Pray Yourself Better: It's The American Way!

Ideological contortionist, Barack Obama, marches toward his personal goal of causing one million progressives' heads to simultaneously explode.

He obtained an essential first step toward this aim when he capitulated on FISA, a move so contradictory to the core of the Progressive movement that outraged midget, Markos "Dailykos" Moulitsas, yanked a generous contribution from Obama's bony fingers as punishment for the sneaky, immoral maneuver. Moveon.org was also unhappy with Obama, all of which brings to mind the ancient expression: If You Wrong The Progressives, Protect Your Crotch.

These burns aren't going to heal any time soon. John Kerry turned out to be an empty shell of a candidate, but Barack Obama had real potential, or so the Progressives thought. They sunk their time and money into Obama, and as thanks, he turned around and bit the hands that fed him.

Selling out his Progressive base on FISA was bad enough, but then Obama followed up his gradual tumble toward triangulation when he recently vowed to expand Bush's faith-based programs.

Defenders of Obama's latest selling-out point claim churches are an essential party of American society because the institutions provide basic services like feeding the poor. Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns.

If churches hold the occasional bake sale to help the Harper family pay for Little Matty's liver transplant, that's all well and good. However, any politician seriously claiming churches should substitute for government programs needs to have their head examined. It's the job of the state to care for its citizens, namely because the state is Constitutionally secular, forbidding government agents to deny care on the grounds of theological loyalty.

In a way, asking the church to step up and care for the poor in lieu of a comprehensive, meaty welfare program is like abandoning the American post office in favor of using FedEx. It's yet another dig at the innards of the American infrastructure. It's yet another way to privatize a normal function of the government. Of course, in this case, it's selling out pro bono because the church claims to operate without the explicit intent of profit. I guess we're not counting those basket donations...

Even if Obama proposed the expansion as an accessory program where the church just gets to "come along for the poverty ride," the idea is still worse than dumb, it's downright insulting. When will a progressive candidate have the courage to admit they have no business dictating moral values? When will a progressive acknowledge that triangulation brought us to this place, where the American people have no bargaining chips left? They're poor, they're losing their jobs because of triangulating land mines like NAFTA, and those jobs are not coming back. They have no health care, their food and environment are poisoned, and Barack Obama tells them to go to church and pray for a miracle.

And that's the progressive talking. Just imaging the steaming pile of shit resting on John McCain's tongue.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama explained when confronted by foaming-at-the-mouths Progressives.

Um, what? So let me get this straight: We pay taxes for a government unable to do its job. We elect representatives, like Barack Obama, to overhaul a broken system that has abandoned its own constituents, and instead of creating a bold, radical agenda, Obama perpetuates the status quo. Obama chooses to invest his trust in the church instead of in the political system that has invested in him this great and rare opportunity to fix an ailing society. He chooses to entrust a brothel of fairy tales with the safety of the people instead of a responsible, secular government.

What the hell is he thinking? Unless there's a business model somewhere where "priest molestations" plus "dangerous ignorance" equals "profit" that I don't know about, this appears to be yet another grave error from the Obama camp.

More surprising than Obama selling out his progressive base is the stubbornness with which some progressives have reacted during these gradual moves toward triangulation. One such supporter explained to me, "You can't drive the bus without the keys," meaning Obama is just faking his way into the White House with these "moderate" moves and bushels of "compromises."

But this kind of logic ignores Quid Pro Quo, where Wall Street lobbyists, who have sunk nearly twice as much money into Obama as they have McCain, will demand favors in exchange for their generosity.

Obama is already in debt, but the progressives seem to think he'll experience a kind of miraculous spell of transubstantiation during his inauguration where his past corruptions will turn into delicious wine and universal health care. It ain't, as they say, gonna happen, folks. At least, it won't happen without the motivation of a seriously pissed-off base.

