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

Re: Here's my own ramblings...

[kevinrtaylor.livejournal.com]

Very good points, and if New Labour had been about finding support for their traditional values and priciples in new terms that would appeal to the public, then their Old Labour supporters would not have felt so betrayed.
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...

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

My own opinion is that 'liberal politicians who mumble about religion being a "private matter"' may have religious/moral convictions, but they're so afraid of right-wing bullying and conformity that they can't state their beliefs with any confidence. Also, in rebelling against the absolutes of the right, they've become uncomfortable with the very concept of absolute right and wrong itself, and are thus exposed to the infamous "moral relativism" tag. In their actions if not their thoughts, these politicians have effectively reinforced the far-right's lie that far-right morality is the only morality.

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."