Comments on: Religious Right To Go Democratic

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:59:20 +0000

Well put, Pat, and I’m interested to hear Claudia’s thoughts on that. If we really want to have meaningful give and take between the two sides, doesn’t it make sense to have the people who hold the opposing viewpoints having some ability to sit at the table and negotiate? How much has the extremism been driven by a feeling of desperation that comes from lack of control, I wonder?

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:08 +0000

Claudia, I’m comfortable with your rephrasing. But the problem with abortion will remain Roe. While Roe remains in place, very little political compromise is possible, because only the Court has power to set the exceptions and restrictions. Undo Roe, and political compromise becomes much easier. Until then, though, judicial nomination fights will always be largely about Roe, however dressed up the arguments may be. The Democratic Party is not about to ever elect Presidents or Senators who would support judges who were likely to overturn Roe. Period. And there’s no way to reach a political compromise on the issue when an ultimately uncontrollable body is making the rules.

By: Tully

Tully — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:30:16 +0000

I would add to what Claudia and Pat said that putting up single-issue "gateways" and litmus tests on perpetually contentious and oft-unresolvable issues is the surest way to never have a Big Tent party. It may seem contradictory to those who believe that party unity is the only strength there is, but they mistake ideological unity for unity of electoral action and purpose. Coalitions win because they stick together on general principles, not specific ones. Chasing out your party dissidents for simply being dissidents actively weakens the party–the best you can hope for is that the other party does the same thing, driving their dissidents into your fold. But they’ll bring other issues with them….

At least, it does in a pluralistic democracy, where power comes from numbers. Different rules for totalitarian governments.

By: Claudia

Claudia — Tue, 13 May 2008 08:22:23 +0000

Pat, let me rephrase it then. Democrats should allow people into the party who have misgivings about abortion (want limits placed on it etc.) and Republicans should accept people who can agree to the safe-legal-rare position, or at least are not 100% pro-life (people who accept the day after pill, or accept abortion within the first month or two) even if they want limits on the matter.

Mind you, these people already exist. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but they are exceptions, while their larger parties remain rather hostile territory. In any event most actual people, whether they identify as pro-choice or pro-life, have rather amorphous positions, few wanting no limits and few wanting no exceptions.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:11:35 +0000

Claudia, notice how you say Democrats need to accept in its party those who have "misgivings" about abortion, while the Republicans, you say, need to accept in its party those who are "pro-choice." Even the Clintons have "misgivings" about abortion and think it should be rare, though people like Amanda Marcotte and that whacko Yale "artist" seem to think that abortions are to be celebrated. For the Democratic party to tolerate politicians with "misgivings" about abortion is not the same level of "compromise" as asking Republicans to tolerate its own politicians being "pro-choice."

That’s not to say I think both sides don’t need to find ways to live with each other, just that we must be careful that "compromise" doesn’t equate to "let the Democrats win."

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:05:15 +0000

Once again people confuse “Christian” with “Evangelical” with “Fundamentalist” with “Religious Right” etc.

Well, they all look alike, you know!

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:48:02 +0000

Amen to Tully. Once again people confuse “Christian” with “Evangelical” with “Fundamentalist” with “Religious Right” etc. Jim Wallis is an “evangelical Christian” but a solid liberal politically. Much of the “Black” church is evangelical yet black voters, including church goers, have consistently and overwhelmingly voted Democratic. The political leanings of “evangelical” Christians, while skewed rightward, cross then entire political spectrum. I can only assume that such articles “prey” on the general ignorance of religious matters by the media.

Now I would say that among conservative Christian there has in the past 8 - 10 years a lot of writing and soul-searching about the mixing of and confusion with one’s political and Christian beleifs. As a Republican and a Christian I would never say that Democratic Party affiliation is inconsistent with a Christian worldview. Having said that I would assume there are more in the party who are suspicious of, if not down right hostile to, said Christian worldview.

By: wj

wj — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:49:03 +0000

I expect that the Democrats will make some (maybe not a vast amount, but some) progress if they simply cease to be overtly hostile to religion. Even without changing their positions on gay rights or abortion, a simple lack of hostility would go a long way. After all, there are a lot of deeply religious people out there who don’t agree with the religious right on those issues either.

By: Tully

Tully — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:00:31 +0000

I personally think it’s more the centrist and left-leaning evangelicals cooperating with a Democratic Party attempt to soften the party’s well-earned hostile-to-religion image–but I’d hate to have to try and prove it from the scanty info available.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:53:30 +0000

I’m going to agree with Tully. I wonder if this is not so much the religious right trying to reach out to the Democrats, but the evangelicals who may be a part of that group.

Take a look at some articles on the evangelical left. You’ll find some surprising names associated with the movement, ones these days you wouldn’t expect to hear.