CAN THE DEMS GET FAITH?


Well, with today's N.Y. Times' article on the subject, it is clear whatever number crunching remains to be done on the exit polls, the Dems initial response to the election defeat is to focus on closing the "faith" gap.


For those of us on the religious left who have been beggin the party for years to tackle this issue, I would like to extend a hearty "what took you so damn long?"


It is somewhat ironic that it is the narrow defeat of Kerry to Bush, as opposed to the down-ticket debacle that is driving this discussion. The irony comes from the fact that while Kerry's loss is far more easily attributable to his failure to close the deal on national security, the Dems tone-deafness on faith is a major reason the party is in shambles at the local, state and Congressional level. Still, progress is progress.


So how exactly is the gap to be closed?

But Democrats disagree about how to establish the party's spiritual credentials. Some play down the need for changes, saying poorly framed surveys of voters leaving polls are overstating the impact of conservative Christian voters. Others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language. And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions.

Unfortunately the article does not really do a good job of expounding any of the these alternate approaches, nor does it coherently present the contrary view of much of the party's base, represented by Jerry Nadler (D-Village) that this is much ado about nothing. What exactly does it mean to employ "moral and religious" language. Is this as simple as nominating a candidate like Carter or Clinton to whom the rhetoric comes natural, or does it require a deeper, sustained campaign to reframe what constitute "moral" or "religious" issues in American political discourse? Similarly, the article seems to suggest that moving to the middle on cultural issues is primarily about shifting positions on abortion and gay marriage. There is no mention whatsoever of the alternate approach (on which Lieberman is way ahead of the rest of the party with his approach to family leave and regulation of entertainment) of directly addressing the aspects of the culture that worry traditional voters rather than merely reacting to the issues the GOP uses to exploit that worry.


Finally, a critical limitation that often goes unexplored in these discussions is the party's absolute financial dependance on the cultural left. (Anyone who wants to understand how this dynamics works should examine the 2000 Pennsylvania Senate race, where the anti-abortion, economically liberal congressman Ron Klink, who had an excellent shot of knocking off Rick Santorum, could not raise the funds he needed to compete from the state party's pro-choice, metro Philly donor base.)


The article in passing, however, touched upon the most important thing the Dems can do to close the faith gap - building its grass-roots ties to liberal and centrist faith communities. In the end, it is the ability of the party to tap into these communities that will determine whether or not an authentic progressive faith-based agenda can be developed that can end the current disconnect from public morality to social justice.