At last month's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly asked social conservatives to describe their views of Sarah Palin and her qualifications to be vice president.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.
Although white evangelical Christians have voted overwhelmingly Republican for the last 20 years, younger evangelicals are less supportive of John McCain than evangelicals over 30, according to a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly. Managing editor Kim Lawton outlines more results of the survey and discusses its potential implications for the election.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.
Everybody loves to spin a top, and during political seasons everybody loves to spin whatever seems spin-able. First, someone spins it to the left, and then somebody else spins it to the right. Those who are experts in the art of spinning never want the spinning to stop. For when the spinning stops, things might be seen for what they are.
The words and records of the candidates are always subject to the spin experts. Lately, the spin doctors have had a run at an answer Sarah Palin provided on a questionnaire for the conservative Eagle Forum Alaska during her run for the governor's office in 2006. The question posed by the forum was, "Are you offended by the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" "Not on your life," Palin responded. "If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me, and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."
Without going into much detail, the Anchorage Daily News quickly pointed out to its readers (October 16, 2006) that Palin evidently had false assumptions about history. The founders, of course, did not have anything to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, authored the pledge in 1892 as part of an effort by President Benjamin Harrison to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. Bellamy and the magazine he was associated with hoped to use the pledge to promote the sale of American flags to public schools in order to raise money for their work. A joint resolution of Congress codified the pledge into public law in 1942. Later, following many years of lobbying efforts by the Knights of Columbus and the American Legion, Congress amended the pledge in 1954 by adding the words "under God." The amended version became official on Flag Day that year, but prior to then the pledge, even though written by a minister, did not mention God at all.
In late August, shortly after Senator McCain's selection of Palin, the blogging started. The Daily Kos, a liberal blog, responded to Palin's pledge to the pledge by describing her as a "female George Bush," a phrase meant to describe someone who is not particularly bright and who has no literate sense of history. In mid-September, Ann Coulter, the conservative political analyst and lawyer, responded with her spin that Palin did not, by her comments, mean to imply that the "founding fathers' wrote the pledge of allegiance, but rather that "the founding fathers believed this was a country 'under God'." "Which," wrote Coulter, "um, it is."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the right is right (perhaps a stretch, but...). If Palin did not intend to imply that she thought the founders authored the pledge, she meant to emphasize that they believed wholeheartedly in the proposition that America is a country "under God," just like, one must also assume, Palin believes is the case today. It is certainly defensible to argue that most of the founders believed America needed to take God seriously. Even the deists, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, hardly conventional Christians in the loosest consideration of that description, believed America was subject to the judgment of God. Evidence of the founders' sense of God's judgment on all nations and peoples is evident throughout their writings. Though they could connect God's will to particular national enterprises, as in the case of the American Revolutionary War, they usually used language about the divine to emphasize accountability of the country (and all countries) to God.
The Pledge of Allegiance written in the hand of its author, Francis Bellamy.
The founders were certainly comfortable with language about God, but they did not use the phrase "under God" (there is no written record of the founders ever using it). Instead, "under God" became commonplace in American public life only after World War II, particularly during the Cold War, when America sought to convince itself and the world that God was on America's side in opposing "atheistic communism." This twentieth-century notion, shared by Sarah Palin and other socially conservative Christians, emphasizes that "under God" means that God stands with America, that America is God's chosen country. It developed naturally out of twentieth-century events, like the victories in two major world wars and the rapid accumulation of wealth after America successfully dealt with the difficulties of the Great Depression. The rise of the religious right since the 1970s has only solidified these assumptions.
This developing American belief in God's automatic blessing also possesses significant roots in the previous century. The events surrounding American expansionism during the nineteenth century, including Manifest Destiny, imperialism, and rapid urbanization and industrialization, caused Americans to turn more comfortably to using God-language to describe America's goodness and to communicate how America was better than any other country in the world because it was "under God."
The point here is that the founders' notion of what it meant to be a country that takes God seriously is, historically, quite distinct from the notion that operates in many Christian and political communities today, which is much more like saying God takes America seriously.
