Protestant Evangelicals in Politics: Who They Are and Why Criticizing Them May Not Be a Winning Strategy

Transcription

1 Background Essay on the Campaign Protestant Evangelicals in Politics: Who They Are and COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research June 3, 2004

2 Introduction Evangelicalism has become a factor in the federal campaign as a result of Liberal strategists introducing doubt about the suitability for national leadership of a party whose leadership may be unduly devout or Evangelical. This mini-report data-mines the National Post/Global/CanWest/ COMPAS national survey (fielded May 14-19, n>1400) to explore public attitudes towards Evangelicalism and the role of Christian believers in politics. This opinion survey was the most extensive psychological and policy study undertaken for the media over the course of the campaign. Most Protestants at Least Somewhat Comfortable with the Evangelical Label Most Canadians Comfortable with a Christian Believer in Office Very few (1%) of English-speaking Canadians voluntarily describe themselves as Evangelical when asked for their religious denomination. That may be because Evangelical is often considered an approach to life rather than an actual denomination. As an approach to life, the term does resonate with sizeable numbers of people, as shown below. After revealing their religious denominations, those respondents in the survey who were Protestant were then asked to what extent they would characterize themselves as Evangelical. About two-fifths reply that they are definitely not Evangelical, one fifth that they are definitely Evangelical, and the remainder in between, as shown in table 1. The categories outlined in table 1 were then analysed statistically to discover relationships with political attitudes and patterns of voting. The statistical analysis revealed two categories of attitudes definite non- 2

3 Evangelicals vs. all others. In light of this binary pattern, all our reporting below utilizes this binary distinction. Those who say that they are definitely not Evangelical are termed non-identifiers; all others are termed friendlies, as shown in table 2. By conventional scholarship, adherents of the Anglican and United Churches are deemed religious liberals. As apparent, religious liberals, they might not be expected to describe themselves as Evangelical or somewhat Evangelical. But such a sharp pattern does not emerge. To the contrary, there is no great difference in the propensity of Anglicans and United Church members to describe themselves as Evangelical compared to members of other denominations. In practice, 36% of Evangelical friendlies belong to the Anglican and United Churches while 45% of nonidentifiers do. Table 1: Suppose you were asked if you were an Evangelical Christian. Would you say % Definitely yes 21 Probably 12 Probably not 21 Definitely not 42 DNK/Refused 5 Table 2: Evangelical Friendlies and Nonidentifiers 1 % 1 Respondents who classified themselves as Protestants were asked Suppose you were asked if you were an Evangelical Christian. Would you say Respondents who responded definitely yes, probably yes and probably not were classified as Evangelical Friendly while respondents who said definitely not were classified as Evangelical Nonidentifiers. Respondents who classified themselves as Evangelicals were coded as definitely yes and Evangelical Friendly. 3

4 Evangelical Friendlies 54 Evangelical Nonidentifiers 42 DNK/Refused 5 Table 3: Denominational Profiles of Evangelical Friendlies and Non-Identifiers (Vertical Percents) EVANGELICAL FRIENDLIES EVANGELICAL NONIDENTIFIERS % % Baptist, Lutheran, Other Protestant, Christian United Church, Anglican Liberal Protestant 7 6 Evangelical 4 0 We reported above that a majority of Protestants are comfortable or non uncomfortable with the label, Evangelical. Given this finding, one might expect a lot of Canadians to be comfortable with the idea of religious individuals running our government. In practice, far more Canadians are comfortable with this possibility than are uncomfortable. Some Canadians believe that there is validity in the criticism that Harper and some of his advisors are Christian Church-goers, who shouldn t be running government, as shown in table 4. However, those Canadians who see no or little validity in this criticism greatly outnumber those who see some or much validity in it. Approximately one in seven Canadians scores high agreement with the criticism (6-7 on the 7 point agree-disagree scale). Agreement with the criticism is higher among Canadians as a whole than among Protestants who do not identify as Evangelical and especially among Evangelical friendlies. The small minority who agree with the preceding criticism of the Harper-led Conservatives is greatly outnumbered by those who see no 4

5 merit in the criticism. Opposition to the criticism is especially strong among Evangelical friendlies, among whom 52% score 1-2 on the scale. Given the large numbers of Canadians who are comfortable with seeing religious people in high office and given the large number of Protestants who are not uncomfortable with the label of Evangelical, a reasonable conclusion is that Liberals expression of concern about an excessive Evangelical or Christian influence in the Conservative party may have propelled some devout individuals towards the Conservatives. Table 4: Rejection of Anti-Christian Criticism of Harper and Conservatives. Please score each of the following criticisms of the Conservatives on a 7 point scale where 7 means that the criticism is valid and a persuasive reason to vote against the Conservatives and 1, the opposite Harper and some of his advisors are Christian Church-goers, who shouldn t be running government. All Canadians, including RCs, non- Christians Evangelical Friendly Protestants Evangelical Nonidentifying Protestants TOP TWO BOX BOTTOM TWO BOX DNK

6 Evangelical Friendlies Largely But Not Overwhelmingly Conservative Voters As shown in table 5, Evangelical friendlies and nonidentifiers differ in their voting preferences but not sharply. Friendlies lean to the right with 50% voting Conservative and only 15%, NDP. Nonidentifiers lean left with 22% NDP and only 34% Conservative. Below, we report patterns of attitudes on ballot questions relating to social and cultural issues. Evangelical friendlies tend to the right on these issues. These issues make the Conservative party a comfortable home for a large share of Evangelical friendlies (50%). However, the litmus test issues do not generally propel friendlies to the Conservative party any more than they would otherwise go to the party. Evangelical friendlies tend strongly to the Conservative party, and are broadly conservative in their views on social issues. But Evangelical friendlies are not so committed to these socially conservative positions as to increase their voting support for the Conservative party if these socially conservative issues were their only electoral considerations. We provide details below The Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper The Liberal Party led by Paul Martin The NDP led by Jack Layton The Bloc Quebecois led by Gilles Duceppe Table 5: Vote Intention EVANGELICAL EVANGELICAL DNK / FRIENDLY NONIDENTIFIERS REFUSED % % % Other

