Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA TO EVANGELICAL LEADERS: "I ENDORSE YOU."
In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network yesterday, Barack Obama elaborated on the off-the-record meeting he had with thirty Christian leaders last week, and revealed that he channeled Ronald Reagan to win their hearts.
Centrist evangelicals (and even a few conservative ones) are so fed up with Bush and the GOP that they are willing to give Obama a look. The centrists say they are leaving the culture wars behind and focusing on fixing poverty, health care, the environment, and ending the war.
Sounds like a no-brainer for Obama, right? All he needs to do is lay out how his progressive vision for America will accomplish all that.
But that’s not what he’s doing. Instead, he’s pandering to the conservatives by quoting the definitive moment in Ronald Reagan’s courtship of the religious right: when, after clinching the GOP nomination in 1980, he told a group of 15,000 activists assembled by Moral Majority co-founder Ed McAteer, “I know you can’t endorse me. But I want you to know that I endorse you.” Obama did essentially the same thing:
I opened up the meeting by quoting Ronald Reagan which was saying, I know you can't endorse me, but I endorse you. I endorse the good works that are being done, the wonderful ministries that are taking place all across the country and my goal here is just to have a dialogue to listen, to learn, to share my faith journey and I think people came out of it, not necessarily agreeing with me on every issue, but I think that they recognized that I respected them, I respected their faith, I respected what they're trying to achieve.
How does that sound to Obama’s progressive base? The areas of disagreement between progressives and conservative evangelicals are not just policy nuances. They represent the fundamental ideology animating the most divisive and cruel tactics of the religious right. Reagan gave those tactics political legitimacy in the speech Obama cited so approvingly.
Meeting attendee Stephen Strang, the evangelical publisher, serves as a regional director for John Hagee's Christians United for Israel, published Hagee’s book Jerusalem Countdown, and has been drumming up support for CUFI’s summit next month. Does Obama ednorse him? Does Obama endorse how the National Association of Evangelicals’ official position calls for “therapy” so that LGBT people can achieve “complete restoration,” and that God himself has ”provided penalties” for women who have abortions? Does the candidate of transparency and accountability endorse T.D. Jakes (who was also at the meeting) who a Mercedes, BMW, Bentley, and private jet, and lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, but gets an “F” for transparency from the conservative Christian group Ministry Watch because he refuses to make his church’s finances an open book?
Winning over evangelical voters should not be ceded to the Republicans, particularly given shifting evangelical attitudes in the post-Bush era. But if the centrist evangelicals are honestly looking for real policy alternatives and a new kind of leadership, Obama should at least have a shot with them by being himself. By channeling Reagan, Obama betrays and belittles his base, distorts his progressive message, and deceives the people whose trust he is straining too hard to earn.
—Sarah Posner
COMMENTS (12)
Sorry, but this is overheated. Here Obama's making a general statement of outreach, and quoting Reagan essentially to make his listeners feel at ease. A good presidential candidate [Clinton was a master at this] keeps the lines open, even as he winds up going his own way. Gee--This seems to be the week that progressives discover that Barack Obama is--shudder--a politician!! A politician who's actually trying to win an election and forge a governing coalition. He's not like them--obsessed with orthodoxy, bent on purifying--and shrinking--the Democratic Party, obsessed with their own superiority to the unwashed electorate. Having turned the primaries into a carnival of toxicity, is the left blogosphere about to do the same to its own candidate? Please.
Posted by: David in Nashville | June 19, 2008 1:01 PM
I agree with David. Obama is emphasizing what he shares with these folks, not ratifying their views where they disagree. They know that.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | June 19, 2008 1:18 PM
I think Posner's point is well taken. Part of Obama's genius is supposed to be getting people to listen to uncomfortable truths about themselves. Just recently he gave a father's day speech calling out absent fathers, and of course his brilliant speech on race, etc.
So here it seems to me he could have discussed, say, the Sermon on the Mount and queried aloud whether those who preach the "Prosperity Gospel" are truly serving Christ and their community. He could have wondered why there's so much belligerence in the name of the Prince of Peace. There are any number of things he could have said that would have engaged that audience, giving them due credit for the tenets of their faith, and still made it clear what he and the Democratic Party stood for.
