How Religion Affects Electability of Political Candidates in the United States - Research Paper Example

How Religion affects electability of political candi s in the United s ment of the Research Religious beliefs and affiliations of candidates who intend to hold political office have considerable effects on electability of such candidates in the American context. Majority of the electorates in the United States would perhaps find it more relevant and convincing when a political candidate belongs to a religious association they recognize and identify with notwithstanding the differences in terms of political affiliations (Newport, p. 205). Majority of Americans, whether supporters of the Republicans, the Democrats or Independent candidates, have repeatedly put into perspective the religious beliefs, values, and principles of political contenders in the run up to the country’s elections. For instance, religious affiliations of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, George Bush, John F. Kennedy, William Howard, Ronald Reagan, and Barrack Obama among others played significant part in view of their chances to clinch the presidency. While most of these candidates were purportedly Christians going by the official membership, American electorates also considered a number of them Muslims, deists, or even atheists (Newport, p. 205). In essence, religious affiliations always became subject of scrutiny and criticism during political campaigns and had significant impact in the candidate’s ability to articulate his plans and schema for the country and citizens. Controversies that surrounded Mitt Romney’s religious affiliations played a role in his shocking loss to President Obama. Review of Literature Religious affiliations of political candidates have boosted or narrowed down their chances to clinch the presidency and other political positions in the United States. In several instances, ordinary Americans became skeptical and hesitant to elect candidates who have been associated with controversial religious groups or associations in the past. However, the allegations about contentious affiliations of candidates have always turned out as mere propaganda and party line meant to harm the reputation of potential candidates in any political race (Fisher & Koch, p. 62). Candidates with little chances of winning would thus gain political mileage in terms of support and show up in political rallies. Even political parties have been subject of scrutiny as far as religion is concerned. In essence, most allegations lack substantial proof and attestation. Various scholars have attested to the issue of religious belief and affiliation especially during campaign periods in America. According to Fisher and Koch (2004, p. 62), Roman Catholics emerged as the most preferred religious affiliation by most presidents. However, their book The Entrepreneurial College President, indicate a huge disparity in terms of the chances that a Roman Catholic presidential candidate has to become an effective president of the Unites States. Hence, there is serious underrepresentation of the Roman Catholics by considering the number of effective presidents they ever produced since the country attained its political independence. In their analysis, a meager 24.5 percent indicated preference for a Roman Catholic president (Fisher & Koch, p. 62). The trend is more shocking when one considers the Baptist presidential representation. Apparently, Americans who subscribe to the Baptist denomination constitute a skimpy 16.3 percent of the entire population. The mainstream Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, the Methodist, and Presbyterian are surprisingly overrepresented despite their minimal frequency in the entire country’s population. According to Fischer and James, the Presbyterian Church constitutes less than 3 percent (precisely 2.7 percent) yet it enjoys massive representation in the overall presidency outlook (Fisher & Koch, p. 62). However, the study indicated no preference for a Muslim president notwithstanding realism of the religion constituting a significant percentage of the population. This clearly shows that not a single Muslim has ever contested and won in the presidential elections. Electorates on the other hand could have been perhaps more hesitant to vote a Muslim president as their preferred choice. In his book: Winning the White House 2008: The Gallup Poll, Public Opinion, and the Presidency, Frank Newport (2007, p. 205) attest to the influence that religion had particularly on Romney’s chances of winning the presidential poll. Apparently, the Protestants were reluctant and averse to accept Romney’s candidature for the highest office in the land. The former Massachusetts governor has hectic time trying to convince the Protestant to support his candidature (Newport, p. 205). Incidentally, Protestants were a core constituency of the Republican Party in the run up to the 2008 elections where the Barrack Obama emerged victorious beating McCain hands down. Lack of solid support for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid among Protestants was mainly occasioned by his alleged links with Mormon religion during the 2012 general elections. Most Americans were hesitant to elect a leader who has been associated with controversial religious outfit. Roma Catholic on the other hand offered Romney’s candidature a remarkable support with over 40 percent of them confirming their commitment to vote for him during poll day (Newport, p. 205). According to the poll conducted to deduce Republican nomination preference, Romney emerged fourth. Even a section of the country’s population, which showed no religious affiliation or