INTRODUCTION
Does religion help or hinder the formation of political coalitions? Across the globe, religion appears to facilitate and impede coalitions. Religious doctrine can help cement coalitions: the far-flung coalition of Sunni groups that have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is based in part on a shared interpretation of Sunni Islam. Nevertheless, religious doctrine can also contribute to the failure of coalitions from forming: Sunni-Shiite differences have prevented the formation of a coalition to oppose ISIS in the Middle East. In addition, in some cases, religion can shape the nature of the coalition. In Doha, Qatari officials work with Christians but not with Hindus in discussion of family policy, and in Indonesia Muslims built a broad religious coalition that excluded practitioners of indigenous religions who were deemed to be pagans.Footnote 1
The role of religion in facilitating or hindering coalitions may vary over time. In the United States, the first wave of the New Christian Right created distinct groups for distinct religious communities, and organizations like the Moral Majority failed to expand because of particularistic religious sentiments among elites (Wilcox Reference Wilcox1992; Martin Reference Martin1996). Religious differences were a factor in limiting Pat Robertson's appeal to the broader evangelical community (Green and Guth Reference Green and Guth1988; Green Reference Green, Green, Guth, Smidt and Kellstedt1996). But the second save of the movement was more ecumenical, with leaders like Pat Robertson seeking to appeal to a broad range of Christian traditions, and Ralph Reed seeking to broaden that to include conservative “people of faith” in non-Christian faiths (Reed Reference Reed1994; Rozell and Wilcox Reference Rozell and Wilcox1996). The Christian Coalition worked hard to bridge theological divisions, often holding training sessions for ecumenical political work (Rozell and Wilcox Reference Rozell and Wilcox1996; Shields Reference Shields2008).
Broad religious coalitions abound in American politics, often including a mix of religious and secular actors. The large coalition that pressed for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 crossed political and theological lines more than any previous political mobilization (Davis Reference Davis, Djupe and Olson2001). More recently, narrower religious coalitions have formed to promote state laws to allow public officials and/or private companies to refuse service to same-sex couples. In December of 2005, some 300 religious leaders representing a number of churches, denominations, and interest groups knelt in prayer outside of the Cannon House Office Building, protesting cuts to Medicaid and food stamp programs that benefited poor families (Berry and Wilcox Reference Berry and Wilcox2007). Religious groups have joined with political actors to lobby on issues ranging from abortion and same-sex marriage to foreign policy to tax policies and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Hertzke Reference Hertzke2004; Campbell and Robinson Reference Campbell and Robinson2007; Kostiaev Reference Kostiaev2015).
There are ad hoc coalitions and more permanent coalitions; there are informal coalitions and formal ones. Some organizations are themselves coalitions of religious activists from many traditions. In a recent comprehensive study of religious lobbying in Washington, Hertzke found that more than a quarter of religious groups that filed lobbying reports represented interreligious coalitions, and that nearly one in ten were permanent coalitions (Hertzke Reference Hertzke, Cigler, Loomis and Knownes2016). Indeed, many political issues from gender politics to race to the environment to abortion to health care involve competing coalitions that incorporate religious and secular actors (Wilcox Reference Wilcox, Timmerman, Hutsebaut, Mels, Nonneman and Herck2007). As Tocqueville observed more than 175 years ago, “Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small” (de Tocqueville Reference de Tocqueville2000).
However, the presence of religious coalitions does not prove that religion helps or is even a neutral force in coalition formation. Some existing coalitions have been forged with great difficulty. Kevin Hula describes the convoluted negotiations between environmentalists and pro-life activists over forming a coalition to oppose cloning and genetically modified organisms (Hula Reference Hula, Herrnson, Shaiko and Wilcox2005). Although ultimately a limited coalition did form, it was unable to connect to larger coalition partners.Footnote 2 To build trust, both sides had to learn to temper and recalibrate their language. In international pro-family activity, coalitions have had to overcome substantial doctrinal differences (Buss and Herman Reference Buss and Herman2003).
However, more importantly, we can observe coalitions that formed, but not those that failed to form. A cursory look at the political world convinces that religion does not fully prevent coalitions from forming, but whether it hinders, helps, or is not a contributing factor cannot be determined from an examination of existing coalitions. In the absence of a dataset that includes successful and failed coalitions, it is difficult to get leverage on the role of religion in coalitions.
