Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Finding Spirit Among the Dems

By Evan Derkacz, AlterNet. Posted February 10, 2006.


Michael Lerner lays down a vision for a strong and successful Left -- but first it'll have to tackle its own demons.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Evan Derkacz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"Americans give a tremendous amount of credit to anyone who can name a pain that they've been experiencing but have been unable to locate," writes Michael Lerner in his new book "The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back From the Religious Right" (HarperSF, 2006). (Full disclosure: The rabbi was also, at one time, my employer).

Every once in a while a book or an idea comes along that doesn't just change the view so much as it changes our way of viewing. George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" was one such book and "The Left Hand of God" has the stuff to be its heir.

In Lerner's view, the Religious Right's considerable political power is the result of, not so much a particular liturgy or ideology, but its ability to locate this pain. More important, therefore, than its current domination of the federal government is that long after its allies are gone from office, the ability for the Religious Right to dictate the terms of the debate itself -- from tax cuts to war to civil rights for gays and reproductive freedom for women -- will remain unless something is done to change course. A few victories in the upcoming election isn't enough.

Having focused on short-term battles like ending this or that war and localized social justice issues, the inability of the Left in general, and the Democrats in particular, to insert these crucial issues into a larger framework that speaks to the deeper needs of many Americans, threatens to marginalize progressive and liberal ideas even further.

Ben Franklin's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Here's Lerner's take on the Left:

Instead of trying to understand the religious Right ... the Left tries to point out the irrationality of the Right's positions, imagining that one more good argument will knock the socks off the Rightists, and then everyone will throw away their crutches and start a stampede to the Left. Imagine their surprise when it doesn't happen.

Using decades of interviews from his Institute for Labor and Mental Health and examples ripped from the headlines, Lerner has written a book that challenges assumptions on both the Left and Right, eschewing musty old arguments and putting forward a bold plan for progressive ideas to gain a foothold in the public debate. Along the way it's sure to piss off more than a few readers.

First, just briefly explain what the Left Hand of God means.

The Left Hand of God means looking at the universe through the perception that love, kindness, generosity and caring for others are the central ontological realities of life, and that when they do not manifest in the world in which we live, the world is distorted and needs to be healed. The Right Hand of God, conversely, means looking at the universe through the perception that life is a struggle of all against all, and that the only path to security is through domination of others.

Regarding the quote above about the Left's mistaken view that all we really need is one more good argument, aren't you simply suggesting that one irrationality be replaced by another? Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?

What I'm suggesting in this paragraph is that many of the millions of people who get attracted to the Religious Right are not motivated by excitement for their political program, but by the experience of community, caring for others, and its ability to recognize and address the deep distortions in life that are caused by a societal ethos of materialism and selfishness.

You can't undermine that attachment by arguments against what is really peripheral to their motivation. Yet there is nothing fundamentally irrational about being motivated by a desire to be part of a loving community or to want a world with less materialism and selfishness. What is irrational is that the Left is unable to see that this very desire is a positive and healthy desire, and that it could best be addressed by a progressive spiritual critique of capitalist society which is, as I show in my book, the source of the materialism and seflishness that people are seeking to escape.

By its tone-deafness to the spiritual suffering of the American people, the Left continues to miss the fundamental crisis that demands a social transformation, and in so missing this reality, it clears the path for reactionary forces to enter the spiritual arena and manipulate that crisis in destructive and potentially fascistic directions.

One of the central questions Left Hand seeks to answer is, in effect, What's the Matter With Kansas? -- or why do people consistently vote against their best interests (i.e., Republican)? You have a different answer than Thomas Frank.

I believe that, as a methodological principle, we ought to try to find the rational kernel in the irrational shell, to coin a phrase, or to start by asking what reasonable and decent things people are seeking when they're attracted to the Right. Here, it is important to distinguish between the hard core of the Right -- which has many people who are racists, sexists, homophobes or fundamentalists with rigid thinking and sometimes filled with anger -- on the one hand, and the tens of millions of others who were not always attracted to the Right but who, in the past 30 years, have been moving to, and voting with, the Right.


Digg!

