Gerson sees ‘development of one secular party and one religious party’

November 2, 2007

When the Washington Post added Michael Gerson, Bush’s former chief speechwriter, to its stable of columnists, I tried to give Gerson the benefit of the doubt. He’s a former journalist, he can turn a phrase, and when it comes to former speechwriters joining major papers, William Safire sets a pretty low bar.

With that in mind, I keep waiting in vain for something interesting from Gerson. Most of his columns are just dull. Today, he’s just wrong.

The column attempts to argue that Dems are overly secular, shouldn’t be mean to the religious right, and should do more outreach to the faith community.

America is moving toward the development of one secular party and one religious party. And that is a danger to democracy. This trend turns nearly every political disagreement into a culture-war conflict. When the sides view each other as infidels or ayatollahs, it adds jet fuel to the normal combustion of American politics.

It would be good for America if both parties were to appeal to religious voters.

To bolster his contention that Dems hope to be the “secular party,” Gerson points to a 1984 quote from Walter Mondale about “radical preachers,” a 2003 quote from Howard Dean about separating religious interests from public policy, and a 2004 quote from George Soros.

This is more than just unpersuasive. It’s lazy writing, playing into a tired stereotype.

Are most secularists Democrats? Sure. Do Democrats honor the separation of church and state more than the GOP? Absolutely. But Gerson characterizes the Democratic Party as being outwardly hostile to the devout, which is just ridiculous.

Howard Dean and the DNC have hired a team for religious outreach (Dean even sought out Richard Land for a private meeting). Every major Democratic presidential candidate has aides who do nothing but establish ties with the faith community. On the Hill, Speaker Pelosi, a dedicated Catholic, has tapped Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) to spearhead an internal party effort to recapture religious voters.

The “development of one secular party”? Where would this party be, exactly?

Gerson went on to give the Democratic Party some advice: the party will excel if it gives up on being pro-choice.

The late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania argued, “By embracing abortion, the Democratic Party is abandoning the principle that made it great: its basic commitment to protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family.” Casey called an absolute pro-choice position the “cult of the imperial self” — a belief that violated his sense of fairness and justice, rooted in the Catholic faith. […]

Casey managed to be pro-life, pro-family and pro-poor, and he saw no contradictions among them. For Democrats to have a real shot at appealing to religious conservatives, they will need to be the party of Casey. They have a long way to go.

So, Gerson believes Dems shouldn’t challenge the religious right’s moralists, no matter how wrong they are, and should give up on reproductive rights, no matter how many Americans count on the party to protect them.

Note to Dems: please ignore Michael Gerson.

November 2, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Gerson characterizes the Democratic Party as being outwardly hostile to the devout, which is just ridiculous.

Keep in mind how disaffected the relegious right is this election cycle. Gerson’s audience isn’t rational Democrats, secular or otherwise; it’s clearly an attempt to coax the evangelicals back into the fold.

The flaw in Gerson’s analysis isn’t the emergence of a secular and a religious party; it’s the changeing of two secular parties to one secular and one religious, with the GOP becoming increasingly a faith-based political movement. The founders clearly recognized the danger of this situation by approving the First Amendment and the prohibition on religious trests for President.

What a silly man. The democratic party has always upheld the teachings of Jesus such as feeding the hungry and loving the unfortunate and under-represented. You can’t argue that you are the party that upholds the sanctity of life and then refuse medical care to children who ahve no control of their families finances and are the least able to care for themselves.

The chronically lazy-minded Gerson has descended to phoning it in. His advice that Democrats should compromise on their most basic principles is nothing more, or less, than an invitation to be like those Republicans who have compromised all of theirs.

It would be good for America if both parties were to appeal to religious voters.

Democrats do appeal to religious people.

The ReThuglicans appeal to loud, rabid freaks who divide their time between screaming about sin, telling all of the sinners to cut it out or else, and doing all of the things they’ve accused the “sinners” of doing.

The Post keep hiring these hacks and scratching its collective head over its plummeting circ rates. D.U.H.

