How Democrats should woo Christians
Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:45:11 AM PDT
As a Christian, I have struggled hard with trying to understand why so many other Christians are fervent supporters of the Republican party. (Note: this applies to only Christians who are American citizens. Whenever you read "Christian", think "Christians who are American citizens") After much thinking, I think it comes done to the conflict between the scientific community and Genesis chapters 1-11. Genesis chapters 1-11 have the stories of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and the tower of Babel. Chapter 12 begins the history of the Jewish people with Abraham.
Now, it is hard to have a serious study of any topic and not come into conflict with the idea that the world was created in 4004 BC, that all of the earth's land-based species were put into a one large boat and that everyone spoke one language until an act from God. You can't study biology without evolution. You can't study geology without accepting that the earth is more than a several thousand years old. You can't study much history without reading some reference to times earlier than 4004 BC. It is hard to study a language without hearing a theory about language evolution that runs counter to your beliefs. Almost every academic field has as it underpinnings something that conflicts with Genesis chapters 1-11.
So what is a Christian to do? To me, Christian churches should be moving towards an interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11 that is not completely opposed to modern day scholarship. However, Christian churches have not done that, leaving individual Christians with the choice of either believing in the Bible or believing in modern scholarship. Sadly, many Christians are choosing to ignore all modern scholarship. That means trying to persuade such a Christian on a topic like global warming by talking about the consensus of the scientific community is pointless, because the consensus of the same scientific community is that Genesis chapters 1-11 is nonsense.
How are Christians deciding if something is a good idea if they are ignoring all academic experts? It seems to me that they are using the "wise elder" approach. If someone who is a strong Christian and has the status of a wise man says that an idea is good, then it is good. Take for example the book "Dare to Discipline" by James Dobson. I read it along with several other child rearing books when my son was young. To me, I was amazed at how shallow the book is. It is basically Dr. Dobbs saying, "Raise your kids this way because it is consistent with the bible and because I say so". He doesn't cite any studies, any theories on child development and when he cites academic experts on child development, it is to mock their theories. He rarely mentions that he has a Ph.D. in Child Development, served for fourteen years as the Associate Clinical Professor of pediatrics at the USC School of Medicine, and for seventeen years on the attending staff of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the division of child development and medical genetics. Instead, he writes as if everything he suggests comes from common sense, study of the Bible and practical experience. His style is a hit with the Christian community with his book having sold over 2 million copies since its release in 1970 and is still consider by many Christians as THE reference on child rearing. As one reviewer on Amazon put it:
These smarmy, self-righteous reviewers who think an occasional spanking will devastate children for life need to get a clue. Certainly corporal punishment can be abused, but that is not what Dr. Dobson is advocating. I am guessing that those giving this book 1 star are: a) not parents b) haven't read the book or c) have children that run all over them. Limited spanking is a tiny part of this book, the focus is on common sense discipline.
If you want children that have tantrums in stores, roll their eyes at you at every opportunitity and end up resenting you trying to be their buddy rather than their parent, then leave this book on the shelf and read Hillary's treatise on child rearing instead(which is working so well with her oft soused daughter in England). If you are open to the common sense rules of parenting that worked well in this country for generations, give Dr. Dobson a try.
To me, the Republicans have embraced this rejection of academic authority. They are very supportive of Christians who don't want their children taught something in school which contradicts Genesis chapters 1-11. They have come to reject scientific evidence in favor of moral or religious arguments. For example, they have supported "abstence only" sex education in schools despite studies that it is less effective than other types of sex education. They repeatedly perform what I call "public religion", with frequent public professions of their faith. Because of this support, many Christians think supporting the Republican Party is inherently good and justifies any action. For example, my wife got on a women's e-mail list and the woman started forwarding to her e-mails citing examples of how evil the Democrats are. My wife replied to one of these e-mails, "Do you have some link to a reputable source that verifies this story is true?" The woman was incensed. "I didn't realize that you weren't a supporter of President Bush....I want you to know that I pray for him every day." Passing on stories that one doesn't know is true is gossip and as a sin it ranks up there in Paul's letters with sexual immorality. However, this woman obviously sees passing on uncritically e-mails that criticize Democrats as a moral good.
