Coke vs. Soda: The Dangers of Apparently Interchangeable Words

Tom Breeden, Senior Pastoral Advisor at the One America Movement, explores the risks of treating the words “Evangelical” and “Republican” as interchangeable.

When I was growing up, Grandma always gave me the kind of stuff I couldn't have at home. For example, she had a second refrigerator in the back of the house where she kept all the sodas. I didn’t drink much soda at home, so Grandma’s house was like the promised land - overflowing with caffeine and sugar. Whenever she told me to go get her a Coke, I always got one for myself too. It was always “Coke,” regardless of what type of soda it actually was. Coke and soda meant the same thing to Grandma, even if they were technically different things.

You can probably think of examples in your own life where you or a loved one use words interchangeably like that. Most of them are probably harmless, too, like calling all tissues Kleenex. But sometimes, it’s not harmless. Sometimes those generalities cause trouble. One of the generalities I’ve been thinking about a lot in the months after the election is how I hear the words “evangelical” and “Republican” being used interchangeably. But unlike Coke and soda, this one isn’t harmless.

Last year, More in Common published a report on the perception gaps surrounding faith in America. Their researchers observed that “non-Evangelicals often overestimate the percentage of Evangelicals who are Republican. Non-Evangelicals estimate that close to two-thirds of Evangelicals are Republican (63 percent estimate) when less than half are (46 percent in reality).” For many people in America today, “evangelical” and “Republican” are like Coke and soda – interchangeable, even if they’re really not.

Why does this matter? It matters because when Democrats and Independents assume that evangelical is just another word for Republican, they are more likely to direct animosity toward them. More in Common calls this phenomenon “collateral contempt.” In a polarized environment like the one we find ourselves in, we don’t just dislike our political opponents. We dislike anyone too closely affiliated with them, too.

But how about the fact that the majority of self-identified evangelical voters voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election? Doesn’t that give credence to the idea that these two groups are really the same? Not so fast – that trend tells part of the story, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.

In his book, The Spirit of Our Politics, Michael Wear argues that voting is not a pure expression of our political will. Our vote doesn’t say everything we want for our public life. Why? Because our choices come to us premediated. That is, “our vote is a choice between options we did not choose ourselves.” No one gets their dream candidate. Instead, every voter chooses between the options in front of them, with varying levels of support and enthusiasm. Statistics are good at telling us how people voted, but conversation and relationships are better for telling us why people voted the way they did. In those conversations, we’ll often be surprised by what we learn.

We’re all getting bombarded with political news right now, and it’s exhausting! What are you thinking about the people who voted differently than you? How do you feel about the people who didn’t vote at all? Are those assumptions based on generalities or real people? Our generalities often obscure reality more than they reveal it. So what are you and I missing?