Faith in Public LIVE: Sullivan on Honest Disagreement and Prevention First (Part 6)

August 3, 2006, 9:38 am | Posted by

Dear Thurman and David,

I’ll harp on this just one more time before moving onto the question David posed, which also addresses a challenge Thurman raised as well.

I continue to disagree that the reason Casey was able to demand equal time with a group that had only been engaging with Republicans was because of his pro-life credentials. For one thing, he was simply making them abide by IRS regulations for tax-exempt groups–you don’t have to be pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-wrestling to do that. And, of course, he could have forced them to play by the rules by filing a complaint against them. This, however, allows him to avoid the charge of being anti-religion and actually promote the fact that he’s interested in hearing what they have to say. That’s very different from agreeing with them, which I think most people have forgotten does not have to be the prequisite to having a conversation.

But more importantly, Casey doesn’t agree with the PPN on everything. They have the same approach to abortion, yes, but this group has made the Federal Marriage Amendment a big priority this year, and Casey walked in on Monday and told them in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with their position. I’m told by someone who was there that the crowd seemed to respect him for the fact that he was willing to stand up to his own party on abortion and to even stand up to them on the marriage amendment. Again, I think the key is honest and respectful dialogue. They can still go off and try to smear him as godless, but the charge won’t ring true to many voters. And that is repeatable by other Democrats, even pro-choice Democrats.

That said, it does worry me that the two recent Democratic candidates who have seemed to understand religion the best have been pro-life. I don’t think for a minute that the only Democrats who can successfully communicate their religious faith and thereby neutralize the charge of godless Democrats are those who are pro-life. But it concerns me that many Democrats and progressives might make that assumption (and perhaps honestly so, given the two most visible examples), and therefore give up on the project of reaching out to religious communities because they will assume that means moving in the pro-life direction.

That’s where the Prevention First strategy that David mentioned comes in. Despite the fact that Reid’s speech on Monday could not have been more lackluster, and that the Senate Democrats have inexplicably waited eighteen months after introducing this legislation to finally start promoting it, I believe Prevention First could be the key to completely rehauling the abortion debate the way that “Partial-Birth” did ten years ago.

Reid had one line in the speech that I hope Democrats repeat over and over as they introduce this new way of thinking about abortion (I’m paraphrasing here without the transcript): “It’s strange that the people who say they’re most opposed to abortion are the ones standing in the way of preventing abortion.” If Democrats can pull this off, pro-life voters will have to seriously reconsider which party is more pro-life. Here’s what I mean: If you believe on principle that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion outlawed completely in the United States, and you won’t settle for anything less, well, the Democratic Party is not the party for you (although I’d argue that the GOP doesn’t intend in a million years to let any of that happen….) But if what you want is to see abortion rates reduced, let’s look at how successful each party’s strategy might be.

The GOP wants to overturn Roe. Okay, well, we know that at least 40 of the states would still allow abortion, and in the ten or so that would outlaw it, abortion isn’t too available right now. So at most, we’re looking at a 10 percent reduction in abortions. Parental notification laws haven’t reduced abortion rates, nor have partial-birth bans. So those add a big fat zero to the overall number. Democrats, however, want to make contraceptives more affordable and available, reform adoption laws, restore real sex education, and increase funds for programs that help pregnant women and new mothers. The combination of higher contraception use but lower rates of sex among teenagers resulted in a thirty precent drop in teen pregnancies over the past 15 years. If the same could be accomplished with teens and adults, you’re looking at an enormous drop in the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which automatically means a drop in abortion rates.

I realize it’s not communicable in a soundbyte. But that, again, is one of the reasons that state party chairs and others have been reaching out to more conservative constituencies to have meetings. Over the course of an hour-long meeting, it’s possible to explain this approach and actually get people to sit up and pay attention.

I’ve worked myself into a small optimistic fever here, so feel free to bring me back to reality. But I’m very interested in your thoughts.

all the best,


add a comment »

Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Casey, Kaine, and Deviation (Part 5)

August 2, 2006, 9:30 am | Posted by

Dear Amy and David,

Looks like it’s my turn again. You guys are going to make it hard for me to keep it short and sweet!