That’s good stuff, Gregory. But the underlying motivation for Gerson’s hyperbole I feel is more of the threat to the Republican party that a pro-choice nominee would bring, carving off the largest, most vocal constituency in the party: the Christian conservative.

His fear is the appearance of two “secular” parties (truth be told, I don’t even know what this means….and Gerson doesn’t either given that he would howl and scream were the Ds largely made up of…say…Muslims; were that the case, no doubt Gerson would be arguing that the Ds need to be more “secular”).

He sees a bad moon rising for his side, and he’s reminding those ready to haul ass by implication that there’s no where else to go if they want to remain relevant.

Ironic that he’d have to appeal to relevancy for a group of folks who often wail about how they never compromise, etc.

It would be good for America if both parties were to appeal to religious voters.

Why?

I know both parties pander to religion these days, but dammit, religion doesn’t belong in politics. When it’s asked about or discussed, there’s always an underlying assumption that your religiosity is everybody’s political business and your answer or discussion will reveal your political actions.

Now, if people were concerned about whether politicans are “constitutionalists” or “anarchists” (which I think the Bush camp falls into), THAT’s everybody’s business and a matter for political discussion and voter evaluation.

There is so much that is wrong with what Gerson is postulating that it’s hard to know where to begin. I suppose the whole thing falls apart because he starts from a false premise: that respecting the separation between church and state, and honoring people’s freedom of religion is equal to being opposed to religion, and that equates to being mean to religious groups, etc. In other words, I think what Gerson is saying is that the only way to prove one is a person of faith is to allow other people of faith to impose their beliefs on everyone. That we have to accept what others believe and the role they see for religion in everyday, public life in order to have those people say, “oh, okay – you’re one of us.”

I don’t get that. Surprise! I don’t see why I have to prove anything to anyone else, whether that is on matters of religion and faith, or politics, or morality. And, at least as far as I can tell, and as I have always understood, neither did the founders.

As for his claim that secularists are being hostile to the devout, I beg to differ. For one, those who believe in the separation of church and state may be as devout, if not more so, than those who have a need to have their brand of religion forced upon all citizens. For another, do I not have a right to be upset when someone has the temerity to assume that their beliefs trump mine?

I just think that those like Gerson who want to elevate all of this to the equivalent of a religious war have no earthly idea of the meaning of freedom. And that will be the death knell of democracy.

I do agree the abortion issue is a problem for democrats. An elective abortion after the sixth month of pregnancy is unethical and unnecessary. Democrats need to recognize this and develop a more sophisticated approach to abortion.

How many voters are Democrats losing because of this problem? How many of those voters actually support the rest of the Democratic agenda? Why do people feel the need to control women’s bodies?

JoeBob, the fact that you can have that view and still be welcome to the party is what makes us the better political option.

Myself, for theological reasons I’m 100% against abortion on all levels, but for the same theological reasons I think it’s a subtle form of idolatry for Christians to use the govt. to enforce theological beliefs (when Robertson, Perkins, et al. say “we want you to outlaw abortion” what they’re saying is “Hey, we can’t control the behavior of Christians as ministers of the faith better than you, Caesar. So we need you to do what we can’t.” That subtle move is an admission that govt. has more power to control Christians than God does, and anything that you appeal to or admit as having more power, that IS your god).

It’s a superdangerous game to use this issue as the line of demarcation. But fortunately, I’m a proud member of a party where the vast majority of members disagree with me, but I’m still welcome to be a part of it and hte debate.

Setting a demarcation line at some random time of 6 mths does nothing but lead to us doing what the Rs have been doing for years: debating an issue in terms and conditions that are wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand, and using that as a wedge or cut-off.

Who’s having elective abortions after 6 months, JoeBob? Women only have an unqualified right to abort in the first 12 weeks, which is when some 88% of abortions occur; after that, the state has an interest, so it is not quite the cavalier thing you make it sound like. And according to statistics I have seen, as of 2001, only 1.2% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Democrats don’t like abortion, JoeBob; no one’s saying abortion is a good thing. What we have tried to do, and been thwarted almost at every turn, are the things that will reduce unintended or unwanted pregnancies from occurring. Things like widespread access to birth control. Things like education. Things like more support for women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Abstinence programs for young people have been shown to be ineffective in the fight against teen pregnancy, so let’s not go there.

