Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Casey, Kaine, and Deviation (Part 5)
Dear Amy and David,
Looks like it's my turn again. You guys are going to make it hard for me to keep it short and sweet!
To turn first towards the Casey strategy, I think there is a consensus that it isn't going to help Casey make inroads with the hard-core Republicans (I disagree that this group is conservative, but that's another topic). I teach my students that there is generally a 30% core of voters who will back either a candidate or a party no matter what. The contest is for the other 40% of voters - the swing voters. What Casey did was neutralize an issue by demanding equal time with a special interest group. It works for him because the make up of the swing group fits nicely into his own constituency - the pro-life crowd. It wouldn't work for me, one of those non-pro-life, non-pro-choice Christian Democrats. To the extent that is true, it is repeatable only by someone with Casey's pro-life credentials.
But you are right to emphasize that this is not the only field upon which politics is played. By embracing his religion, Casey has insulated himself against the "Godless liberal" demogoguery that has been so prevalent in recent years. That is definitely repeatable - and it should be repeated by any candidate who wants a serious shot at winning in the Deep South or through the Great Plains states (the dark red states). An abortion-moderate (I'm afraid that's the best term I have right now) could still insulate their campaign from that pre-packaged slander by speaking openly to people of faith about their faith. John Kerry made a step towards that (bungling it by linking his "faith without works is dead" speech to closely to campaign rhetoric) and I think Kaine improved upon it. Casey is one more step along that path.
But here's the rub: For an abortion-moderate Christian Democrat to speak openly about faith in action, they are going to have to draw upon a theology that allows for abortion. If Kerry had done that, rather than use the pulpit to slap at the President, he might not have had to stumble through an answer of how he can oppose abortion personally but endorse it politically. Developing this theology has to be the job of those of us on the Faithful Left rather than individual candidates.
If one believes abortion is murder, then how can one justify allowing it to be legal without legalizing other forms of murder? If you don't believe it is murder, then what is it in theological terms? What is our moral and legal responsibility to the unborn, the pregnant woman, and the father (who is too often forgotten about in this discussion)? Many of us operate from a sort of gut-level theology without exploring these questions and wrestling them to submission. Because we do, the public discussion is the poorer and there is no collective understanding for a candidate to call upon in a campaign.
I agree that Kaine also reaped the benefit of an authentic persona. I disagree, however, with the comparison to President Bush. President Bush uses his authenticity to push for a positive message - in the sense that he is positively doing something. Kaine used it as a negative message - he wasn't going to change the law. In a sense, Kaine's authenticity wasn't challenged because no one expects the Virginia legislature to pass a bill outlawing capital punishment. If put in a position of choosing between following his theology and signing a bill to outlaw capital punishment and obeying the "law of the land" by vetoing it, we still have no indication which way Kaine would move. I think that's a significant difference. If the issue had been more prevalent and subject to change, I think his authenticity would have hurt him as he would have had to struggle publicly with that question. So I understand the point both of you make on this, but I think a different campaign with a different candidate in a different state would have had very different results - in other words, it doesn't represent a precedent so much as it does a deviation.
In the interest of time, I'll try to summarize my point. Kaine in Virginia and Casey in Pennsylvania both represent deviations from what we are accustomed to seeing. Both of them have used this deviation to their benefit - and there is some lesson to be learned from their doing so. The point Amy makes of being the first Democrat to speak to an evangelical group is an excellent example. The lesson there, I'd say, is not to surrender any part of the electorate. Take your message to every group you can in a language they understand. If they don't like you, they will at least respect that you took the effort to do so. That respect may or may not pay off in electoral terms, but the race is long and the more ears that are bent partially to your message, the more votes are potentially swinging for grabs.
It might be worth thinking about how we make these successful deviations into precedents.
All the best,
Thurman
Comments
These posts fail to recognize that there is a longstanding clearly articulated faith-based pro-choice position on abortion. It is based on the Scriptural and historical understand that the life of the mother has precedence over the life of the fetus, and that it is respect for women's moral agency that means that every woman must have the right to decide for herself -- without governmental interference -- whether to continue a pregnancy in her specific circumstances.
In 2005, my organization, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, developed the "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision." It lays out the theological framework for why we must be sure that abortion is safe, legal, rare, and accessible.
It is precisely because life is so precious that it should never be created carelessly. And that's why as progressive faith leaders we must support sexuality education and contraception as well as legal abortion.
I hope both of you will take the time to read the Open Letter at www.religiousinstitute.org
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
Posted by: Rev. Debra Haffner | August 2, 2006 6:42 PM
XT,
Not giving away ground is pretty revolutionary in some parts of the Dem party establishment and the blogosphere.
