Dems. and the nation are best served by writing off the religious right

[bluestateguy]

I hear a lot of this talk from the media bobbleheads, Al From and his appeasers at the DLC and folks like Tim Roemer that Democrats need to better "connect" with the so called "values voters" or white religious fundamentalists. That the Democrats somehow now have a responsibility to try and appease the concerns of these generally racist, sexist, anti-gay, militaristic and selfish people.

I would argue that not only is the Democratic Party better off writing these people off, but that all Americans who are frightened by the issue agenda of the religious right are better served by not welcoming these voters into the party. The leading political operatives for the religious right, folks like Ralph Reed, are shrewd and know exactly what a Democratic courtship of the religious right would mean. If Democrats watered down their stances on gay marriages, abortion rights or teaching scientific evolution in the schools, there would be no major party in place to defend these issue positions that are held by millions of Americans. Not only that, the Democratic base becomes ever more alienated and willing to consider either staying home or voting for third party crank candidates. The entire spectrum of debate will be shifted to the right, thus freeing up religious conservatives within the Republican Party to push their party ever farther to the Right. If Democrats are seen as making pathetic attempts to court the religious right, fundamentalist Christian leaders within the GOP can make veiled threats to defect to the Democrats in a particular election, thus putting pressure on Republican politicians to toe the 700 Club line.

What if the Democrats were to write off the religious right? Then eventually the Republican Party will take these folks for granted and give their agenda short shrift, hence diminishing their clout within the GOP. "Where else will you go?" the Republican Party leaders will say when presented with ever more demands by James Dobson. If they do not become a swing constituency their overall political clout will weaken. Furthermore, there will be a major party out there fighting their agenda at full court press.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. write off the Religious Right, but not all religion

the Democratic Party should welcome moderates of all religious faiths as well as those with no faith. To leave out all religion because of the extreme views of the rr would be counter productive, as a majority of Americans have some sort of religious belief. The key here is to show respect for all forms of belief.

[moggie12]

6. Excellent distinction

Not all evangelicals are as nutty as the ones you see on TV and the ones that run websites. We shouldn't (and can't!) pander to them. But we should be sensitive to the important place religion holds in many Americans' hearts.

[w4rma]

8. Exactly. (nt)

[mike_c]

2. excellent post-- I agree 100 percent....

Chasing the nuttiest segment of the wingnut vote is the most amazing folly I've yet heard from the republican lite wing of the democratic party. If that's what it takes to "win" then I'm happy with losing. The religious right only has power when the rest of us align with them and do their bidding. I agree with you completely-- let them go and don't look back.

[Pharaoh]

3. right on blue state guy

just because they happen to be winning at the moment(and it's highly debatably that they did win) we should never EVER side with rascists.......:dem: :dem: :dem:


:shrug:

[saltpoint]

4. I would favor re-establishment of --

-- Christian-lion matchups, as proved very effective in the days of the Roman Empire.

This would serve to reduce the impact of the far right Christian zealots AND would have the added benefit of raising revenues which could then be used to invest in grassroots progresssive programs.

The model would be something akin to ABC's Monday Night Football. We would have to engage a cable network, probably, and we'll need a theme song.

-------
In the off-chance that we are unable to pull off the above, I agree with you that we need to write these folks off. The thought of appeasing them in any subject makes me sick.



--edit: typo

[forgethell]

11. I hope that was

a joke in extremely poor taste. Otherwise, it was an extremely bigoted statement.

[saltpoint]

16. If you mean my notion of re-instituting the Christian-lion --

-- fights, it was intended to suggest that their hysterical screaming should be ignored by the Democratic Party.

Billy Carter, the president's brother, once said on the news that "Some Christians deserve to be fed to the lions." Be sure to write him and complain about that as well.

Hyperbolic theater makes a broader point on a pertinent issue. If your objection to me is regarding the savagery of putting a human being into the Colliseum with large felines, you've missed the broader point AND the pertinent issue in defense of your own sensibilities. I'm sorry you responded that way.

Your post gives me a leeway between "extremely poor taste" and "a bigoted statement."

Well, pal, those are your arbitrary limits. You go deal with 'em.

