Democratic party seeks to win evangelicals, but risks leaving behind their base.

[madfloridian]

I know there is so much discussion here at DU about what the "real" base is.

That is what has puzzled me so much. We have a huge and diverse base in the Democratic party, and we should be proud of it. Instead our leaders are running from the anti-war people in the party, from the women in the party who want the right to make their own choices on health care, from the gay community which wants equal rights.

Some Democrats are running faster than others. I have seen some handle the reaching out to the evangelicals, formerly known as Bush's base, in an intelligent and thoughtful way without forgetting the rest of us.

Some feel it absolutely necessary to put those of us in our places who believe pre-emptive war is sinful, women's rights are sacred, and gays should not be used as scapegoats.

To make it clear, our party is going for Bush's base and leaving a lot of us behind. They tend to make it sound as though we are not very knowledgeable about how politics work, that we are not very bright, and that we are just way too loud.

They have turned someone like me who was raised in a Southern Baptist environment, a Christian home, a community with strong conservative standards......they have through the last 6 years turned me into a very angry person toward parties who take us to war for no good reason.

Harold Ford has just sent a caution to those of us who question how Iraq happened, and I was still reeling from that.

Harold Ford: "I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past" in Iraq

It worries me that we are talking about Iran the same way we talked about Iraq, but he was saying not to revisit the past though we are already reliving it.

But I digress from my point, which is this article today that sort of throws us to the wind while seeking to find more common ground with the religious community than they do with us who have been lifelong Democrats.

I read this article today at The Ideas Primary, which was started when Harold Ford became chairman. It hit me wrong, it made me angry.

This paragraph especially disturbed me. He admits the right may be wrong, but note the way he mentions separation of church and state.

Building a Bridge to the Faith Community

The irony is that as wrong as the right may be, the left may have trouble gaining ground within the religious community, in that some have already vowed fidelity to gay marriage, and other adhere to the most stringent application of the separation of church. These positions signal loudly to many of us - including those whose religious views inform our perspectives on public life - that some on the left don’t think that we are right.

I do adhere to the most stringent application of separation of church and state. So I guess I guilty on that. He is right, I don't think they are right to concentrate on this base to the extent they are doing.

This author makes a lot of good points. But too much of it is fear that we won't win that group over. There is no especial concern about those of us on the left.

If the Democratic Party is to make inroads into the faith community, it must be willing to put all issues and options on the table that. Building an agenda around “quality of life” issues, also known as the social gospel, has proven successful.

Now in full Election ‘08 mode, with the right being wrong, and some on the left standing mute, the religious community continues to raise the question of the candidates that John asked Jesus “are you the one or should we look for another?”

A party can not be all things to all people. Unfortunately they are appearing to consider the relgious community and its agenda more important than the rest of us.

You can not win by having "all issues and options on the table."

You have to take stands on something. We could try taking stands against pre-emptive war. We could take a stand on preserving Social Security. We could fix that bankruptcy bill so the elderly and ill could preserve their homes during bankruptcy proceedings. We could say that woman and doctors should make medical decisions, and that congress should stay out of it.

There will be many on the religious right, no matter how much we pander to them, who will take the question the author asks:

....raise the question of the candidates that John asked Jesus “are you the one or should we look for another?”

And after we have given up all the things Democrats traditionally stand for, many in that religous community will say they will look for another...that we did not give up enough of our beliefs to suit them.

[AndyTiedye]

1. k/r

:kick:

[NMMNG]

2. Hear, hear.

If we give up all of our Democratic values to woo the RW are we Dems any more?

[pokercat999]

36. That's what our "leaders" have been doing for the last

15 years like Mr big dog hisself.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE!

[Chovexani]

3. K&R

You said it.

[nickgutierrez]

4. They can do both: Talk about Jesus in heavily Christian areas, find other ways in areas less so

You don't have to be all things to all people. Bring one platform to the table, and frame it differently based on who the message is aimed at.

We don't have to aim to win 100% of the vote, but we shouldn't aim for a mere 51% either. Coalition building is a good thing, bringing people who approach the same positions from different perspectives to the table is a good thing, and talking to people in a language they can understand and identify with is a good thing.

For the 2008 elections, we should be loud and proud about being the "big tent" party - inclusive of anyone and everyone that wants to move the country forward. Directly contrast that with the Republican tactics of "divide and conquer", and run ads about how the Republicans have actively taken steps to limit civil rights and attacked poor Americans.

