changed? The forty-year timeline below traces the increased inclusion in the platform of the language and ideals of the Religious Right.
1972 The Republican party platform does not contain a single reference to God or religious issues.
1976: first mention of abortion
1976 Following the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, the Republican platform calls for ‘a position on abortion that values human life.’ It also asserts that “‘Our great American Republic was founded on the principle: One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.’”
It seems to have been an ideological position, that was ultimately faith based (as in ascribing to religious belief and relying on religious argumentation), that first underscored this religious chasm. This also coincides with the trend of decreasing religiosity (specifically amongst Democrats) from the Boomer generation. This chasm seems to be resonant of the uncrossable one that permeates our society and has for centuries–since Darwin’s discoveries: a divide between scientific empiricism and faith-based belief.
Data on Evangelical Identifcation and Political Leanings/Public Opinion:
Important Note:
Party differences are shown to be most proiminent in regards to disparate political values than religious differences are. I would argue that secular and religious ideologies fuel these party differences, however.
Important Quotes:
“Why are Republicans so loyal to Trump? That’s simple: He has prioritized central conservative cultural issues for his entire presidency, including overhauling the judiciary to appoint more conservative judges. His personal history may not be a shining example of conservative religious adherence, but his presidency has left little for conservatives and evangelicals to complain about.”
“Gallup’s Frank Newport looked at the question and came up with a simple and not-shocking answer: Evangelical support for Trump follows from the fact that they’re mostly Republican.”
“Overall, evangelical voters (defined by Newport as those who are white and Protestant and attend religious services nearly every week) are less supportive of Trump than are Republicans overall.”
“The suggestion made by Newport is that party is a stronger driver of political views than religion. That mirrors other Pew research from October 2017, in which researchers determined that party identification was by far a bigger predictor of views on political values than any other demographic divide.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/religion-gap-republican-democratic-voters-polling
“This separation in attitudes is rooted in an even deeper divergence between the two sides: While whites who identify as Christians still represent about two-thirds of all Republicans, they now compose only one-fourth of Democrats, according to results provided by the Pew Research Center from a new study it released last week.”
Another good point. The disparate religiosity amongst party lines could be a factor worsening polarization, as one side uses a more accessible secular vernacular, and the other a more esoteric theological one.
Further Reading:
A Potential Psychological Explanation
“Liberals and Conservatives Need Each Other” — Jordan Peterson
“One of the things that our research and that other people’s research has indicated is that conservatives are conservative and liberals liberal because of their temperaments—it’s partly biological. So for example, conservatives tend to be higher in coscientiousness and orderliness, particularly orderliness, and lower in openness… So what that means is that conservatives, roughly speaking, make better managers and administrates. Liberals are higher in openness, which is both interest in ideas and interest in aesthetics. And they’re lower in coscientesness. One of the consequences of that is that they tend to make better entrepeneureres and artists. Liberals are really interested are how ideas relate to each other, and they like top jump from one thing to another, and it does make them creative, but they’re not very good at implementation. Whereas the conservativers are very good at implementation and at detail. So roughly speaking, the conservatives need the liberals to start companies and generate new ideas… but the liberals need the conservatives to run the … companies.”
There is a psychological/biological component at work here. This is helping to adress the question I posed in a previous entry about human nature being an important factor in polarization. We by the constitution of our personalities can be “conservative” and “liberal.” In other words, these are not merely categories that label types of political beliefs we may have, but that outline our personalities, that then influence what we are likely to believe as a result. This paints “polarization” in a whole new light: it may not always be a matter of disagreement, but fundamental difference that cannot be eradicated but can reach a compromise. This may also help recontextualize the connection between Republicans and religiosity. Perhaps it is the conservative personality trait that is the indicator of high religiosity.
“[Confirmation bias] amplifies their temperamental proclivities.”
“Conservatives do tend to consume media that fosters a conservative viewpoint and so do liberals [with liberal viewpoints]… and this was the whole purpose of education at one point, to expose you to views that contradicted your own and to help you find value in those alternative views…to help you get out of your confirmation bias and the tendency of that to [force] you into a narrow viewpoint that is no longer representative of the world… your weaknesses doesn’t get corrected and [your beliefs] take you over, and that is what is happening in our politically polarized society.”
This particular quote is fascinating to me, as it may help highlight an important distinction I will make in locating the partisan location of polarization in our society. For the right-wing, this may apply to inciting a particular type of identity-related outrage (periphery/alt society) that results in the usage of non-diverse sources. For the left-wing, this may apply in the hegemonic presence of the left and radical left-wing ideology in higher education.
Further Questions:
- What are the distinctions between Conservative ideology and Republican partisanship? Are the two mutually exclusive?
- Where are the studies about what Dr. Peterson talks about here? What are the implications of their findings for polarization?
- Does the left have a problematic presence in universities that is damaging Democratic discourse?
- To what extent is conservative consumption of media different from liberal consumption, since confirmation bias is clearly playing a large role in both camps (now more than ever)? Is it the specific rhetoric that is different?
- What are specific Evangelical beliefs that would attract them to Conservative ideology?