inclination to any political party, ideologies or candidate, gave a poor rating of Mitt Romney’s chances to win the elections. This showed his unpopularity and disapproval by even supporters of the party themselves (Newport, p. 205). In contrast, the then Illinois senator cum presidential candidate Barrack Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards had better ratings among the Democrats as well as long-established Republican groups. According to past surveys, each presidential hopeful and those who effectively became US presidents had certain religious inclinations that perhaps boosted or weighed down their winning prospects. For instance, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Harry Truman were staunch members of the Baptist denomination. John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, Barrack Obama and Calvin Coolidge (Congregationalist Protestants), Lyndon Johnson and James Garfield (Disciple of Christ/Protestants), Theodore Roosevelt and Martin van Buren (Dutch Reformed), William Harrison, James Monroe, Chester Arthur, Gerald Ford, James Madison, and George H. W. Bush (Episcopalian), William McKinley, Rutherford B. Hayes, and George W. Bush (Methodist), James Polk, Benjamin Harrison, Ronald Reagan, Dwilight Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, James Buchanan, and Woodrow Wilson (Presbyterian), Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover (Quaker), and William Howard, John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore (Unitarian). The religious affiliations of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington remain unclear. Alwi Shihab, Ralph Brown and Rumtini in their book: Examining Islam in the West: Addressing Accusations and Correcting Misconceptions (2011, p. 45), recognize the importance of religion and religious affiliations as a tool for determining electability of political candidates. The trio argues that over 120 religious interest groups have played vital role to the process of shaping the political landscape of America (Shihab, Brown & Rumtini, p. 45). They further review the role of these religious outfits especially in the process of influencing certain policies and strategies adopted by the government. These setups take the form of Church lobby groups whose primary interest is to examine and analyze the way a government execute its duties and responsibilities and ensuring that political leaders and state officials engage in activities that seek to improve the living standards of ordinary people. Such groups further proclaimed the role of determining the kind of political candidates who have what it takes to move the country forward to completely new level socially, politically, and economically (Shihab, Brown & Rumtini, p. 45). A typical illustration is the case involving Gary Hart saga. Apparently, the group successfully lobbied to ensure Gary (a Presidential candidate) withdrew his nomination following his alleged affair with another woman. Bob Packwood, an Oregon Senator, had to resign after an alleged misbehavior and transgression (Shihab, Brown & Rumtini, p. 46). Religious groups would remain core to determining suitability of political candidates in future elections as well as aptness of officials holding public offices because of their involvement in unethical or disreputable acts. Andrew Kohut (2000, p. 81) examines the changing role of religion in American politics. In his book, The Diminishing Divide: Religion’s changing Role in American Politics, Andrew highlights the effects of religious traditions to the 1996 presidential poll. He argues that certain religious affiliations influenced the voting pattern especially in the presidential race as well as election of the members of the House of Representatives (Andrew, p. 81). In a hotly contested election where Bill Clinton (Democrat) emerged victorious, Bob Dole (Republican) received 43 percent of the total votes cast that reflected a unique and distinctive voting pattern of different religious affiliations. The evangelicals gave Dole the strongest support (71 percent) followed by the Protestants (60 percent). Committed Roman Catholics gave Dole 50 percent whereas other mainline Protestants (47 percent). Interestingly, more black Protestants voted for him culminating to a massive 53 percent of the overall vote margin, which effectively enabled Republicans to take control of the House (Andrew, p. 81). The 1996 poll reflected a significant gain to the Republicans compared to the 1964 when Barry Goldwater suffered a humiliating defeat in favor of Lyndon Johnson. Precisely, the country has undergone massive transformation as far as the politics of religious traditions are concerned. However, Andrew Kohut believes that a lot still need to be done to enable the electorate focus more on the individual abilities, polices and projected strategies among political candidates (Andrew, p. 81). Incidentally, candidates whose elections were primarily based on religious affiliations in several instances have emerged worse in performance. According to a publication by Corwin, Lyman, and James (2009, p. 483), the contemporary reforms to political parties have ensured adequate accommodation for religious interests and opinions particularly in the nomination processes. Religious groups have continued to play significant part in terms of choice of a political candidate for nomination and subsequently the chances of such candidate winning an election (Corwin, Lyman, & James, p. 483). In the recent period, expansion and establishments of the White House Office has opened up fresh avenues for mutual interactions as well as enhancing ways to accommodate religious interests. Today, presidents