…he has shown unusual potential for appealing to the rank-and-file evangelicals and other religious voters who usually back the Christian right’s Republican allies.
That’s largely because Obama isn’t afraid to discuss faith’s role in his life, including his come-to-Jesus experience. Speaking of the influence that the now well-known Rev. Jeremiah Wright had on him, Obama told a church audience last year: “He introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him.”
Such talk is more reminiscent of George W. Bush than of recent Democratic presidential nominees. “To a lot of people, Sen. Obama is an unknown suit that talks the ‘evangelical talk’ without actually saying anything on his opinions or his track record,” says Tom McClusky, the Family Research Council’s chief lobbyist. “In the general election, Sen. Obama speaking ‘religion’ is going to sound more familiar and natural than Sen. (John) McCain.”
And ”” to evangelicals, at least ”” more familiar than Hillary Clinton, whose mainline Methodist background helps explain her preference for discussing the importance of doing good works over her personal relationship with Jesus. “Clinton does not compete with the religious right because her message is one not of hope and of healing, but of meeting the pragmatic concerns of economic advantage,” says Douglas Kmiec, a conservative Catholic legal scholar and former adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. (Kmiec has since endorsed Obama.)
“Obama has the capacity to win the soul of the working person,” Kmiec says, “whereas Mrs. Clinton speaks to the pocketbook and the here and now.”
“Obama has the capacity to win the soul of the working person,” Kmiec says, “whereas Mrs. Clinton speaks to the pocketbook and the here and now.”
Which makes Obama a logical candidate for some sort of advisory position and Clinton a logical candidate for an Executive Office. I guess I’m missing Kmiec’s point.
“I learned that my sins could be redeemed” is not ‘evangelical talk’, it’s the half-educated talk of a person who doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘redeem’.
If ‘Catholics’ rally to a man pledged to advance abortion and gay marriage, so be it. That will only show they don’t know the meaning of the word ‘Catholic’.
Good point, #2. I always thought Jesus redeemed people, not our sins.
#2 & #3, of course you are technically correct, but I think it unlikely that a proportion of the American populace will vet Obama’s language of testimony for theological correctness. What sets him apart from most — including most of the religious right’s political heroes — is that he speaks of Jesus rather than only making vague references to religion and spirituality. The author of this article is right to say that this will catch the ears of evangelicals.
#4 – it will catch their ears only if they open them selectively. One will have to get past the stab-and-dismember-the-baby factor to be open to his message. I mean, the guy has even gone beyond the NARAL call of duty in the stridency of his support for abortion. Kmiec got a reminder of this and where his duties to the Church lay as regards to support of candidates who support and promote abortion when he was recently denied communion. Pity that enforcement is so patchy.
In Gilgoff’s dreams. The last politician who could speak to evangelicals, Jimmy Carter, sold them down the river at the first opportunity, turned out to be one of the most disastrous presidentss this country has ever had and has since sunk even lower. Language or not, Obama is as hard-left a candidate as has ever run for any office and evangelicals won’t get fooled again.
RE: “I guess I’m missing Kmiec’s point.”
Heh.
I think that Kmiec’s point is as follows:
1) We know that evangelicals are a key voting bloc.
2) It’d be nice to have the evangelicals get fooled into voting for our leftist candidate.
3) It’d be nice for evangelicals to think that their fellow evangelicals are going to vote for our leftist candidate.
4) Let’s write an article suggesting that evangelicals are going to vote for our leftist candidate, in the hopes that some evangelicals will see our article and be fooled — that way we can announce the “news” of a bandwagon, thus perhaps creating the bandwagon.
; > )
#7, man, now I know what the tee feels like in tee-ball! 😉
Hee-hee, spot on, Sarah!
A mere scratching of the surface will reveal some rather ugly things about Obama’s record on social issues and some downright divisive/repugnant ideas about where Jesus fits into his (former) church’s equation. (i.e. the “manifesto” which states that God and their church favor the struggles of black folks and despise white people.) Jesus works for them; they don’t work for Jesus.
I can’t say I quake under the covers at night in fear of Senator Obama, but I do have some of the concerns addressed above:
1.) A level of experience that should raise questions among any reasonable people.
2.) A pro-choice record that illustrates the validity of the slippery slope theory; he is willing to protect practices that are infanticide.
3.) Economic theories and policy proposals that play well in the New York Times, but aren’t particularly helpful to the poor.
4.) A religious fervor that leads me to say what I said about Mitt Romney: I’m not voting for a national pastor, but a president to administor the laws passed by Congress. “Win the souls” indeed! It’s always good to remember the scorn our news media heaped on Pres. Bush in 2004 for much less explicitely religious talk than Sen. Obama is talking.
Senator Obama’s 20 year association with Rev. Wright (not to mention Fr. Pfleger and some other Chicago politicians) raises another set of issues, but that’s been worked to death, so I’ll pass.
In the end, what is going to win out policy wise? Obama, and his Christian faith, or the hyper secularism that dominates the Democratic party (NARAL, the Church/State separatists, Hollywood, Trial Lawyers, etc.)? Hmmmm…..
