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 01:50 pm (UTC)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.
The Democratic curse
Date: 2004-11-04 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:44 pm (UTC)Having a leaders whose policy choices are informed by their religious beliefs is not the same as, or anything like, theocracy. By that standard, the Carter administration would have been one of the most theocratic regimes in postwar America. People, the leaders of the United States (and the UK, for the most part) have predominantly been religious people with a serious belief in God and whose moral structures were founded in religion for most of our history.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:54 pm (UTC)I think it's because this is a matter of faith (or lack thereof), not fact, and it's the same on *both* sides of the argument, I'm afraid.
Re: The Democratic curse
Date: 2004-11-04 02:58 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2004-11-04 03:00 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?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:15 pm (UTC)This is possible because, long ago, our religious leaders stopped leading, and began following their congregations.
(Of course, that's a broad brush. I do not mean to include every single cleric in that. But, by and large, I believe it to be true. Please understand that I am speaking of the country at large. If you don't fit in these statements, cool. But consider that you might before you dismiss them out-of-hand...)
The concerns of the common man are vocalized, and the man/woman at the pulpit is charged with coming up with an excuse that seems reasonable to his/her flock.
This legitimizes the fears, because they are now perceived as being "The Word of God."
The problem with this is that, instead of following the fundamental points of most religions (e.g., play nice with others, watch your neighbor's back), we use our holy men and women to play Legal Scholar of God.
Back to politics: The GOP plays this game very well. The Dems can't, and, in my estimation, shouldn't. They ought to fight back for the soul of the country. We do have a religious tradition here. We just need to get it back on track, and recall that that was what gave us the courage to trust our neighbors and establish a democracy in the first place.
Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:38 pm (UTC)I fear we're just going to have to disagree, then, Cap'n. I don't think you could be more wrong.
This is possible because, long ago, our religious leaders stopped leading, and began following their congregations.
Do you think that's true of the Rev. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rev. Jesse Jackson, or Rev. Al Sharpton? of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.? Not all those men are in any way admirable, but I don't think that any of them docilely follow behind their parishoners, waiting to see which way the wind is going to blow.
Sometimes religious leaders lead from their own convictions, sometimes they lead based on the consensus of their congregation. Religious leaders are not like captains or generals; they don't have the power to *force* people to follow them. They have a reposnsibility to act as guide and conscience for their flocks, and they need to stand up and speak out when they beleive popular opinion is heading people in the wrong direction. But they are also the leaders of *communities*, and they can't just willy nilly take them in any direction they feel like.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:42 pm (UTC)See here is something which I take offense with. Not just here, but I've seen it in the other news and media outlets. They are saying "Democrats need to become more religious/moderate/right to attract people" That is absolute bullshit. Forty-nine percent of the country is voting Democrat. The problem is with identity, the problem is with consistency of message, and the problem is being afraid to speak the truth because Democrats are afraid of offending some hick out on his farm in the middle of Indiana. Screw the hicks and their screwed up morals. Democrats are never going to win the hearts of the culturally and morally malignant wasteland of the American prairies and we shouldn't bother trying.
:) that felt good getting that off my chest.
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.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 04:10 pm (UTC)Ever hear of the expression "following from the front?" And you don't have to be overtly docile in doing so. Just spiritually.
But they are also the leaders of *communities*, and they can't just willy nilly take them in any direction they feel like.
I believe you miss the point here. They're not supposed to go "willy-nilly" as they please; they're supposed to go in the direction God leads them. That's their duty to God. The fact that the communities may prove resistant is immaterial; you stand at the pulpit, you speak the word of God.
I think the typical cleric in America today is too easily swayed by the consensus of the laity. Case in point: Catholics in America are often at odds with the Pope, and Catholic priests seem rather reluctant to do anything about that. Admittedly, as you point out, if I were to confront such a priest, his first question might well be along the lines of, "Whadaya want me to do? Make them listen at gunpoint?"
But your point is not about that. You're stating that the country is simply following the Good Book, and the Dems had better wake up to that fact. I think the country uses the Good Book the way an accountant uses the Tax Code; looking for rationalizations for what they were gonna do anyway. The leaders you mention are simply really good at finding such.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 04:13 pm (UTC)...the problem is being afraid to speak the truth because Democrats are afraid of offending some hick out on his farm in the middle of Indiana. Screw the hicks and their screwed up morals.
