Lately Democrats have been going through all kinds of gyrations to try to make themselves seem more religion friendly. But Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates, reports at Talk to Action, that it isn’t working.
And thinks he knows why too.
Less than a third of Americans think the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July of 2005, only 29% of those surveyed thought Democrats were “religion-friendly;” down from 40% in 2004. More than half of those surveyed–55%–thought the Republicans were friendly toward religion.
At the same time, 45% of those polled thought that “religious conservatives” had too much control over the Republican Party, while 44% thought that “non-religious liberals” had too much control over the Democratic Party.
These results can be interpreted in many ways, but I think they show that the Democratic Party and its allies need to spend more time thinking about how the average American perceives their attitude toward religion.
Indeed. Chip and I have been beating this drum for a long time.
There is an odd psychology in play here. Some Democrats, particularly some inside the Beltway, publicly pander to “people of faith” to the point of aping evangelical styles of religious expression that are, well, unconvincing. But on other occasions, Democratic leaders and aligned interest groups will trot out focus-group tested slogans with which to label everyone remotely associated with the Christian Right. On one day we love them because they are people of faith. But on another day we hate them because they are out to destroy America as we know it. Or something like that.
No wonder the polls are weird on this.
I wrote about this in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy in a subsection titled “Its the Substance, Not the Slogan.” I called for use of accurate descriptors instead of the language of demonization.
There are pols who think that cheap slogans can substitute for the inherent persuasiveness of people who know what they are talking about, and who care enough to speak in ways that communicate values that connect with people’s interests. They have been around forever. But in our time, cheap sloganeering has substituted for aquiring relevant knowelege and putting it to use in evolvling political strategy in response to the growing strength of the Christian Right.
Berlet continues about the particulars of the slogan industry:
“Every week I get postal mail and e-mail solicitations for donations that use demonizing buzz phrases such as “Radical Religious Right,” or “Religious Political Extremist.” That type of rhetoric may scare some people into writing checks in the short run, but it makes it harder in the long run for grassroots organizers to build a broad-based movement for social change that includes people in progressive, liberal, and centrist religious groups…. Most Christian evangelicals, however, are not part of the Christian Right. I know from talking with evangelicals and fundamentalists across the country that they are offended by the rhetoric from some liberal and Democratic Party leaders who do not seem to be able to talk about religion without chewing on their foot.”
Read the rest of his essay here.
“Demonization is a two way street,” I wrote in Eternal Hostility, “and is engaged in by demagogues for purposes of their own. Sometimes, it simply adds a B-movie excitement to the normalcy of politics. [But] Whatever the outcome of the political struggles of the day, people still need to live in the same communities when it is over. This does not mean that debate and political mobilizations need to be meek and mild — only that those who would speak for democratic values need to effectively and forcefully speak for those values, in ways that demonstrate those values in action.”
I am not going to put forward a whole manifesto on language in this short diary. Maybe another day. Or maybe Chip will get around to it first.
But as Dems gear up for 2006, I just want to suggest that different approaches to talking about religion and politics are definitely in order.
OK.
Here is the deal. The Christian Right is the dominant faction in the GOP in Congress. They have alot of clout in the White House.
The Dems have not developed an effective approach to dealing with the whole matter of religion, let alone having a smart strategy for contending with the growth of the Christian Right.
Name calling is not enough, and as Chip suggests, probably backfires more often than not in contending for a lot of “persuadable” voters. Why offend the persuadables?
I realize that this diary contains no outrage against anyone. This is a think piece. This is one intended for some thoughtful consideration, and hopefully not a “I hate Pat Robertson” fest.
Let’s set aside our attitudes for today, and see if we can have some political conversation that might help us to make some progress in these matters.
As I see religion coming to take over more space in the public realm, I’m concerned. Where does this leave those of us who do not believe in a god? The pressure is mounting, and to see it come from Democrats as well gives me a feeling of mental claustrophobia.
