Centerblue.org

Well, all those dead embryos the “pro lifers” make a squawk about must be turning over in their graves today. Pat Robertson has endorsed pro-choice GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani, saying Rudy is “more than acceptable to people of faith.” Rudy enthusiastically accepted the endorsement as he tries to get the Religious Right to forget his liberal stances on social issues like abortion and gay rights.

This must be a sad, sad day for all the fundies out there. I mean, Robertson endorsing Rudy must be kind of like it would be if Jesse Jackson endorsed David Duke: a huge slap in the face to the constituency.

It also goes to underscore the point made by Alan Greenspan in his recent book: that Republicans care more about power just for the sake of power than they do about principles. I mean, do these people really care about abortion, or are they using images of cut up embryos just to get elected? Seems more like the latter than the former to me. I also had no idea faith could be “relative”–that it’s ok to “kill babies” as long as you think your guy has the best chance of getting elected.

It will be interesting to see the reaction from the evangelicals.

The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals after revelations surfaced that he has repeatedly paid for gay sex and has used illegal metamphetamines. The burgeoning scandal involving the preacher, a vociferous opponent of gay marriage, comes at a terrible time for the GOP.

The problem can be summarized in two words: Mark Foley. Just as Kerry threatened to reinforce negative views of Democrats through his “botched joke,” Haggard strikes at the heart of some of the problems buffeting the GOP. It is likely to remind voters of GOP hypocrisy on the issue of family values. It will remind Christian conservatives of how badly they’ve been used by the GOP (while Bush and Co. laugh at them behind their backs), and how much the GOP has failed to implement their reactionary agenda. It also generally reinforces the “culture of corruption” theme that Democrats have been using as a hammer against their opponents.

In the end, I think most people have already made up their minds how they’re going to vote. A new poll shows that the “Kerry moment” is a total non-issue in people’s minds–especially among independents–as they prepare to head to the voting booth. If Haggard does any damage it’s likely to be long-term, hopefully causing evangelicals to re-evaluate their involvement in politics given the way they have been mercilessly used and disappointed.

A political party is really in trouble when its own members start rooting for their party to lose.

David Broder reports on how there is a simmering rage within the ranks of the GOP over the party’s incompetence in Washington. The Taft-Goldwater-Reagan wing of the GOP is outraged at being ignored in favor of the extremist religious right wing of the party. Now they’re saying to hell with the GOP.

“I thought [Bush's stem cell veto] was stupid. I know too many people who [have Parkinson's disease] and their only hope of a cure is in stem cells. Now Bush is forcing that science to move overseas.

“How the hell long can they refuse to raise the minimum wage? I’m a conservative, but they make me sound like a damned liberal the way they act. They spend like fools, they run up the deficits and they refuse to give a raise to the working people who are struggling. How the hell are you supposed to live on $5.15 an hour these days?”

–member, Republicans Anonymous

The angst was particularly evident in Ralph Reed’s loss last week in his primary for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. Reed was a potent symbol of the religious right that has hijacked the GOP. Tons of emails and phone calls were exchanged as these disaffected GOP’ers congratulated themselves for Reed’s loss.

It’s going to be one interesting election this fall.

A couple of recent articles highlight the fact that the ideas of preserving our environment and of moving our culture from a wasteful to a sustainable one are gaining currency across the entire political spectrum.

This article in Newsweek discusses how both individuals and corporations are taking environmentalism in their own hands when confronted with overwhelming evidence of global warming and environmental degradation. In addition to highlighting some individual efforts, it discusses some changes going on in conservative Corporate America:

*Architects are beginning to incorporate eco-friendly considerations into their skyscraper designs. The best current example is the Hurst Corp. headquarters in Manhattan, which is totally infused with sunlight and which employs hyper-efficient use of energy. A new Bank of America tower planned for Manhattan will capture and use every drop of rainwater that falls on it, and will use methane from cafeteria scraps to help power the building.

*Wal-mart, condemned by many for its corporate practices, is going green. After bringing in Al Gore to consult for its executives, Wal-mart is pledging to reduce its carbon footprint by 20% in seven years. It will do so, for example through use of far more efficient packaging–the article states that reducing the packaging on just one line of toys will save $3.5 million in trucking costs and spare 5000 trees. It will also make far greater use of materials like organic cotton for clothing. If every business followed Wal-mart’s lead of reducing emissions by 20% the United States would meet the Kyoto Protocol despite the inexcusable dereliction of duty in Washington for failing to sign the treaty.