Of course, the motivation of his pissed-off base was supposed to have been what was going to keep Obama on track in the first place. With that not working, progressives have few options left, and their trust is waning in the last great savior for the so-called progressive movement.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[Wil]

I don't think this is selling out at all. I think it is something that he believes in. He has a long history of working with church groups as a community organizer. There is a lot of goodhearted community oriented energy in religious service organizations, and a lot of good can be accomplished by coordinating these efforts with government social programs. He says he wants to make service the cornerstone of his administration, and i think this is a part of that. Bush made this program toxic with his shallow, partisanship and pandering to the extreme religious right. I think we should give Obama a chance with it. I am NOT a christian, btw, but a Buddhists/­Taoist/Con­fucian blend not likely to be well represented in these programs. But i think it is a good move for Obama, both politically, and as far as wanting to help those who are struggling in this country, with the dwindling public funds and resources left us by the bush misadministration.

[hoopesaz]

"So let me get this straight: We pay taxes for a government unable to do its job"

Yes, that's EXACTLY right. Which goes to the core of folks who push back at tax increases. If paying 50% of my income in taxes would fix the problems we face, I'd do so gladly. In reality, I'd probably get 40 cents on the dollar in actual benefit.

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A SECULAR NATION. It was NOT founded as such. As much as you wish it to be true, it is not. The constitution of France says that, "France is a...secula­r...republ­ic". Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that. In fact the bulk of the evidence suggests that it is anything but.

George Washington added to the Presidential oath prescribed by the Constitution, the concluding
words "so help me God". The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. These are just two of MANY, MANY examples. The constitution of this contry provides for the free excercise of religion. It does not explicitly forbit religion in the public square.

[KillTheMessenger]

A secular nation does not forbid religion. It just does not take sides in the free practice of religion. The US is as secular as they come. In many European countries you have de-facto state-churches. See Great Britain where the head of the church happens to be the head of the country, i.e. King or Queen. In Germany the government collects taxes for the Catholic and Protestant Church. You have to explicitly opt out on your tax form or you will be charged one percent or so of your income for the church tax.

[hoopesaz]

...which would forbid a reference to diety in any offical form, including prayer in government meetings, mention of diety on coins or in oaths, etc. None of which was explicity prevented in the consititution. None of which was prevented by the very founders who drafted the constitution. In fact, the actions of the founders are perfectly contrary to the notion of a completely secular society.

The left wants to read the consitution as supporting this position of complete seperation...no mention of religion in any public forum. That's NOT what the founders intended when they drafted the constitution. It is clearly evidenced by their actions before and after the drafting of the constitution.

[Daisy1111]

For all those apologists who say he will swing back to the left once hes in office, keep in mind he wins he is likely to keep these promises to the right of center because he wants a second term.

Accept it - progressives wil be thrown under the bus for the next 8 years if he wins.

[SamiNJ]

Sorry Daisy. I know you supported HRC and for some reason think she wouldn't have 'swung to the right or center" but what is banning flag burning? she would have flown over to the right and we all know it.

[Daisy1111]

Flag burning?

Is that a deal breaker?

Do you think she would have EXPANDED Bush's faith-based programs?

Absolutely not.

Check out how much his former church received from this program under Bush.

Hint: seven figures.

[PresumptuousInsect]

Excellent blog, thank you.

I am one of those progressives who is outraged at Mr. Bait-and-Swich Obama.

This faith-based pandering is just the latest in a series of blows to the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

Complete bullshit.

[KillTheMessenger]

You will have to vote for Nader, then. Or McCain, if you think he is more liberal than Obama. Sounds good to me.

[numinousNimon]

Obama rose to national prominence claiming that "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States." In his book the Audacity of Hope he specifically talks about his support for Faith Based Initiatives in principle (though not in the way Bush has executed them). He decided to run for president after bringing a group of Evangelical Republicans to their feet cheering for him when he spoke about faith.

Obama has *always* been the candidate who was most aggressively going to reach out to the Christians in this country that the Democratic Party has essentially ceded for decades. If we want a majority, we need to be in tune with the values of the voters in this country. We need to make a liberal case that resonates with religious voters. For far too long, the Democrats have been falling all over themselves to become exclusively the party of atheists and secular intellectuals. That is the path to electoral ruin.

