The Christian Right arrived on the scene dramatically in 1980, its membership in President Reagan\u27s electoral coalition indicative of a new politicization among religious conservatives. The movement flourished during the 1980s, spearheading campaigns against abortion rights and mobilizing supporters to vote for Republican candidates

Beyle, Thad

Petrow, Gregory A.

English

The University of Nebraska, Omaha

University of Nebraska at OmahaDigitalCommons@UNOPolitical Science Faculty Publications Department of Political Science6-2002The Christian Right, the South, and State PoliticsGregory A. PetrowUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha, gpetrow@unomaha.eduThad BeyleUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/poliscifacpubPart of the American Politics CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Departmentof Political Science at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted forinclusion in Political Science Faculty Publications by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, pleasecontact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu.Recommended CitationPetrow, Gregory A. and Beyle, Thad, "The Christian Right, the South, and State Politics" (2002). Political Science Faculty Publications. 2.https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/poliscifacpub/2The Christian Right, the South, and State Politics GRCGORY A. PFrris, Ph.D. candidate, Politico/ Science, UNC-Chape/ Hill TuMJ Bmf, Pearsall Professor of Politiwl Science. UNC·Chopel Hill The Christian Right amved on lhe scene dra· matirally in 1980, its membership in President Reagan·s clcc1oral coali1ion indicative of a new politicization among religious co11serva1ivcs. The movement flourished during the 1980s, spearheading campaigns against aborlion rights and mobilizing supporters 10 vote for Republican candidates. The dawn of the ·1990s saw the Oirislian Righi as an interest group engaged tn some o1 1he mosl high profile battles ,n American 1>0litlcs. John Persinos, I hen editor of Campaigns and Elettions. sem surveys 10 395 1>0li1ical observers in all SO stal<?'S. asking lhern how much ifillu-ence they thought the Christian Right had in the state's Republican Party. Persinos asked lhc res1>ondents to estimate two !actors '" particular: what percentage of the state GOP central commillee supported lhe issue agenda or CJ1ris1ian conservatives, and 1hc percentage ol those on lh<: coinrninees who were members of 1he 0 1ris1ian Ri&hl organiza1ions. Results from the survey allowed Persinos to rank the mlluence of 1he Christian Right in the state GOP as weak. moderate or strong. Far from being a monolithic political force. he found 1ha1 1he Christian Righi was >tm1li ill some places and weak i11 others.• Eighteen states Table 1: Christian Right Influence in State Republican Parties by Region, 1994 vs. 2000' 1994 2000' REGION #STATES SCORE SCORE South"' " •• 1 .. , SO States & OC 3.0 ).• West" 13 3.6 3.8 Midwesl' 12 2.7 3.8 Northeast• 12 1.S 1.8 ' John Pffllnos. ·H.n lhe ChrlS'll;in Rigtll Taken OvC'T lhc: Rtpublie.)n P.~11yr CampoiJlm t, u«lior,j 15~9 (Septembtr19!M): ~24 and klmbetty H, Coogtr and John C. GttM. •sprt.1dlfl3 Oul and Digging In: C,.msd,in CoMerv:u,vc:1 a~ S111e R~1hllci\l'I Panics,· CompotgM & f.l«.tiom 23:1 (F"dtruary 200J): S9. • To 8fl a quanti'1ablt- swrmg systrm tor 1h1s mtas-u1e of th<: str~ th ot lhe ClHistll)n R,&ht in the -.catt's Rcpubtlcan Party Ille following scores wcrci .tsslincd: S = strong: 3 = mockr.tt~ 1 = we.ak.. • AL AA Fl GA K'l't.AMS K(OKSC 1NlXVA WV • AK Iv. CA CO rn 10 MT NV NM 08 UT WA. WY • ll1NIA.KSMIMNMONENOOHSOW1 • CT OE 0C ME ).IO W. ~H NJ HY PA RI VI reporte<l thal the Christian Righi was in a strong pos.ilion. 13 stales were moderale, and 20 states reported weak influence. Pcrsino; found that much of the (hrislian Right's strength was in Southern states. 