Here’s a comment I posted on Kos:
Dean’s big weakness
Ireally like Dean. Overall, I think his strategy of "the best defense isa good offense" is absolutely right on. But he needs to get smarterwhen it comes to religion — and that means listening to people likeJim Wallis and Michael Lernerabout how to address this issue in a more subtle and accurate way. Iknow that subtle is not his style … but still, it’s important for himto get this one right. I know he’s trying, and I hope he’ll keeplistening.
The one time when I really thought that Dean didn’t have it to be acandidate for President was when — after saying he knew a lot aboutthe Bible — he said that Job was his favorite New Testament book. Ugh,ugh, ugh. It was arrogant and factually wrong about something that heshould know about as a matter of history and literature, not to mentionfaith. [Apparently he later corrected himself after realizing that he was just recycling his pre-fab Bible answer … make of that what you will.]
So yeah, if he had said "white fundamentalists", his point would havebeen that much sharper, and more accurate. There are a lot more "whiteChristians" out there than "white fundamentalists", after all — and weneed (and hope to deserve) their votes, too.
Overall, though, I’m happy to see him being willing to take some lumpsin the service of landing some blows on the Republicans. And let’s beclear — the more his quotes get out into the public consciousness, themore they will stick to the Republicans. That’s why you’ve got to bepolitically aggressive with these guys. After all, they’re not going togive us any quarter.
So, I guess I graciously part company with David and the Troll on Dean’s effectiveness. Yes, he’s attracting attention to himself. But he’s not running for office, so I think it’s good that the themes he brings up are discussed at all in the public sphere: voting rights; diversity; corruption, etc.
So, I think he’s a net positive — even with the controversy he creates. It may be the sort of thing where there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
You’re completely right. And I agree that fundamentalist would’ve been a better choice of words than Christian. I also think that he should focus less on calling them names and instead really tell them about politics. A recent quote about how they passed a No Child Left Behind Act that doesn’t fund schools and a Clean Skies Act that increases pollution are parts of the best offensive we have. Keep it up Dean!
Hmmm….Wasn’t Ted Kennedy the sponsor of NCLB? And doesn’t CONGRESS still make appropriations?
Good point about the wording of the fundamentalists vs. Christian. There are definitely many white Christians out there who lean left so we shouldn’t alienate them, it’s the fundamentalists. I agree with your other points too, I like Dean and even though he says controversial things, I’m glad he’s stirring things up a little bit since he’s not running for office.
Absolutely right. The so-called Democrats who piled on with their shock, shock! that someone dare speak the truth do far more damage to the party than someone who puts up a fight in a way that some find impolite or impolitic. I’d also like to make the argument that Dean is right to use the word ‘christian’. It’s a numerical fact, no matter what reaction people have when it is pointed out. Poll after poll show that the more often people go to ‘church’, the more likely they are to vote GOP. If it sounds out-of-bounds to talk about religion so bluntly, so much the better. This country desperately needs a good discussion about the far-too-great influence of tribal superstition and mythology on our national life.I realize that Howard Dean, because of his visible leadership position, may not be the appropriate person to lead the forces of secularity against the whacko right. But somebody needs to do it–and open up a cultural space in which substantive discussions about religion and politics can occur without the hysterical reactions.We’re in a situation now where the biblical book of the apocalypse represents the ascendent political vision of the most powerful GOP groups in the country. (If you don’t believe me, you haven’t read enough Fred Clarkson.) We cannot allow opposition politicians to be intimidated into silence by right-wing thugs and their Liebercrat enablers.Finally, if you come across anyone who is ‘insulted’ by the idea that the GOP caters who people who don’t earn an ‘honest living’, tell them to do a quick Google News search on Tom Noe. Grrrrrrrr.
worldcitizen: I read Frederick Clarkson all the time. You may notice that he’s on our blogroll. It’s also my experience that Clarkson is very respectful of moderate and inclusive kinds of what you call “tribal superstition and mythology”; in fact, much more so than you.I don’t want a “force of secularity.” I want a force of justice, peace, and inclusion. That would include both religious and secular people. You seem to be suggesting that folks who go to church will respond well to being browbeaten by secular folks. I tend to doubt that.Are you aware that without Jesus, there’s no Martin Luther King? and no Gandhi? Read up, my friend.
