When did I become an "Evangelical" voter?
 

I take pride in my Christian faith and values. And those values impact my choices in governmental elections- just as personal values influence all voters whether or not they have the courage to admit it.

But when the hell did I become an "Evangelical" or "born again Christian" voter?

The term evangelical has a very specific meaning within the realm of the various Christian denominations- in modern terms its primary shade of meaning is in reference to those who proselytize; kind of like the weirdo who approached me at a gas station recently, told me I had a really nice car but then asked me if I "knew the Lord".

We don't all act like this- and many of us, myself included, think evangelical behavior is a greater harm to Christianity and our ideals than it is a benefit.

And I don't think I need to explain the images conjured up in the average mind when the term "born again" comes out.

It really bothers me to see media references to the "Evangelical vote" as though all Christians are some voting block of proselytizing fanatics out to force some fundamental viewpoint on America.

This is not just some left wing media conspiracy either- even Fox News has jumped on the bandwagon. I think this is all just about making the news more interesting by getting people worked up over demons that do not exist.

I will say this, for a few years I have watched Al Sharpton rail against the concept of the "African American vote" as some sort of block of people who all think the same because they are black and who are to be pandered to for votes even though the underlying complex issues they face are diverse and important to America overall.

I never really understood what he was talking about it.

But now I think I get it.

I can understand how you feel regarding the "Evangelical" or "born again" terminology and what images those words conjure. As far as that is concerned, I'm with you. But people who are Christians are for practical purposes, lumped as an "Evangelicals" for the convenience of political pundits. However, they are not all of one mind. There are the "conservative Evangelicals" who are more likely to be the people who oppose progressive social agendas (abortion rights, marriage equality, etc), who desperately want conservative judges on the benches and want to protect (and dare I say in some cases, impose) prayer in public forums, etc, etc, etc... These are the "Bushys" or those who want Huckabee to win, generally speaking.

Then there are the freestyle evangelicals. These people (again, generally speaking) tend to vote Democratic and care about issues such as poverty and the environment. They are not overly concerned by a progressive social agenda. I'm in that second group. I am a Christian. But I don't proselytize or beat people over the head with my Bible. And I respect other people's right to worship (or not worship) the way they see fit. And I am very concerned about poverty and the environment, not just from a social standpoint, but because as a Christian, I see it as commands from God to be "stewards of the Earth" and to protect "the least of these."

I'm pretty sure that liberal christians aren't considered "evangelicals" in terms of voting. When pundits talk about gaining the evangelical vote they are referring to the extremely right wing social conservatives (neoconservatives). I'm not sure how much of the population they make up but they seem to make up a large portion of the extremely wealthy (at least where I'm from.)
So basically scbelle, you aren't an evangelical because you don't vote for a conservative social agenda above all else.

But I am an evangelical in the correct sense. That's the problem with the media usurping the definition. Now people who aren't educated about the different kinds of Christian evangelicals believe all Christians are a bloc of voters who support Bush or other politicians with a socially conservative platform with zeal (see EE-BO's first post), and that is clearly an errant belief.

I think that categorization is what the OP is criticizing. The word "evangelical" should apply to anyone who considers himself or herself a Christian. Evangelizing is not limited to preaching at people, and really should have more to do with the way we live our lives and love others. I certainly don't equate "spread good news" and "oppose gay marriage", and it annoys me when the media does.

You beat me to it. What's worse is Christians, churches, and organizations that call their own politics "the Christian view". I feel like I'm always having to defend my faith to those who relate to my politics, and vice versa.

Actually, from watching the coverage of the primaries this year (I admit it, even though it's like watching paint dry, I'm a junkie), when they speak of the "evangelical" voters of the republican party, they are talking about the Huckabee type voters who are voting a cause (right to life, constitutional amendment on marriage, etc.), and they have tended to be statistically in the more rural states and the less populated rural areas. CNN has a really good method of showing where the voting districts are leaning, and McCain has tended to garner the votes from the more highly populous and wealthier districts.