Palin's pledge to the pledge and to "under God" has other interesting implications. In a 2004 Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, the Court temporarily avoided the issues in the case by stating that Michael Newdow, the atheist suing on behalf of his daughter, did not have standing to sue because he was not the custodial parent. The arguments of the case, however, contained an ironic twist that Sarah Palin has likely never considered. The two attorneys arguing to keep "under God" in the pledge did so by stating that the phrase "one nation under God" is simply a "political philosophy," merely "ceremonial" in nature and not at all a "religious exercise." Ironically, it was Newdow who argued that the words are truly religious and should be taken seriously. In fact, a brief submitted by religious leaders supported Newdow's efforts to remove the phrase precisely because, as currently understood, the Pledge of Allegiance forces Christian children to take God's name in vain every day. Using God's name ritualistically, or in simply ceremonial fashion, is to take God's name in vain.
Perhaps those like Sarah Palin who consider themselves committed Christians who believe in the holiness of God should reconsider their resolve to support national and cultural tendencies to use God's name merely ceremoniously or as a way to provide divine sanction for all things American. Genuine concern for the holiness of God just might demand it.
-- Mark G. Toulouse is professor of American religious history at Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, and the author of GOD IN PUBLIC: FOUR WAYS AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY AND PUBLIC LIFE RELATE (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, answered questions about John McCain and Sarah Palin on September 12 at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. He said Palin brings "credibility on conservative issues" to the Republican ticket and gives social conservatives hope, but he also called the race "far from over" and said Christian conservative voters have become "more mature" and more independent than ever before.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.
Last weekend (September 12-14), pro-family groups held their annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly managing editor Kim Lawton discusses the summit, who didn't show up, and the challenge John McCain's campaign may face in sustaining the enthusiasm of social conservatives.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.
Roman Catholics and several evangelical denominations are opposed to the idea of female clergy. Yet many in these communities are supporting Sarah Palin as a potential vice-president. Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly managing editor Kim Lawton discusses the theological debates that Palin's nomination has reignited over women's roles.
When the Democratic Convention started, Barack Obama's main challenge was to change the focus of the election from himself to a miserably failing economy, including its energy-and-environment dimension. By the time the Republican Convention started, Obama had the same problem with the Sarah Palin phenomenon. The McCain campaign would love to have an election that revolves around Obama and Palin. More than ever, Obama needs to turn the election into a referendum on larger matters.
John McCain had no chance of uniting the Republican Convention by himself, let alone of energizing and elating the party's right-wing base. He was the first Republican since 1948 to win the nomination without the support of the party base, and he knew that flag-waving militarism would take him only so far at the convention and in the election campaign. He struck a political gusher by turning to Palin, which electrified the party base and improved McCain's chances with evangelicals, Reagan Democrats, Westerners, hunters, non-feminist women, and perhaps suburban independents.
Palin does not help McCain in his weakest area, his bankruptcy on economy/energy/ecology. Her knowledge base about the world beyond Alaska is worrisome. And it is very much in question whether McCain's Janus-faced convention strategy will play for two months of everyday campaigning. The Republican Convention featured three nights of right-wing bombast for the base, all approved by the candidate, followed by the candidate's assurance that he floats above partisanship and attack politics. That dubious combination smacks of the Fox Network's claim to be "fair and balanced," which no one takes seriously. McCain needs to be careful not to flunk the laugh test.
But his desperate turn to Palin has already paid off enormously. Palin is a huge plus for the Republicans in her current role, dwarfing the contribution that any other running mate would have made. She is charismatic and unlike any nominee of the past. Her strong, spunky, skillfully delivered speech was by far the highlight of the convention. It was also the most sarcastic and mean-spirited acceptance speech in memory at any convention, filled with mocking zingers that apparently are her stock in trade.
Rudy Guliani tossed out lots of red meat, but he was speaking as a primary campaign loser and convention energizer, not a nominee. Mitt Romney won the prize for red meat, declaring that even the Roberts Supreme Court is liberal, like the rest of "liberal Washington." But Romney had his eye on 2012, not this November. Still, envisioning himself as the favorite of the party's culture-warring base, he had in mind Goldwater in 1960 and Reagan in 1976 -- passionate cries from the far right that paid dividends four years later. Somehow Romney has not absorbed that the evangelical right will never rally behind a Mormon, especially him. In the meantime, Palin sailed past Romney, Mike Huckabee, and all other claimants to the favor of the religious right, shoring up a presidential nominee who was never in the running for it.
