election and the religious right

Here's an interesting commentary by David Brooks, in the New York Times (free registration required).

After looking at some of the election data, I've decided I was wrong and David Brooks is pretty much right. This election was not decided primarily by religion. Evangelicals as a block don't appear to have turned out in any greater numbers than in 2000. States that had anti-gay ballot measures did not go for Bush in unexpectedly high proportions; in fact, more than a couple went for Kerry. So, many voters voted for the gay-marriage ban AND for Kerry. This doesn't seem to support the left's reactionary claim that "ignorant Bible-thumpers" put W back in the White House.

The election was decided primarily by fear of terrorism. Despite very real concerns about Bush, the economy, etc, enough people did not find John Kerry a compelling enough candidate to switch from W. It's worth pointing out (again) that the margin was not that great, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote. Kerry's poorly constructed message of "vote for me because I'm not him" almost got him elected.

What this means to me is that the Democratic party is tone-deaf to the concerns of the middle class. Democrats can insist all they want that they're the better party to represent the working class, but the working class hasn't bought it. Stomping your feet and dismissing Bush voters as ignorant and uninformed only reinforces the point. Hard to win friends with this approach.

I do wonder if the Republicans won't be tempted to over-play their hand with respect to their moral agenda. Evangelicals clearly believe they delivered the election victory and will no doubt expect some action. I see this as potentially a no-win situation for the Republican party.

If W does plan on attempting to actually govern rather than rule, this will mean backing off the radical agenda desired by the evangelicals. Nominate judges that won't inspire huge confirmation battles, talk a big game on abortion, but not actually do much about it. If it becomes obvious that this is occurring, how the religious right reacts is anybody's guess, but I can't imagine they will be pleased. They will most likely feel that they've been used (they have), and will either try to flex their political muscles and force the issue, or they will conclude that national politics is not the best way to further their agenda. If an evangelical Christian in the White House isn't going to push their agenda, then nobody is.

If, on the other hand, W does buy into the "dance with the one that brung you" idea (even though it's not clear they actually DID make a huge difference compared to 2000), and start trying to turn the country into a theocracy, this could have a disastrous impact on Republicans' electability in the future. Most Republicans I know personally are Republican for economic and defense-related reasons, not religious. Surveys and polls uniformly indicate a large majority of the country is nervous with the religious agenda of the far right. Even the frequently tone-deaf and almost brain-dead Democratic party should be able to exploit a Republican religious agenda with some success. An overtly theocratic agenda might serve to alienate the very large middle of the road voting block.

Guess we'll see how it plays out, we should find out very soon which way W is going to play it.