“Obama has the capacity to win the soul of the working person,†Kmiec says…
Everyone has the capacity, but does Kmiec even consider the fact that the white working class is precisely the demographic that Obama has been losing with his lunatic pastors, sniffy dismissals to Bay Area toffs and America-loathing missus?
[blockquote]America-loathing missus[/blockquote]
Could you explain what this means?
Christopher Johnson wrote:
[blockquote]The last politician who could speak to evangelicals, Jimmy Carter, sold them down the river at the first opportunity…[/blockquote]
Yup.
I don’t think the Christian right, such as it is, fears Obama.
He and they are in separate universes.
Obama’s got his two fan bases, blacks (even though he’s a white man who because of his foreign father only superficially resembles American blacks) and [url=http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com]self-consciously liberal (politically and religiously) whites[/url], the old Dukakis coalition described by Paul Begala.
He desperately needs to win socially conservative Christian whites to win – the people Hillary Clinton seemed to have a bead on.
I’m not sure he can. He doesn’t like them (the ‘bitter’, ‘guns and religion’ remark) and they know it.
And if he tried to reach out to them he’d risk losing his bases (who also don’t like those people).
I hate to see McCain win but I fear he’s got a lock on those people and thus has a shot.
Naturally conservative Christians, the people I just mentioned, are not the same as the Christian right. For example I’m the former but definitely not the latter!
The Christian right’s (self-consciously conservative Christians active in politics) overrated as a political power. It was a footnote in 1980 (after it realised it’d been betrayed by Carter), end of story.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]Blog.[/url]
[blockquote]Could you explain what this means? [/blockquote]
Mrs. Obama, Barack’s wife, who only just recently found something worthy to admire in America, a nation that is “just downright mean.” Apparently, a Princeton undergrad, Harvard JD and a fluffy job pulling down 300-Large will still leave one embittered here in the US of KKK-A.
Jeffersonian, thank you; you’ve explained yourself well.
It was Obama’s statement that,” The Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the obscure writings by Paul”, that caused Obama to favor gay marriage, that clued me in that Obama is a really into theology and traditional Christian values. (sarcasm off)
You know, if I lived in a country that had enslaved my great-great grandparents, or that had denied my parents and grandparents the right to vote, I might not be brimming over with admiration for that country.
Then you should probably not be running for public office in said country, #18.
Or at a minimum, go ahead and lay it all out on the line at the next stump speech. Truth in advertising and all that…
Hmm. TridentineVirginian’s comment–taken as written–could mean that black folks “should probably not be running for public office”.
Nice to have attitudes like that out in the open.
It’s been pretty darn good county to her and her family, though.
I doubt he will get a majority of the Evangelical vote. Still, Obama’s work with religious leaders is interesting and will probably diminish the Republican orchestration of conservative evangelicals. It also helps that the most religious candidate, Huckabee, turned out to be an economic populist. Evangelicals also paid attention to David Kuo who noted how the Republicans were more interested in people’s votes than in hard policy changes. I think plenty of evangelicals have been disappointed with the Republican party. Not all, but there is a division.
Simply meeting with the wide variety of religious leaders, who probably have their own suspicions about Obama, sends a message in contrast with a president who prefers to meet with people who agree with him. Obama didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. Nor did he lecture them. It was a conversation where they were getting to know each other. He’s not going to become pro-life. Won’t happen. But he will support policies that make choices besides abortion more attractive. Its a libertarian view: make it easy to choose life.
But the simple fact of having a time of openness with a wide variety of religious people is a sort of leadership that would have seemed impressive to the diverse voices that were in that room. Note that he didn’t just select liberals – there were lots of conservatives there too. Conservatives should ask how was it he won them over?
Last, there is a generational gap. Older white evangelicals will probably not vote for him. Younger evangelicals, who now insist that racism is a sin on par with abortion, are more likely to be convinced by Obama’s message. And since they are on Youtube and Facebook – mediums Obama has mastered far more than McCain – they might become convinced in the message he is offering.
[blockquote]You know, if I lived in a country that had enslaved my great-great grandparents, or that had denied my parents and grandparents the right to vote, I might not be brimming over with admiration for that country. [/blockquote]
That’s cool. Then let’s not pretend Michelle O! is doing anything but nursing racial grievances, even as she lives a life most of America, not to mention the world, yearns for. It’s obvious what she sees in TUCC when you look at it this way, no?
#21 – yes, thanks to the civil rights movement – Americans challenging the system. And even then they were called unpatriotic.
Jefferson – have you heard Michelle’s stump speech? I
As far as people yearning to live in this country, it probably depends from which country you’re talking about. Iceland? Norway? France? England? Look – I have Irish friends moving back to Ireland. I’m sure they love this country, but….
Haitians, Mexicans and plenty of poor Indians would love to live here. They would become real patriots, I promise you.
Admiration… to be honest, I find admiring a “nation” of any sort to probably be partially delusional. We are all children of God, prone to sin, and there is no favor God offers to any nation. We’re fortunate to live here, its true. But to assume God loves me more than any other nationality is probably mistaken.
