To The Point: On Religious Pandering
It's pathetic, it really is, that a candidate for President of the United States thinks it necessary to pander to the believers. Barack is certainly no worse than most of the others that have run for president in this cycle. The Republicans in general, and Huckabee and Romney in particular are especially cringe worthy in their appeals to 'people of faith'. And I won't let Hillary off the hook either she talks the religious garbage with the best of them. John McCain may be the worst of them all becoming a Baptist just in time for a presidential run. It may be true that a certain amount of pandering is necessary, but I don't think so. I think it enough that if you really are a believer you can state that you are and refuse to provide any additional details. It is easy enough to answer the 'moral questions' without quoting a Bible verse. I condemn them all, but have less respect for those who use or have actively used their faith in an attempt to get votes.
Whatever Works: Obama Prays To Baby Jesus All The Time
St. Barack Obama is sick of you redneck losers saying he's a Secret Muslim because you got an email from your unemployed brother-in-law in Idaho -- you know, the same Coors-sodden loser who forwards you the stuff about how Bill Clinton did 9/11 and NASA faked the moon landing because they are all FREEMASONS. Really, Obama has had it with you white trash and your halfwit notions.At a campaign stop in rural southeast Ohio -- where the "sofas" ar
Comments
Thanks for posting something in defense of obama.
That is your intention, right?
Not sure that pandering is an issue here. its more about obama fighting discrimination.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V5ED1O0&show_article=1
What amuses me is that the "religious right" is not bright enough to tell that they are being pandered to and manipulated, and that is why this tactic can be used effectively.
This sounds like knee jerk reaction to me. I'm an atheist, and I'd love to see the end of all organized religion. But I am also a realist. Hey, aren't we all part of the reality-based community? Well, the socio-political reality in the U.S. is that more than 3/4ths of the country identifies as Christian. Many of these Christians have been manipulated into thinking that bigotry in the name of Christ is a good thing. Wouldn't it be a huge win if we could do something about that bigotry? Sure, it would be nice if we could eliminate the religiosity at the same time, but how likely is that? Our best chance to get Christians to "love they neighbor" (and acknowledge that bigotry is not love) is if credible Christian leaders would stand up to the bigotry. Obama is doing that.
Hating Obama for doing that is irrational behavior. ALL of the political candidates will profess their Christian beliefs, as not doing so in today's political climate will kill their chance of winning. I don't know if his beliefs are sincere or not, but they seem to be sincere, and the Christians in his audiences seem to be responding positively to his messages. You can call it pandering if you like. Has there been a single instance of any other presidential candidate this election cycle who has pandered in a constructive way?
"It may be true that a certain amount of pandering is necessary, but I don't think so."
For generally rational, wise, and accepting people, pandering isn't necessary. However, that class of people has rarely if ever been a substantial majority of an electorate anywhere in the world, much less the United States. Of course, fighting the status quo may move us in a better direction.
"It is easy enough to answer the 'moral questions' without quoting a Bible verse."
I don't think it's necessary for candidates to avoid using Bible verse. Rather the allegation, with perhaps the exception of Huckabee (and various fringe candidates who have already stepped down, possibly including the Dennis Kucinich many liberals/progressives found quite favorable), is that candidates are channeling Bible verse not because it is a major part of their thought process, but because they feel the need to do it to improve their favorability with "religious" people. This is extra important for Obama, as the link points out.
If there are reasons why alienating non-religious people is considered an acceptable loss, it may be because:
1) Just about everybody does it, so no candidate is ready to scoop all of those people disaffected people up.
2) Democrats still count on the non-religious to vote for them, at least over Republicans.
3) Religious people, in practice, tend to be easier to win over, and they tend to be more loyal.
4) Conservatives are more monolithic than liberals, so making a lot of headway with that base (winning them over, or at least denying the vote to a rival) can be decisive.
Granted, pandering is not "the moral thing to do," but moral responsibility pretty much has nothing to do with politics. It's ultimately about image and perception (rather than reality), and every contending candidate is guilty of abusing this idea.
as someone who grew up a couple of miles from the "south eastern ohio" border, i thought the wonkette article was pretty damn funny. "barry", huh?
Barry was the name Barack used when he was in high school.
Jim: I think everything you said is on the mark.
It might also be useful to distinguish between pandering to Christian metaphysics (end-of-the-world allusions in Bushes speeches, remarking that we are all sinners, etc.) and appeals to Christian values which underscore their commonality with leftist ones. Such as this
Shoot. My last hyperlink failed.
Click here
or here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thedailydish/2008/02/obama-stands-up.html
All he does is pander. The gloves come off. This in Beaumont, Texas today
An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes — race, gender, etc. — that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.
