tdaxp

I would imagine the billboard above makes most evangelicals laugh or bewildered rather than to think about how Democrats support religious values.

The best line of attack Democrats have regarding identifying with religion is caring for the poor. However, evangelical, socially conservative Republicans care for the poor as well. Both groups go about it differently. While Democrats often see Republican efforts to promote individual responsibility is cruel or uncompassionate, Republicans see mass social welfare as creating an entitlement of victim class.

Socially conservative, evangelicals also believe the church should be the center of providing aid to the needy not government, which they often distrust from doing so properly.

I think it is better to teach a man how to fish than to give him a fish as the old Chinese proverb says. Democrats are wasting money with billboards such as those above.

Your comments about the liberal American churches dwindling is very true. Most churches are more conservative than their leadership, because activists tend to be more liberal. This is very true of church networks. Those content with the status quo do not usually pursue larger church leadership positions.

I have attended 5 Presbyterian Church's (PCUSA) churches all in Southern California of decent size during my lifetime and they are all far more conservative than what is reported in the news about the PCUSA leadership decisions.

Until Democrats stop working to remove the word "God" from all areas of life save when one is alone in private, the religous community cannot embrace the Democrat party. As your Sorosnet post describes, the areas with money and influence in the DNC are not the moderates. The Democrats will be in the wilderness for some time to come. I pray they find religion, but based on what lessons they choose to learn from Republican defeats (usually the wrong ones), I sincerely doubt it.

Thanks for the post.

Bill Rice

Posted by: Bill Rice | Friday, May 13, 2005

Bill, the "Christian Left" in South Dakota is very small and very marginalized. They are most notably for opposing the death penalty and the Iraq War, which are both strongly supported in my state.

Economically, South Dakota can be thought of as three regions

Sioux Falls, which is growing very fast. Unemployment hovers at 2%, and work is plentiful. Poverty is not an issue.

The timeless farms, ranches, small towns, and small cities. Most are growing or shrinking very slowly. The economic situation is basically unchanged from 30 years ago. There is little economic movement and incomes don't vary too much.

The Lakota Reservations, which are horrible. But the problems on "the Rez" go far beyond economics, and are considered hopeless by about everybody.

So the billboard isn't good for traction here, anyway.

Ever since Senator McGovern, the South Dakota democrats have had a fighting chance (apart from ideological politics, he was an effective organizer). But those that win tend to be either areligious (Daschle was a Catholic who couldn't taken communion, Johnson is a tool of the farm lobby) or Republicans-in-Democrat clothing (Rep. Stephanie Herseth was endorsed by the NRA). The Christian Left in South Dakota hasn't a hope -- or a prayer.

Good tie-in to the Sorosnet piece. The Democrats were quite successful on a Clinton formula (reasonable economics, faith-lite, etc). But the ideological moment are on the side of more extreme forces. It will be interesting too watch.

Hopefully the Clinton-Friedman-Barnett faction wins. We need a reasonable second party for the health of democracy. Not a gang of hopeless extremists.

Posted by: Dan | Sunday, May 15, 2005