Democrats can't win until their politics are born again

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1344980,00.html

Asked what single factor played the chief role in determining their choice, some voters cited terrorism, Iraq or the economy - but the greatest number picked "moral values". Translation: faith, flag and family. Cruder translation: God, guns and gays.

These are the social, cultural questions that mattered to millions of Americans more than jobs, healthcare or an ongoing war. And this group simply felt George Bush shared their core values while John Kerry did not. Voters said they felt comfortable with Bush even if they disagreed with him; they said he was like them.

Finding a messenger is the easy bit. Adjusting the message will be harder. It starts with a long, cold look at the numbers. Nearly one in four of Tuesday's voters were white evangelical or born-again Christians: of those, nearly 80% went for Bush. The president won thumping majorities of all Protestant and Catholic voters. Almost the only religious group that went for Kerry, by three to one, were Jews - who make up just 3% of the electorate.

One immediate suggestion, from Bill Clinton's former labour secretary Robert Reich, is to eschew Kerry's technocratic talk, of plans and policies, in favour of the language of morality. Reich believes Democrats can frame left or liberal arguments in terms that will stir people of faith. The party would thunder that it is morally wrong to give tax breaks to the wealthiest; that it is a moral outrage the worst-off are not covered when they fall sick. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, Reich recalls, presented itself precisely this way, as a religious crusade. Martin Luther King was a churchman. Black Christians have never stopped talking about poverty and injustice in religious terms; now other Democrats may have to follow. America is a religious nation: tapping into morality is not just smart - it is essential.

[aquart]

1. Robert, honey, you shouldn't buy this garbage.

The Republicans are lying to you and you're buying their cover story.

[mopaul]

2. utter bullshit

we must NEVER capitualte to the bornagainazis.

[pelagius]

8. If you can set aside your blind hatred of Christians for...

...one moment, you will see that abandoning core principles of the Democratic Party -- I'll hold in abeyance my cynicism of their existence -- is not being suggested here.

There is no doubt in my mind that progressives, liberals, the left, Democrats -- you pick the label -- hold the moral high ground. We have simply not articulated this in the terms of morality.

I think it's a sin that children go to bed hungry. I think it's a sin take from the poor and give to the rich. I think it's a sin that people who love each other are denied basic human rights.

You may be uncomfortable with the word "sin" but most Americans aren't. I, for one, am glad that abolitionists regarded slavery as a sin and Martin Luther King regard segregation as a sin.

We can continue to snipe at the unwashed masses for their ignorance and embrace of atavistic ideas and wait for them to become secular humanists and pure enough to be worthy of voting for us, of course. Or we can try to understand the moral framework through which they view the world and explain our mission in terms they understand and can embrace.

I highly recommend the work of George Lakoff to anyone who wants to understand how conservatives think and how to reach them. "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a good start; "Moral Poltics" goes into greater depth.

[GOPFighter]

9. I see your point

You're right, we didn't articulate our values well this time around. And I agree that using the word "sin" to describe what we feel is wrong can be highly effective.

I think you are wrong to describe our hatred of ignorance as a blind hatred of Christians. These people are not Christians, at least not the Christianity I learned in my Baptist church growing up in the 1950s and 60s. I was taught to read, and take to heart, the words of Jesus - in fact my Bible had all of his words highlighted in red. I am a liberal today mainly because I believed what Jesus taught. Todays Fundamentalists purport to worship Jesus but their values are almost the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. How can they be considered Christians?

[pelagius]

11. Please forgive my rhetorical excess...

...I do get uptight about this issue, because all it would take to win is swinging ten percent of the people who voted for Bush our way. That would be a mandate.

I, too, am liberal because of my Christian upbringing. My family is fundamentalist. I'm not. But I know these people, they're who I grew up, so when I hear comments about what evil fucktards they are, it's hard to keep silent.

For the most part, these are decent people who are good neighbors. They're not particularly adept at abstract thinking (in general) and react emotionally. We can reach a sufficient number of them if we only understand where they're coming from.

This isn't idle speculation on my part. I spent the last six months talking with my family and friend about how unbibilical the Republican agenda was and convinced about a dozen people to vote for Kerry. And I'm sure I made the others think more clearly about their "God is a Republican" stance.