[madfloridian]

5. But don't put ALL the issues on the table.

That is what they seem to be advocating in this article.

If we put "all" issues on the table, we are no longer standing for the things Democrats have traditionally stood for.

[nickgutierrez]

6. I agree there.

We don't have to change our positions at all, just shape the way we talk about them.

[GMFORD]

22. change the way we talk to them

Have you ever tried talking to them? There is no logical fallacy, no contradiction in terms that they do not embrace. There is no way to get through to what we now call the evangelicals or fundamentalists which used to be called religious fanatics. IMO they are delusional.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Let's be blunt here...

there are only two issues to "put on the table" in order to win over the religious voters who are not already voting Democratic: choice and gays.

It is that simple. You know it and I know it.

Religious folk who are for peace, justice, and the poor already vote for the Dems.

The only ones who DON'T are anti-choice and anti-gay.

Does everyone get that???

That's is why I find this move in the Democratic Party to be dangerous and detrimental to my own future and the future of my friends and family.

A lot of us are about to be sold out by our own Party.

The question is, are we going to let/enable them, or are we going to tell them to piss off???

[madfloridian]

30. You are right.

.

[pokercat999]

37. I agree, the MOST important thing any Dem can stand

for is equal J U S T I C E for E V E R Y O N E in every aspect of our government and society without compromise.

[shenmue]

7. I'm tired of the idea that "we" have got to ask "them" for everything.

Notice we are supposed to apologize to the evangelicals for some reason, meanwhile they don't have to do so?

There is no dialogue. The evangelicals are trying to dismantle the Constitution, and they don't like gay people.

[Chovexani]

9. Dialogue has to go both ways

This is what I don't understand about the people who were defending Obama having McCLosetcase on stage in the name of "inclusivity" and "dialogue".

Dialogue can't happen when it's only one side that's willing to talk.

[libodem]

8. To heck with the Evangelicals

just mom and pop with the church going family is fine by me. Any one with a conscience will be willing to denounce the Republicans corporate business trumps human beings, stance. I have a strong feeling the military families will also be swinging our way. I know we have the moral high ground these days. Bush only pretends to be god-fearing, because he uses people for votes. he is NOT ethical or moral. He's a shyster, liar, charlatan, faker, snake-oil salesman, draft dodger, boozehound.

[jody]

10. The Dem platform is supposed to represent the Party's real base. That doesn't prevent each candidate

from taking a position completely opposite to the Party's platform.

For example, the 2004 Dem platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" but several senators and congresspersons sponsor bills that would ban handguns.

IMO similar splits exist between the Dem platform and elected representatives and candidates on other issues.

[struggle4progress]

11. Not all the evangelicals are fundy wingnuts: Jimmy Carter is an evangelical.

[madfloridian]

12. Neither was I a "fundy wingnut" I never refer to people that way.

I was a devoted Southern Baptist, until they changed. They became more about bigotry and judgement and we left.

Jimmy Carter left that church as well.

But our party can reach out to them without warning us to behave.

That is my gripe. They ignore their progressive anti-war base to reach out to the base of the other side.

[struggle4progress]

14. But "evangelical" is not synonymous with "Southern Baptist" either.

I don't really disagree with most of your OP. I want strict separation of church and state, not only for reasons of polity but also for theological reasons. And I know devoutly religious people who are pro-gay-marriage. I do not object to "reaching out" to certain evangelicals by means of certain moral stances, which involve various promises of commitment to social justice which I hope they share. "Reaching out" on a strictly religious grounds, however, seems blasphemous to me. Since I doubt most current Southern Baptists will ever share my views about the importance of social justice and peace-making, I see little point to "reaching out" to them.

The point of my comment was really that "evangelical" is not synonymous with "rightwing fundamentalist." Perhaps you are right to rebuke me for the phrase "fundy wingnuts" but I find it a useful shorthand: frankly, I have rather lost most of my respect for the rightwing fundamentalists, who I believe have preached triumphant American exceptionalism and a nasty xenophobia as if it were Christianity.

[madfloridian]

15. I think we basically are agreeing.

I think there is no one fit all label. My problem is with the concentrated effort to hush those of us who protest the war, and appeal to their base.

