There's an old saying that you don't talk about religion and politics at the dinner table. I always thought that saying was funny because two of my favorite things to talk about are ... religion and politics. (Perhaps this would explain my position as a social outcast?) One good book about both subjects that I recently read is "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner, a Jewish rabbi. I think it provides critically important ideas for the Democratic Party, especially after the recent crucifixion of Barack Obama in the blogosphere for having the audacity to talk about religion and politics.
(I know it's a bit long. If it's too long feel free to do as you may with it.)
Lerner is a liberal Jewish rabbi who seeks to "Take back our country from the Religious Right," as the book's sub-title states. I think it's safe to say that Lerner is not exactly who you would expect as one of the poster children for the Religious Left.
"The Left Hand of God" is broken down into two parts. I'm going to mostly cover the first part here, because it is much more valuable as a learning tool than the second. The Left Hand of God is a form of religion that embraces a spirituality of hope and joy and rejects the Right Hand of God, a religion of fear and distrust. As any even casual observer of American religion would note, the Right Hand of God as clenched its grip on the American spiritual psyche and appears set to not let go. This is the taking back of the country that Lerner refers to. His plan of attack for doing so is laid out in the second half of the book.
The first half, on the other hand, takes a probing, introspective look at how we got where we are now; with the Religious Right dominating the religious and political landscape. It is a difficult read for most Democrats because it forces oneself to take a look inward and question how they feel about the interaction between religion, the laws of the land, and the political landscape. It is only fitting that I read this book right before Barack Obama's speech at the Call to Renewal Conference last week. I was able to predict the liberal response to his wonderful speech almost to a T, which is actually quite sad. Thus, I think all Democrats should definitely give "The Left Hand of God" a shot.
Lerner's first, and most salient point, is that Americans, by nature, have some sort of spiritual longing in their souls. Everyone is an idealist in some way, believing that their is some higher calling to be fulfilled in their lives. Lerner lays out how this is the fundamental point that Democrats tend to overlook, causing every other part of the relationship between the party and religion to go downhill. Democrats have nearly completely rejected the idea of some sort of spirituality for a dogmatic adherence to secularism. Not a justifiable form of secularism such as secular humanism, but a "get religion the hell out of here" form of secularism, to the extent that it is their religion. In secularism, everything must be able to be proven and nothing is left up to chance.
This has also led to liberals looking at situations in a very selfish way - in terms of how everything effects Americans financially. This is ironic because most liberals claim to be about rejecting the evil of money and everything it brings. Democrats scratched their heads after the 2004 election in Ohio, where the economy is in shambles, yet Bush somehow managed to carry the state. When voters look at liberals who only care about money they are frequently turned off and turn to the only suitable alternative, the Republican Party, which offers a message that at least speaks to spiritual desires. What Lerner advocates is not a full courting of the Religious Right, but not being afraid to express an affirmation of spiritual beliefs. Imagine in 2004 if John Kerry had spoken about how his faith in God called him to be a Democrat and how his beliefs are emboldened by his faith. Maybe, just maybe, it would have struck a cord with some of the voters who chose to vote Republican.
This discussion of John Kerry leads to another of Lerner's points: liberal elitism. Blah blah blah, I know, he's just toting Republican talking points and giving comfort to the enemy, right? He actually delves into the truth of the sterotype. This is where difficulties arise for Democrats reading this book. Lerner confronts the stereotypes, instead of dismissing them and crying Republican trickeration. It's been said, if you want to get to know a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Well, if you want to know what people's perceptions of the Democratic Party are, take a step back and take a walk in the average moderate to conservative voters shoes. Lerner argues that the Democratic voters showed nothing but contempt for the American public when they nominated John Kerry in 2004. You know what, it's true! Despite that most Democrats were opposed to the war, they nominated someone who voted for it and supported it because they believed that the voting public was stupid and would only vote for someone who was in favor of the war in Iraq. And lo and behold, the American public didn't buy it. And then the Democrats screamed "Oh my God, Americans are so freaking stupid." (Thus proving the stereotype pretty well)
Americans look at the Democratic Party and see a group of people whose only position is to get back into power. They look at the Republicans and see a group of people who actually stand for something. Yes, they stand for screwing most people over, but at least they have the courtesy to let you know they're doing it. Republicans say "This is what we believe. Damn if it's right, but we're going to stick by it." Democrats say "I'm right. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong." An acceptance of spirituality would allow Democrats to get in touch with the foremost cardinal virture: humility. That's why I love Barack Obama. He has the courage to say "We can do things a better way," but the humilty to admit his faults and accept that his ideas may not be 100% correct. Humility in candidates would contrast 180 degrees with Republican arrogance and strike a chord with the American people. I guarantee it.
