Verbosities

Pious Democrats, meet your maker - Politico.com

Apparently, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) all decided they did, indeed, owe an accounting of their personal religious beliefs -- a televised recitation, in fact -- to an audience assembled Monday at George Washington University by the left-liberal-worthy Rev. Jim Wallis and channeled through a television anchor aptly (or at least euphoniously) named Soledad O'Brien.

The front-runners' pandering to "people of faith" is the latest expression of Religion Lite advocated by the consultant wing of the Democratic Party.

[snip]

The worst offender in the trinity of poll-directed faith hailers was, of course, Edwards, a trial lawyer to the underclass (he represented the middle class in 2004) and now the political servant of his "Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, he actually used the whole coded-for-evangelicals phrase -- though, for some reason, those three words, which revealed just how much this former-Baptist-turned-Methodist was willing to prostrate himself before the pious, were omitted from news coverage of the affair in both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

I'm an atheist, and even I think this type of op-ed is bullshit. For some reason, the Democrats are always being called on the carpet to prove they aren't the caricature of the party being drawn by the right wing. Think about Wolf Blitzer's questions to the panel on Sunday, for example. Quoting some of the questions asked, there were some real beauties like:

"Does the Bush administration, Senator, deserve any credit for the fact there has been no terrorist attack here in the United States for nearly six years?"

"Senator Edwards, let me let you clarify what you said the other day. You said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan. With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK which could have done, supposedly, horrendous damage and caused an incredible number of casualties, do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?"

"Senator Clinton, you voted in favor of every funding for the U.S. troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing you and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?"

"Governor Richardson, I want Governor Richardson to weigh in because I know you have been very concerned about what is happening with the genocide in Darfur. What if some of the critics, some of the supporters of this war, are right, and a unilateral, quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- and you want troops out by the end of this year -- does lead not only to an increased civil war, but to genocide in Iraq? What moral responsibility does the United States have to deal with that scenario?"

"Can you tell me if the mission we accomplished during our deployment in Iraq was worth our effort and sacrifice, or was it a waste of time and resources?"

"I want you to raise your hand if you believe English should be the official language of the United States." (It's been a long-standing Republican wedge issue)

"Senator Clinton, you can (implement universal health care) without raising taxes?"

I'm not trying to insinuate these are illegitimate questions, except maybe the "funding the troops" and the "official language" ones. But they're all framed around the idea that "people think you guys are extreme, prove to us you're not," or "here's what Republicans have been telling us about your party, prove them wrong." They put the respondent in a position where they either have to come out defensive, or they have to come out and deconstruct the question to reframe it around a positive idea.

Aren't these supposed to be commercials, to some extent?

These guys (and Hillary) spend so much time deflecting assumptions and dancing around the framework (the "funding the troops" question, for instance), that it's nearly impossible to come off as anything but an equivocator who can't stop telling you what they're against, at the cost of spending precious time on what they're actually for.

This same sort of framework exists in the realm of faith. The Religious Right is told constantly that Liberals are "secular humanists" that want to end Christianity as we know it, so the assumption is that these guys don't have "true" faith, aren't "real" Christians, and any word that escapes their lips regarding God is a pandering ploy to gain votes.

Fuck off. Seriously. It's lazy to assume you know the value and intensity of faith someone possesses, so knock it off already. And when you see stuff like this in op-eds, recognize it for the inherent lack of credibility it has, and don't buy in to the stereotypes. They're tired, they're better than 90% lies, and they're only there to give you shorthand for actually thinking about issues on your own. Ignore it and move on. We can do better than this.

Powered by ScribeFire.