11/4/2004
AN OPEN LETTER TO UNHAPPY DEMOCRATS
I’m not one of you, but I’m not one of them, either. I don’t, in fact, belong to any political party. Just want to clear that up before we go any further.
My goodness, you’re a bitter lot these days. And for the most part that’s totally understandable. Nobody enjoys losing, and it’s more painful when victory seemed so close. The anger, the fears, the recriminations all start flowing when something you wanted so much, something which seemed so achievable just 48 hours ago finally slips away. And, like Ecclesiastes says, “There’s a time to dance and a time to mourn,” and guess which time this is?
Ecclesiastes. It’s in the Bible. You might want to read it some time, because, you see, that’s your problem. That’s basically why you lost.
Many of you understand this already. It didn’t take long for the “Jesusland” meme to replicate itself throughout bloggerdom, and it’s obvious that many disaffected Democrats blame organized religion–particularly evangelical Christianity–for the stunning loss not just of the White House, but of a lot of important Congressional races as well.
You’re pretty close. It’s not so much that organized religion united to defeat John Kerry. You see, one of the first things you learn when you’re part of a church is that “organized religion” is pretty much an oxymoron and most of the brainwashing and financial malfeasance you suspect occurs actually doesn’t because nobody has time for it. But I digress. You didn’t lose because of organized religion. You lost because one party in this race spoke in the common language of Americans, and one didn’t.
I remember how, in 1988, when Dukakis delivered parts of his campaign speeches in Spanish, that was such a novel idea that Saturday Night Live felt compelled to make fun of it. This time both candidates appeared on Telemundo and spoke without translators. Why? Because they knew that there’s a significant block of voters who wanted to hear their messages in the language those voters are most comfortable communicating in. That’s a big change in just 16 years. After all, in 1988, most Republicans were pushing to make English the official language of the US. Now they’re officially polyglot, and so is the nation.
Anyway, this is a complicated way of saying that Kerry didn’t lose because so many Republicans go to church. Kerry lost because not enough Democrats do. You can say what you want to about the sins of organized religion–and they are many–but you cannot deny its influence on America. And you can’t deny that it’s gaining more influence day by day.
Which means that, this Sunday, all across America, about 100 million adults will gather in their places of worship, where they will see their friends and neighbors, they’ll drink dreadful coffee and eat commercial baked goods, and they’ll be sitting around after services talking about what’s on their minds–the weather, the Green Bay Packers, what their kids are doing in school . . . and, of course, politics. 100 million Americans will do that this Sunday morning, and that’s a stingy estimate. (I’ll do you a favor and not use the “c” word, OK?)
Will your viewpoints be part of those discussions? You might be surprised by the number of churches at which they will–not all Christians are Republicans, any more than all secular persons are Democrats. But you know that, in the grand scheme of things, you’re losing the war for the loyalty of America’s Christians–and you cannot win national elections without them. Bear in mind, the last two Democratic presidents we’ve had were Southern Baptists–a denomination that ought to be officially credited with an assist for the 2000 and 2004 elections.
So, since there are so many of you out there who have said and are continuing to say that you would do anything to end the red-state stranglehold on national offices, I’ve got three words for you: Go to church. This Sunday and every Sunday you possibly can, from now until forever. It isn’t so much that politicking clergy threw this election to the Republicans; it’s that people who weren’t afraid to share either their faith or their religious views had this wonderful opportunity to bond with each other and reinforce their commonality on a weekly basis. There is no equivalent in the secular world to the kind of community created by worship. And you’re not going to create one in four years. You either use what’s in front of you, or you live in Red America for the foreseeable future. You either work with the institutions of society, or they work against you.
Oh, sure, I hear you saying. Let’s all become zombie vampire robots for Jeebus, and maybe then we’ll take back the Phlegm County Mosquito Control Board. I’d almost rather lose than have to associate with Christians.
Really?
Then that’s what’s going to happen.
Look, any dope can read the Bible–whether they believe a word of it or not–and see that for every statement in there about sexual morality, there’s 15 or 20 about economic and social justice, and most of them are far more radical than anything John Kerry said. If your IQ is above room temperature, you can not only formulate a faith-based refutation of tax cuts for millionaires, you can make a good argument for the return of the 90% bracket for the uber-wealthy.
