News » November 18, 2004

Losing Their Religion

Some Democrats believe the party should turn away from its secular history

By Scott Goodstein

The Democrats’ big loss on Election Day has brought on much hand wringing. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example, blamed at least a portion of Kerry’s defeat on San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome’s push for gay marriage.

The debate over whether the Democrats could win more voters by moving the party further to the right or by becoming the opposition party is just starting. The party’s future direction will be clarified in January or early February when the 440 members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) vote in a new party chair to replace Terry McAuliffe, who has served for four years—and through two presidential election losses.

Sides already are being drawn between those who believe a more thorough religious appeal is needed and those who argue the party should maintain its historic secular approach.

The potential candidates include: Simon Rosenberg, the founder of Joe Lieberman’s New Democratic Network (www.newdem.org), which pushes a values-based message; Harold Ickes, a leader of America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which created many of the opposition ads in this election (a longtime Clinton operative and chair of Hillary Clinton’s PAC, his candidacy raises the question of whether Hillary is positioning herself for a 2008 run); Denver Mayor Wellington Webb; Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazille (she has grassroots support from her longtime party experience and name recognition as a political commentator); Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a moderate on gun laws and a Midwestern populist; and Howard Dean.

The outcome of the DNC election will determine the relationship between the party and the dozens of activist groups that evolved this campaign season. The millions of members of the 527 issue education groups which operated independently of the Democratic Party, clearly expressed their views for more progressive policies.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) Web site (www.ndol.org) argues that the party needs to resolve the “moral values” and trust gap between Democrats and Republicans. “Democrats got clobbered,” the DLC says. “We need a heartland strategy to go with a positive message that reaches the heart as well as the wallet.”

But Democrats need only go back four years to understand how perilous a more religious-based approach could be. In the first test of a regrouped Democratic Party following Al Gore’s 2000 presidential loss, a special election was held to replace the deceased Rep. Norman Sisisky (D-Va.), a long time congressman from Pat Robertson’s neck of the state. The Democrats attempted to out-religion the religious right by running television ads proclaiming their candidate would return prayer to school and bring more religion to government programs. The candidate—Louise Lucas—lost to the right-wing Republican 52 to 48 percent.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Simon Rosenberg, the founder of Joe Lieberman’s New Democratic Network - more eastern liberals…losers.

  Harold Ickes, a leader of America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which created many of the opposition ads in this election (a longtime Clinton operative and chair of Hillary Clinton’s PAC, his candidacy raises the question of whether Hillary is positioning herself for a 2008 run)- Hillary’s candidacy?..loser..move on.

  Wellington Webb - Wellington? loser…move on.

  Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazille - ever listen to HER on the talk shows…loser..next

  Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a moderate on gun laws and a Midwestern populist - right part of the country and knows MidWest values…hmmmm

  Howard Dean - needs to do more commercials to keep him busy.

  Just my two cents…fire away!

  Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 18, 2004 at 6:18 PM

  I think this tactic of trying to co-opt the Reactionary Right’s pious facade is an excellent way to prove to most people that Democrats will say and do anything - convictions be damned - to get a vote. If that is their intention then, by all means, let the religious pandering commence. They will certainly lose my no-party-affiliation vote.

  If the Democrats won’t proudly and righteously champion the most fundamental of our American Values (pssst, it’s called “secular government”), who will? When secularism becomes a dirty word in this country, when fundamental American Values become propangandistic and hypocritical myths, it’s time for me to rethink my faith in America.

  “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, 1788

  Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 6:36 PM

  CIMB-nice quote! OK maybe the problem is the democratic party had the Congress for 40 years and are used to being the party in power. The key word being power. Maybe some of this massive power which is a two edged sword needs to be at its core de-centralized. I alway think of one of my favorite part of the Constitution is about those powers and how those not given to the states are given to the people. That to me beautiful. I think that maybe there needs to be some thought about the genesis of these powers. i believe that FDR’s tenure was a turning point that led us today’s problem. We now have a government (federal) that controls seat belt laws,minimum wage( I am not saying it’s bad calm down) speed limits and drunk driving laws to the size of toilet bowls. I believe that the federal government has , in a lot of ways overstepped it’s bounds . This centralization of government leads us to a system as you saw in this last election where half the people are happy and half are miserable. I am not saying all regulations are bad. People and companies should not pour chemical waste into rivers. People should not have functioning bazookas and nobody but nobody should have their own personal nuclear reactor in their backyard. There needs to be some balance-some equilibrium if you will of powers .How go we achieve it????

  Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 8:42 PM

  I’m not sure if your entire post was addressed to me or just the quote remark. At any rate, my reply is that the topic is “Losing Their Religion: Some Democrats believe the party should turn away from its secular history” and I’m not sure how your comments are applicable to the topic - or maybe you just wanted to share your opinion regardless of the topic?

  The Republicans have occupied the Presidency or controlled the Congress for at least 28 of the last 42 years, leaving just 14 years (at best) in which the Democrats could *possibly* have had control of both the Presidency and Congress. I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to provide the missing facts (Who held the balance of power in Congress during the years 1962-1968,  1976-1980 and 1988-1992?).

  To say that Democrats have had control (the party in power, in your words) for the last 40 years contradicts the historical record. The number can be no more than 14 years and is quite possibly less than that. To say that “the problem” is that Democrats had control (which they clearly did not have) is to make a fallacious argument.

  Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 10:05 PM

  I was making rambling comments more or less on the topic and a reply/inquiry of Constitiution is my Bible. I was under the impression that when the repubs got the congress back in ‘94 it was considered a “revolution” of sorts because the dems had been a majority for forty yrs. I to look to someone more knowledgeable than me for facts. I was also under the impression that regarding the topic that the repubs were for blurring the line of church/state separation and the dems were for making that line clearer.

  Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 11:23 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 35 posts.

Also featured A Unified Front
Fallujah 101
Election Reflection

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!