Things Fall Apart - How Democrats gave up on religious voters

[gilliam]

When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he represented—among many things—the shining hope for the religious left. Here was a liberal politician who was not afraid of the language of faith, who just might reclaim territory that the Democratic Party had, willingly or not, ceded to Republicans. Red America did not own religion, Obama declared: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states.

Between 2004 and 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, he became possibly the most prominent Democratic politician who was comfortable speaking about religion—a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics. He spoke with ease about his conversion; of the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and, in a key speech before the Call to Renewal conference in 2006, of the importance of “religion in the public square.” In the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s message seemed to resonate with religious people who had not, in recent years, gravitated toward the Democratic Party. He won more churchgoers than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton.

But, in just two short years, the left has become sluggish in its courtship of religious voters, significantly scaling back its faith-outreach programs. While many factors—primarily the economy—doomed the Democrats this fall, the consequences of this abdication nevertheless seem to be severe. In the recent midterm elections, House Democrats lost white evangelical voters in greater numbers than they did in 2004, when “values voters” flocked to George W. Bush. Reversing their Democratic allegiance from the past two elections, Catholics—nearly a quarter of all voters—favored the GOP 54 to 44 percent. Compared to 2008, the drop-offs were steep: a 20-point decline with Catholics, a 14-point decline with white evangelicals, and a 10-point decline with white Protestants. How and why did this happen?

tnr.com/article/politics/80162/democrats-faith-based-outreach?utm_source=Editors+and+Bloggers&utm_campaign=d25c23cbcf-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

 

[SVP]

Democrats, especially the official party, have long since embraced their own religion of liberalism to the exclusion of Judeo-Christian values. There wasn’t much left to give up.

 

[manualman]

The religious left is not the same thing as the political left. The religious left cares very deeply about many of the same things we catholics do: unjust war, poverty, immigration, health care access, racism. The political left differs slightly in that they care about the above, but appear to care MORE about abortion (unrestricted and publicly funded, if possible), normalization of gay lifestyles, specifics of monetary affirmative action, increased taxation on the rich, etc.

Obama has achieved significant things for the political left: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, major relaxation on previous federal abortion funding, TWO hard core abortion SC justices, an end to restrictions on “out” gays in the military.

But he has really achieved NOTHING for the religious left bloc that was so enthused about him. Health care seems to be a fizzle for the poorest, war goes on unabated, Guantanamo runs as usual, the military budget trajectory is unchanged, illegals still have no path to legitimacy here and so forth. Perhaps you can argue that he did his best on health care and simply failed to make a big difference, but that’s cold consolation compared to what he’d achieved for the secular lefties.

I think many religious left folk feel lied to the same way many religious right folk felt lied to by Bush the First.

 

[catholictiger]

When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he represented—among many things—the shining hope for the religious left. Here was a liberal politician who was not afraid of the language of faith, who just might reclaim territory that the Democratic Party had, willingly or not, ceded to Republicans. Red America did not own religion, Obama declared: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states.

Between 2004 and 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, he became possibly the most prominent Democratic politician who was comfortable speaking about religion—a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics. He spoke with ease about his conversion; of the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and, in a key speech before the Call to Renewal conference in 2006, of the importance of “religion in the public square.” In the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s message seemed to resonate with religious people who had not, in recent years, gravitated toward the Democratic Party. He won more churchgoers than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton.

But, in just two short years, the left has become sluggish in its courtship of religious voters, significantly scaling back its faith-outreach programs. While many factors—primarily the economy—doomed the Democrats this fall, the consequences of this abdication nevertheless seem to be severe. In the recent midterm elections, House Democrats lost white evangelical voters in greater numbers than they did in 2004, when “values voters” flocked to George W. Bush. Reversing their Democratic allegiance from the past two elections, Catholics—nearly a quarter of all voters—favored the GOP 54 to 44 percent. Compared to 2008, the drop-offs were steep: a 20-point decline with Catholics, a 14-point decline with white evangelicals, and a 10-point decline with white Protestants. How and why did this happen?

tnr.com/article/politics/80162/democrats-faith-based-outreach?utm_source=Editors+and+Bloggers&utm_campaign=d25c23cbcf-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

hopefully the catholic voting base votes more pro-life now.

