Stand Up for Liberal Values, But Don't Become Too Dogmatic

In our drive to get Democrats to stand up for principle, liberal blogs and writers sometimes seem anything but liberal. After reading Molly Ivins' piece about how she could never, ever vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton, it occured to me that liberals sometimes become so self righteous and so convinced of their own purity that they sound like nothing so much as extreme Christian conservatives. Progressive religious bloggers can offer some perspective on this attitude, because we have at our disposal a long history of debate that suggests that the "If You Don't Agree With Me Entirely, You're Against Me" approach is a road to nowhere.

Religious liberals tend to value tolerance and humility more than zealotry and moral self-assertion. We also value ecumenical understanding and cooperation over winning sectarian arguments. The best religious liberal thinkers have learned an art that would serve liberal political leaders well: assert your own values with conviction and confidence, but do not assume that you have a lock on moral virtue. And don't become so dogmatic that you end up turning people away and making potential allies into enemies. Hillary Clinton may disappoint Molly Ivins (and FP), but it is absurdly dogmatic to set her up as the enemy of liberal values.

"Whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) Liberal Christians often cite this passage from Mark to establish the tolerance, openess and spirit of love at the heart of the Gospel texts. Religious conservatives are more likely to focus on a very different message from Matthew: "He who is not with me is against me." (—Matthew 12:30) For me, there is no doubt which quote offers more hope and more compassion. {NOTE: As Theophylact c/o Ken Collins argued centuries ago, if we observe these verses in context and compare them, it appears likely that Jesus is talking about two entirely different things and that the seeming contradictions can be reconciled.}

Can the contradictions among liberal activists and more cautious and moderate party leaders be reconciled? Let's hope so. Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post has an interesting story today: Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center:

Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos, a Web site popular with liberals. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a leading liberal and critic of the Iraq war, told reporters Kerry's viewpoint is not shared by most in a culturally conservative swing state such as West Virginia. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is another frequent target of the Internet attacks. Code Pink, an antiwar women's group with a flashy Web site, plans to protest one of Clinton's weekend fundraisers and is using the Web site to rally people against the New York Democrat. The critics say Clinton has not challenged Bush aggressively enough on Iraq.

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

Another trick will be to assert clear values in a way that attracts new people and brings them together in a message of hope and tolerance of differences.