During the primary, Obama kept pledging to unite the country, to end the culture war, and bring red and blue together. A lot of people wrote this off as just talk, but its not just talk. It is the core of his strategy. He couldn't really elaborate on this strategy during the primaries for fear of alienating people like yourself. But it's always been there. This is what uniting the country without taking an exclusively centrist position looks like - it means taking a chunk of Evangelical voters.

[KillTheMessenger]

Thank you for saying this loud. I always understood Senator Obama to have a healthy portion of faith. The key word here is "healthy". He is not lead by zeal like the religious right. That many Americans can not see the difference between faith and zeal is painful but real. It is probably connected to the fact that we do not teach the foundations of religion and faith in school, where it belongs. We do not usually teach it in church, either.

As an agnostic I don't mind that somebody has faith. I believe in religious freedom as a fundamental right. It is one of the most important rights a human being can have. It is a celebration of freedom.

Therefor I can not blame the future president of the US to have faith. I can expect him to express his faith in ways that do not reduce the rights of everyone, including agnostics, to their beliefs. But Senator Obama is doing more in his speeches: he is elevating this right by talking intelligently about his faith and faith in general. Something that must be so unfamiliar to most Americans that is has to provoke fear.

And that is essentially what we see here: fear that the world might be more complex than simplistic ideologies and that once this is discovered, some people will not get to manipulate the masses any longer.

[hoopesaz]

Liberal Obama supporters were just hoping that it was a ploy to pander for votes. They couldn't believe that an intelligent man REALLY believed that. I've been told that more than once by posters to this site.

[KillTheMessenger]

This liberal never believed that. I would not give my hard earned money to the man if I thought he was pandering. So far he comes off as 100% authentic. That also means he is NOT a pure liberal. But that is not what I am looking for. I don't need the dream of a liberal government in a country that is arch conservative. I need someone who can prevent this country from self-destructing. Senator Obama will fill that role just fine.

[vsign]

numinousNimon

Your argument is hopeful if - if I assume that appealing to voters on the basis of their faith will make for better government and leadership. What I experienced during the primary campaign was that Rev Obama asked his voters for a leap of faith - that he and only he could bring in good government because he was unlike all others. Rev Obama did not have experience to show us he could handle money or power. He had a sermon. Voters are to believe his sermon will make the right things happen if only Rev Obama was our leader.

The means create the end. I will not take a leap of faith with choosing the most powerful person to lead our country. I will not use any excuse to give one human that much power - especially not a religious excuse. The way in which Rev Obama won this nomination was with censorship and propaganda. This is the new age he would bring in - a dictatorship. I would advise the American people not to give any one person such power.

[frustratedinohio]

Wow, reading through these comments I keep wondering, "Where's the Kool-Aid?" So many Obama supporters willing to give up on their candidate and for what? Because he made nice-nice with some religious folks? Fickle, very fickle.

[AnotherTry]

Yes, Obama is fickle.

[KillTheMessenger]

I don't think you are reading comments by real Obama supporters. The real ones (like me) actually read the speeches. And what we find is that here is a man with a superior intellect who writes what he believes. He is, in every sense of the word, exceptional. A politician who has substance and is not afraid to show it. Of course one can not distill a thirty minute speech into thirty seconds, so the media does not portray the real man but the cheap image they need to make headlines.

I think what critics say about the man says way more about them than about him. I can live with that and I will continue to support this cause. If Senator Obama can't unite the country, we are not going to be united anytime soon.

[moda31]

given his background working with church groups at the grassroots level i can't for the life of me figure out why anybody would be surprised that he believes religious organizations can in fact do a great deal of good in local communities and wants to support that, he's hardly suggesting that churches run the government.

[RoloTomassi]

Faith-based programs should not be any sort of government PLAN; they should be incidental, at best.

I fear that I may be smelling a coming sell-out of the whole UHC concept...and I really do hope I'm wrong about that....

[RoloTomassi]

From all of the comments I've read by unwavering Obama supporters, I'm inspired to ask this of you:

Have all of you forgotten about a UHC system here in the US?

