Mara Has It Right

I’m just now reading all the borderline-vicious reaction (see here, here, and here) that the NY Times piece on Mara Vanderslice’s faith-based outreach has generated.  I wish I could have responded sooner, but I’ve been on vacation and away from the Internet for the past week. 

Most of the criticism — in the liberal blogs, at least — seems to come in one of four forms: (1) Mara hates the separation of church and state, (2) there is no actual contingent in the Democratic Party that disrespects faith, particularly evangelicals, or tries to remove faith entirely from public discourse, (3) paradoxically to #2, no one should dare desire any mention of faith in the public square, and (4) Mara didn’t really help her candidates as much as the New York Times said she did. 

All off base, all unfair to a great strategist. 

In turn…

(1)  It seems that most folks who read that Mara advised candidates to avoid “the phrase ‘separation of church and state'” took that to mean that Mara advised candidates to propose eradicating the distinction between church and state.  Notwithstanding Mara’s magnanimous clarification here, the context of the article makes perfectly clear that she was talking about language.  Disagreements on mere phrasing, accompanied by little-to-no evidence of disagreements on fundamental principles, do not warrant such vicious attacks, especially on fellow Democrats.  Should we really get that worked up over whether to call it “separation of church and state” or “the free exercise clause”?  Some seem to think so, but I’m not sure how any reasonable person wouldn’t consider that a perfectly legitimate debate when it comes to political messaging.

(2 and 3)  Anyone who wants to see contempt for faith within the Democratic Party can read the comment threads on most liberal blog posts where faith is mentioned.  Here are a few examples from the DailyKos post on Mara: 

“Oh great, yet MORE religious crap being shoved down our throats in the name of vote-getting.  Jesus Christ, we won the Congress without grovelling to god-botherers [emphasis theirs], so any Democratic campaign who hires this woman, or anybody like her, in some feeble and misguided attempt to sell Democratic policy to idiots who don’t want to get it, can be assured that they most certainly do not have my vote.”

“The Republican counterpart to Vanderslice would have this rule for candidates: Don’t talk like a goddamn end-timing lunatic.”

“Vanderslice, Obama, et al don’t respect either the intelligence or the beliefs of ‘reason voters.'”

“I would like to see a Democrat – any Democrat – Explain to the idiots that ethics can exist independant of organized religion, that at least athiests, agnostics and diests don’t kill and otherwise harm fellow humans and claim some militant god ordered them to.  That the aforementioned groups not only understand right and wrong, good and evil but often lead more moral lives than the loudest (insert “holy book” of choice) thumpers anywhere.  Ah well, only a dream.”

And that’s just a few of the comments to a single post.  There are countless other examples throughout the blogosphere and, for that matter, in liberal activist circles.  True, no elected Democrat at the national level would be politically suicidal enough to say such things.  But the existence of ticked-off secularists who want to shield themselves from any mention of religion is not some abstract meme.  It’s a fact of life for people like Mara Vanderslice, Amy Sullivan, and others (including, in far more minor instances, me) who believe Dems should be better at engaging faith communities.

(4)  There’s some huffing and puffing that the 10-point advantage among white evangelicals that Mara’s clients enjoyed over Dems nationally is somehow illusory.  One angry blogger looked at the example of Michigan, and here’s his logic, or at least part of it: Mara consulted for Jennifer Granholm and not for Debbie Stabenow; Granholm barely did better among white evangelicals than Stabenow; therefore, Mara made barely any difference.  He failed to consider that Mara’s firm consulted for the Michigan Democratic Party as a whole, making major inroads among conservative pastors in that state.  All Michigan Dems reaped the benefits of that work.  And here’s a nice rebuttal by Thurman Hart within that thread.

The bottom line is this.  Mara Vanderslice is one of the finest strategists and warmest human beings I have ever met.  In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that she’s on the Faithful Democrats board.  But I asked her to join precisely because of my immense respect for her.  Maybe Democrats should start sniping less at one another and more at the (actual) right-wingers who urgently need to be fought. 

To be sure, those of us who believe in an authentic and vigorous voice for faith in the public square will defend ourselves when attacked.  But in a target-rich environment, is Mara Vanderslice really in such dire need of a public flogging?