Electorate Muddled on Obama's Religion

The Wright flap would seem to indicate, as in 2x4 across the face indicate, that Obama's a Christian. Apparently 1 in 10 voters don't read the news and still think he's a Muslim (that includes 10% of Democrats).

Wright himself is a mixed bag - a new poll suggests his disgusting comments don't actually hurt Obama - but the AP would have us believe that faith isn't exactly helping him either.

Yikes.

Media Scrutinizes Obama

What do CNN, Fox News, the Baltimore Sun (admittedly using a Trib blog), LA Times and CBS News all have in common? They're all talking about the absurd and reprehensible comments made by Obama's religious adviser and pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright has alleged, among other things, that the US created AIDS; his sermons have also invoked at least once the evils of Zionism. Starting around the :45 mark, Wright also goes off on the US, proclaiming "God damn America," claiming that the US is ruled by the KKK, and essentially claiming the US deserved the 9/11 attacks in language reminiscent of Ward Churchill. I'm surprised to see this damning a report on the man from ABC (who I guess I should also credit up above). I'm also sad to hear a woman call it "not radical" but instead "being black in America." Really?

Let's clear some things up: Wright's radicalism wasn't hidden from Obama. As I noted last March, Trinity UCC's 12 precepts are all about black power; presumably Obama read these? Wright's history of controversial comments also meant that at the last moment he was asked not to speak at Obama's campaign kickoff in Springfield. So it shows a serious lapse of judgment, after all of that, to get him back into the campaign.

So the campaign has done what it can to minimize the damage. Obama, in an interview with the Tribune ed board yesterday, ascribed Wright's comments - and those of Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro - to the 1960s. So Ferraro makes comments widely derided as racist, and that's flower power for you? Wright goes off on America, and that certainly is the sixties, or at least the Black Panther version of it. Seems like a stretch, Barack.

He also repudiated Wright, and offered a three-part defense. Part two, the "I didn't know," flies in the face of what I said previously. Again, why pull him from the campaign kickoff if not for fear that he'd go off on America in front of national TV? Amusingly, and fittingly, his statement of repudiation was first posted of Huffington Post...real critical audience, that one.

But finally, the campaign corrected a mistake they never should have made: they showed Wright the door, cutting all official ties to him. Now someone needs to ask Obama whether he'll quit attending Trinity UCC, seeing as it was Wright's church embodying his principles, or whether he'll continue to seek the Holy Spirit there. Quick tip: try being an Episcopal. Nothing says establishment WASP quite so clearly!

Finally, let's put this in perspective. This is the second week in a row where the Obama campaign has had to play defense, thrown violently off message by campaign advisers who don't know when to keep their traps shut. Difference being, of course, that Samantha Power didn't seem to understand "on the record," while Wright was so on the record that he never should have been allowed near the campaign to begin with. Combined with the fact that the Rezko trial may be picking up steam, one has to wonder whether Obama's window of opportunity is closing fast. In light of all of this, will voters in the remaining states give Hillary a fresh look? Will we, in retrospect, understand Hillary's wins in Ohio and Texas (where Obama actually won more delegates) as the beginning of the end of "Yes we can?"

PS: Wright was apparently also Oprah's spiritual adviser. Why am I not all that surprised? Will this tarnish Oprah's star power too? We can only hope!

Dispatch from the Huckabus

Yes, Mike Huckabee calls his vehicle the Huckabus. And the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is aboard, discussing Huckabee's increasingly strident populism in an insightful article that's well worth reading.

Though neither would ever admit it, I see a lot in common (at least politically) between John Edwards and Huckabee. Both are smooth-talking Southerners, though while Huckabee was trying to convert the masses, Edwards was focused merely on a jury; both have to some degree repudiated the Bush administration's foreign policy, and espoused one of their own that is fundamentally naive. Both are playing to their party's core constituencies, though Huckabee is doing so with far more success than his Democratic counterpart. And most notably, both are espousing populist politics in increasingly aggressive tones. Both the parallels here are interesting - Edwards' conversion to Marxist rhetoric has been a matter of desperation; this wasn't so obviously his schtick in 2004. Huckabee, however, has embraced this air of "grievance" as he's risen in the polls - for him its opportunism. As Eastland points out, he's positioning himself against Romney both socially and economically, and doing both succesfully. Eastland goes so far as to suggest that the Huckabee campaign is attempting to realign the Republican Party (perhaps much the same way that Tancredo's one-trick pony campaign did with immigration).

To me, this effort is another reason to hate Huckabee. For years now, Republicans have largely had Democrats on the defensive economically - sure they still advocated stupid policies, but they were at least in favor of tax cuts; they'd conceded much of the economic middle ground to the GOP. A realignment such as Huckabee apparently envisions would do exactly the opposite - if populism became the order of the day, Republicans would be at a serious disadvantage to Democrats, whose constituencies are more universally in support of this. In contrast, a Republican nominee spouting populist trash would have to wage an intra-party civil war
to do so. Bottom-line: Huckabee's populism isn't just stupid (and bad economic policy), it's damaging long-term; as always, fear the law of unintended consequences.