All he needed to say was: "Matthew 25:40."
Posted by: Michael Bloom | June 19, 2008 1:22 PM
So Obama shows respect for people of faith, without even agreeing with them on the issues, and I'm supposed to be outraged because I'm a liberal? Sorry, Sarah, I have to disagree with this.
Posted by: kpmnqj | June 19, 2008 1:23 PM
I have to agree with David, Tyrone, and kpmnqj. The "uncomfortable truths" line that Michael mentions is a valid point, but I think Obama's larger message is bringing people together and leveraging that new majority for serious change.
Beyond that, even as a evangelical-hating atheist, I can comfortably say that there are good works being done by evangelicals. I don't agree with lots of the backstory, and there are certainly actions that are nothing short of horrific. But equating all evangelicals with "those" evangelicals is poor logic.
I'm glad to see Obama speaking to those who have strongly supported Republicans in the past. There will be plenty of time for conversations about where we all disagree, but with no common ground on which to stand those conversations would never take place.
Posted by: Lakanish | June 19, 2008 1:48 PM
The Obamabots would defend, justify, and rationalize an Obama outreach to the American Nazi party and the KKK. I absolutely endorse Sarah Oisner's post, not least her spot on criticism of Obama, once again, approvingly invoking Reagan. Does he go to Philadelphia, MS and talk about state rights next? I'll vote for him, sure. What other choice does a committed liberal have--as Obama well knows and counts on. But actions like this--and his silence thus far on the FISA "compromise"--illustrate why I will have an industrial strength clamp on my nose come Election Day.
Posted by: Marlowe | June 19, 2008 2:47 PM
Before you can get people to listen to your criticisms of them, you have to earn their trust.
Sarah, why is that so hard for you to understand? All the posters get it; why don't you?
Posted by: vorkosigan1 | June 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Context is everything. When Obama talks about his faith, he also says this is not just a Christian nation - it is also a nation of Jews and Muslims, of Buddhists and (be still my heart!) nonbelievers.
When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate, in the context of talking about religion, not only shout out to non-christian groups but even to non-believers? He's said that any number of times, on a national stage. And I have every reason to think he believes it, and will choose policies and judges that will uphold the wall between church and state.
To me, that puts his statements to the evangelicals in a proper context - he really is talking about those aspects of their program he agrees with - their good works and (to the extent it's sincere) their efforts to make sense of their faith. But I see no reason to see him as a sell-out on important policies.
Posted by: TedL | June 19, 2008 3:11 PM
The Obamabots would defend, justify, and rationalize an Obama outreach to the American Nazi party and the KKK.
Godwin's Law! Obamabots win!
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | June 19, 2008 4:45 PM
T. Jefferson et. al. anticipated these issues of religious outreach: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Lately, however, we seem to have accepted a de facto religious test, in that candidates are relentlessly queried on their faith and viewed with suspicion if they don't demonstrate it in one way or another. It's very hard to imagine an atheist or agnostic (or Deist, for that matter) being elected president in the current climate. I'd be a lot more comfortable with Obama's outreach to religious groups (evangelical and otherwise) if the words of the Constitution formed a consistent part of his message to them.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2008 5:42 PM
I'm glad he's making this kind of outreach and using whatever angles he can to do it. We can peel off some of those votes.
Obama is a politician. He's always been a politician. He's doing what he needs to do to get votes. When he came up with his "change" and "unity" slogans, those were also ploys to get votes.
So I hope he continues with this "evangelical outreach," and I hope it's successful. I don't care too much what he actually tells them. Every one he converts is a "two-fer," one vote for us that didn't go to them.
Posted by: John Petty | June 20, 2008 10:57 AM
I'm glad for what Obama did. I'm tired of the politics of division (exemplified by Posner's post), and like Obama precisely because he seeks common ground--without giving up his.
It sounds to me like Posner would have liked Obama to say:
"You can't endorse me, so I repudiate you. I repudiate your good works and am hear to preach to you, not to listen. My policies are better policies, and is based on a superior ideology to your own. I will not share my faith with you and I don't respect you."
Would that have been better?
Posted by: polthereal | June 20, 2008 12:32 PM