Sunday Discussion Group

Republicans have duped the voters by framing the main political debate on social issues and religion. Democrat must re-frame the political battle of ideas on economic terms. When tax cuts for the rich are financed with spending cuts that hurt the poor as well the working and middle classes, the Democrat must have courage when the Republicans charge “class warfare.” All politics is class warfare; the outcome of the political process produces groups that win and groups that lose (i.e. class warfare). The “reverse Robin Hood” policies of the Republicans have not made America better or stronger. It’s time that Democrats declare that Bush and the Republican are waging a war on the non-wealthy classes, and that “religion and social issues” are nothing more than the military tactic of diversion.

This is a very bad idea in my opinion as it will appear cynical to both the secularists and the religious. How could it not? They formed a committee to target those voters. Given the rabid nature of the Republican’s Christian base, would it be a shock for those non-Christian Democrats to fear the same thing happening on the left? Granted left-wing Christians are rarely not fundamentalist in nature, and are normally looking out for the poor (as Jesus would have done), however there are still the issues of abortion, family planning and gay rights. If the Democrats target those Christians that are disaffected with their party, then they will have to bend a little on these issues in order to be successful.
The Republicans have been brilliant in how they have compartmentalized their party. Their base includes diverse groups which have been detailed extensively in literature. These groups have many views, agendas and goals that don’t coincide. How has the Republican party been able to manage these diverse views (Diverse – not an adjective normally applied to the GOP!) up until recently? There are a few explanations, and the nature of the explanations prevent them from being used effectively by the Democrats. First off, the GOP is the party of intolerance, bigotry and fear. These are powerful motivators and emotional buttons that the GOP can use to control and influence their base. Democrats tend to be better educated and don’t respond as well to such crass manipulation.
Second, the Republican base is focused enough on winning that they are willing to compromise on their stated goals in order to win. In other words they keep their eye on the ball. Democrats are caught up in their own beliefs and will not compromise in order to win. Such is the irony – the Democrats are made up of the true believers while the Republicans are the party of opportunists. This has made it easier for the GOP to paint the Democrats as indecisive because all of those viewpoints without a strong central message make the Democratic platform seem confused and unfocused.
Third, the GOP lies to their base, and their base is either ok with that, or are just too stupid to figure it out. Such qualities are not as prevalent on the left.
The Democrats cannot beat the GOP at their own game. The reasonable Christians are Democratic, the unreasonable ones have gone where they belong – the GOP. In other words, those Christians that have left the Democrats did so for a reason. To win them back would require concessions that other Democrats would be unwilling to make. You can’t please everyone when everyone you are trying to please is informed, passionate and combative.
To sum up: The Democrats should stop trying to be GOP-lite and look after their own base. There is enough tension there without throwing in a grenade like disgruntled Christians.

I don’t like it either.

As the GOP well knows, religion is useful for giving divine sanction to anything the ruling class wishes to do, no matter how horrid. Consequently, no one dares complain because to complain would be blasphemy. The last thing in the world we need is for Democrats to get seduced by this–even assuming they could get it to work at all, as others have noted above. Other concerns:

–The same thing will happen to the “religious left” as happened to the religious right; they become useful idiots (more specifically, guaranteed votes) in return for nothing because they cannot support the other party. So the religious left may well wind up selling its soul, too.
–Fundies really have few specific targets. Those denominations that align with the Democrats and become as vocal as Focus on the Family or the 500 Club, might well increase the probability of religious violence here in the US because known denominations are specific enemies. At least right now the fundies have no well-defined enemies. They just have these vague plots by “liberals” that they use to keep their base mildly stirred up.

Whether progressive secularists (like myself) view this effort as “cynical” is beside the point. The point is to win elections; done right, efforts like this one will help us do just that.

A Democratic pushback on values/faith/Christianity should have three goals. The first is to create and then exacerbate wedges between the right-wing elite–the Norquists and Moores–whose primary interest lies in unhooking the rich from helping to pay for the country that has nurtured their prosperity; and the rank and file of “values voters,” who are certainly more moderate to liberal on economic issues (if probably far more reactionary on “God, guns and gays”).