Evan Derkacz is AlterNet's associate editor and writer of Peek, the blog of blogs.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Republican Persepective. . . .
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Feb 10, 2006 2:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a pro-choice, pro-civil union, Alternet reading, Born-Again Christian Republican. I am Republican because I have never seen a single Democratic candidate I would be willing to vote for. In my many online disourses on various subjects it has been made clear to me that progressives in general can't understand how that can be and more often than not I come away at best mildly insulted and shaking my head, and at worst outright flamed. Rabbi Lerner has struck a nerve with me that I can't deny. Quotes that elicited an audible "Wow!":

Empathically put yourself in the place of people whose actions we don't agree with. Too often progressives can do that when it comes to foreign terrorists but can't do that when it comes to right-wing voters.

The prejudice of many people on the Left against religious and spiritual people, the view that they must necessarily be on a lower level of intellectual or psychological development if they believe in God, is a view that is elitist and destructive. We need to make that kind of elitism as unwelcome in the Left as we once had to make sexist or homophobic approaches to the world.

This man clearly "gets it" and in my opinion, if this is to be the left's new rallying cry, the right is in serious trouble. I'm very interested to see the average Alternet readers' response to this, since I am clearly an anomaly around these parts. I expect some big-time bristling (particularly at the comments I quoted), but progressives would do well to listen to Rabbi Lerner very closely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Republican Persepective. . . . Posted by: kelly.nickell
» You've missed the point Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: You've missed the point Posted by: kelly.nickell
» My mistake. . . Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: My mistake. . . Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: A Republican Persepective. . . . Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: A Republican Persepective. . . . Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: A Republican Creed Posted by: Michiganman
» Read it again Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Kerry was THE fiscal choice Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: ead it again Posted by: ozsea1
» RE: ead it again Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: ead it again Posted by: cwdalzell
» RE: ead it again Posted by: Patrissimo
» How? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: How? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: How? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: How? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: What about Jimmy Carter? Posted by: duck-lady
» RE: What about Jimmy Carter? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Nope Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Nope Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Nope Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Nope Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Nope Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Nope Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Nope Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Nope Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: A Republican Persepective. . . . Posted by: DeanForMaryland
» We could just set a better example Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Michel Lerner gets it
Posted by: rbohan on Feb 10, 2006 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've got a blog devoted to the very issue of which Rabbi Lerner speaks.
(www.sundaymorningliberal.blog-city.com) That is, liberals have, for too long, denigrated and discounted people of faith and spirit. Until liberals start putting our views in distinctly moral terms, we'll continue to wring our hands outside the walls of power, wondering "why they just won't vote for us."

Notice, I said "put our views in moral terms". You can tell liberals don't get it when they ask, "Well, doesn't this all mean that we have to be anti-choice, anti-gay, and pro-corporate just like the fundamentalists?" Of course not. We don't gain influence by trying to co-opt their views. We gain influence by couching our views in terms of morals and values. For example, what is it that keeps us from saying that it's a SIN that all God's children can't get good health care? It's a SIN when any of God's children must go to school with chunks of plaster falling from their classroom ceilings. If we weren't so religio-phobic to begin with, such statements would come more naturally to us...and we'd have more impact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Michel Lerner gets it Posted by: kelly.nickell
» rbohan GOOD TACTIC Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Michel Lerner gets it Posted by: Andie927
I respectfully agree and disagree
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 10, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I agree that ridiculing the religious right is counterproductive. Second, I agree that the Alito hearing would have been handled better by the Democrats refusing to participate in the charade,

"Money in politics is distorting, but let's not forget that the impact of the civil rights movement, the women's movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement was greater than any amount of money could ever purchase."

Here is the crux of the matter. These three movements ran counter to the established political parties. The Democratic leadership only embraced these causes when they were forced to by the rank and file.

Today we have "big money" controlling both parties. It is no accident that the parties are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Both parties serve the corporatocracy.

The way to counter this is for the people to make their demands on both parties and to refuse to participate in an election charade that will only decide which party carries out the agenda of the establishment.

Join The Lincoln Initiative a grassroots movement with no leaders, no contributions, no registration, no meetings, no marches, and no hassle. Help make "government of the people, by the people and for the people" a reality. Click on Join today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I respectfully agree and disagree Posted by: kelly.nickell
If I must choose...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Feb 10, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a candidate based on his moral character and that alone, then I have already lost, as can be evidenced by the events of say the last ten years.

An American president, seen as morally bankrupt for a blowjob and a lie.

An American president hailed as morally nailed together, with a history of lies that many still deny are even occuring.