So he took a different tack:
"Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.
"I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.
I have had it with Obama. I intend to attack him without mercy, here, there and everywhere. Every misstep will be noted, every stupid comment published, every hypocrisy exposes. He lies like no one else in the race. His campaign denied meeting with Canadian officials after CTV aired their story. No meeting every took place they said. Well then what about the minutes from the meeting that the AP has now found. The Obama campaign told Canadian officials that they planned to make NAFTA an issue but not to worry about it, it was just politics.
Beaumont Texas today. Just politics. Praise Jesus, my ass. It will be so much fun to see this man unravel and become the next national embarrassment. I can't wait. Words matter. I have said that for two fucking months. He is a joke.
Please read the link. That is not a defence of Obama. It exposes him, yet again, as a panderer extra-ordinaire.
It's ethanol in Iowa, Jesus in South Carolina, Reagan in Reno, driver's licenses in California but not in Iowa but that would have hurt him, guns in Boise, anti-NAFTA in Ohio, no border fence in Texas despite voting for one in the Senate and Jesus again in Texas.
The gloves are off. He's going down. Beaumont is the last straw. I'll do this 24/7 because I can. I'll donate more money to 527 groups, because I can. I will put my life on hold because this is that important. No more Richard Nixons.
The link to the AP story on Obama's denial on meeting with the Canadians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?ref=worldbusiness
On the religious pandering, this comment on another blog, priceless.
Wait... I thought Jesus prayed to Obama?! Now I'm confused.
Goodness. Could you post something that works toward a solution for once?
If we have to accept Joe Wilson's reasoning that the only reason Obama could make a speech against the neocon resolution to open options against Iraq in 2002 was because he was "from the most liberal district", then you must also accept the more obvious truth:
Given that everyone (those who back McCain and Clinton) make hay with his middle name and insist on passing on the false rumor s that he's a Muslim, and you understand that right now in America, the only group as unlikely to get the Presidential nod as Muslims is Athiests, COULD YOU MAYBE WORK TOWARDS TOLERANCE? It might make your voice louder.
One of those others blogs, C&L, posted more relevant link on this topic: a question for the candidates.
And the vid's on YouTube if you don't want to click to another site.
Also, the Nation weighed in: Obama, Being Called a Muslim Is Not a Smear, by Naomi Klein
In, she appends this advice that we all should heed:
Norm, if you want me to turn this comment into a guest pst, I'd be happy to. Mainly , I'd like it if all of us could take step back and understand that those who disagree with us, on virtually any issue, have valid reasoning that needs to be respected.
Fools... you... have no perception. The stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high.
We... must... crush him completely. So like John before him, this Jesus must die.
...for the sake of the nation, this Jesus must die... must die, must die, this Jesus must die... ..so like John before him... (etc., etc., etc...)
Maybe it will help to think of it this way, Norm: these guys (and gal) are like the baseball players. Religion, in a political contest, is a "performance-enhancing" substance. The stakes are high, and winning is all that counts (for the moment at least); so a shot of ideological green-juice can be considered a small price to pay for victory and its fruits. Even my number one pick, Edwards, played the religion card.
I prefer attending to the transformative substrate in the Obama message (and yes, Mr. Safire, it is a word). In other words, I think he's got a couple of cards in his lap that he won't be showing until he's the nominee (maybe as early as tomorrow morning). I have no data, no evidence for this; it's only a feeling that goes back to the speech at the 2004 DNC.
And what a refreshing change that will be from attacking his supporters.
don't know how new this is... http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/getinvolved/questions-to-ask-candidates
Wow. So a candidate promotes Gay and Lesbian rights, and gets the cold shoulder. So he suggests it's what Jebus would do, and finally people say, "yeah, i guess you're right", and it becomes pandering.
I'm sorry, but I've used the Humanist Jesus arguement with christians before, sometimes it's the only arguement they'll listen to (especially for GLobal warming, free speech). In Utah, the "Jesus would support free speech" and "jesus wants everyone to have a CHOICE" works all to well (especially since in Mormon culture, the Devil had the same ideas as jesus, but wanted to force everyone back to God, rather than allowing them the choice to screw up).
Did Obama kill your puppy or something, Charles?
“I speak to everyone in the language they understand. . . . That isn’t being slick. It’s being clear.” - Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead.
I really don't get it. Presumably Charles is in favor of equal rights for LGBT people. Obama tries the direct approach with people who are certainly opposed to such rights, and is greeted by silence, confirming the fact that he just had the balls to say something unwelcome to a group of supporters.
Now the question is, What Would Charles Have Said?
