Wake Me When The Great Awakening Is Over

While farting around this morning, I came across Michael Kazin's essay, which argued for Democrats to return to the politics of William Jennings Bryan. It depressed me deeply, because while I don't see much hope for progressive politics in the U.S. generally, I find even less in the progressive politics he propounds. My reason is that the schism between religious and secular liberals, largely buried between Bryan's first run for the Presidency and the Scopes trial, has already emerged. We don't really trust each other. Religious liberals blame secular liberals for losing the red states (because we keep bringing up gay marriage and supporting abortion rights, I suppose); and secular liberals suspect that we have no place in the revival that religious liberals like Kazin propose:

More than 80 percent of Americans hold strong religious beliefs, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Even Christians who don’t regularly attend church regard the Scriptures and the example of Christ as moral touchstones that dovetail with the ideals of Americanism itself. Secular liberals ought to make their peace with this reality, while making sure that no religious faction -- such as creationists -- can install its doctrine into law.

Okay, so we do occupy a position. We exist to stop creationists (like we could with less than 20% of the population). But as charming as that future sounds, Kazin ought to remember that one of the creationists secular liberals had to fight was Kazin's favorite religious liberal, William Jennings Bryan. Darrow's relationship with Bryan and his followersduring the early years of the 20th century broke down over evolution and race, two things that seem like worthy reasons for dissolving political ties. Why should the secular left think another collaboration should turn out any better? What happens if a faction of the religious left tries to install its doctrines into law? Are secular liberals to make peace with that reality? Are we partners in this relationship, or are we to be kept as pets?

Kazin says that secular liberals mistrust the devout because we "still harbor a nagging contempt for the God-fearing, the unhip, and the poorly educated". Perhaps, but let's not forget the contempt that the religious sling at the secular for being the "enemy of normal Americans", "Communists" and so on. I often think of Woody Allen's line in Annie Hall "Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here."

The religious left needn't ask my permission to take control of the Democratic party. In reality, they already have it, though they may not be aware of it. No elected officials at the national level make claims to atheism or agnoticism, and it's not likely in the current environment that any could. Any candidate who wants votes better make sure everyone knows how often he prays and which church he goes to.

Pundits wearing every color of parisan livery exaggerate the secular left's power, mainly so that it can be the scapegoat whenever things go wrong for the left. I don't have figures, but of the 20% of the population that is secular I wouldn't expect more than half to consider themselves leftists. There are secular libertarians, anarchists, objectivists, moderates, and business/supply-side Republicans out there as well. The secular movement (if you can call it that) is disorganized. It lacks leadership. It can't agree on spokespeople. It has no lobby. It has no influence over who gets nominated for judgeships. If you ignore all this, what is left is earth-shaking power. I can't deny it.

So, if the religious left wants to make a revival tent out of the Democratic Party, it seems to me that they're at liberty to do so. If, however, they'd like the secular left to come along, they need to show respect for its issues, not all of which revolve around the teaching of evolution in schools. They need to understand that some of their brothers would still help the poor whether Jesus endorsed it or not, and that many of their sisters reached their moral conclusions in spite of, rather than because of, organized religion. They need to understand that secular people have had believers' footprints on their backs since civilization first came out, so many of them are touchy and suspicious. And they need to respect the secular left's desire for public policy to be based on reason, rather than on competing interpretations of Biblical passages. I don't expect this to happen because politicians don't do anything unless necessity forces them to; but if Kazin wants a leftist reunion for sentimental reasons, it's what has to happen.

Toward the end of his essay, Kazin quotes Czeslaw Milosz:

If there is no God,
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother’s keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying that there is no God.

To which I reply (with a poem that proves that I should stick to prose):

I'm sorry I can't validate
Beliefs you say you have
I'm sorry that my doubtful words
Have made you very sad.
But if your faith is strong and true
What harm can my words do to you?
Since I don't resent it when you have to pray,
Stop telling me what I can and can't say.