 

[Della]

The religious left is not the same thing as the political left. The religious left cares very deeply about many of the same things we catholics do: unjust war, poverty, immigration, health care access, racism.

As someone who generally votes on the “right” I cannot agree that the left cares more about these issues than the right. The right just has different ideas from the left as to how to solve these problems. Nor do I, as a Catholic, feel the left is closer to the Church’s stance on any of these issues. What war are we waging that is unjust? None. What has the left done to solve poverty? Create huge bureaucracies that employ thousands while poverty goes on unabated. Immigrants should be allowed to enter America, but to indiscriminately throw open our borders to illegals and then expect our taxpayers to foot the bill is totally unrealistic. Health care should be available to those who can’t afford insurance, but to force us to pay for everyone’s health care, rich and poor alike, is ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than another grab for power. And what racism? There are no laws in America limiting anyone’s freedoms based on race. This last one is a non-issue since government cannot regulate people’s biases nor can it assure everyone will be treated equally all the time. I’ve been passed over, denigrated and negated in my life, not for my race but for my appearance. Are we going to regulate the whole of human behavior now, too? Let’s get real.

The political left

differs slightly in that they care about the above, but appear to care MORE about abortion (unrestricted and publicly funded, if possible), normalization of gay lifestyles, specifics of monetary affirmative action, increased taxation on the rich, etc.
​

Sure the right cares about these issues, some of which are foundational, such as abortion. The economics of the left doesn’t work. Punishing the rich won’t alleviate poverty. Gays can do whatever they please except change a fundamental element of human relations, marriage, into something else and then foist that unwarranted change onto the majority. There are other ways they can have legal relationships, if they want them. These issues aren’t the property of the left or the right. All issues are the property and concern of all Americans. And in America the majority rules not the minority.

Obama has achieved significant things for the political left: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, major relaxation on previous federal abortion funding, TWO hard core abortion SC justices, an end to restrictions on “out” gays in the military.

Significant to the left and those who support these things, but the majority of Americans are not in support of them as evidenced by the recent elections.

But he has really achieved NOTHING for the religious left bloc that was so enthused about him. Health care seems to be a fizzle for the poorest, war goes on unabated, Guantanamo runs as usual, the military budget trajectory is unchanged, illegals still have no path to legitimacy here and so forth. Perhaps you can argue that he did his best on health care and simply failed to make a big difference, but that’s cold consolation compared to what he’d achieved for the secular lefties.

Health care for the poorest was only an excuse to take over the health care industry. I don’t know about the rest of the country but here in MN no one has to go without health care. We have existing programs in place that are a model for the country. If Obama had adopted those instead of trying to gobble up the health care industry, against the wishes of the American people, he’d have had all the support he could have wished for. And why should illegals have a path to legitimacy? Because they might vote for the left? Isn’t that what that’s all about? Why didn’t Obama offer American aid to Mexico instead of insisting we take on all their disaffected and pay for all their needs in a depressed economy? Because it wouldn’t get him the strokes from the left, that’s why. He didn’t do his best on health care, he botched the whole thing and then blamed it on the right. All too typical MO of the left these days. And they wonder why they lost the House of Representatives in the midterms. The left is totally out of touch with mainstream America. Besides that, they haven’t had an original idea how to solve anything since FDR. That’s why they failed. Plain and simple.

I think many religious left folk feel lied to the same way many religious right folk felt lied to by Bush the First.

