New Democratic "Third Way" Wooing Evangelicals

[wyldwolf]

You know the religious right is in trouble when some of its leaders threaten to bolt the Republican Party if it nominates a candidate who supports abortion rights.

But the well-publicized warning directed against Rudy Giuliani earlier this month is decidedly not the most important sign that religious conservatives are facing the disintegration of their movement.

What matters more is that a new generation of evangelical leaders, tired of the rancid partisanship, is breaking away from the culture wars. The reach of this new evangelical politics will be tested this week with the release on Wednesday of a statement under the very biblical title, "Come Let Us Reason Together." The question for the future is how many in the evangelical ranks will embrace this call?

Organized by Third Way, a group that is close to many leading moderate Democrats, the statement calls for "first steps toward bridging the cultural divide between progressives and evangelicals."

Third Way's effort is not happy boilerplate about how religious Americans and liberals share a concern for helping the poor, protecting the environment and reaching out to the victims of AIDS -- although these areas of agreement are important and too often overlooked.

Rather, the statement, co-authored by Robert P. Jones, a progressive religious scholar, and Rachel Laser, director of The Third Way Culture Project, takes a step toward religious conservatives by acknowledging the legitimacy of many of their moral concerns.

For example, while not backing away from Third Way's support for stem cell research, the statement urges a series of restrictions to prevent the sale or manipulation of human embryos and reproductive cloning.

"Americans have a deep faith in science, but also worry that scientific advances are outrunning our best moral thinking," Jones and Laser declare. Worrying about ethical issues raised by science is not the same as being anti-science.

The statement identifies other areas, including abortion, gay rights and strengthening families, where progressives and religious conservatives might continue to disagree but still make progress.

One passage nicely summarizes the possibilities of a less polarized, post-Bush future: "The differences in how evangelicals and progressives see government's role in affecting social change -- one of changing hearts, the other building institutions -- need not be in conflict." Social improvement requires both.

more...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/a_third_way_for_the_religious.html

[lonestarnot]

1. Right to lifers loves dem some war death.

[...of J.Temperance]

2. I can't really see a problem with this myself

That's a big voting block for one thing....and even if everyone can meet halfway on some things, I'd call that a good thing.

Since 2001, there's been far too much polarization and division and partisanship, it's time to start bringing people together, while everyone can't agree on everything, at least talking and seeing if some common ground can be found, that seems like a good and forward-looking thing to me.

The Democratic Party could reap a lot of benefits, if it reached out a bit more on the religious front and listened more to the concerns of religious groups, which are probably not that different to the concerns of those who consider themselves non-religious.

There's nothing wrong with religion and being religious is nothing to be ashamed of, faith is important and comforting to a lot of people, and I think that should be respected more.

[hashibabba]

3. Thank you. Well said!

[...of J.Temperance]

17. Thank you for liking my comments :) n/t

.

[Perky]

4. This really hacks me off

AS if Evangelicals and Liberals might come together on some issues, but they are mutually exclusive groups.


Well by God's grace I am a a liberal and an evangelical. I am a Democrat because of my faith and not in spite of it.

It hacks me off because the language of this post assumes the default political leanings of Evangelicals is conservative. This is a false premise and replicates what I see elsewhere.

I see it in my moderate and largely apolitical Church community where there is sort of a default deference to a general conservatism though (never from the pulpit).
I see the same thing here, WHere there is a great bit of anger at the "Church Crowd" and a constant swapping of the terms Fundamentalist and Evangelicals.

But here is the bigger issue:

The Gospel Message is inherently "liberal" but is also largely apolitical. It tells us our first priority is to love one another. That we should honor the least among us as the most important. It calls us to community rather than individualism, It calls us to Feed the Sick, bind up the Brokenhearted, to be merciful and to love justice and equity and peace. But it call on the believer and the "community" to do these things and not civil government. It doesn't say government should not do these things.....just that the Christian obligation is to see that they are done in a way the glorifies God..

The irritation with this Third Way is that precedes from the same premise that spawned the wing nuts.

In 1978, fundamentalists made a decision to join fiscal conservatives in forming the Reagan Coalition, but in so doing, they also traded in evangelism, prayer and true revival for raw political power, protests and partisanship as a means to "restore national righteousness". Not only does it simply not work that way, it's a great perversion of the Gospel message and largely heretical.

Perhaps liberal and evangelicals can find common ground on social issues, but this also will require that the tactical approach is to be be some grand bargain. It winds up being something that replaces the centrality of Christ with a political agenda. That will not work either so No thanks.

Neither moral conservatism or social liberalism "heals" this divided and impoverished nation.

