Bereft of bright ideas or gutsy moves, the Democrats' winning strategy of choice is "If you can't beat them, join them." A few of posts ago, I argued that it is not necessary for the Dems to try and project themselves as a goose stepping, heel clicking, "martial party", in order to win elections or have credibility on national security. It appears now that some of them think that it is also a good idea to co-opt the Republicans on "moral values" by quoting Scriptures during policy debates. Poor showing at the polls and the rare success of southern Baptist Bill Clinton who spoke with a preacher's cadence, have convinced Democrats that wearing religion on their sleeves may return them to the glory days of being the majority party. (The main culprits here are Bill Clinton, Sen Joe Lieberman and the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton). Someone with a knowledge of modern medicine (Dr. Dean?) ought to remind them that it is not necessary to fight poison with poison - effective antidotes work better.
Ever since Ronald Reagan hijacked "family values" by encouraging public display of religiosity (while cutting or weakening "family friendly" programs), the Democrats have been floundering. They don't know how to regain their position in the public's mind as the party that cares about real family values like wages, affordable health care, education and workers' rights. The American public it appears, trusts Scriptures quoting politicians more than those with a no-nonsense, secular message of "bread and butter". When Howard Dean promised to bring poor white Southerners (who vote Republican in order to guard traditional values regarding "god, guns and gays") under the umbrella of the Democratic Party by appealing to their economic interests, the whole matter got buried under the Confederate Flag, mostly due to the outrage expressed by fellow Democrats! To recapture the public's confidence on family values, morality and wholesomeness, some Democrats feel that religious texts and Biblical references should serve as their reliable source for public persuasion. In his article , Joseph Loconte of the Heritage Foundation warns that a "Religious Left" is worrisome too.
"When Christians — liberal or conservative — invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics, they threaten our democratic discourse. Numerous "policy papers" from liberal churches and activist groups employ the same approach: They're awash in scriptural references to justice, poverty and peace, stacked alongside claims about global warming, debt relief and the U.N. Security Council.
Christians are right to argue that the Bible is a priceless source of moral and spiritual insight. But they're wrong to treat it as a substitute for a coherent political philosophy.
The Rev. Jim Wallis, a popular adviser to leading Democrats and an organizer of the Berkeley meeting, routinely engages in this kind of Bible-thumping. In his book "God's Politics," Wallis insists that his faith-based platform transcends partisan categories. "We affirm God's vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," he writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality.
A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise — and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven."
Perhaps the clueless Dems should try appealing to common sense, simple decency, universal human aspirations and progressive ideas rooted in the 21st century - they might be surprised by the success of this novel approach.
Update: A related "monkey see, monkey do" story here on the military, guns and abortion.
The thing I don't get about Lieberman is that in the primaries he tried to present himself as similar to BushCo by virtue of his strong family values and religious beliefs--in other words, "I'm electable because I'm a theocrat too"--yet he never seemed to stop to consider whether playing up the fact that he's a Jew in an appeal to the Christian fundamentalists was a wise move.
Howard Dean, sadly, shouldn't be the one to correct the Dems--remember just after he started losing his gigantic lead he went to church with Jimmy Carter in order to have President Carter endorse him as a Christian (granted, he was hoping for more support than a mere "it's true what the Dr says, he's a Christian," but the point still stands).
I do agree with your main point wholeheartedly. Although my concern is that the Democrats have begun a shift towards religiosity at the same that the Republican party is likely fracturing (the libertarian wing vs. the neocon wing). Which could essentially result in an alignment similar to the mid 19th century when the Republicans were the liberal party.
Posted by: Joe | January 09, 2006 at 01:21 AM