At the Vatican, a Democrat Who Gets It

This piece originally appeared on RHRealityCheck.org's OnCommonGround forum.

In early seventies, the Democratic Party made a fateful decision to begin building a new coalition, as one commentator put it, of "young people, college-educated suburbanites, and feminists." This might not have been a bad idea had the party not deliberately stopped reaching out to many people of faith -- Catholics in particular -- in the process.

The historical context of this decision isn't insignificant. The party's support for the Civil Rights Movement had cost it the support of many white Southern Democrats, and mounting backlash against perceived cultural excesses of the 1960s exposed a deepening cultural divide -- a divide deepened further by showdowns over in vitro fertilization, The Pill, and, of course, abortion rights. Democratic strategists presumably believed that a smaller but more ideologically homogeneous tent was the real ticket to success, and that socially moderate Americans (formerly core partners in the New Deal coalition) would be little more than monkey wrenches in the cogs of progress.

By 2004 it was clear just how poorly advised this 30-year-old strategic shift was. It was then that so-called "values voters" helped Republicans run the table, with John Kerry -- the first Catholic presidential nominee since JFK -- losing members of his own church by 5 points. If you want to know why Kerry lost Ohio, look no farther than the state's large percentage of white working-class Catholics, who voted against him by a margin of 55% to 44%.

President Obama owes his victory in part to many factors beyond his control: a tanking economy, an unpopular Republican Party, an opponent's mind-bogglingly disastrous campaign, to name a few. But make no mistake about it -- without Obama's ability to reach across ideological lines and unite disparate groups behind common values, the Republicans would surely have emerged victorious last November.

Proponents of the "small tent" strategy are livid now that the common ground values which put Democrats back in the White House in the first place are playing a vital role in the Obama government. Many feel that those who harbor moral concerns about abortion don't deserve a role in helping to craft social policy. More extreme voices write off the values of large swaths of the American public categorically, calling people of faith backward-thinking, dismissing even moderate pro-lifers as woman-haters or terrorists.

That these moderate voters also disdain the divisive tactics of the religious right and are swayable on health care and clean energy is, to the small-tenters, irrelevant. Because they don't subscribe to the far left's "do what feels right" dogma, many average Americans aren't even allowed in the campground.

President Obama is now in Rome for an historic meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, with whom he admittedly disagrees on some fundamental moral concerns. Had their disagreements precluded such a encounter, the fertile common ground that the pope and the president share on progressive values like economic justice, concern for the earth, health care for all, and workers' rights would lie fallow. The pope's sweeping indictment of unregulated free market capitalism and support for a new economic world order -- issued earlier this week in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate -- would have little relevance to U.S. public policy.

If the subject of abortion is broached at the meeting at all, it will almost certainly not arise in the context of abortion rights restrictions or public support for contraception. On these issues, both men recognize the convictions of the other, and realize the overriding importance of more positive productive conversation. Speaking with religion reporters last week, the president pointed to several possible ways to break the stalemate and find common ground on abortion:

On the idea of helping young people make smart choices so that they are not engaging in casual sexual activity that can lead to unwanted pregnancies, on the importance of adoption as a option, an alternative to abortion, on caring for pregnant women so that it is easier for them to support children, those are immediately three areas where I would be surprised if we don't have some pretty significant areas of agreement.

Cynics on both extremes will see the president's persistent support for common ground as a political ploy intended to maintain popularity among moderate voters. They'll view today's meeting at the Vatican as little more than a photo op. But there's another interpretation they should pause to consider: that change doesn't happen without the support of the people, and the people won't support change if it comes packaged with hostility towards their beliefs. Mr. Obama made an election night promise to be the president of all Americans. His sincere and consistent efforts to speak -- as well as to listen -- to the concerns of those who disagree is evidence that he is making good on this promise.

 

 

Follow Chris Korzen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chriskorzen

Comments

[WonderWomanGoddess]

There sure are a lot of assumptions and generalizations in this article. Continuing in that vein, I like how you think Catholics are 'socially moderate'. Guess that depends on your definition!

