Howard Dean is reportedly using religion as his next campaign strategy and so far people don't seem to be buying it. Last week Dean was blasted by Rev. Arthur Hilson of New Hope Baptist Church in Portsmouth, NH for using the Reverend and his wife as backdrops (unawares) for Dean's southern campaign strategy. Seems Rev. Hilson didn't like the idea of being used in this manner though historically democratic candidates for any variety of offices have campaigned from the pulpits of black churches under the guise of "sharing the Word."
I have always thought this was ethically improper for these churches to allow and hypocritical of the candidates and liberals in general to do. Aren't these the folk who constantly chant the mantra, "separation of church and state?" Remember the flap over the Bush visit to Bob Jones University in SC during the last presidential campaign. While that attack started with John McCain, the liberals pushed it forward and had to misrepresent school policy to stir up a firestorm. While the stated complaint was racial bias, the bottom line was the Christian stance of the university and a “rule” that only seems to apply to conservative politicians and their supporters. Bob Jones revised their policy, which had it's roots in concerns by an Asian family, in March 2000.
Now Dean has begun talking religion and it's "role in his life." Never mind that that role will only play a part in his campaigns southern swings. Seems his religion isn't something he is comfortable sharing with his Yankee brethren but southern dems are deemed to be more receptive to Dean's new found religion. While Dean says “you have to respect other people's religious beliefs and honor them, but you don't have to pander to them,'' it seems that is exactly what he is doing. Pandering to the southern vote, the southern black vote especially.
To be fair, Dean for years claimed membership to the Episcopal Church until there was a rift. Apparently his opinions on environmental issues were stronger than doctrinal convictions and Christian brotherhood and forgiveness couldn't breach the differences over a bike path. Now Dean claims to practice Congregationalism though he rarely attends church.
During his campaign Bill Clinton used a similar strategy and it worked. Later in his term of office it became readily apparent how shallow his religious convictions really were. George Bush also claims strong religious convictions. The difference here being Mr. Bush's convictions are very personal and he discusses them on the record when asked but refuses to use them as a prop the heat of political campaigning. Mr. Bush prefers to live his convictions and put them into practice in policy. None of this business of what many candidates seem to hold to; that their "convictions" are strong enough to use to influence the voter, but not strong enough to influence their own lives and decisions.
I suspect that at least some of the electorate will fall for Mr. Dean's strategy. The problem with American politics is two fold. First, it's hard to find a politician honest enough to be straightforward about their lives, their politics, their belief and philosophies. Secondly, the American electorate is a really dumb and gullible animal. Lazy too. We want everything given to us on a silver platter and are dumb enough to believe that it won't cost us. If a politician promises the world, we tend not to question how he's going to do it and what it's going to cost us (ultimately everything, I mean everything ends up saddled on the consumers back). We also do not question what a candidate tells us, failing to submit it to the smell test. "If it sounds good it must be true." But does it smell? If our candidate has a record to the contrary of what they espouse we don't want to know. But if the voter cares to take a wiff, what sounds good may well smell rotten.
So, to Mr. Dean, sounds like a good strategy to use with a disinterested, selfish electorate. To the voter, buyers beware.