HRC & Faith

It doesn't take a very astute observer to notice the frequency with which many Democratic presidential candidates are playing up their religiosity. Obama's rhetoric has been the most pronounced, but Hillary Clinton hasn't been far behind. Why so much more God talk this year? I'm tempted to think that the absence of any viable Catholic candidates may play a role; Obama, Clinton and Edwards all hail from more "progressive" Christian backgrounds and thus aren't in danger of being undermined by conservative clergy as Kerry was in 2004.

Returning to Clinton, I stumbled across a post on Ben Smith's Blog (Politico) by Richard Allen Greene discussing an article on the Senator and her faith in today's NYT. Greene, echoing the Times Michael Luo, asks whether religion is a no-win situation for Hillary - that it will only anger the secular left while failing to win over the religious right.

I have to say that I'm leery of Clinton's adoption of religious rhetoric - even if it is underpinned by sincere belief - because of the suddenness with which it has appeared. A religious person who only chooses to wear their faith on their sleeve when beneficial is disingenuous. There's the old joke that a Republican prays in public and drinks in private while a Democrat drinks in public but prays in private - Hillary's moved her prayer into the public square for convenience. The article is noteworthy in the depth of the religiosity (false or otherwise) that she has adopted, but it makes it none the more palatable. Among all of the various testaments to her faith (many of which are very indicative of her Methodism and its liberalism), the most interesting is Mike Huckabee's quote:

“I think that she has genuine faith. I go to a church that’s very expressive,” Mr. Huckabee added in an interview. “It doesn’t mean my faith is more genuine than someone” who has a very reflective tradition “and maybe who worships in a much more liturgical manner, in a quiet way.”

But let's return to the big question - whether Democratic candidates hurt or help themselves by embracing religion and the language of faith. Liberal evangelical minister Jim Wallis has argued that many moderate people of faith - church-going independents or others who are religious but not politically ideological - are driven away from the Democratic Party by its absolutist rhetoric on abortion; Wallis, for his part, is pretty unequivocally pro-life. He suggests that moderating this stance could deprive the GOP of the support of independents it needs to win presidential elections. While that might be true, it could also deprive a Democrat of the support of one of the party's key constituencies - abortion absolutists.

So while Hillary or another Democrat might succeed in winning some moderates by embracing faith and moderating their stance on abortion, the cost of doing so should be balanced against discontent among both secularists and abortion advocates. The reasoning might be that such activists wouldn't rebel because they'll hold their noses (though Leftist single-issue voters have proven remarkably unpragmatic in the past) and support the Democrat; but if Nader gets into the race (as he's made noises about doing) or if Bloomberg's in, things might change. We'll see. But for the time being, it'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle the irreconcilable demands of their base and people of faith.