This has never been good enough for the rabid right wing, which opposes everything but forcing pregnant women to give birth – after that, she’s on her own and should not expect any help.

It’s not for me or you or anyone else to tell a woman what she should or should not do when she is pregnant – terminating a pregnancy might not have been something I would have been able to do, but what I would or would not do should not determine what others might decide.

So, let’s stop with the cheap talk about elective abortions at 6 months, shall we?

Gerson characterizes the Democratic Party as being outwardly hostile to the devout, which is just ridiculous.

For the devout, being tolerant of unbelievers IS hostility.

My thinking on the matter shifted in to “crisis mode” when Bush won the 2004 elections. When your ship is sinking, sometimes you have to prioritize and throw overboard that which you may consider precious.

1. There is no way to win the argument that life doesn’t begin before birth. In fact, I have to concede that it’s a pretty airtight argument regardless of the hypocrisy displayed with respect to Capital Punishment, war, denial of health care, etc., etc., and the consequences of illegal abortions.

2. If half the people believe abortion is murder, I believe it might be necessary (as a Democratic society) to acknowledge the gravity of such a belief and act accordingly. In other words, if 51% believe abortion should be legal, while 49% believe it is outright murder (rightly or wrongly), there might be a bit more weight on the right side of the issue. For us it’s about essential liberties; it’s “life or death” to them (or so they would have us believe).

3. We have lived through prohibition before, learned our lessons and moved forward. However, those lessons have been forgotten. We just might need a reminder. Otherwise, the “pro-life” crowd are going to remain blind to reality and continue eroding our Democracy over this overblown issue.

4. We will have removed an important tool from the conservative belt.

5. If it turns out, as I sometimes suspect, that conservatives (now officially “fascists”) really are all about hatred, xenophobia, economic inequality and world domination, and that “morality” really is just a cover for the complete lack thereof, this will be revealed once and for all.

6. I would hope that we would learn the lost lesson once again and act accordingly.

Our Democracy is broken and we could be on a faster track to ruin than any of us realize. If we can get more “average Americans” to see the forest for the trees, it is not hard to imagine, biting the bullet and sacrificing Roe v. Wade.

Setting a demarcation line at some random time of 6 mths does nothing but lead to us doing what the Rs have been doing for years

Unfortunately, you have to draw the line somewhere. Democrats currently draw a hard line at birth. A day before birth is “abortion”: a “right” which Democrats say must be preserved. A day after birth is murder.

I’m arguing that democrats should allow the line to move and change based on ethical (not religious) reasoning. At some point, a well-developed fetus really is the ethical equivalent of a baby.

Anne said:

And according to statistics I have seen, as of 2001, only 1.2% of abortions occur after 21 weeks.

That’s exactly my point. Why should Democrats go to the mat to preserve the legality of something that is very rarely used? The Democratic party is supposed to be the party of ethics, not the party of dogma.

Democrats don’t like abortion, JoeBob; no one’s saying abortion is a good thing.

Then why must it be allowed at all times under all circumstances? If there are conditions where it is clearly unethical or inhumane, shouldn’t it be illegal in those cases?

Which party better follows the teachings of Jesus?

Matthew 25
35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Honestly, is there any doubt which party does Christ’s work?

Well, JTK, I don’t know if you’re male or female, but if you’re male, and have no chance of ever being pregnant, it may be easier for you to throw Roe v. Wade overboard, especially if you are opposed to abortion. If you’re female and opposed to abortion, you won’t be having one, I presume, and since no one has suggested or proposed that abortion be forced on anyone who doesn’t want one, your choice – and the choice of all women who oppose abortion – is secure.

I would also hope that before you go sacrificing the choices of millions of women, you know that those who are opposed to abortion, would be – or are – in favor of working to make it as rare as possible, by advocating for all those things which have been shown to reduce it. If it is a matter of being opposed to abortion, and also objecting to birth control for any female who wants it, education for both males and females, as well as being opposed to programs which help support women for whom the financial burden of raising a child is an issue, what is being sacrificed does not advance a “culture of life” as much as it capitulates to a repressive and restrictive dogma that punishes women whom some percentage of the population regards as being of lesser moral quality.

