Obama, Mathew, and Joshua

Since early in the campaign, I have been writing about how Barack Obama has the potential to realign American politics in a way not seen since the Reagan revolution. Key to this are demographic changes in the western US, and generational changes in the population in general and in particular among key constituencies like evangelicals and Cuban Americans.

Many have scoffed at the idea that a Democrat could win significant evangelical support, but polling data shows that issues like gay rights hold dramatically less weight for young evangelicals, while other issues, in particular the environment and global warming, as well as economic justice, are much more important. Huckabee's campaign, which was not supported by the evangelical establishment, was another indicator that there is seismic activity going on in this region.

Today's Washington Post reports:

This month, [Senator Obama] held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

Obama's campaign is also launching a grassroots effort, tentatively called Joshua Generation, with plans to hold concerts and house meetings targeted at young evangelicals and Catholics.

A political action committee set to launch this month, the Matthew 25 Network, plans to direct radio advertising and mailers to Christian communities while talking up Obama in the media. The group is not officially tied to the Obama campaign.

The "Joshua Generation" refers to the Biblical story of Moses and Joshua. Though Moses led the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt and through the Red Sea to wander in the desert for 40 years, he did not enter the Land of Israel. It was Joshua, the "next generation" of leadership, that did that.

This idea that the new generation, the so-called Millennials, are the "Joshua Generation," is an idea shared by Obama and many young people on the Christian right, though they take the idea in very different directions. For Obama's version of the "Joshua Generation," see his speech at the Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration on March 4, 2007. (To my mind, his best speech to date.) For a right wing take on the same notion, check out the organization by the same name, Joshua Generation.

The fact that Obama and young conservative evangelicals speak of their mission in similar terms is being noticed. "The impressive thing about Obama is that he knows this," says evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote The Faith of George W. Bush. "This is language you expect to hear at a youth rally, not from the presidential campaign of the most liberal member of the Senate."

I am not predicting a mass exodus of young evangelicals from the Republican Party into the Obama fold But a mass exodus is not required. Given the razor thin margins of the last two presidential elections, even a small movement could have a big consequence. And if Obama wins on the basis of such a small shift, and then moves in a smart way to consolidate this support, a small change next November could grow into something much larger.

Comments

[TJRich]

It's called bringing people together on like-minded issues. Like moving the country forward. These groups may think and do things differently but we all have keeping America strong in common. I think it's good he reaches out to let them know they are important too. Not more important, but as important as everyone else and their votes matter.

[MizJ]

Disturbing. The fact that this man is a constitutional lawyer and should recognize the separation of church and state is even more disturbing. Politics and religion is a pretty toxic brew and we have had enough of that intrusion during the past 8 years. What are we looking at here? Another season of faux religiosity wrapped up in a tidy bow? Bad vibes coming out of this.

[djk20042]

I'm not gonna say the republicans are flawless. But it is not possible to be a Christian and a democrat! The two are opposed to each other!

democrat's support infanticide, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, socialism, and radical environmentalism. They selectively support and oppose wars based on their political expediency (opposition to Iraq vs support for Darfur). They have no concept of national security. They support keeping illegal aliens in serfdom here rather than dealing with the problems in Mexico.

[CookieCrunch]

I wanted to reply to this post because I just happen to be both a Christian and a Democrat. I submit that your post is false on it's face. No one issue fits every Democrat and the same can be said for Republicans. To suggest otherwise is to say that every issue is black and white. Most rational people know that this isn't true.

[texanna]

djk20042, surely you must be a troll just out to stir up trouble, because there is no other explanation for your nonsensical rantings about what you suppose the Democratic Party stands for. But, for argument's sake, let's look at your assertions. First, infanticide. I don't know of a Democrat anywhere that supports the killing of babies. You do know the difference between fetuses and babies, right? One is a human being all on it's own and the other is a collection of cells that don't form a complete human being. Homosexual marriage -- well, this is just too easy. You must be basing this assertion on the fact that pretty much most Democrats think that everyone should have the same right to "...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...". I know this a really radical idea to most Republicans who seem to have a rather narrow view of who, exactly, qualifies for those rights. Also, last I checked, no one was trying to enact legislation that said you HAD to marry someone of the same sex. So, if it's not your cup of tea, I suggest you not do it. Euthanasia -- well, that's not even up for discussion. Let's just skip to that last thing -- "radical environmentalism". You know, I think the planet is really giving us some pretty big hints about radical environmentalism - don't you? I don't think the Democrats can really do much more than Mother Nature herself is doing with all of her weather-related

[lewes17266]

Obama is off to a realllly bad start wooing people whose faith is genuine if he thinks sitting down with CBN, the "news network" run by the self-proclaimed "holy prophet of God, patriot, descendent of royalty," who says he can leg press 2,000 pounds, who helped his holyman son cheat on his wife and hide the affair, who told us to stock up on bottled water and candles in preparation for the Y2K disaster, who tells his gullible viewers to "touch the tv screen for a miracle" and tells them that God wants them to give then offers his toll-free number and address, and who tells us about how an angry God sent the terrorists and the terrible storms to a sinful nation.
If Barak Obama would grant an interview with this glaring fraud's network, we should all be very concerned. I wonder if he plans as President Obama to call on Pat and Gordon Robertson for prayer and intercession to avoid natural disaster and future smiting from God, and for inside information about what is on God's mind.

