Why Kerry Lost
Understanding Evangelical Conservatives in Heartland America

by Benjamin Cheek

Growing power in the Evangelical world

Kerry supporters were shocked.  Early exit polls had indicated a big win for Kerry, who had bet that Americans were sick of Bush's "bad news" presidency.  Even given some leftist stances on controversial issues, Democrats were banking on dissatisfaction with Iraq, job losses, and economic woes to bring home the vote.  But as the vote came in, it was clear that their hunches were wrong and Bush was taking both the popular and electoral vote by a good margin.

There's no disputing it: Evangelical Conservatives (ECs), voting on issues of morality, gave Bush the White House.  In fact, ECs showed up in record numbers at the polls, comprising almost a quarter of all voters with 78% supporting Bush.  Democrats were surprised by the EC turn out, partly because the had never come out in this kind of force before and partly because the secular nature of the party may not understand religion as a basis for political alignment.  One thing was clear, however, ECs were establishing themselves as a power to be reckoned with: a clearly pro-Republican, pro-Bush power.

Evangelicals are going to use that power too.  James Dobson, one of the most respected names in the EC world because of his organization Focus on the Family, reminded Bush and other Republicans, "The GOP has been given four years to deliver on marriage and life and family, and if they fumble it...[we'll] stay home next time."  President Bush has been using the word "mandate" a lot concerning his conservative agenda, but his EC supporters are expecting a "Evangelical Conservative Agenda" and will settle for nothing less.

Many of the Democrats in the New York Metro, where I live, are wondering about how the election could turn out this way.  A few things are clear:  First, their is a huge cultural and ideological divide in this country, and second, they don't have much understanding about heartland religion and politics. For the sake of building understanding, here's a little peak under the "Evangelical Conservative" label, showing a American sub-culture more complicated and principled than some disappointed Democrats would believe. 

Sojourning in conservative America

I've spent much of my life living between worlds.  I grew up in small-town Pennsylvania.  My father is a Mid-western city kid, and my mother is a second generation New Englander.  This family blend exposed my to everything from the Heartland values of Missouri to the intelligentsia of the urban Northeast.  Visiting family was a trip into the relative extreme's of American religious and political culture.

Moving around has also connected me to friends representing a great variety of cultures and political views, including many who would fit the EC label.  In fact, I spent a year and a couple of summers working for a large church in the Nashville area and this time really opened my eyes to how unique the EC subculture is.  The values and views of the members of the church at first stumped me and led to massive culture shock.  Even having family in the heartland hadn't prepared me for a first hand journey into the heart of EC America.

After a while I learned to listen to the heart of ECs.  Most expressed rather passionate concerns about the state of our nation, especially concerning moral issues and what ECs consider massive trends of societal decline.  In fact, there was a rather dominant political attitude, mixed with the religious nationalism prevalent, that faithful believers were morally obligated to be conservative Republicans.  To many Bush was a hero, simply because he made some effort to halt the tide of secularization and liberalization that ECs fear so much.  For many ECs, they would have taken an even more conservative candidate than Bush to stem the moral decay of the country.

Even among the young professionals at this Tennessee church, that fit in the 18-29 year-old voter bracket that Kerry was counting on, most felt morally obligated to vote for Bush.  They might have felt that Kerry represented certain important issues in their interest, but they just couldn't get past his moral positions (or lack there of).  Some were just plain terrified of a world run by someone like Kerry.  To these suburbanites with families, Kerry represented a ticket to a future of decay and ruin.

A matter of survival issues

One retired Democratic voter, Jamal Kalantar, says, "Issues like abortion and gay marriage are so important to some people that they voted for Bush even though it's clearly not in their economic interest."  This, and other observations have left many asking, "why?"  "What's so important about these issues?"  Over and over again, Democratic voters were bewildered.  As one British newspaper put it, "HOW CAN 59,054,087 PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?"  Most of the astonishment and outrage ignores just how important key moral issues are to EC America.