For the Republican base, Palin's nomination is a realized fantasy and a delicious play to Hillary Clinton's supporters. For the Obama campaign, it is a dangerous distraction from what the election needs to be about. For Democrats, the economy is the key to winning the election. For Republicans, the key is to drive up voter unease with Obama.
On the edge of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Republicans had astonishingly little to say about skyrocketing mortgage foreclosures and job losses. The exception was Fred Thompson, who ridiculed Democrats (with an echo of whiner-hating Phil Gramm) for complaining about economic stress.
The case for throwing out the ruling party is awfully strong; thus the Republicans rarely mentioned George W. Bush or even used the word "Republican." The U.S. economy needs to create at least 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with a growing population. This year the economy has lost jobs in every month, totaling 605,000 lost jobs in 2008 thus far. McCain, mindful of the Phil Gramm fiasco, aptly remarked that the Bush Administration seems not to care about the human suffering behind these figures. But McCain has no plan that differs from Bush or Gramm.
The mortgage meltdown is colossal, totaling $2.5 trillion of lost value thus far. To a large degree it was caused by the Bush Administration's ideologically driven refusal to sensibly regulate the mortgage industry, but McCain has the same ideology. The Bush budget deficits are similarly enormous and self-inflicted, fueled chiefly by Bush's tax cuts for the rich and five years of consequences for invading Iraq. But McCain would make the deficits worse by cutting corporate taxes, eliminating the alternative minimum income tax, ramping up military spending, and making permanent Bush's tax cuts for the upper class.
Keeping Bush's tax cuts would cost the federal treasury $1 trillion over four years. McCain's only idea for cutting the budget deficit is to cut earmarks. If he somehow managed to cut all of them, the savings would total only $19 billion per year. The U.S. spends more than that in Iraq every two months. For McCain to keep a straight face about earmarks, he must explain a running mate who specializes in competing for them. As mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin lobbied for earmarks totaling $27 million, and in less than two years of governing Alaska she sought nearly $750 million of special federal funding, by far the greatest per capita request by any U.S. governor. Her gas pipeline for Alaska would be a monument to her skill at the earmark game. She boasts of taking on the oil industry, but that was only for a larger share of windfall profits, not to break America's addiction to oil. The oil companies are hoping fervently for a McCain-Palin victory.
McCain once had a sensible position on the Bush tax cuts, which he dropped to make himself competitive in Republican presidential primaries. He once aspired to be known as a green conservative, but on his way to the nomination he deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill that would expand America's wind and solar industries. He once opposed offshore drilling on the ground that the environment matters, but he dropped environmentalism on the way to the nomination. He still opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), savoring his last dissent from Bush-style oil politics, but now he has a running mate who advocates drilling in ANWR.
McCain's alliance with a drill-everywhere enthusiast is apparently a case of one thing leading to another, not a coincidence. One of Palin's chief boosters for the vice-presidential nod was neoconservative pundit and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who touted her brassy toughness and urged McCain operatives not to rule her out. In mid-August, Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes urged McCain to meet with Palin to hear her case for drilling in ANWR. McCain indicated that he was willing to do so. The Weekly Standard, not content to wait for an actual meeting, announced McCain's promise in a splashy article by Hayes featuring a picture of Palin. Now that lightning has struck for Palin, McCain's conversion on ANWR drilling is probably immanent.
That gives the Obama campaign two enormous distractions to overcome--the endless fascination of Obama and the explosion of fascination with Palin. This week, while Palin studies up on the world, the election is mostly about her. A certain amount of time has to be spent highlighting her howlers and extremism. For example, in her convention speech Palin claimed that Obama has never authored a single major law or reform, "not even in the state senate." Either she did not know the truth or did not feel constrained by it. Obama pushed through two major bills in Illinois dealing with racial profiling by police and the recording of interrogations in potential death penalty cases, and in the Senate he has been a leader on ethics reform legislation and intercepting illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction.
But dwelling defensively on Palin and her worldview is a loser for the Democrats, who must summon the discipline and moxie to swing the discussion back to jobs, homes, credit, energy, the environment, and the world.