Meanwhile, here is the core problem. Catholics seek to deny rights. I oppose that. They oppress people; I oppose that. I will not support discussions (or platitudes and photo ops) with the Pope. I think what he stands for is anti-American. And not progressive! And immoral!

If a Catholic woman chooses not to use birth control and not to have an abortion, ok! More power to her. However, if the Vatican seeks to impose itself on me and deny my rights, and influence laws...whi­ch it clearly does...NO. Not having it.

I'm writing a book right now (or rather avoiding writing it) which requires a lot of research into Catholic history and the church. It's appalling, if you are a free thinking person. "We" progressive types would never ever tolerate from a country the things we do from the Vatican, despite it being a city state, based on misguided PC-ness.

American Catholics don't take orders from the Pope anyway so why does Obama need to see him? I doubt the Pope will compromise.

[BUTCHER111]

In early seventies, the Democratic Party made a fateful decision to begin building a new coalition, as one commentator put it, of "young people, college-educated suburbanites, and feminists.­" This might not have been a bad idea had the party not deliberately stopped reaching out to many people of faith -- Catholics in particular -- in the process.

The author is wrong when he says “young people, college educated suburbanites and feminists” aren’t people of faith. That in of itself is insulting and uses a broad brush to describe people. What’s the argument, “If you have a college degree and live in the suburbs therefore you must believe in Satan.” Or, “You must not believe in God if you think women are equal to men.”

Maybe his ‘people of faith’ need to also reach out to others they don’t agree with and compromise then just the other way around?

[iskra]

Honestly while think that you are correct in that Obama is more of a centrist or at least one who attempts to bring together people with disparate views, I'm not sure I agree with the analysis about the right winning because they brought the church people into their tent.

It is true that the Repubs rode into power being able to bring the religious vote to the polls. it could be however, that the Dems just failed to bring anyone to the polls. We saw much higher turnout in this last election and Obama won big. It is possible that the apathy of Dem voters GAVE the Repubs power. The issues of abortion and stem cells wasn't enough to get them off the couch. They weren't central issues.

I think both of these issues are really a red herring. While they are important for people who believe strongly about them (generally a religious view). Religion has a long history of attempting to impose their views on others (the founders recognized this problem and separated church and state for that reason) and politics has become a viable mechanism to do this today via the GOP.

I for one would like to see a secular state continue. Religious people should certainly bring their opinion to the table like anyone, but their voice carries no more weight than anyone else.

I'm fine with debating the morality of issues but often find that religion comes down on the wrong side of many moral issues.

[springsm]

Interesting that Korzen doesn't think Democrats "get it". As if most republicans do. In other words...in order to "get it" we have to be catholics. Obama has class fella...an­d he doesn't need anybody to say he "gets it" when it comes down to common respect. I know I am missing something in this "article" but mostly I see arrogance of 'you are not rc, then you don't "get it". I am offended by the title..

[sheikwil4]

bravo, Catholism is what divide churches and we ended up the different religions. The Catholic church have turned off so many people. Plus I couldn,t imagine going into a booth and telling some man which some of them drink and smoke and do what everyone in the world is doing, confessing my sins to, when I can talk directly to God and not worry about if he will tell someone. Only God can forgive sin, plus they think they can buy their way into heaven. NOT.

[SethBLiNK]

Congratulations, Springsm, in an article about the importance of looking past our differences and building on our commonality, you managed to put just the right words in the author's mouth so that you and he could have some un-common ground. It's a headline, and while many headlines on Huffington are misleading, this one has a point. The point is that when it comes to reaching out to voters who don't agree with you on everything, Democrats have had a recent history of not getting it. Does this mean that Republicans do? Well, while there is so much that Republicans don't get, they have in the past gotten the electoral value of bringing together different groups (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense hawks) and getting them to ignore their differences in an effort to defeat the opposition. That was the secret to their success, when they were successful. Thanks largely to the President, the Democrats are in the drivers seat now, but there is still a tendency to focus on areas where we don't agree rather than those where we do.