UPDATE: Politico's Jonathan Martin has an interesting piece this morning situating Huckabee as the latest in a long line of Republican incumbents, including Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain. I don't know if I agree with all of it, especially the McCain part, however the second page is worth reading for the fervent religiosity that pervades Huckabee campaign stops, "polling data come alive," in Martin's words.

UPDATE 2: An interesting evangelical critique of Huckabee, thus meriting a religion tag on this post.

Hindus Pull an Islam

If the title doesn't make sense, the story itself does - Hindus protest use of gods on underwear. The government of India's Orissa state have asked the US government to somehow punish a US company for producing, well, underwear adorned with the likenesses of Hindu gods. Why? Because they claim it hurts "the religious sentiments of people." Never mind the fact that the US government can't do a damned thing about this (and thankfully so), what in god's(') name(s) is Orissa's government thinking here? Apparently, the website also "offended India" by portraying Nehru and the Indian flag on underwear. Next up? Italy suing because of those David boxers...

Oh and because I'm edgy like this, here's the offending undies (with Indian flag, can't find the deities).

Third Party? Maybe Not...

The threatened third-party candidate backed by disenchanted Religious Right leaders (one reader suggested Alan Keyes?) is suddenly looking less likely, according to Marc Ambinder.

Cutting Off the Nose to Spite The Face (or something to that effect)

It's hardly a secret that many of the kingpins of the Religious Right - Dobson and Land most vocally - have said they cannot vote forRudy Giuliani, and that they would urge their supporters to do the same. As it becomes increasingly likely that said moderate will win the nomination, they're starting to mumble about supporting a third-party candidate. Really folks, really? You'd rather throw the election to the Democrats because Rudy fails to meet some litmus test that is beyond what most Americans want? My own party exasperates me - this is the kind of stunt I expect from Democrats.

Of course nothing will render the party's moralists irrelevant faster than supporting some obscure third-party candidate. Odds are the majority of their followers will hold their noses and vote for Giuliani merely out of a deep-seated loathing for Clinton. If these power-brokers should be consigned to the dustbin of political history, the Republican Party will, I think, be better situated to win in the future: stripped of its moral baggage, the party can focus on an economic message which will resonate strongly if Democrats give into the quasi-socialism espoused by their base.

One immediate objection that comes to mind is the matter of electoral foot soldiers - small business owners are unlikely to go door to door and there's not enough of them in any case. My quick answer to that is that in the last few cycles, Republicans have brought targeting into the 21st century; technology may likewise soon render traditional get-out-the-vote efforts irrelevant.

Catholicism Returns to Its Roots

In a move much reported (and much maligned), Benedict XVI has announced that Catholic priests can celebrate the traditional Tridentine Mass in its original Latin if they so desire; previously bishops had to approve before priests could do so. Sadly, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has drowned out any reasonable commentary on the matter, which I finally found here. Arroyo makes several good points, most notably that it speaks to the church's international character; Benedict cited this as one of his motives. It also serves to reconnect Catholicism to its history which though filled with darker periods (most notably the Inquisition) also served as the foundation of Western Civilization for centuries.

I was also amused to note that the most vehement opposition to the move came from clergy in Western Europe. While they bemoan the return of traditionalism, their flocks are disappearing; if the pews are empty, what does the language matter? Indeed perhaps a Catholicism showing a little bit of spine and tradition, in the process rejecting the relativism that has become the norm in Europe, might actually draw people back.

On a practical note, I feel that having Latin masses more widely celebrated might spur some form of Latin revival in schools; no doubt the youth of the world would benefit from that.

I should also note that I'm not a Catholic; nor have I had the opportunity to sound out many of my Catholic friends on the matter. But given that they run from the most extreme cafeteria-variety to (I kid you not) members of Opus Dei, I'll be interested to hear reactions.

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.

Liberal Loons Pt. 1

I recently worked on an independent study on prophetic religion and progressive politics in US history; my advisor was among other things, a history professor and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He asked me my faith background, and when I responded UCC he was understandably confused. The United Church of Christ (Obama's a member) is sort of the Democratic Party in ecclesiastical form. And former Reagan Political Director Jeffrey Lord gives the church a piece of his mind. The church has at various times in recent years stood for divestment from Israel, support for gay marriage and an end to the war in Iraq. Even better, Lord points out that conservatives are persona non grata with the church; the leadership has described conservative dissenters as "serpents in our midst." Leftists everywhere hate dissent.

As Lord points out, the saving grace of the church is its emphasis on local decision making, keeping the propaganda out. But he also rightly points out that as the UCC has drifted from the mainstream of American belief, it has hemorrhaged members and congregations (though this is a shift seen across America as the conservative-minded denominations and independent churches have seen enormous growth in membership).

But what I find depressing about all of this is the overt politicization of churches in America. We should be able to come together, regardless of politics, over our faith. Whether that will ever be possible in the future is at best unclear.