Finally, I don’t know where you are getting your statistics, as you didn’t cite your sources, but when life begins is not, as I understand it, a foregone conclusion. And if this is what you are willing to give up on behalf of an entire segment of society this time around, what will you be willing to ditch the next time?

No. See, that’s what I’m talking about. If it’s a theological issue, then let it remain theological and not policy in a way that comports with what we stand for.

For example, for Christians, abortion should be wrong b/c there is no such thing as an unwanted child in the Church. It has zero to do w/ viability.

Now, what that means is that Christians have to be willing to stand up and tell the person contemplating abortion “Please, I’ll raise your child for you.”

Now, how many Republicans do you see stepping up to do that? One can beat them over the head with that and bloody them to no end w/o a single appeal to when life begins.

Get rid of the distraction and out-Christian these motherfuckers if and when they play the religious card. They don’t know shit about what they’re doing, and taking their positions to their logical end (which they never do…see above) makes it abundantly clear that if they were serious about matters of policy and faith, they’d better abandon the Republican party.

JoeBob, please do some research on this issue; I think you have bought into talking points and false information, neither of which are substitutes for the facts.

I know the men here may object to my taking this position, but JoeBob, come talk to me about abortion when you have a uterus, okay? I appreciate that you have an opinion and a belief about it, but it’s not your body and your health. And while there are many men who step up and do the right thing when it is their sperm which breaches the barricades, not all men do; many abandon not only the women they impregnate, but the children born as a result.

As I said, do the research – there are tons of resources, and rather than me doing it for you, it might mean more if you do it yourself.

Some of the smarter people on the right seem to be realizing that you can’t “solve” abortion through legal fiat. I would suggest this is also true from our perspective.

I’m pro-choice largely because I try not to arrogate to myself the right to make others’ moral decisions. But I do think unintended pregnancies–the “source,” if you will, for close to all abortions–occur much more frequently than need be. The way I’d approach it is to focus on reducing those, through sex education, abstinence counseling (which I think is fine and probably appropriate for 12-14 year-olds at least), access to contraception and so on.

That the other side is generally unresponsive to this approach suggests pretty strongly that their concern isn’t ultimately abortion; it’s sex.

For one thing, this is a great wedge issue with which to break the Right; for another, it’s a pretty powerful analytical tool with which to understand the psychology of modern American politics.

As Anne points out at #7, Gerson is sunk from the start here because he equates religious “neutrality”–the Constitutionally approved stance–with “non-religion.” The Republicans aren’t “pro-religion”; they are in large measure Christian-Dominionist. As noted above, were the Democrats Muslim or Jewish to the extent that the Republicans are Christian, that presumably wouldn’t fly either.

The far right insists that an embryo is the equivalent of full-fledged person from the day it is conceived. The far left insists that a fetus does not become person until the day it is born. Neither view rings true to me. Both extremes ignore the reality the transition from embryo to person is gradual and happens by degrees.

Finally, I don’t know where you are getting your statistics, as you didn’t cite your sources, but when life begins is not, as I understand it, a foregone conclusion.

Since when to right-wingers care about statistics? It is a foregone conclusion in their minds (however shallow that may be). It reminds me a little of the Creationism vs Naturalism argument in that the burden or proof would seem to be on the former since they are asserting the existence of that which they would appear to have no proof.

This time, it might just be that the burden of proof is on us since we want law to allow the termination of what might be a life complete with rights. My little Devil’s Advocate game (and that’s really what this is) suggests we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus, blastocyst, embryo, fertilized egg, unfertilized egg, sperm is not a life and can be disposed of.

I feel dirty even saying these things because I am pro-choice. However, I have resigned myself to the fact that we’re never going to prove that abortion should be legal to those who would dismantle everything else we hold dear to prevent it.

I am male, BTW.