The answers for me come easy on this, and I do not even have to put in a call to my God for guidance.

Let me choose my leader as one built through high moral character, displayed through his actions, not what he professes.

The right has far fewer examples of this trait than the left, again, simple for me.

The actions rule, not the tripe of professed faith.

Show me, don't tell me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: Colin
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: Colin
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» We all must choose... Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: We all must choose... Posted by: Colin
» RE: We all must choose... Posted by: Sojourner
» PS Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: We all must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: We all must choose... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: We all must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: If I must choose... Posted by: munchkinpup
Begging on bended knee? NOT....
Posted by: Michiganman on Feb 10, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I find this article somewhat helpful most of it is a pipedream. The religious right was highjacked by lies and deception. They were fed their own dogma and it worked. It's amazing they haven't noticed that non of their hot button issues were acted upon. Abortion is still legal, stem cells are still used, gays have more rights than ever. Yet they continue to swallow the lies of the booshies as long as they keep saying -God bless amerika.
The thought that greed and corruption is sinful could be the rallying cry. The administration is SINNING. This may be a better strategy. Along with announcing that democrats are NOT ALL leftist and liberals. The repugs painted this picture and it must be erased. Don't get me wrong I am a liberal lefty but the painfull truth is we are or WERE a minority in the democratic party.
I say ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, scream yell and filibuster! Stand up you spineless Dems!
Of course this whole discussion is worthless till we get the lobbyists out of Washington and support government funded elections. God knows there are just as many crooked corporate sucking dems as ther are repugs.
Anyway I doubt pitching woo to the religious right is going to do any good unless we can convince them the government is SINFULL! And that their repug administration is sining. Use their fear of HELL against them just as the repugs did, minus the countless lies and greed.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Rabbi has hit the Right with a left to the liver
Posted by: eileenflmng on Feb 10, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a Christian of The Beatitudes, I have found the Insight, Wisdom and Compassion of Rabbi Lerner to be a "left to the liver" to the right wing and wrong thinking.


Read about some of The first International Spiritual Progressives Conference conceived by Rabbi Lerner and implemeted by the TIKKUN Community in July 2005 in Chapter II Keep Hope Alive II
FREELY AVAILABLE ON WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spiritual people and atheists can find common ground in this
Posted by: CrystalD on Feb 10, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"love and caring for others, generosity and kindness, ecologically sensitive behavior, ethical awareness, and enhance our capacities to respond to the universe with awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation."

Lots and lots of atheists and agnostics feel this way, too!

While I definitely agree that it's wrong to disparage spiritual people and paint them with the Religious Right brush, a desire for a more caring, less selfish, and alltogether better world for everyone crosses religious and non-religious boundaries. I hope that atheists and religious people and those who are "spiritual but not religious" can stop disparaging and mocking one another, put aside their differences and put their energy towards working for a better, more caring world for everyone - religious and agnostic alike.

Unchecked capitalism, not religion (or lack of it) is the enemy. Look at Norway and Sweden - they are not religious at all but seem to have made a better quality of life for their citizens than most other places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

right coin, wrong side
Posted by: shula weiner on Feb 10, 2006 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that many "Christians'" identification with our Neocon regime is probably quite rational. Essentially, they're joining the Nazi party. Religion is a facade for absolute devotion to whatever the leaders require. Fanaticism is mandatory. Why such a radical choice? Because to many it appears the only one available for little people who perceive a world run by corrupt gangs. Liberals, progressives, Democrats talk about values but do little to address terrible inequalities in this nation. Their ineptitude at organizing is truly amazing. It suggests that deep down they share the basic concern of people on the Right: can the Neocons succeed at their program, however deplorable this program may be. Can they bully the world into submission, even if this means slaughtering millions of people in the Asian and African world? Even if it means far less Democracy locally? If they can succeed, then people in this country will experience less hardship than others as the energy crisis deepens. We'll all get through it in pretty good shape. The Neocons imply that they can indeed pull it off. They are the toughest, meanest ganlords in the world.

Evidence fails to support this claim, but the Left fails to present it. The left harps on Neocon ruthlessness and dishonesty. Just the qualities you need in a bad ass gang.

The Christian Right is not about love, its about survival, whatever the cost to others. For Calvin's chosen, the end always justified the means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Common Condition
Posted by: flawedplan on Feb 10, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with NthnBrazil and am wondering if the other commenters have read the same article as I just did.

