MaxedOutMama
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Baffled and uneasy
I don't perceive the mass of the US as fundamentally divided. The party structures might be, but after all political differentiation is their reason for existing. I may be totally wrong, though, because I don't understand the reactions of a lot of the national Democratic pundits. I was surprised at NPR's coverage yesterday, and I'm going to listen to more radio to see if I can get a clue. This overwhelming blame of Christians for Kerry's defeat is more than a little frightening. Trying to strengthen your party by demonizing one of the largest denominations in your country seems just a touch unstrategic, as well as unfair.
Jay Cost doesn't blame McAuliffe for the defeat. He writes:
"As for the DNC, do not expect McAuliffe to disappear. First and foremost, he is Clinton's guy, and this remains Clinton's party. Furthermore, I do not think he can be blamed for this fiasco. The Democrats have had problems of one stripe or another since 1980. Blaming McAuliffe for 2004 is like blaming Gephardt for 2002."
I'm unsure of this assessment. To me it all boils down to my perception that in 2001 Bush declared war on a peculiar sect of Islamic terrorists and in 2002, after the midterm elections, the Democrats declared war on Bush and anyone who supported him. Furthermore, the rhetoric they used in this war was likely to truly anger and disturb anyone who had any respect for Bush. Bush's support was extremely high after 9/11, so this made for a broad umbrella of denigrated potential voters. Is this the Democratic "big tent"?
Nor were the slams, the extreme allegations, and the rage confined to the sideline organizations and chat groups. No. In the south, we're talking about people like Madelaine Albright, who speculated that Bush had Osama Bin Laden stashed away somewhere and would produce him right before the elections. We're talking about all the rumors that capturing Saddam Hussein was a fake - that the US had had him for months and had produced him when it was politically convenient to do so. We're talking about Senator Joe Biden announcing that Bush was brain dead, and Edwards remarking that you had to be an idiot to vote for Bush. We're talking about various editorials and commentary observing that fundamentalists in the US were essentially the same as Islamic fundamentalists, and claiming that the real war on terror should include stamping out certain religious beliefs in this country.
We're talking about the fact that independent recounts in Florida showed that the 2000 election there was truly close, but not stolen or illegitimate - yet it somehow became McAuliffe gospel that Bush was an illegitimate president who had stolen the presidency and subverted the Supreme Court. Do you know what all this looks like to the people I work with, shop with, and talk with? They think the national Democratic leadership has gone insane. They think their local Democratic politicians are just fine. Unfortunately, if this sort of rhetoric continues their local Democratic politicians are going to switch parties.
Some of my neighbors may have high school educations, but they read newspapers on the internet. The days when an article or editorial written in the New York Times denigrating their religious beliefs (which don't include killing gay people, by the way, or shunning them, or excluding them from their churches) would not be read and understood in the small town where I live are OVER. Long past. Ancient history. If the Democratic party decides in the wake of the 2004 election that it must turn its despair upon religious believers, it is doomed as a national party.
The New York Times Magazine of October 7th published an article by Andrew Sullivan. It's an interesting article, so interesting as to be almost stunning. What is most interesting are the assumed truths, elided arguments, and the way in which Andrew Sullivan moves his argument along to demonstrate why, in his world view, any person who claims to believe literally in the Bible must become either a hypocrite or a terrorist. This argument is believed and discussed in some fashion or another in many elitist circles.
Catholics have been historically discouraged from reading the Bible, and possibly this explains why Andrew Sullivan doesn't realize that there are many commonly preached sayings of Jesus that would disprove his contention in this article. Nonetheless, Sullivan's arguments are almost considered gospel among certain circles.