What Obama did is he said the same thing - no compromise - in language his supporters understood, and they cheered. Will these folks no be seen at equal rights rallies for the LGBT community? Not likely, but maybe they won't be counter-protesting, either. Maybe.
What's clear is that, for a moment, Obama spoke to these bigots [I am speaking only of this particular crowd as described, and not of Obama supporters en masses, of which I am one] in a language they understood, and got them to agree to a position that, moments before, they had greeted with silence.
And, for something associated with this episode, Charles's hackles raised and he declared undying war against the man. I don't get it. If there is a way in which more Americans of whatever stripe can be brought along for any of the good purposes for which Democrats allegedly stand - ending the war, or discrimination, or gaiacide, or the commercial stranglehold on our culture - then why would we not welcome that? In a barn-raising, wouldn't we want as many people as possible, of whatever type, to raise the framing with us? Isn't it a good thing that some evangelical Christians, for whatever arcane reasons, are coming over to the side of wanting to care for the planet?
i hear ya, phidippides. i've been here long enough i could get picky about this- i mean, we want rights for lgbt's WITHOUT the involvement of the baby jesus who, while cute, shouldn't be in politics, right? so it was a bit of a comprimise. but isn't that what politics is mostly about? i don't think a candidates ability to speak the language of a particular audience should be held against him/her- rather the opposite.
it's exactly the same as saying to a devout muslim audience "hey, doesn't your holy book hold suicide to be a sin, and peace the highest value?"
i mean, even if you hold the concept of "sin" to be empirically meaningless, you still know what THEY mean by it. what, are you going to refuse to discuss it?
i know,i know, fuck unicorns and fairies. :)
MagElecCo and Phidippides have the same take on this as I did. Halfway through Charles' post, I thought, "oh he's actually going to give Obama credit for something". Oops, I guess that really was irrational thinking on my part. But how someone can twist Obama's attempt to do the right thing (and his was the only argument that will have any traction with a wide swath of Americans) into being the last straw is beyond me. This is certainly turning into what people predicted, but I didn't think would actually happen. Hillary saying McCain is ready on Day One, but Obama isn't. Liberals devoting themselves fervently to stopping someone who will be painted as wildly liberal by the Republicans and who is energizing the electorate in a way not seen since at least 1968. Very disappointing. Sad.
Is it fine to hate and attack Obama for his religion? Look Hillary John Edwards and well myself think one of the major failures of the democratic party is to not embrace and understand who should be their biggest supporters, which should be CHRISTIANS. . I know some of you seem against a belief in God, but the real philosophy of christianity is pretty damn liberal, give to the poor, take care of those less fortunate, don't stone the sinners etc, golden rule. These liberal christians have been taking care of the homeless and poor for years before any of us has. Those agents of intolerance (McCains words) are really not real Christians, and my god we have someone to say that. Obama gives a fabulous answer, a smart answer, and can engage Christians in the democratic party and YOU DON"T LIKE HIM for that.?
He took on Gay and Lesbian rights in an area of the world that is not supportive, he argued with skill using language the audience could understand, he might actually win some folks over, and you don't like it? You don't like that the crowd got more supportive, you don't like that he might be able to convince folks not to hate gays???? This is bad???
Obamas views on religion are one of the reasons to support him, read his speeches on Separation on church and state? Look Hillary is a good candidate, possibly could be a great president, but Obamas way of handling this crowd is why he might get elected, and might reduce the polarization in this country that is partially caused by some Progressives that seem intolerant to religious thought and belief...
check. roger. co-rect-o-mundo. that is the most concise expression of norm's position i've seen here yet.
i personally see nothing wrong with a leader chosen by the emotion of the masses. it's traditional, probably in the majority of cases. i don't see that leaders chosen this way are any worse than those chosen based on what they promise before the election, or their voting records before the election, or their behavior in grade school or anything. it's probably about 50/50.
being chosen by popular emotional groundswell is merely yet another form of power the candidate will have at his or her command, for good or ill. it all depends on the person, and i've found emotional instinct to be as good (or bad) an indicator as any other of peoples' personal integrity, whether they're any good for the long haul or whether they'll cop out to gather shiny things on the way.
but that's just me.
i'll bring an example from judaism, as i used to do here all the time.
in the litvish, or misnagdish community of orthodox jews, the rabbis who are chosen as community leaders and, ultimately, the arbiters of gods' word on earth are chosen supposedly based on their torah scholarship. and, indeed, without this, a potential candidate would be rejected. his intellect must be universally accepted as razor sharp.
but, there's a lot of razor intellects in the litvish world. after all, its what they do- all day, even the youngsters fight over minute points of talmud. it's the defining characteristic of a litvak.