[Irishonly]

21. Great Post

Reading this thread has been a welcome change. It's a section of Christians, not all, that preach exclusiveness. My unofficial second daughter was a foreign exchange student in New Zealand. She always professed her faith by first saying she wasn't a Christian like Bush. I have a tendency to separate Christians like Bush as evangelical, fundamentalist right wing nuts and they are not like liberal Christians. Bush's type of Christianity is influenced by politics, right wing as they are. My Christianity supports gay marriage, equal rights, insurance for all and the list goes on. My sense of history tells me the founding fathers didn't want a theocracy and those who were expressed faith are not like the Southern Baptists today.

[mtnsnake]

13. We shouldn' suck up to the evangelicals. Let them come to us for what we are

If they don't like it that we don't push religion enough for their tastes, then fuck 'em.

[eridani]

16. Appeal where there is common ground, not by pandering to bigotry

There is plenty of common ground. There are evangelicals who are very active in environmental stewardship, and who really like the Sermon on the Mount better than Leviticus screeds.

[sampsonblk]

17. What it comes down to: 'You have to take stands on something.'

That's precisely what Ford and his type refuse to do. They believe in winning the very next election. So everything is on the table. In the scheme, we could all be sold out for another constituency at any time.

This is why I prefer candidates with long-held beliefs. Because they can't change them to fit each election cycle, as Harold Ford would prefer.

[Demeter]

18. If We Had Muslims, or Buddhists, or Pagans Running Only

you bet there'd be massive support for separation of Church and State from the religious right!

[AtomicKitten]

19. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

All evangelicals are not haters. It is church leadership that sets the tone of churches. Obama is the only candidate that has gone into black churches and bitch-slapped them over preaching homophobia, and he also is the only candidate to discuss homophobia much less even say the word (in the Tavis Smiley debate). Whether or not people agree with him is irrelevant; he believes and I know for a fact that there are really decent people of faith who simply need good and decent leadership.

Harold Ford on the other hand exhibits all the telltale signs of freaky fundie speaking in tongues, and he, of course, is the kind of fundie the Democratic Party needs like a hole in the head.

[madfloridian]

20. Some Democrats are making it either or.

That is the problem.

Some are thinking and talking like winning Bush's base is more important than keeping ours.

The author of that article wants us to be just a little bit for separation of church and state, and just be a little bit for the rights of the gay community.

[defendandprotect]

23. The Dems stealing the Cross . . . ????

Wrap yourself in the flag and carry a cross -- ???

Hillary has been after this re Choice . . . . "compromise" as I recall it -- !!!!

Co-opting Evangelical fanatics and depowering them is one thing ---
Inviting fleas into your bedroom is another -- !!!

[AtomicKitten]

24. those basic tenets are not mutually exclusive

And you will find a majority of evangelicals agree; it is the minority of haters on both sides of this issue that grab the headlines. It is important that Democrats be discerning and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Some of the biggest bigots at DU are the atheists. I don't believe in God but I am not scared of

someone who does. I am scared of theocracy and the break down in the separation of church and state. As I had posted several times recently, the Founders created the wall between the two, because they believed that religion in its natural form could be a valuable tool in a free society. Most people turn to religion to answer the question Why do I suffer? Religion answers Your suffering can end if you lead a compassionate life . All major religions on the table at the moment have this as their central tenet---until some state gets a hold of them and decides to turn the religion into a Church which will be used to justify oppression of a race for economic exploitation (US, Saudi Arabia) or a divine kingship (Saudi Arabia) or wars of aggression against the deity's enemies (US.) The message of Compassion is lost, because tyrannical regimes use fear to dominate the masses and love is the antidote to fear. Love encourages people to rise up against dictators as the Buddhist monks did in Burma. So the state Church preaches hell and damnation and war against the ever present enemy instead and takes the masses back to square one, suffering. For their fear it offers only anger and hatred and the promise that if the right people are exterminated from the earth, safety can be found. Only the safety does not address the real spiritual problem Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do I suffer? and so they embrace their phony-baloney religion even more fervently because the state has forbidden them any other.

You do not need to believe in God to answer the question Why do I suffer? Buddhism, particularly of the Zen variety has been embraced by atheists and Jews (who can not embrace false Gods) for years for its lack of a deity and the success with which it answers these questions through its non dualist philosophy which shows that suffering has its origins within our own imaginings and desires---things which we create and can recreate and which therefore are illusory. Hunger is real. Despair is a state of mind. Buddhism or any non dualist moral system of thought can free a person to experience hunger without despair. Without despair, one is able to act each moment as one needs to act so as to show compassion for oneself and for those around you and for the world. The illusion of despair is like a weight that keeps you for acting in a humane way. It is the voter apathy that keeps so many Americans at home. Lift that voter apathy , bring people to the polls in a spirit of compassion---because they believe that all children should have health insurance and that all young adults should have a chance at a college education---and then the world is shaped through compassion into a better place.

