First, Obama won the last election , in part, because he quieted the fears of some values voters. ZZ Packer, a black evangelical Christian Democrat explained the fear factor like this:
Losing my religion
Most red-state social conservatives voted the way they did not out of intolerance or bigotry, but simply because they feared change. Their discomfort with gay marriage and a pro-choice platform does not de facto equal homophobia and anti-choice; it is just that: discomfort. Republicans exploited that discomfort and fear the same way they exploited Americans' fears of terrorism. And liberals can fight back on the same moral ground: They can address that discomfort and fear without abandoning their core values.
Now Obama did not go after the hard core Southern Bubba voter, he went after religious moderates. He did so by engaging individual pastors, talking at religious universities and generally showing respect for religion without pandering! He did NOT capture the Bubba vote, he never had an illusion he could. Nationwide he got 24% of the white Evangelical vote, but this was still a gain of 3% over Kerry.
The very gesture of reaching out with respect and reason did 2 things. The hard core values screamers did their thing before God and everybody and appeared as clueless as they were to the more moderate values voters and to the average American. Additionally, Obama got points with these same voters for his moderation and respect.
Obama's showing among younger evangelicals and his numbers among Catholics were telling:
Obama Made Gains Among Younger Evangelical Voters, Data Show
Mr. Obama doubled his support among young white evangelicals (those ages 18 to 29) compared with Mr. Kerry. The increase was almost the same for white evangelicals ages 30 to 44
[snip]
He also did well with Catholics, who make up about a quarter of the American electorate, winning 54 percent of that vote compared with 45 percent for Mr. McCain. Most of the Catholic boost for Mr. Obama came from Hispanic Catholics, who are now 6 percent of the electorate.
Nobody is going to confuse Obama with John Kerry when it came to dealing with the morality/religion issue. He was measured, but not mealy-mouthed about the fact he as was Christian , and pro-choice . Somehow that was enough, even among Catholics , being advised by their clergy otherwise, to shift significant numbers of voters.
The sticking point for all values voters, and especially I suspect for the small town rural Baptists of Texas is/was/ and always will be the apparent clarity of their ministers clarion call to moral absolutism and plain , old fashioned literalism - which means you have to vote against the Democrat.
Well, why don't our candidates, why don't we start asking them this simple series of question. How many prematurely dead Born children constitute a moral crisis? When one candidate promises to save the "unborn" , does even do that and is also up to his elbows in policies that insure the early death of infants and children, how do you morally justify supporting him or her come hell or high water? Since everything is either right or wrong, which is this? Is it right or wrong to support policies that lead to the death of infants and hunger for even more children?
When they blanch at answering this loaded question hit them with this:
Notice that of the 10 states with the highest infant mortality rates, 9 ( if you count the District of Columbia) are in the morally superior south.
Then hit them with this:
Child Hunger In US Rose 50 Percent In 2007
New government figures show that almost 700,000 children went hungry in the United States at some point in 2007, up more than 50 percent from the year before to mark the highest point since 1998. And that's even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday.
The department's annual report on food security showed that during 2007 the number of children who suffered a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat was more than double the 430,000 in 2006 and the largest figure since 716,000 in 1998.
I had a long , friendly but combative conversation with a small town rural Baptists of the fundamentalist persuasion about a month ago. It was most enlightening. His expressed opinions on Israel, prayer in schools and related matters sent a chill through me. More so, since he was not some marginal nutcase with serious mental health problems. He was genuinely nice guy. When Rick Perry panders to these voters, he pushes all the right buttons , if my friend from Texas City is any indicative of his demographic.
What got him to stop and think ( notice I don't claim a conversion) was the fact I was not afraid to engage him on all his hot button issues and I could give a good as he dish it out. I knew the bible quotes that answered his. I confronted his outrageous claims with common sense. My simple , unshakable moral principle: politicians whose policies hurt children have no moral high ground to stand on, all children born or unborn (if that is your belief) are equal. So, what's a moral person to do with clear black and white morality yields no answers to your moral dilemmas ?
Maybe we use more than one issues to figure out who to vote for? Just a thought....
|
