Dems court evangelical voters in earnest
Last November, 70% of white evangelical and born-again Christians voted for Republican candidates nationwide, which is about the same performance as in 2004. DNC Chairman Howard Dean thinks Dems might be able to shave a few points off that number.
Richard Land had never met one-on-one with a chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The Tennessee evangelist, an influential force in the Southern Baptist Convention, generally views such people as adversaries, if not enemies. So consider his surprise when, at a non-partisan leadership conference over the New Year’s holiday, Howard Dean leaned in and said he’d love to get together for a private chat. Land agreed to meet for coffee at a downtown Washington hotel. He was wary: “I brought a witness,” he jokes now.
Dean was there to chip away at Land’s loyalty to the GOP, and strangely, Land found himself warming to the liberal Democrat. Among other things, he admired Dean’s frugality. “He hauled his own suitcase around, and the Capitol Hill Suites isn’t exactly fancy,” Land tells NEWSWEEK. “I was impressed.” More important, the two men had something to talk about, and did so cordially. “Dean told me how the Democrats were pro-life in that they wanted a country in which abortion was rare. I said, ‘I agree, but we disagree how to get there.’ Still, it was certainly a change in tone.”
I’ve seen some friends, online and off, respond with great anxiety about the notion of Howard Dean breaking bread with Richard Land. Does this suggest Dean wants the Dems to compromise on party principles to win over a few religious right votes?
I seriously doubt it. The point of this outreach is to help present a Democratic message in a way that evangelical voters might find appealing.
Dems are pro-choice, but they support measures to reduce abortions through prevention. Dems support the separation of church and state, but they support students voluntarily praying in public schools, so long as the schools stay out of it.
To be sure, for those religious conservatives who prefer to rewrite “God Bless America” to condemn the country and its citizens, there’s not much hope. That crowd probably wouldn’t return Dean’s phone call anyway.
But evangelicals are not necessarily a monolithic voting bloc. Some are open to a Democratic message on everything from global warming to Darfur to poverty, but perceive Dems as hostile. Indeed, as far as most born-again Christian voters are concerned, Dems don’t even try.
So, the party and its leaders are making, pardon the expression, a good-faith effort.
“In the past, we’ve come off as dismissive to evangelicals,” Dean tells NEWSWEEK. “But our party has become much more comfortable talking about faith and values.” Dean has met with four or five influential evangelicals in addition to Land, sometimes visiting their offices to talk. “Are we going to abandon Roe v. Wade? No. But a lot can be done to prevent teen pregnancy and abortions. There is a lot we do agree on.” The DNC under Dean has stepped up its Faith in Action initiative, an outreach program created in the wake of the Democrats’ 2004 defeat. Run by a Pentecostal minister, it has trained about 150 people. […]
Clinton, Obama and John Edwards all have senior staffers in charge of reaching out to religious groups. “There’s a lot of common ground here with evangelicals on the genocide in Darfur, ending human trafficking and making sure that religious liberty is not static around the world,” says Burns Strider, director of faith-based operations for the Clinton campaign. (By contrast, talking to evangelicals in 2004 was considered “a waste of resources,” says Mara Vanderslice, who was hired by John Kerry only eight months before Election Day to reach out to the faith community.) Obama’s national director of religious affairs, Joshua DuBois, says he has contacted more than 75 evangelical leaders since he joined the campaign on its first day. Speaking at an AIDS conference sponsored by the evangelical Rick Warren last year, Obama talked about contraception as a strategy to fight the disease, and “there was a standing ovation,” says DuBois. The campaign has hosted more than two dozen “faith and politics” forums in New Hampshire and Iowa and is planning more for South Carolina.
I realize that all of this may seem, pardon the expression again, unorthodox. But the Dems have a sincere pitch to make that might find a receptive audience. After all, evangelicals have noticed that decades of backing Republicans hasn’t gotten them much, except the status of a GOP appendage that is easily taken for granted.
There’s also a possible peripheral benefit. Even if Dems struggle to peel off evangelical support, the fact that the party is even making the effort may impress voters in Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations who, for whatever reason, perceive Dems as hostile to devout Christians.
I’m open to suggestion, but I see the investment as worth the effort.
Jesus was a liberal. That’s why they killed him.
There is probably something similar to the environmental movements’ tentative steps toward hunting, fishing and motorized wilderness access groups (and vice versa) in opposing the preznits scorched earth for oil, gas and coal in the West.