[sufrommich]

6. Thank you for this post,Perky.

There are some who simply cannot see beyond black and white. We need voices like yours to temper that. I'm not a religious person at all,but recognize that I'm in the minority is this country and we Dems need a majority voting block with like minded people uniting together.

[trotsky]

7. Well, Perky, to be fair...

white, self-described "evangelicals" voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004, 78%-21%. Even in 2006 when they were quite upset with the Republican Party, they still voted in their favor by a factor of 2 to 1. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2006/story?id=2636480&page=1)

Assuming therefore that their default political leanings are conservative is not all that unreasonable.

But I do thank you for this post in which you do not blame secularists for progressive failures.

[Perky]

9. Yeah....oddly I blame the Church for the "progressive failures"

If the Church was doing what the Gospels tell it to do...... not that it should be legally empowered to do so....and not that it could/should do so on on anything beynd the micro level. But if the Church would be the Church as intended we would be a far different, less embittered, less divided.

[trotsky]

13. Funny thing, that.

But if the Church would be the Church as intended we would be a far different, less embittered, less divided.

I guarantee the conservative evangelicals say the exact same thing.

You both are supremely confident that YOU'RE reading the bible correctly, and while your ideological opposites are not. Been that way for 2000 years, though, so I don't know how anything else could be expected.

[Perky]

20. Perhaps but....

Conservative Evangelicals (or Fundies) will rarely if ever use the "red letters" because their premise sort of falls apart. I have had countless discussion with the folks and after about ten minutes they walk away in agreement in begrudging agreement. I don't necessarily think I can convince them to become liberal. but I do convince a large percentage that the tact and the theology is antithetical to the New Testament message as it relates to how we interact with others.

If you watch me on DU, you will not that I never quote Scripture, I never say any one is wrong to believe what they believe. I never get in the middle of the abortion debates or GLBT issues. Par to that is that it an inappropriate and impersonal medium and it would go over like a lead balloon. But the other part of it is a steadfast belief that I do not have the right to criticize the beliefs ore the "morality" of those who do not believe as I do.

WHere you and I get into our endless cycle is I take offense when I sense there is ad hominen, broad-brush attacks on all people of faith or when there is criticism of candidates going after evangelical voters as if that somehow contaminates their authenticity as Democrats or as liberals. I have never considered it persecution...I just think its unnecessarily divisive and not in keeping with the best Democratic tendencies related to the big tent.

Its my take that if Democratic candidates had done a better job at reaching out to moderate evangelicals we could have fired far better in swing states and perhaps not of the last 7 years would have occurred. Engaging evangelicals as Ob ama has is important to the party and the nation. If for no other reason, it can neutralize that portion of the GOP base and give rise to meaningful discussion with in Church about what has occurred in the least 30 years. If for no better reason, than shearing off some support for Hillary in South Carolina, because if she's the nominee, I have little doubt that the repulsing and Pharisaical tripe of the last thirty years will resurface and retrench and This is in nobody's interest.

The religious right has lost its grip on the faithful...Dems have an opportunity to exploit those fissures and we should every chance we get. If reaching out to evangelicals is offensive to some on the left and in particular atheists... so be it. It is not meant as disparagement of the theological view atheist happen to hold. it simply that there are more votes to be found by reaching out to evangelicals then there are atheist votes to be lost in the trying.

I take no offense at atheists being sought out or pandered to by democratic candidates. But then again most atheists don't shape their politics based on their atheism.

My objection is the scorn heaped on candidates for pandering to evangelicals as though they somehow are less worthy voters or that it will necessarily dilute liberal talking points, strategy or historical grounding. The truth is that the moderates and liberal evangelicals will never be able to get organized enough to be a real "political force", because there is no single issue that binds us together other than revulsion at what the Church has become (but the answer there is not political...it's ecclesiastical and spiritual). See post #23.....Arrrgggghhhhhh

[trotsky]

35. The endless cycle

I take offense when I sense there is ad hominen, broad-brush attacks on all people of faith

Take a look at your posts sometime and note the ad hominem, broad-brush attacks labeling those who so much as express a little bit of reservation at a candidate's pandering to religion as "militant atheists." Sometimes, you get what you give.

I have never considered it persecution...I just think its unnecessarily divisive and not in keeping with the best Democratic tendencies related to the big tent.

And so you respond by saying, in essence, 'Screw you, we don't need your paltry votes, I'm willing to sacrifice them.' Yup. Big Tent all the way.

Its my take that if Democratic candidates had done a better job at reaching out to moderate evangelicals we could have fired far better in swing states and perhaps not of the last 7 years would have occurred.