[forgethell]

23. And good morning to you, too.

Suppose you had substituted "blacks", "Jews", or "gays" in the statement? Beleive me, I didn't miss the point. I just think bigotry should not be used to make a point. It's "hyperbolic theater" when you do it, and what, if a Republican does it.

Can you spell "double standard"?

;-)

[saltpoint]

26. Mucho caca del toro, dude.

Blacks, Jews and gays do not advocate eternal punishment for mortal sins.

I said what I said in response to unstable, hateful, delusional, and manipulative assertions on the part of the far Christian right. If you want a target worthy of criticism, you will not have to look far in that community to find overt hate, and social stridency in many forms.

And no double standard, either. It would be possible for me to be black, Jewish and gay and still feel that the fundies deserve to be buried alive.

If you have a defense of their conduct, let's hear it. Otherwise, go smear someone else.

[forgethell]

31. well,

you know my opinion, and I know yours.

I cast not my pearls before swine.

Adios, amigo

;-)

[saltpoint]

32. You left your umbrella on the train and --

-- your premise in the ditch.

Good luck in your on-going defense of hate mongers.

[KT2000]

5. Send this to DNC voters!

you are so right. I am so afraid of the Tim Roemer approach taking hold - it has to be stopped - it is illogical.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. From the history of the Religious Right in WA state --

you are correct.

Way back in the 1980s in WA state -- the Religious Right leaders decided that they needed to get involved in Politics to push their religious agenda -- to bring about the END TIME.

There was a great article published in one of the State newspapers about the RR take over of the GOP -- plus I have talked to dozens of people in the WA state Religious Right and they confirmed the contents of the story.

The leaders of the RR decided that they could not take over nor overwhelm the WA state Democratic party -- because we are mostly independent thinkers and can't be bullied. The democratic party is really an umbrella party -- lots of diverse ideas and philosophies.

The RR has their own agenda -- and there is no way that the democratic party can march to the message of the RR.

According to the stats from this last election there are only 4 million people who identify themselves has the RR or fundamentalists -- the extreme of the people who call themselves christians.

At the same time there are many more millions of Christians who are also democrats who would be insulted if the leaders of the democratic party attempted to toss out the foundation ethics that all or nearly democrats identify with.

The religious right has an agenda that is anti Constitutional & anti American. I am certain that our founding fathers and mothers of this nation would not support today's Religious Right.

[punpirate]

9. Just from a numbers perspective...

... there's not much to be gained by trying to woo them. The hard-core fundamentalist evangelicals represent about 10-11% of the GOP. If the registration numbers for Republicans is holding at about 39% of the population, as it was in 2000, then that's about 4% of registered voters.

They'd expect the Dems to retreat on a lot to win any support at all, and unless the Dems come up with someone who talks in religious code, as the Mad King does, they're not going to pick up very many of them.

Even in the best of circumstances, that their support helped win close elections, they'd do to the Democrats, in spades, what they've done to the Repugs--saying, in effect, we put you over the top, and then they would be demanding much, much more.

You're right--bad deal all around. The group that's really ripe for picking are the genuinely moderate Republicans who are scared shitless by the religious right, are disgusted by war, deficits and have at least some small sense of the necessity for the social contract. More of that group could be convinced to switch, if things get just marginally worse than they are now, than could ever be culled out from the religious right.

Cheers.

[VPStoltz]

13. It was propaganda that put * over the top.

And it's propaganda that now is driving this stupid "values" thing. Yes, the evangelists voted for * but the Repug propaganda machine is what is responsible for getting a large number of voters to cross over to *. There was hardly a single ad for a Repug in this last election that did not somehow equate Democrats with Sadam or Osama. To imply that progressives would not defend the country was absurd. Having heard it millions of times, however, - and not having it strongly counterattacked by the Dems - those millions who prefer not to think for themselves believed it. This was the tactic used with all their "issues," say it enough and it becomes true.