"Pain, meaning, emotional needs, respect"-- this isn't about God, it's about psychology. Hearts and minds, motivation and feelings, which we stubbornly devalue and ignore at our peril.

I am both a DNC activist and mental health consumer, and run a leftish message board on psychiatric advocacy, and find a complete disconnect between the two populations. Fellow leftists regard me as something of a freak, and fellow psychiatric consumers just don't get what politics has to do with our common condition.

We are psychological beings, that's what this article is about, an inquiry into how people are put together, and the implications that follow.

It's time for too-cool leftists to wake up to the psychological vulnerabilities that capture and ensnare voters, regardless how close to home the investigation leads.

Speak truth to that power for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ironic isn't it? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: sln70
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: sln70
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: deha
» RE: Ironic isn't it? Posted by: kelly.nickell
Blogs as Church
Posted by: haystack1317 on Feb 10, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is absolutely true that the left's unwillingness to look closely at questions of spirituality is one of its major weaknesses. This is true not only in terms of appealing to the average voter but also in terms of the lack of unity and vision in the progressive movement itself. It is within human nature to look for something larger and deeper than everyday existence. It is also within human nature to seek out a "tribe" of one's own. This gets channeled in many ways. Many of these impulses are actually being met right now, as I type out these words and as you read them. The act of creating something is, perhaps unconsciously to many, a sharing in the explosion of the creative energy at the foundation of our existence. It is rewarding. The seeking out of community is also reflected here. We wouldn't be taking the time to express ourselves if we weren't seeking out the response. Many of those participating in progressive blogs are, in my opinion, seeking out the same sorts of communities that others seek in church. At the end of the day, finding that a common thought or feeling is shared with a stranger, and that all together have aspired to find a way to transcend the troubling aspects of everyday life, is a commonality between this blog and many of the churches that would be ridiculed by the left.

I think the author is correct in pointing out that the left ignores what draws the average American into the arms of the Christian Right at its peril. The essential message of Christ was "love your enemy as yourself." That is the message that appeals to people, often because they themselves feel a need to be loved that way, despite their sins, despite their weaknesses, their failings, etc. That essential message can cut through anything, as we have seen. In almost every case, however, it is so powerful that those seeking power latch onto it and use it for personal gain. The ultimate example? Pat Robertson, who, if he truly followed Christ's teachings, would have to have himself assassinated, since he'd love himself in the way he loves Hugo Chavez. But people adhere to Pat Robertson because they've felt that deep spiritual connection to Christ at some point and once they're on the other side of it they seek someone who has shared that experience, someone who knows, who's there with them. After a profound spiritual experience such as this, anyone who claims to have experienced the same thing has an enormous advantage over someone who belittles that thing. Reason and logic and intellect are not a part of this. Spirituality, in the view of many of those who have immersed themselves in it, at least in the case of the Christian Right in this country, is viewed as transcending those things.

There are, of course, those on the Christian Right who put Jesus' teaching about loving one's enemy far behind doctrines of hatred. The bible is intentionally arranged to contain the radical message of all-encompassing love, which is what hits people deeply initially, while also containing passages that can justify just about any action one wants to take. Still, at the end of the day, I firmly believe that most American Christians were drawn to their religion because of the unconditional love it promised them and, by extension, everyone in the world. If we only look at the distortions and power-plays, we are missing the essence of it, and those who would use religion for their own personal gain will continue to have the upper hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blogs as Church Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Blogs as Church Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Blogs as Church Posted by: haystack1317
» RE: Blogs as Church Posted by: Lizka
I think the thing for all the too-cool-for-school Dems...
Posted by: Lizka on Feb 10, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and there are some, like, er, Jon Stewart (he always strikes me as a slimeball!)... is just to put out the message that they don't despise people of religious faith, or the idea of having a faith (and not just Islam or trendy Buddhism either) rather than that they are of that faith, or agree with it or something.

Of course, in the US there are these religious bigots who really do throw the whole thing off whack, because they want everybody to share their faith - which just ain't gonna happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the apolitical?
Posted by: dansjournal on Feb 10, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone relatively new to politics, I need to ask this very important question. How do we create political change when there are a great many people in this country who are both apolitical, and ignorant of so many of the issues. Beyond politics, how do we create a more progressive culture, when so many people are largely unaware that there are people trying to create a more progressive America.

