Q: What were you trying to accomplish with your speech?
A: I have gotten frustrated at times in observing the public debate, seeing the degree to which the conservative right has been able to dominate the conversation about religion and politics, and to determine what it means to be a good Christian. Part of the reason they've been able to do that because progressives have not engaged the faith community as effectively as we could.
What would you like to see come out of the speech?
To some degree the speech has already accomplished what I intended, which is a conversation, a robust and fruitful one, hopefully. One of the points I was trying to make in the speech is it's not enough for progressives simply to say "leave your religion at the door" or "keep it private" - because that's not what conservatives do. I was hoping to start a conversation about how could we go deeper into a discussion about what religious values might mean in our public policy, and how can we do that in a way that respected diversity and tolerance.
One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party.
A: Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state. What I simply say in the speech - I think it's hard to deny, and as the reaction to my speech confirmed- is that there are a lot of folks in the progressive community, there are a lot of folks on the left, who are very sensitive to the topic of religion and feel that to acknowledge the other side's point of view is to give aid to the theocrats and religious bullies that are out there. It would be hard to read through that speech and see a harsh condemnation of the Democrats.
Actually, what I said was, we've abandoned the field. I think there was one line in which I said there are some in the secular camp who dismiss religion. I don't think that's undeniable. [sic] I did not charge that to the entire Democratic party. So I think in some ways those characterizations of my speech were inaccurate.
Now, I understand people's sensitivities, because I have a number of friends who feel that they have been beaten down by the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons of the world, that they feel that they're always on the defensive if they don't proclaim allegiance to evangelical Christianity. Non-believers feel that they're the ones who are outnumbered, you know, intimidated. They feel frustrated if there's some suggestion that Christians are somehow oppressed, which was not my intention in the speech.
If I had more time in the speech, conceivably I could have fleshed out the degree to which people - I could have said very explicitly that this notion that's peddled by the religious right - that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy to move their agenda ahead. The classic example being that somehow secularists are trying to eliminate Christmas, which strikes me as some kind of manufactured controversy.
Q: I've heard that same kind of critique from people who are secular. What I found a little more compelling was the notion that portraying progressives or the Democratic as being unfriendly to people of faith buys into Republican frames.
Again, if you read the speech, what I said was not that Democrats or progressives are unfriendly to religion. What I said - there were two sentences in particular - primarily our problem is that we feel uncomfortable engaging in a discussion of religious values in the public square, which is very different than the "hostile" quote. I think it's true. We're much more sensitive, in many ways, in a good way. As a consequence of our belief in tolerance and respect for religious diversity, we are much less willing to express religious motivations in our public conversations. I don't think that's a controversial statement. I think it's something that's patently true.
What I did say is that some secularists who believe religion does not have a legitimate place in our civic discourse. You know, I didn't say the majority of Democrats believe that, I didn't say that a sizeable minority say. I said some. And again, I don't think that's a controversial statement.
This idea that somehow - that any time that Democrats or progressives engage in self-reflection we are adopting a Republican frame - the popularity of this George Lakoff critique of everything we do, I think hampers us from being able to improve our game.
You know, I love Lakoff. I think he's an insightful guy. But the fact is that I am not a propagandist. That's not my job. My job and my intent in delivering a speech like this is I'm trying to speak truthfully as I can about what I see out there. If I'm restricted or prescribed in my statements because the media or Republicans - or Democrats - are going to interpret what I say through the Republican frame, I'm not going to spend a lot of time saying very much.
Q: So you weren't thinking of the speech as a necessarily partisan opportunity?
I don't know how you guys could read it as that. This has been an ongoing conversation I've had with the blogosphere. At some point, this may just be a fundamental disagreement that resolves itself in time. But I think the notion that the best way for us to win is to mimic Republican approaches to our public debate, and simplify and frame everything in terms that gives us strategic advantage, or perceived strategic advantage, is just not something that will work for us over time.
I think the advantage that progressives and Democrats have is that we have the facts on our side, and if we just speak as truthfully and as factually as we can, and if we are willing to tolerate ambiguity and dissent in our own camp, and if we're willing to look critically at our ourselves, and reflect and remain open-minded to other points of view, over time, that's where the American people are. I recognize that there are folks who think that view is naive, but that's something I feel fairly strongly about.
You probably saw what Atrios said: let's not talk about process, let's actually exercise some leadership. How would you -
I, I, I, I don't think I understand the criticism. I mean, I didn't read the article.
[I briefly describe Atrios' first post on the speech.]
Part of the purpose of the speech was to dissolve this sharp line between quote-unquote evangelicals and other Americans. The country is much more complex than that. The lines between people who are - let me describe it this way: there is a group that is of fundamentalist Christians who are not going to vote for Democrats or progressives, no matter what, and we can guess whatever that number is. Then there's an enormous group of people who probably consider themselves swing voters who agree with Democrats and progressives on some issues, on opposition to the war, or what have you, who are also very committed to their church and their faith. From my perspective, the issue is not how do I persuade James Dobson to embrace the Democratic platform - that's not going to happen - the question is, for those people who are committed Christians or Orthodox Jews or Muslims, who could potentially be open to a Democratic agenda, but also consider faith very important and central to their lives, and evaluate what happens in politics based on those commitments, is there a way to talk to them? I'm certain that of the 70% of the people [in Illinois] who approve of my performance in the Senate, that decent percentages of that 70% fall in that category.
We had to break off at this point so the Senator could attend a police function in Chicago. Obama's press secretary Tommy Vietor and I later chatted about some of the questions I hadn't been able to ask. What I was most curious about was whether or not Obama had a plan to follow up on the speech. Vietor replied that his boss intended to lead by example, and considered the speech to be itself the start of the process. "If we're not talking to these people, Focus on the Family will," he said.
I think I'll let the interview speak for itself, other than to make the observation that Obama's position stands or falls on how divided Americans are these days. He believes in a broad middle ground, an assumption that I'm sure will be dissected by many in blogtopia*. This article, I think, provides an excellent opposing perspective. There are profound differences in our society, and it's not at all clear that we'll be able to overcome them in the near future.
Be that as it may, Obama and his people swear that his intention was really just to start a conversation on these topics. Boy howdy, did they ever. Will this lead to a new Religious Left to rival the Religious Right's political machine? I'm doubtful. But - even assuming that progressives want that kind of equivalence, which I'm not sure we do - where else to start?
Permalink | 63 comments