On a side note, part of the liberal arrogance is to lump every single Christian in with the Religious Right. This leads to the creation of an enemy in Christians instead of potential allies. Going back to always thinkin they're right, if Democrats took the time to talk to people who are strongly faithful and listen to what they have to say, they'd learn quite a bit. Instead, most choose to dismiss Christians and call them sheep, stupid, or other similar names. The reality is that most Religious folks, every those who subscribe to the Religious Right bastardization of Christianity are actually nice people with hopes and dreams like Democrats. They are not right-wing nutjobs, and may in fact be folks open to the message of the Left Hand of God. One of the most interesting experiences I've had was to take a three-hour car ride with two very conservative, Focus on the Family Christians. Going in I thought it was going to be the most miserable experience of my life, but I actually found them to be good people who had a lot to teach me. I could have taken a screw 'em attitude, but instead had the humility to accept the experience for what it was.
I've known a number of very very intelligent folks who are also very religious and I respect them very much for both their intelligence and their spiritual beliefs. I've known religious folks who have read the Bible and have a similar interpretation of the message of Jesus to me, yet are heavy supporters of the Republican Party. This pains me so much to see, as they would be great allies in the progressive movement, but after talking to them, I understand about 85% of why they have chosen the Republican Party. I see liberals calling for the complete dismissal of religious ideals, and I can clearly see why it is a bad idea.
If liberals and progressives truly want to make a better world, then they should welcome with open arms anyone who can be an ally in working towards social justice. To reject people of faith solely because they believe in God is to prove that liberals are in fact motivated by solely by pursuit of self interest.
The final point Lerner attempts to make in the first part of "The Left Hand of God," results from a historical look at the downfall of the Democratic Party and the rise of the Republican Party and the Religious Left. Following the 1960's, the Democratic Party came to be dominated by special interest groups. I know I know, another Republican talking point, but after looking at the history, it's true. These special interest groups all had good intentions at the start, but they all became concerned solely with themselves. In the absence of any spirituality there was no connection between each group. There was no overlying message. The pro-choicers wanted their thing, the women's libbers wanted their thing. This intense self-interest was accompanied by insulting anyone who wasn't on board with their specific cause - yet another example of liberal elitism. This attitude put many Americans off and moved people towards conservatism, even if their true beliefs jived more with the Democratic Party.
I've always maintained that to see what affect you're having on people, you must step back and take an objective look at the image you're presenting. For example, you can point out what you think the Democratic Party stands for, but until it takes a definitive stand on some or many major issues, the average voter is going to think that you're a bunch of candy-asses. It's like the opposite of the Sprite commercial ... image IS everything. If you're a Democrat who struggles to see past your partisan glasses, go out and find a middle-of-the-road voter who could as easily vote Democrat as Republican. Ask for his or her take on political events. I have a good friend is as moderate as moderate can be and always offers good insight for me. When he sees liberals putting on excessive histrionics at protests and whatnot he usually says "I can understand where they're coming from, but really, that crap they're doing is really offensive to me. If they wanted to sway me to their side, they'd stop."
Articulating an underlying vision would also allow the Democrats to actually welcome a disverse group of people into the party. Democrats claim to truly embody The Left Hand of God, that is they are motivated not by power, but by a desire to make the world a better place. That means they should be willing to put aside petty differences with people who are working for the same thing. If Democrats would be more sympathetic to those Christians who are pro-life, instead of dismissing them as "right-wing zealots," they would begin to open the door to more Christians who seek to work for social justice.
Instead, many many liberals and progessives uphold a dogmatic belief that all leaders must be immaculate saints without sin. This in no way differs from the fundamentalism on the right they abhor. It is points like this that Lerner makes that make this such a tough read. Many liberals believe that their belief system is inerrant, and anyone who does not adhere to it deserves to be cast into their own personal Hell. Embracing spirituality would again allow these liberals a certain measure of humility and the acknowledgement that they themselves are in fact imperfect sinners, which would allow them to accept those who may not toe their line 100%. This was seen with Barack Obama and his audacity to call for accepting people of faith into the Democratic Party. He was practically crucified by liberals because he chose to articulate the role faith plays in his politics. How can a movement possibily succeed if it is ran by a select few who feel that they are without sin? Let those without sin cast the first stone...
In the end, I think all Democrats should at least read the first half of "The Left Hand of God." I know it may be difficult and it may cause some soul-searching, but honestly, embracing religion is something the Democrats must not be afraid to do. They must be hopeful that a successful alliance between liberal faith and liberal politics can be built. To continue to insult relgiion and people of faith only proves that Republican stereotypes are true. I think the best way to sum up this book is to quote Sun Tzu from "The Art of War":
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