[bigmonkey]

10. But what about the people they sway?

The problem with writing them off is that they remain as a base for the next election, when other folks, under the influence of huge amounts of propoganda and outright lies, will _temporarily_ ally with them, based on chosen, specific issues. By not speaking to values in that moral sphere you leave the field open for the right-wing crazies. Notice, I am not saying that you will be able to convince that fringe; you are aiming for the people they are able to temporarily sway during an election run-up. By speaking about various moral issues in language appropriate to that waffling middle, language tailored to counteract the right-wing stuff, you prevent them from prevailing by not leaving the field open.

[forgethell]

12. Don't worry about it.

The religious right will not vote Democratic. So they can be safely ignored.

[Lizzie Borden]

14. I have to agree with you there.

n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

15. I don't think we should write off anyone, nor do I think we should cave on

our values, and attempt to be GOP-lite.

I think we need to do a far better job of explaining ourselves and "marketing" (if you will) ourselves.

Those red-state, rw, fundamentalists? Some of them are out of work, some of them are counting on social security, some of them are union, some of them have crappy or no health insurance. We don't harm ourselves by pointing out the common ground.

Do we accomodate the right on issues like abortion, the separation of church and state, gay rights? No way. But we CAN re-frame those discussions to our benefit.

They want to talk about how important being Christian is to them? Great! Challenge them to put those words into action -- join us in feeding the poor, housing the homeless, providing an excellent education to all our children. Make them walk the walk instead of talking...

Damn. We're smart enough to do this, and we really should!

[Been Fishing]

21. I agree.

The hard case RR will be difficult to convince.

But the more of RR's friends and family we are able educate, the more likely they are to listen.

The more they listen, the more they will begin to think for themselves.

When they can think for themselves, they will vote Democratic.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. LOL, yup.

it's also a long-term project. We need to bring people to our side for more than the next election or the next personality. It's an education process and we have to be ready for a long-term commitment. That means not ruling anyone out.

The GOP's tactics this past time -- concentrate fiercely on the base -- will work dandy in the short-term. Long-term, they'll find moderates leaving the fold because they've been left out to fend for themselves. I know interest-group politics works, but I think it can be a very dangerous game. I'd rather see us pitching our case to the entire country -- even if we do it one person at a time.

[BigMindTinyHead]

17. What shall we do with the atheist left?

Welcome and court them or treat them like the religious right?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

18. Ripe for the picking....the moderate Republicans

Excellent post and completely correct in your logic. The Rapturist Right will NEVER vote for the Democrats unless you decide to push for an even stricter theocracy than the current radicals in the Republican party. We, the moderate Republicans, who can't even identify with the socially regressive/fiscally irresponsible policies being aggressively instituted, that are growing in numbers to support the Democrats.

[snippy]

30. I agree .

There are millions of decent people who vote republican who are disgusted by the Reich wing religious right. Those decent people do not realize the extent of the control and power that the Reich wing religious right now has over the republican party. Too many of them see the Reich wing religious right as wacky or worse but essentially harmless. Those decent people need to understand that the Reich wing religious right is not harmless and that decent republicans should either retake control of their party or leave it. Then the political power of the Reich wing religious right at the national level would revert to a level more commensurate with their numbers and the country could once again engage in intelligent debate and reach compromises which reflect at least some portion of the values and views of a majority of Americans.

[kweerwolf]

19. We are all "values voters" but we don't share the same values.

But the distinction is on what we value.

The extremist fundies claim their "values" from outdated ideas in the Old Testament that may have once had meaning ... for example, if you're a small tribe surrounded by hostile nations, it makes sense to encourage increasing the population by opposing abortion, same-sex relationships, or any non-procreative sex. In an over-crowded world, those reasons are no longer valid.

Despite being 100 percent opposed to the fundamentalist agenda, I, too, vote my values. I believe in the dignity and worth of all persons. I believe in caring for the sick and the poor. I believe that it is the peace-makers (not the warmongers) who are blessed.

Seems ironic to me that so many of the fundies describe themselves as "christian" yet put their emphasis on the Old Testament where Christ doesn't appear and the Pauline letters in the New Testament where Christ is a presence remembered ... meanwhile, the Gospels in which Jesus actually appears are downplayed.

[trezic]

20. Two thoughts...

A. Writing off segments of America is the real reason Kerry lost the election, not electoral fraud. He publicly elected not to contest the South and paid the price.