What’s with the fixation on abortion? As Anna Quindlen writes (in relation to another issue that impels many of the comments on this site), “The opposition is aging out.”
Tel,
I would be wary of anyone of any race running for office if they — or their spouse — openly said “We don’t like this country, we are not proud of this country, and we think you need to ‘give up your piece of the pie so others can have it, too” ,oh, and you are a mean society at that”. Or who equated ‘clinging to religion, guns and intolerance’ with bitterness at the government (or even equating intolerance with belief in God!).
As I have said before, I have nothing against voting for Americans of Hispanic, Aisian, African, Irish, Scots, or where ever descent or a woman, as long as their political views are conservative and not socialst/liberal.
Which is why I did not support Kerry or Edwards, for the same reason: I thought their views were harmful to American society. Their race and gender had nothing to do with it.
Nice to have attitudes like that out in the open.
Wow, put your own interpretation on someone elses words then slam them for what you said. Liberal honesty as I’ve come to know it!
#26 – thanks for laying it out.
#20, 24 – I seem to recall MLK, for example, campaigning for civil rights not because he despised the country, but because he loved it, and wanted to see its bounty extended to all citizens. Someone who despises the country makes a poor leader, as nothing good can come of hate.
Thanks for the not so veiled charge of racism, though – you two are nothing but class.
Don’t write off the anti-abortion vote going to Obama. Roe V. Wade is not going to be overturned. Should it be? Yes, morality aside it is terrible constitutional law – morality not aside it is evil – but it has lasted 35 years, l. Most of those years had pro-life Republicans in the white house. Many voters recognize this fact and are looking at ways to reduce abortions instead. There is tremendous evidence to show that abstinence only education leads to more young girls getting pregnant (all evidence shows abstinence only education doesn’t reduce sexual activity, just use of contraception) thus more teenage mothers, and more abortions. A politician who stands for eliminating abstinence only education may do more to help reduce abortions than electing a pro-life candidate.
Now opbviously not everyone will accept this argument, but I personally know several anti-abortion voters who do, and others who think it doesn’t matter because R Vs W will stand. So I wouldn’t count on the pro-life vote to keep evangelicals away from Obama.
Me… I’m leaning to Barr.
#28, fortunately the Obama’s don’t despise the country. Nor do they despise the positive uses of the United States of America and its institutions. Perhaps we’ve seen the occasional revelation that they, as Americans, have been disappointed in the racism that was pretty central to the fabric of our country. That would be rational. It would be rational to be disappointed at the way whites treated American Indians and blacks. It would be rational to be disappointed that for most of our history, blacks and American Indians were considered foreigners. In fact, it seems to me that if you really did love what this country stood for, you could look at its shortcomings directly.
The hard evidence is that Obama respects and loves the country. The guy taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. When I was there, it wasn’t exactly a hotbed of liberalism. In fact, most conservative ideas came from there.
RE: “Still, Obama’s work with religious leaders is interesting and will probably diminish the Republican orchestration of conservative evangelicals.”
No “Obama’s work with religious leaders” won’t “diminish” the conservative evangelical vote for Republicans in the least.
The Republican candidates will succeed in diminishing the conservative evangelical vote for Republicans. Obama himself — despite all of John Wilkin’s hopes and attempted re-definitions of words — won’t be a factor.
RE: “Younger evangelicals, who now insist that racism is a sin on par with abortion . . . ”
LOL.
No we don’t. Maybe the leftists who discovered in the past decade that calling oneself “evangelical” was now popular . . . sort of like the TEC raving revisionist in the blogosphere who calls herself “orthodox” and “Anglo-Catholic” — always good for a giggle at the frank attempts at taking newly popular words and attempting to force a redefinition.
Hi Sarah,
I have no doubt that for you, what Obama says won’t make a difference. I’m simply repeating what a few articles [url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004406277_evangvote11m.html]like this[/url] say. Not that they are becoming Democrats. Of course, you may wish that Obama’s play for evangelicals won’t work, but… we’ll see. Of course, we’ll have to disagree that being an evangelical necessitates being a Republican in the first place. Historically, lots of evangelicals were pretty progressive (in fact, in England, they had been closely linked in the 19th century).
I do note that you seek to personalize the claim I make about racism, but I’m merely repeating from Daniel Radosh, who recently wrote a book studying evangelical pop culture (and as a secular Jew, he had lots of insightful things to say as an outsider). Young people who call themselves “evangelicals” think racism is serious and wrong. As far as the definition goes, I don’t call myself an “evangelical” except in the classical, Lutheran, sense. I know you like the term to mean what you want it to mean, so I wouldn’t call myself one. But some of those kids who do say they are “evangelicals” think differently than you do.
Speaking of fear, I notice that Denver police have been stockpiling [url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/17/denver-stocks-up-on-pepper-weapon/]’pepper-spray’ guns[/url] in preparation for the Democratic Convention to be held there in late August.