Faith and Democrats

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I do not believe that Senators Clinton and Obama scored a big victory for the Democratic party with their appearances at Messiah College on Sunday. Those evangelicals with whom I have spoken about the forum were impressed with Clinton's candor but disagree with her convictions on abortion and with many of her policy proposals. I have yet to hear from anyone who thinks Obama hit a home run, or even a base hit. He came across as calculated and awkward. As a commenter on this site opined, Obama seemed "uncomfortable using the evangelical lexicon." And as Titus pointed out, Obama was hopelessly inconsistent on the abortion question. That was striking; he must have anticipated that question. Surely his advisors gave some thought to issue. But that was not at all apparent from his response.

Furthermore, McCain is unlikely to suffer from his decision not to participate. Reasonable people understand that McCain has sealed the Republican nomination and that it is in his best interest to lay low for now and watch the Dems beat each other up.

Also, the audience was quite clearly liberal. Assertions that Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000, that Jeremiah Wright's statements have been distorted, and that a cap-in-trade policy will best incentivize alternative energy production all earned applause. The representation of believing Jews and Christians did not appear to be anything near proportional. Any accretion of credibility to Obama or Clinton will be accordingly modest.

*****

The truth is that neither Hillary nor Barack came across as a genuine person of Christian conviction. Consider this bit from Hillary, resisting an invitation to identify occasions on which she felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.

And I am not going to point to one or another matter. ... And it is just such a part of who I am and what I have lived through for so many years that trying to pull out and say, oh, I remember, I was sitting right there when I felt, you know, God's love embrace me, would be, I think, trivializing what has been an extraordinary sense of support and possibility that I have had with me my entire life.

In other words, Senator Clinton can't think of any occasions on which she has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. And the grand failure of her sniper-fire prevarication has made her wary of making stuff up. No one believes that sharing memories and experiences of God's grace trivializes God's grace. Stories are powerful, especially when they are true. If Clinton had at any moment in her life devoted a single, fleeting thought to God's love for her, you can bet your life savings she would have grasped the opportunity to tell that story on national television.

Similarly, Clinton gave a long, evasive non-answer to the question what first principles inform her judgment on important political questions. She discussed the importance of civility, of considering all sides to a question, and of soliciting input from advisers and critics. However, she did not identify a single, immutable conviction from which she will not turn. One could be forgiven for concluding that she has none.

Except, that is, the right to have an abortion on demand. When asked whether she believes that life begins at conception, she unequivocally stated that abortion should be legal. Ironically, considering her audience, that might have been her best moment in the forum. She was as candid as she was wrong, and that counts for something.

*****

Obama, by contrast, was neither right nor candid. He badly fumbled the abortion questions. (He was lobbed two of them.) He was enigmatic on the morality of end-of-life decisions and on the efficacy of abstinence education in nations ravaged by HIV. He rightly invoked the principle of stewardship in environmental protection, then undid his good words by pretending that his cap-and-trade policy proposal is a necessary corollary to good stewardship.

Furthermore, Obama was guilty of Wallisian hubris. He indulged in more than one implied defamation against conservatives, at which Accommodators like Jim Wallis (who tossed Obama a softball at the forum) are so well practiced. Obama assured us that he is "careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush." Why is that relevant? Does he suppose that American Christians are guilty of that offense? He dusted off the canard that universal, single-standard health care is a "moral imperative." And those of us who believe in increasing choice in health insurance, making it more varied and less expensive, are ignoring our moral obligation? Obama warned against sacrificing civil liberties out of fear. Who would cower in such self-defeating fear, allowing their leaders to infringe upon their inalienable rights? Obama's "nation." The US of A. That's who.

This is emotional blackmail in its most blatant form. It is not, as we have seen, beneath Jim Wallis. But it ought to be beneath a serious candidate for the office of President of the United States.