As a religious person on the right let me speak for myself and others on the right. We didn’t feel lied to by Bush the First. He couldn’t do all he wanted and he didn’t do all we’d hoped, but he didn’t lie to us and he certainly didn’t try to grab power by taking over a major American industry. He shouldn’t have promised no new taxes, but that was a mistake–one many others have made, and he made that promise in good faith thinking he could do it. It wasn’t the huge blunders the Obama administration keeps making, seemingly on a daily basis. Obama had his shot and he blew it–that’s it in a nutshell.​

 

[estesbob]

The religious left is not the same thing as the political left. The religious left cares very deeply about many of the same things we catholics do: unjust war, poverty, immigration, health care access, racism. The political left differs slightly in that they care about the above, but appear to care MORE about abortion (unrestricted and publicly funded, if possible), normalization of gay lifestyles, specifics of monetary affirmative action, increased taxation on the rich, etc.

The religious right cares very deeply about these also. We have valid political differences with those on the Left as the best way to solve them. To often we see the Left assert that other than their support of abortion and homosexuality they are much more in line with the teachings of the Church than the right… This simply is not true. It should be noted that the church does not endorse either side’s approach to resolving these problems.

I think many religious left folk feel lied to the same way many religious right folk felt lied to by Bush the First.

One rule of thumb I always follow is that someone who believes it is okay for women to kill their children cannot be trusted in any position of leadership.

 

[Suudy]

The religious right cares very deeply about these also. We have valid political differences with those on the Left as the best way to solve them.

Indeed. The left and the right agree almost exclusively on the ends, but disagree vehemently on the means. And it has been my observation that in general, the left don’t care about the means at all. In fact, for them, the ends justify the means.

It should be noted that the church does not endorse either side’s approach to resolving these problems.

But it does explicitly condemn the means of many of the left’s programs, particularly with regard to subsidiarity and the proper role of the state.

 

[manualman]

Della, you seem to have missed my point. I was not contrasting left and right. I was contrasting the religious left from the secular left. (Your bracket is NOT a correction of a typo on my part).

Secular leftists view issues like poverty, health care, immigration, etc as tools to achieve power. This is VERY different that religious leftists who genuinely believe (wrong or correctly), that more government intervention in these areas is warranted.

HW Bush was a phony pro-lifer. He mouthed the words, but cared little about it beyond its political usefulness. Later statements made by Barbara are instructive, but not as much as Bush’s own SC appointees (Souter and Kennedy(?) anyways. Thomas seems fine so far). Junior, for all his faults, was at least sincerely appalled by abortion and did a fine job of appointments. You really don’t find it surprising that Dems can ALWAYS find reliable pro-choicers, but Rs are often “unpleasantly surprised” to find they have placed a pro-choicer on the court for life? Right. Advice: don’t buy a bridge from somebody who talks a good talk.

Democrats often scoff at pro-lifers and claim that we are often manipulated by republicans that TALK pro-life, but are really just using us. They have a point in some cases. But in making it, they need to take a look and notice that the SAME thing occurs in THEIR ranks. For all his talk, Obama has delivered almost nothing for the religious left. Only the secular left has enjoyed any real success from his administration.

 

[Della]

Della, you seem to have missed my point. I was not contrasting left and right. I was contrasting the religious left from the secular left. (Your bracket is NOT a correction of a typo on my part).

Secular leftists view issues like poverty, health care, immigration, etc as tools to achieve power. This is VERY different that religious leftists who genuinely believe (wrong or correctly), that more government intervention in these areas is warranted.

HW Bush was a phony pro-lifer. He mouthed the words, but cared little about it beyond its political usefulness. Later statements made by Barbara are instructive, but not as much as Bush’s own SC appointees (Souter and Kennedy(?) anyways. Thomas seems fine so far). Junior, for all his faults, was at least sincerely appalled by abortion and did a fine job of appointments. You really don’t find it surprising that Dems can ALWAYS find reliable pro-choicers, but Rs are often “unpleasantly surprised” to find they have placed a pro-choicer on the court for life? Right. Advice: don’t buy a bridge from somebody who talks a good talk.

Democrats often scoff at pro-lifers and claim that we are often manipulated by republicans that TALK pro-life, but are really just using us. They have a point in some cases. But in making it, they need to take a look and notice that the SAME thing occurs in THEIR ranks. For all his talk, Obama has delivered almost nothing for the religious left. Only the secular left has enjoyed any real success from his administration.