*Green technology has become the darling of venture capitalists, who are eager to get in on new technologies on the ground floor.

These changes are happening because they simply make common sense, and not just to liberals. Evangelicals are signing on because more and more are realizing that cherishing and preserving the environment is the good and Christian thing to do. The incontrovertible nature of the data on the global climate crisis is also winning over reasonable conservatives. “Al Gore can’t convince me, but his data can convince me,” mused one Republican in the Newsweek article.

The article notes that the US has a chance to become a leader in developing green technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. We could become that by spending $100 billion a year on it, the amount equal to what we’re throwing at Iraq right now. In doing so we would generate jobs, improve our standard of living, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and greatly improve the dangerous trade deficits we’re running against the rest of the world. This is the kind of initiative that requires bold leadership from both Left and Right.

Separately, another article in today’s Washington Post discusses how environmentalists are allying themselves with hunters to protect natural preserves against the predations of drilling and oil companies. These two camps may come to blows on gun control, but they both understand the need to protect these fragile ecosystems and their ability to sustain themselves.

It’s easy to look to more drilling as a way of easing the nation’s energy problems, but such drilling will not significantly impact the overall imminent decline in petroleum availability nor will it resolve our energy problems in the long run. Insisting on drilling ever-more-expensive locations for smaller petroleum returns is like feeding a crack addict some more crack; it postpones but does not eliminate the day of reckoning. Sooner or later we have to move off petroleum. Until we do we will be held hostage by our addiction to foreign oil, because no amount of domestic production will ever eliminate that dependence. That’s all quite apart from the environmental incentives to stop burning fossil fuels. The logic of reducing our oil addiction becomes ever more evident to the entire political spectrum every time there is an increase in the price of gas at the pump.

Articles like these demonstrate that environmentalism has begun to rise above petty partisan bickering. It’s a problem that everyone faces, as Katrina attests, and is a problem that all must resolve. Environmentalism need not be in opposition to a strong economy, and can instead produce jobs and improve our lives. That’s a goal worth fighting for whether you’re on the Left or Right.

The House today failed to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Never mind that the vote was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money because the Senate had already previously rejected the amendment. Republicans in the House felt they had to grandstand on the issue to please their religious base.

“Be assured this issue is not over,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert in ominous tones.

Proponents claim the amendment is necessary because they seem to think there are “activist judges” everywhere approving gay marriage right and left: “We must not allow an institution of such great importance to be arbitrarily redefined for the entire nation by a small number of unelected judges,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.

Of course that ignores the fact that several state supreme courts have ruled against the issue just in the last two weeks alone. It also ignores the fact that over 45 states have already amended their constitutions or have laws to ban gay marriage.

When a law isn’t necessary but its proponents insist on passing it anyway, then let’s call it for what it really is: spite. Hopefully Americans will be smart enough to see this week’s ridiculous GOP “American values agenda” for what it really is: a stupid distraction from the nation’s urgent needs–from energy prices to skyrocketing healthcare costs to poverty to Katrina recovery to Iraq.

It’s no secret, though, that the GOP is out of answers and out of its league in continuing to govern. A failure of ideas and imagination means the GOP has no choice but to focus on these divisive issues in the desperate hopes of motivating people to vote for them at the polls.

What a pathetic excuse of a party.

Religion is taking a left turn. According to that cbsnews.com article, the National Council of Churches represents about 50 million religious people, most of whom are mainline Protestants. Dr. Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of that organization calls his movement the “center-left” (which coincides neatly with the mission of this blog.) He is seeking to gain some of the same political muscle currently wielded by the Religious Right. The movement is focusing on such issues as poverty, the environment, and ending the war in Iraq.

Some of my friends on the Radical Left want to exorcize religion from all discourse in politics and in the Democratic Party. Their position is understandable, given the damage the rigidity of the Religious Right has inflicted on this country for 25 years. Unfortunately, their position also puts idealism over pragmatism.

Whether we like it or not, a majority of Americans are religious in one way or another. Insisting on invalidating their religious beliefs is a ticket to continuing to lose election after election, and is as foolish as any Democratic strategy that gives up on the South.

The Religious Left shows that religion is not incompatible with liberal beliefs, and in fact religion may more easily align itself with the Left than the Right on many issues. Protecting the environment, feeding the poor, and opposing a groundless war are beliefs that are easily reconcilable with Christian tenets. On other social issues, Edgar says:

“Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion.”

How true.

It’s time to stop ceding the argument that liberals and Christians are incompatible if we really want to win back the hearts and minds of Americans. The Religious Left sounds like a great start for that.