The big idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was pretty simple: A reporter from an elite newsroom talked to some Latino evangelicals and discovered that they think their lives are defined just as much, or more, by the fact that they are evangelicals as by being Latinos.
The hook for this discussion was my recent post with this headline: “New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump.” This Times piece was quite remarkable, in that it took the religious content seriously. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.
Political-desk reporters have long realized that Latino Americans are a crucial bloc of swing voters and have tended to see them as a growing piece of the “Catholic vote” puzzle. Of course, Latino Catholics who frequently go to Mass have consistently different political priorities than those who have, for all practical purposes, left the sacramental life of the church.
A few political reporters have noticed that evangelical Latinos exist and that lots of them live in strategic swing states — like Arizona and Florida. If you frame that completely in political terms, it looks something like this — one of those quick-read 2020 race summaries produced by the pros at Axios.
The big picture: Trump's push for a U.S.-Mexico border wall and hardline immigration policies make him unpopular with many Hispanic voters. But he has successfully courted other Hispanic-Americans, including evangelicals, those who are a generation removed from immigration, and those of Cuban and Venezuelan descent who respond to his anti-socialism message.
— Trump is benefiting from "stronger support among evangelical protestant Hispanics who see a clearcut difference between Trump and Biden on faith-based issues," said Rice University Professor Mark Jones.
What, precisely, does this reference to “faith-based issues” mean? What are the specific doctrinal issues hiding behind that vague term?
Meanwhile, Florida is crucial (#DUH).
— National polling still shows Biden leading Trump with Hispanics by around 20 percentage points, but in some key states that lead evaporates.
— Biden's challenge may be the clearest in Florida, where exit polling gave Clinton two-thirds of the Hispanic vote in 2016 but where three recent surveys show Trump holding a small lead over Biden with Hispanics.
Say what? Trump is leading Biden in some surveys of Hispanic voters in Florida?
That makes this an important new story, you see. Always remember: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much — unless it’s religion that affects politics.
Now, here is some of the material that made that Times piece — “Latino, Evangelical and Politically Homeless“ — so unusual. First, there was this:
When Pastor [Jose] Rivera looks at his congregation of 200 families he sees a microcosm of the Latino vote in the United States: how complex it is, and how each party’s attempt to solidify crucial support can fall short. There are not clear ideological lines here between liberals and conservatives. People care about immigration, but are equally concerned about religious liberty and abortion. …
To explain his own partisan affiliation, Mr. Rivera says he is “politically homeless.”
Stating the obvious, it’s clear that “politically homeless” means “swing voter.”
Later, there is this crucial statement about why some Latinos are starting to listen to GOP appeals:
This is not a question of assimilation — on the contrary, many Hispanic evangelicals primarily speak Spanish and see themselves as outside of any kind of mainstream, set apart by their religious views as much as their ethnicity.
In other words, religious believers who frequent pews tend to think that what they believe — the word “doctrine” is appropriate — is a crucial part of how they live their lives. Right now, many traditional religious believers see evidence that their beliefs are under attack by the state, by many powerful corporations and by mass media, of various kinds. This affects their political views.
Check out this chart from GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge:
However, they also feel out of place in the Republican mainstream, since their political beliefs are a blend of “progressive” views on economics, immigration, health care, etc., and “conservative” stands on moral and social issues and the First Amendment (where “conservative” views are actually old-school liberalism on issues linked to free speech, freedom of association and religious liberty).
Of course, the GOP landscape is somewhat different for Latinos when Trump is functioning as the Tweeter In Chief.
But think about this for a second: Doesn’t this “politically homeless” theme sound rather familiar? Remember that headline the other day on a Times op-ed piece written by the Rev. Tim Keller, one of America’s most influential evangelical thinkers?
How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t
The historical Christian positions on social issues don’t match up with contemporary political alignments.
Here’s the passage that lit fires all over the social-media landscape. This is long, but essential:
Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.
This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.
So Christians are pushed toward two main options. One is to withdraw and try to be apolitical. The second is to assimilate and fully adopt one party’s whole package in order to have your place at the table. Neither of these options is valid.
Amazing. It sounds like the founder of New York City’s influential Redeemer Presbyterian Church feels like he faces the same basic political puzzle as the Latino evangelicals quoted in that Times news piece.
Now that you think about it, there are other Americans who feel the same way. Isn’t this political formula — progressive views on economic issues, combined with conservative stands on moral and cultural issues — also seen among many active, doctrinally traditional Catholics?
How about African-Americans in church pews? Reporters are always noting that Black Christians tend to be more conservative, or “moderate” on moral and social issues than mainstream, largely secular or religiously liberal Democrats? How did that reality affect the presidential campaign of Mayor Pete Buttigieg during the South Carolina primary?
How about those folks who used to be called “Reagan Democrats”? How about the “Blue Dog Democrats” who used to be powerful across the Sunbelt (and in the Catholic Midwest), but who have not been pushed to the margins of their party? For the most part, they are populists on economic and labor issues, but more conservative on (all together now) moral and cultural issues.
How about the many white evangelicals — see those polls quoted by Christianity Today, just before 2016 election — who were distressed that they had to choose between Trump and Hillary Clinton? Many of them were pro-life Democrats who felt, well, “homeless” in America’s current political landscape.
In other words, what if religious beliefs and practice (think “pew gap”) played a major role in creating all of those “swing voters” who are so crucial in American political life?
Some newspaper editors need to consider assigning religion-beat professionals to that story during the next crucial week of coverage. Don’t you think?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.