Because most religious people in the US are Christians, reaching out to their spiritual side means talking to them in a language and using the symbols which evoke the compassionate, warm, altruistic side of their character. That means the language of their Christian religion. The religious right has been charged by the Federalists and the Right Wing with creating a State Church of Christianity that is so abhorrent that people like those at DU will be appalled at Christianity---forgetting that St. Francis, who embraced lepers, the poor, beggars, thieves, Muslims, in defiance of his Pope was a Christian and that the Liberation Theologists are Christians---and declare that anyone who is a member of the faith must be the same as Pat Robertson.

When you say that all Christians are the same as Pat Robertson, you display the same kind of bigotry that made slavery possible. America tend to be a dualist, Cowboys and Indians kind of culture, but I hate to see it at DU. Democrats are the party of inclusiveness. We embrace diversity. Does anyone here really think that Quakers are the same as Jerry Falwell? Unitarians? Is Leonardo Boff, Liberation Theologist just another religious right fundie?

If I were the Democratic leadership I would base my appeal to the better nature of religious peoples in America on two things:

1. Separation of Church and State which the Founders meant to protect religion from corruption by tyrants and malevolent political leaders

2. Social justice such as caring for children, the poor and ending unjust wars

Grab hold of those two issues which the religious right has forgotten in its fascination with stem cells and gay marriage and you will gain most of the religious people in the US.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. "the atheists" appreciate the irony

[More Than A Feeling]

32. I'm an atheist (although my preferred label is Humanist). Why do you say I'm a bigot?

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. Its foolish

The Republicans got where they did by pandering to their bases - the fear soaked ignorant, the have-mores, and of course the wingnut fundies.
The Democrats should learn a lesson from this. The Republicans grew from that base, because the undecided and independant voters saw a party that seemed sure of itself, and proud of its positions, and unwavering in its message. It was either that or "I voted for the war before I voted against the war".
You build from the base out. The Dems seem scared (no surprise) to embrace their base, to their own detriment. I believe that by forcefully declaring that they ARE the party for freedom of choice for women, equality for marriage for gays, and diplomacy over war, they will not only have all of us in their ballpark, they will stop any third party sabotage, and impress a lot of independents because it actually will look like we believe in what we say (and that won't be hard if we DO). I personally can't stand the undecided, as the choice seems clear to me - anyone but criminals - but those are the ones to go after not the wingnut fundies. And you start by satisfying us, your base, and we will then work tirelessly for your election. Its about momentum, and (sadly) a lot of independent voters will be swayed if they see a party that has a passionate base and sure of itself and its positions.

As has been said, from Jimmy Carter on, there are also a lot of Christian voices who are against war, and for rights of women and gays. Those enlightened Christians are the ones to woo. You will NEVER satisfy the Pat Robertsons of the world.

[madfloridian]

28. Here is why it will continue....

The DSCC and DCCC pick conservative Democrats to run, get others out of the race by drying up money or giving them no media attention...they pick candidates knowing that are against a woman's right to choose, and against the rights of gays.

They then post articles at the DLC and other think tanks laughing at the left and saying how this 2006 win proved centrists have won.

I guess they have after all.

Read this link of 3 paragraphs by Kirsten Powers, whom I believe is so-called Democratic Fox analyst, and then click through to the full article praising centrist and again putting down the left.

I am educated. I was right about Iraq. I knew it was a wrong war. I am a former Southern Baptist who dares to call that church bigoted. I know we are being played and spun, and that women and gays will continue to be discriminated again so we can "win."

We will allow Bush to attack Iran so we can "win.

Here's the article:

DLC: Election signals decline of old school liberalism.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. I'm a liberal by way of conviction and a Democrat by way of convenience.

