An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Remix America: Make thee a mashup as fast as you can!

Left Misses McCain’s Assets: The Economy, Iraq and Congress – Le Figaro, France »

What’s in a Name?

Posted by DENNIS SANDERS in At TMV.
Sep 10th, 2008 | Comments

Since the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate, I’ve heard people I know and people on blogs immediately pigeonhole the governor.

The governor has been pinned with the view that she is a card-carrying member of the religious right and that she is mean-spirited and nothing more than a Christian version of the Taliban wanting to teach creationism and banning books.

Of course, Newsweek has done some fact-checking that shows that the picture is a lot more complicated than that.

I’m not here to go after the media or liberals, per se, but I am interested as in why people were so quick to think they had Ms. Palin figured out.

I grew up as an evangelical. These days, I would probably be considered a liberal Protestant, but if you think I am running around making fun of my evangelical sisters and brothers, well, you are wrong. The fact is, conservative Christians are not so simple to classify. Yes, there are some like the late Jerry Falwell that make it an issue to go after those who are deemed different and try to use the government to impose their agenda. But there are also those who frankly aren’t into that. Yes, they might not support abortion, but they are trying to accept their gay sibling and her partner. They might believe in Creationism, but they aren’t trying to have it pushed through the Statehouse. They are involved in taking care of the poor, both locally and globally. They are interested in racial reconciliation or care for the earth.

The fact is, there are many evangelicals who share some of the views of the religious right but are not taking to the streets. They are our neighbors and our family. Most of all, they are people.

Palin seems to fall into that part of American evangelicalism. Of course, I could be all wet about this. The fact of the matter is, we don’t know. None of us. It would make more sense for everyone to allow time to reveal if Ms. Palin truly is a threat ala the James Dobson crowd than to assume the worst.

People on the Left have correctly told conservatives to not get hung up on labels: black/white, straight/gay, native/immigrant. It’s time that my friends on the Left not get so hung up on the label of “evangelical” and get to know what’s behind this name more instead of assuming. Because when you assume…

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

pacatrue

I think it's part of the separation of America. Many people who identify as liberal have very little contact with people who identify as evangelical. Their only knowledge is of precisely those people who try to convert them or use governmental power to enforce their religious views on the nation. This doesn't represent the full spectrum of evangelicals at all, but it's often all that is known. So they stereotype and pigeonhole as everyone else does. Of course, there's also a lot of "my team - your team" junk that infects so much of American politics.

Don Quijote

Because when you assume…

I don't assume anything, I judge you by the leadership that you have selected ( Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts ).

PattonGuy

The problem for Evangelicals is that the kooks are the ones who are most vocal, so that when people think "Evangelicals", they think of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dover, PA, etc. It's the same as with liberals, actually. When most people think "liberal" they think of the the '60s and some of the more radical leftists. Every group has its extremists. I mean, I actually belong to an Evangelical denomination, and I'm repulsed by that horrid crap that people like the aforementioned Evangelicals barf up into the public eye.

PattonGuy

Don- The point is that even though the leadership may be kooky, you can't assume that every evangelical is similarly eager to impose their beliefs on others. You can't assume that every Democrat is the same as the people on top. The fact that it's made up of lots and lots of people means lots and lots of different opinions. Are all Democrats opposed to war? No. Are all Republicans for war? No. Now, there's someone who put it a little better than that...
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the same measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-3) (NIV)

Don Quijote

When most people think "liberal" they think of the the '60s and some of the more radical leftists.

You may, but when I hear Liberal, I think TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, MLK, New Deal, Civil Rights & Great Society.

Don- The point is that even though the leadership may be kooky, you can't assume that every evangelical is similarly eager to impose their beliefs on others.
Yes, I can and I do. In the same way that I assume that every Republican is an evil, greedy, shortsighted, racist, chicken-hawk, war-mongering idiot. I can only judge them by their actions, that's the kind of people they keep voting for.

RememberNovember

I grew up in the ELCA, and we weren't even that "evangelical". The NY synod is pretty laid back. We are in fact pretty progressive, having female pastors and pretty tolerant of everyone.

jwest

“……..every Republican is an evil, greedy, shortsighted, racist, chicken-hawk, war-mongering idiot.”