If he flips on that issue, will that be okay too? If he decides that the timing isn't right, will you stand by that call as well?

[Maka]

"Have all of you forgotten about a UHC system here in the US? If he flips on that issue, will that be okay too?"

What's the point in proposing that problem when it's not an issue right now? His stance on supporting all sorts of secular poverty aid organizations has nothing to do with health care. I haven't heard/read anything that leads me to worry about universal health care in particular, so I don't know why ponder it right now. Unless you like stressing yourself out for no particular reason.

[RoloTomassi]

Hey, trends happen; and if this one continues, I see postponing the effort to build a viable UHC as a likely next candidate. If that doesn't happen, then great.

I'm a realist on this kind of stuff; hope and change are excellent buzz words, but they actually have to mean something to be efective outside of the campaign environment.

[Maka]

I'm a flaming liberal and I was as hurt/dismayed by Obama's change on FISA as anyone - but this article is downright ridiculous. You say:

"...Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns."

He's not talking about churches SUBSTITUTING for government programs. He's talking about the government aiding already established poverty programs that also happen to have ties to religious organizations. If someone really cares about helping the poor, then it makes sense to support the organizations that already have a foothold on the ground. And in some states, especially Bible-belt states, poverty programs with church ties are the only games in town.

Do you truly believe the government can feed every single homeless person who's hungry without the help of already established food banks? Homeless shelters? Street to jobs programs? We're not just talking about a "comprehensive, meaty welfare program" - we're talking about a place a person can go to have a hot meal on Wednesday because they haven't eaten since Monday. Some of the most effective on the ground, poverty programs have ties to religious organizations. Why? Because a lot of religious organizations feel it's their duty to help the less fortunate. Obama is talking about helping fund the secular portions of those programs.

You speak about poverty like it's an issue that can only be solved by Gov intervention. That simply isn't realistic. It's frankly blazingly ignorant to the reality of poverty in America.

[RoloTomassi]

"He's not talking about churches SUBSTITUTING for government programs."

Not YET...but as things are going with him, I'm not sure what comes next.

[Maka]

Well, yes, it's perfectly reasonable to be nervous about what he intends to do in the future. This particular development doesn't upset me, however. I'm all for unusual ways of helping the poor if they're successful, and I know from personal experience that poverty programs with church ties can indeed be successful. Amazingly so. So this particular issue I find interesting and goes along with the outside-the-box thinking that I'd admired in Obama to begin with.

The FISA development is another story. We'll see where he goes with that.

[hoopesaz]

"Not YET"? So all of this complaining about a reasonable suggestion is simply in preparation for a yet unvoiced, unreasonable position that is not likely to ever come to pass?

[KillTheMessenger]

So now you are replacing fact with innuendo to make a point? Sounds about right.

[reggieb]

Obama's strength is organization and if this carries over into social services for the poor it could be a very good thing. Many communities have overlaps in their services to the poor. In my community 2 retired "church ladies" visited the churches, food pantries, Red Cross, Fire Department, Police Department, Trustee Offices of about 8 townships and groups like the Lions Club. They compiled a chart with the names, addresses and phone numbers of each group and the services they provided and shared the list with all the groups. They organized informal quarterly luncheons and invited people from those groups. The trustees got together and came up with criteria for charitable aid. When a person asked for food or help with medical bills, churches who were cash strapped knew who they get help from. It was also a good way to find out who was "charity shopping:." Knowledge of your resources and organized stewardship is the way to go.

[Dannydel]

And here is me thinking that we had the most progressive, unique and determined candidate since Bobby Kennedy. I should have known. Let the imploding begin, and if the white haired, militaristic midget gets in, it's over...eve­rything...­.over.