Theories of religious coalitions could draw on a variety of literatures. There are general theories of coalitions (Riker Reference Riker1967) and studies in international relations in alliances, strategic coalitions, and international cooperation (Walt Reference Walt1985; Reference Walt1997; Christensen and Snyder Reference Christensen and Snyder1990; Morrow Reference Morrow2000). In comparative politics, there is substantial literature on party coalitions in multiparty legislatures, where elite actors enter into strategic coalitions to divide the spoils of government and to implement public policy, and there is a smaller literature on regional coalitions (Laver and Budge Reference Laver and Budge1992; Budge and Keman Reference Budge and Keman1993; Laver and Shepsle Reference Laver and Shepsle1996; Downs Reference Downs1998; Cheibub, Przeworski, and Saiegh Reference Cheibub, Przeworski and Saiegh2004; Strom et al. Reference Strom, Müller and Bergam2010). In the United States, there is a growing literature on interest group coalitions, both within parties and outside them (Hula Reference Hula, Cigler and Loomis1995; Hojnacki Reference Hojnacki1997; Reference Hojnacki1998; Gray and Lowery Reference Gray and Lowery1998; Heaney Reference Heaney2006; Holyoke Reference Holyoke2009; Karol Reference Karol2009; Noel Reference Noel2012; Reference Noel2013). And there is growing literature on partisan and ideological networks that represent flows of influence and information but may not constitute actual coalitions (Koger, Masket, and Noel Reference Koger, Masket and Noel2009; Mayer Reference Mayer2016; Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez Reference Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez2016).
How might the involvement of religious groups differ from coalitions of political parties or interest groups? Ludwig Wittgenstein famously advised “Don't think, but look!”, and this advice seems especially appropriate when considering religious coalitions (Wittgenstein Reference Wittgenstein1968). In the next section, I will explore various types of religious coalitions, and some of their characteristics. I will consider only coalitions in which organizations or activists from organizations work together, and thus am not considering a large and interesting literature on party coalitions as evidenced by shared voting patterns (Leege Reference Leege1992; Layman Reference Layman2001; Guth et al. Reference Guth, Kellstedt, Green and Smidt2005). I will also exclude individual religious congregations from this exploration, although congregations may represent coalitions of individual political actors (Wald, Owen, and Hill Reference Wald, Owen and Hill1988; Reference Wald, Owen and Hill1990; Jelen Reference Jelen1991; Reference Jelen1993).
LOOKING AT RELIGIOUS COALITIONS
There are many types of religious coalitions:
-
(1) Official Alliances of Religious bodies
Examples: National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, Pawmunkey Baptist Association (African-American Baptist churches in King William County, Virginia)
These coalitions are embodied in federated organizations where members are denominations or in some cases congregations. These organizations focus as much on faith as on politics, and they resemble in some aspects to trade associations that that help member corporations in many ways and occasionally lobby on their behalf. For example, the National Council of Churches is an ecumenical coalition of 38 religious denominations that was formed in 1950 to develop private and public efforts to combat social injustice. They frequently provide support for general political involvement, including voter registration drives in individual congregations, and materials that can be used in congregations to foster discussion of involvement, such as “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility” drafted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 2004.Footnote 3
These large coalitions may at times take positions on political issues; the NAE has issued position papers on “creation care” and the use of torture, but these may engender political disagreement and threaten the solidarity of the organizations. Most of the overtly political activity by these types of organizations seems to stem from staff policy agendas, but are constrained by strong dissents by key members (Djupe and Niles Reference Djupe and Niles2010).
At times large denominations may demur from joining these official coalitions but may work in concert on key issues. The Southern Baptist Convention is not a member of the NAE, and Foy Valentine in the 1970s declared that “evangelical” was “a Yankee word … We have our own traditions, our own hymns, and more students in our seminaries than they have in all of theirs put together.” Yet the Southern Baptists frequently coordinate lobbying efforts with the NAE.
-
(2) Denominations
Examples: United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Religious denominations can be thought of as coalitions of individual congregations. This is especially true of decentralized bodies such as the Southern Baptist Convention (Ammerman Reference Ammerman1991), but also applies to more centralized bodies such as the Presbyterian Church (USA). The principle purpose of denominations is not politics but faith. Denominations lobby Congress, using both a mix of inside and outside strategies, and claim to speak for their members although at times those claims are specious (Hofrenning Reference Hofrenning1995; Djupe, Olson, and Gilbert Reference Djupe, Olson and Gilbert2005). Some denominations have their own 501 (c) 4 lobbying organizations, such as the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Some denominations prepare documents to try to persuade their members on key issues, and share them with clergy (Djupe and Gilbert Reference Djupe and Gilbert2003). But denominations must balance their prophetic voice with the views of their congregants as embodied in congregations (Olson Reference Olson, Wuthnow and Evans2002). In this way, denominations may be seen as coalitions of congregations, which may fragment as has happened with the Episcopal Church in the United States after their decision to accept Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) clergy.