This time, it might just be that the burden of proof is on us since we want law to allow the termination of what might be a life complete with rights. My little Devil’s Advocate game (and that’s really what this is) suggests we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus, blastocyst, embryo, fertilized egg, unfertilized egg, sperm is not a life and can be disposed of.

No, I’m sorry, but that’s not what this is about. The law allows women to make the choice, for themselves, which means that they can apply their own beliefs to that choice, and not have the particular beliefs of others determine what their options – if any – are.

Viability is certainly an issue, and as medical science and technology has increased the chances that a fetus may be viable at earlier stages of a pregnancy, that needs to be a factor. But a collection of cells is not viable, and is not entitled to “rights;” a fetus that cannot live on its own outside the womb is not equipeed with rights.

I just do not understand why someone who believes that no female should have any option to abort at any time also gets to determine what my options are; I’m not forcing anyone to continue a pregnancy who doesn’t want one, just as I’m not forcing people who don’t believe in birth control to use it, or people who don’t believe in pre-marital sex to have it.

I am the mother of two 20-something daughters, so I know what it means to be pregnant, and I know what it means to give birth and devote time, energy, emotion, care and money on these lives once they were born. I’m lucky to be happily married, and to have planned these pregnancies – but I am not Everywoman, and I would not presume to eliminate other women’s ability to make the choices that are best for them.

In a perfect world, no one would have children until all the pieces were in place; while we aren’t ever going to have Utopia, there is so much more we can do as a society and a community to improve things to the point where there is less and less abortion.

JoeBob #21 says “The far right insists that an embryo is the equivalent of full-fledged person from the day it is conceived. The far left insists that a fetus does not become person until the day it is born.” That simply isn’t true. Nobody on the left thinks purely elective abortions should be performed in the ninth month, or eighth month, or seventh month, and I think virtually all accept 12 weeks as the reasonable limit. Further, I think many of the most extreme right wing males don’t give a damn about a fetus at any age, any more than they care about declaring war on countries for no reason – what they do care about is controlling their women. They are the ones to decide if a woman should bear a child or not.

The idea that Democrats should give up the pro choice position is absolutely preposterous. The right to an abortion, under certain conditions, is a Constitutional right, every bit as fundamental as free speech, or freedom from/of religion, or the Fourth Amendment. You don’t just give it up. You can’t give it up. It’s there. The government has no right to interfere. It’s not the kind of thing you hand up to someone. It’s not a controversy as to whether abortion is a right. It is. Period.

You can disagreee with Roe vs. Wade, the reasoning, whatever, but it’s still the law of the land. How dare Republicans twist it around and treat it as some kind of up in the air undecided favor temporarily or conditionally granted by the government? You can also believe it’s wrong, and push for a Constitutional amendment to override it. But nobody’s doing that, as far as I know. The worst remedy is what the Republicans want to do – stack the Supreme Court with ideologues who won’t respect precedent. That’s an outrage. Ideologues don’t belong on the Supreme Court.

Anne: The law allows women to make the choice, for themselves, which means that they can apply their own beliefs to that choice, and not have the particular beliefs of others determine what their options – if any – are.

I understand your logic. My point is that “the law allows” is precisely what has religious conservatives so riled up.

And I’ve always felt that the argument about a woman’s right to do “to her body” whatever “she chooses” fell a little short in terms of any hope to convince the convinced.

Once a baby is outside the womb, the mother still feeds it from her breast, keeps it warm, clean and protected from external dangers (the same functions her body provides involuntarily during gestation).

This doesn’t give the mother the right to kill the baby though it can certainly be argued that, even outside the womb, it is still flesh of her flesh and indeed the same entity that once lived inside her.

Again, my point is not that I think abortion should be made illegal. I do not. My point is simply that we are not going to convince religious people purely on statistics, history, science or our belief in the primacy of choice.

Actually, the guy might be on to something….

Consider one party, made up of Liberals and Progressives. We have such a political party now; it’s called the Democratic party. Add to this combination the Moderates who are beginning to flee the GOP because they can no longer see themselves supporting the neocon/profiteer/theocrat madness that is the Bush Presidency—and the cretinous collection of candidates who strive to outdo the stupidities and madnesses of that Presidency.