B. There's a difference between pandering and neutralizing. Tamp down the values debate by turning it into a pro- and anti-constitutional debate. Ask Republicans how many turns Barry Goldwater has made in his grave with his party advocating state-mandated private behavior.

Writing off evangelicals is not a wise course of action. It implies writing off the South, which is the real electoral battleground. Without taking the entire South, no Republican can win. Without taking at least 2-4 states of the old Confederacy, no Democrat can win.

[President Kerry]

22. not true.. Had Kerry taken Ohio (and perhaps he did), he'd be

President without winning a single southern state. It's not about pandering, it's about standing up for our core principles. They cannot be reconciled with the religious right, at least in the near future. The religious right, by definition, will always pick the more right wing party. Very simple, really.

[trezic]

25. Clarification

1. No Democrat since the Civil War has won the presidency without taking at least 4 Southern states. Had Kerry taken just 2, NC and VA, he would have won without Ohio. A Republican requires every Confederate state to win. The trick to winning to strip away that base.

2. The South has dominated the national political scene since 1789, with the exception of 40-50 years after the Civil War and from about 1974-94. This is a simple fact of American political life that must be accepted. Winning the South is not only key to presidential elections, but also to governing majorities in Congress. After all, virtually any Democratic program of the 20th Century that is celebrated was the result of a Congress dominated by Southern Democrats.

3. The religious right is not right-wing by definition. Don't confuse substance with a label. Those voters supported Democrats vigorously during the New Deal and Fair Deal. Their disenchantment began with the Civil Rights Act, a disenchantment I would argue is largely over. The real problem is that many non-Southern Democrats look down on the South with no cause. This perennial superiority, which is evident on many forums of this type, is self-defeating.

4. The core values of the Democratic Party are not irreconcilable with evangelicals. Ralph Reed may be an ideologue, but he's in a definite minority. Most will support Democrats on economic issues every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Don't take my word for it, check out how guys like Jim Hunt got elected 4 times in NC. The real trouble is that some Democrats feel that social issues are predominant. I do not understand it, but there is a strong romantic streak among liberals that implies going out in a blaze of glory is better than compromise. Wonderful sentiment, but to borrow from LBJ, "Honey, there's nothing more useless in this world than a dead liberal."

[kineneb]

34. Ok, then lets just break up and let the South go!

As a native Californian, I see no reason to encourage the old south; they lost the Civil War, if they don't like it screw 'em. Let them go!
Campaign for the "9 Nations of North America" instead. Jefferson was right after all! I neither want nor need to have the whacko far right in any party for which I vote. A pox on all their houses.
Arrrr, gurrr.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. But he didn't even CAMPAIGN in some states

Therefore, the religious status of some of these states isn't at issue. Democrats need to SHOW UP in every state...be it for this election or the next one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Yep. The moral majority is neither. Why cater to them?

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I'm convinced that the appeal of the religious right comes from people

feeling miserable and frustrated and not understanding why, when they're supposed to be in "greatest country in the world" and "the land of opportunity" and living "the American dream."

They feel that they're struggling and stressed out, and they don't know why.

Along come the fundies to provide an emotional release and to provide scapegoats.

We need to bring the left together to make changes in this country that will have an effect on people's daily lives: single payer health care, paid family leave with guaranteed reinstatement, affordable housing, mass transit, low-interest refinancing for farmers in danger of losing their farms and small business owners in danger of losing their businesses, penalties for companies that outsource (in the form of losing eligibility to bid on government contracts).

This could be financed by getting the hell out of Iraq, raising taxes on the wealthy to Kennedy-era levels (adjusted for inflation, of course), and cutting out wasteful weapons systems that are geared to fight enemies who don't exist.

If we can accomplish these things, most of the adherents of the fundamentalists would come to their senses and drift over to our side.

[leesa]

33. They are simply not rational people.

They are non-thinking sheep, though, so if they do turn it will be en masse. It may be possible that other real Christians may be able to straighten out a few scrambled brains and the rest will follow.

I in no way think anyone should waste time or energy trying to cater to their sick whims.