You have to remember that many people claim the Christian name purely on a social or political basis and selectively read the Bible to bolster whatever their own prejudices might be. But there are many, many Christians who take Jesus' call to discipleship to heart and would lay down their lives -- I'm not resorting to hyperbole here -- for the Gospel.

These are the ones we can reach.

[GOPFighter]

12. In that case...

I applaud your efforts to get through to them. My family, too, are hard-core fundies. They were raised in the same church I was, yet they're view of Jesus is so different. Their Jesus is closer to Rambo than the humble man I read about in the Bible. They are kind, loving people, but I'm convinced their religion is really right-wing politics masquarading as religion. The last time I talked to them about politics was at a family gathering at a restaurant. It ended up with eight irate family members screaming at me and it just about cleared out the rest of the guests! Never again.

[Demeter]

14. Sorry, But You Can't Fight Apples With Oranges

Of course children go hungry--because their parents are losers. Of course the poor suffer, they brought it on themselves. Especially the women without partners, but burdened with children. Those starving children are punishment for the evil daughters of the sinful Eve. Get with the program, man. It's Calvinism, and there aren't any fuzzy tigers involved.

[pelagius]

15. I get the irony, but need to point out that...

Calvinism is a small sub-set of Protestant thought mostly concerned with soteriology, or how a person comes to salvation. It's a complex discussion outside the ken of most Christians.

Blaming the attitudes you describe on Calvinism is like blaming Darwin for social Darwinism.

Note: I'm not a Calvinist. I'm an Anglican and we hold different views.

[Demeter]

16. Since Calvin Burned Servetus at the Stake

I can't help it if my Unitarianism is up.

[pelagius]

17. Another pedantic point

Calvin did not burn Servetus at the stake. He alerted the Roman Catholic authorities that Servetus was in their territory and they performed the honors. Scant moral difference, though.

Calvin was pretty damn extreme in my view and in no way can I deny a linkage between Calvinist absolutism and far-right Christian thought.
But the driving force behind today's Religious Right is something called Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism.

Rather than go into detail, I'll point to a good introductory article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant05252004.html

[T_i_B]

20. I don't think anyone with your username

could ever be accused of being a Calvinist. I've been reading up on that theological viewpoint recently though, and I have to admit I have difficulty understanding it, let alone agreeing with it. Here's another thread where I have been discussing Calvinism for starters, just in case anyone is interested in trying to get to terms with it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=111x29899#36190

[pelagius]

21. You're the first person to mention the allusion!

I thought it rather sly of myself to come as a Christian to a liberal bulletin board under the name of one of histories great heretics -- whom I think got a rather raw deal overall.

[T_i_B]

22. He did get a raw deal

That said, ever heard of Erasmus of Rotterdam? Even though he never denied Original Sin he was accused of being a Pelaigan during his quarrel with Martin Luther over free will and predestination. Erasmus was very much a liberal by our standards, and a pacifist to boot! I've been reading up on the history of Christianity recently and Erasmus does come across to me very well.

And I don't think most people on DU have the foggiest idea of such things as theology. We are actually quite lucky to have had somebody on this thread mention Calvinism and for that if anything we should be a little bit thankful.

[pelagius]

23. Many say Erasmus was one of the first humanists...

..of the Enlightenment. I often identify myself as a Christian humanist to spark discussion.

Old Pelagius, too, who did not believe in original sin and taught salvation comes through living a Christlike life -- not creeds or "born again" moments -- was more focused on the human side of the equation, too.

Too bad he caught the eye of Augustine of Hippo, certainly one of the most effective theologians of all time. Christianity might have taken a very different path.

But this is probably tedious in this topic. I'll spare everyone the boredom. "Ask an evangelical dude" seems to be a better thread.

[T_i_B]

19. I agree with everything you have said on this thread Pelaigus

If it is morality then it's not so much a matter of becoming more moderate in many respects as pointing out that many left wing positions from healthcare, to social security to Iraq are in fact moral positions. Something that many on the left are almost embarrassed to admit however, partly due to the increasing bigotry towards Christianity that is all too often present on the left.

