After reading this article about Democratic consultant Mara Vanderslice whose speciality is outreach to “theological conservatives”, my head was about to explode. Thankfully, digby points out that courting social conservatives will make the Democratic Party, well, more conservative–or as a relative put it, “There’s always a quid pro quo.” And Jonathan Singer explodes the myth that it was social conservatives who elected Democrats (maybe if Vanderslice were a little less faith-based and a little more reality-based, she would understand what a control group is). But this statement by Vanderslice is what really bothered me:
She joined an evangelical Bible study group at Earlham College, a Quaker campus in Richmond, Ind., and says she was born again one day while singing the hymn “Here I Am Lord.”
“God’s love was so much stronger than any of my doubts,” she said, acknowledging that like some other young evangelicals she still struggles with common evangelical ideas about abortion, homosexuality and the literal reading of Scripture.
“The literal reading of Scripture.” One of the few saving graces of the Democratic Party during the last few years is that they have been pro-science (certainly when compared to the Republicans). While I’ve long held that the Democratic Party needs a new breed of political consultants, I do not want my party to be run by those who are ‘struggling’ with the concept that the world is older that 6,000 years, and that evolution is a theory–in the scientific sense of the word.
There are plenty of Democrats who can speak about politics using the language of morality and ethics and who are not struggling with empirical reality. Let’s tap them instead.
An aside: Why is the word “ethics” rarely used anymore? The idea that the ‘right thing to do’ would involve, in part, the use of reason appears to have vanished underneath a tidal wave of far right dogmatism. One more casualty in the conservative culture ‘war.’
Another aside: A Technorati search for Vanderslice pulled up tons of posts on conservative blogs who aren’t buying the Democrats’ ‘conversion’ (in particular, Clinton’s). Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome?