You want to win the South? Court the Evangelicals not the Rednecks!

I 100% beleive the Evangelical Christians are a winnable group to win back into the Democratic Party. You disagree? Tough! 23% of Evangelical (not mainline Protestant or Catholic mind you) Christians identify themselves as Democrats. Evangelicals have many of the same hopes, aspirations and dreams we do. Good education, social programs for the poor (yes you heard me right), and an end to war. Of the Evangelicals polled, 48% were AGAINST the war in Iraq.

Take one of the most famous Evangelicals to ever hold the presidency, James Earl Carter (Southern Baptist.) Against the war from day one, he has made his entire life a quest for peace. When he ran for president he had BROAD support from the Evangelicals (don't know the numbers, but it was high.)

Now...if we apply this strategy, we need to start local, and in the South. Find Evangelical candidates, who are not centrists, but social liberals. Use biblical bases for the positions (they're all there - trust me - Jesus was the first Liberal.) At the same time, we need to make it clear that the Evangelicals are not forgotten on a national level. We would need to run SQUEAKY CLEAN candidates, but ones who take Bush to task on:

- The war. Continuously pain the war as Un-Christian, and a sin against humanity and God. Use these words freely.
- Programs for the poor. Reference Jesus and use his parables in speeches. It's all there.
- Education. Paint vouchers as destructive to private schools and equally destructive to public schools.

The one issue that works a monkey wrench into all of this is Abortion, however I think candidate Dennis Kucinich may have found the perfect framing for this issue. On an interview on NPR he answered why he switched his stance from pro-life to pro-choice. He stated that he is still personally against abortion, but that anti-abortion laws have no regard for a woman's life and treat her like a second class citizen. Then, immidiately he went into the meat that will win them over: he said that instead of fighting abortion through legislation, we should be promoting education that would prevent women from needing an abortion in the first place. He didn't mention how (abstinence ed. vs sex ed) he just mentioned what. Brilliant. We need to adopt this framing.

All in all I think the Evangelicals can be either split or won over in the next 4 years.

It's all true what you say, but..

The message of our politicians should be sensitive to the beliefs of this group, but we don't need candidates to be preaching... unless you're Al Sharpton, of course.

The candidates should not be the ones to do this for the party, it should be the evangelical Christian democrats themselves engaging the debate. they're silent because their not bent on exponential growth of their ministries in membership & $$. They do not use media because their money is best spent helping people. They see the value of Christian values in daily life, but do not politicize it. Non-Christians don't want it politicized...nor do liberal Christians. Even when it's true and even when we're right, the Evangelical Christians must see it for themselves.

The church does not exist to serve the state, and vica-versey.

we can't hit people over the head with these issues, but subtle transfer of ideas might work in our favor.

The Republicans are most UN-Christlike indeed.

But they have masterfully used the Abortion issue to become the party of the religious. We need to find away to somehow change this perception by either changing the way abortion is debated or by changing our stance.


The issue directly affects relatively few people directly, yet is used to by the repukes to divide a large portion of the electorate away from the Democratic party.

The church does not exist to serve the state, and vica-versey.

Very good!

Just kidding of course. I don't think we need to court either. I think we need to change our perspective of the South and court them as you would court the voters in Vermont.

what about the voters in "the South" Would they vote for Howard Dean without serious effort and arm-twisting?

During the elections, evangelicals threatened a "realignment" due to the anti-middle class and anti-poor policies over the GOP. That is EXACTLY why Bush came up with "compassionate conservatism", a marketing term to hide their pro-corporate, pro-rich agenda. While many Evangelical Christians are wary of the Democrats over abortion and LGBTs, our economic agenda attracts them, and the Republican's class warfare is not thought of highly in those circles. (The leadership of groups like the Christian Coalition are more Republican than Christian imo.)

As usual Kucinich is right - I wish more people would listen to what he has to say about this.

(I love it when people really think things through like this)

Two questions for you:

1) What's your take on how civil unions may or may not affect evangelicals?

