At a recent conference of religious leaders who are politically liberal, I heard the following conversation:
"I'm concerned that Obama is going to put more troops into Afghanistan instead of bringing them home."
"Oh, I think he was just saying that to get elected."
"No, I think he really means that."
"Oh dear. Really?"
Religious liberals were out of the closet this election, pushing hard for President-elect Barack Obama as both political progressives and people of faith. They, like everyone else who worked for Mr. Obama, are taking partial credit for his victory. With religious groups, as with other constituencies, Mr. Obama will have a much greater challenge managing his friends than Republicans.
Many on the left set aside their differences with Mr. Obama and with each other in order to help get him elected. Now we're starting to see some of the fault lines.
For instance, most Jewish Democrats - part of the religious left coalition - were thrilled by Mr. Obama's selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a pro-Israel congressman from Illinois, as his White House chief of staff. But not Rabbi Michael Lerner. Rabbi Lerner, founder of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, was outraged because, he says, Mr. Emanuel has a "long history of militarist ideology."
Noting that Mr. Emanuel pushed for conservative Democratic congressional candidates, Rabbi Lerner predicts that he will "almost certainly be protecting Mr. Obama from all of us spiritual progressives and those of us who describe ourselves as the Religious Left." In short, Rabbi Lerner says, "we may be in for lots of disappointments."
Most of Mr. Obama's challenges with the religious left will be on more-substantive grounds. The fault lines are:
Abortion. Several religious progressive groups went out on a limb arguing that Mr. Obama would reduce the number of abortions, while keeping them legal. This runs in direct conflict with Mr. Obama's campaign promise to Planned Parenthood that he would quickly sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out many state abortion restrictions.
Gay Marriage. Two key components of Mr. Obama's religious left coalition were African Americans and Latinos. They agree with the white religious progressives on most issues but veer sharply on gay marriage. African Americans voted 70%-30% in California in favor of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. White progressives, including many on the religious left, will push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sam Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, predicted last week that Mr. Obama would lose his Hispanic support if he backed gay marriage or backed off his abortion promises
Faith-Based Initiative. Unlike many secular Democrats, most liberal religious groups were pleased when Mr. Obama promised during the campaign to expand rather than eliminate President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. But behind the scenes, they were quite worried about Mr. Obama's promise to make it illegal for faith-based groups to limit hiring to people of their own faith. The position thrilled civil libertarians but raised concerns among some nonprofits that Mr. Obama would go too far in restricting the operations of religious groups. Mr. Obama will need to navigate that line carefully.
Afghanistan. Some on the left applauded Mr. Obama's plan to draw down troops from Iraq but quietly disagreed (during the campaign) that the troops should be shifted to Afghanistan. The hardcore antiwar activists will resist if Mr. Obama appears to making a long-term commitment to a major troop presence in Afghanistan.
Reprinted from Steven Waldman's Political Perceptions column on the Wall Street Journal Online
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Abortion. Several religious progressive groups went out on a limb arguing that Mr. Obama would reduce the number of abortions, while keeping them legal. This runs in direct conflict with Mr. Obama's campaign promise to Planned Parenthood that he would quickly sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out many state abortion restrictions."
Now why didn't you say this BEFORE the election Steven. Douglas Johnson and I tried everything we could to convince you of this and yet you apologized for Obama time and time again. When he mandates taxpayer funding for abortions overseas on day one of his presidency, we can say See I told you so.
If only you had informed your readers of this ahead of time....
Not ALL progressive Christians are pro choice. If fact tolable progressives as such is a dishonor. If to be progressive is to endorse sexual orinetanions that contridicts Scripture is a requirement, then progressives promote sin. That is not the case in this progressive. I promote service to others
Steven Ertelt,
Items I wrote making this point BEFORE the election:
In "Obama's Abortion straight jacket," I wrote, "Obama said early in the campaign that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a fairly radical bill that would wipe out state abortion restrictions. Pro-choice groups have worked hard for Obama, too, and take that commitment seriously. How will he bridge that gulf?"
In, “Some Non-Economic ("Values") Questions for the Debate," I suggested that Obama be asked, "Sen. Obama, you've said you want to reduce the number of abortions. If that's the case, why do you support federal funding through Medicaid of abortion? And why do you support the Freedom of Choice Act which goes well beyond preserving Roe v. Wade and actually wipes out existing state laws restricting abortion?"
In “Can Democrats Reduce Abortion More than Republicans???" I wrote, "Now, a big caveat: Barack Obama has not endorsed the full slate of abortion reduction measures described above. Yes, he supports funding for pregnancy prevention and maternal health care. But at the same time, he supports Medicaid funding for abortion -- which would likely increase the numbers. And he supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out state laws restricting abortion, including (probably) laws requiring parental notification of teens.
The upshot: progressive pro-life groups can make a persuasive case that their approach would reduce abortion as much if not more than the traditional Republican approach. However, Barack Obama has severely undermined his ability to make such an argument."
In "Obama, Abortion & Conspicuous Respectfulness,” I wrote, "Government funding of abortions: The federal government currently cannot fund abortions for the poor except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is endangered, a provision known as the Hyde Amendment. "Senator Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment and believes it should be repealed," Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro stated via email, adding, "Obama believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision concerning her reproductive health care."
This will cheer abortion-rights activists but will be tough for even liberal evangelicals to swallow. They might accept the idea that the government shouldn't ban abortions, but if they feel their own tax dollars subsidize abortions then they'll view themselves as morally complicit in murder. "Obama would be very foolish" to take that position if he wants to win evangelicals, Mr. Campolo says."
And of course my un-relenting pro-Obama bias also was on display in:
“In Defense of McCain's "Born Alive" Robocalls”
and…
“McCain Had a Point About the Health Exemption on Abortion”
and….
the paragraph in my “born alive” opus called “Obama has lied or dissembled on parts of the controversy.
Etc.
Steve, I know you were very busy this campaign season. I’m sorry you didn’t get a chance to see the other posts.
Again, you misunderstand the abortion argument. Obama, and many of us in the religious left, believe the best way to reduce abortions is by reducing unwanted pregnancies. That requires comprehensive sex education and full access to -- not restrictions on -- reproductive health services, including abortions. In other words, you don't reduce abortions by making them harder to get. You reduce them by reducing the need for them in the first place. Obama's campaign promise, and his commitment to PPFA, are NOT in conflict. When will you get this right?
What Tim said. Also, I understood the argument to include economics: if fewer Americans are living in poverty, fewer will have to make the choice between bringing an unplanned baby to term and feeding the children they already have. Barack Obama supports economic policies that I believe will do more to reduce the number of impoverished Americans. Therefore Obama will do more to reduce abortion. Q.E.D.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.