The Democratic Party for years has yearned for an energetic religious wing. Seeing the power that the religious right brought the Republicans, Democratic leaders realized that if they wanted to build a majority they would need to attract people of faith.
Party leaders wanted a religious left and they’re beginning to get one – new grassroots organizations, vocal spokespeople, and a candidate conversant in the language of faith.
*The Democratic Party created a Faith in Action unit to help organize religious Democrats. According to the New York Times Magazine, the Alabama Democratic Party used Faith in Action funds to print a voters guide that pledged to “require public schools to offer Bible literacy as part of their curriculum” as well as pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and defeat efforts to provide marriage benefits to gay couples. All these positions run counter to the national party’s approach.
*When Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and other progressive evangelicals pressed Barack Obama to endorse an abortion-reduction initiative, pro-choice activists were furious. Two leaders declared this approach to be “condescending and sexist.”
*Among the first posts in the new progressive religious blog at Beliefnet (where I work by day) was one from former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn advocating that Democrats advocate “tuition tax credits for non-public school parents.”
Another post, from liberal Catholic writer David Gibson, proposed that progressive religious leaders push much harder for gun control, especially in the aftermath of the shootings at the Unitarian church in Knoxville. “Most faith groups have statements endorsing some form of gun control, but insiders will tell you that liberal religious groups don’t see the issue as a winner,” Mr. Gibson wrote. He urged religious groups to be bold where politicians are fearful.
But if religious groups did pressure politicians to take tougher stands on gun control, wouldn’t that hurt the Democratic Party by associating it with unpopular positions? And if Democrats therefore lost elections to Republicans, wouldn’t that retard the cause of social justice? You can be sure that argument will be made privately in the coffee klatches of the religious left. It’s a real dilemma.
Democrats used to routinely lose elections because their most passionate activists cared more about being right than winning elections. On the other hand, several Republican evangelicals such as David Kuo and Cal Thomas have argued that religious conservatives became too concerned about helping the party — and lost their moral compass.
Liberals have never been very good at party unity so I suspect that excessive deference to party bosses will not be their main problem. You’ll have certain progressive religious tacticians focused on helping Democratic candidates appeal to religious voters using religious rhetoric and organizing tactics. You’ll also have issue activists who will push particular moral issues with only partial regard for the political salability. They like to use the phrase “prophetic voice” – a reference to the radical Hebrew prophets who said righteous things even when unpopular. Of course, all Democrats agree on the need to “speak truth to power” when the power is Republican. But Democrats may soon feel the thrill of being the power that’s having truths yelled at it. Religious leaders, once politicized, are not easily corralled.
Here’s my list of top positions that may be pushed by religious progressive to the annoyance of Democratic Party leaders wanting to avoid either the wrath of another faction or the appearance of being excessively lefty:
1) Democrats should support “abortion reduction.” (Likely ones advocating Truth to Power: Progressive evangelicals, Centrist Catholics, conservative African Americans, Hispanics)
2) Go faster on gay rights (Advocates: liberal mainline Protestants and others)
3) Go slower on gay rights (Advocates: conservative African Americans, some Hispanics)
4) More gun control (Advocates: all progressives outside rural areas)
5) Amnesty for illegal immigrants (Advocates: broad range of religious progressives)
6) More government funding for religious charities (Advocates: progressive evangelicals and Catholics)
7) Less government funding for religious charities (Advocates: progressive Jews)
Tax increases to pay for social spending (Advocates: broad range of religious progressives)
9) Cut defense spending (Advocates: liberal “peace churches”)
Most religious activists believe that the doing what’s right and what’s effective need not be in conflict. If something is righteous but unpopular, their job is to persuade enough people to make it the majority viewpoint. As Rev. Campolo puts it, if a politician’s proclivity is to put his finger in the wind, it’s the job of religious people to “change the wind.” Wind, climatologists will tell us, can be harnessed but seldom controlled.
Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal Onlinem
Read Previous Post