Could be time to switch to Decaf.

And I do take offense at the “shortsighted” reference.

elrod

jwest,
LOL. I don't agree with you much but that was a good rejoinder :)

jchem

Don,

Your last paragraph shows how you've just conveniently put everyone who you disagree with into their own little box. It seems to me an "us vs. them" attitude. I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but since the West Virginia Democrats keep putting Robert Byrd into office, does that make all Democrats racist? And since that Democrat in Louisiana Jefferson put all that money into his fridge, does that make all Democrats greedy? By your logic, it would seem so. It works both ways. Their are plenty of Republicans out there who fit your description, and some of them have already been mentioned here.

Geez, I would think that we've gotten past the point of broad brushing everyone based on the actions of a few. By keeping this kind of attitude people will only vote for somebody based on the letter behind their name (I guess, many probably do already).

jwest

Don’s comment is illustrative of what is happening in this election with Sarah Palin.

Democrats are going insane because issues they think should stick are being ignored. It goes to the fact that Sarah fits a template of someone who the general public wants to like and believe. Just as Don puts all conservatives into his evil, mean, etc. template, most of America puts Palin into a Teflon one.

Remember how frustrated the republicans were with the Teflon Don (Clinton)?

See, you come to TMV with a mind full of MUSH, and you leave thinking like a Politician.

Don Quijote

jchem,

Your last paragraph shows how you've just conveniently put everyone who you disagree with into their own little box. It seems to me an "us vs. them" attitude.

It is an "us vs. them" attitude, and it is the way Republicans have run elections and the government.

Geez, I would think that we've gotten past the point of broad brushing everyone based on the actions of a few. By keeping this kind of attitude people will only vote for somebody based on the letter behind their name (I guess, many probably do already).

It is not the actions of a few, it is the actions of the party. take the folowing cases:

(war-mongering) 2002 Iraq war Resolution, 215 Republican Congress People voted for it, 6 against it 2 abstained, 48 Republican Senators voted for it, one voted against it.
(shortsighted greed)2005 Bankrupcy Bill 55 Republican Senators voted for it, none voted against it, 229 Republican Congress People voted for it, 3 didn't vote.
(evil & stupid) 2008 FISA Bill, 48 Republican Senators voted for it, one voted against it,188 Republican Congress People voted for it, 1 voted against it, 10 didn't vote.

ChrisWWW

Democrats are going insane because issues they think should stick are being ignored. It goes to the fact that Sarah fits a template of someone who the general public wants to like and believe.

And in the end, we'll all pay for being so focused on who we feel comfortable with rather than who is better fit to solve our collective problems.

jchem

Don, thanks for the links. So why not list the others?

(war-mongering) 2002 Iraq War Resolution, 81 Democratic Congress People voted for it
(short-sighted greed) 2005 Bankrupcy Bill, 18 Democratic Congress People voted for it (Joe Biden is in this list)
(evil & stupid) 2008 FISA Bill, 19 Democratic Congress People voted for it

In all cases the majority of the Democratic Party was in the Nay category--good for them. But what kind of account are you going to hold the others to, especially VP candidate Biden, who by your definition is shortsighted and greedy?

Look. I find it very beneficial to the country that a lot of the Repubs are going to get swept out. But replacing them with war-mongering, shortsighted, greedy, evil, and stupid folks who just happen to have a D behind their name isn't going to help us any.

Don Quijote

jchem,

In all of the cases that I listed, 90% or more of the Republicans voted for them, no more than 50% of the Democrats voted for them, and generally the Democrats who did vote for those bills did not do so because they are an evil, greedy, shortsighted, racist, chicken-hawk, war-mongering idiots,( there are exceptions, Biden on Bankruptcy) but because they are spineless cowards who are afraid to stand up and fight.

Half_Past_Midnight

but because they are spineless cowards who are afraid to stand up and fight.

Which of the democratic politicians have you told that?

blog comments powered by Disqus