Churches, Proposition 73, and the Permanent Party
And the thing about a community is that it is a powerful tool for propagating and, more to the point, reinforcing beliefs. If your church family is overwhelmingly pro-Bush, odds are that you'll pretty much agree with them; odds are even stronger that if you disagree, you won't say much about it. The enormous practical benefits of belonging to a community far outweigh such abstractions as political philosophy. If the people you know and love and trust happen to love and trust and think they know Bush, then he must be okay.
This is what the GOP has going for it. By propagating Republican beliefs among their congregations, the evangelical churches form a kind of permanent party.
The Democrats, on the other hand, exist (as far as most people are concerned) only at election time. The rest of the time the party might as well be in mothballs in the attic. Come an election they'll ask you for money, they'll ask you to volunteer, they'll ask for your vote, but the rest of the time they might as well not exist. And that's the problem.
The second smartest thing Dean did--in the long term, possibly the smartest, but only if the party expands on it--was to create communities of supporters. The Dean Meetups added a social function, an element of fun and a sense of community, to the business of campaigning. People met and talked and had a good time and formed networks of friends and probably fell in love sometimes and campaigned for Dean.
What I would love to see is a permanent Democratic Party--an organization that exists in tangible ways providing tangible benefits at the local level. An organization that has regular events--not just campaign events but social events, charitable events, recreational events, public service days. An organization that people can point to and say 'they throw an awesome party' and 'they do real good in the community'. An organization reaching into the reddest of the red counties where Democrats feel like mute isolated freaks, emboldening them to speak up with the knowledge that they are after all part of a community.
A permanent party.
Only within the last 10 years or so is something like this even feasible...but it is feasible now, and at (relatively) reasonable cost. The Republicans already have their version; this is our chance to even the odds, and if we grab it we could build a majority that would last for decades.
For millions of Americans, their church is their social life, their extended family, their business network, and their entertainment all in one. Few churches have the organizational brilliance of the Latter-Day Saints, but evangelical churches are still the organizing principle for the lives of millions.
You're so right.
And that's why I wish the left would start courting them and stop dissing them. Many of them, including evangelicals and Roman Catholics, are lapsed Democrats.
This country is religious, and those who dream of it being something else are going to have to wait a long time. It was founded mostly by a bunch of religious groups fleeing other ones, a few nasty seculars from New York and a few nasty King's church people from the south decided to cast their lot with those Quakers and Puritans. Things haven't really changed that much, even after a Civil War.
Here's the type of picture of some evangelicals that I'd like to see more of:
Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press
Daron Patterson, right, and Verlinzia Maiden listening to pleas to vote at Mount Airy Church of God in Christ in Philadelphia.
Was used to illustrate this article.
Bellyaching about organizational techniques of the other side gets you nowhere. You have to get some of your own.
Jimmy Carter on last night's Larry King Live, brought it all home on most of evangelicals and other religious types actually totally understanding and supporting the separation of church and state. I gather that is actually a main topic of his new book, that that doesn't preclude political mobilizing from them for the kind of society one and one's fellow congregants would like to see, as he seemed to be harping on it.
No one on the left used to complain about Bill Clinton visiting evangelical churches and getting up there with the choir.
Since Bush, Dems have gotten far far to into equating religion as Republican.
If after leaving for Reagan in teh 80's, some still sense, from rants on the blogosphere et. al. about the pernicious evil of religion in the U.S. that the Democratic party doesn't like them and doesn't want them, why should they come back?
November 3, 2005 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's why I wish the left would start courting them and stop dissing them....Since Bush, Dems have gotten far far to into equating religion as Republican.
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Yes, there are some people who speak disparagingly of faith. There are also a whole lot of Democrats who believe in one faith or another. The overwhelming majority of African-Americans are practicing believers, and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Every Democratic candidate for President since, well, forever has publicly embraced some (Christian) faith. Kerry spoke eloquently of his own faith, and the conservative evangelicals chose not to believe him.
Slights toward the religious exist more in the minds of the faithful than in reality. Many people believe their faith makes them special, and take it as a slight when others fail to acknowledge that specialness. There's not a whole lot anyone can do about that, unless those people decide to get over themselves.
Bellyaching about organizational techniques of the other side gets you nowhere. You have to get some of your own.
Which was the point of my post. I am, in fact, trying to suggest one way to go about it.
One thing I can tell you: the Democrats will never be able to use churches the way the Republicans do. Conservative evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) have an authoritarian approach to truth--a belief that Truth is revealed by authority, and a low tolerance for dissent--that makes them well-suited to enforce political conformity. The liberal churches tend to encourage independent thinking. I know a lot of liberal ministers who have preached social justice (my parents among them), but the reality is that in your typical liberal Protestant congregation folks will take it or leave it as they wish.
November 4, 2005 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adding to my previous reply, if you're looking for disparaging comments about religious folk, check out this quote from an aide to DeLay:
November 4, 2005 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - I'm from Long Island and I don't know much about evangelicals but Dean is organizing the not-so-religous here. One of his fans has convinced me to join in a Dean Democratic phone-in on November 15? and I'm actually looking forward to it. The Democrats are starting to be fun again.
Square dancing, anyone?
November 3, 2005 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear it--as I said, that's what I admired about the Dean campaign.
On the other hand, it seems to me that Dean is in a position to expand this to the party as a whole; that's what I'd like to see. I have no interest in 'Dean Democrats', any more than I have an interest in 'DLC Democrats'. I want to see us unite as Democrats period.
November 4, 2005 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm not a "Dean" Democrat but I want to hear how he got my friend so revved up.
I'm a left of center Democrat who actually voted for George H. W. in 1992 because I thought Clinton was a little iffy and the economy was already on the mend.
Now I'm a pinko leftist radical commie according to the Republicans. I wouldn't vote Republican for dogcatcher if he was the best candidate.
Thanks for your post, btw.
November 4, 2005 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink