Is it possible to separate this data out by gender? My - admittedly superficial - impression as someone who teaches at a religiously affiliated college is that college age Christians are uncomfortable with Trump. But this may actually divide on gender lines. Young Christian men seem a lot more Trumpy than young Christian women.
I see your overall points, and I see that more than 50% of white Christians are now Republican, but that does not justify this bolded statement: "It has become increasingly the case that to be white and Christian is to support the Republican Party." It reads as if a person would be justified if in meeting a white Christian they assumed the Christian is Republican. This might be reasonable if, say, 95% or more (?) were Republican, but certainly is not true if less than 60%. For the tens of millions of us who are white Christians and not Republican it is a disturbing and untrue statement. I expect more nuance and accuracy from Dr. Burge.
As far as I know, no political issue garners 95% support from any cohort, but I agree that a 60-40 split seems too small to make such a strong assertion. Especially since 80%+ of White Evangelicals voted for Trump in 2024. I assume that they're dragging that line up significantly, which means that other White Christian groups are still more evenly split between the two parties.
Thanks! So, if I understand your initial response to the comment (which I didn't see before I posted my own reply), you think that the party affiliation will rise even further among these groups because voting behaviour leads party affiliation?
I think the original comment still raises an interesting question of what percentage you need to see on an issue to state that it is closely linked to a group's political identity. White Evangelicals and Black voters seem like the two clear outliers here, since they're 80%+ in favour of one party/candidate or another. If a group is 70/30 split, or 60/40, is that enough to say that they have a clear group preference? I see, for example, that 68% of Native Americans voted for Trump in 2024. Maybe that's a one-off phenomenon, but I don't think I've ever heard someone say that Native Americans are collectively in favour of MAGA/Trumpism, and suspect that a lot of Native Americans would be bothered by someone saying that. I'm genuinely curious what you think is a reasonable threshold for saying a demographic group and party/issue are closely linked.
This reflects what I have seen among my peers and my family--finally an incidence of ancedotal.evidence matching the imperical data! I am in my 50s. Thirty years ago, I was a Democrat, as were my cousins and most people in my blue collar hometown. Of my family members and friends who attend church regularly, I have one cousin who still votes Democratic. That's all I can think of. And one of my high school friends--a faithful Missouri Synod Lutheran who was a proud Democrat into young adulthood--most recently served as the Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Colorado: Cory Gardner.
I am a decade older than you but share similar experiences. It is my opinion that the Democrats have left their roots (labor) and have drifted strangely to the far left. This might explain the movement of even the "nothing in particular" voting Republican. They might not identify with the GOP, but they surely do not identify with the Democratic Party.
The Dixiecrats didn't change their minds. They voted for racist Democrats when they had racist Democrats to vote for and then for racist Republicans after that. And the same is true of those who've switched to the Republicans in the Trump era - defending the traditional race and gender hierarchy - with white men at the top, then the white women married to them, then everyone else in varying orders - against woke, DEI, identity politics or whatever you want to call demands for equality , is central for them
Fascinating. All the while, the average UCC white clergyperson is becoming not just increasingly Democratic but also progressive... We are increasingly out-of-touch (and often sympathy) with our people in the pew. No wonder we are in free fall...
I feel that the mainline is still better off with unapologetically supporting liberal stances. Will say that per Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey, a slight majority mainliners may vote Republican, but the bulk of them support gay marriage and abortion rights. While church services definitely shouldn’t sound like a Democratic Party rally, mainline churches going MAGA would almost certainly cost them far more members than they’d gain.
And it’s not like conservatives denominations, like the LCMS or the SBC, have solved the issue with membership loss either.
TLDR "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." The mindset shift is the equivalent of an immune response to the perceived reduction in status or standing, and the church is simply a convenient third place for those facing this to seek shelter with like minded individuals as these populations shrink through generational replacement.
> Why is this group so consequential? Because they are enormous in number. Nearly one in five
> Americans describes their religion as “nothing in particular.”
It's very interesting to dig into the connection between being "nothing in particular" and being aligned to the GoP. Sans evidence but my strong suspicion is that this is to do with economic precarity. My theory is the "nothing in particulars" will tend to be less economically stable and therefore looking for a political party that's aligned with the "burn it all down" / "find a group to blame" mentality which is very much the current GoP.
> a lot of white moderates and liberals have started identifying as non-religious over the last few
> decades. I will explore that in a future post.
I'm very much looking forward to it.
> This is a story not just about religion — it’s also deeply intertwined with race
Maybe? That could certainly be true but I think economics and a lot of other cultural issues are also involved.
The really interesting question for me is rates of change. Is the movement of Christians to the GoP faster or slower (in terms of absolutely numbers) than people leaving Christianity in US? I suspect most people leaving Christianity become "nothing in particulars" so it won't actually make any difference but it's be very interesting to discuss.
