Study Examines Red and Blue States

A recent article in the New York Times outlines a new academic paper from Harvard University. The paper, "Myths and Realities of American Political Geography," by the Harvard economists, Edward L. Glaeser and Bryce A. Ward examines the deep rooted political differences between the “Red” and “Blue” states. One of the most notable findings of the study is that religion is now a better indicator of political inclination than income.

The most remarkable phenomenon is the rise of religion in politics. Thirty years ago, income was a better prediction of party affiliation than church attendance, but this is no longer true. Religion also played a big role in politics a century ago, so we may well be returning to the historical norm.

This correlation may explain the recent success of Republicans in the highly-religious South.

…the biggest effect seems to be the correlation between religion and Republicanism. Among white voters who attend religious services at least once a week, 71 percent voted Republican in the last election, according to the Pew survey.

The findings of the study appear to simply validate what many politicos have recognized over the last 40 years. The analysis of the Republican party is accurate, but rather obvious.

Republicans have traditionally appealed to those with higher incomes. The genius of Republicans, beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing with Karl Rove, was to bring the religious vote into their party, forming a winning coalition of Main Street businessmen, the very wealthy and evangelical Christians. Strange bedfellows, to be sure, but they win elections.

The problem with the marriage between business and religion is that often the two contradict one another. Specifically, in the South, this union does not adequately serve the needs of poor Southerners attracted by the religious element of the party. The tendency of churchgoers to vote Republican is disturbing. No political party should have a monopoly on religion. Overall, this study is a worthwhile read, but fails to introduce many new ideas.