More than any other leading Democrat, Bill Clinton understands the role religion actually plays in modern politics. He knows Americans want to be able to see their leaders' faith. A recent Pew survey showed that for every American who thinks politicians should talk less about religion, there are two Americans who believe politicians should talk more.
And Clinton seems to understand, as many Democrats do not, that a politician's faith isn't just about litmus test issues like abortion or gay marriage. Many people just want to know that their leader, like them, is in the fellowship of believers. Their president doesn't have to be a saint, but he does have to be a pilgrim. He does have to be engaged, as they are, in a personal voyage toward God.
Clinton made this sort of faith-based connection, at least until he sullied himself with the Lewinsky affair. He won the evangelical vote in 1992, and won it again in 1996. He understood that if Democrats are not seen as religious, they will be seen as secular Ivy League liberals, and they will lose.
John Kerry doesn't seem to get this. Many of the people running the Democratic Party don't get it either.
A recent Time magazine survey revealed that only 7 percent of Americans feel that Kerry is a man of strong religious faith. That's a catastrophic number. That number should be the first thing Kerry strategists think about when they wake up in the morning and it should be the last thing on their lips when they go to sleep at night. They should be doing everything they can to change that perception, because unless more people get a sense of Kerry's faith, they will feel no bond with him and they will be loath to trust him with their vote.
Yet his campaign does nothing. Kerry talks about jobs one week and the minimum wage the next, going about his wonky way, each day as secular as the last.
when reading this i really wonder if brooks is the one who doesn't get it. is faith anything other than a marketing tool for him?
this is a very religious country. as an atheist, i am made aware of that fact virtually every day, especially when i see politicians of virtually all stripes endlessly pander to religion. but i don't think i am the only one who is annoyed by such pandering. i expect that many religious people see politicians who overtly wear their faith on their sleeve as disingenuous.
brooks' column rests on the assumption that public expressions of faith is the only path to the white house. but the facts seem to say otherwise. while only 7 percent of americans may "feel that Kerry is a man of strong religious faith," kerry has either been ahead or in a statistical tie with the president in recent polls, a fact brooks mentions in passing at the end of the column. so how is the 7 percent a "catastrophe" for kerry? if anything, it suggests exactly the opposite point than the one brooks is trying to make; that contrary to popular punditry, constant mention of god is not a sure fire path to the white house.
i'm not saying that brooks is totally wrong. there is certainly a segment of the population who will not vote for anyone who doesn't have a close personal relationship with god and who likes to talk about that relationship at every possible opportunity. but i, for one, would prefer that kerry continue to focus on issues like jobs and the minimum wage and i suspect many religious people would too. we're not voting for pope here and bush probably already has the lock on a most of the people who would use the number of jesus-mentions in a speech as a litmus test for election.