We need a return to reasoned discourse, to science and citizenship- not a return to our holier-than-thou roots.
I think such was the intent of our nation’s founders, and I think the holier-than-thou-ism that has become so fashionable is a sick warping of both democratic ideals AND the real fundamentals of Christianity.
There are Christians out here who have no desire either to convert you or exclude you from full citizenship. The GOP doesn’t want you to know that, but it’s true. So if the Democratic party is smart, it will bring THOSE Christians front and center and keep them there. Not to put pressure on its humanistic non-religious members, but to give an alternative to the alienated and the holding-their-nose Repub voters.
If only our nation had indeed come into existence with the founders. Unfortunately it brought with it the baggage of earlier times, such as Salem and Calvinist “rich=godly” theories. These played a larged part in forming our national psyche, leaving a legacy of entitlement, intolerance and mob justice.
This summary of our roots is completely off the mark, and reflects the wrong-thinking about religion that plagues the Democratic party.
Our founding fathers were liberals in the finest sense of the word. They lived for quite a long time in Holland and picked up the liberal attitudes of that community, and those attitudes are reflected in the political and economic system they established in the New World.
The current situation is the result of two factors. 1.) The traditional affiliation of Catholic immigrants with the Democratic party, and 2.) the Reagan revolution that re-aligned the conservative south with the Republican party. As a result, the traditional liberal mainline Protestant churches are left without a party.
Please clarify who you mean by founding fathers.
Well, to start with, the Pilgrims, who instituted our system of civil marriage. Then, the colonial New Englanders who coped with the aftermath of the English Civil War. And the Deists and Unitarians and Congregationalists and Anglicans who wrote the Constitution.
“Our founding fathers were liberals in the finest sense of the word.”
So are you arguing that the Puritans were liberals?
Yup. From the 21st century viewpoint they weren’t, but from the 17th century viewpoing they were. In an era of absolutist kings and queens who could and did execute their political and religious enemies, when intrigue and backstabbing were the primary methods of governance, and when generals and admirals and governors were selected by birth rather than education or intelligence, the colonial Americans had elected, representative government, civil marriage, a strong sense of the value of education, and a broadly tolerant viewpoint on most issues. That’s what the Protestant Reformation was all about.
but for some reason it is only now beginning to make sense to me. I think the difference is Katrina.
There’s this fundamentalist Christian hate group that I try to follow ever since I learned they had moved their headquarters to my backyard. I read their website about once a week. I am slowly realizing that there is a particular discursive approach they use in talking about their issues, one that fits very nicely with GOP talking points and the whole “cultural/morality” angle but which at the same time lets the group regularly denounce politicians and government in no uncertain terms.
So basically, this group (and I presume others like it) is using Republican frames to advance their theology, while the Republican political leadership uses their theology to advance Republican frames.
And since both groups do very well by assuming that they corner the market on “faith” and “morality,” it is not surprising that mainstream voters end up feeling excluded both by the Democratic party (which is cast more or less uncontested as a bunch of godless gay-loving abortion-pushing heathens) AND by these very right-wing theocratic elements in the Republican party (because, as polls clearly show, most people are not and do not wish to become religious freaks).
So what does any of this have to do with Katrina? In my own thinking, here is how it is playing out. The Republicans are trying simultaneously to blame the local level for its failures and to call for no “blame-gaming” at all, let’s focus on helping people right now, etc. This particular hate group I follow is simultaneously blaming the abortion providers and gays and general debauchery of New Orleans for the hurricane happening (God sent it to eradicate sin and call people to Jesus, etc.) — AND they are literally going into Louisiana with truckloads of relief goods and hundreds of helping hands, to help people now. Do you see how nicely these various groups work together, how seamlessly they fit on the same discursive page?