[nk007]

SethB..."

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The criticism of Obama from the left is sometimes as harsh as that from the right. I am increasingly convinced that many on the left would prefer a right wing Republican as president over a centrist Democrat.T­hey may get their wish the next election.

[alfreds]

It is amazing how some have talent to always find the negative and point it out!

[Lavina]

The world is still over-populated. Much conflict in the world is because of conflict over resources.
Women, who couldn't afford to feed themselves and the children they, already, had got no help with birth control.
We got more unwanted pregnancies with "Just say,No" than with full sex education.
The morning after pill prevents pregnancy. Pharmacists should not be able to say," I'm not going to give you that.
There is a morality, that religions don't adhere to, that governments need to follow.
I don't care what you do within your family, but the general good exists outside of religions.

[SonofLiberty1]

Overpopulation is a Myth with a capital M.

Try comparing the Birth Rate with the Replacement Fertility Rate of 2.1 and you will see that today, for most countries, the Birth Rate is LOWER than the Replacement Fertility Rate.

Here's a link:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061228_01/20061228_07.html

Now digest that and get back to us:)

[iskra]

What? You've got to be kidding.

While western countries (with access to birth control and education) have low or even negative growth other parts of the world like Asia, India and Africa are growing.

Even a quick Wiki will show the fallacy of your statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

So while perhaps 'most' countries are not, the biggest (population wise) are.

Now digest that and while you're at it digest this:

The billion people living in *wealthy* countries are consuming 80% of the world's resources. Now, explain how we're going to pull up the poor countries standards?

Spaceship earth is finite and we're fast depleting what's here. Adding more people right now isn't the smartest idea at the moment.

[sjones66]

Adding this: After re-reading the article, I realize I was guilty of not reading the "far" left. I'm still not sure where this description comes from -- that the far left wants to do whatever feels good.

IF I'm this lost when I hear this, imagine what sorts of misunderstandings could be bridged by a real sit down. That description sounds like what the far right thinks the far left is saying, but it certainly is not what the far left thinks they are saying.

In other words, that's like saying a person on the "far left" saying they want peace and diplomacy, and then describing the author's values as terr o is ts who want to control a woman's body. See how that gets us no where? I really doubt the far right sits around thinking that they want to control women's bodies. I think most of them are driven by real values. They do not understand the result of those beliefs, the same as the far left may not understand how the result of some of their beliefs result in what appears to be catering to feelings.

Let's get past the assumption that we know what the other side is thinking. That doesn't work in private relationships and it most certainly won't work between large groups with such differing values and backgrounds.

[Chris Korzen - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, sjones! The "do what feels right" bit is shorthand - and admittedly a somewhat subjective one, on my part - for a broader philosophical conversation about social ethics and morals. Basically I'm referring to the question of whether there are universal truths about what constitutes right and wrong or whether individual human beings can just make these decisions on their own.

It's an age-old philosophical conundrum, and one that we're not going to solve anytime soon, BUT - it plays a hugely important role in U.S. politics. Those on the "far" ends of the political debate tend to view this question in absolute terms, I think, but the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle. My sense is that when forced to choose between "universal truth" message and "there is no truth," these grays will lean toward the former. This explains in part way the religious right did such a good job capturing the support of moderate voters.

President Obama has done a brilliant job capturing the nuances of this gray area, which accounts for much of his success. Steven Waldman has a good summary in this post about the 2008 presidential debates.

And you're right, this is largely about real, honest values.

[HawkeyeWest]

Mr. Korzen, I'm having difficulty understanding your point. What are some of your concerns? What are some of the ideas that you disagree with?

I may well be what you mean by "far left." Moreover, I don't think that something's feeling good is sufficient for it to be something that one ought to do.

In addition, I believe that some people know that some beliefs are true or false. For instance, I think I know that I've never walked on Pluto. But I don't see what your point is.

