The Rise of the Christian Right
Though the majority of Americans would like to believe that American politics still follow by Thomas Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state,” this is hardly the case. Jason Bivins insists that the mingling of religion with politics flares up regularly in periods of sociopolitical instability to provide a sense of comfort (Bivins 2008, 10). One religion in particular, Christianity, has become so intermingled with American politics that Stephen Nichols argues “the church now has to live with the monster of political entanglement that it has created” (Nichols 2008, 212). It is not a new notion for God to be discussed in political rhetoric, but the appearance of Jesus in the past several decades has caused much controversy (Nichols 2008, 199). Although recent movements have emerged to relate Jesus to the liberal agenda (Nichols 2008, 204), it is most common for Jesus to be identified as a politically conservative figure partnered with the Christian Right.
The rise of the Christian Right (also referred to as the New Christian Right) first emerged in the 1970s as a reaction to new symptoms of social decay: increase in divorce, rising crime rate, rapid increase in percentage of kids born out of wedlock, increase in drug use, increase in porn, etc. (Reichley 1986, 25). Christians began to believe that “the only way to displace secular humanism, therefore, was to organize politically to drive the secularists and their collaborators from the halls of power” (Reichley 1986, 25). The first politician to be backed by the Christian Right was Jimmy Carter, a self-avowed evangelical (Regnerus et al. 1999, 1377), in the presidential election of 1976 when evangelicals provided the margin of victory for him (Reichley 1986, 25). President Carter spoke openly about his faith and viewed politics as a religious calling which provided him the opportunity for Christian witness through public service (Berggren and Rae 2006, 612-613). However, by the end of his term, the Christian Right was disappointed with President Carter for being more liberal than expected (Regnerus et al. 1999, 1377). Yet, instead of suppressing the rise of the Christian Right, this did the opposite and energized it even more.
It was around this period that well-known evangelicals and their Christian organizations began to dominate the Christian Right. Many organizations were formed in the late 1970s and early 1980s; however, political amateurishness led to the demise of many of them (Moen 1994, 349). Only a select few survived for a significant period of time: Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The goals of these organizations were to advance their Christian interests and reverse disturbing trends in American culture (Haberman 2005, 239). Paul Weyrich, founder of National Christian Action Coalition, asserts that “what galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation" (Haberman 2005, 239). While former political passivity was due to the popular belief that the church had no business being involved in society’s affairs, Falwell and Robertson argued that “political passivity by the church yields social control to the ungodly” and encouraged followers to become politically active (Reichley 1986, 24).
The Republican Party saw the rise of the Christian Right as an opportunity to gain votes and took immediate action. Don Critchlow observes that Republicans reached out to conservative Christians “by tying social issues such as school choice, abortion, and prayer in schools to long-standing Republican causes-free market economics and hard-line defense and foreign policy” (Haberman 2005, 239-240). Republican presidential nominee, Ronald Reagan, followed this example and courted the evangelicals by making remarks such as: “Religious America is awakening, perhaps just in time for our country’s sake” (Reichley 1986, 26). This effort paid off as sixty-two percent of Conservative Christians cast their vote for Reagan in the 1980 election which increased to eighty percent in the 1984 election (Haberman 2005, 239-240, 252). Though Conservative Christians were disappointed with some of President Reagan’s decisions, what set Reagan apart from Carter was that Reagan gave evangelicals a share of the fruits of political victory (Reichley 1986, 27). The Christian Right continued to support Reagan because they believed that he represented the best hope for the future advancement of their agenda (Haberman 2005, 252). The Christian Right was especially effective in the elections of 1980 and 1984 because they were able to unify their typically individualistic forces (Reichley 1986, 28), believing that Reagan’s ascent to presidency signaled the beginning of an age of social conservatism (Haberman 2005, 235). However, when Reagan’s administration ended, the Christian Right’s key social agenda remained unfulfilled (Haberman 2005, 252).
