So, what do the Christian conservatives really want?

[b]Pro-Marriage and Pro-Life[/b]
The two moral issues most highly identified with Christian conservatives are their desire to protect unborn children and their desire to protect the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. To begin with, they want jurists who faithfully interpret the Constitution and the law – not jurists who invent constitutional rights to secure their own social objectives.

Over thirty years ago, the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision narrowed the definition of a human person in our society. It short-circuited a fundamental and necessary debate within the democratic process – a debate over which lives will be recognized as persons deserving the protection of the state. It’s true that many Christian conservatives would like to see this wrong decision eroded, if not overturned.

Does that mean that abortion would be immediately outlawed in America? Of course not. It would simply mean that we would begin a national democratic debate over whether or not we want to maintain the most liberal abortion regime among Western nations. Those who want broad protections for unborn children will have to work to persuade a majority of our fellow citizens.

It’s called the democratic process. The world will not end.

Conservative Christians learned well the bitter lessons of Roe v. Wade . Having watched the courts arbitrarily and undemocratically narrow the definition of protected human life a generation ago, conservative Christians aren’t about to sit back and let the courts redefine our most fundamental social institution – marriage.

Our nation had begun a democratic political discussion over questions such as civil unions and partner benefits for same-sex partners. Perhaps the debate would have extended to the definition of marriage, although until very recently most homosexual-rights activists themselves were not seeking same-sex marriages. Activist courts – most notably the Massachusetts Supreme Court – forced the issue by defining same-sex marriage as a constitutional imperative. (Some now speculate if it was the Massachusetts court that guaranteed the defeat of the Senator from Massachusetts.)

But the big lesson for the media – and for the Democratic Party – is this: defending marriage isn’t an issue of interest only to conservative Christians. It is a concern of the majority of Americans. Ballot initiatives protecting the definition of marriage were considered in 11 states. And they all prevailed decisively, by substantial margins of 13 to 72 points, from the conservative south through swing states such as Ohio to the more liberal Michigan and Oregon. As of today, 17 states, from Georgia to Hawaii, have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Many political commentators, including the editors of The Washington Post, dismissed the marriage issue as a cynical Republican ploy to garner votes for the President. They need to look again. This is a genuine grass-roots issue, which pro-marriage forces had to push the President to engage. Credit the Republicans with one thing – they noticed what the elite media, political commentators, and Democratic leadership were all too out of touch to realize. The country is not deeply divided on marriage; a strong majority does not wish to tamper with its definition. Americans do not want to embark on a massive court-driven social experiment on an essential social institution.

[b]The Other Moral Questions[/b]
On a host of important issues, Christian conservatives are much like other Americans. They care about national security, the economy, health care, and good schools. Studies show that evangelicals, for example, generally track with the diverse views of their fellow citizens in wanting to address these issues.

Right after the election, liberals began to protest that “moral values” apply to more than debates about abortion, or stem-cell research, or same-sex marriage. They argue that caring for the poor or seeking peace are moral values. Of course, they are right. And Christian conservatives know this as well.

However, differences over other moral questions frequently involve debates over means, not ends. Conservative Christians care deeply about the problem of poverty. They recognize that strong, two-parent families are the front-line of defense against poverty. They know that father-absence is the best predictor of social pathologies affecting children. So, they want government policies that do not undermine, but in fact strengthen, healthy marriages. They also recognize the power of faith-based ministries – from the extraordinary impact of The Salvation Army to a local congregation’s homeless drop-in center. The vast majority recognizes the need for a secure government safety net, with necessary incentives to encourage personal responsibility, to protect the vulnerable.

Conservative Christians are also increasingly engaged in foreign policy debates. They want Israel to be secure, and they want Palestinian people to live in peace and freedom as well. They want a robust national defense, and they understand that one important antidote to terrorism can be hope – an end to oppression and the expansion of democracy and economic prosperity. They will defend the religious freedom of Christians around the world, and they understand that this means defending the religious freedom of persons of other faiths or no faith. Indeed, they believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others are capable of democratic self-government.

One of the easiest ways to answer the question, “What will these conservative Christians demand?” is to look at their priorities in Washington over the last ten years. When Madeleine Albright declared that ending atrocities in Sudan was not “marketable” to the American people, conservative Christians determined to prove her wrong. They formed the basis of a movement that produced the Sudan Peace Act, saw John Danforth appointed as a special envoy for peace in Sudan, and laid the groundwork for the leadership of the United States in acknowledging genocide in Darfur. It was conservative Christians who successfully urged the President to make a massive financial commitment to combat HIV-AIDS in Africa. Conservative Christians have been key to legislative actions to combat international sex trafficking, attack the problem of prison rape, and, most recently, seek to address the unspeakable human rights abuses of the North Korean regime.

What are moral values? Conservative Christians understand that no area of life is outside the realm of ethical reflection.

[b]The Challenge for the Democrats[/b]
There is a partisan religion gap. The 2000 election results showed that those more firmly attached to the worship, beliefs, and practices of a particular religious body were significantly more inclined to vote Republican. On the other hand, those whose religious attachments were weaker or non-existent tend heavily to vote Democratic. This trend intensified in 2004. The Pew Research Center’s final pre-election poll (which, unlike the notorious exit polls, projected Bush’s 51-48 percent win) showed that more frequent church attendance correlated with voter preference for Bush.

This religion gap is not good news for the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is unable to broaden itself on cultural/moral questions, it will lose several of its traditional bases of support. Republicans made inroads among Hispanic, African American and Catholic voters in 2004. The Democrats now face the challenge of developing a “big tent” – to include more people of faith and to embrace the moral concerns that compel religious voters.

First, Democrats will need to avoid Barry Lynn-type stereotypes of conservative Christians. It wasn’t “TV preachers” or a single “religious right” group that was activated in 2004. It was a broad-based and diffuse coalition of Catholic and evangelical leaders that galvanized voters.

Perhaps Democratic Party leaders thought that the left-leaning leaders of the historic mainline churches would tutor them in making the case to religious voters. But the blunt fact is that the Religious Left is political smoke and mirrors – it simply doesn’t have a significant voting base to deliver. The pre-election Pew Research Center poll showed that white Protestant non-evangelicals (the majority who sit in the pews of the liberal-led historic mainline denominations) supported Bush by 54 to 40 percent.

The continued membership decline of the non-evangelical Protestant churches is well documented. Religious left denominational leaders seem largely unconcerned. They are willing to be “prophetic” (read “unpopular”) even if that produces an ever-declining constituency. That’s a luxury politicians can’t afford. Numbers matter if you are going to win elections. The Democratic Party needs to begin to close its religion gap. Its leaders would do well to seek out advice from religious leaders who have a genuine constituency.

Diane Knippers is an Episcopalian. She works for The Institute on Religion and Democrac a conservative think tank based in Washington DC.