Excellent and timely piece by Cathy Young on the left’s opportunistic use of religiosity—which seems to surface at certain strategic times and in certain predictable venues:
As we all know by now, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has apologized for his Martin Luther King Day remarks in which he said that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment to America for “being in Iraq under false pretenses” (among other things), and that the Almighty also wanted New Orleans to be “a majority-African American city” after rebuilding.
In the brouhaha over Mayor Nagin’s foray into Pat Robertson-land, there has been hardly any discussion of the larger issue: the fact that religiously charged rhetoric, even the rhetoric of religoius zealotry, can be found on the left as well as the right, among Democrats as well as Republicans—particularly Democrats speaking to the African-American community, in which politics and faith have traditionally had a close relationship. Think of Jesse Jackson, back in 1992, likening Dan Quayle to King Herod and Mary to a single mother on welfare. Or take a look, for instance, at this October 2004 Washington Post story about John Kerry’s campaign stop at a black church in Miami:
Congregants waved fans emblazoned “People of Faith for Kerry-Edwards.” Kerry smiled after former U.S. representative Carrie Meek (D-Fla.) said he is “fighting against liars and demons.”
Kerry, who has compared Bush to those in the Bible story who ignored the wounded man before the Good Samaritan helped him, joked about the risk of being upstaged by Jackson and Sharpton. He said he didn’t mind because “God’s speaking here today, and we’re going to listen.”
The minister, the Rev. Gaston E. Smith, endorsed Kerry, saying, “To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.”
When a conservative minister says this kind of thing about George W. Bush, it’s widely taken as a sign that America is sinking into a Dark Age of religious fanaticism. Somehow, the rhetoric of the “religious left”—aside from an over-the-top rant like Nagin’s—is not met with the same condemnation.
[My emphasis]
The reason for this discrepancy is clear, of course: on the one hand, when the novice “religious” candidate from the “left” overdoes the Biblical rhetoric, it is clear to the elites who pontificate on such matters that the mistakes made are simply those of rhetorical misfire— a problem that can be settled with practice and polish, and shall be deemed “fixed” once the rubes who are swayed by such nonsense are satisfied that the rhetoric is sincere and suitably god-flavored. That is, it is seen as a dress rehearsal that will lead up to the kind of performance that, God willing (ahem), shall bring about the greater good—the return of Democratics to power, which event has now been carefully adorned and reinforced with requisite Red State festooning of Jesus fishes and proverbs and pidjin homilies to ensure a respectable shelf life.
Similarly, “progressives” will argue that for all the rhetorical faults of these ostensible religious leftists, at least such enlightened (postmodernist?) men and women of the cloth don’t attack “freedom” as do their reactionary counterparts on the right: by contrast, these newbreed ecumenicals are anti-death penalty; they agitate for a universalist ministry, are anti-war; they act as provocateurs for separation of church and state absolutism, and petition for a softening of hardline church doctrine, be it on gay union matters or gender restrictions for the priesthood, etc (all of which positions are out of step with American religious populism).
But of course, to believe that such progressive reformist behavior is not an attack on freedom (as the self-righteous defenders of the progressive religious faith will assure you) is to define “freedom,” necessarily, in a way that is decidedly anti-democratic; in fact, to make the argument alone is to demonstrably equate freedom with a studied, progressively considered righteousness—one that is defined by the very convictions that separate it, as religious (read: “faith-based”) doctrine from the traditional religious doctrine on the right. Or—to put it more simply—it is to argue, ipso facto, that the left’s religious message hasn’t hurt freedom because it is convinced that freedom is defined not by free people making personal choices, but rather by enlightened people defining freedom itself by first tying it ontologically to certain public policies.
Whereas when a politician on the right launches into a Jeremiad, s/he is showing early signs of the Rapture and reactionary bigotry—and so has become, in the mind of the James Wolcotts and Maureen Dowds of the worlds, just another crazed evangelical waiting for an excuse for some collection of sinners (be it in the form of a gay wilding, or a Larry Flynt star on the Hollywood walk of fame) to give them leave to bring about the rapture with the opening of the silos and the glorious luminescence of ashes and dust being returned to the spiritual realm of final and glorious judgment.