As I pointed out above, and you ignored, self-described evangelicals went 3-1 for Bush in 2004 and 2-1 for Republicans even in the scandal-soaked 2006 midterms. That tells me those 66% of them are pretty damn hardcore Republican, and likely single-issue voters on the topics of abortion, war, taxes, or some other right-wing pushbutton item. How do you propose "reaching out" to them? Compromise our party's platform and agree to outlaw abortion? How many votes on the left do you suppose we'd lose then?

Where I believe you are in error is in thinking that there is this huge untapped reservoir of potential Democratic voters who WOULD vote for us, if only our candidates would just use a little more god-talk in their speeches and somehow counter the right-wing lie that the Democratic party is somehow anti-god or anti-religion. Sorry but the differences run way, way deeper. It's not a matter of them just reading the bible incorrectly.

[Perky]

46. okay

I take offense when I sense there is ad hominen, broad-brush attacks on all people of faith

Take a look at your posts sometime and note the ad hominem, broad-brush attacks labeling those who so much as express a little bit of reservation at a candidate's pandering to religion as "militant atheists." Sometimes, you get what you give.

Firstly, no...I have never done what you suggest. I have challenged those who go over the top in my view...your taking my criticism of a few and extrapolating it to a larger group.

I have never considered it persecution...I just think its unnecessarily divisive and not in keeping with the best Democratic tendencies related to the big tent.

And so you respond by saying, in essence, 'Screw you, we don't need your paltry votes, I'm willing to sacrifice them.' Yup. Big Tent all the way.
No that is not what I said, I said that if an appeal to evangelicals is so patently offensive to a certain portion of atheists that it turns them off from voting for someone that I would still go after the evangelical vote. Are you suggesting that we not reach out to evangelicals because it offends some some portion of the Atheist community? How Big Tent is that?

Its my take that if Democratic candidates had done a better job at reaching out to moderate evangelicals we could have fired far better in swing states and perhaps not of the last 7 years would have occurred.

As I pointed out above, and you ignored, self-described evangelicals went 3-1 for Bush in 2004 and 2-1 for Republicans even in the scandal-soaked 2006 midterms. That tells me those 66% of them are pretty damn hardcore Republican, and likely single-issue voters on the topics of abortion, war, taxes, or some other right-wing pushbutton item. How do you propose "reaching out" to them? Compromise our party's platform and agree to outlaw abortion? How many votes on the left do you suppose we'd lose then?

My gosh Bush is polling at 45% in Alabama and is only at 60% approval among pro-lifers... he is polling at 39% among self-described moderates. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=55b65f3f-97a8-4e8a-8c27-b5538ef13e6a)


Now what I would like to ask you is what your specific objections are to reaching out to evangelicals if any.

[trotsky]

50. I'm sorry that you simply do not see things a different way.

I have challenged those who go over the top in my view

No, you don't just challenge them. Someone says something, buried in a thread, and you take it upon yourself to launch a brand new thread and start referring to "militant atheists" as a group (without ever saying exactly what grants membership in that group) instead of just DEALING WITH THE PERSON WHO SAID THE OFFENSIVE QUOTE.

Your tactic, whether you intend it or not, is divisive and accusatory.

I said that if an appeal to evangelicals is so patently offensive to a certain portion of atheists that it turns them off from voting for someone that I would still go after the evangelical vote.

This is a Bushie tactic. Accuse your opponent of something several notches worse so you can attack that strawman position and make your opponent scramble. Many DUers, concerned about the separation of church and state, are justifiably worried when a politician starts talking about "God's plans" and establishing a "Kingdom" on earth. I'm sorry you can't see things in terms other than religion lovers and religion haters.

My gosh Bush is polling at 45% in Alabama and is only at 60% approval among pro-lifers... he is polling at 39% among self-described moderates.

Apples to oranges, Perky. My numbers were specifically from self-described evangelicals. You are introducing general polling. Come up with a valid statistical comparison.

Now what I would like to ask you is what your specific objections are to reaching out to evangelicals if any.

Good grief, Perky. There you go again. My objections are not about "reaching out to evangelicals." Do you understand that a person can support reaching out to any group but oppose METHODS of reaching out to those groups? Say you can grasp this first, and I can elaborate further.

[Perky]

52. I absolutely understand that one can oppose methods rather than while still reaching out.

[trotsky]

53. Great!

So therefore the question you should be asking is what methods are acceptable when reaching out to new voters. Quit framing this as "militant atheists" who don't want to bring in any "evangelicals" at all. Okay? Can you promise us that?

Would it be acceptable, do you think, for a Democratic candidate for president to go into a church and say that the Constitution has outlived its usefulness, and that we should build a new government based on biblical principles?

[Perky]

56. Of course it wouldn't

Do you think it is appropriate for a Democratic candidate for president to go into a church and preach a sermon full of Biblical references?

[trotsky]

57. A sermon?

That term is generally reserved for a speech given by a minister or other church official that is intended to be part of a worship service. Doesn't sound too appropriate to me.

[Perky]

60. It is what Obama did last Sunday in South Carolina

But why would you say it was inappropriate?

[trotsky]

63. *sigh* Just when I thought we might get somewhere.

We obviously have a disconnect on what the word "sermon" means. But apart from that, what was inappropriate about Obama's speech (ahem) was not that he talked about his faith but how he veered dangerously close to the example I gave just a few posts up that even you agreed is NOT acceptable.

"I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

What's wrong with the U.S. Constitution, Perky? Why do we need a Kingdom? What of those people who don't believe in Obama's "Kingdom on Earth"? (Which even includes some Christians!)

[Perky]

65. A lot of people heregommed onto that line but took it out of its context

see this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1996176

But understand what he is talking about.

"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the '90s," said Obama. "At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away."

Obama said he was pleased that leaders in the evangelical community such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.

"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

The reference to "kingdom" is an allusion to the Sermon on the Mount not a call to toss out the Constitution


"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He is not saying he is God's intrument. He is asking the congreagation to pray that he would be a humble servant.

[trotsky]

66. There is a very simple exercise we can do here.

Take whatever was said, and put it in the mouth of a Republican in a similar context.

If a Republican candidate went to a fundie church and spoke, and ended his speech with "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth," would that make you feel comfortable?

You bet your ass it would for me. And just because I happen to agree with someone's politics doesn't make that statement any more palatable.

[Perky]

67. Why is it not palatable?

A. Given the context of the statement....B. given the venue...C. Given the Audience....D. Given the man's irrefutable liberal credentials....E. Give his own well documented religious beliefs and F. given the opportunity to reach out to a potential strategically valuable voting bloc?


Can you identify any actual harm from the statement? Why do people take such umbrage at the sentiment?

[trotsky]

70. I just showed you, Perky. I'm getting tired of this.

Imagine a Republican candidate saying the exact same thing in a fundie church. Would that bother you? Would you "take umbrage" at them saying it?

[Perky]

72. I think the motivation behind it would be totally different.

and far less genuine.

[trotsky]

74. OK, mind-reader. n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

21. "Reading the Bible the right way?"

If solid beliefs and understanding stemming from the same source are so insanely different, then that says to me there's a problem inherent in the source and there is no "right way" to read it.

As if most people who profess to "believe in the Bible" have actually read even a minute portion of it for themselves far less made a thoughtful conclusion about what it says or whether it is accurate... (Yes, that's the word. Is the Bible at all accurate?)

[trotsky]

34. Good old Occam and his razor.

If solid beliefs and understanding stemming from the same source are so insanely different, then that says to me there's a problem inherent in the source and there is no "right way" to read it.

Couldn't agree more.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. That would be "Occam's Depilatory": it's not the source, it's faith itself

The "right way" is "MY WAY", because the arrogance of faith is simply this: the evil of certainty.

The very problem is faith itself; it's the iron stove in the wooden building of civilization. Sure, it keeps people warm, but it'll burn the place down if it's not VERY carefully watched and unless its byproducts are carefully vented away it'll suffocate us all right then and there.

The problem is faith: the acceptance of things without proof. The REAL problems are the attendant assumptions: that this act is a great and transcendent one, that possession of this mindset makes one superior to others, that rival mindsets are bad and that questioning is REALLY bad. Faith is based on an extremely arrogant assumption of superiority, wrapped in intolerance and driven by the fear of the unknown.

Sure, much of what is expressed and desired within ALL faiths has some merit; social institutions simply don't last long if there's not some validity to them. Even so, that simply doesn't mean that when all the pluses and minuses are tallied they're "good".

The very act of faith is to shut off the beastly and torturous evil of thinking and uncertainty. The humility of admitting one's basic inability to understand or perceive many things is a source of terror to the fearful. The fear of the unknown, the fear of death and the fear of being just another of the many wonderful living things takes away the "specialness" which so many have ached over since the time they were no longer fawned-over newborns.

Religion has a built-in bigotry. It is inherently conservative; conservatism is an expression that "I have all the answers" and "this is the way it should be" and "other views shouldn't be allowed". For all the sweetly intoned panderings, much of the "acceptance of others" is wrapped in condescension and slathered in sanctimony.

The sources ARE problematic, but they leave lots of loopholes and grant the faithful the authority to "know" what the immutable truths are. Faith itself is the problem. It is the enemy of questioning and adjustment. It detests pluralism. Although there are quite a few enlightened religions and sects, the core reality of belief is, at best, stodgy. Yes, the amorphous nature of the major scriptures is a problem, but the REAL problem is faith itself.

