Where The Outrage?
Heck – Where The Coverage?
Clinton and Obama stood up for something called “The Compassion Forum” over the weekend. In some ways the thing bordered on a religious debate considering, for example, questions about why God allows suffering. More to the point it was an attempt to can religious credibility for Democratic candidates. A fact which, I think, accounts for the lack of serious coverage. Here is coverage from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the NYTimes. I did find one interesting commentary post.
Now imagine for a minute, if you will, a similar forum for Republicans. There would be massive coverage, all spun to make it look like Republicans were close-minded religious automatons. In the primary cycle now complete, there would have also been massive efforts to compare and contrast Romney’s views as a Mormon with the views of more mainstream Christians.
Had this event happened with Republicans, we would have been treated to endless commentary, blogging, TV discussions, etc. on how religion cannot creep too much into the public square – yet this event featured discussions of religion and religious issues in depths that Republicans would routinely refuse to answer – well, save for Huckabee who never passed up a religious question. What is amazingly outrageous is that Democrats who, for several decades, have decried the role of religion in politics – worked tirelessly to eliminate all mention of religion in a public setting – here invoked it on levels that Republicans could never contemplate.
I think this bespeaks an important point: Religion is a political hot potato and moderation in its discussion is key. With the Republicans apparently employing a religious test in the primary, this sort of discussion amongst the Democrats begins to look moderate. While they discussed the metaphysical and theological on levels we would never go near, they did talk about unity and diversity and community.
Our nation loves its religion when it builds bridges, but hates it when it builds walls. The Republican primary appeared to build a wall and the Democrats are not hesitating to capitalize on it. And what is worse, is this version of religiosity is not one that Republicans would agree with much when it comes down to policy. And so, once again, by applying a religious test, even if only amongst individual voters in the voting booth, we have limited our ability to get the policies we want, not enhanced it.
Oops . . .
Lowell jumps in:
I found the Democrats’ behavior in the Compassion Forum fascinating. (I understand McCain was invited but declined to attend. A wise decision, I think.) It makes me wonder if conservatives have a better substantive message, but lousy delivery.
Predictably, the religion Obama and Clinton professed Sunday was the “social gospel” type: Government is a means to deliver the charity taught in the Scriptures. As John notes, the MSM treated the event and its content as totally unremarkable.
I am wondering (worrying) that the Democrats’ religious “message” might be more appealing to the general public than the social conservative/values voter message we saw in the GOP primaries, which was largely driven by Evangelical and like-minded voters. I also worry that Huckabee-style overt religiosity will repel voters to whom the social gospel simply feels better. I am taking about people who are more interested in being made to feel comfortable by vague notions of a kind and benevolent government.
Finally, I worry that although most people probably like the more conservative, values-voter views about the big issues– i.e., the content of the message– most people also prefer a less strident tone. If that’s true, then conservatives win on debating points, but lose on style and delivery.
Speaking of which…
Obama’s “bitterness” gaffe is not playing well when it comes to the Dems’ attempts to garner a religious sheen. Which means we may have the opportunity to recover the high ground before it is all said and done, but we need to get about the business of digesting the lessons of the primary.
More On The Religiously Mute McCain . . .
This time from the Washington Times. And you know, given the analysis just completed, I am wondering if such muteness does not go a long way to explain the Republican primary results – not to mention bode well in the general with Obama’s problems.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
jmh on 15 Apr 2008 at 9:11 am #
I believe Republicans are consistently bad at getting their message out, however this cycle seems to me to be particulary troublesome. I am not sure that the party itself is clear on just what its message is,other than ‘Not Democrat’. The Republican party has always had difficulty in selling the message that conservative principles do serve the greater good, and when those principles work, for example when the economy does well, we do a poor job demonstrating why those principles worked.
I agree that our primary, with its overt religous bickering was off putting to many both in and out of our party, and for many confirmed a dislike or concern about the influence of religion in politics. Most people I think, want government to do the right thing and to act in a way that reflects values that the religious community hold dear, but do not want those actions and values couched in the language of religion.Hence, the accuracy ofyour statement about bridges vs. walls.
As to Sen. McCains stance on being mute about his religion….
well, he has the luxery of remaining mute, ( which is the proper course in my opinion) because he said all he needed to say with the subtext that he …”is a Christan” and believes in salvation, raised Episcipalian and now a Baptist. Who is going make anything out of that? The only people who whould challenge those beliefs would be the Evangelical community, and Sen. McCain has already communicated that he is one of them, or at least theologically acceptable to them. I am sure that Gov. Romney would have preferred to say the ” I am a Christian and that is all I am going to say about that” as well.
I hope we have not yet crossed the Art. VI rubicon and can step back from the edge.
I would hate to see a time where a person contemplating a political career would need to consider carefully ( much like a country club membership) his religious affiliation as part of his/her cv!