On Friday, Dailykos staffer Chris Bowers tackled another aspect of
the Republican demographic death spiral: the Americans who now identify with no religion.
The trend away from identifying with organized religion will continue, as Americans of every age group are less likely to identify with organized religion than every age group which came before them. For example, 32% of Americans aged 18-24 identify with no religion, compared to 29% among Americans aged 25-34.
...
The political implications of this transformation are straightforward: Republicans and conservative are screwed, as those who do not identify with any religion vote for Democrats overwhelmingly.
While I would agree that, barring extreme changes in the political landscape, the Nones will continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats,
it is not safe to assume that this trend will continue.
As we’d expect atheists lean liberal and Democrat. But >20% of atheists in this data set identify as Republicans or conservatives. I think the conservative identification is somewhat misleading. Many of the “conservatives” are actually libertarian. That’s obvious because though atheists are diverse in relation to fiscal issues, they tend to be liberal on social issues.
So the idea that Democrats will automatically benefit from the growth of the Nones, while generally true, belies
possible ways for the party to lose traction with them.
In truth, the Democratic Party already relies on the significant amount of support from the Nones. In a survey released just before the 2012 Presidential election, 23% of the people likely to vote for Obama were the religiously unaffiliated, beating out all other religious coalitions. If Democrats were to lose traction with the Nones, it could have a devastating effect on the party.
So long as the Nones continue to grow, their influence on the political landscape will likewise grow. So long as the Democratic Party's platform lines up favorably with most of the issues the Nones care about, they will continue to benefit from their overwhelming support.
On the other hand, the other point Chris made in the diary is that even though the Nones are a growing demographic group every year, turnout in elections remains low:
The rapidly rising, pro-Democratic demographic is turning out to vote at a lower rate than the rest of the nation. That is, while 20% of Americans do not identify with an organized religion, the "nones" makeup only 12% of voters. There is a similar gap between Latino and non-Latino voter turnout.
If and when the rising, pro-Democratic demographic groups start turning out at the same rate as other demographic groups, then the current incarnation of the Republican Party is well and truly finished.
I think tackling the "if" is more indicative than "when." As it stands now, there is no reason to believe the None turnout will rise even as the Nones themselves rise.
The Democratic Party would benefit from a higher voter turnout amongst the Nones, so the question should then become why the turnout rate is so low to begin with, and what it would take to improve turnout.
It's certainly fair to ask, if the Nones are such a small percentage of the voters, why should the Party devote more resources to this demographic?
The fact of the matter is, the reason the Nones vote at a lower rate than other demographics is because the Nones do not have any political leaders willing to acknowledge them. This is the position a lot of Secularists are put in: vote for the candidates whose party openly despises us, or the candidate whose party often denies we even exist. Who would want to go to the polls and put themselves in that position? Was that how the Democrats won the support of the LGBT community, or how it's going to win the support of the Latino community?
If anything, I think this is what drives the low voter turnout of the Nones.
What else could explain the low voter turnout amongst the Nones? Perhaps the Nones are just inherently disengaged from politics due to the nature of their ideologies.
If that were the case, the Nones would not be pushing their agenda through the many political advocacy groups for Secularism. There's Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Humanist Association, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the list goes on and on. All work for the civil rights and issues for the Nones and the values of separation of church and state, and these organizations show that the Nones do want more representation in US politics.
Most US politicians, and yes even Democrats, do not actively legislate and campaign for the support of the religiously unaffiliated, especially not at the rate at which they legislate and campaign for the support of religious groups. That is why it was such a big deal that Obama even acknowledged that the Nones existed in his inaugural address. And I think if the Democratic Party addressed this failure in outreach, they would see a boost in the turnouts.
So there's the increased voters aspect. There's also the potential untapped fundraising aspect.
For example, Doug Stanhope recently made waves when his indiegogo campaign raised over $120,000 for Oklahoma Atheist Rebecca Vitsmun. Penn Jillette, also worked to support and publicize Atheist generosity (Both Stanhope and Jillette are Libertarians). On microlending website kiva.org, the Nones have lended out more money than any other group, over $10 million dollars, at roughly $400 per member.
Now, these are all examples of the Nones donating their money to charitable programs, and not political campaigns. And it's not like we could automatically assume that just because somebody donates money to charity, they would also donate to a politician's campaign.
But imagine if all the Atheists and Secularists who are willing to donate to those charitable campaigns actually found upon the political stage a candidate who actually spoke to them and for them? I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no doubt the same generous aspect of the Secular community would directly benefit such a candidate.
If the Democratic Party were to make a serious effort at targeting the Nones, not only could they improve the voter turnout of the Nones, but at the same time capture a larger percentage of the Nones. And this might be a bit of a stretch, but by showing that the Nones have more political representation, Democrats could even accelerate the growth of the demographic of Nones itself, reinforcing the benefits that come from improving their voter turnout and political engagement.
So what can the Democratic Party do to more visibly engage the Secular Community?
Defend the principle of the separation of church and state, including in the public schools, religious displays in public spaces, and the public subsidization of religious schools.
Treat Atheists and Secular Humanists and other non-religious groups the same as religious groups.
In addition to supporting Days of Prayer, support Days of Reason.
Every now and then, when a representative is called upon to give a prayer or invocation while in an official capacity, use a Secular prayer.
Meet with Secular and Humanist groups, but it would also help to do so publicly.
And you know, just in general, acknowledge that we exist.
This is not about preventing religious groups, or politicians who belong to those groups, from practicing or proclaiming their faiths. This is about protecting the non-religious groups' rights and liberties to not have to practice or proclaim a faith, if that is their choice.
If the Democratic Party tried some of these things more often and showed that they are a genuine ally of the Nones, I believe they will see that the Secular community will appreciate what they are doing, and will show their support at the polls.
I'm not gonna lie. I would like to see the Atheist/Secular/Non-religious community better represented, recognized, and respected by our country's political leaders. I would also like to see the Democratic Party benefit the most from the growing None demographic. But the way things are going now, neither of these are guaranteed. The best thing I think I can do is work to convince Democrats that moving forward, they should work harder to welcome the Atheist/Secular community into their ranks, and perhaps a little of vice versa.
This past week, we've seen kos mobilize this community to support a potentially strong ally in Wendy Davis. You could say I'm trying to mobilize this same community to support a potentially strong ally in the Secular community.