This is how I put it when pressed: "If you need a book to tell you right from wrong, then you don't have a moral compass and if you need the fear of hellfire to keep you from abusing others, then you aren't a nice person."

One more thing needs to be said here, after what is a pretty scathing rebuke of religion: religion wins everything in this society. The default position is that it's good and those who don't have it are bad and fair game for any form of discrimination available. To finally hear some backlash against this overwhelming tide of domineering groupthink is to be expected in an alternative website that was created for those of us disenfranchised by the juggernaut of conservatism. Think of all the ways religion is shoved down our throats, and the occasional vomiting of the distasteful won't seem so frequent.

Obviously, Mr. Bronstein, you're on my side with this one, but I think you were just going a bit easy on them with placing the blame on sloppy texts; to me, the problem is the arrogance of the concept of faith itself.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. I will

Agree with you that religion should know no politics, there are Liberal Christians and there are Conservative Christians, religion isn't exclusive to one side or the other.

It's a shame really that religion became politicized in the first place.

[Labors of Hercules]

24. Religion and Politics

both play on a battlefield of beliefs, and beliefs are highly manipulable, often wrong and exceedingly difficult to disprove.

But what one believes religiously undenyably affects what one believes politically, and visa-versa.

[...of J.Temperance]

28. Agreed to a point, but why do you think

That in so many other nations, religion and politics are kept separate?

Personally I believe that religion has no place in politics and vice versa....as I said, it's a great shame that in the United States religion invaded politics and politics invaded religion.

[truebrit71]

22. OK, stupid question...how do you define 'evangelical'...

..because I am in the camp of folks that have been led to believe that 'Democrat' and 'Evangelical' are mutually exclusive....

This is a serious attempt to understand your stance, not trying to be funny here..

[Perky]

25. An evangelical is ANYONE who believes

in the Gospel accounts of the life, death and resurrection of CHrist. Whthere they activly evangelize or not.


THat has absolutely nothing to do with political persuasion at all.

Fundamentalists on the other other had believe in inerrancy, literalism, and application of both Testaments and that has bled largerly into the politics and the approach of the group commanonly referre to as the Chriatian Coalition/Moral Mahorahor...Dobsonites, Pharisees, etc,

[robinlynne]

38. But if we're talking about evangelicals involved as a group in politics, then we're

really talking about the christian right.

[robinlynne]

39. I hadn't read the OP. my previous response was wrong. sorry.

[Perky]

45. Not so fast

THere are many liberal evangelicals. THe problem is that there is no single issues that brings them into poliitcal union,, escept to repudiate the evangelical on the right....and that is not enought to band us together by itself.

[LWolf]

5. What a surprise. The DLC moves adopts another

often right-wing block. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

8. Dueling quotes: Perky, Post 4 vs. Lwolf post 5

Perky: the language of this post assumes the default political leanings of Evangelicals is conservative. This is a false premise...

LWolf: What a surprise. The DLC moves adopts another often right-wing block.

When you decide how you're going to attack this article, let me know. :rofl:

[Perky]

10. Ha.

I have to run to a meeting...unraveling this could take a while.

[wyldwolf]

12. "unraveling this could take a while."

Convincing spin usually does.

[LWolf]

51. Since I'm not Perky, I don't see any decision necessary.

My pov probably comes from my distinctly unpleasant experiences as part of an evangelical family who worshipped Ronald Reagan.

Perky's religious background and experiences may have been different, leading to a different perception.

"We" don't have to "decide" how to "attack" you or anyone else. "We" are capable of speaking for ourselves. :D

[...of J.Temperance]

19. We're not "adopting" anyone

What we're doing, is trying to think outside the box and reach out to another voting block, where we could have some dialogue with and see where we might find some common ground on some issues.

You don't win by preaching to the already converted, you win by reaching out and talking to people from outside of your existing base of voters....sure, it mightn't always work, but sometimes it does work, and of course you never know if it'll work unless you at least try.

[Tellurian]

11. There was a small blurb about a minute long on the Today Show this am..

The scene was a fisherman standing in a river in Colorado casting for fish. The voice over narrative was of a Republican Colorado official saying: I can't fish here anymore because Big oil and pollution has taken a tragic toll on the environment especially our rivers. He went on to criticize George Bush saying this: "I don't want to be a Republican anymore." "Our country is going to wreck and ruin while the Republican Party argues over(nuanced issues) Gay Rights, Abortion Rights and Stem Cell Research." Thus, expressing the sentiments of a growing number of Republicans ready to jump...

