someone at Salon agress with me ;-)

[winterbadger]

http://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]

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.

Comments

The Democratic curse

[john-arundel.livejournal.com]

The main problem with the Democratic Party is that it is the 'everybody else party' i.e. anybody who has something to gain from changing the status quo. It is unlikely that it will ever be able to muster the kind of internal discipline that the Republicans can. I’m afraid, as it stands, the Dems will be relegated to waiting in the wings until the Republicans policies outrange enough people and they are able to get in on a protest vote (like Carter in 76) and (maybe) Clinton in '92

Re: The Democratic curse

[winterbadger]

I agree that one of the problems witht he current situation for the Democrats is that they are seen as the party of change, and right now people are, if not happy with the state of things, for uncomfortable with the idea of change than with the idea of maintaining the status quo.

I think the Dems got the identity of the party of change as a result of their primary identity of the past, that of the party of the working man. When the average worker was blue collar, when most labor was either organizaed or in the process of organizing, when the rich man and the company boss were recognized as the enemy who was out to exploit the worker, the Democrats' message of change was one that most Americans welcomed. The idea of a party that united most Americans in working for a better future for us all, of--frankly--socialism and communitarianism was popular. The government was seen as the one force poweful enough to counteract the power of the wealthy and the engine of progress, if controlled by progressives instead of the capitalists.

Now that the Republicans and their libertarian running dogs have managed to convince Americans that the government is their enemy, now that they have firmly entrenched their vision of every man as his own small-business owner as an icon and touchstone of American economic fantasy, nwo that they have convinced voters to identify with the rich man instead of the working man, the Democratic vision just doesn't appeal to everyone.

As the fictional President Bartlett in The West Wing points out, Americans are against estate taxes because they all hope/expect that one day _they_ will be rich, and they don't want government to take away the wealth they want to leave to their kids. I think the same thing is behind the failure of Americans to respond to criticisms of the Bush tax plan. So what if most of the benefits got to people making over $200K? If Americans all dream of a day when they make $200K themselves, they'll be much more amenable tokeeping those taxes low.

Re: The Democratic curse

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

Very good points!!!!!!! Very well said.

Re: The Democratic curse

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

This is all very true, it matches up with the historical facts quite well. Of course, the Right was very strong in this country before, during the so-called "Gilded Age" in the late 19th century. They ran roughshod over the planet and the rights of anybody who disagreed wtih them. Eventually, they were thrown down, only to rise again.

Depressing, no? You can make all kinds of progress, and then, a hundred years later, end up right back where you started.

Re: The Democratic curse

[winterbadger]

Depressing, no? You can make all kinds of progress, and then, a hundred years later, end up right back where you started.

I'm afraid that's just human nature. Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose.