But is his strategy a sound one that is likely, if implemented, to actually work – or is it a complete non-starter? And even if this plan can work, is it worth the potential long-term cost? The first question is obviously a relevant question to ask. As for the second question – considering how much a disaster Trump is, it might seem ridiculous on the surface. However, as I will later explain, it is not at all a ridiculous question. Both of these questions are serious questions that anyone thinking of embracing a revival of the Religious Left in order to defeat Trump should consider before deciding to do so.
Now, I definitely understand why Buddigieg, and many others for that matter, feel that a revival of the Religious Left might be just what Democrats need. The people of the United States tend to be, in general, far more religious than people in most of the developed world. The late Reverend Jerry Falwell worked to create the Religious Right, a movement that has allowed many Republican politicians to capitalize on this religious fervor to gain political advantage.
Buddigieg, however, believes that invoking religion in politics does not need to be something that Republicans need monopolize. Rather, he sees it as a game that two can play – and that Democrats, if they only bother playing the game, have the natural advantage over Republicans. In theory, this is actually a sensible plan. There is plenty of material in the Bible (most famously in the New Testament, but also plenty in the Old Testament) that can definitely be seen as advocating not the positions of the far right, but rather, positions of the left.
Want to cut Obamacare? Consider Matthew 25:31-46, and how (according to this passage) if the measures to keep medical insurance as affordable as possible are gutted, Jesus could be one of those who loses insurance. Or maybe Jesus is one of the asylum seekers who Trump keeps trying to turn away at the border. And when a family of asylum seekers is separated by ICE, maybe the parents are Mary and Joseph and the child is Jesus. And this is just the example of one verse which, when read by a progressive, especially a progressive who professes Christian faith, would seem to endorse exactly that – progressivism. There are many more examples where that came from.
But as solid as this plan might sound so far – it falls apart when one considers that, like any text, for the Bible to have meaning (as opposed to just being squiggles of ink on parchment) it must be interpreted. And in the process of interpretation, there will be differences in how it is interpreted – and the way that the religious fundamentalists that Jerry Falwell tapped into interpret the Bible is very different than how Buddigieg and others on the Religious Left interpret it.
Now, it is true that Buddigieg lives a more wholesome and holy life than Trump does. Buddigieg lives a relatively modest life, and I suspect is very faithful to his spouse. This definitely seems more like a life that any person of faith can look up to than that of Trump who grabs people’s genitals without their consent and then brags about it. But once again – this is how it seems from the perspective of the Religious Left. The fundamentalists whom Falwell tapped into would see it very differently. True, Trump grabs the genitals of lots of people to whom he isn’t married (to the Religious Right, the fact that he isn’t married to them is all that matters – not that he doesn’t obtain their consent first) – but at least he is only grabbing female genitals and not male genitals.
Buddigieg, on the other hand, as faithful as he is to his spouse, his spouse is of the same sex as he is – a fact that would cause those on the Religious Right to not recognize it as any marriage at all. To make matters worse, these religious conservatives very consistently flip out much more at even the most gentle acts of homosexuality than the most depraved acts of heterosexuality. That means that, in their eyes, Buddigieg’s loving, committed relationship with his husband is worse than all the vagina-grabbing that Trump can dream of doing. In short, as strange as this may seem to any sane person, Buddigieg is simply not going to woo the fundamentalists whom Falwell tapped into with his wholesome lifestyle – because they don’t see it as being as wholesome as we do.
So okay – Buddigieg can’t win over the kind of people who support the Religious Right – but what about not-so-fundamentalist people of faith who have a more left-leaning interpretation of religion, possibly one similar to Buddigieg’s interpretation? As for them, they are probably going to want to see Trump removed from office enough that most of them will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is either way. Of course, it is true that no block of votes should be taken for granted – but it will take much more than a failure to use religious rhetoric in the campaign language to turn off the religious left.
That said, many on the religious left believe that there is one more reason for the left to embrace religion – that being their claim that it has proved a powerful resource for progressive causes in the past, from the abolition movement in the 19th Century to the Civil Rights movement in the second half of the 20th Century. Again, this seems to be a powerful argument, at least until one considers that, in reality, religion was actually playing both sides in those struggles. Those who wanted to keep slavery legal in the United States used religion to support their position – and later in American history, so did those who opposed the Civil Rights movement.
But hey, Trump is such a disaster that if there is any chance of Buddigieg’s strategy working, even a small one, it is worthwhile. Right? Not necessarily. It is indeed hard to imagine a President worse than Donald Trump – but not too long ago, the same was said about George W. Bush, that being until Trump proved this to be wrong about Bush. I hope that I never have to imagine who could prove this same view about Trump to be wrong – and hope that it is sufficient to avoid taking it for granted that such a possible President can’t exist.
But would the Democrats embracing religion help pave the way for such a disaster to take place? Well – that depends what you mean by “embrace religion”. If you mean welcoming people of faith to be a part of the Left, and even welcoming them to use religion as part of their personal arguments why one should vote for a Democrat rather than for a Republican, then by all means that is a safe thing to do. But the truth is, Democrats already do this – and are not even shy about allowing a religiously charged speech or two in the Democratic Convention.
However, Buddigieg seems to be suggesting that Democrats are failing to properly embrace religious tradition – which I can’t help but take as a hint that his idea of embracing religion includes stuff that Democrats don’t already do. Specifically, it seems almost as though he is suggesting that religious reference be worked into the campaign’s official rhetoric. Such a measure would, indeed, be very dangerous. I can already see a campaign in which the national debate is no longer about how specific measures will affect the environment, the economy, or anything else – but rather, about what Jesus would do, or what someone’s conception of God wants us to do. The Religious Right has worked very hard to move the national debate in this direction – but for Democrats to join in would give such dynamics a previously unprecedented level of normalization, one that could not easily be reversed. This will result in a complete obliteration of what is left of the wall of separation between Church and State.
True, Buddigieg might think that this obliteration can be prevented with reminders to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s – but that will not change the inevitable reality that the more dominant religion is in the national debate the more dominant it will be in national policy as well.
I have previously in this piece mentioned that I hope I don’t have to ever imagine what a President worse than Trump would be like. However, writing this has led me to see exactly what that would be – a President who is the Christian equivalent of an Iranian Ayatollah. Despite the best intentions that Buddigieg might have, I fear that his strategy, if implemented, could very well help pave the way for such a horror.