Democrats should not assume that an electoral windfall awaits when Palin debates Joe Biden. Palin is sharper than George W. Bush in give-and-take exchanges, and the mention of Bush calls up painful memories. In 2000, Al Gore wiped the floor with Bush in the first debate, but the media fixated on Gore's grunts and sighs. In the second debate Bush relied on slogans to cover his ignorance of foreign policy, but it didn't matter; Gore shut down and the story was still about his strangeness. By then Gore's lead was gone and the election was a toss-up.
The debates are enormously important this year, as is the necessity of mounting a focused, essentially populist campaign. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Obama is weak in all four of the crucial swing states that will decide the election---Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. Hillary beat him badly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, though Biden is now helping Obama in Pennsylvania; he has never competed in Michigan and Florida; and Florida may be out of reach.
In the past eight years nearly all U.S. economic growth went to the top five percent of earners, while the middle class was saved from drowning only by taking on greater debt. But now the debt resort has reached its outer limit, and middle class and working class people are losing their homes and jobs. We need massive new investments in education, health care, and green technology to meet our human and ecological needs and to utilize the productive capacity of the economy. The nations that succeed economically over the next generation will be the ones that successfully convert to alternative forms of energy. The others will decay and choke on their waste.
If Obama can summon his inner populist in a disciplined, passionate, compelling manner, he can win the election and put the U.S. on a better course. If he doesn't, he won't.
--Gary Dorrien is Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and professor of religion at Columbia University.
I attended my first-ever political convention last week--the RNC in St. Paul. I must say it was a good one to start with. The Sarah Palin effect was all the buzz of the arena and gave a unified theme to the night that I was on the convention floor. I interviewed dozens of delegates from at least 10 states and found an amazing amount of consistency among them:
They were only marginally familiar with Sarah Palin. All the people I talked to had only heard of her by name or not at all before John McCain made his announcement on August 29.
They are passionate about her. I heard "she is almost over-qualified;" "she is the best person for the job;" "she will bring balance to McCain who is too far to the middle"
John McCain made the perfect pick. There was a total commitment to her.
The most surprising response for me was to the role of a woman as vice-president and as it related to the worldview of religious conservatives. I asked questions about how people who hold that women should not be in spiritual leadership over men (a view called "complementarian") would respond to having a woman vice-president and potentially president). If you are not familiar with the line of thinking, it goes something like this:
Men and women are created in a relational order. Men are under God and women are under men. This is not to say that women are lesser than men, but just as tools are designed for specific purposes so is gender a guide to relational order. The Bible is used to support this view specifically passages like Genesis 2:7, 21-24; 1 Timothy 2:12-15; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; Genesis 2; 1 Corinthians 11:8-10; Romans 5:12-19.
This is not a totally fringe view. It is supported by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and many independent churches. It is perhaps the most common perspective among the evangelical religious right.
There is an additional line of thinking that this vice-presidential nomination raises. It comes from reading Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 in the same way as the above passages are read: "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account." "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
Many religious conservatives have used these verses to make the argument that God places our leaders over us, and to obey them is to obey God. For that leader to be a woman would mean that men would have a woman over them as a leader. This is a problem.
Many who hold to the complementarian view would say there is a difference between church leadership and governmental leadership. But this poses a problem for those who want to suggest that the president is God's appointed leader.
I raised some form of this question with the delegates I interviewed. I asked, "Do you think it will be a problem for religious conservatives who hold that women should not have authority over men and who do not allow a woman to be a pastor of a church or teach a Sunday school class with men in it? Will they have a problem with a woman vice-president?"
To a person the response was Yes, I am sure they will. But they will just need to get over it.
I was fascinated to think that this nomination could actually weaken the complementary view or the view of the president being God's chosen leader because of the commitment to support the pro-life ticket. It will be quite a dilemma for some religious conservatives who will have to choose between commitments. And there is no doubt that the support for Governor Palin rests squarely on her pro-life stance.
From the delegates I spoke to I am sure that the times, they are a changin'.
--Doug Pagitt is the author of A CHRISTIANITY WORTH BELIEVING and founder of Solomon's Porch, a Christian community in Minneapolis.
On the floor of the Republican National Convention, Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior policy advisor to the McCain campaign, talks to Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly managing editor Kim Lawton about the role people of faith will play in the campaign and how John McCain will appeal to them despite his discomfort in speaking publicly about issues of faith.
Sorry, you need the latest version of the free flash player in order to watch the video clips.