[HumeSkeptic]

I am supporting 0bama enthusiastically, but I could do without all his Christianity talk. I wait for the day when this country will finally evolve out of religion in politics.

[heal57]

I feel the same way but America is deeply entrenched in religious faith. I think politics and religion should be separate too, but that's not the will of the majority of Americans evidently. Every president has been church going and it's a big deal to most Americans. It's just the way it is.


Independent for Obama '08

[Raemond]

For many people of faith, any faith, not just christianity, their religious beliefs inform all aspects of their life. That's sort of the point of following any religion. Those who don't allow their "faith" to affect them outside of their place of worship don't really have any "faith" to start with.

To say that religion has to be kept out of politics is to disenfranchise anyone with a genuine belief. Which would be unconsonsitutional, no?

personally I would worry for a political system populated solely by those with no belief. Almost as much as I would worry about a politial system populated solely by fundamentalists.

[lewes17266]

I agree with you. The problem is the way Christianity has been highjacked by con artists. The media appears to love the kooks, for entertainment value I guess. It makes me sick to be represented by such glaring frauds whose "religion" is not recognizable to me as Christianity.

[booksnmore4you]

Article after article I read on this topic never mentions that Sojourners has undertaken a years-long concerted effort to change the thinking of evangelicals, to make them multi-issue voters. And Sojourners founder Jim Wallis is an adviser to the Obama campaign. http://www.sojo.net/ is the website.

[liberaldemdave]

Very good point! I've been a Wallis fan for a long time and I'm thrilled he's advising our candidate!

Let's just hope there aren't any more concerts with McClurkin (or those who espouse his views).

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

I wish he had chose something other than 'Joshua generation'. The book of Joshua is essentially a record of the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Jews which essentially consisted of slaughtering everyone who lived there. I'd be a lot more confident about the 'Joshua generation' if they weren't named after what is essentially a hebrew 'Mein Kamp'.

[mcole]

lol. you're jewish, right?

[mcole]

also, i bet you would be hard pressed to find any leader in the bible, not prophets but kings, leaders etc that didnt conquer some land for God's people by wiping out mostly everyone that lived there....i'm R.C, by the way. i dont understand it myself, but then if i did i would be God. and i'm not. so.

[argeec]

I was going to post the same thought.

[Thorn]

I'm pretty sure it's "Matthew."

[oldpotsmuggler]

Polls are showing that nearly everyone hates where we're being led, and the route we're taking to get there. How does beating McCain straight up in the face of this reality become such a major challenge?

I've been around the block a few times and have met many fine people of pretty much every religious persuasion. "Born again" anything, or "Fundamentalist" anything seems to be an entirely different matter. My experience has been that those people are invariably zealots, and have no tolerance for deviation from what they believe to be "right".

If you're talking about confused people saying one thing about their religious label, and then voting in a reasonable manner in spite of it that's one thing. If you're saying moving in their direction to pick up "true believers", then I'd say that's where we're already at and we should at least say we're trying to get some place a whole hell of alot better than this.

[Herrington]

This is not an idea with which I am comfortable, wrangling the religious right for a few votes. I'd just as soon the Bible and all mention of religion be left out of what is purely, currently, a matter of secular philosophy. Since the pursuit of heaven seems to be the prime excuse for creating hell in the here and now, I see no need to consult the perpetrators of religion on how to get votes from those who they have so far decieved.

On the other hand, if Obama can make some sensible movement out of the religious nut bags. then he really is a magician of human cooperation. It just would never be something I could bring myself to do, find a Biblical analogy to justify what should be a rational choice. Maybe that is why I am not a politician.

[mcole]

do you know anything about american history? the notion that church or religion could one day find its way out of american life is hilarious in its unliklihood.

also, its bigotry for you to refer to all religious people as "nutbags"

[belikejeanvaljean]

" My experience has been that those people are invariably zealots, and have no tolerance for deviation from what they believe to be "right"."

That's quite a blanket statement. I know many "born again" Christians who support Obama, who cannot stand GWB and who have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning (myself included). I've also been around the block a few times and unfortunately have found intolerance and zealotry in people of every persuasion. And I know quite a few "born again" Christians who would give pretty much anyone in need the shirt off of their back, even if they are gay or just walking out of an abortion clinic .

A few years ago a Roman Catholic neighbor and his atheist wife (no, this is not a joke) and I were standing talking to another neighbor I'll call Sue, who was, for various reasons, presumed by the neighborhood to be a lesbian, but no one made much of it. My Roman Catholic neighbor started telling a tasteless lesbian joke and then Sue turned red and went into her house. I - the "born again" - then chewed out my neighbor for his rudeness to her. His wife lamely defended him, saying he was just trying to get her to come out of the closet. I told them that was her business.

If Dems want to win over evangelicals, they should start by respecting them and recognizing the fact that this group is more diverse than the

[booksnmore4you]

...stereotypes would lead one to believe.

(There, I finished for you) :-)

[liberaldemdave]

Ironically, I'm experiencing more intolerance from the secular wing of our party. They seem hellbent (no pun intended) in sweeping Christian Democrats, like myself, outside the tent. That, IMHO, is diametrically opposed to what our party stands for...