SECTION: SPECIAL STUDY FEATURE; Pg. 58

LENGTH: 3098 words

HEADLINE: Spreading Out and Digging In;
Christian Conservatives and State Republican Parties

BYLINE: BY KIMBERLY H. CONGER & JOHN C. GREEN; Kimberly H. Conger is a graduate teaching assistant in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University. John C. Green is professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at The University of Akron.

BODY:
ONE OF THE PUZZLES OF the 2000 election is the role of Christian conservatives.

On the one hand, their impact appeared to have declined from the mid-1990s. The presidential nomination bids of Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes went nowhere, and Pat Buchanan abandoned the GOP for an ill-fated Reform Party nomination.

Religion was a source of controversy, such as George W. Bush's visit to Bob Jones University. The Christian Coalition and other groups suffered from organizational problems, and the Republican leadership largely ignored social issues during the campaign. On election day, exit polls revealed a modest decrease in self-identified members of the "religious right" compared to 1996 (14 versus 17 percent of voters).

On the other hand, there is also evidence that Christian conservatives had a significant impact on the election's outcome. In the primaries, "religious right" voters rallied to George W. Bush, allowing him to best his conservative rivals and outlast John McCain's maverick campaign. Religious voices received some additional legitimacy with the selection of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, and his use of religious rhetoric.

Despite organizational problems, the Christian Coalition and other groups worked hard for the Republican ticket, and received a few concessions on issues, such as late-term abortions. The smaller "religious right" voting bloc went 80 percent for Bush, up from the 65 percent for Bob Dole in 1996.

The relative influence of Christian conservatives in state Republican parties can help put this conflicting evidence in context. After all, the Christian right took the plunge into Republican Party politics in the 1990s, seeking a "place at the table." The successes -- and failures -- of this effort reveal much about the status of the Christian right as a political force in the 2000 campaign and beyond.

Here we update a study conducted by Campaigns & Elections in 1994, assessing the influence of Christian conservatives in state Republican parties in 2000. We find a great deal of change, with the Christian right gaining influence by spreading out to more states and digging in when faced with opposition.

The Study

Assessing the relative strength of any constituency is a challenge, but it is especially difficult for one as controversial as conservative Christians. In fact, there is not even a generally accepted name for this loose collection of organizations, activists and voters. The label "religious right" was originally commonplace, but the antics of self-proclaimed leaders, intense criticism from opponents and unfavorable news coverage led many to reject the term. Soon participants and observers adopted the term "Christian right," but it has been stigmatized as well.

The labels "Christian conservative" and "conservative Christian" are now more popular, but if history is any guide, they will have a short shelf life as well. (Both friends and foes have their own special nomenclature, of course, such as "pro-family movement" and "radical right," respectively.) With this problem in mind, we asked a wide variety of well-placed political observers to assess the influence of the Christian right in the Republican state committee of their state. A total of 395 key informants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia shared their perceptions with us after the 2000 campaign, including Republican and Democratic state party officials, leaders of Christian conservative groups, political consultants, journalists and academics.

Some of these key informants were enthusiastic about the study and gave us detailed explanations for their assessments. Others were critical of our effort and a few were outright hostile, refusing to answer our questions, but offering a comprehensive critique free of charge.

Clearly, studying religion and politics is not for the faint-hearted -- which is precisely why such an effort is valuable.

As we had hoped, these interviews produced a wide range of perspectives, even among the same kind of observer. For example, some Christian conservatives bragged about their influence within the state GOP, but others bitterly complained that they were ignored. Some Democratic Party officials seemed to relish the impact of Christian conservatives among Republicans, but others were dismissive. Likewise, some Republican consultants argued that the "Christian right" was a myth designed to hurt the GOP, but others praised Christian conservatives for their party loyalty. All told, we are confident that our informants expressed the full range of opinion on this topic.

We combined these diverse assessments by state in two steps. First, we averaged the responses to two questions: an estimate of the percentage of the state GOP central committee who supported the issue agenda of Christian conservatives, and an estimate of the percentage of those committees who were members of Christian right organizations. These questions represented, respectively, high and low estimates of the influence of this constituency within the party, and averaging them reduced the impact of unusually positive or negative responses. Second, we balanced the interviews within states, giving equal weight to Republicans and conservatives, Democrats and liberals, and nonpartisan observers (journalists and academics). This step ensured that no particular perspective dominated the results.