[tinarm]

Something alot of progressive are forgetting is that it was not just you who donated to Obama! It's not like he was just for you, your little vessel for all your wants and needs. Good grief, everyone is begining to sound like a bunch of babies. If it's not McCain whinning about somebody said something, it's the progressives wimering about how Obama's not doing exactly what we want him to do so whaa, whaa, whaa. Geez, did any of you take the time to listen to him during the campaign, did anyone actually listen to his speeches? If you did you would know that he has not changed he is who he has always been. He has always talked about his faith, he has always been a community organizer type of personality, using every tool, every avenue to fix the problems. If you didn't see it then you weren't watching and listening. Somehow or another people seems to fixate their wants and needs on someone and then get disappointed along the way because they were not listening. I think everyone complaining are a bunch of weinies. I personally am thrilled with this idea, for one thing the only help I have ever gotten being a single mother of one on chemo has been from the church. They have been there to help me with my gas, and food, and clothes for my child at every turn I haven't seen any progressives.

[KSH]

The things that Obama is talking about, we do in our church community and most people at my church are African-American middle to upper class democrats. We provide job-training, food, air conditioning in the summer, and heat in the winter - my church has always been one to take the first step in doing what churches should be doing all the time. For us that consider ourself Christians it would be nice to have a government that says - "we see your importance in the community" We send children to college on scholarships raised with private funds. I think it is a good think for Democrats to stop pretending that 80% of Americans don't believe in a higher power. And for the 20% that doesn't they should have a seat at the table too.

[Marlyn]

"stop pretending that 80% of Americans don't believe in a higher power." ???

That is not the point. People may believe whatever they like.
But our Constitution says that our government shall support NO RELIGION.

[frustratedinohio]

Do we still have a constitution?

[hoopesaz]

The constitution does NOT say that the government shall support no religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there".

[SamiNJ]

Thank you! And this from a non-religious secular progressive. :)

[robynuva]

I was going to rant at this, but you did it so well! I am also a LIBERAL and proud of it, but I agree with O, we need all hands on deck. With the proper safegaurds, the churches on the ground, be they Jewish, Unitarian, Christian or Moslem have some great programs in place, and are closer to the problems than a Federal government can be.

also, good luck with your child. I don't pray, but will be sending good thoughts.

[RoloTomassi]

80% of people SAY they believe in a higher power...which translates into what percentage that actually practices and/or votes based on that premise?

If you are a person of faith you do know that I just pointed out a huge difference between talk and action, and those two things are quite different.

Which means, IMO, your 80% when translated into operative figures is a much smaller group, likely less than a majority.

So, maybe YOU should stop kidding yourself with the notion that most Americans are steady, actual practioners of any sort of Faith/religion. These days, IMO, most Americans answer that question with the same amount of forethought they give to the question of Santa's existience.

[hoopesaz]

Just because they choose not to practice doesn't mean that the 80% are giving some capricious inaccurate response to the question. My guess is a vast majority, if asked, think it is a good idea to spend less than you earn. A vast majority don't practice that, but it doesn't make their belief any less true.

[vsign]

Rev Obama used this strategy with the churches from the beginning. Only the churches had the ideologica­l/theologi­cal hypocrisy to defeat Hillary and Bill and come out looking saintly. Only they would give money to his campaign as if they were giving to the church.

I found out by being on a private church email list that promoted Rev Obama religiously since the fall, that he would win Iowa with the enormous help of churches like mine. Even within the church community, the Obama devotees used name calling toward Hillary supporters and claims of purity to advance the Rev.

There was no stopping the Rev nomination because the Rev had church people. It made me feel like I was in Germany before WW11.

They do not even mind that he is acting like he is no longer a progressive. Maybe he is a closet pacifist, they say hopefully?

The money will seal the deal. The churches love the money.

[SamiNJ]

Oh the HRC is the answer crowd has hit the blog.

"the Obama devotees used name calling toward Hillary supporters and claims of purity to advance the Rev."

And I heard the most heinous things out of Hillary supporters mouths. Your girl is no saint. No politician is.

I find it a little laughable you think Obama has falied the left somehow and that offends your sensabilities but you chose HRC and are steadfast that she is the best for progressives? What?The woman who moved center/right well before the primaries to get the "clinton" stank off her and become more appealing to the middle of America? Flag-burning is a crime? Her? i'm shocked.