To many ECs, these moral issues are about the survival of their way of life.  They see progressive stances on these issues as stepping onto a slippery slope that will lead to social ruin.  Given a chance, ECs believe liberals will destroy the very foundation of the country, beginning with these innovations.  I've had conversations with EC friends about the practicality of legislating morality on the gay marriage issue.  I point out that banning gay marriage won't keep anyone from being gay.  My friends have countered that it's not about trying to keep gays from being gay.  It's about preventing public legitimacy that will open the door for gay-rights intrusions into their world.  Most ECs believe such an approval of the gay lifestyle will standardize homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle in the sex-education curriculum of public schools.  It may also provide more steam for gay law suits suing for membership and leadership in organizations (like has happened with the Boy Scouts, a stereo-typically EC institution).  Even more nightmarish would be the possible ramification for churches.  Therefore, ECs view gay marriage like the rest of America would view the legalization of pedophilia: it would remove vital safe guards for their families and institutions.

For most ECs, abortion is a value of life issue.  Just as most people would appose euthanasia of the elderly, ECs appose what they see as the destruction of human life.  Currently, there is no consistency in the various legal and medical definitions of what constitutes a human.  Some of my EC friends involved in the medical profession point out the paradoxical definitions of human life supported by medical culture.  Most doctors make birth the marker of human life.  However, neo-natal science has made it possible to routinely rescue premature babies not yet into their third trimester.  These babies, often kept alive by technology, are considered fully human with all the attached rights.  The irony occurs when fetuses of nearly the same age are routinely aborted.  If one is human, some ask, why isn't the other?  Many heartland voters see abortion as murder, that's no secret.  But in EC circles there is real talk about the "slippery slope" idea.  The questions goes something like this:  "If they can kill helpless babies today, who can they kill tomorrow?"

Also tied up in the issue is the idea of sexual responsibility.  Many ECs equate safe-sex distribution of condoms in high schools with establishment permission, and even pressure, for teens to be promiscuous.  ECs aren't too excited about the idea of removing pregnancy as a deterrent to sex outside of marriage.  They view Planned Parenthood as a anti-family institution stealing parental power and risking their children's lives, futures, and even eternal souls.

Even on the war issue, many heartland voters, despite displeasure with Bush's job in Iraq, couldn't see putting Kerry in charge.  The heartland gives more of their children and spouses to the military than all other regions of the country.  In fact the rural and suburban South -- center of the EC stronghold -- gives more troops than any other area.  Although Kerry might have brought their loved ones home, Bush seemed a better choice for their survival while still on the field, especially with the GOP pointing out that Kerry voted against giving G.I.'s flack jackets (though this might be stretching Kerry's intentions in voting against war funding).

Generally speaking, ECs highly value their way of life.  They see secularization and liberalization as diabolical enemies.  No wonder, given their reactions to "liberal" and "secular" attacks such as the removal of prayer from schools, barring of the ten commandments from government buildings, the standardization of evolution in public school curriculum, and several other issues that directly assault EC values.  Kerry wasn't just someone they disagreed with.  He was a enemy bent on destroying what is sacred to them.

The fear of urbanization and postmodernism

During my stay in the heartland, I was raising funds for my current urban missions project in the New York metro.  This involved talking to hundreds of church leaders and members in the South and Midwest.  Part of our presentation to churches showed figures on the urbanization of the world.  According to the UN, the world population is, for the first time ever, half urban.  We found our talk of a city-based world often brought up fear in church leaders rather than compassion and a sense of mission.

That's another factor in the ethos of EC America.  Because many major US cities vote Democratic, including mega-cities on both coasts, urban areas are equated with Democratic agendas.  Why would this cause ECs to fear Kerry's platform?  Frankly, most ECs are terrified of the idea of having to live in stereo-typical cities.  

Some of this has to do with observation.  Heartland cities are among the most violent and poverty-stricken in the country.  In fact, many of these are oriented in a target pattern with successive circles of decay and affluence.  The heavily endowed center city contains the arts and entertainment establishment full of liberals (including some of the most liberal churches).  This is often surrounded by a significant poverty belt with run-down housing and poor neighborhoods.  These are in turn surrounded by a belt of affluent suburbs, home to an increasing number of ECs seeking urban jobs but hoping to keep their kids away from city schools.  As ECs drive through the city belts on their way to office towers downtown, they witness two things they equate with Democratic policy: the troubles of the poverty belts and the apparent hedonism of the cultural centers.

