HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - Jul 28, 2004 - Printable Version
- Please Don't Hang Me On A Cross Of Gold (Apologies to William Jennings Bryan)
by Robin Buckallew
I don't think I will be leaking any state secrets when I say, the 2004 election is approaching rapidly. And, as always when an election is approaching, the pundits (also known as Talking Heads) are full of advice for the candidates on how to win an election. That's right, these six-figure a year folks who have never run for anything in their life are instructing experienced politicians on what they should do to attract the working class folks who make up the bulk of the voting age population. And, as always when I read their columns, I am experiencing a great deal of trepidation. You see, I fear that the candidates might be reading these columns, also. They might actually consider the advice being given a good thing. For some reason (perhaps dating back to the Neolithic, pre-neocon days when journalists were among the working class), most people seem to feel that the pundits have their fingers on the pulse of America. In 2000, we were told that there was little to no difference between the 2 major party nominees. So, people stayed home - or cast a protest vote for Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan (apparently a significant number of the Jewish population in Florida?). So, in 2004, in what may well be the most important election I have ever voted in, what are the talking heads saying to John Kerry? Be more like Bush. Be Bush-Lite. Veer right fast at the next light, John!! Uh, oh. Over the past couple of months, in the 10+ magazines that I read regularly, I have seen several references to the need of the Democratic party to be more accommodating to the "evangelical Christians". As you read the articles, it becomes apparent that, by this, they mean we must drop our commitment to separation of church and state, and permeate every sentence with our religious mission. To do anything less, apparently, is to denigrate religion and belittle it. In this way, I am told, the Democrats will be able to win back the large percentage of Americans that identify themselves as evangelicals, and thus swing the election in their favor. Am I the only one who has a problem with this concept?
Lest I should be seen as one of those who are denigrating religion, let me further explain my thinking. In the current administration, the separation of church and state that is enshrined in our Constitution has faced numerous challenges. This invariably meets with a rousing chorus of Amens from the Amen corner, led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Couple this with polls showing that a large majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, and the pundits come to the conclusion that the separation of church and state should be removed as a cornerstone of the party platform, and we should go around wearing our born-again status on our sleeve. But there are several reasons why this should not happen.
Of course, it is obvious to most persons of any intelligence that this would leave non-Christians with no place to go. The Jewish community might be able to deal with a certain amount of this before they explode, but there would no longer be room in this party for the Muslim-Americans, the Buddhist-Americans, the Wiccan-Americans, etc. Not to mention the atheists and agnostics (but then, George H. W. Bush once declared that they had no right to consider themselves citizens, anyway, so who cares about them?). Of course, I could point out that, while the atheists and agnostics make up only 10-15% of the population, they are for the most part a fairly high income, highly educated, motivated group of individuals - and they vote. Should a third party choose to organize around the disenfranchised, non-Christian population, the amount of persons falling into this category would certainly become a major spoiler - throwing the election to the Republicans again and again and again.
Another factor to consider is moderate Christians (which is the status of many in the evangelical Christian community). Although many have come to equate the term "evangelical" with the fundamentalist brand of Biblical-literalist, bible-thumping, fire-breathing young earth creationist types, many persons self-identifying as evangelicals are using a much more orthodox definition of that word, which is not nearly so dogmatic nor so intolerant. This group of Christians (many of whom already belong to the Democratic party) do not require the mixing of church and state. Many are, indeed, uncomfortable with the concept, recognizing that such a union threatens not only the institutions of the state, but also threatens the institutions of the church. Such a union becomes less than the sum of its parts. These Christians can be won over to the party or the candidate by creative, innovative, sensible party policies. Of course, it does take more work to develop such policies than to shout "Amen", but believe me, a lot of folks would appreciate you for it. To get this solid core of folks, it is not necessary to go to their church and pray with them - it is necessary to show them that you have a comprehensive and coherent vision for a strong and decent America. Easy answers will not suffice.
There is one group of folks that could possibly be attracted by such a shift in direction. Most of these folks were at one time in the Democratic Party. They were attracted to the Republicans by just such tactics in Nixon's Southern Strategy - that, and the fact that the Democrats became associated with such evils as Civil Rights, equal rights for women, and tolerances of multiculturalism. Once they moved into the Republican Party, they successfully staged a coup, changing the party from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the current party of Ronald Reagan. This led us to the situation we are in today - the vaudeville show that is George W. Bush and company. Need I say more?
In short, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Democratic Party to abandon their solid, loyal base and hang them on the cross to win votes. I think it IS necessary for the Democrats to come up with the comprehensive, coherent vision for America that most of us are looking for. It is time for the Democratic Party to demonstrate that they can represent ALL Americans - not just those who are in the so-called Moral Majority.
But wait. Now I am reading that the Democrats should abandon their commitment to gun control and just open up the Second Amendment to have no restrictions on it (too bad we can't get such commitment for the reviled First Amendment). This, in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans express their support for at least a minimal level of gun control - keeping the guns out of the hands of minors, ban on automatic weapons, perhaps even preventing felons and the mentally ill from ease of gun purchase. Maybe I was wrong about it all. I propose the following winning strategy for the Democratic Party in 2004: we advocate that, at the very moment of birth, every child should be presented with a gun and a Bible. Then, because we don't want to lead them into the paths of temptation and slothfulness, we don't give them anything more. This is how we will make America great again. Or at least, a way to win an election we want so bad we are willing to sacrifice what we believe in to get it. And that would be no win at all.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).