-
(3) Longstanding political associations whose members include religious bodies and also religious activists
Examples: Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights, National Association for Marriage, Christian Coalition, Interfaith Power and Light, Noah's Ark, National Right to Life
These long-term organizations have both organizational and individual members, but are united behind a political agenda that can be narrow or broad. They are less constrained in staking positions on political issues, but theological differences can pose a problem. National Right to Life has historically not taken a stance on contraception, which Protestant members believe would lower the abortion rate, in order to appeal to Catholics who oppose abortion and contraception. The National Association for Marriage has had to juggle the positions of some members, such as the Latter Day Saints and Catholics, who support certain policies to allow LGBT citizens dignity while not endorsing marriage. Narrower agendas allow for broader participation and may attract supporters across the political aisle; there are Democratic members of National Association for Marriage, and Republican members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights. However, there were precious few Democratic members of the Christian Coalition.
Many of these organizations study ways to reach out to new religious constituencies, using focus groups and surveys to understand the nuanced language need to broaden their appeals. The Christian Coalition sought at one point to involve African-American churches, but its strong attachment to the Republican Party made this impossible. However, state level coalitions on same-sex marriage have involved white and African-American evangelical congregations.
-
(4) Long-term organizations that are coalitions of religious and secular actors
Examples: National Right to Life, John Birch Society, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Industrial Areas Foundation, Arlington Group, Republican and Democratic Parties
These coalitions are comprised of a mixture of religious and secular actors, with the mix varying by coalition. National Right to Life has primarily religious members, whereas the John Birch Society was a more secular organization (Wilcox Reference Wilcox1988). These coalitions use a mixture of religious and non-religious rhetoric, and may limit their agendas in order to appeal to broader groups. At one time National Association for the Advancement of Colored People drew most of its leadership from African-American pastors and churches. The Industrial Areas Foundation gathers much of its energy and cohesion from people of faith, but includes secular actors as well (Warren Reference Warren2001). The Arlington Group is a coalition of Christian Right, pro-life, and pro-family activists and groups that meets to coordinate political action, including both lobbying and electoral activity.
A growing literature now sees political parties as coalitions of interest groups and policy demanders (Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, Karol, Noel and Zaller2008; Koger, Masket, and Noel Reference Koger, Masket and Noel2009). The Democratic and Republican parties have religious groups that function as part of this party network, and within the party they contest nominations and party rules and bargain over agendas (Rozell and Wilcox Reference Rozell and Wilcox1996; Green, Rozell, and Wilcox Reference Green, Rozell and Wilcox2001; Kellstedt et al. Reference Kellstedt, Smidt, Green, Gut and Campbell2007; Wilcox Reference Wilcox, Wolfe and Katznelson2010).
-
(5) Ad hoc medium-term political coalitions
Examples: networks of peace churches, conservative social networks, Citizens for King William County
In Casablanca, Captain Renault announces that “Major Strasser's been shot. Round up the usual suspects.” There are many medium-term religious and political coalitions that mobilize for ad hoc issues but involve repeat players, which have learned to cooperate. These coalitions focus on immigration reform, on protecting the poor from budget cuts, on human rights, and on climate change. Some cooperate repeatedly as new bills are considered by Congress or state legislatures, and a few coordinate strategies for longer-term action. In most cases, these groups do not have an organizational title or a logo, but Citizens for King William County was a local coalition of religious and secular activists including black churches and the tea party that worked to block the construction of a motocross raceway and to elect a new board of supervisors in the county. The leaders of the movement chose to incorporate a 501 (c) 4 in order to more effectively build a broader coalition.
-
(6) Ad hoc short-term political coalitions
Examples: Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, and coalitions around ACA, Supreme Court nominees, Lobby regulation
Religious groups join together and with secular groups for short-term lobbying coalitions. Occasionally, a formal coalition is formed, such as the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which lobbied for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In some cases, such as the ACA, there are meetings of organizational representatives and joint strategies, but in other cases, they might be simply coordinated through phone calls. Several religious coalitions cooperated in lobbying on the ACA, with Catholic groups taking a wide range of positions on the final bill. Supreme Court nominees often involve coalitions of the “usual suspects” but in the case of Harriet Myers, the Concerned Women for America deserted the conservative coalition and lobbied against confirmation, whereas Myers had some limited support from liberal religious groups. On lobby regulation, the Christian Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union coordinated strategies through phone calls, although at the time both had in the mail fund-raising letters demonizing the other.