2) Can you think of another issue that would serve as an analogy for Special K's position on abortion -- a behavior or action that people may see as unlikable, maybe even reprehensible, but that we acknowledge should be legal while we try to lessen through other means?

1 - This is going to be very tough. The Republicans have been pushing the 'save marriage' propaganda very hard, and this is another fine line to walk. However - a big distinction needs to be drawn on Civil Unions vs. Marriage. Right now, these are spoken of almost synonymously - and that's going to kill us.

As long as we can convince the Evangelicals that these are two very different solutions, and that the civil union is a comprimise (we have to hammer on that word - it gives the impression that both sides win) we can use it.

2 - I think decriminalization of marijuana might be another one we could frame in those terms, albiet not today. Right now, the Repubs control so much of the opinion-influencing media this issue will have to wait.

Regarding #2, I'm trying to think of an issue that we've already agreed to approach the way Special K suggests we approach abortion, one where we've decided not to outlaw behavior because to do so would treat people as second class citizens? One that would serve as an illustration, an example of how we might come to think of the abortion issue.

I'm at a loss, to come up with one that wouldn't also be objectionable to Evangelicals (Sodomy laws come to mind, but I don't think that would be a pursuasive example.)

Acknowledge that there is debate as to whether sexual preference is genetic or a choice. Until we're 100% sure, it is our obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to genetics, because we should not be legislating the denial of rights of people if they can't help the way they were born. If that's the way they were made, then we must accept them for who they are.

Another "out of the box" solution I propose:

The government should not recognize marriage at all. We'd have to change the tax system, but that's about it. With Social Security, etc, individuals can name beneficiaries as they please with rights of survivorship (even churches?). Otherwise, it is entirely up to private organizations like churches, ministries and non-affiliated individuals (call 'em ministers or whatever you want) as to who they will or will not marry.

There, the "special rights" arguement is gone. Not sure how well that one would fly, tho. Heven't thought it thru all the way.

The only reason they identify themselves as Democratic is because their father was one, and their grandfather was one, and so on. It goes back that “War of Northern Aggression” thing. They are registered as democrat, but votes repuke, because they feel the party has left them! But I will comment only to the Christian subject of your post.

First of all, most southern blacks will vote democratic, and their church will help provide assistance to “get out the vote”, but the white southern Evangelical Christian sees the leaders of the Democratic party as Godless.

Carter and Clinton were elected partly because they were Baptist, partly because we felt that they were not apart of left fringe, and partly because their opponents were very lackluster. Dole and Ford were dull, and George 41 saw his base stay at home because he raised taxes.

Here in Louisiana, both our senators are known as Christian. In New Orleans, you HAVE to be Catholic and black to be mayor (Ray Nagin was the only Catholic in a field of 9).

Louisiana is a strong pro-life state. With the vast majority of our population either Catholic or some variation of Pentecostal/Baptist, we don’t care how anyone justifies their reasons for pro-choice. If you are running for office, better not harp on being pro-choice. Clinton ran as a centrist, that’s why he carried the state.

Southerners also don’t like some Godless carpetbagger groups like the ACLU coming down to say, “You can’t pray at football games or graduation.” It’s that “We don’t care how you do it wherever you’re from attitude.” These people are alienating more people from the Democratic Party everyday.

If you want to elect a Democrat, a person like John Breaux has to run. But he will never get pass the primaries in a national election, because the ultra left is so strong within the party.

But this answers only the reason you mention. There are lots more. Of the candidates running for president, Gep might have a chance, and Liberman might because his support for Israel. But the others will have to do it with the rest of the nation.

Although your post started out as a disagreement, pretty much all the evidence points towards agreement with my statement.

Evangelicals, I strongly beleive, can be sold on economics. As much as it is an important issue (keep in mind I'm a dyed-in the wool lefty and am not advocating abandoning this issue) Dems in the South will need to take Kucinich's road on abortion if they want to stay pro-choice. It is a hot button topic brought up by the Republicans to divide the party and it worked.