With the Christian Right’s attempts to advance their agenda at the presidential level repeatedly failing, Christian Right leaders decided to switch to a more grassroots-style political movement (Haberman 2005, 237). Their hope was that the local activity would eventually spread and intensify (Moen 1994, 353). With the grassroots movement, “the Christian Right transformed from an interest group seeking to influence change at the top of the political spectrum to a more politically savvy establishment” (Haberman 2005, 236). Matthew Moen proposes that “the strident campaign to ‘put God back in government’ has been replaced by a quiet effort to rally sympathetic citizens and win elections. The Christian Right has adjusted itself to the traditional practices of American politics” (Moen 1994, 353). This effort has moved the Christian Right closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party and has given them much more influence over party nominations and national platforms (Haberman 2005, 253). Aaron Haberman insists that even though the Christian Right is currently a “captured group,” having no choice but to remain in the Republican Party, it may eventually break out of this status forcing Republican Party leaders to actively pursue the Conservative Christian agenda (Haberman 2005, 237, 253).
Compared to previous decades, the Christian Right was relatively quiet in the 1990s; however, their influence and power continued to grow. The election of George W. Bush in 2000 was the next big step for the Christian Right. Bush’s identification as an evangelical and his background with other evangelicals helped to secure his nomination (Campbell 2006, 113). Bush maintained this support going into the 2004 election, because he had transformed the White House into a place of faith, and “won again with the strong support and turnout of white evangelicals, churchgoers, and those who cited Bush’s personal character and moral values as paramount to their decision to reelect him” (Berggren and Rae 2006, 614). After Bush’s victory, Dobson remarked, “I think God has honored Bush. The president did acknowledge Jesus Christ” (Heltzel 2009, 111). This remark signifies just how intertwined religion and politics had become and mirrors the idea of "divine right". D. Jason Berggren and Nicol Rae make the argument that “given that evangelicalism is deeply rooted in American political culture, and also the enhanced political influence and visibility of evangelical Christians in American politics over the past half-century, we should certainly expect to encounter recurrent examples of the ‘evangelical style’ among American chief executives” (Berggren and Rae 2006, 614).
The rise of the Christian Right (also referred to as the New Christian Right) first emerged in the 1970s as a reaction to new symptoms of social decay: increase in divorce, rising crime rate, rapid increase in percentage of kids born out of wedlock, increase in drug use, increase in porn, etc. (Reichley 1986, 25). Christians began to believe that “the only way to displace secular humanism, therefore, was to organize politically to drive the secularists and their collaborators from the halls of power” (Reichley 1986, 25). The first politician to be backed by the Christian Right was Jimmy Carter, a self-avowed evangelical (Regnerus et al. 1999, 1377), in the presidential election of 1976 when evangelicals provided the margin of victory for him (Reichley 1986, 25). President Carter spoke openly about his faith and viewed politics as a religious calling which provided him the opportunity for Christian witness through public service (Berggren and Rae 2006, 612-613). However, by the end of his term, the Christian Right was disappointed with President Carter for being more liberal than expected (Regnerus et al. 1999, 1377). Yet, instead of suppressing the rise of the Christian Right, this did the opposite and energized it even more.
It was around this period that well-known evangelicals and their Christian organizations began to dominate the Christian Right. Many organizations were formed in the late 1970s and early 1980s; however, political amateurishness led to the demise of many of them (Moen 1994, 349). Only a select few survived for a significant period of time: Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The goals of these organizations were to advance their Christian interests and reverse disturbing trends in American culture (Haberman 2005, 239). Paul Weyrich, founder of National Christian Action Coalition, asserts that “what galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation" (Haberman 2005, 239). While former political passivity was due to the popular belief that the church had no business being involved in society’s affairs, Falwell and Robertson argued that “political passivity by the church yields social control to the ungodly” and encouraged followers to become politically active (Reichley 1986, 24).