To turn first towards the Casey strategy, I think there is a consensus that it isn’t going to help Casey make inroads with the hard-core Republicans (I disagree that this group is conservative, but that’s another topic). I teach my students that there is generally a 30% core of voters who will back either a candidate or a party no matter what. The contest is for the other 40% of voters – the swing voters. What Casey did was neutralize an issue by demanding equal time with a special interest group. It works for him because the make up of the swing group fits nicely into his own constituency – the pro-life crowd. It wouldn’t work for me, one of those non-pro-life, non-pro-choice Christian Democrats. To the extent that is true, it is repeatable only by someone with Casey’s pro-life credentials.

But you are right to emphasize that this is not the only field upon which politics is played. By embracing his religion, Casey has insulated himself against the “Godless liberal” demogoguery that has been so prevalent in recent years. That is definitely repeatable – and it should be repeated by any candidate who wants a serious shot at winning in the Deep South or through the Great Plains states (the dark red states). An abortion-moderate (I’m afraid that’s the best term I have right now) could still insulate their campaign from that pre-packaged slander by speaking openly to people of faith about their faith. John Kerry made a step towards that (bungling it by linking his “faith without works is dead” speech to closely to campaign rhetoric) and I think Kaine improved upon it. Casey is one more step along that path.

But here’s the rub: For an abortion-moderate Christian Democrat to speak openly about faith in action, they are going to have to draw upon a theology that allows for abortion. If Kerry had done that, rather than use the pulpit to slap at the President, he might not have had to stumble through an answer of how he can oppose abortion personally but endorse it politically. Developing this theology has to be the job of those of us on the Faithful Left rather than individual candidates.

If one believes abortion is murder, then how can one justify allowing it to be legal without legalizing other forms of murder? If you don’t believe it is murder, then what is it in theological terms? What is our moral and legal responsibility to the unborn, the pregnant woman, and the father (who is too often forgotten about in this discussion)? Many of us operate from a sort of gut-level theology without exploring these questions and wrestling them to submission. Because we do, the public discussion is the poorer and there is no collective understanding for a candidate to call upon in a campaign.

I agree that Kaine also reaped the benefit of an authentic persona. I disagree, however, with the comparison to President Bush. President Bush uses his authenticity to push for a positive message – in the sense that he is positively doing something. Kaine used it as a negative message – he wasn’t going to change the law. In a sense, Kaine’s authenticity wasn’t challenged because no one expects the Virginia legislature to pass a bill outlawing capital punishment. If put in a position of choosing between following his theology and signing a bill to outlaw capital punishment and obeying the “law of the land” by vetoing it, we still have no indication which way Kaine would move. I think that’s a significant difference. If the issue had been more prevalent and subject to change, I think his authenticity would have hurt him as he would have had to struggle publicly with that question. So I understand the point both of you make on this, but I think a different campaign with a different candidate in a different state would have had very different results – in other words, it doesn’t represent a precedent so much as it does a deviation.

In the interest of time, I’ll try to summarize my point. Kaine in Virginia and Casey in Pennsylvania both represent deviations from what we are accustomed to seeing. Both of them have used this deviation to their benefit – and there is some lesson to be learned from their doing so. The point Amy makes of being the first Democrat to speak to an evangelical group is an excellent example. The lesson there, I’d say, is not to surrender any part of the electorate. Take your message to every group you can in a language they understand. If they don’t like you, they will at least respect that you took the effort to do so. That respect may or may not pay off in electoral terms, but the race is long and the more ears that are bent partially to your message, the more votes are potentially swinging for grabs.

It might be worth thinking about how we make these successful deviations into precedents.

All the best,


add a comment »

Faith in Public LIVE: David Buckley on the Middle Ground (Part 4)

August 1, 2006, 3:13 pm | Posted by

Hi Amy and Thurman,

First off, thanks so much to both of you for taking time to develop this conversation. We’re coming through Day 2 of the exchange, and I think it’s been stimulating stuff so far. Before Thurman weighs in, I want to add a few thoughts, in part elaborating on Alex’s comment left on Amy’s last post.

Senator Reid’s address yesterday at the Center for American Progress took on the issue of abortion with admirable candor. He spent a good deal of his time discussing the Prevention First Agenda , an interesting legislative package with the support of both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. I don’t know if I have the buzzword you’re looking for, Amy, but it might go something like “Prevention, not Prohibition.’ I’d be interested in each of your thoughts on how a concrete agenda like this might further strengthen the ability of pro-choice candidates to engage religious pro-life communities.

I have one more quick point before I leave the conversation to you two. Both of you raised the issue of Gov. Kaine’s stance on the death penalty. I come down closer to Amy’s reading of how that issue played out, but I understand your concern, Thurman. Will national voters respect the moral integrity of a politician who says, ‘I personally believe this is wrong, but as an elected official will work with those who have different beliefs and enforce the laws of the land?’

I think voters can accept that position, and are most likely to from a public official who has a gift for sincerity and consistency. Candidate Kaine was Mr. Consistent on his values once he began fighting back against the cheap-shot death penalty ads that were leveled at him in the campaign. He talked openly and sincerely about his Catholic international social service and interestingly employed the evangelical language of ‘mission’ to describe that time. He personally told his story and in the process built a level of credibility and moral legitimacy that his opponent’s attack ads couldn’t destroy. He has a gift for the sincere, and he works it to his advantage. I’d argue that any candidate attempting to strike the middle ground on abortion that Amy mentions had better be similarly blessed.

Looking forward to your thoughts,


add a comment »

Faith in Public LIVE: Sullivan’s Response (Part 3)

August 1, 2006, 11:05 am | Posted by

Hi, Thurman and David–

Thanks so much for your thoughtful post yesterday, Thurman. It’s such a pleasure to discuss these topics civilly on the web! We agree on a number of areas, but I did want to clarify a few things that I wrote yesterday, raise some questions about several of your points as well, and get your thoughts on a question that has been puzzling me for a while.

To begin, I didn’t mean to argue that Casey could neutralize Santorum’s advantage from religious conservatives by actually gaining the support of organizations like the Pennsylvania Pastors Network. Re-reading my post, I see that I put that somewhat imprecisely. It’s possible that Casey will indeed benefit in November from an increased share of the religious conservative vote, due in no small part to the fact that his pro-life stand renders that objection of theirs moot.

More important in my view–and this is where I see it working as a strategy for pro-life Democrats as well–is the fact that by forcing PPN and others to play by the rules, Casey has taken away their ability to operate as an arm of the GOP. Will they still rally the troops to vote for Santorum? Of course. But by forcing PPN to invite both camps to their events, the Casey campaign has effectively shut down their operations for a number of months.

It’s true that Casey’s pro-life position has allowed him to make inroads with some evangelicals who wouldn’t otherwise engage with him during a campaign. A few months ago, I wrote about an event the National Association of Evangelicals sponsored at Messiah College in Pennsylvania to highlight the issue of global warming. Casey showed up and shared the stage with leading evangelicals; Santorum, whose stance on environmental issues is decidely weaker, stayed at home and was ripped apart by the largely conservative crowd.

But I would argue that what Casey has done to engage–and thereby partially defang–the PPN is definitely repeatable by pro-choice Democratic candidates. I’ve talked to a number of state party chairs in reddish states who have described to me the “get to know you” meetings they have been holding with conservative religious leaders in their states, sometimes the very first time that those folks have ever had a Democrat reach out and ask to talk. These Democratic party chairs are under no illusion that they will convince the religious leaders to start voting Democratic. But they do have hope that by having respectful conversations, they can soften the perception that Democrats are hostile to or uncomfortable with religion. As one of them told me, “If they come away from those meetings and stop telling other Republican voters that we have horns and are amoral, then maybe we’ll have a better chance of picking up those voters.” Yes, abortion comes up in those meetings. But that’s not where the discussion ends.

