Howard Dean's religion problem. Beyond Belief

The New Republic ^ | 12-23-03 | Franklin Foer

[WOSG]

Yes indeed. ... a "smart Liberal" is a leftist who pretends he is ont what he is. A "sincere leftist" is a leftist who admits his positions and loses elections.

I guess it's why I have more respect for a Nader than for a Clinton (Hillary or Bill) or a Howard Dean.

[CommandoFrank]

he will reveal his true self, elegantly pivoting to the middle

Yea, right, hahahhahahahhaha.... Nice try.

[MrConfettiMan]

This article's description of Dean made me think of Jodie Foster's character in the movie _Contact_. Remember when her buddy blindsides her in the congressional hearing with the question about if she believes in God. The look on her face was priceless.

Fortunately for the Democrats, there's a counterpoint to the Dukakis story. Four years after that disastrous campaign, Bill Clinton, also running against the elder Bush, made his faith a central part of his political persona.

I predict Bill Clinton will be the first president to be canonized.

[genghis]

I recently played golf with a 70 y.o. retired teacher, african american from Compton, Ca. I asked how Bush was doing. He said, "B+". He might be the first republican I vote for".
Well if dean is haveing a hard time getting this guy's vote, he is in more trouble than anybody can imagine.

[WOSG]

Bush might be able to pound Dean like a drum. But it will still be a tragedy to have 6 months of hard core liberalisim promoted by the Democratic media and swallowed whole by the 30-40% hard core Democratic voters. This campaign, even if Dean looses, could set the stage for a hard left turn in general public. That is unless Bush beats them so bad, and gets a 60 seat majority in the Senate, that the Dems completly implode and go the way of the Whigs. What will they call their new party?

This is an excellent point. It's not so much that general opinion will be hard left, but the Democrat party will, and by the law of political gravity, it will pull our political center to the left... this is the opposite of how Goldwater's defeat helped build a conservative core in the Republican party.

The cure is for there to be a defeat not only of Dean, but of his IDEAS and all those associated with him. Then the party will have no power.

[hunter112]

Howard Dean's lack of religious committment is not a problem for a large number of people in this country. Most of them are nominal Democrats, and many of them got sick of Clinton using religion to mask his personal flaws. On the other hand, many people would be troubled by a candidate who looks like he's going to turn the White House into a church of his own faith.

The point here is this: I'm hoping that conservatives do not bash Bush for not embracing Christianity any more publically than he already does. The people he needs to get to vote for him, and for fellow Republicans next year, are far more comfortable with someone who has a religion, and doesn't spend every waking moment trying to impose it on others than they are with an overly pious candidate. Bush is walking the fine line quite well, he's sending more than adequate signals to his base that he's philosophically aligned with them, while not sending danger signals to people who see the inside of a church even less often than Howard Dean does.

The thing we should get from the article above is that we don't need to fight any harder on the religion issue, with Howard Dean as the Rat candidate, we've already won on that issue. There are plenty of other reasons to not vote for Dean besides the fact that he had a tiff with a mainline Protestant denomination over a bike path.

[WOSG]

Indeed. Here is Dean's platform:

1. Massive Tax increases.
2. Handing over our foreign policy and soverienty to the UN.
3. Gay marriage and further cultural 'evolution'.

This is radical hard-left far extremist socialist leftism. His attacks on those who are publicly religious is aclear sign he is on the side of the militant secularists. It's the kind of stuff that Pat Buchanan railed against in 1992 and which the liberal media called 'scare-mongering' (the culture war - women in combat, gay marriage, euthanasia and pro-abortion/pro-death policies).

[colorado tanker]

The most accurate vote predictor for the last election was whether the voter frequently attends religious services. Those who do are overwhelmingly Republcan. Those who rarely do are even more strongly Democrat.

[deport]

The most accurate vote predictor for the last election was whether the voter frequently attends religious services. Those who do are overwhelmingly Republcan.

---

I guess the real or next question is how many of those that 'frequently attends religious services' will go to the polls and vote come election day.... If we can determine that number then we know the results....

Any guesses

[WOSG]

"The point here is this: I'm hoping that conservatives do not bash Bush for not embracing Christianity any more publically than he already does. The people he needs to get to vote for him, and for fellow Republicans next year, are far more comfortable with someone who has a religion, and doesn't spend every waking moment trying to impose it on others than they are with an overly pious candidate."

Your verbiage sounds NYTimes-like ... that is a nice strawman you built up there, that religious people go around spending "every waking moment" - really, every waking moment? Not, say 1 hour of a day of hard evangelizing?

And the "trying to impose it on others", what activities might that be? The tired old lie that secularists shouldnt be inconvenienced by having to hear public prayer at ceremonies because they are in "danger" of being converted? If this is such a 'danger' you really arent secure in your beliefs, are you... The imposition I see these days are the secularists who are telling us we are deformed and mentally and morally deficient individuals if we dont conform to their moral vision of 'tolerance' for various forms of moral and cultural degeneration. Is that what you mean?

Of course people are more comfortable with people not telling them what to do, although that leaves the popularity of Hillary to be quite a mystery. But the fact is clear - it is the PC left and not the religious right who today are trying to use public policy to impose their views as "correct" and to make contrary views unlawful. Hence the insistence on denying free association to those who dont want to give equalt status to homosexuals.

"Bush is walking the fine line quite well, he's sending more than adequate signals to his base that he's philosophically aligned with them, while not sending danger signals to people who see the inside of a church even less often than Howard Dean does."

Signals, schmignals. What we need are good policies.