-
(7) National coalitions that involve international actors
Examples: pro-life and pro-family coalitions in the United Nations (UN) and internationally
At times domestic coalitions expand to include international actors. Although these coalitions are in some ways subsumed in the discussion above, they can encompass new coalition partners and thus expand the scope of our understanding. The most prominent of these is the pro-family coalition that has emerged internationally, both in lobbying in the UN and in coordinating activity in home countries (Buss and Herman Reference Buss and Herman2003). This coalition involved a variety of American groups, such as the Concerned Women for America. Recently, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute dropped “Catholic” from the name when it hired Wendy Wright, a fundamentalist Baptist who once headed Communications Workers of America (CWA). This group has worked at the UN with activists across the globe, especially in Ireland and Poland, but also with the Doha International Family Institute (IFI). The Doha IFI advocates for greater gender equality than CWA, but opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, and seeks to foster traditional religious values. This coalition stretches the boundaries of theological cooperation because many evangelicals are deeply opposed to Islam, but on the international stage, cooperation is useful. Wright notes that “our coalition at the UN is made up of Catholics, evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, and a smattering of others.”Footnote 4
AFTER LOOKING, THINK
How might religion help or hinder participation in coalitions around political causes? In addition, how might political involvement affect a group's interest in participating in political coalitions? Here the two party political landscape interacts with a religious landscape that is variously described as the one, the few, and the many (Jelen and Wilcox Reference Jelen and Wilcox2002). There may be a set of dominant Judeo-Christian values that makes religious coalitions possible, or the two party political systems may impose order on possible coalitions, or the vast diversity among religious actors may make coalitions very difficult.
-
• Religious doctrine and identity could hinder coalitions, as particularism prevents cooperation. The thousands of Christian denominations all distinguish themselves by various tenets of doctrine, which is central to their faith. Even among theologically similar groups, doctrinal differences can take on religious significance (Kellstedt and Smidt Reference Kellstedt and Smidt1991). Research has suggested that doctrines such as premillennial dispensationalism may lead evangelicals to lower support for environmental policies, while a stewardship theology might promote greater environmental awareness (Guth et al. Reference Guth, Green, Kellstedt and Smidt1995). It may therefore be more difficult to recruit premillennial evangelicals into environmental activism, or it may simply require a different type of appeal.
-
• Alternatively, religious doctrine and identity could make it easier to create “bonding” coalitions but make it harder to build “bridging” ones. In Qatar and Indonesia, Muslims build coalitions with various Christian groups but not with polytheistic faiths. Evangelicals may have an easier time working together because of their shared belief in the importance of the Bible, of individual religious salvation, and of evangelizing, but have a harder time working with Catholics. Here religion would create a shared language and set of core beliefs that enables trust to form.
-
• On the other hand, religious doctrine and identity might have little impact on political coalitions, with pragmatic political considerations taking precedence. Those who wish to limit abortion may work with whoever shares their beliefs, and groups that are part of the Democratic Party network may work with any other faith tradition in that group, just as they would with secular groups. In this case, the two party political systems may guide groups into partisan coalitions regardless of doctrine.
-
• Religious doctrine and identity might make it harder for religious groups to work in coalitions with secular groups. It may be harder to trust those who are seen as motivated by primarily secular concerns. Mark Warren has argued that religious identity groups would be especially lacking in civic virtues such as deliberation and tolerance, and that their moral absolutism might make it difficult to take on the compromises that politics requires (Warren Reference Warren2001).
-
• Conversely, some religious doctrine and identity might lead to enhanced deliberative norms and democratic capacities. For example, congregations that are part of the emergent church appear to be focused on the norm of deliberation
-
• Or some religious doctrine and identity might make it easier to form political coalitions — for instance, the emergent church is deliberative and inclusive as an organizing principle (Burge and Djupe Reference Burge and Djupe2015).
-
• Religiosity (as opposed to doctrine and identity) might make it easier to build coalitions because the language of faith can engender social trust and empathy. A common religious vocabulary can help this, and a common metaphysical commitment can bridge large divides (Tinder Reference Tinder1989). When Martin Luther King asked white pastors to come to Selma, it was the language of faith that brought them.
-
• If political considerations guide religious coalitions, then we might expect to see greater difficulties forming cross party coalitions, regardless of shared doctrine and identity, than forming cross-doctrinal coalitions.
What can we learn about religious coalitions from considering this range of cases? First, it appears that the role of theology in limiting coalitions has declined over the past 35 years. Where once Pentecostals and fundamentalists and Catholics and Mormons were unable to mount coordinated political action, they now work better together, at the elite level and apparently in the grassroots as well. Ecumenical cooperation on the religious left appears to have increased as well (Olson Reference Olson2006; Kellstedt et al. Reference Kellstedt, Smidt, Green, Gut and Campbell2007).