The verdict is that the current, predominantly Democratic policies aren't working.  One Pharmacist friend of mine tells stories of hold ups when he worked for a drug store in an inner city neighborhood.  Some robberies were for money, some were for prescription drugs with street value.  Either way, the armed robberies influenced his feelings about gun control.  Not that he though gun control would stop armed crimes, instead he wanted the to keep the right to carry in a neighborhood were the cops aren't frequently available.  Lest anyone judge my friend as lacking compassion, they should consider that he makes annual medical relief trips to depressed areas in Latin America.  His experience has led him to form two mental categories: the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor.  The later, according to some ECs, seems to be created or enabled by Democratic social engines.

One reason ECs are skeptical of Democratic policy is that they see a heavily postmodern influence, which, quite frankly, they fear.  Even though postmodernism has had its effects in the RC world, most of the social structures and attitudes of ECs remain predominantly modern.  The relativism inherent in postmodern thinking disturbs conservatives who believe that conformity is required for society to work.  ECs state that there are some character traits and moral values that must be universal in order to get things done.  Postmoderns, a cultural worldview developed largely because of diversity, denies the validity of conformity.  Character and morals are usually culturally or religiously defined, so the question becomes, "whose religion and whose culture should decide what's good character and morally right?"

Gina Glantz, former Howard Dean aide, said, "Democrats have values.  It's not that we have to change our values.  We have to understand how to speak about our values.  Healthcare is a value.  But we tend to talk in policy terms rather than personal terms."  But some ECs won't care whether Democrats talk in personal terms or not.  They don't agree with this definition of value.  There are no conditions.  To ECs it sounds like something that will take money from hard-working families to give it the lazy and Welfare-dependent: an idea they will never value. 

Evangelicals charge that Democrats, influenced by postmodernism, make no requirements on those they help.  This represents a major divide between political right and left.  For example: Bush talks about "tax cuts for hard-working families."  Notice the moral requirement placed on the benefit: "hard-working."  Latent in this expression, is the idea that the benefit implies responsibility on the part of the recipient.  Kerry instead talks of "quality and affordable healthcare for everyone."  The lack of expectation that ECs hear in this statement bothers them.  They believe in "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, and separate the two groups largely on the basis of whether they are willing to take moral and social responsibility.  In the same way, ECs generally believe in "worthy" and "unworthy" citizens who should receive governmental benefits based on the responsibility they take for their own futures.  This is the central idea in Bush's "ownership government" which he poses in direct opposition to Democratic "entitlement government."  This concept factors so hugely into conservative politics, it has thrown up barriers to Affirmative Action and justified concessions to big businesses that have "earned their way."  

One very Republican EC friend of mine has made a good living buying and managing government subsidized housing in Nashville.  His direct contact with low-income tenants has led him to the conviction that hand-outs help no one.  Tenants required to pay little or no rent are basically given a place to live, usually in new or renovated construction, which is all he buys.  Within months, the place is wrecked and the tenants are evicted costing him thousands in repairs before the next tenant comes in and repeats the cycle.  My friend says he has little hope for the poor under the current system because it makes no requirements on those it helps.  With most of the tenants, he thinks the issue is work ethic, not opportunity.

Even some of my friends who are EC urban workers -- working and living in some of the toughest neighborhoods in the heartland -- vote Republican in contrast to the people of their congregations.  They find Democratic policies that make no requirements downright oppressive. They see the lack of "personal development" in Democratic "community development" as just another way of keeping the poor down.  They charge that Democratic initiatives and social projects are intended to buy poor votes and that wealthy ruling-class Democrats really care little for their largest voting base.

