I've never really understood why religious voters would be partial to free market economic policies. There seems to be an obvious distrust of the amorality of the market there, especially as it often produces what religious voters obviously consider to be immoral entertainment and other products. Nor have I ever seen among religious folks a particular appreciation of the invisible hand process of the market, as their worldview seems much more comfortable with a constructivist rationalism than spontaneous order systems. To the extent that there is a coherent economic philosophy here, it seems to me that it is more naturally communitarian than free market.
Todd's got a very good point, in that there is a strong strain of economic populism among man evangelicals, as well as a communitarian element in both left-liberal evangelicals and catholics. Yet, for Todd to say he's never seen religious conservatives who embrace free markets is to ignore the important strain of Christian thought represented by Michael Novak (and, if I may say so, myself).
As I wrote in my essay Catholic Social Thought and the Corporation:
If a concern for human freedom is not at the center of Catholic social teaching, it is at least very near. As [John Paul II] has observed, “the good of the individual [cannot] be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.” Hence, Catholic social thought rejects socialism or other forms of command economies.
Or, as I wrote in my essay Law and Economics: An Apologia:
If my defense of wealth maximization has evolved into a defense of the limited state, that move should be neither surprising nor troubling. Here I draw on the strong evangelical tradition that finds it purest expression in the Calvinist principle of sphere sovereignty. Social institutions—including the state—are organized horizontally, none subordinated to the others, each having a sphere of authority governed by its own ordering principles. Expansion of any social institution beyond its proper sphere necessarily results in social disorder and opens the door to tyranny. In our era, the state’s expansion beyond those functions prescribed by custom and convention, legitimized by ancient usage, into the pervasive nanny state has become the principal threat to personal liberty.
While sphere sovereignty is a creature of Reformation theologians, there are scriptural passages that presaged it. The strongest scriptural example of this principle doubtless is Samuel’s speech to the people of Israel when they desired a king. Indeed, I suspect many modern evangelicals would be grateful if the government would content itself with “a tenth of [our] seed and of [our] vineyards.”