The Republican Party saw the rise of the Christian Right as an opportunity to gain votes and took immediate action. Don Critchlow observes that Republicans reached out to conservative Christians “by tying social issues such as school choice, abortion, and prayer in schools to long-standing Republican causes-free market economics and hard-line defense and foreign policy” (Haberman 2005, 239-240). Republican presidential nominee, Ronald Reagan, followed this example and courted the evangelicals by making remarks such as: “Religious America is awakening, perhaps just in time for our country’s sake” (Reichley 1986, 26). This effort paid off as sixty-two percent of Conservative Christians cast their vote for Reagan in the 1980 election which increased to eighty percent in the 1984 election (Haberman 2005, 239-240, 252). Though Conservative Christians were disappointed with some of President Reagan’s decisions, what set Reagan apart from Carter was that Reagan gave evangelicals a share of the fruits of political victory (Reichley 1986, 27). The Christian Right continued to support Reagan because they believed that he represented the best hope for the future advancement of their agenda (Haberman 2005, 252). The Christian Right was especially effective in the elections of 1980 and 1984 because they were able to unify their typically individualistic forces (Reichley 1986, 28), believing that Reagan’s ascent to presidency signaled the beginning of an age of social conservatism (Haberman 2005, 235). However, when Reagan’s administration ended, the Christian Right’s key social agenda remained unfulfilled (Haberman 2005, 252).
With the Christian Right’s attempts to advance their agenda at the presidential level repeatedly failing, Christian Right leaders decided to switch to a more grassroots-style political movement (Haberman 2005, 237). Their hope was that the local activity would eventually spread and intensify (Moen 1994, 353). With the grassroots movement, “the Christian Right transformed from an interest group seeking to influence change at the top of the political spectrum to a more politically savvy establishment” (Haberman 2005, 236). Matthew Moen proposes that “the strident campaign to ‘put God back in government’ has been replaced by a quiet effort to rally sympathetic citizens and win elections. The Christian Right has adjusted itself to the traditional practices of American politics” (Moen 1994, 353). This effort has moved the Christian Right closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party and has given them much more influence over party nominations and national platforms (Haberman 2005, 253). Aaron Haberman insists that even though the Christian Right is currently a “captured group,” having no choice but to remain in the Republican Party, it may eventually break out of this status forcing Republican Party leaders to actively pursue the Conservative Christian agenda (Haberman 2005, 237, 253).
Compared to previous decades, the Christian Right was relatively quiet in the 1990s; however, their influence and power continued to grow. The election of George W. Bush in 2000 was the next big step for the Christian Right. Bush’s identification as an evangelical and his background with other evangelicals helped to secure his nomination (Campbell 2006, 113). Bush maintained this support going into the 2004 election, because he had transformed the White House into a place of faith, and “won again with the strong support and turnout of white evangelicals, churchgoers, and those who cited Bush’s personal character and moral values as paramount to their decision to reelect him” (Berggren and Rae 2006, 614). After Bush’s victory, Dobson remarked, “I think God has honored Bush. The president did acknowledge Jesus Christ” (Heltzel 2009, 111). This remark signifies just how intertwined religion and politics had become and mirrors the idea of "divine right". D. Jason Berggren and Nicol Rae make the argument that “given that evangelicalism is deeply rooted in American political culture, and also the enhanced political influence and visibility of evangelical Christians in American politics over the past half-century, we should certainly expect to encounter recurrent examples of the ‘evangelical style’ among American chief executives” (Berggren and Rae 2006, 614).
Criticism
While many believe that the Christian Right has become an extremely influential political power, not everyone remains convinced. One study shows that only 19.9% of Americans claim to have relied upon Christian Right resources to decide how to cast their vote (Regnerus et al. 1999, 1384). Martin Marty claims that it is “difficult to assess the strength of a movement whose leadership makes extravagant claims of size and support and whose influence the media tend to exaggerate in order to emphasize the dimensions of conflict” (Marty 1981, 14). To make for a good headline, the media tends to overstress the power and ability of all religious Americans to organize, and the Christian Right sure isn’t going to deny these claims.
Others argue that while it does have influence, it is anything but positive. Harvey Cox claims that evangelical religion is “a toxin endangering the health- even the life- of the Christian churches and American society” (Stark 2008, 149). In fact, “books warning about an evangelical Christian takeover are being published so frequently that they constitute a new literary genre” (Stark 2008, 150). It seems that as Conservative Christians become more entangled with politics, the Christian Right’s reputation becomes increasingly negative.
