bluebell

The real question is whether the Democratic Party is going to pander to these delusions.   Bush has the right to believe as he chooses and represent whatever true believers he can attract.  The more important question is whether the rest of us surrender to them.   Are we going to become another party of pandering hypocrites dropping "Jesus" into negative campaign messages, or are we going to respect all beliefs, believers and non-believers and stop profaning the sacred in gutter politics.

It should say "bit of a looney".

Tom

Bush is no true believer, neither are Cheney, et al.  They are liars, pure and simple.  They will say and do whatever it takes to pursue power to enrich themselves and their club.  Their desire is to bankrupt America so as to kill social programs and thus create a serf class (we aren't far from this now).  The powerful will rule over the powerless. 

How can anyone believe he truly follows Christ?  "You will know them by their fruit".  The fruit in the White House is clearly rotten.

Are we going to become another party of pandering hypocrites  dropping "Jesus" into negative campaign messages, or are we going to respect all beliefs, believers and non-believers and stop profaning the sacred in gutter politics.

It's remarkable how resistant some people are to the recommendation that Democrats do more outreach to religious voters.  I've seen this time and again on various discussion boards.  Any suggestion that Democrats should engage in some sort of outreach to religiously conservative voters is automatically assumed to mean "pandering" to people who, it is assumed, share none of the values that Democrats ought to profess.

Anyone who has actually studied the American electorate (and, more importantly, American religion) - people like Ed Kilgore for example - will tell you that's a false dichotomy.  Those liberals who are so turned off by religion that they can't bear to contemplate outreach of this kind are doing the party a grave disservice.

Think of it this way: any politician worth his salt recognizes that people are motivated to vote one way or another by a variety of factors.  For most people in this country, one of those factors is whether the person running for office develops some kind of personal connection for them.  Do they think the candidate understands them? Do they think he or she can relate to who they are?  Given the fact that this is, by and large, a religious country, it only makes sense to not ignore this motivating factor when trying to connect with voters.  That's just being a good politician, not "pandering".

The fear among many liberals seems to be that as soon as you start reaching out to religious voters, all of a sudden you're embracing the whole nine yards of the agenda of the most intolerant subset of those voters.  The assumption is that religious voters are by definition intolerant of other faiths or beliefs.  Many are of course, but American Christianity is not monolithic.  Trying to connect with religious voters doesn't mean getting into bed with James Dobson or Lou Sheldon.  It means connecting with those voters who are not under the sway of those schmucks but for whom religion matters a lot.  a good portion of those voters absolutely are reachable.  Not all of them want to impose their view of morality on the rest of the country.

The difficulty of course is that many of these same voters are also passionately against things like gay rights or abortion, which are cornerstone Democratic issues.  The way around that is to do what Bill Clinton did in 1992 and what Hillary Clinton is trying to do now: neutralize the potency of those issues by looking for common ground.

Why would any Democrat want to write off a quarter of the electorate?

In fact some religious groups - e.g., the Jehovah's Witnesses - allow certain types of lies. The JWs call this "theocratic warfare" and it relies on the fact that certain people in the Bible lied or misled others in God's interests, e.g., Rahab the Harlot at Jericho. We see similar behavior all the time with those religious people who push ID and creationism. To many of them a dishonest argument that reaches the "correct" conclusion is acceptable - e.g., evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So Bush's lying is probably rationalizable in the same way that Calvin could behead Catholics, or Catholics could burn Lutherans as atheists - it was all done in a good cause. Thank God for Christianity - else the world would be overun with atheists.

What is really troublesome about Bush is that he seems to be so intellectually incurious and ignorant that he likely does believe this stuff.

As for reaching out to moderate religious people - if they are so moderate then how can they vote for Bush & co. at all? Who would Jesus bomb? Dropping 500 lb bombs on innocent Iraqis on the off chance that Saddam might have been there doesn't seem very Christian to me, but lots of Christians seem to support such actions. And who can blame them given the long history of intolerance and crusading by their religion? Appealing to them by avoiding the issues doesn't seem sensible either - what happens when they want contraception banned or gay rights squelched?

There may not be a solution to this problem.

If you are talking the Unitarians, the liberation theoligists or the "liberal" Baptists, I am not sure who on this list is under the impression they think Armageddon is just around the corner. 

If you are talking people who think Armageddon is overdue by 5 years, now, I am not sure why you think they aren't under the influnce of schmucks like Dobbson. 

G4A,

Speaking of which, shouldn't that be "it's" in your by-line not "its." Not being picky, but since you use it in every post it might be worth fixing.......

If the Democratic party leaders came to you, Kevin, and asked your advice on what one or two issues the Democrats should run on in the fall if they want to make the most of the opportunity, what would you say?  And what would you recommend that the party commit to doing on those 1 or 2 issues?