Like not letting our own culture decay further at the hands of the cultural marxists. Sometimes he does something good - like sign the Partial Birth abortion bill to save preborn humans from a brutal death; sometimes he lets the left win one, like when he let that odious Title IX rule stand, that is shutting down men's college sports and puts Federales in the busybody business in the name of feminist equality.

If anyone is "uncomfrotable" with those trying to keep the ship of civilization afloat, I suggest they jump overboard!

[savedbygrace]

Journalistic rehabilitation at its worst. If this article is a portent of things to come, Dean might get the nomination after all. I'm on record predicting that he won't.

[colorado tanker]

The trend has been lower turnout by evangelicals, frustrated by the lack of progress on abortion in the post-Bork era. Rove said lack of turnout by evangelicals almost cost Bush the election in 2000. I think the last minute DUI hit may have had some effect on that.

I think turnout will be up in 2004 because Rove and Reed have been working hard on the issue - and because people will turn out to keep a militant secularist and abortionist out of the White House. Plus a lot of evangelicals will vote to keep someone in the White House who is willing to fight the islamist terrorists, which Dean will not do.

Just my two cents - a lot can happen in the next year.

[exmarine]

"My religion doesn't inform my public policy."

Oh, I think his religion has everything to do with his public policy, even though he doesn't realize it. A TRUE believer will want to obey a Holy God, and this will be reflected in ALL of his actions in life (all of life is spiritual). However, a person who has no understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord over ALL OF LIFE, will do whatever he wants with no regard to what pleases and doesn't please God.

It's quite evident that his public policy is not consistent with biblical Christianity as evidenced by his signing the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. Evidently, Mr. Dean doesn't much care that a Holy God condemns homosexuality. But this action is consistent with a man whose religion is secular and liberal. Worldview is everything, and it is evident from his actions that Mr. Dean's worldview is not orthodox Christian no matter what church he belongs to. Jesus Christ said we would know his followers by their fruit, and Dean's fruit is not the fruit of a man who truly loves Jesus Christ.

[deport]

Yes a lot can happen in the next eleven months but I think you have a good assessment of the situation at this juncture...

[hunter112]

Your verbiage sounds NYTimes-like ... that is a nice strawman you built up there, that religious people go around spending "every waking moment" - really, every waking moment? Not, say 1 hour of a day of hard evangelizing?

You know those people who, when you meet them, one of the first things you know about them is that they are gay? Well, there are people that make sure that within the first 60 seconds I meet them, that they are religious. I guess that's who I'm talking about. Everybody knows people who they suspect hangs out with others only so they can convert them. Sort of like the life insurance salesman who joins every civic organization in town to sell his fellow members a lousy investment.

And the "trying to impose it on others", what activities might that be?

I'm not saying that the fear is rational, but it is real. No, listening to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience, or passing by a menorah or nativity scene in a public park in December is not going to threaten most people's sense of who they are spiritually. The point I'm trying to make is that the liberal media can frame most conservative political positions in terms of religious conservatism, and we need to fight that. Rather than making abortion an issue of human civil rights, we have allowed the media to make it an issue of religious intolerance. If you think that was a one-shot deal, then wait until you see the media coverage of the gay marriage issue in next year's election campaign.

Signals, schmignals. What we need are good policies.

And we don't get them by electing Democrats. We get them by having the mushy middle not being afraid to vote for a Republican, especially if they never have before in their lives. My wife's family is a good example, they believe in most all the issues that Republicans hold dear, yet every time Republicans are on the TV, they bash them. They don't connect the Rats they elect with the policies they hate. One part of it is the old saw that "Republicans are for the rich", and the other part is the religious thing. Few people in my wife's family are churchgoing, and they fear a theocracy. It may be an irrational fear, but its there.

If anyone is "uncomfrotable" with those trying to keep the ship of civilization afloat, I suggest they jump overboard!

If that means jumping off the ship and voting for an extremist third party candidate who is "100% right", then you'll have to swim without me. I'm going to try to trim the sails to tack closer towards the other shore. Let the liberals split their votes and lose, like they did with Nader in 2000.

[Diamond]

He's a guy who spent more time in an abortion clinic

I appreciate the info on Dean very much. I didn't know this about him. I'm not suprised, but at the same time, the term "abortion clinic" is a contradiction in terms. Clinics assist healing. Abortion, on the other hand, is deliberate killing. The two are mutually exclusive.

Cordially,

[madprof98]

I recently played golf with a 70 y.o. retired teacher, african american from Compton, Ca. I asked how Bush was doing. He said, "B+". He might be the first republican I vote for". Well if dean is haveing a hard time getting this guy's vote, he is in more trouble than anybody can imagine.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the anecdote, but I do think almost all the religiously observant African-Americans who vote will cast their ballots for any Democrat over George Bush. Most of the older people at the predominately black church we attend have demonized Bush. They say his use of religious language just proves that he is the anti-Christ (kid you not).

[ladyinred]

Just when I thought this guy couldn't get anymore revolting.

[fish hawk]

Okay, lets be honest here. Raise your hand if you read the whole article above........Oh, you in the back, you're the only one.

[Kuksool]

{Howard Dean's lack of religious commitment is not a problem for a large number of people in this country.}

It could be a problem for the African-Americans. Blacks attend church at higher rates than whites do. In general, they like to see their politicians pray and quote the Bible. They are also uneasy about secular politicians. No Democrat could win the White House without heavy turnout from minorities. The way for Democrats to generate heavy turnout would be to visit churches and build relationships with ministers in minority communities. Bill Clinton did these things as President, and this is why he is enormously popular with African-Americans. If Dean is uncomfortable attending with black churches, then he is not going to get the heavy minority turnout needed to win the Presidency next year.