Others argue that while it does have influence, it is anything but positive. Harvey Cox claims that evangelical religion is “a toxin endangering the health- even the life- of the Christian churches and American society” (Stark 2008, 149). In fact, “books warning about an evangelical Christian takeover are being published so frequently that they constitute a new literary genre” (Stark 2008, 150). It seems that as Conservative Christians become more entangled with politics, the Christian Right’s reputation becomes increasingly negative.
Relevant Videos
The Jesus Factor
Baptists and the Rise of the Religious Right
God Bless America (Role of Religion in the 2008 Election)
Baptists and the Rise of the Religious Right
God Bless America (Role of Religion in the 2008 Election)
Relevant Articles
- Christians Debate: Was Jesus for Small Government?
- Can Young Evangelicals Move Beyond the Religious Right?
- Jonathan Merritt: Taking the Politics Out of Church
- Christian Right Starts High-Tech Voter-Registration Drive
- Why the Christian Right Doesn't Care That Mitt Romney is a Mormon
- Christians and Other Religious Groups Speak out Against the Religious Right's Attack on Schools in Seattle, Washington
- 2012 Jewish Value Survey: Jews Favor Muslims, Mormons Over 'Christian Right'
- The Evangelical Left in History and Today
- Intersection of Religion, Politics isn't Always Right
Annotated Bibliography
Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. “Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (2006): 606-32.
Though there is variety amongst evangelicals, Jason Berggren and Nicol Rae argue that they are still unified, noting some common traits: Protestant, evangelical self-identification, sola fide, sola Scriptura, Christocentricism, personalism, pietism, and evangelicalism. Presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are both known for their leadership which relied heavily upon their evangelical faith. Although their presidencies differed, similarities can be drawn which derive from their personal faith. Both Carter and Bush spoke openly about their faith and confessed that it influenced their administration. In addition, they believed that their role as president was a religious calling and that they could witness by setting a “Christian” example with their actions. It is believed that Bush won his nomination and eventually the elections of 2000 and 2004 mainly because of the support he received from the evangelicals and religious conservatives. Berggren and Rae conclude with the prediction that we should expect to see many more “evangelical style” American presidents in the future (614).
Bivins, Jason C. Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative Evangelicalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
In this book, Jason Bivins points out that the intermingling of religion and politics is not something new. Rather, it appears to flare up during periods of sociopolitical instability as a means of seeking comfort and stability. Gaining momentum during the 1970s, after the secular and morally permissive decade of the 1960s, conservative evangelicals sought to organize because of the souls and tradition at stake. Aided by political shifts taking place, the civil rights movement came to an end and the New Christian Right (NCR) aimed to take over. Bivins argument is that Christianity, specifically the NCR, uses fear to gather support with tactics such as: Jack Chick’s cartoon tracts, Hell Houses, and the Left Behind series. Bivins asserts that this “religion of fear is a product of, and thrives in, a conservative subculture shaped by the emergence of the NCR in the 1970s” (216) and that the success of the NCR has come from its ability to “convey certitude, conviction, and uniformity” (219).
Campbell, David E. “Religious ‘Threat’ in Contemporary Presidential Elections.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 104-115.
David E. Campbell explores the possibility of a group threat effect in recent presidential elections, both with the evangelists being threatened by the secularists and with the secularists being threatened by the evangelists. Campbell acknowledges that evangelicalism thrives on conflict and threat with the secular world. Noting the fact that the 2000 election was a turning point for America’s evangelical movement since George W. Bush was identified as an evangelical, Campbell analyzes whether or not this played into the results of the election. The fact that Bush was not the only candidate to wear his religion on his sleeve may have neutralized his appeal to evangelicals. Campbell concludes that “Bush’s own evangelicalism did not, in and of itself, cause or awaken a sense of group identification among evangelicals” but that it did likely help him get the Republican nomination (113).
