Did Obama “Lure” Religious Voters?

On the day after the presidential election, Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com explained in the Wall Street Journal how Obama managed to “lure millions of religious voters.” According to Waldman, Obama did it by:

1. Emphasizing his personal faith
2. Capitalizing on the rise of the religious left
3. Emphasizing his commitment to reducing abortions.
4. Choosing a white Catholic as his running mate.

I have a hard time arguing with Waldman on all of these points. While I agree that Obama’s faith-talk influenced the election, I do think his influence among religious voters was minor. But a minor dent in this demographic was really all he needed to win the election.

Not everyone agrees with Waldman. Pastordan at Daily Kos’s “Street Prophets” blog and Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics believe that Waldman has overestimated Obama’s appeal among religious voters. While Pastordan and Silk are convincing, they misrepresent Waldman’s argument. It seems to me that Waldman is arguing that Obama made just enough of an inroad among religious voters to win him the election. (I do wonder, however, if “millions” might be a bit of an exaggeration). Waldman does not seem to be saying that Obama’s victory put an end to the Christian Right or that he is somehow the new darling of religious voters.

I was actually struck more by Waldman’s use of the word “lure” to describe Obama’s campaign strategy among religious voters. The word has a certain sinister quality to it–as if Obama managed to trick some religious voters into voting him. It implies that Obama’s faith-talk was little more than a shrewd political ploy. Was it? Only time will tell.

I am convinced that Obama is indeed a man of Christian faith, but I am not completely confident that he will deliver for the evangelicals, members of the religious left, Catholics, and pro-lifers who voted for him. We will just have to wait and see. Will Obama, once he takes office, become just another liberal American president? Or will his policies be shaped by his religious and theological commitments? If John Schmalzbauer is correct in describing Obama as “the most theologically astute president since Jimmy Carter,” one wonders how the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr or Paul Tillich might shape the next four years. Can we expect another “malaise” speech?