Just then a tv anchor chimed in stating the five (I believe) Dem Governors, one of them Richardson in the midwest, have joined together to get something done about the appalling state of our environment.

I am not a religious person, raised a Catholic, I've had my fill of Catholicism's enforcement of man made rules. After years of research and study, I'm a Gnostic. I believe each and every one of us contain a divine spark living within us. We possess the Free Will to choose for ourselves whether we use it or not.

I also believe in Separation of Church and State! Government and Religion are a disastrous mix. I do not want or need a President who will put Religion before People, promoting charity and harmony. I seek Justice and Compassion from my next president, not more repackaging of Religion bringing us together as a goal for bridging the culture divide.

[NewHampster]

14. Well said

and my fall fishing trip for Landlocked Salmon in Maine was superb if anyone cares.

[Alamom]

15. Actually, very well said. nm

[madfloridian]

18. All of the Democratic Party groups are doing that.

The DNC is building a special outreach also.

[MadHound]

23. Oh isn't this just great!

The DLC opening the door to allow evangelicals and other fundies into the party. What, it's not bad enough that they've corrupted one party, but now they have to corrupt the other? What part of "there is no compromise with these people" does the DLC not understand? Sure, at first they're nice, and polite, and want just a smidgen of consideration, the next thing you know, they've take over and ran your party into the ground.

And people wonder why so many of us see so little difference between the two parties, this is just one more reason. Foreign countries already look at us with suspicion due to the fact that we've got a religiously compromised president, what are they going to think when the next one is Democratic?

I have to wonder though, does this have something to do with Hillary's own religious leanings<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html>

If you want to convert evangelicals, great, but rather than using religion to do so, try talking to them about secular issues. Religion already has a stranglehold on this country, it doesn't need the help of the DLC or the Democratic party.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. How have the DLC

"Corrupted" the Democratic Party exactly?

The D in DLC STANDS for Democratic, we're Democrats, we're members of the same party as you are, we're not lepers and we're not evil, on the most basic issues, we want the SAME things as you probably do.

Sure, we're primarily economic conservatives, but we're also primarily social liberals, who support gay rights, who support abortion remaining safe, legal and rare, who support Stem Cell Research.

We're not "opening the door" to allow Evangelicals and Fundies in, we're trying to see if we can as mature, sensible adults, attempt to find some common ground on some issues, and I see no harm in doing that.

[wyldwolf]

27. shhh! Don't be honest with these folks

I kinda like being cast as Satan on DU. It's fun.

[...of J.Temperance]

30. I just find it baffling

As to why we're ALWAYS painted as being some great evil force and talked about almost as if we're inhuman and eat bambino's for breakfast.

The DLC haven't "corrupted" the Democratic Party....the DLC are PART of the Democratic Party....and we think it's healthy to think outside of the box and talk with people who we might have some differences with, but we also might be able to find some common ground with.

[wyldwolf]

32. I'll explain it to you

First, a little political psychology. Fringe political movements always need an enemy to mobilize their small but annoyingly loud voter base. Think the Christian Right in the GOP who need gays and liberals.

What we're dealing with on DU (and the netroots) is the same thing. They need an boogey man to scare their flock. In the process, they've created an odd mythos, a revisionist history of the Democratic party, that makes most historians chuckle. It goes like this:

(1) Clintonism was about "triangulation" and "splitting the differences" with conservatives; and

(2) Democrats controlled the House and Senate before Clinton was elected and controlled neither when he left office; thus, he, and his strategy of "triangulation" and "splitting the differences" must have caused this decline.

Further, Democrats before Clinton and the DLC were borderline socialists.

"Progressives" view the DLC as their roadblock to power. However, truthfully, "progressives" have never attained meaningful power, even before the DLC formation. They typically can't get an office any higher than a House seat in very blue districts.

[...of J.Temperance]

33. President Bill Clinton

Was one of the best Presidents ever, I wish he was still the President, he was FAB! Of course, I didn't agree with 100% of what he did, but I don't think anyone should agree with 100% of what ANY politician does.

And you're right, the people who hate the DLC, have created a revisionist history of the Democratic Party.

The DLC moved the party in the right direction, because we couldn't stand still on the spot, we had to adapt with the times.

[MadHound]

42. It is the "economic conservatives" part that I have huge problems with

Frankly I would rename it as "corporatists". As such, the DLC is willing to sell out anyone and everyone, all to please corporate America. NAFTA is but one huge example of this, but we could also examine the '96 Telecom Act and welfare "reform", among others.

And while you might be social liberals, the DLC is all too willing to sell out that social liberalism in their pursuit of No Corporation Left Behind.