together with staff assistants constantly engage in systematic outreach programs that have helped strengthen relations between the presidency and religious affiliations and groups. Through their involvement in critical decision-making processes and policymaking, religious groups feel accepted and appreciated in their efforts to help shape political leadership in America (Corwin, Lyman, & James, p. 483). In effect, religious inclinations and approval would substantially determine the performance of politicians in any political contest. Political candidates whose ideologies, values, and strategies are perhaps germane to given religious association would arguable enjoy massive support from the members of such religion or denomination. Presidential nominations and subsequent elections have considered the faith of a candidate among other considerations (Corwin, Lyman, & James, p. 483). Formulation of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Religious affiliations of political candidates in the US have positive influence on their electability. Hypothesis 2: Religious affiliations of political candidates in the US have negative influence/impact on their electability. Hypothesis 3: Religion/religious affiliations of political candidates in the US do not influence electability. Hypothesis 4: Only selected religion/religious affiliations influence electability of political candidates in the US. Defining and operationalizing concepts Religion: Refers to belief in Supreme Being. Christianity, Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish are examples of religions widely practiced in the US. Religious affiliations: Refers to different spiritual or religious associations to which ordinary Americans as well as political class belong. Political candidates: Refers to contestants in various political positions. Presidential candidates are typical examples. Each candidate is affiliated to Democrat and Republican while a few contestants vie Independent candidates. Elections: Refers to voting process. Americans elect or vote for candidates of choice during elections. Testing the Hypothesis/Data analysis Religion and religious affiliations positively influence the electability of political candidates. This religious aspect has evidently led to effectual victory of particular candidates in the highly publicized American elections. According to 2012 statistics, over 78 percent of Americans are Christians thus explaining the higher number of presidents who subscribe to Christianity since the country attained its political independence. Americans who are non-Christians, unaffiliated to any religious group, and those who declined to corroborate their religious affiliations have limited chances to emerge victorious in any political race. This observation justifies hypothesis 1 of the study. Religion and spiritual affiliations can negatively influence the success of a political candidate in an election in the United States. Although Roman Catholics constitute 24 percent of the entire population, they have only managed to produce John F. Kennedy. However smaller units under Protestant umbrella have managed to produce political candidates who have successfully clinched presidency. Examples: Barrack Obama and Calvin Coolidge (Congregationalist Protestants), Lyndon Johnson and James Garfield (Disciple of Christ/Protestants), Theodore Roosevelt and Martin van Buren (Dutch Reformed). This explains hypothesis 2. The country has also produced political candidates who have scaled the ladder and become presidents yet they were not inclined to any religion or religious affiliations. For instance, religious inclination of Thomas Jefferson, George Bush, and Abraham Lincoln remains unclear with many reports indicating that they were atheists. This justifies hypothesis 3. Furthermore, studies have showed that only selected religious affiliations have had considerable impact in political contests in America since independence. Even though Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jewish constitute 4.7 percent of the population, they have never produced a single candidate who effectively became a president. In essence, majority of Americans prefer Christian candidate for president than any other religions or spiritual associations. This justifies hypothesis 4. Conclusion It is logical to conclude that majority of the electorates in the United States would perhaps find it more relevant and convincing when a political candidate belongs to a Christian religious association. Apparently, most Americans are Christians thus readily recognize and identify with Christianity notwithstanding the differences in terms of political, economic, and social disparities. Majority of Americans, whether supporters of the Republicans, the Democrats or Independent candidates, have repeatedly put into perspective the religious beliefs, values, and principles of political contenders in the run up to the country’s elections. Works Cited Fisher, James L, and James V. Koch. The Entrepreneurial College President. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004. Print. Kohut, Andrew. The Diminishing Divide: Religion's Changing Role in American Politics. Washington, D.C: Brookings Inst. Press, 2000. Print. Newport, Frank. Winning the White House 2008: The Gallup Poll, Public Opinion, and the Presidency. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2009. Internet resource. Shihab, Alwi, Ralph B. Brown, and Rumtini. Examining Islam in the West: Addressing Accusations and Correcting Misconceptions. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2011. Print. P. 45 Smidt, Corwin E, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Read More