This measure of Christian conservative's influence in state Republican parties is comparable to the 1994 Campaigns & Elections article, and we used the same criteria to categorized the states into "weak" (less than 25 percent of the state party committee), "moderate" (25 to 49 percent) and "strong" (50 percent or more) levels of influence. The accompanying table presents the 2000 results and notes changes from 1994. These results are consistent with other data from our key informants, and fit well with a host of recent studies of Christian conservatives in individual states. However, the findings must be viewed with caution: in the end, they represent perceptions, not hard facts. Of course, such perceptions regularly define political reality, and in this matter, facts are hard to come by.

State-by-State Results

In 2000, Christian conservatives were perceived to hold a strong position in 18 state Republican parties, the same number as in the 1994. The moderate category had 26 states, exactly twice the 1994 number. And the weak category declined to seven cases, down from 20 six years prior. Clearly, the biggest change was the increase in the moderate category, but there was considerable movement in all categories. For example, of the 18 states where Christian conservatives were perceived to be strong in 2000, seven represented increases over 1994. And of the strong states in 1994, eight declined to moderate category by 2000. These patterns are worth examining in more detail, and a useful way to do so is by region.

Digging In in Dixie

The South has always been a bastion for Christian conservatives in large part because of the large number of evangelical Protestants in the region. Indeed, the shift of evangelical voters into the Republican column helped the GOP win numerous Southern elections in the 1990s. Bush swept the Southern and Border States in 2000, but won some states by small margins -- as in Florida.

In 2000, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia were perceived to be in the strong category, unchanged from 1994. In addition, Kentucky remained in the moderate category. Although Christian conservatives maintained their influence in these states, they also suffered some major disappointments, including the loss of friendly governors in Alabama and South Carolina in 1998. The Christian right appears to be coming to terms with other Republican constituencies in these places. For example, South Carolina was a key battleground in the 2000 primaries, and the Christian right strongly backed Bush over McCain; similarly, Christian conservatives made peace with Bush in Texas.

The states of Arkansas and Mississippi shifted from the moderate to strong category, and the state of Tennessee moved from weak to strong -- a pattern that also held for West Virginia, a culturally conservative Border state. Republican candidates associated with the Christian right make all these states competitive in the 1990s. Al Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee and the Democratic stronghold of West Virginia were critical to 2000 presidential results.

However, Christian conservatives also experienced some trouble in Dixie. Four states moved from the strong to moderate category: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina. In each case, the Christian right has confronted extensive and growing diversity within the GOP and the state as a whole. Sometimes this diversity was managed successfully, such as by Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, but in other cases internal conflict occurred, such as in Georgia.

The Georgia result may seem a bit of an anomaly, since Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, was chosen as state Republican chair in 2001. However, Reed was a Republican activist before he went to work for Pat Robertson, and his selection as party chair may represent a rapprochement between Christian conservatives and other Republicans as in Florida and Texas. An emblem of the situation is the Democratic control of both U.S. senate seats in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana; John Edwards' 1998 victory in North Carolina may presage a Democratic replacement of Jesse Helms in 2002. In these states, Christian conservatives appear to be digging in for the long haul.

Gains in the Midwest

Christian conservatives have also been quite active in Midwestern Republican parties, reflecting the pockets of evangelical Protestants and traditional mainline Protestants and Catholics.

In 2000, Iowa and Minnesota remained in the strong category: both were sites of intense inter- and intra-party activity by the Christian right that shows little sign of abating. Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin remained in the moderate category. In these states, Christian conservatives have tended to work within the Republican coalition, supporting the likes of Ohio Gov. Bob Taft and Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. However, there have also been some major confrontations, such as the disastrous challenge to incumbent GOP Gov. Robert Graves in the 1998 Kansas primary. In fact, Kansas is a good illustration of the fluctuation in Christian right influence in the state parties. A surge of activism after 1994 might well have put Kansas into the strong category, up from moderate in the 1995 C&E study.

The accompanying electoral gains included the capture of the state school board, which eventually produced a controversial decision on the teaching of evolution. Moderate Republicans took back control of the state party organizations in 1998 and the state school board in 2000, reducing the influence of Christian rightists substantially.

The perceived influence of Christian conservatives increased in five Midwestern states since 1994: Missouri and South Dakota moved from the weak to strong category; Michigan from moderate to strong; and Illinois and North Dakota moved from weak to moderate. These gains appear to be linked to pro-life activism and some very competitive campaigns, such as Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald's win in 1998 and Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft's loss in 2000. In the presidential election, Bush won a majority of these states, but Gore carried some of the most populated, including Michigan and Illinois.

Mixed Results in the West

Christian conservatives have always been active in the West, despite the strong liberal -- and libertarian -- tendencies of these states. It may be, however, that these very tendencies have brought moral traditionalists into Republican party politics in force.