Frankly, as "mature, sensible adults" you should be able to learn the lesson from what happened to the 'Pugs when they tried to find "common ground" with evangelicals. Their party was taken over and those who were socially liberal and economically conservative got their ass kicked to the curb. That's why a lot of them came over to the Democrats, and became DLC members. You would think that such people would learn from their mistakes, but noooooo. And now they are wanting to make the same mistake as the 'Pugs did. Geez, talk about stupidity.

[...of J.Temperance]

59. Corporations

Without Big Business, the economy would totally collapse and MILLIONS of people would lose their jobs.

NAFTA has been a positive step forward, and it's succeeded in opening markets....and I believe that Senator Obama has even said that he's going to vote for the NAFTA expansion thing.

I myself am NOT willing to sell out my social liberalism in pursuit of No Corporation Left Behind, my social liberalism is TOO important to me.

But I'm also NOT willing to condemn Big Business and treat it as evil, when I know full well that Big Business is essential and plays a very important part in any nations economic stability and job creation market.

[Solon]

71. "NAFTA has been a positive step forward, and it's succeeded in opening markets..."

See, its bullshit like this that pisses me off about you people. You are literally blind, NAFTA a positive step forward? Then HOW THE HELL do you explain the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico, the rising unemployment there, wages being depressed, or the middle class disappearing? This, all in Mexico, an "Open market" now, who the FUCK is this a positive step for, U.S. corporations or the Mexican people?

[MadHound]

73. That's part of the problem with the DLC right there

"NAFTA has been a positive step forward"

NAFTA has been a disaster from the beginning. Shipping out our manufacturing sector, first to Mexico, then on into Asia. And all those service jobs, well they pay a hell of lot less than the manufacturing sector.

In addition, NAFTA has been an environmental disaster. All you have to do to see for yourself is go just South of the Tex-Mex border. US companies that had to comply with stringent environmental rules here in the States went down to Mexico and dumped and polluted to their hearts content.

Then there's our current immigration problem. A large part of the spike in illegal immigrants is due to NAFTA. Most of these people were farmers, yet when NAFTA went into effect, US agriculture, subsidized as it is, utterly wiped out the agricultural business south of the border causing massive unemployment there. Those people followed the jobs up into the US, and voila, we now have an immigration problem.

Then there's the little matter of how NAFTA usurps American sovereignty. I would suggest that you go read Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, and see how we're getting screwed.

I agree with you, big business is essential to our society. However over the past few decades Corporate America has gotten a stranglehold on our government, and what was once government of for and by the people is no longer. We have got to get Corporate America out of our government, are we're all going down the shitter. After all, isn't one of the warning signs of fascism is when government and corporate merge into one. We're getting there, quickly.

[kenfrequed]

55. Wait...

So your economically conservative already. And now you like this 'third way' crap to try to compromise on the social-religious matters as well? Seriously there is only so much you can compromise on.

Is there anything left you DLC stooges won't sell for some temporary wasted "victory" that garauntees the death of liberalism and progressivism?

I welcome the time when the DLC ceases to exist. They are to the right of the American people on so many issues its pitiful.

[...of J.Temperance]

58. There's nothing wrong with being

Economically conservative, there's nothing wrong with supporting lower taxes and fiscal responsibilty, President Bill Clinton would agree with me.

As I've already commented, nobody is "compromising" on socio-religious matters, all that's happening is that these groupings are apparently going to talk to each other, to see what common ground can be reached on a variety of issues.

As I've also already commented, I'm pro-Gay Rights to the point where I support gay people being allowed to get married, I'm pro-Choice in the cases of incest, rape and where the life of the Mother is in danger and I'm 100% in support of Stem Cell Research including Embryonic Stem Cell Research....and there's no way that I'd compromise on ANY of these issues.

I've been courteous and polite in this thread, to those who have differing opinions, therefore I don't appreciate being termed a "DLC stooge", as my avatar shows, yes I'm DLC, but there was no need to resort to name-calling.

Okay, so you wish Death To The DLC, however I would say that the DLC are closer to mainstream opinion, being economically conservative and socially liberal.

Were we not closer to mainstream opinion, if mainstream opinion were further to the Left, then in 2004 surely Dennis Kucinich would have won the Democratic Party Presidential nomination and would have won the General Election....as it was, even Democrats in Ohio are in the Center....because Dennis Kucinich COULDN'T even get more than 10% of the vote in his OWN home state.

[liberaldemocrat7]

64. Economic conservatives Social liberals.

So the DLC appears mostly filled with economic conservatives. I imagine the type of conservatives that said prosperity appears around the corner just before the crash in 1929.