01 the 18 states that reporte<I sttong Christian Right inlluence, IO of them were in the South. Only lwo Southern states. lennessee and West Virg111it1, r~>0rted weak influence. The slory, lhen, was one with a distinc;lly regional tinge. Kimbt'fly Cont'<'r dlld John Green have reccn1ly ,evisitrd this research by re.administering 1he study lo see how thi11gs have change<!: They find that the Soulh is slill home to <trong Christian Right movements, largely due 10 the large number of evangelical Protestants that live in the region. l hey rind I hat the Christian Righi has made g;,ins "' 1he Midwcs~ with hHle gained i11 the West and 1he Northeast. They conclude that 1he Christian Righi is ·spreading oul t1nd digging in: 1ndicc11111g thal in many 1>faces its strength broadened (ma11y states saw inrluence increase or decrease to the moderate category), but without a general move toward the Christian Righi exercising political dominance. T11e story in the South is one ol continued strength, but the ~~1tcs where this strength lie) is changing. While many states were classilicd as suong and coniinoe to be classified so (Alabama. Arkansas. Oklahoma. South Carolina, Tex.ls. a11d Virginia), several de<rease<f trom strong 10 moderate (Aorida, Georgia, I ouis,an;i and North (Molin;i). Two Soulhern states saw mcreased mlluence to become classifie<I as strong (Mississ1p1n and West Virginia). Tennessee increased from weak to moderate, and Kentucky was classified as moderate in both times. The cffcCI of thi;, then. is thr11 the number of Southern stales re1X>rling strong inllucnce at the Christian Righi on lhe Republican Par1y decreases from 10 10 8. the number or moderate stales increases from 2 to 6. and lhe number ol weak states decreases from 2 10 zero. But how does the Christian Righi ·s changing inllucncc in the South com1>are to olher regions? To t.-s1imatc a net effect. we have crealcd;, srale from Pcrsinos' original me41sure ol Christian Righi influence. We h;1ve coded 1 as weak, 3 as moderate and 5 as strong. We then take averages for 1994 and 2000 by region to a}ses:, oet ,ocreases or decreases !n 1nflucnce. 1 he most striking init@I resull is 1hat lhe ~ulh does have the highc>st amount of Christian coalition inlluence - a score or 4.1 out of 5. 1 his is above the 3.4 national a,erage in 2000. Its already high influence in the South is not in((easing. The influence 1s increasing nationally, however. because ii is increasing in every 01her region. The largest increase is in 1he Midwes1. which had a 1.1 unit change. from below moderate influence (2.7) 10 above moderate inlluence (3.8). rhe other increases are small - 0.3 in the ~onheast and 0.2 in 1he west. producing a 0.4 incr<'asc nationally, Such findings are not entirely consistent with Conger and Green's characterizatio1, of the Christran Right as "spreading out and diggmg in· The vast majority of the · spreading out" obviously occurred during 1hc 1980s. By 1994 the national <1vcragc for Christian c0<1lition .SEE CHR I STIAN RIGHT OH PAGE 10 • Table 2: Christian Right Influence in Southern State Republican Parties, 1994-2000 STATE tNA.UENCE IN STATE GOP 19941 2000' Al SVong Strong AR suong suons OK Sl.fong Stro11s SC S.1rong Strong TX S.lrong Suong VA s.irong suong MS Moderatt StlOtlS WV Wtak Strong FL Strong Mode.rate GA Strong Moderate IA s1rong Moderate NC Sl'rong Moderate KY Moderate Moderalt-T1I "'··~ Modera1e #S1rong 10 8 #Modmlt 2 6 #Weak z 0 1 l()lu, Persinos. "Has 1™! Chnsti.an Right Taken 0-.'tc th(' JlcpubUun P.1r1yr Compoigm & llec.fJ'M$ 1S:9 (s«i1cmbe,. I~): 2.0-2<1. ; kimbcrtyCong~, and John C. Gttm. ·spreadll'ii Oul and Oigglng In: 011isti:1n Conscn'Jtives ;iind St.lt(' Rt:publian PMic:s,• C4tmPoig,n & IJ«tiQM 23:1 ' ' '"""" 20021, SH(). 64 JUNE2002 . SOUTHNOW • CHRISTI AN RIGHT FROM PAGE 9 influence is already al 1he moderate level After 1his point we do not see "digging in," which would dewibe s1agna1mg levels of influence, but instead increasing influence. Th,s ,nfluence increases in every region of the country except for the region where i1 is already very strong - the South. TI1is increase. while greater in some region!, 1han olhtrs. accoun1s for a national increase ot .4 oni1.s. 1ns1ead ol the Christian Righi "digging in,· ot l(lking a defensive position to maintain their political gains. these results indicate they are ·going on the offensive: looking for gains in rnlluence wherever 1hey prcseo1 1hemselvcs. From 199'1 lo 2000 the Miclwesl was the ripest region for 1hcsc gains, but as s1a1ed before. 