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

[SpoxLogic]

The polls are close because the pollsters rig it to be close. If Obama loses in Novemeber it will be because Dems and Dem-voting Indies don't show up in force, thereby allowing the GOP to play their usual tricks like stopping voters, etc.
It won't be because Obama is thinking of using one of GWB's ideas.