Deconstruction of human folly, shortcomings, and depravity is useful and important and you do it well.  I really am a whole lot less interested, however, in reading the inevitable post mortems, from whomever, in 2007 about how things went awry or how the Dems fell short yet again in some or many respects than I am in seeing a well-argued debate about what the priorities should be, now, when it might still make a difference.  You are entirely capable of contributing powerfully to that debate at the level of decisions that get made about issue and theme priorities.  Perhaps you've done that already and I've missed it, in which case I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

Predicting that the opportunity will be blown or fall short in some respects is usually the safer bet when it comes to politics.  It's especially an unrisky prediction of sorts to make about the Democrats, who obviously struggle to find coherence and clarity in communicating with the voters about what the party is for.

I don't think that those of us who are Democrats need reminding at the moment that we have an opportunity in the '06 elections and that that opportunity will not be open to us indefinitely.  Nor do we need reminders that we have not found a way to get it done in recent years.  I'm gratified that you wish us well.  I would be even more gratified if you were to risk offering us your best practical advice. 

Mr Phillips, I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

On a CSPAN adverstisement, it announced that you were being interviewed by a Republican Strategist and that you were a REpublican also. Is that true?

First of all, I'm not accusing "everyone else on this site" of anything.  I'm saying "some liberals" are allergic of religious outreach of any kind, whether it is to the religious right, left or center.  They don't want any part of it.

Second, "religious conservatives", which is the term I used, is not the same as the "religious right".  By my definition, the "religious right' is synonymous with the poltically active, Republican part of the electorate that follow the Dobsons or Falwells of the world.  Democrats will probably never win more than a tiny fraction of that vote. 

But my point is that is not the whole population of religious voters in America.  It's not even all of conservative-leaning religious voters in America.  There is a whole population of voters out there that Democrats have essentially written off and many liberals don't have any interest in trying to win over.  But they are reachable, as Bill Clinton and whole host of Democratic governors and senators have proven.  So it's just idiotic not to understand them better and come up with ways of reaching them. 

It's got nothing to do with the "religious right".

Any suggestion that Democrats should engage in some sort of outreach to religiously conservative voters is automatically assumed to mean "pandering" to people who, it is assumed, share none of the values that Democrats ought to profess.

Anyone who has actually studied the American electorate (and, more importantly, American religion) - people like Ed Kilgore for example - will tell you that's a false dichotomy.  Those liberals who are so turned off by religion that they can't bear to contemplate outreach of this kind are doing the party a grave disservice....

I agree, but think it can be put another way. First, in the interests of full disclosure (and at the risk of boring everyone to death), I consider myself a progressive, a Democrat by family history and voting record and donations I've made. I grew up in the 60s and have seen the best and worst of the ideas and practices that became identified with 'liberals'.

I see no automatic conflict between religious belief and rationalism, unless one is looking for a fight. My opinion is that rational and spiritual are simply two different--and given a chance, quite possibly complimentary-- realms, As Huston Smith has written (see interview:  http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1997/11/snell.html), the problems only come when arrogance trumps justified humility, when one or the other tries to meddle in areas where they aren't competent. (Such as if so-called scientists stray from dealing with observable and measurable  phenomenon and start opining on the existence of spiritual matters or beliefs, things they can't measure; or religious people who push things like 'intelligent design,' or suppress evidence of global warming on religious grounds, and pretend it's science. Both are no better than a plumber trying to give someone legal advice, at best. At worst, either can do uncountable damage.

I've felt that the Democratic Party of the last 20 years hasn't really had much interest in me, at least in this regard. In this one area we're discussing, inflexible and highly emotional near-hatred of faith issues by some wings of the party have created a hostile environment while preaching tolerance. The hypocracy has been hard to swallow, quite honestly.

As you said, BradtheDad, these elements are doing a grave disservice and, because these have been the activists who have so dominanted the power structure of the party for so long I now consider myself an Independent who leans Democrat. I can imagine the snorts of derision about 'mushy moderates', or worse, even now. Their opinion no longer matters to me, however, and while the Republican party holds even less appeal as it is under the sway of a virulent and devious cadre of fanatics, my only option is to reject both sets of extremes and hope that enough like me exist to either reform the party i have always trusted most, or to form a new one one day and leave this one on the shelf like the Whigs were left when they were no longer relevant.

Trying to connect with religious voters doesn't mean getting into bed with James Dobson or Lou Sheldon.  It means connecting with those voters who are not under the sway of those schmucks but for whom religion matters a lot.  a good portion of those voters absolutely are reachable.  Not all of them want to impose their view of morality on the rest of the country.

Well said, although I would take issue with an underlying premise in many of these discussions in this way. 

If the majority of the country identifies itself as religious, is it not the definition of arrogance to talk about 'reaching out' to them? Maybe they don't want those Democrats they already have rejected to save them, maybe they figure it's up to those who seems to reject everything they hold dear that needs to look at themselves, first, and instead start treating them with some respect? Maybe they feel just fine, and that it's the critics who have the problem? That's certainly what I take away from many of these threads, in and wonder why anyone would want to be 'reached out' to by people who don't seem to have much to offer.

No, he's an independent. He originally was a Republican who worked for Nixon. The excesses of the group that now controls the Reublican party drove Kevin away. The incompetence of the Democrats gives him grave concern also, as he said in a post at the Cafe the other day.

Tom

Re: Bush's religion.