Democrats have to outdo Republicans at the “helping people now” project, in both talk AND action. Frankly, I’m not hearing a lot of this from the Dem leadership in Washington. Where’s the compassion? Where are the calls for local parties to organize relief work? If we can see actors pulling desperate people out of the floodwaters, why isn’t Howard Dean down there working in a soup line? People are sick of press conferences and interviews — they want to see their leadership on the ground doing something useful.
At the same time, I think Democrats also have to offer a frame, a theology, if you will, that lays complete waste to this idea that blames the victims for their suffering. I want to see a modern-day MLK Jr. stand up in Louisiana and say, “So-called Christian leadership will tell you that the people of New Orleans brought this on themselves through their sins. I am here to tell you that no God worth worshiping would kill thousands, among them babies and old people, displace a million, and lay waste to an area the size of Great Britain, just to close abortion clinics and stop a gay parade on Bourbon Street. Don’t your preachers read the Bible?” and start quoting the scriptures that are central to progressive Christianity. Couch all this in calls for national unity, for accountability at all levels of government, for fiscal responsibility, for jobs and sane economic policies, for a foreign policy that actually protects Americans instead of keeping them terrified for political gain. Make it clear that there is no fundamental conflict between true Christianity and the core values of the Democratic Party, and that in fact the Republican-fueled version of Christianity is warped by greed and self-centeredness. Christianity in worldly terms is about community, and that is what Dems do best. You don’t have to look, act, talk, buy, and worship just like everyone else to be a good Democrat OR a good Christian.
Sorry to ramble on so long; I kinda got on a roll this morning!
Your final paragraph is the one item in this diary and thread that didn’t register with me somewhere between annoyance and anger.
If Christians actually acted according to the directives of their founder I might still be one. As things stand now I find the idea of “How are we going to market ourselves to the Christians in the marketplace?” to be both politically tone-deaf and morally repugnant.
We will start winning elections again when we stand up for the masses of people that have been made poorer, without healthcare, etc. by this mis-administration without even bringing up the issue of religion. It’s not anyone’s business what my religion, the president’s religion, or a congressman’s religion is, I just want to see results that work for the common man and woman.
Fiscal responsibility, government accountability, a right to privacy, a clean environment, good schools, an energy policy that works for all Americans, access to healthcare – the whole four freedoms of FDR – these are nondenominational, common-sense, good-government items. If someone cannot win by bringing these items to the marketplace of ideas, then this nation truly is lost, and the zealots can keep it as it collapses from within of rot. I’ll be getting the hell out.
Fiscal responsibility, government accountability, a right to privacy, a clean environment, good schools, an energy policy that works for all Americans, access to healthcare – the whole four freedoms of FDR – these are nondenominational, common-sense, good-government items.
I agree with this (although I have some quarrels with the way that fiscal responsibility actually functions in ‘centrist’ dem budgets)
The reason that the Dems are unconvincing is because they avoid discussion of actual values. Poverty is a moral issue. It’s the moral issue and yet Democrats run from discussing it. When they make policy and budget decisions (and, for that matter, implement mandatory evacuations) they neglect the poor. the poor are disposable. When we discuss what’s ‘good for the economy’ it usually involves some further means to exploit the poor. We’ve an increasingly savage and inequitable distribution of wealth which kills people through neglect and increasingly through overt means.
What’s more most formerly Democratic voters are aware of this. The Democrats are unconvincing because they have no values or vision, they’re simply responding to a cruel, flawed and punitive set of values served up as ‘religion’ by the right.
I am perfectly happy for people to be guided politically by the religious and moral beliefs. In fact, it would be nonsensical for them to do otherwise. All political parties should always support that.
However, no political party should support the idea that religious beliefs should represented in law. No political party should support the idea that a person’s rights should be restricted on the basis of religious beliefs.
Martin Luther King use of religion was personal: it gave him the support, guidance and strength to fight for the expansion of justice and civil rights. James Dobson and his ilk want to deny justice and rights to others and use religion as a public club to try to discipline us into submission.