By the end of the Democratic Convention, John McCain knew that his campaign was in deep trouble. Hillary and Bill Clinton had rallied her followers to get behind Barack Obama; Obama closed the convention with a spectacular speech in a stadium spectacle; all of McCain's vice-presidential contenders were either boring or unacceptable to the evangelical right or both; the Republican right-wing base was sour and depressed; and the Republican Convention was scheduled to begin with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney night.
McCain realized where all of that was leading, and it galled him that so many Democratic speakers dismissed his claim to maverick status as laughable. John Kerry chided that his friend McCain, before trying to debate Obama, needed to have a debate with himself. Others suggested that McCain abandoned his independence so long ago he represented a third Bush term in all but name; supporting Bush 90 percent of the time was not quite the mark of a maverick.
That must have hit close to home, since McCain prizes his (outdated) reputation for independence. He wants to be recognized as a clean-government reformer almost as much as he wants to be president; plus, the two things go together in this year's electoral aftermath of the Bush debacle. So at the last moment McCain made the most important decision of his campaign by opting for an unknown running mate whom he had met twice and interviewed a single time.
Sarah Palin's vetting was apparently a one-day affair, occurring the day before McCain offered her the nomination. The process was too rushed to have covered much of anything. Did McCain realize how little Palin knows about the world? Did he know that she had never traveled abroad until 2007? Did he even know she assiduously promoted the "bridge to nowhere" before she became the clean-government governor that turned against it?
Too much of the early media scrutiny along this line has fixated on a family issue that should be out of bounds in a political campaign; no candidate deserves to have her or his children roasted in the media. McCain may well have stumbled into lifting up the next star of the Republican Party. Palin has already electrified the party's base and provided a godsend-distraction from eight years of job losses, disappearing health coverage, massive budget and trade deficits, a two-and-a-half trillion dollar mortgage meltdown, a two-trillion dollar disaster in Iraq, and a damaged American image in the world.
But whatever Palin's strengths or weaknesses as a political performer may turn out to be, McCain's turn to her confirms the most unsettling thing about him -- his impulsive temperament. I opposed Howard Dean's candidacy for the presidency in 2004, despite sharing his opposition to the war in Iraq, because he struck me from the beginning as lacking the requisite self-discipline and prudence for the job. McCain has similar problems on a larger scale. He has an amply founded reputation for shooting first and thinking later; even his friends describe him as volatile and quarrelsome. Though considerate to staff underlings, McCain's hair-trigger rages against colleagues are legendary in the Senate. These tendencies correlate with his militaristic mindset and his distinctly self-righteous view of himself as a crusader for the public interest surrounded by corruptible types.
On the first night of the convention, Hurricane Gustav rescued the Republican Party from an entire night of George Bush and Dick Cheney. On the second night the party featured its patriotic militarism as a party-unifying theme and told the story of McCain's war heroism. That is not much of a platform for a presidential campaign, but the party has the immense distraction of Palin's novelty on its side, which will at least allow the McCain campaign to survive its own convention.
--Gary Dorrien is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and professor of religion at Columbia University.
With all the focus during the primary campaign season on the words of the candidates' ministers, whether it was Jeremiah Wright for Barack Obama or John Hagee for John McCain, one has to wonder when the press will start focusing on Sarah Palin's pastor. As a member of a conservative, evangelical congregation in suburban Alaska, there is a decent chance Palin was present for some controversial sermons from time to time. Much as Obama was hit with the content of Wright's sermons, one would expect Palin to receive the same treatment from the media in terms of her pastor's remarks.
--David Gray directs the New America Foundation's Workforce and Family Program. An attorney and ordained Presbyterian minister, he is a chaplain at American University in Washington, DC.
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP is by any estimate a very interesting pick. Her pro-life background should help McCain with blue collar Catholic voters generally. I'm starting to feel that this election comes down to who wins Colorado and New Mexico. Perhaps McCain flips New Hampshire. Certainly McCain must "hold serve" on more states than Obama to stay even, and that puts more pressure on him. If Obama gets momentum and starts flipping states like Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, or Florida, it's all over. It is less likely that McCain flips Democratic states like Pennsylvania or Michigan, but it is possible. I think it comes down to Colorado and New Mexico. Can two Westerners keep these GOP states? Can Palin's Catholic roots (she is reportedly a baptized Catholic) help with Hispanic voters in New Mexico? We'll see.