Well, if the Democratic Party agrees with you, I think that Mr. Daschle's successor can afford to redecorate the Senate Minority Leader's office andy way he wants to, 'cause he'll be there for a while. :-)
Democrats are never going to win the hearts of the culturally and morally malignant wasteland of the American prairies and we shouldn't bother trying.
Don't forget the fetid and incest-ridden swamps of the American South, the strip-mined, shotgun- and snow-mobile-infested slopes of the Rockies, the chokingly corrupt and oil-befouled Gulf Coast, and the radiation-sterilized snowbird-filled dust-mounds of the Southwest...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 04:15 pm (UTC)Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 04:52 pm (UTC)Are you really advocating that the Democratic party should attempt to co-opt right wing values in the hope of luring away voters?
Democrats need to focus on their base and on their message. Not running around whimpering and trying to appeal to all people.
(btw - I have a friend whos interested in saturdays game. would it still be possible to pick up a ticket for her that would be adjoining?)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 05:24 pm (UTC)Not at all; I'm saying the Democrats need to be able to frame their values in the context of moral and religious values, because that's a form of discourse that speaks to a lot of Americans. I'm not for changing any of the core principles or beliefs of the party, just for conveying them to voters more effectively.
Democrats need to focus on their base and on their message. Not running around whimpering and trying to appeal to all people.
God forbid the party shoudl appeal to people ;-) We might get elected to something and then what the f*** would we do? :-)
Seriously, I think Kerry (and the party in general) sat back and ceded way too much ground to the Republicans. We accepted their premises instead of fighting them. We didn't challenge them strongly enough. We didn't point out their flaws and failings effectively enough. And we didn't articulate a vision of where we wanted to take America, why that was a good direction to go in, and how we would get there. And part of that is talking to people in a language that they'll be receptive to.
And it isn't just an attempt to pull Republicans. Democrats are strong in the African American community, in the Hispanic community, in the Catholic community. All of those communities have a strong religious component. And a lot of folks in those communities stick with the Dems just because they're the lesser of two evils; showing a little more understanding and aceptance of what is important to them woudl help cement Democratic ties there.
(btw - I have a friend whos interested in saturdays game. would it still be possible to pick up a ticket for her that would be adjoining?)
We can certainly get another ticket for the section; I'll ask the TicketMistress to get it as close to us as possible. Tailgate also? I'm bringing a friend, so I'm going to Paypal a tailgate pass for her; shall I do the same for you and your chum?
Re: Now I see.
Date: 2004-11-04 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:07 pm (UTC)God forbid the party shoudl appeal to people ;-) We might get elected to something and then what the f*** would we do? :-)
Not what I said. It's impossible for any political party to appeal to all people. I'm a fairly diehard liberal but I don't even agree with all of their current platform. The Democrats need to communicate their message with a clearer voice, in a more comprehensive manner.
With that their has to be an understanding that there is going to be division, and that there will be large groups of people who will just plain disagree.
Everything else I basically agree with.
As for saturday I am a definite for both, and I am waiting to hear back from my friend. I'll let you know about her as soon as she gives me feedback
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:08 pm (UTC)Forty-nine percent of the country is voting Democrat
49% of those who voted, out of those who were registered to vote.
Yes, the total number of voters was higher than the numbers since 1968, but that's still a lot of folks who didn't vote. How do we reach them?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:28 pm (UTC)Honestly? Start up democratic based youth groups, social gatherings, etc.
Throw a party just for your democratic friends. Discuss politics in an atmosphere which is self promoting. Co-ordinate with the local democratic party to have local politicians show up occasionally and discuss whats going on. Give out prizes at the socials to people who bring the most new people in the fold. Develop a sense of identity.
Look at religions and others that are based on group based dynamics.
When people go the gatherings ask for small (I mean small - 2 to 5 dollar) donations. People who give money to a cause are more likely to stay faithful to a cause.
Likewise people who devote their time instead of their money will feel the same way.
Grass roots activism.. its the way to go.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:50 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."
Re: The Democratic curse
Date: 2004-11-05 04:45 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-11-05 04:54 am (UTC)I'm afraid that's just human nature. Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 05:42 am (UTC)Fair voting would equal a Kerry win. The exit polls confirmed it, until CNN decided to change the data.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 02:46 pm (UTC)I really need to get your phone number recorded somewhere around here :)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 03:23 pm (UTC)oops
Date: 2004-11-05 03:29 pm (UTC)Re: oops
Date: 2004-11-05 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 08:49 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 09:51 pm (UTC)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.