November 30, 2003
START SPREADIN' THE NEWS:
A Spiritual Struggle for Democrats: Silence on Religion Could Hurt Candidates (Jim VandeHei, , November 27, 2003, Washington Post)
The nine Democratic presidential candidates all consider themselves religious, though most keep their faith and spiritual views to themselves when campaigning.Their silence stands in contrast to President Bush, among the most overtly religious presidents in generations, and could undermine the Democratic nominee, as polls consistently show that voters want to hear more about faith from their national leaders.
Democrats "have been very hesitant to talk about faith . . . and in doing so we have lost a connection with a lot of people," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an Orthodox Jew and one of only two candidates who frequently talk about God. Long-shot candidate Al Sharpton, an ordained minister, is the other. "Democrats ought to pay attention to the fact that the two Democrats who have been elected president since [Lyndon] Johnson were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton . . . and both talked a lot about their faith," Lieberman said.
In interviews, most of the candidates said they are uncomfortable discussing their faith as publicly as Bush does or Clinton did. Yet most agreed the party must do a better job of connecting with religious voters, or risk not winning the White House in 2004. [...]
An overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves religious. A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans expressed strong religious beliefs when asked questions designed to measure these attitudes.
A Pew study in June found that nearly twice as many respondents said "There has been too little reference to religious faith and prayer by politicians" (41 percent) than said "There has been too much" (21 percent). While Bush is sometimes criticized for his references to New Testament theology, only 14 percent said he mentions faith too often; nearly two-thirds said he is striking the right balance.
If you're evangelical you don't really have the option of not talking about it. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2003 6:03 AM
Heh,
I would LOVE to see Dean start dropping religous references into his speeches, only because I don't think he could do it convincingly. Clinton pulled it off, but with Dean it would be pure comedy.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at November 30, 2003 11:38 AMThe fact that Clinton pulled it off just goes to show how valuable religious talk is to identifying the moral character of a candidate.
Frankly, if I were (still) religious, I would consider all the god-talk coming from politicians as a case of casting pearls before swine. Do you really want politicians to take your most sacred symbols and use them as marketing slogans to gain votes?
Posted by: Robert D at November 30, 2003 1:17 PMThere is a fairly substantial part of the population that is taken whenever a public figure says anything religous. Ask Bob Dylan or Jane Fonda. And when Bill and Hillary carried books into church, people wanted to believe they were Bibles (except for the VRWC, of course). For all we know, they were carrying wine lists.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 30, 2003 4:45 PMWhile every vote counts, there is something a little disconcerting (and short term) about undergrads embracing religion because it is so cool and sexy. A lot of religious and conservative insight comes from experience, not trendy fashion. Maybe we should resign ourselves to irresponsible, naive progressivism among the young and raise the voting age to thirty.
Posted by: Peter B at December 1, 2003 5:01 AMSorry, that comment was intended to respond to the "Awakening" post above.
Posted by: Peter B at December 1, 2003 5:45 AM