More on the book "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," by evangelical activist David Kuo. Remember, this is the book in which Kuo - who advised Bush on faith-based charity initiatives - reveals that Karl Rove and other Republican leaders refer to Christian activists as "the nuts".
Here's an interview with Kuo where he gets right to the heart of what's plaguing the conservative movement today. He summarizes his purpose in writing the book:
I [feel an] urgent need to tell people, particularly Christians...that politicians look at any constituency with very cold eyes...And I think Christians have come to this notion that this White House is somehow their fellow parishioners with them, and that is simply not the case. I am shocked, frankly, by the White House response that it [the faith-based agenda] hasn’t been political. That is the other side of absurd, and fundamentally misleading...Kuo then goes on to make an amazingly insightful point about why Christians and social conservatives haven't seen results from the Republicans they've supported:
At what point do you become so captive to one particular political party that you lose your influence and your power?...And there you have it, folks. That's the rule of democracy - play both parties against each other and you win, but tie yourself to one side forever, and you become a footnote.
African-American churches say no-one from the White House has ever come to them before. The Democrats took advantage of the African-American churches and they lost their power to influence the party [they vote for]. Do evangelicals really want to go down that route?
Of course, it's probably arrogant of me to use words like "amazingly insightful" to describe points that I've often made myself. So let's just say that David Kuo and I see eye to eye on this.
Now, any Christian conservatives who happen to be reading this may look at Kuo and think "he's bashing Bush and the Republicans, therefore he's not on our team, so he must just be a liberal hatchet man." But such a reaction would simply illustrate how the GOP has successfully put Christians in its pocket. As long as Christians think Republicans are on their "team,"Republicans will go on winning and Christians will keep on working for nothing.
Memo to Christians: if you keep faithfully voting for the Republicans after all the times they've failed and ridiculed you, maybe they're right to call you "nuts."
But I have faith that most Christians are not nuts, and that, with the right focus, Democrats can take back some Christian support. Kuo himself suggests an opening:
Take that money that is currently fueling all those wonderful hate-filled ads, the hundreds of millions being spent, and spend that money on the poor and inner-city kids. Instead of spending time lobbying, spend your time with your neighbor, saying love your neighbor as yourself.Time for Democrats to think about (and start saying) why Christians ought to vote for them instead...
Meditation #2: Democrats need to understand Red America's priorities
Since the rise of "values voters," Democrats have been wringing their hands about how to lure working-class families back to the liberal fold. The common line here is that Republicans lured working-class people - "Reagan Democrats," "NASCAR dads," whatever - away from their natural party with a message of "God, guns, and gays."
The Democrats consider themselves the "natural" party of the working class because their economic policy has always involved lots of government programs aimed at helping working-class people. This approach worked spectacularly in the New Deal and the mid-century, and Democrats are having a hard time understanding why it's not working now.
So here's a post by Nathan Newman about how to win back the working-class voters lured away by "family values". He neatly summarizes the standard Democratic line:
Parents need real programs, not just rhetoric, that help them take care of their children or sick family members and supports the decent wages and health care all families need. [emphasis mine]This is not a new strategy. Since I was a kid (and that feels like a long time ago now), Democrats have been claiming that "real family values" = "putting money in families' pockets." In the end, they believe, it's all about money, and the right combination of "programs" is all that's needed to get working-class people to finally "vote their interests."
This is nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. First of all, if working-class people cared more about government programs than about "values" issues, how did values issues ever lure them away from the Democrats in the first place? Other liberals, when I pose this question to them, have a tendency to shake their heads in amazement and say something like "People are easily tricked" or "Working-class Americans must have just gone crazy."
How can liberals be so obtuse, when the answer has been staring them right in the face for 25 years? Working-class Americans are not crazy. There is only one possible reason why they started voting for "values" issues over "pocketbook" issues - they care more about values issues!!! DUH!!!
Think about this. The average American house is twice as big as in the 50s, and even poor Americans now own cars and cell phones and color TVs. Sure, not everyone can afford to go to a top college, but with even poor people having such huge wealth, fewer and fewer people care. Many liberals may still think that economic disparities and income gaps matter the most, but the truth is that even America's lower-middle-class is now rich by both historical standards and world standards.
So what do a bunch of fabulously wealthy working-stiffs care about in life? Chances are that their top priority isn't getting government programs to help ease their lives. Chances are that what they care about is what people always care about after they get security - sex, love, and family. They care about a casual-sex culture that has been pulling families apart for decades. They care about their traditional way of life - churches, neighborhoods, Mom & Dad, and the Pledge of Allegiance - being threatened by a corrosive corporatized modernity.
And no matter how many times Democrats say "But giving money to to the working class is valuing families," it will fall on deaf ears (or the ears of people who already vote Democratic). Programs to help families aren't a bad thing - far from it - but they're not going to win hearts and minds that haven't been won already.
So it's time - 25 years past time, actually - for Democrats and liberals to be thinking about how to answer the fears of a Red America whose chief worry is not how to feed their family, but how to keep it together.
So don't write off the working class as "crazy." There's nothing "the matter" with them. They care about the things that are real and important to them, and Democrats and liberals should care too. And if we care in a better way than the Republicans (which shouldn't be difficult, when the Republicans are calling their own constituents "nuts"), then we win.
Now that would be progress.
Bonus Reading Guide
1. A great summary by Foreign Policy's James Forsyth of the veil controversy in Britain. As you might guess, I'm firmly on the side of the anti-veilers. Forsyth also warns that "[c]onstant grandstanding by non-elected Muslim leaders may so polarize the country that it could spark the “Kulturkampf” that should all be desperate to avoid."
2. Louis Goodman argues that Americans won the "easy" Nobel prizes this year (physics, chemistry, economics, and medicine), while people from developing countries did the "far more difficult" work required to win the prizes in peace and literature. Who is Goodman kidding? It's obvious that the subjectively-awarded prizes were given to Muslims who worked against poverty and extremism in the Muslim world - good choices, but obviously political in nature.
0 comments:
Post a Comment