I see. My mistake. I can’t be as hard on Bush, Sr., though. We have to keep in mind the era he came from and Barbara’s influence. At least he didn’t make things worse for the pro-life cause, something no Democrat can claim, yes?

 

[estesbob]

I see. My mistake. I can’t be as hard on Bush, Sr., though. We have to keep in mind the era he came from and Barbara’s influence. At least he didn’t make things worse for the pro-life cause, something no Democrat can claim, yes?

It is not a coincidence that abortions reached their lowest level since the imposition of Roe V Wade under George Bush. His reinstitution of the Mexico City policy alone saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of children overseas. Because of George Bush we got the first restriction of an abortion procedure since the imposition of Roe-partial-birth abortion ban. By Executive Order he was able to stop abortions at military institutions and impose strict consicous clauses at medical facilities in the country that receive government funding . Those who do not believe George Bush was a champion for the unborn either do not know what his record is or are trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion candidates

 

[manualman]

It is not a coincidence that abortions reached their lowest level since the imposition of Roe V Wade under George Bush. His reinstitution of the Mexico City policy alone saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of children overseas. Because of George Bush we got the first restriction of an abortion procedure since the imposition of Roe-partial-birth abortion ban. By Executive Order he was able to stop abortions at military institutions and impose strict consicous clauses at medical facilities in the country that receive government funding . Those who do not believe George Bush was a champion for the unborn either do not know what his record is or are trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion candidates

I’ve never voted pro-abortion in my life. But Justice Souter is the fly in YOUR ointment (can’t recall if Kennedy was Bush Srs too). Seriously? Are we seriously to believe that Souter hoodwinked Bush? To me, it is MUCH more plausible that Bush Senior ( and rather a few other republicans to date) enjoyed having pro-lifers as a reliable voting bloc. So he threw us some nice juicy bones (noted in above posts), but when it came time to deliver the steak decided to keep his party’s gravy train rolling instead. How better to do that than to SAY you oppose Roe, but make sure it is never overturned?

I voted for Bush Sr twice. But over time and further reflection I don’t believe he was a genuine friend of the unborn. Walk is what talks for me. People in real life, I can forgive. In politics, once you betray life you are out. It’s that important.

Oh, the low abortion rate during Bush Srs presidency is basic math. 1972 +16 = 1988. Those are the years that the first wave of aborted children WOULD have reached the age of fertility (my generation). Fully 25% of us were killed in our mother’s wombs. I can recall school closing left and right while growing up. Gen X had fewer abortions largely because there were few of us to get pregnant in the first place.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve never voted pro-abortion in my life. But Justice Souter is the fly in YOUR ointment (can’t recall if Kennedy was Bush Srs too). Seriously? Are we seriously to believe that Souter hoodwinked Bush? To me, it is MUCH more plausible that Bush Senior ( and rather a few other republicans to date) enjoyed having pro-lifers as a reliable voting bloc. So he threw us some nice juicy bones (noted in above posts), but when it came time to deliver the steak decided to keep his party’s gravy train rolling instead. How better to do that than to SAY you oppose Roe, but make sure it is never overturned?

I voted for Bush Sr twice. But over time and further reflection I don’t believe he was a genuine friend of the unborn. Walk is what talks for me. People in real life, I can forgive. In politics, once you betray life you are out. It’s that important.

I believe we are talking about different Bush’s. I am talking about “W” and I voted for him 4 times.

 

[manualman]

I believe we are talking about different Bush’s. I am talking about “W” and I voted for him 4 times.

Read back and note that I said “HW Bush.” Junior, for all his faults, was solidly pro-life. I voted twice. (though I was a McCain guy in the primaries back in 1999)

 

[estesbob]

Read back and note that I said “HW Bush.” Junior, for all his faults, was solidly pro-life. I voted twice. (though I was a McCain guy in the primaries back in 1999)

As I said we were talking about different Bushs Howver If George H Bushs first choice for Justice(Bork) had been confirmed Roe wuld have been overturned in 1992. I always blamed Souter on Sununu I voted for “W” twice for gov.