First of all we need to play abortion down as an issue (in the South), on both sides. Knee-jerk reactions aren't helping anyone right now. One can remain silent on an issue, and at the same time vote another way (take a look at California Republican voting patterns - many "pro-life" candidates vote pro-choice all the time). Sneaky, but sometimes this needs to be done.

I'm not saying its going to be easy, but with the right strategic approach, we can win them over. Run Carters and Gores - remember Gore was big with a lot of Evangelicals (not big enough, but you see where I'm going.)

I agree with lots of what you say, but since you’re now brought up economics, I will disagree.

Most southern democrats are the C word, conservative, on taxes and economics. And it is a dangerous thing to say, but I agree with cutting taxes. IT IS HOW YOU SPEND THE MONEY that is the important thing.

The recession that began at the end of Clinton’s term was probably a correction, and 9-11 did not help. But all the serious non-political economists feel this economy is about to explode. And if it does so within 6 months, Bush can’t be beat – period. If it takes 9+ months, then there is a shot.

I know people whine about giving tax cuts to the rich, but they are the only ones paying taxes. I made over 50K last year and not only got back all I paid in, I got child tax credits and earned income tax credits.

Complaining about tax cuts is only politics. Bring in more money with lower rates (like in Russia and Ireland), and you can now pay for drugs and health care. Keep raising taxes, and we will stagnate like the rest of Europe.

one little correction I might add is most Dems don't complain about tax cuts for the rich, but tax cuts for corporations. Most corporations already pay nothing in taxes, and in some cases get money back (Enron is a perfect example.) Convince the moderates in the South of this and we have them won.

Again, I don't think we can win back the Southern Democrats, e.g. the ones that voted Dixiecrat back in the days of Strom Thurmond. I am arguing we can win the Southern Evangelicals, who have almost always been Republican. On economic issues, they feel like they got stiffed - and they're getting mad. They have to feed their families - and because of traditional beliefs, many of their homes are single-income households.

BTW....a hearty welcome to ya Blu-dog! Like I mentioned earlier, I am a dyed in the wool lefty, but I think we need to bring a few more Blue-Dog Democrats on this site - otherwise we'll all be nodding mindlessly in agreement.

I've watch lots of stuff, and don't want to be taken as a troll. So I'm careful how I express things. I am very passionate about my politics. It is good to see some other people realize that what works in Vermont or California, is strange down here.

Our environmentalists are not tree huggers. We hunters are the biggest supporters of the environment. Destroy the wetlands, there will be no ducks, redfish, shrimp, - you get the idea.

And we like guns. Go deer hunting and come across a wild sow with piglets, you’d better have a .357 or .44 caliber pistol. Swinging around a rifle in brush with only 3 shots in it might not be the best situation.

I’ve got to go now, home from work. Will look to comment next week.

Cheers!
.

What are you talking about? What ultra-left? I don't see any ultra-left in the Democratic party. Could you provide ANY examples of this ultra-leftism??

I'm talking about the nonpolitical evangelicals, and they are by far in the majority. Most of the Evangelicals/Baptists I work with are pious, socially conservative, but not political in the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell tradition. I believe that if issues of economic justice and assitance to the poor are stressed, particularly pointing out factually and without hyperbole, how things have gotten worse in the last three years, we can make a dent.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between the Evangelicals, the Fundamentalists and the Christian Reconstructionists.

Most people lump all of them together.

I disagree because the evangelicals pay attention to politics. The redneck type are not avid followers of the game.

You court both groups, then run the country in a Democratic way, and see which side races to oust you from office faster.

I don't know about the Evangelicals though. You would have to find one like Carter to run though. You would think the Kucunich abortion tactic would win over Catholics (that's the only reason they won't vote Democrat) And what are you gonna do about the fourth Reich? meaning the good Reverends like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Don't these religous types hate gays in a big murderous way?