Mark Silk, professor at Trinity College, expert on religion and public life, and editor of the Spiritual Politics blog, calls on me to take note of former Clinton Administration press secretary Mike McCurry's Daily Beast post extolling the virtues of the Democrats' allegedly new-found religion.
Silk -- whose blog, by the way, is insightful and informative -- has previously labeled my critiques of the Democrats' overly strenuous religious outreach, and the negative consequences of it, "grumpy" and "mildly dyspeptic."
McCurry, on the other hand, is rejoicing that his party has moved past "a long dormancy in which many Democrats became uncomfortable with open expressions of faith. Conservatives became the ones who invoked God and the Bible in the name of their narrow social-political agenda. Their majority was moral and their coalitions Christian and they married faith and political activism in the tradition we now call 'wedge politics.'" I totally understand how dismaying it is to liberal Christians that the religious right has succeeded in defining -- in a negative way -- what it means to be a Christian in America. But then McCurry goes on to employ some of the very right-wing tropes used to discredit liberals to cast aspersions on his Democratic brethren: "The liberal faithful fled the scene in favor of latte and Tim Russert on Sunday mornings. Organized expressions of faith were rare at Democratic party gatherings."
Oh, horrors. Could there be anything more blasphemous than drinking a latte on the Sabbath or not praying at a DNC?
Now, seriously, McCurry's got to realize that "organized expressions of faith" are not dismissed by Democrats because they hate religion (Pastor Dan lays out the history of Democrats' faithfulness). Perhaps some Democrats are not comfortable talking about their religion (and neither are some Republicans, as John McCain proved this year). But I ask: so what? The whole idea that feeling comfortable talking about one's faith has suddenly become a requirement to seek public office is deeply offensive to the Constitution and a pluralistic society. Many of the people advocating for this increased talk about faith are clearly talking about Christian faith only; it's not like a Muslim -- or an atheist, for that matter -- would gain a lot of ground talking about their religious or areligious views on the campaign trail. I very much doubt any of the political consultants who are pushing Democrats to do the God talk would advise a client to break out the Koran to explain peace and justice.
McCurry feels the Democrats have redeemed themselves by electing Obama, "a man of strong religious faith who is comfortable connecting his spiritual life to his public role as a policymaker." Obama's campaign, McCurry insists, "benefited from a determined effort – which started during the 2004 campaign and accelerated since – to reach out to communities of faith and let them know that Democrats are their brothers and sisters."
But there's a distinction here that McCurry fails to note. Obama was at his very best when he spoke in ecumenical, spiritual language about hope, common dreams, and common good. But the very worst moments in the campaign came when Democrats and the cheerleaders of stepped-up religious talk bent over backwards to appeal to conservative evangelicals, or to use rhetoric that would appeal to them. And that proves not that the Democrats got religion, but that the religious right has more clout than the "new" evangelicals would dare to admit.
--Sarah Posner
