Why don't Republicans go after the Atheist vote?

[Tiberius]

I call myself a Libertarian because I am one. I'm fiscally conservative, but I can't in good conscience support social conservatism.

[Something completely different]

I am fairly conservative compared to other members of this board. I take sympathy with many conservative positions and often style myself as a Goldwater conservative. I think there are many other conservative Atheists, they just tend to call themselves Libertarians instead. However I, like most conservative atheists don't vote republican, because the party is openly hostile towards Atheists.

As a conservative the Democrats offer nothing to me, even as an Atheist the best I can say that the Democrats are not hostile towards me. That's it. In fact in recent years Democrats have become a more openly religious party. As both a conservative and Atheist, I find Obama's support and expansion of Bush's faith based initiatives to be completely disgusting. Many of my more liberal friends seem to be either unaware or to forgive Obama for this because once in a blue moon he mentions the existence of 'non-believers' in a speech.

What I was really wondering though was with the floundering of Republicans in the elections, and the fact that young people are overwhelmingly more secular and less Christian than their parents, why don't Republicans go after the Atheist vote? They have policies that could definitely be geared towards Atheists, such as a hostility towards Islam and mulitculturalism. Or are they just a bunch of old stubborn white men who are content on going down with the ship?

I am a pragmatists, and for a very long time I havent carried with me a certain political ideology which I always promote, eaven if it`s promisses stand in contradiction to reality.

I base my vote and my opinion on who has convinced me with the better argument and on what is realistic.

And generaly the entire German public is becoming more like me in this regard moving from a political landscape which was dominated by traditional voters and a small amount of swing voters. To a enormous amount of swingvoters.

This happened mainly because social politics such as the abortion debate, same sex marrige and other - have disapeared out of the political debate here.

Politcal discurse is more centered arround iferstructure, foreign policie, economics and other....

Participants within that political field therefor can no longer appeal towards a traditional voter block thruogh stereotyping oposing positions in debate arround social issues and other as the german sociaty has become more and more tolerant.

So the change within american politics which I think would broaden the field of possible voters for the republican party, is the removal of the debate on social issues from the american political discurse.

[Kirbmarc]

The social conservatism of the Republican party doesn't mesh well with the socially progressive stance implicit in the atheist position. Fiscal conservatism is a different matter, but someone who is fiscally conservative but socially progressive is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

[TaraJo]

I have a friend who is trans and she has similar feelings. She tends to side with Republicans in most economic issues and until she transitioned over the past year or so, she generally voted Republican. This year, though, she specifically stated her difference in opinion: "Up until this year, whoever won it wasn't going to change things that much. Might pay a little more or less on taxes, a few other minor changes and the winner of the election didn't really matter. Not anymore. Now, if Obama doesn't win, someone who is openly hostile to me and my interests is in office. The executive orders that can keep me and my family economic safe and stable, those are entirely dependant on Obama winning."

Really, that's why the Republicans lost in this last election: they're alienating too many groups. GLBT groups aren't going to vote for a party that's openly hostile to them. Atheists won't either. Muslims aren't going to vote for a party working so hard to demonize them. They've hitched their party entirely to a very specific demographic: the angry, white, wealthy, straight, middle aged male; and the further you get from that demographic, the more hostile to you they are.

[Minimalist]

the angry, white, wealthy, straight, middle aged male

Don't you know?

Those are god's chosen people!

[A Theist]

1) Atheists are still a hated minority; it doesn't serve any party's interest to embrace a minority hated by the majority,
2) Atheists don't form a cohesive voting bloc (herding cats, etc)
3) atheists don't have readily identifiable ideological leaders, so access is problematic
4) atheist's voting behavior is likely more reliably predicted by other demographic identifications (black, Hispanic, poor), and so you'd essentially be spending the same dollar twice (with less purchasing power) going after them
5) belief in their own propaganda; I think it's a common perception on the right that there does not exist a large contingent of dedicated atheists (much less the 'non-affiliated'), so for the conservative, the atheist pie simply isn't big enough or significant enough,
6) they already have strong ties to people of faith, who form a larger voting bloc, and whose affections would likely be estranged by openly courting atheists,
7) Atheists and atheism generally leads to controversy and conflict in a largely religious society, something which any politician (or business) would do well to distance themselves from,

One thing on your list that I take issue with is that Atheists (or other non-religious) don't vote as a bloc. I think they vote Democratic (or not at all.) If you look at these boards, you scarcely see a Republican Atheist (Tino) and a plethora of Democrats and some apathetic libertarians. Some of it seems to simply be because of Republican hostility. Strategically they might manage to drop that hostility from their platform and keep the religious vote. Karl Rove himself is 'not a person of faith' after all. Also the ties to religion doesn't particularly seem to be working, especially with an aging electorate.

"One thing on your list that I take issue with is that Atheists (or other non-religious) don't vote as a bloc."....I have to agree with Apophenia, "Atheists don't form a cohesive voting bloc"...if the large part of atheists are voting Democrat, (like other lefties), it's not because of atheist political interests, it's because they're leftists and are more interested in rallying around other issues of political / socio interests, like gay marriage and abortion, i.e.

"If you look at these boards, you scarcely see a Republican Atheist (Tino) and a plethora of Democrats and some apathetic libertarians."....If you look at these boards you scarcely see a Republican at all, period....at first I thought that there were three Republicans on this forum, but now it looks like it's only Tino and myself who are the only two....though Tino and I don't agree over the existence of God, we do agree politically and we're both Republicans.

"Some of it seems to simply be because of Republican hostility."....Have you actually noticed at all if the Democrats are actively campaigning to court the atheist vote? When the Democrats were going to strike a reference to God from the party platform at their convention, it raised such a furor that Barack and other influential Dems got involved and retained the God reference in the party platform for fear of losing black and latino votes....so you really can't say that the Democrats are particularly atheist friendly either.

"...and the fact that young people are overwhelmingly more secular and less Christian than their parents,..."...maybe so, but that doesn't mean they're particularly interested in being part of an atheist voting block...they seem to be more interested in which party is going to promise to pay for their student loans.

[Darth]

Wait a minute..., apathetic?

[Minimalist]

"Apathetic" to a right-winger means "they don't agree with me."

[Ryantology]

Given that the Republican party is dominated by fundamentalist evangelicals and offers nothing of value to anyone but millionaires, I find it a little amazing any atheist (or LGBT or racial minority or woman or any person making less than six figures) would vote for a a party which is actively hostile towards you and would discriminate against you for your lack of belief if they could get away with doing it.

[Faith No More]

It's hard to court the atheist vote when you're telling everyone this is "God's country."