|
I wrote this quite some time ago, but hadn't posted it. It was written well before the E. Waynesville Baptist situation, but in light of that, I think it might be worth considering.
If you’ve never been a churchgoer and/or lived in a small town, I don’t think you can grasp the relationship of churches and small (read RED) towns. I have been both, although I now live in a large Western city.
And here’s the kicker—neither do the Radical RW. They just know how to EXPLOIT something that means a great deal to most small/red towners.
Church is only marginally about religion, really. Most (I’ll use) Christians, as an example, are perfectly aware that they don’t need church in order to practice their faith.
Instead, it’s about (to resurrect a phrase from the past) COMMUNITY. At least once a week, and usually more often, here is a safe place where people you share something important with meet, talk, gossip, socialize, take care of each other, the list could go on and on. These are people one has an implicit trust in—and city types may not get this, but—the trust is well-founded. And this trust may very well have been what cost us the election—NOT the rhetoric from the preachers. And I’m serious. Few pay any real attention to what they are saying anyway. It’s the GATHERING that’s important.
I can’t tell you why my neighbors watched our backs, but our neighbors watched our backs, invariably. And we watched theirs.
Small towners really aren’t afraid of gays. In every small town I lived in, there were gays of both stripes. Everyone knew who they were, and guess what? They were involved in social events, part of everything. When the doors were closed, they were left alone the same way “typical” families were. Basically it came down to blissful ignorance. They only react when it’s pushed upon them. And guess what the theocons did in 2004? They pushed the issue into their faces, to which they had to react.
We knew who beat their wives, who’s kid was pregnant, who was hooked, and on beyond zebra.
So what does all this mean? I don’t know, but I do think that both sides of the political fence have missed the boat in dealing with these small/red towners.
What small/red towners want is to STAY small town. They have NO desire to be citified. That means they may think they want the Wal-Mart, but in one particular case, a town I lived in for many years, it doesn’t take long for them to regret it deeply.
We don’t have to abandon the civil rights (read gay) to win back the red states. We need to refocus our thinking about abortion—we don’t need to abandon it. Teen pregnancy always seemed to me a bigger problem in the towns I lived in than in the city, anyway. We all knew where to go, as it were…
We do have to see that small towns are represented in the party. While they don‘t constitute a big voting bloc ALONE, they tend to have EXACTLY the same issues (agriculture, for example). We need to work locally. We need to understand how the church is related to the community.
If you want to know how LWers in red states/small towns think, listen for a week to Ed Schultz. Even if, as many don’t, you can’t stand him. He exemplifies every LW small town person I’ve ever known, and since my parents were always very active in politics, I knew every Dem in every town I ever lived in.
I challenge you to spend a week listening to him. If most of us on DU could do that, we’d have an enormously improved chance of winning the red states. And they would finally feel comfortable voting for their own interests.
|