As for Tim Kaine, I would argue that far from hiding the fact that he was opposed to the death penalty, he was very upfront about it. And that contributed to the perception that his Catholicism was authentic, which I think helped him with voters. He addressed the issue head-on in at least one major debate, and in campaign ads, as well. That could have been a risky decision, given that the vast majority of Virginia voters support the death penalty. But in the same way that people say they admire Bush for knowing what he believes, even when they disagree with him, Kaine actually benefitted from taking an unpopular decision. He wasn’t saying, well, I’ll say I’m pro-life, because that’s popular, but I’d better support the death penalty or I’ll get creamed. He applied his life position consistently. And I think he got points for that.

I’ll save the challenge posed to Democrats by pro-life candidates for tomorrow, because I have too much to say for the little time I have to finish this post. But I will end by soliciting your thoughts on a question I don’t know the answer to. It’s long bothered me that for the past thirty years, abortion politics has required Americans to choose sides. You are either pro-choice or pro-life. If a politician supports a parental notification law, he or she is labeled pro-life by abortion rights supporters. But if the political leader also opposes a “partial-birth abortion” ban, the anti-abortion side will tag him or her as unacceptably pro-choice. There is no word for a middle-ground position in American politics.

I want a term for that middle position. Maybe that’s just stupid and on the level of semantics and doesn’t matter. But I suspect that most people on both sides would drop out and fall somewhere in the middle. There’s a difference between a pro-life politician who wants to criminalize abortion and a pro-life politician who can’t bring herself to vote against a bill to limit abortion. We should have a way of distinguishing between the two, and voters should know, as well. As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all of this and more.

All the Best,


add a comment »

Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan Responds (Part 2)

July 31, 2006, 3:53 pm | Posted by

Hi Amy and David,

Thank you, Amy, for getting the ball rolling and many thanks to Faith in Public Life for launching this initiative. It’s an honor to be invited to participate. I think Amy has hit upon a wonderful campaign to use as an example, as well as bringing up an issue of no small importance.

The first part is purely political strategy. Casey has been able to neutralize what might have been a pivotal support group for Santorum simply by engaging them directly. But it is also necessary to understand why he has been able to do so.

Santorum’s political history is built upon a foundation of opposing abortion. He pulls in a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In other words, he’s never seen an anti-abortion bill he didn’t like. When you see groups like the Pennsylvania Pastors Network organizing to help push his agenda, they are simply disguising their attempts to push anti-abortion legislation.

Casey, as a pro-life Democrat, had a fairly easy job ahead of him in neutralizing this support. He simply had to go and deliver his pro-life message to a pro-life crowd. It’s very difficult for a pro-life action group to get traction for one candidate over another when they are both delivering the same message. So, while Casey’s move to address the PPN is politically bold on one hand, it is neither risky nor bold on the other.

The real problem is that Casey’s example isn’t repeatable by any candidate who is less pro-life than he is. While Casey’s election (which looks to be a sure thing at this point) will give Democrats an extra vote on many issues, this is one issue upon which it can’t be counted. As someone who is interested in building a partisan Democratic majority, I fully endorse Casey’s actions and his candidacy. As a husband and father who supports abortion rights as being inalienable to women’s liberty, I have to look at it with a good deal of hesitancy.

That brings us to the real issue, which Amy ponders as whether or not a Catholic must be pro-life in order to run in a red state. It’s the fear behind Ruth Marcus asking, “What does it profit a party to gain a demographic but lose its soul?” Bluntly put, it’s the fear that Casey – or Democrats like him – might actually be the nail in the coffin of women’s rights. What good would it do to install a Democratic majority that severely limits a woman’s right to have an abortion? More to the point, to what extent is it necessary for Democrats to give up a pro-choice position in order to win a majority?