Neocon's are viewed more as the pro-war, Cheney, Rumsfeld types and there was much more talk of neocons in the last election. I got this off of a website:

neoconservatives - I think the people you are talking about are fiscal conservatives and they are much more moderate in their social views, which is what I would consider myself.

IMO, the conservative republican party is splintering between the social conservatives (being branded as evangelicals) and the fiscal conservatives. I'm sick of being considered a right wing wacko and wish the party would move back towards center. But that's just me.

Its just the word thats used to describe a certain sect of voters. In the religious sense (the one that matters) you are evangelical.

I should have read this before posting, you nailed it.
Neo conservatives are NOT fiscal conservatives though, they are the George Bush types. I agree with you about the party though, I am a true conservative, favoring small government and pure capitalism above all else and I can't stand the neocon stance on social issues (pro big government).

I know exactly what you mean. I hate having people question my Christianity when they find out I am pro- marriage equality and pro-choice. "But your daddy's a southern preacher! How can you believe in that junk??" I hear that a lot. I just happen to think that as far as politics is concerned, God and Jesus are above political parties, and God's probably a lot more concerned with how I treat people versus how I vote for personal freedom.

And as far as the churches engaging in their own kind of politics, I really wish that some of them would lost their tax-exempt status because what they're doing is really, really shady.

I don't think "evangelical" should have a negative connotation. Unfortunately, some of that is our own doing, but nevertheless, I don't think the concept is inherently bad (actually, the opposite). As a Christian I feel we are called to share our faith with others, though the manner in which we do it varies.

I think aggressive Christians do harm our faith, but I certainly don't object to people who seek to share it with others, whether through actions, words, or the ideal-- a combination of both. I'm certainly not offended when someone of another faith tries to tell me about it; I respect their passion and devotion.

I don't think it should either, I think it is a product of a liberal leaning media that has taken the name "evangelical" and turned it into a political term for right wing social conservatives who are trying to push a religion based platform.

It's not fair to evangelists who are just out there trying to spread the good word!

Bush and the evangelicals
 

srmom,
I think your point about blaming the "liberal media" for demonizing those who are evangelicals is misdirected. Go back almost eight years to the antics of Karl Rove and the other Bush campaign gurus. They had to get more groups "fired up" to vote Republican, so they used issues like gay marriage and "family values" to fire up "the base" as they called them. Church pulpits became extremely political, and those born-again Christians (which many of us claim to be) were used to propel Bush to victory. The line between simply being a born-again Christian and a Bible-waving neo-con became blurred, and for a good reason, just like all those early speeches "mentioning" Iraq with 9-11 even though there was (and still is) no evidence linking them to the attacks. All but one of the hijackers had Saudi passports.

Then later, sadly enough, it came out that the Bush people actually made fun of some these folks regarding their homespun philosophies. So in many ways, the evangelicals were "used" for their vote in a very unattractive way. It may have been the "liberal" media that took the term and ran with it, but it was the Bush folks who said the word "evangelical" in every other breath. Remember how Bush's speechwriters included little "keywords" that appealed to the that particular religious base?

I agree, PGD GRAD.

Bush got a lot of support for his emphasis on prayer after 9-11, too. A lot of the people who supported him over family values and prayer, and voted for him so he could be re-elected, absolutely despise him now. I have heard some older Christians say that Bush pulled the wool over people's eyes and that he is really trying to destroy America.

You're absolutely right. It was started with the Bush - Rove bunch. But, now how do you separate the use of the term "evangelical" with the term conservative?

Back to EE-BO's original post - That's my problem too. I see myself as a conservative and as a Christian, but I don't want to be pigeon holed with the types that I think are taking the Republican party in a direction I just can't go. I can't get "fired up" about constitutional amendments about marriage and the other things "the base" is for.

See, that makes me mad that those people are considered the base!!! What party is left for people like me? Those who are socially moderate, but fiscally conservative?