You wrote: "Those on the 'far' ends of the political debate tend to view this question in absolute terms, I think, but the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle."

What do you mean? Could you elaborate on that? And what is your point here?

What do you think political candidates, especially political candidates that are members of the Democratic party in the U.S., should do that, in general, they haven't been doing or should not do that, in general, they have been doing?

(continued)

[HawkeyeWest]

(continued)

Moreover, let’s say that a particular action that a given Democratic candidate for public office could take would increase his or her chances of winning. That is, in itself, irrelevant in terms of whether the candidate should take the action. For instance, George Wallace's positions on segregation helped him get elected governor of Alabama. But he shouldn't have taken those positions. They were awful positions. So, if Obama might take positions on abortion that would increase his chances of winning re-election (for example, maybe it would help him win more Catholic votes), that is, in itself, irrelevant in terms of whether he should take those positions.

Now, in the vast majority of cases today, it is important for Democrats -- rather than Republicans -- to win elections. In the vast majority of cases, Democrats likely would be significantly better elected leaders than there Republican counterparts likely would be. So, Democrats’ winning elections often is important as a means to an end. Legitimate ends include reducing harm and violence and helping people have a good life. So, Democrats shouldn’t just ignore what is likely to help them win. However, it is often the case that taking unpopular positions doesn’t reduce a candidate’s chances of winning elections, for instance, Ronald Reagan won two presidential elections even though his position on abortion were, overall, unpopular in the U.S.

(continued)

[HawkeyeWest]

(continued)

Moreover, it is often the case that a candidate or elected official should do something even though it would reduce his or her chances of getting elected or re-elected. For instance, Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces. It was unpopular at the time, and he may have had reason to believe that his doing so would reduce his chances of getting re-elected President. But it was a good decision for him to make.

[dsws]

Of course there are universal truths about what constitutes right and wrong. Of course individual human beings should decide for themselves whether or not putative statements of these truths are accurate. Of course these truths involve distinctions between similar actions in different circumstances. Of course feelings are an important part of how we evaluate such statements. What's the question?

[Chris Korzen - Huffpost Blogger]

Sorry, Waldman's link didn't go through the first time. Here it is: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/the-politics-of-sacred-sex.html

[springsm]

I lost sjones with the "I doubt that the far right sits around thinking that they want to control women's bodies. I think most of them are driven by real values." THAT right there stops the conversation. That is basically what the far right is about and they certainly have weird "real values". I am assuming sjones, that you do not think progressives have "real values'. Talk about a bigoted comment.

[sjones66]

The President is doing what any sane, rational leader should do. He is open to hearing those he disagrees with. He is not running a theocracy. He knows what he stands for, but is willing to find a common thread of agreement.

This is what I voted for. The other option is people like the author of this article, whose judgmental views of the opposing side do nothing to find peace. This sort of religious dogma is a real turn off to rational people. America was built on the founding ideal of separation of church and state -- precisely to protect us from the many pitfalls of religious extremism.

As a former Christian, I'm willing to hear out the Catholics and any other faith. I don't judge their beliefs nor do I want to impose mine on them. But when I hear the screech of moral superiority and the disdain and scorn for what they assume others believe, I realize that diplomacy is a two way street.

I still wouldn't turn away, because to turn away would be antithetical to the goal. But they aren't winning people over with their clear lack of acceptance of others. You can't come to the table assuming you are better than folks who hold opposing views and claim you value peace and diplomacy.

Obama's genius, which we saw in Russia, is that he truly does respect those he disagrees with. Respect goes a long way.

[maribelle1963]

"...and feminists. This might not have been a bad idea had the party not deliberately stopped reaching out to many people of faith -- Catholics in particular -- in the process."

You imply that Catholics would have welcomed feminists with open arms.

But later, you dismiss the "far left" of a "'do what feels right' dogma", To so dismissively address fundamental reproduction issues so blithely is precisely why these two groups aren't allies.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND: A woman's bodily autonomy must be as unquestioned as a man's or we will never have peace on this issue.