Alaska, Idaho and Oregon remained in the strong category as in 1994, while Nevada and Utah stayed in the moderate category. In contrast, four states were perceived as gains for conservative Christians: Colorado moved into the strong category from weak; Montana from moderate to strong; New Mexico and Wyoming from weak to moderate. The Colorado change may reflect the arrival in Colorado Springs of Focus on the Family, a major evangelical ministry. In most of these states, the Latter-Day Saints have been an important force as well. Republican candidates backed by Christian conservatives have been competitive, but not always successful, in most of these states during the 1990s.

The Christian right was perceived to have lost ground in four states: California, Arizona, Hawaii and Washington. The decline was especially noted in California, the nation's largest state. Here, Christian conservatives suffered from a general decay in Republican fortunes, including the hostility from Hispanic voters over the immigration issue. In Washington, Christian right candidates obtained the gubernatorial and senatorial nominations in 1998 and 2000, respectively, and lost decisively. In the presidential election, Bush won all the Mountain and Plains states, except New Mexico, and Gore won all West Coast states, except Alaska.

No Change in the Northeast

Christian conservatives have always had the least influence in the Northeast. The small number of evangelicals plus the strength of moderate and liberal religious groups in the major metropolitan areas has sharply limited the impact of the Christian right, even in Republican circles, despite the pro-life sentiments of many Catholics. Consequently, there was little change from 1994.

All seven cases in the weak category are in the Northeast: Connecticut, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Delaware, Maine, Maryland and Pennsylvania remained in the moderate category. The one change was New Hampshire, which shifted from weak to moderate. It is worth noting that the Granite State was the only Northeast state Bush won in 2000, and is a last redoubt of traditional Yankee conservatism.

Spreading Out and Digging in

It is possible, of course, that some of these assessments are inaccurate for 2000, or for that matter, from 1994 as well. But even so, the comparison of the two years suggests considerable flux in the influence of Christian conservatives in state Republican parties.

Overall, 23 states shifted in one way or another from 1994. Such flux makes sense: the Christian right is a relative recent actor in Republican politics, and its loose collection of organizations, activists and voters have been struggling to find their place in the political process. Many of these elements have adjusted to the give and take of the political process, and no longer think of themselves as part of the "religious right" or "Christian right." Others have become disgusted with politics and returned to non-political pursuits.

On balance, the perceived influence of Christian conservatives in state Republican parties has expanded since 1994, with gains in 15 states and declines in eight. However, the net effect has been an increase in the number of states in the moderate category. In this sense, the Christian right has been "spreading out" across the states, especially in the South, Midwest and West. Thus, Christian conservatives have become a staple of politics nearly everywhere.

However, the Christian right did not become more strongly influential within the state Republican parties as a whole between 1994 and 2000. Indeed, it lost ground in key Southern states and in the far West. In some conservative areas, such as Kansas, it has gained and then lost ground in a short period of time. Meanwhile, its success in other states may be only temporary, tied to the fortunes of particular candidates and causes.

These findings beg an important question: what is the likely effect of Christian conservatives on future elections? The answer depends on how skillfully the Christian right and Republican leaders practice the art of politics. As our state-by-state discussion reveals, influence in the GOP organizations has helped produce successful candidates and big wins at the polls. But it has also proven disastrous for all concerned in some cases.

In this sense, our findings provide an insight into the puzzle of the 2000 elections: the influence of Christian conservatives within the GOP has made them less visible, distinctive and independent, but it has also made them a critical component of the Republican coalition.

Christian Right Influence in State Republican Parties
Influence in State GOP Change from 1994 State Weak Moderate Strong Alabama * no change Alaska * no change Arizona * decrease from strong Arkansas * increase from moderate California * decrease from strong Colorado * increase from weak Connecticut * no change Delaware * no change District of Columbia * no change Florida * decrease from strong Georgia * decrease from strong Hawaii * decrease from strong Idaho * no change Illinois * increase from weak Indiana * no change Iowa * no change Kansas * no change Kentucky * no change Louisiana * decrease from strong Maine * no change Maryland * increase from weak Massachusetts * no change Michigan * increase from moderate Minnesota * no change Mississippi * increase from moderate Missouri * increase from weak Montana * increase from moderate Nebraska * no change Nevada * no change New Hampshire * increase from weak New Jersey * no change New Mexico * increase from weak New York * no change North Carolina * decrease from strong North Dakota * increase from weak Ohio * no change Oklahoma * no change Oregon * no change Pennslyvania * no change Rhode Island * no change South Carolina * no change South Dakota * increase from weak Tennessee * increase from weak Texas * no change Utah * no change Vermont * no change Virginia * no change Washington * decrease from strong West Virginia * increase from weak Wisconsin * no change Wyoming * increase from weak TOTALS 7 26 18LOAD-DATE: February 2, 2002

><