Thrusting Defeat down the Maw of Victory: An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Barack,

Your campaign seems intent upon losing the 2008 Presidential election. It's not enough to waffle back and forth about setting a date certain for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It's not enough to vote for granting immunity to telephone companies that have eavesdropped on all of us after you had promised to filibuster the bill, it's not enough for you to accept Justice Scalia's second amendment decision after you've told Washington church folk , "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby"; even after all that you, Obama, must further infuriate "progressives" who supported you in the Primaries by promising "faith-based groups" more federal tax money than George W. Bush gave them.

I refer to your July 1st, speech to an Evangelical group in Zanesville, Ohio, in which you called for a "partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular". Not only did you promise to outspend George W. Bush but you promised to establish "a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships"... that "will be a critical part of my [the Obama] administration."

You did lay down one caveat: federal dollars sent directly to churches, temples and mosques could "only be used on secular programs". But how are you going to enforce that--how can the federal government prevent covert coercion or outright conversion of those desperately in need help, if "churches, temples and mosques" where to place conditions upon their charity?

Do you plan to establish a federal agency to police the use of the funds by religious institutions? "Used on secular programs", is so vague phrase that its enforcement is nearly impossible. In the real world, your program would deliver an outright federal gift to religious institutions, and that does drive a hole a mile wide through the wall between church and state.

And then there's your revised version of President Bush's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On July 1, you told the Evangelicals "when I'm President I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" in the White House." Your Council, in contrast to President Bush's similar group, "will...have a broader role- it will not just be another name on the White House organization chart- it will be a critical part of my administration." And it "will help set our national agenda".

Who are these people who are going to be setting our "national agenda"? Are they the kind of clergymen and neighborhood activists that you worked with in Chicago? Will you make all the appoint to the newly empowered council? Will the appointments be subject to Senate confirmation? Does the Constitution permit such a group to help set the national agenda or is the still the business of Congress and the President?

Looking back, your latest speech to the Evangelists was not much of a switch from your previous position on the wall between church and state. As far back as June 2006 you told Evangelicals in a Washington, DC mega-church, that "a sense of proportion should...guide those who police the boundaries between church and state." You suggested that "having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat", and that "one can envision certain faith-based programs- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers" that might offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems, pretty much the same words you used in your July 2008 speech.

If that's been your plan as since 2006, why didn't we hear about it until now? I don't remember any mention of it during the primary campaign. Were you concerned that your views on the separation of church and state might not drive your "progressive" voters into Hillary's camp? Now that you apparently have the nomination sewed up you reveal your "faith-based" side to Evangelicals hoping to win votes from the religious right, which have never been particularly fond of John McCain.

Pretty slick politics, but we expected better from you. Maybe that's why the polls are now so close. And that's why McCain still has a chance to win.

Sincerely,

Reese Schonfeld

PS- Ten days ago, as I was seeking sources for this letter someone seems to have been scrubbing mentions of the phrase "a sense of proportion should...guide those who police the boundaries between church and state." Originally we found thirteen on Google, and before we had finished it was down to six. Now it's down to five.

Comments

[Zanti]

I share your concern with B.O.'s flip-flopping, but I wonder why religion is always THE source of annoyance with progressives, regardless of what the other issues may be? Seriously. I suspect that Obama could get away with a great deal more stance-switching so long as he strayed from taking positions on (gasp!) faith.

In our day and age, the rich get tax breaks and polluters write environmental laws. But if you want to get Internet progressives REALLY ticked off, simply propose some perk for religion. Or defend Obama's right to mention faith in public.

To hell with the quality of air, let's just make sure no conservative preachers are allowed into the White House.

For what it's worth, church/state separation is not what we think it is--it's strictly about freedom from a state church. The issue was very important to our founders (think Church of England)--hence, the establishment and no religious test clauses. It should go without saying that, in 2008 terms, a state church is about as remote a possibility as the British returning to fight us. If faith-based initiatives are unconstitutional--and they may very well be--the First Amendment has nothing to do with that fact. Tax breaks to Big Oil haven't resulted in a (literal) oil-ocracy, and working with religious organizations won't produce a Church of the U.S.

Somehow, I'm much more concerned about the influence of big business and the NRA, to name two lobbies.

[Krikkit]

It's the same old problem the Democratic base has always had and why they INSIST on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory -- issue-mongering. When push comes to shove, they won't accept someone who takes a moderate stance on anything that "betrays" whatever single issue banner they happen to be waving. And because there are so many single issue banners, they can't seem to come together behind a single candidate except half-heartedly and late in the game. By focusing on diverse and divisive single issues, they consistently undermine their own party's chances to get and hold onto power.

Party's suck, but it's what we're stuck with. I'm just glad the Democrats picked a moderate progressive this time around, someone who may actually have a chance to be elected DESPITE their best efforts to undermine him.