Haberman, Aaron. “Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right.” The Historian 67 (2005): 234-53.
In this article, Aaron Haberman acknowledges that the Christian Right believed Reagan’s presidency marked the beginning of a new age of social conservatism. Haberman believes that the Christian Right is a “captured group,” meaning they have no choice to remain loyal to the Republican party. During the 1970s, the Republican party attempted to gather support from Conservative Christians by pulling social issues such as abortion and school prayer into their agenda. This movement worked, leading the majority of Conservative Christians to vote for Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. However, the Conservative Right was not satisfied with Reagan’s ability to push their agenda; the pinnacle of this disappointment being Reagan’s support of the withdrawal of Bob Jones University tax exemption status. Though they continued to support Reagan throughout the remainder of his presidency, Reagan’s failure to push the Christian Right agenda paved the way for the Conservative Christian’s strong grassroots movement.
Heltzel, Peter Goodwin. Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals, Race, and American Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
In this book, Peter Heltzel examines the role that evangelicals have played in American politics, with an emphasis on racial justice. Heltzel focuses a lot on the disparities between white evangelicals and black evangelicals and the role that evangelicals played in the Civil Rights Movement. Heltzel identifies key individuals and organizations that have played a crucial role in the advancement of the religious right. Billy Graham is said to have been “evangelicalism’s global evangelist” while Carl F. H. Henry, a figurehead who is often overlooked, is said to have been “evangelicalism’s theological architect;” both encouraging Christians to become active in social transformation (71). James Dobson and his organization, Focus on the Family, is a product of Henry’s philosophy. Dobson has been promoting his “family focus” through political involvement since the election of Ronald Reagan. In contrast, Heltzel also highlights the National Association of Evangelicals which chose in the 1990s to distance itself from the religious right in order to make the gospel message more clear and compelling (139).
Hoover, Denis R., and Kevin R. den Dulk. “Christian Conservatives Go to Court: Religion and Legal Mobilization in the United States and Canada.” International Political Science Review 25 (2004): 9-34.
Dennis R. Hoover and Kevin R. den Dulk define the Christian Right as a “network of partially overlapping associations, interest groups, and social movement organizations” (9). Although the groups that make up the Christian Right may disagree over some issues, overall they see each other as allies in promoting the social conservative agenda. However, data does suggest that Catholics tend to be legally mobilized early with their rates of participation remaining steadier over time than evangelists whose participation rates start low but increase sharply over time. This article acknowledges that the Christian Right mobilization originated from Supreme Court decisions over issues such as school prayer and abortion. The article continues to analyze Christian Conservatives’ legal mobilization over time in both the United States and Canada. Research suggests that litigation has grown in importance as a political tactic for conservative Christians. Legal mobilization has increased much more sharply in the United States than Canada because of America’s “all or nothing” quality.
Marty, Martin E. “Morality, Ethics, and the New Christian Right.” The Hastings Center Report 11 (1981): 14-17.
Written during the 1980s, Martin E. Marty offers a perspective from the early days of the New Christian Right (NCR) expansion. Marty appears to be quite cynical of the NCR, claiming that it is a religion of the dispossessed. Marty argues that the leaders exaggerate both the claims of size and support as well as the evils of the opposition in order to gather more support and protect their own self-interests. Originally shunning other religious groups, the NCR seemingly abandoned their home for an exclusively Christian America in order to get support from Catholics and Jews on moral issues. However, the NCR continues to divide the world into dual camps of good versus evil, or Christians versus secularists. The NCR favors conspiracy theories to explain American corruption, yet believe that it is “a redeemed last, best hope of earth” (16) that should serve as a training ground for evangelists.
Moen, Matthew C. “From Revolution to Evolution: The Changing Nature of the Christian Right.” Sociology of Religion 55 (1994): 345-357.
