My name is Julie, and I confess: I'm a lifer in the Republican party. The only time I voted Democratic was my first election: 1980. I liked Jimmy Carter and didn't know Reagan. However, four years later, I was converted to evangelicalism and Reagan while attending UCLA. My parents' divorce drove me to look for rock solid moral values that would protect me from adultery, that would ensure that my children grew up in a healthy, nurturing environment, that would promote the traditional family, that would reignite pride in our country (after what felt like a decade of shame in the 1970s).
I was one of those young adults who found the memory of the 60s to be threatening and dangerously a-moral. I wanted something I could count on. Conservatism gave it to me.
But in the last couple of years, my entire worldview flipped and Barack Obama has had a significant hand in that changed perspective. Several dkos members here have suggested I write a diary about it, so this is it. More on the other side.
In the years that followed college, I became a hardcore pro-lifer, to the point where my husband and I joined Operation Rescue. Following the principles of civil disobedience, hundreds of pro-lifers blocked access to abortion clinics around the country. On one occasion in Los Angeles, my husband was num-chucked and jailed with 300 other OR protestors for a weekend over Easter. I picketed the clinic with my baby in backpack. One pro-choicer quipped unhelpfully to me, "Too bad your baby wasn't aborted."
And so began the antagonistic relationship between me and the left.
My husband and I have been single issue voters, values voters, for most of our adult lives. I supported Focus on the Family for ten years as a daily listener and financial donor. Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura were presets on my radio dial.
I'm a home educator, stay-at-home mom (who wasn't employed for the first 15 years of my marriage), gave birth to all my babies at home with midwives and now own a home business. I wanted small government, protection for religious freedom (which for me was more about homeschooling than the usual prayer in the schools kind of stuff), the over-turning of Roe v. Wade and lower taxes for families who make the choice to keep moms with kids (rather than working and using daycare where tax credits are issued).
I started graduate school in theology at a Jesuit university five years ago and was exposed for the first time to a sustained argument for democratic platform issues. Social justice, fighting racism, the history of the Civil Rights movement, black theology, liberation theology all had an impact on how I saw the world and what my responsibilities were to my fellow human beings. Still, even with all that teaching, I voted for Bush (again) in 2004 (it was the first time I seriously considered voting for a Democrat). I could not connect to Kerry, I was "afraid" of the changes he might bring. Somehow all his rhetoric just smacked of "liberal agenda" to my ears, not the kind of social justice stuff I had come to be interested in. I didn't hear anything that persuaded me he knew me or my values or my concerns.
It was shortly after the election, though, that the scales fell from my eyes. Bush was a liar. When it became clear that we had attacked Iraq based on fabricated intelligence, the unraveling of my faith in the Republican machine began.
I regretted that I hadn't been able to bring myself to vote for Kerry. I couldn't explain to myself or my liberal friends why not either. I just knew that somehow the left didn't represent or understand me and the world I came from.
Then last year, the buzz about Barack Obama caught my attention. His story of faith was one I completely identified with. I read Audacity of Hope and couldn't believe what I was reading. Here was a man who "got" what animated me. I wasn't diminished or stereotyped. He didn't force me to see myself through a leftwing caricature of a rightwing Republican. He respected the fact that what I wanted mattered, even if how my party wanted to achieve those goals was at odds with his own progressive policy agenda.
Obama writes on page 200 about what prompted the conservative Christian movement:
Across America, the women's movement, the sexual revolution, the increasing assertiveness of gays and lesbians, and most powerfully the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade seemed a direct challenge to the church's teachings about marriage, sexuality, and the proper roles of men and women. Feeling mocked and under attack, conservative Christians found it no longer possible to insulate themselves from the country's broader political and cultural trends.
Obama realized that the clutching and grasping of the religious right is grounded in a desire to retain the meaningfulness of their faith traditions (that once enjoyed prominence and pre-eminence in the culture). It's not to say that they hold "right" positions as much as to admit that the shifts in our culture have taken them both by surprise and by storm. That reaction may be onerous to the left, but it's real. It can't be ignored or shamed... otherwise it grows more shrill. Somewhere in this mix there has to be more acknowledgment of the dislocation that was experienced by the religious, not just condemnation of their fears and anxieties.
Obama continues on page 216 helping progressives understand what he seems to have grasped intuitively about how to find common ground:
I am suggesting that if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations across the country. We need to take faith seriously not simply block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal.
I wrote in a comment today that what sets Obama apart is not that he is moving to the center or that he wants to compromise (both attributes regularly attributed to McCain, ironically). Rather, Obama knows how to re-define the terms that have been routinely seen as "code" for the progressive agenda so that those like me are enabled to see how my core values (not my policy items) are supported by that agenda rather than thwarted by it.