I'm talking about people who go to work, come home, have dinner, maybe watch some ESPN, watch some movies on the weekend, and then repeat. I'm talking about kids who are in school from 8-3, do their homework, play their sports or instruments, and go to bed. I'm talking about the great majority of college students who sit in lecutres, study, socialize, and do a wide range of things that are unique to being a college student, but not necessarily including talking about politics, culture, or activism.

Michael Lerner has definately addressed a key issue that simply needs to be addressed in order to affect change, however, there is still this other looming issue of people who are not intentionally ignorant, and who are not stupid, but who simply go about their lives without giving any thought to these issues. Not everyone has the privilage of time, energy, and knowledge to become involved in this type of movement. Does anyone else agree that this is an issue that is equally as large as the spiritual crisis of the Left that Michael Lerner has written about, and that in fact, it's lack of attention as an issue reflects just how necessary it is to begin to somehow build this issue, on Alternet and elsewhere, into part of this national conversation?

-Dan Lilienthal
www.xanga.com/dansjournal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God, Ethics and Poltics
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Feb 10, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe Rabbi Lerner is advocating that politicians misrepresent themselves as members of the faiths of those whose votes they want. That would be deeply disingenuous.
There is a language of spirituality that transcends specific faiths - epitomized in one of the above posters' admonition to "check the specifics at the door". In this language, we can appeal to people who need to see in their would-be leaders a sense of purpose, an inspiration for progress that transcends the painful material web most of us are hopelessly trapped in. If our vision for the future isn't inspired, it isn't going to inspire others. We don't need to say God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell to transmit a spiritual message - we just need to advocate compassion and goodness for their own sakes.
Much more to the point: THE LEFT MUST STOP DENIGRATING FAITH! Every time we do this, we drive another person who desperately wants to be good into the arms of poison-mongers. If there is no home for people of faith among progressives they won't abandon their faiths. They'll abandon us. They are abandoning us, and this among other things accounts for the shift to the right in this country. Right-wing politics may offer an abusive and dysfunctional home for people of faith, but at least it lets them in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: God, Ethics and Poltics Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: God, Ethics and Poltics Posted by: stormchilde1975
» Right On Posted by: sln70
» It can not happen Posted by: Iconoclast421
» I disagree Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: It can not happen.....Oh Yeah! Posted by: mikespindell
» I dont see how you can say that.... Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Nixon/Kennedy debates Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: IMAGE VS RHETORIC Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: IMAGE VS RHETORIC Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Nixon/Kennedy debates.......? Posted by: mikespindell
» WHAT?? Posted by: sln70
» RE: WHAT?? Posted by: Iconoclast421
Left chases donors, not voters
Posted by: osisbs on Feb 10, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously, when was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate rallied the workers at a fast-food joint and asked for their votes because he was interested in their well-being? If you cannot write a check for $500 on the spot, then it's a given that the candidate isn't standing anywhere near you.
You won't attract angry God believers because they do not have the mental capacity to understand arguments not based on fear or threats or fire or brimstone. Give up on them, they are lost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Left chases donors, not voters Posted by: stormchilde1975
» Everyone chases donors Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: veryone chases donors Posted by: Lizka
A Spiritual ProgressiveL Left Requires Mental Health
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 10, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neuroscience tells us that basic religious/spiritual tapes(neural tracks) are set before age 5. A spiritual progressive left is important. Kudos to Rabbi Lerner. Sanity is also important- a party and people based on the fundamentals of mental health which includes a spiritual component. The opposite- organized religion-especially fundamentalist religion is pyschopathology that no political party can possibly over come. Former State Sen John Vasconcellos (D-CA) had it write. So does David Boulton of www.implicity.org. Early childhood education is the "key to the kingdom"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Feb 10, 2006 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, "the Left" is not the same as the Dem party. There is some nose-holding crossover at election time but there it ends. The mainstream Dems are not on the Left by any reasonable definition of the term "Left". They do not support more equitable distribution of wealth and wealth-producing resources. They do no oppose foreign, imperial military adventures, they do support what is called "free trade". There are numerous other significant differences.
How does that relate to this article? Because, like so many other commentaries, this article conflates "the Left" and the Dems. The Repubs are the biggest and most cynical purveyors of this distortion, which they spent 8 years hurling at Bill Clinton, a plainly rightwing Dem, in both policy and public comments.
Another cynical Repub-originated distortion here is the idea that Dems are constantly mocking, insulting, denigrating, attacking the faithful. There is no such social trend, except in the fevered imagination of the Repubs. "the Left" and the Dems both having being tying themselves in pretzel knots trying to accommodate the ever more shrill, hypersensitive, unreality-based religious Right for years. (And spare me Bill Maher's snide blather. He is not even slightly on the Left. See his nasty interview with Mother Jones a few years ago). Neither the Left nor the Dems are attacking religion or religious people. Some of us have attacked their ideas, policies and politics and well we should. But in the unhinged vortex of "Right" thinking, to disagree is to harm, to discriminate, to oppress. Everything is an attack according to this worldview. Note the deranged "War on Christmas" crap.
So, the Dems are not part of the Left (a statement with which the essentially the entire Dem party would now agree) and neither the Dems nor the Left is really attacking the religious among us. Then what are we really talking about here? Actually, we are trying to defend ourselves against an identity and behavior fabricated for us by the Right and the urban myth machine. Not guilty on either charge.
Leave pursuit of matters spiritual to those so inclined. Of ourse we can put our moral position in religious terms. We can find scripture that supports our view. They've already cherry-picked the Bible, but they left the "lilies of the field" to us. We can use it, but having used it we better be able to deliver. We need Dem or independent candidates who offer real material gains to voters. Better health care, better education, no more Abramoff style bribery and Enron style theft, no more imperial military adventures, sane energy policy. Once voted in Dems must fight for these things and occasionally win, even if they often don't win with a Repub-controlled Congress. Until that happens, nothing is going to change, no matter how many times we politely, sincerely reach out to religious Right voters. It's that simple. I don't know why that point still eludes so many of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jareilly Posted by: osisbs
» RE: jareilly-TOO CYNICAL Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: jareilly-TOO CYNICAL Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: jareilly Posted by: jareilly
» RE: osisbs :) Posted by: AlienSlave
» AGREE 10,000% jareilly Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: jareilly Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: jareilly Posted by: outsidea
» RE:JOSEPH- FACISM IS DEAD IN US! Posted by: drricklippin
You said what I've been struggling to say
Posted by: DianeSilver on Feb 10, 2006 11:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Michael Lerner! You said what I've been struggling to say in a variety of posts at In This Moment

