Features

Those of us who watched the GOP convention, or have recently had conversations with Republicans, have been struck by their emotional fervor, their passion for George Bush and their hatred for liberals. Who are these true believers? 

Pollster Stanley Gree nberg tells us that Republicans are 46 percent of all voters—matched by an equal percentage of Democrats. The GOP core is made up of two fervent constituencies: conservative Christians and economic conservatives. 

Roughly 26 percent of Republican voters a re white Evangelical Christians; that is, fundamentalist, Pentecostal, “born-again”, or Charismatic Christians. Concerned primarily about morality, these religious conservatives believe that America is deteriorating because Christian values are under atta ck and the secular media is fostering immoral, “alternative” lifestyles. They are the heart of the “guns, God, and gays” social conservative movement. 

George Bush plays to this audience by emphasizing his born-again religiosity, as indicated by his recen t acceptance speech: “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Becaus e the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” 

Economic conservatives are another 17 percent of the GOP. They have a different set of concerns from religious conserv atives, primarily taxes and privilege. Bush’s acceptance speech had language specifically designed for them, “America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.” 

Added together, religious and economic conservatives constitute approximately one-quarter of the electorate. These Republicans have reached a strategic accommodation; they focus on what they have in common, rather than their differences. Both groups despise liberals. Religious conservatives blame liberals for the perceived decay in American values, for preventing America from being a Christian nation. Economic conservatives blame liberal s for taxes and “big” government. They decry a liberal “tax and spend” philosophy that has them paying exorbitant taxes; they see the solution as “tax relief” because, in Bush’s words, “the people know best how to spend their money.”  

While on an individ ual level most economic conservatives are libertarians, as a group they support the socially conservative agenda espoused by their sanctimonious brethren; for example, they are willing to support limitations on choice so long as evangelicals defend tax cu ts. Christian conservatives reciprocate by blindly supporting the economic conservative agenda even when it is in their economic interest to oppose it. The two groups have an ethically challenged, but politically effective relationship. 

Pollster Greenberg characterizes the remaining fifty-plus percent of Republicans as residents of the South and rural America, as well as blue-collar white men. What all these conservatives share is a grim perspective that sees the world as a jungle, one where evil forces constantly threaten the citizens of the United States; only by maintaining “fortress America” can our safety be ensured. Republicans argue that in these terrifying times the usual rules go by the board; what the nation needs is a strong leader who will do whatever it takes to defend us. They buy what UC Professor George Lakoff describes as the “strict father” model of leadership: The US needs a macho President; one who is resolute and willing to do anything to protect America. 

The Bush campaign relentles sly plays to this theme. They package George W. as a regular guy, who was called by God to become a tough, resolute leader. In his acceptance speech, the President played to this imagery: “This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism—and you know where I stand…I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes.” He returned to his characterization of Kerry as a “flip-flopper” and noted: “In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don’t agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.” The core of Bush’s campaign is that he is resolute and Kerry is not; it is based on the argument tha t America cannot win the war on terrorism without a strong leader. 

The outcome of the election depends upon whether the general public will believe that Kerry is a strong leader who will make America safer. So far, the “swing” voters—those who register i ndependent as well as malleable Republicans and Democrats—have bought another stereotype; they see Bush as the strong leader who is winning the war on terror. That reality has finally lit a fire under Kerry the fighter. Stay tuned. 

Berkeley resident Bob Burnett is working on a book about the Christian right. 

e