I also bet you love that Medicare part D that the Republicans foisted on retired and disabled middle class people that does not help them but enriches the drug companies, the insurance companies and the pharmacy chains.

There appears a party for you: THE LIBERTARIAN Party. WHY DOESN'T THE DLC just go join the LIBERTARIAN party and let the Democratic party alone?

The libertarians for the most part appear socially liberal and fiscally stingy err conservative. For that matter why don't you vote for Ron Paul?

[Tellurian]

29. Where does the article in the OP say anything about the DLC?

Have I missed something?

[...of J.Temperance]

31. Third Way grouping is mentioned

Third Way is DLC.

As is shown by my avatar, I'm proud to be a DLCer, I'm not ashamed to say I'm DLC....I don't have two heads, I'm not evil, I haven't corrupted anyone and on the basic issues, I want the same things as everyone else....and in 2008, I'm supporting John Edwards, same as I supported him in 2004.

[Progressive Friend]

61. After the DLC abandons social liberalism to get Evangelical votes...

Their transformation into Republicans will be complete.

[madfloridian]

36. Wyldwolf cuts to the chase: "Fringe political movements"

I believe the rest of his phrase was "always need an enemy".

[wyldwolf]

40. yep. So?

[democrat2thecore]

37. Interesting....a thought on Mike Huckabee

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

As a Christian on the left, I have the opportunity to discuss politics with some of these religious right types and they simply boggle the mind. I have heard more than a few say that Mike Huckabee is too liberal! They say he's right on some social issues, but he's into all that "social gospel," income redistribution, giveaway programs, on and on. So many of these people - I can't get them to calm down long enough to read the Sermon On The Mount! Unbelievable.

Christians On The Left:

Sojourners:
http://www.sojo.net/

CrossLeft
http://www.crossleft.org/

Everything Must Change (Brian McLaren)
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/books/brians-books/everything-must-change.html
McLaren on the Emergent Church:
Acclaimed author and Emergent church leader Brian McLaren states, "More and more Christian leaders are beginning to realize that for the millions of young adults who have recently dropped out of church, Christianity is a failed religion. Why? Because it has specialized in dealing with 'spiritual needs' to the exclusion of physical and social needs. It has focused on 'me' and 'my eternal destiny,' but it has failed to address the dominant societal and global realities of their lifetime: systemic injustice, poverty, and dysfunction."

McLaren asks, "Shouldn't a message purporting to be the best news in the world be doing better than this?" What he sets forth in this provocative, unsettling work is a "form of Christian faith that is holistic, integral, balanced, that offers good news for both the living and the dying, that speaks of God's grace at work both in this life and the life to come, both to individuals and to societies and the planet as a whole."

edit to add correct URL

[wyldwolf]

41. I was lucky enough to have a conversation with Rev. Jim Wallis once...

Fascinating individual.

[democrat2thecore]

44. What a guy

Jim Wallis is a great guy - someone who has really impacted my life.

[saracat]

43. I am sure Hillary will jump aboard being part of the 3rd way and DLC

as she is. Religion and politics should not mix. End of story.

[paulk]

47. this thread isn't about Hillary

for someone who's always bitching about being treated unfairly, you sure seem to like goading people -

and then running off to certain other forums to cry about it when they hit back.

[saracat]

49. No but this is very much about a 3rd WAY DLC concept. I was under the impression Hillary supported

both. I find it interesting that the DNC appears to be jumping on this as well.I just took their training in "faith and Values " outreach.I don't totally agree with it.But she seems to be placing more emphasis on religion lately, no doubt because of polling the rated her perceived "least religious". I do not doubt her faith.I am just referring to a poll.

[maximusveritas]

48. They're late to the game

Howard Dean has been doing the same thing ever since he got to the DNC. Obama and other Democrats have doing similar work on their own.
I guess they're angling for a way to claim full credit when the evangelical vote moves in our direction.

[w4rma]

62. Progressives need to do this, also. Don't let the DLC get the jump on this.

Jesus's teachings are progressive.

[Romulox]

68. Don't worry guys; We'll adapt the platform to embrace all the traditional right wing constituencies

And when that is done, then we can start adopting some populist/progressive policies! :puke:

[OHdem10]

69. I am having fun here---but The Third Way is alays a dollar

short ---ie, late to the game.

Did they not see Richard Land, Exective with Southern Baptist
Convention on C-Span.

He clearly stated, being a person of faith is not the issue.

"I would vote for an Atheist, who is Pro-Life Over a person
of faith who is Pro-Choice."


The GOP is having to use a Litmus Test. Faith is not the
issue. It is your stand on Abortion.

As soon as Democrats illustrate their Faith Credentials,
the GOP change the goal post.