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

[kathygnome.livejournal.com]

I just don't think the democrats can step far enough in that direction to be convincing. The true genious of the religious extremists within the Republican party has been their ability to continue to shift the party further to the right and to redefine the center as liberal and the liberal as the extreme left.

[robbysmom.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are masters at obfuscation and the strangely Orwellian ability to call something the exact opposite of what it is. (To wit, laws that halve restrictions on chemical emissiosn from power plants as a "Protect the Air Act" etc.)

Nonetheless, IF the Democrat party does have a set of moral/ethical beliefs (I beleive we do), then we should say what they are and whence they come.

If we cringe at the term "pro-family" for example, we cede any authority to define the families we have made, whether traditional or non-traditional-- because we don't like the concept. This is working for those who would like progress in human rights to turn back for women and queer folks.

If we continue to engage in simplistic rights or wrongs discussions about abortion rights, we will miss the fundamental basis on which now centrist seeing Sandra Day O'Connor upheld Roe v. Wade, which is, to permit the state to outlaw abortion permits the state to enforce an undue burden on half the citizenry. (In other words,she saw that to outlaw abortion is, in effect, for the state to define women as baby-making machines, whether they have chosen to do so or not *and* without imposing any burden on anyone else who participated in the process.)

If we do not confront this "culture of life" line with an inquiry into our views on capital punishment (I honestly do not see how a "culture of life permits the manifestly unjust system of capital punishment in place today, for example); and the QUALITY of life for children and the vulnerable, including those who could benefit from stem cell research, we are in serious danger of becoming a theocracy. The basis for opposition to abortion or scientific use of fetal tissue is a religious interpretation (and only oen among many) which its adherents wish to enshrine in civil law.

I suspect that Democratic pols are concerned about offending parts of our already loose coaltion by discussing these issues.

But I stipulate we shoudl well have thought them through by now. (e.g., Kerry sounded least convincing to em durign debates when he was talking about his own views on these issues-- better marginally than Dukakis asked about his views, but still. .. )

Further, when we talk about economic justice, are these moral issues? if not, what basis do they have? Is the very concept of justice a moral or ethical issue?

On the one hand, there is the question as to why we should have to respiond to a debate in the terms of the opposition. But my answer is that they now control the federal gov't, and they do now frame the debate. What are our answers? And what will we bring to the table, in return?

[winterbadger]

Yes, they are masters at obfuscation and the strangely Orwellian ability to call something the exact opposite of what it is.

This is in no way a Republican preserve.

Nonetheless, IF the Democrat party does have a set of moral/ethical beliefs (I beleive we do), then we should say what they are and whence they come.

If we cringe at the term "pro-family" for example, we cede any authority to define the families we have made, whether traditional or non-traditional-- because we don't like the concept. This is working for those who would like progress in human rights to turn back for women and queer folks.

ABSOLUTELY! I wholeheartedly agree.

The basis for opposition to abortion or scientific use of fetal tissue is a religious interpretation (and only oen among many) which its adherents wish to enshrine in civil law.

Exactly. If the Republicans are the only ones standing up and talking about the religious basis for the moral judgements that they use to make to law, then they are the only voice talking about religion that American voters will hear. And for better or worse, that's something that many (most?) Americans want to hear.

Further, when we talk about economic justice, are these moral issues? if not, what basis do they have? Is the very concept of justice a moral or ethical issue?

PRECISELY! When MLK talked about letting "justice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream," he didn't make that up himself, and the reason it was powerful was not just the beauty of the language itself, but the fact that it invoked a tradition that 80%+ of Americans adhere to, at least nominally.

Kerry sounded least convincing to em durign debates when he was talking about his own views on these issues

I take this out of order because my reaction to it goes off in a different direction. I am concerned by the possibility that the changes that took place in the Kerry campaign leadership when his candidacy seemed to be faltering may have included a change or changes in message or presentation by the folks who joined the campaign late that sought to move away from what had seemed to be failing but that in the end produced a message that was not genuine for that candidate. In other words, how much of what Kerry was saying at the end of the campaign was stuff that his Clintonist campaign staff was pushing on him? Could that have been why he felt uncomfortable talkign about it? I have trouble believing that John Kerry, amn of passionate convictions, has trouble talkign about things he truly believes in.