I think Bush and Rove do play into it. I think the association of "evangelicals" with the current administration has given the left and the media the opportunity to paint evangelicals in a negative light. Some of it may be by our own doing, but I think it is absurd for the MSM use that association to discredit a massive amount of citizens.

Of course, I think that about the media in any situation. Most Americans are intelligent enough to know that what Code Pink did in Berkeley or what Imus said is not to be commended. However, I find it disturbing even when moral judgments are dispensed by mainstream media, even in such obvious cases.

I'm an "Obamacan"... ;)

No seriously... EE-BO I just love how you use the word "hell"... That's the point behind a lot of this. I think that campaign directors are marketting spin doctor specialists that can convince the masses as to how to separate folks, easily and classify them. It is an old tactic they are using. "They" want you to feel guilty about YOUR choices in life and choose what "they" tell you choose.

You are subliminally told not have your own mind and to arrive to your own conclusions. And all "they" have to do is add the seed of doubt... Powerful isn't it?

What "they" didn't count on is the tide of change... And a whole new group of people will step in to replace the old with different ideas.

The question is whether those "different ideas" have any merit.

srmom, you can join my party. It's called the Common Sense Party. The platform in very basic terms is, live and let live, and don't spend $$ that you don't have on programs that are unnecessary. :)

In a sense I agree with you but at the same time there are some flaws in your statement. Bush did use "traditional family values" to get elected and re-elected, getting 90% of the vote from the poorest section of the white population- a group that would be receive much more economically if electing a liberal (or a socialist for that matter).
However, the media (and not just Fox) has continued to push this term, usually (IMO) in an attempt to make people feel like they are shaming Thomas Jefferson if they take their religious views into consideration when they vote.
Were the Evangelicals used by the Republicans? Absolutely. That's politics though, if every informed voter votes against you, you could still win in a 3-1 landslide. Thats not to say that people who voted for Bush weren't well informed either, but President Bush certainly pulled off quite a feat by getting elected amid everything that was going on.

Like welfare and the IRS.
I think she described moderate libertarianism.

And, if the Libertarian Party had a cut dog's chance in hell of winning, I might vote that way. But, it would just be a wasted vote.

I really wish we had a multi-party system so that I could find a candidate who most closely fits my ideal. As it is now, it may be the "hold your nose and vote" candidate.

LOL! srmom's funny. :)

You know, this is what I am seeing...somewhere out there a whole heaping of people are left with little or no real choice of a candidate that they like to vote for, thus they are pissed that no 'real' leader has emerged for them to rally behind.

All the candidates that are out here are just unsatisfactory in addressing their needs and wants in government and even when it comes right down to it, this whole race sucks...somehow I can't help but feel that this is familiar territory...heh!

Speaking from a purely mathematical standpoint your vote does not matter (especially if you don't live in MI, FL, or OH.) I know that it sucks to think about it that way but there is zero chance that the presidential election will be decided by your vote.
In fact, you may be better off making a statement vote for a small candidate or a write in than to vote for a candidate that you don't like.

Karl Marx? Is that you? Viva la revolucion!

That must be the only conflict theorist/analyst that you know. :p

i think that if everyone who ever said "i would vote for a third party if i thought they would win" actually voted for a third party, i think a third party would actually win

I agree and so does Ralph Nader. All talk and no action.

A vote for freedom is never a wasted vote.

-stolen from Ron Paul site . . . :)

:confused: Are you following me around like Benzgirl now and replying to all of my posts? Try again, that was lame.

Am I responding to your every post, PhiGam? Really? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I was teasing you because the average person can only think of Marx when they read stuff like that because they think he was the first and is the main conflict theorist. ;) Might've been a private "joke" on my part but don't be so self-important.

C'mon, Chaos, you know you want him!:D

To do what, make a tshirt? :p

I'm not on the anti-PhiGam bandwagon so he really needs to get over himself.

My bad, I'm still a little grumpy from doing the whole Dance Marathon thing. Sure you dont wanna jump on the bandwagon? All the cool kids are doing it.

Give me a reason to and I'll see if I'm interested. ;)