Does "nothing in particular" mean "non-religious" or simply "religious without any particular affiliation with a sect," as in one of your other posts; that is, nothing in particular is what you called NiNos (Nones in Name only group) vs actual Dones (Agnostics/Atheists). If so, the nothing in particular group is less surprising.
With respect to the overall shift to Republican, might the Republican party have changed, perhaps to pander to the Dixiecrats with regressive views you mention at the start or simply to pander to religious worldviews? Less that white Christians changed their "minds" in any substantial way and more that Republicans adopted policies sympathetic to a white Christian worldview ... religious nationalism?
I strongly recommend picking up a copy of my The Nones. I go into minute details about the differences between atheist, agnostics, and nothing in particular Americans.
I just have to say, this is some of the most insightful, applicable research for those of us in pulpits on Sunday morning. As someone once asked in an article, "Should Church Be a Luxury Good?" we have a lot of atoning ahead. One of my mentors - Vince Tinto - talked about "preaching through statistics," which he recommended highly. This is first-class preaching.
Something that hit me as I read this is that the first new platform enacted by Southern, white churches in 1861 was "no political content on Sunday mornings" (then followed by political support for the Confederate States). What they meant was no discussion of the immorality of slavery. Then when the combination of increased population and community involvement led to a spike in church membership from the 1960s into the 1980s, white churches largely abandoned theology and Biblical exposition for the "homily," a pleasant, relatable story that people could ponder. And racist exclusion became the hardened norm. Perhaps the two intersect in some ways...
Is it an assumption that “Republicans” support the Constitution, where everyone is free to choose or not choose a religious belief? Would a positive indicator of change be a Republican Party more representative of all races?
I live in a Red County where the Republican label was hijacked by special interests. Their “rule” is being challenged in federal court. At the state level, a two-time Republican Mayor of Indianapolis a blue city) is running as an Independent for Secretary of State. He has expressed dissatisfaction with the State Republican Party.
In my successful campaign for office, I outlined support for both secular and non-secular approaches to improvement and reinforced the relationship among Citizenship, Quality Management, and Christianity.
Is it possible to separate this data out by gender? My - admittedly superficial - impression as someone who teaches at a religiously affiliated college is that college age Christians are uncomfortable with Trump. But this may actually divide on gender lines. Young Christian men seem a lot more Trumpy than young Christian women.
I see your overall points, and I see that more than 50% of white Christians are now Republican, but that does not justify this bolded statement: "It has become increasingly the case that to be white and Christian is to support the Republican Party." It reads as if a person would be justified if in meeting a white Christian they assumed the Christian is Republican. This might be reasonable if, say, 95% or more (?) were Republican, but certainly is not true if less than 60%. For the tens of millions of us who are white Christians and not Republican it is a disturbing and untrue statement. I expect more nuance and accuracy from Dr. Burge.
"It has become increasingly the case that to be white and Christian is to support the Republican Party."
This statement is empirically accurate, though.
In 2024, 67% of white Christians cast a ballot for Donald Trump.
Party identification is a trailing indicator of actual political preference. You can see that unequivocally in this post:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/a-sixty-year-history-of-white-evangelicals
As far as I know, no political issue garners 95% support from any cohort, but I agree that a 60-40 split seems too small to make such a strong assertion. Especially since 80%+ of White Evangelicals voted for Trump in 2024. I assume that they're dragging that line up significantly, which means that other White Christian groups are still more evenly split between the two parties.
Trump's vote share in 2024
White evangelicals - 83%
White Catholics - 65%
Mainline - 58%
Latter-day Saints - 66%
Thanks! So, if I understand your initial response to the comment (which I didn't see before I posted my own reply), you think that the party affiliation will rise even further among these groups because voting behaviour leads party affiliation?
I think the original comment still raises an interesting question of what percentage you need to see on an issue to state that it is closely linked to a group's political identity. White Evangelicals and Black voters seem like the two clear outliers here, since they're 80%+ in favour of one party/candidate or another. If a group is 70/30 split, or 60/40, is that enough to say that they have a clear group preference? I see, for example, that 68% of Native Americans voted for Trump in 2024. Maybe that's a one-off phenomenon, but I don't think I've ever heard someone say that Native Americans are collectively in favour of MAGA/Trumpism, and suspect that a lot of Native Americans would be bothered by someone saying that. I'm genuinely curious what you think is a reasonable threshold for saying a demographic group and party/issue are closely linked.
This reflects what I have seen among my peers and my family--finally an incidence of ancedotal.evidence matching the imperical data! I am in my 50s. Thirty years ago, I was a Democrat, as were my cousins and most people in my blue collar hometown. Of my family members and friends who attend church regularly, I have one cousin who still votes Democratic. That's all I can think of. And one of my high school friends--a faithful Missouri Synod Lutheran who was a proud Democrat into young adulthood--most recently served as the Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Colorado: Cory Gardner.