These changes mirror changes in American religion, with the rise of theologically eclectic evangelical megachurches, which frequently blend elements of Pentecostal worship with Bible-based messages. The erosion of boundaries between mainline denominations has long been underway (Wuthnow Reference Wuthnow1988; Wolfe Reference Wolfe2003). American theology is often described as a wide but shallow river, and many Americans now believe that all faiths hold some truth (Putnam and Campbell Reference Putnam and Campbell2010).
However, it is also obvious that politics has helped to build coalitions across doctrinal lines. The gradual cooperation of theologically conservative Christians has been shaped by political actors who sought to build religious coalitions for Republican candidates and causes. The Christian Coalition devoted considerable resources into training sessions and materials that promoted inter-religious cooperation, and the mere practice of working within partisan politics may well have led to increased democratic capacities to cooperate and compromise (Shields Reference Shields2008; Layman Reference Layman, Wolfe and Katznelson2010; Wilcox Reference Wilcox, Wolfe and Katznelson2010).
This cooperation has involved not only different doctrinal groups within evangelicalism, but also Catholics. In the 1980s, anti-Catholicism was a critical predictor of support for the Christian Right (Kellstedt Reference Kellstedt1988; Wilcox Reference Wilcox1989). But the shared policy agenda of conservative Catholics led to Catholic involvement in the Christian Right, and to cross-doctrinal conversations about politics (Bendyna et al. Reference Bendyna, Green, Rozell and Wilcox2001; Robinson Reference Robinson2008).
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Pentecostals and fundamentalists and conservative Catholics are on the same side of many culture war issues, against the looming enemy of liberal and secular Americans. Cobelligerents can form alliances in war that would never have been formed in peacetime (Gray and Lowery Reference Gray and Lowery1998). Working together in politics can also allow friendship ties to bridge theological and identity divides.
However, religion can also decrease trust, when competing visions of God (or gods) and of divine will clash. In a 2000 survey of presidential donors, religious adherence was correlated with lower levels of social trust among Republicans, but with higher levels of social trust among Democrats. Christian conservatives were more likely to agree that “you can't be too careful with some people” and to disagree that “most people can be trusted to do the right thing” than were more secular Republicans, but Christian liberals were more likely to give trusting answers than secular or atheist donors to Democratic candidates. In building coalitions beyond religious constituencies, a “bilingual” approach may be useful, where religious reasons are provided to the faithful but secular reasons given in public forums.
Nevertheless, doctrinal groups remain an important part of political deliberation. The discussion of environmental and national security issues within the NAE was made easier by reference to shared doctrine. Cooperation within the Pawmunkey Baptist Association is made easier because of a shared theology of African-American evangelicalism. Religious understandings of social issues can help build coalitions across party lines as well, although building trust is more difficult. Evangelical groups adopt the label of “creation care” because “environmentalist” carries the connotation of liberal Democratic politics.
Finally, it is worth noting that very broad religious coalitions are possible when religious interests are threatened in a non-partisan way. The coalition that formed to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was made possible by the perceived threat to religious liberty posed by Supreme Court decisions. This coalition included nearly every religious group in the United States except for the Catholic Church. However, the coalitions that have formed to promote state religious freedom laws that are primarily aimed at same-sex marriage are more limited because of the partisan nature of the issue.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Religious coalitions are flourishing in America and now cross-theological and occasionally partisan lines. However, we do not yet know how religion helps or hinders coalition formation. To better understand the role of religion in political coalitions, we need new datasets and new approaches. Most importantly, we need to know which coalitions do not form, despite obvious advantages to cooperation.
Heaney and Lorenz (Reference Heaney and Lorenz2013) have proposed the concept of coalition portfolios to describe the coalition partners available to a group and which group chooses to join. By limiting focus to concrete levels and issues it might be possible to see which coalitions do not form, and therefore gain a greater understanding of the impact of religion.
It might be possible to determine how frequently religious groups join lobbying coalitions, and to identify cases where they did not join logical coalitions. Data on lobby disclosure is limited but might yield insights. It would also be useful to focus on state level coalitions. Case studies of local coalitions might also help us build theory (Warren Reference Warren2001).
Studying the role of religious groups, in particular major legislative fights such as the ACA can help us sort out the role of religion, because there are a finite number of potential coalition partners, allowing us to easily identify coalitions that did not form. Moreover, participants can recount why various alliances were formed or rejected. These kinds of rich case studies may enable us to better build a theory of religious coalitions.