Currently the conservative Christian wing of the GOP is breaking down. The Republicans have failed to deliver on most of the platform issues that matter the most to values voters. 30 years of opportunity and they have virtually nothing to show for it. Roe v. Wade remains in tact, the Republicans have spent more and have expanded the government beyond any Democratic president in memory, there is no prayer in schools, the voucher programs are barely existent in some states, gay marriage was legalized in California and intelligent design is still not taught as part of compulsory education. Abstinence programs are not preventing teenage pregnancy. No Child Left Behind is seen as a disaster by everyone on both sides of the aisle.
This is a time, then, when some thoughtful folks on the right can be gently urged to consider how the progressive agenda matches their deepest hopes and values despite their initial reaction of "Oh that's just the wacko liberal elistist agenda." Remember: children are everything to the religious right. If you can talk about how the progressive agenda prepares and protects the healthy, wholesome development of all children, you will get further than even talking about economics.
I'd like to list some of the ways I have been won over to the progressive point of view in spite of coming from extreme Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Dobson conservatism.
Let's take it issue by issue:
Abortion: I spent nearly a year reading about the pro-choice point of view to understand it from the inside out. I wanted to get beyond the idea that liberals were "pro-death" and instead see what they meant by being pro-women. Most pro-lifers will not do this. So here are my crib notes.
Since it appears unlikely that the Roe v. Wade will be overturned any time soon (and given that criminalizing abortion punishes the woman who is already suffering profoundly), it became important to me to understand what actually reduces the abortion rates in our country (rather than making the practice illegal). Democrats for Life offer one set of possibilities that actually tackle the issues women face.
Additionally, there is some evidence (though disputed by strong pro-lifers) that social programs help to lower the incidence of abortion, particularly in the inner cities. I became less interested in supporting a candidate who merely recites the words "I am pro-life" but who is not interested in actually working to prevent abortions from taking place.
To reach the pro-lifers and to manage their anxiety about voting for Obama (and honestly this was the hardest issue for me), talk about real numbers. Talk about how the incidence of abortions drops when there is better sex ed, when there are social services in place to support pregnant women, when the hearts and minds of women are won through education about adoption, not when laws are imposed that force women into dangerous decisions. Ask them: Would you be comfortable putting a woman in jail for having an abortion? Most of them would not be.
Ask them: Can you vote for a program that reduces actual abortions rather than continuing to wait for the laws to be changed while babies continue to be aborted at a high rate?
Gay marriage: Unlike most of my fellow rightwing conservatives, I've never been against the right for gays to marry. I grew up outside of Los Angeles. That does make a difference. :)
Still, one of the ways I've talked with my religious friends about this issue is to flip the narrative. Usually Christians will say that they feel the government (which was "founded on Christian principles") has to uphold a moral stand (to protect society from the inevitable moral decay that would follow the legalization of gay marriage). I follow with this.
What if the governing body decided that the country was not beholden to Christian principles and that Christianity was in fact a dangerous worldview with potential for real damage to our society? If that viewpoint gained credibility, what would happen if congress wanted to pass an amendment that would restrict the rights of religious people so that they couldn't marry, baptize or bury due to the danger that religious people present to the rest of the country?
If this danger could be demonstrated through a few scientific studies (similar to how they discredit gay marriage), why wouldn't the American governing bodies want to limit our religious rights? At this point, usually the Christian goes back to religious pluralism and the fact that we have the right to pursue happiness, our unique beliefs, etc. without interference from the government. At that point, I like to say that protecting the rights of those with whom we differ is how we ensure that our own rights are protected. Religion or no religion: gay marriage is about ensuring that everyone has the right to pursue happiness according to one's own conscience (one's own belief system, maybe even one's own spiritual view) so long as that action does not infringe directly on someone else's similar pursuit.
This perspective does not require a Christian to agree with the homosexual lifestyle nor to overturn the belief that the practice is a sin. That's important since we are trying to move the conservative to feeling comfortable with a progressive vote, not necessarily moving them all the way to rearranging their religious beliefs.
Social Programs: Winning the conservative Christian to social justice issues is the easiest task right now because helping the poor is in vogue with younger evangelicals (particularly under 30's). Poverty, AIDS, healthcare, and issues of race are currently championed by some of the leading evangelicals, even those who are typically less left leaning than Jim Wallis (like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels). Most youth find the "old white guy" syndrome of the religious right (who moralize and discriminate) to be out of step with who they are. The Gospels mention the poor more than 2000 times. They never mention gay marriage or abortion. The younger evangelicals want to do things; they don't just want to evangelize and picket.
While there are plenty of Christians who are also opposed to the taxes that are needed to fund these social programs, it is also helpful to point out that the funds would be more readily available if we didn't spend so much on an illegal war... :)
which brings us to...
