Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Evangelicals' Political Power
Share: 
by nukegingrich | January 19, 2007 at 11:54 am
433 views | 0 Recommendations | 3 comments
In order for the Democrat party to become an appealing political choice for evangelical Christians, it will be necessary for the leftist element within the party to stop their efforts to demonize, ridicule, and otherwise marginalize Christianity. I would think that the first step should be an apology, but that's just me.
Another dirty little secret among the evangelical voting public is the well-documented fact that African-American voters, especially the church-going segment, are far more conservative on social issues than Democrats in general, and would find a comfortable home in the Republican party. Overall, a very interesting article.
At the D.C. screening of her daughter's documentary, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed evangelicals wield significant political power. But she would not yield that powerful voting bloc to the Republicans."Well, they have an impact in their numbers and their dedication," she tells ABCNEWS.com.
"But there are issues we (Democrats) can connect on, like the environment, global warming and fighting poverty — these are the areas we could work together on," Speaker Pelosi says.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 12:32 on January 19th, 2007
Apologize for what exactly? Apologize to a group that fosters bigotry and ignorance at the expense of reason and knowledge? Dems like Barack Obama may stoop in an attempt to be inclusive and appeal to everyone, but that ultimately pacifies no one other than the indifferent middle. You have your view of how the world operates, and you don't want anyone telling you or your children any differently. Nor do I want anyone telling me or my children what behavior is sinful or how the planet was created.
Let the battle of ideas rage. The Democrats need not embrace evangelicals or vice versa. Rational minds will ultimately prevail.
at 16:04 on January 19th, 2007
eggsactly.
Mdme Pelosi won't be too happy to hear your views, but you've made my point much better than I.
Evangelicals have no desire to be linked with the arrogance and bigotry of secular humanism and moral relativists.
at 13:48 on January 20th, 2007
Well, here we are. Nuke on the right feels that the Dems owe the evangelicals an apology, while toastie believes attempts by Obama or any other Dem to find some common issues with Evangelicals is pointless because they are inherently (genetically?) beyond persuasion. I, too, do not want evangelicals telling me what to think if they do it through creationism in the school system, or how to behave, or banning gay people from getting married. All of that said, it is ironic in the highest degree that the left should demonize them, and for a mainstream party like the Democrats, it is absolutely foolish to cede 50-80 million votes without even a modicum of attempts to see what issues are of common concern. Evangelicals, too, should not be exempted from the charge of excessive demonizing rhetoric, and have an unfortunate tendency to accuse anyone who does not embrace their policies as somehow being unpatriotic. ur rhetoric is in a mess, and I hope that we can , as a country, both
elevate our political discourse and specify its targets a little more
clearly. Even as I write this, I wonder the various meanings of
evangelical are, even in our brief conversation here- never mind the
multiplicity of uses of the term in wider language. The meanings of
"evangelical". "liberal", and "conservative" are notoriously slippery,
and don't have the same connotations every time they are used because
the intentions of authors and readers are so various when it comes to
these terms. We don't need to forego a good ideological fight, or perhaps even to have a fair fight. What might help is to realize that some of our cherished political labels lack sufficient specificity to contribute to any meanignful political disagreement- by which I mean one that might result in ideas that have a reasonable chance of becoming law or policy-, balanced or not, fair or not.It might be time to stop speaking of "liberal" and "conservative" agendas, and start talking about "Pelosi's agenda", Limbaugh's agenda, Bush's agenda, Chavez's agenda, or Robertson's agenda- all of which are different enough from each other that to divide them into two camps (liberal and conservative , for instance) is to misrepresent them all.