What the Republicans have really mastered is selling their ideas to Christians by coming up with simple, plausible stories that justify their agenda and repeating them over and over again until they are accepted as truth. My favorite example is the idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy will cause them to work harder. How many times have you heard that? I had a discussion with a well-educated friend the other day and he brought that up. When I pointed out to him that every Economics text book would say that cutting taxes for the wealthy would result in them working less, he couldn't believe it. As he had been an IT contractor and paid by the hour (as I still am), it was easy to give him an example. If I make $200/hour gross and $150/hour net (I wish), then according to economic theory, I work a number of hours in a year that maximizes my utility at the $150/hour rate. Cutting my taxes would increase my net rate, which would per economic theory lead me to substitute hours of leisure (i.e. vacation time) for hours of work. I then cited that when we both worked together for a high hourly rate in the late 90's, we both passed on working overtime and took longer vacations. Now that the rates are much lower, I take overtime whenever I can and am working the week between Christmas and New Years. My friend had never considered this possibility and had just accepted the Republican story as true.
So, what are the Democrats to do? What they shouldn't do is cite academic evidence to support their proposals and counter Republican ones. They are also at a huge disadvantage because many churches have decreed that Republicans are wise elders and Democrats are evil baby killers, so anything Republicans say is generally believed and anything Democrats say is doubted. What they should do is:
- Use Republican words against them
- Challenge the Republicans to show results consistent with their stories
- Broadly challenge the Republican simple stories
- Come up with their own simple stories
Use Republican words against them
Every time a Republican brings up making the Bush tax cuts permanent, the Democrats should read this part of the 2000 Republican Party platform:
The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to assume the federal government should do the same.
The Democrats in 2004 should have introduced a non-binding resolution stating that part of the Republican party platform. Because it is something that the Republicans themselves said, the Democrats don't have to worry about their low credibility.
Challenge the Republicans to show results consistent with their stories
The big example is Kerry should have challenged Bush to produce a plan for Social Security reform that would have created private accounts that wouldn't cut benefits. Kerry should have said that such a plan was impossible without a huge infusion of general fund tax dollars that (a) we don't have and (b) if put into the current Social Security system would make it solvent forever. Because Kerry never challenged him, Bush could kept telling his simple story about how privatizing Social Security would save it and put more money in everyone's pockets.
Another example is Bush's promise in 2004 to cut the deficit in half within five years. Whenever Republicans bring up making the Bush tax cuts permanent, the Democrats should say, "Well, when President Bush and the Republicans make good on their promise to cut the deficit in half, then we can talk about making tax cuts permanent. The Republicans have yet to show they can meet their promises on financial stewardship." Again, because the Democrats are using Bush's own words, what they say has instant credibility.
Yet another is the Republican claims to want a simpler tax system. The tax cuts that they have passed have made the tax code much more complex. To me, the Democrats should come up with their own very progressive flat tax system and push that forward. After the Republicans have spent years singing the praises of a simpler tax system, a progressive flat tax system would put them on the defensive.
Broadly challenge the Republican simple stories
One of the Democrats main themes should be, "We are the common sense party and the Republicans are the nonsense party". If a few of the Republicans' simple stories can be proven false, then Christians' (and every other Americans') faith in their other stories will be shaken. Keep bringing up really glaring examples of when Republican stories have no basis. A great example is the Republican claims that the estate tax were forcing families to sell their farms to developers. The Republicans have backed away from this one, so it is a great one to bash them over the head with. Other choices are: the 2004 job creation projections, the "Iraqis will greet us as liberators", the "the invasion and occupation of Iraq will cost only a few tens of billions of dollars", etc. If the Republicans have to start supporting their policies with some facts, they will lose to the Democrats every time. Bush is a master of some a lot of generalities that can never be disproved, so the Democrats haven't been able to show that he was wrong. When Bush puts forward a proposal with only a simple story to support it, the Democrats should say "Here we go again!" and bash Bush for his lack of details and facts.
Come up with their own simple stories
The Democrats need to come up with their own simple stories that they summarize what they believe and support their policies instead of the Republican. The main one I would suggest is saying that if the government helps the working poor, then:
- crime decreases
- welfare decreases
- the standard of living of the middle class increases
- the economy grows more quickly
They don't have to have a solid economic theory worked out to support their claims because the Republicans don't have a solid economic theory to support their claims. It just has to seem reasonable and be repeated by ALL Democrats.
Right now, the Democrats don't have much in the way of simple stories to support their policies and nothing loses to something every time.
Permalink | 17 comments