Personally, I wonder what the other options were in this poll of what made people vote GOP. I actually suspect that it's more down to the GOP's selling of their man's character as being a strong leader and Kerry as being a flip flopper but you guys are in a far, far better position to tell me why people voted for Bush and not Kerry.

P.S Like your username Pelaigus!

[ClintonTyree]

3. I will not...............

concede an inch to the American Taliban. They can take their Jesus of hate, war, retribution, lying and cheating and shove him right square up their asses. These pious, holier than thou hypocrites are taking this country in a direction that we dare not go. I will not even remotely become one of them. "America is a religious nation: tapping into morality is not just smart - it is essential". Pretending to take the moral high ground, which is what the Rebublicans do, is a cheap and tawdry trick used against these simpletons to gain their vote. Power and wealth are their Gods, and they use the faithful to achieve those aims.
No thanks, I'll hold on to my dignity. I can't be bought by a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing. The Fundies can (and will) go to hell for trusting these thugs.

[Briar]

4. This is what I was afraid of

American liberals selling out their principles as Labour sold out its principles and travelling even further to the right than they already have. Liberalism is already a moral position - the key one in any effective modern democracy. It must not be abandoned. I've already read articles where earnest Christian "mdoerates" urge the Democrats to start wooing pro-lifers by making a big issue of banning late term (or post-viable or some such forumulation) abortions.

One by one, vulnerable groups are being abandoned in the search for the votes of the mythical centre moderates. Next it will be women and homsexuals...but one day the knock in the night will be on the door of the last liberal in America, and then where will you be when he or she is hustled off to the death camps?

[Liberal Gramma]

6. I agree

We can't change who we are just to appeal to a group of people who will never accept us. There is enough dishonesty in politics without liberals pretending to embrace right-wing "ideals."

[gnofg]

5. I have my dignity

If we change they will still vote for the repubs. We will never be "religious enough for them". What the article misses is that there is no religion in english politics, so you can make changes to policy, however religion is corrupting our government. Next time you see a fundie, Ask him if gay pride marches disgust him. After he says yes, Ask him why praying in public is not essentially the same. Both are displays of that are best left at home.

[Snellius]

7. Maybe we should go on the Benny Hin show and heal people

I wish Robert Reich would please defect to the other party. And take Leon Panetta with him.

[tokenlib]

10. Reich is trying to strengthen the liberal message...

I don't see Reich as bowing to the DLC in his comments. When Wes Clark said that the Republicans talk about family values but refuse to value families---and Kerry expressed the same sentiment--it was a powerful statement in this direction. However it needed to be repeated over and over again--and pressed further. Kerry actually made comments like this in some appearances--but they needed to be hammered home on the same level and to the same degree as his critique on the missing weapons.

Kerry had these elements in his comments, but they had the visibility of footnotes when they should have been major talking points. The DLC influence is in part responsible for this. They detest references to class warfare--yet the reality of class warfare is the big fat slob taking up most of the room on the couch in the middle of our societal living room. Reich is simply saying that economic justice if expressed well is an issue equal to and indeed larger than "God, guns and gays."

This is a discussion on how we communicate--not on the substance of the progressive principles which most democrats believe to be the soul of the party.

[DianeG5385]

13. NO, Way

We are not going to pander to the religious right. They'd laugh us out the door. It's not about religion, it's about power and control. They don't have the franchise on religion, we GAVE it to them. There are plenty of religious Dems, I'm not one of them. I want us to be the party that stands up for our priniciples which are their principles, they just like the thought they're part of the "in crowd". We need to do what we've always done which is focus on our issues and if you're religious, cool! If you're not cool! NO MORE PANDERING!!! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!

[DemVIctory]

18. Christian dems should contrast the word of Jesus

with the word of Paul. Fundies look to Paul, not Jesus for their political beliefs. Jesus was a liberal! 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.'

In one story, money-traders were castigating a woman of 'ill-repute' and they called on Jesus to condemn her. Guess what he did!?! He condemned THEM!!

Jesus was a liberal- peace, love, understanding- he certainly wouldn't be a frothing conservative! Don't fall for the trap of 'Jesus beat us.' He is on OUR side!! Learn what Jesus said vs what Paul said and shove it in the fundies face!

We know R's are hypocrites, the word of Jesus is another example.