In short, both ideas are cynical and laughably bigoted in their ignorance. The religious right restricts freedom in the same way as does the religious left: by defining parameters for acceptable actions as decided upon by religious principle.
Cathy’s observations, therefore—pointed as they are—are, if anything, understated. See, for instance, Hillary Clinton’s amazing MLK Birthday performance—a carefully-crafted electoral knot that attemted to tie together the evils of GOP House solidarity, Harlem Baptism, the (Republican?) legacy of slavery, the wrath of God via Katrina, and the halleluhah chorus of the rapturous whose faith and ethnic identity is, as I’ve been at pains to show, becoming more and more tied up (and not by accident, either) in their political affiliation. This is the direct result of identity politics, which are themselves a direct result of linguistic assumptions that made it not only permissable—but rather NECESSARY—to separate out the individual from the greater good of the group-as-political actor.
On a localized level, though (because I don’t wish to get too far off-track here) Young’s observations are predictably keen and incisive: witness the strained deference on the part of the left’s guardians of multicultural Otherness proffered to certifiable loons like Louis Farrakhan (whose “The Honorable Elijah Muhammed” fetish borders on the creepily illicit)—even as said Otherness involves well-bred liberals pretending to react thoughtfully to stories of commands coming from spaceships manned by Jorel-like uber blacks, who prophecy tales of conspiracies that involve Whitey’s attempt to drown the black man by blowing up the wrong bits of NO levees); then, contrast this liberal deferrence and humility to the odious, condescending treatment proferred to, say, the Reverend Henry Lee Peterson, or Alan Keyes.
The right, of course, has its hateful religious firebrands—and I have been quick to criticize them; but if Young is right (and she usually is), it would serve us well to see the same kind of skeptical treatment given to religious zealots on the left—particular those embraced as viable political leaders. Instead, we offer them Presidential bids, sit coms, and invitations to mediate on behalf of the US in hostage disputes.
Double standard? I dunno. Does the Pope enjoy a spicy brat and a pint of Rauchbrau?
I don’t get it. I thought we were all supposed to be godless heathens. Now, apparently, we’re religious maniacs. What gives?
Roy, how long have you been reading here?
Obviously, it’s BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
TW: specific. Gotta be specific.
To me the difference is yet more simple: nobody cares when democrats say such things because it is understood as pandering, nobody believes they believe any of it. With the Robertson types, the fear is that they actually believe it.
And you can’t trust those religious types, I just watched Luke Askew, Bo Hopkins, Geoffrey Lewis and some other guy in “The Culpepper Cattle Company” get killed to protect some pilgrims’ land. Then they moved anyway because the neighborhood was too violent. Ingrates.
Double standard regarding religion? Sure. But it’s simply because everyone knows the left doesn’t mean it.
And that, my friend, is the damn truth.
GMTA….
Ah, The Culpepper Cattle Company – geez, I hated that one. A nauseating brew of revisionist Western and Seventies defeatism. Right up there with The Cowboys in many ways, although that one did at least allow some meting out of rough justice at the end.
The problem is white folks getting all crazy and acting like they really mean it. That kind of behavior is to be expected out of coloreds, but white folk need to show a little more decorum.
The left looks at God as a “useful idiot” just like other folks that the find use for, on occasion, but really don’t like to hang out with.
That was last week’s talking point. This is this week.
Wow, this completely sailed over the head of “roy” and “The Left.” You might want to speak slower next time, Jeff.
Goldberg, Goldstein… What the fuck’s the difference?
As to the points about defining religion enlightenment and religious “freedoms” by strapping a collar around secular progressive values and, as some Dems have counseled, learning to preach these messages in the language of religion—well, that point was too long to deal with in a drive-by Roy red herring.
But fret not. We’ll be treated to a post about my hypocrisy that misses the point, obfuscates the identity of the speakers, muddles the context, and is replete with trademark Roy “smarts” that are then dutitfully parrotted and cheered by his robotic reaadership who, like the proverbial emperor’s sycophantic minions, will pretend that he’s not marching around in his cyber bedroom with his little prick bobbing about like a poorly-functioning metronome.
Some of the most religious people I have known are black. Ever been to a black Baptist church? I have. I’ve never understood how the blacks vote so monolithically Democrat when the elitist progressives constantly dis religion.