The other party will consist of the religious right, the panderers of the neoconservative media machine who will crawl into bed with anyone who will give them the attention they so cravenly crave, and the money-grubbing profiteers who will cater to any ideology if there’s a profit to be made in it.

The first party will eventually label the second as “Theocratic,” because the second’s message will move ever closer to that of the Afghan mullahs of the Taliban, the Ayatollahs of Iran’s Islamic Republic, and the vile toxin heaped upon the world by the likes of Fred Phelps.

And in like form, the second party will label the first as “Secular,” due to the first’s inherent refusal to convert to—and wholly embrace—the mantra of ultrafundamentalist ideology. It won”t matter in the least if you’re a religious person; rather, the “litany litmus test” will be whether you’re “the right kind” of religious individual.

Case example—how many times have bull-horners the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and Beck ranted about the Left, bandying about the term “secular” as an intended insult? I doubt very much the religiosity of these individuals, yet they will identify those who disagree with them as “secular.”

Because it will feed their addiction to attention—and through that attention, they shall be ordained into the religion as “soldiers of the cross.”

The same will likely hold true with the ultraconservative “hyperwealthy” caste who, seeing profit in the embracing of these futuristic Pharisees, will become the latter-day moneychangers, residing on the temple steps.

In the end, I don’t for a moment believe that Gerson accurately portrayed the details—and I think a good portion of the reasoning behind his premise is somewhat flawed—but the basis for the conclusion itself is quite possible.

And that possibility has the potential to be the greatest danger facing this Republic, should that “party of religiosity” ever come into power….

hark: It’s not a controversy as to whether abortion is a right. It is. Period.

I agree with you that it shouldn’t be. But back here in the real world, it is a controversy.

Mine is simply a question of what kind of a deal would we be willing to broker to save the Republic. If there is any one pivotal issue that might turn the tide, it would be this one.

Not the same thing *at all*.

I have a 30-yr old son but, before he was conceived, I had what the doctor called “a spontaneous abortion” — a miscarriage before the 3rd month. Both pregnancies were planned; both babies would have been welcome and loved.

Had I died giving birth to my son — as used to happen frequently and still does in countries without much access to modern medicine — he probably would have survived. He’d have been put on a bottle or farmed out to a wet nurse, in the past (in fact, many babies are put on a bottle anyway, whether the mother is alive or not). Someone else would have kept him clean and protected.

OTOH, the fetus I lost… When I called the doctor, he didn’t even feel it was necessary to go to the hospital. He told me to take “a sample of tissue” and bring it to him in a clean jar (for testing) and to flush the rest down the toilet. Not, precisely, a treatment one would accord a living human being. And I’d bet that, if I had brought the entire “package” to a priest, it wouldn’t have received the same kind of treatment that a full-term stillborn baby would have received.

Your comparison could have only come from a male, to whom the whole process of carrying a child and giving birth (or not) is a theoretical, philosophical/theological exercise, not a real thing.

Anne is absolutely right, as usual: as long as we don’t live in China, where abortions might be compulsory, people who don’t have a uterus should keep their views to themselves and not try to impose them on everyone else.

As for giving up on Roe vs Wade, just “to teach those GOPers a lesson”, it’s, again, a male POV. It marginalizes the views of most of the women as well as their well-being.

Your painting me as a typical male implies that you misunderstand my point. I am sorry for your loss. My wife and I just went through the exact same thing (jar and all).

While we’re on the subject of my wife, let me also tell you how I was moved to tears when the subject of “selective reduction” came up as a means to protect the mother. The tears had nothing to do with the loss of this “thing” growing inside her that I don’t yet know and have no emotional attachment to. It was the thought of anything happening to my wife, whom I love more than life itself. I would not think twice about her having an abortion if I thought her life was in danger.

I completely agree with you and with Anne. My argument is hypothetical, purely pragmatic and a last resort for someone desperate to see his fellow countrymen be able to move beyond what is very stubborn wedge between otherwise reconcilable world views.

Comments are closed.