[Gogetter]

"Looking back, your latest speech to the Evangelists was not much of a switch from your previous position on the wall between church and state. As far back as June 2006 you told Evangelicals in a Washington, DC mega-church, that "a sense of proportion should...guide those who police the boundaries between church and state." You suggested that "having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat", and that "one can envision certain faith-based programs- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers" that might offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems, pretty much the same words you used in your July 2008 speech.
If that's been your plan as since 2006, why didn't we hear about it until now?"

Maybe because you weren't paying attention. As you wrote, he's been saying it since as far back as June 2006.

[WorkingClass]

Obama lost me on his position on the fourth amendment and the separation of church and state. He would have lost me anyway by calling for American commitment to a larger war in Afghanistan. So I'm hitch hiking back to Nader and McKinney. But Obama doesn't need me. He will win the White House without the left. This time.

[Krikkit]

Seems to me that the last few Democratic nominees lost just fine. If Obama wins the election it will certainly be despite his party, that seems intent on always losing. But hey, don't forget to wave your banner from that lonely mountaintop.

[metalpipe]

In the larger scope of things, the above mentioned issues are only damning for Obama if you assume he will abuse the power of office, which I find highly unlikely.

His faith in God seems strong and healthy, not extremist in the least. His wife is even more grounded than he is, so I feel the religious right will be treated fairly, but not with undue favoritism.

His stance on FISA is clear if you look at his record, he opposes both lack of judicial oversight AND telecom immunity, but was forced to make a politically sound decision that both the stole fire from the GOP smear machine, and basically did no harm in the end. Yes, it was calculated, but aren't all decisions that way?

Gun control? Whatever. DC is a snake pit of violence on a good day, and guns are readily available from Virginia. Another decision that stole GOP attack points, and did no harm in the end. His opposition to inner city guns has been shown throughout his career. I'm sure we will see our streets made safer with more armed officers, restrictions on gun sales at gun shows, etc.. after he is in office.

The only real issues facing this country are energy, economy, and the ME crisis. Everything else is noise. Obama rocks on all these issues, and will return from his trip over seas with renewed purpose.

[Fabienne]

You do know, don't you, that Clinton's administration gave more money to religious-based groups than did Bush's?

[loper2008]

gag

Are you guys stupid??? The Supreme Court decision does not eliminate the ability to control guns, it just says they cannot be banned. That is an important distinction. Obama's comments are not at all inconsistent on that issue.

[darcy]

Thank you for this article. It expresses the fears I've always had about Obama. I hope the delegates reject him in favor of a candidate whose intentions are more in line with progressive ideas.

[WorkingClass]

You mean Kucinich right?

[IndependentTogether]

And then what? Say "hello" to President McCain? Get a friggin' grip.

[JimR]

Silly season is right.

[santamonica39]

Again, someone trying to create a problem where none exists. The only way he'll lose this election is if the media continues to distort the race and play up his supposed "flip flops" while ignoring the complete eviceration of any maverick policies McCain once held along with the fact that he's incompetent and seems to be suffering from dementia. Obama has run a brilliant campaign and he's doing it despite every effort by the corporate media to destroy him, along with the efforts of the Clintons and their peeps.

United for Obama!

[Krikkit]

You forget that Democrats are the "big tent" party where every rallying cry is Divide Ourselves and Lose That Election! If Obama wins, it will be despite his party's base, not because of it.

[hominidx]

You really don't get how Google works, do you?

[Zanti]

What's that? The ultimate embarrassment or something?

[USAdaughter]

If you had watched the FaithBased TownHall on CNN that he and Senator Clinton did together, his decision to maintain and expand the Office of Faith Based Initiatives would not have surprised you. Nothing slick here...

[fairwitness]

Great post, absolutely needs to be said: "faith-based" religious pandering was notably absent during the primary. Very Bushian, I must say, to drop that on us AFTER the nomination was secure.

And the FISA capitulation--no explanation possible. Pure fraud.

Indeed: maybe those kind of things ARE why the polls remain close. And McCain is the weakest, dumbest, oldest candidate possible.

Sheesh--and I was all hopeful and everything.

[metalpipe]

Yeah, lose hope. That's just what the GOP wants and needs so deperately.

[chefrasta]

Get over yourself.Your girl lost .You Clinton people think that you know it all and the sun wont shine unless you have your way.Save your advise for 2016 because this time all true Democrats will be out in force to elect the next President of the United States:Barack Obama.

[allonfla]

If I could find that interview/speech during the primaries where Obama said he would hold on to Bush's faith based program - I would send you a link. But he did and that's why it surprises me that people are so surprised.

Of Course John McCain has a chance to win, it's July, stuff happens, but I completely disagree with you that this race is close. See the link below (1 out 2 ain't bad);

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz-thomas-e-mann-and-larry-j-sabato/the-myth-of-a-toss-up-ele_b_113827.html

[Grissom1001]

LOL Ya wanna wake up and join us in this day and age? or do you just want to sit and watch FOX News all day? It's O.K if you want to do that....we can water you twice a week.....
Those days are long gone and you are about the same age as McCain from the looks of it. He did not expect someone with the talent, experience and abilty that Obama has shown either....shame actually that after all the hard work your going to have to give up the cushy jobs and power. NOT.