Posted by Morbo
Saturday’s Boston Globe reported on the latest effort by the “religious left” to get its act together. (If Carpetbagger were here, he’d give you the link; I was unable to find it at the Globe’s site, www.boston.com. Try Google news.)
Anyway, leaders of this movement make an interesting point. Why is it that only issues like abortion and gay rights are seen as “moral” issues? They argue that poverty, homelessness and providing for children, the elderly and those in need are equally compelling moral issues.
They are right, but it will take some effort to get the American people to see this.
The story opens up the whole question of Democrats and religion. It mentions that several Democratic politicians and operatives are wondering how they can more effectively talk about religion during future elections.
The problem is that the Democrats have a significant secularist base that can be put off by too much “God talk.” Morbo has a suggestion: A big tent!
Seriously. The Republicans talk about a big tent, and, while they are more than happy to allow guys like Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger speak at their convention, everybody knows the views those two represent are going nowhere in the party. Yet there they are.
Progressives could build a truly inclusive coalition — one that welcomes religious and non-religious voices. Look at the struggle for civil rights during the ’60s. Some were motivated to act by their religious convictions, while others were basically secularists who saw segregation as a great outrage against human rights. The two factions didn’t sit around arguing over who was right. They went to work to right an injustice.
I worry that if factions within the Democratic Party that are essentially secularist try to employ religious language, it will come off sounding stilted and phony. Let the wing that truly is religious handle that. The focus should be on the political goal, whatever it is, and the message to the American people should be that people of many different religious beliefs (and none) support this goal.
Yes, this means acknowledging that there are pro-life Democrats and even (gasp) letting one speak at the next convention. It does not mean the party has to change its platform. Rudy and Arnold spoke, but the GOP platform is still rigidly anti-choice.
Morbo is not a religous man, but he realizes that the rest of the nation is religious and that religion will always play a role in American politics. Surely progressives can find a way to acknowledge that fact that doesn’t threaten anyone but at the same time brings more people in.