It’s not that we have to march in lockstep on all issues; but that there are some fundamental values that we do agree on, and that these values are not being served by the GOP.
From a purely practical standpoint, making the GOP play defense is good on two counts – it costs money and if they need to “shrill up” their rhetoric to secure the base it makes it harder to claim moderation which alienates other more swingable demographics.
I personally believe that evangelicals are very reachable, especially those who are thinking and really live gospel values. The republican attitude towards the poor and the sick and the prisoner and preemptive war are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. I have always been puzzled by the perception that Democratic values are anti-christian. I am so glad that Dean is reaching out to the religious community because God is not a Republican. Many Christians I know, including myself, have been very disturbed by the naked attempt to high-jack our faith by these thugs. Go Dean!
I agree with Dean, I definitely don’t think it would be good to be as obsequious as the GOP, but we do need to present the image that we aren’t actively hostile. The GOP has hammered at that meme for years and the Democratic party has done nothing to either counter or mitigage it. I don’t think this will result in a sea change of opinion, after all the belief that the Democratic Party is hostile to Christians is pretty ossified in the GOP.
Well, I have to say I am very impressed with Dean’s efforts to reach out to evangelicals. We are all in this together people, united we stand, divided we fall.
The bottom line is that Dean knows in order to right our ship, we must all be on the same deck. Enough partisan bickering, enough of the politics of divide and conquer, enough moral wedge issues.
We have to find common ground and begin working together again. We must, or our democracy WILL FAIL.
One thing on the abortion matter though, and I bring this up solely because it was referenced in the post.
I remember a few weeks back seeing a video of Tom DeLay speaking to a group of college republicans, and the topic was abortion. In a nutshell, Tom was blaming the waning influence of white culture in our society, as well as illegal immigrants coming in droves to our country to do the work most Americans wont do, on abortion.
In his mind, there are 50 million white people that would be here now, working our jobs so illegals don’t have to, and perpetuating the superiority of white culture.
I have no doubt in my mind that if Republicans were to have their way when it comes to abortion, it would be illegal for white people, but would continue on with a wink and a nod when it comes to blacks and browns.
Dean gets a lot of mileage out of his personal frugality thing. I remember stuffing envelopes for his campaign on a kitchen table he brought in from home. I saw his wife at Price Chopper one time, and I think she had coupons.
Politicians walk a slippery slope whenever religion is evoked. That said, the only thing that is really, really clear to me is that there is no place for non-believers like myself in this new America. Thanks for nothing, politicians! Religion this – religion that. Ugh. All this religion coming from both sides is giving this atheist a headache.
Real Christians are very attracted to the Democratic parties ideals but many of these groups hardly qualify as “real” Christians. To say ‘I believe in Jesus, now let’s go kill some ragheads’ hardly qualifies…(the leaders of Blackwater are Christian). As long as Dean isn’t prostituting Democratic ideals to gain votes I have no problem with it, but lately “Christian” has been associated with anti-science, anti-global warming, anti gay, anti separation of church and state, pro war, pro preemptive war, anti union, anti sex education, anti aids prevention and basically anti democracy which is why they are in a minority in this country and why they lose so many ‘thinking’ members.
There is common ground in all these areas but Christians have been thus far unwilling not only to compromise but unwilling to even “listen” to opposing opinions. Granted there are die hard fanatics in every group but even without intervention from Dean many Christians have broken away from the far right ideals because of the hypocrisy of war and self righteous condemnation of tolerance in a democracy.
Myself I wouldn’t want to belong to any party that would have someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Dobson leading it…but maybe Dean can find ‘some’ common ground with these people. At least there should be dialogue that is non confrontational with common goals in focus.
Like most things done by Howard Dean, I applaud this effort.
But, I’d like to take it one step further and say we’re not courting “evangelical” voters, but rather, we’re courting “values” voters. The right has co-opted the term “values”, making it into something that only Christians can have. We should take over the term “values, making it OUR term, because “values” refers to both religious and non-religious ways of living. Certainly, looking at the “values” our candidates show – single marriages, well-raised children (okay, a few slight glitches along the way, Al Gore, Jr. maybe), and general adherence to agendas that HELP, rather than HURT our population – as opposed to the Republican line-up of multiple marriages, affairs, croynism-over-competence, etc.
