Editor’s note: This blog post by AU President and CEO Rachel Laser originally appeared in the February 2025 issue of AU’s Church & State magazine.
Americans United wants to share its message with all Americans, but lately, many of our leaders and supporters have been asking me how AU might reach more people who consider themselves to be politically moderate. Some people who say this consider themselves political moderates, while others just feel it’s imperative for AU to connect with this group.
I asked AU’s senior leadership team to explore what it might look like if Americans United were to make reaching more moderates a priority. This column shares some of the thoughts and questions that have come up in the process.
In theory, it should be easy and straightforward for Americans United to reach more moderates. Church-state separation is embedded in America’s DNA. It’s proudly owned by our founders as a defining feature of our country and Constitution. The Supreme Court has endorsed this view many times and so have countless lower courts. Every state has church-state separation protections in their state constitution. AU has always had supporters from across the political aisle, and we still do.
But in practice, it’s more complicated in our current divided times. One big question is: Who do we mean by “moderates”? Do we mean self-identified political moderates (as compared to liberals or conservatives)? If so, Americans United will want to engage in current public opinion research to understand better what political moderates think about church-state separation today, in the political climate of Trump’s second term.
The group PRRI found that only 10% of Americans are “adherents” of Christian Nationalism. But another 20% are “sympathizers.” “Rejectors” (our people!) count for 30%. The most intriguing group are “skeptics” at 37%. Are these moderates who, given the proper arguments and information, would align with Americans United?
No matter how you define moderates, by definition their views on issues tend to be less black-and-white. So another key question is how big a tent our movement should have and, relatedly, whether there are any issues so core to our cause that if moderates withhold their support, we don’t expressly reach out to them.
Take LGBTQ+ equality, which AU knows is inextricably linked to church-state separation. Much of our society’s anti-LGBTQ+ animus comes from narrow religious views, and religious extremist groups like Alliance Defending Freedom have long been targeting this community by attacking church-state separation. How welcome is someone who believes in the general principle of church-state separation, but, unlike AU, would tell a gay couple to go find another bakery when a conservative Christian shop refuses to serve them despite the state’s anti-discrimination law? What if that same person, though, like AU, firmly believes that Kentucky ex-clerk Kim Davis was obligated to sign marriage licenses for gay couples, thereby upholding church-state separation despite her personal religious beliefs? Based on our priorities, to what extent are they welcome in our tent?
Full disclosure: I have long believed that we must have a “big tent” to advance our mission. Years ago, when I worked at the center-left think tank Third Way, I consistently saw the numbers that proved that to win on almost anything — from an election to a ballot initiative — you must capture moderates. In addition, the big tent gives us a better shot of convincing someone to believe in our entire agenda.
Maybe “winning” moderates (however we choose to define them) means showing them that our tent is big enough to include them, even if they don’t support every part of our agenda — so long as they identify in some way with our cause and still want to be part of us. If we invite them in, we can educate them about how church-state separation plays out in all our issue areas. We may not agree on everything, but we can make progress together where we do.
But this, too, raises more questions. What if emphasizing that we have a big tent brings in more moderates but turns off some of our other potential priority audiences who would be easier to reach? And how might a focus on moderates impact our organizational look and feel?
Your turn now. I’m glad you’re already in AU’s tent, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think about AU prioritizing reaching moderates? It’s exciting to be asking these big questions. I’m so grateful we’re in this together.
