Hatch and Porterfield

Amanda Porterfield's thesis in her book, Conceived in Doubt, seems to be that the skepticism, doubt, and fear looming over the early republic led to the growth of Evangelical religion; the affects and effects of which can still be seen today. Fear of death and the omnipresent reality that the country may not survive its early years, folks turned toward evangelical pastors who presented an alternative to fear and doubt with the certainty that lies with faith in Jesus Christ. I do not think that this is incompatible with Hatch's thesis, rather I would argue that to a certain extent it reinforces parts of Hatch. This fear, doubt, and skepticism about the coming days seems to reinforce the populist position of the early evangelicals that Hatch describes. The fact that people were so doubtful of their situation and the countries could further explain why these people rallied around leaders who were not all that democratic. 

The question that I am left with, which neither Hatch or Porterfield answers is this: if the evangelicals were keen on limited, small government which played no role in the affairs of religion, why are modern evangelicals one of the largest supporters of politicians across the aisle? Whereas in the early republic men like John Leland wanted absolutely nothing to do with government, modern evangelicals have a monopoly on it, and use it as often as they can to protect their interests. What happened to evangelicals between the early republic and modern times that led to this shift?