I am not, of course, advocating the pursuit of religion under false pretenses. If you’re an atheist and you’re utterly convinced that not even finding God’s driver’s license on the sidewalk would change your mind, so be it. But if you’re not utterly convinced, if you’re sitting on the fence faith-wise, now would be a good time to start learning more. This article has a list of what are considered “mainline” denominations–walk into a church of these denominations and there’s about a 70% chance that the pastor will be a Democrat. I ought to know. I serve as a pastor in one of those denominations. I am considered to be among the most conservative 10% of all clergy in my denomination–and I voted for Kerry. The same political structures which helped turn huge chunks of this country from blue to red could also work for you. So use them. Come and make connections with your friends and neighbors. Learn how to talk in the language of faith, because until you do–and I don’t just mean your candidates, I mean your rank-and-file party faithful as well–you might as well be speaking Albanian. And that red map is just going to get redder.
Can’t do it? Fine. Just don’t say “I’d do anything” when what you mean is “I’ll do anything I’m currently doing, even though it’s not working.” Remember, in 16 years, the Republicans went from “speak English or go back to Mexico” to a presidential candidate appearing on Telemundo without translators. They were willing to concede some points to win others. Why won’t you do the same?
(Sent to join OTB’s Beltway Traffic Jam)
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Rev, that was a very powerful thing you just wrote. God Bless you!
Comment by Spillmann — 11/4/2004 @ 11:09 am
Post-Election Web Roundup
There’s some very good post-election analysis on the Web, shining through the (380?) tons of muck and manure: –Mark Hasty’s very well-written argument that the Democrats just aren’t speaking to religious voters:Kerry didn’t lose because so many R…
Trackback by telescreen.org — 11/4/2004 @ 11:29 am
You had such a great argument… until you ruined it with the last paragraph.
The Republicans are STILL anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. All they’ve done is cover it up with a veneer which fools a few. It’s the equivalent to your example of the atheist pretending to be into church in order to score political points (or in my own day, the *sshats who told me to go to church to pick up chicks).
Comment by M1EK — 11/4/2004 @ 11:30 am
Actually, there’s a pretty serious split in the Republican party over immigration. The wing that isn’t scared them is ascendant at the moment. As for hating hispanics, they just elected a Republican Hispanic senator in Florida, fer heaven’s sake.
Comment by Jammer — 11/4/2004 @ 12:46 pm
I find it very interesting that “moral issues” basically decided the election, and that people who place those concerns first on their list are voting for the Republicans.
Because a stance on moral issues involves more than spouting platitudes and coded messages to your fundamentalist base. As you allude, Jesus was a radical leftist — way more radical than Kerry or even Nader — and I think that the Democrats’ positions are far more compassionate and realistic than all this palaver about “faith-based initiatives” and “compassionate conservatism.”
I think Kerry and the other Dems needed to speak the language of church-going Americans far more fluently, yes, and also make a case for how their positions are more inherently moral than the GOP’s.
Comment by Vidiot — 11/4/2004 @ 12:50 pm
A lot of good advice and truth in there. Great post.
Comment by zombyboy — 11/4/2004 @ 1:13 pm
You make an excellent point about speaking the language. I’m not sure, however, that anyone should be speaking anyone else’s language. How about a new language? A lingua franca? Some kind of common ground.
It requires a little more effort on everyone’s part, but the results would be extraordinary. A paradigm shift! Something utterly new and wonderful that none of us could have dreamed up on our own!
Well, it’s a thought…
Comment by Colleen Wainwright — 11/4/2004 @ 1:46 pm
Bravo. I was going to write something like this but I think I’ll just trackback to you.
I think there’s a lot of intolerance on both sides, though, and not only do Democrats need to understand the language of the church, they need to stop treating all right-of-liberal Christians like brain-dead Nazis. Maybe by coming back to church they’ll understand, but when my wife, an evangelical Christian bleeding heart liberal, can’t talk about why she is pro-life without the knives coming out, you wonder how long it will take before the “big tent” is welcome to evangelicals.