so: i've lived (and studied) with them long enough to know that what REALLY gets a rabbi chosen to the position of community leader/religious arbiter is simply that he is loved. that is, he inspires loyalty by the force of his personality. people BELIEVE he will work for their best interests. first the lesser rabbis under him (just like politics), then the community as a whole. without this, it matters not a whit how brilliant he is.
so i'm also wondering what people think of clinton/obama/mccain just in terms of pure intellectual firepower (even though this may not be the main issue for american voters). i think obama comes off pretty well against the others. but then, he's not running for head rabbi. :)
and before norm says "wait, aren't those the ones who.."
no, those are the hassidim. they base all decisions on emotions, and drink heavily. that's where i go to slum. :)
Charles, in your zeal in attacking Obama you undermine your own argument, as has been pointed out so many times above. Bringing people together, reaching them on their level, is important if you plan to push things forward.
Either you're blinded by Hillary or some irrational distaste for Obama, or your arguments will do themselves in. Perhaps O ain't as bad as you think. Check over his state and national senate records again, please.
What k said. I appreciate that. In discussions of metaphysics and mythologies and world views, Christians (I used to be one) and I part ways in as many directions as you can imagine. Same with most other religions. Same with those who think science has no downside. But when it comes to getting something practical done - returning to the barn-raising metaphor - I don't care why the guy next to me is swinging the hammer, so long as he gets the job done. If a Christian only comes over to believing that war is wrong because some preacher he respects tells him so, I'm not going to say he can't march with me. We might have a warm discussion about his and my reasons, while we're marching, but he is my ally. We can meet for coffee and he can try to save my soul later, but for now, let's stop this damned war.
And so verily I say unto the warring factions here, too: let's acknowledge where we agree, too, when we agree. And for the sake of those good goals, let's stop this damned war.
As Saint Kurt Vonnegut was wont to say, "If this isn't nice, I don't know what is." We have a good thing going here. Or you do, you regulars, and I enjoy lurking and infrequently weighing in. I'd like to think that the widening gyre will not lead to the centre not holding in this case.
Best Becker quote ever.
Phidippides said:
Amen! ..said the atheist who has come to understand and appreciate liberal theists..
I find it odd that Norm left Clinton off the list of people pandering to the believers. She was one of the earliest to do it, in the early Dem debates.
Obama, here, is tired of Muslim accusations and now he's chided for trying to put those rumours to rest, even if it feels silly. And then he's attacked for it.
How childish.
Exactly. This was the point of my distinction between Christian metaphysics and Christian values, which you, k, and Magnolia have spelled out very well.
And wasn't it you, Charles, who complained that he "wasted" his appearance in Boise not bring people who disagree with him over to his own side, on gun control? And this is exactly what he does for LGBT issues, before an audience that was hostile to the very idea of there being such as thing as "discrimination" against LGBT: he appealed to values liberals and Christians share in common--and you hate him for it? And call that pandering?
I find it striking that you're always telling the rest of us to "wake up," "pay attention," "stop being irrational."
Not religious, but definitely a moment of anti-pander.....Obama telling parents to get off their asses and parent their god damn kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w (approx 4 mins)
Thanks for the link, Mickey. As it happens, after watching that clip, I found this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4GyMoqC2U&feature=related
It's the moment of the speech that Charles cited, above. Now, read what Charles described:
. . . and now watch the video. I do not find Charles's description of the crowd's reaction to be accurate.
Those aren't Charles' words. They're from the original story, linked by Adam above, and again here by me.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Sellinggayrights.html
Looks like spin to me.
That said, I must add my voice to others in this thread who are puzzled by Charles' reaction to this. (Unless that counts as a personal attack, in which case I hastily withdraw it, lest Norm banish me or, worse, dig up some of my old chess games for the amusement of the court.)
My mistake. As there was no link provided, and the text I cited came after a quotation-colored box, and there were no quotation marks, I assumed the words were his. If I'd read the other posts more carefully, I'd have known better.
Please tell me how this is any different than Hillary suddenly having a Southern accent when she speaks to a Southern audience?
I was at the Beaumont Obama rally. The audience did not get quiet after the initial comment.
Besides that, I don't see how you can take him saying that he's a Christian, and discrimination against LGBT is not Christian, as pandering, or whatever the fuck kind of point you and the commenters here were trying to make.
Pandering would be saying he understood why Christians would have a problem with gays, or some bullshit like that.
Honestly. You can oppose someone without being so damn knee-jerk nasty about it. I'm FOR Obama, I'm not AGAINST Hillary.
Keep up the negative attacks; all they do is backfire.
Post a comment