I think we saw a little of this on the Bush Social Security initiative. This was something devoutly wished for by the Cato Institute/Club for Growth types, who really believed in the value of the plan; and by Norquist, who viewed/views this as a political tactic to erode the notion of American government as the defender of material security for voters, which he believes helps tie voters to the Democratic Party. But polls showed that majorities even among Republicans wanted the program to remain as-is, and the leadership eventually gave up their push (for now, anyway). What was the difference between this one and similar efforts to shift the tax burden “from wealth to work” (to use John Edwards’ excellent phrase)? I’d say it was simply visibility. Democrats need to work harder to make the smaller-scale, but similarly motivated, right-wing efforts similarly salient to voters.

The second goal is simply that “faith” if done right is a tool to help show that Democrats have core beliefs. Witness Tim Kaine in Virginia, and the death penalty. He lost nothing politically in taking an unpopular position, because he successfully used his Catholicism to explain how he got there. I would *love* to see Republican spinners try to attack Democrats who base a redistributionist economic agenda on the Biblical teachings bcinaz cites above.

Finally, I think we need a bit more overt religiosity to push back against the Rove/Mehlman plan to peel off a chunk of African-American voters through appeals to homophobia and anti-abortion sentiment. These voters in particular (and yeah, I’m a white guy) have proven receptive to the message that Jesus was a lot more concerned with social justice and poverty than in demonizing the gays; Democrats have to keep pushing that line.

Don’t fear the religious stuff. At best, it’s a very effective means of conveying values positions that progressives mostly agree with anyway.

I see nothing wrong with a simple message: Republicans take what was rendered unto Caesar and in turn, render it unto the wealthy.

A little turnabout is fair play.

“Can Dems make inroads with religious voters who are currently backing the GOP?”

Absolutely. Jimmy Carter already demonstrated this. It’s not so much that Dems are unable to reach voters who care about religion, it’s that we have to put forward candidates who walk the walk. It wasn’t as important to the nation when Clinton was elected twice, but after 9/11 faith has necessarily occupied a larger place in many people’s hearts. As a result Bush had a trump card he didn’t really intend to benefit from, but it certainly helped him in ’04.

“How serious is the risk that this kind of outreach might alienate secularists who consistently back Dems?”

Not serious at all for the simple reason that you’re never going to find a fundamentalist Dem running for national office. And make no mistake, that’s what the Bush crown is about: fundamentalism. Carter himself has been talking about this on his book tour, including how fundamentalist Christians are not the equal of regular Christians – who are the vast majority of religious voters in this country.

“Should Dems even try to appeal to religious voters or is this entire initiative cynical?”

It’s not cynical to recognize that people of faith have fears and concerns. What’s cynical is to think that, a) you can pander to them like a whore and win their votes (Bush) or b) that you’re so smart and right and morally superior you don’t have to do anything but tell all the people who believe in God that they’re stupid and should listen to you (the progressive left).

Reach out to everyone, and do it honestly. If there’s a Jimmy Carter in the Democratic Party there are others who believe, and believe in ways that are supportive of the best of what America is all about.

Let me get this straight:

We are the beginning of the 21st century.

The glaciers are melting….
The gulf stream that warms Europe is being knocked off line…
Some folks on Pacific islands are having to move to higher ground….

And the two major poltical parties in America are arguing about whose got God more on their sides?

Tell me, are you Americans born shit stupid?
Or is it an art you perfect as you age?

The right took the initiative awhile back and bestowed upon itself the high ground on the religious issue and did it’s homework as to copyrighting the slogans, panders and code words of the “Believing” world. The marketing tools are all lined up in their toolbox and all the left can do is try to steal marketshare by using the same obvious tactics without having the bona fides of gay-hate/pro-life/patriarchial dominion/flag waving-bible thumping to back it up. RepubCo has been there and done that and like 9/11, it’s an ongoing default spin when their message gets off track.

It’s a losing proposition for the Dem’s to try to place the holy mantle on themselves as a party. Individuals can state their case as believers and true credibility can be achieved per candidate on that basis.

It won’t be easy, (maybe impossible), but the rhetoric of religion has to be toned down. The business of moving this country forward isn’t being done because one sides lust for power has got us arguing about things that don’t matter so they can fix the game behind all the stupid noise. We need to start a new game, not keep playing the old one. Can Democrats be that imaginative and pro-active? Can they communicate a message of unifying the country behind a common good rather than crassly using religion as an ineffective prybar?