From the New Yorker:
"Centrist Democrats. . .particularly those running in states that have cooled to their party—think that something more is needed this year, and certainly for 2008, when Bush will be retiring. They argue that their party must speak in language familiar to, among others, the disaffected hog farmers of Missouri."
The Senate races are populated with centrists like McCaskill. Among those running for the Senate are Jim Pederson, a shopping-center developer in Arizona; Harold Ford, Jr., a thirty-six-year-old African-American congressman from Memphis, who is running a campaign meant to appeal to conservative white Tennesseeans. . .she [McCaskill] is in favor of abortion rights, although she doesn’t make it a central issue. 'If people ask, I tell them I’m pro-choice,' she said. 'That doesn’t mean I can’t understand the other side of the debate, though.' She went on, 'Being a Democrat is about balance.'"
I posted this quote on Daily Kos today and this was the reply I got:
"For us, here, being a Democrat is not about balance. It's about passion and belief. And we can win on that.
Hell, we will win on that."
And other diarists agreed.
Which is why America really does need a fresh and concise third way term on abortion; because too many on either side only hear "anti."
Posted by: Alexander | August 2, 2006 7:01 PM
Thanks for the comment Rev. Haffner. I meant to point out after Thurman's post that such theologies are in fact out there and quite well developed by groups like yours. How do you all try to tackle his underlying point, that there are real challenges in making those theologies heard in evangelical communities?
I'd be interested to hear your take on Amy's next post, particularly the matter of using a Prevention First agenda as a concrete embodiment of the theology that you and others set out. Thanks again for stopping by.
Posted by: David Buckley | August 3, 2006 10:05 AM
As an anti-abortion Christian Democrat, there's no way I can twist Scripture to claim that "the life of the mother has precedence over the life of the fetus" - all are equal now in Jesus' eye - anything else justifies slavery too.
Posted by: Thomas | August 3, 2006 1:34 PM
Rev. Haffner, I thank you wholeheartedly for your statement and the work you've done. I've honestly never heard of your statement, but I'll be sure to examine it. That, of course, is the second part of the problem - that good ideas don't get heard.
Thomas, I think it would also be helpful to detail your statement as to how an unborn child is considered to be the equivalent of a fully grown woman. I think the issue of slavery works both ways, if you want to get into that. To say that every woman must bear every pregnancy is to enslave a living, breathing, and (for the most part) productively working woman to an incomplete form that, until rather late in the pregnancy, would not meet a medical definition of "life form".
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | August 3, 2006 4:04 PM
Alexander,
I don't really look to Kos for either coherency or moderation. There is definitely a "group think" at that blog that is difficult to break out of. I think what's important to remember is that they, too, are part of the Democratic Party and a significant amount of passion and money can come from people who simply don't agree with us 100%.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | August 3, 2006 4:06 PM
Oh yeah, Alexander, when Kos puts a governor in Texas or Alabama, I'll believe that they can win on their platform anywhere. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.
XT
Posted by: XT | August 3, 2006 4:07 PM
XT,
Yeah, as Kos et al point out in "Crashing the Gate," one of the tenates of progressive Kossacks should be that they evaluate candidates on a spectrum of issues. To their credit Kos brings up the NARAL stab in supporting Chaffee (R) over Langevin (D) in RI and thus contributing to Chaffee winning again and actually voting for very pro-life judges with the GOP.
If we can't nuance abortion to win in RI, I think TX/AL may take more than witty diary entries.
Posted by: Alexander | August 3, 2006 4:30 PM
What, wit has limitations! Say it ain't so.
In all seriousness, I think it's the Kossacks dedication to winning that may be the opening on some of these Prevention First issues. They may just want to win badly enough that they're willing to more vocally discuss things like prevention first. The argument can certainly be made that the core right to an abortion would be made safer if the choice community was willing to admit that it is desirable to strive for fewer abortions through prevention measures. I think that can go a long way to making inroads with moderate Catholics and evangelicals.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2006 5:13 PM
If nothing else, the Kossacks give enough political cover for politicians to try something new. I'm less hopeful than you that Prevention First can make inroads on its merits. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I think it will be a stick to stir up the adders.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | August 4, 2006 10:03 AM
As a Christian who considers herself reluctantly pro-choice, I recently wrote a long post on how most moderates looking at the issue are just trying to minimize injustice to the woman and the fetus as best as possible. By focusing on prevention, we can look for solutions that don't force people to choose whether the mother or the unborn baby is more valuable or has more rights.
Posted by: kim | August 4, 2006 12:19 PM