You should read the entire article, but I've attempted to give the flavor of it by quoting some portions:
"In that sense, this surely is a religious war -- but not of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. Rather, it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity. This war even has far gentler echoes in America's own religious conflicts -- between newer, more virulent strands of Christian fundamentalism and mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism."
and
"As modernity advanced, and the certitudes of fundamentalist faith seemed mocked by an increasingly liberal society, evangelicals mobilized and entered politics. Their faith sharpened, their zeal intensified, the temptation to fuse political and religious authority beckoned more insistently."
and
"The critical link between Western and Middle Eastern fundamentalism is surely the pace of social change. If you take your beliefs from books written more than a thousand years ago, and you believe in these texts literally, then the appearance of the modern world must truly terrify."
and
"If you believe that women should be consigned to polygamous, concealed servitude, then Manhattan must appear like Gomorrah. If you believe that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, as both fundamentalist Islam and the Bible dictate, then a world of same-sex marriage is surely Sodom. It is not a big step to argue that such centers of evil should be destroyed or undermined, as bin Laden does, or to believe that their destruction is somehow a consequence of their sin, as Jerry Falwell argued. Look again at Falwell's now infamous words in the wake of Sept. 11: ''I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''
And why wouldn't he believe that? He has subsequently apologized for the insensitivity of the remark but not for its theological underpinning. He cannot repudiate the theology -- because it is the essence of what he believes in and must believe in for his faith to remain alive."
I am not going to write a long article explaining why I don't fear terrorism from my Southern Baptist neighbors. I'll merely point out that they aren't terrorists, a point which Andrew Sullivan himself seems to consider inexplicable. I will mention in passing that no Jew, Muslim or evangelical Christian I've ever met has advocated stoning homosexuals. Any of my Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Catholic neighbors could quote the incident in which Jesus stopped an execution under Old Testament law to justify why Christians don't believe in stoning homosexuals, and they do not believe they are hypocritical for neglecting this practice.
The facts are that modern Christians of any sect are not terrorists, and most modern Muslims don't believe in consigning women to "concealed, polygamous servitude". If the Democratic party wants to adopt this type of belief system about the majority of the people in this country who have religious underpinnings, then it will have to live with the reality that the majority of this country will decide it's a party of locoweed-eating extremists.
My personal opinion is also that any Christian ought to ask him- or herself why Andrew Sullivan sees what he sees and believes what he believes, and then turn to reach out to others with understanding, heartfelt love, and respect. In this country a person should be judged by society according to his or her deeds, not another's interpretation of his or her faith. We are never going to agree theologically, but we have historically been able to agree on the standard for civil conduct in our society. The Democratic elites should take a long hard look in the mirror and affirm this proud and peaceful tradition.
Jay Cost doesn't blame McAuliffe for the defeat. He writes:
"As for the DNC, do not expect McAuliffe to disappear. First and foremost, he is Clinton's guy, and this remains Clinton's party. Furthermore, I do not think he can be blamed for this fiasco. The Democrats have had problems of one stripe or another since 1980. Blaming McAuliffe for 2004 is like blaming Gephardt for 2002."
I'm unsure of this assessment. To me it all boils down to my perception that in 2001 Bush declared war on a peculiar sect of Islamic terrorists and in 2002, after the midterm elections, the Democrats declared war on Bush and anyone who supported him. Furthermore, the rhetoric they used in this war was likely to truly anger and disturb anyone who had any respect for Bush. Bush's support was extremely high after 9/11, so this made for a broad umbrella of denigrated potential voters. Is this the Democratic "big tent"?
Nor were the slams, the extreme allegations, and the rage confined to the sideline organizations and chat groups. No. In the south, we're talking about people like Madelaine Albright, who speculated that Bush had Osama Bin Laden stashed away somewhere and would produce him right before the elections. We're talking about all the rumors that capturing Saddam Hussein was a fake - that the US had had him for months and had produced him when it was politically convenient to do so. We're talking about Senator Joe Biden announcing that Bush was brain dead, and Edwards remarking that you had to be an idiot to vote for Bush. We're talking about various editorials and commentary observing that fundamentalists in the US were essentially the same as Islamic fundamentalists, and claiming that the real war on terror should include stamping out certain religious beliefs in this country.