--David Gray directs the New America Foundation's Workforce and Family Program. An attorney and ordained Presbyterian minister, he is a chaplain at American University in Washington, DC.
Humorist Will Rogers was famous for joking, "I am a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat." The 2008 Democratic National Convention demonstrated just how far removed today's Democratic Party is from that of Rogers' day.
Yes, there was the usual on-floor and after-session partying. But this convention was more carefully orchestrated than most Democratic conventions. It was the product of angry and determined professionals -- people tired of eight years of G.O.P. control of the White House.
To a large degree, convention planners succeeded. Speeches by Bill and Hillary Clinton went a long way toward mollifying diehard Hillary supporters and creating a sense of party unity. The spectacular appearance of Obama in an outdoor stadium before 70,000 adoring supporters was a political master-stroke. All of the speakers were well-coiffed and well-prepared for their pre-established roles. Democrats left the convention with good reason to expect a smashing victory in November.
On the other hand, the Democratic Convention may have left some party supporters longing for the good old days. To be sure, no one wanted a return to the chaos of 1968. But 2008 seemed to lack the authenticity of past conventions. Is Michelle Obama really the middle-class housewife portrayed in her speech? Have the Clintons really made peace with Obama? Can Obama, with his appeals to voter self-interest, truly be as inspirational as John F. Kennedy, with his appeals to altruism and self-sacrifice?
The Democrats' authenticity issues were starkly illustrated by their valiant but controversial faith initiatives at the convention. They did their best to remove the party's anti-faith image. Democrats organized "faith concerns" meetings led by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Obama selected Catholic layman Joe Biden as his running mate. Nancy Pelosi presented her interpretation of Catholic abortion policy on Meet the Press. Speakers made use of religious rhetoric.
Yet nagging doubts about the Democrats' seemingly newfound commitment to religion remained, especially among the conservative evangelical voters who are so crucial to electoral success, particularly in southern states. One reason is that, despite the welter of news stories about the emerging evangelical "center" with a social justice agenda, Democrats differ strongly with evangelicals on the two issues that continue to matter most to Protestant (and Catholic) conservatives -- abortion and gay rights.
Efforts to downplay or explain away these differences proved difficult and even embarrassing, as when the Archbishop of Washington took sharp issue with Nancy Pelosi's interpretation of Catholic theology. Prominent black and Jewish leaders challenged the party on issues ranging from abortion to school choice. And Cameron Strang, founder of RELEVANT, a Christian magazine for twenty-somethings, embarrassed party leaders by refusing to give the closing benediction on the first day of the convention.
So how should one evaluate the success or failure of the Democrats' faith initiative? On the negative side, the efforts seemed strained and unlikely to convince religious conservatives to vote for Obama. On the other hand, the Democrats do not need to win most of the conservative evangelical vote to win in 2008; they simply need to erode G.O.P. support among group members. In that, they may have succeeded.
Some conservative evangelicals may give Democrats grudging credit for addressing religious issues, even if done in a somewhat clumsy fashion. More moderate evangelicals may, to some extent, be attracted by Democratic efforts to appeal to the strong social justice tradition of American Protestantism. But perhaps even more important, particularly in the long run, may be the Democrats' efforts to appeal to growing nontraditional religious groups, such as Muslims, as well as to social justice-oriented mainline Protestants.
John McCain's selection of culturally conservative Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate may indeed reduce the numbers of evangelical defectors in 2008. But, in the longer term, the Democrats' newfound religion may work to the party's advantage, provided that voters can be convinced the party's religious appeals are genuine and not a cynical ploy to attract "the faithful."
-- James M. Penning is director of the Center for Social Research and professor of political science at Calvin College.
Reporting from the floor of the Republican National Convention, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly managing editor Kim Lawton says social conservative delegates there remain excited by McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, pleased with her strong pro-life stance, and unfazed by the news of her unwed teen-age daughter's pregnancy.
Everybody loves to spin a top, and during political seasons everybody loves to spin whatever seems spin-able. First, someone spins it to the left, and then somebody else spins it to the right. Those who are experts in the art of spinning never want the spinning to stop. For when the spinning stops, things might be seen for what they are.