As evidence, EC urban workers point out how "help" works in the poverty stricken neighborhoods and projects of the inner city.  Democratic programs dump millions of dollars into poor neighborhoods to provide healthcare, education, and housing.  But the money only helps the poor in the sort term, and then disappears with bureaucratic slide-of-hand.  For example: the majority of healthcare dollars go to medical personnel salaries, hospital administration costs, and drugs.  This means that most healthcare money will eventually end up in the suburbs where doctors and nurses live or in extremely affluent neighborhoods where hospital and pharmaceutical executives and board members live.  Education dollars go mostly to pay educators, who live in the suburbs too.  In fact, even most housing dollars go to wealthier individuals who own low-rent housing but who live outside the poor neighborhood.  ECs charge that Democratic social programs are really a way of money-laundering tax payer dollars and putting them in the pocket of the upper-middle and high classes.  To really help the poor, my urban worker friends tell me, you must really invest in them personally.  Unless they become doctors, nurses, teachers, and home owners -- which will require much work in character development -- you really aren't helping at all.

The need for new options and better dialogue

Admittedly, I'm evangelical, but politically speaking, I'm not that conservative.  These leaves me with few options given the leanings of both parties.  In conversations with like-minded friends, I've heard a lot of people talking about voting for "the lesser of two evils."  This reveals the need for more options and better dialogue between political and cultural groups in this country.  In fact, Republicans and Democrats could benefit a great deal from listening and talking to each other about their fundamental commonalities and differences.  This conversation might even lead to some better options for the voting public.

Republicans, including the majority of ECs, need to hear the Democratic call to social justice.  To quote proverbs from EC tradition, "too whom much is given, much is expected," and "there shall be no poor among you."  This means EC tradition and values are calling them to move outside of their comfort zone and reach out.  While it's fine to vote according to moral values, ECs should extend the their definition of this concept beyond self-protection of the EC way of life.  This will include changing the idea of "undeserving" and "deserving" people, which often overlooks the availability of stable families, education, and structures of power to certain portions of society.  While some people choose not to be responsible in full knowledge of the consequences, the majority of non-socially responsible people have a dramatic disconnect with their behavior and the possible outcomes.  Saying "get a job" ignores that many people lack familial support to believe in themselves, education in behavior and skills to stay employed, and power to not be viewed as throw-away workers.  The moral thing to do is not just open the door of opportunity for those who have the power to enter, but to get aggressively involved with empowering people to move through that door.

Democrats should hear EC critiques for their socially-driven agenda loud and clear.  They should talk about "help-ups" rather than "hand-outs."  They can help their largest voter base with better "person" not "program" focused policies and at the same time win over more support from EC and moderate America by talking about the underlying responsibilities they hope to instill in those they help.  They should attempt to present more policies that will become self-sustaining, requiring less and less tax dollars from Middle-America.  This should include long-term solutions that really meet the needs of urban communities rather than, as ECs would see it, wasting money carelessly thrown at problems.  They should also consider employing their tolerant, relativistic hearts to ECs, and make as many guarantees that they will protect EC way of life as they do to minorities and special-interest groups.

Democrats would also do well to move away from attempting to harvest dissatisfaction for their own political ends.  EC America may think the Bush administration has floundered in quite a few areas, but they, along with much of moderate America, know they will not be more satisfied with candidates they perceive to be lacking in character.  In this election, Democrats listened too much to dissatisfied grumbling and it distracted them from forming progressive, credible solutions and credible candidates.  The solution to poor Republican leadership is better leadership, Democratic or Republican, and attempting to harvest a "dissatisfaction vote" distracts from this and is socially counter-productive.

Finally, postmodern urbanites, the backbone of the Democratic voting base, need to do some serious "soul searching."  What is the future of urban culture?  Urbanites have taken a moral stand on intolerance, but this often amounts to preventing judgment against various forms of self-destruction rather than legitimately protecting diverse cultures.  We need a new urban morality.  People who are truly concerned about the city need to make the connection that lifestyle decisions such as sexuality, divorce, and economic practices are as crucial to the life and death of the city as are social programs.  Radical autonomy, extreme materialism, and rampant individualism are killing the city faster than big business, environmental problems, or lack of affordable health care.  Democrats and urbanites need to define a better, more considerate way of life and employ as much political energy to changing urban people from the heart out as they do to winning elections.