someone at Salon agress with me ;-)
Nov. 4th, 2004 07:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerhttp://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/04/religion/
[Edit]The following text is a quote from the article to be found at the link above. My point in citing the article and quoting from it is to observe that I am not alone in suggesting that one of the advantages that Bush had over Kerry in the election, and which Republicans have over Democrats in general, is their ability to speak to the religious element in American culture. This is not a secular country, nor is it a theocracy. It is a country that, for better or worse, was founded by and has been governed by Christians (with some Jews in supporting roles) for most of its history and remains deeply Christian in identity, more so than any other western democracy IMO. To ignore this fact and its political implications is disatrous.[end edit]
[Edit]The following text is a quote from the article to be found at the link above. My point in citing the article and quoting from it is to observe that I am not alone in suggesting that one of the advantages that Bush had over Kerry in the election, and which Republicans have over Democrats in general, is their ability to speak to the religious element in American culture. This is not a secular country, nor is it a theocracy. It is a country that, for better or worse, was founded by and has been governed by Christians (with some Jews in supporting roles) for most of its history and remains deeply Christian in identity, more so than any other western democracy IMO. To ignore this fact and its political implications is disatrous.[end edit]
The white evangelical core of the Bush/Cheney electoral coalition has no problems with identity politics and has both a deep and rich religious and political language with which to narrate its own problems and aspirations. Whatever one may think of this feeling-laden ideology, Bush knows how to connect to this base precisely because he eschews a secular and rationalistic rhetoric in favor of a language rich with moralistic, eschatological, and even apocalyptic themes.
In a country where upward of 75 percent of the population believes in God and an afterlife (in its decidedly Christian registers), only fools do not avail themselves of such a diverse and vibrant rhetoric for communicating concerns around a whole host of issues concerning justice and what possible ethical and social meanings can be attached to our sojourns here on earth.
Well, the Democratic Party leadership is such a collection of secular and rational fools. There are obvious exceptions in the black churches and the mainline Protestant denominations, but the religious rhetorics of these communities have rarely taken center stage in the last decade or so. In short, the Democratic Party needs to stop pretending it lives in a secular country. Until French citizens are allowed to vote in U.S. elections (as an old-time Socialist, how I would welcome the advent of that political impossibility), the Democratic leadership will have to fashion its messages for the deeply religious country it presumes to lead one day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:13 pm (UTC)From its inception it was chastised both by its opposition and by many of its traditional supporters for abandoning its principles in order to appeal to the electorate. In the latter aim it was undoubtedly successful, but to some (me included) it appeared that it had lost its way idealogically. It is to be hoped that the Democratic Party can increase its appeal without abandoning its principles and thus becoming a mere clone of the Republican Party. Bearing in mind that the recent loss was by only a few percentage points, it has less ground to gain that the UK Labour Party had to, and should therefore have no need to compromise its principles.
To label as fools those who have achieved such a close approach to success in the face of the nightmare politics employed against them is unkind. It would be a far greater folly to adopt the methods and attitudes of the organisation that they oppose, if by doing so they would run the risk of losing the vote of their traditional supporters to far less electable independents.
I am not making any assumptions here about the demographics of an organisation wherof I quite obviously know considerably less than you, merely making a general point and suggesting that the tactics you suggest may well have been considered and rejected for what might seem to be perfectly valid reasons.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:09 pm (UTC)Having reviewed again the article to which you referred, I don't wish to comment (even if I could, which - not being a Salon.com member, I can't) on that article, but on the words in your post, which appear to me to say something entirely different.
Now it may be that the link you provided no longer points to the article from which you quoted, in which case I was deceived in thinking that those words were your commentary on the article rather than a direct quote. Might this be the case?
Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 03:27 pm (UTC)Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 03:58 pm (UTC)That's a huge portion of the Internet you're shutting out, then.
Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 04:08 pm (UTC)Honestly though, I were to subscribe to every subscription service I thought I might be interested in I'd need a second job to pay for it all. Instead my browsing is wide rather than deep. Rather like my education - one of the benefits of having been brought up in Scotland.
Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 04:17 pm (UTC)Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 06:01 pm (UTC)Here's my own ramblings...
Date: 2004-11-04 09:05 pm (UTC)(I've seen that Christian evangelists are at their best arguing with people whose beliefs are weak, muddled, or poorly expressed. Put them up against someone with clear, strong beliefs (of any religion), and most evangelists won't know what to do, and a good bit of their confidence (arrogance?) will evaporate.)
I suspect that the people who want a candidate to show religious (okay, Christian) conviction, are actually looking for a show of strength, confidence, and "moral fibre," which any leader needs to be effective, along with an easily-understood picture of "what's important." Most Americans believe (understandably if not rightly) that such qualities come from belief in a higher power.
Those liberal politicians who mumble about religion being a "private matter" sound like they're weaseling out, even to me; if your beliefs affect your public actions, then they're not a "private matter;" and if they don't, then what does?
Re: Here's my own ramblings...
Date: 2004-11-04 09:30 pm (UTC)I suspect that liberal politicians who mumble about religion being a "private matter" do not in fact have strong religious convictions. Their beliefs may be stong, and public, but not religion-based. (Although of some it might be said that money or politics is their religion)
Re: Here's my own ramblings...
Date: 2004-11-04 09:49 pm (UTC)As for those who worship money and/or power, they are, ironically, the ones most likely to wrap themselves in the cover of phony bombastic "values."