Balkinization: 72 Year Old Gay Atheists Need Not Apply

72 Year Old Gay Atheists Need Not Apply

This Gallup poll on who Americans would be willing to vote for as President shows that Catholics, blacks, Jews, women, and Latinos have more or less "made it" in American society to the extent that close to 90 per cent or more of the public would trust them with the Presidency. (Women and Latinos are at 88 percent and 87 percent respectively). The "who would you support for President" question is a rough proxy for social attitudes about which groups are generally thought deserving of public trust and confidence in society; but the question is not necessarily a proxy for lack of discriminatory attitudes toward the group. For example, people may retain sexist views about women but still be willing to support a woman president. Conversely, people might not want to discriminate against gays or atheists in housing or employment but still not regard them as morally upright or people they would be willing to look up to for leadership. Americans are tolerant of people in some contexts-- for example arms length business relations-- but not in others. The question of who Americans would be willing to have as their political leader focuses on very special emotional and moral concerns, in particular, who Americans would be willing to identify with, look up to, and trust. Thus it gives a distinctive sense of the relative social status of groups in American society.

The Gallup Poll shows that Mormons-- who, ironically, are members of America's most authentically homegrown religion-- are still on the outside looking in, and have made remarkably little progress in the last forty years. Indeed, 75 percent of the public would have been willing to vote for a Mormon candidate in 1964 as opposed to only 72 percent now.

The group least trusted by Americans to be president is atheists--only 45 percent of the public would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist!-- followed by homosexuals, who at least can manage 55 percent support. Apparently it is less morally suspicious to be gay than to doubt the existence of God. (It also shows the cleverness of Mitt Romney's statement that the President should be a person of faith-- it allows him, as a Mormon, simultaneously to group himself with Catholics and Protestants and distance himself from atheists, a group even less trusted than Mormons are.)

Not surprisingly, conservatives are most distrustful of homosexual and atheist candidates, and liberals the most tolerant, although conservatives are somewhat more trusting of a 72 year old candidate (perhaps they remember Ronald Reagan fondly.). In fact, there appears to be a very strong division of opinion between liberals and conservatives on social trust and tolerance toward atheists and homosexuals. Thus, while 81 percent of self-described liberals would be willing to vote for a homosexual, only 36 percent of self-described conservatives would; and while 67 percent of liberals would vote for an atheist, only 29 percent of conservatives would.

Posted 3:27 PM by JB [link]

Comments:

Prof. Balkin:

Apparently it is more morally suspicious to be gay than to doubt the existence of God.

Typo: I think you meant "acceptable".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:10 PM

I fixed the typo, thanks much.

# posted by

JB : 5:52 PM

Prof. Balkin said:

I fixed the typo, thanks much.

A good thing too. I would feel guilty if I were more acceptable than my gay brethren and sustren. ;-)

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:35 PM

Interesting. Even more interesting is that there's not even any discussion of Arabs or Muslims in this post or the Gallup Poll. That speaks volumes. And helps to show why Obama fought so hard against any suggestion that he might have any connection with Islam. An interesting message that is being sent to young Muslims growing up in America today.

# posted by

Octopus Grigori : 7:30 PM

My guess is that people are less willing to vote for Latinos, blacks, women, and Jews than they tell pollsters, and that the psychological concept of social desirability has influenced these self-reports.

# posted by

Rich : 9:33 PM

o.g.: What about the fact that Obama did not in fact have any connections with Islam as was being suggested by the frenzy of reports? The entire psuedo controversy over his schooling only served to trump up the irrational anti-muslim prejudice and further associate it with him.

Wanting not to be the victim of irrational hate somehow means that Obama endorses it? There is only so much one man can do to reverse prejudice of an entire country.

Preffering to not stand on the receiving end of that wrecking ball when it's swinging his way, doesn't mean we get to hint and imply that Obama is to blame for our nation's prejudice, as fun as that might be.

# posted by

josef : 11:40 PM

Rich: My guess is that people are less willing to vote for Latinos, blacks, women, and Jews than they tell pollsters, and that the psychological concept of social desirability has influenced these self-reports.

My guess runs along the same lines as Rich's guess. Also, the poll asks "would you be willing to vote for an African-American/Catholic/Atheist/Woman/Mormon/Latino/etc." The question implies a sort of hypothetical and non-contextual vacuum. A lot of people might believe "Yeah, sure, I'm willing to vote for a minority/mormon/etc., just as long as she/he doesn't act too "black"/"mormon"/etc.

For such a voter described, the candidate's membership in a group nevertheless would carry certain assumptions that the candidate would still need to rebut. For example, the African-American candidate who is "clean-cut" and "well-spoken," or the female candidate who is "tough" or can "take charge."

I'm not sure how much creedence to put upon these numbers, though the trend is heartening (save for atheists and gays).

# posted by

Matthew Frederick : 12:29 AM

"Would you be willing to vote for an x?" isn't quite the same thing as "would you be willing to vote for an x even if a y were also running?"

# posted by

PMS_CC : 3:05 AM

Well there are other problems with the question. A conservative could assume that a 72-year-old gay atheist (for example) would be running as a Democrat. The question may explicitly say otherwise, but perhaps unrealistically so.

If a 72-year-old gay atheist offered support for the war on terror, fiscal conservatism, antiabortion efforts, prayer in schools, civil unions but not gay marriage, relaxed gun control, etc etc etc....then who knows.

The fact that many respondents might have assumed a candidate's characteristics would influence his or her politics shows some prejudice, but not the lack of acceptance or hostility to voting for an "otherwise qualified" candidate that the poll purported to show.

# posted by

gg : 9:41 AM

Or, if not running as a Democrat, at least as a liberal ("centrist") Republican, since the question does ask the respondent to assume that the candidate is representing his or her party.

# posted by

gg : 9:44 AM

glenstein: Just to make myself clear, this is what I was trying to say.

# posted by

Octopus Grigori : 6:56 PM