The Dems could try asking voters if, once religion is institutionalized by government (The Church of America), they are ready to have Karl Rove decide when, where, and how they will worship. If that doesn’t appeal to them then maybe they will realize they are better off leaving government out of the religion business.

The important thing is not to be religious or secular, but to be authentic. As long as it doesn’t come across as phony – recall the reaction to Howard Dean mistakenly placing the book of Job in the New Testament – there is no reason Democrats can’t speak in the language of their faith. John Kerry’s discourse on “faith without works is dead” (James 2) during the final presidnetial debate is just one example.

It’s impossible to square most GOP policy with a truly Christian outlook. According to the gospels, Jesus said nothing about abortion or homosexuality, but he said a lot about justice and compassion. And if the GOP missed the memo on “blessed are the peacemakers,” they need only turn to the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 5:9.

Yes, well put indeed hark.

But I don’t want any candidates faking it. It’s bad enough with all the fake Christians in the Republican party.

Mr. Flibble, no one is suggesting that the Democrats should try to appeal to the religious right. The suggestion is that they could do more to appeal to the huge number of religious people who are not part of the religious right.

There are lots of people who agree with the Democrats on many issues, especially treatment of the poor, but who have been led astray by the Republicans’ redefinition of “moral values” to refer to homosexuality and abortion, while ignoring any morality related to foreign or economic policy, for example.

The Democratic Party needs to be open to both religious and nonreligious people, and it’s important that people perceive it that way, if we’re going to win in a country where the vast majority of the voters are religious in some sense.

The Dems should offer a reasonable alternative to GOP theocracy — religion is a matter of conscience, personal, not to be enforced by government policy.

hm, i think we need to be clear about which voters we would be targeting.

by and large, people don’t take religion to be an enormous overriding part of their identities. most americans would probably consider themselves christian, but not actually seriously do anything about it. but they generally believe church attendance and religious morality to be important in public life.

we can see this in, for example, high poll numbers for questions on church attendance, but lower actual church attendance. people answer these questions to pollsters with answers that overstate their personal religiosity, thinking that going to church is what upstanding good citizens do. i remember seeing a piece after the 2004 election in which a man was quoted saying that he knew that the democrats would be better for him economically, but that he votes for republicans because of “the unborn babies and stuff.” this was hardly a ringing endorsement of opposition to abortion, he just felt that he ought to vote republican because, well, that’s sorta the right, christian thing to do.

what we need to do most of all, then, is point out to americans the fact that republicans do not have a monopoly on religious values. the point would not be to ‘out-god’ them, but rather to point out to the people out there who ‘aren’t really religious but feel like they probably ought to be’ that voting for democratic candidates isn’t anti-morality. that voting for republicans isn’t the only christian thing to do.

this is accomplished more effectively and less cynically by liberal christian religious leaders and groups than by dem. politicians. look, for example, to jim wallis, or to the united church of christ.

KCinDC wrote: “The Democratic Party needs to be open to both religious and nonreligious people, and it’s important that people perceive it that way, if we’re going to win in a country where the vast majority of the voters are religious in some sense.”

Agreed, but my point still stands. These people listen weekly (if not daily) to their leaders, who continually and using all kinds of methods bombard their listeners with the message that the Democrats want to steal their bibles, are moral degenerates, and are fakes when it comes to God. Democratic propaganda has no hope whatever of reaching these people unless their religious leaders cooperate, and these leaders will not do so unless they get something in return. When these “leaders” cooperate at all, it is with the GOP because the GOP doesn’t respect keeping the state out of the sanctuary (and, seemingly, vice versa). Are the Democrats prepared to do the same thing? Is it worth it?

Give up on the evangelicals…their world view is only reinforced by learning of errors made by Bush (Torture, Domestic Spying, Cutting Food Stamps while reducing taxes for the rich, no WMDs…) et al…THEY DON’T CARE…the faith is difficult – all that forgiving and praying and loving especially those that hate you is not possible for the weak folk who now populate our churches…they are looking for an easy way to attain moral authority without any of the sacrifice – and the GOP promises them this…and when setbacks become manifest – “they” see it as a crisis of faith and blame themselves for doubting and it only encourages them to wear darker (or rosier) shades…honesty, they will not change their minds so all that’s left is to laugh at them – treating them with respect means you are compromising with a loon (or barking at the moon)…bring in the lions…