The War: A strong defense is one of those strange evangelical attachments despite all the admonitions in the Bible to not take up arms, etc. Usually they turn to Romans 13 and talk about the government being endowed by God with the responsibility to protect the citizenry. I find that the best way to address the war is to go for the moral argument about lying (forget the war for a minute). It certainly worked with me. Evangelicals believe themselves to be among the most truth-telling of all human beings on earth (and aliens from other planets).
George W. can get away with a lot. But lying can't be tolerated. It's not Christian. So it helps your argument to be armed with facts that demonstrate that Bush was complicit (not just ignorant, since that is forgivable) in disseminating the false intelligence that led us to invade Iraq. If he willfully misled the American people, he is a liar. If he is a liar, his entire faith commitment is in doubt and therefore his judgment. If he is seen as ignorant and misused, then he is treated as a victim of corruption in the minds of Republican supporters, and thereby forgiven.
Religion and Government: There is strong evidence that separation of church and state is what has made American churches healthier than those in Europe where that distinction is lost. By keeping them separate, our churches still function as refuge from and prophetic critique of government rather than being identified with government and therefore seen as a source of authoritarianism, oppression or incompetence.
The left is more interested in protecting religion from the encroachment of the government than the right. It was a real change in my thinking to understand that keeping government out of my faith ensured my free exercise rather than the other way around.
Homeschooling is a big issue for many evangelicals and ought to be treated with respect. It represents one of those free exercise practices that the right passionately protects. I was easily persuaded, though, that as a Christian it was still my duty to fund public education through my taxes since I want to be about the best education for all children, not just mine.
Attitude: The most important part of talking to someone on the right is to anticipate the motives behind the agenda. Obama is skillful at this. He realizes that the "next generation" and "thou" narratives tap into the deepest moral values of conservative voters. Let me give an example of how I've helped one of my friends understand the these principles.
One of my liberal friends was quite shocked that I shopped at Walmart (I don't now - this was awhile back) when we first met. She thought it obvious that Walmart was big bad business and any moral person would boycott them. So I then turned the tables on her to help her understand my world.
Here's how it is for the homeschooling evangelical stay-at-home mother. We see ourselves as the ones who will provide our kids with the most nurturing, effective parenting and education (more than the government schools). We want to ensure that our kids are not just educated in school subjects, but that they grow up to be compassionate, valuable, decent citizens who put family and friends ahead of competition and achievement for its own sake.
To do that, we forgo careers, time to pursue hobbies, friendships and dual incomes. That means some of us (like me when our kids were small) live in small apartments and don't buy homes. We scrimp and save money where we can for the ideal that we will put good human beings out into the world. We are frugal and consider ourselves to be sacrificing on behalf of the greater good. We shop at Walmart (for instance) due to our values not because we are careless greedy capitalists.
If someone wants to appeal to my values to change my shopping habits, it isn't helpful to condemn me. It helps to remind me of how much I value kids and that there are children in sweatshops being exploited by Walmart. See the difference?
This is how conservatives think. They believe that they are limiting their own pleasures for the higher good (whatever that good is - which you are free to critique or not). They put family ahead of community. They put character building ahead of personal achievement. They put marital vows (duty) ahead of personal fulfillment and sexual pleasure (I'm generalizing - there are plenty who make a mockery of these values). They see themselves as decent, law-abiding, charitable, hard-working, family-centered Americans who believe the best about their leaders and their fellow citizens. They distrust what appears to them to be the self-indulgence and decadence of the left.
They are woefully uneducated about the Civil Rights Movement (something I teach now to homeschool students), about what a liberal democracy actually is, about the relationship between religion and government. If you can start there... without being antagonistic, always reinforcing their right to pursue happiness according to their personal convictions, and their desire to raise the next generation to be good people, you can sometimes help them (us) to see that mutually ensuring everyone's rights protects theirs (ours).
Barack Obama says it best:
For I am getting to an age where I have a sense of what satisfies me, and although I am perhaps more tolerant of compromises than my friend was [referencing a previous conversation], I know that my satisfaction is not to be found in the glare of television cameras or the applause of the crowd. Instead, it seems to come more often now from knowing in some demonstrable way I've been able to help people live their lives with some measure of dignity.
In my world, we called this living with character. We saw the world through the prism of strong traditional families, raising children who cared about making a difference so that our communities and eventually our society would be peopled with healthy adults who care about others, particularly the less fortunate. Obama gets to the same place through the use of the idea of dignity. I love that!
And because he opened the door for me, I've fallen in love with the progressive agenda... I can see a much bigger world of people to know, care for, support and understand.
Thanks for asking. I'll take any questions. I was a part of the evangelical world for 25 years and have worked as a missionary to Muslims, a ghostwriter for a nationally prominent pastor, and a business owner in the homeschooling movement.
Today, I no longer think of myself as an evangelical. Just to be clear. :)