Following a line of high profile American Political Science Association Taskforces on such topics as inequality, terrorism, and civic education, American Political Science Association President Ira Katznelson convened a taskforce on “Religion and Democracy in the United States” during his 2005–2006 term. Chair Alan Wolfe convened a strong cast to discuss the issues involved and produce chapters. What has emerged is a generally stellar introduction to the state of the art American political science study of religion. Most of the chapters address the great diversity of religious groups in American politics from a variety of perspectives, while a smaller, high impact section targets religiosity, broadly considered, and democratic values. I highly recommend this volume to anyone, from undergraduates to seasoned researchers, interested in American religion and politics.
The intention of the taskforce, I suspect, was guided by Wolfe, who hoped to integrate empirical findings and normative political theory (24), reflecting the mainsprings of a long and successful career pursuing a symbiosis between the normative and the positive. I concur with Wolfe that the results are more coherent than what one would otherwise expect, especially given the baseline edited volume. This surely reflects the degree to which the participants engaged each other for several years while the volume was being produced. However, not all is sunshine and roses. There are many avenues worth exploring here given the range of inquiry, but I'll focus on a few broad themes and focus on gaps. Does religion help minorities integrate into democratic politics? Does religion promote democratic values? And do empirical and normative approaches to religion and politics have a productive conversation?
Given the broad adherence to Tocqueville's assessment that American religious homogeneity provides a stable base for limited government, a core concern for political theorists has been how American democracy will be able to handle the great fragmentation of the (white) Protestant-Catholic-Jew public consensus. While the question of just how religious minorities come to adopt democratic norms and regime support remains opaque, that they do have these essential attitudes is critical and, by now, well supported (see, especially, Amaney Jamal's chapter on American Muslims). Revealing the problem of success for a group's voice, Fredrick C. Harris details how the rise of the “prosperity gospel” is weakening the tension between the black church and government, though the conditions under which easy religion prospers are not yet well understood. While David L. Leal's chapter is largely devoid of discussion of democratic norms, Allison Calhoun-Brown provides a fascinating analysis of the benefits of religious participation that accrue conditional on gender. Women do not get the same return on their investment as men — more political efficacy but less personal efficacy. I would like to echo the call for further analyses like this one to assess the conditions under which broader problems of democratic inclusion are present in houses of worship across lines of gender, race, class, and religious and political difference.
One of the primary take away points from the book, at least from the perspective of Wolfe's introduction, is the upbeat conclusion that participation in democratic politics leads to an acceptance of the practical politics of compromise. Developed in the heart of the book over three excellent chapters, this is the conclusion from Geoffrey C. Layman's standout chapter examining the attitudes of party activists over time. Clyde Wilcox and James L. Gibson offer less sanguine assessments, finding Christian Right donors and religious traditionalists to be political purists and less tolerant, respectively. How can all three accounts be true? The answer may lie in between, where few have trod so far. That is, with the exception of the sweeping, perceptive survey from Kenneth D. Wald and David C. Leege that begs for more targeted testing, I wondered where the elites were in this volume. There's no examination of the extent to which elites, political and religious, in and out of government, are attempting to segment and mobilize religious constituencies; there's no account of the language they use to communicate with the public; and there's no analysis of the effect of elite communication on the democratic commitments of their audiences. While political engagement may encourage appreciation for compromise among elites in closed session, it does not guarantee that they advocate for democratic norms in public. I wondered if this upbeat conclusion would be so easily reached if the book were published a few years later, when the Tea Party-fueled Republican Party is more uncompromising and further to the right than it has ever been.
The interaction among the contributors was clearly successful in pushing the integration of normative political theory and empirical analyses. There is one glaring exception in my view. The preoccupation of political theorists has been, rightly, on the logic of “political congruence” (in Nancy L. Rosenblum's helpful phrase) — the mandate that citizens engage each other on common ground, meaning arguments devoid of religiously particularistic phrasing. But, we don't yet know the scope conditions of this debate. How widespread are these concerns in the populace? How much particularistic language is used? Who feels alienated by it? Can people talk through it? Do elites, especially, feel pressure to evade religious rhetoric in public? Do they feel their interests are adequately represented despite rhetorical constraint?
The contributions of religion to democracy are certainly equivocal, but the health of religion and politics scholarship is certainly not. This is an excellent collection of research that leaves plenty of room for growth.
