What’s a liberal, what’s a progressive, what’s a populist? I’m not always sure. But, some concerns about Democratic candidate for Senate (TN), Rep. Harold Fold, Jr., has me thinking about that.
From the Salon.com article, "How Would Jesus Vote?"
On the [senatorial] campaign trail, [Democratic Rep. Harold Ford] portrays himself as a moderate, saying he opposes the politics of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, endorses the House Republican immigration plan, and supports a state ban on gay marriage. To prove his point, Ford’s get-out-the-vote rallies often double as prayer meetings. During a recent debate with his Republican opponent, former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, Ford repeatedly asked state residents to give him their prayers along with their votes. On his Web site, under the banner "My Faith Is My Guide," Ford writes that he is running for Senate "to put my faith and beliefs into action."
In light of only the Salon.com article there is no difference between Ford’s stated policy positions and those of most members of the Religious Right.
(My guess is that their would be differences on some economic issues, however.) What is more, Ford’s "Gee, aw shucks," down-home style is nearly as practiced as George W. Bush’s. Get this:
"[John] Kerry and I are very different people," Ford said, as he hurried toward the gates of Neyland Stadium, having arrived at the game against the University of Alabama deep into the second quarter. "I serve a big God, he gives me strength every day, and I go to work. I am not that smart. I don’t try to outsmart him. I just go to work every day."
Ain’t that sweet?
The differences between Ford and his Republican opponent are very real, I’m sure; but, aren’t they primarily differences grounded in the practicalities of Democratic Party workings, in the differences between Ford, who would have to work with more progressive fellow Democrats, and his opponent who would work with the leadership of what has been one of the worst Congresses in American history; in the differences between Ford, who would count towards a Democratic majority in the Senate, and his opponent, who would count towards the now threatened Republican near-hegemony in U.S. government.
Again . . . those differences do matter. Greatly. But so do the differences between rationalism and religiosity, between a respect for the advancement of civil rights and folksy homophobia.
Do I hope Ford wins? Yes. Do I like what he has to say according to the Salon.com article? Mostly I don’t . . . I merely like the negative consequences the GOP is apparently suffering locally as a result of what he says. (I’m being upfront here that I’m not aware of Ford’s positions beyond this single Salon.com article!)
Regular readers of my own wee blog will know that I was far in the front of the call for new Democratic candidates who would use visionary and specifically biblical language–even evangelical rhetorical "hooks" (after all, Bush has done so successfully for 6 years, though the act seems to be wearing thin)…but in the service of an unapologetically progressive vision. (And–what is more–I was quick to bemoan the false or at least false-sounding attempts to do so by politicians, like Sen. John Kerry, who would be better off being honest to what I think is their basically secular convictions.) However, I have never wanted visionary and specifically biblical language used by Dems to support policies in concert with significant multiple parts of the Religious Right’s own agenda. Yet, that’s arguably what Ford is doing.
So, the partisan in me is pleased by Ford’s strength in the polls. The liberal and rationalist in me is slightly worried: is Ford a sign of things to come, a harbinger of a fight within the Democratic Party between populist Democrats–who I tend to think of as Democrats who are effectively anti-intellectual and substantially conservative on social issues and select economic issues–and liberal Democrats, who, as I see them, are more apt to be secular and, in terms of policy, innovative.
Can one be a liberal and populist? I think so. I’m not sure. (What would he or she be? A version of a Southern- or Midwestern-born Sam Harris with NASCAR metaphors? A US-coal mining-town-born Richard Dawkins…obviously without the English accent?)
Either kind of the two (of many types?) of Democrats I’ve defined–"populist" and "liberal"–is more likely to save Social Security, demand that government not turn its back to the poor, or follow a more prudent foreign policy than today’s Republicans!
But over issues like gay marriage or even science education (e.g., the battle between Creationism myth fans and those supporting the teaching of the scientific method), might not Democrats soon come to internecine rhetorical blows if too much thinking like Ford’s is unchallenged–not rejected, but tolerantly confronted–by fellow Dems under our truly and thankfully big tent. Will there at least be discussion? I hope so, and I hope it will be in the spirit of mutual support, for in neither victory nor defeat can Democrats afford to tear each other down. Conversely, no party can afford to have internal discussions and genuine disagreements stifled.
I think so. I’m cautiously optimistic.
I hope Ford wins. But I also hope that he comes to see some things differently, and perhaps comes to support–even if but incrementally–bolder, braver positions, and even to articulate them as he is apparently well-suited to do to his particular constituents–be they his constituents as a Representative or–let it be so–as a Senator.
(Any comments regarding what readers think are the differences or similarities between “progressives,” “liberals,” and “populists” would be greatly appreciated!)