I define myself politically by principle, not party. In the past, I have been willing to make my peace with Blue Dogs and other peculiar creatures in the interest of advancing my own purposes, but I can well imagine a time when I will have to leave the Democrats behind and move forward under a new flag--perhaps even a green one. I can foresee a time when the DLC and the Neocons form themselves into a revolting lump of doctrine on the right that I must move away from--move away leftward. I think there will be a lot of others with me when this happens. Already the mass of Americans hold attitudes to the left of their corporation-sniffing, so-called "leaders." I see it in the antiwar flavor of the polls, in the increasing demands for green technology and foods, and in the outcry for publicly funded, universal health care. Even my Bible-thumping, flat-earth Fundamentalist neighbor is brewing biodiesel in his garage and running his monster pickup truck on restaurant grease.

The lure of big corporate money is about to lead the DLC into the La Brea tar pits of the far right.

[madfloridian]

33. WP op ed lectures Dems for not being religious enough.

This is a rather alarming op ed by Michael Gerson, a conservative. His comments about Casey are especially troublesome.

A Second Home for Religious Voters?

For me, Jimmy Carter was not a theocratic hope but an antidote to the moral emptiness of Nixon Republicanism. Carter was mildly pro-choice, but the party platform he ran on recognized the "religious and ethical nature of the concerns which many Americans have on the subject of abortion."

By 1984, something had changed. The Democratic platform declared abortion "a fundamental right." The Democratic nominee, Walter Mondale, began attacking religious conservatives in surefire applause lines. He talked of "radical preachers" and "extremists who control the Republican Party" who could "unleash an orgy of religious intolerance in our land." This was intended to be offensive -- evangelical attendance at orgies is generally low -- and it worked. In the 1984 election, I volunteered for the Reagan campaign.

The offenses have continued over the years. "My religion," Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean once declared, "doesn't inform my public policy" -- a stand that would have been inconceivable to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Democratic activist George Soros complains, "The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again president" -- effectively adding a new constitutional test for the office: A candidate must not only be born in America, he or she must be born only once.

I say to Gerson, don't worry. The Democrats are now embracing the pro-life agenda. They allowed the Democrats for Life to present their new plan to lower abortions by 98%...at the DNC. Times are a-changing.

Governor Dean and all the others talk of lowering the number of abortions without really thinking about who gets to decide who has one and who doesn't. Check out the Third Way website, Gerson. They abandoned their pro-choice base.

He is alarmed we are moving away from the theocracy, I am alarmed we are moving toward one. He gives statements by Bob Casey that are like a slap in the face to women who believe they should health care choices with their doctors. This is the father of the Democrat of whom Schumer said...we can not afford to worry about the issues anymore as we need to win.

America is moving toward the development of one secular party and one religious party. And that is a danger to democracy. This trend turns nearly every political disagreement into a culture-war conflict. When the sides view each other as infidels or ayatollahs, it adds jet fuel to the normal combustion of American politics.

It would be good for America if both parties were to appeal to religious voters. The current Democratic presidential candidates -- some with roots in liberal Protestantism -- are more comfortable with religious language than some of their recent predecessors. But the most stinging criticism of the modern Democratic Party came from a Democrat, a man of rare conviction and courage. The late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania argued, "By embracing abortion, the Democratic Party is abandoning the principle that made it great: its basic commitment to protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family." Casey called an absolute pro-choice position the "cult of the imperial self" -- a belief that violated his sense of fairness and justice, rooted in the Catholic faith. And he set out to build a consistent culture of life, which included the poor, the elderly and the disabled.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Human rights, civil rights, are not "on the table"

They never have been, and never should be.

Rights exist before law does. They are inherent. The trick is ensuring that they are recognized. So yes, there are things on which the religious right is just plain *wrong*.

But you can talk to people without doing away with your morals. You can have a conversation without compromising your values. That's what we need to do.

There are places to find common ground, and we should never shy from doing that.

But there are things on which there is no possibility of compromise, when compromise means infringing on others' basic civil rights. Those are not someone else's to do away with.

[yardwork]

35. What he's really saying is that the Democrats should kick the gays and women to the curb.

If the Democratic Party kicks the gays and women to the curb, does anyone think that the right-wingers will be satisfied? Heck no! They'll continue to roll back the Civil Rights Movement by kicking the African Americans to the curb? They're already demonizing immigrants (as if we aren't all immigrants from one time or another). Next they'll go after single people, spinsters, anyone who doesn't live exactly as the power structure demands.

Evangelicals who aren't bigots already vote Democratic. Changing our party even further to the right (and it's gone so far to the right in my lifetime it isn't funny) won't accomplish anything except what the right-wingers want. The fact that we're even considering this is appalling.

Why not just become Nazis so we'll all be Nazis together? Honestly.