I attempted this in The Lesbian and the Fundamentalists

I've also talked about this at Talk To Action, a terrific site where folks are attempting to figure out how to counter the Religious Right.

And while this comment is, of course, shameless self promotion, it is also an honest and sincere wish of thanks. You've put into words the concept of what's missing -- what's this hole in our society -- better than I could. Most of all, I believe it is important to say what you've said. There IS a reason why people go to these churches. I don't agree with a thing the Religious Right says, but their churches draw people because they are meeting a real need.

We cannot win politically or even survive the Culture War (a lousy term, but good short-hand for now) without understanding this important fact. Again, many thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO, not Understand
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 10, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
REMOVE! Remove them from Politics, or Remove their TAX-EXEMPT STATUS! Remove ALL of Bush's "Faith-Based" Bought and paid for Votes! Let me tell You, Religion in this country, is a Big Busines! Threaten their money, and they'll go home with their tail between their legs!

I read your comment, and as many of the rest as I can stomach!

I really don't care what 'YOU' think is a sin, according to your Religion! That's the problem not the solution. You don't get it! There are hundreds of denominations of Christians, and You wouldn't believe the major differences between just them. Then you have the Catholics, Jewish, Hindu, Buddihist, and Islamic. Now, you have to take into consideration, the agnostic and athiest!

THAT'S WHY OUR CONSTITUTION STATES; SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

That's why ANY church that gets involved in Politics, should loose it's tax exempt status!!!

You talk about, Progressives Pre-Judging "southern right-wing evangelical religous-right" as ignorant! Then you turn around and Pre-Judge all Progressives! Well your wrong! On both counts!

I LOVE, Jimmy Carter! He's a truely great man, and very religous! Try reading his NEW book. He walked out on the Southern Baptist Confrence. Look up the Interfaith Allience, again very religous! They believe religion should stay OUT of politics!

You have every right to practice your religions, have your moral values, YOU do not have the right to Impose your religion on me or anyone else!