Comment by dw — 11/4/2004 @ 2:18 pm
Stats for the Stat Junkie
Political Junkie sent a set of stats out. I’m not sure how I got on the mailing list, and, while…
Trackback by resurrectionsong — 11/4/2004 @ 3:00 pm
Very nicely done per usual, Mark. One wonders if the rise of the GOP voting Hispanics is due, in part, to this very religious rift…..
Comment by Jon — 11/4/2004 @ 3:25 pm
It’s long letters like this that show why you’re a pastor and I’m … not.
Comment by bryan — 11/4/2004 @ 8:59 pm
Losers’ First Reaction: Bigotry
Bitterness and vitrol from the Left became bigotry toward Christians. I’d like to think that such mean-spiritedness rests solely with…
Trackback by The American Mind — 11/4/2004 @ 10:45 pm
Now, if you’ll open your books..
It’ll be a short sermon this evening as I have other things to get to.
We’ll be reading from the book of Mark today — the Hasty one.
In his first letter to the Blogosphere, Mark explains the combination of religion, community and politics and …
Trackback by Zygote-Design — 11/4/2004 @ 11:41 pm
Sense and sensibility
The Holy Spirit speaks through the good Reverend Hasty. And Dan Conley makes a welcome return….
Trackback by ...the trailing edge. — 11/5/2004 @ 7:45 pm
Pastor Mark, I tried to do what you advised throughout this election and have believed since I was politically aware that there was a way to find common language for discussion. Since it seems to be a kind of a prerequisite for communication, I’ll tell you that I am a three-times-a-week church goer in a red state. But there was no willingness on the part of the more conservative Christians I talked with to really hear me. So I’m done with that aspect of Christ-like behavior, at least for awhile. 25 years and I’m kind of burned out. For awhile, if for no other reason than to make me feel better, I believe I’ll take the approach that Jesus took with the hypocrites and pharisees instead.
Coming soon to a money changers table near you!
Comment by Troy — 11/6/2004 @ 8:45 am
Christian Voters
This is a good post regarding faith and politics….
Trackback by Monkey Fu: Blog — 11/8/2004 @ 3:08 pm
Of course you’re right about the Democrats needing to engage the churched to have a chance to win elections, but I think you’re too sanguine if you think merely particpating in a faith community is going to help them in any meaningful sense. The liberals that I’ve encountered in those settings typically seem more interested in conforming God to their political desires rather than the other way around, as it should be.
That’s where you’re argument goes off the tracks - when you say “Learn how to talk in the language of faith”, it sound more like you’re giving lessons in propagandizing. Participation in a religious faith community should be a transformative experience for the individual, not necessarily an opportunity to lecture to others on politics in a different way.
I also noted with some amusement your comment that
That might not be the best advice for people who want to build a winning coalition, given the fact that these denominations are presently hemorrhaging members left and right….
Comment by Jonathan Sadow — 11/9/2004 @ 4:50 am
Jonathan:
You’re right; if I’d said “learn how to listen to the language of faith,” that would have been more like what I meant. And I do think that “merely particpating in a faith community” can help anybody . . . just not necessarily politically.
As to your last claim, I wouldn’t call an average decline of 0.75% a year (my denomination’s rate, with most of that loss occuring in small towns and rural areas) “hemorraghing”. Dry rot, maybe.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 11/9/2004 @ 9:04 am
If you’re losing 0.75% per year, that’s still down 14% in 20 years. You’d better get to work….
The larger point, however, is that the Democrats aren’t going to gain much ground if their appeal is solely to the mainline Protestant denominations. The biggest growth among Christian denominations recently has been evangelical Protestants (which voted Republican about 3 to 1) and Roman Catholics (who gave a majority to the Republicans for perhaps the first time ever). If the Democrats can’t turn those numbers around, it won’t matter how many inroads they make among the mainline Protestants - they’ll continue to fall behind. If the Democrats maintain their policy favoring unrestricted abortion and retain their seeming indifference to the legalization of same-sex marriage, I don’t see them making headway any time soon.
Comment by Jonathan Sadow — 11/11/2004 @ 10:03 pm