Was I browbeating? I don’t think I was; I certainly wasn’t intending to. I just threw Fred in there for anyone wandering through who hasn’t taken a look at his stuff. I certainly know that you, Charley, are familiar with him and also that he comments here from time to time. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding about my intention.Was I disrespectful? Perhaps of the idea that some people have special knowledge of the mysteries of the universe–that they are willing to engage in fights about with other people who have different special knowledge of the mysteries of the universe. It seems obvious to me that we know what we know, and not more.If you think I deserved your patronizing condescension, well, okay. I’ve read quite a bit, thanks, and am comfortable with my knowledge of history. Surely YOU understand that there’s no such thing as a civil rights movement at all without the liberal tradition derived from western Europe–of which secularity is a key innovation. I mean, isn’t it okay to say that I prefer living here to living in Saudi Arabia?As far as I’m concerned, secularity IS justice, peace, and inclusion. (Reason informed by compassion, and all of that….) If your religion is also about j, p, & i, good on you. “Superstition” and “mythology” then don’t apply, do they? (Other than perhaps mythology as inspirational literature, which I never claimed to be interested in having a war with. You appear, in fact, to have made all kinds of oversimplifying assumptions about my views of religion.) So why the offense taken?My bottom line point is this: If religion, as religion, is going to be such a major part of our political process–as it now apparently is–then religion, as religion, is going to need to be critiqued and debated openly in the public sphere. I didn’t create this situation. Obsessional, professional religious whack jobs from the southern states did. Believe me, I much prefered it back when religion was considered a matter of private conscience. Unfortunately, that’s no longer the case.
“Surely YOU understand that there’s no such thing as a civil rights movement at all without the liberal tradition derived from western Europe–of which secularity is a key innovation. I mean, isn’t it okay to say that I prefer living here to living in Saudi Arabia?”Yup, that’s right, and yup, it’s A-OK to say that. Say it loud.”You appear, in fact, to have made all kinds of oversimplifying assumptions about my views of religion.”Well, maybe you need to refine your prose. It sounds like you have an axe to grind against people of faith, if not faith itself. In politics, since coalition-building is required, that’s counterproductive, to say the least. If that’s not what you meant, then please explain further.
Faith in what? Isn’t that the question?That’s what I was getting at when I said that public discourse needs to start addressing religion openly and critiquing the variety of ideologies found therein. Some religious ideas are salutary, some are quite simply unacceptable. No one should get a free pass because they can hide behind ‘holy scripture’ when they promote world-destroying nonsense. An awful lot of different things come under the brand name of christianity.I guess I may in fact “have an axe to grind”, but that phrasing I think trivializes the issue. I’m not trying to be peevish or lashing out for the sake of it. I am honestly frightened by the wave of evangelical enthusiasm that appears to be sweeping the country–and particularly by its association with extreme right-wing politics. I may be factually wrong in thinking that this represents a real threat, but I’m at the very least sincere.I emphatically do think the country desperately needs a strong “force of secularity” at this moment in its history or “justice, peace, and inclusion” are going to be simply mowed down by snake handling and holy rolling (figuratively speaking–mostly).It’s interesting to me that you circle the wagons with “people of faith” against my presumed heresy. To me that category is meaningless for any practical purpose, encompassing as it does both you (I am assuming here) and Mohammed Atta. Can’t we be “people of justice, peace, and inclusion” instead? That would let me in, and leave Atta out. As far as coalition-building, we’ll have to get more specific than j, p, & i, I imagine, issue by issue. As long as we’re talking about the situation here in the real world, I don’t see that metaphysical disagreements would have anything to do with it.
Finally, I agree with you almost completely. And you’re right, metaphysical disagreements are beyond the scope of this blog. I think you’re absolutely right there’s a threat, and not just to secular people, but to everyone who’s not on the religious right bandwagon.But I still think that we need to be very careful about our definitions of “religion”, “Christian”, etc. That was my original point about Dean using the term “white Christian”. Yes, he was technically accurate, but as rhetoric, it was a bit clumsy. Regardless of one’s personal opinions, libs/progressives simply don’t have the luxury of alienating people who take faith seriously — and if you don’t think the Dems have a problem with that, read this. We have a lot of friends and potential friends in the pews — they deserve to be treated with respect.”Heresy”? That’s a little much, I think … Again, we agree that the category of “people of faith” is too broad to be useful. I thought you were painting with too broad a brush. And yes, of course I will take your company over Atta’s. :)BTW, as for my “Read up” comment — that was condescending and out of line. I should have scotched that before I hit “post”. My bad.
I wonder this: if Dean had said “party of white fundamentalists” would it have been as controversial?I think it would not have gotten the play it did. But that’s a guess at best.Interesting discussion beyond that, too. đŸ™‚
Thanks for the discussion Charley. If we started off badly, but got around to “Finally, I agree with you almost completely.”, then you’re right that I will definitely have to work on my delivery to avoid that negative first impression. đŸ™‚
I like negative first impressions worldc
FWIW, here is the Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby, of whom I am generally a pretty big fan, on Howard Dean. Money quote: “When did Dems become so easy, that they can?t demand leaders who are tough and not-stupid?” Bob may be a bit harsh, but (as my previous comments suggest) I think he’s onto something.