In this article, Matthew C. Moen discusses how the Christian Right has changed significantly over time, forsaking revolution for evolution. Moen acknowledges that scholars typically focus on how the Christian Right has influenced politics; however, he makes an effort to look at how political activism has shaped the Christian Right. Moen suggests that there are three periods of development that the Christian Right experiences: the Expansionist Period (1978-1984), the Transition Period (1985-1986), and the Institutionalization Period (1987-present). Initially, the Christian Right rose in response to liberal and secular trends. Though it gathered a lot of supporters in the Expansionist Period, it focused too much on morality and not enough on political skills. During the Transition Period, Christian Right leaders examined their past mistakes and restructured the movement. The Institutionalization Period sharply contrasted with previous periods specifically because the campaign to “put God back in government” was replaced by a quiet effort to rally sympathetic citizens and win elections.
Nichols, Stephen J. “’Jesus on the Right Wing’: Christ and Politics in America.” In Jesus Made in America: a Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ, 98-221. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.
Stephen J. Nichols begins this chapter by stating that God is not new to the political realm; however, Jesus has now entered the scene. Since Jesus entered political discussions, he has been firmly planted on the “right wing” (199). Evangelicals Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed created the Christian Coalition as an effort to ensure that Jesus stays on the “right wing.” Additionally, Jerry Falwell founded Moral Majority which is a grassroots movement aiming to inspire religious conservatives to enter the political sphere. James Dobson and his Focus on the Family empire also work to promote family values and religious conservatism. Conversely, there is now a growing movement to place Jesus on the “left wing,” specifically relating to environmental issues; Jim Ball’s “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign being a prime example. Nichols argues that this debate over which political sphere Jesus belongs in has created a monster and that ultimately he does not belong in either one.
Regnerus, Mark D., David Sikkink, and Christian Smith. “Voting with the Christian Right: Contextual and Individual Patterns of Electoral Influence.” Social Forces 77 (1999): 1375-1401.
This article analyzes the influence that the Christian Right has had with distributing information through means such as: radio, magazines, videos, voter guides, and appearances on talk shows (1378). Since explicit political advocacy by nonprofit organizations is prohibited, the Christian Right must walk a fine line when distributing information meant to “educate voters.” Both the leaders of the Christian Right and the media tend to exaggerate the influence that the Christian Right has had in politics. In fact, the data represented in this article reveals that only 19.9% of Americans claim to have relied on Christian Right resources to determine how to vote. Even within their most supportive constituency, Evangelical Protestants, only 48% of them use Christian Right help to some degree and merely 18.4% use it often. This article suggests that those actually influenced by the Christian Right have three characteristics in common, they are: 1) structurally threatened, 2) culturally embattled, and 3) religiously tooled.
Reichley, A. James. “Religion and the Future of American Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 101 (1986): 23-47.
A. James Reichley discusses the increasing involvement of Christians in politics. In the past, Christians were politically passive because of their religious convictions that led them to believe that secular politics distracted them from spiritual experiences. The election of President Jimmy Carter was the first major time evangelicals became intermingled with politics. Both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson reversed former passivity and encouraged followers to become involved in politics so that social control was not deferred to the ungodly. They believed that the only way to rid society of it’s secular corruption was to organize politically. The first presidential candidate that the evangelicals fully threw their support behind was Ronald Reagan who made sure he “did not repeat Carter’s mistake of denying evangelicals a share of the fruits of political victory” (27). The evangelicals’ efforts were so successful in the elections of 1980 and 1984 because they were able to finally organize into a unified political force.
Stark, Rodney. What Americans Really Believe: New Findings from the Baylor Surveys of Religion. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008.
This entire book by Rodney Stark is based around surveys conducted to correct typical stereotypes and show what Americans truly believe. For the sake of my research, I focused solely on the chapter titled “Faith and Politics.” Stark notes that the fear of an evangelical takeover is so strong in American society that books warning against this now constitute a new literary genre. The stereotype is that evangelicals are vastly different from the remainder of Americans; specifically in that they are “extremists in their opposition to the separation of church and state” (150). However, Stark’s findings show that a significant number of non-evangelicals do not know what the true meaning of separation of church and state implies. The remaining surveys go to prove that evangelicals are basically like the rest of America in both their social and economic outlook as well as their moral stance.