I think WE’RE the one with the good values. Our leaders generally are setting a good example of how people should live.
Let’s sing out in praise of “values”!
Some evangelicals seriously just haven’t seen the arguments Democrats have for preventing abortion.
If you cut food stamps, chip away at S-CHIP, slash budgets for subsidized housing and day care, all in the name of tax cuts, should it surprise us that abortion becomes a seriously considered option for the financially strapped among us?
Some evangelicals listen exclusively to conservative talk who never bring up the likely connection of aggressive tax cuts and social program budget cuts with higher abortion rates. Are all evangelicals aware of the consequences of starving the social safety net? This is where Dean could shave those points without compromising any truly “pro-life” Democratic values.
Teach the compassionate evangelicals about our concerns about life outside the womb, and its connection before the birth seen as all-important to the deceivers among them.
Expose the reprehensible lies of omission.
I may be alone, but this move by the Democrats really scares me. What does it really accomplish to court the religious right wing? The most adamant Dominionists fully intend on making American a theocracy, and to do that, they must have at least access to and the appreciation and support of an existing government.
I know the Democrats will say “But we aren’t courting the Dominionists, just the more reasonable evangelical factions.” But the more reasonable evangelical factions will be attracted to the traditional Democratic positions now being touted anyway. And there’s no legal way to treat the factions differently without accusations of unlawful discrimination based on religion.
The danger is that there must be payoffs for political support, and there’s no doubt their more radical Dominionist cohorts will piggyback their less radical cousins to take advantage of the goodies and push the envelope. I suspect the evanglicals would insist on promises that their religious concerns be addressed, since Bush eventually turned his back on them.
As an aside, Bush, however, did give the evangelicals those “faith-based initiatives”. They’re damned unconstitutional and need to be immediately stopped. No way will the Democrats get rid of these programs supported by the government if they bring evanglicals into the Democratic fold. The government should NOT be funding religious groups to do what the government can do much better and without bringing religion into it.
The Democrats SHOULD be hostile as hell to Dominionists and anybody else who’d make America a theocracy, which would require destruction of the Bill of Rights. I haven’t yet heard a Democratic politician address the value of keeping the wall of separation between church and state immutable, with the added advantage of “reasonable accommodation” for everyone, even though I’ve seen hundreds of Dominionists quoted who want to tear it down altogether and impose their religious agenda on everybody else.
I don’t trust the religious right, simply because they have not firmly drawn a divide between the Dominionists and other evangelicals. Nor the Democrats for pandering to them, when the more reasonable evangelicals will largely vote for the Democrats anyway. It’s really time for somebody to make it clear to American voters that one’s religion is NOT the basis on which government may be conducted. The Constitution, which protects the religious rights of everyone in a pluralistic society, is the proper “bible” for politicians.
Just one more comment. “Evangelical” is too broad a label to make discussion really fruitful. I know many evangelicals who detest what Bush has done and aren’t seeking to make America a theocracy. It is the “Dominionists” who want just that, yet I don’t see any way the Democrats can openly make distinctions between these two factions without getting into a heap of hot water.
So, Anne, I understand your distinction between good and bad evangelicals, but why make that statement overtly and alienate both? Offer inclusion for those whose values include charity, responsibility, and compassion. Those who do not want to participate can put themselves into the bad group all on their own.
I for one am tired of the politics of division. I work with people I don’t particularly like or agree with and we all manage to remain civil, focused on the common goal. I wish the Congress would behave similarly.
Jen Flowers
Exactly! That’s what I’m saying the Democrats can’t do. And I agree that the two factions will divide themselves for voting. It’s the political payoffs for political support that pose the greatest problem, and I fully believe the Dominionists will be right in the midst of their cousins with their hands out demanding the same advantages and continuing their inroads on Constitutional rights.
Until America is back on the right path, there are going to be divisions maybe even worse than we can imagine. The vandalization of America by this administration, the lies, the illegal war in Iraq, the threats to attack Iran, the theft of citizen rights, and the Democratic party’s apparent willingness to support the Bush agenda will not be undone without a great deal of energy and conflict.
The place of religion in politics and government has ALWAYS been of particular concern for me. I grew up as a Southern Baptist at a time when everyone was free to worship as they pleased in that denomination. The entry of Jerry Falwell into the ranks and the consequent conservative radicalization of Southern Baptists under his leadership pretty much destroyed all the freedom to worship as one’s conscience led. People left in droves, but plenty of others joined the flocks. Jerry Falwell WAS a dominionist, make no mistake about it, and so are his heirs. Howard Dean talked to one of them.