7 Evangelical Friendlies Are Social Conservatives But the General Appeal of the Conservative Party is as Important as Most Socon Issues As might be expected, the issue of gay marriage distinguishes Evangelical friendlies from nonidentifiers but the difference is not profoundly greater than the differences in party preferences. As evidenced in table 6, the Conservative vote would go up by 5 percentage points (to 55 from 50%, as shown in table 5) on the basis of the gay marriage issue, as that issue is defined in table 6. Table 6: Gay Marriage and Evangelical Vote Intention (Q11) Suppose the Conservatives said that homosexuals should have a right to a civil union but only a man and a woman should be allowed to marry and adopt children, and suppose the other parties said that homosexuals should have a right to marriage and adoption. If you based your vote on this issue, how would you vote? EVANGELICAL FRIENDLY EVANGELICAL NONIDENTIFIERS DNK / REFUSED % % % The Liberal Party led by Paul Martin Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper NDP led by Jack Layton Bloc Quebecois led by Gilles Duceppe [UNPROMPTED] Other

8 [UNPROMPTED] Would not vote (excl. from calc.) [UNPROMPTED] DNK/ Undecided/ Refused (excl. from calc.) Table 7 lists the impacts on the Conservative vote among Evangelical friendlies and non-identifiers of a variety of ballot issues. These issues are listed in descending order according to the magnitude of the difference in impact among these two groups of Protestants. At the top are concerns about gay marriage, terrorism, the gun registry, and health and education. These are the issues that most separate Evangelical friendlies from nonidentifiers. Two important general findings are that Evangelical friendlies remain to the right of nonidentifiers in their voting preferences and that none of the issues truly increases the Conservative vote among friendlies beyond the base in table 5. Table 7: Evangelical Support for the Conservative Party (Q6B) If this were the only factor in your thinking, for which party would you vote? [REPEAT LIST ONLY IF NECESSARY] 8

9 EVANGELIC AL FRIENDLY 2 EVANGELICA L NONIDENTIFI ERS DNK Gay marriage (Conservative Gap between Friendlies and Non-Identifiers = 25) Conservative Liberal NDP Security against terrorism (Conservative Gap = 23) Conservative Liberal NDP The gun registry (Conservative Gap = 21) Conservative Liberal NDP Respondents who classified themselves as Protestants were asked Suppose you were asked if you were an Evangelical Christian. Would you say Respondents who responded definitely yes, probably yes and probably not were classified as Evangelical Friendly while respondents who said definitely not were classified as Evangelical Nonidentifiers. Respondents who classified themselves as Evangelicals were coded as definitely yes and Evangelical Friendly. 9

10 EVANGELIC AL FRIENDLY 2 EVANGELICA L NONIDENTIFI ERS DNK Healthcare and education (Conservative Gap = 21) Conservative Liberal NDP Getting a change after three Liberal governments (Conservative Gap = 19) Conservative Liberal NDP Other The economy (Conservative Gap = 18) Conservative Liberal NDP

11 EVANGELIC AL FRIENDLY 2 EVANGELICA L NONIDENTIFI ERS Leadership (Conservative Gap = 18) DNK Conservative Liberal NDP Other Taxes (Conservative Gap = 16) Conservative Liberal NDP Protecting [OWN PROVINCE] in decision-making process in Ottawa (Conservative Gap = 16) Conservative Liberal NDP Bloc Keeping Quebec in Confederation (Conservative Gap = 16) 11

12 EVANGELIC AL FRIENDLY 2 EVANGELICA L NONIDENTIFI ERS DNK Conservative Liberal NDP Other Scandal and waste (Conservative Gap = 15) Conservative Liberal NDP Bringing Western Canada into the decision-making process in Ottawa (Conservative Gap = 12) Conservative Liberal NDP Other Bloc Agriculture (Conservative Gap = 7) Conservative Liberal

13 EVANGELIC AL FRIENDLY 2 EVANGELICA L NONIDENTIFI ERS DNK NDP Issue Priorities The Paradoxicality Shared by Evangelical Friendlies and All Canadians Table 8 lists in descending order of importance the issues that friendlies claim drive their vote. Paradoxically, the issues that they say are most important (e.g. healthcare and the economy) are similar to the judgements of all Canadians even if friendlies vote more to the right than the general public. Evangelical friendlies share another paradox with the public as a whole the issues that they say are most important appear from statistical analysis to not be the issues actually driving their vote. For example, gay marriage and security against terrorism are major vote drivers because these are the issues that most propel Evangelical friendlies to the Conservatives relative to the voting behaviour of Protestants who do not identify as Evangelical. Yet, Evangelical friendlies name healthcare/education and the economy as the issues most important to them. Table 8: Issue Importance for Evangelical Voters 13

14 EVANGELICAL EVANGELICAL FRIENDLY NONIDENTIFIERS DNK Healthcare and education Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Economy Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Taxes Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Leadership Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Protecting [OWN PROVINCE] in decision-making process in Ottawa Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Scandal and waste Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Bringing Western Canada into the decision-making process in Ottawa Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Agriculture Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Security against terrorism Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Getting a change after three Liberal governments Top 2 Box

15 EVANGELICAL EVANGELICAL FRIENDLY NONIDENTIFIERS DNK Bottom 2 Box Keeping Quebec in Confederation Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box The gun registry Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box Gay marriage Top 2 Box Bottom 2 Box