Any thoughts?
And why was it that the MoDos and Wolcotts of the world didn’t bat an eye when Clinton was conspicuously carrying around a Bible and taking prayer sessions in the WH in the aftermath of the Lewinsky affair?
Never mind.
Man buchstabiert es “Rauchbier,” glaub’ ich.
Free money. Detroit.
I’m sorry; was that too direct?
BTW…For a good documentary on the (Republican?) legacy of slavery, see Nina May’s Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution.
There’s a reason we don’t hear too much about it. The Reps under Lincoln actually opened up government to former slaves; it was the Dems in the South who initiated the voting restrictions, etc. Yes, different times, different places, but Robert Byrd’s past is not all that unusual in context.
but Robert Byrd’s past is not all that unusual in context.
Past? Wasn’t he in the Senate at the time? I mean, isn’t he about 172 years old now?
Free money. Detroit.
I’m sorry; was that too direct?
Direct? No. Reductive, yes.
It’s merely a pomander ball they raise to their noses whilst on the campaign trail.
Word: Road. Road, trail, however one gets to that tacky white-house place with the “company is coming over” furniture and all the power to make the immediate area to my liking.
For me, the apt comparison is not so much GW Bush vs. Clinton as GW Bush vs. Carter. Carter wore his religiousity on his sleeve, and that was considered not just acceptable, but commendable. Yet for Bush to even allude to God is an indication that he’s dangerous.
Not to mention that Carter said “nukular” from the White House for four years . . .
I think the distinction a lot of these people draw in the back of their minds has to do with leftism as an indicator that a person has compassion, and the presumption that anyone right of center is lacking that compassion.
Therefore, when their leaders talk about God, it’s more real to fellow lefties, because it comes from their self-evident compassion. Whereas right-leaning people are all either faking it, or waiting for the grand day they can help bring about Armageddon.
AG writes:
Whereas right-leaning people are all either faking it, or waiting for the grand day they can help bring about Armageddon.
Reminds me of the leftist meme I encounter when the Christian support of Israel is discussed… Christian’s are only supporting Israel because (1)they want to convert all Jews (2) Revelations.
Right of center Christians (and Jews) are never acting in good “faith” because the Left has cornered Truth&Goodnessâ„¢, all apostates are pretenders.
Of course, the far right never uses religion for partison purposes.
They wouldn’t think of trying to ram a vaguely Protestant fundamentalist religious test down everyone’s throat, would they?
Would they!?
Nice try Carl, but what test would that be? While I don’t agree with all of their policies, I don’t see how the right’s efforts to keep religion from being excluded from the public square equal any sort of spiritual test.
What I see is more of an atheistic test from the left. Where anyone who is not afraid to express their religous beliefs, or compromise them to fit the current policy du jour is considered a hateful, sinister rube.
And yet it’s Democrats blocking Catholics from jobs as judges on the basis of their religious beliefs.
And those Catholics were nominated, of course, by Republicans.
So your point isn’t merely wrong, it’s diametrically opposed to reality.
Actually that’s factually incorrect. Please scrutinize your RNC talking points more closely before parroting them. Thanks in advance.
How is that incorrect? I clearly remember Dems complaining about Alito’s ‘conservative’ traditional Catholic beliefs influencing the decisions he would make on the Supreme Court.
The fact is most Dem politicans, but not all, only find religion when it’s convienent for them. And these same politicians aid and abet the ACLU’s outright war on the Christian faith.
Please distinguish between “blocking” and “criticizing.” Please distinguish further between opposition based on a candidate’s religious beliefs and opposition based on the fear that said beliefs will improperly influence the candidate’s legal reasoning.
Please distinguish between “blocking†and “criticizing.â€Â
Dammit…almost choked on my lunch reading that line from “The Left”, representative of a party that receives criticism with the oft rendered response
It’s not Catholics, per se, that Dems block, it’s observent Catholics (and Protestants and Jews).
You know, the people who believe their faith is more than a cocktail party topic.
I’m pretty sure Mr. Bush will save himself, as evidenced by his cowardly behavior on 9/11.
You know, the running and hiding and such.
OOps wrong thread, still true though.