Here is Richard Land’s position on the separation of church and state. This excerpt is from it:
It is an interesting discussion, and I have never heard the term “dominionist” before. I think it is a good term and does distinguish between sane and insane evangelicals and Anney wonders whether or not politicians from the left should even be talking to “dominionists” whoever they are.
Someone said that we should be talking about values, rather than Religion, and I think I agree. We have absolutely had enough blending of church and state. We should be talking about our values, which I maintain, should be very compatible with most religious faiths.
There is one thing the right wing does which is a trap, and that is making a pro choice position into an ungodly position. As a person who has embraced gospel values throughout my life and remember when it was otherwise, I never want to make abortion illegal. MY best friend nearly killed herself when she threw herself down a flight of stairs because she was pregnant by a murderer and a rapist. As a Christian, I might not have made the same choice for myself, but better a safe abortion than breaking one’s neck and leaving the remaing children motherless.
I think I agree with Jen Flowers; we hae really had enough division and hatred. I seriouslly doubt that Dean will give the dominionists anything but an olive branch. I really don’t believe we need to do anything but proclaim our values to the other side and I think we will have a significant change next year. (hope
I have several Christian friends who are ashamed of having voted for Bush the last 2 elections. Actually they no longer consider themselves Republicans but feel they are Independents and always have been. I don’t argue that point with them, by trying to point out that they did vote wrong. As long as they vote a Democratic ticket in the general election, I don’t care whether they retain their Republican affiliation or consider themselves to be Independents, it’s all good when Democrats end up increasing their majorities in the House and Senate and have a President to turn this country around.
I’m OK with Dean reaching out to moderate evangelicals, after all, regardless of what is being said, I don’t think you’ll ever be able to convert a true neo-con or a dominionist or a ‘no-taxes’ libertarian for that matter. It’s fine with me that they stay in the Republican Party, The more of those extremists stay there the more ‘moderate’ people will see what the GOP stands for.
It’s kind of late to add a comment, but it’s more for me than the discussion that I’m doing it. I’m one of these hitherto typical liberal types who have tended to keep evangelical and born-again Christians at a fully extended arms length. I passed over this post earlier for that reason. For some reason, though, I got attracted back to it and decided to dip in. Of course, I know I’m going to be well looked after by Mr Benen in whatever topic he addresses, so I felt my health was not at risk.
By the second paragraph I was hooked. This is interesting and important stuff. Having Howard Dean as my tour guide was additionally reassuring. Many people grow up as Christians and know nothing else. They live out their lives as Christians, some nominally others more actively. They discuss and question, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on circumstance and the adversities they are faced with. A few may part company through disillusionment or maltreatment, but the bulk stay within the faith and content themselves with the answers it provides. This is normal for all religions.
Outside of the norm, however, you get some odd bods — like myself, for example — who are so dissatisfied with the faith they are born into that they have to search elsewhere if they are to remain sane and true to themselves. I guess this is a two-way traffic: some moving into Christianity and some moving out. Well, I moved out. I’ve never looked back and I’m glad I was able to find a system that satisfied my particular brand of intellectual rigor. On the way, I passed through agnosticism, atheism, rabid materialism, hedonism, shamanism, Hinduism, spiritualism, and, finally, landed safe and sound in Buddhism. It’s nice to have a home. Everyone needs a home. People ask “Where’s your home?” Now I can say “Where I am.” without flinching.
All these evangelicals, true believers, end timers, born againers have always seemed to me to be way off the scale, so far out they were not worth bothering about and best left alone. I’m still not wildly enamored of their ethos or conduct. I don’t like what they say, and I think they’re all pretty loopy. I’ve been spared much contact with them, though they seem pretty thick on the ground in some places. Normal Christians, I’m sure, are absolutely OK. Some of my best friends are Christians, but the lunatic fringe.. well, I don’t know.
The standoff between Democrats and Christians seems, from what CB reports, to have resulted from lack of information and chronic misunderstanding. Differences in these circumstances get blown out of all proportion and come to seem utterly irreconcilable. It’s a common human trait. It’s really nice, though, to see that all that’s separated these two camps all these years is the simple use of a condom.