 

[manualman]

As I said we were talking about different Bushs Howver If George H Bushs first choice for Justice(Bork) had been confirmed Roe wuld have been overturned in 1992. I always blamed Souter on Sununu I voted for “W” twice for gov.

Bork was a Reagan pick aborted by Ted Kennedy (God have mercy on him). I just can’t remember if justice Kennedy was Reagan or Bush Sr.

 

[estesbob]

Bork was a Reagan pick aborted by Ted Kennedy (God have mercy on him). I just can’t remember if justice Kennedy was Reagan or Bush Sr.

Youre right I can’t get my Presidents Straight today!

 

[Della]

manualman, please don’t regret voting for Bush, Sr. What was the alternative? A pro-abortion-on-demand Democrat, that’s what. You didn’t throw your vote away by voting for GHB like some did who voted for 3rd party candidates that didn’t have a chance in France of winning, thus ensuring a Clinton win and a huge loss for the pro-life cause.

 

[ishii]

.

HW Bush was a phony pro-lifer. He mouthed the words, but cared little about it beyond its political usefulness.

Really? What do you base this on? Bush 1 gave us Souter and Thomas (who is one of the pro-life justices). I grant you that Souter did not turn out well, but you need to keep in mind that his nomination came not much long after the Bork fiasco and the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time. Souter was not well known outside of his state and did not have much of a paper trail. I think that Bush calculated that to nominate another Bork style justice would result in another Bork confirmation process. He rolled the dice with Souter and unfortunately we were all disappointed from a pro-life perspective. There are no guarentees with any justice. I think its a bit unfair to judge Bush so harshly based on Souter, and very unfair to call him a phony pro-life when you don’t know that to be true.

Later statements made by Barbara are instructive, but not as much as Bush’s own SC appointees (Souter and Kennedy(?) anyways. Thomas seems fine so far). Junior, for all his faults, was at least sincerely appalled by abortion and did a fine job of appointments. You really don’t find it surprising that Dems can ALWAYS find reliable pro-choicers, but Rs are often “unpleasantly surprised” to find they have placed a pro-choicer on the court for life? Right. Advice: don’t buy a bridge from somebody who talks a good talk.

Again, Bush didn’t give us Kennedy (another disappointment). What do you think of Clarence Thomas? He was nominated by Bush, you know.

Democrats often scoff at pro-lifers and claim that we are often manipulated by republicans that TALK pro-life, but are really just using us. They have a point in some cases. But in making it, they need to take a look and notice that the SAME thing occurs in THEIR ranks. For all his talk, Obama has delivered almost nothing for the religious left. Only the secular left has enjoyed any real success from his administration.

I have read posts from what I would call the “religious left” on this forum who love the Obama care that was passed. Also, the Dream Act is something that the religious left would seem to support, as well as the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” - gay rights is very much part of the agenda of the religious left, in spite of what the bible says. So the religious left should be very happy with Obama. Want to know something else? I don’t think the religious left really cares about abortion. If they did, then they wouldn’t vote for pro-abortion rights candidates.

I think there will always be disappointments on both sides. As long as there is politics and compromises, there will be people who are disappointed that their leader didn’t go far enough. As long as there are religious leftists who vote for secular leftists and catholics who vote for pro-abortion rights candidates, abortion will remain the law of the land. As long as there are people who vote leftist first, catholic second, or Democrat first, catholic second, abortion on demand will remain.

Ishii

 

[Alan55]

Democrats, especially the official party, have long since embraced their own religion of liberalism to the exclusion of Judeo-Christian values. There wasn’t much left to give up.

It is totally uncalled for and objectionable to suggest that Democrats are somehow godless or anti-Christian. Reported.

 

[estesbob]

It is totally uncalled for and objectionable to suggest that Democrats are somehow godless or anti-Christian. Reported.

Their party platform is