I am a decade older than you but share similar experiences. It is my opinion that the Democrats have left their roots (labor) and have drifted strangely to the far left. This might explain the movement of even the "nothing in particular" voting Republican. They might not identify with the GOP, but they surely do not identify with the Democratic Party.
The Dixiecrats didn't change their minds. They voted for racist Democrats when they had racist Democrats to vote for and then for racist Republicans after that. And the same is true of those who've switched to the Republicans in the Trump era - defending the traditional race and gender hierarchy - with white men at the top, then the white women married to them, then everyone else in varying orders - against woke, DEI, identity politics or whatever you want to call demands for equality , is central for them
Fascinating. All the while, the average UCC white clergyperson is becoming not just increasingly Democratic but also progressive... We are increasingly out-of-touch (and often sympathy) with our people in the pew. No wonder we are in free fall...
I feel that the mainline is still better off with unapologetically supporting liberal stances. Will say that per Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey, a slight majority mainliners may vote Republican, but the bulk of them support gay marriage and abortion rights. While church services definitely shouldn’t sound like a Democratic Party rally, mainline churches going MAGA would almost certainly cost them far more members than they’d gain.
And it’s not like conservatives denominations, like the LCMS or the SBC, have solved the issue with membership loss either.
Dont get me wrong: I’m a liberal & vote democratic but I’m just saying that the disjoint is not good.
I'm curious if status concerns are a component of this generational cohort mindset shift? https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00046/ is what came to mind as I read your piece.
TLDR "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." The mindset shift is the equivalent of an immune response to the perceived reduction in status or standing, and the church is simply a convenient third place for those facing this to seek shelter with like minded individuals as these populations shrink through generational replacement.
Thanks for another great post Ryan.
> Why is this group so consequential? Because they are enormous in number. Nearly one in five
> Americans describes their religion as “nothing in particular.”
It's very interesting to dig into the connection between being "nothing in particular" and being aligned to the GoP. Sans evidence but my strong suspicion is that this is to do with economic precarity. My theory is the "nothing in particulars" will tend to be less economically stable and therefore looking for a political party that's aligned with the "burn it all down" / "find a group to blame" mentality which is very much the current GoP.
> a lot of white moderates and liberals have started identifying as non-religious over the last few
> decades. I will explore that in a future post.
I'm very much looking forward to it.
> This is a story not just about religion — it’s also deeply intertwined with race
Maybe? That could certainly be true but I think economics and a lot of other cultural issues are also involved.
The really interesting question for me is rates of change. Is the movement of Christians to the GoP faster or slower (in terms of absolutely numbers) than people leaving Christianity in US? I suspect most people leaving Christianity become "nothing in particulars" so it won't actually make any difference but it's be very interesting to discuss.
Does "nothing in particular" mean "non-religious" or simply "religious without any particular affiliation with a sect," as in one of your other posts; that is, nothing in particular is what you called NiNos (Nones in Name only group) vs actual Dones (Agnostics/Atheists). If so, the nothing in particular group is less surprising.
With respect to the overall shift to Republican, might the Republican party have changed, perhaps to pander to the Dixiecrats with regressive views you mention at the start or simply to pander to religious worldviews? Less that white Christians changed their "minds" in any substantial way and more that Republicans adopted policies sympathetic to a white Christian worldview ... religious nationalism?
I strongly recommend picking up a copy of my The Nones. I go into minute details about the differences between atheist, agnostics, and nothing in particular Americans.
I just have to say, this is some of the most insightful, applicable research for those of us in pulpits on Sunday morning. As someone once asked in an article, "Should Church Be a Luxury Good?" we have a lot of atoning ahead. One of my mentors - Vince Tinto - talked about "preaching through statistics," which he recommended highly. This is first-class preaching.
Something that hit me as I read this is that the first new platform enacted by Southern, white churches in 1861 was "no political content on Sunday mornings" (then followed by political support for the Confederate States). What they meant was no discussion of the immorality of slavery. Then when the combination of increased population and community involvement led to a spike in church membership from the 1960s into the 1980s, white churches largely abandoned theology and Biblical exposition for the "homily," a pleasant, relatable story that people could ponder. And racist exclusion became the hardened norm. Perhaps the two intersect in some ways...
Is it an assumption that “Republicans” support the Constitution, where everyone is free to choose or not choose a religious belief? Would a positive indicator of change be a Republican Party more representative of all races?
I live in a Red County where the Republican label was hijacked by special interests. Their “rule” is being challenged in federal court. At the state level, a two-time Republican Mayor of Indianapolis a blue city) is running as an Independent for Secretary of State. He has expressed dissatisfaction with the State Republican Party.
In my successful campaign for office, I outlined support for both secular and non-secular approaches to improvement and reinforced the relationship among Citizenship, Quality Management, and Christianity.
https://timjclarkforcommissioner.com/citizenship-quality-management-christianity/