To answer that question, you have to understand a bit about Pennsylvania politics. Traditionally, this is the home of the Democrat. But the nationalization of the culture war finished off the erosion of the Democratic base that started with rust-belt industries moving to southern states or out of the country entirely. Arlen Specter, the long-time pro-choice Republican Senator, manage to eek out a primary win over pro-life Pat Toomey two years ago by only 17,000 votes. If Casey enjoys a natural popularity here, it’s because he is well-known and well-liked. A significant reason for that is that he is pro-life. In other words, the demographics have shifted in favor of a pro-life candidate over time. Drop a pro-choice candidate in the race instead of Casey and it’s a much tighter race.

In Casey’s example, there’s no cognitive dissonance – no stance that will make a voter think – because his electoral stances align with his personal ones. Mr. Casey is a pro-life Catholic. Therefore, he supports pro-life positions. There will be no awkward Kerry-ish, “I think it’s immoral but I support it,” answers from this candidate. He presents a public face that flows seamlessly from one end to the other on the issue. Since his personal views support his political views which, in turn, support the broad demographics of the area, the issue is effectively neutralized.

The case of Tim Kaine, Jr in Virginia is much different. As a Catholic, Mr. Kaine opposed the death penalty. But in order to be a good “law and order” candidate, he distanced himself from that position. His answer was simply that he was not elected to impose his faith upon the state – so if he had to, he would sign a death warrant because that was the law. While this played well in Virginia, which has a long history of politicians standing apart from their faith, it might not have played well elsewhere. It also has to be said that the capital punishment debate was entirely fabricated as part of the campaign. There was no larger debate on the issue at hand during the election. This is certainly not true for abortion.

So you have two examples. Mr. Casey offers an example of where his faith leads to a political stance that is embraced by a large portion of the electorate. He benefits from embracing it. Mr Kaine, on the other hand, had to distance himself from his natural faith position to get to a political stance that was favorable to the electorate. What neither examples illuminates is how a Democrat in Nebraska or Kansas or South Dakota would fare on such issues.

Such an answer might come from Oklahoma Democratic Governor Brad Henry. Both Henry and his wife are long-time Southern Baptists (they taught Sunday School and he served as a Deacon at First Baptist of Shawnee) and it would be easy to try to knee-jerk his position on abortion from that information. In his first term (he appears set to easily win a second term) he signed legislation that might be called “anti-choice” by some – requiring parental notification for minors receiving an abortion, for example. Yet by doing so, he has also neutralized a huge and potentially explosive campaign issue. He has preserved access for women who are legally able to determine their medical care and upheld the legal responsibility of a parent to a child. In doing so, he has retained the support of almost two-thirds of Republicans in the state.

I think the answer is clear. Allowing Democratic politicians to enjoy some position beyond the extreme “defend all abortion at all costs in all places” will make their races competitive, and as a result they will win some of them. That means a Democratic majority is possible to the extent that candidates do not fit into the pigeon-holes that many campaigns come pre-determined to exploit. The trio of Kaine, Casey, and Henry show three very different ways to do it: by creating political distance from one’s faith views, by showing a seamless flow from personal to political views, and by creating a moderate path between the two extremes. Contrary to Ruth Marcus’s fears, this is not a Democratic Party without a soul, but a Democratic Party with a soul strong enough to face an issue in all its messy parts. It’s a soul that is ready to deal as necessary with the shifting majority to protect minority rights as best it can.

The good news, as well, is that Amy’s fear that a Catholic must be a “good Catholic” and be pro-life may be proven incorrect. As the ability of Democratic candidates to speak of their faith and how it effects their politics opens, I think we can expect an even greater number of candidates to find new stances that aren’t currently being represented. Some of these may be more pro-life than others, but the ability to come to the podium as a genuine and sincere human being will create in-roads for Democrats among voters who would otherwise reject the pro-choice label. That is the pathway to building a Democratic majority that, while it may not be hard-core enough for some, will still represent the interests of their constituents in an honest and open manner. From where I stand, that’s a good thing.

Looking forward to your reply. All the best,


add a comment »