Catholics who proudly decry the Pill (one major factor in preventing abortions) are not friends of women and never will be.

The chance to limit one's lifetime reproduction to the number of children one can reasonably care for is a major victory in modern life, one that is all the more important in an overcrowded world.

[iskra]

"The chance to limit one's lifetime reproduction to the number of children one can reasonably care for "

Is a moral responsibility

[S1m0n]

Great! While he's at the Vatican, maybe he should tip the pope off, before the pope shrinks his church any further.

[rightorwrong]

Chris, clearly you are the one searching for a tent. As Catholics we must recognize John Kerry's shortcomings and failure to be elected is our failure. Common Ground is the answer and always has been. Who will engage in that tent. 67% of weekly Church Attending Catholics support this President. Clearly they don't agree with his positions on Abortion and Stem cells. But are we willing to talk? What can you from your position and the Catholic Community do to assist this President in achieving his goals on Reducing Abortions in the United States Now! "Finally a Democratic President who gets it?" But you don't! Stop peeking out of your parsing tent and get to work- The Lords Work - Form a coalition of Catholics to work with the President on Reducing Abortion and let the other issues take care of themselves. 65% of Pro-Lifers are Anti-Catholic.

[AurigaRa]

good points all!

[iskra]

First step in reducing abortion is to get the Catholic church to allow birth control as any responsible moral human should do.

[SonofLiberty1]

The Church doesn't HAVE to do anything but people do have to change.
The question is ...
Will they change?

Change as in being more responsible with our actions.
Change as in men THINKING with their brains instead of thinking
just from one part of their bodies.
Change as in women believing that they have an inherant right to say
NO to a guy before she has that ring and committment.

[MiHi]

I'd be wary of anyone who wants to reason with a group that brought The Spanish Inquisition down on the human race.

[ScienceLady]

You said,
"Because they don't subscribe to the far left's "do what feels right" dogma, many average Americans aren't
even allowed in the campground­."

Speaking of dogma...

[PlaceboStudman]

Religion has no place in science, technology and medicine. Where is the catholic church now that we are facing the new civil rights movement for LGBTs, Hmmmmm?

~crickets chirping in the silence~

[truthartbeauty]

religion has no place anywhere out side of the circus or the fortune tellers tent. It sets back rational thinking, decency, science, morality..­...it is a horrible curse to humanity and it is sad that so many weak people assume they can get anything of value from ANY church because you cannot. If you are good it is because YOU are good. If you are hateful, misguided, and stupid then the church has meaning for you.

[PlaceboStudman]

I agree, i just didn't want to be so inflamatory as to start a fight with anyone

[SonofLiberty1]

But people who are Scientists, Technologists and M.D.'s ARE religiious too.
And many of the great scientists­..those who made the great discoveries were, in fact,
Catholic Priests and Monks.

[Nosmanic]

I guess the pro-life issue has been decided. Well it really sunk the democratics. It's completly illegal in North Dakota and next Colorado is going to vote that any potential for life is protected as a being.(Doe­s lustful thoughts count?)

[Bob48Burg]

Really? "Any potential for life is protected as a being?" So male masturbation will be a crime and buying tampons will be illegal because the latter proves a "potential for life" was squelched?

[iskra]

Don't pick your nose either cause each of those cells is a 'potential human being'

[SonofLiberty1]

Are you really serious? I hope not.

[fedupinfla]

Just out of curiosity is invitro legal there? Because everyone knows how many "potential lives" are "wasted" pursuing a viable pregnancy.­..

[jbeeaz]

Desert Rat 09 - No NOT pouty Democrats whining about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as 5 criminal convictions of Ohio Repug Election officials and other ongoing trials for more in progress for election fraud, civil rights violations can attest; don'tja think a criminal conviction is 'rather' substantial?
Still can't get it, Huh...
AND Bush and his criminal cronies committed SO many crimes that most likely the effects w/b still be felt 4 years from now.