We're talking about the fact that independent recounts in Florida showed that the 2000 election there was truly close, but not stolen or illegitimate - yet it somehow became McAuliffe gospel that Bush was an illegitimate president who had stolen the presidency and subverted the Supreme Court. Do you know what all this looks like to the people I work with, shop with, and talk with? They think the national Democratic leadership has gone insane. They think their local Democratic politicians are just fine. Unfortunately, if this sort of rhetoric continues their local Democratic politicians are going to switch parties.
Some of my neighbors may have high school educations, but they read newspapers on the internet. The days when an article or editorial written in the New York Times denigrating their religious beliefs (which don't include killing gay people, by the way, or shunning them, or excluding them from their churches) would not be read and understood in the small town where I live are OVER. Long past. Ancient history. If the Democratic party decides in the wake of the 2004 election that it must turn its despair upon religious believers, it is doomed as a national party.
The New York Times Magazine of October 7th published an article by Andrew Sullivan. It's an interesting article, so interesting as to be almost stunning. What is most interesting are the assumed truths, elided arguments, and the way in which Andrew Sullivan moves his argument along to demonstrate why, in his world view, any person who claims to believe literally in the Bible must become either a hypocrite or a terrorist. This argument is believed and discussed in some fashion or another in many elitist circles.
Catholics have been historically discouraged from reading the Bible, and possibly this explains why Andrew Sullivan doesn't realize that there are many commonly preached sayings of Jesus that would disprove his contention in this article. Nonetheless, Sullivan's arguments are almost considered gospel among certain circles.
You should read the entire article, but I've attempted to give the flavor of it by quoting some portions:
"In that sense, this surely is a religious war -- but not of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. Rather, it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity. This war even has far gentler echoes in America's own religious conflicts -- between newer, more virulent strands of Christian fundamentalism and mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism."
and
"As modernity advanced, and the certitudes of fundamentalist faith seemed mocked by an increasingly liberal society, evangelicals mobilized and entered politics. Their faith sharpened, their zeal intensified, the temptation to fuse political and religious authority beckoned more insistently."
and
"The critical link between Western and Middle Eastern fundamentalism is surely the pace of social change. If you take your beliefs from books written more than a thousand years ago, and you believe in these texts literally, then the appearance of the modern world must truly terrify."
and
"If you believe that women should be consigned to polygamous, concealed servitude, then Manhattan must appear like Gomorrah. If you believe that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, as both fundamentalist Islam and the Bible dictate, then a world of same-sex marriage is surely Sodom. It is not a big step to argue that such centers of evil should be destroyed or undermined, as bin Laden does, or to believe that their destruction is somehow a consequence of their sin, as Jerry Falwell argued. Look again at Falwell's now infamous words in the wake of Sept. 11: ''I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''
And why wouldn't he believe that? He has subsequently apologized for the insensitivity of the remark but not for its theological underpinning. He cannot repudiate the theology -- because it is the essence of what he believes in and must believe in for his faith to remain alive."
I am not going to write a long article explaining why I don't fear terrorism from my Southern Baptist neighbors. I'll merely point out that they aren't terrorists, a point which Andrew Sullivan himself seems to consider inexplicable. I will mention in passing that no Jew, Muslim or evangelical Christian I've ever met has advocated stoning homosexuals. Any of my Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Catholic neighbors could quote the incident in which Jesus stopped an execution under Old Testament law to justify why Christians don't believe in stoning homosexuals, and they do not believe they are hypocritical for neglecting this practice.
The facts are that modern Christians of any sect are not terrorists, and most modern Muslims don't believe in consigning women to "concealed, polygamous servitude". If the Democratic party wants to adopt this type of belief system about the majority of the people in this country who have religious underpinnings, then it will have to live with the reality that the majority of this country will decide it's a party of locoweed-eating extremists.
My personal opinion is also that any Christian ought to ask him- or herself why Andrew Sullivan sees what he sees and believes what he believes, and then turn to reach out to others with understanding, heartfelt love, and respect. In this country a person should be judged by society according to his or her deeds, not another's interpretation of his or her faith. We are never going to agree theologically, but we have historically been able to agree on the standard for civil conduct in our society. The Democratic elites should take a long hard look in the mirror and affirm this proud and peaceful tradition.