I don't think it's a scam but I also don't think it's in the same league as Dobson or Falwell's Christianity. Bush's piety is a mile wide, but an inch deep. It has more in common  with New Age spiritualist movements than with Christian fundamentalism. Bush is remarkably illiterate on the subject of theology and for once is smart enough to keep his mouth shut where he is ignorant. He also is not much involved with any church. Bush's Christianity is about bush: God helped him out of his boozing, Jesus is his ultimate Twelve Step sponsor. Because he does invoke Christ the Christian right accepst him as one of them, but if they looked below the surface they probably would approve of what they find no more than they approve of Unitarians or today's Episcopalians.

John Kerry was the wrong kind of religious person.  He was

a)  Catholic, which the religious right considers to be in need of saving, and

b)  Quietly observant.

Some of his very own church hierarchy joined in the anti-Kerry brigade, saying he should be denied communion.  Ironic, isn't it, that Kerry has no doubt caused fewer fetal deaths than Bush has caused of living, breathing, patriotic young adults, but...that's nuance.

 It seems to me that rather than pandering, it could make good sense to show the similarities of the progressive goals to those professed by most religious teachers.  Charity, respect for the Earth, avoiding rather than starting fights (wars), general caring for the plight of those less fortunate (ie sick people who should have insurance).  The Falwells will not listen, but normal people just might, considering what is in front of their eyes every day the Bush train gets closer to the edge of the cliff.

Jan Knaus

Disagree with (a) but agree with (b).  Kerry was quietly observant, which didn't cut it with religious voters.

But while there are still pockets of anti-Catholic bigotry among evangelical Protestants in this country, it is no longer the case that that is a driving force in voting behavior.  Indeed, Cathoic and Protestant (and Jewish) conservatives have in large part buried the theological hatchet and banded together to fight for what they consider to be traditional values.

The evident contradiction between their rhetoric of progress and reality is as much about the difference between their rhetorical goals and their real goals as anything.  It is the problem faced by all liars -- how to adapt your story to your own advantage in every circumstance and for every audience without getting caught or confused. 

Because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et alia have never had to publicly state their goals in Iraq, they have been free to adapt their rhetoric to the occasion.  The whole "spreading democracy" thing is just a cover story, but, for what the "real" goal is or was, remains speculative.

The PNAC literature seems to indicate that they want a permanent U.S. imperial presence in the Persian Gulf region, similar to the post-WWII U.S. role in Europe and Japan.  For that to happen, Iraq has to remain a weak country, militarily and economically, because if Iraq had the strength to stand on its own, it would throw the U.S. out in a heartbeat.

The U.S. is spending the money on permanent bases, but has stopped the financing of reconstruction, well short of accomplishing anything.  Iraq's economy is in shambles, and their military is utterly incapable of independent operations, except (evidently) regular death squad assignments.

In regard to their "real" goals, Bush and his cronies have made lots of "progress" -- maybe, too much progress.  They've created a situation in which no future Administration will be able to withdraw, and if the original goal was a permanent presence, then they have succeeded.

The one aspect of their narrative, which is looking frayed to me, is the whole "outcome" thing.  They have co-opted much of punditocrisy with the notion that we won't be able to judge the Iraq War, "until" we know the "outcome".  This is tied, not very subtly, to the prospect of withdrawal: if we withdraw, we will, then, have an outcome, and that outcome will be worse than what we have now.  If we stay, they seem to imply, that bad outcome can be put off indefinitely.  As the Iraq Civil War heats up, of course, the "outcome" of the invasion and reconstruction become the Iraq Civil War.

If Kerry had been elected, Kerry could be blamed for withdrawal and a bad outcome.  Stab-in-the-back in all its glory.  If the "outcome" becomes civil war, before the Republicans are conveniently out of power, then stab-in-the-back will require a lot more time for revisionism, before it can be made plausible to future morons. 

I think it would be a mistake for Democrats as a party to set some sort of "let's talk religious-like" strategy in place. Individual candidate, of course, should tell people who they are and what they believe.

But as a national party, we should be talking about what I learned as "Christian values." You know, little things like helping the poor. That's something that a lot of people respond to, even it they don't consider themselves to be a "liberal."

But as soon as you couch it in terms of what Jesus said, you turn it into something divisive. The value is universal to just about all the major religions, but the specific language of one faith is not.

I think people want talk of real values, not pseudo-values like gay marriage and abortion. And many people of faith, who currently ignore Democrats, will respond.

I think you are now slicing the pie mighty thin.  You refer to the religious conservative who is not part of the religious right.  I wonder if you could suggest some concrete instances other than yourself?  Is this all about abortion and gay rights?

I  think of my father.  Half the time he listens to the nut-in-a-box radio, but most of the time his politics is about the same as mine. He is tax averse and easily confused about whether anyone in government knows what they are doing (republo-populisim), but exhibits little actual conservatism.

He has been hanging out in the Baptist church (the way many MEN, do, just off the fringe, going 5 - 6 times a year) for maybe 60 years (since he met my mother).

Exactly who are these non-religious right religious conservatives?  And, I know you like to go on and on, but try to keep it short.