1hcy occurrc<I In all regions. While Conger and Green argue for "digging in,· they provide <1uite a bit of anecdotal evidence for ·going Oil lhe offensive· as they dcSCllbe the electoral ,expfoi~ or the Ouis1ian Righi in dHferen1 regions. This is espedally 1ruc tor 1he Midwest. where the authors describe 1he Kansas Chris1ian Righi challenging - • I.EVERS r-ROM PA<.E 1 ·Extensive powers for governors to constrain spending, including hnc•iten1 veto authorlly and 1he ability nol 10 spend appropriated funds:· "Large reserves held as balances or rainy day funds." "Understandable budgets 1ha1 reveal 1he nnpam of current decisions on fulure budgets, the use of Generally Accep1c<I Accounting Principles (GMP) in budgeting, coverage of all sfate money and disclosure or why and on wha1 money is bemg s.pen1.· In the 2002 ve~ion of the index. lhe scores in the SO s1a1es range from a high of 93 in Georgia 10 a low of 36 ,n New UamJ)Shire. 1 he SO·slaie average s<ore is 70, and the 14·Southern state average is 62. Three Southern states have scores above 1hc nalional average- Georgia. Louisiana and Florida. Seven or 1he Southern stales score between 44 and 56 and ranl 40 10 47 among 1he SO slates. So as 1hesc lower scoring smcs address the budgetary problems brought on by our current economic situation. tl\.cy might also address lhe very budgetary pro<ess ilsdf so they would be bener able 10 handle fu1ure problems lhe economy mighl visit upon them. • NOTE; n,is ankle Is JditJ)tCd hom ~R.mking Stat~ Budget J>roccsses," 5toll' 1'>olity Rtporu 20:6 (Match 2002). ~22. 1he incumbent governor in the primary and also laking conirol of !he slate sd1ool board 10 ,ns1i1ute a pro-creationism cduca1ion agenda. The Christian Right in both Ohio and Wisconsin have worked wi1h their respective governors. in Illinois they mobilizc<I for Sen. Peter Fitzgerafd·s win in 1998, and in Missouri 1hcy worked for Sen. John Mhcrolrs ro,ing campaign in 2000. Looking out,idc the Midwes1 , even in 1he toughest region tor the Chris1ian Right, the Wcs1, it is app<1re111 that lhey engage In ambi1ious polilicaf 1 .. 111es. In 1998 and 2000 Washington stale Chnslian Righi candidates won Republican nominations for governor and senator, respectively. Whole they did lose the eventual elections. the Christian Righi is competing polilicaffy whenever lhcy can in '1 bid 10 increase their power • 1ohn Pefsinos. ·Ha.s the Christian Righi Taken Over 1he Repubhran P,1r1yT Compo;g11s & fltclio,,s 15:9 (Scpoembc, 1994): 20-24. • Kunbcfly H, Congt'f and John C. G1cen. '"Spl'cadmg Qui and Digging In: Chr~tian Con~ativcs and Slate Rcpublr<an Pa,ries." Cmnpo,gns & ll«tKms 23: 1 (rebruary 2002): 58·60. 64 · Hovey served as siate budget olhcer u, Ohio and Ulinofs. wa~ a <0nsul1ant 10 many stato and \ lale organv.a1tons ~uch as 1he N.iti<mal Govcrno~· Msocia1ion and was founder and cdi1or of Sime Pm,cy Ftcpo,ts. ' NASBO. Budget Processt:S ;,, tltr Slates lWashing1on, DC: NASSO, J1lntl1.'lly 2002). This repOIC is .also available on the o,ganiz.11ion's Web site -www.0i1sbo org. • "Ranking Slalc Budg<.'tary P'fou."S'SC'S,· 9-10, Southern State Budget Process Quality· RANK IS 19 STATE GA LA fl INOEX 93 n 73 US Average ............................................ 70 24 OK 69 2S KY 68 25 WV 68 32 MS 64 SOUth Avc11tge ........................................ 6Z <O TX 56 40 TN S6 •z SC 53 43 AR 52 <3 VA 52 <6 At 48 47 NC •• so NII 36 ' From "ltanJ:lng Slate Bud~ t Pro<mo. • Stolt' Poll<y Rq,o,rs 20:6 (Milich 20()2): 9-22. ' NEWSLETTER Of lit( PROGRAM ON SOUfHERN POLITICS. MEOIA ANO PUBLIC WE 

The Christian Right, the South, and State Politics

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=poliscifacpub

The Christian Right, the South, and State Politics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of Nebraska, Omaha