THAT'S WHY THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY! So everyone has the right to practice or NOT, their religion their own way! It does NOT mean you have the right to "Force" your moral values on ME!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NO, not Understand Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: NO, not Understand Posted by: Lizka
» RE: NO, not Understand Posted by: CrouchingGringo
» RE: NO, not Understand Posted by: gonzoskismet
JOHN VASCONCELLOS-POLITICS OF TRUST
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 10, 2006 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former State Senator (D-CA) John Vasconcellos began WWW.POLITICSOFTRUST.NET John in a Rogerian humanist but I believe he has a deep spiritual essence. Anyway his program is a winner.:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad Press
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Feb 10, 2006 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, folks, God and the Devil have really gotten some bad press over the centuries. Think about it. We go to war in Gods name. If we lose, we blame it on the Devil. Actually, they are just extentions of our own guilty consciences about the vile things that we do against our fellow man in their names. It's always handy to have someone else to blame.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in a Supreme Being. I just don't believe that He/She/It wants us to tell other people how to live their lives. Nor that He/She/It wants us to elect officials because of our beliefs that will dictate how other people live. Nor do I believe that they have put judgement of our fellow man in our hands. They knew even from the beginning that we couldn't handle that kind of power.
I voted Dem in the last election but it was like eatting a turd. I hated the bastard that they ran almost as much as I hated the one that he ran against. But we have to come to a common ground on this issue, people. I don't hate Fundementalist or Christians in general UNLESS they try to force feed me on what they believe. I will not tolerate that type of behaviour.
I am Native American. I was raised in the Christian Faith and was baptisted in the name of Jesus, but it didn't take. Slide right off like Teflon because I was also raised in the Native American faith and it stuck tighter than the Christian teachings. I've seen it work with my own eyes. I've felt the Truth of it in my soul. I don't say Christians are right or wrong but they are wrong for me. That's the number one foundation of our freedom. You are FREE to believe whatever religious belief works for you.
But here's the rub. When you use it for political gain, which seems to be the issue here, it is an EVIL thing. It is a crime against the idea of freedom. It is a travesty against the idea of democracy.
I have known exactly three TRUE Christians in my life that I could sit down and discuss religous experiences with on an equal status. That's a sad commentary on religous tolerance in the nation. And as far as the political left and right goes, well, seems as if THEIR GODS are popularity, money and power. Let the true believers IN America step up for election and I will vote for them.
I've read the Bible and it contains a vast amount of wisdom that could benefit the human race. I've read the Koran and it also contains a vast amount of wisdom that could benefit the human race. As do the Vedas. As does the Torah.
But this wisdom is also mixed in with a lot of things that could be harmful to the human race. Sift out the prejudice and you have the wisdom and as a species on this planet, we must do the sifting or perish as a species on this planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elections
Posted by: haystack1317 on Feb 10, 2006 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In another post I've been discussing the cartoon which circulated widely after the 2004 election in which all the so-called "red states" were labeled "Jesusland." This was posted all over the place, on the Michael Moore website, etc., and seemed to get a lot of positive response from progressives. Several people e-mailed it to me.

I was surprised by the popularity of this cartoon because it displayed a sweeping stereotype that I wouldn't have expected from the progressive community. It's a very clear example of what the far right would like for moderate Christians to believe the progressive community thinks about them. It played directly into the hands of fundamentalist Christians.

I think there are a large number of moderate Christians who have been pulled to the right in spite of instincts to the contrary. People seem to react with incredible cynicism to this idea, but look at it in terms of elections. What percentage of moderate Christians would have to switch from the Republican to the Democratic party to shift the balance of power in this country? (I'm not debating whether the Democrats are truly left, of course. I'm looking at getting the power out of Bush's hands in any way possible as a good first step away from Fascism.) Is it unreasonable to think that this number could be won over? I don't think so. A first step would be staying away from ridiculing the spiritual experiences that many consider the most important aspects of their lives.

(Of course I'm talking about moderates who have been voting Republican, not Christian Democrats.)

I'm sure plenty of people will call me naive and a propagandist for Bush, as I have already been called. All I'm suggesting, though, is that some number of these moderate Christians could be convinced to vote for the Democratic Party if more efforts were put into that area. I honestly feel that the number could be enough to shift the balance of power in this country. (If our elections aren't continually stolen by the fa